Their is no surface vessel currently afloat (not including carriers)

>>30001545

To clarify I'm talking about WW2 battleships in general, Tirpitz, Yamamoto ect.

Then you're wrong. Battleships were sunk with smaller munitions than we have now.

The most heavily armoured ship that ever existed was sunk by 500lb bombs and lightweight torpedoes.

>>30001545
>paveway down the smokestack
>dead BB

File: Moskit_anti-ship_missile.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

Pretty sure most of the Russian cruisers could do it.

A 320kg bomb moving at 770mph could penetrate 13.8 inches of steel in 1944. And you think a 4.5 ton Sunburn moving at mach 3 won't?

Idiocy born of ignorance.

>>30001626

That webm, what the fuck was that?

>>30001640

Is that another shitty Chinese missile? We're talking about actual workable technology here.

>>30001650
can you read? its literally the fucking filename
>>30001545
as much of a BBfag I am, you are very, very wrong.
all a burke has to do is go over the horizon and shit tomahawks at the bb until the fucker sinks

>>30001545
>not including carriers

So basically what you are saying is that BBs are great as long as you ignore the thing that made them obsolete

>>30001672
Pathetic

>>30001672
Shitty chinese missiles could sink a battleship. Hell, north korea with 50 year old soviet missiles could sink a battleship. Battleships are obsolete. Deal with it.

>>30001672

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22

>>30001688

Kek, they were suddenly considered "obsolete" because of a knee jerk reaction to two British ships in WW2 being sunk by some Japanese planes that took off from land. A modern battleship with some AA would be a solid addition to a carrier group.

>>30001545
nuclear tipped cruise missiles fired from almost any surface ship today would make your argument rather mute wouldn't it.

>>30001741
You mean an unnecessarily expensive addition. There's literally nothing a BB can do for a modern carrier group that a Burke can't do better.

>>30001741
Oh yeah, a modern battleship with some standard missiles, tomahawks, and aegis. Lose the big guns since they don't have the range to hit anything and lose the armor since it still won't help you survive missiles or torpedoes.

Congratulations, you now have a DDG-51!

>>30001741
This is the kind of delusion that fuels these threads

>>30001848
I'm sure its listerine that fuels those delusions. All of the naval shitposting is done by one person.

>>30001741

>Knee jerk

Did you happen to miss the entire Pacific War? Carrier-borne aircraft were sinking all sorts of shit for 4 years straight. Not to mention doing other essential jobs like ASW patrols, land bombardment, and defending the fleet from other aircraft.

>>30001894
You know the amount of literal children that are on this site? Go to one of the chats or streams that gets posted some time, last one I went to not a single person was born before 2002.

Iowa's could indeed tank AShMs better than anything else we have.

However, the Russians have some KILLER AShMS but they only have a handful of them, and one or two wouldn't sink an Iowa.

A modern 5 inch gun can hit targets 10-80 miles away. Back in WW2 a 5 inch naval gun couldn't hit shit more than a few miles out.

Times change and battleships are an underrated platform. I'm pretty sure we have the technology to make a battleship with main guns that can outrange carrier launched aircraft...

>>30001626

Holy fuck

Is that thermalbaric?

>>30001913
I normally assume everyone here is in there 20s or older

>>30001949
So did I

>>30001916
>I'm pretty sure we have the technology to make a battleship with main guns that can outrange carrier launched aircraft...

Unless you plan to go full kamikaze, you need to outrage both the aircraft and the ASM missile it launches.

You're not gonna outrage either.

>>30001916
>However, the Russians have some KILLER AShMS but they only have a handful of them, and one or two wouldn't sink an Iowa.

One or two could easily destroy an Iowa.

They didn't have a handful.

Battleships are dead, fucking get over it.

>>30001676
Ashm tomahawks are retired. The burke would launch harpoons and standard missiles at it instead.

Honestly that would probably be sufficient to render the battleship combat ineffective, but probably not actually sink it.

The large russian hypersonic cruise missiles that are specifically designed to destroy large surface ships would absolutely obliterate a WW2 battleship.

At least it isn't gliderfag....

>>30001994
shhh, he'll hear you!

>>30001937
It's "thermobaric" and no.

It's 710lbs of high explosive and whatever jet fuel the missile had left, which is more than enough to sink a 1940s battleship as proven by the sinking of the Roma.

>>30001545
Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhaha

Hahahhahahaha


Idiot.

>>30002044
>Actual footage of a missile punching through the entire length of a ship in what must be the equivalent of feet of steel

>NU UH muh battleship is invincible!

Battleships are obsolete, guys...

The future is clearly gliding battleships.

>>30001913
>not a single person born before 2002
>you were there
Hmm

>>30002090

That is an unarmored target....

And the webm doesn't even show it sink.

Seriously, dude? Battleships have taken nukes and still floated.

I'm not so much a BBfag as an armorfag btw

>>30002116
>Battleships have taken nukes and still floated
Confirmed bait thread, abandon ship.

>>30002096
There's nothing a gliding battleship can do a gliding destroyer can't do better

>>30001545
The Russians have nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that can be fired from pretty much anything with a missile tube large enough. They were designed to sink American supercarriers, which are much more resilient than battleships by virtue of compartmentalization.

>>30002139
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nWFx-zmI0k

R-r-r-retard alert

>>30001741
>A modern battleship with some AA would be a solid addition to a carrier group.
Even by the end of WW2 that's what they'd been relegated to. Look, I like BBs too but you need the face the fact that they're hopelessly obsolete.

>>30002239
What do you think think makes a Battleship so resilient?

>>30002239
Was the nuke sitting on the deck? No? Then I'd say that doesn't count. Any modern system would be able to put a warhead withing ten meters of the vessel, where it would promptly vaporize most of the ship. The fireball is over 10 million degrees.

ITT Civilians try to play the role of the CNO

You are the type of people who want to bring nuclear cruisers back

>>30001650
>>30001937
It's just two moskits hitting simultaneously. What's so unbelievably impressive about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM

>mfw the US can literally kill a battleship from 500 miles away, on top of the 1000+ mile range the plane firing the missile has

>>30002348
Clearly putting women and lgbtiabbq into high pressure situations is a priority for the navy, not large runs of new classes of destroyers and cruisers.

>>30002597
>mfw LRASM, F-35C, and anti-ship SM-2s

>>30002538

It went lengthwise through the entire ship and came out the other side effectively turning the ship into a large pipe bomb.

Anyone on board would be instantly toasted, it's impressive as fuck.

>>30002611
You can't rely on 30 year old ship designs to carry all those missiles. All those O&M costs are going to kill the budget eventually.

File: FC8v157.jpg (173KB, 1992x829px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1992x829px

>>30002116
The Italian battleship Roma was literally sunk by two Fritz X guided bombs which have the same kind of payload and terminal velocity as anti-shipping cruise missiles.

One of the bombs completely passed through the ship before detonating underneath it. In order to do that it penetrated not only 162mm of deck armor, but all of its decks and equipment and its hull as well.

The entirely baseless armchair general argument of "cruise missiles wouldn't sink a battleship" is countered by actual historical precedent.

>>30002239
Those tests confirmed to the Navy that battleships would do jack squat in a nuclear conflict. Even if the hull can stay intact, the armor couldn't protect the crew from being vaporized or lethally irridiated any better than a cheaper unarmored ship.

>>30002589
That's a "will be able to soon", not a "Can right now" it'll probably end up in service 2019-2020.

Same timeframe as counter-torpedo torpedoes.

