>US Navy decommisions all battleships in 90s after they were tremendously useful in vietnam, Korea and Desert storm (really they were very effective)
>just replace them with the zumwalt lmao
>zumwalts are a meme failure
so I guess there is no long range, non missile naval fire support anymore?
Missiles are expensive, less powerful and can't bombard a mountain or area for 10+ hours, planes can be intercepted or destryoed by AA (which naval gunfire can help destory)
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
NUCLEAR MISSOURI
They should've made them floating targets to test new missiles and torpedoes
just use iron bombs lol. F-16 are cheap and dumb bombs are basically free because the US has huge stockpiles still
second post best post
What stops you from covering the deck of an aircraft carrier with artillery pieces? A rough calculation using m777s and the Gerald Ford say a max of 64 artillery pieces on deck but probably 50 pieces for actual use. Max fire rate is 5 rounds per minute. In one minute you will have 250 rounds travelling from 20 to 40km depending type of round to their target. With five minutes of sustained rapid fire you have at least a thousand shells raining down upon something that will cease to exist soon. You can crew these 50 howitzers with marines.
I therefore conclude battleships are obsolete but that naval long range and non missile support still exists and only is not used because pilots would get pissy they can't fly their planes.
You don't need to shoot at something for +10 hrs if you can just hit it in the first volley using precision munitions.
>after they were tremendously useful in vietnam, Korea and Desert storm (really they were very effective
They weren't
My dad was XO of the New Jersey for two tours.
>You don't need to shoot at something for +10 hrs if you can just hit it in the first volley using precision munitions.
precision munitions suffer very heavily from cost and capacity problems
its why people still use artillery rather than missiles all the time
Uhhh...did you not see all those videos on CNN of the BBs spamming Tomahawks?
>Bad weather strikes
What now boi
>can't bombard a mountain or area for 10+ hours
Because they do not have to
You mean, like what a burke could do, with 1/4th the crew?
I've talked to veterans from vietnam who say fire support from naval vessels was extremely helpful
Range by nigga.
M777's dont have nearly the range or explosive mass per shell that a BB has
>Bad weather strikes
Haji doesn't play in bad weather.
>precision munitions suffer very heavily from cost and capacity problems
Navies are very expensive, we're better off buying tomahawks for all of our cruisers, destroyers, and subs than a vessel that is virtually useless outside of a very specific task.
Never thought I'd see the day a thread on Jow Forums shit all over the battleboys.
for as long as cannon rounds are cheaper than missile rounds, someone will demand that they be used for bombardment
the accuracy is often not enough to compensate for the expense in firing them
it also makes it too inflexible, since you cant just pop a missile at every target only at the highest value ones
All 32 of them?
A Burke or a tico can do more than twice that.
>for as long as cannon rounds are cheaper than missile rounds, someone will demand that they be used for bombardment
You really don't need anything larger than 120mm for that. Soviet destroyers carried those.
>the accuracy is often not enough to compensate for the expense in firing them
According to what? Being able to knock out targets from a safer range without requiring a hulking, useless, armored barge isn't good enough?
There was only a battleship in Vietnam for 5 months and it made no change over having another ship do naval gunfire support. Hence why it was withdrawn from service after.
same reason they dont just use MLRS over gun artillery
the ability to fire constantly and over a large period of time is enough justification to have it over accuracy or range
>the ability to fire constantly and over a large period of time is enough justification to have it over accuracy or range
It doesn't justify the construction of a battleship, thats for damn sure. A Sovremenny could do a better job of it while being far more effective in the anti-shipping and anti-air roles as well. You'd have to be a genuine idiot to think its worth building a multi-billion dollar ship for a job that even it isn't the best at.
there other destroyers and so on, the guy in question was australian
>tremendously useful
They weren't, and they make even less sense today. BBs are a dead concept and the only people who want them back are losers who fetishize them.
you could build a battleship very cheaply now, it doesn't need heavy armor or advanced systems, just some guns
Don't see what that's got to do with BB's being useful
You need heavy armor if you want large caliber guns, if not a corvette with a 76mm gun could detonate the damn magazines.
No guns, just line after line of VLS, enough fuel to station around the world for a year, and some radio links.
Its definitely been a candidate. Navy is a bit like the air force and hates being tasked however. Wants everything to be able to fight everything. Here's Baseline 2B. Essentially a cargo ship.
>>US Navy decommisions all battleships in 90s
>>just replace them with the zumwalt lmao
>>zumwalts are a meme failure
The balltehsip angle has already been covered, so I'm going to address this part instead.
