Imagine this design:
A trimaran battleship.
Total length: 780m.
Two side hulls only made for floatability and protection.
100 inches of armor.
This would BTFO anyone.
How battleships could become relevant again
Cooper Martin
Other urls found in this thread:
Kayden White
Too big, a retrofit would be abysmal if you tried to turn it into a floating railgun fortress.
Brody Bell
Give it up faggot. Battleships will never ever become relevant ever again.
David Roberts
Brody Morales
>nevabindunbefo
Brayden Ward
>How battleships could become relevant again
By using missiles instead of those piece of shit fartpipes for shell tossing.
>This would BTFO anyone.
Maybe another similar artillery barge, but not anything not created by an autistic BB-faggot clown who refuses to stop posting his retarded shit. Any missile-armed corvette would BTFO this pathetic 30's tier washtub you posted. Get fucked.
Alexander Myers
I'm pretty confident a cost effective modern battleship could be made but it would need to be an entirely new design to work, retrofits wont work. The primary guns can use guided subcalibur rounds, range should be atleast comparable to harpoons even when using conventional guns. secondary 127mm and 76mm batteries already have radar guided anti air rounds being made. All guns have to be autoloaders to cut the number of crew needed. Propulsion would be purely electric with distributed power generation there would be a shipwide grid so that electrical power can be shared between propulsion and any future energy weapons.
Here is the main part needed to exploit it. By removing most of the crew, reduction gearing and prop shafts there should be a great deal of free space. What needs to be designed is a type of armor that is cheap to produce and neutrally boyant. There's many options, cast aluminum filled with hollow ceramic spheres, composites made with alternating layers of rubber, fiberglass and metals, you would have to determine which offers the best ballistic properties vs cost and weight. Although it would likely offer less protection than the same thickness in steel, provided it is lighter than water and unable to flood when damaged, you can have several meters of it covering the entire hull.
Tyler Thomas
Liam James
This, the way to make non-carrier ships become relivant again is making missiles cheap enough you can fill a ship with them.
Right now missile ships are a bit of a meme because not even the US or Russia can afford to keep just one fully stocked at all times.
Christian Reyes
>shows 35 mpa concrete
I don't know what the thrid world is building infustructure out of but here is Aust everything contracted by the government is 80 mpa (11,000 psi).
Kevin Sullivan
>Based on American standards
Luis Cox
Battleships weren't even relevant when they were in use.
Jeremiah Martinez
Funnily enough the world leader in high strength concrete development is Iran. I wonder why.
Carson King
False. Anti air defenses on ships are improving at a rate that will soon nullify the advantages of cruise missiles and aircraft attacks forcing us to go back to ballistics. Likely with rail guns.
Jaxon Phillips
>By using missiles instead of those piece of shit fartpipes for shell tossing.
Missiles which eventually will have a 0% chance of hitting the ship due to automated anti air ship defense systems.
James Richardson
>0% chance of hitting the ship due to automated anti air ship defense systems
Fuck off to /v/, retard.
Elijah Wood
I wonder if they ever followed up on that 60k psi concrete and if there is conventional ordinance to crack it
Kayden Jenkins
>How battleship could become relevant again?
By using direct energy weapons
The high energy would require big ships
Railguns can be fitted on medium size frigates but there's no way you can put enough batteries on them to operate a big laser or microwave
Before that sci-fi scenario, I can't see any reason to use a big boat in a waterfight except if you can launch planes from it
Austin Perez
Lmao
>war with Iran
>they just stay inside
Isaiah Gutierrez
To keep this battleship relevant, similarly the only time BBs actually sank other BBs was due to the golden shell hitting the weak spot.
>Build battleships specifically to fight other battleships
>Circular logic
>They still fail at it
Isaac Thomas
A modern BB would be like those russian cruisers. Filled to the brim with missiles of all types. Either that or we'll not have a BB and instead something close to a CA with a railgun instead.
Ayden Reyes
nah just make gunships if the guns are needed.
Literally stick some ginormous 500mm cannon on a single turret on a much smaller boat, build twice as many of them as the battleships of old had barrels, and boom, you have perfect "battleship" for moderne times.
