you are tasked with the creation of a modern battleship, as the navy is not satisfied with their current low main battery power.
>you have access to all previous BB class ship designs and all weapons systems currently in use
>you have a $2 trillion dollar budget for this prototype
>must follow some common sense, no giant hovercrafts or submarines
so what do you build?
About the only function a battleship can have today is land bombardment. Nothing it can do that planes with smart bombs or even drones can do better. Sorry anon. They have gone the way of biplanes, galleons and muskets.
I would simply take an existing Nimitz, throw almost all the fighters into the ocean and pack it to the brim with AWACS and ASW.
Then I would fill up all the missile tubes in the rest of the CSG cause they're half empty right now. Maybe buy some of those cruise missiles in shipping containers that the Russians sell if anybody has room left.
And I would buy some AIP diesel electric subs off the shelf from Sweden. Probably need a tender in the CSG to help support them too.
Spend 3x the amount of current time and budget on training and maintenance.
Ban Facebook and reddit for all deployed personnel.
Bring back walking the plank as a form of discipline. Also lashing. Make examples out of incompetent sailors.
Replace 5" guns with mk71 8" guns on all Burkes
It's gonna be a guided missile cruiser on steroids.
PANAMAX hull, the latest in compact reactors, made modular for easy upgrade to Fusion once Lockheed's reactors are navalized, spaced composite armor, enormous control path redundancy, blow out pathways for all magazines, wet munitions storage, every consideration possible for damage control.
Main armament by volume will be huge VLS batteries, but secondary amament will be 8 128 Mj railguns, in 4 barbettes of 2.
There will be a helodeck, and it will have an expansive UAV hangar and complement.
Goalkeeper tracking and intercept tech and high speed motors and rings for the main guns. Every single armament is now dual function AA.
Part of the appeal of a modern ship of war, while capabilities are important, is also as a diplomatic tool. From the Great White Fleet to parking an aircraft carrier off the coast of a trouble spot. The thing must LOOK and sound the part of a few hundred thousand tonnes of "Here Comes the Freedom."
> 2 trillion dollars budget
You should have seen it coming
the battleship of the 21st century would be armed with railguns for assault and would employ lasers for area defense.
it would also be much smaller than WWII era battleships, and much cheaper to operate. it also wouldn't be nearly as heavily armored.
Two nuke plants, the main gun would use LRAP and be able to shoot missiles kinda like the Sheridan tank for longer range needs, the best armor it can get, the armor design would be for detecting bombs being dropped from above as well as missiles and shells from the sides, secondary batteries would use LRAP also, the keel would be massively reinforced, it would have twice the VLS of a Zumwalt, a small hangar and helipad at the back, typical stuff.
Basically it would be a modernized Iowa.
I've got no clue about the capabilities or needs of rail guns but the secondary reactor is there for that.
I'd still want traditional big guns on it though.
I don't know what technology the military has, so it's just dumb role play.
The saudi's have lost 2 ships so far in this yemen conflict
Rather than being a true "battleship"
And armored ship that can handle fire from artillery/tanks/missiles/helicopters would be a very useful thing.
How did those subs with deckguns work?
iirc they had a garage thing near the con that they would roll the gun into and seal it up.
forgive me, I can't find anything on a LRAP, so do enlighten me, unless you mean LRAD?
40 knot cruise speed
Armor proof against all current missiles and torpedoes
Super low profile above water
Cwis and SeaRAM for days
All other armaments and deck space is vertical launch tubes.
advanced weapons have made it so that it is pointless to armor a modern warship. modern ASMs would annihilate a slow, heavy BB.
to counter that, ships need to be light, speedy, and able to destroy munitions before they get hit. what's the point of heavily armoring your BB to take hits when you can have a laser shoot down anything that comes your way?
There is literally nothing a modern battleship can do that several smaller ships or better yet a submarine can't do better and safer.
Tell the navy to shove it and find someone else for their 2 trillion dollar giant floating target.
There's still a use for big guns, dude.
They have ways of making shells go very far
I forgot to mention scramjet shells in my post so it's main guns could bombard practically anything on the planet.
40 knots is the cruise speed, it would be capable of faster.
A hulls top speed is the square root of the length at the water line times 1.36.
Which would make my guided missile battleship over 1200 feet long at the waterline
We had a thread on /k/ awhile back. A shell from an Iowa's main guns has more energy than modern ASMs.
You underestimate armor.
The BBs of old got a reputation for being weak against air because they weren't designed to deflect bombs falling on them.
well after looking at the maximum weight of a 16" shell plus the weight of a LRLAP, it would be about 10x the size generally speaking, with a 240lb warhead. I'd figure a range of about 350 miles with the within-3-yard accuracy.
Except that lrlap delivers 24 pounds of explosive and costs 400,000 dollars
Missiles are a far better way of delivering HE a good distance.
It's strange that the navy hasn't replaced all their useless main guns with some form of MLRS.
that would pretty much be like putting a paladin on the back of a carrier. it just wouldn't work given the use of a battleship, long range, widespread bombardment.
also to scramjet shell guy, I like the way you think.
I don't see what the point of armor is in a modern context, though, if your lasers provide 100% coverage and can shoot down munitions.
even a railgun could be used to shoot down small aircraft and missiles
nothing has a 100% coverage. shit, not even 4 CIWS could stop everything thrown at a ship.
to illustrate your shitty point;
"we don't need internal armor or reinforcement on our tanks because the TUSK and the reactive plates will stop everything"
All of you are thinking about this in the wrong way. Armor has a very important role to play, but not in the ww2 BB role. Consider this:
>a Corvette sized ship with maximum armor. Literally primary mission is to eat missiles.
> diesel electric and stealthy so everyone is paranoid about their sneakiness.
> just armor, a radar, sonar, and comms.
>minimal crew, plenty of life boats
> but do they have strap on missiles? Enemy can't afford to assume they don't. Can't ignore 'em, gotta deal with 'em.
> their role is to range out and screen for CSG, using radar to provide early warning for missile swarm attack etc. Secondary role is to help purpose built ASW/MCM ships by triangulation with their sonar. Also meat sheild, because they are so heavily armoured.
What would be a good name for this ship?
The era of big ship engagements is over. Just ask the British, they had to check like 3 times to be sure. Once you accept that, you accept that the battleship is obsolete.