The Zumwalt is not a failure, it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. You're thinking that it's supposed to be a combat ship. Utterly wrong. The Zumwalt is a testbed. Its primary mission is to run into problems with its design and technology, so that we can fix those problems before the real next-gen combat ships are built. The more difficulties it has, the better, because it means we can learn what to do and what not to do with next-gen technology before we need to rely on it in a real combat situation.
We anime now
souse?
>so I guess there is no long range, non missile naval fire support anymore?
Just send in Marines until it dies or we run out of Marines.
Carriers are just fast battleships that shoot planes
Something has to drop of the table to pay the Ford Carrier worth of gibs Israel now receives about every two years.
>be retard
>ignore the fact battleships got shit on by WW2 aircraft
>ignore the fact modern aircraft are a lot better than WW2 aircraft
>they were tremendously useful in vietnam, Korea and Desert storm
Hahahahahahah. HAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH. Imgine beinga bbfaggot and believing this shit. HAAAAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAH.
Unironically this.
/thread
Newfags man. I bet 10 bucks these are the same type of faggots that hate mosins and cry about Jow Forums constantly.
>tremendously effective
What are you smoking?
BB are massively useful if you're actually using them as a shore bombardment platform, which there is no demand for.
what's the point when 99% of the time you can literally use any other ship or a land artillery battery for the same effect?
F16 and most US aircraft are all-weather. At worst the low ceiling prevents the aircraft from seeing what they're shooting at, which is still no worse than artillery.
Battleships were not very useful in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.
gun artillery doesn't come in the form of a big expensive white elephant
Zumwalt was slash and whine'd. lrlap was a fantastic gun launched missile
The anti-battleship fags here act like technology hasn't advanced at all since 1943 and a modern battleship would be exactly like the Iowas in every way. "Hurr durr it's be obsolete!" Yes, we know that if we built new Iowas they'd be obsolete - but absolutely nobody is suggesting that's what we should do. For example, this idiot: , who apparently believes we're thinking of sending new-build Iowas up against Su-30s (though as an aside, how many Iowas got sunk by aircraft in WWII?). Obviously a modern battleship would be modern, which means aircraft attacks wouldn't stand a chance against them.
>BB are massively useful if you're actually using them as a shore bombardment platform, which there is no demand for.
There's no demand for air superiority fighters, either, but this place creams its jeans over the F-35 in thread after thread. And when I say demand, I mean "need for something that would actually be useful in any war we've fought in the last 45 years", not "shiny new toy that Air Force generals really want". The last air combat we saw at all was creaky, out of date Iraqi shitboxes almost 30 years ago, and the last serious threat we faced in the air was from North Vietnamese MiG-21s before most people here's parents were born. While we're at it, carriers haven't really been necessary since 1945, either. We could have used land-based aircraft for everything we've done with them since then.
But that's all bluepill stuff. Here's the red pill: carriers are the weapons of a global empire, while battleships are the weapons of a republic that minds its own business in the world and merely seeks to keep foreign invasion fleets from showing up on its shores. As long as we fight for oil companies and Israel, we'll keep a bunch of carriers around. When we decide to be a republic, mind our own business, and care for our own first, then we'll have battleships instead of carriers.
So... no time soon.
Except there is demand for air superiority fighters, and will as long as militaries use flying machines.
Proof, nigga
>actually interested, but can't reasonably believe you without such
U.S. conventional war tactics are all predicated on air superiority, you idiot. Battleships were already obsolete in 1944.
It’s Arpeggio of blue steel
>after they were tremendously useful in vietnam, Korea and Desert storm
They weren't. The only reason they were kept around and modernized was because the Navy is full of Old Guard types who didn't want to say goodbye to their beloved battleships, this has always been the case with naval theorists. The simple fact of the matter is that battleships are absolutely retarded in the modern era when guided AShM exists. If you really have that much of a hard-on for big capital ships, the Soviets did it sorta right with the Kirov-class. You don't need armor, you don't need giant guns that are useless for anything other than shore bombardment (which you don't need in a world where cruise missiles and aircraft carriers exist).
But even then, putting that many weapon systems on a giant target is pretty retarded when you could build 2-3 DDGs for the same price.
>oh look another contrarian thread where OP is a faggot with zero actual knowledge and uses nothing but anecdotes and his opinion to justify his retarded reasoning
Read what I said. the fact that a military wants something doesn't mean there's an actual need for it. Generals like fast, cool-looking whoosh-boomers no matter how objectively useless they are.
>U.S. conventional war tactics are all predicated on air superiority, you idiot.
Right, and one reason why we've lost war after war since 1945 is that generals keep designing our tactics around cool-looking whoosh-boomers that make their peepees hard instead of practical stuff that works well.
Most battleships sunk in WW2 were sunk by aircraft.
