With VLS and aa lasers of course.
>>28882986
>future ships
>still uses masts
Is that last one the "U.S.S. Nothing Personnel"?
>What's the practicality on a railgun battleship
There isn't any. Big-ass target that'll be overwhelmed by AShMs. Distributed firepower is the best option.
There he is. There he goes again. Look, everyone! He posted it once again! Isn't he just the strategic guy around?! Oh my God.
I can almost see your pathetic overweight frame glowing in the dark, lit by your computer screen which is the only source of light in your room, giggling like a like girl as you once again type your little Battleship thread up and fill in the captcha. Or maybe you don't even fill in the captcha. Maybe you're such a battleship mafia armchair general. that you actually paid for a 4chan pass, so you just choose the picture. Oh, and we all know the picture. The "epic" 16inch guns, isn't it? I imagine you little shit laughing so hard as you click it that you drop your copy of the Millennium Challenge 2002 on the floor, but it's ok, your mother will clean it up in the morning. Oh, that's right. Did I fail to mention? You live with your mother. You are a fat fucking fuckup, she's probably so sick of you already. So sick of having to do everything for you all goddamn day, every day, for a grown man who spends all his time on 4chan posting about a obsoleted weapons platform. Just imagine this. She had you, and then she thought you were gonna be a scientist or an astronaut or something grand, and then you became a armchair general. A pathetic BBfag armchair general. She probably cries herself to sleep everyday thinking about how bad it is and how she wishes she could just disappear. She can't even try to talk with you because all you say is "YAMATO DID NOTHING WRONG." You've become a parody of your own self. And that's all you are. A sad little man laughing in the dark by himself as he prepares to indulge in the same old dance that he's done a million times now. And that's all you'll ever be.
>>28883018
>overwhelmed by AShMs
>defensive railguns and lasers are both in the works
I'm not sure most nations would have enough missiles in their inventories to overwhelm something with that kind of defense.
>>28883018
>>28883084
Missiles? Why both with missiles?
This thing is nothing but submarine torpedo bait.
MUH railguns.
>>28882986
Bait for attack subs. Keel-breaking supercavitating nuclear torpedoes exist in the Russian fleet, never mind Moskit spamming.
>>28883018
>Distributed firepower is the best option.
This. It'd be better to have a single railgun on DDX than 6 on some future dreadnaught. In business this is called "right sizing" a product.
>>28883058
You hating so hard right now. Just go back to your cartoon porn and let people talk about battleships if they want to.
>>28883231
It is copypasta retard.
you think I'd be bother to write most of that crap?
destroyer > battleship
>>28883259
Material costs are negligible either way
50,000 ton armored destroyers > 10,000 ton unarmored ones
>>28883159
Anyone have that pic of the Star Wars ship with the officer's log describing the sheer horror of being on someone's fanwank?
>>28883278
>Material costs are negligible either way
[citation needed]
5x 10,000 ton unarmored destroyers > 1x 50,000 ton armored """""""""destroyer""""""
Depends.
If we can have railguns so powerful they can outrange carrier launched planes, then the battleship may indeed become viable again.
Battleships were never designed to combat bombs falling from directly overhead so they were slightly weak to airborne bomb runs, but aside from that they were amazingly hard to sink.
You can drop several nukes on an ancient battleship and it won't sink. You can sink pretty much any modern ship that isn't a carrier with a single nuke.
The argument about ASM spam also applies to carriers, and every other warship. The difference is a battleship should be designed to tank missiles like it's no big deal. If I was creating a modern battleship I would also make it so it deflects ordinance falling from directly above, and a heavily reinforced keel. How deep do torpedoes detonate beneath a keel, BTW?
And using the back breaking torpedo tactic to say battleships are useless is a fallacy because every ship even carriers are vulnerable to that.
>>28883291
>>28882986
>look mum i posted it again
>>28882986
26. Maybe even 27.
>>28883242
Everyone is aware, it's no less pathetic that you took the time to post it. You're trying to fit in so hard it's cringe worthy.
>>28883058
said the keyboard warrior. sounds like you're projecting your own life onto others so you don't feel as bad when you look into a mirror. we let you masturbate to cartoon toddlers. let us discuss the practicality of railguns on a battleship.
>>28883562
kek
>>28882986
too big and a waste of resources
railgun cruisers will be the thing
>>28883601
>>28883620
>IP count does go up
Nice samefag
>>28883737
*doesn't
>>28883159
>displacement 1,800,000 tons
This would make a SSN commander wet his pants if he stuck his periscope up and saw that.
Although a trimaran design might be difficult to sink.
>>28883159
More info on this:
http://www.oocities.org/doujincorp/doujinbb.html
>>28883084
>railguns
subject to similar ROF constraints of the existing deck guns that they would be replacing
>lasers
According to this guy http://www.jldoty.com/articles/laser_weapon_myth/laser_rant.html , utterly shit at putting out enough power on a focused enough spot from long distance.
