Battleships
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
/k/,if battleships were fitted with new AA and anti-missile systems as well as more modern engines how would they fare in modern naval warfare?
They'd be expensive, inefficient destroyers.
>>29688398
This. Though the Burke's are pretty fucking BIG DD's, at 10k tons.
>>29688427
Well you think it would perform better than the Zumwalt as a long range artillery platform? Because If I remember right the Zumwalt is supposed to be more of a test platform for new technologies rather than a main line warship
>>29688525
>Better as a long range artillery system
Having 16 inch guns means yes... if your primary naval artillery nowadays was guns instead of missiles. You'd be better off making a CGN instead of refitting the Iowas, the only reason we did it in the 80's was Regan wanting to rub the fact we could afford to do so in the Russians' face with his giant MURRICAN cock.
>>29688525
>main line warship
We don't fight surface ships with surface ships anymore; it's either with naval aviation or submarines.
>>29688390
horribly because they would never get in range
they would just be fire support for the marines
>>29688390
Your pic is a prime example of this having happened. In 1980, the four Iowa class battleships, Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey and Wisconsin were pulled out of mothballs and retrofitted. The 20mm and 40mm antiaircraft guns were removed and replaced with four Phalanx CIWS air defense turrets. Sea Sparrow launchers were considered and discarded when it was discovered the launchers could not withstand the overpressure of the main 16" guns firing. Provisions were made for multiple Stinger firing points around the ship instead. Offensive armament retained all three 16" main battery turrets and the 5" inch gun turrets. Added were armored box launchers for Tomahawk cruise missiles and Harpoon anti shipping missiles. The Iowas received an extensive electronic upgrade as well including modern gin control radar, search radar and a Combat Information Center. For over the horizon targeting for the Harpoon missiles and main batteries, the Iowas deployed several RQ-2 Pioneer drones. Countermeasures included anti missile electronics and physical decoys as well as anti torpedo decoys and electronic countermeasures.
The Navy will neither confirm nor deny, but it is speculated that a number of Iowa Class Tomahawks were nuclear armed.
The Iowas were also fitted with aviation support facilities and could embark and deploy a number of Navy helicopters including anti submarine warfare, transport and gunship types.
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Navy began to draw down and two Iowas were removed from the active register with two more retained in active reserve. In 2006, the remaining Iowa class shipswere taken off the naval register and placed with museums.
How would they fare in modern combat? They served well in support of Desert Storm, but mostly played the traditional heavy gunboat role.
>>29688570
Well then we'd have to compare the costs of creating a new CGN to the cost of refitting a BB if I remember right in the 80's it cost about the same as a destroyer to refit one Iowa but I'll look for the quote if I can find it
>>29688760
At this point? It'd be far cheaper and safer than reactivating the Iowas.
>>29688772
Not to mention much cheaper to maintain than a battleship.
>>29688811
Especially that. The Iowa's are old, fucking really old. They don't need to be reactivated again.
>To expensive to man and operate
>Slow
>No parts, powder, or projectiles exist for the 16" guns.
>>29688390
THE NAVY TROLLING RIDE NEVER ENDS
>>29688821
Iowa is serving admirably in the afterlife of Kancolle. Let her rest.
>>29688821
Not just old; they're huge. We just don't need a warship of that size in order to fulfill the role of surface combatant or naval gunfire support.
>>29688525
>Well you think it would perform better than the Zumwalt as a long range artillery platform?
No.
>>29688898
>Forgot the "Very Cute, this is important"
Shit chart/10.
>>29688905
What about the Zumwalt as a long-range artillery target?
>>29688757
Were talking about a ship designed to take direct hits from the 14", 16", and 18" main batteries of the time with the speed to run as fast or faster than any modern warship. The retrofitted Iowas had twice the Harpoon and Tomahawk compliment of a modern cruiser and thanks to its RQ-2 and helicopter compliment could target enemy ships over the horizon with missiles, and God help any modern ship inside then 24.8 mile range of a modernized Iowa's main batteries. During their 1980's and 1990’s deployments, the Iowas were either deployed as part of a carrier group or, more often, deployed as the flagship of a task force including a Ticonderoga class cruiser, and Arliegh Burke class destroyer, one Spurance class destroyer and three Perry class frigates.
>>29688570
The Iowas were refit with missiles in the 1980's under Regan. They had a full compliment of Tomahawks and Harpoons and the electronic suites to use them. They also retained their 16" and 5" guns.
>>29688836
64 kph is not "slow" for a warship.
I'm a battleship fan and they would suck at anything that's not suicide missions or shore bombardment.
HOWEVER, a modernized main battery could be very effective if they find a way to make the guns able to outrange carrier launched craft.
A rail gun ship would be ok I suppose.
>>29688932
>filename isn't "Sympathy for the Desu.png"
Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones.
>>29689036
You're right. I should have named it "System of a Dess"
Still you named yours fucking 'Iowa Chan' so don't go same to you fuckface.
>>29689028
>What is the USS Donald Trump.jpg
>>29688390
Yes...technically but you'd need a bunch of new tech added.
First off, you'd need to all but hollow out part of the ship and fill it with ASM and cruise missiles. The USS New Jersey is actually a good example of how to start. It's got 16 Harpoon ASM and twice as many Tomahawks. A typical battleship is big enough that you might be able to reload the launchers from internal bays.
Following that, you need a very advanced radar system. Something that's capable of cutting through ECM like butter and guiding missiles to target. Considering the size and expense of a battleship, you want a fire control system that can engage an entire fleet at once.
Third, you need some obscenely good AA. Most modern warfare is dominated by air power so airstrikes aren't so much a threat as an inevitability. Fighter launcher ASMs also have been known to outrange SAMs so you're going to need to deal with that. Thankfully, there are records of SAMs taking down ASMs and cruise missiles so adding more AA also gives you more defense in general.
Forth, you need a better torpedo defense system. Torpedo bulges, belts, and nets have all been ineffective in the past and decoys are more of a patch than a solution. Counter torpedoes are still in the works so you might want to try depth charges. Otherwise, mount some torpedo turrets near the waterline and try to blow up one torpedo with another. No, I don't think it's a good idea but it'll probably work and you can mount more torpedoes in turrets than a sub can mount in tubes.
So what would make a BB viable? Would replacing the main battery with rail guns make it viable to operate?
>>29689082
>Still you named yours fucking 'Iowa Chan' so don't go same to you fuckface.
That was more to avoid the inevitable wall of OMG SAUCE PLS replies when posting in Trump threads ironically enough. It's on topic for those because he had a rally on her deck once. Also holy fuck the specs on that thing are pure nonsense.
>>29689125
The actual design is even worse. He's got fucking CASEMATE GUNS AND A SKI JUMP
>>29688836
The Iowa is actually pretty fast for a warship. They can keep up with the Nimitzes if they can spare the fuel.
What they aren't is maneuverable. 58,000 tons does not turn on a dime.
>>29689116
Better anti-air/missile defenses and some guarantee that an ASM hit isn't going to kill it outright.
>>29688955
>the speed to run as fast or faster than any modern warship
Not even close, kill yourself
>>29689174
>The Iowa... can keep up with the Nimitzes
Not even close, kill yourself
>>29689116
You would have to un-invent aviation, and even then it'd be iffy
>>29689259
Well there are very nations with carriers that aren't friendly with us so very few nations would have the naval aviation capabilities to even harm it unlike the carrier spam of WWII
>>29689303
You're just looking for excuses because of the emotional appeal of muh guns.
