Bring back battleships

>>32443409
>Bomber flying faster than sound drops AS missile from at least 20 kilometers away
>Ship is kill
>OP pulls cock out of mouth
>OP is kill due to cock withdrawal
>???
>profit

>>32443409
>get torpedo'd/cruise missile'd
Drones are a much better way to spread your firepower around.

report and hide

>>32443409
no.
>>32443456

>>32443437
>Not realizing there would be ciws as well as some support ships

>>32443409
It's a lost cause these people have no imagination it's all muh airpower muh carriers

>>32443409
Too bad there are missiles that can shoot you from over 100 miles.

Yes, this is truly worth replacing carriers with

>>32443409
Bring back trebuchets

>refit trebuchets
>replace rocks with chemical bombs and fire bombs with napalm
>dominate land and any sea withing 300 meters of the trebuchet
>???
>Profit

>>32443587
It's a lost cause because you are retarded and we have facts, research, and studies to back up the point that battleships are a dead meme.

I too think they are fucking cool, but cool won't win wars.

>>32443703
Yes but the rail gun would be a huge game changer, many of the reasons battleships became obsolete was because of the aircraft carrier. The battleship couldn't defend itself. But with the adaptation of modern air defense and missile defense means that it could effectively defend itself against anything except a massive air strike on it. But that's also why there are ships with the soul reason of being anti air and missile defense.
Not to mention that modern ciws makes missiles less effective. This is because unlike missiles, a rail gun bolt can't be shot down because of it's high speed and small size.

>>32443800
Yeah it would be, if we could manufacture railguns that dont wear out the barrel after a dozen shots, and had room temperature superconductors, which if we did have, would make a hell of a lot of other futuretech a lot more viable and therefore likely make battleships even more obsolete.

>>32443800
>except a massive air strike on it
You mean exactly like aircraft carriers do

Defenses are always without exception outpaced by weapons advance,

>>32443840
This. Logistics and manufacture wise, its a hell of a lot easier to increase payload by 10lbs than to up-armour an entire ship or massively upscale its defence systems.

>>32443437

>anti-ship missiles won't get through to a carrier
>one anti-ship missile would take out a battleship

Oh /k/

>>32443840
Yes but I was saying that about the battleship alone with aegis. Not counting the support/defense ships

Just a reminder to everyone in this thread: The main role of naval railguns would be close in defence from cruise missiles. You'd have a hard time sinking any ship with a railgun. Anti shipping missiles and torps are much more effective. The best way to sink ships will always be submarines, regardless.

t. Naval Weapons Tech

>>32443438
>>32443437
>>32443661
Fuck, guess we better call the Navy and tell them to disband entirely and throw all the money at the airforce.

Boats be obsolete Admiral.

>>32443989
This

Sage and hide bbfag.

>>32443696
Underrated

>>32443409
We just got to make it so big it can shrug off missles and bombs

There is nothing that a BB can do that a carrier/cruiser/destroyer cant do better.

>>32443409
I can sort of understand the concept of huge ass battlecruisers with missiles (Like the Russian Slava and Kirov classes) but battleships?

There is a reson nobody has produced them since WW2

>>32443696
nice

>>32443840

Defenses are TO THIS DAY used, though.

Hell, even the Athenian acropolis was garrisoned during WW2.

Repair teams actively working can repel anything short of attacks sustained for months.

We still issue our military knives and shovels.

Some things never fucking change, dude.


We could bomb the strait of Hormuz until the peninsula was gone, man. We fucking don't.

Geographical choke points exist and manmade fortifications are artificial choke points

It's still relevant.

>>32444247

What about dropping 50 B1 bombers worth of ordinance every hour?

No carrier in the world can do that.

And that's just the throw weight of the primary and secondaries. Add in other mounted weapons and it was obscene how much weight a battleship could drop on something.

>>32444354
>Some things never fucking change, dude.

yeah yeah look at all those BB and armored cruisers running around

>>32444370
If you need to do that close to the coast, then you are invading the wrong coast.

theres no point in having a centralized weapons platform when you can have an easier time with multiple destroyers, especially when missiles are the current meta.

>>32444370
>With a range of only 23 Miles
>With a barrel life of 290 shells
>With max muzzle velocity of 820m/s (CIWS/SeaRAM can engage at targets speed up to ~Mach 3.)

It's a VERY limited weapon system.

File: image.jpg (22KB, 187x269px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 187x269px

>>32444088
>You'd have a hard time sinking any ship with a railgun

>>32444133
>guess we better call the Navy and tell them to disband entirely and throw all the money at the airforce.
Well yeah, we had the right idea in the 50s. All that the Navy really needs is a few rescue ships in case a plane crashes at sea.
[Northrop F-20 business card falls from jacket pocket to the floor, Anon runs away.]

File: 16_inch_shells2_by_lioness_nala (1).jpg (167KB, 1024x911px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1024x911px

>>32444380

We just dumped all our cash into aircraft. They got ALL the funding and technological development.

Artillery hasn't really changed in a hundred years, that is how neglected it is.

>>32444409
>>32444483

Scramjet 16 inch shells could carry a nuclear warhead over 700 miles.

Metallurgy and materials the could extend barrel life to hundreds of even thousands.

