How do we make battleships relevant again? If anything they can

Rail guns

Replace everything with missiles

>>34401832

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacrossMissileMassacre

>>34401817
Make it faster, tons of missiles and missile defense systems and put a big ass rail gun that can hit shit from far as fuck, basically think of an unholy mix between that rail gun from metal gear solid from ps1 and the Iowa cannons.

Also add a small ramp with two jets.

File: 1474381945737.jpg (48KB, 463x463px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 463x463px

>>34401817
anime girls will save us

>>34401817
1. Remove rotating deck bombs
2. Replace with missiles
3. Add a few CIWSes here and there
4. Add a laser
5. No I'm serious lasers are the future of naval combat since they directly counter missiles and can take out ships with ease

Remove the turrets and install a flattop.

>>34401928
>take out ships with ease
like rubber dinghies?

>>34401928
>take out ships with ease
Like cargo ships?

File: yamashiro_rennovation.jpg (135KB, 640x479px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 640x479px

>>34401817
We can't. the concept of a battleship is:

- Big guns to penetrate thick armor of enemy battleship
- lots of armor to bounce enemy shells
- lots of secondary guns to fend off smaller ships and aircraft

In modern naval warfare a single ASM could cripple a battleship if it gets through close in defenses. There is no way to construct a ship with enough armor to defend against modern high explosive munitions. That is why modern frigates are light and fast but heavily armed - the defense against modern munitions is interception not armor.

BB's are sexy but they are relics and nothing like them will ever be relevant again.

File: 1497920737544.jpg (184KB, 1280x911px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1280x911px

>>34401817

I'm not too knowledgeable on modern systems but I'll take a crack at it.

Make it close to the same dimensions as ww2 American fast battle ships.
Give it 2 nuclear reactors 1 of which being used exclusively for the guns during combat operations.
Aft deck will consist of missiles and missile defence systems (maybe set it up like an AEGIS system). The front half will have the main battery consisting of two turrets with 2 or 3 of the largest railguns we can mount in them.

>>34401817

RAM or scaled up Trophy System
Railguns to remove the magazine explosion risk

http://uploads.ungrounded.net/alternate/44000/44760_alternate_25490.360p.mp4

Or just realize that it's not coming back and it'll remain fanwank of bad accent foreigners from a decade ago.

>>34401817
Give them a flat top from which airplanes can take off and land.

File: 2af58176fee7d7402516beb4574ac9aa.jpg (319KB, 988x494px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 988x494px

A bigger kirov

>>34403135
Would be cool. Better reactors, better point-defense, more missiles.

>>34401817
>can take out ships with ease
Unless they're more than twenty miles away and then your enemy can just shoot over the horizon, which lasers can't do.

We're not even building cruisers anymore.

>>34401817
Remove turrets
Remove citadel
Make wider
Make a little taller
Add a nice flat surface over the top, going the full length of battleship
Build new citadel at one side of flat top
Use to launch aircraft

>>34402783
Why do you need one nuclear reactor just for guns? WW2 battleships didn't need nuclear reactors for their guns. Modern ships don't need two reactors, that's just expensive, heavy and excessive for no reason.

>>34401817
Strip everything off, affix a flight deck, turn it into an aircraft carrier. Problem solved.

>>34401817
>How do we make battleships relevant again?

no more planes

>>34404471
Remove the atmosphere and battleships become king, ignoring that the seas would boil away

>>34401817
Survivability.- A typical cruise or anti-ship missile isn't going to cut it against a BB. Too damn big and way too much armor. Mind, the Iowa-class is over 50 years old and not many weapons can kill it. Sure, you can mission kill it but unless a BB is sunk it'll just return to port, repair and refit, and be back in a month.

Now, modern defensive tech is a lot better than it was in the 40s so we'd use ceramics rather than STS the Navy liked to use circa WW2. On the up side, ceramics are corrosion resistant so you can dip them in seawater and not care. ERA will also be useful for AShMs with shaped charges so save that for the bow plates.

Biggest threat is torpedoes. Armor has never been effective against them and the best modern navies have are decoys. The Iowa-class could make 33 knots so a lighter, faster Iowa could arguably zoom away on hydrofoils and wait for the torpedoes to run out of fuel. You'll need something like 60-70 knots to outrun a modern sub launched torpedo. More if it's supercavitating. Seeing as lifting 50 thousand tons out of the water is a bit ludicrious, we'll need to do something else.

Counter torpedoes might work. Granted, they're just theory right now but explosions carry very well in water and torpedoes travel way slower than guided missiles.

