Can someone explain to me why anti-ship missiles are considered so deadly? I thought in war, ships would hit each other with shells that were much larger and had more explosives in them, and AP shells could penetrate through armor belts.
>Comparing only warhead weight of a missile to total weight of a shell
>Comparing a battleship's shell to a lighter weight missile like an Exocet
Why are such bullshit threads not instantly deleted?
>Things like exocets or harpoons wouldn't do anything to a battleship though.
Tell me then admiral, why don't we see battleships being used then?
>I thought in war, ships would hit each other with shells
The era of big ship engagements is over. Never again will two flotillas of large ships stand off and shell each other to conclusion. The smallest vessel can destroy the largest with an ASM now.
>Ususally with HE, the filler weight is 50%. So fine, it's only 850lbs of HE.
Never, ever post again please. You clearly have no idea of the actual construction of 16" shells and think they're like bombs.
>Bursting Charge HC Mark 14 - 153.6 lbs. (69.67 kg)
Only if the RPG can magically turn into a ASM mid-flight. Also the fishing craft would have to have guidance systems and a crew trained to operate them. A tad bit more difficult.
>How is that less deadly than 364lbs?
Because one can be ripple fired off a flight of aircraft 400nmi away from their carrier or base, or from small missile-carrying ships, flying a further ~70nmi to target with a high degree of accuracy.
The other goes 20nmi at maximum range with questionable accuracy
>implying Somali fishing boats can into space
>Enemy ship fires Missile from beyond visual range of battleship
>Missile impacts bridge
>Destroys buttloads of vital systems and communication lines and setting shit on fire yo
>Battleship becomes floating casket
High speed boats could with stand off laser guided ATGMs like Kornet stay far enough away that no gun with both the range to hit it and the tracking/rof to actually hit it would be effective. They could then target specifically each main gun, penetrate straight through the face of each (the thickest armor ever mounted to a ship) and wreck each turret and turn Yamato from a fighting ship to the world's biggest yacht.
not to mention that by the time you built a new one, missiles would have newer, larger ap warheads to compensate. and everyone would probably go supersonic just for extra fuck you.
jesus, that's fucking nothing. i never knew that.
bb blown the fuck out.
> why anti-ship missiles are considered so deadly?
Oh, I wonder. Lets take a look:
bb defenders have some dumb fucking idea in their heads that modern ships, especially american ships, are defenseless. it's quite the opposite. they are much better defended and hard to kill than any battleship, period. this is because you think battleships were well defended. the fact is they were passively defended, because armor is always a passive defense. modern warships are now actively defended, using active defense systems.
basically, they've exchanged passive defense (shit) for active defense (great) and once you get this concept into your head a lot of stuff suddenly makes sense.
is this a new meme or just one dedicated autist?
Aircraft are not free, carriers are not free.
Surface ships can be built tougher, stronger, with superior weaponry than aircraft.
With a similar amount of funding that an F-35 gets, you could design a mostly submerged surface ship with an above portion undetectable on radar/IR/whatever.
Carriers are aimed, not at naval fights, but at hitting land targets.
>With a similar amount of funding that an F-35 gets, you could design a mostly submerged surface ship with an above portion undetectable on radar/IR/whatever.
It's incredible the stupidity battleship threads bring to the light.
Why do you think the zumwalt is stealthed? AShM's still rely on radar to find their targets and hit them.
Build ships like icebergs, with 90% below 10% above, and suddenly they are immune to AShM's.
>armored gunship/submarine carrier guy detected.
Because a billion dollars spent on a battleship gets you one ship to do one mission with like a 60% readiness rate, or you can make 10 ships to do 6 missions 100% of the time.
And because immunity to ASMs isn't immunity to gravity bombs or torpedoes.
are you a slav or something?
>Aircraft are not free, carriers are not free.
battelships are cheap are they? maybe you need to get some learnin'
>Surface ships can be built tougher, stronger, with superior weaponry than aircraft.
what the fuck does this even mean. the issue is not that a surface ship outguns an individual aircraft, it's that one aircraft can easily pack enough death to kill any single surface ship. now stack a carrier air wing of shit-kicking and the firepower of a battleship means nothing, particuly in naval combat.
battleships are passive. you can stack all the motherfucking missiles you want on that bitch (didn't work too well though, too much vibrartion from those guns of yours), but guess what? you will never outrange airpower. that aircraft can shoot at you from much further off and you can't touch it, which means you can't go on the offensive, and that means that you're immediately on the defensive, and the initiative immediately goes to the guy with the airpower. unless you can match it with your airpower (this includes awacs, by the way). for which you're going to need carriers. plus, they can also bomb the fuck out of land targets anyway.
and this is why battleships are no longer a thing. it's not hard to understand but m-m-muh armor and m-m-muh gunz.
again, it's not to understand. if you're willing to stop and think about it for half a second.
no they cant outrange enemy ships. the carrier can, but the carrier is not the one launching ASMs. The aircraft have to get within ASM range, and that means getting within AA range.
>any fucking idiot can see that in the light of active defense systems already mentions that passive defense become redundant and useless
who is the fucking autist here? me, or you, the guy resolutely sticking to the most narrow and out of date definition of the word 'protection'.
i don't give a fuck what you think that word means. your precious flower terms of endearment are fucking meaningless. your lack of comprehension of modern technology and what 'protection' actually means is your fucking problem you basement dwelling autistic cunt.
why the fuck am i going to use 10 000 tons of passive armor that any russian missile can cut through like a knife through butter and not 1000 tons of active protection that actually stands a chance of stopping the threat?
you're fucking stupid. feel ashamed.
>what the fuck does this even mean.
A vehicle that floats on the surface of the ocean can mount bigger/more weapons, armor, counter measures, radar, etc than an aircraft.
>now stack a carrier air wing of shit-kicking and the firepower of a battleship means nothing, particuly in naval combat.
Except you'll have 4 battleships weighing more, carrying more missiles, and will probably be immune to 90% of your air wings weapons anyways.
>that aircraft can shoot at you from much further off and you can't touch it
This is blatantly false, the ships missiles will always outrange an aircrafts.
Further, if we are talking about AWAC's
Seaplanes could easily replace the need for expensive carriers.
>why the fuck am i going to use 10 000 tons of passive armor
Because then you can use a naval version of ERA & APS that tanks have shown will stop missiles 99% of the time?
a ship should be able to launch much faster, longer ranged missiles than a aircraft though, given that a aircraft has a much lower payload.
Its just that tech never went in that direction because of muh carriers.
missiles have guidance. Much higher hit rates than unguided shells. Complex warheads are also more potent than solid steel AP shells or even AP shells with an explosive warhead. Much greater range too. ASM's have over-horizon capability, up to hundreds of miles. Shells are limited to around 40-50 miles at most.
There are countermeasures of course, but it's to the point where they don't really bother with armor on ships anymore because you'd need insane amounts to stop a modern ASM warhead.
>all evidence counter to my agenda is a conspiracy!
Yep, definitely a slav.
No, because the ASM launches with a big V boost from the aircraft's speed at launch, and it launches from altitude and descends, instead of launching from sea level and climbing to altitude.
So the ASM, weight for weight, will have more range.
said, but I'd like to add: stop comparing with shit old small subsonic missiles. Exocets aren't a real threat anymore for any first world navy.
Try this. 7 tonnes of supersonic fun, with a lot of guidance tricks, and 750 kg (1,653 lb) of HE filler.
Russian subs can carry 24 of these motherfuckers and, afaik, if a salvo is fired at a carrier, there's no way it'll survive. One will get through, and its all that it takes. (You might ask "hurrr durrr then why do carriers even exist - surface ships are fragile but incredibly useful, so they're fucking well protected, not only by weapons, but also by "if you sink this we'll glass your country".)
Happy? Realize why this shit is dangerous? You're welcome.
>a ship should be able to launch much faster, longer ranged missiles than a aircraft though, given that a aircraft has a much lower payload.
The ship doesn't have the advantage of launching at 30,000ft at Mach 2.
Nor does it have the speed or agility to avoid such large, bulky missiles.
>battleship immune to air attack
>implying BBs haven't been getting wrecked by planes since WWII
>repulse+prince of wales
a modern BB would get raped up the ass by aircraft-borne ASMs. Hard. Countermeasures can only do so much.
We established this the other night, yes ATGM missiles would be able to penetrate an Iowa Battleship regardless of where it hit. The turrets at 17" or the superstructure/bridge at 17.3" (thickest on Iowa) can both be penned by "common" modern ATGM's. Where the dilemma is that almost all of these missiles would only cause about a 1-2" pin hole in the armor and unless it had a perfect hit where it got something explosive or flammable on the other side would do little to no real damage to the ship.
Math and structural force simulations were also done in regards to the LRASM against the Iowa belt armor I believe and found it would do fuck all to it with publicly revealed specifications.
Now we also did math and something like a GBU-28 would handedly go through and detonate if it hit with a chance of actually going completely through the armor layers and exiting the bottom based on what date you use (EFP vs Balistic penetration ratios of RHA to Concrete)
Now going along with the GBU-28 that had a entire span of 3 weeks from drawing board to first bomb on target, it would NOT take long for a modern country to convert or create a proper "Anti-Armor ASM"
>tell that the Prinz Eugen
it moored over a kilometer away from both blasts, on of which was an airburst, and which were only in the tens of kilotons anyway. the contamination would have killed the crew.
you think that soviet missiles had warheads that small, and were that inaccurate? i fucking lol'd.
