Modern Iowa
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
>500+ AA missile cells
>10+ CIWS
>hundreds of tomohawks
>hundreds of torpedos
>RAILGUNS AS MAIN GUNS
>enormous antiship missiles
>nuclear reactor powered
>stealth design
>drone launchers
Why not?
>>30303659
>stealth design
The only things that BBs have better than modern ships is aesthetics and you want to take that away too?
>kys
Why not?
Bet you're the same fucking guy that keeps making these shitty threads too.
Because it would still be a big, fat and expensive target.
>>30303659
>Railgun
Stop falling in this meme, we wont see a Railgun operation never...
Why?
Missiles do the job just great or the modern guided artillery rounds.
Also the fuck ton of energy that demand to shot a single shell.
>>30303659
Just throw on a laser CIWS and you're done until you can role out a whole new fleet adapted for that style of warfare and weather the significant fallout of causing an arms race.
>>30303659
Because that would be too powerful to pretend it was built for a peacekeeping navy.
The world can't handle its awesomeness.
I love battleships, they are the closest thing America has to compare to European castles in my opinion.
>>30303659
>Modern Iowa
It's called Nakhimov.
>>30303659
>Modern Iowa
Here OP, an Iowa for the modern age.
>>30303659
because you wouldn't be able to afford the rest of the navy
>>30303659
because OP is a faggot
At that point you might as well just throw out the Iowa and build an arsenal ship from scratch.
>>30303919
>we'll stop advancing
>nuclear power isn't cheaper on a nuclear ship than missiles
>we'll just stagnate technologically
>>30303659
Why don't we take a cargo ship, and load it with as missiles as it can carry, and have it dragged by another ship that handles all of the computer and targeting aspects?
>>30303659
>all eggs
>one basket
Allow me to hijack this shitty thread and ask a legitimate question.
Is there any way battleships could be brought back into relevance on the modern battlefield?
>>30305348
what do you mean by 'battleship'?
passive armor is never coming back, bar some amazing break through in material science that no one in the world right now can foresee. aircraft provide amazing flexibility and with rail guns, if you want to maintain that high velocity, you have to have a flat trajectory. this sort of precludes them being used for stand-off strike. and makes electronic guidance a bit of an issue, although i suppose they could just use them instead of powder charges for lower velocity projectiles.
a railgun/laser armed air/missile defense cruiser? sure, terminal phase interception these are probably going to be the best weapons out there due to the velocity their offensive medium obtains. maybe not so great for a 1000 mile curved earth shot though. i might be wrong.
>>30305348
Ehh, survivability, and think of how hard it would be to stop a 16in shell.
>>30305777
>survivability
means nothing if its mission killed. If a BB requires as much support as a carrier, it better be able to do as much as a carrier. Even a light carrier, or an amphibious warfare ship with VTOL F35s would be much better at everything than a hypothetical iowa with magical 16inch machine guns and 10 feet of belt armor, because a cruise missile will still mission kill said BB by robbing it of its radar and such.
>>30303659
Modern Iowa.
>Stealth Design
>BB
>Many Weapons...
Just no, like no, BBs aren't suppose to be floating invisible one combat armada.
>>30303659
Great ideas, OP. Let me add a few more:
>Long thin wings
>Anti gravity thrusters
>Ray shielding
>Droid crews
>Yamato cannon
>Holographic camo
Did I missed anything?
Battlefags are stuck in the 1940's
the p800 can penetrate 780mm of hardened steel.
welcome to 2016.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=294by85-JqU&spfreload=10
>>30307514
my dick can penetrate 780mm of your mother
>>30307532
Modern battleships do exist albeit, there guns have been updated with more powerful anti ship missiles and their passive Armour swapped out for active Armour.
But these threads keep coming up over and over because A, muh guns and B its not an American ship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battlecruiser_Admiral_Nakhimov
>>30307747
>muh guns
You really could have just left it at that.
well to start one thing wrong with your plan is the iowa and sister ships are completely unservicable today. The cost of having to redo the wiring and electrical systems of the ship would so far outweigh building a new ship that it wouldnt happen. Not to mention having to go through and strip all the asbestos blankets and asbestos fire protection systems and replace every hose on the ship...
