How can the US navy bring back battleships?

You'd need at least three things to make the battleship a viable platform again

>main armament that has range and accuracy comparable to that of a cruise missile
>vastly improved anti-air and anti-submarine capabilities capabilities
>re-writing the modern naval doctrine to either attach battleships to Carrier Strike Groups or creating an equivalent for the battleship

Attached: BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg (2354x3000, 1.6M)

>creating an equivalent for the battleship
They already have that. Or at least they did in the Gulf. It’s called either a battleship battle group, or a surface action group.

In the ten-twenty years when electromagnetic ballistics are not small enough to install on aircraft. After that though, douftful.

Nah. A cruise missile launched from a carrier aircraft will always outrange a projectile

>intercontinental BALLISTIC missile

user...

What’s you’re point?

you mean like this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket-assisted_projectile

50 miles at best versus 700+ miles.
Yeah. That’s totally outranging missiles.

Guys guys. What if (tokes) yeaaaah... look at that the lap is wriggling wtf (he he). Hey guys, what if we (cough) put wings and like a fricking pilooot (sweet) into the battleship gun shell thing. Then it's like having the best of both worlds, navy and airforce! Duuuude.

>how can the air force bring back zeppelins?

>implying you couldnt just pop out turrets 2 and 3 on an iowa and have enough room to put 2 ticos worth of missiles while keeping the greatest shore bombardment implement ever devised.

The iowa, fitted with equivalent modern armament amount as it was when it was built, would be a big fucking fortress that could probably outpace the carriers easily while slinging missiles all day long.

Of course, we all know what congress would say to making a surface combat vessel that costs as much as a G-ford...

zeppelins were a navy thing.

Checkmate airforcefags

Attached: main-qimg-7b39d46d559af55b9aa7136ab1b06919-c.jpg (525x700, 46K)

Go back in time and not decommission CV-65 and CV-64.

Attached: constellation.jpg (286x180, 11K)

They won’t. It’s not economic to have large surface combatants when you need to exert power over all of the world’s oceans. If the need for that kind of firepower arises, then you could just use multiple destroyers or frigates.

Multiple destroyers are far more useful than a single missile battleship. At literally everything.

Discover Minovsky particles that render radar and long range electronic warfare impossible, thus forcing close range, near visible engagements.

what is it with flaming homosexuals and not liking battleships

He's got you there, user.

Attached: NH43901USSmacon-resized.jpg (1500x1163, 494K)

There’s a difference between not liking them and realizing that they’re obsolete.

>obsesses over the NAVY
>calls others flaming homosexuals
???
Go suck some dicks so you can calm down, Bruce.

By sexualizing them of course..

Attached: iowaatbay.png (1326x1146, 1.19M)

Railguns and Nuclear Reactors

RIP sweet prince ;_;

Attached: 1503613693446.jpg (1600x1066, 543K)

Nuclear reactors are unnecessary for railguns and should be avoided due to staffing issues.

how can you keep making these threads holy fuck you faggot

The concept of a battleship as it existed in the 1940s will never again be practical unless some thing is developed to counter air power, cruise missiles, and submarines.

If this isn't done then you need to change the idea of what a battleship is.

To this end, if we simply redefine a battleship to be a ship which primarily uses a gun then perhaps we can work with that.

So then, if the gun is the point, it will have to be one hell of a gun. Extreme range, accuracy, and power to be worth it over just another missile or airplane truck. Ranges of potential interest (much greater than 100km) can't really be achieved with chemical propellants. So electromagnetic rail-gun or similar should be used. We must ignore the current shortcomings of the rail-guns and assume they are solved as this seems more achievable than the likelihood of being able to disregard air power, cruise missiles, and submarines.

So then we have a gun that is worth putting in close enough to be subject to airpower, cruise missiles, and submarines attacks. Well, it is probably dead by itself. So we make it stealthish and give it a screen of ships like a carrier gets.