Radar horizon; this alone will reduce a warship's ability to detect aircraft at range to such a significant degree that they will not be able to target an aircraft carrying any modern ASM before it has already launched the weapon and turned around.
yeah the granit has some crazy guidance. a volley of them can actually fly in formation with one popping up to track the target, datalinking the rest, all sharing info. If leader gets hit by anti-missile missiles, another takes over. The rest stay undetected by flying extremely low and hypersonic.
Never actually tested in a battle, but awesome concept.
Supersonic sea skimming missiles have serious problems actually finding & hitting targets.
Theres a reason the US doesn't build them.
Also bigger missiles are less maneuverable & easier to spot + intercept.
>no they cant outrange enemy ships.
you dumb cunt.
>the carrier can
this isn't a computer game. the carrier doesn't use weapons of it's own.
you can't actually strike at the carrier because of this, which means you have to wait for those missiles to come to you. so you're on the defensive, so you're lost the initiative and you're dead, dead, dead.
How does the aircraft spot the warship, if its not in LOS of radar?
Except the sattelite support informs the BB's of the approximate location of the carriers
Swarms of UAV's finds the exact location, and a salvo of 500 AShM's erases that carrier from existance.
>have serious problems actually finding & hitting targets.
It's not rocket science (HEH IT ACTUALLY IS), you surface your sub at the closest possible range from the carrier group, fire 12 missiles at the carrier, satellite guidance takes in, then radars, goodbye. Even without crazy guidance there's really no way to reliably stop all 12 with just SeaRAMs
The webm of that tomahawk hitting a container sized target comes to mind.
>Theres a reason the US doesn't build them.
And that reason is the US Navy. Why build highly advanced sea skimmers when theres literally no navy that couldn't just be sinked by other means.
The same reason why the US doesn't build crazy anti air SAM systems, they don't need to when you have such a huge air force.
Mostly, range and accuracy. You might fire off a dozen rounds at 18 km and never hit a thing. However, an anti-ship missile could fire at ten times that range and hit ever time if the enemy did nothing.
>Even without crazy guidance there's really no way to reliably stop all 12 with just SeaRAMs
You really think the Carrier is defending itself with SeaRAMs? Do you know what a CSG is and why it operates in that fashion?
Who am I kidding, of course you don't.
So then this range advantage you are talking about for carriers does not actually exist.
And a guided missile battleship would objectively be superior to a carrier, any day of the week.
Not to mention, aircraft do not carry these 7+ ton AShM's
An aircraft can spot a ship from a high altitude using a long range surface search radar, while the ship gets an emission and a bearing. This was what made the Tu-22M such a pain for the navy, they'd see you from so far away and then launch Kh-22's, then dive and use afterburners all the way home. This was one of the reasons the F-14 and its crazy pheonix missiles even existed.
>A vehicle that floats on the surface of the ocean can mount bigger/more weapons, armor, counter measures, radar, etc than an aircraft.
>the issue is not that a surface ship outguns an individual aircraft, it's that one aircraft can easily pack enough death to kill any single surface ship.
can't read, can you faggot.
>Except you'll have 4 battleships weighing more, carrying more missiles, and will probably be immune to 90% of your air wings weapons anyways.
only in your fantasy land.
>This is blatantly false, the ships missiles will always outrange an aircrafts.
no they won't, because they're launched from the surface, not from altitude with forwards airspeed. why do i have to explain this.
>Seaplanes could easily replace the need for expensive carriers.
all of my what.
you know why seaplanes only see limited use? something about having to launch off the water on an ocean and swell and something something....
you're a kid aren't you?
>Because then you can use a naval version of ERA & APS that tanks have shown will stop missiles 99% of the time?
if i have active defense i don't need it to begin wtih fucking hell what is wrong with your brain.
and shown to stop man-carry anti-tank missiles. not maverick and sure as fuck not moskit. what kind of era do you think would stop a 3 ton missile with a 750kg charge hitting supersonic.
Alright I really don't know.
Aside from the obvious answer, which is jets to intercept the missiles (which wouldn't work when you got seconds to intercept 12 missiles fired from close range.) what else is there? All that I know is that the us is "developing", but nothing is fielded.
>which is jets to intercept the missiles
fucking lel, no.
Really, stop going on this board, or at least threads you don't know anything about and asserting your hot opinions.
The answer your looking for is that a CSG includes destroyers and frigates. Both equipped with missiles and their own defense systems.
>fucking lel, no.
Then you're the ignorant fuck, it already happened, its not some special shit.
>The answer your looking for is that a CSG includes destroyers and frigates. Both equipped with missiles and their own defense systems.
Then trim your edges and answer me: which missiles are those?
my head just exploded.
>Except the sattelite support informs the BB's of the approximate location of the carriers
BUT THE CARRIERS DON'T HAVE THIS SUPPORT, AND DON'T HAVE AWACS? THE USN IS SUDDENLY NOT A THING ANYMORE? WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU SMOKE?
>Swarms of UAV's finds the exact location, and a salvo of 500 AShM's erases that carrier from existanc
HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO LAUNCH THEM? BECAUSE IF YOU WANT A LONG RANGED AIRCRAFT YOU NEED A STRIP AND A CATAPAULT TO LAUNCH THEM FROM.
YOU CAN'T LAUNCH ASMS FROM UCAVS SMALL ENOUGH TO STEP OFF THE BACK OF A NON-CARRIER AND WITH ENOUGH RANGE TO OUT RANGE THE AIRCRAFT, LET ALONE THE CAP, OF A FUCKING CARRIER BATTLE GROUP.
YOU WORTHLESS FUCKING CUNT.
yes, i am mad.
>no they won't, because they're launched from the surface, not from altitude with forwards airspeed. why do i have to explain this.
Which is why we launch rockets to space from aircraft, yes?
Oh wait, thats all just energy, solved by putting more fuel in the missile.
>you know why seaplanes only see limited use?
>what kind of era do you think would stop a 3 ton missile with a 750kg charge hitting supersonic.
The EFP's from APS and the explosion from ERA would splatter inbound missiles. Meaning it's not going to do shit to the armor.
>HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO LAUNCH THEM?
what is vtol?
>BECAUSE IF YOU WANT A LONG RANGED AIRCRAFT YOU NEED A STRIP AND A CATAPAULT TO LAUNCH THEM FROM.
Not true, if you want a high speed maneuverable fighter you need carriers.
But just for being an AShM truck you could use VTOL or CATOVL
The missiles carried by these aircraft could not pierce the armor of a battleship either.
>BUT THE CARRIERS DON'T HAVE THIS SUPPORT, AND DON'T HAVE AWACS?
If both have same support, then the larger missiles carried by a BB will outrange & outnumber whatever the carrier carries.
Its more efficient to launch aircraft launched ASMs compared to ship launched for many reasons. one being you can launch from many unexpected directions forcing an enemy fleet into a posture that does not allow them to put all their strength (including defensive capabilities) into one direction. Smaller missiles are also easier to produce and arm their respective platform, ei. its easier to get 2 harpoons from the factory and on an F-18 than it is to get P-700s from the plant to the cruiser.
>Which is why we launch rockets to space from aircraft, yes?
>Oh wait, thats all just energy, solved by putting more fuel in the missile.
OH MY FUCKING GOD
YOU'RE FUCKING KIDDING ME
YOU EXPECT TO MAKE AN INTERCEPTOR THAT LARGE AND STILL BE ABLE TO PUT THEM ON ANY SHIP IN ENOUGH NUMBERS TO EFFECTIVELY DEFEND YOUR SHIP. DON'T TELL ME THAT YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT.
lol, you're actually a fucking idiot.
you're talking about something like a trident d5? which weighs nearly 60 tons?
you realise that 90% of that fuel is just to get the fucking thing off the ground, don't you?
you know why the waverider is air launched? you know that skylon is using an air-breathing engine to get airborne before turning on the rocket? you don't know shit!
>The EFP's from APS and the explosion from ERA would splatter inbound missiles. Meaning it's not going to do shit to the armor.
do you comprehend the size required to stop a p-700 granite?
>that's 7 fucking metric tons
>so topping out at nearly 3000kph
>750kg he warhead of 500kt thermonuclear warhead
>500kt thermonuclear warhead
>jesus fucking christ.
you live in a fantasy world. the blocks required, simply by weight alone, would be enormous. too fucking heavy to put anything else on your ship. NOT TO MENTION THE INTERFERENCE WITH HYDRODYNAMIC FLOW AROUND THE HULL. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU STARTED LOSING THEM. NOT THAT THEY WOULD STOP A FUCKING ASM ANYWAY.
you need to understand something. simply saying something (The EFP's from APS and the explosion from ERA would splatter inbound missiles. Meaning it's not going to do shit to the armor.) doesn't make it real.
>loud as fuck boomers can't be found by the entire US atlantic sea Sonar network + french naval aviation and british ships.
Better drop another 50,000 sonar buoys into the atlantic.
No, just that afaik the most capable ones in service... Are SeaRAMs. Soo we go back to what I said earlier. Dipshit.
Real sub and anti sub capabilities are so classified I wouldn't dare to argue for or against this scenario. Let's just say it might be possible?
Going to sleep now. Gnight.
>No, just that afaik the most capable ones in service... Are SeaRAMs. Soo we go back to what I said earlier. Dipshit.
