Thread 64373659

>Be captain of destroyer in the Carrierstrikegroup pingpong assigned to patrol the waters of chingchong under the supervision of dingdong
>Radar picks up a large ship approaching from 300kms away
>Launch 2 missiles
>Watch with anticipation as youll score a kill and get +500social credits
>All your missiles are shoot down
>Repeat again with even more
>One manages to get trough
>But ship doesnt stop
>Pingpong finishes all its stockpiles
>Wait for hours as contacts start getting nearer
>Watch in horror as 100000 tonns of steel come trough the mist
>Fire your punny cannons at it
>Shells ricochets in to the water
>IOWA aims its broadsides at your ship

>>64373659 (OP)
>Clank clank
>The hum of chinesium forged motors comes to a halt
>Three twelve inch holes in the engine compartment
>That's like 30 centimeters for those of you in gay countries
>Chinesium ship taking on water
>Hong Fong taking a bath in the engine room, essential oils for his hair routine
>Ship is going down
>Captain Ho Lee Fook:

>>64373659 (OP)
Nice in theory but on modern warships all the important bits are exposed, like radars and other antennas. Your ship might not sink but you'll be rendered combat ineffective (even WWII warships had important shit exposed like rangefinders and whatnot, which when knocked out, massively decreased their capabilities).
Missiles could also adapt to warship armor, shaped charge precursor charges could be used to increase armor pen.
Also all-or-nothing schemes still had vulnerable sections, and even with good anti-torpedo defenses, modern torpedoes could cripple your ship, and these could be launched from missiles like SS-N-14 Silex.
Even setting all that aside, you're looking at the innermost layer of the survivability onion, and you're spending a bunch of displacement on it. Might as well just make an arsenal ship, though you're still better off distributing all those missiles on more platforms, reducing the % knocked out when a ship gets knocked out

batlleships are coming back because once you defeat the enemy navy and air force you need to invade from sea and a million carrier sorties are too expensive to suppress all shore positions

battleships are coming back but not for battle

>>64373659 (OP)
far easier to make a new missile that can punch through whatever amount of armor you have on your battleship than it is to make a battleship with enough armor to protect all the important bits from every angle a missile could strike at.
also, if laser PD ever gets good enough to stop missiles reliably then armor will matter even less than it already does.

>>64373850
>you need to invade from sea
Why?

>>64373870
good question idk

>kinetic
Aren't AShM typically shaped charges?

>>64374074
A lot of them are. Shaped charges made rolled steel armor obsolete, since some kind of small ATGM had like 600mm+ of penetration.

>>64373659 (OP)
Surface warfare as a concept is obsolete. We should be investing in hybrid submarine carrier designs now. You can't be tracked by a satellite 100 yards underwater

>>64374080
Iowa class has a 60mm decapping STS outer layer, then air, then an intermediate layer at a different angle than the outer layer, then air, and then the main belt. Might be enough to fuck with large shaped charges.

>>64374171
NTA but probably and even if you poke a hole in a battleship sometimes that isnt a big deal depending on where the hole is.

at the USS Massachusetts museum they have a french 155 shore battery shell that penned a berthing compartment and didnt hit anybody or anything important IIRC

>>64374080
to be fair atgms poke a tiny hole less than an inch thick through the armor, which is still enough to ignite ammo/fuel inside and with good design(read: post 1970s Western) you get a significant follow through blast, flash and smoke that by itself can incapacitate the crew.

with ships this isn't the case and even when a shaped charge jet penetrates various bulkheads and empty compartments act as spaced armor and prevent further damage. even if the warhead does penetrate deep enough to hit something valuable like an engine room, drive shaft, or command room these things are made redundant and won't take the ship out of action on their own. similarly an armory isn't so vulnerable with modern insensitive munitions and firefighting systems.

ironically the most weak, vulnerable and critical parts of the modern warship are the above deck electronics like radar, navigation and communication equipment since those are very exposed, can't be feasibly armored, shielded or made redundant and cannot be repaired aboard past superficial damage while being absolutely mission critical for modern naval operations. coincidentally this is the type of target Harpoon was made for, taking a ship out of action and leaving it exposed to be finished off with subsequent strikes if needed.

>>64374292
Would a single airbust like the tungsten rain ATACMS fuck up enough stuff and kill enough people to put a carrier out of effective service?

>>64373659 (OP)
>Much like bring back dinosaurs would wreck havoc on our biomes
indeed

>>64373659 (OP)
Literally nothing in that picture is correct. And your fanfic is even dumber.

>>64373850
Retard take. A modern destroyer with a mere 5-inch gun can already deliver more effective fire support than any WWII battleship. You know what's better than suppressing shore positions? Killing them outright with precision fires.

>>64374091
>You can't be tracked by a satellite 100 yards underwater
When you're the size of a carrier, you absolutely can.

>>64374171
>>64374292
Heavy AshMs with a HEAT warhead generally had penetration values measured around a couple dozen FEET. Jsut for refenrece, that's deep enough for a waterline hit to burn right through the turret barbettes and into the magazine spaces on an Iowa. And just to rub salt in the wound, such a missile would then also fill all of those breached compartments with a whole bunch of burning rocket fuel.

>>64374350
5 inch is the minimum for effectiveness

how many of these "precision fires" can you ship across the ocean at one time and how much does each one cost?

>>64374358
>how many of these "precision fires" can you ship across the ocean at one time
A lot more because a 5" shell is smaller than a 16" shell? What a weird question.

>>64374324
>tungsten rain ATACMS
no such thing, tungsten rail is GMRLS only.

but anyway
>fuck up enough stuff
for the carrier air controlling would become difficult if the comm tower is damaged. the deck is armored so a unitary warhead would be more damaging to the flight deck and could take out a steam catapult or something.
>kill enough people
no

>>64374381
I thought you were referring to missiles or plane bombs

a 5 inch gun boat would be cool but you would have to get pretty close to shore and if youre going to the trouble to have a dedicated shore bombardment gun boat you may as well go for a bigger shell with more range and payload. and some more armor because you need to get close to shore wouldnt hurt

>>64374445
>I thought you were referring to missiles or plane bombs
Oh sorry, that was my first post. I stepped into the conversation because of my own misunderstanding about what you meant.

>>64374350
How are your missiles going to get trough my 500 layered Point defense systems?
My 18inch shells cant be vaporized and xarry enough weight to punch trough 20mm ciws with impunity.
And yes you can make them modern, you dont have to take a musuem ship when you can build a new BB

>>64374445
>and some more armor because you need to get close to shore
You know what doesn't need to get close to shore? Missiles and planes. The problem with bringing back battleships for shore bombardment is that you're already going to need to use missiles and aircraft to suppress and destroy the enemy so the battleships can get into range.

>>64374491
nigga what
Your 18 inch shells are even easier to pop than a missile. They're a short ranged, big dumb target that can't maneuver or sea skim. They get slaughtered by anything that can engage a missile.

>>64373659 (OP)
>Wait for hours as contacts start getting nearer
Why? Are they at Port? During a patrol? Isn't that more for funboats and cutters?

>>64374499
>you're already going to need to use missiles and aircraft to suppress and destroy the enemy so the battleships can get into range

thats a good thing, they free up logistical bandwidth for each other

>>64373659 (OP)
They'd just redo ASHMs so that they're like the old Cold War warheads that could punch through thick armour. It's not lost technology.

>>64374518
yeah but they're much cheaper and you can shoot 100x more

>>64373659 (OP)
The literal only reason why this is being seriously discussed as a real option currently is because trump, an old man, had a reformerbrained moment and r/t_d refugees have to defend his every word at all costs, no matter how silly.

>>64374350
>When you're the size of a carrier, you absolutely can
Okay what about 500 yards

>>64373659 (OP)
Why would they just sit there and wait instead of doing literally anything else?

