Don't they have the same size as old battleships?
I would build them smaller, fully automated with only 8 crew members. Could be like tanks 1 captain, 1 to pilot, 1 to fire weapons.
>I would build
Then do it
Build a mock up and take it to a military convention.
Otherwise no one cares.
You are a man, act like one.
>>29556412
they're the same size as light cruisers.
they need to be big cause range.
you need 3x the crew to operate 24/7 whicg means that your 8 man boat would need 24 men.
and what you described suddenly becomes an mtb, which arent new at all
![MTBX1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/K4zmBXB.jpg "MTBX1[1].jpg")
>>29556435
pic related
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauk-class_patrol_boat
>>29556427
pure autism
>>29556412
>same size as battleships
Try light cruisers. An Arleigh Burke-class is between ~8400-9800 tons displacement depending on what flight it is. Pre-WWII reaty cruisers were limited to 10k tons displacement. Clevenland/Fargo-class were about 11.5k tons and the late-war Worchesters were ~14.5k tons. To put that into perspective, the Nevada-class, first and smallest of the Standard battleships, was 27.5k tons. The Iowas were 45k tons.
And they have to be that large to fulfill the traditional destroyer rule. VLS cells, large-scale radar arrays, ASW gear and all that stuff take up a shitload of weight and bulk if you want systems that an keep up with the demands of modern combat.
>only 8 crew
Complete wishful thinking and a maintenance impossibility. Automaion to that degree is a long time off in terms of atually being doable in practice.
>>29556412
>fully automated
And then when one of the automated systems is broken and you need to return to port for repairs?
>>29556412
Kirov is the closest thing to a battleship in terms of hull shape, size and offensive capability currently in service today
>>29556580
And it's a Battlecruiser
OP is a faggot
>>29556549
Nope, he's right.
Modern American destroyers are basically battleships.
For the traditional destroyer role, I agree that destroyers could be made much, much smaller.
Also, I had this debate before.
Basically I think something between the size of a Pegasus class and the USS Plainview could have the same capabilities as a Burke albeit with less weapons, what with how much technology has miniaturized.
I'm one of those people that looks at America's debt and goes "nope, nope... need to find a way to do more with less" and I've been thinking we might slow down on building super carriers and being back escort carriers or make Harrier carriers because of the F35s capabilities..
Oh well. I'm not in charge.
![1920px-Fletcher-class_destroyer_technical_drawing_1954[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/awbiMoz.jpg "1920px-Fletcher-class_destroyer_technical_drawing_1954[1].jpg")
>Destroyers have always been small
I'm not really sure where this came from.
>>29556842
Yea but compare that destroyer to a Burke or Zumwalt. It'll be dwarfed.
>>29556786
>Modern American destroyers are basically battleships
look at the fucking tonnage
>>29556899
Is most of that not armor that in modern combat would be rendered nigh useless due to modern warheads? I mean, I doubt any WW2 battleship could protect itself against ASMs.
>>29556786
Are you retarded by chance?
Posting in le ebin retard thread
>>29556822
>>29556412
Lord Autismo, you have been discovered again. Now fuck off to jerk off to pt boats with vls again you dumb fuck.
>>29556926
I'm not the OP dude
And China thinks building small missile boats is a good idea.
>>29556912
Actually old battle ships could tank a few missiles no problem.
>>29556934
>China thinks
There's your first problem
>>29556899
Modern materials nigga.
>>29556934
I know, i was just referencing your copy pasta mate. OP is Lord Autismo, not you.
>>29556941
Well obviously, but would the armor itself hold at all against the missiles?
>>29556958
The picture I posted was my comments. I went ahead and saved it because some anon went through the trouble of capping it.
OP isn't the autist...
I AM 0_0
>>29556968
The armor itself would hold up surprisingly well. Remember, they were made to trade shots with other capital ships. Modern AShMs are made to kill modern targets, and doctrine has shifted away from heavy and slow (for good reason).
This isnt to say that BBs are still relevant, and they certainly couldn't sit there and laugh off missiles all day. Not that it would need to when an F35 could lazily float over at 35000 feet and plunk a pair of JDAMs down its smokestacks and there wouldnt be shit it could do.
>>29556968
It would probably hold up well at the belt.
Depends on which BB, if it has an all or nothing armor scheme or not.
>>29557012
I think the reason battleships aren't used anymore is because they aren't needed to combat ships and they never got a chance to adapt designs to be effective at defending against aircraft.
>>29557025
Being huge and slow is not a good first step to take when defending against aircraft.
Also, you said it yourself. They arent needed to combat ships. That was their main task of them and their huge guns, that task no longer exists in modern naval combat. So why bother "adapting" them to deal with aircraft when there's plenty of other hulls that can fill roles that are actually needed.
>>29556944
They are a useful idea to fuck with ASEAN. And they do.
>>29557066
Because literally nothing else can do bombardment like a battle ship.
An Iowa class firing it's primary and secondary batteries can dump like two and a half million pounds of ordinance every hour.
The guns can be aimed and fired and the shells can reach targets much faster than any aircraft.
The only issue is range, and with new long range munitions being developed it looks like naval artillery isn't obsolete yet.
>>29556934
The Chinks are building their corvettes from a position of weakness, and that's not a "derogatory term".
All those corvettes have basically zero long range sensors or air defense capability. If a patrolling E2 or Hornet finds the missile boat before it finds the CSG, then it's game over.
It's a high risk gamble the Chinese are willing to pay. Someone in a more dominant position would not accept such a risky tactic.
>>29556968
AShM's tear modern ships to shreds, because they are made of wet paper compared to BB's.
IIRC the biggest non-nuclear warhead on operational AShM is ~500kg HE. and the missile itself is made of sheet metal and plastic.
Compare to ~1200kg shell from a 16 incher made of fucking steel.
