To address the issue of anti-ship missiles, why don't we

Battleshipfag plz go

>>34999666
op, take a moment and realize that AShMs are not HEAT rounds

>>34999666
in this order
no, that's not how era works, that's not how missiles work, no, NOOOOOO

Missiles are getting better, so let's spend billions upon billions of dollars making an even bigger target for them!!11

>>34999666
>why don't we put ERA (explosive reactive armor) on ships, namely battleships, allowing them to return to service, and additionally making anti-ship missiles obsolete

This could be one of the single dumbest ideas I've ever heard. You'd have to completely cover a ship in massive bricks of ERA to have any effect what so ever, and this would hurt everything from sea worthiness to damage control.

>with the recent innovations in rail gun technology, we will see a huge renaissance in battleships soon.
Rail guns make battleships LESS viable. A rail gun can be fitted to much smaller and lighter ships, which would clearly have an insurmountable advantage in combat against larger, slower ships covered in armor that would be mostly useless. A rail gun packs a punch of a battleship, but with a size allowing it to be fitted to destroyers and cruisers.

ERA can only block so much penetration and anti ship missiles have a lot of penetration.

OP here, obviously they wouldn't put regular tank-sized ERA plating on the battleship, they'd have to put really really large ERA plates on it to account for the difference of size of ATGM to AShM.

Also they would obviously replace the countless AA batteries on the battleship with CWIS, so that you would have like 20 CWIS protecting the ship at any given angle from AShMs, meaning the ERA plating would be more of a last line of defense for the ship's hull.

>>34999720
>>34999724
Then make the ERA plates bigger.

Why don't we put retractable railguns on submarines and arm them with supercavitating projectiles

>>34999666

I sell equipment to the Navy for battleships.

Ok, what you are failing to realize is the effect of shock waves in the water and the damage they do to ships. Torpedoes don't hit ships, but they go underneath and detonate, and the shock blast does the damage.

A reactive armor would literally be worse than the incoming missle, as the blasts would violently shake the ship. In short, you have to stop the inbound attack before it gets to close.

Everything on a naval vessel has to go through "shock testing" where the devices are hit with calibrated impacts, ranging from am 800 pound hammer hitting a fixture the device is bolted too, all the way to detonating explosives next to a barge. It's pretty fascinating, but as a manufacturer, shock testing is the worst part of my job.

>>34999666
Damn not a bad idea

File: meanwhile in russia.png (82KB, 497x652px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 497x652px

>>34999666
is that you, UVZ?

>/k/ puts giant ERA plates on a Battleship
>Chinese ASM is launched at it
>ERA activates and defeats the missile
>Force of the ERA activating sinks the Battleship

>>34999791
no the ERA would be directed outwards idiot

>>34999666
How many fucking times will we have this thread?

>>34999804
Physics is HARD U GUISE

>>34999666
As usual, battleshipfags prove they know absolutely nothing abou modern navies and that they have autism

>>34999666
nice double trips

anti-ship missiles don't even use HEAT warheads

other than the AS-4 Kitchen but even then there are important areas like the superstructure where you couldn't possibly fit big enough ERA plates

>>34999666
>why don't we put ERA (explosive reactive armor) on ships
You wasted trips on THIS?

>>34999666
There are no battleships left in service and no other countrIes but the US and China has the capability or funding to make battleships anymore.

>>34999666
For heavy hitting, railguns are shit even compared to conventional guns, let alone compared to missiles.

>>35000431
>railguns are shit
proofs

>>34999666
you

there is nothing good about you and what you do

you're a worthless faggot. it's been explained to you before and you simply ignore it, and continue your bullshit

seriously you need to fuck off and die

>>34999666
functionally speaking, Arleigh Burke destroyers ARE battleships.

>>34999666
Modern ships don't survive by having fancy armor. They survive by not being hit.

>>35000865
you're not gonna get hit with a ton of cwis defending you

>>34999816
until we cut up the Iowa class for scrap

>>35000914
cwis is the last, and usually least effective line of defense.