>>30305108
I wanna be her supply ship, if you know what I mean.
If cost was no worry, a massive nuclear powered ship with armor, anti aircraft systems, 18 inch guns, torpedoes, and tomahawks would only be useful if in favorable geographic locations or with a strong battlegroup.
It'd be very useful for blocking shipping lanes or interdicting an enemy naval group into a tight spot.
>>30307747
>passive Armour swapped out for active Armour
We EVE now. Feels comfy
>>30303659
Because railguns are a pointless tech.
In the 1960s Gerald Bull modified 16 inch guns that fired a 180kg projectile to an altitude of 180km. No railgun in design or just spit balled idea can even come close to matching this performance.
Add in modern considerations like was done for advanced artillery tech such as guided shells, rocket boost, tip and base bleed and you have a weapon that can drop 180kg out to a range of 700km+ more if you really need the range.
>>30309281
Pretty much this
They are complete inviable since there's Missiles and Rounds that make the service better.
Also it's a fucking Propaganda Weapon.
>>30305108
And here we have it.
Iowa from KanKolle makes more sense practically speaking than a fully modernized real Iowa.
>>30309317
Anyway, here is how I see it.
In the modern naval battlefield, in extremely oversimplified terms, modern ships are like a player on AWP_Map from Counter Strike. Whoever hit first wins.
Heuge mega modern battleship vs tiny missile destroyer... Whoever hits first wins.
>>30309330
A modern battleship with armor would be able to survive a confrontation even if it didn't hit first.
>>30309281
Holy shit
They should use the Iowa's to launch cubesats :)
>>30303659
STOP MAKING THESE THREADS
WE'VE HAD THEM SINCE K WAS FIRST A FUCKING BOARD
NO MOOOIOOOORRREEEE
>>30303659
Raillguns don't need huge triple barred turrets, you could easily get the firepower of an Iowa on a cruiser sized hull. Missiles can easily be mounted on destroyers or corvettes so you can lose one or two of them without losing half your fleet. There is no reason to build large ships other than aircraft carriers, and even then they are just big dumb targets.
All the CIWS in the world won't protect you from hypersonic sea skimming missiles that cost a 10th of what your stupid dreadnaught costs.
That said, a stealthy cruiser sized ship with a nuclear reactor, laser CIWS, 3 or four raillguns, and some missiles for good measure, could be considered a modern battleship. The Zumwalt isn't quite there yet, but it's a prototype, it's successor will be better.
The biggest problem right now i understand is building a raillgun that doesn't tear itself to pieces after a few shots.
>>30307486
>no thermal exhaust port 2 meters wide
>no giant windshield vulnerable to snackbars
>no plucky rebels
>no faceless mooks foiled by a smuggler, princess, furry sidekick, wizard, two roombas, and farmer/adept
>no blackguard to protect it
>no throne to witness your ultimate victory
>not calling it the ultimate power in the universe
Step it up anon
>>30303659
It will get killed before it can fire all its munitions, sending a billion dollars of missiles to the bottom of the sea.
>>30309330
Depends on the missile and sensors famalam.
Assuming no offboard sensors, the battleship will probably shoot first because it can safely mount its radar higher and thus increase the radar horizon. Both ships, CIWS aside, are equally likely to be disabled because a number of components topside can't really be armored effectively. Knock out the radar, and you can't shoot. Disable the bridge, etc.
Assuming a waterline hit, the survivability edge would go the larger ship on account of its greater compartmentalization and reserve buoyancy.
However, the smaller warship has a smaller radar profile, moreso if it incorporates stealth features. Potentially, this might provide enough of an edge to close to missile range.
However, if you are emitting from targeting radar, everyone knows you are a warship.
>>30303659
>500+AA missile cells
Way too much.
>10+ CIWS
They only fitted four
>Hundreds of Tomahawks
>500 AA missiles
>Enormous antiship missiles
>Drone launchers
Choose one, no way you'd have space for all three
>Torpedoes
>In 2000+16
>Nuclear powered
You're going to have to revamp its entire guts to get that, not to mention adding protection for the radiation and cooling means.