>>64373659 (OP)
How about installing ERA on the sides of the ship

>>64374171
Yeah

>>64374579
Parking a giant, radar bright capital ship inside enemy A2/AD envelopes so it can lob cheap shells is the exact opposite of current doctrine. Muh layered point defense especially r&d gen 1 laser c-ram will not protect you from cruise missile saturation and drones. No armour in the world will help you with under keel torpedoes.

>>64374350
>Retard take. A modern destroyer with a mere 5-inch gun can already deliver more effective fire support than any WWII battleship. You know what's better than suppressing shore positions? Killing them outright with precision fires.

If would be able to fire about 50-60 shots before its gun was so overheated that it would have to cool off for an hour or two. This is why modern 127 mm guns fire slower than their predecessors. There is simply no point.

>>64373659 (OP)
>Battleships will be unstoppable guys
>please ignore torpedos, air launched torpedos, AShMs which are torpedo carriers, big aerial bombs and drones with the accuracy to hit vents, refuelling ports and bridge windows

If point defences get so good HE missiles are useless rail guns, kinetic missiles torpedos and bombs make a lot more sense than 16" guns.

Dinosaurs wouldn't be able to survive if they were teleported to today. They are cold blooded and adapted to a higher oxygen atmosphere.

Why are battleship niggers so insufferable?
No, your pathetic short range relic is not relevant.

>>64374806
Terrorbirds were essentially the same as pop culture velociraptors.
They got absolutely mogged by big cats. Driven to extinction.
Even ignoring environmental factors, dinosaurs would not survive. Being a 40 ton giant is all well and good, but it does you no good if all your massive & tasty eggs, you just leave lying, around are eaten by rats, foxes, badgers, wolves, bears etc.

>>64374530
>they free up the logistical bandwidth to complicate our logistics with massive, limited use ships
The complex and evergrowing bureaucracy will continuously expand to meet the needs of the complex and evergrowing bureaucracy.

Dinosaurs would largely freeze to death on a modern earth.

Supersonic missiles unlikely to penetrate battleship armour?

Soviet Union's first supersonic antiship missile P-270 Moskit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-270_Moskit

Speed ~1000m/s. Weight 4500kg. Energy 2259 million joules.

16" Mark 7

Speed 762m/s. Weight 1225kg. Energy 355 million joules.

Moskit is armoured against 30mm autocannon fire and can even tank a direct hit from 5 inch gun. It's literally armour piercing missile intended to withstand barrage of US fleet CIWS fire.

During a test fire missile with dummy warhead (so just kinetic energy) split the target ship in half. The target ship was large vessel. Unfinished early cold war cruiser if I remember right. The missile was rated by Soviet Union for sinking 20 000 ton vessels. It could sink carriers easy but Soviet Union had carrier killer antiship missile, Kh-22.

Moskit would penetrate battleship armour with ease. Maybe not sink it but it would cause a lot of damage. Battleships were build to withstand a lot of punishment afterall.

>>64373659 (OP)
>Be captain of glorious PLAN submarine, CSS Temu.
>Detect new American Battleshit, USS Iowa 2
>Obtain firing solution in seconds using Alibaba FCS
>Fire Glorious Marku 88 torpedos
>Torps detonate under enemy haul
>Keel snaps like back of Chinese worker pulled into industrial roller
>New American Battleshit sinks in minutes
>South China Sea is so shallow that part of it remains above water
>Dispatch Glorious landing party to claim new island for China
>American Battleshit was made using Chinese steel
>Glorious
>proclaim Temu island was always rightful Chinese clay

>>64373850
If you've knocked out every rocket and howitzer that can shell your beachhead, you've already won the war. What you are describing is a "win more" system, which is of dubious value in a conflict.

>>64374758
Laughs in Russian. Watercooled AK-130 can sustain 90RPM. The best naval gun in the world.

>>64375703
no, the airforce and rocket artillery would hit the opposing air force and long range defenses then the shore bombardment ship would hit all the bunkers, artillery pieces and logistical trucks/trains etc

>>64375765
Retard alert. If you've degraded the A2/AD, you're basically mopping up. Your MCNGS is a "win more" system, and those don't fare well in actual competition.

>>64374491
How do you have a 500 point defense system yet you can't hit a battleship with a few km of your shore?

>>64375790
how long has the "mopping up" been going on in Ukraine? How long did the "mopping up" take the allies in WW2 once air supremacy was achieved? Was "mopping up" so easy in Afghanistan? youre being myopic. everyone wants Gulf War 2 but saying "every war will always be the best case scenario and nothing will go wrong" is naïve

>>64375811
The first 100 points are admittedly pretty shitty.
Gets good from 200 on

>>64375818
>>64375790

>Gulf War 2
to clarify I dont mean the 2nd war with Iraq I mean a hypothetical future war that plays out as simply and "perfectly" as Gulf War 1

>>64374358
>how many of these "precision fires" can you ship across the ocean at one time
More than enough.

>and how much does each one cost?
Little enough that all of them together will still be cheaper than the operational cost of a battleship.

>>64374491
How's your 18-inch shell going to get through your 500 layered point defense systems, when all it takes to throw it catastrophically off course is but a single hit?

>>64374579
>yeah but they're much cheape
They're absolutely not, though. Because you have to add the cost of your boat to theirs. SYSTEM COST is what counts, motherfucker. NOT munitions cost alone.

>>64374758
>50-60 shots
Okay, with modern precision FCS and optionally a couple guided shells in the mix that is more effect on target than a WWII battleship literally shooting its magazines empty.

>>64375818
Because the MCNGS is useless until you've sufficiently degraded the A2/AD, since even a gun theoretically optimized for range has to enter the teeth of AShM range without just turning the shell into a missile with the same maintenance and storage issues regarding propellants lifetime and deal with SSKs and mines.

It's a "win more" button that requires you to already have the other guy's navy and shore batteries reduced to scrap to employ. If you've accomplished those prerequisites, the waters are safe enough for a DDG to shell you with its marginal 5".

>>64375849
I get what youre saying but VLS is really expansive and way too limited space/numbers wise and 5 inch is too short range and ineffective so theres a rather large gap of capability in the middle between those weapons

>>64375876
>but VLS is really expansive
Not as expensive as your fuckstupid battleship.

>and way too limited space/numbers wise
It genuinely isn't.

>and 5 inch is too short range and ineffective
It absolutely isn't. In any situation that even allows your fuckstupid battleship to do ANYTHING, 5-inch with modern FCS and optionally guidance is perfectly adequate.

This capability gap exists in your clueless fantasies only.

>>64375903
> vls is cheap and plentiful
> 5 inch isnt the minimum effective 5.56 middle ground of artillery

yeah were going to have to agree to disagree on this one, brainiac

>>64375577
WW2 AshMs sank battleship.

>>64375876
>VLS is really expansive and way too limited space/numbers wise
It is cheaper than the alternative you are suggesting. Could you also cite me the number of times a modern DDG have "ran out"?
>5 inch is too short range and ineffective so theres a rather large gap of capability in the middle between those weapons
Personal opinion.

>>64375903
I'm a 5" hater, but it's really just there to shoot at pirates that can't shoot back.

>>64375911
cite me the number of times there has been a modern naval battle... oh wait...

>>64375916
Israel's corvette and missile boat fights in their various wars, the Falklands.

Desert Storm where Phalanx thought a Sea Wolf was a AShM and sent a burst of 20mm into a British DDG.

>>64375928
Falklands is the closest and even then they could have benefitted from more shore bombardment

>>64375916
Like over the last two years? Have you not paid attention to the Gulf strip? You had a continued series of engagements between western ships and Houthi AsHMs?

