How do we make battleships relevant in the modern world?

railguns and missile trux

>>31040223

>BB fag just will not fucking stop

Comon, your last thread is still up faggot use that on.

Also, making battleships usefull will never happen again.

File: yamato_comparison.jpg (167KB, 800x446px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 800x446px

Fit them with rocket boosters and launch them into space.

Your first thread isn't even off the board yet, you fucking twat

>>31040223
man-made reefs for diving/tourism

or scuttle them and bury them in gravel to use as breakwalls

>>31040294
This

Battleships as a concept is dead.
And so should your thread be.

>>31040267
I'm not that anon

>>31040377

You are still a massive faggot for not checking the catalog.

File: SHIP_DDG-991_ROKS_Sejong_the_Great_RIMPAC_2010_lg.jpg (99KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1024x768px

>>31040223

>How do we make battleships relevant in the modern world?

Scrap them and use the metal to make destroyers.

File: pyotr velikiy 02.jpg (70KB, 1024x400px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1024x400px

like it or not, battleships are dead. battlecruisers, on the other hand...

HE DOES IT FOR FREE!!!!

>>31040574

>battlecruisers, on the other hand...

What makes that any different than just being a large destroyer that happens to have a nuclear reactor?

>battlecruisers, on the other hand...

Is also pretty much dead. You might aswell distribute all those missiles on a few slightly smaller ships, instead of giving the enemy one big fat target.

Unrelated question, isnt all this classification of ships kind of mixed up now? Destroyers these days are the size of WW2 heavy cruisers, most cruisers are the same size as destroyets and frigates and battlecruisers is just somewhat smaller/larger variations of those ships.

>>31040603
it carries a fuckton of seven ton, telephone pole sized anti ship missiles?

and if i remember correctly, they have a fucking 700kg warhead

File: HNLMS_De_Zeven_Provincien_(F802).jpg (2MB, 2048x1322px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1322px

>>31040613

>isnt all this classification of ships kind of mixed up now?

Every country has their own system, so yes. There are some general rules about what stuff should be called (your destroyers should be bigger than your frigates) but there is no real rule that says there must be consistency in between nations. For example, the De Zeven frigate operated by the Netherlands is big enough (and heavily armed enough) that most countries would consider it a destroyer. However, because the Netherlands have no larger surface combatants they just call it a frigate.

Also, the Ticonderoga class operated by the US navy was designed and conceived as a class of destroyer. However, it was rebranded as a class of cruiser after some politician got butt-hurt about the Soviet's having a larger number of cruisers. However, the soviet classification system was different, and so they had a more liberal threshold for what was considered a cruiser. So in reality, the US always had more ships of that size, it simply was calling them destroyers instead.

And now you've got the Zumwalt, which is classified as a destroyer despite being bigger than any cruiser other than the Kirovs. Conversely, the Burkes is big enough that most countries would call it a cruiser even though it is classified as a destroyer instead. So in conclusion, every country has their own system to some extent and even within a particular country there is often a lack of consistency.

>>31040223
howto make battleships relevant.

5 things must be done.
1. vastly improved ciws capabilities,
2. vastly improved offensive capabilities, namely the addition of missile systems, and/or addition of railgun armerments(depending on improvements to railgun platform of course)
3. improved technical stealth capabilities, as a battleship would give very good resolution returns on even teh most basic of radar technologies.
4. improved detection suite, to include subsurface detection as well, as battleships make very good targets for submarines, and smaller vessels could just es easily present large scale threats.
5. crew compliment miniaturization, as it stand a battleship would have a crew of around 3-4 thousand this rivals super carriers, without having the same level of force projection a carrier can bring.

All this BBfagging lately almost makes me wish gliderfag would come back. Almost.

Make them fly

>>31040223
>How do we make battleships relevant in the modern world?

by having well-written history books that explain the development of the aircraft carrier that made them obsolete.

that way, future generations of people wont post shit like this.

MODS!!!!!
O
D
S
!
!
!
!

