How long till the current president decided to build new capital

>>32871437
I don't think anyone would know what a modern battleship would be like, it would need to have a strong emphasis on AA, Missile, Guns and Anit Sub equipment.

Armor is optional as battlecrusiers are a thing and are cheaper to build.

File: 1484496973449.jpg (254KB, 1280x775px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1280x775px

>>32871437
It's got the same problem as carriers, you've gotta design ships with defenses to defend a single ship however WW2 period designs don't have the ability to launch massive fighters.

Unless you count battlecarriers, I don't know who had the idea to merge a battleship with a carrier but they did.

I think they should take lessons from this but instead design it to overwhelm enemy ships with massive swarms of missiles, larger than any carrier could ever launch.

>>32871437
If by "capital ship" you mean some sort of battleship, not even Trump is that completely removed from reality and retarded about naval procurement.

>>32871437
I'd rather have 10 brand new cruisers than 1 BB

>>32871466

Actually armor would be a huge benefit.

All or nothing armor and the floating raft construction scheme means that it can not be sunk by missiles. The enemy would have to develop and implement new missiles just to counter your ship, and they wouldn't be able to field many missiles because they'd be huge.

>>32871437
>How long till the current president decided to build new capital ships for the US Navy?

We're already building them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier

10, in fact.

>>32871641
/tread

>>32871641
The US is currently building one CVN of the Ford Class, one is finished, and eight more are planned.

>>32871656

Well yeah, you can really only build one at a time.

>>32871437

Why not self powered barges filled to the brim with VLS systems.

It would have a minimal radar and combat suite. Its main purpose would be to be constantly datalinked with an Aegis Cruiser and act as their main missile battery, only launching their own after the barge is out of ammo. And with the missile barge should it run out and you are too far away to get it to a location to get reloaded, you could program the onboard GPS to just take it to the nearest enemy harbor and scuttle itself as a final FU to the enemy.

Have the thing be as automated as possible in the sense that it could nearly pilot itself without human intervention for several days, need a crew of only a five or six to keep it sailing.

File: loghmyconquestistheseao.jpg (109KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1280x720px

>>32871581
/thread

File: iowa fags BTFO.jpg (2MB, 3000x2123px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2123px

>>32871437
>new capital ships for the US Navy?

New carriers are being built now.

>>32871625
>All or nothing armor

>means that it can not be sunk by missiles.
It doesn't mean what you think it does, anon.

>>32871625
Modern torpedos would fuck it up.
Then there goes that big ship with all the fancy shit on it. Much better to have multiple ships of a smaller value.

>>32871581
Agreed. Our navy, aside from Subs, is organized around our carriers, both Super and Baby. Having brand spanking new guided missile cruisers protecting those carriers would be very helpful.

File: Arsenal Ship Concept.jpg (90KB, 850x430px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 850x430px

>>32871466
I would assume that a new capital ship would look a lot like the "arsenal ship" concept.

Basically a scaled-up nuclear powered Zumwalt with countless hundreds of VLS cells and a laser CIWS.

They should double the pace of building new super carriers

New cruisers is pointless though, they don't do anything a destroyer can't, just need to build a bit bigger destroyers

>>32871700
>>32873339
This sort of shit is nonsense, there is nothing stopping them from modifying an existing ship for that immediately, but the problem with all missiles is target spotting & target illumination & missile guidance

Which means more aircraft and introducing VTOL drones/more aerial assets on ships/more flight decks

There is no shortage of VLS

>>32871581
A CA cost more than half as much as a BB back in the days. There's no reason to think 6 cruisers today would be 1 BB equivalent.

The USB would not ask for one.
Without defence pushing the line item in the budget, it will not pass.

But than again, some stupid useless shit has gotten through congress.

>>32873454
Bugger.

That is USN not USB.

>>32871656
>>32871664
Technically construction of two carriers does go on at the same time. Fabrication of CVN 80 parts is starting this year, it takes a long time to get all the pieces ready before you even lay the keel. And then once 79 is floated, construction will keep going on at the pier while the 80 keel is laid in dry dock.

>>32873361
>double the pace
Either they give us a fuckton more money to build more facilities, a ton more money to hire a lot more workers, or have a different shipyard start building them, which would be the most expensive and time consuming option of all.

File: IMG_9368.jpg (148KB, 564x791px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 564x791px

<Spending money on the terrestrial navy.

It's like you don't even know the god emperor.

File: 1483419600766.jpg (129KB, 640x726px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 640x726px

We're not gonna need boats for the race war. We're gonna need lots of autonomous robots to exterminate the undesirables

>>32871437
Isn't that the whole point of the Gerald R. Ford Class carriers??

>>32872367
>Anti-Torpedo Torpedoes mother-in-law fucker

>>32871437
What was the point of the striped bow on the vessel in OP?

File: 1bd.jpg (47KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1920x1080px

>>32872117
That fucking filename

>>32874977

Mostly just decoration and to help make the ship easily identifiable. You want to make it easy for air patrols to determine if a ship is friendly or not to avoid false alarms.

>>32874994
Gotcha, gotcha. Makes sense.

>>32871437
I would say it would be doable to construction
battlecrusier/heavy crusier chassis capital ship.

I know most peeps wants battleship but alot of other peeps know it's not feasible.

>>32874994
>>32875008
Same reason why WW2 Kriegsmarine ships had a super sized Nasi flag painted on the bare deck.

Keeps the Condors at bay.

>>32875124
I wish class size names mattered again.

You can build "Frigates" now that rival light cruisers of Washington Treaty definitions now.. or they can be LCS size.

>>32874355
While we probably have sats with nuclear arms on them we can't build anything like that openly because of international treaties on the use of outer space.

And no, this isn't one rule you want to wipe your ass with. 30 minute warning to shelter incase of a nuclear volly is litte enough. I'd rather not cut that time down 'Is that a shoot st.....'

>>32875124
a handful of spergs on the internet is not 'most peeps'

File: NAVY-leader class 2.jpg (113KB, 1000x662px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1000x662px

russia delivers

>>32876237

Only if India is willing to pay them for it.

Zumwalts will be the capital ships of SAGs, so build more of those I guess.

The flight II can have railguns and laser CIWS.

>>32876261
>>32876237

That's hawt secks right there, even though it'll never get built.

>>32873392
A BB was mostly a BB due to armor thickness and Gun diameter over a CA or CL.
Now we simply have missiles that can be launched from patrol boat sized vessels with warheads that simply do more explosive damage than any APBC shell.