Nimitz VS Kuznetsov In a fair fight, who wins?

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

3MB, 1280x720px

Kuznetsov.

Can't beat demn Granits, man.

>>31869396
>In a fair fight, who wins?
>no carrier group
>no ship fighter
Kuznetsov sink Nimitz with P-700
here is your (you)

>>31869396
Ivan wins before Jamal even get's his planes in the air

>>31869396
>fair fight
It's not much of a fair fight when one is designed to be much more capable of operating solo, whilst one is designed to have entire battlegroups built around it.

>>31869410

This.

Also, there will always be a carrier group unless it gets destroyed.

The philosophy behind OPs question is similar to "why don't we train everyone to be medic-snipers?" - well, because there are specific roles assigned to different people. Teamwork is what makes things work.

And same goes for different ships too.

Would it be fair to label the Kuznetsov as an "assault carrier" considering it's mixture of aircraft and defensive/offensive weaponry?

>>31869472
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_cruiser

>>31869432
>The philosophy behind OPs question

I'm just asking which ship would win.

There's no need for your autism.

>>31869509
Hush now, adults are talking.

>>31869562

The only person talking to you is me, and I'm asking you to stop talking.

>>31869618
what are you talking aboot

>>31869407

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

What was the size of the ship it hit!?!?!?

>>31869396
If the Nimitz has her airwing, she sinks the Kuznetsov and its aircraft. If neither ship has aircraft, the Kuznetsov takes it, though she may run out of missiles doing it. American carriers are insanely tough.

>>31869396
>Nimitz
>24x RIM-7 Sea Sparrow SAM
>4x Phalanx CIWS
>12x F/A-18E Multirole
>12x F/A-18C Multirole
>6x EA-18G EWAR
>4x E-2C AEW


>Kuznetsov
>6x AK-630 CIWS
>8x Kashtan CIWS
>12x P-700 Granit AShM
>192x Kinzhal SAM
>12x Su-33 ASF
>20x MiG-29K Multirole

In a pure ship to ship scenario the Nimitz is hopelessly, utterly outclassed by the Granits. When the carrier air wings are in play, you're looking at 24 US combat airframes against 32 Russian; US EWAR and AEW means they're likely to come out on top, as the only dedicated recon platforms on the Kuz are a collection of ASW Helixes.

>>31869509
>I'm just asking which ship would win.
The Nimitz because like a coon it never rolls solo and it's sub screen will end the Kuznetsov.

>>31869710
There is no vessel in existence that can stay afloat after taking a hit from a modern AShM. Even old BBs with 16" belt armor wouldn't stand a chance. You're talking complete penetration of both sides of the hull. Fuck, I wouldn't be surprised if complete longitudinal penetration is feasible, or even probable.

>>31869716
>Nimitz
>24 fighters
u wot m8

The standard air wing calls for four squadrons of fighters - 40 to 48 planes.

>>31869716
Worth noting that each Kashtan is a pair of 30mm cannons on top of 32 SAMs.

File: heh3.jpg (22KB, 453x352px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 453x352px

>>31869733

>>31869733
Yeah, I dun goofd and forgot to list separate squadrons, only separate airframes.

>>31869716
Nice, using the max theoretical flight wing load outs for the Kuz and the minimum for the Nimitz.

Pretty sure the Kuz is sailing to Syria with less than 12 jets right now.

>>31869396
The Nimitz if you include air wings. Easily. As in not even a contest. All the anti-ship missiles in the world don't help you if the other carrier can strike you with it's air wing beyond the range of your ASMs.

>>31869754
Yeah, I already said I fucked up. I was looking for theoretical one-full-carrier-air-wing numbers but had a brain fart for the US because I was trying to remember airframes, not squadrons.

>12x USN F/A-18F ASF
>12x USN F/A-18E Multirole
>24x USMC F/A-18C Multirole
>6x EA-18G EWAR
>4x E-2C AEW

No point listing ASW or COD airframes.

>>31869758

This. Hell, the CdG, which is currently in the Med, could handily defeat the Kuznetsov when aircraft are factored in.

>>31869683
Some decommissioned cargo vessel. Somwhere between 80 and 120 meters long, I think. BTW, that was a training kinetic warhead, no explosives in missile. Makes you think...

>>31870014

Makes you think a cold war era missile is good against civilian targets and not much else.

>nb4 a Somali pirate boat gets shipwrekt'd and a hundred threads pop up about Vatnik navy superiority

>>31870014
There was two missiles and they had 700lbs of explosive....each

Current aircraft loadout for the Kuz on it's cruise to Syria.

File: Kuz Loadout.jpg (528KB, 1600x1026px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 1600x1026px

>>31870392
Fuck, image didn't load.

>>31870228
>Makes you think a cold war era missile is good against civilian targets and not much else.

No, that's really not what it makes me think.

Do you think missiles are just going to bounce off of a modern ship?

The Kuz wins because of the tactical coal smoke screen.

Can't hit what you can't see!

>>31870402
This shit is retarded.
So is it 12 or 14 planes, because apparently can't into math

File: 1475150188200.jpg (93KB, 620x670px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 620x670px

>>31870402

>conventional free fall bombs

>>31870445

It's a grade school tier infographic made by a dune coon slavaboo, what did you expect?

>>31870473
>wasting a perfectly good JDAM when you can just drop conventional munitions on top of their heads and achieve the same result

>>31870501
>wasting a perfectly good JDAM when you can just drop conventional munitions somewhere in the general area you think they are and claim you actually hit them

FTFY

>>31870501
Real talk - would defensive systems like the Phalanx, AK-630, Kashtan, or the RIM-116 be able to differentiate between guided bombs and dumb bombs, and then prioritize targets based on distance, type, incoming munition course, and ship course?

>>31870473
>>conventional free fall bombs
US has nuclear free fall bombs.

>>31870559
1. A nuclear bomb has a rather larger kill radius than a 500 pounder
2. And even then the US plans on replacing them with guided bombs.

>>31870501
>dumping whatever 40 year old expired munitions that havent already been dumped on Chechens onto the heads of Syrian bystanders in the next village over

>>31870525
>Wasting a perfectly good JDAM when you can saturate the entire area with dozens of dumb bombs for the same price

>>31870578
>guided bombs.
If they do not have propellant, then they are still free fall.

>>31870610
Naturally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkJZr49dkOA

>>31870559
he's laughing that an air force is only capable of conventional free fall bombs for a counterinsurgency operation in The Year of Our Lord 2016

>>31870613
Congratulations, the original poster used the wrong terminology for mocking them for being dumb bombs. You've saved the day.

>>31870014
Judging by the humongous petroleum fireball that came out of an area that wasn't even hit, the only thing this "makes me think" is that they packed the ship full of command-triggered secondary explosions.

>>31870611
1. Dozens of bombs are less effective against a point target than a single JDAM
2. Some militaries care about what dozens of bombs missing hit instead.

>>31870611
>making 5 sorties to (maybe) achieve the same result 1 JDAM would get you, while obliterating the general vicinity of your target

Russia stronk!

>>31870655
>Dozens of bombs are less effective against a point target than a single JDAM
Conventional warfare does not depend on point targets.
>Some militaries care about what dozens of bombs missing hit instead.
Because it's bad propaganda. It makes little sense to care about what your bombs are doing when you instigated the conflict in the first place.