>>31040223
Sink a few carriers. Then we'll start armoring ships again

>>31041041
but then they'd just be armored carriers

MODS
MODS
ODS
DS
S

File: 1471290753044.png (173KB, 500x758px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 500x758px

Why do you keep making this thread.

>>31040628
If I'm going to have a surface combatant like that then I'm going to use it in support of a carrier battle group.

File: arleighs-burke.jpg (1MB, 2887x1844px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2887x1844px

>>31040223
> How do we make battleships relevant in the modern world?

EZ

>>31040223
>same thread every fucking day
>EVER FUCKING DAY

>>31040223
replace all the turrets area with a fuckton of VLS
replace all AA guns with those lasers, or CIWS

arsenal ships when?

>>31040223
DIe in a fire, OP. I dont even care if you are BB-fag or just a wannabe copycat. Just die

>>31040223
By scrapping them and building actually relevant ships instead.

>>31040223
Make more missile cruisers.

>>31040723
Thanks.

>>31040223

Define "battleship"

>>31041041
No, because it would take Ivan exacly 2 days to change the warheads on his missiles from semi-AP to AP or nuclear. Armoring ships is pointless.

>>31042425
>implying that ships with 30 feet of solid steel armor care about nukes
where are you my absurd future?

File: m3it2ywzteicfojkcyni.jpg (426KB, 2880x1620px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 2880x1620px

>>31042448

I remember reading something about how the only way that battleships could ever be relevant again was as a cheaper offshore artillery/shelling alternative to ICBMs. I also remember reading about how this argument was really only presented by people who were nostalgic for WWII era battleships and would probably never happen even if the argument was semi reasonable.

File: maximumdisgustpepe.jpg (43KB, 641x491px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 641x491px

We have similar if not the same thread every fucking day can we all just give it a rest for fucks sake?

>>31042542

You have to love the guys who seriously try to claim that they want to "save money" by creating a very expensive, ultra-specialized class of warship that is only good for one very specific mission profile and a liability in almost any other situation.

>>31042448
Probably sinking due to their own weight.

How much armor would it need to become anti-ship missile proof?

>>31042590
Depends on the missile. Against a subsonic with a 200kg warhead like the Harpoon? Not terribly much. A ww2 battleship could maby take it in the belt.

Against some Russian monster weighing a few tons screaming at you in mach 3?
Probably a lot.

File: brahmos_650_070914011152.jpg (91KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 650x366px

>>31042590

>How much armor would it need to become anti-ship missile proof?

That's a very interesting question.

The Brahmos missile developed as a joint India-Russia project can deliver a 200 - 300 kg warhead at speeds greater than Mach 2.8.

>>31042590

Probably not much if they use carbon fiber and titanium with a layer of shear thickening fluid sandwiched between those layers. The cost would not really be worth it though.

>>31042468
This, put them in spess.

File: Han_12_3.jpg (90KB, 1260x560px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1260x560px

>>31040223

Anchor them over shallow water and then use them for target practice until they become an artificial reef.

File: Goeben.png (105KB, 3850x1234px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 3850x1234px

Make them submersibles

File: IMG_5494.jpg (1MB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1936px

Nothing will make them viable in the current world. The best you can do is donate money to keep them in good condition.

>>31042693
You've just made cost sky-rocket. Titanium is hardly used outside stuff like seawater interfaces (i.e. heat exchangers) and for good reason.

>>31040223
i love battleships but for fucks sake stop making this thread every single fucking day.

Unless we suddenly need space battleships, they're useless for modern naval combat.

>>31040603
What makes a battleship anything other than a really big destroyer with big guns?

>>31040377
yeah, you are another insufferable retarded battleship faggot in a long line of BB fags who get blown the fuck out every time they make a thread.

>>31043687
It's used fairly often for aerospace applications where the weight savings is worth the cost. You're mostly correct though.

>>31040223
Remove the turrets are replace them with racks of ASMs

File: _73205991_kamikaze-attack.jpg (59KB, 624x489px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 624x489px

I just watched a few documentaries on the Yamoto and Bismark.

Given that airpower is what fucked the battleship strategy, was it ever proposed by any country to make escort ships dedicated purely on anti-aircraft?