A CIWS system will NOT shoot down a solid steel shell that weighs over a ton. Even a missile couldn't destroy it. Do you see this picture? Do you realize how much solid steel that is? Not even missiles could destroy one of these things before it landed.

Our missiles and CIWS are designed to kill things with less than a few millimeters of aluminum or steel sheet. This is a couple meters of solid steel.

It will not get shot down.

>>32444133
>Boats be obsolete Admiral.
But they are though. Which is why except for a few nations like US now have tiny navies which are mostly made up of AAW frigates, fast attack craft and submarines. Anything else is literally useless if all you want is to delay or stop an invasion.

>>32444570
>Scramjet 16 inch shells could carry a nuclear warhead over 700 miles.
Sauce

>Metallurgy and materials the could extend barrel life to hundreds of even thousands.
This I can get behind

A CIWS system will NOT shoot down a solid steel shell that weighs over a ton. Even a missile couldn't destroy it. Do you see this picture? Do you realize how much solid steel that is? Not even missiles could destroy one of these things before it landed.

Yeah all that steel really takes away a lot of the explosives.

>Our missiles and CIWS are designed to kill things with less than a few millimeters of aluminum or steel sheet. This is a couple meters of solid steel.
>Our

Well there is your problem.
Also, missiles could be given a hard solid steel case if needed too, so this isnt exclusive for large caliber gun shells.

>>32444570
>Scramjet 16 inch shells

You mean Scramjet 16 in missiles launched out of a tube?

>>32444570

>We just dumped all our cash into aircraft. They got ALL the funding and technological development.

glad to know no other navies even exist in the wold, one would think smaller not dominant regional navies would consider armored ships as you seem to think they are the tits


>Artillery hasn't really changed in a hundred years, that is how neglected it is.

you fucking joking nigger, artillery progressed fucking shit ton in 100 years from base bleed ammo to better propellant, materials all sorts of guided and specialty munitions and digitization

you are so full of shit its not even funny

>>32443989
>someone else on k said something once
>everyone on k believes the same thing
personal bias is non existent, apparently

>>32444512
Holes don't sink ships, crack hulls do.

>>32444570
You may not be able to shoot it down, but you can definitely damage any electronics or fuzes with tungsten penetrates that are standard for CIWS, especially at the end of it ballistic trajectory. Either way, these guns are unrealistic as modern naval weaponry. They require A LOT of powder, which is a nightmare to store on a modern ship, especially with all of the storage regulations. I'm sure there is a lot of R&D that could happen to make it a formidable weapon, but when the country with the biggest military budget doesn't bother messing with it, it's a pretty clear sign it's permanently dead.

File: IMG_0055.jpg (28KB, 371x268px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 371x268px

>refit B-17s
>replace 500lb'ers with magic nazi fusion nukes
>dominate sea and any land within 100 miles of the coast
>???
>take some acid
>profit

>>32444570
>A CIWS system will NOT shoot down a solid steel shell that weighs over a ton. Even a missile couldn't destroy it.
They don't have to. They just need to change its trajectory just a little when it's still a few km away from the ship when they don't have the fraction of the energy they've left the muzzle with.

>>32444778
>implying it could get a successful hit at apogee

>>32444570
>Scramjet 16 inch shells

Its just an incredibly inefficient SSM at this point, also you wouldn't have nearly as much mass and steel behind the shell after you've installed an engine, fuel. Also if they have no form of guidance then you aren't going to make any shots at ranges beyond the conventional ranges the shells were used at historically.

>build byzantine communist cyborg samurai
>make him fast enough so he can run over water
>dominate Sea, land and politics within 100 miles of the coast
>???
>profit

>>32444701

>sauce

Its basically a propellant assisted missile. Look at LRLAP and imagine scaling that up to 16 inches.

>>32444708

To be fair you're right. But even technological advances like propellant, base bleeding, metallurgy, etc would enable us to at least double the range of an Iowa's main battery easy.

>>32444716

We went from the Wright bros to moon landing in a handful of decades. A plane today is orders of magnitude better than a plane 70 years ago. Artillery today is only twice as good as it was 70 years ago. Fuck, dude, we still use pack howitzers designed in the 20s!!!

I'm not full of shit, you just misunderstood me.

>>32444738

>budget

Wait until the budget becomes an issue. Planes and missiles are insanely expensive and require a massive amount of manpower to field. The planes are much more important than the carrier.

Artillery is dirt cheap and kills things just as dead from a dozen miles away.

Becoming too reliant on planes is a mistake. See Afghanistan, we are practically bombing shepherds with AKs from orbit.

We can not afford to fight every war like that.

We are spending tens of millions of dollars for every enemy kill. Do the math. Terrorists can kill a soldier that costs millions to train for pennies. We can't win like that from a financial standpoint.

>>32444840
If we didn't spend millions on training and equipment per soldier, we'd have casualty counts similar to the towel heads.

War is free to play, pay to win.

>>32444812

You can fit a nuclear warhead in a 155mm artillery shell.

Being able to lob a few dozen of those hundreds of miles each minute is serious shit.

Modern nukes burn so clean fallout isn't an issue.

An Iowa kitted out with nuclear shells for its mains and secondaries with long range munitions would be the most powerful warship ever built, literally able to obliterate 70% of the world's population.

>>32444866

Winning should be mutually beneficial to the nation as well as humanity, though.

We should be a force for positive change to lift people up instead of beating them down.