>>31870655

In rebel held areas of Syria no bomb really goes to waste as the ones that go astray are going to most likely destroy infrastructure used by the "rebels" anyway.

>>31869509
Here's my interpretation of a "fair fight"
>US CBG gets a call from every friendly intelligence agency ever that spotted Kuz's CBG's combined smoke plume from fucking orbit
>US CBG sends several of its multitude of attack subs forward
>sub torpedos it from a couple hundred meters 2500nm from the CBG
>US wins, Russia calls hax
Everyone had a carrier battle group. Everyone had friendly intelligence agencies watching their back. It was as fair as possible while remaining in the realm of physically capable.

>>31870671
The Syrian conflict is an actual war, anon. They might be bumblefuck Arabs, but it's still far more symmetric than US' COIN romps. A single JDAM might wipe out a Taleban hideout or a bunch of them walking around, but it's not going to work against thousands of fanatics, spread out in uneven terrain and trenches. It's not cost-effective at all.

>>31870445
Neither.

It's somewhere between 0 and 4 because that's all they can actually get in flying order.

>>31870673
>Conventional warfare does not depend on point targets.
Yes actually it does. Conventional warfare is full of targets made out of concrete and steel where the difference between a direct hit and a miss is the difference between a destroyed and surviving target.

>. It makes little sense to care about what your bombs are doing when you instigated the conflict in the first place.
>>31870686
>In rebel held areas of Syria no bomb really goes to waste

Meanwhile you're probably the same shitposters who vigorously deny that Russia is mass killing civilians in its airstrikes.

>>31870611
...you do realize that all a JDAM is is a glide kit and GPS strapped to a conventional dumb bomb, right? They cost $25,000 each (including the original bomb). By comparison the mk82 500lb bomb is around $3,000 each.

>>31870726

>Meanwhile you're probably the same shitposters who vigorously deny that Russia is mass killing civilians in its airstrikes.

I don't deny that, it's a consequence of how this war is run.

Perhaps you should practice your whataboutism somewhere else.

>>31870746
>whataboutism
Can you vatniks learn what words mean before using them? "Whataboutism" means bringing up an unrelated incident. We're talking about Russian mass use of unguided weapons in urban areas. Mass civilian casualties is the whole fucking point.

But I don't see any point in continuing to argue with sociopaths.

>>31870611
That's not how it works. The main price of an air strike is in the aircraft's flight hours, not in the munitions expended. If a single JDAM does the job of multiple dumb bombs, you're saving money because you don't have to launch as many sorties.

>>31870473
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcIi71kJFGI

makes you think

>>31870746
It's not whataboutism you vodka soaked dipshit its killing civilian bystanders in a country that you're supposed to be pacifying for the ostensive government, because you're too cheap and poor and unconcerned to bother with the solution

Not only is it counterproductive to kill your own citizens, missing targets is not good

>>31870427

Even the missile in >>31869407 would at best scratch the paint of an Iowa class, at worst penetrate a few bulkheads not in the citadel.

An Iowa's battle bridge is surrounded with 8 inches of solid steel.

Modern ships are made of aluminium foil and an inch of kevlar in vital areas.

Modern ships get mission killed with one hit.

ARMOR OUR SHIPS DAMMIT

>>31870781
God damn you're retarded

ASM penetration is measured in feet, not inches.

No amount of practical armor is gonna stop any ASM.

>>31870781
>An Iowa's battle bridge is surrounded with 8 inches of solid steel.
17" actually.

>>31870726
>Yes actually it does. Conventional warfare is full of targets made out of concrete and steel where the difference between a direct hit and a miss is the difference between a destroyed and surviving target.
Missiles are used against tanks, bunkers and static fortifications beyond trenches are outdated and any proper fortification requires a bunker buster. There is no notable amount of such targets in Syria and if you trust the Russian media (lol) their dumb bombs are quite accurate.
Though not like any of it matters, considering they use both dumb and smart bombs.

>>31870765
Unless you want to bomb a larger area, like what Russia is doing. Aircrafts seem to be doing the artillery's job in Syria.

>>31870765
But a single JDAM is incapable of doing the job of multiple dumb bombs, since in the end it's just a single bomb. So long as the dumb bombs actually fall close enough to the target, they work. You can drop somewhere around 10 bombs for the price of a single JDAM kitted bomb.

>>31870781
>Even the missile in >>31869407 would at best scratch the paint of an Iowa class, at worst penetrate a few bulkheads not in the citadel.

*TIPS FEDORA*

>>31870802
>So long as the dumb bombs actually fall close enough to the target, they work
and this is how UN convoys die.

>>31870761
Vatniks are literally not capable of this, also when you ruin one of their claims with valid informations and logic and they get mad through this, they will call you butthurt/buttmad. Next thing they like to do is pull the "it is all the same" card: There are murders in Russia? So are there in Iceland! So Russia isnt worse then Iceland regarding murders.

>>31869396
Kutnetsov. The ship is designed to go solo - it is a cruiser withs an arsenal of ASM missiles and anti-ASM defences with air-launch slapped on top as an afterthought. The Nimitz is designed to have other ships protecting it - it cannot operate solo.

>>31870826
Should've relied on artillery instead.

>>31870802
For one thing, that's not the only problem with dumb bombs.

1. If you want ANY sort of accuracy with them you're dropping them from low altitude and in a specific pattern. This places you at risk for AA fire.

2. They have no stand-off capability, which means you're dropping that bomb extremely close to the target. Again, it places the aircraft at risk.

3. As other anons have stated, the risk for collateral damage is extremely high. Dumb bombs are completely unsuited to urban environments for this reason (and also because the useful casualty radius of a bomb will be massively lowered in an urban area or hilly rural area).

And again, you're not understanding the concept of how much the cost of the aircraft factors in. Take an F-16 with 4 dumb bombs. It can maybe strike one target, and hopefully kill it. An F-16 with 4 JDAMs on the other hand can strike 4 different targets. To (maybe) equal the strike capability of the F-16 with JDAMs you'd need 4 F-16s loaded up with dumb bombs.

Dumb bombs are almost always more expensive and a worse option to use than smart bombs. The only reason Russia doesn't do it is because they can't easily modify their iron bombs into PGMs like the US can because of the shape.

>>31870802
>Missiles are used against tanks, bunkers and static fortifications beyond trenches are outdated
Utter fucking nonsense. Any idiot can build a fighting position that is quite safe against near misses from bombs and artillery (the main threat of which is fragmentation) and such positions are everywhere in Syria and Iraq.

> any proper fortification requires a bunker buster. There is no notable amount of such targets in Syria
Ok, nevermind, I see now I'm just being trolled. Russia has already switched to using bunker busters because its destroyed so much of Aleppo's light construction that what remains are heavier concrete buildings.

> if you trust the Russian media (lol) their dumb bombs are quite accurate.
And we're now on to full shitposting. Yes, ignore decades of information on the inaccuracy of dumb bombs (especially from fucking leve bombing at medium altitude!) and trust RT.

BTW last comment you get troll: the only bombs that are truly effective for "close enough" work on targets with good side but poor overhead protection are cluster munitions. Which Russia is simultaneously using and the denying any knowledge of.

