Why exactly are battleships considered obsolete /k/?
Wouldn't a large warship with adequate air/sub defence and enough CIWS be usefull?
I thought the USN was looking for a ship for Shore bombardement, wouldn't battleships be perfect for that role?
Because their weapons are short ranged
Because their running costs are incredible
Because they can be killed by anti-ship missiles, aircraft and torpedoes
Because shore bombardment has limited use in modern warfare
Because while you can spend unbelievable quantities of money to develop a battleship that would be survivable against current anti-ship weaponry, someone else will spend a lot less to develop a weapon that can sink it. Distributing firepower across smaller, cheaper assets is the future.
It's more a doctrinal thing than anything else
Also other than the US & maybe china/russia, noone even maintains much of a fleet anymore.
A ww2 battleship cost a lot, sure
A modern battleship shouldn't cost much more than a destroyer, as material costs are not a big part of the overall price.
The US navy certainly is concerned with subs, mines, and AShM's near enemy shores. Obviously the solution is building 20 "battleships" that are impervious to existing torpedos, mines, or AShM's.
>"battleships" that are impervious to existing torpedos, mines, or AShM's
>Obviously the solution is building 20 "battleships" that are impervious to existing torpedos, mines, or AShM's.
Well here we fucking go.
You apparently know better than every strategist, acquisitions chief and naval architect.
Naval steel is cheap
Literally NOTHING other than their own egos stops them from making 100k-200k ton battleships, unsinkable by conventional weaponry.
It could sit in mothball 24/7 until a war happens, if operating costs are a problem.
However, it would provide a vast increase in capability for the US navy, I think they certainly should consider it.
>"battleships" that are impervious to existing torpedos, mines, or AShM's
>Literally NOTHING other than their own egos stops them from making 100k-200k ton battleships, unsinkable by conventional weaponry.
this isn't funny, cute, interesting, or clever.
get the fuck off of our board already, kid. let the adults talk about real things.
>Literally NOTHING other than their own egos stops them from making 100k-200k ton battleships, unsinkable by conventional weaponry.
Do you constantly make these "armoured gunboat" posts just for the replies saying how much of a fucking retard you are?
Well, there's the Panama Canal. You figure me out a 200,000-ton battleship that can meet even the new PANAMAX and we'll talk.
>The greatest naval minds ever to exist, who saw the advancements in guided missiles and aircraft decided the battleship was obsolete
>Every navy on the planet stops making them
>"Gee I'm one retard on /k/ I know better than all these people just make invincible ones duh"
This is literally the same reasoning that led them to believe the future would be all light 20 ton wheeled tanks.
The reason for the US's focus on unarmored destroyers is their need to be CARRIER ESCORTS FIRST, everything else second.
And a diesel fueled ship can't keep up with a nuke if it had armor.
As well there was the assumption that the AShM's would be nuclear tipped.
We do seem to do this damn thread once a week now. WWII Iowa battleships would be for the most part immune to majority of current Anti-Ship Missiles (not counting Nuclear Warheads). Couple Anons did Math and Structrual program based testing on mass/energy of a few ASM's based the armor to include the new LRASM and most would do fuck all or barely damage the armor.
Now we also looked at the GBU-28 and found it would slice right the fuck through the most heavily armored part of the Iowa's (Superstructure at 17.3"). This is important because the GBU-28 had a whopping 3 weeks of Design, Manufacture to Bombs on target in Iraq. This shows that if something stupidly heavily armored "did" hit the Sea's then it would be a matter of weeks before we could adapt a missile or create a new once to specifically penetrate/kill such a hard target.
Other items to bring up is pretty much any current ATGM down to RPG-7's could penetrate any part of the Iowa's but would only cause a very small pin hole in the armor and not do any lasting damage unless it perfectly hit something explosive on the other side.
CBU-100 Cluster Bombs (Mk 20 Rockeye's) would be stopped mostly by the Upper Deck/Splinter Deck but would Swiss Cheese the Turrets themselves and if penetrating a loaded chamber, cause catastrophic damage to the ship.
TL:DR - There already exist a lot of shit than can kill battleships that just isn't primarily suited to attacking ships.
TL:DR - Your idea is fucking stupid.
>This is literally the same reasoning that led them to believe the future would be all light 20 ton wheeled tanks.
Who the fuck said anything about that?
Are you even reading the replies you're getting?
The reported top speed of an Arliegh burke is over 30 Knots. It's actual top speed is classified. The top speed of an Iowa is a maximum of 35 knots, It's top speed is not classified. Nimitz class carriers reported speed is also over 30 knots. gain it's actual top speed is classified
>yet again BBfags fail to face the reality of their delusions
The Russians are sticking with it, but they did have to lose the guns.
>13.8 in of armour
>Sunk by two guided bombs a fraction of the size and speed of any Russian anti-ship missile or American bunker-buster.
1) armor is expensive
2) armor is heavy
You're much better off making a smaller ship that's better on fuel, cheaper, lighter, and has advanced countermeasures and anti-missile weapons.
Shore bombardment doesn't need 9 16" guns. Of you need volume of fire, the 5" guns on modern ships can satisfy that. If you need penetration or heavy ordnance, you have cruise missiles.
The amount of armor it would take to provide adequate protection against AShMs and standoff weapons would make the ship ridiculous.
In WWII, the Yamato and Musashi were both sunk by planes. They had the thickest armor, the biggest guns, but it didn't matter.
A modern battleship would be a retarded waste of time. Would probably cost as much as a super carrier, but with a fraction of the capability. A carrier has the ability to strike enemies hundreds of miles away. A battleship is a few dozen. You could say "well just mount tons of cruise missiles and anti-missile defenses on it" but then what's the point? You could have multiple cruisers/destroyers with the same or more cruise missiles, AShMs, and anti-missile defenses, but without lumping everything in one big slow expensive ship that will have a massive radar signature and get the shit bombed out of it from hundreds of miles away
Seriously, this idea needs to die.
>One of their admirals even said it was the biggest threat the US Navy had.
News at 10, Russia hypes up its own equipment in the face of reality.
Steel is very cheap
200,000 tons of it wouldn't come close to the cost of a Burke
Keep all the other costs under control, and they should be very affordable ships.
