How much more powerful a modern battleship would be?

No.
Missiles are better in literally every way

Battleships aren't coming back until the USSS Hillenkoetter and its compliment of 4X3 MARAUDER cannon turrets is declassified when the Kuiper Belt campaign against the Greys is over.

No.

Railguns are cheaper shot for shot , more damaging, and are unstoppable.

Railguns will make missiles obsolete just like missiles made big guns obsolete

Irrelevant, no, and no.

>more expensive per munition
>easier to shoot down
>travel at half the velocity
>larger and harder to store

Missiles have greater range and can be guided, but being able to shoot things OTH with a cheap Mach 10 projectile will be useful.

>Railguns are cheaper shot for shot
Except, guess what, you need to shoot a lot of shots to hit what needs to be hit. Unless you’re using guided munitions, then guess what? It constantly a similar amount as a missile. Shore bombardment is a meme.

>more damaging
No

>Railguns are cheaper shot for shot
Yes

>more damaging
Nonsense. Current US navy test railgun manages 33 megajoules. The stated design goal for deployment on ships is 64 MJ.
Now compare:
Tomahawk Missile (conventional warhead): 3,000 MJ explosive
USN 16" gun from Iowa-class battleship firing HE shell: 355 MJ kinetic, plus 480 MJ explosive
USN 5"/38 caliber naval gun: 7 MJ kinetic + 32MJ explosive
IJN Yamato 46cm Battleship firing AP shell: 4300 MJ kinetic + 560 MJ explosive

>and are unstoppable.
Where did you get that silly idea from?

Tell me something.
How are you going to correct fall of shot OTH?

Thanks for the learn user

US railgun projects are working with drones as spotters.

Bb fags are the cancer of our generation

#Battlecruisers for life

Which negates the one advantage tube artillery has over missiles, I.e. that it can be used in an area with lots of SAMs and AAA

In which case you are shooting at something that isn’t moving generally on land ie shore bombardment.

You can use satellites for that.

Comparing apples to pineapples, current US railguns are at their infancy meanwhile everything you compared to was completely mature tech.

They’re not going to replace missiles for the reasons you’re suggesting, but where the option is for a cheapr munition surely you’d use it rather than a several million dollar per shot weapon system?

Satellites cannot provide real-time surveillance to the degree that you’ll need to correct shots, for multiple reasons.

That’s my point. It’s not actually cheaper. Either you use guided projectiles which cost the same as a missile, or you use unguided projectile in which case you’d need multiple projectiles per target, raising the total cost.

3 more arleigh-Burx would be infinitely more useful than this, for about half the overall cost.

But then you could shit out destroyers for days with the same cash... only 300 men on a giant modern military vessel?!? you know, the Navy would love that if they could force them to work 200 hours a day.
Battleships are basically what the congress always wants while meanwhile navies just want cruisers and destroyers.

Attached: 1557018930983.png (1920x1200, 1.88M)

>Comparing apples to pineapples, current US railguns are at their infancy meanwhile everything you compared to was completely mature tech.

The claim was "railguns are more damaging", and I pointed out how that's not true. If the claim was "railguns will one day become more damaging", then you might have a point. But it wasn't. Therefore you don't.

Railguns do have plenty of advantages: both extant and potential as the tech matures. But they are not currently more damaging--nowhere close, really. A current naval railgun has approximately the same power as 5kg of C-4.

Use the railgun like a giant flak gun. Saturate the air with shrapnel. Set them to air burst right in front of an oncoming missile. At those speeds even grains of sand will hurt.

You can long 250 10k railgun rounds for every tomohawk fired

Attached: barrage-image21.jpg (675x366, 19K)

Considering the prototypes are about the size of a 5" gun it's very promising.

I'm anxious to see what would happen if you loaded it up with flechettes.

>loaded it up with flechettes.
Why would you choose to fire a very high-drag type of projectile from a weapon whose claim to fame is a very high muzzle velocity?

No.

Torpedoes and missiles are like silver bullets that can cripple a capital ship. A CIWS can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers and subs can and have snuck into the middle of carrier groups.

Trading in the gunpowder for railguns to eliminate the possibility of the magazines detonating and killing everyone would be the biggest way of improving survivability.

But a modern torpedo or even a custom super heavy variant has little to stop it short of deterrence by the escorts in the fleet trying to detect the host vessel before it gets close enough.

thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26347/the-navy-is-ripping-out-underperforming-anti-torpedo-torpedoes-from-its-supercarriers

The active anti-torpedo systems aren't performing well, leaving the passive armor and decoys to hopefully stop the attack.

