>>64980195
>>can withstand 16 inch cannon fire, doesn't give a fuck about drones hitting it
missiles and shape charges will punch right through it
>>can lay down instant and brutal fire on anyone who pops up within 25 miles
innacturate bombardment, not useful against speed boats or a coastline full of civilians you are trying to get on your side
>>doesn't matter if it gets hit anyway, it's obsolete
tell that to the crew

>doesn't matter if it gets hit anyway, it's obsolete

If anything sinks in the shallow parts of the strait then it's game over. And antique coffin designed to tank shells is probably the worst thing you can use because modern munitions will fuck it up and it risks becoming a major navigation hazard whose protection will make it a bitch to deal with.

Now if only we had a class of ship DESGINED to take on small torpedo boats and other hazards, a 'destroyer' if you will.

File: 1750860798871134.gif (146 KB, 400x225)

146 KB GIF

>>64980195

>>64980210
>Now if only we had a class of ship DESGINED to take on small torpedo boats and other hazards, a 'destroyer' if you will.
nah that's stupid, we need anti-speedboat speedboats

>>64980195
>thing that got fucked by squads of WW2 era aircraft is somehow supposed to withstand drones or other types of dedicated anti ship weapons
>the type of shells it fires aren't even made anymore so can't even use its main guns
>general infrastucture to support them in war is also gone so you are wasting fuel for nothing

>>64980195
Gets cracked by a mine or torpedo. Ruinously expensive to restore to readiness (the Iowas were already a nightmare in the 80s).

>>64980195
> Take a WW2 battleship
That’s why it wouldn’t work

>>64980369
Has Iran used torpedos on anything yet?

OKAY, take this, the ESB Chesty Puller, take most of the shit off the deck and load it up with Surveyor drone launchers and APKWS II launchers(containerized VAMPIRE) and maintain a fleet of acoustic sound detecting drones for early warning and turn the entire compartmentalized platform into a drone hunting fortress.

>>64980195
My understanding is that the old steam turbines are rusted solid and it's easier to build a new boat than get them running again.

OKAY get this, why not have the UAE use some of their slave labor to build a few FLAK towers along the coast and load them up with powerful radars and AI-powered turret machine guns to shoot down drones as they fly by?

I suppose they could press the old Iowa or Missouri into service, but that would require a true SHTF scenario that imo could only be caused by complete nuclear armageddon which isn't gonna happen from this war alone, and even then it would probably take months or years even just to start its engines again. It would be kino but its just not gonna happen.

And if saturation bombardment was the goal here, why not just carpet bomb with a B-52 or something anyways? It's not like the US is lacking in air superiority right now.

>>64980195
Well, for starters? There are no battleships in mothballs anymore.

>>64980195
>>>can withstand 16 inch cannon fire,
The navy doesn't say cannon.

File: bb62-drydock-00-1.jpg (179 KB, 2000x1165)

179 KB JPG

>>64980660
Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, and Wisconsin are all preserved museum ships still under contract by the Navy. The engines, depending on which one you're talking about, are either packed with Cosmoline, or a combination of fuel oil and grease. If you can come up with roughly $2B per hull for a year-long dry-dock refit, another $1B for armaments and ammunition, maybe two years and $100M to train up 3,000 officers and crew and another massive operating budgets to keep it operational, you'd be good to go. All that expense it why those bad-girls were decommissioned in the first place, but it's theoretically possible.

This guy is boring as hell, but the channel does a pretty good job talking about New Jersey, and some about the other ships in the class.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biIl574Tyqo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI_6nUwnb2g

>>64980195
USS Missouri unironically did this the first time chinkshit started flying around the Persian Gulf, but she was old and tired 30 years ago and in practice Iraqi Silkworms had the same range as her guns. Let her rest, and consider instead laying steel for the best possible 40,000+ ton nuclear-powered successor while the midwits in charge are still demanding new "battleships".