A modern battleship is clearly not going to serve the same role that a WW2 battleship was designed for.
But for the same reason we keep tanks on land, I think an armored battleship of one sort or another would be very important on the seas.
Hey guys, what if we took blimps and airships and put missiles and shit on them and made them modern? That would be cool right?
Hey guys what if we made soldiers ride horses but put body armor on the horses and let the soldiers use heavy machine guns, that would work right?
>One of their admirals even said it was the biggest threat the US Navy had
do you not understand that "the biggest threat" is not the same thing as "an insuperable threat"?
the biggest threat to me right now is tripping on the way to my fridge. that doesn't mean I can't arrive alive.
if the "biggest threat" to something is fairly inconsequential, that's a statement of inferiority, not superiority.
Look op, I appreciate the idea of a giant battleship covered in 18 inch guns. I really do. Thinking of a giant nuclear powered ocean tank with little missiles that shoot down planes and little guns that shoot down missiles makes my peepee hard. But it's a fantasy. In the military, everything and everybody is expendable. Spending more than what a carrier costs to develop and build a ship with nowhere close to the effective range of a carrier is a waste of resources. It's not feasible.
I see a buncha numbers under 1000 dollars a ton when I google it.
Going through concrete is easier than steel.
Especially when your missile/bomb has been shattered by APS.
A: It wouldn't cost close to that much
B: The navy themselves think they need upwards of 100 miles from hostile shores to intercept and destroy inbound missiles
Of course they would have use for a battleship there, going much closer than their expensive fragile destroyers/cruisers/carriers could.
Which is what the Iowa's did in the Gulf War.
Well, just going by the cost of the Iowa class back in the 40s, adjusted for inflation they cost almost 1.4 Billion USD in 2016 dollars.
And before you battleship fags get excited and say "but that's cheaper than an arleigh Burke class!", let me remind you that that's the cost with the 1940s equipment. Aka 16" guns, 5" secondaries, a bunch of 20mm AA, etc. Aka would instantly get raped on the modern battlefield by even 1970s era anti-ship missiles.
Add the cost of modernizing the sensors, adding VLS tubes, countermeasures, modern radar, etc. And good luck with that price tag.
>I see a buncha numbers under 1000 dollars a ton when I google it.
ARE YOU ACTUALLY USING COMMODITY STEEL AS THE BASIS FOR YOUR PRICING?! AHAHAHHAAH
literal comedy gold people
>implying armored bunkers aren't reinforced by steel
>implying there aren't bunkers that are harder to penetrate than a battleships armor
Oh so you're planning to coat the entire battleship in APS? Lol how's that price tag looking? You're worried about one or two missiles? How about a dozen? Can it survive that?
>A: It wouldn't cost close to that much
>B: The navy themselves think they need upwards of 100 miles from hostile shores to intercept and destroy inbound missiles
And you're a liar
>>28694546 see >>28694119
I did the math Weeks ago, GBU-28 would pen an Iowa with ease.
Released GBU-28 test data has it penetrating "over 20ft of Reinforced Concrete"
Now I can't remember the exact numbers off my head and don't care to track all the sources down again but US Army Testing for penetration of different barriers based off an Explosively formed projectile gave a ratio for RHA vs Reinforced concrete that ended up giving an equivalent of 52" RHA penetration based off 20 ft concrete. Ballistic Penetration ratio came out to be 28" RHA penetration equivalent.
Either way Iowa gets penetration.
Uh, building warships require special skills held only by certain companies, which must operate under the burden of government standards and restrictions, which ramps up the cost.
This is why companies bid against each other. If they could build it for cheaper, they would.
Ok so a modern battleship wouldn't have any guns? It would just have a bunch of missiles like a cruiser or destroyer?
So literally the only difference is the armor? You're literally saying you think the US should make a Ticonderoga with fucking 20" of steel armor and APS? Lol....
Ok people, let's build a modern, 21st Century ready Battleship!
Let's start off with the hull of the USS Iowa, and scale the hull up so the shit would be ~60,000 tonnes. Now, gut the insides and the weapons. Engines are gone too.
New powerplant is 2 A1B nuclear reactors. The same ones used on the Ford.
128 megajoule railguns will be installed in the locations of the first and third gun turrets.
All of the 5" guns are being replaced with Phalanxes and RIM-116 RAMs.
Ok, now for the fun shit. VLS cells in the place of the second gun turret, where the Tomahawks were previously stored, and everywhere else they can fit them.
It's an ASM magnet (there's a reason why the Burke has stealth characteristics and the Zumwalt is designed for stealth). As for its supposed invulnerability, you can't armor the sensitive electronics that modern naval warfare necessitates for a combatant to be effective. A single well-place shot will take it out of the battle and then you'd be wishing all that money was spent buying more destroyers/cruisers instead.
Or the fact that a cargo shio just needs to be a bigass hull with engines and space to carry cargo containers.
A military ship needs missiles, guns, countermeasures, ECM, advanced radar and computer systems, protective measures, etc etc.
It's like wondering why a civilian company can make a giant semi truck that weighs as much as some tanks, but costs waaayyy less than an MBT does.
>you can't armor the sensitive electronics that modern naval warfare necessitates for a combatant to be effective.
The exposed components can be made cheap, hardened, and retractable.
For spotting cruise missiles coming over the horizon, its wild overkill to have radars capable of spotting ICBM's at 2000 miles
For the purposes of an AShM magnet modern battleship, you would probably dump the radar altogether and rely on drones with their own radars.
>Shipbuilding contracts for DDG-113 to DDG-115 were awarded in mid-2011 for $679.6m–$783.6m; these do not include government-furnished equipment such as weapons and sensors which will take the average cost of the FY2011/12 ships to US$1,842.7m per vessel
Except they literally are producing the empty hull of the ship, for 800 million dollars
there's also the fact that civilian ships have to be produced cheap enough to be profitable for their owners, whereas warships don't have that problem. it doesn't *really* matter how expensive they are, so long as they can do their job.
no matter what they cost, they're being operated at a loss from the start.
>talking like having better radar isn't that important in modern naval combat
>being this retarded
And yeah, the empty hull is still going to have features beyond a cargo ship.
>in naval combat
Horizon is less than 20 miles away
You will never be spotting another ship on your own radar
This isn't WW2 anymore
Nor is anyone other than the US building stealth missiles
Yes, i understand that, but we are talking about armor here.