>>29689144
>not the USS YUGE.
Missed opportunity.
>>29689318
Yeah well that too but really the most common threat to a BB today would probably come from a submarine as they are a hell of a lot more common than a carrier
>>29689259
>Not even close, kill yourself
The USS New Jersey has a listed speed of 33 knots while the Nimitz class has a listed speed of 30+ knots
Lazy answers look dumb.
>>29689359
The Iowa class had a theoretical maximum of 35kts based on the hull design. This speed was never achieved on an actual completed Iowa-class, nor was your precious 33kts.
Meanwhile Nimitz' with actual war loads on them have been reported as exceeding 40kts.
It's time for you kids to go.
>>29688898
>manifest breastiny
Ok, that one was really good.
>>29688955
>Were talking about a ship designed to take direct hits from the 14", 16", and 18" main batteries of the time
Nope. Iowa was not designed to take her own 16in shells and in no way to resist 18-inch. Lest we forget, the US only learned of the Yamato's true armament after the war was over. During the war, ONI actually fell for large-scale japanese deception and believed the two to be armed with "only" 40cm guns comparable to older 16in/45s
>>29689144
/pol/ is never allowed to design hardware ever again. What the fuck.
>>29688570
out of curiosity would there be any way to scrap the 16 inch guns in favor of something like... missile silos? turn the whole thing into more or less a missile cruiser?
>>29689114
You forgot:
Fifth, get rid of all that useless armor because it takes up a lot of precious weight and space and doesn't offer nearly enough effective protection against modern weapons for that price.
>>29689460
The replies to it were golden, I suggest finding the thread
>>29689463
That's what the Soviets did with their Kirov class.
>>29689402
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-speed-recorded-for-a-battleship/
The USS New Jersey achieved a speed of 35.2 knot during a 1968 shakedown test.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm
The max speed of a Nimitz Class has been reported as 33.6 knots.
Please provide where you got your information so we can compare notes.
>>29688757
>four Phalanx
Why not upgrade the 16" turret motors for traverse and elevation, slave it to the CIWS radar, and use those for close in defense?
Could use a round like the M1028 as well for softer targets that are close-in.
>>29689511
>16" shells flying everywhere as ak-ak guns
Boy that sounds like a great way to sink EVERY FRIENDLY SHIP IN THE FLEET while trying to shoot down an enemy plane. Retard.
>>29689468
Actually, nobody has proven if you can pierce two feet of STS steel with an ASM missile. I think one soviet admiral is on record lamenting that they had nothing that could pierce an Iowa's armored citadel.
Still, solid steel is inefficient so I'd say pair it down to 6 inches at the belt, 5 on the deck, 5 on the citadel, carbide plates on the outside, kevlar lining on the inside with packets of fire retardant foam every 6 feet.
>>29689511
They actually tried that with the IJN Yamato but the size of the guns meant you had to withdraw all the AA gunners every time you did.
Additionally, there's some issues with trying to move a thousand ton turret quickly. Really, it makes more sense just to stick SAMs on it. Lots of SAMs
>>29689675
Yeah doesn't seem like the best idea to me either so would a good idea to improve the AA capability involve replacing the remaining 5 in guns and replacing them with SAM launchers?
>>29689558
>I think one soviet admiral is on record lamenting that they had nothing that could pierce an Iowa's armored citadel.
Actual primary source or it's bullshit. Secondary sources don't count with these kind of "the enemy is so afraid of us they said this" claims.
>the [Japs/Iraqis/whatever] were so afraid of [Beaufighters/Abrams/BRRRRRRT] they called them "Whispering Death"!
>the Germans were afraid of Patton, that's why the ghost army deception worked!
It's propaganda and/or memetics gone wild, EVERY SINGLE TIME someone actually investigates one.
>>29689558
Bullshit. I might be able to take a smaller, slower AShM like a Harpoon or Exocet. A heavy motherfucker like the ones te Soviets produced? Simple physics say that a several ton missile hitting at above mach 2, with a warhead encased in several inches of hardened steel is going to punch right through. And so would any lightweight AShM if you put an actual AP warhead on it, which can be designed and retrofitted for several orders of magnitude less than the cost of actually building and operating an armored warship today.
Even funnier, the Soviets did at one point try out honest to god HEAT warheads on heavy AShM and on test shots against old target ships, it resulted in the jet creating a fucking a 15 feet wide, 40 feet deep tunnel into the target. For reference, that's enough to get through both the belt and the casemates on an Iowa straight into the magazines and shell handling rooms.
Yeah, one soviet admiral is claimed to be on record lamenting in the 80's that they had nothing that could sink an Iowa (though I've never seen any source of that claim). And right after that interview, if it actually happened, he must have been sniggering to himself for having planted that bit of maskirovka.
>>29689909
> A heavy motherfucker like the ones te Soviets produced? Simple physics say that a several ton missile hitting at above mach 2, with a warhead encased in several inches of hardened steel is going to punch right through.
No dice, the Iowa class had 12 inches of special treatment steel on it's belt.
>Even funnier, the Soviets did at one point try out honest to god HEAT warheads on heavy AShM and on test shots against old target ships, it resulted in the jet creating a fucking a 15 feet wide, 40 feet deep tunnel into the target.
Considering that the power of a shaped charge is related to it's width rather than it's length that charge must have been obscenely unaerodynamic.
>Actual primary source or it's bullshit. Secondary sources don't count with these kind of "the enemy is so afraid of us they said this" claims.
I'll grant you it could be a rumor, I never saw the source.
>>29688390
With railguns and lasers, fine.
Before someone pulls the "it's too big argument", do you really think ships of the future in a time when there's multi-megawatt leasers and projectile weapons won't be large? I would honestly bet money major surface combatants will be getting bigger here on out.
>>29690591
>No dice, the Iowa class had 12 inches of special treatment steel on it's belt.
And several tons of missle followed by nearly a ton of warhead encased in several inches of hardened steel hitting at Mach 2 is more than enough to go through that. A heavy supersonic ASM hits harder, and considerably so, than any naval gun ever built.
>Considering that the power of a shaped charge is related to it's width rather than it's length that charge must have been obscenely unaerodynamic.
We're talking about a 6-7 ton missile with a fuckoff gigantic ramjet engine here. It's fucking bigger than your average WWII single-engine fighter. Who cares about aerodynamics when you have ALL THE FUCKING THRUST?
>>29689909
The thing is, buy designing a warship to take hits like older battleships. you force the enemy to redesign missiles, and make them larger. That makes it easier for your defense systems to intercept and it makes it harder for the enemy to spam missiles, because they can't carry as many
>>29690688
Those missiles will not have the density of battleship shells that battleships were designed to tank.
A battleship shell was several feet of SOLID steel, and behind that was a TINY explosive charge. They needed that much mass with that much density to penetrate and hit vitals.
NO ASHM HAS BEEN BUILT that can penetrate as much steel as the old battleship shells.
>>29690688
Also, the missiles are so large which works to their disadvantage. Larger missiles are more likely to get hit by CIWS and anti missile missiles.
The kicker is because those missiles are so large, you can only spam them once or twice before you're out of missiles and defenseless against surface ships.
>>29688390
A modern "battleship" wouldn't need as much displacement as it's not going to be using WW2 "All or Nothing" armour schemes. You'd have a lot of space for big guns, VL cells, helicopter hangar, etc.
