Battleships are never coming back... are they?:(
>>61580075Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
Peak warship aesthetics, glad that some became museums instead of going to the scrapyard.
>>61580075No, they're obsolete. You don't ask when ironclads, steamboats, and sailing ships are combined back do you?
>>61580075They're long gone unfortunately. They will make a resurgence once we begin to conquer the stars.
>>61580075>Battleships are never coming back... are they?Not, almost definitely not. You can theorycraft a nuclear coilgun design that might make sense in the current and near future combat environments, but it'd cost hundreds of billions in R&D for limited use and nobody is going to do that vs a thousand other projects. US frankly lacks the shipbuilding capacity. And the window for that will probably close in decades to come.So yeah, it's ded. Appreciate them as cool history and have fun imagining "What If" but don't expect anything again.
>>61580141>ironclads, steamboats, and sailing shipsGive it one large disruption to global logistics and a few thousand years to build back.
I could see a dedicated anti drone ship becoming big. Like one covered in 30mm cannons
>>6158055330mm cannons seem like an odd choice for that role. They're pretty big if the goal is to engage tiny drones, they have shitty range if the goal is to engage anything larger. What's the role you envision that for? Some kind of anti-drone escort? Multiple smaller ships with smaller guns would do that role a lot better.
>>61580105What are some of your favorite museums?I have always been fond of the USS South Dakota. For a land locked state it's a pretty cool memorial.
>>61580075Will aircraft carriers ever go obsolete?
>>61580141that's where you're wrong. I ask every day when will sail ships return.
>>61581260They already have.
>>61581260Even with increased range of aircraft the need for response time will still be a hot requirement. Even if a craft can cross the Pacific and return back home I would still rather have it stationed off the coast it's heading to bomb if possible.Even when oceans are gone they will go full on deserts of kharak with land carriers as they do have specific advantages over stationary airfields which would be worth an investment in them.
>>61581260not unless we invent some way to re-arm planes midair.
>>61581260As we get more familiar with drone warfare and missile interception I forsee the US going away from using huge platforms like carriers as force projection and moving to smaller drone/vtol platforms that need less manpower. Maybe delegate larger carriers to act as true floating logistics hubs in the center of large oceans with larger aircraft capable of troop logistics. Basically turn the frontlines/near shore duty into the drone zone while the squishy meatbags sit on big janny barges in the middle of the ocean.
>>61581337balloons
Anyone else get to see the Texas while she was in drydock?
>>61581356The navy operates fleets. They already got that shit. Someone smarter than you or I has it figured out with frigate VLS screens and subs way before someone hits the carrier, and the carrier sending out fuck-you waves of other standoff weapons.>but it is operated by enlisted men
>>61580075Space battleships/battlecarriers maybe
>>61580075A battleship should have a continuous thick belt of armor around its waterline. No modern warship will ever have this. Hence, no they're not coming back.
>>61580075The closest we might see is railguns but even those are going to be shorter range than missiles and be able to engage less target types so they could be DoA.
>>61580075Take heart!
>>61584530>yes let's have an underwater, unarmored path directly to our engines running the length of our ship
>>61581260So long as expeditionary deployment of aircraft is needed, carriers will stay in some shape or form.
>>61580075Light nuclear powered "battleships" armed with railguns, lasers, and 200+ VLS cells. Take it or leave it. A hypothetical future battleship would likely be centered around air defense rather than ship to ship combat or land bombardment, considering the doctrines of the countries that are interested in large surface combatants and the way that the capabilities of other naval and shore weapons shape the battlefield. Anything over 30,000 tons would be impractical and a waste that concentrates too many resources in a single target. They also wouldn't have anything close to resembling traditional battleship armor schemes. Realistically, anything that would come close to being classified as a battleship would sooner be officially designated a cruiser or destroyer.
>>61580618it still pains me she was never saved to be a musuem ship, at least some of her sister ships were able to become musuem ships
>>61584530>all gun terrets etc. rounded off to avoid direct hitsImagine casting an entire battleship turret...
>>61580141>you don't ask whenThose other ships only became obsolete because they replaced each other as more effective ships so they would never make a comeback. Battleships are obsolete for other reasons. Once air defense systems make missiles and drones combat ineffective larger ships could make a comeback.
>>61580075a battleship is simply a battle ship of the line making any major fleet combatants like guided missile destroyers a battleship. huff this copium and you'll manage
Vgh, what could have been...
>>61580141I don't think that analogy works considering the Battleship is better than all of them.
>>61584525What is wrong with All or nothing armor?
>>61584746Even on ships that use all or nothing armor schemes like the Iowas, the belt armor is more extensive than you might think and in that case they protect all of the vital mechanical spaces and most of the buoyant area of the ship. You're still right though, decent design/compartmentalization and good damage/flooding control should mitigate the impact of waterline/below waterline hits and a lot of underwater area doesn't need super heavy armor.
>>61580141>No, they're obsolete. You don't ask when ironclads, steamboats, and sailing ships are combined back do you?All three of those are modes of propulsion, and have nothing to do with the basic characteristics of a battleship. A battleship defined by either doctrinal terms or physical terms that are relative to other contemporary ships. Also, steam propulsion literally never disappeared. Naval nuclear power uses steam and gas turbine engines for warships only became a common thing in the late 20th Century. >>61584694A battleship needs to be bigger and better armed/armored than average and capable of serving as a command ship. Neither of these two conditions are particularly hard either though.
>>61584807>All three of those are modes of propulsionFuck, meant two of them. Regardless, as for ironclads, those included a wide variety of different ship sizes and types, including battleships. The physical characteristics of battleships are relative to the existing technology of the time period, no one would say an Iowa isn't a battleship just because pre-dreads were significantly lighter and had a different design philosophy, or vice versa.