So the range of the gun has to be large, ideally hundreds of kilometers, current estimates are something like 300km at full power for rail-guns 'on the drawing board' so we will start there and assume that. The easiest stuff to lookup tells me the rail-gun can throw a round out at ~2.5 km/s (about mach 7) so if we ignore drag and other effects, it will take 2 minutes to reach a target if it is traveling in a straight line. For simplicity we will ignore ballistics and just call it a 2 minute flight time at max range.

So that much flight time presents problems with hitting anything that isn't immobile. Let us assume that the guidance and ISR problems are solved to place this projectile on a moving target with reasonable accuracy.

Now we are in business. We have a ship that uses a gun to hit things. (1 of 2)

(2 of 2)

Now what do we use it for?

Shelling mud huts? Planes do that already decently.

Shelling mud huts when the red team has air superiority? Then the fleet is already dead.

Shelling mud huts when neither red team nor blue team has air superiority? Why not just use cruise missiles?

Shelling mud huts when we don't have enough missiles and neither side has air superiority?

Why not just carry more missiles rather than this ship dedicated to a gun with such a limited usage envelope?

Maybe we use this 'battleship' to snipe missiles at extreme ranges, kind of like how the Standard Missiles work but somehow faster and more accurate? We are already talking about a magic ship using a magic gun firing magic bullets. Now we want to hit what may be thought of as a self-guiding arrow out of the air with a smarter beebee.

This is starting to sound a little far-fetched.

Maybe if the Navy can solve all of the other problems I have glossed over and figured out where/how to use the thing effectively we can have a serious discussion about 'how can the US navy bring back battleships?'.

Monitors for shore bombardment, maybe. Battleships? When fighting sail returns.

Everything except carrying fuckhuge railguns, 16" nip removers, rolling coal like its nobody's fucking business, and eating torpedoes for breakfast

Well, one turret on the iowa can put out something like 6 shots a minute, which is roughly 6 tons a minute, at roughly the same accuracy as a tomahawk if i recall correctly. Its a weapon system that would be able to completely deny everything land or sea within 50km (70+ with modern ammunition) which would be quite valuable in a landing situation. Its a lot less expensive to drop a hundred 16" shells on an area than it is to launch a few tomahawks.

If we are gonna make a big-gun boat of sorts, all that would be needed for a main armament is a single barrel autoloaded 16" gun which i would think could be mounted on one of those big troop carrier ships. Make a new helicopter carrier with one of these gun turrets at the front and the marines would have access to extremely rapid heavy fire support that would shit on any fortified position in half the time of tomahawks for a fraction of the price.

>at roughly the same accuracy as a tomahawk
time to stop posting

What a sad fate.

Attached: sparrowhawks-mosaic-hr.jpg (3000x2848, 2.9M)

No plz proceed to fuck yourself with a cactus. LRLAP on the Zumwalt class was looking cool as shit until it got canceled though.

How about when we have another major war we occasionally broadcast old footage of some battleships firing at something offscreen and PRETEND they are still being used. Just a few seconds at a time on cnn.
People dumb enough to think battleships are coming back will fall for it and everyone else won't care

Everyone wins
>battleship autists get to wank off to the thought of those BIG guns POUNDING some koreans/iranians once again
>taxpayers save money
>Jow Forums is finally free of these fucking threads

Attached: 1532460036128.gif (239x270, 594K)

>fuckhuge railguns,
A DD Sized Railgun can over pen a BB, there is not a single reason to make BBs again. BB Fags need to Pearl Harobor themselves.

Laser point defence that renders missiles largely ineffective and railguns.

serious question, if battleships are so obsolete why did reagan bother bringing them back in the 80s?

Attached: 1492626508865.png (282x300, 78K)

Reagan was mentally ill.