File: uss-constitution-009.jpg (171 KB, 1200x800)

171 KB JPG

>>64980896
>the navy doesn't say cannon

If you weren't a niggerfag, you'd recall the USS Constitution is still a fully commissioned, operational and crewed US Navy man of war and every single one of her muzzle-loading, smoothbore, blackpower guns were and still are cannon (the non-replicas on it still fire).

File: Well.jpg (25 KB, 321x322)

25 KB JPG

>>64980920
I wonder if you could fund such a project by replacing every inch of pre-atomic steel for sale/stockpile on these ships. I've read that the steel is quite valuable these days.

>>64980265
We need frikin sharks with frikin laser beams attached to their heads.

File: image-w1280.jpg (52 KB, 1280x720)

52 KB JPG

>>64980265

File: file.png (818 KB, 1271x748)

818 KB PNG

>>64980265
we need the ring

>>64980607
only on their foreign relations

>>64980195
Battleships are incredibly expensive to maintain and operate, and generally useless against peer opponents. Reactivating the Iowas in particular is a problem because the only people who still know how any of the shit works are a handful of museum curators, and as for modernizing them or building a new class, well, the Navy can't even get a frigate built, much less a $20B Goatfuckerslayer 3000.

>>64980206
AShMs are usually HE frag warheads and rely on kinetic energy to punch through the hull and only use the warhead to cause damage inside. A battleship would actually do pretty well against all but the largest AShMs, while the threat here is mostly from relatively tiny missiles.

>>64981052
> I've read that the steel is quite valuable these days.
It’s not. And it hasn’t been for quite a while.

>>64981205
not him

In principle, I agree with you. Battleships today are a non-starter for a bunch of reasons. Couple things, tho. Full-on battleships were never about peer surface combat. Since Dreadnaught, that class has always been about power projection. The only engagement they really performed to spec was when Oldendorf crossed the T at Surigao Strait. Bismarck wasn't really a battleship (and Kerr was just as stupid as Jellicoe had been in the first War) and Jutland was a shitshow. Our British friends will talk shit about HMS Prince of Wales, King George V and Rodney doing for Bismarck, but the truth it was a flight of bullshit biplanes and scuttling charges that put it on the bottom. Secondly, our Naval engineers and officers may not be able to buy a bag of groceries without spending $20K, but they can all read. And the Iowas are well documented ships. It wouldn't take a bunch of geriatrics showing anybody how to operate those vessels. It would be quicker, but it wouldn't be a requirement. They could sort that out themselves. Those ships were still sailing in 1991. They aren't equipped with stone-age equipment that nobody can figure out without a Rosetta Stone. As for your comments about the frigate fiasco, yes. You are dead right about that stupid shit and the whole idea of a new battleship class is shit-stupid.

>>64980206
>"Shape" charges
Shaped charges. Learn how to war junior

>>64981205
>AShMs are usually HE frag warheads
This is cope. Designing a shaped charge warhead to replace it is a trivial engineering challenge even thirdies can do nowadays.

>>64981519
>Put shaped charge on
>Punch small hole
>Lmao
Okay cool bro. Lemme know when you come up with a way to punch a full caliber hole through the ship. Why do I get the feeling youre from some irrelevant country?

>>64981548
>full caliber hole
Are you retarded? The entire point of shaped charges (HEAT, e.g.) is focused energy and spalling. I'm not that low-rentoid you were slobbering at, but your argument is fucking embarrassing.

>>64981519
I'm not sure you understand how battleships work. Even if you punch through the armor with a plasma jet from a shape charge, all you've done is damage the void space immediately behind the armor. Unless you got an insanely accurate hit on the turret it's not gonna do anything.

>>64981581
A teeny plasma jet is deadly in the confined space of a tank. We're talking about 30,000 ton warship. It's not even a pin prick.

>>64981519
It's not worth it, any country that has a chance in hell of sinking a battleship has multi-ton armor-piercing missiles like Oniks or HY-6 (or nukes) already. Trying to poke a tiny hole with a tiny warhead like on a YJ-7 is a waste of time.

