It's happening!

File: 3573578.jpg (1MB, 1883x1502px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1883x1502px

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/it-time-bring-back-the-battleships-13734

File: 6489469.jpg (3MB, 2853x2141px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2853x2141px

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2piJQYJdYCQ

>>32597255
No it isn't.

"Idiot Loudmouth President continues to propose ideas that ruining everything. Braindead supporters cheer, and masturbate. America to be 7th thing Trump bankrupts."

>>32597664
>being an unironic leftist on /k/
Are you that "moderate" WAfag from /pol/?

>>32597673
Are you an idiot that thinks battleships strengthen instead of weaken a modern navy?

>>32597673

Not him, but shut the fuck up.

I've been a republican a fuck of a lot longer then Donald Trump. Back when it involved Christian values and fiscal responsibility. I also served in the US navy, again unlike Trump.

The man is a fucking retard. A gun ship that requires 1,800 souls to fight? A whole class from Great Lakes, just to put it in the water when it is a relic that should be a museum.

File: 58858.jpg (1MB, 2000x1556px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1556px

>>32597664

>>32597716
>The man is a fucking retard.
Fuck you, pussy lying traitor.

>>32597255
>It's happening!
>Article is dated 9/16/15
Even if it was, we don't need them anymore. Battleships are damn near useless in a modern navy. This isn't WWII, and we're not gonna fight any major naval power any time soon anyways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2piJQYJdYCQ&t=79s&spfreload=10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVvEPTYrcXA&spfreload=10

>>32597728
The next year until he retires in disgrace is going to be real hard for you.

>>32597716
>US Navy

faggot

>>32597255
I don't think we need battle ships, but instead we could use I don't know..."bombarbment boats" think a coastguard cutter but with two 5 inch mod 4 gun turrets (the long range ones that can shoot 20 miles inland) one at the front and one on the back and a 40mm bofor turret on each side of the ship as well as an M2 gunshield mount and of course have the missile defense gattling gun.

This heavy gunboat can support landing operations and wreck pirate ships and towns with 40 automatic shots of 62 caliber explosive goodness will wipe them out.

Sure it can't match old WW2 battle ship cannon slaughter, but it's good enough for practicality.

>>32597779
Cheaper, easier, more accurate, and more destructive to use missiles. At least until we can figure out how to get a railgun not to blow out its magnets after half a dozen shots.

>>32597805

They're getting durable enough for several hundred shots now. Still shit all compared to conventional weapons and it's still expensive as hell but

File: DF-21D-ASBM.jpg (2MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1333px

I can hear the Chinese cheering already

>>32597805
>Cheaper, easier, more accurate, and more destructive to use missiles. At least until we can figure out how to get a railgun not to blow out its magnets after half a dozen shots.
Then you would need to build a battleship to put the railguns on.

Would a new hull be a better option? Build a brand new iowa hull, the design is already well tested, needs no real R&D. Put modern gas turbines and electric drive, reuse electronic parts from the zumwalt for bridge and radar. Replace the 5 inch guns with modern mark 45s, the 40mm with modern 30mm CIWS. Keep the existing main guns but automate loading as a short term placeholder. Then when railguns development is more mature replace the main guns. The large armored ammo sections are ideal for the railgun capacitors and if it's built with electric drive the railgun power systems can be built in from the start.

File: Letsbringbackbattleships.jpg (52KB, 634x456px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 634x456px

>>32597255
Why must we have these autistic threads every single day?
>Battleship
>Ship of the line of battle
There have only been three proper battleships engagements since HMS Dreadnought, it's a fucking meme based around the times of first and third rate ships.
Fuck it, lets bring back Battleships and while we're at it lets bring back pic related

>>32597955
>you would need to build a battleship to put the railguns on

"no"

They're not all that big, and the Zumwalt Class is ready to accept them once they're finished.

Sage and hide bbfag.

>>32597716
Ted Cruz pls leave

>>32598148
>Not wanting to dress up in bright Crimson with your bros to go invade Africa and crush the natives through crippling volley fire

>>32597673
>calling out trump's retarded comments
>reee leftist cuck ctr

just kys

Are railguns the last chance to bring Battleships back?

>>32598885
Why would you need a battleshp for a railgun?

Look at Zumwalts. Those things are oozin with power to mount even more than just one gun on them while being infinitely cheaper than a battleship.

>>32598934
Why have two railguns when you can have nine?

>>32597255
>jalopnik
>gawker

nope

>>32598934
Because you need a strong hull to contain the batteries for 9 fucking railguns, as well as possible stabilizations problems from a fucking Aluminium meme thin hull that can't ever be possible to be anywhere nearby a shore without getting sunk by anything that can look at it.