>>34401928
Lasers would do wonders against aircraft and missiles but between sea spray and armor a laser is little more than a spotlight with delusions of grandeur against other warships.

>>34404403
Railguns.

File: USS_Wisconson_collision.jpg (7KB, 220x155px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 220x155px

>>34401817
>If anything they can withstand being broadsided by a big dumb cargo ship.

We need to ban all of these same fucking BRING BACK BATTLESHIP threads this nigger makes.

>>34401856
Why not a Carrier with missile silos hidden in the deck?

>>34405094
Front of the bb isn't armored you knobhead

>>34405094

>FEED ME OM NOM NOM

>>34401817

Destroyer/cruiser with no flight deck and 200 + VLS missiles.
Make cheaper cruise missiles as well. $1.2 million+ a pop is expensive as fuck for a throw away weapon, regardless of effectiveness.

>>34401928

>Lazers
>take out ships

Since 100% of ship combat is now BVR, lazers are entirely defensive. If lazers can see an enemy ship, you are eating deck gun HE fire at 120 rounds a minute and that means you are fucking dead.

File: JFS1981-82 BB.jpg (2MB, 1664x2490px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1664x2490px

>>34401817
Yup, it´s summer alright.
Return to before 1941.

>>34404403
Railguns and lasers

>>34405127
Depends on the BB. Most of the time it's down to maybe 30mm and the sharp angle makes shots want to bounce anyway.

Most warships have a fuckton of internal partitions and the shear size of a BB makes it hard to sink.

>>34401817
Give some to somali pirates so that the navy can fight Water ISIS. Naval Warfare returned along with urgent need of Battleships.

>>34401817
1. Railguns
2. Lots and lots of laser turrets
3. Lockmart Brand Lockmart Fusion Reactors
4. Remove all VLS cells and any traditional turret missile launchers for additional space for all of the above

Literally why do people still insist on including guided missiles on plans for future ships when the Age of the Laser is just around the corner? I don't want my ship to carry any dead weight while it is pushing into railgun range. I mean, if everyone is currently dumping big guns in favor of a shit ton of missiles then it makes sense to take advantage of that and load up on laser defense systems, right?

>>34405064
I don't understand how counter torpedoes are considered difficult when hitting a much faster airborne missile is a way bigger challenge than a comparatively turtle-slow torpedo. If you see it coming then just launch a mini torpedo at it, what's the problem? Give it wire guidance and let someone control if it really is that hard.

File: BAE.jpg (147KB, 900x1100px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 900x1100px

fpbp

Give it a nuke power plant and load that fucker up with rail guns.

>>34401832
Honestly, this. That's how missiles cruisers were invented.

File: uss eaton.jpg (11KB, 256x197px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 256x197px

>>34405127
okay, lets look at what happens during a collision to a part of a ship that is armored

>If anything they can withstand being broadsided by a big dumb cargo ship.

Can they really?

The ACX Crystal empty weights as much as many battleships. At full load it outweighs any battleship short of the Yamato class. That's gonna put a dent in basically anything when it hits.

Sure, battleships are armoured. That armour is made to stop somethign relatively small going quite fast. Plenty of energy, but negligible momentum. It isn't designed to deal with fifty or sixty thousand tons crashing into it, and the utterly preposterous inertia behind that.

At that point having a big ship may even be a detriment. Something "small and light", like a destroyer can get shunted aside with relative ease. It rolls with the blow. A much larger and heavier ship won't budge, and so the impact goes all in on wrecking shit instead. So all said and done, heck knows if the armour of that battleship would end up helping or hurting.

>>34405064
>but unless a BB is sunk it'll just return to port, repair and refit, and be back in a month.

All the way back in WW2 the Roma was sunk and the Warpsite needed nine months of repairs to be restored to "artillery barge" status after getting nailed with guided ASM.

Sure, modern ASM aren't exactly tailored to take out armoured ships, but it'd be a lot easier to adapt them to that (if it's even necessary) than it'd be to built a fucking battleship.

And all of this of course assuming every plays nice and keeps the nukes out of it. Battleships are hardened targets, but even a near miss there and it won't just be a mission kill. Drop the warhead next to the ship and let it sink a bit before it pops and we can make a battleship stand on its nose.

File: when white people chimp out.jpg (796KB, 1080x608px) Image search: [Google]

796KB, 1080x608px

I don't understand the "missile boat" crowd who just want to layer on a thousand Cruise missiles onto every ship.

In an age of highly asymmetrical warfare where the people you are fighting often don't even have so much as an air force or navy to begin with, designing your ships around foes you are never going to fight with is retarded. The only nations where most of these ultra high end ships would be relevant would be with nations that also have nuclear weapons, in which case the war would be catastrophic for both sides no matter what. Even in cases where your enemy does have a serious means to take out ships, our own enormous air force could completely wipe out their air force, missile silos and navy within a week andrender their capacity to retaliate null.