>Stealth
>On a 300m long ship
Also, here's how to counter it:
>Ivan, send ICBM
>Da tovaridj komandir
>No more Iowa or fleet.
>>30303919
Not even as AA weapons?
'cause they'd be excellent at dealing with attrition tactics.
>>30312563
How? Just how?
>gun takes several seconds to charge
>Fires too slow
>Drains all electric energy the engine can produce
>Meanwhile a Phalanx/Goalkeeper/Khinzal/Crotale does the job fine
Battleships are a stubborn refusal to understand that 10 guns on 10 separate ships is better than 10 guns on one ship.
>>30305108
>>30312591
First, the zumwalt generates 78 MWs per second. The planned railgun uses 32 MJ. That's about a 0.5 second charge time if they dedicate all the power to the railgun. More likely, it would take a full second to charge. Which compares well with the 3-4 second reload on most 5" guns.
Second, the muzzle velocity for the 10 MJ test version was about 2500 m/s. That's over twice the speed of a Goalkeeper CIWS while firing a round that weighed 3.2 kilos compared to the 30x173mm's 400 grams. In short, more range. This is important since most CIWS platforms are derided for either intercepting a missile at so short a range that the ship takes damage anyway or simply not having enough engagement time.
Third, capacitors tend to be an order of magnitude less dangerous when they explode than chemical propellants.
>>30312642
More, it was a matter of recoil and armor.
Cruiser grade guns would do fuck all against the armor of a battleship while battleship guns were in danger of overpenetrating cruiser armor.
So why didn't they put battleship grade guns on cruisers? Mostly, because the recoil of those guns would knock the cruiser over, causing it to capsize. Hence why battlecruisers were often the size of battleships. AFAIK, battleship guns are at the limit of what a battleship can take before the recoil affects the stability of the ship.
Of course, then missiles and air power came into the equation and the old rulebook was tossed out.
>>30313279
> That's about a 0.5 second charge time if they dedicate all the power to the railgun. More likely, it would take a full second to charge.
>Whole power to gun
What about radar, FCS, lighting, LED screens, possible jamming system, etc, etc.
It generates 78MWs per second, but how much of that is still free for the gun to fire rapidly?
Also,
>0.5/1 sec firing time
That's slower than the Oto Melara 76mm, which is one of the slower firing guns for CIWS role. Even if it goes fast, it fire so slowly it wouldn't be accurate or damaging enough, especially if (and it will) misses the target.
>>30313345
>before the recoil affects the stability of the ship.
Myth
Weight of the guns, turrets, armor, and ammunition however does affect stability.
Large caliber guns have been mounted on much smaller vessels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Erebus_(I02)
>>30307532
>>30303919
just make one freaking shitpost shithead dont spread all the board with stupid questions
>>30307532
>>30305303
nuclear power for propulsion does not generate electricity in significant quantities
>>30309281
>In the 1960s Gerald Bull modified 16 inch guns that fired a 180kg projectile to an altitude of 180km. No railgun in design or just spit balled idea can even come close to matching this performance.
A 100 caliber 16 inch gun firing a projectile that had to be mashed into the breech with a hydraulic jack is not a functional military weapon.
>>30313555
>Oto Melara 76mm,
Now keep in mind, the oto melara's maximum firing speed is 0.5 seconds per shot. The assumed rate of fire is actually the same in this case.
Second, the Oto Melara still only has a muzzle velocity of 916 m/s which is still less than half of the 10 MJ prototype's 2520 m/s and at that wattage it's actually beating out the 76mm's rate of fire.
>What about radar, FCS, lighting, LED screens, possible jamming system, etc, etc.
Even 20 MW is a lot of power. I mean, the whole of denmark uses only 32. Still, they probably wouldn't fire it at the max rate of fire .
Ofcourse, the real selling point would be the 100 mile range, meaning it actually outranges some of the lighter anti-ship missiles.
>>30313707
>>30313648
>>30312699
Shame it won't be enough ;^)
>>30313863
Still, there's no real advantage at operating it, since you got missiles with the same range and more guidance mobility for boats of the same size, and smaller boats probably wouldn't be able of carrying railguns.
Also, don't forget the propulsion system uses some of the electricity too. Where did you get source on the 78MW though, and does anyone know how much the propellers get?