>>32597779
Congratulations, you have nearly described the littoral combat ships recently introduced to the US navy. Granted, the 5"guns would be an improvement to it's meager arsenal of 1-57mm bofors ,SeaRAM for missile defense and other assorted missiles and unmanned vehicles.
They're called the Freedom class and Independence class.

>>32598995
>aluminum meme hull
>steel hulled battleship fitted with magnetically accelerated cannons.
>re-gaussing a formerly degaussed hull
Congratulations, you've brough magnetic sea mines back into use

>>32597827
There's talk about using a replaceable barrel system. Just swap them out between battles.

>>32599479
It would only be magnetized when firing and even then each shot would create conflicting fields. Then the degaussing coils would kick in.

Actually, since steel is less conductive than aluminum you'd be more likely to get a magnetic response from an aluminum ship firing it's railguns than a steel ship firing.

>>32597779
>missles
>cheaper than tube artillery

>>32597805
>>32599631

>>32597955
You had me until
>Gas turbines

If you're building a new ship out of the Iowa hull, it would be idiotic to do anything but throw an A1B into it at the center of a Zumwalt-style IEP system.

That, or use this new surface flagship as an excuse to pull back the curtain and reveal just how far along research into the Polywell at China Lake is. Using an IEP with a compact fusion reactor or two at its center would make the chinks shit themselves in fear.

>>32598995
If we're talking stabilization, then the US should abandon the shitty narrow Iowa hull entirely since the Panama Canal now has locks that could handle the Bismarck or the H44, and build something with REAL beam and god-tier stability.

>>32598953
Because the only reason battleships had 9 was due to (in todays standards) absolutely shit tier CEP and needing to bombard targets.

File: USS_Gerald_R._Ford_(CVN-78)_on_the_James_River_in_2013.jpg (2MB, 3900x2221px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3900x2221px

>>32597255

What if we took one of the gerald fords we are working on and convert it to a missile battleship

>Tower and living quarters
>the rest is just missile tubes

>>32598995

We have a railgun on a almost completely aluminium ship, and on a structurally "weaker" ship, right now.

Its not 1950 anymore gramps.

The only problem with aluminum, and aluminum composites/alloys is fire, which can be mitigated.

>>32599652
Arguably, an Iowa is big enough to warrant a nuclear reactor. Same as our carriers.

>>32599584

Conductivity is not Permeability friend.

>>32599669
Dangerous as all hell but wouldn't be as cost effective as our frigates. Moreover, engagement ranges would be the same as other missile boats so it's got no advantages over a bunch of smaller ships.

>>32599669

Because it would be better to distribute that lethaity over...what....30 ships for the cost in men and steel?

>>32599690

Could the ford fit larger missiles that allow for greater range?

The way it tapers makes me think

>Center, very large missiles
>next to that large missiles
>next to that medium missiles
>next to that small missiles

rim of the ship could be dedicated to some form of defensive missiles

I just want to see a gerald ford go all macross desu

>>32599674
It's less a matter of aluminum and more a matter of the aluminum being so thin that it can be pierced by anti-air missiles. Modern naval armor is a joke.

>>32599714
You'd need to create new anti-ship missiles from scratch. As it stands we're already mounting the biggest anti-ship missiles on our frigates.

Another issue is that the radar horizon means you can't extend detection range beyond a certain point. Drones help but you don't need a battleship to mount drones.

I'm a faggot who comes to this board largely for small arms and know nothing about ships so I have a few questions.
Why would it be bad to have the ability to drive thousands of tons of metal, missiles, and guns around the world?
What makes a battleship worse or better than an aircraft carrier for support and force projection?
How do these massive slow moving targets keep themselves from becoming missile pincushions?
Do you agree or disagree with the decision to build more battleships?
In your opinion, would building more vessels of any variety battleship or otherwise be useful?

>>32599669
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THE PLANES IT CARRIES FIRE YOU FUCKING DUMB PIECE OF SHIT.

>>32599719

Thats because the enemy has school bus sized missiles going mach 3 with a heat warhead the size of a tank.

Thats what killed the battle ship.

File: OISAsy.jpg (83KB, 547x500px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 547x500px

>>32597716
>2017
>cuckservatism

>>32599763

Do you seriously not understand the difference between plane mounted missiles and ship mounted missiles?

>>32599652
The problem with using nuclear propulsion on battleships is that unlike carriers they will be hit by things.