So it's essentially building a burke.... plus 50,000 tons of steel armor, and bigger engines.
I'm well aware of what the radar horizon is.
But really, by your logic, please explain why every naval warship in the world tries to have as good a radar as possible?
Or do you think that it wouldn't be important for a modern BB to be able to detect incoming missiles or planes?
Gimme a break. This idea is more retarded the more you try and explain it.
I am going off your claim that all this sensitive electronics would magically be destroyed by a single hit, and that it would be impossible to harden it or provide sufficient redundancies.
This also makes the assumption that a battleship is more at risk to missiles than Burkes, Ticos, LCS, etc
In such a situation, you could do without an expensive fragile radar.
And for spotting missiles/planes at close range, you don't need a big or expensive radar.
If anything you are the one making a claim that this can all be done on the cheap.
And that you don't need a big or expensive radar.
So, you got any proof for either claims?
I never made that claim. Wrong person.
A battleship would be more at risk to missiles simply because it would be bigger, slower, easier to detect on radar, etc.
Lol please tell me more about how this battleship is going to survive missile salvos without the ability to even detect them with radar.
So basically your battleship cannot operate independently of pickets for air-defense and neither can it operate the powerful radars Burkes and Ticos operate because you need its radars to be retractable and armored? Well shit.
>This also makes the assumption that a battleship is more at risk to missiles than Burkes, Ticos, LCS, etc
No it makes the assumption that Battleships are just as vulnerable as the rest of the fleet but bring considerably less utility than say a Burke with its powerful air-defense radars and helicopter facilities (the later blocks at least) or a carrier with its airwing.
>how this battleship is going to survive missile salvos without the ability to even detect them with radar
Not that guy, but...why not just put a radar on the ship?
Is that not how this is typically accomplished?
>So basically your battleship cannot operate independently of pickets for air-defense
Like every other naval ship due to a thing called "the horizon"
>and neither can it operate the powerful radars Burkes and Ticos operate
It could, if it wanted to, if the mission & role of the ship called for it.
>but bring considerably less utility
They would bring literally exactly the same utility, as nothing stops you from putting exactly the same components into a battleship, than into a Burke, or into a carrier if you want to go that way.
So it goes into a question of sacrificing speed/endurance for armor that would massively increase survivability vs AShM's or torpedoes.
During the cold war this was decided by the assumption that all those AShM's or Torps would be nuclear tipped, hence armor is a waste of time.
Nowadays, the thought of a conflict automatically going nuclear seems rather dated.
>Like every other naval ship due to a thing called "the horizon"
Carriers have this nifty plane called the E2 whose sole purpose is to carry a bigass radar, look at the horizon, and laugh at it.
Oh yes, just have a huge "HEY LOOK OUR BATTLESHIP IS RIGHT OVER HERE" floating above it. Lets not consider how the E-2 can move independently of the fleet to get into better positions as to not lead enemy scouts back to its carrier or in fact ruse entire enemy fleets from its presence alone.
>Oh yes, just have a huge "HEY LOOK OUR BATTLESHIP IS RIGHT OVER HERE" floating above it.
Nigger you're retarded, we're discussing distances so vast that they are literally beyond the visible horizon, and you think that a goddamn balloon is going to give away your position?
This isn't the 15th century anymore, naval warfare is a little more complicated these days.
>You say "All radars, sensors, and communications would be destroyed by a hit! So armor is pointless!"
>I say "So the necessary radars can be outsourced to drones, AWACS, other ships"
>You say "Now your Battleship is COMPLETELY BLIND! How can it survive this AShM swarm that noone in the world is capable of firing!"
this thread has completely devolved to shitposting.
all hands, abandon ship.
And they fire their missile salvo at it, discovering that the AWAC's blimp is just a decoy anchored onto an unmanned boat
Wasting 1 billion dollars in missiles, and a squadron of irreplaceable bombers.
Yes, but we're already building that on every existing ship, so its no added cost.
Why not just put
Why not just put two 16" guns on a burke hull instead of a 200k ton battleship with a crew of 2000 and a pricetag higher than the entire economy of the countries it would be deployed against?
> shore bombardment has limited use in modern warfare
Well no shit Sherlock, if you completely abandon contested amphibious assault capabilities. Which we have.
You're right, we don't need amphibious assault for these silly nonsense colonial peacekeeping "wars" we've been fighting for decades now.
Until we do, that is. And we don't have it. And one day, Americans will die. Because we listened to faggot peacetime Admirals who were only looking to make themselves a comfy retirement and LockMart a fat profit.
There's a word what the USN has done to our nation, anon:
A balloon carrying a radar of the same capability of a destroyer or an AWACS would be like a bigass beacon in the sky. Radar works both ways.
So yes, having a bigass balloon over your ship basically means everyone will detect where your battleship is from hundreds of miles away
>not putting legs on your battleships and landing craft
Finally we're getting somewhere with this thread.
The rest of you chucklefucks should follow Anon's example here and post some useful ideas. Enough whining about radar, please.
When will there ever be a need for a contested amphibious landing?
What can a battleship parked within artillery range of the enemy coast do that tomahawks from hundreds of miles away can't do better?
Its all about how you use it. Burkes, being pickets, are often tasked with lighting up when needed, especially if there's an incoming air threat. They also datalink with AWACS to get advance warning. Carriers normally don't radiate at all because they don't need to. The AWACS picks up an enemy fleet or air wing? Carrier launches a strike or CAP flight to respond while its hundreds of miles away. All a battleship can do is either run away are charge like it was Ten Go 2.0
This faggot suggested putting a bigass balloon with a powerful radar tethered in the sky above the battleship as a way to replace the AEW abilities of destroyers with helicopters or a carrier with planes.
It was pointed out that having that balloon over the ship would make it give it's position away extremely easily because radar is a big emitter that can be seen for a long distance.
What are you struggling with?
My god, you are autistic.
He is saying a battleship does not have the same capability as a carrier with an E-2 but they still require the same amount of defenses to surround them and that balloons are fucking retarded because they give away your location by the fact that they cannot fly independently like a fixed wing aircraft.
