User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/9/2019 10:55:44 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course. They would be one of the only US Navy warships able to perform an actual necessary job. Frigates and Destroyers and Cruisers are nothing more than jobs programs for Naval Officers and ship builders. They do nothing in this modern world other than costing us money. The same could probably be said for submarines as well. But Battleships? They very much have a job: they can obliterate anything within twenty or thirty miles of a coastline, and if designed correctly do it with almost perfect safety from anything south of a nuclear weapon. You could park one in Shanghai harbor and they still wouldn't be able to hurt the thing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2019 10:57:40 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You do realize what modern weapons can do to even very thick steel right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Of course. They would be one of the only US Navy warships able to perform an actual necessary job. Frigates and Destroyers and Cruisers are nothing more than jobs programs for Naval Officers and ship builders. They do nothing in this modern world other than costing us money. The same could probably be said for submarines as well. But Battleships? They very much have a job: they can obliterate anything within twenty or thirty miles of a coastline, and if designed correctly do it with almost perfect safety from anything south of a nuclear weapon. You could park one in Shanghai harbor and they still wouldn't be able to hurt the thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2019 11:00:20 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What would they do? I say build more autonomous bombers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2019 11:02:50 PM EDT
[#4]
If it's fire support, forget 9 16 inch guns. Missouri sized with 36 G6 52 caliber howitzers
in automated turrets firing VLAP rounds to 65-70 Km, with about 100 VLS cells for GMLRS and another 40-50 for ATACMS. Triple hull of three 6 inch layers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2019 11:19:50 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You do realize what modern weapons can do to even very thick steel right? Further, remember that anything that could potentially take out a battleship would easily kill anything else in the Navy. A potential vulnerability is only interesting if it is a UNIQUE potential vulnerability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2019 11:23:38 PM EDT
[#6]
I vote for having a colonial marine ship that can nuke the place from orbit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2019 11:28:24 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think so, yes. A modern battleship could be designed to withstand repeated strikes from any modern conventional weapon system. Not without damage for casualties, but without sinking. And all while carrying a mixed weapons loadout that would threaten anything (air, sea, or land) within hundreds or even thousands of miles. What non-nuclear weapon, exactly, do you envision taking out a modern Battleship? And who do you see employing it against us? Further, remember that anything that could potentially take out a battleship would easily kill anything else in the Navy. A potential vulnerability is only interesting if it is a UNIQUE potential vulnerability. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: You do realize what modern weapons can do to even very thick steel right? Further, remember that anything that could potentially take out a battleship would easily kill anything else in the Navy. A potential vulnerability is only interesting if it is a UNIQUE potential vulnerability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2019 11:29:20 PM EDT
[#8]
needs more STOVL BBs.
and jointness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2019 11:40:31 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think so, yes. A modern battleship could be designed to withstand repeated strikes from any modern conventional weapon system. Not without damage for casualties, but without sinking. And all while carrying a mixed weapons loadout that would threaten anything (air, sea, or land) within hundreds or even thousands of miles. What non-nuclear weapon, exactly, do you envision taking out a modern Battleship? And who do you see employing it against us? Further, remember that anything that could potentially take out a battleship would easily kill anything else in the Navy. A potential vulnerability is only interesting if it is a UNIQUE potential vulnerability. Also you don't necessarily have to sink a battleship to make it worthless in short order... gun turrets are vulnerable and easily knocked out with lighter weapons for example. Hell, even the Bismarck was doomed by a single torpedo to the rudders from a rickety biplane. With the kind of precision fire we can achieve these days a massively armored ( and therefore slow) ship would be that much easier to take out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2019 11:53:28 PM EDT
[#10]
No, because sailors are gay.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2019 11:58:09 PM EDT
[#11]
Build another Iowa.
