>those blasts >those shells How are these ships not still

>>34690066
ballistic missiles

>>34690066
because iowa was a shitty battlecruiser.

>>34690066
>range is piss poor
>flight time measured in minutes
>unguided

take a fucking guess

>>34690066
A plane with a bomb or missile has more range and precision.

>>34690217

Non canon garbage

File: Skysweeper.jpg (81KB, 374x354px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 374x354px

>>34690184
>16" LRAP (Long-range Rocket Assisted Projectile) Excalibur rounds
What now bb?
What now?

>>34690229
Better than a cannon.

>slow
>to many people to operate
>MOA measured in yards
>expensive
>old and smelly interior.

>>34690077
>>34690217
>>34690240
remove the old 16" and 5" guns, and update that hull with rail guns, lasers, Phalanx, anti-air missiles, anti-missile missiles, it's big enough to put a couple of THAADs on it.
Use your imagination /k/.
Look at how big that hull is.

>>34690583
>Look at how big that hull is.
Then why not just get a fuckhuge oil tanker, strip it to bare bones and then fill the whole thing with vertical launch tubes?
It's not like all that battleship armor is going to do anything against modern weapons.

>giant expensive target
>needs aegis cruisers for defense
>extremely short range
>inaccurate
>large crew requirement
Are there people on /k/ that can't figure this shit out by themselves?

>>34693081
>Are there people on /k/ that can't figure this shit out by themselves?
No. Thats why we have at least 2 of these threads per week.

>>34690583
>Look at how big that hull is.

Big, and filled to the brim with the infrastructure for old engines and old weapons. It would be cheaper to clean-sheet a new ship than to gut and rebuild an Iowa.

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

91KB, 556x312px

>>34690066
>>34693112

File: ranges.jpg (169KB, 1624x1682px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1624x1682px

let me explain with a little picture.

each of these circles represents the maximum range of an Iowa's Mk7 gun, a Harpoon missile, an FA/18 from a carrier, and a Tomahawk missile.

I think that the tiny red dot of the Mk7 gun is a rather graphic representation of the limitations of naval armament, compared to aviation and missile technology.

>>34693710

Range isn't even the most important limiting factor. The time to target for conventional naval artillery is too low to actually hit ships maneuvering at sea.

>>34693710
Wouldn't the Hornet's range be even greater depending on it's loadout, like if it is carrying Harpoons or, in the future, LRASMs?

>>34693118
nuke powered 21st century battle cruisers when?

>>34693802
yes, but I wen with the default basics for the hornet and the tomahawk in that image.

>>34693721
That's why you use naval artillery as littoral support.

Who needs scores of howitzers on the ground when you can call upon the full firepower of floating gun and missile batteries?

>>34693819
but you will still need the howitzers if you want to move more than 30km inland. And thats before you plow your BB into mine-infested littoral waters

>>34693819
>Who needs scores of howitzers on the ground when you can call upon the full firepower of floating gun and missile batteries?

Because airplanes are an even better way of delivering ordnance to target. The naval artillery is competing with the various elements of the Carrier Strike Groups for effectiveness in and out of the littorals, and airplanes have proven themselves time and again.

File: ThePerfectShip.png (521KB, 1280x621px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 1280x621px

>>34690066
You're wrong op, That ship is obsolete with guns so puny and armor so thin. Not to mention the useless radar.
The Yamato is the superior battleship in every way.

>>34693053
This... this isn't as stupid as it seems at first. If you imagine the resulting monstrosity as the centrepiece of a group much like an aircraft carrier...
Of course you wouldn't literally convert a Panamax tanker, but work on the same scale, a carrier mindset and ALL THE TUBES...

>>34694219
It's called an arsenal ship. Do your googles

File: Dauntless_01.jpg (155KB, 1600x1027px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1600x1027px

>>34694129

sup

>>34693053
>Then why not just get a fuckhuge oil tanker, strip it to bare bones and then fill the whole thing with vertical launch tubes?