File: ENRI9f_WkAAC0mY.jpg (84 KB, 569x760)

84 KB JPG

The HEAT warheads of anti-ship missiles are designed to efficiently destroy bulkheads and exacerbate flooding. The tip of the warhead has a shape similar to that of high-drag aerial bombs to prevent excessive penetration.

>>64980195
OP has an enormous dick.

>>64981281
>Bismarck wasn't really a battleship
What are you talking about?

>>64981592
Okay, midwit. You gave away the game. You have absolutely no idea how duplex penetrators work. Find the nearest school bus and just get on.

>>64981689
Depends on the missile in question, some of them legitimately are just giant ATGM's in design.

>>64980920
>The engines, depending on which one you're talking about, are either packed with Cosmoline, or a combination of fuel oil and grease
Their engines are completely and utterly fucked. Back in the 80's they were already worn to shit and back, after they got mothballed they are only going to deteriorate more.

>>64981786
Really? Faggoty 15in guns and you're gonna say Bismarck and Tirpitz were the real deal in 1940's surface warfare? This the hill you're gonna die on today?

>>64981820
>utterly fucked

You have absolutely, utterly zero evidence of that claim. The turbines were never damaged and the bronze bearings/mains are literally easily restored. Those ships were seaworthy as fuck and the only reason they got decommissioned was they were expensive as shit to operate, required a massive screening force during deployment (also expensive) and delivered approximately zero percent of the power projection the carrier tasks forces do. There is nothing mechanically wrong with those vessels' power plants as they sit, midwit, other than it would be stupid to light those boilers again.

>>64981801
>Muh duplex
What does your poor fag house have to do with anything?
Sorry your tiny 10mm hole isn't gonna sink a battleship btw

>>64981865
I feel sorry for you right now. It's hard for some people to grasp complex things like math.

>>64980265
The future of warfare is men on speedboats launching drones from tubes

>>64981845
1940's turbines aren't designed to be used and sitting around for almost 100 fucking years.
People onboard them in the 80's talked about how they're fucked up.

>>64981904
I know it's hard for home schooled people to understand, but it really is true that well-engineered shit can last for a long time, provided it's not damaged and well taken care of. It's almost like a P38 taken off a Nazi could be just fine in 2026. Dumbass.

You don't need ships at all, just led MQ-9 Reapers circle above and fire at everything suspicious, Boats,USVs, guys wirh rockets...

>>64980195
>Take a WW2 battleship or 2 out of mothballs and bring it to the strait of Hormuz
Because the few of them that are left "floating" are
>80-90 year old damage-control nightmares in museum condition
>vulnerable to anti-ship missiles
>stripped of electronics, which vary between "obsolete" and "laughable garbage that would make a Russian piss himself giggling". Christ only knows what condition the electrics and hydraulics are in
>have tragically outdated crew facilities (you thought the Ford was bad.. hodamn
>Have hugely wasteful and specialized manning requirements that will take years to train crew into
>The replacement gun barrels got made into bunkerbusters over the last 20-odd years
>There are no remaining shells in inventory. Getting production back online would take nearly as much effort as designing a new missile from scratch
And that's ignoring hull condition. The Shitty Kitty and Constellation were literally falling apart when they went to the cutters (Connie has a patched rust hole almost 30 feet wide on her starboard bow, for example), and the JFK wasn't far behind. Partly because of that whole precommissioning fire thing. 90 years of saltwater exposure is a HELL of a thing. The turbines could be fine, could be garbage, but we'd need to get them degreased, shaken down, and fired back up to find out. We do still have the facilities to fabricate new parts, but that's a big risk for an old albatross.
I get it, they're sexy, but they're also too much of a pain in the ass.

>>64981038
I beg your pardon, she also had carronades

>>64981052
They were exposed to radiation, because they're on top of the water instead of under it. And occasionally observing the nuke tests. Lower-background isn't necessarily low-background.