>>31870778
Let me explain why you're a faggot. Why do you think ISIS and other terrorist groups choose hospitals and schools as hideouts? Because NATO doesn't bomb them. The moment they do, what happens? It makes the news, and all of a sudden, the western people don't want to commit to war; in other words, by hiding in schools and hospitals, ISIS effectively cucks NATO before they even invade.
The situation has gotten the point where the USAF has to stop 75% of it's airstrikes - even when they have "a clear target in front of them" - because they want to avoid "collateral damage".
Russia avoids this pussy dilemma by just rolling in and bombing the fuck out of them. According to the US, they "don't care about civilian casualties whatsoever". Pretty soon, ISIS gets the strange idea that hiding in schools and hospitals isn't going to help them. Get the picture? That's why within months of the Russian campaign in Syria, the SAA was making progress - while the US bombing campaign has been so slow and so ineffective, that you could not have dropped any ordnance whatsoever and the results would have been the same.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/us-pilots-confirm-obama-admin-blocks-75-percent-of-isis-strikes/

>>31870693
As I understand it a CBG is supported by 1-2 attack boats, not 'multitudes'.

>>31870919
>Utter fucking nonsense. Any idiot can build a fighting position that is quite safe against near misses from bombs and artillery (the main threat of which is fragmentation) and such positions are everywhere in Syria and Iraq.
Which is still vulnerable to direct hits, airburst artillery (unless it has overhead cover), can be quite easily circumvented with mechanized forces, or simply destroyed with airburst munitions.
Nevermind how difficult it is to hide any of them from reconnaissance in modern warfare.
Not that the warfare in Syria really belongs to this decade, but still.

>>31870952
>That's why within months of the Russian campaign in Syria, the SAA was making progress - while the US bombing campaign has been so slow and so ineffectiv
Top kek. Which is why 90% of Russian airstrikes are nowhere near ISIS positions and meanwhile Mosul is about to fall.

>>31870952
>i got this from RT comment section
>i am super smart fucker

>>31869407
Not a problem for RIM-166 block 2.

File: 1412356819070.jpg (58KB, 632x624px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 632x624px

>>31869509

No need for your homosexuality either, you fucking faggot, yet THERE IT IS.

They don't design ships without some sort of requirements and a general idea where such large scale projects fit in the grand strategy - which means that if something appears to be missing, it is most likely present somewhere else, in some other form.

If you can't understand even the basics behind combined arms, tactics and strategies, systems composed of several smaller systems etc. then just go suck a dick.

>>31870797

Battleship armor was designed to protect against battleship shells that have more kinetic energy than any non nuclear AShM.

No way in hell is an AShM going to mission kill a battleship.

>>31870798

I stand corrected.

>>31870810

Me fedora meme

>>31870781

A modern 155mm (you know, the one on the Zumwalt) would be able to punch a hole cleanly through an Iowa's citadel. MBTs have near-thousands of inches worth of effective thickness, and these guns have been developed specifically to break them.

The only way to effectively armor a modern anything is with composites, and good luck collecting enough composites to outfit a battleship or even a destroyer.

The reaction time to stop the P-700 Missile is less then 20 seconds.

RIP Nimitz

If Nimitz attacks first, the Kuznitsov launches air superiority fighters and turns on AMS again, RIP Nimitz.

>>31871912
No, you're wrong. An hour long barrage from the AGS would barely scratch the paint on the Iowa-class; at worst it might fray some of the deck rigging IF the Zumwalt got lucky, but if the Iowa was angled it's likely it would have deflected the incoming shells.

Modern ships are made from aluminum, which is super soft compared to the steel used for WWII battleships. You know, aluminum, the stuff that soda cans are made out of. That's right, imagine making a ship out of coke cans and tell me that's going to hold up to a broadside of 16 inch guns. You can't.

And that's just the Iowa-class. Imagine if we were talking about ships like the Nagato-class or god forbid, the Yamato. Hardened steel folded a thousand times, several hundred inches thick. Nothing gets past that.

>>31869731
> No vessel in existence that can stay afloat...

This is some grade-a horseshit. Would a granit fuck up a carrier and render it combat ineffective? Absolutely. Would it actually sink the thing, barring catastrophically inept ordinance storage? Not a chance. Buoyancy does not work that way. You can blow straight through a carrier and reduce its hangar deck to a smoldering shell. It will still float.

>>31869396
"fair fight"
>this level of autism

>>31871126
>I'm not going to answer the question the thread is about!!!

ok

Modern ships are not made from Aluminum and if some of them are, then all it would take is 1 moron to slip and fall with a vial of pretty much any metal with a low melting point like Gallium.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZkzxWZETds

2nd point, You think armor will stop a heavy missile that travels at mach 6 You think the Russians are retarded and put TNT warheads on those Granite missiles?

The first hit will be an airburst on top of the Carrier, the 2nd missile will not be an airburst considering American CWIS in Incapable of shooting 2 times in quick succession.

now a 3rd missiles directly into the blowhole will be the missile to blow the bottom of the ship and sink it 4rth/5th missiles are redundant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SS-N-19.jpg

>>31870797
KE of a P-700 in terminal phase is roughly 1 GJ. KE of a AP shell from a WWII 16" gun is roughly 0.35 GJ.

The Brits hit the Bismarck with over 700 main battery shells, none of them penetrated the main armor belt (superstructure is a different matter).

The math says an AShM wouldn't do shit to the main armor on a battleship, and that's assuming WWII steel. Modern composite armor would do better.

>>31871113
>fragmentation warhead
>stopping a P-700

>>31872350
> Missiles at Mach 6.
> At sea level.

Try Mach 2, max. There is no missile or rocket that can push hypersonic velocities at sea level. You need to be in 0.1 or less atmospheres of pressure.

What the granites range verse the us squadron's
Also the Russian planes factor in.

Whoever has the longest range/best radar wins!

Unless your starting the fight WVR

>>31870686
Being a civil war, that ultimately means it's a loss of Assad's infrastructure if/when he reconsolidates control.

Where do they keep the planes if the hangar is underwater

>>31871126
>Being this triggered over nothing
If tables were turned and the question was
[US thing made for solo combat] vs [Russian thing made to rely on support] everyone would be jerking it over how awesome 'merica is.

Traveling at mach 6 and Reaching mach 6 are 2 different things.

the Granit is basically a modified ramjet, Im fairly certain it was designed to not fall apart when diving into mach 5-7.

>>31870402
I don't see the 1940s lend and lease Studebaker firetrucks.

>>31870621
Apart from the USA, that's the case for all airforces. They simply stock very few guided munitions.

Everyone loves to talk about Russian AShMs and post webms of them hitting test targets, but what's really absent here is a discussion of the historical effectiveness of Russian AShMs in real world use.

How many dozens of P-15 Termit have been fired at Western vessels over the years only to be rendered completely ineffective any time countermeasures are used with any degree of competency?

The Nimitz has absolute air supremacy over the Kuznetsov, and its anti aircraft defenses are more than enough to deal with any stragglers that make it past the hate train of F-18's.

12 granit missiles aren't going to be nearly enough to guarantee disabling the Nimitz, and once that load is blown it's just a matter of time before the defensive systems of the Kuznetsov are overwhelmed and its destroyed.

