For the cost of one Gerald R Ford class carrier we could have

...please explain your math there so we can tell you exactly where you managed to fuck up gigantically.

>>32259391

One Gerald R Ford is 10billion
One Iowa is 100million

File: 155mm.romanian.monitor.jpg (131KB, 1240x991px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1240x991px

According to usinflationcalculator.com 100million dollars in 1940 is worth 1.7billion dollars today.

That means you could get 5 or 6 battleships, which would have a combined disadvantage against a single carrier.

>>32259450
>One Gerald R Ford is 10billion

In 2016 dollars.

>One Iowa is 100million

In 1940 dollars.

Inflation, motherfucker. It's a thing.

100 million in 1940 is roughly equivalent to 1.7 billion today.

>>32259597
Also, that's just procurement cost. Those 5 or 6 battleships would be a hell of a lot more expensive in terms of maintenance&personnel costs - and unlike procurement, you have to keep paying that over decades of service instead of one-time.

>>32259450
Have you ever heard of inflation?

>>32259345
Whoever this fag that keeps pushing Iowa classes is becoming the new Glider fag. Give it a rest.

>>32259597
Ahh, MONARC. Didn't pan out IIRC because they had persistent problems of adapting the PZH2000 system against constant saltwater corrosion.

>>32259450
GRF fag here. We're at 16 billion and not even ready yet.

>>32259345
>Guys for the price of one airport we could buy a bunch of old artillery pieces.

You're onto something, lets do away with the Air Force and just push their budget into field artillery.

>>32259652

Thats not how you spell Gavin

>>32259345
BB threads have already been dealt with. Re-posting this garbage is just shitposting. Go away.

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

289KB, 2048x676px

Nuclear powered Montana Class with rail guns is the correct answer.

>>32259843
It should be some kind of script running that automatically delete these treads and ban the OP.

>>32259597
>5 Modernized Iowas with heavy CIWS and anti-air/anti-missile capability
>vs 1 carrier fielding shitty F-35s

>>32259973
>Modern radar, CIWS and missiles
Your $2B a ship figure just tripled.

>>32259973
Iowas get rekt without ever even finding the carrier or downing as much as a single plane. Game Over.

>>32259973
>>32259908
Just don't fire the guns, otherwise you'll have to shut down whole systems to reboot them because of the blast wave.

Please stop wasting board space with these threads. Thank you.

File: 1479849332306.jpg (84KB, 2000x1026px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 2000x1026px

>>32259973
>Implying F-35s
>implying it wouldn't just launch the 48 Hornets/Super Hornets and spam with HARMs and Harpoons

>forgetting attack submarines are a thing

>>32259973
Results
>5 new artificial coral reefs
>Lowes and Home depot sell out of rope
>no BB fags on /k/ ever again

>>32260251
>no BB fags on /k/ ever again
Oh, how one can dream

>>32260251

>implying

Iowa>Burke has been proven in simulations, so if five Iowas can't sink a single carrier, than that means by extension our primary class of destroyer are also unable to do something as simple as sink an unescorted carrier.

File: gf vs tank.jpg (74KB, 720x560px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 720x560px

>>32260338
KYS, please

>>32259973
>modernized
Oh, that increases the cost of each ship about tenfold. So sorry.

I just like that spamming battleships like they're destroyers is a feasible option for the USA.

>>32260338
[citation needed]

>inb4 CMANO "my scenario stands" BS that has Burke's engaging within range of the Iowa's guns

>>32260483
Except it isn't feasible at all. Battleships were never even a sizable minority of US fleet power during the Second World War, and with good reason.

Were battleships ever anything but dick measuring devices for 19th century nations?

File: 1204 shmel.jpg (594KB, 1632x920px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 1632x920px

>>32259655
Should've just bought Soviet.

>>32259908
Thats a big ship

Where can I read about how aircraft carriers would be / have been used in a sea battle?