>>32599744
The Battleship had one job. Kill other battleships.
A missile from a plane can do that job better as the plane is a small target firing anywhere up to several 100 miles away from the carrier. The missiles the plane fires can themselves fly many more miles keeping the plane in safety.

The ability to destroy has always been better than the ability to protect, so a small missile or torpedo is far better than risking a 70,000 ton ship that carriers 5000 sailors into a combat shooting zone of only a few dozen miles.

If you want to talk about shore bombardment then that is a different story and even then battleships were only used in this manner when it became apparent, finally, that they were shit in their primary role as anti-ship warfare.

>>32599744
I will be your huckleberry...

>Why would it be bad to have the ability to drive thousands of tons of metal, missiles, and guns around the world?

We do this already.

>What makes a battleship worse or better than an aircraft carrier for support and force projection?

Battleship, is better in the sense that you can provide very good volume of fire at extremely short ranges. To make a bad example, its a B-52 loaded with nothing but dumb bombs.

It loses in every regard. The Aircraft has more range, can deliver more types of ordinance, can do it more accurately, and the carrier is completely out of range of most threats (the battleship is not). For the analogy, the Carrier is a B-2 stealth bomber.

>How do these massive slow moving targets keep themselves from becoming missile pincushions?

Every other major USN surface combatants role includes protecting the carrier. The USN arguably has the worlds best surface to air missiles, and the carrier battle group is inarguable the most dense anti air defense zone in the world.

>Do you agree or disagree with the decision to build more battleships?

There has been no decision made, and it would be a mistake.

>In your opinion, would building more vessels of any variety battleship or otherwise be useful?

A modern battleship (zumwalt) is useful. But it would look nothing like the iowa, and gains nothing from more guns.

>>32599773
Actually, modern anti-ship missiles use an APHE type warhead. shaped charges don't explode inside the hull and thus do less damage.

Now, keep in mind that most ships with VLS systems carry around 100 cells that each can carry either an anti-air, anti-ship, anti-missile, or anti-sub missile. As a result, a ship might have 20-30 dedicated anti-ship missilesand as many anti-air missiles. Also keep in mind that this ship can't reload those VLS cells at sea and needs a dedicated port to reload them.

Finally, the aegis system has been proven to intercept missile before so you might not be able to kill an enemy with a single missile.

When you think about it, just stopping the enemy's anti-air missiles from killing your ship is a win. It basically cuts their offensive firepower in half.

>huge slow expensive missile magnet designed for a role that no longer exists

Maybe if somehow all missiles and planes ceased to exist, they might have a purpose.

>>32597716
This. Battleships were already outdated by WW2

>>32599841
>Actually, modern anti-ship missiles use an APHE type warhead.

I meant to say HEAP, heat was a mistake due to obvious reasons.

>Now, keep in mind that most ships with VLS systems carry around 100 cells that each can carry either an anti-air, anti-ship, anti-missile, or anti-sub missile. As a result, a ship might have 20-30 dedicated anti-ship missilesand as many anti-air missiles.

100% wrong. The USN has both dedicated anti air ships, and more jack of all trades ones.

>Finally, the aegis system has been proven to intercept missile before so you might not be able to kill an enemy with a single missile.

Uhhh, what? Ill give you a chance to retype this because you might be saying two completely different things here.

Also, keep in mind that not every AShM will be 100% sucess either.

>When you think about it, just stopping the enemy's anti-air missiles from killing your ship is a win.

No, because you will be mission killed either way.

Rail guns. Your missiles are ineffective when they are shot down 3 miles away.

>>32597752
this is stage 3 of grief

>>32599894
>100% wrong. The USN has both dedicated anti air ships, and more jack of all trades ones.

That actually works against the USN if true as dedicated AA ships wouldn't be effective against armored warships.

>Also, keep in mind that not every AShM will be 100% sucess either.

That's what I'm saying. Ships have limited anti-ship armaments to begin with so limiting them even more is worthwhile.

>No, because you will be mission killed either way.

Only if you don't pack redundant radar and ECM arrays. Preventing an actual kill means that the enemy needs to pick off every single radar and gun and you can still make field repairs or limp back to port. The crew surviving is a win in and of it'self.

>>32600086
>That actually works against the USN if true as dedicated AA ships wouldn't be effective against armored warships.

Thats like saying a rifle is ineffective against a tank, therefore rifles are pointless. Different threats countered, its not the job of BMD ships to kill other ships.

>Ships have limited anti-ship armaments to begin with so limiting them even more is worthwhile.

Thats because ships are not the primary killer of ships anymore.

>Only if you don't pack redundant radar and ECM arrays.

You can only put so much radar on the mast, and a shrapnal into a AESA/PESA array fucks the entire array.