But it is.
Generals do not want battleships and there hasn't been a need for them since before WW2 ended.
>There's no demand for air superiority fighters
Yes there absolutely is you fucking retarded underage LARPer. Every nation in the world has jet fighters that need to be shot down in the event of a war, nobody is going around with a fleet of WWI dreadnoughts looking for a big gun battle. The conventional artillery on a battleship have a range of barely 30 miles, which means you need to approach dangerously close to a hostile foreign shore in order to even use it. Why the fuck would you do that when you can park a carrier group 300 miles off the shore and pinpoint targets with cruise missiles and strike aircraft? You're a fucking idiot.
>newfag calls others a newfag when faced with his newfaggotry
Battleships do battle with other ships. Shore bombardment is a secondary task.
If you want to attack inland, dont try to bring back battleships, biring back monitors. All the punch of a battleship, without the cost.
en.m.wikipedia.org
> we've lost war after war since 1945
We have "lost" one war since 1945.
>is that generals keep designing our tactics around cool-looking whoosh-boomers that make their peepees hard instead of practical stuff that works well.
This has to be bait at this point. Look, kid, I know you think battleships are really cool. Everyone does. I know you wish you were born in the 1920s so you could have been on one and shot at enemy fleets within sight of each other, but that is not how warfare works anymore. Like the ship-of-the-line before it, everything has its time and place and then it is over, and something comes up to replace it. Battleships are obsolete, period. You do not need a ship that big to put missiles on it. You do not need a ship with that much armor when literally any missile will cut through it like butter. You do not need artillery that big for shelling a shore when modern cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs are immensely more accurate, devastating, long-range, and easier to avoid collateral damage with.
Secondly, it's all about context and relativity when it comes to what is considered a "battleship." A modern Arleigh Burke-class DDG is the same size as a WWII cruiser, and also the same size as a pre-dreadnought battleship. It essentially performs the same function as being the main fighting force of a fleet, it is a modern battleship in everything but name.
I know it's surprising but some people here actually have military experience and aren't retards who love anything that's old and nostalgic.
If you can actually hit what you’re aiming at, you don’t need to bombard something for ten hours
Guns were passing life expectancy, they took more gasoline to run for a day than a small city's cars do, and about nothing on the ship was still being made to replace. Why invest that much into one ship that can be in one place and do one thing when you can have several smaller ships that can be in several places and project that resource investment over a lager area. It's just efficiency.
It's a shame that the US didn't sell their battleships to India when they tried to buy them in the 1980ies.
No. I wouldn't want them desecrated. They're better as museum ships.
The majority of shore support was cruisers
>the accuracy is often not enough to compensate for the expense in firing them
Harpoon: $1.2 Million
Arleigh Burke destroyer: 1.8 Billion
Zumwalt: 4.4 billion
Ford Class: 12 Billion
The costs involved means for any naval engagement there will always be a budget for PGM usage, closing to gun range risks several Billion on incidental return fire as opposed to setting up a shore fire-base which is a few million
The risk of ships getting damaged is a core reason why we have stayed with carriers, to move the risk of attrition from the ships to the planes
>it doesn't need heavy armor or advanced systems
What is counter battery fire. if the enemy is in range then so are you
battleships are inferior as anti-ship platforms. The only role they have left is as a very large, slow and expensive floating artillery battery, a role which smaller ships, aircraft and land artillery can also accomplish.
>no demand for superiority fighters
oh, I see you're retarded.
>There's no demand for air superiority fighters
>would actually be useful in any war we've fought in the last 45 years
>While we're at it, carriers haven't really been necessary since 1945, either
Pants are not hats
>carriers are the weapons of a global empire, while battleships are the weapons of a republic that minds its own business
The Royal Navy from when Battleships where relevant would like a word
Have fun stabilising the pieces when sea is a little rougher. Naval vessels as heavy artillery wouldn't be too shabby for some scenarios.
Or, secure a landing site and move the guns ashore so you never have to deal with rough waves for artillery
The only thing in this post that’s correct is carriers being the tools of a nation that regularly projects power and gets involved in other counties shit, for better or for worse.
Battleships are expensive as fuck to run and if one is ever sunk it would be a hard blow
>just use air support lol
which gets shot down by AA, battleships or other ships with big guns can safely fire from far away (no coastal defences anymore), and can be protected from enemy aircraft/missiles by your own carriers/destroyers
nobody is saying builld a super modern high tech battleship because that would be waste of money, build a relatively cheap gun/missile carrier, the idea would be cost effective fire support/naval bombardment that has a niche over air support
A carrier will always able to be further away than a gun ship. If something can sink a carrier, it can sink a battleship
>build a relatively cheap gun/missile carrier, the idea
What year is it user?