>>64375933
Based on what? You're saying "more" is better, but you're ignoring the opportunity cost of that "more".

>>64375910
It's cheaper and more plentiful than your fuckstupid battleship. And yes, 5-inch is more than enough with modern precision capabilitites.

Seethe more about it, retard.

>>64375935
naval equivalent of a border dispute, not a good comparison for larger threats

even then the USN was unable to hit enough targets on shore

>>64375943
the UK had ships parked off shore the whole time, and a couple more/bigger guns would have come in handy. the exact ratio of more guns benefit/cost is up for debate

>>64375933
How'd that work out for Belgrano?

>>64375910
If 96 missiles per Burke aren't enough for your immediate needs then you're clearly being retarded with carrier airstrike allocation and even 300 missiles wouldn't be enough either

>>64375944
I think Vulcano and similar er munitions are solutions looking for a problem personally.

>>64375947
Of a border dispute? Fuck off. You're protecting tankers in a complex environment. Unless you've run an escort tasking yourself, you can't play it down.

>>64375953
Ah gotcha you're not serious, only baiting

>>64375954
not good because they didnt have the "whole package"

any asset without proper support is vulnerable

>>64375962
yes it was complex and bad, im just saying any major conflict is going to be a lot worse

>>64375965
It had two escorts for ASW and the support of a CV.

>>64375974
they were there but did they hold up their end of the bargain?

>>64375947
And if they had to reduce actually useful and efficient assets to afford your fuckstupid battleship, they would've hit far less targets on shore. And potentially lost the giant white elephant because they'd have to roll it up close to the coast where it would have next to zero warning against AshM launches.

Your original point of runnign out VLS is also fucking retarded, because a battleship will run its magazines empty before achieving a fraction of the actual battlefield impact a DDG will achieve by entirely emptying its VLS cells and 5-in magazine.

>>64375953
>and a couple more/bigger guns would have come in handy
Except not nearly as handy as all the other assets that were affordable because those couple more/bigger guns were NOT present. Opportunity cost, motherfucker. Your shitty guns are NOT free.

>>64375959
I'm not even talking about them. With a modern FCS, a 5-incher slinging dumb shells is STILL gonna be more effective than a WWII battleship slinging 16-inch with a WWII FCS.

>>64373659 (OP)
>Twitterspam

>>64375944
To be fair, I think the USN missed an opportunity with the 8"/55 they trialed in the 70s. But that's more about keeping your DDG away from some chucklefuck with 120-155mm shore batteries with a solution that could be easily refit into existing 5" mounts than some retarded 25k ton monitor.

>>64375977
>With a modern FCS, a 5-incher slinging dumb shells is STILL gonna be more effective than a WWII battleship slinging 16-inch with a WWII FCS.
Tube artillery hasn't changed that much. Calibers below 155mm are already marginal, which is why 105mm and 122mm have largely gone the way of the dodo.

However, the main purpose of the gun is for Ocean Cop work where it doesn't matter, and you could go as small as 57mm and do the job.

chads:

> we need battleships to shoot large bombs at the enemy

nerds ITT:

> uhmm we akshully dont need firepower because we are leveraging synergistic AI integrated software agnostic scalable solutions

>>64376044
software agnostic scalable AI would be insane and you know it

>>64376044
Nah the chads are the JDAM that are able to be dropped on targets hundreds of miles inland, are cheaper, have larger explosive yields, and are far more accurate than any battleship gun.

>>64376240
> all for the low price of 70 trillion dollars per flight hour

>>64373659 (OP)
Is this just Mike Spark's schizo screeching again?

>>64373659 (OP)
Why do people want battleships back? Why not Light/Heavy gun cruisers instead?

Light/Heavy cruisers unlike battleships did see constant action during world war 2 while battleships did not see that much ship on ship action relatively speaking due to their heavy cost and fear of loosing all your big boy battleships in a dumb battle.

And when it comes to shore bombardment. a modern precision guided 152/155mm --203mm shell fired from a light/heavy cruiser is pretty capable to knocking out hard targets. How many concrete costal bunkers /sanbag pillboxes or dug in old tanks can take a direct hit from a modern shell hitting the door/gun opening? And if you really want a big gun then why not modern battlecruisers?

All the weight for the old school thick armor is honestly better used for bigger/better radar, more fuel and other things that you need for modern ships. If any weight is used for armor then it is gona be ALOT of spall liners in every compartment to reduce as much potentional damage from anti ship missiles that either hits the ship or explode close to it. The main trick to saving a damaged ship is with a damage controll crew and you need them alive so they can do their job.

Or not get hit in the first place which means better anti air missiles/guns. Not thicker steel belt.

>>64373659 (OP)
That picture is retarded. Modern anti-ship missiles don't have HEAT warheads, which is the only reason they can't pen armor. If you took a harpoons and gave it an equivalent shaped charge, it would absolutely blow the fuck out of any armor put in front of it.

Modern, pan portable ATGMs like the panzerfaust can blow through 35 inches of steel armor. The thickest armor on Yamato was 26" on the turret faces. That's with a dinky, 30 pound warhead. A harpoon has a 480 pound warhead and the NSM has 260 pounds.Hell, the Super Hornet can carry Mavericks, which can penetrate at least 60" of armor.

None of that even covers the massive amount of spalling damage that could be done by a 500-2000 pound HE bomb going off in contact with the armor plate.

The massive amount of tonnage that would have to dedicated to armoring a ship makes it a total waste. picrel is a disabled abrams that was destroyed by a frontal hit from an AGM-65 maverick to prevent capture. That frontal turret armor is worth about 1000-1500mm of RHAe

>>64374388
First ATACMs warhead was tungsten frag.

>>64376282
The new Japanese ballistic missile defense cruiser design seems like a promising idea if you want a heavier ship to supplement a destroyer fleet. Instead of fixation on shore bombardment, just cram as many VLS cells as you can in. Make it nuclear if you want and stick a bunch of lasers on it too for that matter.

>>64376322
Wouldn't the damage caused by shaped charges be relatively easy to fix though? They only work well on armored vehicles because of the small internal volume and the fact they can ignite stuff on the inside. Not necessarily true for every part of a ship, if it just shoots its jet into a berthing compartment you don't necessarily do a ton of damage and I'd think the holes they cause would be more easily damage controlled then a conventional warhead.

>>64376044
>Reality:
>actually, we don't need battleships because missiles and smaller modern guns can do the job much better and cheaper
FTFY

>>64376260
As opposed of the 700 quadrillion dollars per operational hour of your fuckstupid battleship.

>>64376350
With an AshM-sized HEAT warhead, you're looking at a fucking tunnel like 20 FEET deep into the ship, shitloads of spalling everywhere and all the breached compartments now having been sprayed with a lovely dose of burning rocket fuel. Oh, and the sheer fucking explosive and impact shock is going to outright warp entire frames.

>>64376350
If it's hard to hit important things, then they'll only do an all-or nothing scheme in order to use tonnage efficiently. Because why armor spaces that don't need armor?

If you know that you're shooting at an all-or-nothing scheme, then you'd just give the warhead a dual purpose fuze. One that sets off the shaped charge after you smack something really hard like the armor. Another that goes off after a short delay, allowing the warhead to travel inside of the ship and detonate internally.

Or just use non-penetrating anti-armor concepts like HEP.

>>64376350
Nope. Warships have been hit with HEAT warheads fired in anger from Termits and the results aren't pretty.

>>64374648
One does not escape a fast battleship

>>64375916
when the Vincennes chased some iranian fast boats and smoked an airliner

>>64376381
> HII has deposited one carriercredit to your company account

>>64376476
>everyone who disagrees with my retarded takes is a paid shill!
Pathetic.