I have one in world of warships blitz and it is fun to play. I do get my ass handed to me by some torpedoes though... ETA: build a Montana class...cause we should have never cancelled it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 12:02:58 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Our high-end bunker-busters can penetrate over 200 ft of 5000PSI concrete. Virtually any floatable thickness of steel is just a tin can vs something like that. Also you don't necessarily have to sink a battleship to make it worthless in short order... gun turrets are vulnerable and easily knocked out with lighter weapons for example. Hell, even the Bismarck was doomed by a single torpedo to the rudders from a rickety biplane. With the kind of precision fire we can achieve these days a massively armored ( and therefore slow) ship would be that much easier to take out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I think so, yes. A modern battleship could be designed to withstand repeated strikes from any modern conventional weapon system. Not without damage for casualties, but without sinking. And all while carrying a mixed weapons loadout that would threaten anything (air, sea, or land) within hundreds or even thousands of miles. What non-nuclear weapon, exactly, do you envision taking out a modern Battleship? And who do you see employing it against us? Further, remember that anything that could potentially take out a battleship would easily kill anything else in the Navy. A potential vulnerability is only interesting if it is a UNIQUE potential vulnerability. Also you don't necessarily have to sink a battleship to make it worthless in short order... gun turrets are vulnerable and easily knocked out with lighter weapons for example. Hell, even the Bismarck was doomed by a single torpedo to the rudders from a rickety biplane. With the kind of precision fire we can achieve these days a massively armored ( and therefore slow) ship would be that much easier to take out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 12:04:16 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So how does your logic apply to carriers and other surface ships? Clearly they're way easier to damage by a BB, don't even need a high end bunker buster. A battleship can’t. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 12:09:34 AM EDT
[#14]
Build a battleship with the biggest badass guns that fit and the latest whizzing rockets or Phalanx AAA systems. Sail her to a bunch of coastal cities and have her live fire some salvos at exploding buoys for the crowds to ooh and aah!
Fly a couple drones overhead and let the AAA rip them to shreds. Charge extra for people to be onboard in safe areas to witness the firepower up close and personal. Put on a show grand show! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 12:12:01 AM EDT
[#15]
Battleships were all about toting big guns and being heavily armored enough to go toe to toe with anything our enemies could float in the ocean.
While they're awesome ships and I admit it'd be nice to have them still in service in at least a ceremonial capacity, weapons technology has advanced to the point that battleships in the mold of the BBs are very obsolete and would not do very much or last very long in a full scale Naval conflict. Enemy subs would sink them. Enemy missiles would turn them into flaming canoes. Their range and firepower is no match for a guided missile cruiser. They're as obsolete as horse cavalry. They could serve a ceremonial purpose. But for a high operating cost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 12:13:41 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Carriers can maintain air superiority. A battleship can't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So how does your logic apply to carriers and other surface ships? Clearly they're way easier to damage by a BB, don't even need a high end bunker buster. A battleship can't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 12:15:28 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Battleships were all about toting big guns and being heavily armored enough to go toe to toe with anything our enemies could float in the ocean. While they're awesome ships and I admit it'd be nice to have them still in service in at least a ceremonial capacity, weapons technology has advanced to the point that battleships in the mold of the BBs are very obsolete and would not do very much or last very long in a full scale Naval conflict. Enemy subs would sink them. Enemy missiles would turn them into flaming canoes. Their range and firepower is no match for a guided missile cruiser. They're as obsolete as horse cavalry. They could serve a ceremonial purpose. But for a high operating cost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 12:24:57 AM EDT
[#18]
Hello, subs? Yeah, it's battleships. You win, bye.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 12:26:48 AM EDT
[#19]
Build battleships?
Hell yeah. SPACE Battleships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 12:45:37 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Build battleships? Hell yeah. SPACE Battleships. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 1:01:02 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
50,000 ton gun warships are obsolete. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 1:05:51 AM EDT
[#22]
After we pay off the debt, we can build a fleet of battleships to show off to the world. Show other countries that we can build expensive obsolete battleships. Not because they're needed. Just because we can.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 1:27:47 AM EDT
[#23]
How many cruise missles can you build for the price of a BB?
We have carriers to impress the yokels with. Build cruise missles to drop on problems needing some boom. That and drop shit from orbital platforms when orbital mechanics allows some armed platform to be where it needs to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 1:30:20 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hello, subs? Yeah, it's battleships. You win, bye. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 1:34:04 AM EDT
[#25]
No, but we should build Battlestars... or star destroyers...