>>32261135
>Stay 400+km away
>Let shornets do everything
>Win because lol airpower
>Get sunk by a diesel electric sub that was hiding on the bottom
>Get court martialed for going that close to shore

>>32261156
Do aircraft carriers even have weapons on them? Or is it all about the planes

>>32261173
They only have defensive weapons like the Sea Sparrow and Phalanx CIWS. I think they now have anti-torpedo torpedoes, too. The small boys are there for a reason.

>>32261173
The last US carrier to carry offensive armament was the fucking Lexington, and that was because nobody knew how to use a carrier.

>>32261224
If they fire their anti-torpedo torpedoes can the launcher of the original torpedo launch an anti-anti-torpedo torpedo?

>>32261264
No.

>>32261282
It's against the rules?

>>32261282
What if the attacker put flares on their torpedo, could that stop the anti-torpedo torpedo?

What should I know about ASW screens around aircraft carriers?

File: 20380 steregushchiy launches paket-nk.jpg (48KB, 700x592px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 700x592px

>>32261264
>their anti-torpedo torpedoes
So far only Russia has operational anti-torpedo torpedoes, as far as I'm concerned.

File: wrong.gif (1017KB, 480x240px) Image search: [Google]

1017KB, 480x240px

>>32261547
https://news.usni.org/2013/06/20/navy-develops-torpedo-killing-torpedo

>>32261547
>>32261601
>operational

My bad. The US one will reach IOC in 2019. So I'll neck myself.

File: 20380 boykiy launches paket-nk.jpg (164KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1000x666px

>>32261601
>develops
I said operational.

>>32261547
Nope, the US has a system that's being installed on each of their major combatants whenever they are due for depot maintenance.

We started installing them in 2013, and so far 5 of our supercarriers have been so equipped.

File: 20380 soobrazitelniy launches paket-nk.jpg (459KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 1024x768px

>>32261624
It's interesting to see what will Americans end up with though. The concept is pretty cool.

>>32259621
Yeah, that's 10 billion Obama-bucks. Also, manning a ship over its operational lifetime gets significant.

>>32261624
>>32261633
5 carriers already have it installed. It was first deployed in 2013.
>>32261357
That we spend more money on equipment and training for this mission than the rest of the world combined.

And that there's generally at least two hunter-killer subs in the vicinity.

>>32261642
>>32261662
>June 20, 2013 The Navy has taken its first steps to develop a weapon
>It was first deployed in 2013
I am going to need a single reliable source suggesting it is operational.

>>32261662
So does that mean it is now in IOC? Will every surface combatant get it?

File: Big Cock 45.jpg (157KB, 900x484px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 900x484px

>>32259345
Wow, this really and truly causes my neural cells to depolarize by opening gated channels in the membrane and passively diffusing potassium ions out of the cytoplasm down its concentration gradient leading to a sequence of action potentials to stimulate in accord with long term potentiation pathways developed through the release of seratonin at key moments of sensory input as well as really fires up my electric pulse that travels down the axon until it reaches the synapses, where it then causes the release of neurotransmitters. The synapses are extremely close to the dendrites of the target neuron. This allows the neurotransmitters to diffuse across the intervening space and fit into the receptors that are located on the target neuron. This causes some action to take place in that neuron that will either decrease or increase the membrane potential of the neuron. If it increases the membrane potential (makes it more positive, or depolarizes it.) then it is exciting the neuron, and if it decreases the membrane potential (makes it more negative, or hyper-polarizes it.) then it is inhibiting the neuron. If it causes the membrane potential to pass the firing threshold then it will activate an action potential in the target neuron and send it down its axon.

>>32260708
maybe they didn't want auto ejecting turrets?

File: 03+Lehm+tells+Jonah+about+Wiley.jpg (92KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1280x720px

>>32260365

>Pather
>support itself

File: bateman chuckle.gif (836KB, 286x204px) Image search: [Google]

836KB, 286x204px

>>32260338

>Tomahawk operational range: 900-1350 nm (depending on model)
>Mark 7 16" gun operational range: 20.55 nm

Lol yeah man, that "simulation" seems to be grounded in reality.

