What's the point of battleships in 2025?
What's the point of tanks in 1945?
>>64669641Anon, that isn't the argument being made.The thing in the picture you posted can't cross fields protected by machine guns like a tank.Both battleships and planes project large amounts of HE great distances, but planes undeniably do it much better.
>>64669638They can shoot fishing boats without using drones, like cowards.
>>64669638It's not a line of battle ship. It's a hybrid AA cruiser (los laser anti-missile defense) and fast-monitor (railgun) with a nuclear reactor to power the bitch up.
>>64669651It's the same argument. The reason why battleships were considered "obsolete" is because of carrier borne aircraft countering them. This was further pushed by the bomber mafia, who argued that ALL naval ships were obsolete due to nukes. They tried to prove this at Operation Crossroads, but got disproven and buried it quietly.The battleship's main use case as a naval artillery platform never went away.>but artillery is useless! we have missiles!Interesting. Why do gunships like the AC-130 exist then? Why don't they just use missiles?
>>64669695Nigga, the AC130J is now all missiles.
>>64669695>The battleship's main use case as a naval artillery platformSee OP's pic retarded BBnigger, even 16 inch guns are weak assed shit.
>>64669703>one variant means artillery is obsolete!>>64669708>I don't know what sustained bombardment is! I think sorties grow on trees!
>>64669712>the newest variant>that made the others before it obsolteIt retains the 105 like the B52 retained the tail gun for a bit, but it's a bomb truck now.
>>64669695It absolutely is not. Battleships were considered obsolete because everything they could do, the aircraft carrier could objectively do better.>muh naval artilleryLiterally done better by carrier aircraft and/or smaller plattforms than a battleship.
>>64669712>I don't know what sustained bombardment is! I think sorties grow on trees!Do not google the barrel life of the Iowa's guns.
>>64669712Yes, yes, per-shot cost is higher, very perceptive anon. It also means that you don't have to get within fucking artillery range of a hostile shoreline, and that's generally a very desirable trait to have.
>>64669712>muh sustained bombardementLiterally obsolete in the age of the PGM. Also done better by smaller platforms with smaller guns, while any target requiring battleship caliber guns is one better taken care of by aircraft.The battleship has objectively been obsolete for over 80 years, and it will never come back into relevance. Cope and seethe more about it.
>>64669695>because of carrier borne aircraft countering themthat is not the reason, it did play a role but was not the main reason, what really made BBs obsolete was the other roles they were supposed to play such as shore bombardment or escort duties other shipt types were able to do as effectively while being far cheaper both in terms of monetary and resource costs, its why pretty much all knowledge and infrastructure to build traditional bbs has faded since there was nothing they could offer despite multiple attempts at modernization
>>64669638it's for nations that cannot afford aircraft carriers. US is such a nation. F/A-XX and further Fords cancelled.
>>64669757>its why pretty much all knowledge and infrastructure to build traditional bbs has faded since there was nothing they could offer despite multiple attempts at modernizationSo has how to build a rocket to go to the Moon, guess they're obsolete too.Or maybe the fading of institutional knowledge isn't a good argument because knowledge goes away when people die or retire. Either one.
>>64669729Nobody said "carriers have no use case". And shore bombardment is perfectly acceptable once anti-ship threats have been dealt with.Or has AA made airplanes obsolete as well? After all, can't possibly risk putting planes into range of AA! So many things counter other things, it's best we just give up.
>>64669791No other nation even has an aircraft carrier. Our marine launching ships are as big as half the runner ups.
>>64669791It's really funny how much the trump class and basednips have scared the outright piss outta the chinks.
>>64669798except a rocket still has usage for going to said moon, meanwhile nobody can figure out a roll a bb can play that another ship type can't do as effectively while being far cheaper
>>64669802Navy doctrine prescribes any offensive fires to carriers. all other ships are just there to protect the carriers.
>>64669811Which is why having a nuclear powered floating laser AA battery is a good idea.
>>64669638You dont understand: Americas boomerocracy operates on the notion that "thing exist my time = gud thing."Battleships were around during their youth. So now they're going senile thinking that it is still good
>>64669802Planes don't get double-to-triple digit figures of people killed when they get hit. That matters to how the US conducts its naval operations.
>>64669836lies.Taiwan is within China's A2/AD and the US Navy will have to sail there.
The "battleship" will just be a super-Tico/Burke. USN can't staff enough ships for the distributed firepower scheme they want but need more VLS cells, so bigger ships it is. The railgun and laser will just be auxiliary meme features that probably get cancelled or will see minimal use.
