>>28736646 >it's pointless to armor against modern threats. This is entirely incorrect Armor would always reduce damage by hits even if it fails to totally stop penetration. Certainly armor would negate this underkeel torpedo strategy.
>>28736714 armor would have completely negated all the damage from the USS cole bombing Would negate damage from light AShM's fielded by everyone who isn't russia or china Would negate damage from conventional torpedoes that pose a grave threat to existing ships
Obviously you can't armor up to shrug off 200kt nuclear warheads, but yes you can armor up significantly vs conventional weaponry.
Steel is pretty cheap compared to the cost of modern ships, no reason not to just build ships bigger with unused space availible for troop berthing or cargo or upgrades, and armor to withstand light torpedoes, AShM's, and direct fire weapons.
The biggest problem the Navy has right now is lack of range. American aircraft carriers cannot be used to their full potential because they're loaded with too many small fighters with limited range and payload. The US needs to go back to have a dedicated long-range carrier-based interceptor and a dedicated long-range subsonic strike aircraft. No more of this "jack of all trades" nonsense. Revive the Super Tomcat as the new interceptor and restarted the A-12 Avenger program for a new strike aircraft.
>>28736822 >The only logical reason I can think of to not armor our ships, is so we don't start an arms race with anyone.
>add armor >ships now weigh more and accelerate slower >rework propulsion to fix that but now burn more fuel >so now your ship is heavier and more expensive and safe from a handful of weapons it likely will never see >then 10 years passes and the white commies and yellow commies have learned about the new armor and found a way to defeat it
>>28736885 Wrong, asshat. Battleships were fuckhuge to carry those huge guns and all of that armor. They were also horrible fuel hogs because it takes a lot of energy to push all that deadweight through the water at a strategically useful speed.
Oh my fucking God that will never happen. The fucking g detection horizon for all ships caps out at around 250 miles. After that the fucking earth's curves stop shit from detecting each other. No fucking gun is ever going to outrage a plane.
>>28736954 Unless you can armor the radar, comms, or associated aircraft any competent naval force will simply leave you blind and deaf then ignore you. And if they can't do that then they'll simply outrun you.
>>28737029 Is it the very concept of comparison itself that you are failing to grasp? How would you gauge whether battleships were more or less fuel efficient than smaller ships? Would posting some battleship fuel efficiency stats be sufficient? Think about it, even if it's hard.
Post the link to this magical PDF. I need a good laugh. Weight does affect fuel consumption.
Try this experiment: drive your car 100 miles. Now, load up 1000 pounds of extra weight in your car and drive the same 100 miles at the same speed. Check your fuel consumption at the end of each drive. Post your results in the next battleship thread you OP.
>>28737072 Not the anon you're arguing with, but your comparison is wrong. A proper gauge of efficiency is how much fuel is required to move a unit of mass a unit of distance. It's similar to the way that trains are far cheaper than semi trucks for moving cargo over land because the train, while massive and heavy, carries far more cargo for the amount of fuel it consumes. It's economy of scale, plain and simple. I'm not advocating for battleships, mind, but the other anon could be right in terms of economy of scale.
>>28737105 Why not just rice up a cargo ship with laser turrets, missile launchers, etc etc generic ship weapons, and strap some armor to it? It would have plenty of space for helis/VTOLs to land as well.
>>28737053 Why are you comparing a battleship to a destroyer? You should compare a Burke to something like a Farragut.
Farragut had a range of 5980 nmi at 12 knots, Burke has a range of 4400nmi at 20 knots. The Farragut has a 27% larger range but a cruising speed that is only 60% of the Burke's cruising speed. The Farragut also had 1/5 the displacement of the Burke.
>>28737139 Farragut class used 197 Bbl. per day at 12 knot. >https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Fuel/Fuel-DD.html USS Arkansas, displacing about 16 times more, used 847 Bbl. per day at 12 knot. >https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Fuel/Fuel-BB.html
>>28737053 Burke burns 6K gph at 30 knots. Iowa burns over 14K gph at 30 knots. Burke is considerably more fuel efficient than Iowa. Burke also has about 1/5 the displacement and 1/10 the manning requirements of an Iowa.