But it would still be big and pricy and wouldn't do anything a modern DDG can't do except throw really big shells really far, especially if they are rocket assisted guided shells, but then the question becomes "Why not use missiles?" if you're not gonna spam cheap unguided shells.
Would just be a big-ass DDG with big guns.
>>29690789
A.Shells are a lot cheaper and B. You can't shoot down shells unlike missiles and shit
>>29689354
Belgrano was a light cruiser.
>>29690694
Redesigning missiles and making them larger (or, morel ikely, simply refitting existing missiles with AP warheads) is infinitely easier and cheaper than building a fucking battleship.
>>29690718
And aheavy AShM is...several FEET of fucking missile mass followed by the actual warhead. and it hits faster and with more kinetic energy than any WWII naval ship designer could have imagined in his worst nightmares. And no, the real big limit for HE content in shells was not penetration, it was withstanding firing stress. There's a reason HC bombardement shells carry tiny payloads for their mass, too.
>NO ASHM HAS BEEN BUILT
Actual reality and physics disagree with oyur entirely unfounded opinion. Again, the fucking math has been done. A heavy-weight AShM like Granit or Bazalt/Vulkan has effective armor penetration roughly on par not with a mere "superheavy" 16in or 18.1in AP shell, but a theoretical 30(!)-inch AP shell. The only gun to ever achieve comparable armor penetration characteristics to the soviet monster missiles was the motherfucking 80cm Schwerer Gustav with shells designed to fuck up underground fortresses in single hits.
>>29690731
And the real kicker is that with the other side putting all their eggs into one huge, ludicrously inefficient and idiotically expensive basket, even those fewer missiles will get the job done better than more, smaller missiles would against more, smaller vessels built with actual modern warfare in mind instead of this idiotical romaticism about obsolete museum pieces.
>>29690809
>You can't shoot down shells
If you can shoot down a supersonic missile, you can shoot down a supersonic shell. In fact, shooting down the shell is actually considerably easier as it will be on a fixed ballistic arc and have no ability to either be evasive or correct itself when blown off trajectory by a near miss. Also, shells are in actuality more expensive because you need to use considerably more of them to guarantee a hit.
>>29690809
Yeah, but what mission requires obscene amounts of unguided shells?
Also, setting up the manufacturing for new battleship class barrels and ammunition would not be cheap, especially if someone goes "Well, with all the saved tonnage we can get 20" guns" and then you have to do the development testing and data for those instead of the decades of data on the 16"/50s.
>>29690809
Why do idiots always seem to be defending modernized BB's? I'm all for them, but when there's people who say shit like this it almost delegitimizes the argument.
I almost feel like they're a false flag.
>>29689511
The 5" guns would work better than the 16"s. In fact, antiaircraft was one of the original tasks of the 5" turrets.
>>29689847
The problem in the 80's with existing SAM launchers was that existing overpressure from firing the 16" guns completely wrecked them. The solution the came up was a hundred guys dispersed over the length of the ship with Stinger MANPADS and about a dozen reloads apiece.
>>29690894
A typical 16" Iowa class shell fired from a MkVII Naval rifle weighed 2700lbs with a velocity of 1834 miles per hour, well past MACH 2.
That's a mostly solid armor piercing two and half ton shell travelling at twice the speed of sound. An Iowa is designed to take multiple hits equal to its own main guns.
>your non existent missile a shit
>>29689259
>Not even close, kill yourself
Iowas could do 35 knots and the Nimitzes could do 31.5.
>>29689402
Your facts are not factual
>>29691200
Couldn't Enterprise go even faster? I mean, 8 reactors...
Guy I know was a nuke on her, claimed she did 60 knots flat out. He was drinking when he said that though.
>>29691200
Iowa topped out at 32. There's a great pdf about the refit trials in the 80s where the writer decides to test the 35 knot myth.
>>29691232
>60 knots
KEK
Probably closer to 40, maybe, and that's a big maybe.
>>29691232
>60 knots
Holy fuck that would be hilarious.
Sorry to tell you this, but it can't.
>>29691232
60 knots is 111 kph, or 69 mph. There's no way Enterprise did anything near that. It might have pushed up to 35+ but that's it.
>>29690894
>Redesigning missiles and making them larger (or, morel ikely, simply refitting existing missiles with AP warheads) is infinitely easier and cheaper than building a fucking battleship.
That also makes them easier to shoot down. Besides that, smaller ships have to compromise the number of missiles they can carry as size and weight increase.
>And aheavy AShM is...several FEET of fucking missile mass followed by the actual warhead. and it hits faster and with more kinetic energy than any WWII naval ship designer could have imagined in his worst nightmares.
If we assume it can penetrate the belt armor then at such speeds we can also assume the missile will pulverize it'self on impact. This missile doesn't have 12 inches of steel on it's nose nor does it have the very expensive hardening that all US battleships have after all.
So there's no way in hell it can penetrate the 11 inches of steel on the citadel. No citadel penetration, no dead Iowa.
>If you can shoot down a supersonic missile, you can shoot down a supersonic shell.
Shells don't need any vulnerable control surfaces, deceivable guidance systems, or hot and volatile rockets. With a missile you can tear the control surfaces off, dupe the guidance system to chase flares or chaff, or blow up the rocket motor. You can't do any of this to an armor piercing shell.
You either smack it on the side hard enough to change the course of 2700 lbs of pain or slowed it down enough that the detonator thinks it hit something. Either one is going to be hard.
>>29691242
>>29691248
Like I said, alcohol was involved in that statement.
>>29691357
How much alcohol? The world must know anon.
>>29691312
Maybe he meant over 60 kph...
It had been a long night of complaining about his civilian nuke plant work and remembering the glory that was Enterprise. In that context, significant overexaggeration is expected.
The cost to retrofit the main propulsion of 1 Iowa
from antiquated 1200lb boilers, to either MPDE or MPGTE would prolly be the cost to build a Burke destroyer. That's just the main propulsion.
Then you'd have to rip off the 16's, and install rail guns, with the appropriately sized matching generators, and cabling to handle the loads.
To completely retrofit an Iowa class, with new propulsion, upgraded electrical, and aux. systems, along with all the newest DARPA toys, would probably run north of $5B, easily
To give an example of costs: 20 years ago, 1) G.E. LM2500 cost $6M new.
You'd need 4x LM5000's at today's cost. That's just the engines. No MRG, FSEE, etc., etc., etc.
>>29691552
>rip off the 16's
holy shit, no.
railguns are cool as hell and everything, but they just cannot deliver the firepower that a 16"/50 can.
>>29691552
Well would it need a new propulsion system? From what I'm hearing elsewhere in the thread is that it'll just fire it's missiles (and possibly rail guns) from long range so it won't really need a big speed increase
>>29691552
>>29691865
I mean hell, it can already do 32 knots fully loaded, and for something that heavy, thats about the best you'll get
>>29691589
What the fuck would it do with them, shore bombardment? They sure as hell won't be engaging surface ships. Those 16" have absolute dog shit range. Railguns could be integrated into its air-defense suite while also having the capability of land attack almost 200 miles out.
>>29691326
>muh cheese whiz
And missiles are getting harder and harder to seduce. Chaff only really works for centroid seekers and IR countermeasures are falling behind too.
