Explain to me why we can't build another one of these, replace the main guns with rail guns, replace the AA guns with CIWS and missiles, take away the armor and add in modern sensor technology.
I feel this would be an excellent addition to a CSG, superior to the Russian Kirov class cruisers, capable of taking on entire enemy fleets on it's own.
Nigga what do you think the Zumwault is supposed to be once its space cannons are operational.
I'd love to see a modern BB but I suppose the main question is what role would it have? Fire support, sure, but what else?
horo is cute
>>30181221
isn't one still active as a tomahawk platform?
>>30181221
> Explain to me why we can't have an Arleigh Burke
But we can, anon. We can.
>>30181290
>what role would it have? Fire support, sure, but what else?
In the USN? Air defense. Anti-submarine warfare. Modern surface combatants are not a mystery, anon.
>>30181221
Something that size would work for air defense and bombardment if it the railguns, both BAE's and General Atomic's variations, and the laser defense systems all work as intended, but armoring it would be pretty pointless.
Explain to me why we need this thread again?
>>30182523
Because the bbfag wants his daily battleship thread.
>>30181221
>take away the armor
Armor is what makes it a battleship. Otherwise it's a heavy cruiser or battlecruiser.
Besides, the Pentagon no longer likes railguns: http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/06/can-navys-electric-cannon-be-saved/128793/
>>30182593
>firing railgun sabot round out of 5 inch guns
Could work, I suppose, but I'm not seeing why they can't have both. Railguns on Zumwalts and other newer ships while giving the legacy systems an upgrade.
>>30181221
What the fuck is with this new "hurr durr modernize the iowa class" meme plaguing /k/? It's like the entire board just suddenly learned battleships existed.
>>30181221
It's all about the internals: the Iowas were physically demanding to man even during the 40s, and their layout on the inside is an ergonomic nightmare if you aren't a guest of honor and/or the captain himself. To reuse the design as opposed to making a new one would cost more in the long run due to sheer maintenence.
Many people seem to forget there's more to a ship than what you can see on the surface.
>>30181221
>capable of taking on entire enemy fleete on it's own.
no.
It would be very useful, but the greatest folly in military thinking is that a single asset can be all powerful, see Bismark.
Yes new battleships would be cool, and probably very useful. But what do you aim a rail-gun that big at in the modern world? all of Pyongyang?
>>30181221
Because it isn't necessary and it would cause an arms race.
Theoretically, if laser technology was a bit more advanced, all we would need to do is replace the CIWS with those and it would make every other vessel obsolete. But it isn't necessary and would cause an arms race.
>>30184396
I'm pretty sure it's one guy just reposting variations of the same thread.
Taking away the armour in something tat size with those guns would weaken the structure to the point it coylukd not survive the firing of its own weapons.
There is a reason they never put anything larger than a three inch on a merchant cruiser.
>>30181598
The USS New Jersey? Well, it's got Tomahawk and Harpoons bolted to the deck but it's currently not active
I had an idea, k. What if we took something the size of an old school battleship, stripped it down to 2 turrets? The turrets fire cruise missiles like a railgun so right off the bat you increase your munition payload at the same range or increase your range; for a given weight cruise munition. Then we pack in all kinds of radar, anti aircraft capabilities and swap the old iron armor for reactive?
With automated fire controls you can stuff a ton of cruise munitions below deck in a magazine that's more protected than current. I'd imagine it would fire pretty quickly to boot.
I know traditional battleships are a thing of the past and missiles are where it's at, but we can certainly learn and adapt to bring new capabilities to the Navy. Really reactive armor is a moonshot since its probably not necessary but we're what-iffing right now.
>>30185409
To be fair, both Kirov battlecruisers if/when they're modernized would literally account for over 60% of the RuN's firepower. A capital ship is an astronomical force multiplier, which is why they're always babied and never but in harm's way if possible.
>>30185439
Arms race with who? Russia is already struggling as is, and China isn't even on the same page.