Youll end up building a super-destroyer.
Only point in having a BB is having a hardened target that could eat hits and still fight. I suppose you could augment the BB design with modern armour materials to make it more resistant to kinetic and chemical damage, but at the end of the day a torpedo will still fuck it to bits no matter what.
Its not good to put all your eggs in one overcompensating basket OP.
I'll base it on the Iowa, redesign the armor to incorporate steel-encased DU and ceramic.
Power it with 3 Bechtel A1B reactors to get it within spitting distance of a gigawatt.
Six x 100 kilowatt free electron laser systems. The good news is that they can share vacuum pumps and klystron, but you really do want something big to pack them onto. Waste heat can be dumped right into the sea.
The lasers can be used for area anti-aircraft, missile, artillery and light surface craft work. Back it up with some VLS loaded with standard missiles for very long ranged AA and ABM and CRAM CIWS.
Systems and bays for helios and ASW drones and you have something with no easy counter. A battleship is, after all, defined by it's defenses.
Railguns, if workable, for the main battery. If not 6 X 12" guns firing guided shells in triple turrets with rocket assisted anti-armor rounds in case anyone else builds one of these monsters.
8 x 30mm chainguns with provisions for local control or being slaved to ship self defense system for close in defense.
Even with automation, you'd have a really, really fucking expensive boat that would absorb 900+ personnel, and it could only be one place at a time.
>I loathe our modern doctrine of not armoring our ships at all.
1) The traditional concept of ship armor is outdated
2) Missiles are insane these days, pic related
3) Phalanxes and other countermeasures are nothing if not reactive armor
The other part of it was having guns big enough to penetrate contemporary armour.
That's not an issue any more. Cruise missiels can wreck anything -> no need for big guns OR armour.
Current gamewinners are sensors, stealth and missile magazine.
Fuck, might as well just make more subs.
>but at the end of the day a torpedo will still fuck it to bits no matter what.
Thats really not true, armor the keel, make everything resistant to the shock. And torpedoes won't be effective without a direct hit.
THAT'S IT. BRING BACK THE IOWAS. GIVE THEM SIXTEEN INCH NUCLEAR SCRAMJET ASSISTED LRLAP SHELLS.
The things could practically NEVER leave port and STILL provide fire support.
WHY THE FUCK haven't we done this ALREADY?
The same arguments to the cost of F-35 development apply. After everything is ironed out they will cost next to nothing via mass production. Besides, a 16" LRLAP could still have a nuclear payload.
It's better to have armor and not need it, than need it and not have it.
i see your analogy, but it's not really the same.
modern warships engage at much longer distances than tanks, in tens or hundreds of miles. this gives them a lot more time to shoot stuff down before it reaches them (assuming you're using powerful lasers or railguns)
tanks have to be able to soak up RPGs and machine gun fire from <1km. of course you need armor for this kind of thing, you can't always react to threats from so close. and you can't afford to put delicate lasers on your tank to shoot down enemy tank munitions or other shit
I recognise you BBfag
Don't think we realise its you, because we do
I know that. But now I want you to imagine that same plane hitting a modern warship.
It do a lot more than scratch paint.
And the Iowa's were kept around as long as they were because they could literally tank missiles.
ASW drone swarm and a pair of utility/ASW helicopters should provide primary anti-sub defense. You could add a towed countermeasure system as well, but with 900 megawatts of power a submarine would be very hard pressed to catch one. They'd need to get lucky to intercept them, as this thing would be faster then any sub not going at "I am making too much noise please kill me now" speed.
As far as supercavitating torpedos, the primary defense is turning left. They are unguided weapons and more dangerous to the ship that fires them then anyone else.
Current for now.. but Raython is on time to deliver the first 100 kilowatt FEL to the navy in 2018.
It's quite possible that this is the twilight of long ranged missiles.
making heavy shit not sink isn't hard, just make it really fucking wide, or catamaran the bitch. seeing all the shit we've thought up, a modern battleship seems decently feasible.
We're not talking about stopping anything. Ships are designed to sit in the water.
What modern torpedoes do is vaporise/displace a large amount of water underneath the keel of the ship.
The ship is now resting on nothing, but parts of the bow/stern are still supported by the water.
This cracks the keel in two like some sort of twisted fortune cookie.
Steel just straight up isn't going to survive that, the thicker you make it the heavier it weighs. You'd need carbon nanotubes or some shit. You're essentially building a bridge for all of the superstructure and then putting it in a force 200 storm.
Thats why the 650lb of modern explosives goes off under the unarmored keel and breaks the ship's back while shaking everything off its mounts inside the hull. The ship might still float but its going to be hard to fight or even move around at speed without causing more damage.
The effect of a torpedo on a 10,000 ton minimally armored & over loaded destroyer is very different to a 50,000 ton heavy armored battleship.
You know things like bridges or tall buildings exist? It would be trivial to build a battleship fully capable of taking that stress.
>2 trillion dollars
Do you even realize how much this is?
You could actually make a space battleship with that kind of money.
It costs ~5k$ to send a kilogram to space. Say you spend 1K$/kg for base material, 10k$/Kg for R&D and 4K$/Kg for logistics. You're at about 20k$/Kg, which is already very high for a large structure.
2 trillion dollars would put 100 000 tons in space, or the equivalent of a Nimitz aircraft carrier at full load. There you go, you have your space battleship.
More realistically, the ISS cost 150 billion and weighs 420 tons. 2 trillion would get you 13 space stations and thus 13*420=5460 tons of space stuff.
That's slightly below the weight of a current destroyer. Furthermore, space materials are much lighter (and can be bought for 1k$/Kg easily) so you could expect something much bigger, because the battleship doesn't have to support its own weight, provided that it doesn't accelerate at 1G or more in any direction.
Or, you could fight the Iraq war again, I dunno.
When was the last time you saw a bridge or a tall building go from extreme loading one way to extreme loading the other?
and then do it while maintaining good seafaring characteristics.
and then there's the point where you could just use a nuclear warhead and just fuck your shit up anyway
OP here. I put that so you could have totally off the wall designs but with some limit. I feel as if a insane cap is better than "no money limit lolz"
besides, i'm pretty sure some of these designs would be pretty goddamn expensive.