> The crew surviving is a win in and of it'self.

Modern ships survive plenty.

>>32597736
>and we're not gonna fight any major naval power any time soon anyways.
Not with that attitude we arent
>>32599894
>muh mission killed
Maybe if you are a shitty paper boat, but a real warship is sufficiency redundant to continue fighting even if the front falls off.

>>32597255
/k/ btfo
k
/

b
t
f
o

>>32600086
Why do all of the radar, sonar, even arrays have to be on the ship? Why not a swarm of drones to do this job with multiple redundant data reception locations. They don't require the huge hangars, space for munitions, and fuel that full aircraft require so it's not like you're building a carrier all over again.

Also why not have linked sensor and fire control throughout the fleet. That way a ship isn't mission killed until all are.

>>32597805
>missiles
>cheaper

Choose one.

>>32600248
This plus while their fuel supply gives them huge range it severely limits their non-nuclear warhead capacity. 70 year old simple steel battleship armor would do very well against modern dedicated anti ship weaponry.

>>32597716
Rato pls go.

>>32597716
>being affiliated with either major party
Get away from me you extremist.

On the one hand, a 2,700lb AP shell travelling at two and a half times the speed of sound gives no fucks about your defensive countermeasures and laughable "armor". On the other hand, an Iowa is never going to get in gun range unless it has plenty of modern escorts, and if you're going to be using that many ships you might as well have them escorting a carrier instead.

>>32597255
>http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/trump-s-crazy-idea-to-bring-back-battleships-might-actu-1731114811
>As usual, the cable news networks were waiting with baited breath last night for what was touted as a foreign policy speech, with details, by Donald Trump on the deck of the Battleship USS Iowa. Well, that didn’t happen.
>Well, that didn’t happen.
I'm shocked!

>>32597681
>>32597716
This. Carriers and missile cruisers do the job better than fucking battleships.

>>32597716

>1800 souls

Bet you could do it with 300 now. Modern munitions and shit are WAY cheaper and there's entire magazine mechanisms already in place for most larger deck guns that could be upscaled for a 155mm/trumpmagicround.

Not that it isn't dumb ofc but the 'huge crew' shit isn't a factor anymore due to automation.

>>32600164
>Thats like saying a rifle is ineffective against a tank, therefore rifles are pointless. Different threats countered, its not the job of BMD ships to kill other ships.

No, this is like saying a handgun can kill a particular tank so that isn't a very good tank.

>Thats because ships are not the primary killer of ships anymore.

So what's the point of a warship?

>You can only put so much radar on the mast, and a shrapnal into a AESA/PESA array fucks the entire array.

But only on a given facing.

>Modern ships survive plenty.

Modern ships haven't dealt with a full fledged war. The last great naval battles were the Falklands War and everybody knew how that was going to end.

>>32597681
Battleships have never had military significance, they have always been diplomatic ships designed to parade around and show off.

I say we recommission them, take out one of the turrets and replace it with a consulate with luxury accommodations, and go tour the world with them, park them in peoples ports and such.

>>32600544
>No, this is like saying a handgun can kill a particular tank so that isn't a very good tank.

Well then all tanks are shit, because i can open the hatch and start shooting!

>So what's the point of a warship?

Protect the carrier, strike deep inland targets.

>But only on a given facing.

And?

> The last great naval battles were the Falklands War and everybody knew how that was going to end.

This is false.

>>32600244
>Why do all of the radar, sonar, even arrays have to be on the ship? Why not a swarm of drones to do this job with multiple redundant data reception locations.

Radar arrays tend to get really heavy and nobody has bothered to scale one to fit on a drone. Not one for naval combat anyway.

>Also why not have linked sensor and fire control throughout the fleet.

Mostly, it hasn't come up yet. Most ships are so thin skinned that one good hit will crippled them anyway. There's some security issues with the enemy hijacking the network but most of those are solved with laser comms anyway.

>>32600567
>protect the carrier

Frigates already do that.

>strike deep inland targets

Frigates and destroyers already can do that and if they bothered to use the 155mm then they already have LRLAP as an option if they bother to reopen that or just use Vulcano rounds and Oto meradas.

I mean there is a use for a modern 'battleship' but it wouldn't be the same as WW2 battleships. A gridclearing 6 turreted 155mm artillery spam boat would definitely be an effective tool but it sure as hell doesn't need to be a battleship to achieve what it has to do.

>>32600567
>Well then all tanks are shit, because i can open the hatch and start shooting!

I think you broke the analogy here.

>Protect the carrier, strike deep inland targets.