>>30002764
>through the ship before detonating underneath it. In order to do that it penetrated not only 162mm of deck armor, but all of its decks and equipment and its hull as well.The entirely baseless armchair general argument of "cruise missiles wouldn't sink a battleship" is countered by actual historical
I really don't understand the tards who say that battle ships are invincible against modern naval weapons... Its like saying a long bow can beat a beret 50 cal rifle its just stupid. If my destroyer has a missile with a 200 mile range and your bb has a cannon range of 30 miles you are screwed. Also one of the worlds largest bbs in world war 2 was sunk by 500 pound bombs and torpedoes from planes it was called the yamato. heck if we were to send a us aircraft carrier strike group back in time they could probably single handedly destroy every navy during world war 2 heck even a Russian battle group could probably do it

>>30002867
Here's how that thought process goes.

>thing I like is the best thing
>all other things like it are inherently inferor
>reality is irrelevant

>>30001577
>Yamamoto
Wrong.

>>30001949
>>30001962
That's a terrible assumption.

>>30001587
>The most heavily armoured ship that ever existed was sunk by 500lb bombs and lightweight torpedoes.
Not likely. If the bombers were SB2Cs, they would've had 900kg bombs. Even SBDs used 1000lb bombs, using 500lb bombs in their scouting loadout only.

File: IJN on Patrol.jpg (3MB, 2560x1580px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x1580px

>>30002348
>You are the type of people who want to bring nuclear cruisers back

I resent being lumped in with battleship fags. What was the problem with having nuclear powered cruisers again? I would think having surface vessels capable of sailing with out refueling for 10 years at a time would be more efficient. But if I recall, there were issues with overall cost of the program due to maintaining the nuclear reactors in ships of that size?

Fun fact I learned here in /k/, nuclear-powered battleships are impractical because the recoil of large cannons like those of a battleship would be powerful enough to damage the reactor.

Battleships would just put up cages around them to prematurely detonate the missiles coming at them.

File: 1462343971233.jpg (38KB, 550x309px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 550x309px

>>30001545
>their is

>>30001640
>A 320kg bomb moving at 770mph could penetrate 13.8 inches of steel in 1944
Where the fuck do you morons come up with this shit?

>>30001545

>ERA skirts hanging from the side
>railguns
>12 hulls of 150mm thick DU armor
>spaced armor slats to render AShMs obsolete

I agree with you, BBs are the way of telling future.

>>30002096
>>30001677
>>30002271
>>30001688

Railguns will make Battleships Great Again.

>>30005474

It's about materials and mass.

For instance, if I have a 3.2kg fist moving at 77mph could penetrate 1.38in of flesh.

>>30005474
Look up the Roma you cunt.

File: n1BMe.jpg (251KB, 1600x918px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1600x918px

>>30001577
USS North Carolina

" In a mere eight-minute action, the ship's antiaircraft batteries shot down between 7 and 14 enemy aircraft, her gunners remaining at their posts despite the jarring detonations of seven near misses. One sailor was killed by strafing, but the ship was undamaged. The immense volume of her antiaircraft fire was so heavy the officers of Enterprise asked, "Are you afire?"[6]

North Carolina fired 841 5-inch (127 mm) (38 caliber) shells, 1037 rounds of 1.1-inch ammunition, 7425 rounds of 20-mm shells, and 8641 rounds of .50 caliber machine gun bullets during the attack. The gunners of her 5-inch antiaircraft guns "...estimated that the rate of fire exceeded 17 rounds per minute on all guns..."

>>30005614
>I don't know anything but I still must post.

>>30005621
Roma didn't have 13 inch deck armor you retard.

>>30005621
>>30005644
Not to mention Fritz-X was 1300kg, not 300kg.

>>30005623
I've been on that ship, in North Carolina, like a dozen times. Used to go once a year as a kid. Cool ship.

>>30001587
>The most heavily armoured ship that ever existed was sunk by 500lb bombs and lightweight torpedoes.
Over 20 500lb bombs and 16 lightweight topedoes(Yamato) and more on Musashi(then they've empirically found out where the weakspots were).
In both actions they needed to rake up over 500 planes to do it. Have they had even minimal aerial support and better screening/damage control and they would be even harder to kill.

>>30005644

I promise if I punched hard enough I could punch through your fucking chest. Try me faggot.

>>30001972
>One or two could easily destroy an Iowa.
Soviet military disagreed with you.

>>30002867
>send a us aircraft carrier strike group back in time they could probably single handedly destroy every navy during world war 2

I think I've read that book.

>>30005009
>What was the problem with having nuclear powered cruisers again?
By principle you don't want to put the reactor on anything that will get "dirty" and you'll risk sinking it.

Nuclear submarines can at least try to hide(imo. they're dead in the water once they enter an area near ANY enemy warships though), nuclear aircraft carriers have so many escorts and defence systems that they're at least partially safe.

The reason for cruisers being used as a whole was to act independently of the fleet, therefore you can't have escorts, large part of your deck(not so big as in case of carrier) will be taken by the armament which means that you WILL be easy to damage no matter how much will you try.

>>30005727
Your punch is too puny to do anything like that. Just like 300kg bombs at that velocity would be against 13.8 inches of steel.

>>30005812

Fucking try me, I'll punch your heart out, bitchboi.

>>30001626
And that's not even the largest anti-ship missile in service.

The P-700 got the NATO codename shipwreck for a reason.

>>30002764
>The Italian battleship Roma was literally sunk by two Fritz X guided bombs which have the same kind of payload and terminal velocity as anti-shipping cruise missiles.

Only that the Fritz X had only a relative small warhead and the rest was for armour piercing.

None of your cruise missiles is able to penetrate 130mm armour.

File: arleigh burke 02.jpg (203KB, 1920x1000px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1920x1000px

>>30001741
>A modern battleship with some AA would be a solid addition to a carrier group.

Hi there!

>>30005602
Railguns will make destroyers even more powerful and battleships even more obsolete, you mean.

>>30005959
More ship = more railgun.

Railgun battleship will make even aircraft obsolete. No aircraft can outrun railgun.

>>30005756
Its also a movie. The Final Countdown

File: Kirov-class_battlecruiser.jpg (1MB, 2660x1780px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2660x1780px

>>30005987
If more is better, why isn't everybody making guided missile dreadnaughts, instead of guided missile destroyers?

I mean, shouldn't we have missile battleships by now?

What OP meant to say is;

"I really love the idea and image of battle barges and miss them as a part of our fleet terribly. Gone are the days of open sea-borne combat, ship to ship, and I long for a return to aformentioned days."

God willing we never have to go back then

>>30005930
See
>>30001626
It went through the whole fucking ship. Im pretty sure thats more than 130mm. Shit you could even think of it as spaced armor since it ripped through all the walls.

you could mount silkworms to a fast boat and sink that relic of the old world

>>30005644
>Roma didn't have 13 inch deck armor you retard.

Nobody said that

>>30006028
Money.

No other country is making them because even if you made one or two, you still wouldn't be able to stop the nuclear armed US Navy.

The US isn't making them because what's the point? Nobody else has a navy worth sinking.

If we ever get a proper war again, against proper deserving enemies, we'll see all kinds of awesome shit get built.

>>30005734
Of course they did. Prove it.

>>30001612
>Paveway
>Surface vessel
>>>>Reading comprehension

>>30006401
You think a Paveway can't hit a ship for some reason?

>>30006415
OP claimed there is no surface vessel afloat that can sink a BB. Is there any active surface vessel that can magically fling laser Guided bombs at targets? And yeah, I don't see why a Paveway couldn't hit a moving ship, they hit helicopters in Iraq.

>>30005959

How much energy do you need for railguns/lasers? Wouldn't that mean nuclear-powered destroyers?