Fine, counter it without adding excessive weight. A foot thick steel plate half the length of the ship that goes down from the keel 30 feet. This would compartmentalize the displacement of water by the torpedo and more than double the ships existing survivability from such an attack.
BOOM. Problem solved.
WHERE'S MY MONEY, NAVY? Don't you steal my fucking ideas!!
modern doctrine rotates around avoiding and countering munitions before they hit and do damage to the ship. better to have a light ship that can avoid or destroy torpedoes than a heavily armored ship that tanks them
Please anon. Not even close to enough AWACS. CSG coverage is fucking abysmal. Everything must die so f35 and their god complex fighter jocks can live. Even common sense.
Plus I think you're completely ignoring the proposal of a heavily armoured Corvette sized ship.
Don't change the subject.
"Did we hit something?"
"Yeah, don't worry its just a bug,"
all right /k/ommandos, let's take the best designs from this glorious thread and consolidate them into one big motherfucker of a boat. instead of arguing random bullshit about torpedoes, let's make the grim reaper himself afraid of our design.
For all of that you might as well give the ship the ability to jump/fly for a short time.
From carrier, HMS Formidable, after being attacked by Kamikaze to HMS Indomitable (flying flag of Admiral Vian):
LITTLE YELLOW BASTARD.
Reply from Indomitable:
ARE YOU REFERRING TO ME.
>You can tell exactly what kind of plane it is from the impact
That's insane. Imagine being in that compartment and just hearing a loud THUD
This rlundgren guy seems like he knows what he's talking about.
And he says the side armor could support the weight of the ship. So it's impossible to snap the vessel in half.
I build a cute girl and call it a battleship.
in all seriousness I would just fit a virginia class sub with cruise missiles and that would be my battleship.
Market it as cheaper alternative to missiles, don't market it as a wonder weapon. A $16,000 shell is cheaper than a $250,000 tomahawk.
Design shells similar to Excalibur and copperhead
Make it nuclear powered
Slave some of those early power harnesses directly to the reactor and use them for loading/unloading equipment and maintenance to refine the technology until suitable batteries are designed
Take the aft section and give it a flattop for VTOL like those Japanese Battleship/carrier hybrids.
Make it a Catamaran too.
Place nothing but VLS and two forward placed 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun turrets for offensive weapons.
Include four phalanx point defense guns,anti submarine rocket tubes and some type of ship based anti air missile for defense.
I suppose, then battleships as a class continue to be extinct until there's some reason to heavily armor a warship
you'd probably want the same sort of armor as on the aircraft carriers, which isn't much
Sorry if this is a dumb question but can CIWS stop cannon rounds?
I know APS on tanks can stop ATGMs but can't stop cannon rounds so I was wondering if modern battleship cannons would be useful to get through where ASMs can't.
If only there was some large battlecruiser that could deliver conventional or nuclear packages on target from hundreds of miles, while also serving as a staging point. Such a large craft could be nuclear powered, and then you can have a large flight deck with catapults for combat aircraft. You could even bounce C-130s off of it if need be.
Battleships were obsolete before 1939, anon.
"The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants. They (Battleships) are like elaborate religious scrolls which old people hung up in their homes. They are of no proved worth. They are purely a matter of faith—not reality." - Admiral Yamamoto, 1936
why does it matter if your lasers and railguns can shoot down ASMs before they even get close?
for the record, the USN is building railguns that launch projectiles at mach 7 and can travel at least 100 mi
>And armored ship that can handle fire from artillery/tanks/missiles/helicopters would be a very useful thing.
You asking more for the coast defence monitor than battleship. Battleship main purpose was to fight other ships.
Submarine super-gun battleship.
Something like diesel-electric power plant that would allow for staying submerged until mission time.
Gerald Bull's super-gun running the length of the ship. Work the bugs out to get a higher rate of fire. Baby Babylon was expected to get a range of 750 km with its 46 meter long barrel. Big Babylon was expected to launch satellites with a bore of 1 meter and a length of 156 meters. The gun is aimed by titling and turning the ship. Maybe three guns fed like revolvers.
Hmm, problem being, this is a terror weapon. Not flexible enough to have any other purpose other than holding all their coastal cities hostage. A real submarine armed with cruise missiles could do the same and more. Guess the difference would be that the beast could carry more ammo. Guess there could be a niche where the defenders have a solid air defense.
well, your battleship will be with an entire fleet of ships that is able to counter them. and if you're fighting a country that's able to fire 100 missiles at once in one location, you'll come prepared.
A heavily armed corvette that will have worse mobility and sensor range than an airborne AWACS, not to mention willbe an easy target for a sub if it intends to do its job and stray from the core formation to act as a sensor screen
Iowa torpedo belt was rated against 300 kg TNT charge. Mk-48 has more powerful explosives than TNT its warhead probably around 450 kg of TNT equivalent. But even more none of WWII battleships including Iowa had bottom torpedo protection only side protection. Torpedo under keel will absolutely wreck any WWII battleship. It is possible to put protection on bottom but such ship with armor same as Iowa would be pushing into 100000 tons displacement range, maybe 150000.
That's just not true
A ww2 battleship wouldn't even notice a torpedo detonating under the keel.
The keel might get fucked up, might take on some water, but it won't snap in half like unarmored destroyers do.
Satellites detect IR bloom of seaskimmers before they crest the horizon, neo BB and escorts respond with rail/conventional flak to thin the numbers, lasers/CIS deal with the rest. Missiles will definitely get through but not many.
>A ww2 battleship wouldn't even notice a torpedo detonating under the keel.
WWII battleships regularly sustain heavy damage and sank after just side torpedo hits against protected areas. Bottom was not protected from torpedo explosions.
>The keel might get fucked up, might take on some water, but it won't snap in half like unarmored destroyers do.
Yeah it will not. But the damage to ship internals and area of flooding area would be very serious. Under magazine detonation could lead to ammo explosion and one hit kill as happened with Roma.
Well I would take an old Iowa class all non main guns would be replaced with oto merla 76mm rapid fire 120rpm cannon systems all secondary gun mounts smaller than 41mm replaced by goalkeeper cwis. I would imagine removing two turrets for vls with room for 500 aa missles. It would have the latest ageis system. I would also use boeings new pattented force field system http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/tech/boeing-shock-wave-attenuation-patent/ . It would deffinitly be nuke powered and have active torpedo counter measures. All remaining main guns will become railguns
There is so much more to it than this.......