Protect the carrier from what? Planes? A carrier has a CAP. Subs? Leave that to other submarines. Surface ships are horrible at sub hunting. No, the point of a warship is to protect the carrier from OTHER WARSHIPS.

>And?

Turn the ship and bring your undamaged radars to bear.

>>32600622
>Frigates already do that.

Not as well as cruisers and air destoryers.

>>32600633
>Protect the carrier from what?

Missiles anon. Missiles. Subs and Planes too.

>Turn the ship and bring your undamaged radars to bear.

While you are turning your ship whats happening?

>>32600277
>70 year old simple steel battleship armor would do very well against modern dedicated anti ship weaponry.
Actually no, the guns on modern frigates are capable of firing rapidly and accurately enough that they can punch holes in them without trouble.

>>32600658
>Missiles anon. Missiles. Subs and Planes too.

Missiles launched by ships. More to the point, you don't want to be in a ship that can be killed by an air launched AtA missile. Planes can carry far more of those than AShMs

>While you are turning your ship whats happening?

Doesn't matter. The very fact that you're alive to make that decision means you're ahead of the ship with 10mm of aluminum armor.

>>32600781
>Missiles launched by ships

No, primary missiles launched by planes. It was not the kirov the USN feared, it was the TU-22.

Get learned, please.

>Planes can carry far more of those than AShMs

Stop. just stop. Stop. Full stop. Stop posting.

Its time to stop.

>>32600805
No anon, it is you who will stop.

Or are you saying that an air to air missile weighs less than an anti-ship missile.

>>32600879

Im saying there are planes that carry more anti ship missiles than AA missiles. Those planes, beyond subs, were the main threat to carriers.

>>32597664
"Unquestioning leftists make hyperbolic claims and fling non-arguments like that have for the last 2 years and continue to wonder why no one takes them seriously."

>>32597716
>Back when it involved Christian values
letting the religious fundie nuts have a plank in the party platform is what killed the GOP, idiot.

>>32600505

Kek. Warships need crew for damage control parties. That is one of the reasons why Zumwalt-class got axed after three ships, US Navy isn't sure can that ship survive combat with potentially too small crew.

>>32598953

Because the limitation is not on hull size, but rather power generation.

The Iowa's electrical generation capability is shit. They already pushed it to the limit in the 80's installing the new radar and computers.

If you want to put Railguns on that hull, you need both new boilers, possibly a new aux turbine, and a new generator.

>>32600913

You mean the anti-abortion and gay marriage part that's still the core of the GOP platform.

As well as evolution is a hoax.

>>32600883
Carrying a thousand pound missile makes those planes more vulnerable to both SAMs and the carrier's own combat air patrol. This also kills the range because those anti-ship missiles often occupy the same hardpoints as external fuel tanks.

Likewise, we see more and more F/A type fighters that can swap these heavy missile hardpoints for more anti-air missiles.

Finally, keep in mind that many of these air to surface missiles are little more than high explosive warheads. Against heavy armor they'd do very little. Destroy radar systems, maybe, but those could be repaired or replaced fairly easily and many warships have redundant radar systems.

Against thin aluminum armor the missiles punch right in and explode inside the hull causing massive damage. This can quickly knock out a ship entirely rather than partially blinding it.

>>32601094
They launch outside of cap and sam range.

Kill yourself.

>Finally, keep in mind that many of these air to surface missiles are little more than high explosive warheads.

Stop posting.

>>32601079
>You mean the anti-abortion and gay marriage part that's still the core of the GOP platform.

These ideas aren't even very christian to begin with. For one, Jesus says to love thy neighbor and forgive sinner. Christians may not allow their own to have gay marriage but do they have any right to forbid other faiths from practicing as they believe?

No, so long as no harm comes to you and yours you have no grounds to hinder your neighbor's practices.

>As well as evolution is a hoax.
You really haven't researched this very well.

File: Ilc_9yr_moll4096 (1).png (1MB, 1280x640px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x640px

>>32601079
>As well as evolution is a hoax.

Do we have a genuine flat earth creationist here? 4000 years old universe and shieet?

>>32601111
>They launch outside of cap and sam range.

Not possible in some cases. anti-ship missiles are exceptionally heavy. and a plane can carry only so many of them.

Firing from outside CAP range is also silly as CAP could be a couple hundred miles wide while many air launched AShMs struggle to get 100 miles of range.

>Stop posting.
Anti-bunker missiles don't count, anon.

>>32601148
>Not possible in some cases

Its possible in all cases, They are heavy because they have huge ranges.

>and a plane can carry only so many of them.

Bombers can carry a lot.

>while many air launched AShMs struggle to get 100 miles of range.