Most people are decent enough.

>>32444886
>Modern nukes burn so clean fallout isn't an issue.
>nukes burn so clean

I'm sorry, what?

>>32444886
>Modern nukes burn so clean fallout isn't an issue.
You niggers believe this?

>>32444840
>A plane today is orders of magnitude better than a plane 70 years ago. Artillery today is only twice as good as it was 70 years ago. Fuck, dude, we still use pack howitzers designed in the 20s!!!

artillery as well existed for good 500 years

ww1 field guns already were at some level of stultification

so yeah modern guns are like 10000 times better than medieval mortar

>Artillery is dirt cheap and kills things just as dead from a dozen miles away.

yes thats why its in use today

>Becoming too reliant on planes is a mistake. See Afghanistan, we are practically bombing shepherds with AKs from orbit.

logical flaws on so many levels

first is assumption that every conflict will be low intensity one so you need tailor your armed forces on strategic level to fight those wars

second an aircraft is by far the most capable tool to any air force in any kind of situation
neglecting them for artillery would be incredibly stupid

>We are spending tens of millions of dollars for every enemy kill. Do the math. Terrorists can kill a soldier that costs millions to train for pennies. We can't win like that from a financial standpoint.

"we" spend this much money cos we cant fight war same way insurgents do this should be clear by now

same time investing shit ton money on extremely complex artillery system just to fight insurgents is as cost ineffective

>>32444570
>tall man
>185 cm
Pick one

>>32444918
I think he meant that there is minimal unused fissile/fusible material

>>32444918

Radioactive fallout from a total nuclear war could always be avoided by just staying inside for 3 days and leaving HVAC off.

The whole "fallout apocalypse" thing has always been anti nuke propaganda.

Thinking nuclear fallout will kill everything is as ignorant as thinking you can kill someone by shooting their finger with 50 BMG, its like the nuke version of fuddlore

>>32444923

>OH NOOOOO
>A FEW GRAMS OF UNREACTED PLUTONIUM SPREAD OVER A HUNDRED MILES!!
>ALLL IBS LOTS

Yes, you're literally thinking a few grams(or much much less) of radioactive material spread out over a hundred miles will kill everything.

Most people will get less radiation than a dentist x ray.

Stop believing anti nuke propaganda intended to disarm the nation and make us weak.

Its like if you believed that guns are bad and you should sell them because a cartel member gave you a flier telling you that.

The first atomic bombs were horrible because only a few percent of the core actually reacted, the rest was radioactive fallout. A modern nuke will have more like 99% of the core reacted.

Almost no fallout.

>>32445018

>practical efficiency limit of a typical pure fission bomb is about 25%

Source: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq2.html
2.1.4.3 Preventing Disassembly and Increasing Efficiency

BRING BACK GLIDERS.

Battleshipfags will never be relevant again. Your pathetic fossil of asbestos is unneeded.

>>32444966

Planes literally existed for just as long. Da Vinci wasn't the first person to make a glider. My point is aircraft get all the funding and the rest gets neglected.

>"we" spend this much money cos we cant fight war same way insurgents do this should be clear by now

Oh, is that what you were taught? You know Soviets infiltrated and fucked up America as best they could, right? Including our education system.

Do not believe everything you are taught.

America has millions of police and military employees, a massive network of spies, satellites that can read the date on a penny, and cameras that can see your farts from miles away. If the government wanted narcotics gone they would be gone. If they wanted illegals gone they would be gone. But nooo, the TV and schools say its an uncontrollable epidemic so it must be true!!

>>32444968

Wat

>>32445060

We use fission as a primer to create fusion.

Its like worrying about dying from cyanide poisoning because your bullets primers have cyanide in them.

>>32444354
Show me where any effective defense has been made against aircraft that was not performed primarily by other aircraft?

Carriers dictate the engagements through range, even a rail BB has no where near the range of a wing of F/A-18 or F-35 once they're up, not to mention the air wing can attack from any or multiple directions

>>32444570
>
Our missiles and CIWS are designed to kill things with less than a few millimeters of aluminum or steel sheet. This is a couple meters of solid steel.
An explosion on a large shell doesn't need to destroy it
if engaged before terminal decent a few MOA would be enough to deflect it off target, not to mention total any guidance tech fitted

>>32445111
>Its like worrying about dying from cyanide poisoning because your bullets primers have cyanide in them.
If that propelled cyanide over a large area I would be hesitant to shoot firearms.

>>32445142
Ukraine an Malaysia airlines
Turkey and various Russian planes
The Pacific Ocean and Malaysian airlines

>>32444918
the majority of radiation as far as I was aware from Nukes is from ground particles becoming irradiated in the blast, I was under the impression that was why modern nukes are primary airbursting.

File: DF-ST-85-01380.jpg (2MB, 3000x2001px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2001px

>>32445142

https://youtu.be/g5PNhNEW-os

I'd say that's pretty damned effective. And that was second hand Soviet tech that was virtually antique, and AFTER F-117s fucked air defenses best they could.

Also, pic related and nuclear silos. Both are built like modern day castles and both kept the peace.

Saddam's underground palace had layers of reinforced concrete like spaced armor above the compound designed to trick bunker busters into premature detonation, also.

Quit acting like air power is all we need.

Its fucking not.