Parking battleships off the coasts of the shitholes we're always fighting and then bombarding them with deck guns (or rail guns if we ever figure that out) and spending 1/10 the money will allow us to achieve the same effect without bankrupting the fucking country trying to win.

>railguns
>Lasers
>Lots of missiles
>Ass load of CIWS and ECM
>Designed to limit radar signature

Basically the Zumwalt but scaled up, which would be entirely pointless and not cost effective. But it would be sweet.

File: 1486574794699.jpg (10KB, 220x175px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 220x175px

>Be battleship
>Get sunk by planes

>>34401928
>directly counter
Oh, I see, you think life is a videogame.

>>34404403
Because ww2 barges didn't have a triple barrel railguns let alone 2

>>34406075
>Warspite was hit by an ASM
I would like to know more.

>>34401817
Make nuclear-powered CA's with CLGGs or railguns and call them battleships.

>>34406760
Well, it wasn't a missile. It was hit by a Fritz X, a German radio-controlled glide bomb.

>>34405885
>Torpedoes

We really should have a sub thread one of these days. It's a pretty complicated concept.

First off, water density is a WAY bigger factor than air resistance. The physics are a bit weird but the short of it is that nothing really goes faster than 60-70 knots underwater.

...well, unless it's supercavitating but that's another matter entirely. The point is that you really can't create a faster, more maneuverable torpedo.

The second thing is that torpedoes are sneaky little buggers. The only way to spot them is with sonar and larger ships create so much noise that sonar isn't all that effective. There are ways around this but you're always going to have issues. Your own wake, for example, creates a blind spot for sonar. A torpedo could sneak up on you without you realizing it.

Third, THERE IS NO UNDER WATER IFF. No seriously, subs have been hit with their own torps at times. Toss a dozen counter torps into the water and they might find their way back to you.

>>34406965
14th of September, 1943 right?

That's something of an exception. The Warspite took one hit straight to the boilers and another near miss that holed it near the waterline. Warspite suffered only 23 casualties from both hits. Considering that was a 700lb bomb to the citadel it's a surprise that the Warspite survived at all. Not bad for only 5inches of deck armor.

>>34407123
I don't know what the penetration on a Fritz X is like.

I assume that an actual ASM with a proper warhead would be much better at punching through armor than a free-fall bomb.

>>34407162
The Fritz X actually had respectable penetration due to it's weight, thick outer casing, and aerodynamic shape.

However, the Fritz X had the advantage of going against the weaker deck armor of enemy warships. Most AShMs stick as low as possible to be less of a target for point defenses like RAM and CIWS. Fritz X never had to deal with that.

Modern AShMs tend to use the APHE method. That is an armored shell around a mass of high explosives. Very deadly if it penetrates because of explosions+confined spaces issues. I think there was one russian AShM that had a shaped charge warhead but I never got confirmation on that.

Anyhow, APHE tends to be ineffective against armor and the belt armor for an Iowa class was about a foot thick. The IJN Yamato had an armored belt of 18 inches thick. A typical AShM would flatten against the hull

>>34405985
I don't understand this image

>>34407426
The company named BAE

>>34407426
Bae in the top refers to a boyfriend, BAE systems developed the railgun pictured below. It's funny cause bae is gifting the rail gun

File: 4490295287_7ef8db5789_b.jpg (215KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1024x683px

>>34401817
>I have no understanding of modern naval warfare

>>34409655
Keep in mind that war is perpetually changing. What we think is true now may only be true until the next battle.

File: image049.jpg (73KB, 756x605px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 756x605px

>>34401817

How come "missile battleships" never really became a thing? Some designs came pretty close.

File: original-space-battleship-yamato-619952417.jpg (21KB, 428x241px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 428x241px

put it in space

>>34401817
>How do we make battleships relevant again?

one in san diego, one near seattle. One in Charleston, one in Newport.

fully fitted out as museum ships for the public to visit.

there you go. the only way battleships are relevant to the 21st century.

alternatively, take the hull, strip to the deckline, remove engines, replace with nuclear power. make the deck flat, and widen it out. take the magazines and areas where the turret barbettes were, connect them. into hangars, store aircraft in the spaces. use large hydraulic lifts to bring planes to the deck for launch by a catapult system.

there. battleship hull is relevant.

use railguns to launch UAVs into hundreds kilometers away.
Basically, having a larger power projection range than CVNs.