As for my Design, Take the canceled Montana class, Nuclear power it, take that nice new railgun they just developed, Quadruple it's size, have 4 of them located where the original 16" guns would be. Keep the 5" armaments minus four, Add a CIWS where each Bofors would've been, Add a CIWS Goalkeeper for each removed 5" gun set. Then stick as many cruise missiles as you can fit in the large rear end of her.
Munitions will always be cheaper than platforms. That's the point of this ship - its affordable and designed specifically to screen, go into danger and be a missile sink.
It protects, supplements, and supports the rest of the fleet. No AWACS after the carrier gets sunk.
Antisub warfare I presume?
Just have a retractable Helipad with an ASW heli over the cruise missiles in the rear
I'd replace the normal CIWS systems, not the goalkeepers because they are useful for more than just missiles and planes
self propelled VLS barge with small built in radar but is usually slaved to the Air defense ships fire control systems because we all know that naval gun fights are done and its all going to be cruise missiles.
Also once a sub attacks it has revealed its general position and can then be found by ASW. Better to eat a torp with a small ship designed to take it than a burk/Ticonderoga/ford. This is the primary mission of this ship.
Realistically this, but with railguns, CIWS, missles, and freakin laser beams
I think that in general our ASW and especially MCM capabilities are pathetic right now. This stuff requires specialized ships and lots of training, and we have neither. That's a whole nother ball of wax though.
Statistically subs and mines kill way more ships than other surface ships ever do.
I know I have two trillion dollar budget but i'm try to stay in the realm of reality. pic related is as crazy as I would get without going all sci-fi
Since you could field 10 times the number of aircraft due to not needing CBG's, you could accept a degradation in performance.
The US military has also accepted that actual flight performance is not particularly useful in modern air combat.
So the only real difficulty would be making them stealth.
Yeah. LCS as originally conceived would have been awesome. But instead it grew into an unholy tumor defense contractor welfare program because the navy leadership are retarded politicos and have long since outsourced all of their internal engineering talent.
It's so fucking bad that they cut the program to the absolute minimum they're contractually obligated to buy. For a big govt program like this, that should tell you all you need to know.
LCS is an abortion and a national embarrassment.
Seaplanes aren't fighters. They are extremely useful though. Great for resupplying subs with mail, fresh food, spare parts. Great for ISR and ASW. And they can land on lakes and rivers too. They can deliver marines, amtracks, supply to isolated locations. Real shame we basically abandoned them.
So basically a flying submarine>>28456916
>as the navy is not satisfied with their current low main battery power.
Then the navy is idiots.
>must follow some common sense
If I must follow common sense, then I give them pic related, put on sunglasses, and tell them to Get Over It.
Have a roof like a the roof of a Baseball Stadium. (At the press of a button, it,s lowered to the sides of the ship, allowing guns access to air, then it can be lifted at the press of the same button)
YOU COULD BUILD THE HABBAKUK, dude!
A Habbakuk with nuclear reactors and rail guns!!
Reinstate the old ones with a laser defense system.
>laugh as all missile based navies of the world become obsolete
Tricky, most modern naval doctrines favor smaller, cheaper ships to limit losses from AShMs.
First off, lets start with the most recent battleship design. the USS New Jersey.
Now rip the 16 inchers right out of the turret housing and replace them with railguns of similar size. I figure we can fire buzz bombs out of them that can take out most tanks. Against foes with superior ECM they're going to be the principle armament. Otherwise, they play point defense like the CIWS.
Speaking of the 20mm CIWSes? Get rid of them. They're just too weak for fighting on this scale. It's like having a coaxial 9mm on a tank.Replace them with dedicated ECM platforms.
Onto other defenses. Hollow out the belt armor and fill it with composites like Chobham armor. It's more weight and bulk efficient than steel. Further fortify the belt with ERA tiles. Add ceramic armor to the deck. The increased hardness should force sloping shots to bounce.
Now, the boilers? Replace them with a nuclear reactor. We've done it on subs and aircraft carriers and those railguns are going to need power.
Most of the offensive armament from the 1982 refit can stay, just be sure to reload with the latest missiles.
Modern ASMs are not heavy enough to be effective armor penetrators, but a 2000 lb gravity bomb is literally the reason why battleships aren't considered an effective survivable platform anymore.
Just means that a modern designed battleship would have more deck armor
Possibly a tumblerhome hull like the zumwalt.
Have to imagine that with modern SAM's, the threat of top attack bombs/munitions is rather limited.
Primary armament is a single "cannon" that consists of 8 rail guns. 4 columns or railguns double stacked. Powered by a nuclear reactor dedicated to them.
The deck of the ship will be an airstrip for an X-47 variant designed as a precision bomber.
Defensive armament will feature CIWS and lasers in almost excessive amounts.
The ship will have an additional nuclear reactor for powering all other operations that aren't railgun related.
The hangar should accommodate at least 6 X-47s, 2 of which would be dedicated for defensive purposes, the other four could be used offensively.
>invest at least 25% of that into new metallurgy for missile-proof hulls
>make it super-massive, at least 4 reactors
>missiles, missiles everywhere
>let's take advantage of displacement, and get some REAL FUCKING RADAR on this bitch
>still probably a trillion left, let's make this bitch quiet, sneaky, and stealthy. Also fast as fuck.
>plenty of BRRRRRTT power
>experimental 400mm chain guns
Bullets rip through paper too, whats your point?
If that was a BB, not even a modern one with active defences, the explosion would have ended at the beginning by the impact point.
>>you have access to all previous BB class ship designs and all weapons systems currently in use
>>you have a $2 trillion dollar budget for this prototype
here it comes. Behold my stealth, high caliber equipped USS Tyrann....
>>must follow some common sense, no giant hovercrafts or submarines
why no subs? :(
Looks like a Russian P-800 Oniks or Brahmos (Indian bought P-800)
Those things are nasty and something western intelligence analysts are very concerned about. They can also act in squadrons where one missile will direct the others.
VLS launchers might be a nice monolithic reliable and safe solution for a destroyer, but an arsenal ship meant for routine land bombardment missions ought to move to a more flexible and space-efficient magazine-transporter-launch system.