Not the soviet ones.

Stop. Posting.

>>32601177
>Not the soviet ones.
The longest range I could find for Russian AShMs was the Kh-59 with 150nm range. That's well within the F-18's 390 nmi range.

Oddly enough the R-37 has even more range than the Kh-59 but doesn't have an armor piercing warhead.

>Stop. Posting.

NEVAA

>>32601286
>The longest range I could find for Russian AShMs was the Kh-59 with 150nm range

You didnt look hard. Furthermore the F-18's 390 nmi range is for strike missions, not cap.

>>32601323
Wait, are we talking the F-18E/F or the F-18C/Dor the CF-18 because only the CF-18 has that short a strike range. The others had that range as the combat range for interdiction (basically dogfighting)

Also, what was the russian missile I missed?

>>32601372
Super hornet has 400 nmi for interdiction, not cap.

Cap lowers range due to having to cruise around an area, rather than a point target.

>Also, what was the russian missile I missed?

If i post one, or three, will you stop posting? If not, you missed nearly all of them.

>>32601387
What's with you. You argue away but at the first sign of dissent you get all angry. It's like you just want to win but don't want to argue.

...you're not a troll, are you?

>>32601551

Your wrong, and its easily proven.

I just want you to stop. Its tireing.

>>32601578
But your reasoning is so very, very flimsy. How are you sure you're right?

Can Trump stop being retarded?

>>32601148
A lot of AA missiles are closer to shrapnel than HE missiles, fucko.

>>32601714

Because 2000 km air launched AShM's exist.

This is ignoring ground batteries.

>>32600409
>On the one hand, a 2,700lb AP shell travelling at two and a half times the speed of sound gives no fucks about your defensive countermeasures and laughable "armor"

how the fuck are you going to aim the gun?

>>32601889
>not knowing the Iowa has radar directed fire control

>>32600665
I said missiles, you said guns, I was making a case for guns... thanks.

File: IMG_4873.jpg (72KB, 550x299px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 550x299px

I daydream about a cruiser mounting four M777A2s per turret in three turrets.
26k range with standard shells, course correcting fuses, GPS guided rounds, RAP, UAV spotting and that new ogive.
Nice platform for bombardment. Cheaper than missiles,

>trump makes 1 throwaway comment while trying to get elected
>liberals and /k/iddies throw a several-year-long autistic tantrum about it

>>32602850
ERCA program might even extend its range to 70km.

>>32603018
Oh wow. Seventy whole kilometers. SEVENTY. That's as many as seven tens.
If only there was something that could HOPE to match such a blistering range...

>Block III Tomahawk range:– 700 nmi (810 mi; 1,300 km)

>>32600913
spot on mr goldwater

File: 73773.jpg (791KB, 2324x1416px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 2324x1416px

Mr. Trump.... bring them back!!!

They are good to go, as demanded by Congress:

1. Iowa and Wisconsin must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility

2. The battleships must be preserved in their present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed

3. Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch (410 mm) gun barrels and projectiles be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa and Wisconsin, if reactivated

4. The navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa and Wisconsin should they be returned to the navy in the event of a national emergency.

>>32597255
>It's happening
>2015 article

>>32599787
>Do you seriously not understand the difference between plane mounted missiles and ship mounted missiles?

do you seriously not know that in most cases they use the same missile?

File: 12893603.jpg (54KB, 317x321px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 317x321px

>>32597716
>just to put it in the water when it is a relic that should be a museum
>mfw

>>32603018
>ERCA program might even extend its range to 70km.

holy shit, you mean it could outrange even the yamato? what a technological m a r v a l

File: warning-146916_960_720.png (51KB, 815x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 815x720px

this is just a baby-boomer wet dream, i.e. yet another attempt to relive the hyped-up stories of the "greatest generation", this time by *literally* re-making shit from the forties.

it's the product of a generation-spanning daddy-worship complex and if you buy into this shit you have fallen for a lifetime of hollywood propaganda produced by soft men

>>32603242
They are not "good to go", they would need extensive modernisation before they can be used.

>get set on fire
>no big deal, I'll heal after it burns itself out
>game crashes
>well shit, better open it up again, and hope I get back in before I'm dead
>click the launcher
>windows crashes

Why do I even fucking try?

>>32603608
And it gets better. Game crashes on the login screen so now I have to restart the computer a-fucking-gain.

>>32597716
Go home Jeb

>>32600913
???
Christian conservatism is what SAVED the GOP and rebuilt it into the conservative party it is today

Which will save America

Republicans were nig loving liberal faggots before the Christians
And now the US has the first conservative president in its history.