>>30006447
if you can put a nuclear reactor on a sub, wouldn't it be simple to put one on a surface ship?

>>30005623

17,944 rounds of ammo to shoot down at most 14 aircraft.

Were they holding the anti aircraft guns like gangsters or something?

>>30005623
wait a minute, I thought that description pertain to south dakota during the battle of santa cruz

>>30006447
Common misconception. A gas turbine generates more electricity per kilogram of equipment then a reactor dose. For next-generation ships planned to use a -lot- of power, maybe for DEW and railguns, they use gas turbines that feed electrical generators, then run electric motors for propulsion.

This means all the power capacity can be used to power equipment, rather then being mostly tied up in systems that turn propellers and make the ship go forward with an axullery generator run to power equipment.

Hydrocarbon fuels like gasoline can provide the power for lasers and railguns just fine.

The advantage of a atomic power supply is that you use fuel at a rate millions of times slower, and thus you can suck on that one gobstopper for a LONG fucking time.

>your brain on listerine

>>30006462
It's possible, but more expensive then conventional fuels and requires specialized training. The supply of people trained is the real limiting factor to the USN's ability to field atomic powered surface ships.

>>30005944
>flight1a

Fucking disgusting.

File: Discovery's_heat_shield.jpg (3MB, 3032x2007px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3032x2007px

What stops ships and missiles from being equipped with thermal and kinetic shields to deal with lasers/railguns?

>>30006601

>kinetic shields

You mean fucking armor?

File: WhippleShield.jpg (55KB, 368x373px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 368x373px

>>30006609

>>30006601
This >>30006609
And as an actual answer weight, space, and ultimately cost. In the future these things may be less of a concern but for now those are the main reasons.

>>30006054
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."

Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

>>30006646
We can afford the weight and space, its the power generation really.

>>30006601
Honestly lasers will always be ineffectual weapons, at least within atmosphere.

The diffraction in air fundamentally limits them and the relative ease which countermeasures can be placed onto the next generation of weapons will ensure they are never effectual.

>>30006667
"Anon is a faggot"

Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

>>30006428
>Is there any active surface vessel that can magically fling laser Guided bombs at targets?
Literally any aircraft carrier or LHA.

>>30006447
Naval nuclear reactors don't actually produce much electrical power, particularly in comparison to civilian nuclear reactors which are far more efficient (and less safe). Their purpose is to provide propulsion.

>>30006819
That's actually an important thing people forget to consider. That a naval reactor expects to be shot at at some point or another and is constructed with that in mind. The result being their weight and volume to power ratios are much lesser than a civilian reactor of similar weight and volume.

>>30006713
>Releative ease of countermeasures.

If you've found a really good x-ray mirror you should get off 4chan and collect a billion dollars from Raython.

Lasers aren't ever going to be the primary weapons of a battlefield, but they are going to render guided missiles far, far less effective.

File: 1920px-MK46_torpedo_launch.jpg (402KB, 1920x1218px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1920x1218px

checkmate

>>30006931
Well there is Uranium but well you know Uranium.

>>30006902
They're very specifically designed to not produce uncontrollable amounts of power in a casualty situation that could result in various compound casualties.

Are ship raids still viable in naval warfare?

>Missiles get replaced by supercacitating torpedoes, like Shvakal and others.
>lasers and railguns cant intercept them.

That didnt take long.

>>30006601
There is a strong practical limit to the mass of a missile or aircraft. They can't be built armored heavily enough to resist megawatt class high frequency lasers or high energy projectiles.

Ships could easily be armored heavily enough to resist laser weapons, though some exposed components would remain vulnerable. Heavier armor can resist kinetic projectiles, like from guns and railguns, but sooner or later something will get though. You can't make something invincible in this world.

>>30006819
That's true of pretty much all ships, where the engines directly turn the drive shaft. The zumwalt's integrated electrical propulsion breaks the pattern by having the engines turn generators that can feed power to electric motors. It's also used for the Queen Elizabeth and Type 45 RN ships.

There's no reason you can't do that on a atomic powered boat, of course.

Get a thermal shield. Spin it. Suddenly, you have increased the resilence of the missile ten-fold. Thermal kill and laser drilling cant be done. Spinning, messes with accuracy, though...

Give it a nuclear warhead and accurixy is no longer an issue.

File: Project_23560E_Leader_Class_Destroyer_Russian_Navy (1).jpg (122KB, 640x385px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 640x385px

>>30005793
pretty much this. Nuclear powered vessels only help with navies facing logistic problems. No such problem for the USN

However the Russians need a nuclear surface fleet for blue water operations.

>>30001894
listerine is one hell of a drug

>>30006948
From what we understand no material is a proper mirror for x-rays. It's not like lower energy light where you can try a layer of silver and reflect most of the energy that hits it.

>>30005708
good thing we have guided bombs with great fuzes these days

>>30006975
Supercavitating torpedoes aren't actually particularly good because of their limited guidance and torpedoes generally have extremely short ranges compared to missiles.

The quality of the guidance system and its resistance to countermeasures are what make a torpedo effective, not going at 200 knots in a basically straight line down a preset bearing. Shkval is one of those cold war weapons that was dependent on having a nuclear warhead to actually be viable as a weapon, without on its only real value is to force a ship that has already launched weapons to engage in torpedo evasion, severing its guidance wires.

>>30005930
13cm is fucking nothing at all

seriously what the fuck

>>30007034
>Supercavitating torpedoes aren't actually particularly good

They are the only weapons in service today that have sunk an atomic powered sub.

>>30007036
It's less than the outer hull of a submarine.

>>30006667
yes, a soviet admiral at the height of the cold war is actually telling his american counter parts the truth, as the soviets were renowned for always doing.

3000kg at mach 3.

>>30006491
Think of it like a reverse drive by, except instead of standing on a street corner shooting at some thugs in their grandma's repainted sedan you're on a big fucking ship in the middle of the ocean looking up at a tiny fucking plane zipping around and trying to strafe you as erratically as possible while you're trying to shoot back at them when it feels like you're a horny teenage girl riding God's washing machine.

Does that help you understand the situation a little bit better?

>>30006812
I would think that would be cheating

File: Mark_37_Torpedo.jpg (353KB, 1917x901px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 1917x901px

>>30007037
Don't be mean, Mk37-chan might have a kill too!

>>30007071
You're trying to kill a shitload of people there is no cheating.

>>30007031
>>30006428
who's going to paint the laser on the battleship?

>>30007049
>early 80's
>height of the cold war

There is nothing stopping someone from building an armor piercing Ashm. Ore one with a nuke on. And then all that armor is useless anyway.

>>30007083
Well OP might be autistic so it might be cheating to him

>>30007092
>Who's going to paint the laser on the battleship?

Oh hmm, I dunno, maybe the aircraft dropping the bomb?

>>30007100
reagan was pretty excited in hyping up the soviet.

>>30007115
getting close enough to paint the laser seems pretty dangerous.
unless we assuming the BB is still using ww2 era flak.

>>30001545
>>30005897

No need for Shipwrecks.

The terminal supersonic stage of the Klub would also be able to penetrate the BB's armor.

File: 1462933487401.jpg (65KB, 672x434px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 672x434px

>>30001626
Is that two projectiles? Striking one after the other? If you pause at 0.07 and stop and start you can see two separate impacts.

>>30007166

Yes. It is two Moskits as was already concluded in the thread. Lurk harder.

>>30002741
Yeah, they're big fucking hypersonic screaming telephone poles of doom. They tend to fuck shit up rather proper. missiles in general tend to. I'm just surprised people are incredulous about this.