There's nothing a battleship can do that 5 Burkes can't do better.
>>28737201 >There's nothing a battleship can do that 5 Burkes can't do better. Yeah and that's totally because destroyers are better than battleships, not because of any technological advancements between the Iowa and the Burke. Compare the Iowa to the Gearing class, one of which burns about 4th of the fuel of the Iowa. One of Iowa's 3 turrets was more powerful than 20 Gearings.
>>28737218 Fuel efficiency is 100% of fuel efficiency, which is what this particular discussion is about. If you want to go back on >>28736921 >They were also horrible fuel hogs because it takes a lot of energy to push all that deadweight through the water at a strategically useful speed. Then go ahead, no one will criticize you for being a retard. It wasn't your fault after all that you lost the genetic lottery.
>>28737104 Weight is a function of size, doofus. Why do you think ships are commonly listed by displacement? Greater displacement equals greater energy required to move the same distance at the same speed. As your own link demonstrates.
>>28737105 I though about that, too, right after I posted. Iowa burns a little over twice the fuel to achieve the same speed.
Economy of scale is there, which doesn't help accomplish the mission. Fuel is one factor in the overall strategic picture. The crew of 1 BB can man 5 Burkes, which is a much more cost effective allocation of resources. Now you have 5 ships, which means you can accomplish multiple missions simultaneously. Also, Burkes aren't capital ships. BBs are, which means they need escorts. That sort of kills the economy of scale right there.
Because you can't stop the red hordes with limited missile capacity. And fire control evolved in the last several decades, as well as gun technology; which is why the navy has kept 5" guns around and wants to use rail guns.
Nothing wrong with some sort of "battlecruiser" that shits missiles and is large enough to house everything for a big ass rail gun.
>>28737451 Nine really big guns. Granted, combined they still have a slower rate of fire than a modern 5in gun along with a smaller effective range, but they're really big and make for good photo ops when firing broadside.
>>28737494 Yeah, but some people will totally get to act out their WWII fantasies even though they're only likely to be used after all high value and high threat targets are already eliminated by cruise missiles and aircraft.
>>28737451 Impervious to existing weaponry, or anything conceivably fielded by third rate countries like Iran or brazil or whatever.
>>28737459 Nothing stops you from building an armored hull, then putting all the same equipment that goes in burkes. Which would in the end, means the same or less crew due to new automation, plus some extra crew for the bigger needed engines.
>Each turret required a crew of between 85 and 110 men to operate. A modern BB wouldn't use big triple gun turrents needing 100 men to run.
>>28736840 Police body armor doesn't need to defend against explosively formed penetrators. However, >>28736858 you didn't provide any serious rebuttal to his point. This is unfortunate. Steel armor really does either completely stop explosive charges or magnify the damage caused because of appalling, but the anon is unlikely to ever believe this because he wasn't responded to effectively in a timely manner.
>>28736386 >how powerful is it? More powerful than the next 3 countries combined. Maybe next 5. >what are its flaws? It's expensive. It's vulnerable to ayylmao's and, theoretically, #YOLO suicide boat spams (but only in port when 99% of the crew is drunk and the other 1% are dead, none of the equipment works, the enemy has magic FTL flying bike messengers and handwavium-armored mach-12 speedboats). Also we may lose a few friendly ports because an only sorta-related branch can't keep from getting its rape on. >should I join it? If you can truthfully answer C to the following question, then yes: A: I like to suck cocks. B. I love to suck cocks. C. I literally would kill my own mother to suck every cock on the planet simultaneously.
>>28736838 >lack of range So why can a Superbug take off from a carrier IN PORT IN FUCKING NORFOLK and bomb Moscow, without a second refueling plane? >yes I know it'd be a single bomb since all other pylons would be drop tanks, but still.
