why don't they just reactivate them?

Because it would be stupid and a waste of money.
Kinda like bringing back metal cuirass as general issue body armor.

>>31818892

Too much Dosh, the Zumwalt is launching in less than a year and does the same job.

>>31818911

A better anology would be spending the effort to restart P-51 Mustang production for the COIN role because it has better performance than the Super Tucano, even though said performance increase would not at all be worth spending the billions it would take just to shit out a handful of aircraft for a specific role. The Iowas are basically less efficient Burkes when going by their raw combat capabilities.

Because experts stupidly think a little armor is useless, the focus on air power meant battleships and artillery never got the funding or attention they deserve, and because the Zumwalt basically is a modern battleship(without armor sadly) with tiny primary guns that are much more accurate and can reach out nearly a hundred miles. No clue what railgun capabilities will do for it.

If every infantry battalion had artillery back up they'd never need airstrikes. If our ships had just A LITTLE armor the USS Cole would have laughed it off.

The concept of not getting spotted or hit is a good one, but that concept applies to soldiers too... and soldiers wear armor. The "all or nothing" armor scheme is still relevant in the modern age but ships have no armor anymore and a single hit can mission kill a billion dollar piece of hardware.

Its not fucking right.

>>31818946

Actually the Super Tucano is marginally better than a P-51 except in unit cost. Adjusted for inflation, you could buy over a dozen P-51s for the price of one Super Taco. Granted mass production lessened the cost as mass production does.

>>31819003
Because even in the supposed "golden age of battleships" when they DID get the all the funding, they did jack fucking shit compared to carriers and submarines.

>>31819088
you'd think bull was some sorta time traveller sent back to sabotage BB funding or some shit

File: 1465521710600.png (262KB, 446x456px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 446x456px

>>31819003
Oh boy, here we go. Again.

>>31819088

>they did jack shit in the golden age of battleships

Dude the golden age of battleships was over before WW2.

>>31819186

What was incorrect about my post?

Nothing.

>>31819221
>Dude the golden age of battleships was over before WW2.
Exactly.

>>31819221
>>31819228
Didn't 1940 and 1941 had some battleship fights in the Mediterranean and Norther Atlantic?

>>31819228

That's also my point. Everyone went "OMG PLANEZ" and artillery and battleship evolution stopped dead in its tracks for the better part of a century.

If artillery was given the funding and research planes had we might be able to bombard the other side of the world by now.

>>31819664
I typed up a huge response to this, then deleted it because fuck trying to explain why this kind of thing happens. Just accept that it does and that many technologies get abandoned because of diminishing returns and new shiny technologies.

>>31819664
But anon, we can bombard the other side of the world.

With planes.

>>31819664
I thought the Mossad had you assassinated, Gerald.

>>31819664
The navy definitely wasn't "OMG PLANZ" until they recognized the inherent limitations of battleships.

>>31819664
"chamber-pots work just fine at holding my shit. Indoor plumbing is a meme and is just too expensive when I can just toss my filth out of my window."

>>31819793
If we didint fall for this toilet meme and kept investing in chamber-pot technology we would have modern chamber-pots with their own built in processing and treatment capabilities to turn shit into bio diesel to fuel our cars for free.

>>31819715

I still appreciate it.

>>31819722

Artillery would be more cost effective and not endanger pilots.

>>31819729

Saddams stupid cannon probably couldn't hit the side of a barn from the inside. Plus the barrel was BOLTED together. It would have KB'd the first time he used it, probably.

>>31819778

Planes simply evolved too quick for battleships to catch up with. We went from the Wright brothers to landing on the moon in like 60 years dude.

It's literally that obvious aerospace tech got all the love.

>>31819793

Dude plumbing existed thousands of years before the first king of England shit in a bucket.

Your analogy is meaningless.

>>31819847
I disagree, planes are more cost effective due to them being reuseable.

>>31819847
really gonna nitpick some joke about chamber-pots you fucking autist?

>>31819854

You think we throw away artillery pieces after they lose their virginity??

File: Project_Harp.jpg (32KB, 304x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 304x480px

>>31819847
>Saddams stupid cannon probably couldn't hit the side of a barn from the inside. Plus the barrel was BOLTED together. It would have KB'd the first time he used it, probably.

Still holds the record for high and payload.
180kg of payload to 180km of elevation. That's a weapon that outclasses the new railguns by orders of magnitude.

