IS THE NAVY SECRETLY RETROFITTING THE BATTLESHIPS??

>>131393298
>Phalanx

Honestly, what the fuck are you talking about? This has been at thing since 2014.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L0ZAGOuaqg

This isn't even political. Go to /k/

DELETE

>>131393298
>secretly
They used retrofitted battleships in the first gulf war

>>131393568
A WW2 BATTLESHIP THAT HAS BEEN DECOMMISSIONED FOR YEARS NOW HAS 2 EXPLAIN!

>>131393568
>2014
nigger what? they've had them since 1980

Why were battleships decommissioned?

Is it because it's all about carriers and ships that can launch cruise missiles?

>>131393298
you know that battleships are obsolete, right?

>>131393913
yes

>>131393298
*BRRRRRRRRAAAPPPPPPP*

>>131393661
Showing off new tech to public for battleship visits is my guess.

>>131393913
Technically the upgraded battleships they used in the first gulf war were equipped with cruise missiles as well. They're just a lot larger and a bigger pain to manage and just as likely to sink from a single direct hit as a much smaller destroyer is

>>131393298
The president is on that ship, you bet they rig up a phalanx on it

You can't land on a a fortified beach without battleship support. US Navy is strong enough to singlehandedly control the oceans agains the rest of the world combined, but the military is in no way in a state of readiness to invade China or Russia.

File: BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg (2MB, 2354x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2354x3000px

The ship is the USS Iowa and pic related is from 1984 and you can see the Phalanx mounted.

OP is literally (((Alex Jones))) level AIDS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_(BB-61)

>>131393661
Its standard ghost fleet upkeep. If the US loses a CBG or something they need to have somewhat useful replacements sitting around. Installing relatively cheap point defence systems 1) protects the reserve capacity of the navy, and 2) makes it possible to slowly update the reserve fleet to maintain its usefulness

>>131394239
ok granddad. take your pills and go back to sleep. us younger kids will be destroying beach fortifications with missiles

>>131393913
because now battleships are just sea based artillery platforms. Carriers are superior for ocean superiority platforms

>>131394075
How long till they're capable of creating drone battleships? Wouldn't those be more effective and safer for the army? Or is there just to much shit going on with a ship

>>131394239

Airpower and missiles.

>>131394513
>drone battleships
Why not drone missiles? The effective range of a battleships main weapons still pale in comparison to a missile's. To get in range it needs to point its slow ass in the direction of the enemy who out range it.

They're old and outdated

>>131394689
But missiles can just be shot down ala aegis type shit.

File: robbat.png (423KB, 630x472px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 630x472px

>>131394255
Yeah okay but wheres the unedited one?

Just fyi, Burgers are broke

>>131395335
Nyuka, American debt is actually valuable and traded, so if we have money the country wins, if we have debt the country wins. However internal debt like student loans, will be the end of stable society.

>>131394689
>Why not drone missiles?
That's what a cruise missile is.

>>131393661

They put four phalanxes on the Iowa in 1982 as part of Reagan's 600-ship navy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_(BB-61)#Reactivation_.281982.E2.80.9384.29

>>131393913

A battleship can shoot about 20 miles. An airplane launched from a carrier has a range of about 1,200 miles. The missiles those airplanes attack with have a range of around 100 miles.

The carrier can kill the battleship a hundred times over using just 1 plane long before the battleship gets within range to shoot at the carrier.

>>131394239
>You can't land on a a fortified beach without battleship support.

This wasn't even true when battleships existed (their effect on amphibious assaults was extremely small - carrier aircraft were much more important), and it's certainly not true today.

Amphib assaults nowadays are primarily done with helicopters, very similar to the way airmobile attacks were done in Vietnam. Landing craft only deliver things to the shore after it's been secured.

>>131394940
and slower shells can't?

>>131394239
>tfw ur fancy $280 million missile gets intercepted
>tfw my $7,000/round main gun has almost the same destructive power yet is almost 3000x more cost effective

>>131394546
Planes require a lot of fuel. Most people don't realize this but a carrier is like a giant fuel tanker: its hull is lined with JP5 tanks and holds about 500,000 gallons onboard, which is usually burned through after 2 weeks of flight ops. You don't need to constantly replenish fuel reserves when you're just shelling a beach.