File: 1442980209209.jpg (78KB, 338x305px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 338x305px

>>30002239

>Battleship enveloped by wall of super-heated, radioactive steam.

"totally fine guys"

File: 1463350693093.jpg (20KB, 389x388px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 389x388px

>>30007175
Alright mate don't cry about it a simple "it's two moskits" would have done. Calm your tits lad.

>>30007100
yep, mid seventies to the 80s, peak and crash.

were you not there or something?

>>30006637
.. so spaced armor in space..

>>30001545
>Notice I said surface vessel

Any destroyer or helo with at least a Harpoon launcher.

Was that the answer you were looking for?

>>30007092
>>30007126
jsow has terminal ir guidance in block III agm-154c, with a data link and capability to hit moving maritime targets, and a max range given as 130km. this version also has the BROACH tandem warhead.

and read the fucking op. if it's moving in to use its guns it probably isn't the 80s re-float.

>>30007037
kek

>>30007207
you don't know about m-m-muh battleship

>>30001545
>my theory is it could eat up Harpoon hits
>taking minimal damage
>Their is no surface vessel currently afloat

Are you fucking special mate

>>30006491
They didn't shoot 14 aircrafts. They claimed 14.

500 lb bombs dropped from aircraft sunk the heaviest armoured battleships of all time yet these idiots think a 1000lb warhead followed by another few hundred pounds of jet fuel diving at several times the speed of sound wont do it LOL

File: GBnx06B0-pc.jpg (43KB, 604x454px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 604x454px

i also think that those battleship should be equipped with catapult gliders to provide long range bombardment of enemy ships,and also flying tanks on deck for any land invasion with shield equipped mp7 armed heavy infantry in testudo formation
those battleship will also escort cargo ships converted to carriers carrying more gliders

>>30001545
>until it is close enough to use it's main guns
What retardation possesses you to believe that the attacking ship would just sit still? Or that a WWII-era battleship can somehow catch up to a modern ship?

>>30007527
Catch is a bit complicated. Because of their long, narrow hulls and powerful engines late-war fast battleships, like the Iowa class, were, well, fast. sixty to sixty five kilometers an hour fast, with bunkers mostly empty and favorable seas.

Speed, for ships, isn't a simple thing. Hull shape and hydrodynamics matter far more then mass. Even with their tremendous weight, battleships could be, and were, faster then destroyers and cruisers.

For currently serving ships, maximum speed is generally classified and stated as "more then 56 kilometers per hour" without detail. It's believed that the Bruke class is capable of 60 kilometers per hour. Some sources have claimed the Nimiz class is capable of 68 kilometers per hour, sustained, making them capable of easily outdistancing their escorts. (This is less crazy then it sounds, as the atomic power system of the Nimiz is considerably less sensitive to operating under heavy load then most and it can 'sprint' indiefinatly).

In any case, US carriers are under strict orders to never really stretch their legs. Their true maximum speed is a state secret, but analysis of the hull shape says that it's almost certainty under 72 kilometers per hour.

>>30001994
>>30002034
are you fucking pleased with yourself?
>>30007524

>>30005756

WW2.0?

>>30007527
Majority of US Navy can't go over 30 knots.

Iowa can do around 33.

Now assuming you'd design a battleship that would account for new realities of modern naval warfare and put modern machinery inside(the main problem with reactivating Iowa class battleships is that the machinery is so ancient that finding a crew to man the warship without extensive, dead-end training is impossible) you could easily get more than that.

>>30005793
>>30005009
A nuclear powered battleship would be just as much of a centerpiece of a fleet that a nuclear carrier currently is. Having a reactor(s) to power more advanced, electrically-hungry weapons of the future is also more economical in the long run.

If some cute smaller ships need additional juice for their anti-aircraft lasers, they can all tether up to the BBN for power and avoid draining too much fuel.

>>30007685
>Majority of US Navy can't go over 30 knots
basically everything can go over 30 knots.

>>30007685
so? lets say the harpoons range is 250 km, if you're gaining 3 nautical miles per hour, you're not catching up anytime soon. Also, Iowa at max distance will have shit accuracy

also, a few harpoons will fuck the iowa up without problem. The only thing Iowa would be good for is shelling land based armies from the sea, and even then it's not that great. Not to mention that Tomahawks or other systems could be used.

>>30007714
Let me see - according to wikipedia(dunno how accurate it is) Burke does 31 knots, Nimitz - 30, it's successor - Gerard R. Ford is said to go "over" 30 kn. Obviously the fastest speed you need for escorts(like Burke) is the speed of your capital ships so no wonder that destroyers aren't really fast.

At the same time battleship HAD to have ability of closing-in so they were designed to be significantly faster than everything else.
>>30007731
In case you forgot Iowa has Harpoons as well as defences against them ever since 80's.

You guys need to start living in the real world.

Nuclear powered first rates. Replace their cannons with rail guns.

Missiles will have no effect on the wooden ship as they will penetrate right through

>>30007755
Lol if you think the usn puts out anywhere near the real speeds of its in service ships...

>>30002597
>muh SJW boogeyman
>autismal opinions about obsolete technology only a retard could defend

I'm starting to see a pattern here

are you from /v/?
do you feel the need to make america great again?

>>30003161
nailed it:
>>30007703

>>30007896
Surface ships are close, but a bit low.

Submarines is like wtf not even close.

>>30007973
The Nimitzs' top speed is also classified and remarkably fast for what it is from what I hear

>>30007853
Imagine the HMS Victory with nuclear power and railguns.

Though as cool as it sounds you're wrong. Whilst yeah a missile will go through the ship without exploding. The ship will just burst into flames from the exhaust, not to mention that Mbeke in his dinghy with an RPG would be a threat

>>30007166
The first one glanced off the left side you can see, the un burnt solid fuel being plumed out. Still impressive if it had a low yield nuke aboard it.. Make a great gamma ray flash for a fleet with all that steel becoming a multi-million degree emitter.

>>30006507
nope

>>30007853
>penetrate right through
That's what they're supposed to do, and then exlode once they are inside. A wooden hull will just mean you need a single smaller missile to have the same effect.

>>30007006
it is in fact possible to reflect x-rays, it's just that you can only do so at a very shallow angle
so you get more into light pipes and fresnel lenses and shit
made out of tungsten, preferably

File: Untitled.png (1MB, 1920x1032px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1032px

high noon in the baltic...

the USS Iowa is just as it was in 1990, kitted out with Harpoons to supplement its venerable old 16-inchers.

opposing her is the RKR Moskva, a modern guided missile cruiser of the Russian navy.

the two ships start 50nm apart, cruising straight towards one another.

Y'know, I'm genuinely curious now what the Iowa armor scheme would do to a AShM. It was designed to fuck up the ballistic cap and keep shells from detonating upon penetration so it'd be interesting to know what effect if any it would have on a AShM.

File: Capture.jpg (229KB, 1920x1030px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1920x1030px

the two ships close to 25nm before detecting one another. the Iowa's suprisingly advanced OECM may have had something to do with this.

File: Capture.jpg (219KB, 1920x1030px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1920x1030px

the two ships exchange missiles. Moskva's SAMs make short work of the harpoons, while the Iowa's CIWS manages to nail the SS-N-12s.

>>30010201
>Still impressive if it had a low yield nuke aboard it..

i wish this meme would die. where do you get this shit from?

there is no such thing as a low yield nuke on these weapons. the japanese bombs, and the project baker weapons were around 20kt. soviet/russian nuclear warheads on their anti-shipping missiles were/are between something like 500kt to 1mt.

File: Capture.jpg (242KB, 1920x1030px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1920x1030px

volley number 2. the Iowa eats a pair of missiles, and one of the harpoons actually dodges enough SAMs to be shot down by the Moskva's point-defenses.