File: article-2143489-130E7FEA000005DC-339_634x392.jpg (61KB, 634x392px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 634x392px

ill let ya know this when those big guns opened up the enemy would freeze and we would pick them off one by one,nothing will ever rival the big guns ill tell ya that much.

File: iowa.jpg (1006KB, 3200x1341px) Image search: [Google]

1006KB, 3200x1341px

What would happen if you built an Iowa with the latest ceramic composite armor? It's around 4x as effective per kg as the cast steel armor. If weight remained the same the entire thing would have 600mm RHA protection with parts well over 1000mm RHA equivalent.

>>31818892

Russia has already proven that a bunch of frigates and post-Soviet boats with cruise missiles can severely outclass the Iowa Class at surface warfare.

File: 167%20HMS%20Victory[1].jpg (3MB, 2272x1447px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2272x1447px

>>31818892
Why don't they just reactivate it?
Missiles will just go right through it
It has 120 guns
Very quiet for stealth missions.

>>31819847
>Artillery would be more cost effective and not endanger pilots.
>What is a drone?

>>31820144
>What would happen if you built an Iowa with the latest ceramic composite armor?

It wouldn't pass sea trials

>>31819664
Um, nein.

A 155mm howitzer could have range range of up to 100km with RAP and I'm quite sure a new-gen 203mm (with redesigned, titanium-alloy barrel and upgraded FCS) could hit target more than 100 miles, but that's just the upper limit of the usefulness of tube artillery

Other than that, MRL, cruise missiles and SRBM would be better.

>>31819664
>what is rocket artillery

>>31818892
Because they are useless and expensive.

>>31820287
>It wouldn't pass sea trials
Why not?

>>31819003
>Because experts stupidly think

>experts
>stupidly think

File: 01o.jpg (740KB, 722x768px) Image search: [Google]

740KB, 722x768px

>>31818892
Oh boy, THIS thread again.jpg

>>31819664
We can now. They are called "missiles"

>>31819902

No it doesn't.

Saddam's cannon was NEVER FIRED because Jews were scared of tinker toy level barrel technology. They blew it up and assassinated the Canadian that designed it.

For no reason, too. It obviously was not going to be an effective weapon.

>>31820502

Experts have been doing dumb shit since the dawn of time.

Humanity is a celebration of stupidity.

Jesus was killed because experts on the Torah said "lol nope you can do miracles but youre stupid" then God told Israel to kiss its ass goodbye.

>>31822885
>Desert cultists are the same level as international marine architects

>>31820254
It is in active service. So is the Constitution.

But I like where you're coming from. I would like to see a USS Constitution sail into a hostile port. Nobody would know what the fuck is going on until it was too late.

Because today's vessels have considerably more firepower in a smaller package.

>>31819003
ships have better than steel armor now.
they have active countermeasures capable of defending them from threats that would even make it past armor.
we simply moved on anon deal with it. ships can shoot down nukes that their armor would never survive. hell they can shoot down icbms of late.

>>31818892
Then we'd have to shut down the museums and memorials they're part of, dummy. How are kids going to learn about how awesome WW2 was? How are their parents going to spend money at the gift shops? Did you ever think about that?

Selfish asses like you are the reason normies can't remember history and why the economy sucks.

>>31822914

>experts aren't experts

>>31819003
>Because experts stupidly think


any, you, sitting in the armchair CLEARLY know better?

Welcome to the world of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Someone who knows so little, that they think they know better than experts.

File: 1466281290816.jpg (37KB, 562x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 562x600px

>>31819847
>Planes simply evolved too quick for battleships to catch up with
HENCE WHY BATTLESHIPS WERE REPLACED YOU SHIT HEAD! THEY COULDN'T KEEP UP! THEY ARE OUTDATED! INEFFICIENT! USELESS!

>>31823412

You're ignorant of the human condition if you trust every expert out there.

>>31823655

We built tens of thousands of planes for every battleship we built.

It's not that they couldn't keep up, we didn't build new models enough.

You could armor a ship to have effective armor against planes and torpedoes, now that large caliber guns are seen as obsolete.

>>31823702
Are large caliber guns not the point of battleships, anon? The thing to keep in mind is that modern missile systems have made armor an increasingly moot point and designers would rather dedicate tonnage to weapons and ECM in order to have a better chance of not being hit in the first place.

>>31823655
guided missile battlecruisers with helo pads could be a thing tho.

>>31823772
The whole point of a battlecruiser was to outfight what it couldn't outrun and outrun anything it couldn't outfight. The utility of such a vessel is obviated by ships and aircraft.

