How about modernizing the Iowas?

>>32251342
The military-industrial complex loves excessive waste and frivolity, though.

File: 474px-Ronald_Reagan_with_cowboy_hat_12-0071M_edit.jpg (44KB, 474x600px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 474x600px

>>32251342
That's eh, ah, WONDERFUL idea there. Eheh. Gives me a great big uh, old red white and blue chubbie.

>>32251372
Dammit Ronnie, did you remember to consult your astrologer before you got erect?

File: 73773.jpg (791KB, 2324x1416px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 2324x1416px

>>32251372
Nothing wrong with SHOWING THE FLAG

If we were going to bring back a pointless white elephant, I'd make it the SR-71.

File: 25_extremely_rare_star_wars_photos_12_20090727_1044057806.jpg (18KB, 278x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 278x400px

>>32251397
Why eh, no. That's Nancy's deal. Me, I believe in the Bible and whatever Nancy tells me.

So what does OP think we ought to modernize the Iowa with? This is the future, after all. Do we have those Star Wars lasers yet?

File: 1469354560429.png (725KB, 1080x1788px) Image search: [Google]

725KB, 1080x1788px

>>32251342
this thread again

File: 1477538411701.jpg (23KB, 460x299px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 460x299px

>>32251342

The right way is to sell it to China.

They can be grounded on the shoals in the South China Sea as a static defense against terrorists against China, like Philippine fishermen.

How about creating a universal hull to streamline and cheapen future production of battleships, carriers, and cruisers?

ONE NATION ONE HULL

>>32251342

If we modernized them, they would look nothing like they would be now.

File: 1454105358006.png (943KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

943KB, 640x960px

>>32251494
It's better than a Scout Rifle thread, at least.

File: 1466717639114.png (396KB, 1273x900px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1273x900px

>>32251342
Why dont we put the money into genome manipulation to create domesticated combat monster girls instead of bringing back an outdated weapons platform. Hmm

File: 1462411130550.jpg (104KB, 500x666px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 500x666px

>>32251342
Fuck off faggot. Why don't we just start modernizing M4 shermans and make tacticool garands standard issue you failed abortion.

>>32253041
>centaurs
Fuck off /mlp/, you're not getting any horse pussy in the military.

>>32251342
How about scraping them, along with the us military and state.

File: 969655.png (530KB, 924x627px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 924x627px

>>32253078
>not an argument

we need to 16 inch cannons for shore bombardment

aircraft are only good for small scale operations

a BB can stay on station indefinitely

>>32251494
Safe landing, pupper.

File: ORD_Excalibur_155mm_GPS_Shell_lg.jpg (31KB, 800x291px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 800x291px

I want this to happen just because I want guided 16 inch shells

File: 1479120847921.png (710KB, 576x864px) Image search: [Google]

710KB, 576x864px

>>32253476
>aircraft are only good for small scale operations
That's just not true, Anon.

>>32253476
No they can't eventually they'll need to replenish their ammunition stores, which they can't do in a combat zone for obvious reasons. If you play your cards right, you could have completely 24 hour coverage from the skies, doubly so given how large the US military is.

Also, why not just hit every position with a PGM and be done with it?

File: cannon action.jpg (54KB, 337x500px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 337x500px

>>32251342
How about not.

>>32251494
Safe landing pupper.

>>32253476
>a BB can stay on station indefinitely
Nope.

>>32253476
They need almost as much logistical support as an aircraft carrier, and they're pathetically ineffective when compared to the range and versatility of one. They can basically do shore bombardment and that's pretty much it. Not worth the investment

Sure, you could add modernized systems, guided rounds, new missiles, automation, ect. but by then it's not really the same ship, and you may as well just build a new one. It's cool as something to masturbate to, not really practical at all.

Stop making these fucking threads. Every point that you've bought up has been countered about a hundred fucking times before. There's a reason battleships died as a relevant concept in WW2, and just because that stupid shitbag Ronald Reagan thought it was a good idea because he had to have a 600 ship navy for purely political reasons, doesn't make battleships any less irrelevant.

>>32251342
Are you by any chance a light rail enthsiast?

File: lindsanity.jpg (345KB, 1028x778px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1028x778px

>>32253078
That sounds like a great idea

>>32252904

Underrated post

>CONCEPT

>>32253476

Only if you can unlock unlimited ammo with the right controller sequence

>>32251342

They're 80 years old anon

Read up on the USS Iowa disaster in '89. All the hydraulic and electrical systems were fucked even then. They had major power plant issues. The surplus ordinance was unsafe to load and fire. That was almost 30 years ago, so I can only assume they'd be even more fucked now.

>>32251342
I know a now retired 2star. He said that the morale of the crews back when they were last activated was abysmal. The boats were decrepit, the living conditions were horrific, nothing worked right, etc.