>>31044577

Literally how navies work now

File: US_Navy_110401-N-SF508-181_The_Ticonderoga-class_guided-missile_cruiser_USS_Shiloh_(CG_67)_transits_off_the_northeastern_coast_of_Japan.jpg (1MB, 4288x2844px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4288x2844px

>>31044577

>was it ever proposed by any country to make escort ships dedicated purely on anti-aircraft?

Hello.

>>31044577

American battleships actually did anti-air very well.

Japanese battleships.....not so much.

I'm really high, but what if we make missles compatible with the guns?

A new day a new BBthread. Like clockwork. Just make a BB-general, bump it every 10 minutes and be done with it, you delusional faggot.

>>31044631
The Tike was never a dedicated anti-aircraft platform.

File: oakland.jpg (18KB, 720x239px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 720x239px

>>31044577

Atlanta class light cruiser.

>>31040223

Arsenal ships, which will never happen because Zumwalts are cooler. We're getting star destroyers, not battleships.

>>31045468
Love these things.

Turn them into all-terrain hovercraft and use them for COIN

Rip the deck apart and give it a tower and the ability to carry 30+ planes. Original idea right there.

>>31044631
needs more radar thingies.

File: ChiefWawatam52408-2.jpg (49KB, 1024x685px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1024x685px

cut everything out but the hull, put a notch in the back for a tug boat, and have the world's most armored barge

>>31040223
Ban anti ship rockets.

Maybe in a few decade when we can have:

BB with railguns that can fire precision-guided hypersonic at targets 200+ away, with each rounds cost a fraction of that of missiles.

With numerous laser CIWS offering protection.

That'll make a great ASuW/Ground Support platform.

Still needs missiles for AA defense tho. Unless you can make those guided shells capable of hitting planes aswell.

File: 1024px-Shore_Battery_30_1.jpg (161KB, 1024x665px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1024x665px

i was thinking maybe you could repurpose the naval rifles as shore batteries but we run into the same problem. static emplacements are nothing more than targets.

>airpower is what killed the battleship

yes, but guided weapons are what keep it dead.

A dinky 200kg Harpoon can fly right into your bridge every time, it doesn't give a shit about armor belts.

>>31042578
BUT IT WOULD BE SO GREAT AT THAT ONE THING

>>31046981
Wouldn't it be better to make something like the Lord Clive class monitors then? Put some BB sized artillery on the smallest hull that would be stable?

>>31046737
The battleship is dead, but that shit there is retarded. Battleships had armored conning towers for a reason, and even then that was just the conning of the ship.

Battleships are kept dead more by submarines these days anyways. They're massive sinks of industry and capital, and they just don't have the effectiveness to justify their massive target status.

>>31047073
>muh subs

Battleships with aviation facilities are not a novel concept.

>>31047073
Have you ever looked at the design diagrams for the Iowa bridge? It's, like, 24" of RHA, plus some extra-thick bulletproof glass. It's no problem.

Of course, that's only one example. Missiles could be programmed to take out the radars, the rudders, or fly right down the smokestacks as the USAF did with TV-guided 1990s bombs in the first Gulf War.

Battleships are armored because they lived in an era of statistical weaponry; and the meta for defense vs offense is that armoring vs statistical weapons is worthwhile and armoring vs precision weapons from anti-(x platform here) isn't.

File: Akizuki.jpg (739KB, 3183x1991px) Image search: [Google]

739KB, 3183x1991px

>>31044577
Akizuki class DDs.

File: 40435126_p0.png (70KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 300x300px

>>31040223
With maupons

>>31040223
Start charging exuberant fees to take rich people on tours of shitty countries.

>>31041662
Why do Burke's have two different smokestacks?

>>31048996
There not the same boat

>>31042566
We are running low on digital ink

>>31040223
Unless you can figure out a way for a ship of that size (or any ship) to have a reason to be that large, and also be able to resist the vast majority of attacks, it will never happen.