File: tumblr_nkpjk8A2DO1tq9q5vo1_500.gif (2MB, 500x226px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x226px

>>31823702
>It's not that they couldn't keep up, we didn't build new models enough.
>You could armor a ship to have effective armor against planes and torpedoes, now that large caliber guns are seen as obsolete.

I don't think you comprehend how powerful these weapons are.

>>31823809
*missiles and aircraft

Not ships. My bad, desu.

File: 1p0DtU.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>31823702

Here's a torpedo.

>>31823814
This.

A lot of anti-shipping missiles has more kinetic energy than a 16 in shell, and if they would face armor, they can be equipped with a armourpiercing warhead or just a nuke.

>>31823702
>You're ignorant of the human condition if you trust every expert out there.

Oh yes clearly these people are all mistaken and every navy on the planet is wrong

>>31823809
not really, you can cram a shitton of missile defense on a battlecruiser sized vessel and aircraft can't really use anything else than missiles on a ship. so basically you only have one serious threat.

>>31823772
They're called Arleigh Burkes.

>>31823702
>You could armor a ship to have effective armor against planes and torpedoes

A Mk 48 torpedo contains a 650lb high explosive warhead. The Mk 27 torpedo of WW2 had a warhead 1/5th the size using an explosive far less powerful.

>>31823907
>They're called Arleigh Burkes.
too small and very cramped. but yeah todays destroyers could be cruisers in ww2.
truthfully the kirov is closest to battlecruiser status.

File: Montana vs Missouri.png (289KB, 2048x676px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 2048x676px

I want my nuclear powered rail gun equipped Montana Class now.

>>31823907
>The Mk 27 torpedo of WW2
...had a dinky warhead intended to fuck up Jap destroyers. Most of our torpedoes had 500-700 lb. warheads, IIRC.

>>31823853

Almost every navy on earth uses surplus ships they get from America or Russia.

So, yea. They are not all experts

>>31823967
The Mk 14 torpedo had a 645lb warhead, but that doesn't change the fact that we're not using torpex anymore.

>>31823814

Oh, wow, a missile fucked up something made from tin and aluminium. Much surprise. Very wow.

And no, a 16 inch shell has more kinetic energy than almost any AShM.

Missiles these days are designed to kill unarmored ships. If an Iowa got hit by a Harpoon it'd probably just scratch the paint.

>>31819842
Oh my god fucking kek.

File: fsxmeGY.jpg (239KB, 2048x1529px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 2048x1529px

Even if (For whatever reason) re-activating the Iowas would give some kind of advantage, almost nobody knows how they work.
The engines, machinery, etc. when they were reactivated in Vietnam the Navy was lucky enough to find manuals and crewmen from WW2. While the manuals probably still exist, very few crewmen do.
Plus any parts breakage or wear out means a replacement needs to be made.

The Iowas had long service lives, perhaps longer than was necessary, but they're time has come and gone. We should just be thankful that they were preserved and can be respected/admired as museums.

>>31823939
Don't get hung-up on naming conventions.

>>31824035
Too bad that all those important things like radar can't be armored and unless the Iowa is using missiles it's going to outranged by pretty much everything.

File: Can+t+we+all+just+learn+to+not+give+a+_81f61728d82c985d71a698b038669d52.jpg (75KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 640x360px

>Battleshipboos
>Mechboos
>Wehraboo
>Wheelgatboos
>armorboos
>gliderfag
>F35 haters
>vatniks
>9mm lol

>>31824007
What an incredibly stupid thing to say

>>31824088
it's not that just the burke is 20k tonnes short of battlecruiser

>>31824258
Maybe it would have been better said to look at the role of the ship instead of its name or weight.

The true future of naval warfare is the Russian Navy.
To construct a heavily-armored battleship with massive guns fed by a revolver system; similar to the Waffenträger E-100 project that the Third Reich was moving towards (Perhaps such a weapon would have turned the tide of the war in their favor)
Such a design would not just have naval application, but also use in land combat. With the addition of legs, powered by the ship's nuclear reactor and folded into the hull while sailing, this Slavic dreadnought could sail across the sea and then march right across the American mainland! Tiny American small arms harmlessly bouncing off its armored exterior while this leviathan crushes grounded F-35s on the tarmac beneath its feet!
Perhaps a flight system could even be fitted to this glorious testament to Russian Naval Engineering. However, powered flight is obviously too much to ask, so instead a simple glider system could work. Having groups of rockets propel the ship into the air and towards its destination, before the massive glider wing deploys and carries the ship to deliver a surprise attack.