There would be large preparation and storage areas where unprepared missiles would be assembled and armed, a re-useable spacer/feed canister racking system for ready to fire missiles, and the final conveyer belt unracking the canisters and feeding a single cold-gas boosted breech-fed non-vertical tube. The tube like an overpowered automatic version of today's torpedo launchers.
>A fighter hitting the side of a ship is conpletely different from a missile. Youre a fucking idiot for even thinking theyre remotely close to the same intensity of an impact.
It's not fighter, but dive bomber and it carried 250kg bomb that is very comparable to warheads of majority of modern anti-ship missiles. It's heavier than cruise missiles and it's mass compensates for lack of speed when it comes to kinetic impact.
But we maintain an enormous fleet for amphibious invasions. It's kind of lol how much /k/ shits on the battleship concept (or any sort of gunboat) for being a useless waste of money because all it can do is tank hits, provide unparalleled bombardment capabilities, and otherwise have the capabilities of a CG. While at the same time we have dozens of amphibious ships, who's cost and manpower needs aren't substantially less than a battleship in many classes, while their capabilities haven't been utilized in 70 years.
Not arguing that we need to bring back the Iowa class or anything, just poking fun at how irrational /k/'s pseudo intellectual assertions have become.
with a catamaran you are stuck with jetski-esque propulsion. that does not work for a battleship. plus all you gotta do is target one of the hulls with even a 5 inch gun and the whole thing is fucked
>Still mouthwatering over gunboats with max of 40 km battery range
>Not choosing modern destroyers with 500km+ km AShM range that still exceeds future 200 mile railgun tech
That's the conclusion I came to. Either we don't need most of this giant amphibious fleet, or having a few battle cruiser/heavy cruiser platforms capable of filling the CG escort role most of the time, and providing unparalleled firepower for amphibious landings when needed isn't all that wasteful...given how much we're willing to piss away for unused amphibious capability anyway.
One of the biggest problems is that doctrinally, the Marine corps and Navy are fundamentally incapable of actually doing an amphibious invasion.
They can't land troops
They can't supply troops
The idea of just air assaulting with light infantry is fantasy against anyone with a basic air defense system.
Since the primary purpose of a modern battleship would be land bombardment and not anti-ship warfare I would throw out all the previous conventions of BB ships.
>make it a small and stealthy ship
>catamaran or trimaran so it can operate in littoral waters and get close to the shore line to maximize its potential firing range.
>carry a single rail gun and bare essential point defense systems (mainly relying on stealth for protection)
>very fast with high acceleration
>small crew requirement as possible
>would dash into the enemy littoral zone and fire off a railgun round before dashing back out into the safety of open water before being spotted
>recharge batteries for the rail gun and repeat
Probably not what most people are thinking when they thing "battleship" I know.
>Can't land troops
>Can't supply troops
The US has 8 Wasp class assault ships, each able to land a MEU with full support. They aren't remotely limited to light infantry or air assault, and can carry a large complement of landing craft.
There's no force on earth that could keep them from securing a beachhead when supported by the US navy.
>Implying we're not moving on in AShM development
>irrational /k/'s pseudo intellectual assertions
Fuck off nigger
Our own reasoning is backed by every navy and DoD in the world. We've told you time and time again. There's a reason why nobody and literally nobody is doing this.
Not once have you backed your own assertions with posting a study or any form of white paper. You are the same retard that tried to use commodity steel prices as a way measuring the material cost of the ship, which frankly goes to show how clueless you are about this subject.
So fuck off for setting us out to be the unreasonable ones here.
Sure m8, and since the Navy doesn't want their ships to go closer than 100 miles to an enemy shore
How many days would it take them to land that MEU?
How many hours of fighting will they carry in supplies?
To actually land more forces and supply them, you need ports and harbors, not beachs.
Of course you aren't landing at a heavily contested beach, but it'll still be GARRISONED by some amount of troops/tanks.
You'll need to be able to defeat these asap, and bring in follow on troops immediately, or the whole invasion will be a failure.
If it's undefended it's because it would be useless to land there.
If the US wants to put thousands of light infantry on a beach, they are welcome to it, those infantry will turn into captives when t he enemy forces show up in a day or two.
There's plenty of reasons why OPFOR may have left a city with a limited or minimum force there to protect it.
And lol okay? I'm not sure why the marines would be such a pushover to you but whatever.
They lost the first battle of fallujah
How could they win vs china ?
We're not talking about raids, or COIN, we're talking about an actual war that will see armored divisions responding to your invasions.
DDG-113 to DDG-115 contract were $679.6m–$783.6m $ so we make it a happy 700m$ each and with 2 trillion you would get about 2857 burkes...
I'm not whoever you think you're responding to. Taking all these blind jabs about who I am/what I believe based on nothing, being an overbearing dick instead of just having a conversation, and being incapable of addressing an individual argument but rather assuming the person you're talking to buys into every bit of the meme you disagree with, is the exact irrational pseudo intellectual bullshit I'm referring to.
All I said is that /k/ bitches about gunboats being worthless, while at the same time not saying a peep about the staggering cost of building and manning our amphibious fleet. The majority of which has less relevant capability to our operational needs than a goddamn battleship, while each consumes nearly as many resources. I said explicitly I didn't want to bring the Iowas back, probably should have been a hint.
>There's a reason why nobody and literally nobody is doing this.
I'd point out that very few other countries maintain anything more than token amphibious landing capability, but I'm not even sure you're referring to anything I actually said.
You are in fact the one who is a nigger.
A modern ampibious invation goes like this.
Special forces infiltrate ahead of the attack to identify targets on the ground, along with over-flights, satellite reconnaissance, signal intelligence and human intelligence.
Navy aircraft strike any clear targets, like air defenses, missiles, artillery, barracks, runways, command and control stations, motor pools, fuel and ammunition stockpiles, ect.
LHD come close to shore while deploying initial troops by tilt-rotor and helicopter. Hovercraft and landing craft are deployed close in and seize a beachhead, supported by attack helicopters.
That isn't necessarily a beach. The first target in an amphibious invasion is a harbor. Like Inchon. They also aren't alone, as the invasion would also be supported by airborne assets. Judgeing by 20th century invasions, it's less a question of 'can
Within hours the MEU is fully on the dirt with enough supplies to fight, with heavy armor, artillery, fire support and attack helicopters, not to mention the US navy to call on for heavy fire.
