Is that a comeback I see on the horizon?
COMEBACK IN 30, TOOT TOOT IOWA WILL RULE THE SEAS
Outta my way tiny fucking ships
>>33097686
Everytime I see New Jersey's two boxes on the side of its conning tower I think of sideways breasts.
IOWA SAMA COMEBACK
>>33097686
Not likely. We'd need to see serious investments towards naval nuclear reactors, energy weapons that can defeat any reasonable volley of guided and ballistic missiles, and a gun platform that can buy back the engagement range of guided missiles. All of these are theoretically doable, but you'd still get BTFO by submarines.
>>33098381
You dare doubt the Iowa class? It could defeat ISIS in a day if it made a comeback.
>>33098381
>Energy weapons
>New generation gun platform
One of the USS North Carolina' turrets was gutted for parts when they retrofitted another BB. Sounds like a good place to start for me.
>Enemy enemy expects 16", gets BTFO by surprise super high power laser/railgun.
>Whatever is left gets rinsed by remaining 16" guns
This is the America I want to see again.
>>33098552
Iowa will rule the world!
>>33098552
The carrier surpassed the Battleship by being able to project its power anywhere in theater, far outside of visual and weapons range of the old gun boats. I reckon a future laser and railgun based warship would start to come close to the Iowas for scale, but refitting the Iowas themselves would be a poor use of capital and a waste of history; you'd have to gut them from stem to stern to modernize them with advanced, electricity based weapons. It'd be better to start from a clean sheet, and only design the ship to be as big as it needs to be to do the job so we can build as many of them as possible (I still expect it to be big).
You can lob shells over the horizon. Can't lob a laser. It'd have a max range of like, 6 miles.
>>33098651
>You can lob shells over the horizon. Can't lob a laser. It'd have a max range of like, 6 miles.
It'd be a point defense weapon, not a primary armament.
Speaking of lobbing shells, an Iowa wouldn't even be able to hit Homs.
>>33098651
Which is why we need the Iowa. How can lasers compete?
>>33097686
one of these days people will stop responding to these threads
>>33098702
Not until the Iowa makes a comeback
>>33097686
I can't wait for some stupid millennial kids to blow themselves up just like the gen Xers did back in 1989.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion
>>33098694
So the shiny new tech that's going to revitalize the need for battleships is solely to protect said battleship.
>>33098786
That's why it's probably not going to happen. The tech makes more sense for a DDG(N?) platform than a BB(N?) platform.
>>33098760
Minor speedbump on the inevitable comeback of the Iowa
>>33098866
Best turn around.
>>33098884
What in the fuck
>>33098884
Proving ground?
>>33098980
Hows the damn Iowa supposed to cover all those speedbumps?
>>33098866
Real Americans died there.
Fuck you and your flippancy.
Because the Iowa is on a comeback. Any day it'll rule the oceans.
IOWA RULES THE WAVES (Soon)
The Iowa's need to be kept as museums.
Really, the best engineers we have would need to spend a few years catching up big armored ship design.. Find a way to make keel detonation less effective...
A GPS guided 16 inch chemrail scramjet shell could go thousands of miles. Awesome.
sage and hide bbfag
>>33101063
Jealous of the incredible suppressing power of the Iowa class, are you? It will make an inevitable comeback any day now.