Is this going to be the new gliderfag?

>>31818892
Jesus Christ, is that teak decking?

>>31824434
burke is as close to a multirole surface combatant and escort as it gets.
battlecruisers were much the same, only intended to be cruiser killers firstly instead of carrier escorts and second fiddles to battleships.

>>31824488
>The true future of naval warfare is the Russian Navy.

lolwut.jpeg

File: battleship_USS_Missouri_BB63_fires_broadside.jpg (2MB, 3000x2256px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2256px

>>31824556
>is that teak decking?
Why does this surprise people?

>>31824488

I'll admit it took me a minute to realize that this was a troll.
>true future of naval warfare is the Russian Navy.
>The Waffenträger E-100
>massive glider wings

8/10, would read and kek again.

>>31823967
A mark 48 heavy has a 650 pound warhead, in line with other heavy torpedoes.

A mark 54 has about 100 pounds of warhead, about in line with other aerial anti-submarine torpedoes where the intended target and deployment profile justifies the reduced weight.

>>31824556
Teak over steel. A thing of beauty, really.

>>31824078
Not a huge problem, really. The engines and systems of a Iowa aren't that different from current ships and equipment.

The real problem is that even with automation and modern updates in the 1980s each one takes 1,800 men to work and can't replace 5 DDG and 2 FFG

File: Railgun_usnavy_2008[1].jpg (2MB, 2091x1509px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2091x1509px

>>31818892
>9
>RAILGUN
>BROADSIDE

>>31824686
>>31824729
Yea, it's pretty cool.

>>31822842
Assassination? Why? Did they get away with it? Sauce?

>>31824822
He was building superguns for Iraq as well as improving their Scuds, which caused Iran and Israel to get nervous. It was never conclusively proven but most of the evidence points to the Mossad.

>>31819242

>Didn't 1940 and 1941 had some battleship fights in the Mediterranean and Norther Atlantic?

Battleships were prominent throughout WW2 despite their obsolescence.

File: 1475070996544.jpg (52KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x376px

>>31824729
>Not a huge problem, really. The engines and systems of a Iowa aren't that different from current ships and equipment.

>>31823732
>Are large caliber guns not the point of battleships, anon?
No. A battleship is defined by two qualities.

1. Possessing the most powerful ship-bound anti-ship weaponry available
2. Possessing design and defenses suitable for sustaining hits from said weaponry with out becoming mission killed in most circumstances.

Battleships are meant to exchange hits with other battleships. Thats them distilled down to their fundamental essence.

>>31824822
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon

File: Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg (761KB, 3000x2272px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 3000x2272px

>>31819664
>If artillery was given the funding and research planes had we might be able to bombard the other side of the world by now.

It was and we can.

>>31819088
>second naval battle of gudalcanal

>>31822938
>sail it into Iranian port with Polaris missiles strapped on the sides
>launch everything, then detonate onboard nuclear device
Last Battle of Iran:
Iranian Losses: Everything
American Losses: 1 classic frigate

>>31820144
Kill yourself

>>31824078

I agree. This is why I think surplus ships should be training ships. It really sounds dumb, but a Model T teaches people how engines work from motor to road.

>>31824099
>radar can't be armored
You have no clue. Radar is like almost a century old.

>>31824181
4 you

>>31824488
Did you say something about battleships with treads or mech legs?! I might like you.

>>31825572

Good man! Which is why Iowa's are our best ships. Unless the USS Texas gets activated.. It doesn't use the "all or nothing" concept so its hull is THICC

>>31828561
>Constitution...she served us one last time.

>>31819003
>>WWII battleship tactics
>hold back battleship because X might be a screening force
>focus many escort ships on battleship in battle so that it doesn't sink
>you're fucked on turret depression vs PT boats, but destroyers and cruisers can dodge and shoot those easily with their accurate fast fire
>aircraft constantly pestering you

Carriers are big, heavily armored, and have aircraft that can sink or disable warships with a single accurate payload

the escort ships can do the same
10 tomahawks on 10 ships is stronger than putting all your cards in one boat

File: 1476758512865.jpg (125KB, 500x663px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 500x663px

>>31828856
>>31819003
I agree. The future of naval combat will see a return to heavy armor, as fuel grows ever-cheaper. Countermeasures that can take down supersonic missiles will get better and better. Eventually we'll have to return to dumb shells, which cannot be intercepted because they only occupy a single point in space instead of taking up volume. Also, since cannon shells travel at much higher speed than supersonic missiles, lasers can be used to propel M113-based amphibious glider assault vehicles.