If the army really wants to join in and no good dock is secured they do have 35 LCU able to land a whole platoon at once, or in a "fuck it, let's do D-day 2: D-Harder" they can land logistic support craft in 4 feet of water and deploy multiple tank battalions at once.
Aggressively attacking, before local forces can reorg and regroup from the damage of the initial attacks and linking up with special forces to get guides.
In the event that all of that, somehow, doesn't seize a good harbor and dock the US armed forces has engineers more then able to build one.
Not that I'm any Naval expert nor a time traveller, but I imagine that once Railguns have been fully developed; they'll almost completely replace the cruise missile in terms of 'Anti-Ship' weaponry. The reason being that the Railgun projectile is alot cheaper than a missile, and travels at a speed that I imagine CIWS systems would struggle if not be incapable of shooting down.
So the ship would have to have a reactor large enough to power two Railguns (One mounted at both the front and the rear of the ship for full coverage), and still have enough power to run all of the ships necessity's. However I imagine the amount of energy required to operate two Railgun's alone would be massive, so I imagine some of the $2 trillion would be put towards developing a more compact source of power; like Fusion power.
Assuming Railguns do become the primary 'anti-ship' weapon, having thick armour will have become a redundant factor in it's design. This allows me to reduce the size and weight of the ship, and increase the overall speed of the ship, which I think would be crucial in any modern Battlefield.
The ship's purpose isn't Naval combat or being a literal tank but more of a mobile gun platform, keeping a full arsenal of more traditional Naval guns and a small contingent of Guided missiles would simply be for supporting ground or amphibious operations
Proof that time travel exists
>The navy wouldn't be landing in heavy contested beachhead in the first place.
Modern surface-to-surface missiles, anti-ship missiles, and SAMs have ranges in the hundreds of miles, meaning you would have to clear several thousand square kilometers in order to ensure troops can reach the shore safely. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it will be a lot harder than people want it to be.
At no point did you name a particular country but how those Anphb capabilities played out are entirely by circumstances.
And I'm not sure why you think that the US would then leave those men unattended, without support. There's a good chance if the US is landing troops, there's going to be plenty of support (burkes & aircraft) that's already playing cleanup to OPFOR forces in the area.
Since a surface battleship is basically a escort ship for an aircraft carrier I'm going to stick it full of Anti-missile and anti-aircraft weaponry. For offense Cruise missiles and railguns.
>Navy aircraft strike any clear targets
We learned in kosovo what that means, hitting nothing of any value. Leaving enemy forces entirely intact.
>LHD come close to shore
Thats not their doctrine/plan. Which is another problem as LCU's only move 11 knots, AAV's can't swim more than a couple miles, and they can only carry 2 LCAC's each.
So you are looking at MANY round trips, taking hours each way.
>while deploying initial troops by tilt-rotor and helicopter
Those tilt rotors/helicopters will be shot down by manpads, SAM's, AAA, and heavy machine guns
Why would any enemy leave a harbor unmined, and undefended?
>with heavy armor, artillery, fire support
4 tanks, a dozen or so lavs, a handful of completely obsolete towed howitzers....
LCACS move at 70+ knots, friend, and can carry 75 tons, and gots a 200nmi operational range.
Thats a hell of alot of logistic capabilities right there, and the USN has over 70 of em.
Pretend to build a battleship, effectively divert 99% into R & D, cement US tech lead for the next decade or three, use ~$1,000,000 to commission a team of the worlds leading Australian experts to figure out how to end the scourge of idiotic "why can't we build a modern battleship" threads.
Why build a battleship, ever, when every element of the design is now idiotic or pointless
>Need a big ship for big guns
Mount a railgun or two on a cruiser
Pointless, can't armor critical components such as radar
>Muh shore bombardment
Spend every penny on guided munitions and VLS slots
>Why maintain an Amphibious action capable fleet
Because if we wanted to invade any county with a larger coast than panama, its a useful thing to have. We're the only ones that have one because we're the only nation in the world that fields a full sized blue water navy.
Says 40 knots with a full load
Up to 75 tons only in the best conditions, probably compromises range & speed as well.
>Fuel capacity is 5000 gallons. The LCAC uses an average of 1000 gallons per hour.
That 200 nmi is total.
So already the LCAC's range is below the minimum distance the Navy wishes to be from an enemy shore.
The LCAC would also be fucked up by mines or natural/artificial obstructions, such were very common in previous wars.
Sure, but at the end of the day that enemy force is still there, dug in.
They had quite a bit more mobility than that anyways, since their AA was moving around all over the place.
Losing 2 aircraft does not represent an effective defense on the part of the enemy.
You are positing a beach in which the defender can have any advantage that the US cannot negate except with railgun/projectile munitions, which is absurd on the face of it, and serves as a goalpost on wheels, as the scenario can be modified in response to any sensible response.
Given that the only point to gunfire support is to contribute to the "kill everything before we arrive" doctrine, your argument seems a bit odd. Most of our amphibious gear is not designed to land on a more than marginally contested beach.
By marginally, you mean, none at all
Of course, they don't train for it either.
Considering building/maintaining SAM's is cheaper than building/maintaining an air fleet, one must assume in a somewhat even conflict that air supremacy will either be impossible or take months to achieve.
>Says 40 knots with a full load
And? 75 tons at 40 kts is still very fast.
>Up to 75 tons only in the best conditions, probably compromises range & speed as well.
Speed not so much as it is a hovercraft so there is no real friction. Range, of course.
>That 200 nmi is total.
Total operational range, yes. It still puts it well over the horizan.
>So already the LCAC's range is below the minimum distance the Navy wishes to be from an enemy shore.
Of course, the navy is always looking for better things. Thats what the SSC program is for.
>The LCAC would also be fucked up by mines
No, its very hard to kill and LCAC with mines as it floats above the water and thus has zero real displacement and low magnetic field.
No, again the lcac is a hover craft, it cant go anywhere but it can go alot of places other landing ships cant. The actual ship part sits a good 5 feet off the water.
Six turrets mounting quad 155mm guns. A, B turrets tn tandem. N, O turrets midship a port and starboard. Y, Z turrets tandem at the stern.