Everyone should stop pretending that the Soviet surface navy is even remotely relevant in today's world. It simply isn't. The US has a level of naval dominance that is well beyond the reach of Russia for at least the next 20 years.

with air wings the f-18s and asm have a greater range than the su-25 and its asm. So Nimitz.
without air wings a few possibilities.
1.Nimitz makes fun of the Kuznetsov ramp Kuznetsov falls into deep depression and sinks itself.
2. Nimitz turns 360 and puts it in high gear. outruns Kuznetsov until Kuznetsov runs out of firewood. Kommander of Kuznetsov suggests using vodka for engine. Crew mutinies. Nimitz wins.
3. Kuznetsov crazy ivans and rams Nimitz. Nimitz sinks. Kuznetsov rolls coal to cuba enjoying tan curvy comrades.

Oh man, That really settles the argument once and for all.

>>31872662
If I remember correctly the Su-25 variant that can fly off of the Kuz can''t carry munitions.

>>31872396
It's warhead is a bit larger than a Sidewinder's, it's not exactly small. And any less of stability is going to put the Granit into the drink.

>>31872742
you remember better than I. Meant the su-33

>>31872639
France and Britain also mostly only use PGMs.

What is air superiority.

the Early israel wars are a great lesson.

When the Egyptians baited the Israeli's into SAM traps, when the Israeli's baited Russian migs into overwhelming numbers of Mirage fighters.

Its would not be a 420 no scope ace confrontation between the Kuznitsov and the Nimitz, it would be American pilots trying to stop the only landing strip they have from going tits up.

>>31872823
And they nearly ran out during ops in Libya. Against fucking Libya.
>>31872811
You are mistaken, they can carry full load.

>>31870702
So was the Gulf war but we still put enough bombs on point targets to severely cripple their ability to fight. And you can't call dozens of fighters (on both sides) shooting haphazardly in the same general direction "an actual war". Both sides are incompetent AT BEST. If you want a war where it was a force on force fighting where both sides had parity, check out the Yugoslav Wars, tons of info regarding Divisions on either side fighting each other.

Also, you can put 40+ laser guided bombs on bomber aircraft and hit 40+ confirmed enemy locations, that'd be a hell of a lot more cost effective than inaccurately bombing and hoping you killed something.

>>31872210
>The stuff that soda cans are made of.

Consider the following: Can aluminum is .0038" thick, and can withstand 3 atmospheres of pressure, in varying temperatures, for months on end- AND it can take a palpable beating while under such pressures, including jostling in transport and drops and bangs from mishandling (intentional or no), all while remaining perfectly sealed and structurally sound.

0.0038 inches of aluminum can do all that.

Yes, an equivalent thickness of steel IS stronger, but that doesn't mean aluminum isn't strong either. If I remember correctly aluminum is something like 70-80% as strong as steel, while being significantly lighter.

TL:DR: Stop conflating soda cans with battleship armor, you twat, the thicknesses are pretty much on the opposite scales of production capability.

>>31872839

>And they nearly ran out during ops in Libya. Against fucking Libya.

Literal meme posting. The only NATO country who nearly ran out of PGMs was Denmark because they were doing an inordinate amount of bombing for their scale.

File: uss-texas-restoration.jpg (447KB, 950x754px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 950x754px

>>31871912

Uhhh.... I'm the dude you replied too.

I literally can not laugh hard enough.

Iowa's can tank like you wouldn't believe. If I had to put money on an Iowa manned by an experienced 1940s trained crew vs a Burke I'd bet the Iowa gets it in the end.

Even the USS Texas could take a ton of hits. It was built before the "all or nothing" battleship schematic was used so head to toe it's got armor.

>>31872350

Dude if you like Cody's Lab that much send him some money or scientific stuff worthy of him.

I wanna see him operate a Farnsworth Fusor.

>>31872412

True it's much harder to go supersonic in thicc atmospheres but enough thrust makes anything possible.

>>31872833

I'm actually VERY disappointed in SAMs. They are smaller, lighter, and can take g forces better.

http://youtu.be/g5PNhNEW-os

So how the fuck can a pilot dodge this many SAMs in airspace more protected than Moscow??

>>31873199

I'm the guy originally comparing modern naval armor(which doesn't exist) to coke cans.

Steel is the king of all metals. A half inch of steel armor will save your life better than a half inch of aluminium or even titanium.

File: ak 210.png (383KB, 600x875px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 600x875px

you guys are idiots
Nimitz detects Kuznetsov with E-2 and steams away at 30+ knots, and then 100 harpoons, jsows and jmals come flying over kuznetsovs horizon with jamming support and sinks it.

If the nimitz wants it plinks all of the Kuz's shitty awacs helicopters first just to fuck with them

>>31869407
your video's title is moskit. That's the sunburn, not the granit

>>31874117
>Steel is the king of all metals.

I never disagreed that steel was the best for this application, only that you're retarded for trying to make people think of aluminum as useless for armor.

It has it's place on light craft that wouldn't get battleship-grade (read: protection from naval guns and AShMs) armor by design, where it's reduced weight and, thereby, increased range, speed, maneuverability, corrosion resistance, yadda yadda yadda would all be beneficial.

>>31870781

> being this dumb

The missile if fired in a swarm and has a unique guidance mode. One of the weapons climbs to a higher altitude and designates targets while the others attack. The missile responsible for target designation climbs in short pop-ups, so as to be harder to intercept. The missiles are linked by data connections, forming a network. If the designating missile is destroyed the next missile will rise to assume its purpose. Missiles are able to differentiate targets, detect groups and prioritize targets automatically using information gathered during flight and types of ships and battle formations pre-programmed in an onboard computer.

>>31874117
>Steel is the king of all metals
NIGGA U RETARDED AS FUCK.

>>31874394
IF IT AINT STEEL IT AINT REAL FAGGOT

>>31874018
The Iowa would have no capability to shoot down incoming missiles at all. It may be tanky, but it can't tank 40 missiles and the guided gun on a Burke and still remain combat effective. It probably wouldn't still be floating, either.

>>31870536
Id like to know this as well

>>31872369
>WWII 16" gun
>The Brits hit the Bismarck with over 700 main battery shells, none of them penetrated the main armor belt

That because none of those guns were 16inch Mark 7's, even though Royal Navy 14 inch were called BL 14 Mk. VII. The only 16 inch ship present during the Sinking of Bismark was HMS Rodney with interwar BL 16 inch Mk I fired shells lighter than BL 15 inch.

I...I hope you all know Kuznetsov is TERRIBLY, ABSOLUTELY broken. She only runs on two shafts, and windmills the other two.
Her powerplant can't run everything on the ship. The glorious 50Hz power is all fucked up.
Her planes can either take off - 1. Full weapons, Half fuel ; 2. Half Weapons, Full Fuel, the exception being the Helixes, and they are literally flying recon platforms. Their dipping sonar does not work. Not active, not passive. It's for show.

>>31874240

You're right. But steel is best.

>>31874377

So long as one dollar of defense can stop ten dollars of offence, I'm happy for the time being. Besides, Russia and European states are our ALLIES.

>>31874394

Titanium is too expensive and new. It's light but thousands of years of reasonable research says steel is best. Titanium and aluminium need development.

>>31874854

Iowa's can land more tons of ordinance on a target per hour than anything else. To this day they are the best we have. 50 American bombers can't match one Iowa in a bombardment scenario.

