Could the Iowa be refitted to carry 9 railguns instead of

File: 1469502467200.png (3MB, 1196x2339px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1196x2339px

no

>>32267573
Ive started reporting you fucking BB-retards at this point. A tread died for you to make this shit. It was probably a shit-tread that died, but even that is better than this fucking BB-shit that gets posted 4 times per day.

File: 1480302098939.png (122KB, 500x425px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 500x425px

>>32267647

Battleships aren't/k/ related? Are you retarded?

>>32267647
>wooden ship fag detected
>inb4 muh clipper

File: Pizza_Ship.jpg (1MB, 1374x773px)

1MB, 1374x773px

>>32267573

You're getting worse than fucking /m/, mang. /na/val containment board for boatfags when? You get a board where you can talk all about your shitty LCS, pointless BBs, Kancolle, impractical laser-railgun destroyers, gaysex, and the absurd amount of money they all cost as much as you like.

>>32267573
Power generation and propulsion was the biggest problem faced by modernising Iowas. Please elaborate on where the power for railguns would come from.

>>32268040

Adding onto that, about a quarter of the threads on /k/ right now are ship related shi(t)posting, which is more than enough to keep a new board running and will free up space for actual content.

>>32267573
Can you?

Sure, with enough money anything is possible.

Would it be a good idea?

Fuck no.

>>32267573
I don't know anon, rail guns sure are neat but 16 guns are better than 9

Could the Iowa be refitted to be something useful for modern combat, like a helicopter carrier?

>>32267862
Battleships ARE /k/-related. But having 3-4 treads of "bring back Iowa/how do we modernize Iowa/now that Trump is king we get Iowa??/Zumwalt suck give me 100 Iowas/refit the Iowa/RAILGUNZZ GYZZ!" up at any fucking time?

Fuck that shit. At this point its just a bunch of trolls and a few mentally unfit posters that spam us with their navalized version of turbo-autism.
>>32268040
>>32268064
has the right idea.

Some people won't be happy until you waste a huge amount of maintenance and tonnage on 8-12 gun barrels.

Nevermind that old ships only had them because they had a sub 0.1% hit-rate, and had to saturate areas and pray for a hit. Nevermind that Zumwalt in practical terms, outguns WW2 heavy cruisers in every role involving guns despite having smaller and fewer guns.

Nope. We gotta bring back horse archers and plate armor, because modern combat knives can't sink a knight, right?

File: 1477922877818.jpg (337KB, 1214x1239px)

337KB, 1214x1239px

I take it theres some hurt feelings here on battleships XD

File: B4kNqNaCYAA_t6o.jpg (37KB, 600x352px)

37KB, 600x352px

Leave the Iowa's as museums. Build Montana class with nuke power. All four turrets can house 3 railguns each. Same power better range hella better accuracy. Dont need side 10 inch gun turrets go modern missile systems and anti systems. Presto a Battleship than can park right next to the enemys dock stop all incomming attacks and let crew go above deck and middle finger the enemy cause there so safe. Battleships are x4 to x6 times larger so they can arm x4 to x6 times the gear of a cutter or destroyer. Simple math and understanding but im sure some anon will step up to prove how wrong i am :)

>>32268297
>All four turrets can house 3 railguns each
nah, you need a shittons of power to fire a single railgun. the only reason to have railgun batteries is to deal with the heating issues.
you could fire a railgun once every minute.
you need to charge huge capacitor banks or have to really spin up a flywheel capacitor.

>>32267573
Could the OP be refitted to stop making shitty iowa threads every 10 minutes?
Would it be reasonable to remove his hands to stop this?

>>32268752
Yes.

>>32268544
A flywheel is an alternator.

>>32267573
I want to FUCK Iowa desu

>>32268206
Naval guns are easily reloadable and have large magazines, unlike vls. Being able to shoot missiles out of guns is very valuable, and having more guns keeps your response time and ability relevant.

>>32267573
Yes. Stupid, but yes.

>>32268057
nuclear powered, water cooled capacitor banks

>>32269438
Get your memes right. Conventionally powered. Liquid nitrogen cooled capacitors.

>>32268845
i don't know what it's called but it can put out unholy amounts of amps. exactly what you need for a railgun.

File: 2016-12-09-15-45-01-454053758.png (6KB, 177x144px)

6KB, 177x144px

>>32267647
>>32268040
>>32268064
>>32268150
>>32268752

/k/ never fails

>>32269880
Energy storage is the only part of the equation. Otherwise gas turbines would be all you need.

>>32270650
This would be true for a single rail gun on something like the Zumwalt. What OP is talking about would require a metric fuckton of energy. The Ford effectively has two low powered rail guns in EMALS and between those and powering the ship, they need two 500+MW reactors. Not to mention that it makes the reactor transients firing one of those things fucking insane.

>>32271667
There would be several intermediate buffering systems to accommodate for the power requirements, such as batteries and capacitors. Pulling straight off turbines wouldn't happen since it's not a constant load.

>>32272119
Well no shit, but you're still altering loads on the turbine in between charging the capacitors. Which is still a strain especially if you're firing rail gun batteries in a shore bombardment scenario. Not to mention that realistically, any dedicated rail gun battleship will more than likely utilize one reactor and not two. The Navy tries to make all reactors stupid mode to minimize maneuvering.

Sage and hide bbfag.

>>32272487

K bye