Didn't bother reading the thread, and I usually dunk on battleshipfags, but they'd probably be completely fine. Not sure how useful they'd be, but they'd be reasonably safe as part of a surface action group.

Ballistic missile and fast AShM defence is provided by other ships anyway, and they were already outfitted with CIWS during the '84 refit. Supposedly they also had marine Stinger crews onboard, which are not as good as RIMs, but are serviceable I guess.

The key thing that makes me take a more generous view than normal is that Iran isn't in a position to develop and field anything with a shaped charge big enough to worry a BB that's fast enough to get through CIWS and 5 inch gunfire. In the long term, battleships are a stupid prospect because developing such a weapon is much easier and cheaper than protecting battleships from it, but in the shorter term Iran has no answer.

Now there are three big problems:
1. What is a BB supposed to do in the strait that isn't already being done better by smaller ships and aircraft?
2. Refurbing them to put to sea is not fast or cheap, nor is working up a crew.
3. The USN doesn't exactly have the spare bodies for Iowas, which require 1560 to 2787 crew, at the moment.

>>64982001
I think OP's idea is just to tow it to the middle of the Strait and dare Iran to send all of their USV drones at it.

>>64982036
OP is a faggot.

>>64980195
>superstructure
>larger missiles

Reagan era recommissioning plans would work to economize on precision cruise missiles, using extended range shells ... but you'd have to defend it in that much more hazardous standoff compared to the carriers. If you were doing completely shitbrained bullshit like landing marines on Kharg Island anyways, it would be great.

>>64980195
even if they were still in mothball (they aren't, they're pure museum ships now), their aren't enough sailors or even veterans young enough who know how to actually operate equipment like that left to crew them

I like the idea of activating battleships to pull off Operation Ten-Go 2026. For the glory of the navy!

>>64982064
>doing completely shitbrained bullshit
Have I got news for you

>>64981990

Comparing paper-thin carrier hulls to belted-armor battleship hulls is too retarded to do anything with but laugh at.

>carronades
Drill down one more layer in wikipedia, dumbass. You're nowhere near as smart as you think you are, twink.

>>64980265
what a retard

>>64982283
>Comparing paper-thin carrier hulls to belted-armor battleship hulls
US super carriers have 6" belt and 3" decks. They aren't exactly paper thin but that's classified.

>>64981786
they were heavy cruisers masquerading as treaty battleships

an armored missile cruiser would actually be useful
think Virginia class for the 21st century, 40000 tons, 6-8 inches of deck and belt armor, 12 inch citadel, anti-spall lining, VLS out the wazoo, 2x2 5in dual purpose guns, CIWS, laser on top of the superstructure where it belongs, helicopter hangar, drone catapults, torpedo tubes to launch UUVs out of etc etc

>>64980265
You mean some kind if speedboat eliminating ship? One might say a speedboat destroyer.

>>64982437
the iowas are actually just battlecruisers because their main armor belt is not strong enough to withstand their main guns

>>64980195
>Why wouldn't this work?
Because you're a retard

>>64982487
Yamato, oh my Yamato...

>>64980265
Hunter-killer USVs?
Like the ones we saw in the black sea with stingers on its back

>>64982437
On what fucking planet is the Bismarck a treaty battleship?
To say nothing of the fact that Germany wasn’t a party to Washington or London.

>>64982517
it's ostensibly designed to fight treaty battleships

>>64980195
You’re just hoping to see what a battleship canon does to a T-72.

>>64982487
>actually just battlecruisers because their main armor belt is not strong enough to withstand their main guns
Is that the definition of a battlecruiser?
That they can dish it out but not take it?

>>64983143
>dish it out but can't take it
Also: (2)
1) as implied by "cruiser," they're large enough for long-range independent operation or to help top-off smaller ships.
2) their guns outrange destroyer-class guns, so in theory cruisers should always get in the first punch against destroyers.

>>64983143
traditional battleships are armored against their own guns, which in naval terms means there is an envelope of ranges where their armor can cope with either direct or plunging hits from their own guns, which will be roughly equivalent to the guns of their contemporary peers from other nations.