>>30313712
>>30314816
No really. Almost all of the power produced goes into turning shafts.
>>30313863
>>30314814
It seems to show that of the total 78MW, only 7.6 (2 x 3.8) gets transferred to electric energy, and the rest is in the power transferred to the actual propellers. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
>>30305108
>>30309185
>>30309317
>>30312699
BUT WAIT!!! THERE'S MORE!!1!!1!! WITH IMPROVISED RADAR
>>30314816
>>30314831
This really, unlike a true Nuclear plant where almost all the energy goes into producing electricity.
>>30314838
The gas turbines are hooked up to the Curtiss-Wright electric generators, anon
>>30314814
Most of those missiles cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more.
Additionally, ships can only carry a limited number of these missiles as each one occupies a VLS cell the same as a Harpoon or Tomahawk. The rumor is that China's tactic against US sea power would be to simply exhaust our counter missiles.
The railgun is a cheaper alternative and one with more endurance. Each shot might cost $2k at most and a ship could carry hundreds if not thousands of rounds.
>>30314851
By the same virtue, it's pretty easy to hook a turbine to a generator.
>>30303797
>worried about the aesthetics of your warship
>>30307532
>>30307532
>>30312642
>I am literally retarded, the post
>>30313836
It proves that a double length 16 inch gun can fire a projectile 180km up with a payload of 180kg.
The railgun idea is a waste of money and time. They could built a new better conventional gun system but nope we get a shit-tastic railgun.
>>30303659
Because America focused on aircraft carriers rather than missile ships.
Also, it's not necessary to be big any more. That just sort of makes you a target because modern missiles can penetrate some deep shit.
>>30305303
You are asking for a solution to a problem no one has.
Missiles just do better, cheaper and without having a big ass nuke reactor pumping heat and noise just to power a big ass gun.
>>30309426
>armor
Modern armor is ECM, chaff, flares and mobility, not thick metal plating.
>>30313279
stoped when you said
>MW per second
you don't know anything do you?
>>30318439
lol maybe the reactor is made of self replicating robots
>>30303659
it'll take a bit to get them all up since i'd have to do it via my phone, but anybody want pics from my pearl harbor trip, specifically the mighty mo?
If your interested in what the Iowa is like now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW83U4bkC_k
>>30307532
>>30318361
The railgun is the size of a 5" 40 calibers gun
And as >>30313601
pointed out, you can actually mount those on cruisers
>>30318439
Whoops
>>30313279
*MJ per second
>>30303659
Because Call of Duty isn't real, you donut.
>>30314838
And only the turbines generate electricity for other uses, 7.6 MW total. The Rolls-Royce drive Curtiss-Wright electric generators to power the electric motors with the rest of the energy.
>>30305303
Actually if we're going to make a railgun-armed warships they won't be nuclear.
>>30305309
It's so called aresnal ship concept(except arsenal ship has integrated FCS), and the answer is - shit's enormously expensive to use. You don't need to fire 50 thousands tomahawks, you usually need few of them and for firing just few missiles you're better off using Submarine which at least isn't slow moving surface target.
>>30318977
Oops, meant to reply to >>30316045
>>30318896
ya'know, other than those railguns that are up for field testing this year and won't be fielded until next year at the earliest, most of what he's proposing isn't even that advanced.
So let's break this down.
>500+AA Missile cells
The R440 Crotale turret is about the same size as the quad 40mm bofors AA gun, of which the Iowa class battleship had 20. This works out to be about 160 missiles each with independent radar. Not quite the 500+ he was looking for but still quite a lot
>10+ CIWS.
Technically already satisfied with the 5" DP guns. Replacing them with modern CIWS may be a down grade.
>Hundreds of Tomahawks
Well, the ticonderoga class cruiser can carry about 122 VLS cells and one of the Iowa class's turrets weighs about as much as a modern DDG so I'd say you could rip out the #3 turret and replace it with one hell of a VLS battery
>hundreds of torpedoes
Never mind that the ASROCs basically make those torpedoes pointless, the armored belt means that it's nearly impossible to fit torpedoes onto a battleship.
>RAILGUNS
Next year, anon.
