VLS > Conventional Naval Artillery = Railguns

File: 1475966958833.jpg (57KB, 750x625px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 750x625px

>>32407951
>mfw op of both this thread and that thread:
>>32400494

You couldn't even get boatsluts spammed this time. Sad!

>>32407951
This is the sixth goddamn bb thread in 24 hours and you keep making these to the point of spam.

>>32407951
Stop spamming retarded BB threads. You can jack off about Iowas and modernized battleships, but don't pretend they have any use in a modern fleet.

File: 3c69fdd8-abbe-4827-a121-e271a41e7829.jpg (32KB, 506x285px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 506x285px

>>32407951
why not building the real shit?

>>32410441
I mean, if we parked some modernized nuclear iowa off of Iran...would they ever fuck with us again?

>>32414050
>if we made a big target immobile directly off the coast and in range of a multitude of missile batteries...

You're retarded, plz stop.

>>32411423
Too much cost, it's a lot more effective to attach engines to a submarine and send it off to space.

>>32414055
>thinking I meant leaving it like an island off the coast
IT WAS A FIGURE OF SPEECH.

Honestly, question: How long could a modernized Iowa with current CIWS (the rocket ones or the miniguns, or a mix) hold out against Iranian coast defenses?

>>32414150
BBfag, please stop. Just stop posting, and rethink what you're doing. It's not too l8 m8.

>>32414066
Anon, the navy teleports it's submarines into space. It's much more cost effective than rocket engines.

>>32414306
[Muffled Space Sonar beeps in the distance]

>>32414066
but that wouldn't look that nice

Railguns are inherently superior once properly developed. Each missile must carry enough fuel to reach its maximum range and make up the majority of the missile volume and weight.

This means if you fire the missile closer than it's maximum range the fuel is wasted and was carried around for nothing. If you have filled your VLS tubes with standard missiles you can't change your mind and bombard land targets from long distance.

A railgun round only carries the payload and a small amount of equipment for guidance. So you can carry a larger variety of ammunition as the fuel used to launch it independent.

A nuclear one would be even more powerful, you would be able to store 10 or 20 railgun rounds in the space one VLS missile uses. Though it would only matter in long sustained conflicts. Aircraft carriers are the only thing that can deliver similar sustained long range support.

>>32414456
If one could design a railgun system that effectively merely augmented the range of current missile systems or gave greater payload at the same range, while having the modularity and adaptability of VLS cells, and the ordenance per hour sustained rate of aircraft carriers, it might be worthwhile as a supplement to aircraft carriers. Not a replacement, just a supplement.

Also, armor is still retarded, Information > Firepower > Armor

Why concentrate the theoretical awesome railguns when you could just slap them on every non carrier large enough to carry a reactor?

>>32414526
>If one could design a railgun system that effectively merely augmented the range of current missile systems or gave greater payload at the same range, while having the modularity and adaptability of VLS cells, and the ordenance per hour sustained rate of aircraft carriers, it might be worthwhile as a supplement to aircraft carriers. Not a replacement, just a supplement.
Railguns would outrange almost everything besides tomahawks. They function more like missiles than naval guns, you can fire guided rounds at planes and use them as mach 5 radar guided sams. Many rocket propelled missiles actually burn up all their fuel close to launch and coast much of the way on inertia like railgun rounds do. The only real exception are cruise missiles that use turbofans, turbojets or ramjets to sustain flight.

It's why aircraft use high G turns to try and evade missiles, often the rocket motor has burned out by the stage it is close so it can't maintain its speed if forced to turn.

>>32407951
Not a bad idea but I think you need fewer VLS, a second railgun turret, and some decent ASW capability.

>>32414526
Reactors are expensive and large. They also take quite a few well-trained personnel. It would be better to have 5 larger ships than 15 smaller ships if that was the driving factor.

>>32414066
I meant that we convert such star destroyers to ships, the back is open for smaller vessels and a helicopter plattform while the front is full with VLS

File: Spess cathedral.jpg (396KB, 1024x692px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1024x692px

>>32411423

If we are going to build some type of space battleship the god dam thing better look fucking cool.