I'm not saying we don't need air power, I'm saying aerospace companies Jew the fuck out of the budget. Shit, even artillery manufacturers do this. Predatory as fuck pricing. 200 per pound of normal artillery propellant is OBSCENE AS FUCK for a mass produced commodity.

>>32445197

I'm saying if you're close enough to ground zero for unreacted fissile material to effect you significantly you'd be better off if someone triaged you and put you out of your misery.

Think of being close enough to a conventional bomb to live but your clothes blow off, 20% of your skin is blown off, the rest is damaged, and you lose sight and hearing. Technically you didn't die but it would be more humane if you did.

Its like people in Nam that got bombed with napalm. It didnt kill them but melted half their body.

I'd rather be put out of my misery.

>>32445238
>Video of 1 SAM engagement
>I'd say that's pretty damned effective
Ok so since it was so effective you have no problem showing me that the airstrikes on baghdad stalled and where completely ineffective and didn't hit their targets during 1991, when this video is from.

>Quit acting like air power is all we need.
Never said it was, but it is the vast majority of what we need as it lets us have unparalleled battlefield control

>>32445292
But it still covers the target area in irradiated dust for long after the explosion.

Or you know FUCKING WEATHER happens and the dust is blown across the continent and becomes FUCKING FALLOUT.

>>32445142
German flak

>>32445389

You are still concerned about literally grams of radioactive material spread out over MILES. Also

>HALF LIFE MOTHERFUCKER, HAVE YOU HEARD OF IT

Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both rebuilt and fine, no different than any other city destroyed by WW2. And those were primitive theoretical bombs with horrible efficiency!

Literally after it rains a few times almost all the fallout would be gone and after a few days and the dust has settled the air is perfectly safe to breathe.

So long as you weren't unhealthy already, you'd be fine.

File: 95_big.jpg (47KB, 445x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 445x600px

>>32445418

Flak towers were hardcore.

German flak was so effective it forced the American and Royal air forces to constantly change altitude and zig zag.

>>32445142
Vietnam?

>>32445418
Great, so your best example is 75 years ago and was also ineffective.
Depending on who you ask Bomber losses for the Bongs and the USAAF range from 30 to 44% losses to flak, the majority of losses where to Aircraft
That is why daytime air raids where suspended after the horrible losses suffered until a suitable escort could be made.

>>32445441
U-235 has a half-life of like 700 million years.
PU-239 has a half-life of like 25 thousand years

1 Pound of plutonium could give cancer to 2 million people if inhaled.
Source:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html
Under: Plutonium Toxicity

>>32445459
>German flak was so effective it forced the American and Royal air forces to constantly change altitude and zig zag.
Yet they still where able to continue a bombing campaign that hit targets on a daily basis

>>32445473
A better example but again, the air defense campaign was the major decider in what was or was not hit

>>32443437
>implying the BB wouldn't just teleport behind the bomber and stab it in the back with its katana

Are you fucking dumb?

>>32444570
Special boron nitride doped propellet that coats the interior of barrels after firing, have shown to increase barrel life by 2.8%.
Look at the reports and studies that come out of watervliet arsenal. Only marginal improvements can be made at this point unless some miracle happen in metallurgy.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2016ballistics/ManningMonday.pdf

>>32445142
You're trying to force a strategic problem on a tactical solution.
Planes will always win strategically because planes are cheaper and more effective and will eventually destroy what you're trying to destroy.
But not so tactically because it would be too costly. The modern aa would rekt any aircraft that get close to it not to mention there would be supporting ships and possibly aircraft like the airborne laser as well.

Also a good example would be the kamikaze strategy. They get btfo by anti air and considering the amount of aircraft used. It was too costly. The Japanese couldn't sink enough ships because too many of the planes were getting shot down. Sure they sank a few ships but it wasn't practical to throw planes and get shitty results.

>>32445512

The most energetic and destructive particles created by nuclear weapons have very short half lives.

>2 million people cancer

Woooow. Like they wouldn't have gotten cancer anyways from literally ANYTHING.

Cancer is practically like the flu for elderly and diseased people anyways.

They'd have gotten cancer regardless.

I've accepted I'm probably gonna die young so shut your damn mouth.

The bombs dropped on Japan saved countless millions of American and Japanese lives. The alternative was a prolonged naval blockade and siege, then firebombing of EVERY city, destruction of every road, and invasion. The IJA was literally issuing women and children sharpened bamboo sticks and telling people that Americans would murder all the men and rape and torture women and children; they were telling them to kill themselves rather than be captured and were preparing masses suicide attacks.

If America didn't drop the nukes there would be nearly no Japanese alive. They'd be an endangered race. Killing a Japanese person would be like killing a bald eagle or endangered animal.

Yes I'm against careless and needless nuclear usage but when you need it and don't have it the cost is too damn high.

Now quit being such a hippie and support nuclear weapons.

>>32445545

Dude nobody dumps enough cash into it

For fucks sake we have materials that can survive being dropped in a goddamn volcano.

Don't limit your imagination.

>>32445643
I support nukes and nuclear armament, I just believe that there are serious environmental consequences to using them and I'm not ignorant enough to ignore that fact.

>>32445535
> hit targets on a nightly basis
fixed that for you

>>32445717

I agree

But my argument is your argument applies to all weapons.