>Enormous antiship missiles
As soon as we develop something bigger than a tomahawk, anon.
>Nuclear reactor
We've got nuclear powered submarines that weigh WAY less than the Iowa class
>Stealth design.
See, the Zumwalt class
>Drone launchers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-8_Fire_Scout
+ helicopter deck
Done
>>30319133
>this entire post
>>30318977
The propellers are electrically driven. That's 76 MW for the ship.
>>30318997
What if you want to wipe out everyilitsry ship on earth at once though?
Besides I could see the concept getting used if the price on missiles drops a lot and anti missile defenses get better.
>>30319142
The catch on arsenal ships is that they violate the basic rule of salvo warfare: 10 ships with 10 missiles each are better than 1 ship with 100.
>>30319158
The catch is there is no rule like that except in your headcanon.
>>30319141
Are you braindead?
>2 x propellers driven by electric motors
>2 x Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines driving Curtiss-Wright electric generators
Most of the energy is used to power the electric motors. That's 70 MW for the engines and 7.6 for other uses.
The Arleigh Burke, for example, has more propulsive power than the Zumwalt. Most of the energy is used to drive the propellers, not the ship. If the Arleigh Burke uses 79 MW/106 000 shp for propulsion, how do you expect the Zumwalt to even move using less than it?
It is totally impossible for it to use all the 78 MW for normal electricity purposes. Of that, 70.4 will go to the engines, while the remaining 7.6 will be used for all other systems. That's considering there's no power loss.
>>30319209
Salvo warfare vs Lanchesterian modelling - look it up, it's strategy 101.
>>30319209
>All eggs
>One basket
Ten ships with ten missiles each can suffer losses. Lose one, and you lose 10% of your missiles, but you keep your operational ability. Plus, since each ship is independent, they can be harder to target than a single one.
A single ship with a hundred missiles? Just spam missiles at one target, overwhelm countermeasures and there you go, you lost your entire fleet for the sector.
>>30319280
>>30319262
10 ships with 10 missiles each will also cost several times more than 1 ship with 100 missiles. That's assuming all things are equal, which will not be. 1 larger ship will have better sensors, electronics, computers, etc.
Reality is a bit more complex than what your 5 minutes of wikipedia can turn up.
>>30319261
But there's no reason you need to dedicate all 70 MW to propulsion.
Look closely
You've got 2x35.4 MW engines driving electric generators.
You've got 2x3,8 turbine generators
and THEN you've got 2 propellers driven by ELECTRIC motors.
Clearly, you can put as much power as you want into the propellers and if you want to shut them down, then so be it.
It's not like you can dodge missiles, after all.
>>30319308
Well, unless you want one ship with the same ECM as one of the ten other ships, then no. The cost difference would be minimal, and the only saving would be potentially the size of the hull.
War isn't about economics when the difference is that small for a tactical difference that big. Ten ships provide a flexible task force, which cannot be destroyed all at once. You can flank, recon, fall back, all tactics possible with multiple elements.
One ship is an easy target. Spam missiles, it's dead.
>>30319262
>Lanchesterian modelling
Falls apart once anti-missile systems come into play
>>30319317
Interesting, hadn't thought of that before. Since electric engines can start instantly, you could put out all power from it.
But then it would mean overloading the system with a charge it may have not been designed to withstand. 78 MW is quite a lot, and I don't know if the Zumwalt can handle all of it being sent in its electric network.
i wonder why they dont use solar power for electricity on ships
>>30319321
More like there is a certain size that a destroyer has to reach before it can accommodate the needs for sensors, seafaring, and such, and a certain size beyond which the benefits of more powerful machinery and electronics won't outweigh the benefits of tactical flexibility.
100 boats carrying 1 missile each isn't automatically better than 10 boats carrying 10 missiles each for that reason.
>>30319348
>solar power
because ts shit
>>30319348
what if enemy attack at night
>>30303919
>>missiles are enough
Can you stop this meme already? Modern counter measures are as efficient as the missiles. When we finally get a full blow war i bet we are going to see a lot of skirmishes ending with both sides running of out missiles before hitting the target.
>>30305108
cancer
>>30319550
I for one am looking forward to gunnery duels between guided missile destroyers.