Parker Morgan
Imagine if 500 mm cannons fired APFSDS
Kayden Rogers
It would suck, though sabot'ed ammo was experimented with in later parts of Iowa's career, where they basically went nuts with 16 inch shells.
Adam Gray
Ballistic anti-shipping missiles will stick wreck its shit, OP.
You couldn't put 100 inches of armor on the deck, because it would be too top-heavy and would capsize even with side hulls.
Hunter Ortiz
Why do you think Bush II started development of nuclear bunker-busters, user?
Leo Turner
APFSDS would have no effect on a several thousand tons warship, there's a reason battleship shells carried several kilograms of explosives(taking an example iowas AP shells had 15 kg/33 pounds)
Gabriel White
Battleships are like dogfights, it's over man, you can't keep doing this to yourself
Jack Evans
Suddenly thinking about the game OGRE. Suddenly improvements in armor, railguns and laser weapons make Tanks total rulers of the battlefield. Because nukes are suddenly the normal battlefield weapon bigger is better.
You would need something to eliminate submarines completely as a possible BB killer to make your dreams come true. If you had a BB that could survive missiles and aircraft then submarines using either small nukes or specialized armor penetrating torpedoes would be the thing. And for the cost of your super BB you could make dozens of hybrid powered subs that are very stealthy. The escorts for your super BB could be done in by normal means. So you are creating something like a carrier that has very little strategic force projection (so very unlikely to be built). And carriers ARE needed for strategic force projection and could use the same tech to protect themselves except for the use of armor.Give it strategic conflict capabilities. Figure out your sub problem, figure out how to make it be able to survive potentially hundreds of weapons made to crack major bunkers then you might see your BB return.
Nicholas Wright
>You couldn't put 100 inches of armor on the deck
Yes you can.
Just use titanium instead of steel.
Luke Morales
can't use titanium on naval vessels, it leaks, it was a serious problem on the SR-71, they used to have to be emptied of fuel after flights because their titanium chassis would leak so much.
Jeremiah Lee
Russia made a SUBMARINE with a titanium hull.
Parker Green
The only thing it would ever btfo is budget and a thread on Jow Forums
Isaac Flores
And so would an artillery shell in your imaginary vaccum stats battle
Wyatt Perry
Yeah and they all sunk.
Robert Sullivan
user, the SR-71 was leaky by design. It was fine at higher altitudes.
Isaac Gomez
>Someone actually remembers this game
My nigga
Replace those cannons with the 410mm chainguns and you are my nigger
Jackson Garcia
*launches several hypersonic missiles*
nothing personal, triama-kid.
Wyatt Sullivan
No, they did not, retard.
Wyatt Harris
>it was a serious problem on the SR-71
You're living breathing Dunning Kruger effect. SR-71 was leaking fuel on the ground because it was designed with heat expansion of the airframe in mind. People who designed it were fairly retarded and couldn't figure out MiG-25 airframe, resulting in the latter being 24/7 on alert, while SR-71 needed extensive pre-flight preparation to even take off the ground. That's not even talking about the crews.
Caleb Thompson
>can't use titanium on naval vessels, it leaks
*Routinely dives to 480 meters*
Enjoy your 240 meters test depth, impotent.
Nathaniel Gonzalez
MiG-25 is a giant piece of shit though, for every problem the Blackbird has, the MiGGer has two.
Joseph Barnes
>Anti air defenses on ships are improving at a rate that will soon nullify the advantages of cruise missiles
Literally the opposite.
Levi Harris
*can only afford to build four*
*half of them are broken*
Jace Rogers
Spoken like a true Lockheed damage control employee.
Thomas Barnes
Spoken like a true vacuum tube based computing system.
Luke Bell
>shitting on tubes
I bet you can't even tell me the advantages and disadvantages, you stupid faggot. You're just blindly shitting on them.
Benjamin Davis
>Military stays inside
>people take their chance and take over all the outside structures
>block all the exists
>happily enjoy their new country free of Tyrant ruler
Wyatt Rivera
>Can't afford to build even one
>Was at 240 meters depth once, tells a survival story to his grandchildren
Meanwhile, Project 945 was just one class and 480 meters operational depth is, like, a minimal by Russian standards.