Even base stars.. And i want to see them slug it out.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 2:16:04 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exocet |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 2:22:51 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Our high-end bunker-busters can penetrate over 200 ft of 5000PSI concrete. Virtually any floatable thickness of steel is just a tin can vs something like that. Also you don't necessarily have to sink a battleship to make it worthless in short order... gun turrets are vulnerable and easily knocked out with lighter weapons for example. Hell, even the Bismarck was doomed by a single torpedo to the rudders from a rickety biplane. With the kind of precision fire we can achieve these days a massively armored ( and therefore slow) ship would be that much easier to take out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 2:27:07 AM EDT
[#28]
I'd rather just use that political capital to Nuke north Korea, Iran & Yemen
then buy everyone a coke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 2:28:43 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The view from the bridge yesterday. Hell No. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/318955/IMG_4137_JPG-974644.jpg  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 6:36:29 AM EDT
[#30]
So here’s the thing about BBs:
Those big guns are now only useful in the Naval Surface Fire Support role. While you can credibly argue that guns will give you a greater volume of fire for less money (but remember the Zumwalts!) than VLS cells, you’re going to have to get awfully close to the enemy coast to be in gun range. This means that you can expect to be inside enemy missile range for a long time before you can engage the enemy with those guns. So you’ll need an Burke escort, or provide your own air defense. If you’ll be proving your own air defense, you’ll need a big radar, preferably mounted high, and lots of VLS cells. Space, weight, volume, cost. It’s not that the same ASCMs and ASBMs that threaten other surface ships are different in the threat that they pose to the BB, it’s that you have to either smash together a Burke and an Iowa, or your BB requires an escort, like your carriers and amphibs- and all for one very specific mission that is difficult to execute, that other platforms can address. It’s just easier to have a bunch of DDGs with some VLS cells filled with long range surface strike missiles, to use naval aviation, and even some of the more out there LCS-Fire Support concepts than it is to have the BB. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 6:45:43 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
On a spectrum between build more battleships and all surface combatants are obsolete we are far closer to the latter than the former. If/when we get into a conflict with a near-peer power our surface fleet is going to be held to stand off distances by cruise, ballistic, and hypersonic weapons that render it largely irrelevant. What we need is a Columbia class variant purpose built for carrying a few hundred cruise missiles to replace the out going Ohio class SSGNs. We'll name them Whittemore Class, because they are gonna be capable of taking on A LOT of enemies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 6:48:47 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hello, subs? Yeah, it's battleships. You win, bye. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 7:22:32 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
needs more STOVL BBs. and jointness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 7:35:43 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't forget solar power and zero net waste. Berths for the special needs sailors. And a sun deck for tanning. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
needs more STOVL BBs. and jointness. Nuclear powered, Male only |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 7:47:21 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
On a spectrum between build more battleships and all surface combatants are obsolete we are far closer to the latter than the former. If/when we get into a conflict with a near-peer power our surface fleet is going to be held to stand off distances by cruise, ballistic, and hypersonic weapons that render it largely irrelevant. What we need is a Columbia class variant purpose built for carrying a few hundred cruise missiles to replace the out going Ohio class SSGNs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 7:48:07 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I vote for having a colonial marine ship that can nuke the place from orbit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 7:54:58 AM EDT
[#37]
Carrier groups and subs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 7:59:52 AM EDT
[#38]
Y'all are thinking all wrong.
No more battleships. No range, are outdated and can easily be destroyed from air. Now a submersible railgun battleship with air asset launching capabilities as well, now that's something that would piss in the cornflakes of any country with a coastline. The bureaucrats and DoD are just salivating at the R&D and cost overruns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 8:01:28 AM EDT
[#39]
Building battleships would be worth it if you could make them like that Russian super-cavitating torpedo thing. So if the battleship could ride on a cushion of its own hot expanding gases and just use little fins that make contact with the surrounding water to stabilize and guide it and then push the whole ship with Saturn 5 rocket engines so it could cruise around at a couple of hundred miles per hour, that would be worth it. But it needs to be big. Really big. Bigger than the biggest jap's Musashi. It's gotta take the record. Make it at least 900 feet long and 90,000 tons. It'd be so damn loud and big it would kill everything in the ocean it thundered past, leaving a trail of dead whales and dolphins in it's wake. Talk about projecting American power...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 8:03:06 AM EDT
[#40]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 8:19:21 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Carrier groups and subs. 