File: WNUS_8-55_mk71_Hull_pic.jpg (34KB, 622x496px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 622x496px

>>31042590

It's less about making an impenetrable shell, and more about reinforcing the structure, making the internal walls thicker to limit the damage when you do get hit, stuff like that. And I think thickening the hull by a couple inches is a good idea too.

I think we had a Tico that was scrapped because it ran into a sandbar at 5 knots. It knocked the Aegis radar out of alignment or something. Our ships are really fucking delicate and I think the Navy is full of bullshit. Just look at the LCD and Zumwalt programs. We're gonna be in for a big surprise when the next big war comes around.

>>31044734
That's called the AGS or the "advanced gun system" and it is a highly effective delivery system for military industrial complex welfare bux

>>31045918
Zumwalts are literally useless

>>31040574
>cruiser
>battlecruiser
>not a single deck gun
Disgusting; at the very least, throw a five-inch on the bow for interdiction and to avoid wasting a multi-million ruple missile munition on a somali motorboat or something similar.

>>31049699

There are guns, they're just harder to make out because the ship itself is so big.

>>31042590
All of it.

>>31049091
Any DE or railgun additions to a ship will need more tonnage for more power generation. Active defenses like laser CIWS will also need more tonnage. Larger ships make sense for at least 2030 onwards as DE progresses past fusion reactor development. Once fusion is readily available, ships can shrink again.

>>31040223

Could float them out to sea and use them as target ships.

The navyfudd tears would be worth it alone

>>31053378

>Railguns

Just stop.

It's not going to happen.

>>31053395
Do tell why railguns won't happen. I just happen to work at the applicable Nintendo.

>>31046700
how?

File: image.jpg (541KB, 1607x2048px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 1607x2048px

CRAMs and Patriot missiles.

>>31053486

Maybe I should clarify.

Yes, railguns could become a thing.

But they would be like a replacement for 5-in guns currently in use. They would not be like the 16-in guns of the past. They'd be defensive weapons, like CWIS rather than the main weapons. Missiles remain on top.

>>31053486
Because by the time the package is usable enough for ship mounting it won't require a battleship sized carriage. Kind of like how the LaWS was mounted on a LPD with future use on Burkes.

It really doesn't what you do to a BB, it won't become efficient enough for use compared to other assets.

>>31042566
At Least it's better then all those depressing "I had to shoot my dog" threads we used to have 2-3 years ago

>>31053676

I honestly don't know why people complain. Battleships are fun to talk about.

>>31053530
Railguns will be an all-in-one platform, like how VLS cells are today. HVP will be able to do missile defense, anti-air, and land bombardment. It will be able to do anything a missile could do other than travel more than 100 nmi. Not every situation needs that type of range, and it would be good to save missiles for when its required. It's another valuable tool that the USN can't afford to ignore.

>>31053609
Capacitors eat up a lot of space.

>>31053755
>Capacitors eat up a lot of space.
They've already stated Zimwalts can mount them from the power/space requirement.

The problem is still the thing kinda rips itself to pieces every time it fires.

>>31053889
Able and should are two different things.

Barrel life is in the hundreds of shots now.

>>31053685
There's not enough naval threads as is, and talking about small shit like missile boats is lame.

File: Koko and Satellite Launch.jpg (65KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1280x720px

>>31040223
With Jormungand disabling all aircraft, satellites, and missiles.

>>31053507
>CRAMs
Is this actually a thing in real life?
I thought it was just a name ruger made up for FTD.

>>31043745
their slow speed and massive fuel consumption, mainly.

>>31042566
The Battleship posters should just get a trip code and make a Tread Head style of thread. That way all of the battleship posting can be organised and we won't have three new threads every fucking day.

>>31040223
Rocket-boosted projectiles for maximum range and modern oil-driven machinery(it's gonna get hit, you don't want nuclear reactor in here). Fully computerised FCS coupled with GPS etc. Only one or two fully automatised main battery turrets as well as reduced amount of secondary battery turrets. Top quality jammers, and protection systems. Good all-or-nothing scheme armour with thick roof.