>>31875002

Get good son.

>>31875319
Looking at your comments, I just realized you either have the reading comprehension of a third grader, or you are
>only pretending guise

Why are BBfags so god damn retarded?

>>31875319
>Iowa's can land more tons of ordinance on a target per hour than anything else.

It's not the 40's, saturation attacks are no longer needed just to hit your target.

File: Tips Top Hat.gif (414KB, 315x176px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 315x176px

>>31874018

>If I had to put money on an Iowa manned by an experienced 1940s trained crew vs a Burke I'd bet the Iowa gets it in the end.

Iowa appears on radar. Burke crewman presses button launching two harpoon missiles. The first harpoon hit cripples the Iowa and the second harpoon sends her to the bottom with no survivors.

>>31875319

>50 American bombers can't match one Iowa in a bombardment scenario.

>What are nukes?

>>31870729
All of which is moot when carrier sorties cost 20k+ hourly, and a single sortie can take between 2 and 10 hours.

>>31869509
That said if two carriers were to duke it out; are there any characters out there that actually have armament capable of sinking another ship?

>>31869509

>I'm just asking which ship would win.

The Kuznetsov would fire a series of P-700 Granit missiles, which would sink the Nimitz pretty quickly.

Now if the ships are allowed to carry planes, then it is a different story. The Nimitz can carry far more aircraft. Hornets would easily hunt down the Kuznetsov and sink it with Harpoon missiles.

>>31875319
This is genuinely more entertaining than the shitposting by vat/fat/50niks

>>31875691
>The Kuznetsov would fire a series of P-700 Granit missiles, which would sink the Nimitz pretty quickly.

Does the Phalanx system not work against these?

>>31875720

The P-700 is a gigantic supersonic anti-ship cruise missile designed to murder aircraft carriers in a single hit. It can also carry nuclear warheads. Even if Phalanx does take out the missile's electronics, the kinetic impact alone will do a lot of damage regardless of whether the missile warhead actually detonates or not.

Also, I have yet to encounter a single person who is confident that Phalanx can actually stop missiles. There is a reason why it is being rapidly phased out and replaced with better systems like ESSM and Rim-116.

File: USS Green Bay Fires Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM).webm (1MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x360px

>>31875788
I'm not sure, but aren't most Nimitz these days equipped with SeaRAM launchers instead of Phalanx?

>>31875372

Why can't sheet metal fags realize paper thin metal can not take an ASM hit? Are they that retarded?

>>31875373

A stock Iowa can drop as many tons of ordinance as 50 B1 bombers per hour.

>>31875383

OH MY GOD

THE PAINT HAS TAKEN DAMAGE!!!

>>31875395

>I don't know about 16 inch nuclear shells
>the post

Yes, we have battleships in the mothball fleet that can can fire nukes and take on any missile.

>>31874018
If it was outfitted with some CWIS maybe but it has 0 missile defense you nub

File: 1472262034408.png (1MB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x720px

>>31875918

Strongly consider suicide. You are wrong and you are not interested in learning from people who know better. There is no reason for you be here.

>>31875918
You a absolutely retarded.
Iowa would lose. Every time.
The Burke can just lol out of Iowas range and lob missiles, which WILL destroy the Iowa. Stop being such a battleship fag.

>>31869716

>When the carrier air wings are in play, you're looking at 24 US combat airframes against 32 Russian

Is this some kind of joke?

>>31875925
>CWIS

>>31876041
Ftfy
4-12 working Russian planes
~40 working American planes

>>31875843
The air defenses the Nimitz carriers possess varies wildly. All of them have 2 Rim-116 I believe, and generally 2-3 Phalanx. Some of them have the old Sea Sparrow, and some are getting retrofitted with ESSM. The USS Nimitz itself just got retrofitted with Mk 38s, though their ability against cruise missiles is pretty limited, and they're more likely there for swarm defense.

The Ford btw has 2 Rim-116 (total of 42 missiles), 2 Phalanx, and 2 ESSM (total of 32 missiles).

>>31875843
>>31876110
Also to add to that, there's a difference between SeaRAM and the normal RAM. SeaRAM has the Phalanx's independent radar and targeting system, and is a much smaller overall package. The standard RAM relies on the ship's radar and carries more missiles. SeaRAM has only been fitted on the LCS and some Burkes as a Phalanx replacement.

File: carrier group.jpg (931KB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

931KB, 4288x2848px

A carrier's offensive capability is not based on it's point defense and missile compliment, but in it's air wing and the force projection they can provide. This is why the non-nuclear limited compliment Russian aircraft carriers will NEVER be on par with a Nimitz or Gerald R. Ford class carrier. Using Nuclear power allows 30% of the space that would house diesel fuel to be used to house aircraft. No ski jump means you can launch more types of air craft further increasing your capabilities.
This is like comparing diesel subs to nuclear subs, they are in completely different leagues. Ruskibros can try to argue the ships defences are better on their carriers, but that is becasue they tend to operate more independently and RELY on those when US. carriers are in fucking battle-groups with other ships providing the umbrella so the carrier can do it's job of carrying fucking aircraft. Stay BTFO vatniks, but carrier operations are not cheap and this is why only the United States of America can maintain 11 such carrier groups while you and China are struggling to play catch up with out dated tactics designs and ships.

>>31869783
USMC and legacy hornets are a rarity in fleet anymore. Some carriers don't even have either.

>>31875925

It doesn't need missile defense. Tanks don't need to protect themselves against bullets the same way battleships don't need missile defense. Even in WW2 when everyone knew carriers were the future, admirals chose battleships as flagships.

>>31875981

Enjoy surviving a missile assault in a ship that can't even bounce .50 cal rifle shots.

>>31876002

The Iowa's were an improvement of the "all or nothing" armor design. They were designed around something like the "floating raft" armor scheme IIRC which means you could blow off half the ships length and it would still float.

That is amazing when you realize how much steel you'd have to blow apart to even get to that point.

An Iowa was designed to lose HALF the ship and still float.

Fuck your missiles. Those are like trying to kill an elephant with a pellet gun.

File: iowa-armor.jpg (66KB, 800x350px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x350px

>>31875918
There are no battleships in the Mothball fleet you fucking retard, the four Iowa class were transferred to non-profit organizations and turned into museums as of 2012. To deflate your autistic dreams even further the last W23 shell developed for the Mark 7 16''/50 cannon was taken out of service in 1963, those warheads were likely dismantled and recycled into other warheads long ago in the late 1960's.

Hell a Harpoon could just be set to terminal attack mode and it would likely smack into a ships deck armor, which on the Iowa class is relatively light and would likely be penetrated. There were always worries about this even when the Iowa and it's predecessor the South Dakotas were being designed and it was acknowledged that it was an issue. Just skip the belt armor and go through the top.

>>31876245
Not exactly a rarity, but definitely less than the Super Hornets. Most have a 3-1 Super to Legacy ratio.

The Reagan, Stennis, and Roosevelt have gone All Super Hornet though, and we should see the rest of the Legacy Hornets kick the bucket once the F-35C hits IOC.

File: 800px-Italian_battleship_Roma_(1940)_starboard_bow_view[1].jpg (84KB, 800x437px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 800x437px

>>31876317

>battleships don't need missile defense.