>>64373659 (OP)
>modern subsonic anti ship missiles do not have enough kinetic force to penetrate the armor of a WW2 era battleship
Ok, technically correct, but they also carry fucking explosives. What in the fuck is this retarded shit?
Are we trying to bait the Chinese into building battleships? It's not going to work, they only copy it if you actually build it.

>>64376501
you have some ok points, but obviously seething invites people to poke fun at you

I know you do this for free (^;

>>64376545
Trump Enslavement Syndrome

>>64373659 (OP)
rate my design /k/

>>64376737
>yeets your fleet
>nothin personnel, kid

>>64376737
where does all the other stuff that a ship needs go?

>>64373659 (OP)
Holy fucking shit, are you STILL trying to make Trump's idea seem not retarded?

>>64376754
bellow the bridge

>>64376260
>70 year combined lifetime cost of every F-35 is ~$1.5 trillion

>>64376812
Every F-35 or every US inventory F-35?

>>64376737
Does the bow raise higher than it's gun or is that an optical illusion?

>>64376828
don't worry about it

>>64376546
>undisguised projection
Sad and pathetic.

>>64374579
After you factor in the cost of re-lining barrels after the expected barrel life of 300-400 shots, no, they're really not that much cheaper.

>>64373659 (OP)
Lasering the missile does not stop its momentum all at once.

>>64376903
NTA but that was WW2 numbers Battleship New Jersey did a youtube video on this recently, they were able to get the barrel life up by a lot i forget how much. also with modern automated factories making/relining a barrel is no longer a years long process

>>64374579
>>64376903
I've got to agree with the cheap argument. It's simpler for sure. Metal barrel swaps are easier to put together than needing electronic and counter-electronic hardware and software components, not to mention transmitter/receiver parts.

>>64376918
Changing the propellants and bags reduced wear to 0.1EFC vs WW2 AP ammo.

>>64376921
>0.1EFC
What is this?

>>64376923
Effective Full Charge. The unit of barrel life vs a reference projectile and charge for big guns.

>>64373659 (OP)
You can still wreck the bridge and the super structure. A battleship can't fight without Radar or the COs.
>>64374782
If anything Large Ocean Going Monitors are more likely to be brought back as Artillery units than Battleships.

>>64376915
why didn't they move in unison like they do in the parades?

>>64376930
No I mean what does the number mean. What does "0.1" mean in real world terms? Is that supposed to mean %10?

>>64376931
Also added to this when it comes to Battleship armor, all nations completely lost the infrastructure to make Battleship grade armor.
We truly would make monitors over Battleships especially at first if Big gun ships suddenly became viable.

>>64376939
Yes. Changing the propellants and using a 500-700lb lighter HE shell (remember, lighter projectiles have lower maximum pressure and pressure curves that peak later) educes barrel wear.

>>64376956
Is it worth it to change to a significantly weaker round if it only gives you 10% more rounds per barrel? 400 -> 440 does not seem that significant to me

>be me
>enter thread on alternative methods to sink ships
>ctrl+f "supercavitating"
>0 results

Did 2nd world countries forget about these or just give up on them? Supercavitating Torpedoes are absolutely one of the secret sauce toys the US would pull out if an actual war with China went hot. Parry that you fucking amateur

>>64376979
>Supercavitating Torpedoes
What model do we have? I know the Russians have at least two and the Chinese have at least one.

>>64376965
I'll just quote NavWeaps. I made an error, but the changes were so effective it made the USN change how they calculated barrel life.

> In the 1967 and 1980s deployments, the use of "Swedish Additive" (titanium dioxide and wax) greatly reduced barrel wear. It has been estimated that four AP shells fired using this additive approximated the wear of a single AP shell fired without the additive (0.26 ESR) and that HC rounds fired with the additive caused even less wear (0.11 ESR). The "Swedish Additive" was issued in a packet that was inserted between two of the propellant bags. Later developments during the 1980s deployment led to putting a polyurethane jacket over the powder bags, which reduced the wear still further. This jacket was simply a sheet of foam with a fabric border around the ends that was tied to the powder bag. When the jacket burned during firing, a protective layer formed over the surface of the liner, greatly reducing gaseous erosion. This wear reduction program was so successful that liner life could no longer be rated in terms of ESR, as it was no longer the limiting factor. Instead, the liner life began to be rated in terms of Fatigue Equivalent Rounds (FER), which is the mechanical fatigue life expressed in terms of the number of mechanical cycles. The 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7 was ultimately rated at having a liner life of 1,500 FER.

>>64376982
>This wear reduction program was so successful that liner life could no longer be rated in terms of ESR, as it was no longer the limiting factor. Instead, the liner life began to be rated in terms of Fatigue Equivalent Rounds (FER), which is the mechanical fatigue life expressed in terms of the number of mechanical cycles. The 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7 was ultimately rated at having a liner life of 1,500 FER
Wildly interesting, thanks for sharing this. It's amazing that they were so successful they had to switch ways of measuring wear & tear.

>>64376965
10x rounds per barrel, not 10% more, you innumerate fuck.

>>64377002
Hey man, I was taught that if you want to convert a decimal to a percentage then you shift the decimal two places to the right. But according to this:>>64376982
They tripled the rate of shots per barrel, nowhere close to ten times.

>>64376044
> uhmm we akshully dont need firepower

lol, lmao even

>>64377010
10% of standard effective wear from gas abrasion per shot means ten times as many shots until the liner is worn out from gas abrasion. Gas abrasion then stops being the life limiting wear factor because the part is worn out mechanically after 1500 cycles before it would be burned out after 4000 rounds.

>>64377010
The original rated liner life was 290.

>>64377024
>10% of standard effective wear from gas abrasion per shot means ten times as many shots
I don't see why you are multiplying ten percent by ten out of nowhere. 10% less abrasion should mean somewhere around 10% more rounds. So if this is the case:>>64377026
290 would mean 319 rounds total. His number was expressed as EFC, but the quote you're referring to isn't using EFC, it's using ESR which was then replaced by FER. You mixed up the measurements and for some reason multiplied a fraction by ten.

QUICKSINK SINKS CHINKS QUICK
BUY QUICKSINK
BUY LRASM
BUY RAPID DRAGON
Ground invasions are pointless.
Total naval blockade contains the threat and puts AEGIS off every coast.

>>64377044
It isn't 10% less abrasion, it is one tenth of the abrasion. 0.1 ESR is one tenth of 1 ESR. What public school system failed you so drastically?

>>64376903
Forget about the barrel relining. Just basic fuel, maintenance and logistical costs of running the ship is going to run the price up well beyond using guided munitions from an existing plattform.

Also, using guided munitions is in general CHEAPER than trying to achieve the same effect by throwing enough dumb ordnance at it even just in terms of purely the munitions cost.

>>64376918
No such modern automated factories even exist.

>>64376920
What's cheaper, one plane flying a mission and dropping a couple guided munitions, or a battleship going on a weeks-long deployment to fire hundreds of shells to achieve the same fucking thing?

Also, putting together metal barrel swaps would require building entire industrial branches back from nothing at this point, while all the infrastructure to mass produce electronics etc. is actively avaiable. And then you of course have to do the same for the shells, for the pwoder bags, for basically every component in the gun turrets etc. All to get what is still a shittier and more expensive alternative to just using existing capabilities.

>>64377044
Where did you learn math?

>>64377014
cool stats now risk the pilots life and millions of dollars of jet by flying close enough to drop bombs from a high observability plane in a peer conflict

>>64377065
>modern automated factories even exist
Untrue. Will find the facility when I get off work.

>>64377058
>it is one tenth of the abrasion. 0.1 ESR
Wasn't that unit EFC? That's the original post. As for missing a preposition, he does say "to 0.1 EFC", and not "by .01 EFC", honestly thought that was a typo because that figure seemed unrealistic at the time. That's why his follow-up post is so incredible. I'm still not sure why you took 90% and came out with a ten times multiplier.