He said at this point it would cost more to retrofit the old girls than it would be to build new modern ones.

I love the idea of a battleship as just a dickwaving device without much real military value. A flagship for the sake of a flagship. But at this point, the old things just need to be drydocked and turned into museums.

>>32253476
>we need to 16 inch cannons for shore bombardment
No we don't.

>>32256651
>Read up on the USS Iowa disaster in '89... The surplus ordinance was unsafe to load and fire.
Lel. No matter what part of the story you look up, people were fucking up.
>powder overrams responsible for multiple historical turret explosions, even when the powder was new
>rammer relies on purely manual control, meaning over/under ram depends on the experience and skill of the rammer operator instead of being push-button
>powder then stored in 110 F barge in DC for decades, becoming more volatile with each daily heating cycle
>hurr durr I'm a motherfucking president with alzheimers, lets bring these suckers back, muh guns!
>hurr durr I'm a fucktard gunnery officer trying to justify my existence, I'mma use unauthorized projectile/powder combinations to extend range
>hurr durr I'm a fucktard XO, these experiments sound great and would also justify my salary
>overram happens
>people die
>uhh... must have been a GAY CONSPIRACY! Yeah one of the dead guys killed himself! Because gay!

File: IMG_0586.jpg (91KB, 640x615px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 640x615px

>>32251342

File: Stukas over Stalingrad.jpg (238KB, 1000x911px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1000x911px

>>32251494
Safe Landing Pupper

File: Arsenal_Ship.jpg (51KB, 550x419px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 550x419px

>>32251342

Accept no substitutes.

>>32253586
>guided 16 inch shells
heavy breathing intensifies.

>>32260695
Bring the manning level down to about the size of a Coast Guard Cutter and we'll talk. Until then, Navy is moving away from capital-sized mega-shooters and towards the new "distributed lethality" paradigm.

File: SuperSherman.jpg (13KB, 250x180px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 250x180px

>>32253078

Hey, the M4 Sherman is still in service and has accomplished far more than the Iowa ever has. Don't lump her with that floating battery of junk.

>>32260695
Enjoying sending a billion dollars of unfired missiles to Davy Jones's Locker

>>32251990
Why even have multiple hulls?

e.g. instead of a carrier group that displaces 200,000 tonnes of water, just have one massive ship that displaces the same amount. Like the spanish Armada.

>>32263884
... the spanish armada was many ships?

File: 1454219234015.gif (3MB, 275x293px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 275x293px

>>32264190
>he doesn't know about the ESPS Spanish Armada

>>32251494
Safe landing, Pupper

>>32260837

And what would possibly be able to do that, especially with destroyer escorts to sink submarines?

People always forget that battleships operate in battle groups just like other capital ships.

>>32260781
kek

>>32253476
>a BB can stay on station indefinitely
Do you have any fucking concept for how much ammunition Iowas actually carry for those 16" guns?

1,220 rounds. That's it. Combined with the much higher miss rate against hardened targets (inherent CEP of 16"/50 guns at 20mi firing range) and lower blast effect range compared with larger PGMs, and according to a DoD study after Desert Storm, that's only around 200 hardened targets destroyed before they have to withdraw from the combat area to UNREP.

One single sortie of 48 Hornets can destroy that same number of targets with PGMs without risking every sailor on board because the entire fucking ship has to crawl up the enemy's asshole just to get in range.

Even an Ohio class SSGN conversion can sit at 72.9 TIMES further away than the Iowa, destroy more hard targets with a full munitions/VLS/magazine loadout (though slightly fewer soft targets), not destroy every collateral/civilian target in the area and NEVER ACTUALLY PUT THE SHIP AT RIDICULOUS RISK JUST TO FIRE.

>>32263884
Because then you've got one single target which, with a single or small number of combat hits, can be disabled. But you've gained zero tactical or strategic capability.

BBs in WWII kept getting bigger to accommodate larger diameter and more primary armament for more damage, penetration and range against other BBs and more armor against them.

CVs kept getting bigger to accommodate the change from prop to jet propulsion, larger aircraft and more of them.

With a larger modern surface combatant, you get practically nothing extra. Sure, you can make the VLS cells larger, but that only makes them more expensive per shot and the problem is almost never maximum weapons range these days but kill chain, or acquiring and keeping good target data at the range of the weapons we already have.

It makes infinitely better tactical and strategic sense to spread your 400 VLS cells out between four or five different hulls which are more damage resistant as a unit than a single hull and can actually be split up to cover more area, and even detached for SAG missions in one or two hull units if necessary.

One massive VLS ship does not and will never make sense compared to multiple smaller ships with the same armament.

>>32251342

Refit them with railguns then maybe