While the US does need armored ships with large guns & tons of small caliber CIWS

It doesn't need to recreate WW2 battleships

>>32604515
Fuck off Jeb - for the last time, nobody wants to buy your shitty guacamole.

File: anti ship missile.gif (2MB, 500x226px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x226px

>>32599744
>What makes a battleship worse or better than an aircraft carrier for support and force projection?

>>32597255
>That pic

What the fuck is Missouri aiming at.

Also OP, the age of battleships ended with Yamato. Give it a rest already.

>>32605966

>the age of battleships ended with Yamato

It ended long before that. Every battleship built in the 1930's or 1940's was tragically out of place. Fleet carriers were shown to be better as capital ships by every relevant metric. Yeah, battleships still got plenty of use during that time, but even then people knew that they were on the way out.

There is an interesting quote from a US congressmen, from a few years before WW2, basically saying that carriers are now the center of the fleet and all other ships now serve to either protect or re-supply the carriers, or protect the ships that are resupplying the carriers. The speaker adds that he still believes that battleships have an important role in naval warfare, but he doesn't elaborate on that, and he again emphasizes that constructing more carriers should be the first priority.

I wish I could just post it here but I'm having trouble finding it. Anyway, I just found it interesting that even before the war, people were starting to suspect that battleships were no longer as useful as was previously believed.

>>32597955
>He thinks any of the Iowa class still have 40 mm on them
/k/, you disappoint me.

>>32599669
What you're describing is known as an arsenal ship. Spoiler: more smaller ships are better.

>>32600277
The technology to destroy battleships exists. The reason why it isn't implemented is because there are no battleships. It is much cheaper to field the weapons which destroy the battleship than to field the battleship itself.

>>32597673
>implying old k didnt have communists and libertarians and not all the underage banned fucks who suck Trump dick because of le meme frog

>>32606209
How is this even a question? The fact that there have been ZERO new battleships built since the end of the war should be evidence that the battleship meme is dead.

I mean Christ, these threads are like people arguing HMS Victory should've been restored so she could sail off to join Jellicoe at Jutland.

File: 3477783.png (391KB, 1024x887px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1024x887px

>>32606591

>>32597716
thank you for your service

File: 46426.gif (1MB, 182x204px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 182x204px

>>32605966
>>32606209

>>ended with Yamato

>what is korea

>what is vietnam

>what is beirut

>what is desert storm

>>32606773
Four conflicts which didn't need battleships at all?

>>32606773

The defining characteristic of a battleship is armor. Did any of those conflicts require heavily armored warships? The answer is no.

Trump's pay-to-play foreign policy system is a proactive measure to mothball unnecessary military assets in Europe while simultaneously providing Casus Belli to mobilize against potential threats in the Sea of China where U.S. allies are at their weakest in terms of military strength (Japan and South Korea esp.)

Reintroduction of battleships is a largely political move intended to exert a more tangible zone of control over the China Sea without outwardly posing a threat to Chinese or North Korean land targets.

>>32598148
If it would mean more Martini Henry rifles and cheaper ammo for it then yeah I'm game for it.

>>32606878
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c

>>32606790

Meh, Korea would have been a bitch without the Iowas. Nothing stops a human wave of millions of Chinese faster than 16-inch shells incoming.

>>32606932
It's not that hard to understand fampai

Most european countries have no reason to continue funding American military bases for the foreseeable future, so they'll opt out. That will leave a shitload of military capital and labor hanging about with nothing to do, while the few countries that remain opted-in would likely be in pacific rim areas. By placing the obligation of paying for continued military service in the hands of foreign governments that are not under immediate threat and suffering economic recession, Trump has (or at least, Trump's advisors have) puppetmastered a situation in which they can freely refocus military power on the China Sea and pacific rim without coming under fire from political critics.

As for the battleships, its hard to maintain an air of political neutrality under the guise of defensive treaty if you have nothing but aircraft carriers and long-range surface bombardment craft. The Chinese came under fire around a year ago for basically doing just that - putting a bigass aircraft carrier out in the China Sea with no discernible recourse. With battleships designed for ship-to-ship combat and little destructive capability at extreme range one can more easily claim to only be defending allied oceanic assets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltMHCp0y3ws&spfreload=10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg-cNmLRgiU&spfreload=10

Iowa laying some serious heat at 2:37

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqfvYf5sMWA&spfreload=10

>>32606713

>How is this even a question?