SeaRAMs are not more capable than RIM-162 ESSM. Sleep tight, chucklefuck
>Its more efficient to launch aircraft launched ASMs compared to ship launched for many reasons.
Any modern AShM can be given way points to fly, allowing multiple AShM salvos to approach simulaneously from different directions.
>Smaller missiles are also easier to produce and arm their respective platform
Thats really not true, at all. Battleships would be stocked in docks with cranes and whatnot.
Carriers load their fighters one by one, by hand.
If launching a missile from 30,000 feet and mach 2 is truly the proper & optimal way to do it
Then all surface missiles would have 2 stages, stage 1 to carry them up to 30,000 feet & mach 2.
Of course we don't do that, since this extra velocity is easily gained by making the missile bigger.
>what is vtol?
a severely limited concept that greatly reduces the range and the payload of the aircraft employing it. which means your tiny as fuck aircraft takes another massive hit to range and payload. why does everything need to be explained to you?
>Not true, if you want a high speed maneuverable fighter you need carriers.
>But just for being an AShM truck you could use VTOL or CATOVL
my head is starting to hurt. none of this is true.
>The missiles carried by these aircraft could not pierce the armor of a battleship either.
a hellfire can pierce the armor of a battleship.
>If both have same support, then the larger missiles carried by a BB will outrange & outnumber whatever the carrier carries.
you've already had this explained to you. multiple times. you have simply decided not to believe it.
fuck off retard. there is no value in you or what you do. you're just a retard. you get nothing.
>Then all surface missiles would have 2 stages, stage 1 to carry them up to 30,000 feet & mach 2.
Some do. They're called a booster you silly shit.
Theres also the fact that by making that missile so large, you've negated its ability to hit a manouvering aircraft. Hitting ships imposes no such difficulty, especially BB sized things.
>Thats really not true, at all. Battleships would be stocked in docks with cranes and whatnot.
>Carriers load their fighters one by one, by hand.
>Of course we don't do that,
standard missiles are multistage missiles. all long range sam are.
>since this extra velocity is easily gained by making the missile bigger.
except it's not because of the differential change in mass and rocket fuel. which is exactly why it is never done.
and it's not just ceiling, it's ceiling and range.
your ignorance knows no bounds.
>3 weeks of having a ship the enemy can't sink with existing munitions is a nice advantage.
HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO BUILD A FUCKING BATTLESHIP IN THREE WEEKS
HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO KEEP THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOMETHING THAT SIZE SECRET
SEA TRIALS TAKE MORE THAN THREE WEEKS
GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE
A: What carrier borne fighters are carrying P-700 granites?
B: Do you comprehend that a missile which has been shattered by multiple EFP's, and is just a pile of HE/light frame, will have terrible armor penetration? Assuming it even detonates.
>you realise that 90% of that fuel is just to get the fucking thing off the ground, don't you?
A battleship mounting anti-ship tridents with KE projectiles that impact at mach 24 would be superior to ANY aircraft launched AShM
Don't be a retard
Battleship armor was built to take hits from 1 ton projectiles of solid steel, moving at mach 2.
>Then all surface missiles would have 2 stages, stage 1 to carry them up to 30,000 feet & mach 2.
True, good missile designers make them go mach 3, like the 2 stage TOR missile.
Or the Brahmos, which with it's mach 2.7 speed and 46,000 feet ceiling.
>something fired at mach 2, impacts at mach 2 without any additional energy transfer.
SM-2/SM-3's in VLS launchers for long range AA and missile interception, CWIS for close-in AA Harpoon for anti-ship, Tomahawk for anti-any surface target unlucky enough not to have it's own AA defense, and 5" gun with a surprisingly good ability to hit air targets
A missile carrying several AIM-9x's would hit 9 times out of 10.
From munition they got while in port, aka same thing.
>which is exactly why it is never done.
It's done all the time. What the hell do you think a fighter is? Just slapping more fuel onto a missile is VERY CHEAP compared to building a 100 million dollar fighter to carry it.
The fighter essentially doubles as a super expensive "booster" in this context.
Oscars never go to sea anymore because after 1998 they were being constantly shadowed by attack submarines that weren't even bothering to be very discreet.
Granted, the poor bastards selected to crew an Oscar these days would likely welcome having a 688 following them to render distress when the Oscar fucks up or explodes itself.
In theory, a Yasen is fully capable of launching 32 P-800 at once, though with Russian launch systems and the complexity of the Oniks to try and do so would be suicidal for several reasons.
First, surfacing within 80 kilometers of a carrier puts it well inside the patrolled area of the group. Launch or not, the Russian Federation would be sending their only Yasen class submarine into oblivion to make the attack.
Second.. if you launch 32 P-800, 3-5 are going to explode more or less immediately. Trying to launch 32 at once would risk the vessel and the strike being lost to fratricide.
Well there are tradeoffs. Launching from the surface and skimming the surface makes it harder to see it coming and target it with countermeasures.
But it also means you have to fight gravity constantly, rather then trade height for speed, and you are plowing though the thickest air possible and you start with no velocity. This is why a cruise missile might have 500 kilometers of range launched from a high speed and altitude aircraft and 70 kilometers launched from a surface ship.
>What carrier borne fighters are carrying P-700 granites?
goddamn fuck. the mere existance of the p-700 granite, irrespective of it's launch platform, makes your era system redundant. irrespective of any other system that you also have to contend with.
just fuck. why are you so fucking stupid.
sit down and work out the size of a charge required to turn back the energy even of a lowly harpoon. that's the ke and blast yield. now cover your ship with that and still expect to get it through the water forwards. don't know why that's an issue? because you're a retard and you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. why the fuck do you think the hull of a ship is shaped that way?
and what is the FUCKING point, when active defense can still do the same thing and DO IT FUCKING BETTER? every single one of those blocks will be about the same size as a rim-174. literally what is the point. other than you just want to armor a ship just because.
you realise that active defense is taking that block of era and meeting it with that missile 30km away from your hull where you won't get any damage from it? and where the forwards airspeed of that enemy missile will destroy it after it has become damaged, meaning you don't need as much explosives? so you can have more missiles to shoot down more missiles? and it won't fuck (ie completely stop) with your hydrodynamic flow? because if you wait until its against your hull you have to stop ALL OF THAT ENERGY and that's a big fucking plate.
>B: Do you comprehend that a missile which has been shattered by multiple EFP's, and is just a pile of HE/light frame, will have terrible armor penetration? Assuming it even detonates.
the rest of your post is too retarded for words. you're a retard. no more respect for you.
>It's done all the time
name a long range naval sam that isn't multistage.
>What the hell do you think a fighter is?
>Just slapping more fuel onto a missile is VERY CHEAP compared to building a 100 million dollar fighter to carry it.
fighters have wings you fucking retard. seriously just what the fuck.
just all of my what the fuck. i have lost so much what the fuck in this thread i need to go to the what the fuck store to restock my what the fuck stores.
i've gone through mad. i'm through to the other side. it's full of stars.
>you realise that active defense is taking that block of era and meeting it with that missile 30km away from your hull where you won't get any damage from it?
You realize that both the carrier and the battleship would have this, and that we get no where by magically assuming all missiles will be shot down before they reach their target?
>irrespective of it's launch platform
We're talking BB's vs carriers here, and you are saying battleships suck because a missile exists that carriers can't even fire?
>sit down and work out the size of a charge required to turn back the energy even of a lowly harpoon.
It doesn't need to "turn back".
The missile is destroyed and likely fails to detonate, it would STILL need to pierce the 2 feet of armor behind the ERA.
Well... we've had the Iowa's for years and nobody bothered building missiles that could one shot it.
Even the Russians said they didn't have any missiles that would be appropriate for killing an Iowa.
So.... America has had the armor advantage ever since WW2 ended, and nobody has bothered countering the Iowa's...
So.... you're the retarded one? :)
>name a long range naval sam that isn't multistage.
Except thats what I'm saying, and for the purposes of this discussion, the fighter constitutes an extremely expensive & limiting first stage for the missile.
I just posted, sorry. I had to reply to someone.
Also, I think 1911s are amazing. The only pistol with a confirmed aircraft kill.
Just so you guys know how trollish my beliefs are :)
He's saying that Anti-Modern-BB weapons would be produced before the first Modern-BB was ever finished, let alone tested to be fit for combat. The ship would literally need to arrive overnight with no warning to have the desired impact, otherwise, it's already dead before it's even born. Even if it did arrive in the most ideal manner, catching all conventional navies off guard, this Modern-BB would still have the ever living shit beaten out of it.
Standard ASMs from carrier borne fighters get a massive boost from them traveling at mach 2 and at high altitude, and in order to even try to match that, any missile the BB uses would have to be fuck-huge to match the offensive range given to a carrier by its fighter complement, only to launch a very small final stage. Which, means it'll only have a handful of shots due to the sheer size. Not only that, but even if the BB had its own battlegroup for point defense, the Carrier and its battlegroup would win out due to logistics alone, as it simply has far more munitions. Where the BB would literally run out of ammo for its fuckhuge missiles, the Carrier only has to survive the initial salvo. After that, it would still be able to launch sorties. In fact, it could very much suck the BB dry of every single load it had like some sort of semon demon. Of course, the carrier and its fighters don't have to actually penetrate the BB either. Blinding it and/or breaking its rudder will do fine too.