>>32262365
You could ALMOST sort of maybe make a case for a new build armored cruiser, in a magical world where the combination of ECM and CIWS ends up being 100% effective and surface combatants exhaust their missile stockpiles before sinking each other.

On the other hand, even then, it's kinda dumb.

>>32259973
>shitty F-35s

Your lies are utterly transparent, Pierre

>>32262356
Emotionally speaking, yes it can.

>>32259345
Reported.

>>32261012
For you

>>32259619
There's also the increased labor and material cost associated with building one, tho modern shipbuilding technique would negate the cost somewhat

>>32262242
Lmao, what class is that? Neuroscience? Some sort of psych class? I just learned a lot of that in General Bio 1

>>32259450
Inflation nigga.

What of we used a detachable wing to turn the Iowa class BBs into BBGs?

You could fill them full of gavins, tow it i to the air with some C-5 tugs and then glide it into a enemy held lake or river.

An airborne amphibious assault with its own artillery support and anti air weaponry.

>>32265180
physiology 1, or anatomy&physiology 2. I've taken both. tfw ;_;
Not that shitposter btw.

>>32259973
1.7bill is at the 1944 spec. now add more cost

>>32259619
>battleships
>more expensive in terms of maintenance&personnel costs
This is quite obviously false.

Take a simplest fucking thing as an example. For the same amount of explosives 16" gun delivers for $500 you have to use $5000 bomb(not counting fuel into account) and accuracy really isn't an issue nowadays, artillery can be as accurate as bombs, if not more with modern technology allowing you to link BB's artillery computers with satellites etc. providing it relatively accurate information on weather, wind and so on. And this without using anything different than simple artillery shells.

BB's have many problems but sure as fuck Carriers are more costly options.

>>32265492

You're a moron if you think that red herring answers the point on crewing and maintenance.

>>32265492
>For the same amount of explosives 16" gun delivers for $500
Citation for them only costing $500 please.

>>32261695
http://www.navy.mil/strategic/top-npg15.pdf#page=63&zoom=auto,-104,784

>Hard-kill capability is achieved with the Torpedo Warning System (TWS) that provides torpedo detection, classification, and localization (TDCL) capability on aircraft carriers and CLF ships. TWS prepares launch solutions, presets, and operator interfaces to launch anti-torpedo torpedoes (ATTs) to deliver a hard-kill capability. The countermeasure anti-torpedo (CAT) integrates the ATT with self-contained launch energetics in all-up-round equipment to defeat primary stern-sector threat salvoes.

>A hybrid-prototype system was installed on CVN 77 in March 2013, and an at-sea demonstration conducted on CVN 77 in May 2013 validated TWS/CAT ability to launch against enemy torpedoes. During that test, TWS was used to launch seven ATTs against surrogate threat torpedoes.

>TWS/CAT is being developed for high-value units and will achieve initial operational capability in FY 2019.

File: 016720.jpg (108KB, 1000x331px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1000x331px

you battleship faggots dont even pick the right class of ship

also, naval artillery is still obsolete

>>32267067
>prototype system was installed on CVN 77 in March 2013
>will achieve initial operational capability in FY 2019
So in other words, it is not operational.

>>32267067
Also,
>has not demonstrated an effective capability against realistic threat country torpedo attack scenarios
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2015/dot-e/navy/2015sstd_tws_cat.pdf

>>32267067
>However, the system has not been fully tested and most TWS and CAT testing to date have been conducted in areas with benign acoustic conditions when compared to the expected threat operating areas, which may have biased the results
>The Navy discovered an anomaly in the CAT’s Safety and Arming device in March 2014, which would significantly reduce the effectiveness of the CAT
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2014/dot-e/navy/2014sstd_tws_cat.pdf

>>32269913
Don't bump this fucking shit. Let it die like the damn battleship itself

>>32260365
>Girlfriend:
>Probably not a tranny
>Panther
>Has a Tranny, it catches fire and seizes regularly

>>32270348
I kek'd

>>32270235
Bump

>>32270348
Lol