![battleshipNC[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iLQSRaD.jpg "battleshipNC[1].jpg")
Why is it whenever people talk about modernizing battleships, they want to modernize the Iowa when it would make more sense to modernize the North Carolina-class? Today's battleships don't need 30+ knot speed to keep up with CSG. Cheaper NC-class clones are far more practical.
Because the Iowa is cooler
>>29315204
wat
Would make more sense to build all new ships rather than replicating designs from the fucking 30's
>don't need 30kt+ speed to keep up with CSG
>Nimitz class published top speed is 30kts+
>seen them go faster irl
>>29315204
>Today's battleships don't need 30+ knot speed to keep up with CSG.
wut?
>>29315261
Modernized battleship would be used for low-intensity bombardment, not for escorting CSG. They don't need to keep up with CSG, that's why they don't need to be 30+ knot.
>>29315277
So they have to keep up with an SAG by going... 30+ kn.
>>29315277
The point of a battleship is the armor, not the cannons
They are for offensive litoral operations & supporting amphibious invasions
We should just give a DD a trailer boat to tug around that has a battery of 18-inch guns.
>>29315315
Just build a couple of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Lord_Clive_%281915%29
>North Carolinas
>not based South Dakotas
Plus there's still 2 of them left.
>>29315277
>low intensity bombardment
>an Iowa can drop over 2 million pounds of ordinance per hour
>that's like 50 B1 bombers per hour
>low intensity bombardment
>>29315368
The Sodaks were retired before the North Carolina because they were cramped. The crew onboard complained of poorer living conditions compared to other USN ships.
Weight control was extremely aggressive on the Sodaks because they needed to cram even better armor than North Carolina on the same displacement. One of the things they axed was more crew berthing and storage.
That might be not as much of a problem now that removing the AA and some 5 inch guns reduces crew requirements. However modern crew also need more space per person, being the spoiled effeminate man-children rather than iron hard fighting men.
I could get behind this.
Iowa a shit, NorCars are the real hotness.
>>29315204
If we really need the indirect fire capabilities of a battleship so badly and nothing else, why not build battlecruisers instead?
>>29316203
>why not build battlecruisers instead?
I think you mean monitors, anon.
>>29315204
>mfw staying in the USS NC right now
>>29316629
Watch out for the ghosts friend.
>>29316941
BEQ 631 Great Lakes.
>>29315302
>They are for offensive litoral operations & supporting amphibious invasions
What is a strike carrier, anon?
How is a shore bombardment truck supposed to get into hostile littoral waters, except under the naval aviation cover of a CSG?
What is it supposed to do when it gets there, that can't be done with greater accuracy, lower cost, and longer range--not to mention greater escort value to the group--by a Burke or a Tike?
What about some sort of long, segmented barrel 12" gun firing 10" subcaliber rounds. And basically using very long base-bleed shells in a high-altitude trajectory to fling rounds over 80nm. If the Paris gun could do it in 1918, modern metallurgy can do it more accurately with longer-lasting, shorter barrel.
This sort of ship would be designed to work with an amphib group and would have secondary tasks. It would have VLS cells to act as a floating magazine for AEGIS destroyers and a larger ship could have more stable aviation facilities than most destroyers for ASW helicopters, again contributing to the battle group as a whole and not just existing because lolarmor lolbigguns.
As a doctrinal role, I would envisage this gunboat mainly serving to free up longer range strike assets in an amphibious group like planes and cruise missiles from striking targets near to the shore, so they could be used against deeper targets
>>29318157
Only 80 nautical miles?
A 16 inch LRLAP shell would have like a range of a few hundred. One anon said like 6-700 miles.
We have the technology to build artillery that outranges aircraft.
Neato stuff.
>>29318260
I was being conservative.
I think you really need to use subcaliber projectiles, so they can be more clean aerodynamically (with a discarding sabot driving band). Subcaliber rounds also let you shoot longer rounds that could not be spin-stabilized if shot from a full-bore gun. It also lets you experiment with different aerodynamic shapes that could not work with a traditional shell, like triangular bases or corkscrew-shaped shells
>>29316616
>>29316203
Don't even need an alternative universe to build them in
>>29317879
The US literally built river monitors during the vietnam war, so obviously theres a clear tactical & strategy need for armor upon the sea/water
SOMETHING has to go first, has to take the fire, hit the mines, and return the fire. Air assets cannot spot camoflaged targets, precision weapons from burkes need precise targets to hit, etc.
This is how any amphibious operation from the sea must occur.