>>131396431
Arsenal ship when
>3,000 tomahawks per boat

>>131393298
OP it's simple, Battleships are kept maintained and painted. We just don't operate them. Nothing can deliver cheap wide area Fuck You like a WW2 Battleship, they are very important for large scale land assaults.Despite our fancy missiles, there is nothing active in the Navy right now that could allow us to perform a successful at D-Day operation without them.

In short, many "Museum" Battleships are capable of being redeployed in a time of great need.

Phalanx guns are amazing. With that simple upgrade that one battleship could have taken on Yamamoto's Carriers by itself. Prop planes wouldn't be able to touch it. Technology is truly glorious. Who knows what other upgrades it has.

>>131396158
Huh? Navy warfares shit anyways

File: grahamer2.gif (54KB, 400x307px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 400x307px

>>131393298

>>131396087

>This wasn't even true when battleships existed (their effect on amphibious assaults was extremely small - carrier aircraft were much more important)

false

>and it's certainly not true today. Amphib assaults nowadays are primarily done with helicopters, very similar to the way airmobile attacks were done in Vietnam. Landing craft only deliver things to the shore after it's been secured.

accurate

there's no need to minimize the importance of battleships in securing pacific islands via bombardment in order to accurately point out that the nature of beach landings has changed dramatically since WWII

>>131393661
Go post this on /k/ and get laughed at because they've been fitted with those for years now you cum drinker

>>131396431
More destructive power, and a different trajectory. Battleships deploy several different kinds of rounds. Including high explosive shrapnel rounds that can fuck up vehicles and personnel within a large radius from 100-250 meters.

It's like dropping various size Jdams but instead of a plane only carrying 1-4 depending on weight, the Battleship can sit there all day shooting them every second.

The shorelines where battleships have assaulted places are still fucking ruined with craters. It would cost us ungodly amounts of money to try that kind of destruction with missiles.

Moreover, in a sustained war, battleship rounds are easier and much faster to produce, requiring no advanced electronics, servo motors, or propulsion. A single tomohawk can be in production for months. Meanwhile we can produce Battleship rounds as fast as we can use them and our stockpiles have millions of rounds.

There is a reason they did not scrap these ships. Even if we get rail guns operational, it's not likely that they would have the same wide area damage since the round is much smaller.

The WW2 Battleship is an archtype that will be around a long time even if we don't actively sail them around.

>>131394255
They should bring back some of those 16" guns but load them with 2,700lbs of A gauge buckshot instead and use them for carrier defense. That's 1,574 2" 27.45oz lead balls per shot, coming out at 2,690 ft/s, each one would pack 193,003 lb/ft of energy, 1.24 times that of the 30mm rounds fired from the A-10. Each shell would contain more firepower than the full loadout on an A-10.

Could probably be used against incoming missiles, aircraft, swarm boats, and sea skimming torpedoes. Fired into an enemy port? Jesus.

>>131396158
They're a bit harder to track because of heat and visual properties that rockets have loads more of.
That said at their effective range you'll see the enemy vessel, and with 100 mile missiles you don't want that.

Maybe there's a place for battleships with railguns, if those weapons have an impact that warrants the sheer quantity that only battleships can bear.
Won't be retrofitted Iowas though. Completely new design that takes all forms of ASW into account.
Fantasy's great though.

>>131393298
They keep old ships for shit like this all the time, if you're testing a new weapon systems, if it explodes accidentally would your rather it explode on an actively serving warship or some floating rustbucket that would only ever see service again in extreme circumstances?

>>131397718
I did just imagine how devastating a broadside from an Iowa would be if all the shells were beehive flechettes with explosive tips
Wouldn't be very useful against a ship, but it would be the new yardstick for collateral damage.

>>131397718
Now THAT would be a sight to behold.

>>131397718
That's really stupid. You should look up what real weapons carrier groups have. A broadside form a Battleship gun would be much weaker than many weapons we currently employ. their best use is in fucking up land targets today.

>>131397718
you could just stuff the gun barrels full of niggers instead and fire them straight up and then shoot them with the phalanx guns on the way down

File: aerhaehrh.png (16KB, 638x307px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 638x307px

>>131393298
This dumbpost is about 33 years out of date.