>>28736924 So...never? >protip: Carriers can launch a single flight of aircraft capable of circumnavigating the globe So until we invent a gun that can be mounted on a ship with enough range it's capable of firing east and hitting itself in its western gunwale after shooting clear around the entire world....
>>28736954 >fuel is fairly cheap too If it's so cheap why does the CdG sit in port? Why does the entire Russian navy sit in port? Why does the Sao Paulo sit in port? >because these otherwise fairly wealthy countries cannot fucking afford the goddamn fuel Even assuming diesel is $1 per gallon when purchased in bulk through military contract. The Sao Paulo burns 3500 gallons an hour at cruising speed and at top speed it's closer to 6000 gallons an hour.
>>28737839 Large, hypersonic, top-attack AshM's with either very large conventional warheads or small nuclear warheads.
Like the P 500, P 700, and P 1000, which carry 500kg/1100lb warheads and/or 3-10kt nuclear warheads, and are sea-skimming hypersonic missiles that do pop-up attacks specifically to avoid any armor belts
>>28737860 Oh, also, IN THEORY the russian/chink/dunecoon short or medium range ballistic missiles.
I know Iraq tried to shoot a few SCUDs at the carrier group in the Gulf during Desert Storm, but...well, nobody's managed to even hit the CITY they were aiming at with a SCUD yet, hitting a maneuvering ship (regardless how big) with the utter lack of terminal guidance and poor initial accuracy would be purely luck. Unless someone throws a big enough airbursting nuclear warhead on one for close to count.
>>28737881 >"allied intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets" had detected the launch of a number (later reports said at least 6) of unguided, short-range ballistic missiles inside Syria. The trajectory and distance travelled indicated that they were Scud-type missiles, although no information on the type of Scud being used was provided at the time.
>The first confirmed use happened several months later, when on 15 August 2011, as anti-Gaddafi forces encircled the Gaddafi-controlled capital of Tripoli, Libyan Army forces near Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte fired a Scud missile toward anti-Gaddafi positions in Cyrenaica, well over 100 kilometers away. The missile struck the desert near Ajdabiya, causing no casualties. >struck the desert >causing no casualties The ONLY confirmed use of a SCUD since 1994, and they missed the whole fucking city
>>28737860 16 inches of hard steel would handle those Noone builds 3-10kt nuclear warheads, you mean like, 50-100kt
Any modern designed "battleship" would take into account those threats. Imagine what an APS system could do on ships Or a battery of AGS firing airburst shells for CIWS. With all the same longer range defenses that any other naval ship would mount.
>>28737919 Sure but you space the armor, or line it with kevlar, this is crap they've dealt with in tanks for a long time now.
>Lieutenant General Muhammad bin Ahmed al-Shaalan, the commander of the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF), died of a heart attack during a work trip outside the kingdom, the official Saudi Press Agency reported the Ministry of Defence as saying on 10 June.
>>28737930 >16" of hard steel would handle those Do you have any idea how many hundreds of tons a 3-foot-wide belt of 16" thick, 1500ft long hardened steel would weigh? >oh but APS/AGS/CIWS means nothing hits my precious armor! Unarmored ships already have those fucknuts.
Also: >any armor fucking ever >doing fuck-all to stop or even mitigate damage from a direct hit from a 3kt nuke, much less a 50kt nuke
>>28737930 >3 foot wide band >16" thick >on a ship ~500ft long (going off 1200ft of armor belt since ships aren't a 1-dimensional line), which is a few feet shorter than an Arleigh Burke That's 2.3 MILLION pounds just in the armor belt. 1176 tons. Or about an eighth of the weight of a fully operational Burke.
>>28736411 >in 10 years Senpai please, even 10 years later we'd only have 4 carriers at most (2 being ski ramp ones) and definitely nowhere near the same number of modern destroyers and cruisers (052C, 052D, 055 etc).