After that, the carrier can do whatever she wants to him.
Japanese 8" and 6" cruiser gunfire couldn't penetrate the armor of USS South Dakota at Second Guadalcanal, but it did shoot away her radars and directors, rendering one of our most modern battleships "deaf, dumb and blind" in the words of her commander.
The all or nothing armor scheme used on the modern BBs was fairly good at keeping the ships afloat but shitty at protecting fragile detection and fire control systems that had to be mounted high in the unarmored superstructure to function.
Attempts to mount Sea Sparrow on the Iowas during their refit was abandoned because shock testing at Dahlgren found that the system could not survive the firing of the 16" rifles.
BASED KUTNETZOV CLASS CARRIER
I wish America would ensure its carriers could defend itself without aircraft. Never know what could happen. A dozen VLS tubes would be enough, that's not too much to ask.
But that's the thing. They don't need to. It's far cheaper to use a bunch more of conventional stuff to kill it than to make a weapon to handle a unicorn. And the stuff doesn't even need to fully penetrate. Wrecking its comms, sensors and even its rudder/props does the job fine. Logistics is everything.
>I wish America would ensure its carriers could defend itself without aircraft.
What do you think the rest of the CSG is for?
That said, without aircraft you're pretty much fucked anyway. No CAP, no AEW, no ASW, so strike ability. At best you're on the defensive. At worst you're tanking wave after wave of AShMs you can't predict the arrival of nor fire back on.
We're in a 5th generational era
A loss of your own sensors is only a small setback, doesn't make you blind.
Obviously, a more durable communication system would need to be developed to ensure it can't be destroyed.
Honestly, I think they'd just get in the way of things. I mean, worse case, there's a fighter that's just starting to launch and you fire those VLS tubes. Big, nasty mess. Even with that out of the picture due to how extreme it is, that's wasted space when you could just have more stuff dedicated to the fighters or various other ship subsystems. The fighters themselves are far more useful than whatever omission had to be made to accommodate those tubes, even if it's only a small change to the munitions complement.
the whole point of a carrier group is that the carrier will never have to defend itself
the USN has plenty of other far more capable missile carrying boats fucking everywhere, they don't need to load their shit down with missiles
>You realize that both the carrier and the battleship would have this,
>and that we get no where by magically assuming all missiles will be shot down before they reach their target?
you're magically assuming that you can build an era plate large enough to turn back an ashm and still not stop your ship dead in the water due to mass and flow interference. and not rupture the fucking hull every time it fires. oh wait, you're going to armor the hull as well! congrats, your ship isn't breaking 8 knots.
>We're talking BB's vs carriers here, and you are saying battleships suck because a missile exists that carriers can't even fire?
no we're not. we're talking as to why bb are no longer a thing. the p-700 granite is fired from a surface vessel. go and look up its targetting profiles and see why you're fucked. this is why no one builds bb anymore. they're out-of-date.
as for airborne weaponry, look up broach. it is easy to defeat passive armor. two-stage warheads defeat era. you think you can stop multi-stage 1000lb class warheads with ship borne era do you? you're a fucking retard.
and that's if i don't just decide to cut through your top deck. because i can do that quite easily (plunge has been a thing for decades). gonna armor plate that fucker all over are you?
the reason they're not used is because we don't have to. because no navy in the world is as fucking retarded as you. retarded enough to spend all that money on...fucking nothing at all.
>It doesn't need to "turn back".
that's exactly what it needs to do. you are fucking stupid. it needs to stop the total energy of the ke of the mass plus the yield of the warhead. right against the fucking hull.
you worthless piece of shit.
>2 feet of armor
oh wow, it's fucking nothing.
"You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."
-Soviet Fleet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov,1985- Quote after watching the Iowa in a NATO exercise
Google it! We were in a fucking arms race with them for DECADES and they NEVER built anything close to an anti ship missile that would be effective against the Iowa's!
Nope. it's an easy mistake to make, but anti-ship missiles generally use a high explosive semi-armor periceing warhead. Basically a hardened steel projectile filled with lots and lots of boom. It drives into the side of the target then explodes.
A shaped charge warhead would be relatively pointless on a warship. Detonating on the outer hull the copper jet would be unlikely to penetrate the inner hull, even with a large warhead and a minimally 'armored' design.
>After that, it would still be able to launch sorties.
You are assuming that the aircraft is not losing aircraft to SAM's. The carrier needs space for its 5000 person crew, needs space for its 90 aircraft, needs space for hangars, etc.
Whereas the battleship would be largely all munitions, plus being much cheaper to build/crew/operate.
In terms of cost effectiveness, the battleship would have the carrier beat.
But obviously, the US is not building carriers to fight navies.
You never know what could happen. Which is why I want our carriers to have a dozen VLS cells tucked away somewhere. What if this, what if that, it's better to have and not need than need and not have, be prepared, etc. I'm just asking that future aircraft carrier designs get a few VLS tubes, and future submarine designs get escape pods. It's not much.
They could find somewhere out of the way to put them, it's just a dozen cells.
Lets not forget most ship are armed with this Phalanx CIWS or something close to it, and the exocet only max Speed of Mach 0.92
1,134 kilometres per hour (705 mph) but the mk7 16"/50 has Muzzle velocity AP: 2,500 ft/s (762 m/s)
HC & Nuclear: 2,690 ft/s (820 m/s)
...so could you defeat AShMs with ERA tiles and spaced armor? In theory, that should reduce a HEAT round enough that 6 inches of steel could stop it. You also run into issues with the penetration of a shaped charge being relative to the width of the charge rather than it's weight and a super sonic missile can't use a shaped charge because the margin of error for the missile's stand off distance is too low.
My understanding was that the missile had a hardened steel casing but that doesn't make much sense either.
Technically, the Tomahawk cruise missile does outrange the LRASM despite being nearly 20 years it's senior. but I suppose that doesn't count.
Oh yeah, that thing! Pretty neat. But seriously, what >>28466479 said.
Let's assume both the Carrier and the BB (with their battlegroups) do have lasers too. That just means point defense is more effective in shooting down only incoming missiles, and at very short ranges. In this situation, what would happen is that the BB's missile salvo would still get shot down due to being fuck-huge, even if it unleashed everything it had at the Carrier. Which leads us back to where we left off. The BB blowing its load, without anything in reserve, leaving him completely helpless in the face of the Carrier as she hits him and his battlegroup where-ever and when-ever she likes, non-stop, until he breaks.
Also, he's way the fuck slower with all that armor and huge munitions. Useless really.
>Well... we've had the Iowa's for years and nobody bothered building missiles that could one shot it.
the iowas have not been a thing for fucking decades for one.
two, do you know anything about soviet anti-shipping missiles?
>Even the Russians said they didn't have any missiles that would be appropriate for killing an Iowa.
the soviet union had been fielding high subsonic and supersonic anti-ship missles with huge he warheads (up to 1000kg) or nuclear options since the 50s. they had also being lying through their teeth to everyone about everything. it's like you don't remember the cold war.
>So.... America has had the armor advantage ever since WW2 ended, and nobody has bothered countering the Iowa's...
the iowas were not consistantly fielded since world war 2.
>So.... you're the retarded one? :)
given that you're wrong in every respect, not even close, fucktard.
I'm not trying to detract from your argument here, but how effective are most forms of interception. Like what is the percentage of incoming ashm's that can be shot down by a ticonderoga.
LaWS is six five kilowatt solid state lasers fired though the same telescope. It's pretty much just a "hey, let's throw a few million at putting a bunch of welding lasers together."
As a proof of concept, it works. It's quite limited by it's operating wavelength and power limits of solid state lasers.
Raython's FEL prototypes are 100 kilowatt lasers tuned to much higher wavelengths, able to ignore the vast majority of atmospheric effects and invulnerable to the old 'put mirrored foil on it' method of laser defense.
Even with the limitations of LaWS the later higher energy versions should be able to perform anti-missile defensive duity in good conditions. FEL systems can provide area anti missile defense and short ranged anti-aircraft work.
That said, the FEL are big and relatively complicated and cost a hell of a lot more to develop then the 40 million pocket change that LaWS has cost.
>oh wait, you're going to armor the hull as well! congrats, your ship isn't breaking 8 knots.
You know carriers weigh 100,000 tons, and can make over 30 knots?
Have UAVs capable of spotting inbound missiles & have CIWS capable of engaging it?
>gonna armor plate that fucker all over are you?
Some sort of tumblehome ship design like the zumwalt, for example.
>it needs to stop the total energy of the ke of the mass plus the yield of the warhead
yes they can.
>You never know what could happen. Which is why I want our carriers to have a dozen VLS cells tucked away somewhere.
What exactly is going to get close enough to a carrier that VLS cells are necessary? Theres an ENTIRE FUCKING TASK GROUP for that.
And dont say a fucking submarine, good luck hitting one with VLS-launched ANYTHING
>Except thats what I'm saying
no, you're saying build a massive single stage missile.
>and for the purposes of this discussion, the fighter constitutes an extremely expensive & limiting first stage for the missile.
no, for the purposes of your head cannon, the fighter is such. in the real world you have no fucking idea what you are talking about and the reasons for this have already been explained.
>fighters have wings
this is really fucking crucial. go and educate yourself as to why this is so crucial.
i just noticed this
>A battleship mounting anti-ship tridents with KE projectiles that impact at mach 24 would be superior to ANY aircraft launched AShM
you are so stupid you are actually making my head hurt.