>>29556412
>I would build them smaller, fully automated with only 8 crew members. Could be like tanks 1 captain, 1 to pilot, 1 to fire weapons.
Tanks go a few hundred miles on a tank of fuel, these go several tens of thousand
>>29556850
So? Compare an Essex to a Nimitz. Or a Virginia to a Balao. An Essex is 1/3 the size of a Nimiz, and a Balao is 1/4 the size of a Virginia. Why is it so shocking to you that a modern destroyer would be a bit more than 4 times the displacement of it's world war two equivalent, especially considering that ship lacked any aviation facilities, towed sonar array, modern radar sensors beyond basic FC and sea search radar, or -shocker- fucking missiles.
>>29557095
>AShM's tear modern ships to shreds, because they are made of wet paper compared to BB's.
I'd love to see your examples of AShM's being tested against BBs to prove this...
>>29557094
I guess that's a point.. might be untrue though. China has a lot of shoreline, rivers, and islands to consider so large patrol craft are ideal, and the catamaran hull reduces draft for access to areas a monohull couldn't go.
Like I said, I'm just trying to imagine ways we can do more with less.
>>29556968
The armor would work well, until a single keel breaking torpedo was dropped by a helo, plane or sub
>>29557112
Because one destroyer wasn't expected to do much, they were expected to be able to defend ships from submarines and deter larger warships from attacking convoys with their torpedoes.
If the role changed we shouldn't call them destroyers anymore, and if the role stayed the same then they are overgunned.
One modern destroyer could probably sink an entire WW2 fleet dude.
>>29557114
The hilarious thing is, there is already an excellent example of a WWII BB getting sunk by a guided munition - DURING WWII. The Roma suffered catastrophic damage from a single Fritz guided bomb - ONE OF THEM. Passed all the way through the ship, exploded under the keel and broke the ship's back. The second one that blew turret two's magazines was just icing. That's two bombs that completely defeated the BB armor - not even rocket propelled, fucking glide bombs.
Anyone who thinks modern weapons couldn't scratch a WWII-armored battleship is pants on head retarded.
>>29557094
Their corvettes are anti-ASEAN
Nothing more.
>>29557140
>One modern destroyer could probably sink an entire WW2 fleet dude.
So? One Nimitz could sink an entire WWII Navy. Also, if you think roles haven't changed for any other ship type since WWII, you're an idiot.
>>29557146
That's the all or nothing armor schematic for ya.
>>29557161
It based THROUGH highly armored areas in both fucking cases - they directly defeated deck armor in one case and then passed all the way through the ship. The other one directly defeated Turret 2 magazine armor, which was one of the most heavily armored portions in the entire scheme.
Pretending like they didn't defeat any of the "real armor" is completely inaccurate.
>>29557124
China's mini-boats are meant for ASEAN and Taiwan.
So they have an intelligent purpose.
"Doing more with less" is smart in theory and extremely difficult in practice.
The LCS were meant to do this, yet they are a wreck.
It's much more intelligent to spend a lot up front for cutting edge technology and the best equipment. This is because wars are won by small differences in capability. If you are 99% as capable as the enemy, you'll get BTFO.
So your idea is simply, a bad idea. Let the Naval people handle their navy.
>>29557089
while this is true, and nothing gets my warboner as hard as a full broadside of 16 inch goodness, devoting a 45 000 ton ship solely to shore bombardment would cost billions fulfill a role no-one has needed for 60 years, never mind that the heavy industry to make BB class armor and guns no longer exists.
>>29557161
One defeated 6" of deck armor plus 7 compartments and the hull itself before detonating with enough force to break the keel.
The other defeated 6" of deck armor, several compartments and then defeated 14" of magazine armor while detonating.
That's a fuck ton more than "nothing", and these were nothing more than 3,000lbs guided gravity bombs.
>>29557212
>while this is true, and nothing gets my warboner as hard as a full broadside of 16 inch goodness, devoting a 45 000 ton ship solely to shore bombardment would cost billions fulfill a role no-one has needed for 60 years, never mind that the heavy industry to make BB class armor and guns no longer exists.
And of course, everyone on /k/ keeps forgetting that the maximum range for those guns was only 24mi. That's not even knife fighting range in a modern context, that's dickslapping range.
>inb4 imaginary 16" LRAP hypersonic rounds
>>29556822
I think we'll see more of this. If the F-35B ends up working as well as it seems it will, we might see the US start spamming out small carriers like the Marines have instead of supercarriers
Instead of needing a giant supercarrier and a massive escort fleet, the US could just deploy tons of small groups consisting of an escort carrier, one or two LCS' with maybe a Burke or tico as a flagship, and be able to spread them all over the world more
>>29557066
And to remind the rest of the world that we can sink billions on something that has almost no use in modern combat just to make a few Marines and civilian gun nuts hpppy.
And if you are stupid enough to try to sink it, the Navy will have a legal excuse to rain nuclear hellfire on your shitty country!
>>29557089
>Shore bombardment
>Relevant since WWII
Pick one
If your guns are in range, so are theirs.
Again, aircraft with JDAMs and cruise missiles take the 1st place slot here simply by merit of not having to be right fucking next to their target.
I know the raw awesome of a BB broadside is orders of magnitude higher, but devoting the resources and effort to keep a HUGE ship around for a single mission that doesn't exist anymore is pants on head retarded.
>>29557262
>Instead of needing a giant supercarrier and a massive escort fleet, the US could just deploy tons of small groups consisting of an escort carrier, one or two LCS' with maybe a Burke or tico as a flagship, and be able to spread them all over the world more
Making the carriers even more vulnerable to submarines than they currently are.
>>29557282
> remind the rest of the world that we can sink billions on something that has almost no use in modern combat
We have the F35 to fill that role :^)
CMANOfag here, I can confirm that an Iowa class BB with the upgrades it had in the Gulf War is pretty hard to sink with antiship missiles.