File: Capture.jpg (211KB, 1920x1030px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1920x1030px

volley 3. rinse, repeat. Iowa eats 4 more missiles.

>>30011375
the usn apparently says it would take around 12 harpoon to sink an iowa, and as low as two to mission kill it. the warhead on a harpoon releases about 1 billion joules when it detotnates, but it's not directed. they're defined as semi-armor piercing and can penetrate something like 2-4 inches of armor before detonation.

remember of course that these weapons are not designed to defeat heavily armored targets. the technology to do so has been around for decades, it's just not put on these missiles because there is no point. the us navy does field it in another weapon, the aformentioned JSOW block III c variant.

>>30001545
when that thing performs a full broadside, i'd assume people would be told to get inside or else they'd singe their face-skin off, correct?

File: Capture.jpg (235KB, 1920x1030px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1920x1030px

volley 4. Iowa eats 2 more missiles, but now both ships have exhausted their ASMs.

>>30002116
>doesn't even show it sink
what the fuck else is it gonna do after an ass-raping of that magnitude?

File: Capture.jpg (224KB, 1920x1030px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1920x1030px

the Moskva fires a couple SAMs at the Iowa, but (as expected) they don't do much damage. the ASM hits are causing a good deal of flooding, however, so the Iowa might be dead as it is.

So when the fuk do we get WW2 CMANO?

File: Capture.jpg (243KB, 1920x1030px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1920x1030px

the Iowa slows to a halt. it looks like the ASMs took out its engines. at this point, the ship is dead in the water, but lets finish it off with a gun duel for shits and giggles.

>>30001545
And the modern ship is just going to sit there and let it get into range?

Didn't it take 4 cruise missiles to sink a Iowa last time the Navy tried to sink one?

>>30012001
uh, all the iowas are alive and accounted for. none have been used as target practice

File: kh-22.jpg (241KB, 800x583px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 800x583px

>>30005897
>P-700
Not even my final form. How do you feel about 1 tonne shaped charge?

>>30011721
at what range did all this happen?

File: 1372255842095.jpg (24KB, 534x443px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 534x443px

>>30011721
How about Iowa versus Nanuchka-class corvette as in the Battle off the coast of Abkhazia?

>>30012031
Yeah you're right. Damn I know I read something that said either the Russians or our Navy said it would take at least 4 or more to take one down. Maybe I'm just going senile

>>30012031
Well they did have two unfinished Iowa hulls but if I remember right they were both scrapped.

>>30012079
Under 25 nautical miles

>>30012178
Odd that the AI didn't fire the 16"s then.

>>30001545
>Apart from two things that could clearly sink this, nothing could sink this

That's nice bro.

Also a ticonderoga would fuck it's shit with ssms, the battleships still operating in the early 90s were just big tomahawk trucks anyway.

>>30012192
The hit rate is only around 4%

>>30012192
CMANO doesn't like using guns until they're in "optimal" range, not maximum.

To use at maximum, anon would have to force the order to fire.

>>30001987
>Ashm tomahawks are retired

Block IV's are just entering production.

File: 1375727222001.jpg (17KB, 200x173px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 200x173px

>>30012530
>The first Block IV TLAMs modified with a maritime attack capability will enter service in 2021.

File: 1239 bora launching 3m80 p-270 moskit.jpg (201KB, 2000x807px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 2000x807px

>>30001626
>Russian cruisers
And even some corvettes.

File: 9M117M1-3_Arkan_missile_at_Engineering_Technologies_2012.jpg (79KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 800x533px

>>30005930
>None of your cruise missiles is able to penetrate 130mm armour.
Lol, 100 mm missile for BMP-3 gun can penetrate almost 6 times this amount of armour. Battleships are dead, deal with it.

>>30001626
>look we hit an stationary old cargo ship with 2 missiles!

File: Mr Torpedo.webm (1MB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 450x360px

>>30012747
>he doesn't enjoy watching ships getting blown the fuck up

If you were a South American country, you'd be Ur a gay.

>>30012747
when countries test their weapons they use stripped out hulks of old warships. these are actually harder to sink because they don't have volatile and combustible materials left inside.

that one of those missiles penetrated lengthways through a ship is impressive, regardless of you not knowing anything.

>>30006531
More or less correct, nuclear reactors are used in ships/subs because they can go years without refueling and don't need oxygen. A naval reactor and its fuel are both very expensive though, which why they only used when its really worth it.

>>30012584
Yes and? Raytheon is waiting for the USN to decide whether it wants a dual or tri seeker.

>>30012860
And it's not entering service until at least 2021.

>>30012892
and there are no battleships is service right now, so let's not get picky about what is and is not available yeah?

>>30012584
That is the new seeker, they have already hit moving targets just using its data link.

>>30007755
>At the same time battleship HAD to have ability of closing-in so they were designed to be significantly faster than everything else.
Actually, you are completely wrong, and battleships were slower than everything else other than like minelayers and destroyer escorts.

>>30012804
>penetrating through a stripped down cruise ship that's lucky to even have plywood separating rooms is impressive
VATNIKS ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS

>>30012995
just stop. you're embarrassing yourself.

>>30012995
those missiles are heavier and faster than anything a bb has faced before

File: 1460396525043.jpg (129KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 900x900px

>>30013009
> stripped down cruise ships are annalogious to steel warships because muh feeling
>WAAAH just stop your hurting muh feelings

>>30012906
I'm not on the side of the BB-fag. Saying Block IV is anywhere near operational status is just wrong.

>>30013031
>Cruise ship

>>30013058
Block IV's have been in service for a while now, and have displayed the ability to hit ships already. You are confusing an upgraded seeker for Block IV's with Block IV's as a whole.

>>30013058
no iowas are anywhere operational status either. so what's your point, or did you decide to just jump into the thread and act cool or something? what a zing.

i mean, thanks for the contribution to the hypothetical, only you contributed nothing at all. have some attention though (You)

>>30013031
>Weebshit keeps embarrassing himself
Modern warships are paper thin, imbecile. Zumwalt is partially made of wood. And such a hit on a modern warship with full fuel and warload would result in an even more devastating explosion.

>>30013141
>Zumwalt is partially made of wood

wood is used as a spacer in a composite material

File: 1462403276245.jpg (58KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1920x1080px

>>30013141
>moskit has maximum range in a high altitude flight profile of less than one third of an aegis's radar much less a zumwalt
>moskit only has inertial guidance(heh) and Russian QUALITY small active radar
>moskit is literally the size of a fucking f-16, and will apear so on radar
yea cunt you're tottaly gunna hit that zumwalt you could barely hit the iowa upgraded in the 90's with ciws.

>>30013103
No, they are not. Just because they made a test doesn't mean it is in service.

File: 1424801906001.jpg (47KB, 345x383px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 345x383px

>>30013231
>Weebshit moves goalposts
Moskit has one of the shortest range and one of the smallest warhead of all the anti-ship missiles Russians have, imbecile. Are you, perchance, the OP, lol?

File: 1444239657417.gif (2MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x281px

>>30013280
>can't argue effectively that Iowa with 310mm of armor is analogousness to an unarmored cruise ship
>deflects to generic muh zumwalt is bad meme
>gets shit on for knowing jack shit about russian ashms
>*cry's*
it practically writes itself

File: Unsorted 777.jpg (1MB, 1791x1269px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1791x1269px

>>30013345
ww2 battleships were destroyed by 500lb bombs dropped by prop planes and you think a diving 1000lb warhead followed by another few hundred pounds of jet fuel at mach 3 isn't going to penetrate LOL

>>30013387
bomb hitting from above on weak deck armor /= sea skimmer hitting belt armor.
It should also be noted you generaly aren't going to kill a battleship with a single 500lb bomb.