>>34999666
Satanic trips there's only one way a battleship could enter service and be useful in this day and age, as a literal shield for a carrier. A skeleton crew, just putting the battleship between a carrier and any potential threat.

>>34999804
Every action, equal and opposite reaction, water not being stable, the design not being made for such forces enacting upon the hull, etc.

I think this is the thread that finally convinces me to filter the word battleship

>>35000914
I'll take "What is fragmentation damage?" for 12 Jim

>>35000607
>Best railgun in existence
32 MJ at the muzzle
>A battlecruiser's modest 12" guns
130 MJ, plus substantial yield of explosive filling
>16" battleship guns
360 MJ plus filling
>Harpoon-sized AShM
800 MJ of explosive yield, plus about 10 MJ kinetic
>Tomahawk
Fucking 3000 MJ

I repeat. For heavy hitting, railguns. are. shit.

>>35001220
MAKE BIGGER RAILGUNS

>>34999791
enemy can't sink your battleship if you sink it first

>>34999816
Until the Battleshit faggots get their wish and then see their white elephants blown the fuck out with anti-ship missile spam, and then no one with so much as a room temp IQ will put anything larger than a PT boat in anti-ship missile range

>>35001215
What were the Iraqis firing in the opening hours of Operation Iraqi Freedom??

>>35001220
Except said railgun will likely have a range four to five times of the extreme range of any large caliber naval cannon, doesn't require a crew of several hundred, weigh some 1500 tons, and will have a fire rate of well above one round every couple minutes.
Gee, I wonder why the navy is looking into railguns over building a 30,000 ton magnet for AShM's that can lug around several short range cannons.

Also please kill yourself battleship fag.

>>34999673
That's actually an argument in BB's favor. Modern AShMs are APHE, a block of high explosives in a hard shell. The tough belt armor of most battleships would cause a shot like that to crumple or bounce. Even if you pierce that you've got to content with the armored citadel. This would spoof most delayed impact fuses as the distance between outer armor and citadel armor varies. Without a citadel penetration you'll need to take out the sensors and weapons individually and that kind of slugging match fits a battleship just fine.

You could go for a top-down shot but that just makes you a target for AA.

>>34999716
>Rail guns make battleships LESS viable. A rail gun can be fitted to much smaller and lighter ships, which would clearly have an insurmountable advantage in combat against larger, slower ships covered in armor that would be mostly useless. A rail gun packs a punch of a battleship, but with a size allowing it to be fitted to destroyers and cruisers.

Actually, a battleship can fit a larger power plant and thus can mount more and bigger railguns. The USS Enterprise (That's CVN-65 not those other USS Enterprises) mounted 8 nuclear reactors with a combined output that would let a 100MJ railgun fire twice a second. A battleship with that kind of output would be dangerous by saturation alone.

>>34999748
Haven't we gotten those counter torpedoes working yet?

>>35002213
>Actually, a battleship can fit a larger power plant and thus can mount more and bigger railguns.

Distributed lethality is far superior here. Sinking resources into one large, vulnerable, ship is going to be a worse investment than a set of several smaller vessels.

>>35002089
No battleship ever made could survive an AShM hit any more than they could tank the impact of a kamikaze. The armor simply would not hold up to the sheer amount of mass in the average AShM. They don't penetrate. They smash a hole.

Daily reminder that Russian AShMs are the size of small aircraft and travel at high subsonic or low supersonic speeds. Armor will not save you from that.

>>35002089
>The tough belt armor of most battleships would cause a shot like that to crumple or bounce.

If by that you mean cause a massive HE yield detonating on your ship, likely destroying all of its more fragile components like its radar and ecm, leaving it an even bigger target than before.

>>35002256
Nuh uh! Battleships have super good armor so all the radar and everything else is really hard to kill and you'd have to hit it with hundreds of missiles to kill it.
The fucking retards who make these threads sat down one time and fired off like 30 replies of that shit one time. It's like he's so fixated on battleships that he had a stroke.