The problem is that it doesn't matter how many missiles it takes to destroy it because it has shitty sensors, shitty air and missile defenses, and shitty short range weaponry. Oh and it's easily detected on radar.
So basically a CSG would detect the Iowa from extremely far away, and could then launch missiles or strike planes whenever and however they want to sink it, even if it takes a couple more missiles than a modern destroyer.
>inb4 muh video game is invalid
And before you just say "add all those sensors and anti missile defenses and anti aircraft defenses and countermeasures and offensive weapons", remember that you're now spending probably double or triple what it would cost to just make a single destroyer or cruiser with all the same capabilities minus the number of missiles it takes to sink it.
>>29557262
I definitely dont think that small escort/fleet carriers would completely replace supercarriers. I agree that we'd see more of them, but the mission flexibility of a supercarrier is unmatched and a very important part of US military strategy. Launching AWACS and sub hunters is just as important as launching strike aircraft. Not to mention that CATOBAR launch systems allow for aircraft to be loaded heavier with more fuel/munitions.
>>29557293
>if your guns are in range so are theirs
Not necessarily. Look at the M109 howitzer, it has a longer range than those old 5 inch naval guns.
A modernized 16 inch cannon would have a much longer range than the old Iowa's had.
Yea BBs are past their day but nothing can support an amphibious invasion better than one.
>>29557328
So what you're saying is that, holy shit I can't believe it, the people that are paid to know what the fuck they are talking about ACTUALLY know what the fuck they are talking about it.
Why I do declare, this sudden shock has given me the vapors.
>>29557262
>If the F-35B ends up working as well as it seems it will
It's meant for a completely different role from the F-35C. For one, it can't perform the deep interdiction missions the F-35C can, as it's range is 3/4 what the C is (450nmi VS 600nmi). It's a huge improvement over the Harrier, but it'll never be as good as a dedicated CATOBAR aircraft. Period.
>we might see the US start spamming out small carriers like the Marines have instead of supercarriers
Those "small carriers" are almost half the displacement of a Nimitz, and still cost about a third as much. The fact that they cannot carry or launch fixed wing AEW&C/AWACS is a HUGE negative tick against them. They are NOT designed for the same things Nimitz class carriers are - strike/assault support is great, but there's no room on those for the sort of fleet defense/CAP/anti-ship strike/deep interdiction/SEAD depth of mission capability that a Nimitz provides.
>Instead of needing a giant supercarrier and a massive escort fleet, the US could just deploy tons of small groups consisting of an escort carrier, one or two LCS' with maybe a Burke or tico as a flagship, and be able to spread them all over the world more
Every single Gator flat top still has an escort almost as large or just as large as a Nimitz. Look up ESG vs CSG escorts. They've both got a Tico and 2-3 Burkes.
>>29557399
And that's why the US will still have 11+ supercarriers loaded with C models and superbugs.
And that's fine. The fleet carrier will still have a huge role. But with escort carriers having much improved capacity it will definitely help
>>29557442
>But with escort carriers having much improved capacity it will definitely help
No argument here. But the post I responded to seemed to suggest fleet carriers were going away, which just aint the case.
>>29557442
So you're advocating spending billions/trillions on something that would have very little effect on anything, since it won't add any actual capability that wasn't there to begin with?
Tell me, what's your stance on replacing the AR platform?
>>29556412
Research before you make yourself look stupid
>>29556786
They're only similiar in that they fit the same niche.
>>29557094
Corvettes are only used to protect coastal waters. Freeing up bigger ships for deployments further away from their EEZ. The ships that matters are their destroyers and frigates.
>>29557363
Yeah, its the best platform for naval bombardment. But historically naval bombardment didnt really do dick to prepared emplacements, especially from maximum range. You're up against comparably sized guns, but theirs are bunkered up in hardened cliffs and holes. Wheras yours are on a huge obvious ship that has to constantly move.
On D-Day and in the Pacific the only time that the naval bombardment by ships was REALLY effective was when they ran up into dick-touching range at a huge risk to their crews so they could pretty much shove their gun barrels into the emplacements. Thats a pretty damn obsolete and dangerous mission.
>>29557479
Very true, but that was the better part of a century ago. Today, they could build something much more accurate with a longer range.
A modernized battleship would be useful for several reasons.
Firstly, I don't care what you think about planes, planes still require a human to get within several miles of a target. Artillery doesn't.
It's basic risk management.
Secondly, manpads and SAMs can't shoot down shells.
>>29557505
>planes still require a human to get within several miles of a target
Hello! I still exist.
>>29557505
>Today, they could build something much more accurate with a longer range.
They did. It's called a missile.
>>29557505
>planes still require a human to get within several miles of a target.
Fuck. We're arguing with the listerine chugger I fear.
>>29556934
>And China thinks building small missile boats is a good idea.
It is a good idea, from a defensive standpoint. Small missile boats have short ranges. But this isn't a problem if you're defending coastline. You can sortie out from small waterways, patrol for a relatively short period, and return to a nearby base to refuel, refit, and swap crews. You can also mask your radar signature against the shoreline. And you can also coordinate with shore-based systems to extend sensor range, weapon range, etc.
For China, having patrol missile boats zipping around the South China Sea is obviously the right thing to do. But those boats would be worthless for projecting power away from their coastline. That's why they're building islands, and why they're building carriers, and why they're building escorts.
The US, on the other hand, has invested so heavily in projecting power, that it doesn't really even need to invest in missile boats for defense anymore. If it needs fast movers with missiles for coastal defense, well, the carrier air wing already fills that role, there's already enough of them to do that job.
>>29557363
>A modernized 16 inch cannon would have a much longer range than the old Iowa's had.
You've got a source for that, right?
Also, you're aware how often those guns had to be replaced as they wore out, right? Hint: it ain't even close to 1,000rds for any WWII BB main armament gun.