>>29692017
it can have railguns, but not in place of the 16"s.
the 16"s have too much raw firepower to pass up.
and you can make up with their 20 mile range with an assload of missiles.
>>29689144
>casemate guns as a sort of torpedo CIWS
>>29690789
The thing is, we have the technology to make a 16" gun fire 10x as far. And scramjet shells that are basically missiles would outrange anything short of ICBMs. A battleship like that could practically never leave port and still provide fire support, and mass production of shells and barrels would make it more affordable than missiles.
And, yes... a modern battleship, to meet the definition of "battleship" would have to be able to tank a missile spam and still be able to defend itself then come home under its own power. So it would weigh a bit.
>>29690894
Forcing the enemy to spend the time to design a counter could be all the time you need to turn the tide of a war. It's still worth it if you can keep it up your sleeve.
Kinetic energy isn't all there is, either. A pound of lead and a pound of feathers can have the same kinetic energy, but we use lead in warfare for a reason. And those WW2 battleship designers faced their worse nightmares. Nobody could have seen how powerful aircraft was becoming. They had to refit ships with torpedo buldges. They were never designed to counter such threats in paper where it all began. And the Soviets only had a small handful of those fuckhuge missiles which they would have used sparingly.
And shooting down a missile isn't the same as shooting down a bullet as heavy as a school bus. It's like saying you can shoot down meteors with ship defense systems... It's just not going to work. They weren't designed to kill that much dense material! Much less salvos of it.
>>29690932
To this day an Iowa class using its main battery can beat the fuck out of the majority of humanities population. We all live that near to a water source it could get to.
>>29690981
BECAUSE IT'S COOL AS FUCK. It's in our history, they are a part of our identity and national pride!! And the last few generations have been denied such great things.
cont
>>29688898
>>29688932
>>29691865
IF they were going to upgrade, this is where they'd have to start. From what I've heard thos old boilers were unreliable, not to mention the cost to run them.
This why we evolved into diesels, and gas turbines, reliability, and op. costs.
>>29692046
Still leaves counter missiles and with guidance technology on the rise you can use faster and more agile missiles to take out the big ship killers.
>>29692136
Are there any records of the Iowa class ships having engine troubles? Because i haven't heard of them being that unreliable
>>29691021
I'm a BB fanboy and even I'll admit they sucked at it. However they were still impressive AA considering the multi use and improvisation.
>>29691175
No, IIRC fast battleships weren't designed to take what they could put out. They were a cross between heavy cruisers and pocket battleships.
>>29691232
He shouldn't have told you that.
>>29691326
Thanks, believe in the dream.
>>29691552
Modernizing the Iowa's is virtually like restoring the Washington monument at this point. They are legendary ships and should not ever be scrapped. They deserve more. They should be like castles in Europe, something Americans never had. A wonder for millennia to come. They are the closest we've had to castles.
>>29691589
I calculated once that the main and secondary batteries from an Iowa can deliver as much ordinance in one hour as 50 B1 bombers. They were truly impressive.
>>29692017
Their shells didn't even integrate base bleeding. We could easily double or triple their range today.
>>29692171
Can't speak for other systems, but Aegis- class platforms are DOF 0 for Russian and Chinese missiles that were made in the nineties, even with new algorithms.
>>29688955
You obviously don't know the pains associated when working with old military equipment when I use stuff from the 80's and that shit breaks (if it's not broken already) and malfunctions. It would be a nightmare to maintain. Sure it would cool but we don't fucking do things because they are cool the 16in on the Iowa would be fucking useless today no one is stupid enough to get that close.
>>29692215
Well they were only retired about 10-11 years ago dude so they're still relatively modern and in modern warfare there is very little in terrorist arsenals to harm them as well
>>29688390
>modern naval combat
Hmm....
>USS whatever is gloating off the coast of Somalia
>just a normal day on the sea, sun shining, waves nice a calm
>Captain looking through is bino's
>all is quite admiral
>wait, I see a skiff, 240, 1 klick out
>"ALL HANDS TO BATTLE STATIONS"
>siren blairs
>comma guys going frantic, trying to reach the vessel over radio
>now is 950m out
>CO gives orders to fire on vessel
>its approaching another USS fairly close
>main cannons spin around slowly
>raise up
>"FIRE"
>a shell bigger than the little fishing boat itself hits the target
>doesn't even explode, just denigrates it completely from impact
>"target down, sir"
Way to much over kill for MODERN combat. Maybe in the future if we start a war with china or Russia. However, I have thought about winning the lotto to buy one and going out to hunt pirates.
lot of over-estimation of the actual protective abilities of armor in this thread. As well as the usefulness of the 16in guns.
A modern BB is just as sexy and just as useless as a mechwarrior, whose threads crop up just as frequently on this board.
>>29691552
>G.E. LM2500
why go gas? I want nuclear reactors for power
>>29692287
>purchase BB
>put together a rag tag band of /k/ommandos
>take to the seas as privateers
Sounds good on paper, in practice the BB would run aground about 10 seconds into her maiden voyage.
>>29692369
ship would also be dirty as fuck, rusted to shit, and maintained by hopes and dreams
>my dick quivered at the thought though
>>29692369
Arrghhh I'm with ya matey!!!
>>29692287
>using the main guns at that close range
no, fuck no.
they would just light it up with the bofors and shit.
everyone focuses on the main guns, but even without them, the iowas were a floating fucking fortress
>>29692399
But it would be ours anon,it would be ours
All this talk about armored belts and fancypants bullshit.
There's nothing a battleship can do to stop a single F35 from lazily floating over and dropping a pair of JDAMs down its smokestacks. The deck armor on the Iowas was matchsticks compared to its belt.
Modern naval combat has nothing to do with exchanging fire from ranges a gun can reach. But any and all REAL naval combat is done by aircraft nowadays. Missiles can at least punch out to ranges where they can have an impact.
So now we're left with what? Shore bombarment? Whoop de fucking doo, it can do something that wasnt even truly effective in WWII. A huge single task platform like that is useless in the modern navy.
>>29692328
>lot of over-estimation of the actual protective abilities of armor in this thread.
Yes, an Exocet or Harpoon would easily sink an Iowa. Come on now - while armor would be far from impenetrable, it would preform fine against all but the largest fuck huge anti-ship missiles.
>>29692629
Why would we bomb our own battleship? This is the U.S were talking about here we ALWAYS have air superiority so your argument doesn't make sense
>>29692629
BB's at least for the U.S could remain reasonably effective as no other other nation on earth has the carriers and naval air strength of the U.S which means that a BB properly supported could get into effective range and blow shit up with it's main battery without threat of air attack
>>29692741
advances in firepower have far outstripped advances in passive defense. Ship defense is now about active defense like aegis, CIWS etc, not armor. The amount of armor needed to reasonably protect a ship from modern munitions would weigh so much as to make it useless.
Let me restate that: The armor needed to provide sufficient defense against the massive kinetic and explosive energy from modern ship and air launched munitions would make a ship, at best, immobile, and at worst a very expensive artificial reef.
not very well. Modern engines wouldn't improve their speed, or maneuverability, and the biggest threat to large ships of war is Torpedoes. Even with modern counter measures against torpedoes their odds of survival aren't that great. It makes sense for carriers because if you weigh the benefits of being able to attack a target 1k miles away from the coast, it makes sense attached group of other ships to protect it. Just being able to fire rounds 16-20 nautical miles onto shore, doesn't add much benefit. For beach landings, great, you can park a stealthy, light weight Zumwalt off the coast and cover landing parties, then GTFO.