That's probably the "features" you need for it. There is a problem with antennas and shit though. Destroyers are relatively disposable, so if you fuck up radar in one, then okay, you have MK and it has to retreat but there's still plenty of others. Battleships won't be so numerous so being able to fuck up majority of systems by using some super fast and accurate missile that has basically no explosives but that "no" is still enough to fuck up delicate antennas is their biggest problem.

That being said - if you'd manage to increase the range of 16" main battery in Iowa class significantly it would be good enough argument for using those since it's still one of the most economic and accurate way of delivering explosives on target.

>>31042425
I'm legit curious - how do AP warheads on missiles look like? HEAT is unlikely because it's not gonna do much damage in a relatively spacious warships.

>>31040574
Russia and others consider it a heavy cruiser

File: P-700-Granit-Launchers-Oscar-II-1S.jpg (862KB, 640x961px) Image search: [Google]

862KB, 640x961px

>>31042590
Kh-22 has a 1000kg shaped charge warhead. No practical amount of armor is stopping that. AshM are big, you can put big shaped charges in them without much trouble, if not just going nuclear. For smaller warheads, a belt would work, but then you just use a top attack profile. It isn't an arms race worth running. Most warships afloat today can be crippled with a single Harpoon/Kh-35 Uran class weapon. Killing the missile is the priority i defense.
>>31040574
Why the fuck do people call him a battlecruiser? What he has a smidge of armor and is a big cruiser?

Battlecruisers as a concept were null with advances in engine development in the interbellum years. Most battlecruisers only had a slight speed advantage over early post-dreadnought fast battleships like the Queen Elizabeth class. The Iowas completely outstripped them. Even at its inception the term was half political.

Nothing about the Kirov class is "battlecruiser" they are "heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser."

>>31053685
Talk about them in a historical context, rather than autistically scheme about making them relevant again.

>>31056835
HEAT on the AS-4 carves a 5m wide 12m deep gash in targets. Most though use a hardened penetrator with a standard HE blast fragmentation charge.

>>31056900
>Most though use a hardened penetrator with a standard HE blast fragmentation charge.
So like some torpedoes then? Thanks.

>>31040223
>12
>RAILGUN
>BROADSIDE

>>31049184

The Zumwalts are literally going to be the first surface warships that can beat the Iowa 1 on 1.

File: all them missiles.jpg (43KB, 800x517px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 800x517px

take this guy and stuff it full of missiles

>>31046700
Static targets can't avoid missiles

>>31057160
"no"

>>31057160

Any ship with Harpoons or 533 torpedo tubes could 1 vs 1 an Iowa rather easily.

>>31048132
nuclear subarines say hi, we see you from so much further that lol. Its why the best escort is ANOTHER submarine.

>>31044577
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akizuki-class_destroyer_(1942)

Their anti-air was just really shitty because no radar assisted FCS

>>31040223
The doctrine of the Battleship as a primary fleet platform have been irrelevant since the advent of modern Aircraft Carrier

>>31057197
>16 knots

>>31057160

You mean 'any surface vessel that can launch an ASM' right?

>>31040775
>implying they're not the samefag

File: 01.gif (76KB, 432x319px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 432x319px

>>31056900
>HEAT on the AS-4 carves a 5m wide 12m deep gash in targets.
>[citation needed]

File: Osa-I_class_Project205_DN-SN-84-01770.jpg (210KB, 1200x916px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1200x916px

>>31057160
This piece of shit could leave any BB dead in the water before it could even be found on the radar.
>>31058871
http://www.ausairpower.net/SP/DT-Regional-ASCM-1207.pdf

>>31058748
>implying they are

>>31040223

>take a destroyer
>re-designate it a battleship
>battleships are suddenly relevant

>>31043687

That's why I said it's probably not worth the cost.

>>31060511
>take a battleship
>re-designate it a destroyer
>suddenly /k/ hates destroyers

>>31060582

wtf i hate destroyers now

File: HG16697_QA_brain-headache-migraine_FS.jpg (30KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 640x360px

>>31040223
>Battleship thread

>>31058598
Thus the "in the modern world" part you arrogant prick