>>64377067
That's our whole argument- you're arguing I missed math, but I thought a preposition was a typo. 90% less abrasion still does not equal a ten times multiplier. In short, my disbelief led to a misreading, but you're the one using bad math no matter how we slice this pie.

>>64377065
once both have been built that plane is extremely more expensive

like swapping your regular tires vs swapping racing slicks 3 times per race, the cost is exponential

>>64377070
>risk the pilots life
as opposed to several thousand sailors
>millions of dollars of jet...in a peer conflict
chump change
>flying close enough to drop bombs
glide bombs have longer range than battleship guns.

>>64377078
Anon wants to buy chicken tendies. Normally chicken tendies cost 1 GBP. The local tendie joint is running a deal where tendies cost 0.1 GBP. How many times more tendies can Anon buy for the same number of GBP can he buy by taking advantage of the deal instead of the normal price?

>>64377088
A. fair point, but the sailors are protected by more onion layers
B. debatable
C. 155mm Excalibur shells outrange most glide bombs already

>>64377070
And that's supposed to better than a a ship that has to sail within 50nm so it can strike targets a dozen or two nm inland with the big gun (pretending we have a gun that shoots 70+nm, far in excess of what the Iowas could do.

>>64377078
Anon wants to buy anime figurines to blast with semen. Normally these figurines cost X dollarydoos. There is currently a 90% off sale on figurines of last season's waifu. How many times more old and busted flavor of the month girl figurines could he buy on sale instead of getting the new hotness at full price?

>>64377105
see>>64377100
Excalibur can go up to 40 miles from 155mm gun with a muzzle energy of 15 Mjs whereas a 16 inch gun pushes 300 Mjs

>>64377112
>155mm Excalibur shells outrange most glide bombs already
No they don't.
> the sailors are protected by more onion layers
No they aren't.

>>64377123
did you bother googling?

>>64377089
I'm not sure why you're persisting with this. I thought his post said "by .1", not "to .1". If something is reduced by .1 dollar, that's down 10%. If it's reduced to .1 dollar, that's down 90% to 10 cents. As for the example you're using now, it's missing all of the parts we've added to the conversation, because now you're ten times multiplier isn't taking into account the changes we've made post FER. That's why I said your ten times multiplier doesn't work anymore, because the conversation has already advanced.

tldr there was never a math error, I honestly thought he made a mistake. That's why I said:
>>64377001
>Wildly interesting, thanks for sharing this. It's amazing that they were so successful
Because I thought his original post was a mistake, but he didn't redact that preposition, so the number started to seem realistic. In your post, you said:
>>>64377024
>10% of standard effective wear from gas abrasion per shot means ten times as many shots
And what you meant to say is that "effective wear is reduced to only 10%", but instead what you're saying is that 10% of the wear from abrasion means ten times as many shots, which is referring to the preposition as if it were a typo. You reinforced the thing that I thought was a mistake, because you said "10% of effective wear" as if that was the reduction, and not the reduced amount, which is why I came back asking and reiterating what I thought was a mistake to begin with.
>>64377065
>What's cheaper, one plane flying a mission and dropping a couple guided munitions, or a battleship
But the advantage is:
>weeks-long deployment
So of course if you're throwing in crew and fuel costs around, then obviously the battleship, but I was talking about ship compared to ship, not ship compared to a quick raiding craft.

>>64375616
>submarine CSS Temu sinks moments later with all hands lost.
>PLAN marks it as a rounding error in the budget.

>>64377067
Hey come back, I want to know what school teaches fourth grade math but not fourth grade English.

>>64374347
Wreak havoc on op's bussy

Is it too much to ask for nuclear powered battleships with railguns who shoot pieces of metal the size of a small eastern european car so far that you need satelites to calculate the curvature of the earth to hit your target?
And i mean the kind of shot where you need to calculate the weather paterns in different timezones to hit your target.

>>64375965
Your asshole idea of the whole package is an impossible standard

>>64377188
To be honest, I'm not convinced by the value proposition of railguns vs high velocity chemical propellants.

>>64376981
No, because the fuel to range one long enough would always be too heavy. You'd detect it and negate it's advantage and they are trivially easy to spot and blow up. Then again the current chink and russian ones destroy themselves in transit when fired anyway.

>>64377112
Supersonic antiship missiles are in the thousands of MJ's.

>P-270 Moskit. Speed ~1000m/s. Weight 4500kg. Energy 2259 mega joules.

Kh-22 is 7000 megajoules in terminal dive. And then there's the one ton warhead on top of the kinetic energy

>>64377112
You understand the physics of why those are different, and have a general understanding of external ballistics?

>>64377070
>risk the pilots life
As opposed to risking thousands of sailors' lives.

>and million of dollars of jet
As opposed to tens of billions of dollars of ship.

>by flying close enough to drop bombs from a high observability plane in a peer conflict
An activity far, far safer than trying to sail a ship into gunfire range in a peer conflict.

>>64377073
Cool story, bro. Good luck trying to find a factory producing battleship-calibre gun barrels today.

>>64377081
>once both have been built that plane is extremely more expensive
AHAHAHAHA. No. Your idiotic battleship will cost more to operate than an entire strike wing. Comes with it being a gigantic flaoting fuel hog that requires hundreds to thousands of crew members. A whole-ass airbase is cheaper to run than your white elephant.

>>64377100
>A. fair point, but the sailors are protected by more onion layers
They're not, though. In fact, they're far more vulnerable, sitting in a far larger large, far slower target that needs to stay within enemy engagement range for far longer.

>B. debatable
What is not is that your shit boat is more expensive than a hundred planes.

>C. 155mm Excalibur shells outrange most glide bombs already
Incorrect.

>>64377112
And glide bombs can go farther than 40 miles. You may consider your concession duly accepted.

Also
>muh MJ
So what you're saying is your 16 in gun has only ~13 times the muzzle energy to try and push a shell 20-30 times the weight. Good job showing everyone that 155 outranges your shitty white elephant.

>>64377126
>But the advantage is:
That is not a meaningful advantage at all.

>but I was talking about ship compared to ship
In which case a DDG cna do the job just fine, for far less money again, and while also offering capabilities beyond, and far more important than just being a shore bombardement plattform. Because again_: Modern precision firepower beats your shitty old battleship for both effectiveness and cost.

>>64377213
I'm not sure why there's not more research or discussion on hybrid propulsion designs, seems like there's little reason to not also use chemical propellant behind a projectile also being propelled electromagnetically. It's not like you'd need more precise sensors for timing than you'd already need for a normal railgun

>>64374358
>how many of these "precision fires" can you ship across the ocean at one time
one of the biggest advantages of precision fire is you can do the same amount of damage with a much smaller logistical footprint just in terms of space a tonnage you need to move.

>>64377263
It's more like even when you break out all your ERFB tricks and fling shells at 5000fps like the Krupp K12, you're looking at a 130-140km range (which is optimistic because of how base bleed disproportionately benefits slow shells), which still doesn't help when help when some jerkoff captain in a Type 22 outranges you by 30-100km depending on version and real vs arms show pamphlet performance. It's still going to weigh like 200-250t and require a big ship to handle the recoil, and you still might have your sensors blinded by the blast which was a problem on the Iowas.

You want to go further, you start looking at ways to add thrust to the shell - ramjets, RAP, etc. But those turn your cheap shells, or still cheap guided shells into missiles with missile maintenance schedules. Or you could just put a cruise missile into a box launcher you can bolt onto a dinky hydrofoil patrol boat.

It's not like the US can't make forgings big enough for a modern major caliber gun; it's just that it becomes a pointless exercise to still have to get closer than what cruise missile have been doing for 40-50 years.

