BRING BACK THE IOWAS

>>32312761
Go away Sparks.

File: battleship shot.gif (20KB, 938x575px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 938x575px

>>32312761
Good thing we never need fire support more than 20 miles away from shore.

>>32312797
>what are beach landings

>>32313535
Things that don't happen anymore and would get assraped by any competant military?

>>32313568
and would also be just as easily served with a Burke or two offshore?

>>32312761
>Nothing shows the flag like a BB.
Aircraft carrier is better these days

>Give them the latest CIS and cruise missle/anti-ship missile tech and lets go!
kys, please

>We desperately need their on-station shore bombardment capabilities as well.
Or you could just use air support

>>32315576
>>32312761
Jumping in late but laser guided rounds from a battleship would be accurate and cheap(ish).

I could see it being an effective platform. Not that it will ever happen.

>>32312761
All those ships just to support a carrier?

Sage and hide bbfag.

File: 1456600572190.jpg (146KB, 851x630px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 851x630px

>>32312761
what would a new-build battleship be kitted out with? nuclear-powered so it could keep up with the carriers? AEGIS? Multiple 155mm turrets? Hangar for multiple helos and UCAVs?

>>32316617

It wouldn't. Shut the fuck up, your idea is horrible.

File: 438496.png (98KB, 3464x656px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 3464x656px

>>32316617

>>32313535
an obsolete manouver

>>32313535
You know what else we need? Gliders, so we can pull off massive Market Garden-style airborne drops. You know, another WWII-era tactic that's totally hasn't been rendered useless by modern weaponry.

>>32312761
Not dis shifty agen

>>32317526
Gliders need armor. Let's put a steel bathtub and gau8 on each one so the glide Gavins can take the fight to the enemy

>>32317476
Battleshipfags or mechfags, which are worse? I vote battleshipfags

>>32312761
Battleships were outdated before Midway

>>32312761
>tfw no battleships with three-barreled 16" railguns

Soon

>>32317675
Why would you concentrate the guns if they aren't Iowa tier hilariously immaculate?

>>32317642
Don't forget a bayonet lug so that they can utilize the momentum of the glider to smash the enemy line.

>>32312761
Scrap them.

>>32317777
quads, so it must be true.

>>32317777
Quads for ramming speed

Perhaps today is a good day to die

>>32317476
That's alot of freedom

File: 31bfbde198f9ab71351ba71d7b4ec3a4.jpg (62KB, 736x550px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 736x550px

>>32312761
IOWA Class... boi, we need that Montana goodness. Stupid Kikes didn't build it though

>>32317645
Mechfags are bad enough to warrant a containment board.

>>32317882
We need to go larger. H-44 when?

File: Untitled-1.jpg (184KB, 625x403px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 625x403px

>>32317925
You can never have enough turrets my friend, never enough

File: battleships.jpg (245KB, 1600x764px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1600x764px

>>32317992
Choose your poison

File: from-the-desk-of-andrew-ryan.jpg (25KB, 600x254px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x254px

>>32318042
Is a man entitled to armored capital ships?
No says the man in Washington, they're outdated and expensive.
No says the man in Rome, we lost them all to Fritz bombs.
No says the man in Moscow, ski jumps are better.
I rejected those answers.
I chose the impossible.
I chose MAXIMUM BATTLESHIP IV-2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_battleship

>>32316483
Guided scramjet projectiles.

>>32317645
Battleships are at least in the form of something that can be or has been effective.

File: 9.jpg (33KB, 515x345px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 515x345px

>>32312761

Battleships are only good for fucking.

>>32318522
Not even, do you have any idea how much that will cost?
Why not just hit the landing zones with PGMs from planes or hey, not land in a contested zone.

File: HMS_Warspite_03.jpg (303KB, 1740x1200px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1740x1200px

>>32318042
muh warspite

>>32318656
source plz

>>32318042

Bismarck/Tirpitz

>>32319050

The Warspite, and all British BBs, are ugly as sin.

>>32312797

they were experimenting with shells that would increase the range to 75 miles before deactivation.