>It was pointed out that having that balloon over the ship would make it give it's position away extremely easily because radar is a big emitter that can be seen for a long distance.
Bzzt, nope, wrong. Nobody said anything even remotely like that.
Isn't the Zumwalt-class, and modern destroyers in general. similar in size and displacement to WW1 dreadnoughts?
They have much more powerful and effective weaponry than any conventional naval gun anyways and apparently armor is shit regardless. The whole concept seems kind of pointless unless you're wanting to build an arsenal ship
>Thinks battleships are obsolete because multi-billion dollar AShM swarms will destroy their sensitive electronics
>Meanwhile that same AShM swarm would sink a whole CSG
The question is not "What would it cost to produce a modern battleship"
It's "What would it cost to add 40,000 tons of armor to a Burke"
What we really need are armored, 60,000 ton gliders with 18 inch guns.
The only reason we don't have them is the cowardice of the navy higher-ups.
There is but one, word, gentlemen, that describes what the USN has done to us by depriving us of the armored glider:
Well, a CSG at least has the means to defend itself against an AShM swarm.
The only way to give a battleship the same would be to make it surrounded by a strike group. So the only difference is that the flagship is a bigass armored ship instead of a bigass carrier.
Aka, like you said, is it worth making a Burke the flagship and adding thousands of tons of armor to it.
So basically it can potentially mount every modern electronics a modern DDG and CG can but only having short range guns?
So basically it's gonna have the same amount of pickets and defenses as a CSG but having none of the utility?
Not really. The materials gliders are made out of can't be scaled up to the size of something about to support 45,000 tons, they'd collapse under their own weight if you did.
It's the same reason you can't build a twenty story wood framed building.
Lol you're confused aren't you?
Someone, idk if it was you, claimed that to overcome the lack of detection ability of a BB, they could attach a balloon with a radar.
It was pointed out that a large radar like that is a strong emitter and easily detected, and having it tethered to the battleship basically means it's a beacon showing the location of the ship, something that can be avoided with the AEW planes of a carrier.
Try reading the thread again. Maybe take a nap and come back.
Yeah no shit. D-day was hard too.
But it might be necessary. Obviously, a future d-day will look totally different from the last time. Weapons change, but the capability to blow a hole in enemy defenses and land heavies in the beach is eternal. This is a strategic consideration.
What the fuck are we paying USMC for?
But there are some obstacles that gliders can't overcome, like barrage balloons. Duh.
The legs are the best of both worlds, they'd defeat barrage balloons AND could avoid anti-tank obstacles.
Hey, you. I don't think you understand what's happening here.
Its the twenty first century, we don't make shit out of pig iron anymore, they'd use modern composities and nano-carbon tubes to make it strongerer.
D-day was not a contested landing
Inchon was not a contested landing
Noone has ever done contested landings
All that happened was a bunch old buncha generals deciding to reenact WW1 charges into machine guns.
Then they pretend like there was actual serious fighting going on.
When in reality, they are just a buncha fucking retards for not bringing armor to the fight.
The big joke is that 80 years on, modern amphibious doctrine, at least by America, is to bring no armor to the fight.
Mech-gliders, don't know why I didn't think of that in the first place.They could glide to the barrage balloons then land and use their superior mech agility to navigate tank obstacles.
We nee a drawfag up in here.
>fucking retards for not bringing armor to the fights
>reenact WW1 charges into machine guns
Kill yourself. Stop browsing, turn off your PC and fucking end your own life.
A Burke hit by an AShM or torpedo is sunk
An armored ship hit by an AShM or Torpedo is damaged but still mostly functional.
>Only lightly armored destroyers can provide air defense or anti-missile
Do you not understand where we are going with this?
So what you're saying is... "lets tank the missile hit and hope nothing important breaks" as opposed to "let's not get detected, shot at and hit in the first place"?
Amazing, the USN needs more minds like you.
Just a little while ago this sort of thinking was the norm in regards to ground combat
"Who needs armor in this age of precision weaponry and long ranged sensors??"
And then it was discovered they were totally full of shit, and nothing can replace the ability to take a hit.
Unfortunately there has been no relevant naval combat for over a century, so they have no practical experience to guide their doctrinal thinking.
Why don't you ask the useless Hotel why people don't use battle ships any more
Except modern armor is still extremely vulnerable to modern threats. There's a reason why even MBT crews are trained to avoid being seen or sighted if at all possible because no tank is going to survive a modern ATGM hitting them in the side or rear.
>An armored ship hit by an AShM or Torpedo is damaged but still mostly functional.
Hahaha, anon you cad. So it's basically a carrier in that, unlike the Burke, it's a giant bulleye and unlike a carrier, doesn't have aircraft.
>uh huh Do you not understand where we are going with this?
Yeah, something more expensive than a Burke with the survivability of a carrier, right? Or rather something like a giant bullseye without the flexibility of a carrier.
>people in major militaries have ever, for any length of time advocated completely removing armour from all aspects of the ground battlefield
>since their inception MBT's have ever been removed from service and replace with lightly armoured vehicles
I must have missed that bit.
Point is, you CANNOT ARMOUR A FUCKING BB TO A POINT WHERE IT CAN 'TANK' A FUCKING ANTI-FUCKING-SHIPPING-MISSILE.
Except now we come back to the fact that armor would be very cheap to add in relation to the cost of these ships.
To call them "contested landings" is to deliberately deceive. The Germans had garrisons of women and children at these relatively low value locations.
This is how you can tell the US has abandoned any serious attempt at maintaining amphibious assault capability.
>The actual defenses on the beaches were quite light
We avoided the heavily defended parts
>And failures at dieppe, omaha, or market garden are directly contributed to the lack of armor at them.
Has nothing to do with the fact that the commanders on D-day weren't 'fucking retards who didn't bring armor', they did bring armour.
Dieppe had armor too. That failed because we didn't know what we were doing.
They did bring armour to Omaha, it just sunk en route (again though, that doesn't mean that they'd planned to not use it'. It didn't fail.
Operation Market Garden did fail due to a lack of armour, as in we failed to punch our way through to the besieged paratroops (it was too great a dstance, but really, if it had been planned better Market Garden could have been a phenomenol success).
BUT anon, taking cover and knowing when to shoot is better than all the fucking body armor in the world. Course body armor is great for when you are shot but when it has a giant fucking bullseye on it that prevents you from using cover effectively... I'm sorry.