>>64373659 (OP)
>modern subsonic anti-ship missiles do not have enough kinetic energy to penetrate the armor of a WW2 era battleship

>>64374091
>You can't be tracked by a satellite 100 yards underwater

>>64377240
no but it is clear that a large caliber gun can outrange a glide bomb when a 155 can already match the furthest range of the best glide bomb dropped from the highest altitude

>>64377404
Well yeah, sattellites are known for being shit when they're underwater

>>64377404
Your own image admits satellites can't see shit past 200 meters. Current subs can do more than 4x that depth. Go fuck yourself surfacecuck

>>64377393
Missiles do not have to follow ballistic motion characteristics. Much of the old battlewagons armor schemes were based on good ole gravity

>>64377369
>your cheap shells
That's the thing though: There is no such thing as "cheap shells" when you try to engage even minimally hardened targets from significant distances. "Cheap" dumb shells AREN'T, because relying on them drives up your munitions consumption, barrel wear and all knock-on costs from those so much that "expensive" guided munitions will end up costing you less to get the job done.

>It's not like the US can't make forgings big enough for a modern major caliber gun
Well yes, but also no. The US could do it, but it'd be comically expensive and impractical because you will have to recreate the entire industrial branch essentially from nil again, and even outright redevelop a bunch of stuff the technical documentation for is long gone.

>>64377429
>but it is clear that a large caliber gun can outrange a glide bomb
No. Retard.

Why would missiles hit the belt armor and not the deck

>>64377065
>Also, using guided munitions is in general CHEAPER than trying to achieve the same effect by throwing enough dumb ordnance at it even just in terms of purely the munitions cost.
not in a world with effective laser defense with at 90% intercept rate. In that reality you need volume. And you're not getting that with $100m missiles

>>64377626
>No. Retard.
im sorry youre going to have to explain your reasoning on this

bigger guns shoot further

if you can shoot x amount from small gun you can shoot y amount from a larger gun

not understanding what the hold up is here, are you trolling?

>>64377646
Completely false. Volume of inaccurate shit will still be more expensive in that case because with it you need to get proportionally more past that 90% intercept rate to actually hit anything.

If you ain't getting the volume with missiles that take $100m to guarantee a hit, you ain't getting the volume with dukmb munition that will take several times that to guarantee a hit. In fact, larger scale makes guided munitions even MORE cost-efficient because all of the assorted systems costs scale far slower than when you have to increase massive volumes of unguided shit.

Wether you use 1 JDAM or 10 doesn't increase systems cost by much becuase you end up needing perhaps one more plane, or jsut a bit more fuel. Meanwhile, going from 100 dumb shells to a thousand means you need shitload more guns, more personnel, more transport, more spares etc.

>>64377666
>bigger guns shoot further
Incorrect. Try again.

>not understanding what the hold up is here
Well, yes. You don't. So why are you trying to speak on the matter as if you do understand it?

>>64377675
that is correct, a heavier projectile has more inertia at the same velocity as a light projectile

verifiable fact

what are you referencing? heavy slow mortars which are different conceptually?

>>64377692
>at the same velocity
And there's the assumption that makes an ass out of you.

>>64377778
I thought you may have some good info but you just want to be pedantic and nitpick. please feel free to contribute good arguments/knowledge in this thread at any time

>>64377562
>current subs can operate 800+ meter
Lol.
Lol.

Lol.

>>64377799
I am truly sorry that you think that pointing out basic facts that prove your wong is "pedantic nitpicking".

Not.

>please feel free to contribute good arguments/knowledge in this thread at any time
I'd ask you the same, but your behaviour so far has already proven you're completely incapable of ever doing such a thing.

>>64377825
> "the sun is out during the day"
> "NO THAT ISNT ALWAYS TRUE DUE TO ECLIPSES"
yeah... great job you got me...

>>64377672
If the tech gets to the point where only one or two ships can be sunk because the intercept rate is so high after blowing all your missiles then what should the navy do?

>>64377879
Low-observable missiles, hypersonic missiles, and torpedoes. Nuclear warheads optional.

>>64375726
Yeah, we were wondering what would be the naval equivalents to armatas and berkuts.

>>64377912
>Low-observable missiles
There's no optical camo. If these things are sea skimming anyway there's no reason why cameras can't see them when they come over the horizon
>hypersonic missiles
Sure but certainly not invulnerable and costs even more. A ballistic missile would give you a ton to time on target and a glide vehicle can't be launched from just anywhere.
> torpedoes
this I kind of agree with but their slow speed could make potential countermeasures highly effective

>>64373796
this lol, do you really expect ashbms to impact the armored belt?

>>64376939
Yes, it means modern (1980s) ammo wears on the barrels at 1/10th the rate of WW2 for the same charge of powder.

>>64376940
The US uses a 2nd gen descendent of an improved version of WW2 special treatment steel in its nuclear submarines. No one makes WW2 battleship grade armor anymore because it was superseded in 1950.

>>64377824
Okay I slightly misremembered the actual stats but nearly all can do 200+

>>64377945
Anywhere an F-18E/F can be is just about anywhere, assuming HACM happens.

>>64377997
Welllllll
To be fair....
Many of those particular subs -can- go to 800, some a bit greater than 800, but you're rapidly reducing the hull lifespan when you step so significantly outside the designed operational depths.

I would say a 40 year old seawolf's statistical test depth is no longer 450 meter, in the same way a 40 year old car engine no longer has the manufacture specified piston bore dimensions.

>>64378072
fair enough but there are plenty of ways to deal with planes I'm not sure if Hypersonic span would be the new meta in a laser defense world

>>64378087
Lasers aren't meant for hypersonics, lasers are to take care of more mundane threats so magazine depth doesn't have to be wasted on regular SAMs and you can instead shove in way more high performance interceptors

>>64377839
Nice strawman analogy. Now let me fix that for you:
>"bigger calibre must mean higher range"
>"NO SHUT UP ABOUT STUFF LIKE MUZZLE VELOCITY, ONLY CALIBRE MATTERS!"
Retard.

>>64377945
>muh cost even more
Again: "Expensive" precision munitions are actualy MORE cost-effective than "cheap" dumb munitions. High intercept rates do not change that reality, they further reinforce it. Any countermeasures that work against "expensive" precision muinitions will work even better against "cheap" dumb munitions. FFS we're wll past the point of such defense systems being able to figure out wether incoming fire is even worth engaging at all or will miss anyway.

>>64377879
Well, I can tell you what they shouldn't do: Try to go for big guns that would in such an environment just end up blowing all their shells and sinking absolutely nothing for it. And then get sunk themselves quite likely.

Big gun battleships are wholly obsolete - any imaginary scenario that doesn't entail the enemy EXACTLY playing along to what they want will see them outperformed by other assets, most of which will do it at a fraction the cost just to add insult to injury.

>>64373851
What OP is missing is that the reason sprey's of the sea might say we'll see a return of battle ships is
>Nuke plant onboard to power laserz
>Radar guided artillery shells and/or coilguns to shoot tungsten rods through things defended by laserz
>Battleship armor because other battleships with nuclear reactors and laser defenses are also throwing tungsten rods at you

But with that much naval buildup to fight drones/missiles/other neodreadnoughts most countries would rightly just start pissing mines into the ocean instead of trying to fight an unfightable super ship.

>>64377182
Raptor? I ‘ardly knew her!

>>64378248
They have somewhat of a point in that due to the inverse square law you get a more efficient ratio of tonnage to magazine depth with larger vessels, the only way it makes sense is if you're throwing at least 256 VLS cells with supplementary point defense systems in the thing

>>64377626
>>64377263
>Well yes, but also no. The US could do it, but it'd be comically expensive and impractical because you will have to recreate the entire industrial branch essentially from nil again, and even outright redevelop a bunch of stuff the technical documentation for is long gone.

