An AEGIS destroyer or it's equivalents is basically the modern equivalent to a "Ship of the Line".

>aegis
that means nothing

i'd consider modern day cruiser-sized missile ships (whether they're called frigates, destroyers or cruisers in their respective navies), to be comparable to ships of the line or battleships in overall importance.

>>64007152
>Comparable to battleships in importance
They wish. Modern surface ships carry a fraction of a BB's firepower, and that really bit them in the ass trying to secure the Red Sea.

>>64007180
a 500 kg shaped charge warhead will go straight through any battleship's armor belt and detonate the ammunition from 5 times the range of BB guns. You can slap dozens of those in the VLS cells of any modern warship. A single Tico loaded out with Tomahawks would probably be able to sink any WW2 fleet in a single salvo from beyond the horizon. You'd just need to retrofit shaped charge warheads onto the missiles

>>64007448
>a 500 kg shaped charge warhead will go straight through any battleship's armor belt and detonate the ammunition from 5 times the range of BB guns. You can slap dozens of those in the VLS cells of any modern warship.
right
>A single Tico loaded out with Tomahawks would probably be able to sink any WW2 fleet in a single salvo from beyond the horizon.
okay
>You'd just need to retrofit shaped charge warheads onto the missiles
oh so it couldn't then

>>64008747
not him
>oh so it couldn't then
They can but in a more efficient way than using a shaped charge: plunging fire.
Armor belts were designed to stop gun shells of 'mid range' combat, at long range (barrels near their max elevation) shells would pen the deck and the armor belt is only useful to reduce the vulnerable area.

A ship with a tonnage between 6000 - 12000 tonnes with VLS cruise missile cells, a single DP gun, a helicopter garage, some anti-air missiles, and datalink capability is just a "main battle ship"

>>64008778
I know anon and I agree that a modern frigate/destroyer/cruiser would shit on any BB from ages past, I was just shitposting

The anti-ship missile's shaped charge warhead is designed to inflict damage over a wide area on unarmored ships.

>>64007448
Too bad that does diddly against a shore instillation like the type that the Houhis use. I guess sand and concrete beats Krupp steel.

>>64007099 (OP)
>Using a gook AEGIS-like for the image.
They are also some of the least capable of the AEGIS carrying destroyers being a step up from Hobarts and F110s, but a step down from the rest.
>No command decks of the Burke Flight III and nip AEGIS
>No SEWIP like Flight III (nips have them on order)
>SM-3 BlkIIA (Gooks are too assmad to buy it because nips worked on it)
>K-ASROC better than ASROC, but worse than Type 07
>SSM-700K worse than latest block Harpoons and way worse than Type 17s
>K745 better than Mk.54LW, but worse than Type 12