Dickwaving against the Kirov and legitimate interest in what a future surface action vessel looks like

Yamato's cannons weighted 2100 tons In order to shoot a 1.400kg shell...after a certain point the cost and size of a cannon makes it not convenient.
We could likely write a formula about it.
However I believe that a 200mm calibre cannon with guided ammunition could be useful, thus you could make something the size of a cruiser which has as possible feature the possibility to hammer with hundred of heavy shells objective that could likely be even more than 80 km from the coast, for a cheap price.
But forget the triple 356mm kind of monstruosity

>how can the US navy bring back battleships?
Flatten the deck and have them launch airplanes or give them the ability to submerge and launch torpedoes.
Of the jobs battleships perform modern subs and aircraft carriers do it better. For convoy escort/fleet protection, locating and tracking enemy fleets a carrier is far superior. For an offensive role of attacking surface ships subs are far better since modern subs don't need to be refueled nearly as often as subs did during the battleship era. Both of those ships simple do it better and have other benefits as well.
Only thing a battleship can do is bombard the fuck out of a beach until it looks like the surface of the moon, and that's as outdated as using cavalry with lances.
Battleships are cool, but so are tallships and those aren't coming back because they're outdated. We simple have better options to fill the role.
Only possible way they are coming back is if there was a treaty that banned long range missiles, torpedoes, and aircraft from naval warfare. That isn't happening.

Attached: iowa class long beach.jpg (640x463, 157K)

Reagan was the best US President of the latter half of the 20th century

Get off my fuckin site you absolute boomerfudd

You do know he was a grabber, right?

>Ronald "assault weapons don't belong on our streets" Reagan
>Ronald "trickle down economics work" Reagan
>Ronald "I'm going to ramp up the drug war and forever fuck up this country" Reagan
>Best
>Even slightly adequate
One of the worst in history

>battleship battle group
N(G)avy

They wanted a 600 ship navy and the heavy cruisers had been warn ragged. There was no suitable replacement on the drawing board (as there was not justification for them) and the battleships were just sitting in mothballs so they brought them back for political reasons.

In other words, they brought them back because they could.

>how can the US navy bring back battleships?
Unironically, directed energy weapons could do this. Some massively energetic laser/particle beam/coaxial plasma railgun that requires huge generator to work, but which allows you to blast cruise missiles and aircraft out of the sky easily.

>A DD Sized Railgun can over pen a BB
The BB will have a bigger one and can shoot further and faster because hueg power plant due to square cube law. Small ship also goes kaput in a single hit whereas big ship redundancies keep it going and the armor still retards the projectile somewhat.

>send dozens of aircraft out
>drop dozens * dozens of guided bombs and missiles
>every single one of the latter and some of the former shot down by laser turrets at about tree fiddy cents a shot
What now

Shutup you dumb kid

You know that's nothing unique, right? The progun movement as you know it from growing up is entirely contained within the mid 2000s to today.

You're historically illiterate, maybe you should take a real class on such a subject instead of browsing Jow Forums for answers from retards who swallow shit from people like Alex Jones without a second thought.

yeah lasers are cool but why put them on a battleship?

No. Battleships were based on the idea of statistical weaponry, thus their armor and multiple guns. Precision weapons, whether missiles, bombs, death rays or guided guns, negates the concept.

like this

Attached: А.jpg (721x228, 42K)

nice arguments boomer

Lasers don't make the battleship worth it by going on the battleship. Lasers in the fleet as a whole make the fleet nearly immune to most missile designs and thus make battleships worthwhile again, at least if one works under the assumption that the hypothetical future enemy will also have it and neutralize most of your own cruise missile arsenal and aircraft ordnance.

>it doesn't count!
It begins.

Because directed energy weapons powerful enough to be truly game-changing requires massive structures. Like the MARAUDER which could apparently fire a plasma torus at 3% the speed of light before they stopped talking about it completely.

if we can make them fly somehow

Something akin to the Kirov is about the only way. Big guns are pointless and while railguns have potential, they're still a fair ways away from being able to do much.

MARAUDERfag showed up. Everyone go home.

The only real option here.

>I am a giant fag.
We know user.