Lehigh (Bethlehem successor) and Carpenter's Athens facility have radial forging machines of sufficient capacity.

>>64377646
>not in a world with effective laser defense with at 90% intercept rate. In that reality you need volume. And you're not getting that with $100m missiles
Knock it off with this retarded capeshit scenarios. You'd think we were back on some gay scifi debate forum arguing about whether the Federation could beat the SW Empire. That world doesn't exist.

>>64377626
I'm referring more to the contrast between a shell maybe with some base bleed, and a shell with rocket or ramjet assistance so it doesn't have to sit in AShM range for an hour closing to a point where it can actually employ its guns.

>>64374091
You have to come to the surface to resupply

>>64377404
So you paint it bright red

>>64373659 (OP)
>what is a shaped charge
Now you got me thinking about massive ERA on a modern battleship, fuck you OP

You faggots are only trying to make this happen because Orange Dumb Fuck said so. You know it is retarded, yet you persist.

>>64379346
Probably crossboarders from /pol/

>>64373850
>carrier sorties are too expensive
I laugh at you in American.

>>64378248
I will voluntarily pay more in taxes if they start making nuclear powered Super Iowas with massive coilgun turrets.

>>64379346
>>64379349
Fuck off, you obsessed seething faggots.

>>64379338
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG

>>64379346
Meds. Now.

>>64373659 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJK0jhymE5A

>And the dreadnoughts dread nothing at all

>A hull of steel and all big guns to serve the fleet
>Unrivalled firepower riding the waves to war
>A devastating blow will send their foes down below
>Fearless armada now bombarding their shore

>Light up the night when cannons roar
>In fear of nothing, they lead the navy into war!

>>64376545
>Ok, technically correct, but they also carry fucking explosives. What in the fuck is this retarded shit?
these ships are highly resistant to being attacked with mere HE munitions

>>64380066
To 500 pound bombs, perhaps. Protip: AshMs can carry far larger warheads than that.

>>64378388
Cool story, bro.

>>64373659 (OP)
>subsonic explosives don't have kinetic energy to punch through steel
Hence the armor piercing explosive warhead.

>>64373659 (OP)

Read a scifi book like 2 decades ago that had a hilarious answer to this from the attacker's side. They attacked them for several weeks with "probing" attacks that were actually just attacks with missiles built with different internals. They were built with less shielding than the real missiles, and had the vital components in a completely different area of the missile than their real missiles. They made sure some of them failed to explode once they got through so once analyzed by the defenders they would alter their defensive fire to specifically target the "brain" of the missiles to make it unable to detonate. Then they did their real attack. The area the defenders thought was the "brain" of the missile was now just a giant block of tungsten so their defensive lasers did nothing to stop them.

>>64379461
The only reason we're talking about it is because Trump made one of his verbal shitposts, and naturally people who are ignorant of the arguments surrounding BBs in the decades since the Iowa's were retired make the same uninformed capeshit argument and fantasy scenarios.

>>64373659 (OP)
>Air
>Missilea
>Lasers

You know the munitions most planes used to sink large vessels in WW2?
Torpedoes, which as far as I am aware are generally impervious to AA. Torpedoes can carry more explosives relative to their size, because of the lower fuel space. More importantly they can be carried by potentially very quiet diesel electric submarines. While the chinese have terrible submarine technology, this is still massive threat for a battleship. Think about this ship going back from repair or refueling as a part of a much smaller taskforce
It could very easily get picked off deep in home waters. This ship would not be the well rounded capital ship you think it is, it would end up a little less vulnerable than an aircraft carrier, only it could not launch aircraft.

>>64380066
>these ships are highly resistant to being attacked with mere HE munitions

>>64380066
>>64380593
>these ships are highly resistant to being attacked with mere HE munitions

>>64380066
>>64380593
>>64380604
>these ships are highly resistant to being attacked with mere HE munitions

>>64380066
>>64380593
>>64380604
>>64380621
>these ships are highly resistant to being attacked with mere HE munitions

>>64380066
>>64380593
>>64380604
>>64380621
>>64380627
>these ships are highly resistant to being attacked with mere HE munitions

>>64373659 (OP)
>Let's make ships big enough to be targeted by ICBM's!

>>64378396
>Knock it off with this retarded capeshit scenarios.
did you forget what the thread was about? Inability to engage with hypotheticals is peak indicator of retardation. How would you have felt if you didn't have breakfast this morning?

>>64380593
>tanked dozens of munitions specifically tailored to kill armored warships
>completely on her own with no DD screen and no air cover

>>64380604
>took 7500lbs of lucky munitions hits
>no air cover for the fleet
>Italians in charge of fighting
>Italians in charge of sailing

>>64380621
>bongs are retards and provide no air cover for a lone pair of old boats
>still takes 4 torpedoes and a bunch of bombs to sink her

>>64380627
See Yamato above

>>64380633
>most crew on leave
>varying states of work going on
>not at general quarters
>most bulkheads open
>most are refloated and go on to slap the japs

The moral of the story is don't sail your BBs around without escorting destroyers at the very least. Especially if you know the enemy is going to have airplanes around.

>>64373659 (OP)
>waters of chingchong under the supervision of dingdong
Fuck, that got me more than it should have

>>64382154
anon, it doesn't matter how many bombs they can soak up before sinking when the latter is inevitable.

>>64373659 (OP)
>Burgers have to invent fantasy scenarios to defeat China
Grim.

[spoiler]test[/spoiler]

>>64373659 (OP)
The fuck "kinetic force" is this talking about?
Missiles have explosive warheads, they explode on impact (or something) and don't really need to "penetrate", innit.
Anywho, why not just making a big ass javelin-style anti-ship missile that approaches on a ballistic trajectory and simply slams onto soft top of a "WW2 era battleship"?

OP sounds like boomercore foodlore.

>>64374732
>under keel torpedoes
Ain't hitting anything if they go under it, tho.

>>64383202
>fantasy

>>64380593
>>64380604
>>64380621
>>64380627
>>64380633
https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2011/03/14/what-does-it-take-to-sink-a-ship/
>Causes for sinkings were listed as follows (three were listed as disappeared, but I have corrected the figures based on information that was not available at the time of the printing):

>38 by torpedoes alone (41.3%)
>16 by suicide planes (17.4%)
>12 Bombs alone (13%)
>11 by gunfire alone (12%)
>6 by torpedoes and gunfire (6.5%)
>5 by mines (5.4%)
>4 by torpedoes and bombs (4.3%)
>1 by bombs finished off by gunfire (1.1%)

>As the ships get larger it becomes harder to sink them by gunfire alone. If we consider only the 23 larger major warships (Battleships, Carriers, Cruisers) lost, torpedoes were involved in sinking 17 (74%) including 100% of the battleships and fleet carriers. It is not reflected in the table but torpedoes were also involved in the sinking of all six battleships at Pearl Harbor.

>10 by torpedo alone (43.5%)
>4 by torpedo and gunfire (17.4%)
>3 by bombs and torpedoes (13%)
>3 by suicide plane (13%)
>2 by gunfire alone (8.7%)
>1 by bombs alone (4.3%)

>>64383447
lmao, its getting hit by TWO distinct missiles here
>*2*
the OP's image is so "/k/" its unreal
>"muh anti ship missiles wont work!!!"
the word *excocet* STILL makes bongs writhe and seethe, I cant even imagine the calamity a modern anti-ship missile would cause on a nato ship staffed with every flavor of brownoid earth offers

>>64384389
modern ships have structural steel and aluminium, not armor plate, modern ships are not even intended to meant to be resistant against kinetic attacks

>>64373727
>Hong Fong taking a bath in the engine room, essential oils for his hair routine

>>64377562
>You can't be tracked by a satellite 100 yards underwater
>OK you can be tracked by a satellite 100 yards underwater
>But you can't be tracked by a satellite much beyond 200 yards underwater!
>So there!
The goalposts are approaching crush depth

>>64373850
>a million carrier sorties are too expensive
Buddy, if you can't afford aircraft sorties you sure as shit can't afford to build, man, operate, and maintain a battleship just in case you need to eventually shell a beach.