>>35002243
>>35002256

From memory concerning that Shipfag's comments in the thread about the latest US Navy ship collision, wouldn't the increased mass of the Battleship (and it's armor) work against itself for the reasons you two mentioned? You would get a massive shatter/tearing effect from the stresses of the thing trying to hold itself together in the aftermath of the strike, to say nothing of the enormous great hole a AShM would create.

>>35001220
Keep in mind that the number of AShM's you have is severely limited and they share space with anti-air, anti-sub, and anti-ballistic missile weapons. At most you'll have space for 120 of these with the Ticonderoga class which you'll need to divide between them. You'll also be unable to reload these launchers at sea so you'd better make each one count.

This becomes more and more problematic as active defenses and ECM becomes more widespread.

As for the railguns, they've got a muzzle velocity a little over twice that of the 16" rifles we had on the Iowa-class with a related increase in maximum range. The main restriction is in power supply.

>>35002232
On the other hand, it makes it harder to destroy the fleet in detail when it's combat power is in one large mass. Being large enough to mount nuclear reactors would also mean a long term saving in resources and an increase of strategic mobility. Smaller diesel ships need to travel at cruising speed to save fuel.

>>35002243
Those large AShMs would also be more expensive and vulnerable to AA fire. Already we see systems like Aegis that can shoot down these missiles and mounting them on a battleship would let you scale the system up.

Because of the size of these missiles, most ships can't mount more than a dozen of them and thus it would be harder to overwhelm the anti-missile system.

>>35002256
We've actually seen this during the Battle of Guadalcanal as Admiral Kondo's fleet was so busy trying to sink the South Dakota that they completely missed the Washington pull up. The Japanese fleet had effectively mission killed the USS South Dakota but because they couldn't sink her, they had to assume she was still a threat.

File: Fire_Lion_by_mcphreez.jpg (301KB, 999x799px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 999x799px

>>34999669
/bread

>>35002288
Only if the AShM has comparable mass to the battleship.

>>34999746
>memewords

File: 534534.jpg (2MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2000px

>>34999666
Kirov-class is already armored against Harpoon without any ERA (NATO BTFO) and can be counted fair and square as battlecruiser.

File: 1494683503374.jpg (122KB, 1280x717px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1280x717px

>>34999666
Double trips, wasted, on a BB thread.
OP stop being an attention whoring faggot. For God's sake man.

>>35007235
so it holds ∞ personnel and troops???

File: 12353453.jpg (41KB, 680x383px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 680x383px

>>35002213
>USS Enterprise
Fun fact: USS Enterprise has only 2.5 times more shaft power as LCS. 200 MW vs 80 MW.

>>34999724
Obviously it is stupid, arent you seeing a difference between an ATGM and an AshM? Like weight and speed? Google kinetic energy, maybe you could stop it using nuclear ERA ;)

>>35007263
>2.5 times more shaft power
probably because it has 2.5 times more fags on board

>>34999666

Cue copypasta of submarine with multiple spaced hulls equipped with ocean bayonets.

Cue other copypasta of covering the entire ocean in ERA blocks.

I really don't see the appeal of building a ship that can maybe tank some missile hits while being unable to attack on its own due to never being in range

>>34999748
If he wants to save his boat by blowing up his boat, don't stop him.

>>35002089
You are fucking retarded. APHE means the shell has better inherent penetration that bypasses the ERA. Battleships prefer APBC in naval warfare and their HCHE shells already can make a crater twice the length of the battleship itself. An old 1k lb HE impact fuse bomb can already completely wipe out the citadel.

>>34999666
Battleships wont come back until we start putting railguns on them.

>>35007438

Battleships will never come back because it is way more safe and effective to disperse firepower over many smaller ships.

Once we figure out a way to efficiently make smaller carriers with the same striking power as a supercarrier I'm sure we'll decentralize that, too.

stop replying to these threads and they'll go away.