>>30303919
5/8
>>30319550
It's the most dumb thing ever.
>>30319348
Cause it's obviously part of a worldwide conspiracy to not use renewable sources which provide almost no energy.
>>30319330
Electricals can handle overloading fairly well so long as they're cooled. That's basically what overclocking is and most computers can handle that as long as their cooling systems can match it.
But cooling is the rub. A lot of high end computer cooling units actually need liquid coolant simply because air doesn't carry enough heat. Ships like to use sea water but if it boils the salt gets deposited in the system. Heat sinks can buy you time but you still need to get rid of the heat somehow.
So...it makes some sense to cycle between powering the railgun and powering the engines, giving one a chance to cool while the other runs. Kind of a shoot and scoot tactic.
>>30303919
Keep in mind that while a VLS system could have up to 122 cells, those cells need to be divided between Tomahawks, SM series, ASROCs, and Harpoons.
So you might only have about 30 or so missiles for the task at hand.
>>30319911
It's still 78 MW through a system that's not designed to handle all that. If it has any fuses, they might melt due to the overload.
But we really don't know how the power will be exactly distributed, so we're all supposing here. I'm just guessing the system was designed to support the 7.6 provided by the generators and leave the 70 to the engines.
>>30319620
Our ancesters are going to laugh at us when we start shooting at each other with 76mm guns
>>30305108
>Yamato teaching Iowa Japanese
>>30319961
Who the hell is using those? The US and British navies at least have guns in the 115-130mm range. Same with the Russian and Chinese destroyers, they tend to have more of them as well.
And really what else can you do than use the gun? Defensive missiles can be smaller than anti-ship missiles and with lasers coming in you might reach a point where two ships of the same size/class will expend all their missiles without killing each other.
>>30320235
OTO Melara 76mm, which is still in use. The Tarantul or Nanuchka also has a 76mm iirc
>>30305303
>>30314816
Marine propulsion reactors only produce a few hundred megawatts of power. The Enterprise had 8 Marine Reactors. It required all 8 reactors just for the Enterprise to reach top speed. on 4 reactor it was at less than half speed. Railguns would use gas turbine electric generators for power.
>>30307532
>>30320197
what a time to be alive
>>30303659
What the hell would we use it for? Would be hella cool just to prove that it could be done, I'd pay money to watch a nine railgun broadside.
>>30321829
To cleanse California.
>>30313601
>Large caliber guns have been mounted on much smaller vessels.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Erebus_(I02)
Could they actually fire both 15" guns to the side safely?
>>30321829
There's a couple targets in the SCS that could use shelling.
>>30319550
>Modern counter measures are as efficient as the missiles.
Counter measures can themselves be countered.
Hy guy, guys.
Let's make a surface combatant that has remote weapons.
You can put a guy in the weapon and send him hundreds of miles away so you are only risking a cheap weapon and not the multi million dollar ship.
You can design weapons to attack targets and weapons that can attack other weapons before they get in range of the ship.
That way you won't need heavy armour, big guns or anything.
>>30303659
Reminds me of this
>>30323509
You mean like this?
>>30307532
>>30323727
Close.
But do we have to use a weapon that only works once?
We could put smaller weapons on the big ones and than the big one could use the little weapon to distort something and than go back and get more.
>>30323923
>30323923
>Sold for 13.5 million
What the ever loving fuck
>>30324247
Entartete Kunst
>>30324202
I'm sorry, what?
>>30319550
Modern countermeasures have always trailed behind missiles in effectiveness. They were always most effective against the weapons of the previous generation.
The simple truth is that it will always take more energy to protect than to destroy, and that an incoming missile will always be a harder to hit than it's target, not to mention less expensive. CIWS can't do shit about a missile with a heat resistant nose cone flying at supersonic speeds meters above the waves. much less one that can travel at hyper-sonic speeds. Lasers might keep aircraft and drones away, but they won't stop sea skimming missiles. And that's not even talking about things like supercavitating torpedoes or anti-ship ballistic missiles.
This applies double to ABM systems. They work fine against whatever piece of crap North Korea might try to launch, but they can't stop Russian missiles, nor would there be enough of them if they could.