That sounds awesome.

>>34694129
Padoga/10

File: parkerapproves.jpg (23KB, 400x324px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x324px

>>34695110

File: 804014322_orig.png (94KB, 2500x1078px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 2500x1078px

>>34694219
650 big tubes on this thing. It can probably store several thousand. Not to mention the smaller tubes. Just get it to an area and spam missiles.

>>34695554
Who makes these? Google can't find shit.

File: 539464576398475624.jpg (1MB, 6224x1076px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 6224x1076px

>>34695554
How do we feel about this, /k/?

>>34696194
actually laughed pretty loud

>>34696194
that thing is like a fucking kilometer long

>>34696194
Macross/10

>>34696194
Gonna have to have some pretty hardcore guidance systems for all of those.

File: 1500879993842.jpg (237KB, 683x626px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 683x626px

>>34696194
Yes please, I want to see if it does a sick front flip when it releases all the missiles at once

>>34696194
I'll take a dozen.

>>34696194
Are those just cruise missile tubes?

Why not ICBMs instead for a floating apocalypse?

>>34696194
now make the tube tops like SLBMs and put a runway on it

>>34690583
fun fact: return of the battleship
rail-gun testing blattform is a 16" gun

>>34693118
Engines are fine. USN had far better marine plants than everyone back then, and the Iowa's are still good.

>>34697310
Why not just make the tubes bigger and put airplanes in them?

File: yes fuck yes.jpg (21KB, 292x315px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 292x315px

>Defensive railguns & lasers will make anti-ship missiles obsolete, even ballistic ones
>Larger railguns will have ranges exceeding 200 miles
>yfw the Age of the Battleship returns

File: b05d05aae302296c24ccc845b36aedce.jpg (145KB, 530x530px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 530x530px

>>34697777

>>34695730
Canada, apparently.

>>34694129
>armor so thin
You have clearly taken too much dick to the brain stem.

>>34697777
Quads of truth, although without the armor, it's more of a large gun cruiser (CA). I'm okay with that.

>>34700136
Would they bring back CA or would they make up a new designation for railgun cruisers, perhaps CR?

>>34697381
>rail-gun testing blattform is a 16" gun

What are you talking about? The gun at Dahlgren fires shells that are being explored for the Navy's 5" guns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO_zXuOQy6A

>>34690583
Not big enough to fit your mum tho

File: gerald.bull.jpg (155KB, 618x1159px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 618x1159px

They would make absurd sabot guns. The range on a 203mm shell would be mind-blowing.

Its a shame they shut down Space Research.

File: 1384290597713.jpg (96KB, 603x1232px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 603x1232px

>>34696984
>>34696194
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxnC6jkJyEM

File: 1469248808463.jpg (963KB, 1500x1044px) Image search: [Google]

963KB, 1500x1044px

>>34690066
Because what's relevant now is usually fucking boring compared to what it replaces, such is the way of real life.

Range and vulnerability to precision weapons.

>>34696194
>This is the new Ace Combat super weapon

>>34700361

Considering the amount of power needed for a proper railgun, it'd be more like CAN or CRN.

File: 1299943382400.jpg (254KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1920x1200px

>>34690066
Aircraft made the Battleship obsolete in WW2.

>Biplanes helped sink the Bismarck

>Helldivers sank the Yamato.

Now imagine what today's aircraft can do with anti-ship missiles long range and precision-guided bombs on top.

>but battleship armor was thicker and could take missiles

Even if that's true, missiles aren't hard to make, and Raytheon, General Dynamics, Matra, BAe, MBDA would (not "could," but "would") create a line of missiles that would go through this magic lost armor technology battleship fanboys masturbate over on these threads.

And a Moskit would probably still sink a Yamato, Bismarck, King George V, or Iowa with ease.

>>34696194
you could build a missile factory for that size.