Upping the armor on a battleship would be 50/50. On one hand it's pointless because the threat isn't a large unguided shell but rather precision supersonic missiles that can target critical structures and can be designed to destroy bunkers. On the other hand ship killing missiles get that reputation because they're fired against mostly unarmored targets.

Load them up in a Flak round first.

>Why would you choose to fire a very high-drag type of projectile from a weapon whose claim to fame is a very high muzzle velocity?
They only release them just before impact. Probably more effective than current HE shells, the entirety of the flechettes impact towards the target while normal shells disperse them in a spherical shape when they explode. The fletchettes or pallets will be tungsten while shrapnel is normally much softer materials.

It would make a really expensive reef once it's sunk via ASM.

>Upping the armor on a battleship would be 50/50. On one hand it's pointless because the threat isn't a large unguided shell but rather precision supersonic missiles that can target critical structures and can be designed to destroy bunkers. On the other hand ship killing missiles get that reputation because they're fired against mostly unarmored targets.
I think they could work if they were built a specific way. Large oil tankers are only a few hundred million $. Most modern anti-ship missiles are not designed for armored targets, the ideal way would be to build a relatively cheap ship that can't easily be knocked out by them, you would send it in front of your fleet as bait so the enemy wastes anti ship missiles and assets. 400mm guns with high velocity sub caliber rounds is probably enough to reach most other vessels. Masses of 127mm and 76mm dual purpose guns can engage air and sea targets. Battleships typically carried thousands of rounds for the smaller guns, with modern fire control and autoloaders you will have a hard time trying to overwhelm it with missiles unlike most modern ships which typically carry less than 50 close range SAMs. I'm not sure what you would use for armor, mostly likely you could do things similar to early composite tank armor. Probably layers of fiber glass, rubber and various metals would work, ideally you could make it naturally buoyant and cheap to manufacture and just cover the hull with several meters of it.

And what’s the cost of the rail gun itself and replacing the barrel due to wear?

eh. it's a wash with all the new tech making them cost more.

Attached: Inflation_BB.png (1224x713, 304K)

Why would you use steel when you can use composite armour like tanks that's way more effective? Instead of 100cm use the equivalent amount of Chobham (for example)

A less expensive counter would be a long-range hunter-killer submersible drone that has a sole purpose of tracking down and killing this large, expensive asset (either through its own explosive charge, or one that can launch submunitions).

Battleships exist in the future, just not on Earth

Attached: r87m8s090uf11.jpg (2224x1668, 190K)

>Load them up in a Flak round first.
>They only release them just before impact

Now you have an even bigger problem: how do you build a shell which can dispense the flechettes, yet also survive the G-forces of being fired at mach 10? Railgun projectiles are usually inert. No conventional shell component can withstand railgun level velocities.

If your arsenal ship is in gun range you are doing something very wrong.

1. We don't actually have the workforce and industry to build an Iowa anymore, especially the guns, when's the last time someone built a 16"+ naval gun?
2. A modern Iowa would need massive automatuon, the 1940s crew size is simply not tenable. Automation will drive initial cost up, but crewing cost down.
3. If we're building new battleships they'd probably be BBN. Which doubles the price.
4. An Arleigh Burke would absolutely shit on a 1945 configured Iowa in combat.

>capital ship railguns are larger than a patrol frigate

Attached: 1497859069849.jpg (486x431, 35K)

Fuck off.

a protection scheme capable of protecting a ship from current threats to the extent that armor protected WWII battleships does not exist

even before you get to the issue where the naval rifle industry does not exist anymore you straight up could not design a functional modern battleship

and you believe a 250.000 ton BB (DDs used to be 2k, now they are 16k) displacing behemoth of tech and systems on top of systems, likely one of the biggest man made... things overall, that is supposedly so advanced, that a skeleton crew will be sufficient (also meaning that there will only be living space for 300 instead of 3000 and the rest is systems), is gonna be cost anything near of what they used to spend on BBs in the 20th century?

I'm drunk and my grammar is absolutely on point for how drunk I am!

Attached: Star-Destroyer-Pirate-Patrol-on-the-Sea-85013.jpg (1000x547, 155K)

In theory. In practice, they would be less capable because they'd be understaffed and barely controllable by their crews, while the largely automated, centralized arsenal ship wouldn't be overtaxed by 40-year old technology.

People overestimate how powerful modern destroyers are: these are the same generation of ship that got absolutely shredded by Argentina's third-rate airforce.