The idea of battlecruisers is to have a ship with battleship guns, but less armor and more emphasis on speed, so that it can just bully everything that is not a battleship.

This distinction made sense in the early 20th century because engines were just not strong enough to push heavy armor around. A battleship could make around 15-20 knots, a 'fast battleship' could make around 20-25. In this kind of atmosphere a ship with huge guns able to make 30 knots was a very significant thing and so the battlecruiser idea, to sacrifice armor for speed, was created.

By the mid 20th century propulsion tech was better and battleships could start going fast.

The iowas were initially armored against 16 inch guns, but a super heavy shell was developed that increased its power by the time they were actually completed, meaning they were no longer sufficiently armored against equivalent guns that they had.
Further, while the iowas were planned and designed as battleships, speed was a more prominent consideration in their design than in traditional battleships since they were made to escort the aircraft carriers and so needed to be able to make 30knots.

The fact that this did undoubtedly cause them to shave a little weight off the armor, and that by the time they were actually in service their guns were way stronger than their armor, is my case for why they are battlecruisers and not battleships. This is purely to have a contrarian meme to talk about but i dont think my rationale is wrong.

>>64983487
>12" belt
Iowa is a battle cruiser.

File: bruhmo azur fdg battleshi(...).png (819 KB, 813x1262)

819 KB PNG

>>64983487
the way to tell battleship from battlecruiser is by BMI, >666 = BB, <666 = BC

File: 1773748838584407m.jpg (166 KB, 874x1024)

166 KB JPG

>>64980211
everybody who likes bobs burges should be put in a concentration camp
everybody who is involved in the making of it should be clubbed to death like a baby seal
even people who do marketing or the broadcasting should be thrown into a wood chipper. alive.

>>64985232
and the world would be a much better place afterwards

>>64982437
>they were heavy cruisers masquerading as treaty battleships
How the everloving fuck is a 50 thousand ton battleship with 8 15 inch guns, and a full secondary battery of 6 inch guns, a 'heavy cruiser'???

>>64985268
he confused her with Prinz Eugen, easy mistake desu

>>64983487
>This is purely to have a contrarian meme to talk about
Glad you finally admitted it

>>64985354
i can be memeing on the square.
The iowa is a battleship by custom. Its like how porn is 'i know it when i see it', and any attempt to technically define it is just going to be an approximation that will inevitably lable some art porn and some porn art.
Iowa could also have been a battlecruiser by custom as the conventions that were/are in use to define what separates one ship class from another could also fit it.
Im happy to just call a battleship a battleship, but its a very battlecruiserish battleship in my view for the reasons ive listed

>>64980195
>16 inch cannon fire
the bursting charge of a 16 inch round was like 150lbs. the penetration of a hellfire is more than the armor on a battleship and the roma was sunk by a single radio guided bomb, which broke it in half. there's a reason no one uses battleships anymore.

why do we keep having these retard threads.

>>64981135
sensiblechuckle.jpg

>>64981519
>>64981548
BROACH is already a thing.

>>64981583
A plasma jet sounds like a bad thing to intersect with an ammunition magazine.

>>64980195
You guys ever seen that WW1 movie where the protag, a German soldier on leave from the trenches has a conversation with a bunch of old German war vets from a previous war, and the old guys go, "What's with all this trench warfare nonsense, there's nothing a good old cavalry charge couldn't handle!" and the protag just kinda nods his head and humors them? That's what OP reminds me of.

I haven't seen that movie in over a decade, I don't even remember the name. I wish I could rewatch it. The protag was an artist and did sketches in his little notebook, does anyone remember what I'm talking about?

>>64981052
To expand on what anon >>64981264 said, the atmospheric nuclear test ban dropped the anomaly (to paraphrase Wikipedia) from 0.11 mSv/a (4%) above the natural 2.40 mSv a year, to only 0.005 mSv/a in 2008. And that's 18 years ago.
Considering cosmic radiation from space is 60 times greater (~0.3 mSv/a) and it has decayed even further since, it's basically zero.