If you don't know the weight, how on earth can guess the pricing? And if you don't know the price, how on earth can you argue that you gain a capability that's worth the price for the number of Burkes that you could build with it?
Why would you put a fuckton of armor on anything modern? I could understand light armoring to deal with small surface threats, but making ships weigh 4x as much just so a missile can kill them slightly less deader?
>>28738085 Why not just put 4-6 more CIWS turrets on them and call it a day? At the very least that extra coverage might actually stop a big nasty missile without making the thing weigh a fuckload more.
>>28738169 Don't they also have those fancy rolling frame missiles and whatnot? Like I've said, light armoring is probably not a bad idea, but wouldn't it be better to invest in preventing the hit in the first place?
Light armoring should help against small surface threats while the ship uses CIWS and other missile intercepting methods to defend against being hit to begin with.
Don't CIWS turrets legit track pretty much anything that goes in front of them? Seem to remember a navyfag talking about fucking with them by throwing watermelons or something off the ship. Can definitely understand the avoid friendly fire bit.
>>28738188 >but wouldn't it be better to invest in preventing the hit in the first place? That only works when you are taking your time, and keeping your distance No way to keep your distance if you are amphibious invading, or operating in the persian gulf, or fighting around taiwan.
>>28738189 >small ships exist to guard carriers lol
Or you could just... shoot the missiles out of the sky, because if a tank shell can penetrate literal *feet* of RHA, what do you think 16" of steel is going to do to keep out a fucking AShM? Those things have fancy warheads specifically designed to punch xboxhueg hole in boats.
I know, let's hang racks of ERA blocks from the sides of the boats!
So if we start armoring ships, how long before someone just slaps a shaped charge on an AShM? Worse, one that is designed to take advantage of spalling? Meaning you have a fuckhuge hole AND a dead as fuck crew.
>>28738232 If you armor your ships do you not think the one who would shoot missiles at your armored ships would not redesign the warhead to counter your silly armor and then blow up an xboxhueg hole in the boat?
>>28738246 Yes. Three or four 16" steel hulls + 2 layers of ERA.
All those hulls could also function like those russian dolls. If you had to you could drive out of the bigger hull when it is damaged and still have like 2-3 hulls left. When you are on your last hull you return to port to get new hulls.
But we fill the spaces between the hulls with water, so that when the missiles hit, it will absorb some of the shock, and the hole will let out the water, making the ship lighter and faster, ergo easier to get away.
>>28736386 Strenght: Numbers. Is already deployed all around the world. No one can compare to it.
Weakness: 1. We do not know how a war with a greater power will be fought. 2. Submarines (especially of the silent diesel type armed with Shkval torpedos. Battleships are dead, so with little to non armour..) Even shitty Norwegian ones do huge "damage" during military exercises.
>>28736386 I'm about to be real as shit with you. >should I join? wait to see if the next president is a republican. trust me. >Flaws Externally few. a great force, biggest in the world, with a load of money to throw around.
Internally, its a fucking nightmare. SecNav Ray "The gay" Mabus is a fucking peacetime atrocity in motion, who helped dismantle the DoN's brass into spineless, political yes men who are incapable of a single act of true leadership all the way down to E7, who then emasculate the power and capability from E6s and fistfuck E5 and below. Fuck this fucking place.
>>28737930 Hardly anyone carries 50-100kt nukes. Small is where it is at. Goes off under the fucking ship and snaps it in half, and all your armour will do fuckall to help that, except maybe make it worse.
>tfw joined navy >good benefits they said >see the world they said >be me >be deployed to BOP-1 "Battle Ocean Platform" >aka "legoland" >first of its kind new "armored battleship" >all I do is replace fucked up ERA blocks >since it's deployment, Asia has starved to death since lolnofish >every time we do exercises with another navy I have to take a plane ride to the other side of the ship >literally no more boats in PacFleet >went to Captain's Mast for taking 4 days to temp the jettison lockers >never get liberty because we're technically always at port... >all of the ports...
