If we added large railguns to sufficiently armoured warships, would the Battleship be practical again?
Unless significant advances were made in regards to armor, no. The battleship will not rule the waves again.
>>30014612
>armoured
bong plz go, you're never getting one
>>30014741
What about point defence?
>>30014781
Not an answer, burgerbro.
>>30014612
a battleship would go nowhere without a sufficient escort & while Wisconsin might not be of much use in ship-to-ship action even with upgrades, shore bombardment is still very much an option especially with smart ammunition for those guns; combat aircraft can't loiter indefinitely while a battleship can in fact remain on-station for as long as there are supplies on board & no hostile ships nor aircraft get close enough to warrant pulling the BB out, 16" HE is cheaper than Tomahawks and can be just as accurate (esp. with smart ammunition, which costs more than "dumb" HE but still much less than a Tomahawk), someone apparently even developed sub-caliber ammunition for those guns that double or even triple the range.
>>30014963
and by "those guns" I of course mean the famous 16" naval guns the Iowa -class ships got when they were built.
>>30014612
No. Guidance is what made battleships obsolete, as long as there are smart weapons, they will stay that way.
>>30014830
What about it? Railguns and kw-sclae fiber lasers both offer good defence ("point defense" is 1970s shit like CIWS, modern weapons like Standards provide networked area defense for all ships online in the system). But invulnerability requiring swarms to defeat isn't practical until MW-scale lasers appear, and those are 30 years away.
>>30015208
>Guidance is what made battleships obsolete, as long as there are smart weapons, they will stay that way.
they developed smart ammunition for Iowa -class' 16" guns before the last two ships were retired, and if you were referring to how vulnerable the battleships would be against smart weapons; those ships had countless AA -guns, replace even just a few of them with Phalanx & assign some sort of escort (a ship of that size would have escorts anyway) and it should be more than enough to deal with just about anything short of a railgun or a nuke.
>>30015287
>they developed smart ammunition for Iowa -class' 16" guns before the last two ships were retired
No one cares. Big fat JDAMs with cripple-fight range, woo. Too short-range for conventional war; explosions too big for COIN (and also too short-ranged).
> those ships had countless AA -guns, replace even just a few of them with Phalanx
Vulnerability is the problem. The inherent meta of guided weapons is that 10 targets with 10 PD guns are geometrically harder to kill than 1 target with 10 PD guns.
>>30015367
>Too short-range for conventional war; explosions too big for COIN (and also too short-ranged)
you seem to have failed to read my earlier comment which mentions sub-caliber ammo that had also been developed which doubled or tripled the range of the guns, little tinkering and you could put the "smart" stuff on those & bam, you'd have rather nice system for providing fire support with reduced costs compared to CAS or guided missiles etc. & the reduced caliber would make the explosions smaller as well, making it possible to bring the fire support closer without risking blue-on-blue.
No because ships don't fight other ships with guns, even with guided rounds it's not going to able to adjust at something moving so fast.
>>30015482
I'm telling you guys, shore bombardment, US navy lacks capability of providing adequate fire support for landing operations, but no, everything must be new & exciting & expensive & retarded, otherwise USN won't even look at it...
Why do that when I can have an arsenal ship and do a better job than the gun boat will ever do?
>>30014612
No.
And while we're at it, neither will light tanks or gliders.
>>30015593
>apability of providing adequate fire support for landing operations
If only the US Navy had 10 (ok, 19) mobile sea-based launchers for long-range munitions buses that themselves fire warheads up to the 2000-lb range.
>>30015643
Woh anon don't shit on light tanks.
>>30014830
Too slow to reload and can't into sustained fire, so would be horrible as a defensive weapon.
>>30014963
You mean the smart munitions that still cost 1.5-2x what a cruise missile does?
>>30014612
No. When the battleships became obsolete, the range of their guns were at pretty much the maximum practical range for unguided munitions anyway.
>>30015593
What is aerieal artillery? I.e carrier jets with air to ground munitions, smart or dumb.
>>30015456
Ooh, going from 24nmi to 72nmi is still 1/10th the range of even a shitty cruise missle and about half the range of a glide bomb (JDAM/JSOM/JASSM) dropped from >30,000ft.
>>30015482
...current production ships aren't really significantly faster than WW2 ships were.
>the USS Iowa had a top speed >32kn
>the Burkes have a top speed ~35kn
The only current ship that's significantly faster than an Iowa is the LCS, at 45kn. Which is still pretty fucking slow.
>>30015650
Fine.
>nor will glider-borne light tanks
Happy now? Trying to stave off a pair of autists that like to shit up these threads.
>>30015735
Chill, now I'll leave you to fight the autists.
>>30015735
Fuck you, it is perfectly feasible to fire light tanks filled with marines from a modernized battleship gun.
>>30015644
19 huge targets that are expensive to deploy, carry a lot of expensive planes armed with expensive weapons that do more damage than is needed for supporting a landing operation, a couple Iowa -class battleships with new computers (already planned when decommissioned) and ammo (already developed and tested when decommissioned), overhauled propulsion (cheaper in the long run than deploying supercarriers to do shore bombardment on the other side of the globe) that reduces the crew requirement, with just these few improvements the US Navy would have a cost-effective weapons platform for supporting landing operations & keep providing fire support as the marines move inland, without having to risk expensive aircraft and valuable pilots to enemy fire.
>>30015660
>You mean the smart munitions that still cost 1.5-2x what a cruise missile does?
how is that even possible, what are you smoking?
>>30015593
Just shut the fuck up Battleship Admiral Dipshit McGee. Every one of your arguments has been crushed in previous threads; you are out of touch with reality. Go away and stay away.
>>>/pol/
These guys might appreciate you more
>>30015691
why don't you read the thread, I have already answered your dumb question, I have already repeated myself more than enough...