Tell that to the Roma.

Oh wait. You can't because she was sunk by a missile.

>>31876331
Compared to a decade ago, they're definitely a rarity- and that's when most of them should have been retired. When there were only a handful of Tomcat squadrons left, there wasn't any doubt about it either, these girls are done.

>>31876318

>oh noes, a missile took out one cafeteria and a dentist office!!
>ABANDON SHIP!! I NEEDS MUH ICE CREAM AND TOOTH CHECKUPS!!!!

Your not actuality aware 70 year old bomb designs are more of a threat to battleships than modern missiles....

That is damn sad.

>>31876358

I wouldn't call that a missile. Or a bomb.

State of the art tech like wire guidance was used to kill the Guido's battleship.

And if it didn't work sub's would have sunk it. Fuck, WW1 battleships could have fucked it up.

File: VatnikReaction.gif (364KB, 369x259px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 369x259px

>>31869716
>24 US combat airframes
>On the Nimitz

>>31870954
In known peaceful waters they're escorted by 2-3.

In known hostile waters or in times of declared conflict it can range from 3-15. At one point during the Gulf War the Brits confirmed the US had 17 submarines, at least 11 of which were confirmed to be Los Angeles class attack subs. And we only had 1 carrier in the Gulf at the time.

That's the great thing about a battle group: It's dynamic. You have a few core ships (carrier, screening destroyers, at least 1 resupply ship) and the rest can be interchanged as needed to fit assumed threats.

So for this scenario, I guess "multitudes" would be at least an optimistic estimate if not an exaggeration. But possible.

>>31876481
The Nimitz carriers more fucking helicopters than that.

>>31876495
*carries

>>31876407

Whatever you call it, Fritz X was a precursor to modern anti-ship missiles and it was able to take out a heavily armored battleship quite easily. The Roma was over 45,000 tons at full load with 14-inch belt armor. If a WW2 era glide bomb and sink a battleship that big so easily, then there is absolutely no way that a similar battleship would be able to survive against modern anti-ship missiles.

>>31875720
Probably not due to the fact they're multi-ton monstrosities capable of doing severe damage if not outright killing a carrier simply through kinetic impact, but the Granit would have to get through the SM-2's, SM-6's, RIM116's, Sea Sparrows, and potentially other missiles from both the Nimitz and its corresponding screen of anti-air destroyers first.
>b-but I didn't say they could have their whole CBG's!
Too bad. Under no circumstances other than a surprise attack at drydock in a CONUS harbor would a US carrier not have its escorts.

>>31876384
I'm well aware of the fact a dumb bomb dropped from a relatively low altitude is fully capable of causing severe damage to an Iowa class battleship, hell JDAM's could cause severe damage by simply dropping into the gun director mounts and rendering the ship completely blind, or hitting the stern and causing damage to the propeller shafts and leaving the ship dead in the water.

But what I was talking about is a top attack ASM impact, you don't seem to realize that the Iowa class belt armor stops one deck below the main deck and the armored deck isn't composed of Krupp Cemented steel like the main belt, it is composed of 'Class B' steel and STS structural steel. This means your average pop-up profile missile doesn't have to deal with much armor and can completely bypass the belt armor of the ship. Mind you underneath that deck is a lot more than an ice cream parlor and utility offices, clustered around the center of the ship are relatively lighter armored secondary battery magazines, generator rooms, gun director wiring trunks, radar control stations. All things that the ship needs to be fully functional. Hell even hits to the superstructure that didn't breach the armor would destroy the radar systems of an Iowa class vessel and reduce it's primary and secondary gun directors back to visual fire direction and depending on damage to the visual rangefinders it might reduce it to individual turret control with the backup rangefinders, Mind you the Bismarck suffered this fate early in it's final battle due to a severed director trunk from small caliber shells and it then proceeded to not score a single meaningful hit the entire battle. So a battleship might luck out and survive an engagement with a single Burke or what have you, but it would be highly unlikely the battleship would score a single hit of any sort and would likely be 'mission-killed' with no functional radar or gun director functionality and be forced to retire for repairs.

Just to add to what is saying:

>>31876790

The "Reactivated" versions of the Iowa-class with cruise missiles onboard had a problem where firing the main guns would actually screw with the newer electronic systems onboard the ship. They just weren't intended for 21st century warfare.

>>31876790
Let's throw fun kink in here for Captain Retard to think about, if the Burke got really creative and they were so equipped they could probably shit out an ASROC and watch and see the fun of a Mk.46 torpedo mangling the screws of the ship. It doesn't take much to cause propeller shaft damage to any ship and the Mk.46 could do that handily. Hell a LAMPS III could even wander around and poop Mk.46's into the water outside of the range of the Iowa's secondaries and scuttle away. Not a hard job to fuck over a ship with relatively unarmored sensor systems and absolutely zero anti-air or AMS systems. Oh sorry, the 1980's refit added some lockers with Stingers for the sailors to wave around.

>>31869716
Holy shit kids, the "muh scenario stands" nigger is back!!!

>>31876544

It was a lucky hit. Besides, battleship design did not have time to adapt to planes.

>>31876550

>phalanx and missiles can't shoot down a Granite
>people swear point defense can shoot down battleship shells

...... Fuck this ignorance.

>>31876790

Yea, the Iowa's are fossils. Imagine what we could build today. We haven't built armored warships for the better part of a century because planes and missiles got all the funding. You underestimate how strong we can make ships with current tech. Damn shame we won't and if we do they'll likely be erroneous prototypes. :c

>>31876841

Oh, wow. A tiny little torpedo against solid steel on a moving target. How are you going to get a strike that accurate anyways and what are you going to do after you've exhausted your missiles? The Iowa will run you down and wreck your shit.

Those things carried so much fuel to this day the USS Arizona is leaking oil after 70 years under the water.

>>31877218
>A tiny little torpedo against solid steel on a moving target.
read as:
>I have no idea how modern torpedoes work

>>31877235

>I have no idea WW2 torpedoes had larger warheads
>I have no idea about bulkheads and torpedo belts

Even WW2 destroyers took multiple hits from 14 inch shells to an engine broom and kept sailing.

Example- look at cars built in the 50s-70s. Pure Detroit steel. On a head on collision with a modern car, the brand new car would wrap around that 50 year old car like it hit a telephone pole.

We do not build things like we used to.

>>31877296

>engine broom

Please GiB monies so I can get a better autocorrect :(

>>31877296
This thread is a literal meme.

File: 1274726613677.png (17KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x400px

>>31877296
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

>>31869407
Wow superficial damage to a ship that isn't actively defending itself

File: 1402451031625.png (388KB, 715x579px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 715x579px

>expect vatniks
>get BBfag instead

>>31877218
>>people swear point defense can shoot down battleship shells
>...... Fuck this ignorance.


Holy fuck anon, learn to read. No one said CWIS could shoot down battleship shells you moron, you god damn idiot.

More importantly, CRAM is capable of shooting down mortar shells with pretty good accuracy, they could certainly hit 16" shells. It wouldn't do much to the shell, but the could hit it for sure.

>>31877296
you're really fucking stupid, aren't you?

Like, your stupidity is of an extraordinary variety.

