Hurr durr reactivate Iowa-class

Not to mention that by carrying those gigantic worthless guns and their stupid shells a battleship deprives itself of invaluable space that could've been taken by much more useful weapons like anti-air missiles, rendering it even more worthless and obsolete.

>>31898685
Nine (9) railguns.

>>31898784
>railguns

G I M M I C K
I
M
M
I
C
K

File: 1475097669684.png (428KB, 558x744px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 558x744px

>>31898792
>Mach 7 ballistic projectiles with 160km range
>gimmick

>>31898784
>>31898801
Still not enough. A missile cruiser will blow you out of the water 150 kilometers before you can do anything about it, and because you wasted space on those giant railguns, spare rails and ammunition, you don't have anti-air missiles to protect against them, and you have been sunk. Additionally, a railgun slug can't carry significant thermonuclear or biochemical payload.

File: Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg (1MB, 2030x1297px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2030x1297px

>>31898808
Have you ever heard of the term battle group? Naval ships, much like everything in a military setting do not operate on their own. These hypothetical railgun ships would most certainly be surrounded by battle groups very similiar to CSGs.

>you don't have anti-air missiles to protect against them,
Oh please. Lack of space my ass.

Armament:

World War II, Korea:
9 × 16-inch (406 mm)/50 cal. Mark 7 guns
20 × 5-inch (127 mm)/38 cal. Mark 12 guns
80 × 40 mm/56 cal. Bofors
49 × 20 mm/70 cal. Oerlikon
Cold War, Gulf War additions:
32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk
16 × RGM-84 Harpoon
4 × 20 mm (.78 inch).Phalanx CIWS

Iowa has missiles.

Reactivating a nearly 100 year old hull is a stupid idea though

Fuck off. A new design or modernizing the Iowas would be outstanding. Installation of rail guns on the 5" mounts, more tomahawk batteries, some VLS cells on the 3rd turret emplacement for surface-to-air engagement, utilizing new USB technology for spotting targets, it would be great.

At best: the US has a massively improved and more versatile Kirov equivalent that actually works

At worst: We have a very large and heavy Arleigh Burke equivalent, except this one had a torpedo belt that makes it invulnerable to modern armaments.

Literally 0 downsides.

>>31898817
The question still stands - what possible advantage would a gun of any type do so much better as to justify taking enormous space it would take. It certainly doesn't have the range, or the destructive capability.
>>31898824
Rail guns is a meme that will fall into obscurity soon enough. There is no way to make those rails durable enough to withstand more than a handful of shots.

File: 60_big.jpg (70KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 700x467px

>>31898824
>Literally 0 downsides.
No matter how much better it would perform than the Kirov, it would never be as sexy.

File: 01b.jpg (306KB, 630x493px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 630x493px

>>31898685
You are fooling no one, moron.
Stop with these bullshit threads.

>>31898801
>unguided naval fire
>not obsolete

pick one

>>31898827
>The question still stands - what possible advantage would a gun of any type do so much better as to justify taking enormous space it would take. It certainly doesn't have the range, or the destructive capability.
The capability of launching small, extremely penetrating hypersonic projectiles that cannot be intercepted by traditional means. What are you going to do to stop a salvo of them? Fire missiles that can't hit or stop them? Try to stop non-explosive projectiles with CIWS that at best would just push them off course a bit, still landing on your ship?

How do you seriously suggest one would defend against them? The only viable option would be to get out of range or deploy your own railgun systems.

>>31898839
>unguided
Guided projectiles are planned and a continuous salvo of 9 guns firing at a large target like a cruiser or carrier is going to bring you some hits.

>>31898824
It wouldn't be a Kirov equivalent. Kirov is shit because it is obsolete as far as electronics go, but the Soviets doubled down on missiles, and that was the right thing to do. What's better: a worthless railgun that can't reach its target because it has only half the range of a missile at best, or an anti-ship missile carrying a nuclear warhead?

File: _90356589_south_china_sea_spratlys.png (49KB, 624x580px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 624x580px

>>31898847
>What's better: a worthless railgun that can't reach its target because it has only half the range of a missile at best, or an anti-ship missile carrying a nuclear warhead?
Why not both? The navy is planning on deploying railguns for medium range attack and defence, leaving long range targets for missiles.
Hell, imagine the possibilities for coastal artillery and defence. You could protect coastal regions and islands with extreme effectiveness with these things.