>can only use helicopter or STOL
>can't carrier that many aircraft in the first place
>can only use either aircraft or the gun
>using the gun may damage aircraft even when tied down
>losing a mark 16 turret and a few Tomahawk missiles
>half the take off path has either the funnel, bridge, or radar blocking the way
>could crash into the side of the ship if hit by a bad gust of wind or just pilot error
>being a bitch and a half to retrofit a hangar and flight deck to an already expensive reactivation and modernization
>A FUCKING RAMP

Just No

>It’s called either a battleship battle group
except those were completely redundant and were near useless in the gulf war.

If they have difficult crew they want to get rid of...

Attached: iowa fags BTFO.jpg (3000x2123, 2.2M)

Some netnigger's proposed Kentucky Jow Forumsonversion seems to address most of your complaints

Attached: bbhnp.jpg (1024x230, 101K)

shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=100573

Attached: bbhnm.jpg (1023x268, 115K)

Have a congressman with a naval yard that has no purpose.

I wouldn't put it past them. These are basically the same retards who thought full auto 7.62x51 was a good idea.

>battleships

We need warships.
And Dreadnoughts, how can something that is called "Dreadnought" could not being bad ass?. The name alone inspires fear.

Sorry m8, dreadnoughts are now SSBNs. Find your own name.

Take off the two superfiring turrets, replace with VLS systems. Pulling off those two turrets would greatly increase the freeboard and allow for better radar systems and a heap more missile space that would be inside the armored barbette. They would probably accept something like 100+ SM2/3 missiles each. Then you put the newest SPY radar on it along with advanced decoy systems and you park it next to the CV in a fleet.
Essentially you make it into a big decoy for the carrier. Give it as many missiles and sensors as possible and let it be a deterrent against the cruise missile swarm that everyone is so afraid of.

OOOOORRRRRRRR Retrofit them into ballistic missile defense ships. Modify the turrets so they can fire at higher angles and build maneuverable rounds for them.

Fine, how can the Navy bring back flying aircraft carriers?

Attached: n2y-1-akron-hangar.jpg (1000x776, 46K)

well at least that address many of that problem of ,but still leaves the main problem with the gun recoil damaging aircraft.

Maybe an arsenal ship for a surface action group purpose?

>Eschews the guns for massed blocks of VLS
>Multiple point defense patteries to ward off ASM's and aircraft

I mean... it'd be pretty mich what the ruskies have in the kirov class though wouldnt it?

Whats the story here?

Iowa severely buttblasted, all 47 turret crew dead. Operator error suspected, Navy blames homosexuality.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion

Maybe put generators where battleship magazines would be, for independent and redundant power generation for direct energy weapons. Each turret could be a laser weapon, for independent operation. Integrate with AEGIS for cooperative targeting perhaps.

>50km (70+ with modern ammunition)

No! Just absolutely no. At absolute best you would get 30 miles (49 kilometers" of useable range. No amount of modern day miracle powder or magic fairy dust is going to get those 16 inch shells all the way to 43 miles ( 70kilometers) and BB's when they were in service maintained an absolute minimum of 5 miles safety standoff distance from shore at all times.

>and eating torpedoes for breakfast

Torpedos in 1945 don't operate even remotely closely to modern torpedos and BB's were never built to handle modern torpedos.

Back then Torpedos actually had to hit their fucking target. Modern torpedos don't even make impact with their target today. They detonate underneath a ship causing a massive cavitation that literally snaps the ship like kindling. And the Bellys of BB don't have any fucking armor beyond the standard thickness hull plaiting..

Orbital bombardment

wtf happened battleships bros?

looks like the shills at raytheon have infested Jow Forums once again.

missiles are expensive and unreliable. You can always trust a good old shell

Of course those kikes don't want our troops to have proper fire support, they would rather let them die as a blood sacrifice to moloch

They never will come back, especially after Hypersonic Gliders will become a thing. Maybe even aircraft carriers will soon become just sitting ducks due to them. They don't even need an explosive charge, a 300kg glider traveling at mach 10-15 will rip any ship in two by kinetic force alone.