>>29557479
>Yeah, its the best platform for naval bombardment.
Is it? Is it really when you only get 24mi range? If you want to just barely hit the beach, you're STILL over the optical and radar horizon.
>>29557505
>Today, they could build something much more accurate with a longer range.
Why don't they? The most modern brand new guns the USN has mounted (the AGS on the Zumwalt) still have only 9.2% the range of a Tomahawk, with only 18% of the CEP.
>Firstly, I don't care what you think about planes, planes still require a human to get within several miles of a target.
Here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition
Read about JDAMs. They have almost all the range of a 16"/50cal gun, and they're guided gravity bombs. They're not even classified as "standoff" munitions, like a ton of other air-launched shit. Read a book. You'll sound like less of an idiot.
>Secondly, manpads and SAMs can't shoot down shells.
They're not hitting planes from standoff ranges either. What WILL fuck up shells is when land-launched AShMs fuck your BB up because you had to park it within spitting distance just to hit anything.
>>29557573
>with only 18% of the CEP.
Fuck, I meant the tomahawk had 18% the CEP of the AGS, as in much more accurate.
>>29556412
Have tried laying off the listerine, Or we'll well beyond that point?
>>29556956
kek, it's still RHS you fucking retard. Modern ships don't have belt armor. Jesus, how are you posting?
>>29557505
>they could build something much more accurate with a longer range.
They did, they're called Tomahawks
>planes still require a human to get within several miles of a target.
Protip - JDAMs can hit from just as far away as a battleship cannon, and they're not even "standoff" weapons.
>>29557565
Fuck, touche.
Then how come artillery still exists??
>>29557573
I don't need a damn source it's fucking obvious! The Zumwalts guns can hit targets almost 100 miles away.
Do I need to remind you I'm talking about a MODERN BB and only using the older ones as a reference? I'm talking about something that DOES NOT EXIST dude. We don't really know what it's capabilities would be.
>>29557715
>how come artillery still exists
Cheap
Something that cant be said about something the size of a battleship.
>>29557715
>The Zumwalts guns can hit targets almost 100 miles away.
Once more (I feel like I have to point this shit out every goddamn day, and I bet it's the same fucking idiot most of the time), YOU'RE NOT GETTING THAT MUCH RANGE WITH A 1,900lbs PAYLOAD. There is such a thing as fuel fraction. LRLAP shells get a 24lbs explosive charge 83nmi with a 225lbs cartridge. Scaling this up to a 1,900lbs payload would mean a 17,812.5lbs total cartridge weight/shell+fuel+powder charge. And that's completely ignoring added air resistance, extra chamber pressures to achieve the same muzzle velocity at that mass, extra structural weight and shell length in the barrel. At the very least, you're talking about brand spanking new 16" turrets, with at most ONE gun per turret. That's all there would be room for.
>We don't really know what it's capabilities would be.
The basic fucking physics are the same either goddamn way, anon. If you actually took five fucking minutes to get an even basic grounding in naval artillery, you would see just how many problems there are with your thinking.
>>29557815
> 17,812.5lbs total cartridge weight
Sweet baby jesus.
>Somehow manage to make the physics work
>Bring back the BB
>FUCK YEAH TIME TO LAY DOWN SOME FREEDOM
>Each ship can hold 9 shells
>>29556786
Nevada-class Standard BB:
Length - 575 feet waterline; 583 feet overall
Beam - 85.5 feet
Draft - 28.5 feet
Cleveland-class CL:
Length - 600 feet waterline; 608 feet 4 inches overall
Beam - 63 feet
Draft - 25.5ft
Arleigh Burke-class DDG, Flight IIA:
Lenght - 509 feet overall
Beam - 66 feet
Draft - 30.5 feet
Don't forget that the Standards are actually rather short and squat as far as battleships went. The Iowas were over 850 feet long compared to the Nevadas ~580.
>>29557888
>>Each ship can hold 9 shells
Yup. And don't forget that you're having to pay to man the thing. That was 1,800 sailors for the Iowa class in the 1980's. 6 times the compliment of a Burke, at 4.5 times the displacement.
>>29556941
That very, very much depends on the missile. A Harpoon with a normal HE warhead? Sure. A Harpoon with an AP warhead slapped on? Iffy. A fucking Shipwreck? Hahahaha, no, you're fucked. The ship that could take pic related hitting it at Mach 2.5 and come out fine has yet to be built.
>>29557923
Well to be fair the entire ship was operated on analogue. They needed that many crew.
>>29557815
Jesus Christ, dude. I was thinking more along the lines of giving it base bleeding rocket assist fin guided while keeping weight and dimensions relatively the same. Materials tech will allow for a stronger powder charge and stronger barrel.
>>29556934
Small missile boats are a good idea for defensive operations close to your own shore, just like PT boats were back during WWII. They're useless for fleet defense and cannot actually participate in long-distance assignments of any kind.
China is actually moving away from building small missile boats and more towards larger plattforms capable of actually projecting power these days, too.
>>29557923
Im just picturing the glorious clusterfuck that would be the process of loading 16,000 lbs of explosive charge into a gun.
>>29557959
Not to that degree. You might get 40 miles out of it.
800>>>>>>>>>40
>>29556514
pure autism
>>29557959
>I was thinking more along the lines of giving it base bleeding rocket assist fin guided while keeping weight and dimensions relatively the same.
Then you get a 200lbs payload out to the 83nmi of the Zumwalt AGS for the same mass. That's it. 200 lousy fucking lbs, and each shell/booster assembly still weighs almost 1,900lbs.
LRLAP tech is not the magic shit you think it is. Stop pretending and actually learn something.