>Because shore bombardment has limited use in modern warfare
>Because shore bombardment is performed at an arms length via Tomahawks and F-18s in modern warfare
Fixed that for you.
All in all your list is pretty good except I think you could have included a blurb about the mass penalties associated with armoring a ship versus the amount of actual protection said armor provides.
Except modern armor + APS is being shown to be 100% effective against ATGM's.
And a ship is able to pack far more armor on than a tank because a ship doesn't have to worry about getting stuck in mud or collapsing bridges.
>VLS... where the Tomahawks were previously stored
You aren't fitting a vertical anything in the space allotted to the armored box launchers. It's not that tall and there's shit under it.
A ship has other things to worry about such as not sinking or capsizing under its own weight.
And no, despite what the salesmen tell you, APS and composite armor are not 100% effective. No armor is.
>the US has abandoned any serious attempt at maintaining amphibious assault capability
You're making a great spectacle of yourself, keep it up
>you CANNOT ARMOUR A FUCKING BB TO A POINT WHERE IT CAN 'TANK' A FUCKING ANTI-FUCKING-SHIPPING-MISSILE
Sure you can.
It just requires sacrificing things like speed, range, maneuverability, and non-armor mass available for such things as fuel and armaments. Until all you are left with is an expensive slow piece of shit with barely anything for combat systems despite displacing a berchillion tons
They are probably both Sparky. Pretty sure that obese schizoid posts here on the regular.
Sergei Gorshkov, Commander in Chief of the Soviet Navy
> You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent ships 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 bounce off or be of little effect. Then when we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us.
Last paragraph on the page.
To be completely fair, he was fond of hyping up the Iowa class battleships as a way to get more Kirovs and other major projects funded.
Well honesty a battleship's only usefulness would be to field massive rail guns for use against cities or enemy warships.
It also could be fitted with a massive amount of AA an anti missile batteries.
Overall it is a waste yes but it is pretty much a great way of getting into a pissing contest with someone.
>Those six type 45's cost as much to build as all 142 destroyers in the home fleet in WWII.
"I dont understand the concept of inflation: the post"
7 F35s cost more than every single P51 Mustang built in WW2.
My perception on the role armour and durability in general plays in the role of modern naval warfare is the concept of what you could term as 'cutoff points' or 'minimum standard'.
Basically, a point where you can just shrug off rinkidink masses of 'swarm' weapons that can't be convievably tracked or engaged by your own guns in sufficient numbers, which I perceive is likely the easiest way for an asymmetrical force to achieve kills (besides mines).
Its basically like 'you must be this tall to go on this ride' as applied to design strategies. Making a bigger stick to poke through a harder target is easy, but bigger sticks are harder to deploy en mass. The point is to make it so that they have to make their sticks just big enough so its easy for *you* to hit them, and that they can't just throw them away carelessly.
I think protection from under water explosions is the biggest factor though. If a plane wants to drop a bunker buster or something on you, he needs to be in position first, and will always be vulnerable to being shot down. Armoring against above water damage is less important. Under water detection is much more difficult though, and really there is little way to know for sure if a sub is coming until they have already fired (I think ways to hard kill incoming torpedoes are the most important area of development in near term naval technology).
In case of Pyotr Velikiy's P-700. Missiles are old and end of their service life. Admiral Nakhimov is currently undergoing refit that will replace P-700 with much smaller P-800, lot more of 'em.
>implying a WWII bomb has better penetration than modern anti-ship missiles
Modern anti-ship missiles have been designed to be used against modern unarmored warships.
Only thing that would change if someone built a heavily armored warship is that countries would start do design bit heavier missiles that will fuck 'em up. Or just keep current missiles and replace conventional warheads with tactical nukes.
Greed of contractors, fucking expensive equipment like radars and missiles made by other contractors with operating under cost plus contracts. Massive R&D costs that are spread under small amount of produced ships. Ship itself is a small part of costs of warship.
Cargo ships are very similar to all other cargo ships, built in huge numbers using almost standard off the shelf parts like engines, navigation radars and so on.
>Why exactly are battleships considered obsolete
Because the aircraft carrier group is far more effective at projecting power, and between destroyers and subs they can cause way more damage than a battle ship.
Limiting factor is actually the cavitation of the propellers. Hull width/length, while important, is secondary, since the fuel in a nuclear powered ship is unlimited, unlike ships run on fuel oil, so you're not worried about fuel savings like merchant ships are.
This is how you do real amphibious operation. Not a contested landing, maneuvering warfare, google it. Anything else in the age of guided missile will reenact WW1 charges into machine guns. Only with tanks and ATGMs.
But a carrier group can strike locations miles apart at the same time. A carrier group is also faster and can stay out longer than battleships. The additional costs is outweighed by the benefit.
You need a port to dock & unload ships on
And every place capable of that will have a garrison at minimum, and artillery.
That doesn't constitute "contested" landing, you overwhelm that small force with your superior force(which requires large numbers of tanks), then get your troops on the ground before the enemy counter attacks.
>WE CAN'T BUILD BATTLESHIPS
>THEY AREN'T CARRIERS !
>THEY WOULD NEED UNARMORED DESTROYERS TO PROTECT THEM, BECAUSE ONLY UNARMORED SHIPS CAN "SCREEN"
I can't even talk to you "people"
She's cute though!
And why bother with good military technology when we can have an invincible battleship made out of ice cream and dreams!
battleship autist confirmed for reddit
>You need a port to dock & unload ships on
>i can't into amphibious warfare
You do know that there were Sherman's at d-day, right? Many sank, but at least a few made it.
Also, how the fuck is charging up a rather well defended beach while getting pounded by artillery and mg fire not "contested"
Would they have to get nuked for you to consider it contested?
>what is amphibious landing on all those pacific islands
Because, as is modern amphibious doctrine, those landings were avoiding the well defended beaches/ports.
Those were the definition of what you could expect an "uncontested landing" to be.
Anyone pretending a small garrison in bunkers to be "contested" is also saying that amphibious invasions are impossible & will never occur.
>only short range guns
There's this really neat thing called a Tomahawk cruise missile anon. We launched hundreds, literally hundreds, from the Iowas in the Gulf War.