>>29692890
>could get into effective range and blow shit up with it's main battery without threat of air attack
Why the fuck would we do that when the carrier that is giving it air cover can just launch strike wings that are a thousand times more effective itself. Also all the Burkes and shit that are keeping the strike group company having plenty of missiles that again, can do the anti-ship job just as well.
>>29692629
After the Falklands, and the Sheffield sinking, an Admiral did a presser on the recommissioning of the BBs. He was asked what would they do if one of the Exocets hit one of the Battleships, what would the repairs require. His look of 'how stupid are you' was priceless, the answer was better: "Well, I guess we'd have to use some paint."
>>29693148
Because with the advances in AA technology and more advanced SAMs you'd have a big risk of losing multi-million dollar warplanes
>>29693047
So you DO think a Harpoon would sink an Iowa? The answer is no it fucking wouldn't. Also, for the love of god - being reasonably armored (Iowa) and possessing active defense systems are not mutually exclusive. You can look at the 80's refit if you disagree.
>>29693324
look at the deactivation a decade ago if you disagree.
>>29693386
Um, ok?
The deativation doesn't tell me the effectiveness of Iowa-like armor and modern anti-ship missiles. You know, what we're discussing here? The deativation a decade ago doesn't tell me the utility and possibilities of a modernized ship in 2016.
You are so fucking retarded it hurts. Jesus Christ.
>>29693240
Even with modern AAA you need assets in the air to reliably stop a carrier flight of EW and strike aircraft, nevermind the fact that you're nowhere in range of whatever launched those aircraft.
To which the vast majority of SAM duties are handled by other ships in the fleet. So we have the point again, what exactly does the BB contribute other than being a massive target.
>>29693324
literally no one is suggesting that a single harpoon missile will sink an Iowa. You do know that that 1980's missile isn't exactly the epitome of modern AShM technology, nor is you "just put more steel on it" a valid defense against said AShM tech.
That fact that you seen to think that you know better than literally every modern naval power just shows how delusional your belief is that battleshits are anything but really cool relics.
>>29693505
>what exactly does the BB contribute other than being a massive target.
they can be like school mascots at football games. They are about as useful.
>>29692284
Thanks for admitting it.
The Iowa's are strong as fuck.
>>29693557
And I want to fuck them both.
>>29693538
>literally no one is suggesting that a single harpoon missile will sink an Iowa
Well that's what you were implying with "Let me restate that: The armor needed to provide sufficient defense against the massive kinetic and explosive energy from modern ship and air launched munitions would make a ship, at best, immobile, and at worst a very expensive artificial reef.".
>1980's missile isn't exactly the epitome of modern AShM technology
>Nothing has changed for the Harpoon since the 80's
Only one of the most widely used anti-ship missiles today. At the same time, BrahMos aside, most AShMs pack a similar punch.
>"just put more steel on it" a valid defense against said AShM tech.
You bet your ass it would be a valid added defense. And I'll say it again - reasonably armored (Iowa) and possessing active defense systems are not mutually exclusive.
>That fact that you seen to think that you know better than literally every modern naval power just shows how delusional your belief is that battleshits are anything but really cool relics.
Brilliant rebuttal and strawman. I applaud you. Seriously.
I'm not even a BBfag here. I'm just someone who hates faggots spewing bullshit (You).
Saw the USS NJ, & it is a Big Ship with a Lot of systems in place for Tomahawk & Harpoons. But the guns are Paramount over all that.
>>29693776
>most AShMs pack a similar punch
The mighty 'poon has a fairly low blast yield as well as a fucktarded seeker easily seduced by chaff, nevermind AECMs. Harpoon is low pucker factor.
>>29693832
There you go spewing bullshit again. Feel free to form a valid non-meme argument any time.
>>29693914
Just tell me why I'm wrong anon. No reason to get crass, buddy.
>>29693776
>Brilliant rebuttal and strawman. I applaud you. Seriously.
Calling it a "strawman" doesn't magically make it irrelevant to the argument. Don't you suppose there is a reason modern naval surface vessels forego armor? Could it possibly be that the armor doesn't provide enough protection to justify the cost?
The fact is that it is easier to deliver explosives than it is to armor something enough to protect against it.
Just get over your fucking modern BB fantasy already
>>29693538
>just put more steel on it isn't a valid defense
isn't that literally the only protection ships have when it comes to armor?
sure, you have countermeasures and EW and shit, but if you get hit, you're fucked.
modern ships are paper fucking mache.
but whatever. we're gonna modernize a goddamn iowa and here's how the fuck we're gonna do it.
>nuclear power
no more fucking fossil fuel. nuclear power, and more efficient systems to get more power to the water
>azimuth thrusters
replace the rudder and props with these fuckers.
they can take the iowa and turn it on a dime.
>a full goddamn electrical overhaul
full EW suite, full countermeasures, tomahawks, CIWS, all of that shit. of course, leave the manual systems in place as backups.
>autoloaders if possible
holy shit, this thing could be orders of fucking magnitude more efficient if autoloaders ran the guns.
>better designed guns and more efficient powder
make those shells travel farther, faster and more accurately.
>scramjet shell capability
a goddamn 14" (because it would have to be sub-caliber to function correctly) jet traveling at a mach or two will fuck your day up.
>drone chopper deck
an ability to launch a firescout chopper could DRASTICALLY help the new iowas.
>torpedo launchers
the other secondary armament is fine, but some mk32 torp launchers couldn't hurt.
this thing would be so massive, it would probably be closer to a montana class when it was done, which is totally fine, since the montana is goddamn awesome.
bring back the battleship.
>>29693939
Wrong about what specifically? And I'm not your buddy, bud.
>>29693996
>spewing bullshit
What was wrong with what I posted? I'm curious, maybe you know something I don't.
I'd like to learn.
Surface warfare wise, even if you put a shit ton of CWIS, it will still be overwhelmed by AShMs where enemy fleet can safely launch from the range of those obsolete guns.
>>29694083
in other words, still a sitting duck
>>29692064
That would be hilarious if it would work.
>>29694083
>>29694099
it's not like this thing is gonna be running solo.
if it got modernized, it would roll with a CBG or a few DDs.
also, anything that can hit the iowa, the iowa could hit back with its own missiles.
the guns aren't obsolete either, we could fix them and make them more efficient.
also, scramjet shells are a thing.
>>29689144
could something that big exist within the laws of physics?
I mean, wouldn't the square cubed law fuck that thing?
also USS Leviathan would've been a much better name
>>29694122
so you want it to sail with DD's or in a CBG, to fill a role that is currently being filled by DD's and the other ships in the CBG?
What exactly is the damn thing suppose to do that isn't already being done by ships that wont get outranged?
>>29694039
You were wrong about everything that you said.
The Harpoon isn't the same as it was in the 80's. There's these things people call "blocks", they're upgraded versions of existing weapon systems. Your claim of "easily seduced by chaff" is straight bullshit.
The Harpoon is not that low of yield compared to most popular fielded systems, land and especially air launched.
The more you know.
>>29693993
Project HARP or RAP projectiles would help with the range for the mainguns
wouldnt it be better to research more ways to attach SM-6s on it ? instead of torpedoes, anytime it would go out it would be part of a group
>>29694214
well, nuclear naval bombardment, show of force, landing support, and being fucking awesome.
because let's face it, the moment someone tries to sink one of these things, it's WW3, and if we can have tactical warheads on tap anywhere in the world, we should.