>>29556956
Modern-day steel is not significantly differrent from WWII-era shipbuilding steel. Even funnier, we can't actually build battleship-grade armor anymore. The only thing left of the processes neccessary to actually create proper steel armor plates of that thickness is a bunch of documents buried in various archives. No steelmill or factory currently in operation could actually produce you armor plates of that thickness on order - we'd have to actually find the various scraps of documentation, reconstruct the entire process and then build a factory capable of doing it from sratch if we wanted to build properly armored ships again.
>>29557089
And why would you dumptwo and a half million pounds of ordnane into the postode of a target when you can do the same job with half a dozen 5-inch rounds and a modern fire control system?
>>29557095
P-700 Granit/SS-N-19 Shipwreck is IIR the biggest AShM ever built. 7 tons total weight, 750kg warhead. The warhead is encased in a solid-steel eggshell between 1-4 inches thick (4 inches towards its tip) and placed within the missile to sit right behind the forward part of the massive ramjet engine making up most of its mass to use that as an extra penetration aid. See pic, that red piece is the warhead.
>>29557715
>Then how come artillery still exists??
Naval artillery exists for punching down: Bigger ships ruining smaller ships on the cheap because they outrange and outgun them.
Also, to a much more limited extent, for fire support of landing parties where shore batteries either don't exist or are already suppressed/destroyed.
>>29556941
I would like to see any ship attempting to tank a 1000 kg shaped charge warhead.
>>29557095
>the biggest non-nuclear warhead on operational AShM is ~500kg HE
1 tonne on P-500/1000 and Kh-22, followed by 840 kg on P-120 and 750 kg on P-700.
>>29557146
A single Fritz X also respectively crippled HMS Warspite (penetrated all the way into her machinery spaces and blew one of her boiler rooms, ripping a 20-foot hole into her bottom. She had to be towed away and it took almost 10 months to get her repaired; one of her turrets and that boiler room were left permanently inoperable) and the light cruiser USS Savannah.Savannah got incedibly lucky - the bomb hit one of her turret roofs and proceeded to penetrate straight through all her decks before exploding - it's a miracle it didn't blow either her forward magazine or literally blew off the entire front third of the ship. As it was, it killed nearly 800 of her crew and sent her to the repair yards for 8 months.
>>29557298
So, have fun with your undersized airwings that completely lack force multipliers like tankers or AEW planes because your escort cariers cannot actually operate any of those. Supercarriers are literally as small as is possible if you want to retain full spectrum capability for your carrier airwing.
>>29558088
>the biggest AShM ever built
I believe that would be 3M25.
>>29558218
Eh, they're about equal. KH-80/P-750 is 6.3 tons with a ~1-ton warhead, P-700 is 7 tons with a 750kg warhead.
KH-80 was also a pure nuclear plattform and was killed by the INF treaty before getting beyond the testing stage.
>>29557943
Modern missiles are overwhelmingly better than shells at most things, armor penetration is not one of them.
WW2 era AP shells were extremely sophisticated pieces of ordinance, because the stress and shock of steel hitting steel at over mach 2 is immense.
The P-700's armored warhead is designed for punching through the outer hull of a carrier and exploding within. It is absolutely not tough enough to punch through Battleship armor. It's going to shatter/deform and the soft body of the missile is going to splat itself against the armor if it doesn't explode first.
>>29558296
Dude, the warhead on the Shipwreck with it's casing? It's functionally the same as a Fritz-X warhead, just bigger. It's designed for literally flying halfway through a supercarrier lenghtwise before detonating, and it's design is veering towards overkill even for that - in terms of actual brute impact force delivered, the only gun remotely comparable to it would be the freakin' Schwerer Gustav - and most of the initial stress delivered upon the missile is going to be absorbed by the massive engine block placed in front of the warhead, not the warhead itself.
>>29558296
>The P-700's armored warhead is designed for punching through the outer hull of a carrier and exploding within. It is absolutely not tough enough to punch through Battleship armor. It's going to shatter/deform and the soft body of the missile is going to splat itself against the armor if it doesn't explode first.
Wow. Amazing sources you have there for that complete pile of fucking asspull.
Also, what makes you think, even if you were correct, that it would be at all difficult to resurrect the fuzing from WWII era AP bombs? Especially considering the fact that we regularly build and use munitions that are designed to successfully penetrate 20+ feet of hardened reinforced concrete and/or stone.
>>29558367
Fritz-X was hitting deck armor, not belt armor like a Shipwreck has to.
Deck armor is 1/3 or so of the effective thickness of belt armor. And unlike belt armor, deck armor isn't face hardened.
For armor penetration, raw KE is not as important as how well you can focus the KE and the integrity of the projectile.
>>29558430
>Fritz-X was hitting deck armor, not belt armor like a Shipwreck has to.
See >>29557213
A single Fritz-X defeated 6" of deck armor, then three-four compartments then 14" of magazine armor.
You know, if you put even a quarter of the effort you put into shitposting into actually learning about this shit, you wouldn't look like such a fucking moron.
>>29558451
>inb4 "That doesn't count cuz it was coming from the inside!"
>>29558403
that's a battleship shell.
See the white part labeled 4? That's all steel. The only cavity in the shell for explosives is the little area at the bottom labeled 13.
Why so much steel and so little explosives? Because the shell needed every bit of the structural strength provided by the steel to not deform when it hits armor, and that's with a sacrificial AP cap to absorb some of the shock (the shaded area labeled 3).
Now look back at the cutaway here
>>29557943
That 5-10cm steel casing has a fraction of the structural strength of a battleship shell. If that hits armor at mach 2+, it's not going to hold together.
The problem with ASHM's penetrating armor is not how fast they are going and how much KE they have. It's how heavily built the warheads are to survive making contact with armor. You can definitely make a warhead tough enough to do it, but no current ASHM has such a warhead.
>>29558468
I mean, that doesn't even matter. The first Fritz-X was the death blow either way. When the munition easily passes through your deck armor, seven compartments, your hull and detonates UNDER YOUR FUCKING KEEL, and breaks your ship's back, well, it's pretty goddamn irrelevant how well armored your belt is.
