Tfw no battleships

Don't worry OP we'll get railgun battleships that can shoot satellites from orbit soon

>literally not one adequate reason
This guy has a few Also the fact that a single tiny frigate with a radar/intel and a few anti-ship missiles can sink it way before those guns will ever have a chance to fire

>"but hurr, then just put the same missiles and radar on the battleship!"
Why have the battleship inthe first place when a frigate or a destroyer is a lot cheaper.

Attached: No_Bear.jpg (599x358, 41K)

>No USS Louisiana of Montana Class

Wasted opportunity -- USS Louisiana to nickname it's FCS for the main cannons "Voodoo"

>having so sense of humor on Jow Forums

Don't worry user, whenever railgun tech improves we can get them back.

I M P L E S S I V E

Why can't the US build a guided-missile battleship? Just make a destroyer with a minimum of 300 missile pods and missile stores and autoloaders?

REEACTIVATE THE BIG GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!

MIGHTY MO, THE BLACK DRAGON,THE BIG STICK!

youtube.com/watch?v=2piJQYJdYCQ

save us china.

>Tfw no Wee Vee Refit GF

I WANT TO DIE

Attached: 1549248765523.jpg (1200x1200, 190K)

Pretty sure most anti-ship missiles have shit armor penetration. I can't find it, but I remember some simulation figuring it would take 20+ hits from Silkworms to sink an Iowa

>tfw no all gun ships anymore

>no battleships
>but no halftracks either
>NO FUCKING DIVE BOMBERS EITHER
There’s a lot we don’t use any more and it’s sad how much war has advanced, tanks are mobile artillery platforms now, bombers are typically stealth aircrafts. Just wait for WWIII it’ll be one for the history books.

They all talk about the big ships while forgetting the real loss

Attached: _103684563_r101.jpg (624x351, 26K)

Also hates destroyers, but it doesn't stop the US and China from churning out those floating tombs and poor fools from manning them.

Is a modern battleship really such an unrealistic idea? Without any new technology related to DP naval guns. The best are probably the OTO 76mm and 127mm, both can fire guided subcalibur rounds. The 76mm fires 100 rounds per min with guided anti-air and anti-missile rounds covering about 5000m. The 127mm fires 30 rounds per min with guided munitions up to 60km or so. The old 400mm guns on the Iowa were able to reach 100km+ with simple subcalibur rounds, with modern guns 200km+ guided munitions would probably be realistic.

If you consider future weapons like railguns, electrochemical guns and directed energy weapons it favors the battleship even more. Due to the amount of energy needed fitting the equipment on a small destroyer will be difficult. Larger more protected ships suit those weapon.

>WV Refit
Nice.

Attached: 48D.jpg (1400x722, 764K)

I always liked the refit Tennessee got after Pearl Harbor

Attached: 2707387C-E8BB-409F-86AD-561626CD58A1.jpg (2000x1581, 405K)

TFW no lailgun.

>IOWA CLASS!
>ASSEMMMMMMMBLLLLLLLE!

Attached: Team_BB.jpg (1024x770, 112K)

The watertight compartmentalization on the old battleships is insane.
Bismarck for example was taking point blank hits from the British 14 inch guns and it still took the crew scuttling it to finally sink that bitch, though most experts agree it would have at best floated for maybe only a day if they hadn't.

they do because modern ships don't have shit for armor compared to 18 inches of belted armor plate on a BB

and 3 torpedoes that happened to hit just as the crew 'scuttled' her

the german claim to have scuttled bismarck has always been a little questionable

That's a question that might never be satisfactorily answered because there's decades worth of national pride involved on both sides of it.
Being neither German or British I have no dog in that fight, though I lean towards the scuttling being what sent the German vessel down at that particular moment.
There is no doubt by anyone though that the British Royal Navy did turn it into a flaming wreck barely afloat at the end and no matter whether the crew had scuttled it or not, it was going to the bottom, it was only a question of time. Oh and it's also possible that when the torpedoes hit they gave an order to scuttle to save a bit of face.

Still, the point was that the later battleships could withstand a hell of a beating and that particular battle always sticks out in my mind.

Not enough utility for its cost.

Attached: fjBt53Q.jpg (481x600, 57K)

dog tinmad that's a thicc ass botte

Yeah, it feels good not being a manchild retard drooling over retarded obsolete ship classes.

Attached: 1144 pyotr velikiy launching p-700 granit.webm (854x480, 1.44M)

>tfw no battlecruisers

Attached: somethingwrong.png (910x293, 16K)

>was taking point blank hits from the British 14 inch
Meaning the shells were going mostly horizontally, blasting away the superstructure but not opening up a lot of holes under the surface or reaching the magazines.

Attached: comparison_of_US_Navy_Iowa_North-Carolina_and_South-Dakota_class_battleships.png (1005x2214, 1.66M)

Attached: battleship_comparison_HIJMS_Yamato_HMS_Vanguard_USS_Iowa.jpg (1280x967, 249K)

>turrets can't slightly depress their guns

>tfw no space battleships

Attached: 1511504092092.jpg (1800x1200, 324K)

Alright, I'm going to try and satisfy some people's autism and come up with a BBG.