>>28736753 You literally, in your own post, negated the armor. "Everyone who isn't China or Russia".
But the Chinese are basically the only potential threat to our boats. If it can't protect against the thing they need to protect from, why bother spending the money and resources?
The Russians have, and I can't stress this enough, never had a great and powerful navy. Ever. The subs were the one decent thing they had. Their carrier is a shit. Their seamenship skills are basically meh-tier. Always have been, and for the foreseeable future they won't be an existential threat.
>>28738455 The Russians dont need a powerful navy. They only need powerful subs capable of carrying nukes. And if you arm those subs with Shkval torpedoes while the rest of the army shoots down any allied satellites, then they can break down any navy that threatens them
Russia is huge, and they dont need a huge navy = True. Submarines can carry Nukes, that is a huge deal. Meaning they can strike back at anyone who threatens/attack them. =True. Shkval torpedoes on silent diesel subs are scary as fuck! They can strike were it hurts, disabling aircraft carries, and you cant really protect yourself against it = True. Russians have perfected shooting down sattelies =True. Ships on sea need satellites to efficiently shoot out missiles and communicate with the rest of the army =True. Come close to any shore without satellites, and small subs and missiles from land will devastate any navy= True.
>>28738595 I served in the Royal Norwegian Air-force, and worked mainly with NASAMS, but also on other types of missiles. Long range missiles, that dont lock on to a target before launch, are way, way less precise without the aid of satellites.
>>28736386 Its still very strong, very large. However it probably attracts the most, I joined the military for a job and hand me out types, so a lot of unmotivated individuals. Also the navy is very politically correct now, I'm tired of being told not to rape anyone. Also I'm pretty salty about some of the new programs like the LCS. I just wish I could go on a ship. I'm tired of working at a hospital at another joint base.
Some other anon explained why we don't build new battleships very well in another thread.
>current destroyers don't have enough armour, let's cover them in steel plate >oh no! now the ship is way heavier, guess we need bigger engines if we still want it to be fast >well, now we have a ship that is super heavy and expensive, but doesn't pack any more of a punch than the old destroyers and wouldn't last significantly longer in a firefight with a real navy >that seems kind of pointless, we should at least give it some more dakka >so now we have a ship that's incredibly expensive, but at least it's got a bunch of guns and missiles. A real battleship! >but wait, wouldn't it be smarter to spread the cost between 2 or 3 lighter ships? The advantage of being able to be in 3 places at once seems more valuable than the advantage of being able to fire a few more missiles from one position
>Modern AShMs don't counter BB armor >This is somehow evidence that BBs would be good, rather than evidence that nobody encounters BBs so doesn't equip weapons to defeat obsolete ships with armor belts >This would somehow continue to be the case after BBs are fielded, and people wouldn't just switch their longer-range, higher-speed ships to equip them with AShMs designed to fuck BBs
That is quite honestly the fastest way to have a Minuteman II up your asshole. The US has stated time and again that if their nuclear launch sats go down, FOR ANY REASON, it is considered to be an act of war and the nukes will start flying.
>>28738503 And you still are forgetting that US submarines are a very real thing and we actively research and develop anti sub warfare techniques and tools, and the arms race of "quiet sub vs better detection" will continue except the US tends to lead their competitors in terms of the tech race.
>>28737074 >then were gonna have to dust off the oldies >implying forward progress causes reverse evolution Guns are never coming back as a primary surface to surface weapon, get over it. Not even with railguns, as useful as they may become(for other jobs). The physics advantage inherent in aerodynamic flight will always increase faster than the Gun tech can catch up. They are forever getting farther and farther apart. Missiles and airplanes haven't exactly stopped evolving, you know.
I'll select three recent advances in AShMissilery to illustrate the point: >VLO missiles LRASM, that new German one, and Perseus for example. By reducing detection range, they cut down on the amount of reaction time available to the targeted ship's defenses. On-board jammers continue to enhance survivability once the missile has been detected.