A high level of automation and the use of liquid helium cooling in the turrets will give a fifteen rounds per minute per tube rate of fire.
Conventional shells, base blead shells and rocket assist shells give a maximum range of 90 km from the fully stabilised guns.
Secondary batteries of 57 mm three barrel Gatling guns in -10 to +91 DEG mounts eight per side situated so that not less than four guns can bear on single target no mater what bearing. These guns fire dual purpose AA and surface radar directed shells.
Six Phalanx close in guns and twelve anti air missile launchers for air and missive defence.
Towed sonar array and sixteen below the waterline torpedoe launchers along with drones carting magnetic influace and ground penetrating radar cover the sub threat.
Propulsion is by four pebble bed reactors providing electrical power to four azioods.
Armour consists of modern composit arround the turrets and turret wells. The remaining armour randmges dmftom two inches for the outer hull, four inches for the inner hull, composite proof against 6" AP for every second deck and composit around all but the crew quarters.
Over all size is Panamax, in built stealth properties and full EMP, NBCD hardening.
Crew would be about six hundred officers and men.
Yeah, the "sams will empty the skies" theory is neat, but against anything short of a full mobilized russian SAM net, the US has demonstrated time and time again the ability to destroy and/or render ineffective opposition air defense systems. SAMs are just one part of IADS, and given that the US has unchallenged supremacy in each and every other part, effective IADs against the US will remain a fantasy for everyone but Putin (and even then, only in limited zones).
Your assumption is kind of void, and looking at the rest of your post, I understand why you think that a bunch of idiots in slit trenches with a couple ATGMs could stop a full scale amphibious assault, but you'd be mistaken. The attacker assumes they will take losses, but there is no conventional force (again, barring concentrated prepared russian defense in depth) than can stop the US from seizing and landing on a stretch of coastline anywhere.
If the rubber skirts are torn up, it doesn't hold air anymore and won't float.
Nor is it an assault vehicle, so it's only going to do where other landing craft/AAV's have cleared the way.
>Railguns can be arbitrarily scaled.
Not really. Ultimately your sustained firepower is still limited by the available power aboard the ship. With battleship guns, the only limiting factors were how quickly additional shells and powder could be loaded, and how quickly the guns could disperse heat.
Railguns will never match the raw firepower that the old battleships had. (Not that it really matters in the era of guided missiles and such.)
I dont really get why carriers are supposed to be "better".
You take a carrier, you have to put loads of expensive planes on it or it doesnt do shit. Thats a LOT of extra money. And those planes will just launch missiles that any ship can launch.
Lets assume 64 super hornets for a carrier, thats almost $4 billion worth of airplanes. The carrier itself is another $4 billion +. With that money you could buy a shit load of surface ships dedicated to missile spam.
>With battleship guns, the only limiting factors were how quickly additional shells and powder could be loaded, and how quickly the guns could disperse heat.
What the fuck am I reading?
It will take a fuckload of abuse to tear the rubber skirts, and more to actually make it ineffective.
>Nor is it an assault vehicle, so it's only going to do where other landing craft/AAV's have cleared the way.
You could not be more wrong. Nobody assults a unprepared beachead (thats what air forces are for), but it is very much a front line unit.
The .50 caliber M2's and 40mm automatic grenade launchers are not for show.
You do know they can take more abuse than an LST or an AAV, right?
Easier to reload planes than VLS slots. Planes can be outfitted for a wide variety of missions, strike farther than surface ships, and engage in ways that surface ships are unable to.
Buy Commercial Freighter.
Have missiles and such.
>what do you see as flaws of the battleship?
Gun Mantlets and shell storage are the majority of the battleship's weight.
>If it's not heavily armored it's not a BB.
>There's good reason why battleships almost never sunk each other.
Avrage BB armor is supposed to be immune to 14 inch but not past that.
>There's good reason why battleships almost never sunk each other.
Battleships almost never sank each other because in the 20th century it became extremely rare for two comparable naval powers to fight each other. But when battleships did fight each other they sank each other fairly often.
I'd rather kill them than scare them, but I'm sure you're not being serious
What are any relevant examples of the US military having a need to fire for effect in a way that big guns would have done better without a target in the last two decades?
Another thing that confused me : torpedoes were available much earlier than carriers, but didnt invalidate the battleship, even though one torpedo could disable it and surface ships like destroyers carried torpedoes much earlier than carriers came into existence.
Why is that? All you had to do was spam torps whenever you saw an enemy ship, and they are homing, so you dont have to waste your time trying to land shots with guns.
>They are homing
They weren't for a long time
>Why were battleships still used
Expensive prestige pieces that were somewhat effective at serving as AA platforms and shore bombardment boats, also carriers hadn't been in action for a long time yet
Still can't tell if you're b8ing, but minivan shells do nothing but inspire people like, say, Osama bin laden, who quoted the destruction of the towers of lebanon by New Jersey's unguided idiocy as his inspiration for 9/11.
Torpedoes were not homing. They were basically tiny unmanned boats that went in one direction. They were badly outranged by guns and far harder to accurately target. They also left a highly visible wake and could be outrun by ships. Guns from several ships can also be trained on one target for concentrated fire. That is not possible with torpedoes.
Torpedo vs. battleship debate was a major doctrinal schism in the early 20th century, and settled conclusively in favor of gunned battleships.
>If the rubber skirts are torn up, it doesn't hold air anymore and won't float.
Not entirely true. Fingered/segmented skirts are actually remarkably rugged; if one finger is torn and loses pressure, it will collapse and the two segments next to it will expand and fill most of the gap. I believe I've seen it stated somewhere that a hovercraft with a segmented/fingered skirt can lose up to 30% of it's segments and still hover.
Obviously if the bag section above the segments is torn, that's a different matter.
Do you have some other factor that would limit the fire rate of a conventional naval gun?
>You think railguns are limited because there is limited amount of power aboard a ship
>but you can put infinite gunz on a ship?
Not infinite, but a shitload more than you can railguns.
The bag is interlaced into the segments as a whole.
It would take a fuckload more to kill the bag than it would just to wipe out the segments.
Overall, its incrediblely durable. The whole system is designed to "lose" a fuckload of air, its less efficant to have it blow out of a segment, but the craft will stay up regardless.