So, we will start with the Iowa class design, as build. To spice thing up, we are going to gut the entire aft end of the ship from the rear turret on down to make enough space for as many Mk 41 VLS cells as we can possibly fit. Hopefully this is greater than 256. We'll keep the two forward 16" turrets, because the Muhreens will complain about "naval gunfire support" if we don't. Next, we rip out 6/10 of the 5"/38 DP twins, and replace them with a Mk 13 GMLS. If that proves impractical, replace them with as many VL ESSMs as possible. The foreward most and rear most 5"/38s are kept for the Marines, but will be manned by them. Next, replacing the 40mm/L60 quads. The two forward most are to be removed entirely. This leaves us with 7 on each side, 14 total. The odd numbered mounts will be replaced by Phalanxes with two four round RIM-116 RAM boxes bolted to the side, and even numbered mounts with octuple ESSM boxes. Replace the 20mm Oerlikons with 25mm Remote Weapon Stations and chaff/flare launchers. Slap an AN/SPY-1D somewhere in the superstructure, or an AN/SPY-3D if we can fit it. For historical purposes, they will be escorted by 6 Allen M. Sumners that have had their 5"/38s replaced by ESSM octuple launchers.

it sucks

Fuck the missiles; the DDGs in the group have plenty, you need a flight deck

Attached: main-qimg-6703255e741d7832166a95eec53476a0.png (602x297, 191K)

I guess the SSGNs fill that role for the time being.

Daily reminder brits are cucks that failed to save actual ships with battle honors like warspite.

>Even failed to save vanguard

Brits are trash.

rule the waves, mah nigga

Attached: 1534592048222.png (680x378, 389K)

And only one or two to mission kill her. Being hard to sink means very little if one hit can turn the super structure and working bits of a warship into twisted burning wreckage. BBs were just industrial political dick waving devices and never did anything tactically that couldn't have been done just as well or better by a heavy cruiser for a fraction of the expense.

Battleships may have been rendered obsolete.
But they are still cool as fuck.
Id like to see battleships modernized and battlecrusiers too.
Its a real fucking shame the Yamato wasnt captured intact and that the Prinz Eugen was nuked.

>tfw we spent a 20 years fucking around with railguns leaving ships expected to go into harms way with pitifully short-ranged 5" guns
>tfw we could quite easily just put modernized 8" guns shooting out to 100km with no special gimmicks besides chucking aerodynamically optimized shells high into the atmosphere

Power isn't really the issue. The zumwalt makes about as much horsepower as a Burke, it's just that it has electric generators as a middleman before the propellers, which allows it to divert 100% power away to the rail guns. The main issue with rail guns is durability of the barrel, how to make durable guided warheads that can survive the extreme Gs, and cost. 20 small rail gun destroyers could do the job of 2 rail gun battleships, and if one or two has a malfunction or needs repairs you haven't suddenly lost half you combat effectivness.

Lowest turret depression on HMS Rodney which was closest to Bismark and just firing at will was 0 degrees, no depression at all. Battleships don't have a need to depresse guns designed to fire long range

I’ve seen the Prinz. She’s belly up on one of the small islands that form the Kwajalein lagoon, a few miles west of the big Kwaj island itself.

Wish to hell id been able to get close and poke around, but we had a job to complete and time is money. And if I never take a slow boat with broken AC 5,000 nautical miles across the Pacific again, I’ll die happy. So I won’t be going back.

>tfw the brits name a battleship after you

Attached: Rodney.jpg (1920x1200, 472K)

Destroyers can't carry railgun slugs of as large a caliber. Its the reason you never saw 14 inch-armed destroyers when those guns were still relevant.

missile boats are comfier
pic related has like 3-4 sea kills IIRC+ participated on dozens of commando raids

Attached: Miznak1970.jpg (1293x690, 248K)

>Power isn't really the issue. The zumwalt makes about as much horsepower as a Burke, it's just that it has electric generators as a middleman before the propellers, which allows it to divert 100% power away to the rail guns. The main issue with rail guns is durability of the barrel, how to make durable guided warheads that can survive the extreme Gs, and cost. 20 small rail gun destroyers could do the job of 2 rail gun battleships, and if one or two has a malfunction or needs repairs you haven't suddenly lost half you combat effectivness.
Capacitor volume and electrical supply are more of an issue, guided rounds and rail durability are mostly solved. Consider you will want a much larger gun than the 127mm found on destroyers, so you can use the railgun in place of missiles. Realistically cutting power from propulsion to fire isn't going to be ok. You're going to need surplus power and batteries to buffer the power load or provide emergency power if engines are offline.

>Not enough utility for its cost.
Questionable, supertankers cost less than a single arleigh burke. Hull size shouldn't make a huge difference in price. As long as existing radar and other expensive parts from ships are reused it shouldn't be too bad. Keep in mind a couple of battleships invalidates an entire fleet of destroyers that are only armed to damage unarmored ships. Even if they never see combat they drastically complicate things for an opposing navy.

Tell me about it, I wake up every morning in pain knowing that I can't go to Portsmouth and walk around museum ship Warspite or an Illustrious class. Then you go to America and every podunk nowhere town has a fucking Iowa or Essex moored. It's not fucking fair.

Jow Forums loves battlebois as museum ships. They hate the drooling retards that think they have a place in a modern fleet.

>Speed is our armour, overly aggressive maneuver is our sword
Fisher-Beatty gang ASSEMB-

Attached: catastrophic magazine explosion.jpg (965x1024, 175K)

>guided rounds and rail durability are mostly solved
Non-anal source?
>A barrel costs less than a iphone and invalidates 20.
Oh right, you're just retarded.

watch out best girl coming through

Attached: 03_hms_nelson.jpg (744x1436, 235K)

Well, the Kirov does prove that there's some basis for a modern battleship. I mean, the P-700s are God Damn Terrifying.