You mean...a destroyer?
>cheap
>modern militaries
Kek
have you seen the guns on modern destroyers?
they aren't exactly going to be bombarding anything
yeah I think the cost would blowout because the suits would keep adding extra features that aren't needed, but in theory you could build battleships or something similar at a 60s tech level cheaply.
Because you don’t need guns for bombarding anything. Because anything you can hit with a gun can be hit with a missile from ten times further away. The only thing a gun is good for is fucking over small suicide boats and the like, and that can be done just as well with Bushmasters or whatever.
Gun ships are obsolete
kek
Hobart returned to Sydney on 27 September 1967 having steamed 52,529 miles. She had expended 9204 rounds of 5-inch ammunition and had come under enemy fire on nine separate occasions
tell that to the soldiers in Vietnam who during the Tet offensive got fire support from 22 different ships and their guns.
have you not studied ww2 at all?
major offensives were often preceded by hour long artillery barrages, you can't do that with missiles because you will run out
Then it wouldn't be a battleship, it would be a battlecruiser.
that sounds in line with the OP, he never said build battleships specifically
Battleships weren't even all that useful in the WWII Pacific theatre. They were pretty much just there for AA and shore bombardment
>major offensives were often preceded by hour long artillery barrages
Because it took that much ammunition to hit what needed to be destroyed. You don’t need an hours long artillery barrage when you can guide a missile directly to the doorstep of any individual bunker. All while having your billion dollar ship remaining a couple hundred miles away
>battleships or other ships with big guns can safely fire from far away (no coastal defences anymore)
Rocket assisted artillery
Land based airforces
Shore AShM's
>can be protected from enemy aircraft/missiles by your own carriers/destroyers
Air support will get shot down, just use air support lel
>build a relatively cheap gun/missile carrier
1 hit on a shell magazine for the guns and the ship goes skyhigh, this is why Battlewagons where armoured
Also what you mention for a missile barge was considered and rejected, look into arsenal ships - the choice was 20-30 missiles on 5 seperate ships or 150 on a single one
Carriers are only as big as they are for economies of scale for sortie rate, there is no reason for a missile carrier to be big for VLS and a sensor uplink
>the idea would be cost effective fire support/naval bombardment
Cost effective until the 1st counter battery hit on it
>but in theory you could build battleships or something similar at a 60s tech level cheaply.
And then your fleet would be hampered by a boat with less capabilities than anything else afloat
You: In Vietnam we needed guns so we need them now
Also you: We don't NEED air superiority fighters we haven't use them in years
>mfw the USN fields railgun destroyers soon
I have no face because they shot it off from the Gulf of Oman...
The entire Navy is completely fucking worthless. What an absolute joke. Navy guys are literally DECADES BEHIND the rest of civilized society.
>muh float around on boats while Jody breeds my sweet white Christian wife!
Seriously nothing more cucked than a US soldier in 2019. Obediently serving Israel while the 3rd world moves into the US and takes over, on your tax dollars, and breeds your white whores who are so clueless and brainwashed by Hollywood they will breed with any mongrel for a moment's excitement. Pathetic. I can't wait for China to take over and dominate your meaningless "race."
>have you seen the guns on modern destroyers?
>they aren't exactly going to be bombarding anything
How many shells would it take for an Iowa to range in and destroy 20 targets? including ranging, wind variance and CEP deviation?
If we are generous and say 5 shells per target
That is 100 shells, the Barrel life of the 16" guns was 290 shells before they became compromised by explosive swelling and the ship would need to return to port for a months long refit in a proper dockyard requiring escort from theater removing several ships from the battle line
Contrast with missiles
Say 2 missiles per target, 40 missiles - VLS tubes are empty resupply at any local port without leaving theater - back in combat 3 hours + travel time
Battleships are slower than ass in comparison today, expensive to maintain and upkeep, or even build, and are of limited usage in today's world because modern missiles have far better range and the AA you can put on a BB is limited at best.
t.GookPoster
HIMARS on an LHD is the future of shore bombardment. They've even been used against ships with success
The only time that BBs are effective are peninsulas like Vietnam for COIN. At that rate, just uparm some destoryers for fire support or deploy pylon turn gunships.
your numbers are off for the main cannon use.
you wouldn't fire a full broadside for ranging in.
the Iowa-class rangefinder is able to give accurate firing solutions for the other turrets based off of the results of one turret.
Even if we go with 100 shells total (5 per target), that's 11 to 12 shells per barrel. Not the "half the barrel's life" that you're implying.
>letting poos literally shit all over our majestic BBs