But that's the thing. Their stuff doesn't actually HAVE to be effective. If Gorshkov here had to fight an Iowa, he would have been very pleasantly delighted to have found out that just hitting it a few times to render it blind, deaf, mute and crippled would have sufficed. There's no need to actually penetrate its armor anywhere.
>Battleship batteries can only shoot at targets within 40km range
>Modern AshM can fly over 300+km with new Long range AshM going for 1000km.
Missles literally outgun BB shells and railgun tech. Simple as that.
> >it needs to stop the total energy of the ke of the mass plus the yield of the warhead
What he's saying is, several hundred pounds of missile, unspent fuel, and warhead, don't just magically vanish because an intercepting missile, cannon shell, or ERA hit it.
Look up conservation of momentum. Unless your ERA or other defending system can overcome the momentum of all that shit arriving, your fantasy BB still has to deal with half a ton or so of explosives, shrapnel, and jet fuel arriving at great pace.
Will it penetrate your fantasy hull and plates? Maybe, maybe not. But other things, like inconsequential trivialities such as radio masts, radar, EO systems, crew, etc, won't cope well with the explosion close aboard. Never mind the possibility of shock damage.
China and iran have produced anti-ship ballistic missiles
Cruise missiles also have wings, so I don't understand your point.
You know that aircraft have to burn a hell of a lot of fuel flying around, and are expensive, and take lots of maintenance to keep in working order?
> good luck hitting one with VLS-launched ANYTHING
>You know carriers weigh 100,000 tons, and can make over 30 knots?
you realise they carry 70+ aircraft plus fuel and munitions and 6000 crew and have the interior space to do so?
you realise your suggestion would have teh interior space for a tin of crabs and a cum stained sock? you don't even know why this is? the answer is 'go and look at a tank'. strange, given you seem so fond of them.
>Have UAVs capable of spotting inbound missiles & have CIWS capable of engaging it?
name that uav.
and if you have ciws why do you need era. this has been explained to you.
>Some sort of tumblehome ship design like the zumwalt, for example.
what? zumwalts are not amor plated. not like you think. so explain to me what you think your fucking point is.
IT NEEDS TO STOP THE TOTAL ENERGY OF THE KE OF THE MASS PLUS THE YIELD OF THE WARHEAD
BECAUSE ANY ENERGY NOT STOPPED IS GOING DIRECTLY INTO THE HULL, BECAUSE YOU'VE WAITED UNTIL THE HULL TO STOP IT, NOT THE EMPTY AIR BECAUSE YOU'VE STOPPED IT 30KM AWAY
IF YOU'RE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO WORK THAT OUT KEEP YOUR STUPID FUCKING OPINIONS TO YOURSELF.
Not really. Prinz Eugen took Crossroads Baker like a champ, with no significant damage, but eventually capsized because she was too irradiated for regular maintenance. It doesn't matter how well the armor performs if the crew dies and the ship sinks anyway.
Subs can be killed by VLS launched anti-submarine rockets, but honestly you'd be far more likely to have them exploded by something dropped out of a 737 days before the carrier group even reaches the area.
>BECAUSE ANY ENERGY NOT STOPPED IS GOING DIRECTLY INTO THE HULL
It's armored retard. It NEEDS to be armored to use ERA in the first place.
Why would any battleship have less CIWS or interception tools than a carrier?
>name that uav.
darpa's TERN project.
>and if you have ciws why do you need era.
Because CIWS doesn't have a hope in hell of stopping a salvo of AShM's
The SM-3 has a range of 1350 miles. Don't mistake the range advantage as innate to the airplane, anything that can be mounted on a plan can be upscaled and fitted with a rocket booster for use on a warship.
if you don't shoot them down you're stopping them all with your hull. an entire flight of missiles on your hull.
i don't give a fuck if you've got era. ignoring the fuckhuge block and what it will do to your ships ability to even pass through the water, you've still got hundreds of kilos of he explosives (ignoring the nuclear option) detonating right next to your hull and crew. not to mention stopping the ke/forwards momentum of these airframes. these aren't small missiles and these aren't small warheads; they're not fucking atgm. that energy is going immediately into the atmosphere surrounding your ship and you expect the superstructure/any topdeck structure to survive? the fuck?
not to mention stopping sympathetic detonations of the other blocks. not to mention multiple missiles; blocks are one shot wonders. jesus christ, where's your ship gone?
interception is the only viable option. chucklefuck can't deal though. this is because he simply ignores everything counter to his head cannon.
We're not talking about penetration, fuckknuckle - we're talking about the fact that armor aside, HALF A TONNE OF BURNING METAL, EXPLOSIVE AND MISSILE BODY landing at 0.8-2.7x the speed of sound on your ship IS GOING TO BREAK SHIT, ARMOR OR NO ARMOR
in 1985 the granit and the moskit were already in fleet. go and look up those missiles and what they can do and you are fucking telling me rha is going to stop that shit?
gorshkov was a lying fucking commie at the height of the cold war. why the fuck would believe anything he said?
>interception is the only viable option.
This is not true
ARMOR is a viable option
Another layer of defense.
You've gotten caught up in a doctrine that assumes nuclear AShM's, hence no point to armor.
2 feet of steel combined with spaced armor, ERA, and an APS would stop it.
So what if the carrier is losing aircraft to SAMs? The rate at which they'd be shot down would be very low - where the SAMs have to thread a needle to down the fighters, and at longer ranges where they're least effective even, ASMs don't with the BB being such a fatass. And in terms of cost effectiveness, the BB loses. The primary munitions you advocate are huge, negating its massive internal volume used to store stuff, and not only that, would be expensive as well. Next, the carrier can resupply while the BB can't; its faster, and its primary assets are - guess what? - fucking aircraft! But that's probably irrelevant. All it takes to ruin that BB is just one hit. Ideally, something as puny as a cluster munition. Even with all that absurdly expensive and extreme equipment used to try and bridge the gap between itself and its foe. Even with all that absurdly expensive and increasingly heavy armor. Even with all that, the BB will be blind, deaf and mute; basically even more helpless than it was before with all the green shelled out to try and make something so obsolete relevant again. Because, in the end of the day, you can't armor something like radar, a bridge, the steering rudder, propellers or even cameras if you armor the bridge itself.
Carriers rape BBs. Extra hard, and at a fraction of the price.
Truly you have a ninja-level ability for self delusion.
Your arguments have been folded in your head so much they have OVER ONE MIRRION RAYERS
It's a pity they'd have to exist in a world of physics and real-world ship design rather than the world of chocolate rainbows and unicorns that exists between your ears.
Have fun, kid.
>This is not true
>ARMOR is a viable option
it's not. we've explained this to you. when confronted you shift to something else and when that is refuted you circle back to armor. you're just a fucking prick.
>Another layer of defense.
it's a layer of pointless mass that won't stop anything. this is the truth.
>You've gotten caught up in a doctrine that assumes nuclear AShM's, hence no point to armor.
this is not true. it's not. we've explained this to you. when confronted you shift to something else and when that is refuted you circle back to armor.
you are dishonest and delusion and just retarded. your dishonesty is how you can maintain your delusion and retardation.
>2 feet of steel combined with spaced armor, ERA, and an APS would stop it.
that ship would not float. this has been explained to you. and don't try to say 'carriers are 100 000 tons' because carriers have thin hulls, and huge volume and you fucking wouldn't compared to your mass. ok? so shut the fuck up already.
and guess what? that solution wouldn't even survive one flock of granits.
>Carriers rape BBs. Extra hard, and at a fraction of the price.
hilariously, they were raping bbs in ww2 before nukes were a thing. who gives a fuck if it took 12 shitty, shitty torpedoes and a bunch of bombs to kill yamato? because that fucking thing never got anywhere near the carrier that killed it.
He specifically said not using nukes. And that's not to mention the myriad of other posts pointing out why you're stupid.
I'm sorry, but your battleship is sunk.
At this point, your just being really stupid and either pulling stuff out of your ass, or ignoring what's said. Assuming you're a troll? Well, you're a pretty shitty one because your argument is so easily refuted, and at so many points. Good trolls use insane troll logic, which is frustrating in the fact that it cannot be easily refuted at all. Which, again, you're just not a good troll. And if you're sincere? I really hope you're just a little kid and not someone a bit older. Otherwise, you should seriously consider offing yourself. Not on the basis that your argument was a steaming pile of shit, but based off the fact that you were unable to accept evidence contrary to your viewpoint despite its overwhelming nature. Such a thing is practically failure as a human being - subhuman even.
>Next, the carrier can resupply while the BB can't
Simply not true, VLS can be reloaded at sea.
>All it takes to ruin that BB is just one hit.
That wasn't true in WW2 and isn't true now.
>Because, in the end of the day, you can't armor something like radar, a bridge, the steering rudder, propellers or even cameras if you armor the bridge itself.
At the end of the day you can make all those things redundant and yes, you can armor them, to one extent or another.
Such as retractable radars/communications/cameras.
>and at a fraction of the price.
Thats plain and simple bullshit.
>At the end of the day you can make all those things redundant and yes,
how can you make the radar of a ship redundant.
or the propellers
>Thats plain and simple bullshit.
why do you think a bb is going to be cheap
Why dont we use swarm missiels, a missile packed with multiple swarm missiles, that way you can launch the missile, and have it split into multiple smaller missiles that each have the velocity and altitude advantage gained from being launchd in mid air.