In terms of lbs of HE vs cost, a close range ship firing cannons or mortars is orders of magnitide cheaper than tomahawks.
>>29319987
Same problem as the SoDaks; sticking to the (arbitrary) displacement limit resulted in a cramped interior poorly-suited to modification.
>>29315204
>Today's battleships need 3+ mach speed to keep up with incoming missiles to avoid being turned into scrap metal.
Fixed that for you.
>>29320762
You mean just like how today's carriers have 3+ mach speed?
>>29320770
>Look! I posted!!
Please com back once you understand the different roles for battleships and carriers and how they differ in deployment.
The rest here have already understood it,
>>29320883
yeah good point carriers certainly won't ever have to worry about facing AShMs since their roles say so.
>>29318260
>A 16 inch LRLAP shell would have like a range of a few hundred. One anon said like 6-700 miles.
Not remotely true. Realistically just doubling range (out to 50mi) would be a technical triumph.
>>29320635
The river monitors were only there to support the movement and landing of troops along the Mekong river delta. As well as patrol that area so that the enemy couldn't use it. Are you suggesting a battleship to be used in riverine operations?
Instead of guns, why not bring back rocket ships? You could fit dozens of tubes on even a small ship.
>>29322605
guns are cooler
>>29322524
Attack the northern ports & stop resupply of gooks
>>29323268
This is pretty cool. Take just the box launcher and imagine how many you could fit on a ship.
>>29323510
Like this?
>>29323667
Yeah, like I said, bring back rocket ships. But with modern rocket rounds.
>>29315204
>Heavy Cruiser=Battleship
>>29323739
>The USS North Carolina was a heavy cruiser
How fucking retarded are you?
>>29323751
Very heavy cruiser
>>29323684
We've got those.
They're called guided missile destroyers.
>>29315368
>South Dakotas
Yeah sure, the best thing we need are ships with terrible electrical problems with the possibility of completely shutting down in the middle of battle. It was lucky the Washington was there to save it's ass.
>>29327397
>first time the ship class has been in close combat with surface ships
>electrician says, "fuck it" on basically every system and safety guideline
>shit goes wrong
>this anon is the only one who is surprised
>>29315204
Stop trying to rationalize a retarded idea as if it will sound any less dumb.
Because Iowa is Tier 9
>>29321649
Not really.
You could make hybrid basebleeding supersonic LRLAP scramjet shells fired from a 16 inch railgun.
The thing could practically never leave port and still provide fire support.
>>29328614
I'm actually glad we never built the Montana class.
It just wasn't a different enough design with better enough capabilities to justify it.
>>29328704
Tell you what. Learn the definition of the term fuel fraction, and then look up how much structural weight would have to be added to load that much fuel to that much velocity for a 2,700lbs payload, then come back here and tell me "not really" again.
Just the range you're asking for would require more fuel volume than not only the chamber but most of the gun barrel for a 2,700lbs payload.
>>29319987
>They scrapped our baby
>Replaced it with a shitty sub nobody cares about/wants to serve in
It hurts to be Alas/k/a.
>>29320635
>river monitors
They were monitors in name only. They hardly had more armor then swift boats
>>29315204
>Today's battleships don't need 30+ knot speed to keep up with CSG.
Day/k/are fucktard ignorance as usual.
OP >>>>>>/trash/
>>29329073
>I am going to respond without reading 3 posts into the thread
Day/k/are fucktard ignorance as usual.
>>29329109
There is absolutely no substance to your post. Nothing about the firs three replies clarifies your lack of knowledge about how fast nuke carriers go.
>>29323684
>>29315204
>Actual reason to reactivate Battleships
China is building giant coast guard cutters to win ramming contests.
They want to turn typical naval sabre rattling chicken game around the spratleys into "Get out of my way or start WW3, your choice bro".
Reactivate the Iowas
>OH YOU WANNA PLAY CHICKEN? WELL CALL ME FOGHORN FUCKING LEGHORN MOTHERFUCKER
>>29323510
Like this? It has auto reload, you can see at the base where it opens and reloads the tubes, probably like the Kashtan CIWS where the launchers are disconnected from the unit and then brought down and another is sent up.
>>29331192
There has got to be some way of combining trains and ships. Make it happen
>>29329136
The 5th or 6th post down explains what the OP means, which isn't what you think it means based on your cursory reading of the first couple of posts before you rushed to share your opinion.
>>29323510
The chinks did this by converting their old frigate into a MRLS vehicle.
