We all know that battleships aren't all that useful anymore.

We have other assets just for that, with the bonus of not being built in the 1940s.

They're museum ships now, regardless. It would be prohibitively expensive to put them back into service.

File: 1388470654573.jpg (27KB, 400x399px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 400x399px

>>31169724
Or you could just use MLRs, mortars and ordinary artillery instead. You know, stuff you can move around and hide, something that's not going to get an entire rocket battery fired at it.

>>31169724
Go away Listerinefag

A single AShM will deny you of this denial asset and +1200 people of their lives.

are you retarded?

>>31169797
No those missiles won't penetrate the armor of a battleship. Modern ships have paper thin armor. Those missiles aren't designed for the thick ancient armor.

>>31169807
Don't be ableist

>>31169724

>1800 officers and men in a small floating city just to crew a handful of artillery pieces

Even if battleships were not horribly vulnerable the logistics and costs required to keep them combat ready just aren't worth it.

>>31169821
I think you underestimate just how powerful some of the larger AShMs are.

>>31169724
IIRC they actually were used for support in the middle east during the Gulf War

>>31169851
Develop your hypothesis

>>31169886
>IIRC they actually were used for support in the middle east during the Gulf War

Yep. And it was attacked by silkworm anti-ship missiles.

>In her first naval gunfire support action of Desert Storm she shelled an Iraqi command and control bunker near the Saudi border, the first time her 16 in (410 mm) guns had been fired in combat since March 1953 off Korea. The battleship bombarded Iraqi beach defenses in occupied Kuwait on the night of 3 February, firing 112 16 in (410 mm) rounds over the next three days until relieved by Wisconsin. Missouri then fired another 60 rounds off Khafji on 11–12 February before steaming north to Faylaka Island. After minesweepers cleared a lane through Iraqi defenses, Missouri fired 133 rounds during four shore bombardment missions as part of the amphibious landing feint against the Kuwaiti shore line the morning of 23 February. The heavy pounding attracted Iraqi attention; in response to the battleship’s artillery strike, the Iraqis fired two HY-2 Silkworm missiles at the battleship, one of which missed,. The other missile was intercepted by a GWS-30 Sea Dart missile launched from the British air defence destroyer HMS Gloucester within 90 seconds and crashed into the sea roughly 700 yd (640 m) in front of Missouri

>>31169724
If you can make it unmanned/Zumwalt levels of crew and nuclear powered, sure.

Then, you have to throw VLS, CIWS, RIM-116, more VLS, still more VLS, some 16" LRLAP rounds, some 16" round which is really just a bunch of stinger missiles slapped together into a cluster that have their own guidance system, slap on an AN/SPY-3, slap on some Mk48 torpedoes, replace all the 5"/38s with 5"/54s, and then we will talk.

File: 1471213430719.jpg (14KB, 235x223px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 235x223px

>>31169944
>two (2) missiles

>>31169944
Would those missiles hurt the battleship?

>>31169821
>No those missiles won't penetrate the armor of a battleship

But they do.

WW2 AShM could do it. What's to stop them from developing warheads to do this?

Besides, an AShM doesn't even need to penetrate the armor of a battleship to make it ineffective. All it needs to do is fuck up the external sensors.

>>31169994

A thousand pound shaped charge warhead on a missile the size of a schoolbus traveling mach 0.8?

I would be interested to see what that would do against 12" of vintage armor.

>>31169724
It's the daily "I'm a massive faggot, hur dur Battleships give me a boner" thread.
You want area of denial and it's not important enough to use one of the Nimitz Battlegroups? How about one of the dozen or more Assault ships we've got lying around?
Fuck off FAGGOT, literally take your computer and throw it against a motherfucking wall.
We have Destroyers that could wipe the floor with any piece of shit battleship ever to have floated.
>Armour to protect from land threats
What kind of cumguzzling faggot naval officer would allow his ship to be fire at ON PURPOSE when the effect range of a 5inch naval gun used on our Destroyers is over 20 Kilometres?
You want to put a ship that's almost 80 years old in a combat situation where it is supposed to be fired upon when it contains 2000 naval personnel when a single Arleigh burke can do the same job only better with a crew of 300, why do you think they were retired after Missouri was almost sank in the first gulf war. Did it have anything to do with the accident involving fire coming from a fucking phalanx CIWS penetrating the "mighty armor" of an Iowa and tearing through a bulkhead?

Good luck explaining to the President and the Nation when a fucking missile costing under 1 million dollars kills 2000 sailors and sinks a ship worth billions.

Lets go back to building First Rates again and putting them in the role of fuel tankers.

File: image.jpg (39KB, 600x569px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x569px

>>31170214

>>31169724
If battleships were brought back into modern warfare, they'll be regulated to Anti-aircraft and shore bombardment roles.

File: 1468182319698.jpg (192KB, 1194x606px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1194x606px

The best contemporary use of a battleship would likely be as a sort of seagoing naval academy and "boot camp." New sailors would begin their careers aboard the battleship to learn the *correct* way to do *everything* under the hateful watch & angry tuteledge of the most senior & saltiest old officers. It would be right proper. The mighty battleship -- sailing on *constant* patrol endlessly circling the globe -- would contain all initial phases of every new sailor's career....

...another would be recomissioned solely for the Marine Corps. Just because.

A third would be recomissioned to serve as a sort of super-high-level school for children.

A fourth would be recomissioned to [redacted] for [classified].

>mfw posting in bb bread

>>31170214
You forgot to eat breakfast and now your blood sugar is low

>>31169851
>>31170005
You guys are wrong. AShM's have no reason NOT to penetrate BB's armour but normally they aren't designed to do so as you're more interested in breaking through lightly-armoured hull of modern warships and exploding inside of it. Trying to find a way to break through armour would result in increase of weight or decrease of the amount of explosives carried by the missile therefore you'd rather not make them armour-piercing.

The reason why congress wants Navy to be able to restore their BB's to running conditions is to make Chinese/Russians spend money to produce "anti-battleship" AShM's or risk having their ports and coastal cities bombarded. Oh, and of course - if Marines are EVER going to do large scale amphibious assault BB or two can come in handy.

>>31170392
>You guys are wrong. AShM's have no reason NOT to penetrate BB's armour but normally they aren't designed to do so as you're more interested in breaking through lightly-armoured hull of modern warships and exploding inside of it. Trying to find a way to break through armour would result in increase of weight or decrease of the amount of explosives carried by the missile therefore you'd rather not make them armour-piercing.

Good job at answering something I wasn't arguing.

If 500 lb dumb bombs can penetrate BB armour, than so can an AShM. If a low-tech, inaccurate, garbage rocketry WW2 AShM can penetrate BB armour, so can a high-tech, accurate modern AShM. This is a matter of fact.

The penetration argument is stupid as like I have already said, the AShM doesn't even need to penetrate the armour for a mission kill on a BB, all it needs to is cripple the ship's sensor suit.

Neither will your will armour do anything to prevent it from being stalked and raped by submarines.

>The reason why congress wants Navy to be able to restore their BB's to running conditions is to make Chinese/Russians spend money to produce "anti-battleship" AShM's or risk having their ports and coastal cities bombarded. Oh, and of course - if Marines are EVER going to do large scale amphibious assault BB or two can come in handy.

blow your brains out