>subsonic cruise combined with supersonic terminal dash YJ-18 and the particular Klub variant it is based on. Cruising at a more moderate speed allows decent fuel economy/range while staying low in a sea-skimming profile for low observability - ordinary supersonic missiles suffer a huge range penalty for a sea-skimming profile. Then the terminal boosters kick in to sharply reduce the amount of time available for the ship defenses. Essentially, this combines the best qualities of subsonic sea-skimmers and supersonic missiles.
>(hypersonic) AShBMs with MaRV DF-21D is the only example I know of but the tech isn't much different from the later generation of Pershing IRBMs, which also had a guided MaRV. These missile are easy to detect, but the hypersonic dive with moderate evasive maneuvering makes for an extremely difficult target to intercept, and once it's in the dive phase there's not very much time available for intercept.
What have guns done in this time? >railguns promising but still not a mature product >reducing size and cost of guidance technology for shells >fancy multimode fuzes are becoming standard continued
So guns, missiles, and planes are all evolving, with missiles and planes far in the lead ahead of guns. Just like the economic success of Blacks versus that of Asians, the gap is increasing in size over time, not shrinking.
>>28736753 >armor would have completely negated all the damage from the USS cole bombing.
wrong, the amount of armor you would need to completely make a 600 lb bomb a non issue is insane for any destroyer. even back when destroyers did have armor they didn't have that much armor.
>Would negate damage from light AShM's fielded by everyone who isn't russia or china
wrong again, AShMs target sensitive systems as much as they try to sink the ship. you gonna put 5 inches of armor over our radar arrays?
>Would negate damage from conventional torpedoes that pose a grave threat to existing ships.
holy fuck you have never been so wrong. modern torpedoes are a surface sailors worst fear. you may not even realize its coming and BAM keels broke and your birthing is filled with fire smoke and screaming.
>>28736753 >but yes you can armor up significantly vs conventional weaponry. Cruisers in WW2 struggled to properly armor against 8" guns what do you think they will do vs Harpoon sized EFP warheads, which would be deployed the second you have these.
Thats before you consider the reduced speed and seaworthyness (Top heavy armor will kill rough sea sailing for small ships)
> no reason not to just build ships bigger with unused space availible for troop berthing or cargo or upgrades Reduced speed, increased silhouette for all real sensor metrics increased ship size meaning more crew are required for any prompt damage control
armor to withstand light torpedoes? Do you not get how Keel breakers work? the warhead is designed to basicly drop the spine of the shipe over its knee, to "Armor" for that you would need to reinforce the main keel by several dozen times
>>28743296 Need to make 50,000 ton "destroyers" Oh so you're entirely retarded Big ships require big crews, are a big investment and can only be in 1 place at a time
They require deeper drafts and as such become more and more prohibitive as to where they can effectively be used along with the associated issues of moorings at friendly and/or civilian harbors for resuppy
>Wouldn't work vs battleships Would work Exceptionally well vs Battleships
>>28743447 >Big ships need big crews because they have a lot of equipment Bingo
>Not because of their tonnage, or size. Security details, damage control teams, reduced reaction to emergencies on board.
>Nor is material costs a significant part of modern day military ships. That's why we have 11 carriers not 55 right? Steel's so cheap why don't we build more hulls for quick fitment?..... Oh right, Shipyards and maintenance engineer crews cost money too....
>>28743447 >Nor is material costs a significant part of modern day military ships. Because effective armor is just steel plate right? and 15k tons of Chobham would be so economic to make and we could totally make 10" thick Chobham with the cookers we have
>>28743550 I think you missed the point, The number of docks and shipyards that can effectively maintain ships that big is limited. For an example have a read up on the Tirpitz and the fact St Nazaire was incapacitated
These docks require workers, maintenance and defense to remain useful.
Thread replies: 254 Thread images: 21
Thread DB ID: 478893
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.