>>29694214
Shoot at Chinese islands for fun ?
>>29694224
how about both?
why not add ASM equipment and one of those towable detector things too?
the whole point of this would be to do everything and still have massive firepower.
like a burke, but with more balls.
>>29694235
Literally all of those things can and are being done by CV's, including the "you start ww3 if you sink me" role.
>>29694254
because even a shitty corvette would blow it the fuck out.. you battle shipfags need to just quit
>>29694254
Because space is at a premium in it, even if its huge ?
so if we want to get firepower focus on the kind of firepower that makes it unique for its role, let the other ships do ASM and Torp runs
>>29694214
Deploying a Battleship these days is a political message. It's like flopping a big meaty dick on the table. It's pure intimidation. It's big and scary and has a history. Take it and park it in that sea China is starting a pissing match over. Just park it there, that'll be enough to silence everyone. It's a message.
>>29694275
>muh armor!
>muh 16in guns!
>>29694275
Same electronics package, the Iowa has more armor, more missiles and its own escorts, so any lone corvette would be shit out of luck
could a CVBG take out a Iowa and its supporting ships ?, certainly it can stand off at a much greater range and fire ASHM from its planes AND its ships if needed, having more missiles go out then coming in
but seeing how America owns most of the CVs i dont think its much of a threat
>>29694279
>Deploying a CBG these days is a political message. It's like flopping a big meaty dick on the table. It's pure intimidation. It's big and scary and has a history. Take it and park it in that sea China is starting a pissing match over. Just park it there, that'll be enough to silence everyone. It's a message.
fixed that for ya
>>29694289
The guns should never even enter into the equation, only time they are important are when they are sending 2700 pounds of death down on some chinks on a artificial island
>>29694222
You're right and wrong at the same time anon, but it's beddy-bye time so I'll let it go.
Hugs and Kisses
>>29694295
>america owns most of the things that can kill a modern Iowa, so we should make one.
but.... that's not a reason to have one?
>>29694214
Pretty much this. What role does BB serve that current ships can't offer? Land bombardment that Zumwalts can do better at it??
I see only one way for existing BBs to remain relevant, but this assumes a budget with no limits for maintenance.
Keep the hull, replace the guns and turn it into a VLS arsenal ship.
>>29694295
>muh armor argument again
Just admit you're wrong already. Even something like the small Norwegian NSM would tear right through the armored parts of a battleship.
>>29694275
I mean, not really.
I'll use a chinese type 56 as the example.
it has;
>1 76mm gun
>2 30mm guns
>4 YJ83 AShMs
>8 FL3000N SAMs
>6 324mm torps
the SAMs are useless in this fight, so we'll forget those.
the modernized iowas have tomahwaks, ciws, and outrange the guns that the Type 56 has.
also, it was built to get the shit beat out of it by nearly equivalent ships.
the Iowa will fucking rape that thing into the ground.
>>29694318
Sleep tight. Tell your wife's son I said hello.
>>29694327
no, i dont think personally that they should be reactivated,
could they be made a integral part of the USN ?, yes with the right doctrine and upgrade packages, but there is NO reason to do that, still its cool to discuss how they would fare IF that was done
IMO the only thing i would ever use them for is bombarding Fortified static naval positions, such as chinas artificial islands
>>29694377
if anything, the current iowas shouldn't be reactivated, new ones should be built.
if we totally modernized them, there would be nothing left.
Just a reminder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd5MqjvhW9c
>>29694337
they wouldnt, but it wouldnt take many anyways to cripple it and render it unimportant
besides the question was not about the Iowa tanking missiles, it was if the missiles the Iowa fires at the corvette would kill it, before it kills the Iowa with its missiles, i just wanted to highlight that its a stupid thing to discuss, the Iowa will allways come out on top there
>>29694389
making new ones would be so extremely expensive that it you might as well modernize the ones you have instead
Remeber, the discussion is, what IF the BBs of old where modernised, not what if we made new ones that where modern
>>29694350
one modern anti ship missile would put it at the bottom of th sea just like every other ship. so much for your delusional billion dollar fantasy
>>29694433
One would not instantly K-kill it, but it could certainly render it combat ineffective
>>29694433
I mean, you're wrong, but okay.
ASMs are designed to kill modern light armored shit.
a battleship is designed to fucking tank hits with double the power of a modern ASM.
now if you swarmed the iowa with ASMs, the iowa is fucked, just like any other ship.
>>29694377
rewriting doctrine to shoehorn in a ship for the lulz doesn't sound like a valid military strategy.
As far as bombarding chinese artificial islands, we need to have air superiority over that area to keep the battleship from being shit on, which if we have we would just use it to bomb the islands....from the air...that we would control. Still no need for a goddamn battleship.
>>29694336
you guys are forgetting the one role that BB's excel at more than any other class of ship............
Being museum pieces.
>>29694470
yes that is what i said, there is no need to put the Iowa in there, but the discussion was, WHAT IF we used a modern Battleship
>>29694492
that is a important role, that or being a luxury yatch for a billionaire that gets a hardon from deactivated old ships
>>29688904
No. Nobody needs a that large scarry assault ship.
>>29694155
>could something that big exist
In theory yes, in practice no.
Its a kilometer long, 350m wide and has a draft of over 100 feet. It makes supertankers that require special offshore terminals look like river craft. Finding a port that it could dock at, much less a shipyard to build and service it would be virtually impossible.
>>29694405
i've spent this entire thread shitting on the concept of modernized BB's, and while that was a totally garbage movie........i do love that scene. I need to go rub one out.
>>29694459
>ASMs are designed to kill modern light armored shit.
t. someone who has no idea what they are talking about
the armor might as well not even be there it will blow it up the same as some 1/20 sized ship
>>29694572
which is not true at all, If it hits the side, The vertical side armor consists of an upper and lower belt which is inclined to an angle of 19 degrees. The total depth of the belt is 38 feet 6 inches and extends from just before turret 1 to just aft of turret 3. The upper belt is Class A armor, 12.1 inches thick, while the lower belt is Class B armor, 12.1 inches thick at the top and tapered to 1.62 inches at the bottom.
while it would get killed, the armor is important, these missiles are NOT made to penetrate anything thats carrying around a lot of armor, does it make the Iowa invunerable, NO but it will help prevent it from being taken down with one single missile
>>29694612
whatever you say kid
>>29694612
also just because
9 X 16 inch guns
12X 5 inch guns
80X 40mm bofors guns
49X 20mm oerlikons
32X tomahawks
16X harpoons
4X CIWS
4X 35mm Bushmaster
12X M2 .50
and five RQ-7 Shadow UAVs to use
>>29694637
Did i get any of it wrong ?, if so could you please show me what part of it
>>29694459
>a battleship is designed to fucking tank hits with double the power of a modern ASM.
Nah.
>16" Mod 8 AP out of 16" L/50
Mass: 1,225kg
MV: 739m/s
KE: 334.5 MJ
>P-270 Moskit/SS-N-22 Sunburn
Mass: 4,500kg
V: 1,020m/s
KE: 2,340 MJ
>>29694730
Composition matters, that missile will penetrate the outerbulkhead and explode, thus making very little damage per missile, it would still be overwhelmed and die from several but one would not kill it
>>29689481
The irony is the reason the Reagan administration brought the Iowas out of mothballs and modernized them was because of the Kirovs.