And unlike the Burke's with their small guns, we were also able to use the 16" guns in that conflict too. I'm not sure how 16" guns are "close range" in comparison to the main battery of a Burke.
I'm saying that a carrier groups are far more versatile and effective than battleships. It has been LONG proven that when you dominate the AIR, you dominate the BATTLEFIELD. What good is a battleship compared to 20 armed fighter jets and a couple destroyers? A battle ship is one big target with lots of guns. The fighters are lots of targets with lots of guns.
Just a thought here, let me know what you think.
Combat experience in Korean and Vietnamese conflicts has shown that when conducting amphibious operations, or when the nearest coastline is not held by friendly forces, ships attempting to provide naval gunfire support will often suffer return fire.
In the two conflicts I mentioned, this counterbattery fire was from land based artillery, and could often enjoy a range advantage over naval based artillery. Battleships were used to engage these positions in counter counter battery fire, rather successfully. It is unlikely that land based gun artillery will be a significant thread to future US naval operations. It should, however, be noted that in both those conflicts, ample air power was present, and yet the navy used gunfire for a reason.
During the Falklands campaign, the threat of anti ship missiles,particularly land based exocets, was also shown with devastating results. British air power was also present, albeit in an exceedingly limited capacity as compared to other named conflicts.
Based on this, I would propose an alternative to costly battleships, a bombardment cruiser.
The main armament would be multiple 8" rapid firing guns and would be heavily armored to resist multiple anti ship missile strikes.
As it is not a capital ship, it would travel with a carrier strike group, and then close to shore to conduct gunfire operations. If the bombardment cruiser is directly attacked, the other ships in the carrier group much farther off shore will be able to respond, while the bombardment cruiser trusts in its armament to survive against existing threats.
Since they are niche ships, with a limited amount being built, it is unlikely that new anti ship missiles will be developed to counter them when they are sufficient for the other 99% of ships.
Finally, since history has shown that these are asymmetric engagements, nuclear weapons are unlikely to be available to belligerent nations.
THIS IS A GREAT IDEA, BUT INSTEAD OF CRUISERS LETS MAKE THEM BATTLESHIPS WITH 18' GUNS THAT FIRE LASER GUIDED BOMBS AND DRONES
>heavily armored to resist multiple anti ship missile strikes.
MY IDEA IS THAT YOU USE ERA AND EFP JUST LIKE TANK ARMOR, THEN A SEPERATING LAYER AND THEN A STEEL BELT. AND IN FACT YOU CAN PUT BALLISTIC MISSILES ON IT TO DESTROY FIGHTERS 1500 MILES AWAY.
TOO BAD THE CARRIER MAFIA RUN THE NAVY, YOU COULD GET 4 BATTLESHIPS FOR THE COST OF A CARRIER
>Those six type 45's cost as much to build as all 142 destroyers in the home fleet in WWII.
I NO RITE FUCK THAT RADAR SHIT WHO NEEDS IT WE SHOULD JUST BUILD 142 DESTROYERS THAT DON'T EVEN HAVE HELICOPTERS AND GIVE THEM FIVE INCH GUNS THEY COULD JUST BOMBARD THAT ONE TYPE 45 AND WIN AT A FRACTION OF THE COST
TECHNOLOGY IS FOR FAGGOTS WE NEED MORE BATTLESHIPS NIGGER
>alright, I'll bite. How do you intend to do that?
WITH ERA OF COURSE YOU CAN USE IT ON TANKS WHY WOULDN'T YOU COAT THE ENTIRE HULL OF A 45000T BATTLESHIP WITH GIGANTIC FUCKING BLOCKS OF EXPLOSIVES LARGE ENOUGH TO TURN BACK THE HUNDREDS OF KILOS OF TNT IN ASHM WARHEADS AND THE DECK AND TURRET TOPS AS WELL I MEAN JUST FUCK MY SHIT UP SENPAI
YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED BY THE CARRIER MAFIA YOU DON'T SEE HOW BRILLIANT MY IDEAS ARE
My thinking is on similar lines, people arnt recognizing that botes are not just for pewing other botes. Having a guntub that can rebuff land based arty is a big advantage. In Nam it was basically impossible for charlie to operate whenever the navy had a CA or BB in the area. Also, scramjet shells for those mark sevens can reach out to 200-500 miles, which puts 99% of the worlds population in range from sea.
In the end though, the real reason is rocket fuel is expensive, while cordite is cheap (inb4 autists think you can't have the capability for both in one).
Do you have any actual constructive criticism of my proposal?
A modern ship has been shown to survive single hits from anti ship missiles, albeit with drastically reduced combat effectiveness.
It is not inconceivable that a ship designed from the hull up with those threats in mind, and an emphasis on passive defence and survivability, would be able to survive, say, a half dozen direct impacts while still being able to withdraw from a combat zone in an orderly and casualty free manner.
All the same weaknesses as an aircraft carrier without any of the advantages.
Plenty of steel
ERA and APS.
Of course they would have the same self-defense capability of Burkes, in terms of missiles, CIWS
But for going into those dangerous waters where engagement ranges will be short, you can be sure something will come through.
This would also help vs the anti-mine threat
A heavily armored keel triggering mines to harmlessly detonate.
In any offensive operation you want to move fast & decisively, that necessitates an armored spearhead.
AKA, the battleship.
The thing that separates a battleship from it just being another CG (lots of missiles and AA, rail guns) is the armor, and the simple fact is that it wouldn't be practical to put armor on a modern ships in quantities that would make it comparable in durability as WWII battleships were.
>it wouldn't be practical to put armor on a modern ships in quantities that would make it comparable in durability as WWII battleships were.
What new physical law exists today, that didn't in WW2?
That does not allow you to put steel on ships?
First of all, battleships were already borderline obsolete in WWII. Keep that in mind during this entire discussion.
Even assuming that modern AShMs have zero armor penetrating ability, and even assuming that they couldn't be directed at whatever areas were more thinly armored, a modern battleship would require shit tons of armor. If you just use steel, it will easily get wrecked by shaped charges. ERA and APS you say? Ok fine, keep piling on the armor onto your battleship whose cost is skyrocketing. Meanwhile, you think that if someone decided to start up-armoring their ships, companies that make AShMs couldn't just develop some tandem warheads or other shit?