There are still farmers in France pulling shell fragments out of war polluted land they grow food in.

Why don't you argue that case in tank and artillery threads?

Why are you so focused on the damage nukes do?

All weapons are by nature and design destructive to the environment and humanity in the long term.

But deterrence has its place. Billions believe the for murderer used a rock. God having a better rock dissuades many from acting on impulse.

>>32445630
can you explain if planes are cheaper, how the ship that is hundreds of times more costly would be the less costly answer?

>The modern aa would rekt any aircraft that get close to it not to mention there would be supporting ships and possibly aircraft like the airborne laser as well.
And how is this any different between the BB or carrier?
The difference is that the carrier is capable of strikeing from any direction from several hundred miles without endagering itself
the battleship must close the distance, in range of the carrier aircraft, and must close that gap from a known bearing at a maximum speed that barely exceeds the carriers ability to withdraw

>>32445663
static thermal tolerance =/= repeated shock heating and severe frictional abrasion

>>32445813

I don't think you realize how expensive planes are. The planes an aircraft carrier has are always more expensive than the carrier. Plus those planes need very expensive repairs and expensive trained operators and repairmen.

A battleship has the advantage of being able to shrug off missile hits because it actually has armor. Because enemies would need larger missiles to kill a battleship, it would force them to design new missiles and because the missiles are much larger they can not carry as many of them. Battleships would be able to carry dozens of close in defense systems and hundreds of missile interceptors.

A battleship can send out more pounds of ordinance than any carrier, as well.

>>32445832

Look at car motors. An average motor will have half a billion crank revolutions by the time it hits 200,000 miles and contained billions of controlled explosions and dissipated who knows how much heat.

We just need to rethink how artillery can function while having a longer service life.

Look at guns 300 years ago, look at guns today. People would have thought its impossible for those guns to exist because the alchemy says its not possible.

>>32445813
Argument #1
Loosing several hundred million dollar aircraft in order to destroy an old bb that has been refit could likely cancel out.

Argument #2
It wouldn't attempt to engage if it knew that there was a cv in the viscinity it would wait for a sub to clean up. I know a sub would do same with bb. But that's not what the bb would be doing in its modernized role. It's role would be coastal support as well as support of other more modern combat ships. It would use destroyers to relay info and pick off ships from standoff range

>>32445813
Also foreign carriers are mostly shit tier ramps. And the planes they use couldn't get off the deck if they try to bring an asm. Carriers are superior, but only if their planes can attack the ship in the first place.

>>32445954
>A battleship has the advantage of being able to shrug off missile hits because it actually has armor
In WW2 several BB where sunk by dumb bombs AP bombs straight through the deck armor, or are you proposing 15 in deck armor too and watching the ship capsize?
Zumwalts at 1.1B$ each
Super Hornet 48M$

>A battleship has the advantage of being able to shrug off missile hits because it actually has armor
A Carrier has the advantage of never getting hit in the 1st place as it outranges even your dream BB by a factor of 4 times

>A battleship can send out more pounds of ordinance than any carrier, as well.
An Irrelevance if it cannot close the gap

>Look at car motors. An average motor will have half a billion crank revolutions by the time it hits 200,000 miles and contained billions of controlled explosions and dissipated who knows how much heat.
So you have rotation on bearings for the crank, held mainly on oil with no metal to metal contact
You have the Ignition which is done in a way that minimizes the shock to the block and happily sacrifices power for longevity, you have valve overlap to prevent over pressure that is necessary to propel a large shell, you have a solid engine block with replacable liners that are entirely smoothbored to avoid extra friction, with the only mating surface being a set of small rings as the piston has barely any contact with the cylinder side as oppose to in guns where a full contact is neccesary for engaging the rifling on the shells.
Non of there are viable options for a gun without increasing the weight of the gun several fold, nor do the all work when scaled up to that level

>We just need to rethink how artillery can function while having a longer service life
Its easy you replace them with missiles so you have no need of the barrels wearing

>People would have thought its impossible for those guns to exist because the alchemy says its not possible
>Modern BB's can work, all i have to do is bank on asspull super metalurgy

>>32446040
How much do you suppose this refit will cost?
CIWS
AESA arrays
Multiple railguns
Replacing the turrets with railgun mounts, these will need gyros to compensate for ship movement
New engines to keep up with modern ships
screw reconditioning for the props
Enough power generation for all this within the confines of the old design
gutting the entire ship to refit the wiring necessary for this
making the ship safe for working at sea again with all this
Now all the weight of these new systems that are almost all either at or above waterline, you have now destroyed the ships seaworthyness and cost yourself billions no millions

>But that's not what the bb would be doing in its modernized role. It's role would be coastal support
BB's require the same support as a CV in terms of defensive battlegroups the number and types of munitions used by a carrier are hugely more adaptable than that of a railgun, plus the railgun in limited by general topography in shore bombardment, aircraft are not: but that arguement would be semantics at best

>It would use destroyers to relay info and pick off ships from standoff range
Just like a carrier who's stand off range is the Bingo of the Air wing, meaning that stand off range is substantially bigger and doesn't require other surface assets in the CBG to be in direct threat.