>2 feet of steel combined with spaced armor, ERA, and an APS would stop it.
said the internet expert, pulling shit from his ass with nothing to back that up.
also, has it ever occurred to you that 2 feet of armor weighs a fucking shit-tonne, and would slow the ship down horribly, as well as increase the cost, make it use more fuel, and all those other wonderful logistical factors which is why the people who aren't armchair experts abandoned armor?
>Such as retractable radars/communications/cameras.
Ok, ok, I know we're at troll-saturation now but I cannot not respond to that.
Have you ever looked at a warship? Seen what a radar or comms antennae look like? Seen the real estate they take up? Seen how, for some odd reason, they're a) fuck hueg and b) occupy space at the highest parts of the ship?
So you're going to:
- conceptualise a system that can retract fucking gigantic radar and comms equipment
- do it fast enough that a sub-launched sea skimmer won't reach you before they retract
- have retraction gear that will withstand battle damage
- BLIND YOUR FUCKING SHIP AND RENDER IT UNABLE TO COMMUNICATE AT THE VERY MOMENT IT'S IN FUCKING COMBAT
I look forward to watching your proposal to the DoD.
Because you're explanation doesn't make sense. Sure, there's a new anti-ship missile but whose to say they don't come out with an anti-air missile with even greater range. Whose to say they don't make a version of the SM-3 that turns horizontal before igniting the next stage?
That's my point, a plane has weight limits and a warship's weight limits are far more lax.
>Simply not true, VLS can be reloaded at sea.
The fuckhuge VLS that your BB uses? I think not. And even if it could? It wouldn't be able to do it with any speed like a carrier would be able to with its assets.
>That wasn't true in WW2 and isn't true now.
One name. Bismark. I suppose I should be fair - it's not one that'll completely ruin your ship. It's just one good one. Though, with the cluster munition, we don't need a good hit, do we? We just need a hit.
>At the end of the day you can make all those things redundant and yes, you can armor them, to one extent or another.
Such as retractable radars/communications/cameras.
At the end of the day, they'll have to be unbuttoned and exposed to work, and even redundancy with such soft spots will only do so much. If you have secondary or tertiary backups? A second or third cluster bomb then.
>Thats plain and simple bullshit.
...hahahahahaha! A carrier is made to be as cheap as possible while hauling spare parts, munitions, crew, food, propulsion/fuel, aircraft and a (steam powered) plane chucker. Maybe a splash of point defense. And your BB? Most of what a carrier has minus the aircraft stuff, but plus nothing but the finest multi-meter thick, spaced chobham/dorochester armor on the sides, on the bottom, on the top. And with equally fine ERA plates rated to stop ASMs. Plus, its special, massive VLS tubes and munitions. This shit is supremely expensive. Like, purchase all of Commiefornia, make everyone Republican and secede to declare itself /k/-land expensive.
>- BLIND YOUR FUCKING SHIP AND RENDER IT UNABLE TO COMMUNICATE AT THE VERY MOMENT IT'S IN FUCKING COMBAT
Oh man, you got me laughing good there! But really, you fail troll? What >>28466868 said. Now, I'll go back to lurking, but some delicious dinner won't eat itself.
that was a shell of a "US Aircraft Carrier", and there was no retaliation, because there was no one on it.
It'd be much harder to sink a ship when there's actually stuff inside of it, guns that can shoot back, and a whole load of ships escorting it. As well as lasers that sink all your little boats in a matter of seconds.
re-entry fucks that up the ass. the soviets tried it. the problem is something to do with ionization as it comes through the atmosphere and how that interferes with known forms of guidance. also trying to get something travelling that fast to change direction in order to intercept a moving target.
if intel on exact location is available, there's no reason not to be able to send an ICBM to within... 100, 200m of target, even with shitty 70's russian tech. and I dont doubt that the chinese are more accurate today than the russians were 40 years ago.
100-200m isnt going to make much difference to the level of fucked-up-ness, *especially* if its possible to have an ICBM withstand impact with water, and detonate underwater. Honestly, dont know if they, or anyone has that capability though.
the only realistic question mark is, would that 100m accuracy be enough for a mobile target? 30 knots, is 900metres / minute. what's the flight time for an ICBM? is it fast enough for the given range, that an exact position can be given, the speed and heading calculated, and a projected point of contact fed in realtime, to the launching missile with accuracy of time to target?
I wouldn't like to be the guy trying to work out the calculations, but I *really* wouldn't like to be the guy on the ship that's being shot at either.
Ok, first thing's first - you started off by saying "ICBM", not Dong-Fucked-6 or whatever the ASBM is called.
ICBMs with nuclear warheads were designed to hit stationary targets, not a carrier manoeuvring at 30+ knots. Some can, at the terminal end, perform some manoeuvres but that was intended to make interception difficult, not course-correct to intercept a moving target.
Once they're launched, they have no ability for mid-course guidance input. So it's still going to try and hit the same point in the ocean as what was programmed when it launched. You're looking at say, 15-30 minutes from launch to landing, plus whatever time it takes for you to generate intel on a carrier group's position, transmit that intel to the person/people with authority to decide to launch an ICBM, transmit that targeting info to the launch site, and then the reaction time at the site. By the time the thing launches, the carrier could be 30nm from where you thought it was.
>"All you need is some guidance system"
Now you're talking a major redesign. You're talking a guidance system that can either accept late-course terminal guidance from some kind of input at the very last stage flight, or a system (like radar or IR based) that can autonomously detect, identify and then track the warhead to your target, and you're talking a final stage/reentry vehicle that's been modified - or more likely ground-up designed- to manoeuvre in the terminal phase to hit a moving target.
All that is expensive, difficult to test, and subject to a lot of what-ifs
>Because you're explanation doesn't make sense.
only because you're a fucking idiot.
>Whose to say they don't make a version of the SM-3 that turns horizontal before igniting the next stage?
what do you think that would solve.
>That's my point, a plane has weight limits and a warship's weight limits are far more lax.
you're a fucking retard.
seriously, you are hilariously dumb.
and i don't like you, because you're dishonest as well.
so you can sit there and fuck yourself until you get smart enough to work out the difference between travelling through the atmosphere and travelling through no atmosphere. and figure out what the fuck aerodynamics are and why they give advantages to winged aircraft.
and next time to come to /k/, come with a little more humility and actually listen to what people have told you.
>Oh man, you got me laughing good there! But really, you fail troll? What >>28466868 said.
I'm not sure if you think I was supporting Battleship Admiral Dipshit McGee or if you were agreeing with my point and laughing at him but I think I just had a reading comprehension failure either way.
Not him but me.
I just meant in general.
I'm sure harbors are targeted anyways.
I wouldn't call 12 torpedoes insignificant. Arguably a Nimitz class carrier couldn't take that kind of firepower. It's armor is way thinner. It should also be noted that there were planes from 11 different carriers involved in the attack, nearly 400 planes in total. The Yamato still took over two hours to die.
By contrast, the carrier Hiryu was struck by only 5 dive bombs. It quickly caught fire and had to be abandoned. A single squadron of 24 dive bombers did that.
So as far as toughness goes the Yamato is pretty damn tough and the imperial japanese navy jsut wasn't good at damage control.
dear mouth breathing retard.
the yamato was not floating alone. guess what happened to the escorts
but it doesn't actually matter
nor does the difference between modern munitions and ww2 munitions
because the yamato was killed before it got anywhere near the ships that killed it
it never even made visual contact with its enemy
this lack of visual contact was consistant throughout the pacific war
if you don't understand this crucial factor then just fuck off
I agree, and as shitty as OP's idea is, the hunk of junk IS good for something. Namely, re-enacting Operation Ten-Go, but with modern munitions, fighters and ships. I freely admit that it would be fun to slap that BB so it's blind, deaf and mute before pounding that slab over and over again with high explosives.
Don't get so angry - I don't think he was talking in favor of Battleship Admiral Dipshit McGee. Just on behalf of the Yamato and the classic BBs. Not the stinking pile of shit that OP aborted out of his mind and into this thread for us to call bull on.
So...you don't have an argument so you insist on name calling?
>the difference between travelling through the atmosphere and travelling through no atmosphere.
Actually, since the missile is traveling straight up it's got to have more thrust than most missiles. Additionally, without air standard control surfaces are useless so the final corrections need to be done with RCS thrusters.
So if your satisfied with just labeling all who disagree with you dumb, liars, or both you're welcome to.
But please be more convincing than that.
it's hard to tell in this thread.
but in essence the point stands. it doesn't matter how tough you are, because if you can't bring your weapons to effect on your enemy you're not even in the fight. this is the reason why battleships are no longer a thing. they simply cannot out-range a carrier, and it doesn't matter how many hits you can take, because if you can't hit your enemy then you're going to take all of them.
Dumb question of the day: Did anybody every experiment with multiple smaller AP bombs? You could pull out at 1000' and loose this gigantic shotgun spray of nasty things onto this big moving target. Why wouldn't this work in RL?
Naw. Shooting a one-ton warhead with ERA just makes mad when it's exploding on contact.
>So...you don't have an argument so you insist on name calling?
no, it's because you're a retard, and a dishonest one at that, and retards get no respect.
>Actually, since the missile is traveling straight up it's got to have more thrust than most missiles.
no shit faggot. why you think that supports your position is the question. do you even understand what thrust is?