To add, if you lose 4 segments AND tear the bag, you just lose that side.
The other three sides will stay inflated. It will dip into the water, but it should still be able to move, obviously with less speed and whatnot.
People forget that they DO float with zero power. Technically it can lose all bags and putter around with just its manuvering fans like a lousiana fan boat.
Not optimal though.
Also, it has 4 engines and they ALL drive the lift fan and the manuvering fans. It can lose 2 and keep trucking.
LCAC dont give a single fuck.
Recoil would limit the rate of fire of a 16" guns on an Iowa to 15 rounds per minute or so. Granted, at that point you'd be damn near shaking the ship apart, but it would be sustainable short term.
Thermal effects, on the other hand, would limit the weapon to 2 shots per minute sustained, and 3-4 rounds per minute when cold.
Actively cooled you might be able to get it up to 10 rounds per minute, but the limiting factor is always going to be heat. Recoil is so far behind that as to be a nonissue.
Oh, and thermal effects are physics. No matter how much they might say they prefer to work in a fricionless vacuum.
>A 16"/50 gun had a rate of fire of 2 rounds per minute.
Per gun. And there were NINE of them on a single ship. AND each shot put out about 360 MJ at the muzzle. If you tried to do that with railguns, not even a nuclear reactor could put out enough electrical power to keep up.
>Sure, but at the end of the day that enemy force is still there, dug in.
They had quite a bit more mobility than that anyways, since their AA was moving around all over the place.
>"our fire support killed everyone"
All of the nope in the world.
If all you can do is wait under camo netting dispersed with no engines on and no logistics moving then you can't fight. If you can't fight, you can't oppose a landing.
>If you tried to do that with railguns, not even a nuclear reactor could put out enough electrical power to keep up.
Nuclear power is not necessary for land bombardment. There is an intermediate energy storage for low count salvos. There's enough space and power on a Zumwalt for two railguns, and a battleship could fit more.
Railguns will be on an order of magnitude less in muzzle energy than 16"/50 but an order of magnitude greater in effective range. As I said, they are not comparable weapon systems to previous naval artillery due to ASM and the resulting changes in doctrine.
>Mount a railgun or two on a cruiser
Why not scale up a railgun to 16 " scale? At the very least you're making gains in damage control what with the capacitors replacing powder bags. At best you're making drastic gains in range and fire rate.
>Pointless, can't armor critical components such as radar
Radar is hardly a critical component. You can have multiple radar suites and loosing one doesn't put the ship at risk. If you loose all the radar antenna you can ask an escort to spot for you. If you don't have any escorts left you can just eyeball it.
>Spend every penny on guided munitions and VLS slots
Bullets are cheaper than missiles. If you plan to shoot more than a couple hundred rounds out of it it's better to use guns.
>Because if we wanted to invade any county with a larger coast than panama, its a useful thing to have. We're the only ones that have one because we're the only nation in the world that fields a full sized blue water navy.
Most recently,we've used the USS New Jersey for fleet actions. The shear size of it allowed the Iowa-class ship to mount more firepower than anything else in the fleet as well as provide unparalleled anti-air fire. During the Korean War the Black Dragon served as a mobile HQ, making a decapitation strike out of the question.
Hold on, let me crunch the numbers here.
Most railgun models fire at 64 MJ with the newer ones capable of 100 MJ. The steam turbines on an Iowa class battleship produces 158000KW or 158MW, which means it can fully charge a railgun in under a second. The reactors on a Nimitz class carrier produces 200MWs and a little more than that in shaft horsepower at the same time.
Even accounting for 9 guns we're looking at maybe five seconds to charge everything and that's not counting the torque generated for the engines. Even if we double the capacitors we're still looking at dramatic gains in fire rate.
Also, we haven't gotten into damage control issues with capacitors over propellant charges.
You're speaking in romanticized Mike Sparks speak, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
>why not scale railguns
Sure, no need to do it on an armored ship
>Radar not critical
What are you smoking? A multi directional Anti-ship missile attack will disable the tech needed to locate targets, guide munitions, and communicate with fleet elements. You can't armor that tech, and therefore, you can mission kill a ship regardless of how much you armor the citadel.
>Guns are cheaper
Maybe, but they are less precise, and precision continues to matter much more than raw firepower in each modern conflict
>New jersey for fleet actions
You don't know what fleet action means
>More firepower than the rest of the fleet
what are you smoking
>unparalleled anti-air fire
this is wrong
You're like Mike sparks
Any ship with sufficient communications infrastructure can serve as a command ship, in many ways the battleships were much less than ideal.
>Sure, no need to do it on an armored ship
So what you're really saying is that armor is obsolete.
While I can understand where you're coming from, I have to disagree. There have been improvements in material science like ceramic armor and improvements in design like slat armor that improve the capabilities of armor. While active defenses are great, they have limited endurance and ECM is never a sure thing.
>What are you smoking? A multi directional Anti-ship missile attack will disable the tech needed to locate targets, guide munitions, and communicate with fleet elements. You can't armor that tech, and therefore, you can mission kill a ship regardless of how much you armor the citadel.
But you have redundancies of those things and even a mission killed ship can be repaired and returned to combat so long as it survives. Take the HMS Warspite for example. It got blasted to hell, lost almost all it's armaments, and was a blazing wreck but almost all her crew survived and was repaired and returned to service within a year.
>Maybe, but they are less precise, and precision continues to matter much more than raw firepower in each modern conflict
To an extent, yes, but we're seeing more and more ways to degrade accuracy. ECM in particular has been shown to defeat missiles more often than not and missiles tend to be too bulky to load from internal magazines. Each one takes up deck space and can only be fired once.
>You don't know what fleet action means
So...all it did during the Lebonese civil war doesn't count?
>what are you smoking
You misquoted. I said "The shear size of it allowed the Iowa-class ship to mount more firepower than anything else in the fleet" Any, not all, and you can go back an look at it>>28461057
>this is wrong
So what other ship in the Navy has anti-air capabilities that equal the New Jersey and don't say carriers, those fighters don't count unless they fire right from the deck.
>Any ship with sufficient communications infrastructure can serve as a command ship, in many ways the battleships were much less than ideal.
Sure, but the mass of armor makes it difficult to pull decap strikes.