>>32446231
Most remaining Iowa classes already have everything but the rail guns. The power doesn't need to be their all at once. The energy can be stored in super capacitors until it needs to be used and will be replenished by the time reload is over. This is because the ship already uses steam turbines.
The aircraft and missiles can be shot down. Forcing cv to disengage
Bb can lob all day at a fraction of the cost

>>32445111
Near as I know the highest efficiency of any fusion weapon is roughly 40%. There isn't a single nuclear weapon that doesn't poop out some lethal fallout of some sort, fissile materials are treated pretty seriously for that reason. It's why the Navy occasionally scopes out Thresher and Scorpion to this day.

>>32446231
Also Iowa (max speed 35 knots) can easily keep up with new ships like zumwalt (cruising speed ~20 max thirty when all power is directed to induction motors.

>>32446289
What they also had was engines and boilers from the 40s that needed replacement. And to replace those you would need to open up the whole ship, and at that point it would probably be cheaper to just build new ships.

>>32446231
Also most of the carrier we would be fighting are shitty Ramps with aircraft only meant for defense or light ground strike

>>32446289
>Most remaining Iowa classes already have everything but the rail guns
To modern standards? do you really believe that? they where refitted in 1984, nearly 33 years ago.
>The energy can be stored in super capacitors until it needs to be used and will be replenished by the time reload is over
And what is the power retention of these super capacitors? how big are they, before answering look at the blitzers capacitor room, Where on the Iowa's do you expect to fit them.
Consider before answering that they need to be in a safe place as any damage would be crippling and you still need the magazines for storing actual shells.

>The aircraft and missiles can be shot down. Forcing cv to disengage
And the BB still is not in range, the aircraft are rearmed and re sortied over and over as many times as necessary to break through - You still never got in range 5+ sorties later

>Bb can lob all day at a fraction of the cost
The fact it can lob is irrelevant if it cannot get into range

>>32446382
I believe they were refit for the gulf war. So the most we'd need to do would be scrubbing them

>>32446436
No. They were hoplessly worn out and need an ugent replacement.

>>32446398
Because you have fully refitted a BB, a years long task
Moved it to a conflict zone
and in this time no carrier has been given aircraft and told this is a priority target
Ofcourse dear.

as for "what carrier would be fighting" Who are you imagining? because if we're talking fighting the mighty nation of Unga Bunga then of course your navy is superior to ramp carriers, however if you're commiting this level of resources, bear in mind the USN deemed BB to valuable to act without full Battlegroups post war you need to justify it vs your own alternate ships capabilities.
You're so close to realizing the fact that BB's where scrapped because they are not versatile enough to be worth the investment.

>>32446421
I got to call it quits after I finish this but basically
the ciws doesn't need to be modernized when it can rely on support ships like the Nimitz does.

The capacitor rooms in the photos I looked at could easily fit where the powder would be (hard to hit like it should be)

Depending on the target type the bb could go to a direct confrontation and would come out on top.

The planes that would attack it would be shot down by the rail guns and the missiles of the supporting ships. You're smart enough to know that planes are no match to aegis.

Gg senpai i had fun
You're pretty cool for a [spoiler] friend [/spoiler]

>>32446139

Battleship design did not get a chance to adapt to the changing warfare conditions. I told you planes get all the love. We built less than 50 battleships. We have built countless thousands of planes.

We did not adequately prepare ships to take hits from plunging bombs. And plenty of planes have been downed by a single bullet hit, ma y many more planes have been killed by ships than ships killed by planes.

>a carrier will never get hit

Oh yea and the Titanic is unsinkable, Pearl Harbor impenetrable, the World Trade Center is doing fine, and its impossible to land on the moon with a computer less powerful than a calculator!

>impossible gun design

Dude, we don't know what's possible. Science is a process that continually proves itself wrong. Just because you can't think of how to build it doesn't mean someone else can't.

>>32446318

More likely they've set up cameras and are trying to bust anyone doing a clandestine recovery. I believe a sunken Soviet sub had a nuclear torpedo taken from it. The wiki says its got a 20 foot hole where the torpedo compartment is, and it didn't sink because of that hole according to the investigation so its likely someone recovered a nuke.

File: drain.png (91KB, 691x573px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 691x573px

>>32446289
railgun caps have dump and discharge resistors in them. they won't be used to store energy for an extended period of time

>>32446551
>Depending on the target type the bb could go to a direct confrontation and would come out on top.
How would it close the range?
So many times and no answer, this is the defining factor of why a BB loses to a CV and has done for decades

>The planes that would attack it would be shot down by the rail guns
So you now need the railgun to be in turrets reactive enough to track air targets

>missiles of the supporting ships
So again with the BB having no advantage over a typical CV fleet

>>32446591
>Battleship design did not get a chance to adapt to the changing warfare conditions.
It had the same chances as aircraft design,

>We built less than 50 battleships. We have built countless thousands of planes.
because when you adjust the costs to be inline with the real world today for the cost of an Iowa fitted to the 1984 standard you could have several hundred aircraft