And don't say "but muh APS can stop missiles". It can stop SOME missiles when used on a tank against anti-tank missiles. Antiship missiles are much larger, and can have much more complex warheads and attack profiles.
The new physical properties of anti-ship weapons. You can't put a 60m thick armor on each side of your boat. Unless your ship is in space. And is an asteroid. And you are an ork.
None of those missiles would pierce the armor of a ww2 battleship
>whose cost is skyrocketing.
The cost of bulk materials is very low
Why would it "skyrocket" ?
You seem to be engaging a fantasy of your own mind.
> it will easily get wrecked by shaped charges.
Which is countered by spaced armor, ERA, APS, and massively limits the actual internal damage of the missile.
In reality, an armored battleship would be cheaper than a burke or zumwalt, or upgraded tico.
Theres a reason the US does not produce super sonic AShM's
Nice infographic. Totally ignores irrelevant bullshit like warhead size and wingspan. P-800 for example is way smaller than P-700, P-500 or de facto cancelled P-1000.
>might as well throw rocks
Modern anti-missile capable SAM's, CIWS like SeaRAM or just programmable proximity fused ammunition for naval guns are bit more sophisticated defenses than throwing rocks.
All western countries and manufacturers have gone with much smaller and slower missiles with more sophisticated approach methods. Stealth might be better than speed. We all know that for instance in fighters zero effort has been made to reduce RCS and newest fighters are fastest ever built.
>adding thousands of tons of modern special armor to a massive ship
>costs not going up
We've already been through this. For it to be cheaper than a modern DDG, it would have to omit the modern radars and sensors, modern countermeasures and ECM, modern VLS tubes with AA and antiship missiles, etc.
So basically, a WWII battleship with some modern armor slapped on. A short-range, slow, inefficient platform to carry around a handful of large cannons. It will also be defenseless against aerial attacks and missiles being spammed at it, so it would need the same level of escort group as a CVN if not more, with significantly less capability.
If you add all those modern features so it's like a giant Burke with armor, then it will be much more expensive than a Burke, but still not as effective.
WE'VE HAD A MILLION FUCKING THREADS THAT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVELY CRITICIZED YOUR FUCKTARDED IDEAS YOU STUPID NIGGER AND IN ALL OF THEM YOU STICK YOUR HEAD UP YOUR ASS, NEVER ADDRESS THE POINTS THAT PEOPLE PUT FORWARDS, SHIFT TO ANOTHER ASPECT OF YOUR STUPID IDEAS TO AVOID HAVING TO ADDRESS THE POINTS THAT PEOPLE HAVE MADE, STATE YOUR RETARDED FUCKING OPINIONS AS INDISPUTABLE TRUTH WITH ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BACK THEM UP (4 BATTLESHIPS FOR THE PRICE OF A CARRIER! LONG RANGE MISSILES REPLACE FIGHTERS!) AND CONTINUE TO WASTE EVERYONE'S FUCKING TIME
YOU'RE A WORTHLESS, MENDACIOUS CUNT AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET TREATED AS SUCH, AS BEFITTING SOMEONE WHO IS SO DUPLICITOUS AND INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST THIS THREAD AGAIN DESTROYED YOUR POSITION IN THE FIRST TENS OF POSTS AND YET HERE YOU ARE, GOING LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU AND STILL SHITPOSTING AWAY
YOU'RE A RETARD RETARDS GET NO REPECT SO GO FUCK YOURSELF
>Ok fine, keep piling on the armor onto your battleship whose cost is skyrocketing.
COST? NIGGER YOU PLATE A FUCKING HULL WITH ERA SLABS AND YOU STILL THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SAIL THAT SHIT THROUGH WATER? HYDRODYNAMIC WUT? THE ENGINES COULDN'T KEEP UP WITH THE WEIGHT BEFORE YOU START LOSING PLATES, THEY'RE SURE AS FUCKING NOT GOING TO KEEP THE SHIP IN A STRAIGHT LINE WHEN YOU'VE GOT A ONE METER GAP WHERE YOUR PLATE USED TO BE
18" GUNS FIRING MECHAS MOTHERFUCKERS IT'S THE FUTURE
Modern warships deal with missile impacts with compartmentalization and damage control. Main defense method is still trying to avoid being hit with stealth, hard kill defenses like SAM's or CIWS and soft kill active defenses like jammers, flares and chaff.
Adding armor will essentially lead to opponents going for bigger missile.
WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS SHIT EVERY FUCKING THREAD, MULTIPLE TIMES BASICALLY IT'S JUST A LOOP UNTIL IT AUTOSAGES
HE IS JUST GOING TO SWITCH TO ANOTHER IDEA AND THEN GO AROUND IN A CIRCLE
LIKE EVERY FUCKING THREAD
DON'T BOTHER TO ADDRESS HIM BECAUSE HE'S NOT HONEST AND WON'T ENGAGE IN HONEST DEBATE AND NEVER WILL JUST TROLL HIM UNTILL HE FUCKS OFF
LIES MODERN ARMOR ON A BATTLESHIP WILL MAKE IT COMPLETELY IMPREGNABLE TO ANY OFFENSIVE WEAPON EVER BECAUSE I SAY IT DOES SO IT DOES BECAUSE I SAY SO YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MY MOE
You seem quite worked up about what was my first post on the subject.
Moreover, you are attributing posts and words to me that are not my own, or even the same position as the one I am taking.
I would like an apology sir.
I have attempted to enjoin in this mental exercise, and been met by you sir, with nothing but excessive hostility that I am forced to assume is a result of severe cognitive dissonance.
DU, ceramics, and Steel are pretty fucking cheap
I think it would be cheaper, because you'd have to build a new shipyard, get non-union workers, and a less entrenched political force to build your ships
Then ban admirals/generals from working at defense contractors after retirement.
After that, yes, you'd have to look at which sensors & electronics are truly necessary to have on the battleship.
Does it need to be doing ballistic missile defense?
Does it need to have anti-mine capabilities? Does it need to be doing anti-sub? etc
>You seem quite worked up about what was my first post on the subject.