>>131393298
"Museum" is just another word for cold stacked vessel. These are still assets of US defense, however considered low grade but still a weapon system to recon with. Yet the battleship's tactical importance has lost a great deal of it's former status to other more effective systems.

File: Army's new recon team.jpg (4MB, 3648x2048px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3648x2048px

>>131399126
This is one of the most retarded posts in the history of retarded posts.

Who needs small recon teams, stealth drones, satellites, planes, or have that all launch from a fast LCS with low radar signature and all the most advanced sensors in the world. Nah, fuck that. You could send in a slow as fuck giant Battleship with almost no sensors at all, no air capabilities, and no small lunch craft. Hell, it has trouble with submarines still but definitely send it out alone for fucking recon. Surely China will not notice the USS IOWA approaching their Islands. Even if you got close? Recon with what? It's mobile artillery that rely's on, and has always relied on, totally different naval units and recon teams to act as forward observers. What are the guys gonna do? Recon with binoculars from the bridge?

This is like sending out the Howitzers in front of your forward observers. How do Europeans know so little about military operations? fuck me.

File: QBj5hpu.jpg (172KB, 1411x558px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1411x558px

>>131397718
>They should bring back some of those 16" guns but load them with 2,700lbs of A gauge buckshot instead and use them for carrier defense
so like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgn1nhUEgo8

All of this shit will be obsolete with our X-37bs and fucking drop pods.

>>131400338
poster obviously meant "reckon with" but it's impressive that you are able to generate this much autism from a single typo

>>131400338
>"South? But that leads... That leads you to Isengard"
>"Yes, the closer we are, the less they'll expect us!"

File: 1498238939568.gif (2MB, 202x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 202x360px

>>131397866

>>131393298
That little R2D2 is amazing, TFW you've had one pointed at you on a flight deck (damn jokesters)

>>131393773
this

>>131393298
lmao, were gonna start ww3 and roll out these beasts on unsuspecting ships BTFO

>>131393298
So there go your taxes americunts ahaha

>>131393298
Those are mock-up CWIS guns. Real ones were removed long ago.

>>131400659
Same concept, just 200 times larger and probably even cheaper. Could even use composite shells with a timed burst charge so you can control the concentration of shot, from covering several acres to even working like a safety slug that explodes on impact. For instance, you could say at fire time, "fly 60km and detonate at 400m altitude". Since the guns are rifled there's already enormous force being imparted by the shot wanted to spread, so it should spread very rapidly once burst.

>>131397388
Would those Pacific Islands include South China Sea islands as well?

>>131393298
>have Phalanx on it!?

Drone killer.

>>131394255
Hey navyfags, when a dingy like this fires all of it weapons, how doed the crew not end up deaf. I dont see how any amount of hearing protection could save your ears from that

File: WE HADZ BATTLESHIPS.jpg (111KB, 1200x614px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1200x614px

>>131393298
Dumbass. Battleships haven't been used in battle for the last ~40 years. And there is a good reason for it. They are way to fucking big and immobile these days. (Destoryers are the biggest class of ship that still see a lot of use, that should tell you something.) A battleship is too easy to sink using torpedoes/missiles. When the IJN Yamato went down on 7th of april 1945 due to being zerg rushed by carrier planes, it was clear that battleships had mostly become obselete. Why build a battleship when you can build a carrier? So I hope the US navy leaders didn't lose their brains and that that battleship is not being retrofitted.

>>131400338
>recon
>reckon
funny how one letter can change the entire message.
yes reckon
kek

File: 47bacc77a85bd9be32b305811058c2d1.png (529KB, 788x466px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 788x466px

>>131401158
Ah yes our multiple simultaneous and devastating deep strikes using drop pods. We shall call the maneuver 'Steel Rehn'

Those are to shoot missles and are on everything.

>>131405266
They wear protection, belive me. Also, consider these things:

1) Because of the barrel most of the blast is directed away from the ship. (I wouldn't recommend standing on the deck when that thing fires though. The muzzle blast will rip you to shreads.)

2) Do not underestimate how big that thing is. USS Iowa had a length of 270 meters, so I think the crew standing on the platform behind the 2nd turret are a good 25/30 m away from the blast.