>>30013450
>what is dive profile

>>30013345
Holy shit, seems like this is retard OP indeed.
>310mm of armor
4.5 kg warhead from 70s penetrates through twice this amount of armour, weebshit imbecile. Any modern AShM will shit on Iowa armour and monstrous Russian AShMs will fucking tear it apart.
>Doesn't get the argument, thinks it's about Zumwalt being good or bad
>Thinks anyone but him got rekt for knowing jack shit about Russian AShMs
Fucking weebshits, I swear.

>>30013345
anime fag is the one that doesn't know jackshit about anything. all you've done is show up and post fagpics and le edgey greentext.

File: 1451603349505.gif (2MB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x282px

>>30013489
>4.5 kg warhead from 70s penetrates through twice this amount of armour
nice source
>ignorant that iowa has 290mm of bulkead behind that belt and will be at an angle
>still thinks a moskit will do to an iowa what his precious Russia Today propaganda video showed happening to an striped cruise ship

engoy trying to catastrophically penetrate through 310mm of steel followed by a large gap of air(CE penetratorsBFTO) followed by 290mm's of bulk all this while at a extreme oblique angle like in your propaganda video

>>30002867
>if we were to send a us aircraft carrier strike group back in time they could probably single handedly destroy every navy during world war 2
>heck even a Russian battle group could probably do it

including itself!

>>30013472
Legenda satellite guidance system is defunct. How are you planning to hit anything accurately using just the small active radar. You do realize that you are going to be getting radar reflection off the water with a dive profile. Are you going to hit a moving ship from hundreds of miles away with inertial guidance?

>>30013489
>4.5 kg warhead from 70s penetrates through twice this amount of armour, weebshit imbecile
Could you perhaps cite a long range ashm in use by the russians that has a HEAT warhead. Could you also not be a retard who can't realize that a 4.5kg heat round would do jack shit other than putting a pinhole in an iowa.

>>30013642
This is literally 70s era technology.

Like everyone on the planet has triple tandem HEAT warheads with 1000 RHA penetration, and that's for shoulder fired rocket launchers.

>>30013822
See>>30013835
You seem not to understand that Large long range ASHMs meant to take out big boy ships use a fuck huge explosive charge and their kenetic energy not a Chemical energy penetrator because the CE warhead would do jack shit. Poking little(relative to a fuckhuegship) holes in ships and maybe setting a fire means nothing.

>>30001545
Is there still a viable role for naval artillery?

I mean, last time it was effective was dropping VW Bug sized shells on gooks in Vietnam. It seems like thermobaric warhead missiles have taken over the role with nothing other than cost that artillery has over it. I don't think they have a place anymore.

That being said, the Ohio class (can't be bothered to look up the 6 inch gun's name) naval cannon was the best rifle the United States of America ever produced.

>>30013881
another reason the zumwalt would beat the fuck out of a battle ship its 2 155mm cannons fire 10 rounds a minuet each and have a range of 59 miles using normal projectiles using guided weapons the range increases to 110 miles suck on that yamato whores

>>30013874
You seem not to understand that a 500 pound general purpose warhead will rape 300mm of armor like a Congolese child and a UN peacekeeper.

>>30014011
Offshoot: Just wondering, how vulnerable is a Zumwalt's powder magazine? Or am I way behind the times and that doesn't exist?

>>30013881
Yes...it's called cruise missiles.

>>30013722
>what is Doppler radar

>>30014053
That's not artillery you fucking illiterate.

>>30014110
lol royal artillery does cruise missiles too

>>30014164
Yeah, and Napoleonic grenadiers didn't carry grenades. Doesn't make me incorrect, and you a pedant who doesn't address the main point.

If it makes you feel any better, replace "naval artillery" with "ship-mounted, rifled gun."

>>30014110
i think the point is missile weapons are the new naval artillery

>>30014210
you mean naval rifles?

>>30014210
They literally did.

Black powder grenades are literally older than firearms.between

>>30001832
>Congratulations, you now have a DDG-51!
But a really big one

>>30006601
You know those tiles are replaced after each space trip, right?

>>30014217
Sure. Since splitting we're splitting hairs between engine-propelled projectiles and initial explosive, instead of having an actual discussion.

>>30014248
what the fuck are you even on about
jesus christ dude

>>30014222
This is why I don't come to /k/ much anymore. No, in the time of Napoleon's last campaign (Waterloo), grenades have fallen out of usage and only their units kept the names. Earlier on they were used, but ultimately deemed too hazardous and logistically difficult to continue using.

Would have been pretty good for Ney to break those British rifle lines though if they had cavalry grenadiers, but this is entirely beside the actual point of what I was trying to talk about.

>>30014257
Are you retarded? I'm trying to initiate a discussion about the theoretical viability of rifled naval guns, not rocket-propelled missiles. Yet /k/ seems to be the most autistic board...

>>30014210
>If it makes you feel any better, replace "naval artillery" with "ship-mounted, rifled gun."

the intention has been to use them for precision effects against discrete targets (maybe tanks as well, i am sure it has been tested). so instead of spam an area they hit a specific bunker in support of infantry. cluster munitions from aircraft are for area effects, heavy bombs are for hardened targets, naval artillery to take out smaller targets in support of infantry. i suppose it would be anything you'd normally use a 120mm mortar against, as amphibia doesn't really have that sort of fire organically as they storm the beach.

a lot of this stuff is because people don't understand the specifics of any given scenario, so they think dakka dakka dakka why no big dakka? well, because each weapon needs to have a role that fits into the scenarios that you're going to face. 16 inch rounds are maybe not as effective as people would like to tell themselves they are, and we have a lot more options these days that require less infrastructure overhead to use (4000 guys to get some not so effective weapons into theatre).

>>30014271
Don't ever fucking reply to my posts ever again

>>30014277
I'm wondering if larger bore stuff would have a suited purpose anymore, but since it's no longer anti ship, it's more about range inland. Hence the railgun project, but last I heard they had to strip out all of the internals and replace them with capacitors for their most recent experiential vessel, so they're a way's off.

>>30014279
>no

File: Unsorted 759.jpg (53KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1280x720px

>>30014384
first warning bub

>>30014394
what happens after?

File: Unsorted 763.jpg (332KB, 1000x1405px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1000x1405px

>>30014427
second warning dude
you better stop

>>30014431
fuck you, my friend

>>30014460
third warning man
really suggest you think about stopping soon

>>30014492
you're a cunt

File: Unsorted 752.png (414KB, 706x1043px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 706x1043px

>>30014509
fourth warning
not taking this likely dude

File: 1450069640581.png (14KB, 166x166px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 166x166px

>>30014533
TPHPTPHTPHPTHPTPHPTPHPTHPTPHFHPTPHTPFPHPTFPHFPTHPFPTHFPTHPFTH

>>30014210
>Napoleonic grenadiers didn't carry grenades

Wut

Thats literally why they were called that. Their use dates back to the fucking Ming dynasty. They're older than rifles.

Their use declined in the later half of the 18th century because regular flintlocks became very effective and the grenade tech hadnt progressed much. But for the majority of the unit's existence it was very much a tool of the trade.

>>30014110

>Rocket arty isnt arty

>>30014588
Please tell me more, most of my knowledge comes from his campaign that ended at Waterloo. To my knowledge, Napoleon never commanded grenadiers.

And to reiterate an earlier post, the cavalry really should've. They charged multiple times up that hill, yet the line never had any gaps. In hindsight, spiking the guns and grenading the line could've won the day for Ney.