>Additionally, without air standard control surfaces are useless so the final corrections need to be done with RCS thrusters.
again, what do you think this means in the context of this discussion?
in fact, instead of looking into the difference between atmospheric and exo-atmospheric travel and understanding the huge range of the sm-3 (and by extrapolation understanding waverider and skylon, previously mentioned) and why a horizontal (relative to what?) vector makes no fucking difference, all you've done is come back with a strawman. and you're complaining that you're being called dishonest.
actually, if you read the thread, i've already told you. i have been so good to you.
>So if your satisfied with just labeling all who disagree with you dumb, liars, or both you're welcome to.
this is because you are.
>But please be more convincing than that.
please fuck off and never come back.
but you'll be back. you can't stay away.
Yeah. What's worse is that OP doesn't realize that the extremes to which a BB would have to go to be relevant again would likely buy us at least another...three or four Nimitz class? Maybe the newer Ford class even, and that's being conservative. The sheer amount of resources for the composite armor alone would be more than enough to armor another 41k M1 Abrams. Again, being conservative.
It's just not cost effective, and logistics wins wars.
Yeah. The Rockeye II Mk 20 cluster bomb deploys Mk 118 anti-tank bomblets. Small frag/shaped charge bombs made to penetrate the upper armor of tanks and armored machines.
Each bomb deploys 217 of them. They aren't made for anti-ship work, but could be used for such. Each Mk 118 can breach 7" of RHA.
hello old chap
i don't know if they did in the context you're talking about, that is specifically to take out capital ships. the issue is the size gives it redundancy. so you need a fairly large charge to do damage after penetration. however, that size is not outside the capabilities of modern airborne weaponry. in fact the warheads even exist now in the usn, they're just on jsow rather than any anti-shipping missile.
if the usn had to deal with yamato tomorrow they'd use a sub and an adcap, blow it under the keel and crack the spine of the ship and kill it dead probably maybe even with one shot. the brits have an even bigger warhead, and the russians larger again. easy fix.
>Improved BBs escort container ships from Buenos Aires to the Falklands and invades them by surprise
Pretty much. Mostly, I'm advocating using BBs as escorts for CVs.I came to this conclusion from two facts.
The first was that China claimed that part of it's strategy if the US and China came to blows was to take out the Carriers with massed cruise missiles. A modern fleet carrier just isn't equipped to deal with it and most carriers seem to act without escorts these days. Aircraft might be able to make intercept but they don't mount the radar to target a supersonic cruise missile effectively and intercept it.
The second is that nobody is going to put a nuclear reactor on some cruiser. What you want is something big and beefy and isn't going to take hits to the reactor. Something with about one foot of armor at the belt and another foot of armor on the inside over the vitals. Something that can mount enough ECM to not only protect it'self but other ships as well. Basically an Iowa with chobham armor, railguns, lasers, and enough electronic warfare gear to make a bowl of popcorn at ten nautical miles.
The idea is that not only would the BB have the cruising range to keep up with a modern carrier, it would be able to act as a decoy and draw AShM missiles to it'self rather than the carrier. Because a Battleship can take those hits.
>no, it's because you're a retard, and a dishonest one at that, and retards get no respect.
So tell me, where did I lie?
>no shit faggot. why you think that supports your position is the question. do you even understand what thrust is?
Sure, if a SM-3 can get into orbit, it certainly has enough fuel to travel about a hundred kilometers over land.
>actually, if you read the thread, i've already told you. i have been so good to you.
Are you sure it was me? How?
>why a horizontal (relative to what?) vector makes no fucking difference
By that virtue the 1350km range stills stands.
We already covered all of that. Decisively. Multiple times.
Going straight up is the easy way to go really far with a missile.
Air is thick. It's really hard to go though if you wanna go real fast.
For the energy you'd need to go 50 kilometers along the surface, you can instead fly up where the air is very, very thin. When you are there you can go a very long distance by using very little energy. This is why an SM-3 ER can go a very, very, very long distance.
The armor needed to resist a high energy laser is pretty heavy. If you don't think anybody else has a laser then fly your freak flag with your laser airplane.
Otherwise, you want enough armor to resist directed energy weapons.. something that will be heavy, and likely want to put it on a boat.
>most carriers seem to act without escorts these days.
this is incorrect.
>Something with about one foot of armor at the belt and another foot of armor on the inside over the vitals. Something that can mount enough ECM to not only protect it'self but other ships as well. Basically an Iowa with chobham armor, railguns, lasers, and enough electronic warfare gear to make a bowl of popcorn at ten nautical miles
>The idea is that not only would the BB have the cruising range to keep up with a modern carrier, it would be able to act as a decoy and draw AShM missiles to it'self rather than the carrier. Because a Battleship can take those hits.
here we go again.
>So tell me, where did I lie?
in constantly shifting from one concept to another when you were challenged.
in posting another strawman in your previous post.
>Sure, if a SM-3 can get into orbit, it certainly has enough fuel to travel about a hundred kilometers over land.
and you do it again.
>Are you sure it was me? How?
doesn't even fucking matter, because it's in the thread for all to see
>By that virtue the 1350km range stills stands.
by no way shape it or form does it stand. you dishonest, disingenious cunt.
Battleships absorb like 2,000 souls to run. For the US navy the real limiting factor to how many ships can be in commission at once is more people then money.
Even if they were FUCKING AWESOME, they'd need to be gold plated blowjob machines for the navy to justify using up enough personnel to run 7 guided missile destroyers.
a carrier is never going to let an enemy BB in close enough to shoot at it. It has aircraft with 1000 mile ranges. It will send a fucking wing of fighters at your battle group and wreck your shit from 500 miles. BB's are dead let it go Elsa.
It's actually not going to break shit if it hits armor. Battleship armor is tougher than you give it credit for. A low density, low strength object like an ASHM is going to crumple like a can when it hits armor, unless the missile is specifically designed for it.
>Can someone explain to me why anti-ship missiles are considered so deadly?
Because those are pretty effective against modern warships and quite hard to shoot down with SAM's or CIWS.
>Tell me then admiral, why don't we see battleships being used then?
Battleshits became obsolete before modern anti-ship missiles were even developed. If battleships were still a thing there would be anti-ship missiles designed to kill 'em with "just" conventional warheads. Bit bigger and more expensive than current missiles, but way cheaper than battleships.
Only thing that kept battleships relevant as long as those remained was coastal bombardment missions against opponents that didn't have effective coastal artillery or navy. Third world countries. Without Vietnam war Iowas would have been turned into scrapmetal way earlier and wouldn't have been around when Ronnie Raygun got idea about 600 ship fleet.
>that too, but Exocets and Harpoons can penetrate the armor of battleships.
Exocets and Harpoons have been designed to be used against modern warships.
Don't bother. I was already very kind and even let the BB have a battlegroup of its own while arguing why it sucked. This person is either as shitty a troll as the first tapestry post I made pointed out, or is so shitty they deserve to die. Instead, I would recommend talking about more worthwhile subjects, like how batshit insane Operation Ten-Go was, since it actually does real BBs proud.
Yeah. I'd wish I could see the Yamato get helplessly beaten again and again while being unable to strike back at its attackers and take about two hours to die a long and drawn out, miserable death. It'd be glorious. But! With all the monkey paw shit out there, I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd probably end up as a Jap on a life boat or something.
Or worse. Someone's rations.
>in constantly shifting from one concept to another when you were challenged.
You say this but where? More over, did you know it was me?
>doesn't even fucking matter, because it's in the thread for all to see
Ah, so you've decided that everyone on the thread that disagrees with you is all one person.
>by no way shape it or form does it stand. you dishonest, disingenious cunt.
Then be clear, cite the post number that explains it.
I've been nothing but polite so far but as I see it you're just venting at this point.
And all that thrust is being counted by gravity.
It doesn't necessarily need to destroy the warhead, only disable it's penetration aids or cause it to explode early. One ton of high explosives means nothing on the outside of a warship.
Already covered that.
Look, you're a really shitty troll. The way you're supposed to troll is to frustrate people with an assertion or something that's so absurd they can't easily refute it at all, thereby pissing them off. What you're doing here is blatantly stupid, and everyone in the thread has more or less said you're stupid. Being a proper troll requires the intelligence not only to come up with the original point, but the flexibility and creativity to keep it up as people reply. What you've done here is not only plain stupid - and I mean very, clearly stupid with the assertions you're making - but you're also very obviously making your argument circular. It is also very clear you flat out ignore points that prove you otherwise, and simply hop onto another tangent that's different from what the reply was about in an attempt to evade. Then, repeat this again and again until the whole thing comes back to the same exact starting point.
I say all this because you're a disgrace to trolls.
There is simply no way you honestly believe all the stuff you've said, and if you do despite all the feedback otherwise, are likely less than human. Not even human trash, but an abortion and insult to humanity itself. Which, is simply very, very unlikely.
So. Shitty troll, stop shitting?
Look, if you want to live in an echo box and not put thought into your arguments, go ahead. But you put this on the open internet, on public forum for all to see. If you can't take an opposing viewpoint you really shouldn't be on 4chan.
>I'd wish I could see the Yamato get helplessly beaten again and again while being unable to strike back at its attackers and take about two hours to die a long and drawn out, miserable death.