At best they will develop into a gun CIWS replacement, at worst they will be more valuable for soft-kill capability versus the sensors of incoming ordnance rather than hard-kill of anything.
>>28882986
Why do the guns have bore evacuators
why not massive carrier
>>28887726
>V-tail and inverted V-tail Hopeless Diamond's.
>>28882986
With modern ship aesthetics, I hope they dont make battleships. Ships today look so drab and devoid of character
What's the railgun-boat's mission?
Right now, the ultimate naval power in the world is the carrier group. It projects power out to 250mi. It protects and supplies itself. It is badass. It's not invulnerable, but it's a complete entity using modern technology. Nukes would be needed to take down a carrier group "easy" in any sense. A carrier group's mission is to rain hate and discontent down on enemy installations, destroying personnel and assets. It can search and rescue as well, and the US Navy often does so. It is modern "force" done well.
My best thinking for a railgun would be a shallow-water tactical boat for taking out fortified installations. Can it penetrate better than our bunker busters? How effective is it over-the-horizon?
How about a submerged boat -- a new kind of submarine that can take out enemy ships more effectively than a torpedo? How much better is a hyper-fast railgun slug than a torpedo?
>>28888934
the point would be to have the ultimate ship-to-ship and ship-to-land weapon.
railgun projectiles travel waaaay too fucking fast for CIWS to catch on, and just like our new anti-icbm's, it can get a kinetic kill on most anything.
yeah the cg is awesome, but what if you could have all the power of a cg in one ship? how fucking awesome would that be?
>>28888934
holy fuck do I wanna see a railgun go off underwater.
>>28888465
idk man, I see it looking a lot like a lovechild between HMS Warspite circa 1945 and a Burke. Just picture it f...a....m.
>>28883058
>obsoleted
Lost it here
>>28883009
As long as there's a horizon a mast will be useful
>>28883058
a u t i s m
u
t
i
s
m
>>28892152
Should be 2 blimps instead of masts
>>28889035
>the point would be to have the ultimate ship-to-ship and ship-to-land weapon
But that already exists, it's called a Nimitz. Soon to be superseded by the Gerald R. Ford.
Look at it anon. Isn't it ugly? It projects a bubble of fighter and striker power to a 400 mile radius even if tanker assets magically ceased to exist. F-35C will up that radius to 600. It carries powerful airborne radars that can emit for hours without giving the enemy a precise fix on your battle group. It even has faggy little ASW helos since the S-3 is kill. This is the supreme ship-to-everything system, and would still be supreme if for some reason a railgun battleship existed. Because 400 miles with a man in the loop and all the advantages of being up high in the air is better than 200 miles and being stuck on the surface.
Railgun BBs no. CVNs supported by powerful multirole DDGs potentially carrying railgun deck guns in place of the conventional one, maybe.
>>28883305
Yes because the amount of steel is totally the limiting factor for building warships, huh?
Are battleship fags a regular here on /k/? I've only been visiting intermittently in the past couple weeks, but this is like the second or third such "but what if battleships" thread I've seen.
>>28892300
The amount of autism on this website makes it impossible to know for sure, but it's probably a handful of retards posting similar bb threads about once per week.
>>28892300
Yes. There's a couple autists around here that are stuck on muh guns, and the rest are doing it for reliable trolling.
There's one that believes amphibious operations can only work like 1945 Leyte or 1944 Normandy. A few more think CAS = being physically close to the ground and doing gun runs and won't drop the idea no matter what. Most basically operate on generic contrarianism mixed with a strong dose of fudd.
>>28892331
Having armored ships able to suppress forces, and directly support the landing is absolutely essential in any amphibious invasion.
Of course the marines know this, and thats why they want to buy super expensive amphibious armored vehicles, instead of doing the sane thing & buying armored coastal monitors.
>>28883562
Fuck, this is hilarious.
> sacrificing one of our TIE fighter pilots before each raid to bring them luck
Jesus hopscotching Christ.
>>28882986
OP, no matter how badly you want it. No matter how many layers of unobtanium you wrap it in or how many handwavium turrets you slap on it, the battleship is never coming back. Not unless some horrific catastrophe befalls our planet and knocks out entire species back to a preindustrual technological level and we just plain old forget the last 70 years of naval warfare.
It's gone, dude.
>>28883084
>Hardkill defenses
>Effective
>>28892402
>any modern missile defenses
>effective
Fighting against decades old soviet tech doesn't count.
>>28883460
>If we can have railguns so powerful they can outrange carrier launched planes, then the battleship may indeed become viable again.
No. Battleship = armor. Don't need armor if you outrange your enemy.
Also, you already have missiles that can fly further than the planes, aiming is still a bitch.
>>28883058
>Stop having fun
>stop asking questions
>stop being not autistic
>>28883159
>ERA tiles
>>28893729
hmm, would nuclear ERA work?
Obligatory.