>>31877296
You do realize a Mk.46 torpedo is an acoustic torpedo and would likely hit the screws or very near them? In a location far away from the torpedo defenses and in a relatively lightly armored location, they didn't consider it a concern because it would be a fluke for screw damage to occur in an era of dumb fire torpedos.

Also a car built in the 1950's will usually kill it's occupants in a head on crash with much of anything, hell the structural steel used in 1940's era ships is the exact same structural steel used in modern vessels. Probably built in the same forges you autistic dipshit.

The reason no one builds your 'oh so cool' 21st century battleship is a 45,000 ton investment that has to close to within 50nm of a target to provide direct gunnery support is the dumbest fucking idea in the universe. A single 'battleship' would require a full escort like a carrier and provide much less force projection than any carrier could. No one would want to exchange a carrier than can project it's full firepower hundreds of miles in exchange for a ship with a combat effective range of maybe 35nm on a good day.
There's a reason the US Navy kept thinking of ways to retrofit the Iowa with ballistic missiles or ASM, or even making them into close support hybrid carriers. It never even came close to being cost effective and that's why the 1980's 'upgrade' was such a slapped together affair.

Please go back into your dark hole and keep your furious BB masturbating to yourself.

>>31877218
T B H famalamadingdong battleships of that size in modern times would just be future coral reefs. Your argument literally revolves around a boat shrugging off at LEAST 8 missiles and still putzing along like nothing happened.

>>31877310
I'll give you monies so you can go enroll in a logic 101 and Naval Tactics for beginners class and get your head out of your ass.

>>31877296
We don't build things like we used to and that's a good thing. Past all the nostalgia, shit back in the day was cumbersome and not reliable. Ask anybody who wasn't a aircraft/car mechanic or worked on keeping machines running, they'll tell a different story.

Fellow anons, I'm trying to think who are the retards of the board, I've been thinking of them all day but I'm not sure if i missed any.

Listerine: Talks about nonsense

My scenario stands guy: attempts to prove his point with blatantly rigged scenarios

Battleship guy (guys?): talks about battleships, sticks head in ground when presented with facts

That dude a few days ago who was going off about having cranes on ships. He probably jerks off to deep water ports.

Gavins, nuff said

Glider guy

>>31877566
>guns
a modern battleship would have a shitload of missiles and a shitload of armor and 20+ CIWS. It would likely be constructed in an all or nothing fashion incorporating blowout pannels so a direct hit and detonation of a magazine would only blow half the ship off, the other half would remain operational.

File: 2523887-7720717482-e496c.jpg (28KB, 494x358px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 494x358px

>>31875161
And most of the tread.

>>31877592
That guy who insists IFVs and APCs should be replaced by trailers towed into battle by tanks. May or may not be Gavinfag.

It would take at least seven years to design, build and commission battleship.

But less than half of that to create a missile capable of killing it.

Why spent billions to make DOA ships, while you could focus on best kind of defense - not getting hit?

>>31877344

>oh wow, propaganda from a bailout corporation.
Wooow.

>>31877398

That's my point. You can't shoot down a shell that weighs over a ton.

>>31877504

I'm sure people thought the Wright bros and Da Vinci were madmen too.

>>31877566

>Also a car built in the 1950's will usually kill it's occupants in a head on crash with much of anything, hell the structural steel used in 1940's era ships is the exact same structural steel used in modern vessels.

Oh yea, Detroit is well known for its booming economy and the navy gets its steel there. Detroit certainly isn't a wasteland of abandoned factories and condemned suburbs. Damn shame. FAGGOT.

>The reason no one builds your 'oh so cool' 21st century battleship is a 45,000 ton investment that has to close to within 50nm of a target to provide direct gunnery support is the dumbest fucking idea in the universe

True of 70 year old technology. Not true today. We could build artillery ships using modern tech with such long range they could virtually never leave port and still provide fire support to troops.

>>31877592

Moderns missiles are not designed to kill armored targets.

You get your head out of your ass. These demonstrations of modern missiles are like showing WW2 tanks can take on a modern MBT because they can destroy a Prius.

>shit back in the day was cumbersome and not reliable. Ask anybody who wasn't a aircraft/car mechanic or worked on keeping machines running, they'll tell a different story.

You can rebuild a 50 year old motor with a screwdriver and pliers. Things are more complicated these days and harder to fix.

>>31877595

Or it could just use electronically ignited propellants and not worry about magazine detonations.

Look y'all have no idea what we can create these days. Example- Trump wants to build a wall around the border but walls are obsolete. Area 51 and Fort Knox have fucking FENCES and nothing is gonna get through those.

You just have no idea how ignorant you are of what we have

>>31877778

Making an armored ship that can take hits and shoot down mach 7 missiles means the enemy ships can not carry as many missiles. A cruiser sized ship could carry like a couple and that's it.

Yes. A missile could be designed to kill it. But it would force their enemy to retrofit every ship they have so they can actually use that missile, and that leaves less room for AA missiles, ASROCs, etc.

We are talking ICBM sized missiles here in order to sink a floating tank.

*unsheathes broadside*
*teleports behind you*
>nothing personnel ship

>>31870501

> getting rid of old surplus munitions.

>dropping them on muslims


based russia

Wait... Am I being retarded? I thought the Kuznetsov had armed nuclear missiles under the flight deck?

I bet modernized Iowas could be an even match for airborne Gavins. Now that'd be a good war.

>>31871113

nothing exists that can stop a p700/p800 in its dive at hypersonic speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=294by85-JqU&spfreload=10

>>31877218
>Oh, wow. A tiny little torpedo against solid steel on a moving target.

You're not supposed to hit the fucking hull. Torpedos run just under the keel so that in detonation they create a massive void underneath the ship that breaks it's back.

>>31877843
Many missile are designed to hit armored targets. And like that other anon said, they don't just hit near the waterline, the have many different attack profiles to hit from above. Not to mention newer generation missiles which can target actual subsystems on ships. Your guns won't be effective if your CIC or antennas are taken out.

The bit about 50 year old cars, its confirmation bias, the only people still rocking those cars are people who know exactly how to take care of it when it breaks. Things now are much easier to fix, you plug it into a computer and swap out the parts, assuming it (the car) doesn't tell you it's broken beforehand. It's one of the reason were getting rid of the A-10 because it's just a pain to keep them flying with limited resources which are dwindling rapidly.

Other anons are right though, a battleship would be a waste of money. In order for it to be effective you'd need to get it within 100kms of its target, assuming it could even make the journey without having its keel broken by a torpedo.

You seem to be unable to come to the realization that a battleship is a atrocious investment in this era. What if they launched 30-40 missiles at you? What then? Are you going to shrug them all off?

File: tu-22m3 with kh-22 (1).jpg (675KB, 1200x853px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1200x853px

>>31870781
ATGM with 4kg warhead from the fucking 70s can penetrate Iowa without problems. Moskit warhead is 80 times heavier and stuff like Kh-22 has 1000kg (one literal metric fuckton) HE warhead that will tear your beloved BB in half. Battleships are dead. Fucking deal with it.

>>31877843
Jelico had the entire high seas fleet dead to rights at Jutland. Instead of possibly finishing the job he turned and ran. He retreated the entire Grand fleet not out of fear of being shelled by the germans but because of those shittly little torpedos. Like it or not they were a paradigm shift for naval warfare just like airplanes and now missiles.