Eli Ortiz
They were chosen for their higher resistance to rapidly changing temperatures and shock, because the designers knew the engines would be burning themselves to cinders and shaking the air-frame apart from the moment the aircraft left the ground.
Ayden Sanchez
>bricks own reactor
>randomly sinks
>explodes for no reason and blames the CIA
Also you realize that both the Seawolf and Virginias are capable of at least 480 meter depths, right?
Christian Campbell
MiG-25 had digital computer, memeing retard.
Daniel Thompson
>Seawolf
Yes, decades later americans finally mastered ancient Soviet technology. Too bad by that time Soviet subs could routinely do at 800 meters depth.
>Virginia
>Test depth: +800 ft (240 m)
Have you been confusing feet for meters in your bedroom again, Eurgene?
Colton Cooper
>posts modifications that only made it into widespread use over a decade into its service life
>majority of systems still using vacuum tubes circa 1976
Jacob Perry
>nah just make gunships if the guns are needed.
>Literally stick some ginormous 500mm cannon on a single turret on a much smaller boat, build twice as many of them as the battleships of old had barrels, and boom, you have perfect "battleship" for moderne times.
The main use of a modern battleship I suggested is when you need to send ships somewhere you know they will be under fire. Somewhere like the strait of hormuz or between taiwan and china. The important part is to build it in a cost effective that it isn't more expensive than a destroyer but takes a massive amount of effort to try and sink. Modern navies are heavily constrained by how many advanced missiles they can manage to produce. In comparison ammunition for guns is cheap and large quantities can be produced quickly. There's also the issue of magazine depth, modern destroyers routinely carry only 32 to 64 SAMs, with cheap drones and anti-ship missiles it would be easy to force them to expend their missiles and have to return to port. In comparison BBs carry thousands of VT shells for their 127mm and 76mm batteries.
Gavin Perez
>Is wrong
>Gets proven wrong
>Engaged full throttle damage control
By that metric SR-71 is just a single-piece production museum relic that never entered widespread use and couldn't stop crashing, losing almost 40% of the fleet to malfunctions. Sit the fuck down.
Brayden Brooks
>unironically believes the official values of "at least 30 knots and greater than 800 feet"
>meanwhile American submarines have been breaking the 400 meter mark since the 1960's, which we know is fact because they're just now being declassified.
Cope harder, Ivan. Actually, don't. You'll probably brick another reactor and cause a catastrophe.
Wyatt Jackson
>built to intercept SR-71's
>the finest minds in Soviet Aeronautic industry put every ounce of effort into defending the motherland from the scary black rocket plane
>engines chew themselves to pieces and airframes disintegrate
>missiles fly off mounting arms, and can't sustain a 2G turn when loaded
>targeting computer cant handle closure rate even if they manage a head on approach
>still can't actually intercept an SR-71
COPE
Jaxson Reed
>it isn't more expensive than a destroyer but takes a massive amount of effort to try and sink
The problem with this is that no one would give a shit to sink something that is an artillery barge with an effective firing range of 35 km on its artillery fartpipes. It's not a threat to anything.
Kevin Gomez
Meanwhile, in real life:
>The Swedish Air Force observed Soviet Air Defence MiG-25s via radar regularly performing intercepts at 19,000 m (63,000 ft) and 2.9 km (1.8 mi) behind the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird at 22,000 m (72,000 ft) over the Baltic Sea in the 1980s.[41]
Justin Adams
>Serkit dokumints
Nicholas Hernandez
>literally citing a state owned Russian propaganda outlet
jesus christ how sad
Evan Campbell
>N-no! Lies! LIES!
Oh boy, here we go again.
Brandon Scott
You have a dedicated and autistic hatred of big guns
Show us on the doll where the big bad battleship touched you
Eli Diaz
The article doesn't even cite its supposed source from the Swedes, and is otherwise straight propaganda lel. Also did I mention its owned by Rossiya Segodnya (controlled directly by the Russian government), which also owns Sputnik.
Fucking cope harder, commie faggot.
Ryder Rogers
I have a dedicated repugnance for manchildren praising obsolete and ineffective pieces of shit also known as battleships.
Blake Morgan
>Lies!
Top kek.