Reactivating the battleships is one of the many bad ideas that came out of the Reagan administration and has haunted the country ever since. Reagan cared far more about what sounded good than what was practical in reality. So when the Soviet CGN Kirov appeared, the Iowa battleships were modernized as a response, purely so that the US could say that they still had the world's largest surface combatants. And so even though the Iowas would have been utterly doomed if they actually had to fight a Kirov, they were made into a center-piece of the Reagan's 600-ship navy plan. Why? Mostly because they were very large, impressive ships that look good in photographs. In other words, it was an expensive PR stunt (but admittedly a very successful PR stunt).

There is a quote from a Soviet admiral who was apparently allowed to view NATO exercise with Iowa's. His response was to say that 1 Iowa would be able to destroy the entire Soviet surface fleet, which I interpret as "HAHAHAHA what dumb bullshit please keep wasting your money on this nonsense, it makes my job easier."

>>32597255
Battleship fag for president. Whats next, is he going to go on about gliders?

>>32607048
You literally have no idea how geopolitics or naval power works. Cease your blathering.

>>32607108
It was a rhetorical question, but you are right.

>>32607132
Not an argument

>>32597955

>Iowa

Hell no. The number one issue with the Iowa was the fact that her internal ergonomics were terrible and caused the highest attrition rate among the navy. She had ONE bathtub, and that was for the president.

File: 1483885702791.jpg (167KB, 983x1024px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 983x1024px

>>32607147
You're right: it was a summary dismissal on the grounds of how ludicrous it is.

To argue you would be to concede there is any merit in your argument. There is none; it is the fevered dream of someone who is trying to rationalize the vague notions of the President-elect.

File: 457848.gif (2MB, 366x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 366x281px

>>32607100
go to 1:30

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCtAl_acHmE

File: 45774.jpg (96KB, 432x768px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 432x768px

>>32607108
Seems legit.

>>32607076
Every time I read or hear about an Iowa turret, I can't help but think of all those men who died in the turret explosion.

President Bush should've gone at those cover-up fucks with a clawhammer.

>>32597285
That rate of fire.

>>32607100
>>32607240
Was there any friendly fire casualties or ship damage due to the amount of flak being thrown at those angles at the planes?

>>32607261
And don't forget they removed four of her ten secondary batteries, so that's six guns instead of ten.

>>32597673
>implying it's only leftists that want off the trump train

>>32599744
>Why would it be bad to have the ability to drive thousands of tons of metal, missiles, and guns around the world?
Because it's putting all your eggs in one basket, this is already becoming a problem with carriers being vulnerable to missiles, and aircraft are even more versatile than anything you could build into a ship.

>What makes a battleship worse or better than an aircraft carrier for support and force projection?
Possibly better broadside rate (pounds of munitions per hour delivered), especially with modern weapons like railguns and missiles, but that's only useful for shore bombardment due to limited range. Carrier aircraft have much better strike range, even being able to hit targets far inland as long as the air defense isn't too heavy.

>How do these massive slow moving targets keep themselves from becoming missile pincushions?
Realistically they can't, unless you use ridiculously heavy armor and ECM at the expense of anything else. Which is really the only way they could be useful, if they serve to draw fire from everything else.

File: 34737.jpg (148KB, 1108x960px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1108x960px

>>32607433

>>32606878
Know what's a better way to exert control? Effective weapons. Not ships that'll cost more than a carrier, but be less effective in pretty much all respects than two Burkes or Zums.

>>32607433
Pretty much is. Trump is more or less the anti-leftist, and in recent years its become apparent that the only way to deal with leftists is to annihilate them in a leftist-antileftist reaction. You have the MSM publishing blatant lies now, they just dont care, and the leftists follow along, political correctness out of control. You cant reason or argue with the leftist because they are inherently irrational, and think they are the rational ones because they follow science-ism - the blind belief that anything the media claims is back by science is infallibly true.

>>32600938
Hell, you need crew just to perform regular maintenance.
Last year, I read an article about smaller gas turban powered ships failing INSURV inspections because maintenance problems not being found until the inspections.
The alternative would be to contract out the maintenance but then you get what happened to the Pegasus class where fleets of contractor vans would be waiting on the pier to keep them running.

>>32609805
a carrier has to sit 500 miles out, costs WAY more if you include the aircraft, drops massively less tonnage, and is all around pretty fucking overrated

>>32610072
You sound like a wwi general espousing how machine guns are a waste.

Luddite.

>>32597255
Dude, We already have modern day battleships they are called Aircraft carriers.

Same size, Same destructive power.

>>32600913

>letting the religious fundie nuts have a plank in the party platform is what killed the GOP, idiot.

>Killed the GOP

>GOP currently controls the entire federal government and the majority of state governments.

What did he mean by this?