>>31869396
Nimitz turns away from the Kiznetsov and keeps running. Eventually vodkacarrier runs out of fuel and power for AA systems. Nimitz doesn't because nuclear. Nimitz sends a chopper over to accept vodkacarrier's surrender. Nimitz tows vodkacarrier to Norfolk.
/fight

>>31872768
Missiles this big can tank a whole Sparrow and up to 2-3 Sidewinders.

>>31877978
last i read the A10 line was getting refitted so extend life and save uncle sam $$$

>>31878118
Hypersonic dive at low altitude?

The dynamic pressure on the missile is off the charts, even smallest damage would disintegrate it.

>>31878128
Yeah, and it's a huge mistake, they'll need to restart production of a plane that hasn't been in production for over literally 30 years. Not to mention it'll take a lot to rework everything so it can actually drop some modern and next generation weapons.

>>31877352
>Granits
lmao this guy from the other thread

>>31876167
I'd hate to be that pilot after the navy found out he was 30ft further left than they wanted...

>>31878130
Supersonic, not hypersonic.

>>31870237
glad im not the only one who counted projectiles

>>31878185
Sorry, got confused with Tsirkon.

But still, the missile destruction by Sidewinder warhead explosion is more likely than not.

The hard part is hitting it.

>>31870402
cool, i was wondering what aircraft you guys used on hospitals.

>>31870536
Depends what the "smart" weapons are using... the human eye might not be able to tell but the right sensors might see it clear as day. I agree with your thought though.

>>31878206
The thing about these fuckhuge missiles is that the kinetic energy is so large the interceptor simply doesn't put enough force to it. Add to that that Granits are armoured.

>>31870611
plus every bomb that doesn't det gets rigged to a shit taxi and returned to sender or innocent eventually

>>31878229
It might sound counter intuitive, but the bigger and the faster, the more fragile is the missile.

And it's the first time I hear about armor on P-700. I always thought it relied on speed, unique flight profile and possible ECM as defense.

>>31870919
Concussion. Odds are they find you with no obvious blast injuries only blood from your eyes/ears/nose ect. Or you survive only to die from pulmonary contusion a few days later. Enjoy your short time as the walking dead.

>>31872662
lol'd

>>31878138
never said it was a good plan...

>>31878058
If the vodka carrier doesn't breakdown first then yeah this is the most likely scenario.

File: 3m45 p-700 granit warhead.jpg (48KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x667px

>>31878250
The heavier and faster the missile is the more kinetic energy it has and the more kinetic energy is required to affect its trajectory. It's basic physics.

File: Belgrano-Sunk-copy2.jpg (87KB, 893x581px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 893x581px

>>31877843
No, I was fine with you saying retarded, obviously wrong shit about how anti-ship missiles won't do anything to battleships because you can't accept the idea that people have found more effective methods of warfare that just sticking more armor and explodey bits onto our ships.

But you should not be allowed to spread this kind of criminal ignorance about old cars made of "pure detroit steel". That's romanticized bullshit, and every goddamn automaker in the world has realized it by now. You've clearly never seen a crash test video, or seen a few car accidents, or even worked on a car to any degree. The structure of a car is so much more important than what it's made from, which is why basically any modern car made of aluminum will suffer far less intrusion than almost any older, heavier vehicle made of steel.

You should probably just stop being so generally retarded. The Yamoto and Musashi were both sunk by conventional airdropped munitions, and a bunker-busting JDAM would easily hole an Iowa-class battleship, and anti-ship missiles will penetrate armor, especially if they hit in the right places. I'm not saying that US ships shouldn't have more armor, but almost everything you've said thus far has been completely retarded and not based on available evidence. If it were cheap and practical to just put more armor on ships, the Russians would have already done it.

>people saying that ASM couldn't penetrate 300-400mm of steel
Lel, early Cold-war shells have more penetration than than, not to mention ATGMs.

>>31878534
What you say is true for the terminal distance.

But there are a few "buts"
-missiles don't fly at ballistic curve towards the target
-the missile after getting hit would still disintegrate like XB-70 - the airframe is totally not protected, with a big empty section between warhead and control.
- any damage would change aerodynamic characteristics of the missile making it way harder to hit intended target (not to mention some cruise missile would self-destruct at that point).

As log as you intercept P-700 from a few kilometers away, you are safe.

>>31878575
Of course I'm not saying it will fly 100nmi after tanking a hit.

>>31878664
If an ASM takes a hit, it won't do much damage. Attitude and warhead integrity means a lot. That's why you don't fire a single ASM, you fire a lot of them, so at least a few go through.

>>31870525
>>31870473
It's only taxpayer dollars!

Team Hillary needs people like you.

>>31878676
It is sure true if we are talking about subsonic 600kg missiles with disparagingly small momentum like Kh-35, Exocet or Harpoon. But a heavy supersonic missile has a lot of kinetic energy and can tank quite a big hit before altering its trajectory or speed.

>>31877218

>Besides, battleship design did not have time to adapt to planes.

This is completely and utterly wrong. Planes were not a new thing in WW2. Every battleship used in the war was completely covered in AA guns. The Yamato had so many AA guns that attacking pilots described it as looking like a "volcano of fire."

>>31874854
What about the Iowa modernized with 4 cwis

File: USS_Alabama_BB8_struck_by_phosphorous_bomb_Chesapeake_Bay_1921.jpg (2MB, 5676x4508px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5676x4508px

>>31877218
>battleship design did not have time to adapt to planes.
Just 20 years.

>>31880826
>What about the Iowa modernized with 4 abandon ship alarms

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

2MB, 320x240px

>>31877218
>A tiny little torpedo against solid steel on a moving target.

I invite you to watch this .gif

File: 934d51f1f34bd1fcb0161bee6d987e4a18abf93cdf5abef9cb27188960d20186.png (561KB, 647x457px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 647x457px

>>31870781
>Even the missile in >>31869407 would at best scratch the paint of an Iowa class
You can't be this retarded

>>31877352
>superficial
>fire ball comes out the otherside of the ship

Superficial in the same way that the bullet JFK took was superficial to the front of his face.

>>31878904
Yeah too bad it had shitty fire control

>>31883979

I never said it was good AA, but only that they had a lot of AA.

Really, I'd say that only American & British battleships really had good AA during the war. Proximity fuses were a boon. And yes, fire control was a big help as well.

>>31869396
>Nimitz plays around with the Kuznetsov until krunzi runs out of fuel
>krunzi is now lyind dead in the water
>A-6 Intruder are closing in
>jamming the shit out of krunzi
>48 F-18 incoming waiting for some su's to start
>all su's shot down
few hours later
>48 f-18 are coming again
>A-6 are still jamming
>96 harpoons are incoming
3
2
1
bye

File: ea-18g-growler-002.jpg (95KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1200x800px

>>31884482
>Intruder

You mean Growler right?

>>31884542
The scenario stands.

>>31884033
"Lots of AA"
Son you need to read up about a certain naval disaster in WW2 in the Pacific.
And honestly more about naval encounters in WW2 in general.

Here, here's your first link for free.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Prince_of_Wales_(53)

>>31884606

This is because I included "Britain" isn't it?

You win this round bucko.

>>31878763

Hillary Rodham Clinton is responsible for US doctrine calling for the use of precision guided weapons.

Neat.