>>30014601
Pedantics doesn't further the discussion. I'm just wondering out loud niche roles for rifled naval artillery that the current Bofors doesn't already cover.

File: 1463686969221.png (789KB, 1128x1112px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 1128x1112px

>>30014578
fifth warning
STOP NOW!

Why do battleship fags not understand that it isnt the damage to your hull that cripples a ship but the damage to superstructure? A single ashm is liable to disable multiple critical systems, be they radar or communications which can leave the larger ship crippled without sinking it.

>>30014671
you're dumb, all vital fighting systems are in the citadel and the conning tower is armoured

every turret has its own range finders that can slave to eachother, plus 2 more on the super structure

the non-armoured parts can be completly destroyed and flooded and the ship can keep floating and fighting

>>30014588
Grenades had mostly fallen out of use by the Napoleonic era, they might have seen some use still but if they did they were a very small minority. Grenadiers were still called that out of tradition, the same reason why cuirassiers were (and are) still called that even though they eventually ditched their cuirasses as well.

>>30014694
>every turret has its own range finders that can slave to eachother, plus 2 more on the super structure
That's fucking cool.

By the way, what's a citadel? An armored part in the hull?

>>30014761
Also marines are called that even though they are just shitty version of the army now.

>>30006028
>why isn't everybody making guided missile dreadnaughts, instead of guided missile destroyers?
>I mean, shouldn't we have missile battleships by now?

We are and we do. The Zumwalt has the displacement of a WW2 era battlecruiser.

It's just the USN calls everything a destroyer for whatever reason.

>>30014624

You're correct in that the 100 Days Campaign (Waterloo) that the grenadier title existed pretty much in name only.

But for the earlier campaigns the grenadier regiments were armed with grenades. Although, by that point they werent the primary armament. Short barreled carbines were the tool of the day, but they did carry and use grenades as part of the unit's shock function.

Napoleon was at an odd time in the history of the grenadier, but it did straddle the obsolescence gap with its 25 some odd years.

File: 1280px-HMS_Inflexible_Diagrams_Brasseys_1888.jpg (142KB, 1280x985px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1280x985px

>>30014762
Pre ww2 battleships armoured the entire hull with varying thickness's of armour, but the philosophy shifted to having enough armour to be proof to 14'' or 15'' or 16'' guns on ALL your armour. To do this all the important parts like boiler rooms, ammunition storage, the turrets, fire control, command and control were moved into an armoured box in the ship, and the rest was left un armoured. An ideal 'all or nothing' armour scheme involves evacuating the entire rest of the ship into the 'citadel' during combat. The Citadel has enough reserve boyancy to keep the ship afloat even if the non armoured parts are all flooded, and the ship should be able to keep fighting with the rest of it wrecked (although at a reduced capacity).

Few, if not none of the battleships operated on a perfect 'all or nothing' scheme, but many got very close. Here is the most dramatic example of an armoured citadel I could find.

Some all or nothing included armouring a tube up into the super structure with small windows and range finders for command and control.

File: 12a5b61309b88d9a5792d15a140ecbba.jpg (394KB, 612x859px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 612x859px

>>30014834
>the Inflexible
What a shitty name for a boat.

>>30014777

Although Marines do (theoretically) train to participate in naval actions and shit.

Obviously the days of boarding enemy ships are dead and gone. But costal operations where they operate on land with support of naval elements is still very much in line with how marine units operated.

File: Kantai 85.jpg (69KB, 1024x729px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1024x729px

>>30014852
RN names are the best

>>30014852
>Inflexible is a shit name
>But Zumwalt is gr8
Come on, bro. You might as well of culled it the U.S.S. Sperglord, and it would have sounded just as threatening.

>>30014852
>Pre ww2 battleships armoured the entire hull with varying thickness's of armour, but the philosophy shifted to having enough armour to be proof to 14'' or 15'' or 16'' guns on ALL your armour. To do this all the important parts like boiler rooms, ammunition storage, the turrets, fire control, command and control were moved into an armoured box in the ship, and the rest was left un armoured. An ideal 'all or nothing' armour scheme involves evacuating the entire rest of the ship into the 'citadel' during combat. The Citadel has enough reserve boyancy to keep the ship afloat even if the non armoured parts are all flooded, and the ship should be able to keep fighting with the rest of it wrecked (although at a reduced capacity).

So I get that battleships is dead but what makes aircraft carrier any different?
I have feeling that in real conflict our(US) carriers would get btfo by anti ship missiles and we'd look like idiots.
Are military too stuck in their ways and it would take real conflict and loosing carriers to wake up to reality?

>>30014852

Stiff upper lip and whatnot.

>>30014374
well, exactly. perhaps, maybe in another island hoping scenario where there is nothing too far from the sea, but it would still be in range of land-based systems and so would still need air support. and it doesn't do anything that air support can't acheive by itself.

otherwise, we're not in the days of camping all your forces on the beach anymore. even with the atlantic wall, the main counter attack was to be carried out by forces stationed far inland. the british had this same approach with respect to defense of the homeland during ww2 as well. you really need aircraft to get that reach. and by the time you start to engage enemy forces you can't bring that sort of artillery down for fear of friendly fire, so it has to be precision. by that time, have organic assets to supply artillery. and you also have all these aircraft for cas. so what's the point?

i am still not clear on how railguns are intended to be used. they will need a ballistic trajectory to be useful on long range targets, and onboard systems to guide the weapon. they'll need to have their own control systems in order to arc during flight and still maintain the velocity that's supposed to be their advantage. that sort of acceleration doesn't mix well with electronics. i get the impression that they're a shiney object but even the navy isn't too sure about how they're going to turn out or what use they'll have, but they'd better find out before anyone else does.

>>30014887
Carriers exist to bomb third world countries without needing bases in other countries, not to fight off a non-existent rival navy.

>>30014648
fuck off already

>>30014887
Aircraft carriers have a huge advantage in intelligence, it's really really hard to find an aircraft carrier before they find you.
China cannot get a firing solution for their ballistic missiles currently.

>>30014908
no you're dumb

File: Kantai 60.jpg (390KB, 849x1200px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 849x1200px

>>30014913
I'm actually contributing to the thread unlike you scum
leave now!

>>30014834
Well I'll be damned. Any historical examples of the theory actually put into action?

(I'd guess not because naval combat hasn't been a thing since WW!, or the small caveat of WWII)

>>30014917
Is it really that difficult? Has that really been tested?
Couldn't something like a diesel sub do it?
I just worry that devotion to expensive and large aircraft carriers and carrier paradigm is obsolete in light of modern missiles etc and we're not going to learn our lesson until multiple carriers are smoldering wrecks.

>>30014937
>Any historical examples of the theory actually put into action?
Literally every warship design save a few for the last hundred years.

>>30005623
>"Are you afire?"

I can imagine a pissed off coms officer shooting back "we're afiring our guns."

>>30014887
>So I get that battleships is dead but what makes aircraft carrier any different?

the extreme long range and precision firepower and flexibility of the air wing.

File: Kantai 84.jpg (488KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 1200x1600px

>>30014941
read this:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

>>30014937
All the battleships built for ww2 (except the bismark) used this design philosophy, this is how the bismark was silenced so easily. Many of its vital fighting components were not under armour

>>30014887

>what makes aircraft carrier any different?

Multirole capability

A carrier is capable of performing a variety of tasks. Air superiority, ASM operations, AWACS , as well as offensive capability against other fleets(far ouside of conventional ship based weapon ranges). The rest of the fleet provides other duties, but its main function exists to protect the carrier, which provides an invaluable force multiplier to the task group. Hence the entire reason why the AEGIS system exists.