>>34402765
You forgot WWII showed the BB to be obsolete, the carriers have replaced it as king of the sea. And just as a reminder how many battleships were sunk by fighters.

File: Pyotr Velikiy.jpg (243KB, 1280x775px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1280x775px

>>34411462
The Russian's did it.

Officially the Kirovs are considered cruisers, but the damn things are the size of an Iowa BB.

As for whether it would have worked... maybe during the Cold War. Once the USN had AEGIS broadly deployed these things weren't worth shit.

>>34411462
Because no ship is safe at sea in the modern world, the arms races between weapons and armor is clearly being won by weapons right now. Guided missiles and torpedoes, armor negating warheads and a emphasis on avoidance of fire rather than withstanding fire makes large powerful hulls a poor choice. Basically speaking any warship is fully capable of killing any other warship at sea right now because of the potency of modern weapons, so powerful that we no longer bother with armor becasue the armor is all easily defeated by relatively inexpensive shaped charged armed guided missiles.

If you have 200 missiles and you put them all, 50 each on four large "battleship" type hulls, those hulls becomes massively valuable targets for red team, they kill those four hulls and your navy is neutralized, because of size and low number of target those four hulls will be relatively simple to track and sink.

The better idea is to take your 200 missiles and put them five each onto 40 smaller, faster, more agile, stealthier and most importantly, cheaper and expendable hulls. The enemy now has more targets to keep track of, more simultaneous threats to defend against. Dispersing your armament reduced the cost of each individual loss in terms of both cash/industrial value and also in terms of loss of power.

Losing one of four massively powerful "Heavy Guided Missile Cruisers" is intensely painful in terms of cost, power and loss of life. Losing 10 of your 40 Guided missile armed fast attack frigates while paper the same reduction in firepower actually hurts a lot less in strategic terms. The benefit of the larger hulls is endurance in low intensity conflict and power projection roles, in a short high intensity conflict where the large hull is just as vulnerable to hyperwar/instadeath as the fast attack, its better to have a horde of expendable fast attacks.

>>34405144
for what its worth if the thing is armored like a battleship no deck gun on the planet is going to do shit to the thing

>>34407059
>Third, THERE IS NO UNDER WATER IFF.
Hence why I suggested using wire guidance in the worst case scenario.

Seems more like the only real way to prevent them from hitting is to have a screening force in a large radius around the fleet to catch subs and torpedoes coming in from a distance where the noise of ships isn't an issue. Then the ships really only need to focus their attention directly downwards when looking for incoming torps.

Maybe carriers can be repurposed to carry around underwater fighter subs for this very purpose, manned or unmanned.

>>34406133
The problem with this assumption is that people immediately assume all war jumps to total war. In the modern era total war is too risky and expensive. You very well could have medium intensity naval conflict over something like the SCS or Black Sea where the stacks just aren't high enough for it to be existential. People are only going to launch nukes if they feel the entire nation is at risk of being defeated. If all you've got to lose is a shipping lane you're not going to jump to push the button. The problem is that both sides need to be able to keep their cool enough to keep objectives limited to things that aren't going to directly threaten the survival of the enemy. It's the difference between a street brawl and a gun fight. In one both sides can walk away and agree to not have beef. In the other someone dies.

>>34401817
remove turrets
use extra deck space for missiles
add better engine for additional speed

Recipe for modern battleship:

~250 cells, mostly of strike length <-- primary battery
(equipment to reload these at sea)
8-10 inch autoloading twins or triples forward <-- secondaries/shore bombardment
40-57 mm dp battery
Point defence missile system
5-6 Crowsnest style AEW carried aft <-- most important part
Nuclear propulsion
Season heavily with compartmentalisation, triple bottoms, armouring spaces with composites, remote DC systems and designed failure points (like blow-out paths)

Stir well and half-bake for several hours or until fed up with being called a retard.

Serve as a supporting dish for CSG in order to allow carrier to focus more on offensive sorties.

Not for the USA either, more for nations without the strategic depth of an ocean on each side.

>>34411921
The wire tends to break at anything faster than 10 knots.

Fighter subs are a cool idea, though. Modern nuclear subs always create some background noise because they can't shut down their nuclear reactors. You can slow down the reaction but never truly stop it. A fighter sub, however, is short ranged enough to only need electrical power. The sub carrier can recharge them later. As a result, a fighter sub would be incredibly quiet with only the heartbeats of the crew creating noise. At a dead stop they'd be invisible to passive sonar.

Stop using them to fight ships with, use them for naval bombardment and nothing else.

>>34412047
Conventional major caliber guns are never coming back.

ban all technology post 1945