The closest you would see is a revival of the monitor. Something built for supporting landings and conducting shore bombardments. One or two gun turrets and for a modern approach; VLS and perhaps a bunch of CIWS.
Not focused on armor and so it's not really a battleship. Not focused on engaging other ships so it's not really a battlecruiser.

>18" guns
A modern battleship have the Strategic Long Range Cannon as its main armament along with some ESSM and RAM for point defense. The fact that a 1000 mile range gun is in the works might bring back the battleship, or at least the big gun monitor.

Type 42's are really not comparable to an Arleigh Burke, claiming they are of the same generation is like claiming an Arlegh Burke is of the same Generation as a type 45. Theres 20 years between the designs of all 3 classes.

I'm not even going to get into the problems the Royal Navy had with its Air Search Radar and Sea Dart at the time, it suffices to say using the Falklands as a indictment of the modern destroyer is a spurious argument at best.

The proposed HVP can use explosive warheads, albeit due to being subcaliber they are relatively small.

Railguns real advantages are their versatility, reduced cost per round, deep magazine and increase in ship survivability.

Replace the 5 inch gun on navy ships with a railgun and you have a weapon that can take potentially 500 shots at anti ship ballistic missiles or cruise missiles.
This frees up a huge amount of VLS space from SM3 and SM6 class weapons allowing for a larger magazine of long range standoff and mid course BMD interceptors.

>Railguns real advantages are their versatility, reduced cost per round, deep magazine
Agreed completely. Not having to carry gunpowder is a huge advantage. But like I explained above, my point was that railguns are not "more damaging" than conventional weapons, rather they have a totally different set of advantages.

I wasn't speaking specifically of an arsenal ship. I was thinking of something that could hang out with the LHAs and LSD's and give naval gunfire support to Marine units landing on the beach. This mission works within gun range, but still OTH from the beach. The Marines debark on hovercrafts and Amtracks and Ospreys and whatnot, and the gun-ship shoots the fuck out of beach defenses and whatnot.

>gun-ship shoots the fuck out of beach defenses and whatnot.
And misses, because lolunguided rounds and no spotting

The real advantage is the high muzzle velocity which makes it plausibly useful as a traditional AA gun. Because you're not worried about terminal guidance (railgun isn't accurate enough for that anyway) it doesn't take up AEGIS guidance channels and you've got another anti-missile tool.

Offensively, a ship is going to have about 100 VLS silos which have to be split between anti-sub, anti-air, anti-ballistic missile, and anti-ship\cruise missiles. A railgun gives you a backup when you run into the very real risk of running out of useful missiles.

>Because you're not worried about terminal guidance (railgun isn't accurate enough for that anyway) it doesn't take up AEGIS guidance channels.

Why would terminal guidance take up aegis channels?
The current guided HVP proposal uses an active radar seeker for terminal guidance.

...okay, let me clarify. AEGIS uses a semi-active system for the terminal guidance of it's missiles. A pure ballistic railgun round on a computer assisted timed fuse Would Not Need an AEGIS Guidance Channel.

Hell if I know what you're arguing against.

>Do you think this could be done with modern technology?
ok
>100cm of all around slopped armor.
'could be done' but WHY WOULD YOU
>30 knots of maximum speed.
'could be done'
>Crew of 300 members, sailors would wear power armors.
Depends on how you want to define power armor and what is expected from the 300 men.
I am going to put this in the 'could be done' category.
>One turret mounting a gatling 18 inches cannons capable of a rate of fire of 15 rounds per minute and with a range of 150 km. Has also AA ammunition.
Purely from a physics perspective it 'could be done'. From a practical perspective, no and there are better options.
>Tons of missiles.
'could be done' Why are you even asking this question?

Dumb as fuck designs.
>has to pint engines towards target to slow down.
>can't aim guns past engines.
sitting duck for the entire breaking burn.

Attached: pride_comes_before_the_fall.png (500x304, 57K)

>the year is 2025, with the country overrun by sub humans, a fed up team of Jow Forumsommandos steal the U.S.S Missouri and take it out to sea.

Literally an arsenal ship. Nuclear powered, heavily armored, bazillion VLS slots. And stealth.

youtube.com/watch?v=zwVQ7M5IFt8

based.

Attached: cb-1-k05580.jpg (740x537, 94K)

based

Attached: 1457059848598.jpg (1280x1007, 160K)

So female officers won't fucking crash them into flip crewed transport ships.

>eighty year old ammunition detonates in the rack because a Jow Forumscommando looked at it wrong
Brilliant idea

>secondary guns are his primary armament

cute tugboat faggot.