>>64669798What even is your point there? You're not even trying to deny the reality of the battleships obsolescence anymore, you're just being butthurt about it.>>64669802>And shore bombardment is perfectly acceptable once anti-ship threats have been dealt with.Except at that point any old destroyer can roll up and do it with its 5-incher and modern FCS, without you having to spend aircraft carrier budget levels for an exclusive plattform for that single niche.>Or has AA made airplanes obsolete as well?AA has not usurped all of the airplanes roles the way other plattforms usurped all of the battleships' roles. So, no.>>64669808The fuck even is this delusion? If at all, the PLAN must be laughing their asses of watching Trump and Hegsie plan to cripple the US Navy for next couple decades,>>64669816Well that's a bit of an argument for a missile cruiser, sure. What does it have to do with obsolete concepts like the battleship?
>>64669850no, ddgx was that. ddgx was cancelled in favor of bbg.https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4366952/trump-announces-new-class-of-battleship/>The new Trump-class battleships will replace the Navy's previous plans to develop a new class of destroyer, the DDG(X).
>>64669847How does a plane with 1-2 crew get hundreds of crew killed if it gets hit? Gotta explain that to me, BBtard.>Taiwan is within China's A2/ADOkay, and?
>>64669847What kind of malformed argument is your brown mind even trying to conjure up? "Oh, the US is going to have to run convoys to Taiwan, therefore it should invest in big gun warships to protect against missile strikes"? I said>planes going down kills less people than warships getting hit>the Navy likes not getting people killedAnd you ran off on some tangent about Taiwan. Your thought process is not following here, please spell it out like a functional person.
>>64669864>>64669888in most wargames US loses their forward deployed carriers while defending Taiwan. those are not 1-2 deaths.https://www.csis.org/analysis/first-battle-next-war-wargaming-chinese-invasion-taiwan>While the approach outlined above represents a sound Chinese approach, the results were mixed.>Chinese submarines inflicted some attrition on U.S. naval forces, though the large expanse to be>patrolled, the prevalence of diesel boats in the Chinese fleet, and anti-submarine operations by the>United States and Japan generally limited damage. More potent were Chinese long-range missile>strikes and massed missiles strikes, which almost always succeeded in overcoming U.S. naval defenses.>Typically, the United States lost both forward-deployed carriers within the first turn or two.
>>64669908Yes, I said AIRCRAFT, not CARRIERS. The point of CARRIERS is that they can stay the fuck back out of the way. Forward deployments directly undermine the key strength of carriers, and there is a reason why every single one of those wargames includes a strong recommendation to never, ever forward deploy carriers in an attempt to intimidate China.
>>64669908Who the fuck greentexts like this? You're either a bot, a chink, or a brown. Either way, kill yourself.
>>64669914you cannot generate the necessary sorties to keep the invasion force away if you don't forward deploy your carriers
>>64669924Doesn't need to be kept off the beaches, it just needs to lose a couple boats every trip. Go back and actually read those wargame reports. The problem China has isn't getting there, it's that they have to get there over and over and over again for months on end.
>>64669708Well that and planes dropping bombs are far more accurate than a bombardment with naval guns.
>>64669686Your shipment of drugs is not coming in Pablo
>>64669638Looking really fucking cool. Any BBs they build need to be covered in patriotic artwork. Carvings, bas reliefs, plaques, and a massive big titty figurehead at the bow and at every gun turret. They should be floating works of art that convey the nation's wealth and splendor and to flex on the poors that can't build BBs.
>>64669638There is no point because the line of battle no longer exists. Battleships are ships of the battle line.
>>64669712>I don't know what sustained bombardment is!This is a cope for thirdies that can't hit their target the first time.
>>64669805>No other nation even has an aircraft carrierVous américains stupides ne vivez pas dans la réalité
>>64669638Diverting public attention from a certain other subject.
>>64671298Vous vous me pous pous me nigou
>>64669651NEITHER CAN YOUR WEAK ASS BATTLESHIP FAGGOT
>>64671298Le what? I dont speak homo.
>>64669638If it has insane point defense capabilities like nuclear power and huge rapid fire lasers, it could be a powerful escort.Read my write up ideas here and weigh in:>>64672493>>64672533
>>64671298>1 real CVI'll give you Frogs this, you're the only other country to not rely on cope fuel and slopes. Shame it has the same readiness as the average French worker