Juan Carter
The quality of commieboo trolls has dropped precipitously, at least you used to quote SEKRIT DOKUMENTS instead of actual propaganda outlets.
100 potatoes have been deducted from your salary, Vladislav.
Wyatt Thompson
I just want my nuclear powered rail gun equipped Montana Class.
Christopher Garcia
>All lies and p-propaganda!
John Foster
>don't you goyim understand?
>the Iranians WANT us to bomb them so that they can have feminism, gay marriage and open borders
Jacob Gonzalez
Needs to be a new treaty banning missiles, return to the mean with all guns ships.
Benjamin Parker
Your impotent fartpipes suck. Grow up.
Jack Cook
>STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE
You need to be 18 to use this site
Nolan Taylor
>Needs to be a new treaty banning missiles
>STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE
Nolan Flores
This. Unless there would be a really, REALLY powerful and cost effective ballistic weapon that would warrant the effort of a big fucking sitting duck into the oceans, big battleships ships are useless.
You'll have only carriers and tons of missiles.
Jayden Richardson
Montana is Spanish for mountain so it has to have the first fielded DEW (directed energy weapon, i.e. laser) CIWS for all the mountain dew jokes.
Eli James
>The problem with this is that no one would give a shit to sink something that is an artillery barge with an effective firing range of 35 km on its artillery fartpipes. It's not a threat to anything.
You would get about 100km to 200km range with high velocity subcalibur rounds. More with electrochemical or railguns. You would also put it somewhere the enemy wants to be such as a narrow strait. Alternatively have it sail 50km ahead of a group of modern destoyers, the enemy would be forced to waste anti-ship weapons on the battleship while destroyers retaliate with long range missiles.
Jacob Sanchez
At that size the ship will be so slow that the Chinese ASBM will actually have a chance to hit it unlike modern ships.
Hudson Edwards
>You would get about 100km to 200km range with high velocity subcalibur rounds
No, you would get to that range with tiny ass rocket-assisted rounds at the price of one missile with relatively fuckhuge warhead.
>electrochemical
So a missile.
>railguns
Back to /v/.
>You would also put it somewhere the enemy wants to be such as a narrow strait.
What if the enemy doesn't give a shit? More importantly, what is the advantage over putting an ordinary destroyer there? The latter can at least defend itself with missiles, and all BB-shit has is its fartpipes.
>Alternatively have it sail 50km ahead of a group of modern destoyers
And do what? Modern anti-ship missiles range in hundreds kilometers and can select their targets. BB-shit has nothing on this. Stop playing video games, especially some shit like CMANO or whatever it was called that gives you an illusion of realism.
Luis Cox
You overestimate the speed of ships in relation to the speed of proper anti-ship missiles, let alone the ballistic ones like that cheap Chinese copycat of R-27K. One has to be delusional to think you can get out of the missile's attack envelope in the time needed for the missile to reach the point where it activates its own guidance. We've talked about this a couple weeks ago already, pic related represents the range of Kh-32 missile in relation to the distance a CBG can travel in the time needed for the missile to cross its max range distance. Each pixel is 1 km. That's not even talking about real time satellite target designation.
Bentley Ortiz
are you mentally retarded
Ryder Rogers
GOOD LUCK GETTING IT THROUGH THE PANAMA CANAL FAGGOT
Brandon Lewis
Wat game
Oliver Stewart
Battleships would not be as relevant due to tonnage, at most we would have are Battlecruisers the size of Battleships due to modern munitions, electrical, powerplant, crew assignments reducing the overall tonnage. The only benefit of modern battleship classes is having a lot more hull thickness then their predecessors for the tonnage classification, but that would mean removing the iconic gun mantlets for that change.
Ryan Jenkins
DF-21 has questionable accuracy against stationary targets.
Ryan Roberts
Did you know the the largest difference between American subs to Russia subs is that American subs routinely return to the surface.
Jace Ward
bbs are gay, FLETCHER GANG!
Daniel Sanchez
Take something like Petr Veliky class heavy cruiser and scale up to 70k tons. Done.
Joseph Allen
Then they're terrible submarines.
Samuel Nguyen
with shields and energy weapons
pic related
Anthony Flores
Michael Harris
No wonder, they are pretty much surface ships compared to Russian submarines.