>>30015721
Iowa never achieved 30+. 33 is a theoretical maximum for the hull design before additional power starts going up against the problem of diminishing returns. Meanwhile Carriers have done 40 on shakedown cruises.
>>30015807
So the only use for battleships is coastal bombardment, while carriers are multirole.
>>30015825
>Every one of your arguments has been crushed in previous threads; you are out of touch with reality.
well since this is the first time I am talking about this with you retards I wouldn't know what exactly has supposedly been debunked, nor how, why don't you enlighten me?
>>30015807
I'm trying to think of a single point in your post that isn't not only wrong, but implying deeper misunderstandings, but I can't find one.
Suffice it to say, on the off chance a critique of this bizzare memeplex ripped straight from the 1960s based within it's own narrative could succeed in disillusioning you - GMLRS parked on the deck of a Panamax would do it better.
>>30015851
maybe not only use, but that's a job they are very much capable of, and they'd do it for less money than carrier-borne aircraft, and quite possibly be better at getting the job done & with less danger to personnel, that's all I have tried to say here.
>>30015851
"Coastal bombardment" from a battleship isn't happening today. If Hezbollah can get anti-ship missiles - missiles dramatically more effective at killing ships than an array of 16" turrets - what ship would close within range? And if it did, how long would it take to reach the bottom?
>>30014612
a BB? nah.
a heavy cruiser? yeah.
if you put these fuckers on basically a stretched out burke to the point where it was a heavy cruiser, the navy could get their teeth back.
but the battleship, and the whole idea of one, is dead.
>>30015884
>with less danger to personnel
No, they are in much more danger, as different anon's have pointed out.
>better at getting the job done
How? Less range, less versatility, less speed, more vulnerability, less dwell time...and oh yeah, they don't exist, so instead of using existing systems you'd need to refurbish antique crap with all-new funds.
I'm theoretically capable of fighting a 9mm-armed dude with a spear; but why would I buy a fancy $300 spear if I already own a tricked-out AR15?
>>30015900
how do you figure an anti-ship missile launched from land could hit a target beyond the radio horizon, would they just fire them randomly, hoping that the missiles will find a target to lock on & hit before they run out of fuel?
>>30015937
Probably the same way ships do. Except it's easier to find a ship in the middle of the water, compared to that ship trying to find a truck somewhere in and around a city.
>>30015954
yeah, Hezbollah will use Google Earth or some shit to check where USS Wisconsin was yesterday and fire a missile in that direction hoping it's still there while the crew on board Wisconsin certainly wouldn't have access to far more recent satellite images which to use to choose target coordinates for their smart shells...
>>30016010
Hez would locate it with drones and/or fixed-wing "civilian" observation aircraft. And then there's "civilian" boats with their own radars that can patrol beyond a land-based radar horizon.
Keep in mind Hez is literally the second most powerful military in the region. They're not retards.
>>30016045
>Hez would locate it with drones and/or fixed-wing "civilian" observation aircraft. And then there's "civilian" boats with their own radars that can patrol beyond a land-based radar horizon.
and of course dumb 'muricans will let them do that
>>30016155
When you have a carrier, you don't need to murderize civilian shipping to avoid pissing your pants, because your range is measured in 600 to 2000 nautical mile increments, not 20 to 40 km.
>>30016196
as if the coast and airspace wouldn't have been closed to civilian traffic for at least days before the landing begins (remember this started from me mentioning that BBs would still be very much capable of supporting landing operations, then someone started talking about Hezbollah, so I am assuming we are talking about something like USA/coalition force launching a massive operation against Hezbollah while daring Lebanon to interfere), making any violators hostile by default.
Then the landing: let's assume that the section of the coast where the landing is going to take place is defended by a regiment & they have, say, 10 bunkers and triple-A; aircraft can't get close so without BBs with new ammunition the defences would have to be taken out by missiles, a lot of them, each one costing well over a million, but with those BBs the defenses could be bombarded from sea with smart ammunition costing thousands apiece & any spotting aircraft or boats could be taken out by something other than million-dollar missiles, the spotting for the BBs' guns could be initially carried out by satellites, and if necessary once the biggest threats to the landing force's approach have been destroyed Forward Observers in the landing force could take over the spotting.
>>30016155
Hez don't have friendlies at sea. They can just fire and literally forget. Whatever it hits will be beneficial to them.
>>30014612
For a given value of 'sufficient', but the materials for that only exist in theory.
>>30014612
No. The armaments make no difference. Any rail gun that could be made small enough and efficient enough not to melt after a round a minute and not need a dedicated nuclear power plant would be only as powerful as any other conventional ship cannon. It has also been determined that being that close is just stupidly dangerous when the enemy could be removed from 70 miles away.
People in this thread haven't been paying attention to the latest railgun developments.
They now have guided shells that have been tested. This one is the small version, it shoots down planes, ballistic missiles and antiship missiles. When used as artillery I think it has around 100km range, it only needs two trucks to power it. They shot it at a 2 or 3 inch steel plate and it traveled 7km after exiting the other side. For soft targets it ejects pellets just before impact making it like a giant shot gun that travels at mach 6.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3C6lrTkBXU
The one in OPs pic is 10x as powerful and aiming for 400km+ range.
If all that wasn't crazy enough you can potentially shoot incoming torpedoes with supercavitating underwater railgun rounds and maybe even kill submarines near the surface.
Battleship fag pls go.
>>30020389
You should have at least post the latest test footage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc
>>30014612
Passive defense is no longer feasible for a ship, and you need armor to call a ship a battleship. Expect larger destroyers and cruisers instead.
>>30015801
Yoooooo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtBwgwZ1TbM&ab_channel=GamerSpawn