As long as the rest of the fleet can keep the carrier operational, their main offensive group capability is unhindered.

A BB is functionally a single task ship that really adds nowhere near as much to a fleet's capabilities. Hence why protecting a carrier is such a critical feature in modern ship design.

>>30002139
I think Nagato had to be scuttled after one of the test shots because she was still afloat. Pretty much wrecked but still floating. Anyone onboard though would have been dead though.

File: Kantai 45.jpg (68KB, 578x1024px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 578x1024px

>>30014960
>inb4 bismark in a unique situation!!!
there were Japanese battleships that endured similar punishment and worse (and had notoriously bad damage control) that were not silenced nearly as easily as the bismark.

"Kirishima was crushed by 20 sixteen inch hits over the space of seven minutes. That she continued to float and even maintain fire on South Dakota (at near point-blank range) is irrelevant to the fact that she was way beyond mission-killed."

File: 1458961956043.png (772KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

772KB, 750x750px

>>30014648
ayy lmao

>>30014979
>As long as the rest of the fleet can keep the carrier operational, their main offensive group capability is unhindered.
I guess this is where I get worried. I don't have much faith we can keep them operational in a real conflict. I hope I'm wrong.

>>30014951
Yes, thanks for the derision, but I mean an actual example of a ship getting fucked, then the "Star Trek Battle Bridge" winning the fight?

>>30005692
I go every fourth of July. one of the few perks living in proximity of Wilmington.

I highly recommend going for those who haven't.

>>30014394
Miles?

>>30015035
no but im in the desktop thread

>>30015009
You're not. But 5th generational warfare isn't about nations openly throwing their highest military hardware at each other. It's about power through trade, and proxy wars, which aircraft carrier beats small arms every time.

>>30014985
Holy fuck, 20 hits from an Iowa? (I'm assuming)

I'm guessing it was to the superstructure?

>>30015045
I feel like people think that until next big conflict happens.
I suppose with globalization etc maybe it's different but I don't know. I wish navy would at least look at possible shifts away from carrier paradigm and not having that be center piece of navy. Or maybe they are but I have sense that militarys get stuck in their ways until they learn the hard way.

>>30014980
>>30014980
if we're talking project baker then the estimated casualties from a ~20kt weapon airburst half a mile away was 30,000 in a buttoned up condition.

that's 30,000.

30,000.

this lead the navy to conclude that nukes>>>battleships.

to put that into perspective, a moskit has the option of a 120kt warhead. the kitchen has a 1mt warhead and the rest of those missiles span the gaps in between.

>>30015009

Well considering that pretty much everything in a CSG is designed to protect the carrier Id say we have decent odds of it working. Especially considering in an "all out" scenario we'd be neutralizing the biggest threats to carrier groups first.

>>30015078
But that begs the question, what would a navy be today without an aircraft carrier?

>>30015009
well, people seem to envisage these conflicts as the navy sailing their battle groups around in close formation and singing really loudly, while the evil enemy slying and cleverly attacks and destroys them with ease while they do nothing at all other than prancing around saying 'look at me i'm a big stupid american'. that's not the case at all. a battle group is dispersed and through the assets attached is actively exploiting the surface, sub-surface and aerial theatres. it is literally coming from all angles, all the time. and they're not so easy to track down maybe.

worth reposting

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

>>30001832
You know they did that in the 80's. Minus pulling the main batteries. The Iowa's had their 20mm and 40mm guns pulled and replaced by both Tomahawk and Harpoon missile armored box launchers. The radars were updated to modern types in the 1980's refit. Four CWIS units replaced the older antiair guns, though they retained the 5inch guns with modern tracking radar.

So a modernized Iowa had twice the missile compliment of an Ageis class cruiser in addition to facilities for servicing and launching helicopters.

They were expensive and more or less redundant, but Damn if the.modernized Iowas didn't pack a shit ton.of firepower.

>>30015112
Air power is the best thing that you need big ships to cart around. Assuming you're abandoning mobile air power given to us from carriers, navies would then be tasked with neutralizing shore defenses, destroying hostile merchant ships/naval units, and hunting subs, especially nuke subs.

>>30015139
>So a modernized Iowa had twice the missile compliment of an Ageis class cruiser in addition to facilities for servicing and launching helicopters.

fucking what

>>30014887
>So I get that battleships is dead but what makes aircraft carrier any different?

They are a mobile airport.

>>30015139
stoppit, my boner can only be so hard

File: image.jpg (26KB, 200x320px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 200x320px

>>30002867
Speaking of Russian battle groups sent back to WWII, anyone here read this series? Is it shit or is it passable? If it's like Wingman with a ship I can deal with that.

>>30013642
>nice source
Kobra missile, imbecile weebshit.
>>30013822
Kh-22.
>4.5kg heat round would do jack shit other than putting a pinhole in an iowa.
Could you please be adequate enough to realise that it a fucking 5 kg warhead can penetrate TWICE Iowa armour belt, a 1 TONNE warhead can probably cut the whole fucking BB in half.

>>30015100
I suppose but throwing so much resources and focusing on protecting your silver bullet seems foolish gamble especially since threats to carrier will be much cheaper than carrier.

>>30015112
I don't know. Carrier has so much utility you can't do away with them but I'd try and not focus so much on it. Maybe have smaller ships with drone/some air capabilities and missiles. Perhaps focus more on capturing land based air fields and ability to put up temp air fields in a conflict.
Last big conflict with carriers was before the proliferation of modern SAMs, all the hypotheticals about carrier group defense and effectiveness against enemy with similar force feels liking walking in the dark.

>>30015130
I suppose I am a pessimist.

>>30015153
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa-class_battleship

Scroll down to the 1980's modernization program. In fact, OP's pic is of a modernized Iowa. Note the helicopter landing pad on the stern. Also the lack of 20mm and 40mm gun tubs. You can also see the box launchers amid ships for the Harpoons and Tomahawk missiles.

Fun fact, the Navy will neither confirm or deny that the modernized Iowa class battleships carried the TLAM-A nuclear tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles.
>which basically meant they did

>>30015186
>I suppose I am a pessimist.

the answer is just read a lot. /k/ can actually be a great source of information provided you don't just waste your time shitposting. for example, through the power of oppenheimer we now have the link to an government 800+ page technical report on the effects of nuclear weapons. and topics keep popping up that you can google around. like this one.

>>30015055
20 hits from a North Carolina, their 16 inchers were marginally less powerful.

>>30015231
yeah i've read the page. the ticonderogas with vls had 122 cells plus harpoons with extra harpoons in the magazines. just a little more than a grand total of 50 something missles.

>>30015231
You can also see the white domes of the four CIWS turrets.

>>30007986
And remarkably agile too even at speed.

>>30015233
Where is a link to this report please? I know, spoon feeding but all I have is the old RAND 'The Effects of Nuclear War' book.

>>30015231
>which basically meant they did
The navy has a policy of never confirming or denying if any ship has nuclear weapons aboard.

That policy is still in place now even though TLAM-A was completely phased out years ago and warships haven't carried tactical nuclear weapons for decades on account of it being a waste of space that could be used for weapons you might actually want to launch and adds a bunch of extra security requirements.

It's entirely likely that the Iowas never carried nuclear weapons, but because they could launch tomahawks which have a nuclear variant, they were subject to that policy.

>>30015886

if you're still about

https://ia800801.us.archive.org/10/items/DnaEm1CapabilitiesOfNuclearWeapons/DnaEm1CapabilitiesOfNuclearWeapons.pdf

>>30001545
>What are thermobarics