>>a carrier will never get hit
>Oh yea and the Titanic is unsinkable, Pearl Harbor impenetrable, the World Trade Center is doing fine, and its impossible to land on the moon with a computer less powerful than a calculator!
HOW IS A BB GOING TO CLOSE THE GAP
1 ADVANCES
1 RETREATS
BOTH HAVE ROUGHLY EQUAL SPEED
THERE IS A 500 MILE GAP
HOW DOES THE BATTLESHIP GET IN RANGE
THE CARRIER IS IN RANGE FOR AIRCRAFT
THE CARRIER CAN HIT THE BATTLESHIP
THE BATTLESHIP CANNOT REACH THE CARRIER
HOW CAN THE BATTLESHIP CLOSE 500 MILES AT 1/2 KNOT DIFFERENTIAL, ASSUMING THE BB IS NOt ACTUALLY ENTIRELY SLOWER THAN THE CARRIER, THAT ASSUMPTION IS GENEROUS

>Dude, we don't know what's possible.
Dude, you're making asspull assertions
I love BB's they're cool as fuck but they are dead

>>32446740
Not dead. Just not for battle against countries with good carriers (surprisingly few countries have good carriers and even less of those would think of crossing the us)

>>32443579
>thinking CIWS works
Electronic countermeasures are more likely to defeat a missile than CIWS, gun absed CIWS in particular is pretty much worthless.

File: 1482616861809.gif (2MB, 695x392px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 695x392px

>>32443409

Railguns are not real. They are science fiction. Emphasis on "fiction."

>>32446765
>Not dead
Yes, dead The only reason for the 1980's refit for the Iowa's was the Soviet Kirov was intimidating an we wanted to wave our dicks around. The fact she was decommissioned so soon after should show that clear enough

>Just not for battle against countries with good carriers
No one has shown any way for them to be capable vs a carrier, so atleast you admit that
Both require the same infrastructure and investment in supporting assets
No-one in this thread has shown any way that a BB is more versatile than a CV in anything but a minor cost saving purely for shore bombardment, which would put the Battlegroup in range of any shoreborne AShSSMs

So the arguement for BB becomes this:

Should we invest the cost of a carrier for a ship that is more limited strategic use currently and may save a few million in ordinance and has no foreseable use beyond the current campaign in the middle east in the hope that some how we find a use for it in its 50+ year life or should we continue purchasing Carriers that we know are proven effective and our entire combat doctrine has proven their worth in Campaign after campaign.

>>32446740

Dude the planes on a carrier cost more than the carrier.

Ships are cheaper under some circumstances.

>HOW IS A BB GOING TO CLOSE THE GAP

The USS Donald J Trump, lead ship of the Donald J Trump class stealth hydrofoil battleship, will approach to within 1000 NM at a speed of 50 knots under absolute stealth after shooting down or EMPing all enemy satellites in the hemisphere. It will then unload a full broadside of electrically propelled 10KT scramjet shells that will impact the carrier battle group.

Then the ship will sail to your house and fuck your wife better than you ever could.

>>32443409

It would make sense to just build more Zumwalts.

>>32447003
So complete bullshit is your answer.
I'm disappointed, not surprised

>>32446864
Unless we go to war with a country that doesn't use
> ramps
Then not dead
Bombing of shipyards prevents that country from making catobars and we can then rape costal cities and resources with glorious rail guns.
Also we wouldn't have to pay for jet fuel.

Not to mention the battle group would likely be past the horizon and use cheap uavs to spot and pick off any coastal threats

Honestly cvs are superior but they do lack in areas that only large caliber guns can fill

File: canal23.jpg (47KB, 520x231px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 520x231px

BRING BACK ARTILLERY BARGES

>>32447003
>Stealth hydrofoil bbs
Your on to something

>>32447014
>Unless we go to war with a country that doesn't use ramps
So by that level of reasoning we could skip carriers and battleships as even our frigate and cruiser fleets can be relied upon to achieve that on all but 1 or 2 nations

>Honestly cvs are superior but they do lack in areas that only large caliber guns can fill
And the need of large caliber guns is at best labeled as "Niche"

for a BB not to be dead as a major naval player in means intentionally handicapping ourselves for a job that can be easily performed by a handful smaller more replaceable cruiser as opposed to a real capitol ship

This is before mentioning the lack of AWACS that the lack of a carrier means, or are we doing joke Helos like the Bongs to get this done?

>>32446591
You're thinking of K-278 Kosmolets, it indeed has damage to the torpedo room but as of the last inspection the warheads and reactor core is still in place. Also leaking due to corrosion and the fact that K-278's titanium hull is fractured in several places and split open due to the fact it burned for quite some time before sinking with sealed compartments and busted open.

The only known nuclear submarine wreck that could have had warheads salvaged from it is K-219, it's been reported that some of it's nuclear missiles were missing when Keldysh checked on it in the 1990's. However it is resting at a depth of 18,000ft and in the early 1990's the only vehicles that could descend to that depth and perform any sort of salvage operation would have been Russia's own Mir and the US Navy's DSV-2 Alvin.

Also as far as your battleship wank it won't happen, the remaining Iowa class would have to be stripped to a partial hull and completely rebuilt to be even borderline functional and I can almost guarantee no country on earth is going to expend an absolutely massive amount of money to build a ship that still requires all the escorts of a carrier but has an effective weapons range several hundred miles shorter. Much easier to build smaller ships like the Zumwalt and equip them with advanced cannon systems and electromagnetic weaponry and not place everything into a single dick stroking vehicle.

Test

File: modern_battleship_concept_by_darkheart1987-d4dzpmf (1).png (324KB, 1400x1297px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1400x1297px

>>32447100

You misunderstood.

I don't want to refit the Iowa's.

I want a new battleship class.