>>29694744
is that not just a urban legend ?
>>29694743
>that missile will penetrate the outerbulkhead and explode
Nope.
These are designed to take out 100,000 ton super carriers and are thus fused to inside of large ships.
>>29694743
to add to that, ofc any attack coming in from the top could kill it, but we are again straying from the fact that it would have its own group with it, just like it did in 1980, with that protection, its not more vunerable against missiles
>>29694784
so it hits the outer side of the Iowa, which is not its armour, then it has to penetrate its armour and then there is a BIG space inside there before it can do damage, yes a volley will kill it, a single one wont
>>29694804
>being in denial this hard
>>29693993
JDAM down the smokestack
How do you counter?
Oh right, you cant
>>29694784
Missouri was hit by a Iraqi Silkworm missile in 1991 during the gulf war, it put a dent in the hull (which is still there) and that was it.
>>29694888
SUPRISE, if that happens, and i am the Iowa, then i counter it by taking massive and catastrophical damage, i assume you get fired for dropping a JDAM down a friendly ships smokestack
>>29694804
A single one would do a number on the radar assemblies involved with fire control.
>>29694866
its not denial, i am saying that YES missiles will kill it, one will not, that ship was much smaller, was hit by two missiles so it seems as if it was penetrated through and through, and the Iowa still has its outer shell and then 38 feet of stuff before the missile can do much
ONCE AGAIN not invinsible, but that is gonna help it survive a bit longer
>>29694908
it would, and it might put it out of the fight completely
>>29694903
>>29694922
either you're a shitty troll or you're just retarded. Iowas are obsolete and their armour would get ripped apart harder than your buttchecks when your dad rapes you.
>>29694889
BULLSHIT, the missile was shot down 640 yards out from the Missouri
>>29694889
That never happened, two missiles were ired as Missouri, and both misses, one was then destroyed by a British ship.
Missouri was hit and damaged (muh armour) by Phalanx fire from a USN frigate.
>>29694804
The missile has seven times the energy of a point blank 16" round.
Its going to fuck the ship up. Mission kill if not cat kill.
>>29694889
But that never happened.
>>29694948
One was, the second was a hit, the Iraqi's didn't even paint the Missouri, they fired them blind and traced at the last second, one was shot down not enough time for both.
>>29694940
wouldnt it be my sphincter that gets ripped apart ?, or is he grabbing my ass cheeks to hard ?
either way i dont see how >>29694903 could be counter to what you are saying ?
>>29694975
neither hit, the HMS glouchester shot it down with a searrow
>>29694968
Energy is not everything, if the missile can not sustain its integrity and yields before the armor, or explodes after penetrating the outer wall but before it can penetrate the inner it does very little real damage
a good example is the use of the Aim-9, you can fire it against ground targets, but it wont do much against the front of a M1A1H, due to its design
>>29695023
>searrow
Seadart
>>29694954
the second one would have hit but got shot down, and it was the Jarrett that damaged her, but only superficially
>>29695023
>neither hit, the HMS glouchester shot it down with a searrow
Tough to find info one the second one, U.S propaganda only acknowledges the one, there were 2 missiles.
One was shot down, the second was to late and the Gloucester's CIW's pumped Missouri full of rounds AFTER it hit, to add insult to injury.
>>29695058
my misstake, my english is fairly bad, so sometimes when i try to translate in my head, words get jumbled up
>>29695077
NO
there where two missiles, the first one missed, the second one MIGHT have hit but the HMS gloucester shot it down, the Jarrett used its CIWS which hit the Missouri, but only caused superficial damage
the Missouri never even had to abort its mission and get repairs for it in dock
>>29695062
>the second one would have hit but got shot down
It the second had already missed. It passed between Mo and Gloucester from stern to bow and was destroyed several hundred meters forward of the battleship.
The USN was actually pretty pissed at the RN after the incident.
>>29695106
thats weird, because that goes counter to EVERY description of the incident that i have ever seen, describing a over the shoulder shot by Gloucester, and the missile being killed 600-700 meters away from the Missouri
>>29695141
ALSO completely unrelated to this, does anybody remember those Molle attaching magazines that stored magazines ?, i remember they where mocked here around 2010 or so, might have been as early as 2008 i guess, anyways if anybody remembers, what the fuck was the name of those ?
>>29695077
>Tough to find info one the second one, U.S propaganda
Hurrrr
>>29695141
>http://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/archives/command-operation-reports/ship-command-operation-reports/j/jarrett-ffg-33-i/1991.pdf
>and the missile was eventually destroyed by HMS GLOUCESTER (D 96) as it passed clear of the formation.
There is a really good description of the entire incident somewhere, but I can't find it yet.
>>29695255
no,no i belive you, and i am sorry i allways understood it as 600-700 meters infront of it, not after it cleared, thanks for the link
>>29695264
ah might it be this one ?
https://defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com/2014/11/13/missile-vs-missile-hms-gloucesters-finest-hour/
>>29695271
The one I mentioned was a .pdf from a history or official reccord of USS Missiouri. All old links are just 404ing.
>>29695291
might still be found with the wayback machine, still, its a amazing milestone
>>29692215
Nah, the Iowa's were built to withstand the old mark 5 16" shell, but with the development of the newer, and heavier, Mark 8 superheavy 16" shell all that was thrown out the window. The Iowa's weren't even laid down yet and a major wrench had just been thrown into the plans. BuOrd tried to fix this but with the displacement and plans already set out it was too late. The unexpected benefit though was that of led to more advanced make ups and heat treating techniques for US armored plates. Meaning that despite its *only* 12" thick belt it was much more effective armor than that of Japan which was still using old WW1 British styles of steel forging and hardening.
>>29689402
>>29689359
>>29689489
The weight of the 80's upgrades, as well as the age and unreliability of the ships meant that they never even met their planned (mandated by congressional dick waving) max speed of 27kt.
>>29688390
What about a battleship/aircraft carrier/floating fortress made out of pykrete. You could have the hull be tens of feet thick. You could then have coolant running through pipes in the hull. Also, if it was breached, it still wouldn't sink.
It would be especially perfect for the coming arctic conflicts/wars.
>>29688390
Yeah, just make sure it can glide, is amphibious and has 4 man turrets.
>>29689144
Needs to be a submarine, Needs to have turrets that can rise above the surface to fire.
Needs to be able to fire railguns under water.
>>29696562
Nah bruh put it in space and have it fire down to earth.
>>29694336
If it gets in range with it's 16in guns any surface target dies. No exceptions. Modern warships don't have the armor to resist that kind of firepower they'll just be annihilated
>>29695681
Now you're just lying to me.
Maintain one 16 inch turret and two 5 inch turrets. Replace the rest with VLS launchers. Maybe put two F-35Bs on there if you have enough deck space. Keep the armor. Add CIWS/RAM/ESSM, etc.
>>29696900
Battlecarrier?
>>29696933
Battlestar. Basically a Star Destroyer on the high seas.
I can't believe nobody has mentioned this yet.
In WWII, there were several cases of guided antiship missiles being used. Most famously, the Fritz X missile, launched from a plane and guided by radio commands from a guy inside the plane.
One of them hit the Italian battleship Roma and absolutely fucked it's shit up hard and sank it. Penetration was insane.