>>32312797

>shooting a ma deuce from 36,000 yards

>>32319056
>>32318656
seconded

File: Snek.gif (2MB, 330x197px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x197px

>>32319050
>>32319092
Wait. Did they put fucking sponsons on their battleship?

>>32319250
Its a refit 1915 battleship. Sponsons were standard back then.

>>32317882
Its just Iowa and a quarter.

>>32316515

>All those ships just to support a carrier?

In theory, every carrier is supposed to have 6 or more escorting warships plus a fast combat support ship.

And then each carrier strike group is supported by a replenishment group that consists of 3 replenishment vessels and 3 escorting warships.

So for every carrier, there are 13 additional vessels accompanying it. At least that's how it worked back then. The Navy has seen many cuts since that time.

>>32319120

enuma elish - eggs

>>32319742
succ

>>32312761
Battleships make my dick hard, too, anon. But their time is over. Now, a nuclear powered destroyer with a bunch of long range missiles... That, I could get behind.

At some point in the near future, smart shells will start taking back roles that missiles have had for the past 60 years. Missile defense by several guns will be just as and than more effective than ESSMs and SM-2.

Later on, relevant ranges of AA and AShM will be possible with railguns. Only mass spam of supersonic cruise missiles will deter access to places like the SCS.

The Age of Guns is coming back soon.

>>32319979
That implies that the same anti-missile technology cannot be applied against non-propelled ammunition.
The only difference is the size of target.

>>32320029
That's not the only difference. For a railgun, the number of 20 kg shells that the magazines could hold would be huge. Trying to mission kill hundreds of shells going Mach 5 over the course of the engagement is a much lower probability than mission killing a couple dozen NSM or LRASM

>>32320112
Good point.
An electrically driven gun would allow the ammunition to utilize a denser source of energy for its velocity decreasing total amount of space required.

>>32312761
Op. You do realize naval brass doesn't surf 4Chan?

File: 252.png (160KB, 3464x1253px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 3464x1253px

>>32320153

>>32319250
Most Battleships of that era had secondaries mounted in sponsons. The survivors kept them into WW2, such as The British QEs, the Kongos, Nagatos, Fusos, Ises... the American Standard-types...

File: NotCompensatingForAnything.png (156KB, 2240x1178px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 2240x1178px

>>32320961
>Still dies to one torpedo under the keel

>>32320112
If you're shells aren't guided then you won't hit shit past knife fighting range.

If they are guided then your railgun is just a rube goldberg cruise missile dispenser.

>>32321140
Clearly the answer is to make the battleship float in the air!

With China mass building Type055 cruisers.

They would be pretty happy if the USA wastes even more money with Iowa-class battleships

>Bring the battleships back!
Why?
>So I can beat off to them!

File: donald-a340a4da93442c2abe9e86cf8d95a87a.jpg (197KB, 760x1000px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 760x1000px

>>32317476

>a Gerald R. Ford class can actually be named USS Donald J. Trump

File: space.jpg (4MB, 4268x5690px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4268x5690px

>>32321140
shit that thing is huge

>>32319932
My dream is to see a Polywell-powered Zumwalt follow-on with some sort of HELLADS-based air defense system as the successor to the Ticonderoga's.

File: SkAfju0.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>32322166
>no Federal or Imperial Capital Ships

CMDR do you even fly?

File: iowa flag wallpaper.png (4MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2560x1440px

>>32312761
Bring back Iowa, you say?

>>32319050

A better vessel than the junkers they sent in the Falklands.

>>32321911
Nope. 3 are ordered and for some reason they're going to be USA Gerald R. Ford. USS John F. Kennedy, and thankfully a USS Enterprise.

File: Battleship_Roma.jpeg.jpg (161KB, 1280x761px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1280x761px

>>32318042
Roma for aesthetics.

>>32325076

Not the best design.

But definitely the best looking.

America needs to build it's own Kirov class, and give it a railgun for "cheap" shore bombardment.