Attached: 0712fc90c9f2066c4ba8bfd603c45072.jpg (800x598, 77K)

FUCK OFF.

Attached: Treme - fuckfuckingfucks.jpg (1280x720, 128K)

Thanks, I hate it.

"comes back with 15 dds, all ready to talk some serious shit"
>too many targets,
>all of them too small & fast and to reliably take down,
>closing in on 5 inch range from all the directions... laying smoke, zigzagging...
>Can't outrun them...
>hailstorms of 5inch comes in, slowly tearing down the superstructures, AA and 2ndary teams dead, damage control teams dead... bridge dead,
com dead, rangefinder dead.
>Then the torpedoes.
>and all the hate.

Attached: dsvsvs.jpg (272x185, 9K)

Less powerful than a single DF-21, like any american ship.

>is sunk miles before he can even get in range.

Attached: All_Four_Iowas.jpg (1200x899, 130K)

>MUH TECHNOLOGY
all that shit's useless when the ships would be manned by sub 90 IQ retards.

Attached: 1544553893770.jpg (1016x1090, 389K)

The main issue is that a battleship is a huge target for bombers and atillary.
Drop a few bombs/shells/missiles on it and it is fucked.
That means a modern battleship needs:
>interceptors
>missile defence systems
>whipple-shield armor on deck
Now, how can one pack that into one ship?
>interceptors
High powered rocketplanes/rocketplane drones ready to launch 24/7
>missile defence systems
As a battleship is huge, a powerfull laser as well as anti missile missiles and CIWS would come to my mind.
>whipple shield armor
That`s a nice trick to survive hypervelocity impacts, it works by destroying the projectile and spreading the impact area to a larger surface.
Pic related:

Attached: whipple-shield.png (1748x1181, 792K)

>One turret mounting a gatling 18 inches cannons capable of a rate of fire of 15 rounds per minute and with a range of 150 km.

defeated by literally any modern missile

Since the first day of Jow Forums, how many of these threads do you guys think there have been?

this exact thread? probably around 30,000 or so.

this is just one of those retarded unoriginal ideas that enters the mind of every teenage boy at some point and he's very excited to post about his extremely new concept to the big boys on Jow Forums

Just like rods from god

Or we could simply build AShMs like we do anti-tank missiles with HEAT warheads instead of pure HE.

>Or we could simply build AShMs like we do anti-tank missiles with HEAT warheads instead of pure HE.
Generally it's fine if new, large and expensive weapons are built to counter try and counter it. The point of a low cost troll battleship is to deprive an enemy of resources. If they rearm with bigger and more powerful anti-ship missiles it means each ship can only less missiles reducing effectiveness against fleets of destroyers. If they use existing smaller subsonic missiles they risk burning through missile supplies trying to damage it. Iran and the strait of hormuz is a good example of this, park it in the middle and let them waste all their anti-ship missiles trying to damage it, they can't get hundreds of new missiles on short notice, any conflict will likely be fought only with existing inventory. Any time they try to attack it a nearby carrier in safer waters can retaliate.

>Iran and the strait of hormuz is a good example of this, park it in the middle and let them waste all their anti-ship missiles trying to damage it
fantasy land stuff. it doesn't matter how great you think your defenses are, you would never willingly plan to open yourself up to attack like that when it could cause a needless loss of life and assets that could take a long time to replace. your first line of defense will be a strong offense with proper employment of assets instead of standing out in the strait with your chest puffed out.

if it ever goes off, Iran will be dabbed on just like Iraq.

Attached: 1509963390253.png (852x944, 69K)

actually most likely never hits anything and whatever does, just punches straiught through, leaving minimal damage...

Attached: super iowa.jpg (1828x808, 302K)

Yank out the #2 turret and fill with VLS. Replace helocopters with more VLS. Use 5"/62s already in US usage instead of Otobredas. Convert one of the 5"/62s to as many ESSMs as you can fit there. Replace the .50s with something bigger.

Rate my BB, Jow Forums.

Attached: 1485017286808.png (3508x3161, 3.58M)

Bankrupts the Japanese empire.

I think you mean the IJA.

The Imperial Japanese Army?

Yeah, you don't fight your other services for funds?

Massive slow target that is difficult to maneuver.
That fuel consumption.

>million per shot
Isn't a Tomahawk closer to $2M?

Oh we do, it's just if the entire empire can't pay for it then how the hell is the army going to?

>Crew of 300 members, sailors would wear power armors.
what would that accomplish other than life insurance payouts?

inb4 it instantly gets bismarked by a drunk aussie and winds up doing circles in the pacific