There are a handful of other cases too.
So yes, 70+ years ago they were already capable of making an antiship missile that could rape a battleship. If anyone in the world started designing a new battleship today, it would take maybe 6 months before other countries just come up with a variant of a missile made to wreck it.
Grow up kiddies. Battleships have been obsolete for 70 years and they're not coming back.
>>29695681
Sooo, they stripped literally tons of secondary guns and ammo magazines, the 20mm and 40mm, which added weight.
Riiiight.
And unloading a pickup truck adds to loaded weight in your bizzaro world.
>>29696997
I wonder how effective that would be? Guns for closer ranges, missiles and air for long range might actually be pretty decent
>>29693993
This is pure fantasy and anyone who believes any part of this is retarded. Real life isn't a video game where you just spend some XP to upgrade the guns, spend some credits to buy a new engine, etc.
>>29689028
That ship is far too short for its supposed maximum speed of 30 kn.
>>29688390
Let's replace the cannons with railguns
>>29688390
This kills the battleship.
>>29697013
The Roma was a very shitty itallian battleship. It only had 6 inches of deck armor and no citadel.
It still took two hits to kill.
>>29692814
You do realize that it takes just one single high yield detonation at high altitude for the EMP to turn your entire airforce into something less useful in warfare than a pair of dragon dildoes, right?
>>29697378
Nod really. All military equipments is shielded against EMP.
>>29693673
>The Iowa's are strong as fuck.
Yes, against terrorists armed with boats loaded with fertilizer, not against any decent navy that can get old russian ASMs.
>>29697402
KInda. Things like radio and radar can't be shielded since they'd be rendered mostly useless. The controls should still work but you're basically down to the Mark 1 eyeball for just about everything.
No idea if IR sensors would make it.
>>29697407
During the 1980s the USS New Jersey was fitted with more modern anti-missile defenses. It's not absurd to think these defenses can be upgraded further.
Because of the requirements to penetrate the 12 inches of belt armor, AShMs used against the New Jersey would need to be bigger and more expensive. As a result, it would be harder to saturate the New Jersey's anti-missile defenses or ECM.
>>29694155
No.
Besides everything that >>29694562 said you'd also have to deal with the fact that the ship can't sail through any of our current canals so getting it to the other side of a continent or from ocean to ocean would take forever.
>>29697310
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littorio-class_battleship#Armor
Come on, how stupid can you be?
>>29697402
The only way an electronic equipment can be shielded efficiently from an EMP is to have it completely enclosed in a Faraday cage. every thing that gets in and out of that renders it useless simply because the currents involved will fry everything connected to them. So you see, you might still have a functioning airplane, but it will be uncontrollable because the guidance/steering computers will be fried and its navigation computers gone - no, dischargers and disconnecters won't work at those yields, they have never been designed for that simply because the designers knew it would be a wasted effort. The moment the EMP hits you'll end up with a blob of metal.
>>29697435
>The controls should still work but you're basically down to the Mark 1 eyeball for just about everything.No idea if IR sensors would make it.
No, not even the controls would make it - for them to work they must receive airspeed and angle informations from sensor that simply cannot be shielded if you want them to work. And when these sensors, just like the IR ones, will get hit they will not only get fried but they will channel the currents directly into the computers frying them also.
So at best you'll end up with a blind and uncontrollable plane, at worst with a completely dead one, a falling brick.
>>29689028
512 MJ railgun fucking when?
>>29698099
The air speed sensors are mostly mechanical with a few electrical parts that can be shielded. Likewise, accelerometers and gyros are entirely internal and can be shielded. You can keep the power surge out of the computers with just fuses and the control circuits can likewise be shielded. The control lines themselves can be protect by just switching to coaxial cable if they aren't coaxial already.
As for the engines...Not so good. The intake fan is going to take the pulse hard and it's connected to the main shaft. The electric charge is going right down the core of the engine. Most likely, all engine monitering instruments are going to be fried and there's no way to tell if the fuel injectors will function, stop functioning, or explode.
>>29697971
6.4 inch deck armor that tapered down to 4.3 over the machine shops. No armored citadel.
Just like I told you, the Roma was a poor battleship. 6.4 inches of armor was something you'd expect on a tank, not a battleship.
>>29689144
I know nothing about ships, the only think I can ask is: How manny tons of displacement?
>>29699393
It weighs as much as your mom.
>>29699420
fucking shit, that's a lot
>>29699302
Yeah and since it was probably land based it would also allow for a more significant yield
>>29694753
Different anon here, I've also heard that the Iowa's were intended to tank missiles when they were reactivated.
Do you idiots really think that the 12 inch steel belt armor of the Iowa class can withstand a modern missile? This is a 120mm Chinese Tank shell penetrating over 40 inches of steel. And even if it couldn't penetrate the citadel, it could easily punch holes in the rest of the ship until she sinks. The Yamato's citadel was never breached and she still sunk.
Why do all the baBBies begging for Battleships to become useful again always go to the Iowas? They were designed to be carrier escorts and their entire military career can be summed up in the words "shooting the ground".
If America ever decides to bring back Battleships, you can bet your ass they're going to create a modern nuclear powered design, not retrofit a 70 year old museum.
>>29701809
Except that most surface vessels aren't armed with these types of warheads most of them are pretty much the same caliber as their DD ancestors in the second world war and a BB would never be in range of those types of weapons the 16in main guns would out range any modern tank weapon by miles
>>29701867
So? The point is that steel is now completely useless as armor because of the refinement of HEAT.
It would be so easy to just swap out the HE warheads on modern missiles to HEAT ones. When word gets around that US is bringing back the battlebarges you can bet your ass that all of her enemies would quickly cap their missiles with an HEAT charge.
I love Battleships, they're my favorite ship class, but their time is over.
>>29701931
What about adding reactive armor plating? If they can do it with armored vehicles they sure as hell could do it with a BB
>>29701931
a: Why the fuck would you be using plain steel for armor in 2016
b: the after armor effects of HEAT warheads is fairly negligible on a large warship
c: ERA & APS on your battleship
I think very much the US should procure modern armored ships. They are needed for facing A2AD near enemy coasts.
They are needed for suppressing coastal defenses & fire support of amphibious assaults
And they are needed for essentially being "bait"
>>29701994
My thoughts exactly anon and everyone in the thread keeps saying ohh muh,Zumwalt muh railgun in regards to shore bombardment when in reality it's an untested system
>>29701809
>Believing Chinese Propaganda
That being siad, 13' of steel ain't gonna do shit to AShM
>>29701953
I honestly don't know. Might be that it would weigh too much. But also consider that people's dedicate their entire careers to designing and developing the future warships of the Navy. The addition of ERA must have come up at one time and they discarded the idea in favor of defenses to prevent being hit in the first place.
>>29701994
I brought up steel armor because there were people in this thread saying that the 12inch steel belt armor of the Iowa can withstand modern anti-ship missiles as the missiles were designed to take out thinly skinned ships.
Since WWII, Naval development has been entirely focused towards preventing being hit in the first place with the sacrifice of armor, but that might be changing soon. The Bongs are developing something called Dynamic armor that is designed to combat HEAT metal streams in large warships. Might be implemented on the Fords.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Armor
>>29702198
Well could it be used with a BB? Because it would make it a lot more survivable against AshMs and most weaponry on modern surface warships (we all know guns on modern cruisers and destroyers won't do shit to hurt it)