>>34999666
Battleships are obsolete, and as this year has demonstrated (if it wasn't already obvious in the Falklands where destroyers were the only combat vessels... well, destroyed) so are destroyers. We need to replace surface shooters with attack submarines, and fast while China is still wasting its money on useless surface vessels that will be sunk in the first 10 minutes of combat.

Best of all, Submarines are big enough vessels that they could easily fit railguns themselves!

>>34999666
I think you're downplaying the danger modern glider infantry poses as a raiding party on Battleships. Undetectable to any radar, they could drop paratroopers equipped to either land on the ship and fight or survive wet landing and crawl up the side with magnet boots and gloves.

>>34999666
FUCK OFF BATTLESHIPFAGGGGGOTS

>>35007435
APHE shells are also less effective against armor in general. That's why they were phased out in favor of HEAT or HESH. Most of the blast of a contact detonation ends up everywhere but the target. Torpedoes get away with it because they smash up the keep and create a little pocket for the ship to collapse into but as we saw with the sinking of the Yamato, a ton of high explosives isn't going to sink a battleship. They'll just compartmentalize the damage and bilge out the flooding.

>>35007513
Submarines are good against other warships but they're notably weak against airpower. Once sonar buoys are in the water a sub's best option is to run deep and hope the enemy doesn't throw ASROCs at them.

Surface ships can still mount Aegis systems.

>>35007614
troll.

>>35001220
where did you get these numbers from.
rail gun projectiles conserve more of their kinetic energy than missiles since missiles lose a lot of mass due to dissipation of the propellant into heat. not only that, as they drop onto a target, due to their greater cross sectional area they experience more friction and thus they lost a lot more kinetic energy than a rail gun projectile dropping onto a target.
rail guns only lose energy from friction.
not only that but the energy invested into a rail gun shot is better use of energy and money than energy invested into a missile, which means rail gun is cheaper than missile.

>>35007795
>he thinks that railguns are long range heavy duty weapons

I see summer still holds sway.

>>35007807
You're not making a good case to the contrary.

>>34999666

What is CIWS in both gun and missile form?

>>35001870
That's not what he was talking about. No shit railguns are going to fire much further, but they are absolute shit compared to battleship guns if we're talking about how hard they hit.

>>34999666
Because in any conflict large enough to involve AShMs against capital ships, those AShMs will be nuclea, and then your fuckheavy armor is woth noting anyway.

>>35009677
How hard a BB's gun hits is kinda redundant at this point. Most modern warships have maybe a couple centimeters of armor. Enough for small arms but not enough for cannons.

Hell, you could plausibly pierce that armor with beehive rounds if you shot them out of a railgun.

>>35007513
Submarines are unable to engage aircraft effectively, and before you post that fucking missile, and any attempt to engage an aircraft will surely result in detection. Also putting a railgun on a sub is a horrible idea, they make for horrible firing platforms.

>>35009766
What about Aegis?

>>35007513
Railguns would require a sub to surface to use. If you have to surface to fight, what's the point of a sub?

And you still have the sonar buoy problem.

>>35001220
By this logic, having a pile of explosives is better than having 16"/50 guns.

>>35009677
A shell that hits super hard doesn't mean jack shit when you have to close to what is effectively point blank range when compared to modern weapons. A 16" Mark 8 may be a really powerful cannon but when you need to close within 15 miles and you're trying to engage a target that can engage you at 100-200 miles you are gonna have a bad day.

>>34999666
Current ships DO have ERA to destroy anti-ship missiles. They're called surface to air missiles. Dipshit.

>>35010299
On the other hand, you can't shoot down an AP shell. There's no control surfaces to tear off, fuel to detonate, or sensors to disable. The inertial fuse and explosive charge are all buried under layers of steel. Proximity fused anti-air warheads might as well be throwing sand.

>>35011364
Unguided shells can be knocked off trajectory. See: C-RAM. It doesn't matter since you'll never be in range to use it.

>>35011364
>Proximity fused anti-air warheads might as well be throwing sand.

*cough* kinetic warheads *cough* SM-3