They never will come back, especially after Hypersonic Gliders will become a thing. Maybe even aircraft carriers will soon become just sitting ducks due to them. They don't even need an explosive charge, a 300kg glider traveling at mach 10-15 will rip any ship in two by kinetic force alone, and there's no defense system in existence against it.

By scaling them back in size, making them lighter, getting rid of the big guns and replacing them with missiles, and giving them a handful of VTOL aircraft.

Oh wait, this sounds familiar...
>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer

Times are changing bro.

Attached: hits_your_torpedo.png (1100x824, 499K)

Pt. 1

For an example I'll talk about Iowa-Class battleships:
-Make them highly automated. Prime candidates for automation are older mechanical systems, such as the 3 16" guns, & the engineering & power plant.

-The ship will need all the power it can get to power the new weapons systems that will go on board. A nuclear power plant would provide power in the megawatts range while requiring fewer workers to operate it. An alternative is the electric drive system that powers the Zumwalt class, albeit at a larger scale, delivering even greater power.

-The battleships need to be able to sink ships at ranges of at least 200 miles & hit land targets at 800-1,000 miles. At 887ft long, the battlewagons will be prime targets for land- & sea-based antiship missiles & must have a reasonable chance of operating from beyond their ranges. While the effective range of anti-ship missiles will continue to grow, a long-distance striking capability will still be useful against other targets, including air bases, enemy ships, & island garrisons.

-The battleships will be purely offensive weapons designed to attack targets at sea & on land. They will not have advanced radar systems aboard, nor will they equip the Standard family of missiles, nor will they join the ballistic-missile defence group. In order to justify their existence, they must be able to contribute as much offensive firepower as possible.

A guided-missile battleship's long-range firepower would suppress enemy air defences, allowing aircraft carriers a freer position in enemy territory. In return, carriers would provide antiair & antisub protection for the battleship.

Attached: Iowa-Class_Battleship.jpg (300x382, 39K)

Pt. 2

My upgrade for the Iowa-class battleships would change them from standard battleships to guided missile battleships. I'd start by funding development of a 16" hypervelocity guided projectile like the HVP round currently being developed by BAE Systems. That will have a range of exceeding 100 miles. How far a 16" hypervelocity shell could reach is unknown, but performance matching the 155mm version doesn't seem unreasonable.

The aft 16" gun turret has to go, in order to give the ship a long-range strike capability. In its place, I will put a field of 320-470 Mk. 41 variant vertical-launch systems that will accommodate a purely offensive load: Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles w/ a 200+ mile range & Tactical Tomahawk Missiles w/ a 1,000-mile range. Even longer-range missiles would be welcome additions to the guided-missile battleship's new arsenal, & could even be stored in deck-mounted armoured box launchers if necessary.

The remaining 5" gun turrets on the Iowa-classes' port & starboard sides are obsolete. The solution: removing the turrets & replacing them w/ a pair of railguns. 4 railguns would increase the battleship's power against land targets, helping to remedy the loss of the aft 16" turret.

The guided missile battleships would not be totally defenceless: the upgrade of the early 1980s had 4 Phalanx CIWS guns installed. In their place, we could install newer SeaRAM point defence missile launchers or even defensive laser weapons in the 100-kW range, fed power from the nuclear reactors.

Attached: HVP_Round.jpg (713x401, 42K)

Pt. 3/3

The guided missile battleships will retain their heli landing pad. The battlewagons will rely on cruiser & destroyer escorts to fend off air & subsurface threats, & P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, MQ-4 Triton drones & other unmanned aircraft, & subs & unmanned underwater vehicles for targeting data. One outside possibility is the battleships being equipped w/ TERN tailsitter drones capable of taking off & landing vertically, providing a long-distance scouting capability, not unlike the Vought OS2U Kingfisher seaplanes that equipped the Iowas in the 1940s.

Attached: Boeing_P-8_Poseidon.jpg (299x200, 12K)

>all these waterniggers that don't know about Railgun HVPs with anti-ICBM capability that can outrange any attack aircraft

Attached: 9359753049756407640.png (615x362, 177K)