There is absolutely zero reason a terminal pop-up maneuver and delayed detonation cannot be programmed for something like a Shipwreck to achieve just this effect. I simply cannot fathom what these anons are thinking suggesting WWII BB armor schemes are some sort of proof against modern weapons. It's beyond retarded.
>>29558501
>Why so much steel and so little explosives? Because the shell needed every bit of the structural strength provided by the steel to not deform when it hits armor, and that's with a sacrificial AP cap to absorb some of the shock (the shaded area labeled 3).
Anon. Pay attention. We REGULARLY fucking use bunker busters that penetrate 20+ feet of hardened, reinforced concrete.
If you think we cannot quickly design a payload to defeat any possible naval armor scheme WHEN THE FUCKING GERMANS DID SO WITH GUIDED BOMBS EASILY IN WWII, you are beyond rational and into pants-on-head fucking retarded.
>>29558501
At the ranges battleship's main guns were used the shells would be subsonic on impact.
They also wanted to maximize shell weight to ensure better cross-sectional density.
>>29558501
>You can definitely make a warhead tough enough to do it
Then what is the fucking point? Why are you even arguing this? Do you really think it's worth it to build such an armor scheme on an extremely expensive capital ship, only to have an adversary crank out a new warhead in 2 months which facefucks your shiny new BB and costs 2 million dollars to make?
How do you not see just how retarded this is?
>>29556427
>You're a man
No, 16 year olds are not men.
>>29558285
Well there was also Kh-90, but from what I know it wasn't meant for anti-ship role.
>>29558451
That's the Littorio's armor diagram. The Fritz-X coming down deals with 3 armor decks; 99, 14, and 37 for a combined 150mm of armor. The 10+ inches of magazine armor is from the sides, not from the top.
>>29558502
A pop-up maneuver is fucking expensive capability. First you have to climb to an appropriate height, which eats fuel and makes your missile easy to detect. Then the missile has to make the downward turn, and impact at a very steep angle. Lastly, you have to add high-off bore sensors to the missile. There's a reason that ASHM's are not top attack; it's a very expensive capability and there's no need to against soft targets.
Unless you want your missile to start the climb to top attack from over 20 miles out, you are going to have to stress it for more Gs, which is another expensive and heavy proposition. Current ASHM's are not very robustly built missiles, since they are not expected to handle heavy G loads.
And if you insist on being fucking retarded, nowhere did I say "undeadable battleships" but rather ASHM's are not good armor piercing weapons without extensive modifications.
>>29558534
They would be a lot slower, but definitely not subsonic.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
480 m/s is around the mach 1.4 ish.
>>29558549
Who the fuck said anything about building a new ship?
You said a ship that can take a Granit hasn't been built. I reckon a number of the WW2 battleships can take a couple Granits and live to tell the tale.
Doesn't mean I want any of them back in service or any money wasted in building new ones.
>>29558529
And you could design a battleship to deflect those bunker busters.
Battleships have not been professionally designed for decades.
If one was designed today, it would take such things in consideration.
The people that designed those classic 70 year old battleships could not forsee such weapons and barely had time to adapt to incorporating defenses against aircraft.
They designed torpedo bulkheads, don't you think they could do the same for bombs?
Aircraft took the world by storm dude.
Ship design just didn't have time to adapt and got stuck on the shelf.
>>29558501
>At 20,000 yards (18 km) the Mk. 8 could penetrate 20 inches (500 mm) of steel armor plate.
>4.5 kg HEAT warhead can penetrate 600 mm of RHA
Now imagine what a 1 tonne shaped charge warhead will do.
>>29558689
>There's a reason that ASHM's are not top attack
Some are.
>>29558744
I don't think you realize just how fucking heavy and massive (read as: expensive) a ship would be that can tank a bunker buster would be. And it wouldn't take all that long until a counter is developed that pretty instantly renders your billion dollar battleship obsolete. And until then, regular guided weapons are accurate enough that they can be sent after weakspots in the armor.
>>29558689
>That's the Littorio's armor diagram. The Fritz-X coming down deals with 3 armor decks; 99, 14, and 37 for a combined 150mm of armor. The 10+ inches of magazine armor is from the sides, not from the top.
The Fritz-X defeated the magazine armor from the side, you idiot. Stop shitposting and go actually learn something.
>A pop-up maneuver is fucking expensive capability. First you have to climb to an appropriate height, which eats fuel and makes your missile easy to detect. Then the missile has to make the downward turn, and impact at a very steep angle. Lastly, you have to add high-off bore sensors to the missile. There's a reason that ASHM's are not top attack; it's a very expensive capability and there's no need to against soft targets.
List of AShMs with pop-up terminal maneuver option:
>Harpoon
>Perseus
>SS-NX-26
>SS-N-27
>AGM-158 JASSM (ground attack, but relevant)
>SLAM-ER
And that doesn't even include the missiles which can be programmed for high-altitude supersonic run in with terminal dive, like the AS-4 Kitchen and pretty much every other Soviet AShM.
>Unless you want your missile to start the climb to top attack from over 20 miles out, you are going to have to stress it for more Gs, which is another expensive and heavy proposition. Current ASHM's are not very robustly built missiles, since they are not expected to handle heavy G loads.
This is straight asspulled bullshit. Where do you even get this crap?
>rather ASHM's are not good armor piercing weapons without extensive modifications.
Literally all they need is a payload/warhead modification to be effective even with a sea-skimming terminal profile. You admitted so above.
Stop being autistic.
>>29558744
>And you could design a battleship to deflect those bunker busters.
>Battleships have not been professionally designed for decades.
Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, battleships have not been professionally designed for decades exactly because it is not possible design a battleship to deflect those bunker busters?