Did you read the OP? Under my plan we're getting 20 CVNs, 300 SW2EBs and 100 Whittemore class subs |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 8:20:47 AM EDT
[#42]
50% of the Earth's population lives within 50 miles of an ocean. The battleship is still a very effective weapon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 8:22:48 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Y'all are thinking all wrong. No more battleships. No range, are outdated and can easily be destroyed from air. Now a submersible railgun battleship with air asset launching capabilities as well, now that's something that would piss in the cornflakes of any country with a coastline. The bureaucrats and DoD are just salivating at the R&D and cost overruns. https://www.businessinsider.com/navy-submarine-drone-2012-01 And this  Bluefin Robotics AUVs Conduct Simulated Missions with a Bluefin-21 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 9:26:35 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Building battleships would be worth it if you could make them like that Russian super-cavitating torpedo thing. So if the battleship could ride on a cushion of its own hot expanding gases and just use little fins that make contact with the surrounding water to stabilize and guide it and then push the whole ship with Saturn 5 rocket engines so it could cruise around at a couple of hundred miles per hour, that would be worth it. But it needs to be big. Really big. Bigger than the biggest jap's Musashi. It's gotta take the record. Make it at least 900 feet long and 90,000 tons. It'd be so damn loud and big it would kill everything in the ocean it thundered past, leaving a trail of dead whales and dolphins in it's wake. Talk about projecting American power... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 9:29:50 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Building battleships would be worth it if you could make them like that Russian super-cavitating torpedo thing. So if the battleship could ride on a cushion of its own hot expanding gases and just use little fins that make contact with the surrounding water to stabilize and guide it and then push the whole ship with Saturn 5 rocket engines so it could cruise around at a couple of hundred miles per hour, that would be worth it. But it needs to be big. Really big. Bigger than the biggest jap's Musashi. It's gotta take the record. Make it at least 900 feet long and 90,000 tons. It'd be so damn loud and big it would kill everything in the ocean it thundered past, leaving a trail of dead whales and dolphins in it's wake. Talk about projecting American power... Quoted: The way you think--I like it. Monstrous, ridiculous and completely over the top |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 9:35:52 AM EDT
[#46]
Heavy cruisers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 9:38:59 AM EDT
[#47]
If any of you get to Wilmington, NC, the NC is worth the tour.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 10:15:37 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you kidding? That probably wouldn't punch the DECK armor of even a WWII era battleship like the New Jersey, let alone the belt armor of a theoretical 21st century design. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Exocet |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 10:15:38 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you read the OP? Under my plan we're getting 20 CVNs, 300 SW2EBs and 100 Whittemore class subs |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 10:22:03 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, I'm sure I'm going to ragret this. But what is a Whittemore class supposed to be? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Did you read the OP? Under my plan we're getting 20 CVNs, 300 SW2EBs and 100 Whittemore class subs So I mentioned we'd have Seawolf 2s. Another guy mentioned the Ohio class SSGNs are old and need replacing. I agreed. I'm naming it the Whittemore Class because it's one boat (guy) fucking our enemy's shit up by himself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Whittemore http://www.badassoftheweek.com/whittemore.html Whittemore, by himself, with no backup, positioned himself behind a stone wall, waited in ambush, and then single-handedly engaged the entire British 47th Regiment of Foot with nothing more than his musket and the pure liquid anger coursing through his veins. His ambush had been successful – by this time this guy popped up like a decrepitly old rifle-toting jack-in-the-box, the British troops were pretty much on top of him. He fired off his musket at point-blank range, busting the nearest guy so hard it nearly blew his red coat into the next dimension. Now, when you're using a firearm that takes 20 seconds to reload, it's kind of hard to go all Leonard Funk on a platoon of enemy infantry, but damn it if Whittemore wasn't going to try. With a company of Brits bearing down in him, he quick-drew his twin flintlock pistols and popped a couple of locks on them (caps hadn't been invented yet, though I think the analogy still works pretty fucking well), busting another two Limeys a matching set of new assholes. Then he unsheathed the ornate French sword, and this 80-year-old madman stood his ground in hand-to-hand against a couple dozen trained soldiers, each of which was probably a quarter of his age. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