FUCK OFF NIGGER YOU'VE BEEN SHITPOSTING THESE SHITPOSTS FOR A LONG TIME NOW SAME FUCKING SHIT SAME FUCKING ARGUMENTS DIFFERENT FUCKING DAY
>Moreover, you are attributing posts and words to me that are not my own, or even the same position as the one I am taking.
WHY WOULD SOMEONE GO ON THE INTERNET AND TELL LIES
>I would like an apology sir.
I AM SORRY YOU WERE BORN A WORTHLESS NIGGER HOW ABOUT THAT
>I have attempted to enjoin in this mental exercise, and been met by you sir, with nothing but excessive hostility that I am forced to assume is a result of severe cognitive dissonance.
HAHA YOU'RE A FAGGOT
What if we put kevlar and ERA on horses and make cavalry a thing again?
Superior endurance and speed to infantry, better maneuverability than APCs and tanks
Omg guys they could even carry more ammo and heavier weapons like HMGs and mortars!
Who are these opponents?
I realize that my idea would not be survivable, or at least no more survivable than existing designs in conflict with a near peer force, but that wasn't the intention of the design.
I am not saying replace every carrier with a battleship, or bolt armor onto every Shipp in the fleet, but rather the creation of a handful of dedicated bombardment cruisers.
Yes, they could be countered with heavier missiles, but heavier missiles mean less shots and greater expense as compared to our current standard missiles which are perfectly fine 99% of the time.
Would the Russians and Chinese build new missiles to crack these nuts? Presumably, just to have a few on standby. I don't think they'd be able to fit in standard launch tubes though.
But would your average third world nation that the US has so often been in conflict with? I think the odds are rather unlikely.
Because they picked a fight with a nation so superior to them thst they could have annihilated everything at Pearl Harbor plus the subs and carriers thst weren't in port and they still would have gotten their asses handed to them.
Saudi's have lost 2 ships in yemen so far
You would have thought a "litoral combat ship" like the US just made would be armored against cannon fire, artillery, and light missiles.
But what's the point? What would a small armored bombardment cruiser be able to do that couldn't just be done by missiles and planes from hundreds of miles away? Or by railguns on regular CGs or DDGs in a few years?
If it's against a shit tier third world country then countermeasures, missiles, and ECM are enough to spoof or shoot down anything they can throw at you, so you can just sit back lobbing bombs and cruise missiles.
You need to prove that there's a need.
>build new missiles to crack these nuts?
The Russians alreadt have the Kh-22 and P-500/700
>In reality, an armored battleship would be cheaper than a burke or zumwalt, or upgraded tico.
How about you post a cost comparison? Get some spreadsheets all up in here. You keep saying it's cheaper.
Missiles and planes are expensive, more expensive than the cost of the bombardment cruiser over its lifetime? I can't say, I don't know how much an F-18 sortie to drop a JDAM costs, or what the going price is on a tomahawk, or even how much my hypothetical ship costs, but the cost of a round on target is certainly less than a missile, and a bombardment can be more easily sustained.
I also don't have hard facts on this, but I believe that the response time for a closer ship firing a faster projectile would be quicker than launching a missile or tasking an aircraft, assuming it's already in the battlespace.
Rail guns are as yet, unproven in combat. This is not a reason to never develop them, but I was under the impression that their ballistic arc left much to be desired for naval fire support, and they had little explosive filler compared to a conventional shell.
Where's the need for that kind of sustained naval bombardment? Why does it need to be done by a heavily armored ship? How is that superior to precision strikes with missiles and planes?
Hey guys remember when people insisted when the battleship wouldn't be obsolete because "every major naval power is still building them! they know more than you!"
>Where's the need for that kind of sustained naval bombardment?
Korea, vietnam, even GW1 showed that naval gunfire still has a place in modern warfare. Just of the top of my head I would point to Iran. Where not two US vessels Crippled in those waters?
>Why does it need to be done by a heavily armored ship?
I assume you no more than I want dead sailors. Land based systems will always out range naval based weapons, if you're close enough to hit them, they can hit you.
>How is that superior to precision strikes with missiles and planes?
Naval gunfire isn't going to replace them, it complements them, with a much lower cost, and possibly lower reaction time, while being infinitely more sustainable.
Because you need a target to do a precision strike
Whereas a battleship can go into visual range of a coast, can strike targets as they pop up, or just fire for effect into a large area where they think a camoflaged enemy might exist.
The Marines spent 3 billion dollars on the EFV, obviously there is a need for this sort of system.
Operating in constrained waters like the south shina sea, or the persian gulf, or the med, you will always be danger close to enemy shores.
All we are talking about is adding large amounts of steel to a ship. Maybe with DU or ceramics. These bulk materials are very cheap, steel is cheaper today than in WW2.
It is madness to insist that its "impossible" to heavily armor a ship.
>Who are these opponents?
Any technically sophisticated country. Instead of current missile with 200kg warhead they would react with same missile with 500kg warhead and possibly extra fuel to keep range similar to previous version. That would probably lead to ramifications on vertical launch systems on ships and bigger trailer on truck mounted coastal artillery version of same missile. Fighter launched version of anti-ship missile would probably just have suck with reduced range.
>I am not saying replace every carrier with a battleship, or bolt armor onto every Shipp in the fleet, but rather the creation of a handful of dedicated bombardment cruisers.
I'll ignore replacing carrier groups, but that coastal bombardment cruiser would end up being destroyer with bunch of bigger guns. US Navy is already doing it with Zumwalt-class... that got axed due to rather complex reasons. USN will go for unfucked Zumwalt in a decade, until then Arleigh-Burke flight 3 will be the thing. The reason they are going for advanced gun systems (still a conventional gun system) and hopefully in future with rail guns is the fact that advanced precision guided gun shells are fuckloads more cost efficient than cruise missiles and harder to intercept. They can fire a lot of 30k$ precision guided rocket boosted 155mm shells before hitting cost of few 1M$ Tomahawks. Hopefully from range that Zumwalt can't be engaged and with more targets being destroyed or at least disabled to support amphibious operations.
On the subject of coastal bombardment, its also the fact that its actual fire support.
In the sandbox when you called there air force, you wanted them to send a gunship that can loiter and provide fires pro actively and on demand moment to moment, not have to sit on your thumbs for 5 minutes for an f-16 that will only be around for 5 seconds.