>>31898846
No, retard. Your hypothetical cruiser, along with its entire battlegroup will be taken out in the middle of the ocean of by a rain of anti-ship missiles, sea and air launched, 100 kilometers before you get a chance to fire your retard guns, which would break after 5 shots anyway. And you will not be able to counter those missiles because you wasted space on your cruisers and destroyers by putting railguns on them, and those extra 100 missiles you could've had is the difference than made the enemy kill you without taking a scratch.
>>31898849
How exactly will they protect anything if their targets would be more than a hundred kilometers out of range?

File: Baltic_Sea_map.png (672KB, 1493x1598px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 1493x1598px

>>31898858
>No, retard. Your hypothetical cruiser, along with its entire battlegroup will be taken out in the middle of the ocean of by a rain of anti-ship missiles, sea and air launched, 100 kilometers before you get a chance to fire your retard guns, which would break after 5 shots anyway. And you will not be able to counter those missiles because you wasted space on your cruisers and destroyers by putting railguns on them, and those extra 100 missiles you could've had is the difference than made the enemy kill you without taking a scratch.
Uh-huh. So the organic missile defences found on these ships just disappear into thin air? Same as the aircrafts on carriers.
Why does the situation bend itself around to support your arguments and point of view? This is hardly fair.

>How exactly will they protect anything if their targets would be more than a hundred kilometers out of range?
>more than a hundred kilometers out to sea
>coastal
Now you're just being facetious.

>>31898846
Anon, I know words like hypersonic make your pepee hard - but please sit down and do the math.
Even at an average speed of mach 10 the projectiles are a considerable time in the air. You will have a hard time hitting a moving target.

>Guided projectiles are planned ...

Citation needed. Not that easy to fit a guidance system in a projectile that can withstand hypersonic air speed.

>>31898874
>You will have a hard time hitting a moving target.
If they change direction, sure. Move in the same direction with spotters looking at the ships and it's a very effective weapon. Maybe not in blue water, but the US already completely dominates those. Railguns would find their true worth in green water, like the Baltics, Black Sea, South China Sea. Ordinary coastal artillery is still in use in many places and it fills a role that would be much more effective with these new weapon systems.

>citation
You could've just Google it, you lazy bum.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2001/March/Pages/Naval_Guns7095.aspx

>>31898896
The benefit of railguns would be the extended range - have you tried spotting something 50nm and farther?
And coastal artillery is a bad idea in this day and age - a shiny new railgun site would be the primary target for a preemptive missile strike.

>You could've just Google it, you lazy bum.
Oh boy, an article from 2001 and still no sign of even a prototype.
inb4 muh black projects

>>31898932
>And coastal artillery is a bad idea in this day and age - a shiny new railgun site would be the primary target for a preemptive missile strike.
Assuming they are visible and their locations are known. They're a good, cheap budget defence system that requires a direct missile hit to take out. They're naturally outclassed by missiles, but they still have their role in coastal defence against landing craft as well as whatever vessels come too close to shore.

>Oh boy, an article from 2001 and still no sign of even a prototype.
Yeah, it's almost like the railguns themselves haven't been deployed yet.

>>31898685
>An anti-ship missile can have a range of over 300 kilometers, carry a heavy biochemical payload or a multi-megaton MIRV warhead

just fug off

>>31898952
>The HVP is a next-generation, common, low drag, GUIDED projectile capable of executing multiple missions for a number of gun systems, such as the Navy 5-Inch; Navy, Marine Corps, and Army 155-mm systems; and future electromagnetic (EM) railguns.
http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/hyper-velocity-projectile-hvp

https://news.usni.org/2016/07/18/pentagon-new-rounds-old-guns-change-paradigm-missile-defense-navy-army
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44175.pdf#page=19&zoom=auto,-104,658
http://www.navysbir.com/n12_1/N121-102.htm

From GA's blitzer
>Projectile verified at over 30,000 gees
>Telemetry, Flight Sensor, Guidance Processor, Control Actuators, Data Link
https://vimeo.com/179094664