What would a modern battleship look like? I imagine it would

>this thread again

>>34531144
A self-propelled barge with every available space filled with Anti-Ship Missiles

File: a31.jpg (91KB, 556x312px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 556x312px

>>34531155

>>34531179
>>34531155
Like the first time i've posted on this board but alright.

Battleships were meant to go toe-to-toe with other ships. In today's era of anti-ship missiles and naval aviation, putting all your eggs in one basket is silly.

Better to develope more smaller frigates than larger ships. Thay way when a missile gets through you only lost something small

Waiting for the "hur flat deck and planes fgt"

>>34531182
>lurk moar faggot

>>34531204
waiting for the 200 replies arguing about penetration, ASM's and "muh turtleback"

>>34531223
I just want a 2 turreted Iowa class with a marine battalion stored in the ass and a helicopter launch pad

Big naval guns are obsoleted by ASM's and aircraft

that means you no longer have a need for huge battleship hulls

>>34531248
but why?

>>34531144
>What would a modern battleship look like?
Like nothing. Battleships don't have a use on the modern naval battlefield.

File: superbattlecarrier.jpg (83KB, 1653x507px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1653x507px

Replace main centerline turrets #3, #4, #5, and all aft with VLS. Replace #1 and #9 with more VLS, set with ESSM.
Replace half of center secondaries with ESSM. Replace other half with RIM-116.
Replace outer defenses with Phalanx, RIM-116, and ESSM.
Aircraft complement of F-35B, Advanced Super Hornet, E-2, RQ-4, and MQ-9.

Even when battleships were a thing that was made they doubted their worth. They were just huge moving targets that you had to defend and had little tactical use. They were more a liability than anything as you spent more time and money babysitting the giant wad of rotting money floating around doing fuck all than actually fighting.

>>34531182
>being a newfag

I can't wait for school to start up again. Summer is already halfway over.

>>34531322
You just described carriers there.

>>34531218
>>34531337
In his defence, staying away from bbfag-treads is like the healthiest choice a man can make. The damn things are pure cancer

You can build 10-15 or more destroyers for the cost of 1 battleship it makes no sense

File: sdaf234.png (456KB, 652x375px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 652x375px

>>34531144
>What would a modern battleship look like?

Something even stupider than this lump of shit.

File: bismark.jpg (27KB, 660x347px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 660x347px

>>34531144

>What would a modern battleship look like?

Something like this.

>>34531310
>ESSM
>not SM2, 3 or 6
>no Harpoons
>no Tomahawks

File: USS_Monitor[1].png (175KB, 635x217px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 635x217px

>>34531144

1 turret to hold a railgun.
Low profile to evade radar.
Add some VLS, RAM and CIWS for good measure.

Something atomic-powered with obscenely thick composite armor immune to most AShMs. Would have a fast firing 15.5cm gun with guided shells and a whole bunch of AShMs of it's own.

>>34531144
Rear turrets are replaced by a VERY extensive VLS system. Honestly, SLBM silos aren't out of the question and if the ship's low enough on the draft it could reload those cells from beneath.

Forwards guns should be railguns. Mostly optimized for mid ranged AA work but can engage ships within 50 km. Useful for picking off ships with good ECM and shore bombardment since you aren't limited to Mach 3 muzzle velocities. Chuck a half ton of high explosive 100km inland if you want. No guerentees of accuracy, though.

Same Aegis defense system they put on modern destroyers but scaled up for more guidance channels. An Arleigh Burke class can only intercept two missiles at a time due to how Aegis works. A 50,000 ton battleship should be able to mount at least 8 high res radar stations for far better defense. Railguns should help too at the 10 km mark.

For armor, we've got ceramics and explosive reactives on a solid steel structure. Ceramics are applied everywhere because A. they don't reflect radar like metal does and B. they don't rust from sea water. Saves some money while increasing protection. Explosive reactives are on the belt and superstructure. They're there for super sonic sea skimmers and I double dog dare you to say that three times fast.

Torpedoes is the big issue. Best I can think of is just hydrofoils and horsepower. Modern guided torpedoes have limited speed because Reasons. You generally won't find one faster than 60 knots. Plausibly you could use hydrofoils to just run from the torpedo until it's fuel runs out. Not ideal but our current tactic of decoys isn't that effective, counter-torps are still in the prototype phase, and I doubt any of you are willing to believe in fighter subs.