>>64981060
You mean dolphins with sonic weaponry

>>64985430
Sounds like All Quiet on the Western Front to me.

>>64980206
>>>can withstand 16 inch cannon fire, doesn't give a fuck about drones hitting it
>missiles and shape charges will p- Iran is poor.
>>>can lay down instant and brutal fire on anyone who pops up within 25 miles
>innacturate bombardment, not useful against speed boats or a coastline full of civi- what civilians, what side, who cares?
>>>doesn't matter if it gets hit anyway, it's obsolete
>Chatbot in an erector set body

Your move

post above has ligma

>>64981205
I have the gunery training manual for the Iowas and several punch cards worth of instructions. I can make the firing card solution set IF someone can plot the firing arc.

>>64985501
Yes, that's exactly what it was! Thanks anon

>>64985511
Who's Steve Jobs?

>>64980195
>16 inch
For a while and only if it hits the belt armor
>drones
They are not going to hit the the belt armor.

>>64981904
Not only is that not true, they had been making parts the whole time. There are enough unused parts in existence to make a few engines. They are two buildings over from me and I go through there to talk to the engineers. Some bins of parts are used for stress and model testing still.

Heavily armored battleships lost against coastal artillery in Gallipoli, 111 years ago. Do you want a reenactment of this?

>>64981052
We no longer have the machinery needed to make armor like a battleship needed, you would need to create a bunch of domestic industry to replace any armored sections on battleships.

>>64985670
There are no replacement parts for the Iowas. Lmao.

>>64985702
The coastal artillery did dick. It was the torpedoes and seamines that sunk the ships. The ships that were lost were also predreadnoughts not exactly the most heavily armored or modern battleships. OP is retarded enough without making shit up.

>>64985702
Drøbak Sound as well

File: 73lufb.jpg (111 KB, 853x1000)

111 KB JPG

>>64985232

File: Le_Terrible_NH_81774.jpg (204 KB, 1920x925)

204 KB JPG

>>64982458
>>64980210

Just give up man.
If it's not about enlisting or undergoing trans surgery, /k/ won't care.
Yes, torpedo boats were countered by torpedo boat destroyer boats, and later the two classes merged into one, with the small (actaully pretty fucking huge) frames and added torpedo tubes.
In fact, the French naval doctrine which recognized how increasingly obsolote traditional vessels were becoming compared to mobile aircraft launching pads, had the right idea about focusing everything they had on speed-to make themselves as mobile a target as possible.

Now does the destroyer have a tranny dick and does it post on Reddit? No it doesn't so /k/ won't care.

File: 301543cd-46ef-446d-9a11-9(...).jpg (28 KB, 541x307)

28 KB JPG

>>64981071
hell yeah, brutha

File: fd bowie.jpg (262 KB, 1536x1024)

262 KB JPG

>>64981954
Imagine the Kunetsov's engines. They fire btw, that is not the issue lol.

how would you conceive a modern battleship?

>>64986088
I'd fuck a MILF one.

>>64986094
Its GILF at this stage anon.

>>64980206
what crew? the guys operating the thing remotely? what do i tell them?

>>64985796
>posts Le Fantasque class
Do you by any chance have the flow diagram of the Fantasque powerplant? I remember seeing it either here or in /wowsg/ back in the day, and I've been looking for it ever since because I wasn't smart enough to save it.

>>64986088
Nuclear powered, heavily armored, packs only big railguns and directed energy weapons.

>>64985514
Didn't they replace all of that shit with digital fire control computers during the modernization?

>>64986088
>over 70,000 tons
>hydrofoils
>nuclear powered
>spaced and composite armor
>no helicopter hanger

>>64987710
I think One modernization left them paralell systems and then they were mothballed in place.
However I was wrong, the paper cards I have are apparently created as the gun fires giving a firing solution physical readout to compare with the orders. Also used in training shore batteries.