>>29558689
>A pop-up maneuver is fucking expensive capability. First you have to climb to an appropriate height, which eats fuel
doesnt current missiles have pop up capability to specifically save fuel and get longer ranges?
you know air density and stuff
>>29558744
>And you could design a battleship to deflect those bunker busters.
No. You really can't. It is orders of magnitude less complicated and costly to design ordinance to defeat armor schemes than it is to design and build entire capital ships. And every time someone figures out how to build the ordinance, you're right back to where we are RIGHT NOW: defenses have to ensure the ship will not take the hit. Your idea sucks, and it's time to let it go.
>Battleships have not been professionally designed for decades.
There's a fucking reason for this. If you weren't so autistically monofocused, you'd realize that the simple fact of every professional in the world having abandoned the idea of heavy warship armor should be telling you something: IT DOES JACK SHIT FOR THE COST IN DISPLACEMENT, BUILD TIME AND MONEY.
>The people that designed those classic 70 year old battleships could not forsee such weapons and barely had time to adapt to incorporating defenses against aircraft.
When the first Iowa was commissioned in 1943, the Roma had already been destroyed with only two Fritz-X guided bombs.
>They designed torpedo bulkheads, don't you think they could do the same for bombs?
Except that modern under keel-detonating torpedoes represent a threat that they cannot armor against either. At all.
>Aircraft took the world by storm dude.
>Ship design just didn't have time to adapt and got stuck on the shelf.
Naval aircraft had been in use for well over 20 years by the time the Iowa was commissioned.
Your narrative is built on false assumptions, is full of holes, and only exists to justify this ridiculous "rule of cool" exercise in mental masturbation that you insist upon in the face of all historical and engineering fact.
Grow. The. Fuck. Up.
The listerine fiend is in this thread. Abandon ship.
>>29558868
They do, he's just uninformed.
As much as I like battleships and think that they're fucking neat, I'm not 12 anymore. "Neat" does not have a place on the battlefield. "Effective" does, and "effective" does not describe battleships at all.
tl;dr, battleships are dead. Deal with it.
>>29558763
HEAT has worse after armor effects than AP rounds. Punching a small diameter hole through a battleship doesn't do that much, you need to wreck the internals. The key parts of battleships (magazines and engines) usually have another layer of protection behind the belt.
>>29558807
> The Fritz-X defeated the magazine armor from the side, you idiot. Stop shitposting and go actually learn something
You are literally the only person I've seen to make this claim. Source something.
> List of AShMs with pop-up terminal maneuver option:
The kind of popup used by these missiles and the kind of popup needed to defeat armor are very different.
ASHM's doing a pop-up maneuver in the terminal phase often do it for target acquisition or to give the missiles more room to maneuver. They still usually hit the ship at a relatively shallow angle.
To get the kind of "deck hits" that helps with armor penetration, the angle of incidence has to be at or over 30 degrees or so, which is a fairly steep dive that requires a high starting altitude.
>>29558970
>tl;dr, battleships are dead. Deal with it.
What about battlecruisers? :^)
>>29558989
>The kind of popup used by these missiles and the kind of popup needed to defeat armor are very different.
So first pop-up was super expensive, now we've got goalposts on wheels? Fuck off. The pop up maneuver designed into Soviet AShMs IS EXACTLY the energy gathering maneuver you first described. Fuck off.
>To get the kind of "deck hits" that helps with armor penetration, the angle of incidence has to be at or over 30 degrees or so, which is a fairly steep dive that requires a high starting altitude.
So we're just ignoring that every modern and most Soviet obsolete AShMs could be programmed to run in at high altitude supersonic and dive at their target? Just shut the fuck up already.
Also, you STILL haven't answered the basic point that ALL OF THIS IS MOOT. Seriously. It's fucking pointless. The Germans put a Fritz-X ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE ROMA AND BROKE HER BACK. IN WWII. It doesn't fucking matter how much belt armor your ship has. There's no way they can armor the whole ship to the levels you're talking about, and it is ridiculously easy to design munitions to defeat just about any armor they can put on it. See >>29558905
>Your narrative is built on false assumptions, is full of holes, and only exists to justify this ridiculous "rule of cool" exercise in mental masturbation that you insist upon in the face of all historical and engineering fact.
Join us in reality already. Seriously, I'm so fucking tired of hearing about how modern battleships would shrug off any hits in a modern context. It's fucking retarded, you've received excellent evidence as to why that is, and it's time to stop fucking posting.
>>29559091
Just watch the FSC turn into a battlecruiser with plenty of VLS, railgun turrets, and laser CIWS.
>>29559091
>What about battlecruisers?
You do realize the Kirovs ain't exactly spring chickens, right? The design is extremely dated. No one is new building surface combatants at even 1/2 of that displacement anymore outside of aircraft carriers.
>>29559091
Shit like the Kirov is not a great thing either.
Maybe for a nation that WANTS to look like an international player and wants both a carrier and a destroyer but can't afford both. In that case, loaded with some F35Bs or a similar aircraft I guess it wouldn't be bad. But it certainly isn't going up against the USN anytime soon. But for the USN it has no place in doctrine, since the supercarriers do their carrying job better while the destroyers do the destroying job better.
The biggest issue you always see with these arguments is money and power projection:
>small nations cannot afford power projection
>nations that want power projection and can afford it can afford better toys like a dedicated CBG rather than half-n-half hybrids
>few nations can afford the CBG and still afford to logistically supply them at all time, or afford enough that they always have a fleet "ready to go"
Tl;DR- I don't think it would work for American or even Chinese doctrine, but for a nation that wants to show status it may make a hell of a parade piece and still be able to do some stuff ok, even if it's not great at either job.
>>29558989
Even a 4.5 kg warhead is enough to punch a hole through battleship armour. 1 tonne warhead will burn through metres of inner compartment.
>They still usually hit the ship at a relatively shallow angle.