>>34531144
It would be about as shit as your thread

>>34531284
Arguably, anything with sufficient AA and cruise missile capability would be useful on the modern battlefield. Modern subs are good against ships but are useless against air power. Surface ships are okay against air but are disadvantaged against subs.

>>34531710
What about subs?

File: Amaterasu+2[1].png (169KB, 640x272px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 640x272px

>>34531310

File: Lun_Ekranoplan.jpg (57KB, 640x347px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x347px

A supersized nuclear ekranoplan

File: I'm back bitches.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>34531525

File: 250px-Sbx_underway.jpg (18KB, 250x313px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 250x313px

It would probably be something like what the Russians want. Fill the naval real estate with sensors and radars that can't fit on smaller ships and let the smaller ships carry some of the VLS. The ships could carry three pic related.

>>34531975
Horizon is the main limitation these days so it's basically going to be a drone carrier.

>>34531392
So you mount weapons that you can't mount on destroyers.

File: 1452455433295.gif (2MB, 594x336px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 594x336px

Like an Iowa, but on the Moon

>>34532857

That's only really relevant for nuclear weapons.

>>34531182
>Like the first time i've posted on this board

Let it be your last.

File: danqdinosaurflatearthmeme16048202.png (264KB, 500x422px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 500x422px

Is there a word or term for the fallacy of designing something to fit what you want to have, rather than designing something to fit your needs?

Good design:
>We require a ship capable of shore bombardment, naval landing of brigade sized units, and protected from shore defenses
>We should build a large, armoured ship will a well deck and several 8" turrets to support our LHD forces

Bad design:
>We want a battleship, how can we find a role to shoehorn it into?
>Add moar missiles

>>34531144
>retain it is deck guns
Learn some English please.

>>34531720
>Torpedoes is the big issue.
Escort vessels and helos for ASW.

How about we retain one a turret remove the guns and open a hole in the top and put a missile launcher magazine inside

>>34531378
Carriers (well, planes launched from carriers) have sunk more enemy combatant ships than all other ship classes combined since 1940.

Subs hold the record for total kill count but the majority of those are merchant vessels or noncombatant military vessels.

File: 02-Gallery_2014-1129-PS-Singapore-anchorage-b-1600x1063.jpg (410KB, 1600x1063px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1600x1063px

>>34531144
Pic related, with container ship-style bows and a pair of Ford-class powerplants with 8+ azipods for distributed power/steering redundancy and a 30kt max speed. Armor it to the standard of a Nimitz/Ford above the waterline and fit it with enough redundant sacrificial watertight compartments that it could eat a pair of Akulas' worth of conventional torps and still float.

Fit it out with a 360° AESA the size of a Pave PAWS, probably powered by its own dedicated reactor, and a navalized version of the Ground Based Interceptor so it can carry out midcourse intercepts of DF-21's and Bulava's from halfway across the Pacific with its own exoatmospheric kinetic kill vehicles. 48 reloadable Trident tubes should be enough for long-range engagement of surface targets. Next, load it with as many VLS cells as half the Burke fleet combined so that it can spam hundreds TSSM's or SM2's and 3's at whatever gets through (or the entire PLAAF, for that matter) like something out of Macross. Add in 4 turrets of Iowa-style triple-mount railguns for shore bombardment, point defense, and close-in engagement of surface targets. Build a CIWS around a modernized/navalized version of the YAL-1's laser system, with 4-8 emitters for maximum redundancy.

Add a Wasp class-sized flight deck (because you honestly still have the space for one) for limited amphibious assault/full-on ASW capability, and add a complement of 40-70 F-35B's as well because all that leftover interior volume isn't going to fill itself, and their ability to remote-cue the contents of its 1500+ VLS cells will do wonders to reduce workload in the CIC, which by now probably resembles mission control in Houston.

So there you have it, the seagoing equivalent of a Super Star Destroyer or the SDF-1, a surface combatant that will probably cost you $50 billion to procure, but will also be able to simultaneously engage the entire Chinese and Russian surface fleets singlehandedly and have a solid chance of winning.

>>34533387
how about we open the bottom valves and just scuttle the fucking things?

>>34531144
A floating VLS truck

>>34531144
A towed barge with howitzers and cwis on it. All they would be good for is shelling land targets, so there's no point in committing any real money to it.

>>34531144
An brand-new artificial reef.

>>34534995
Ah yes, the "Sea Dominance Ship". I like the cut of your 'tism, anon

File: dreadnought2050.jpg (659KB, 2000x1291px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 2000x1291px

>>34531144