>>32319113
It's the length of the barrel. 16 inch time 50

File: hood.jpg (154KB, 1100x890px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1100x890px

>>32319092
>The Warspite, and all British BBs, are ugly as sin.
Fuck off.

>>32321039
>The survivors kept them into WW2, such as The British QEs,
Valiant and QE had them replaced with turrets in their refits. Only Warspite was modernised while retaining the sponsons.

>>32317484
>>32317526
>>32313535
>>32313568
Serious question, no trolling: why wouldn't beach landings happen nowadays? For instance, if China tried to invade Taiwan, wouldn't that involve beach landings? Or would China land troops through other means?

What does /k/ think about Kancolle making all these ships into qt anime girls with tiddies?

File: 1380845756255.jpg (93KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 900x600px

>>32327977
I think they mean D-Day style beach landings under heavy fire.
Theoretically if a conflict arose and the Taiwanese held out long enough to where the Chinese would have to put boots on the ground, the area around the LZ would be saturated with missiles and arty, providing a safer landing with minimal resistance.

>>32328235
Two nukes weren't enough.

>>32328864
>saturated with missiles
you're not aware of our stockpiles, are you?

>>32329391
You talking about Chinese stockpiles or US stockpiles?

>>32318042
Sad that the Washington wasn't preserved. Would have loved visiting her.

>>32312761
No.
P.S. You're a faggot.

>>32328936
they already were doing it in the 30s

the nukes did absolutely nothing.

>>32317777
WITNESSED!

>>32318374
>Navy keeps asking for money to build bigger better ships because "muh obsolesence!
>ask what the biggest ship they could possibly want is to stop the slow gain
Makes sense to me.

>>32333066
The Montana-class actually comes really close to the Tillman IV-2. Also consider that one of the IV-2 turrets isn't superfiring and is therefore trash.

File: zumwalt snow.jpg (4MB, 4608x3072px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4608x3072px

>>32328864
> the area around the LZ would be saturated with missiles and arty, providing a safer landing with minimal resistance.
> with missiles and arty
> and arty
>arty

And this 'arty' would come from what platform?

>>32316617
>new-build battleship?

Pic related

>>32322166

mass effect ships are tiny as hell

File: USSDONALDJTRUMP.gif (31KB, 2142x849px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 2142x849px

my body is ready

File: hms roberts.jpg (95KB, 500x355px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 500x355px

>>32334116
>And this 'arty' would come from what platform?
Monitors

>>32336421
The draft on it is all kinds of fucked up.

>>32336421
The person who made this knows absolutely nothing about ships.

>>32322166
so many space dicks

File: 4c5.jpg (16KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x300px

>>32317882

>Tfw Montanafag
>Could have had the biggest, baddest battleship CLASS named after us
>Got cucked
>Never got anything, period, I think the only state to never get a battleship
>Might get a piddly submarine

>>32329391
Huh, explain?
>>32334116
>And this 'arty' would come from what platform?
Specifically with the Chinese-Taiwan invasion, Chinese could launch long range MLRS, so "rocket arty" would have been more accurate, my b.

>>32317777

Witnessed.

Also, don't forget gun shields for the rifleman's M16 so they don't needlessly get killed poking their head's out of cover!

>>32318374

>Tilmann II
>Twenty-four 16" guns in four six-barreled turrets

I guess if you needed to kill every square inch of dirt in Japan, this would've sufficed, Jesus Christ.

>>32328864
>>32334116

I suppose there's a time and place for massed landings still, given that situation, but I hear the USMC is considering more "dispersed" raids and such to land smaller forces at weak points to cause havoc behind/in enemy territory, then launch follow-on forces enmasse.

Not that they couldn't do opposed landings mind you. The MSC has an ungodly amount of Ro-ro's for example, and even the bigger LSU's are pretty numerous. Next we'll see how the Ship-to-shore-connector turns out and if the missile spam from LCS' and other/newer ships brings back WWII-esque battles. (Hell, put some ATACM's or whatever the LRPF program produces on a barge and assfuck the defenders that way lol)