It's an optional flight profile of Kh-22 missile to drop on a target from stratosphere at hypersonic speed.
>>29558687
I mean, it was a hypersonic cruise missile with a 1Mt warhead; sounds pretty anit-everything to me.
>>29559207
>>29559220
>hypersonic
I see this buzzword used all the time with slavshit missiles.
Are they really going Mach 4+? Or is this just more memeing?
>>29559232
Memeing. But many of them are close to those speeds.
>>29558989
>Punching a small diameter hole through a battleship doesn't do that much, you need to wreck the internals.
I'm no proponent for the effectiveness of AShMs against BBs, but a 5 meter wide, 12 meter deep hole sounds like a lot more than a "Small diameter hole"
>>29559232
fuck off man, I never said it was a good idea. The thing isn't even real as far as this conversation is concerned.
That being said, we really have no way to prove otherwise. Could it break Mach 10? Maybe. Fucked if any of us know for sure.
>>29559165
How is it dated?
>No one is new building
Probably has a thing or two to do with the end of the Cold War. As long as CSGs are around 1144 won't really be dated.
>surface combatants at even 1/2 of that displacement
Zumwalt is exactly 1/2 of that displacement.
>>29559183
So much effort for such a poor bait.
>>29559310
>How is it dated?
Because it was designed in the 60's and 70's and laid down in 1974. That's an old goddamn design. Still potent, but old. No standardized VLS cells, no VLO hull features, old reactor design. It is simply not a new design, anon.
>Probably has a thing or two to do with the end of the Cold War. As long as CSGs are around 1144 won't really be dated.
No, it has to do with design philosophy. First of all, the USN has been uninterested in nuclear powered surface combatants (except carriers, of course) since the 70's. Secondly, there's no navy in the world that builds that large for AA/ASh/ASW ships anymore because flexibility and risk exposure suggest having more, smaller ships that you can split up at need and be able to lose one without losing all of them. The Kirov is the displacement of THREE Burkes. It just makes way more operational sense to have three Burke-sized destroyers than the one fuckhuge vessel.
>Zumwalt is exactly 1/2 of that displacement.
So it is. Only three of those getting built, though, and I'd bet my left nut the eventual Burke Flight III replacement is no bigger than 12,000 tons.
>>29559232
Kh-80 and Kh-90 had Mach 3 and Mach 5 speeds respectfully. Kh-22 drops from stratosphere at Mach 5.
>slavshit missiles
Stay mad.
>>29559310
Exactly what did I say about the Kirov makes it poor bait?
Every pound spent on AShM is a pound that could go to a plane, every square foot could go to hangar or deck space, and every officer responsible for the missile and missile systems could be another officer assigned to fighter maintenance, another pilot, or other duties.
>>29558501
That solid steel casing and the MASSIVE FUCKING RAMJET ENGINE BLOCK IN FORNT OF IT have a combined structural strenght far in excess of an battleship belt armor ever built. Even on the most conservative estimate, it's damn near capable of flying straight through the belt of an Iowa-class TWICE OVER. The thing tat won't hold together when hit by literally more than the entire mass of a 16in sueprheavy AP shells' worth of engine block alone will be the the battleships belt armor.
Between its placement and shell, the warhead on a Shipwreck is more heavily built than any battleship AP shell ever designed, even including theoretical designs for fucking 20-inch guns.
>>29559271
>>29559422
Huh looks like they do have Mach 4+ missiles.
Still though, looking at those specifications, I don't know how useful that'd be. You're not going to get a Hypersonic platform at low speeds (at least not with the ranges they're claiming), so you're just going to have something very fast and very visible flying up at high altitudes - at least 50,000ft.
>>29556412
Problem solved
>>29556435
>>29556453
SICK BURN!!!!!!!!!
Also, what BB wanker forgets is that yes, there are AShMs with such a thing as HEAT warheads.
>but muh compartments
Yeah, newsflash: These aren't dinky little ATGM warheads that you can stop with a bunch of slat armor. When the Soviets tested Kh-22 with a HEAT warhead bak in the early 60's, it produced an entry hole 16 foot wide and the HEAT jet remained cohesive enough to blow through bulkheads out to 40 fucking feet behind the point of impact. In other words, a sideways-on hit means that HEAT jet goes almost halfway THROUGH an Iowas beam, more than far enough to reach magazines and engine rooms.
>>29559396
I mean role-wise. What you are talking about is indeed true, but it is not something that can't be at least partially solved by a refit. That is if we are talking about project 1144 specifically, not the idea of a missile battlecruiser in general.
Design philosophy is vastly dependant on the doctrine. USN was uninterested in it because there was nothing in Soviet Navy to introduce it against. And there is no other navy in the world whose intention was to hunt down CBGs, a role that a simple destroyer or cruiser is insufficient for.
>>29559478
It's just one of the flight profiles, you are missing the point of why it was brought up.
>>29559556
they are dinky warheads you could stop with composite armor, naval APS & ERA
>>29559824
You simply ain't going to stop a 1 tonne shaped charge warhead travelling at Mach 3+ with any sane amount of armour.
>>29559941
>implying the pro modern battleship crowd is sane
I wanna 1500 foot long floating impervious fortress bristling with weapons and main guns with such long range it could never leave port and still provide fire support.
>>29560209
That's basically a missile sub, except it can hide to protect itself.
Or just land based ICMBs or ground launched rockets
There's no such thing as impenetrable or invincible. If you make a steel island it's a matter of time before someone sinks it somehow, or it will be so slow that the enemy can just avoid it and let it wither as they target its logistics train
>>29557471
I was that post. And no. Didn't mean to imply that at all. The supercarriers are still extremely useful, it'll just mean that say if the US needs to, they will be able to just send a small carrier or two instead of a supercarrier
>>29557473
Are you claiming that the F-35 won't be a massive increase in capability over the Harrier?