>>131397388
>there's no need to minimize the importance of battleships in securing pacific islands via bombardment

Bombardment had next to zero effect on Japanese defenders.

I don't understand why you feel the need to exaggerate about this particular thing. Perhaps you are simply misinformed.

>>131405266

The crew is inside the ship, which protects them from the blast wave.

>>131405266
>>131406125
This too, yes. In a battle they wouldn't be standing on the deck or on the superstructure.

File: tomtom.jpg (38KB, 565x600px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 565x600px

>>131398902

The USS Iowa class isn't slow. Thought its max speed was 32 knots. Even when they pulled her from service I think their was some clause that stated the battleship couldn't fully convert to a museum and needed to be ready for retrofit at a moment's notice.

>>131405981
>>131406125
>>131406267
Thanks. I have hearing damage and always wondered what they did to prevent it. Tinnitus is a bitch

File: 1480468944641.jpg (7KB, 130x179px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 130x179px

>>131393298
>>131393661
b-but what about the three 16" guns that happen to still be there. Why didn't they remove those?

>>131393298
And they let that cargo ship hit em on purpose so they had an excuse to fix er up and upgrade her in secret.

>>131405837
not on ww2 era battlehips that are floating museum pieces.Funny how they will call the old hags back to service when they need overwhelming sustained firepower to cover the landing of troops on the shores

>>131393298
>Why does a decommissioned battleship have Phalanx on it!?

Because it's on a Naval Base and there's a chance a missile could fly its way during an attack?

File: kancolle_iowa_donald_trump_make_america_great_again.jpg (476KB, 1177x1280px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 1177x1280px

>>131405981
Iowa is the best waifu tho

File: iowa-with-crew.jpg (859KB, 2354x3000px) Image search: [Google]

859KB, 2354x3000px

>>131406125
>>131406267
but there's crew on deck, I marked it

>>131407549
That's the superstructure, not the deck.

File: dissapointed_pepe.jpg (2KB, 125x95px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x95px

>>131393298
Battle ship fags are the worst

>>131394183
/Thread

Just wait til they start fitting these battleships with nuclear reactors and railguns. That's the future of naval warfare.

>>131393298

Yes, they're getting retrofitting for the rail gun

>>131397637
Don't be fucking retarded. Battleships are a completely outdated concept that makes no sense on every single direction.

What's the point in bombarding a shoreline when you can precision strike every single beach installation with missiles whether VLS or air launched. In fact, to get your fucking battleship within range you'd need to put it in range of opposing missiles and aircraft attack. Essentially what you're suggesting to bring the Iowa's 16 inch guns within range of a beach you have to sail it through ~several hundred miles of being under missile and air attack to hit beach installations that could have been struck with precision weaponry from far away by carrier aircraft.

And before you say that you can mount air defence on a battleship, no, you can't, at least not reliably. Every time the Iowas fired their main guns in the first gulf war they knocked out their own radars from the recoil. So you'll need escorts like arleigh burkes, which themselves can launch tomahawks - and at this point you should be wondering why the fuck you brought a battleship along when its escorts can hit a beach themselves anyway, from far far away.

>>131393298
I'll let you in on a secret, all serviceable ships can be used in case of necessity.
Yes, these old ships could be used again if it was absolutely necessary.

>I thought a war ship would be a tourist attraction forever, even in case of massive war
herp derp

>>131397718
didnt the japs in ww2 try something like this but it was shit?

Before full dry-docking, most of these mothballed ships are retrofitted to participate in wargames and DoD weapons tests, and JIC they absolutely have no other options in an all out war they are kept relatively seaworthy in general, all because it took millions (and in a few instances, billions) of taxpayer dollars to get them this far in service.

There is no big mystery or conspiracy here.
If you like this there are about 50 US submarines tooling around for training, gaming, and alphatesting that are basically era-spanning technological jigsaw puzzles..

>>131397718
>be gook
>watch American landing approach hiding in your hole for the eventual naval barrage
>buckshot fires
>the guy on the mg inside a concrete bunker 5m away is turned to a red mist and the bunker collapses on top of him
>you get killed by the rush of air sucking your lungs out

>>131405415
The Iowas were used in 1991

>>131393298
Why would the navy protect their ships? Must be a conspiracy.

>>131396431
what's a jp5, and what makes it special?