And then there's munitions safety.
>have VLS full of missiles
>get hit
>explode into fiery death
versus
>have big guns
>get hit
>guns can't explode because they are made of steel

Face the facts, countermeasures and interceptor missiles will never work so we need to return to heavy armor. God damn I want some pizza.

Bring back ships of the line!
it worked for 150 years I dont see why we switched

>>31824488
Too much supreme Commander

>>31829169
A battleship is a ship of the line. Ship of the line, ship of the battle line, battle ship. Also why the term line officer exists.

There is a direct evolution from wooden lineships to post dreadnought battleships.

>>31829141
>Eventually we'll have to return to dumb shells, which cannot be intercepted because they only occupy a single point in space instead of taking up volume.
Sea Dart shot down artillery shells during the Reagan Administration.

The US military is building point-defense systems that can shoot down incoming mortar and howitzer shells.

Your scenario doesn't stand. Sorry.

>>31829341
Its far easier to overwhelm with shells than missiles. We had ships capable of firing 90 8 inch shells per minute in the 60s i see no reason why a modern gunboat shouldnt be able to have some high tech fancy 12 inch guns capable of 15 rpgpm or something. A standard 3 tripple turret configuration and there you go. 135 12 inch gps guided shells per minute.

>>31829341
>Philposting
>>>/b/

>>31824035
>And no, a 16 inch shell has more kinetic energy than almost any AShM.
>Missiles these days are designed to kill unarmored ships. If an Iowa got hit by a Harpoon it'd probably just scratch the paint.

This meme really needs to stop being repeated.

Even battleships at the height of their up-armoring only had a tiny amount of armor in a few major areas, the rest of the ship was vulnerable to all sorts of things.

You cannot build a ship to magically be invincible to torpedoes, and if a Harpoon isn't a good enough weapon for you, that's fine since 1) that's a 40 year old missile, dumbass, and 2) you can simply build bigger missiles.

>>31829426
>Its far easier to overwhelm with shells than missiles.

Yeah, but shells have a tiny range as compared to missiles. Which is why we just shoot misssiles at each other.

>>31818892
The whole point of having a ship as big as that is to have those cannons, right? With the ability to deliver higher yield munition in a smaller package why would anyone want to build something so large?

And for the armor, I'm guessing they'd be putting heaviest armor possible while maintaining other specs like speed.

So I don't see the point.

>>31823702
Offensive technologies have outstripped defensive technologies so much it isn't funny. You're better off circumventing, preventing, or evading anything rather than relying on armor. Materials have strict physical limits, and a missile or HV rail gun slug can easily dump enough energy to defeat any armor conceivable. Battleships are obsolete. We live in the era of ICBMs, aircraft, and electronic warfare now.

File: dick used harden.gif (901KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

901KB, 500x281px

>>31818946
>P-51s over Mosul and Raqqa
>6x Browning MGs per aircraft tearing up ISIS simultaneously

>>31829341
will it work against mach 9-11 solid kinetic penetrators too?

>>31824035
navy estimated it would take more than a dozen cruise missiles to sink a battleship in full combat readiness. problem is a wing of planes can unload that.

No amount of armor is going to stop a 600 pound keel-breaking torpedo explosion. No materials exist for that, full stop.

Also remember, battleships were designed to basically fling dispersing projectiles at each other. Any hit didn't bounce off. It just didn't cripple the machinery or magazine. All that superstructure was going to get FUCKED.

Now, modern missiles are staggeringly more accurate, and able to aim at specific parts of ships even. Even if you are using a gun, to get any range it's going to have a guided projectile. At which point, why bother with multiple barrels in a turret? Why bother with armor that still results in a combat ineffective ship after a few hits, when you can try your damned best to be cheap and unhittable?

Zumwalt is a good idea. Seriously. Rearming relics is idiotic (Someone seriously suggested reactivating the TEXAS?)

>>31830635
tuth is ship sized era could do the trick and battleship armor would be adequate backing for it.

>>31819664
>If artillery was given the funding and research planes had we might be able to bombard the other side of the world by now.
What the hell do you think an ICBM is?

>>31824556
Metal would warp.

>>31819664
>>>What are ICBM's

>>31819715
\thread
BB-63 plankowner