Little thing but just FYI the harpoons terminal target engagement includes a high g pop up that would bring it down almost like a gravity bomb or plunging fire. That's not the reason battleships aren't used but yeah that is a thing
>Things like exocets or harpoons wouldn't do anything to a battleship though.
I take that back.
I'd wish I could see the Yamato get helplessly pounded again and again while being unable to do anything more than excite her attackers and have moans coaxed out of her over a long, teary, drawn out day.
You're the one that wants to believe a 3 stage exoatmospheric rocket can be launched from a ship and fly horizontally toward a carrier group and not simply fall into the sea under its own weight.
Except...there is no example. I've been up and down the thread twice now and all I've seen is profanity, terms being thrown around without understanding what they mean, and abject hatred.
More over, if this is how you deal with a troll, I am thoroughly disapointed. Abject rage? Paragraph length ranks on how not only am I a troll but behave inconsistently with how trolls should act?
Please, the proper response is to peel back the layers of a troll's argument, digging for the reasoning behind each argument and hounding them for more and more answers until they're reduced to pettiness and name calling and finally complaining on how unsatisfied you are.
You threw up Skylon and failed to mention that Skylon doesn't exists
While the South Dakota was badly mauled by the Kirishima and all her escorts, it wasn't destroyed and spending half an hour trying meant that the USS Washington could slip in and open a full broadside on the Kirishima, ultimately resulting in Kirishima's destruction. The South Dakota managed to limp away with under one hundred casualties. It was eventually repaired and returned to service.
In this, the armor functioned just as designed and the fact that despite being a burning wreck the enemy had to continue to engage her to ensure it's destruction.
The P-700 would be able to pierce ERA tiles. Torpedoes can get away with massed high explosives because water carries the shot and any breach bellow the waterline is a flooding risk. The Granite does not have these advantages.
Question, why do most missiles not fall to the ground? Second question, why does this not apply to the SM-3?
I expected better from you. See you in the morning.
Too expensive relative to the return. A carrier can attack 5 targets that are 200 miles away in opposite directions simultaneously.
A battleship can attack a single target within about 40 miles. Granted, that target is irrevocably fucked forever, but still. Don't bother with muh Tomahawks/Harpoons/SM whatever number. Other ships can carry and launch those just as effectively, for much cheaper.
>Russian subs can carry 24..
Oscars, obsolete curse missile boats, could.. But they couldn't survive in a ASW environment. There's 4 of them.
The brand new Russian curse missile sub could do that sort of spam too.. but there's one of them.
You probably shouldn't post in these threads if you don't know anything about the subject.
There's no critical systems on the bridge. Every function the bridge serves is backed up to at least 2 other locations.
Also, the bridge is not the comms hub of a ship, it's just another node.
As far as shit's on fire, yo, you might have a point there. That has never, ever happened on board a US naval ship and they would certainly not have any policies and procedures for dealing with such an outlandish eventuality. Hell, you don't even need an expensive missile. Just hire some guy with a Zodiac to come up alongside the battleship and flick lit matches at it until it's just a floating ball of flame.
One Granit will not sink a carrier. Probably a mission kill, maybe not. Depends on location of the hit. Carriers are too big, with too much reserve buoyancy, for any single conventional munition to seriously endanger. Damage and chase away, sure. You'll need multiple hits within a fairly close timeframe to have any chance of overwhelming the DC organization.
You could breach enough compartments to destroy the carrier and sink it with a MOP, but you'd have to tweak the fuse a lot to get it to detonate between hitting the deck and going out the bottom.
Actually the clusters would hit the 1.5" STS Plate Bomb Deck (top layer) and be stopped by the 4.75" Class B + 1.25" STS Plate. Gap between would cause the Shaped charge to deform and be rendered ineffective allowing the 6" of deck armor to stop what was left. There is an additional gap after this and a "splinter deck" of .625".
>Except you'll have 4 battleships weighing more, carrying more missiles, and will probably be immune to 90% of your air wings weapons anyways.
>think battleships are immune to air attack
>This is blatantly false, the ships missiles will always outrange an aircrafts.
yes but carrier based strike aircraft can fly over a 1000 miles with combat loads
meaning a carrier air wing can strike a surface warship long before any surface based weapon can get into range
this has to be b8
>While the South Dakota was badly mauled by the Kirishima and all her escorts, it wasn't destroyed and spending half an hour trying meant that the USS Washington could slip in and open a full broadside on the Kirishima, ultimately resulting in Kirishima's destruction. The South Dakota managed to limp away with under one hundred casualties. It was eventually repaired and returned to service.
>In this, the armor functioned just as designed and the fact that despite being a burning wreck the enemy had to continue to engage her to ensure it's destruction.
Thank you for reiterating the points I made in my post. South Dakota's citadel armor failed spectacularly in protecting critical combat systems against minor-caliber gunfire.
I should point out on an operational costs level that an Iowa cost as much to operate as 5 Burkes and required the crew of 10.
uhh, the citadel itself was never compromised by enemy fire.
What you can say is that all or nothing armor left many important systems unprotected and vulnerable to damage.
I'm not the ERA anon, and I don't think battleships should be back in service.
All I said was that the heavily armored bits of a BB can take hits better than you give it credit for.
The stress on a projectile hitting armor is immense. So much so that hardened (pretty much) solid steel 12-18 inch rounds needed a special cap to prevent the round from shattering on impact.
Metallurgy has improved since then, but ASHM's have only a fraction of the structural strength of a gun round. If the impact happens at mach 2-3, the shock from hitting the armor will crumple the missile.
But this ignores the fact that while the South Dakota was disabled, it was by no means destroyed while her escorts were destroyed in their entirety. Also, don't forget that the Kirishima had large caliber guns just like the South Dakota so the damage wasn't entirely minor caliber.
By the same virtue, the IJN Kirishima took one solid salvo from the USS Washington and sank.
The South Dakota suffered less than a hundred casualties. Indeed, most of the casualties from the second battle of Guadalcanal was from the destroyers escorting the South Dakota
This thread got me thinking: why do destroyers even exist still when anything that can defeat a battleship can destroy *hehe* them twice over and they're just as expensive to construct? What mission do they serve that can't either be done by an aircraft, a patrol boat, or a sub?
Subsonic and comparably dumb as hell. The only reason USN still uses subsonic AShMs is because they're going for stealth and brains. LRASM's behavioral capabilities on an individual level are insane, and you know for damn sure that shit's going to scale up to full SAG-level volleys.
>Carriers load their fighters one by one, by hand.
Now I'm imagining a big as transformer aircraft carrier standing close to a shore trying to jam a F/A 18 into the chamber of a really weird over and under like gun.
"Goddamnit, it's jammed!"
One of the aegis dude just looks over his shoulder and says
"Boss, there already is one in the chamber."
>Supersonic sea skimming missiles have serious problems actually finding & hitting targets.
Supersonic ASMs are not limited to low-low all the way flight pattern you know? most of them fly really high then either come down for a limbo run or continue on and try to go for vertical dive on target and provide scanning for the rest, and both could happen in a salvo.
And actually its the opposite with finding and hitting targets. For starters the missiles the Soviets and Russians used aren't lacking in guidance and onboard seeker capabilities- in fact they are much better. There is a paper circulating around the net that says subsonic missile would have tendency to have much better electronics and yes its true on account of its much easier to fit one that is not subjected to harsh conditions of supersonic flight, but only if everything else is equal. Western and Soviet ASMs are anything but- The Granit missile is closer to an F-16's empty weight ffs!
Also the ability to reach the target faster is absolutely desirable - it means you need to maintain the missile kill chain for a shorter period of time. The shorter that time is the better for you overall- your assets don't expose themselves as much and could return to defensive posture, and the shorter it is the better are your chances for a surprise
>Theres a reason the US doesn't build them.
And that reason is mainly political- like literally some dudes hobbled ASM development back in the day to ensure they don't make the air wing look obsolete- and here we are with Harpoons.
MOP only has like 5300 pounds of warhead. It's not going to compromise enough buoyancy to be a guaranteed one-shot kill. It'll definitely make the carrier combat ineffective, and possibly do a mobility kill on top of everything else. If you could fine-tune the fuse to trigger at or near the keel, that would probably do it.
Now the question is, how many countries have the capability to deploy a MOP?
It's in ultra low rate initial production. There are already LRASMs being stockpiled on the off chance shit goes down in the next four years. Keep in mind that these are an AGM-158 variant, not a 100% new missile. The current schedule is 90 LRASMs by 2018, 2019 at the latest. Do the math.
If they fly high they are pretty much begging to be shot down by a SAM. A P-800 is nine meters long and weighs three tons, even going fast it's an easy target for a area defense SAM. As you noted, it's damn near the size of an F-16, but lacks any of an F-16's countermeasure and survaiability systems.
The problem is that in the terminal phase they have a very, very limited window to find the target and change course to intercept it. If it has trouble with the electronic warfare environment in that window then the weapon is useless. If they take too long and overshoot the weapon is useless. If they are fooled for even half a second by countermeasures, the weapon is useless. If they get hit by a RAM, the weapon is useless.
these APS on tanks fire an explosively formed projectile at inbound missiles.
A larger naval version would shatter any AShM's.
If they wanted to build a Battleship or "Coastal Monitor", impervious to AShM's, it would be easily possible.
That large naval version already exists. It's called air and missile defense missiles. We've been using multilayer systems of defensive missiles literally since as long as we've had CGs, and DDGs.