>>32447436
>2 turrets

>>32447436
It would still be largely worthless, you would end with a vessel that would eat up as much money as a Carrier and would require the same sort of escort and support ships. What would you gain? Sure you could do coastal bombardment but that just brings your entire battlegroup within range of ground launched ASM's and any aircraft within that country. Meanwhile an aircraft carrier could sit well outside the effective range of retaliation and send aircraft to wherever it damn well pleases.
Also it would be far more effective to spread the missile and cannon armament over several Burke successor vessels instead of concentrating it all in a single ship, then in the event of a ship being rendered incapable of action you don't lose everything. This and the massive cost is the same reason all the battleship conversions and the Arsenal Ship concept never took off.

>>32443437
Fpbp

>>32447549
>what would you gain
Looking badass as you fire a full salvo into some coastal village

>>32446863
They are real.

>>32448782

Show me a ship with a working railgun then.

Oh wait, you can't because they aren't real.

File: 140708-N-ZK869-010.jpg (1MB, 4817x2763px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4817x2763px

>>32448908
Here's a working railgun with a ship.

File: 20150218_203401l3.jpg (396KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1280x960px

>>32449125
making anime real already

>>32443409
Go away BBfag

Fuck. Someone please nuke this thread with metric fuck-tons of Iowa picks to kill it or something plz.

>>32449125
when BAE gets you hard as a rail.
jk I know people who work for BAE up at the Navy Yard in DC

>>32449673
What do they do at the navy yard, lobby for more money?

>>32449622
No boatsluts to be found

:^)

File: masterwork bastard fleet.jpg (84KB, 532x705px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 532x705px

>>32445540
Katana Fleet's not canon anymore, anon.

>>32451981

Obscure star wars reference detected.

The lost dreadnought fleet IIRC

>>32447436
I want this too, but that pic is a terrible way to do it. It also probably doesn't displace enough water to count as a battleship.

>>32445540
will it be personal

>>32444795
>It's harder to hit something at the slowest point of its trajectory

File: thatsbait.gif (3MB, 500x207px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x207px

>>32444886

>>32447017
This!

>>32444370

It's just pathetic how that ordinance-dropping scenario never plays out, because driving a battleshart up that close to a hostile coast is too risky.

File: 49125784_p31.png (98KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 300x300px

>>32451688

>>32449397
dog bless emprah trump

>>32456526
Keep them coming.

>>32443409
>Montana class
>Nuclear powered
>As automated as is reasonably possible
>Replace outer two turrets with railgun turrents
>Replace inner two turrets with VLS blocks
>Also design in a proper hangar and helipad because ASW

File: 1477102888725.jpg (26KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 540x540px

>>32461322

Replace main batteries with Mk57 tubes for both AShM and ASW.
Every gimble 5 inch replaces with Mk 29 box launching RIM-162/D ESSM.
Starboard and Port side filled with RIM-161 Block IIA VLS tubes. BGM-109G tubes in the stern with v5 TTWCS control room in the rear aft for land bombardment. FCC turrets replaced with active radar interception gimbles for anti ballistic missle. 40mm and 20mm AA emplacements replaced with Phalanx and Goalkeeper.

I assure you this realistic setup is enough to get you though New Game+ in Warship Gunner.

>>32444840
>We went from the Wright bros to moon landing in a handful of decades

All on the backs of better, smarter people. The first fixed wing aircraft was invented by a Brit. The first powered flight was done by a Frog. The first self-propelled powered flight was by Maxim who was rumoured to be a Brit. Wright Brothers were the first successful non-restrictive flight.

As for the Moon Landing, based on British, Canadian, French and mostly German shit.

What would happen if you put a railgun on a submarine, then having it right beneath a ship and fire upwards? It'd piercing the hull and go straight through an ammo battery and KAPOW.

To answer OP, a Battleship equipped railgun will likely be done, yes. But it'll be a one off 'Record Creator' project. Also, couldn't you make a 'shotgun' type railgun, which fires a munition that purposely degrades at a certain distance then pepper the hull with hundreds of bomblets which create fractures/cracks in a hull?

>>32443409
>dominate sea and any land within 100 miles of the coast
becomes
>dominate sea and any land within 2000 miles of the coast
with carriers
but you knew this
i'm bored too anon, but i didn't start a thread for it

>>32461322
This. They're going to need power to spare, though. Railguns are 40% efficient or so. Two 512MJ railguns at 10 rounds per minute will take nearly half a gigawatt. The new A1B reactor is going to be at least 3x the current A4W, which produces 100MW each of electricity (although there's an additional 108MW of mechanical energy or something. Seriously, fuck whoever wrote this wikipedia article). So, at a minimum, there's going to be 600MW electrical energy on the Ford-class carriers, plus whatever is left over in mechanical energy, although it sounds like they're trying to maximize electrical v mechanical with the A1B. Of course, it very well may produce a lot more power, but the specs are classified.

>>32462215
Salt water and railguns don't mix well.

>>32464021
512MJ is next century territory. Think smaller and the reactors are more than enough.

>>32443409

If anything, a modern battleship would be a battlecruiser, since there's no need for armor these days either way above protection against 150mms, and even then the enemy is quickly going to introduce modern warheads to make that one obsolete

I can see it as an artillery support platform as the Iowa did during desert storm, but not much else