>>64385497
>Buddy, if you can't afford aircraft sorties you sure as shit can't afford to build, man, operate, and maintain a battleship just in case you need to eventually shell a beach.

>>64385999
>heh, the UK can't even use catapults, they're so dumb
>NOOOO IT DOESN'T COUNT WHEN CHINA USES ELECTROMAGNETIC CATAPULTS IT ONLY COUNTS WHEN WE EVENTUALLY FIGURE OUT HOW TO USE IT

>>64379329
>cant see it from space when under water
>goes faster
I like your style.

>>64384050
>11 by gunfire alone (12%)
TWO
WORLD
WARS

>>64376918
>Modern automated factories
>For a gun barrel that will be used on a single digit number of ships

Lol.
Lmao even.
No offense man but you have no idea what a factory costs if you think it would be even slightly cost effective to build one for just massive gun barrels. Platforms as common as a javelin barely warrant more than a large room in an existing building for assembly.
>>64374579
They are not and you cannot. They're shockingly expensive actually, and as it turns out shooting 100x more in sequence into laser point defence doesn't actually do anything. You just get 100x the amount of ammo shot down and never hit anything. You get through this (hypothetical) laser system by saturating it simultaneously.

You know what's really good at that? VLS.

>>64384407
Why is it so difficult for battleship fags to imagine two things?
The first is that I don't need to sink your ship it make it useless. I just need to maul your sensors and you are now completely combat ineffective and off to port, where you will remain for the remainder of the war. This is what happened to virtually every battleship in the second world war which took fire but didn't sink.
The second is that modern anti-shipping missiles are optimized against modern targets. It will always be trivially easier to mount a larger warhead than it will be to increase the amount of armor on an entire ship. If you go and build a battleship that actually manages to resist modern missiles, everyone else will turn around and mount a slightly different warhead more optimized for dealing with armor, and resume being able to poke holes in your armor like it isn't even there.

>>64389613
People could also just hit you with two missiles. Or switch to more of a top attack profile. People act like 'may stand a better chance against a single AShM' means it's fucking invulnerable or something.

>>64377879
Ramming

>>64376322
>contractor in proper protective gear
>grunt just standing there inhaling the cancer

I'm going to chime in and say that requiring your enemy to field a huge anti-ship missile like a Granite is in of itself a victory as it makes them compromise their doctrine focused on other vessels.

That said this is not viable for any nation except perhaps the US. You could take the dozen battleship we have, put in modern modular nuclear reactors, rip out the propulsion system and replace it with a modern equivalent which would increase speed and reduce acoustic signature, tear off all the guns and replace them with VLS tubes or more modern point defense guns. And you would have a quite capable warship despite what the curators of these vessels say. However it is probably not worth making a modern arsenal ship of equivalent displacement.

As a bonus on the Iowas and South Dakota's which are "gold plaiters" you have a ship which can contain splitters and shrapnel because every deck and bulkhead is effectively a spliterdeck being made of munition A grade steel. These things could range out with the destroyers and frigates forming a very serious screen for the fleet. As well as potentially holding shittons of autonomous submersible vehicles, small catapult launched UVAs, sono buoys, and other shit for anti-sub patrols. And with the unique hullform of the Iowa and South Dakotas you could fill their void spaces with various materials which would both retard the effectiveness of EFP munitions and still displace water even when flooded which would make them nigh-unsinkable. If the enemy is dedicated half his firepower to your pseudo-battleship then he isn't shooting at the rest of the fleet.

Once again I don't think this justifies laying down new hulls, but if you could make a package to reactivate the Iowas, Dakotas, and Carolinas I could see it being worth it.

>>64373659 (OP)
>much like bringing back dinosaurs would wreck havoc on our biomes
Unless you remember the aforementioned anti-ship missiles.

>>64376982
>be so successful that you have to change measuring units to keep track of your success

>>64374324
You need bigger holes. At least something like 2 feet in diameter that could get a tire stuck in.

>>64375616
You do realize that a armored deck acts as a secondary keel letting the ship continue

>>64376915
USA NUMBAH ONE!

>120,000 ton BBN with three quad mounted 64 MJ railguns and a 5 MW OTH radar array and more missile defenses than all of Israel combined
I wish we lived in a timeline where battleships weren't useless.

>>64393744
>>64393734
>dents vs destruction with red mist
Oh ling ling

>>64393767
One thing that makes it even more bleak, that a lot of people miss, is that practically every argument for using a railgun can be applied to just dropping inert munitions from an aircraft. You get very similar results with a tiny terminal acceleration rocket motor + gravity at a fraction of the cost.

>>64393786
While I agree with you that aircraft are more practical, if building a 64 MJ railgun with acceptable barrel life were feasible, it would certainly have a role and it would get used. A lot of points made by the BBshills are true, they're just not enough justification to spend tens of billions of dollars developing a new class of capital ship with many of the vulnerabilities of a carrier and few of the capabilities.

>>64393040
>That said this is not viable for any nation except perhaps the US
This is simultaneously the reason people want to go back to battleships and the reason so many more think it'd be fucking stupid to do so. The US could get away with it because the closest to a peer they'll ever potentially fight (in the foreseeable future) is china, so it makes some sense to assume that most naval engagements or shore bombardment missions will be a one-sided beatdown and to optimize for it, but as soon as something capable of fighting back enters the equation it'll become too risky to use the battleships and they'll just end up sitting in reserve soaking up resources that could've gone towards other assets.

>>64373850
They will probably come back as basically giant floating artillery pieces used almost exclusively for shore bombardment. Giant artillery shells are way cheaper than rockets with a similar payload and don't require air superiority to use, like bombs dropped from aircraft.

>>64394672
Giant floating artillery pieces would be a massive liability for any country that doesn't have enough naval assets to adequately defend them (meaning every country other than the US) and not useful for the US since they'll always have air superiority anyway and they put a heavy emphasis on minimizing collateral damage, which means precision guided munitions are preferable to giant artillery shells.

>>64373870
Because unless the US is invading Canada or Mexico we are gonna have to get there via the sea. Sure, you could try to drop troops and equipment off in a neighboring country, but then they are gonna know exactly where and when you are coming. Shore bombardments followed by marine invasion gives you a very small window where you have the upper hand. Just look at what happened to Germany trying to defend the entirety of the European coastline.

>>64383202
>Be PLA infantry in 20XX
>Be defending island airbase in the South China Sea from American MEU onslaught
>Iwo Jima type beat
>Getting obliterated by F-35B/Cs
>Major says PLAAF fighter cover inbound
>Look up
>Heavy strike platform
>Die

Maybe relevant to this discussion, but I just learned that Kirov class Arsenal Ships just got revived by the Russians.

So we are back with Reagan-era Cold War shit and Battleships will go back just out of spite...

>>64395052
Pyotr Velikiy has always been in service. The other two have been scrapped for good.

>>64395204
>The other two have been scrapped for good.

Nakhimov was just recommissioned 2 months ago and went modernization process with Hypersonics. So yeah, I expect the US to match it similar to Cold War. They are better off making a new Battleships at this point from scratch than recommission the Iowas.

I'd argue that the amount of money we spent for Zumwalts and Littoral for both research, design and manufacturing could easily get us multiple modern battleships but that's for another topic...