File: IMG_20260319_190431942.jpg (1.04 MB, 1742x2323)

1.04 MB JPG

>>64987710
I want to find it but I don't want to dig into my wall of surplus lol. At least it's not in the pallet of surplus, half that shit falls when I take the netting off.
It's not a collection out of control, it's all for sale on ebay. I like nuke stuff but you have to buy auction lots to get like a couple things.

>>64986088
>348000 t
>nukes for 1.4 mshp
>L/B ratio of 12.5 (built like a pencil)
>the SPEED
>11" keel armour (fuck your "keelbreaker torps")
>horde of anti-missile defence systems
>no offensive missiles
>mix of 20" and 15" guns

>>64987336
>Jury rigging a whole ww2 era warship with not a single bit of electronics in it with remote control systems
At that point it'd just be cheaper to build a Trump class and make it into a giant drone ship instead.

>>64985203
>that thicc
Damn no wonder she loves chocolate lovin

>we're going to put the most armored, heavily, bada*s, motherfricken BATTLESHIP to soak up Shaheds and missiles *sunglasses emoji*
>Iran proceeds to ignore it and targets the soft skinned tankers as it always does.

>>64988395
>Sir, the postman's here. A package of ... uh "16 INCH HIGH EXPLOSIVE SHELLS" has arrived addressed to one "MR AYATOLLAH KHAMENEI"

>>64980195
One of the things people don't seem to understand about market forces, especially in regards to military equipment, is that being old is not what makes something cheap, economy of scale is what makes something cheap. The more of it you make, and the longer you make it, the cheaper something gets. The moment you stop making parts or building new ones of something, it begins to get more and more expensive over time as parts and qualified labor with practical experience become increasingly rare.

There's no reason it wouldn't 'work', its just prohibitively expensive, impractical, wasteful and obsolete. Yes, you can use a battleship as a gun wagon for modern munitions, the Iowas have already been modernized once. The problem is that anything it can accomplish can be better done by some combination of aircraft carriers, smaller support ships and submarines, so we don't do it.

File: hormuz battleship towing (...).png (82 KB, 2218x818)

82 KB PNG

>>64980195
better idea OP
we WILL get the tankers to 28 knots

>>64980195
modern carriers are basically unsinkable they are just super expensive to fix

if this conflict goes on any further they should just design non nuclear carriers that are the same hull just none of the modern advances

carriers are spaceships queens meant to operate in the middle of the pacific not up and dirty 10 yards from the shore

to be fair, given the absence of any apparent exit strategy or way to 'declare victory and go home', we probably have plenty of time to bring as many battleships back online with fully trained crews as we want to send there

File: kamikaze hit against brit(...).jpg (133 KB, 1024x737)

133 KB JPG

>>64980195
This is one of the few, if only scenarios where an armored gun armed battleship would work in the modern day.

It probably would work well, most anti ship missiles and drone are designed with ships having no armor, the belt and deck armor would easily withstand it. Unless these militias were able to pull a massive anti ship missile like Shipwreck out their ass they would not be very effective, assuming the missiles/drones even make it past the CIWS.

But good luck getting one out of mothballs, fixed up and modernized. Would be a process that would take a few years at minimum. The only ones available are the Iowa's, and they have been have been stricken from the Navy Registry in 1999, and stopped being maintained with the thought of reactivation in mind.

File: uss texas drydock.jpg (424 KB, 2560x1920)

424 KB JPG

>>64981990
>>64982283
Ions have invaded their keelsons by this point, critically weakening STS and marine-grade steel by this time. \
Those alloying elements still haven't found all the ion spots, which are now filled with other ions and have spongiformed their structure in ways that intersect with the most even of carbon distributions regardless of alloying or working since 1940.
>Game Over
>it's over
They weren't even made to last, when they were built pre-Fast BB times, they were coming out the yards faster than new versions of iPhone and Gangsteraxy, even in Korea.
They are temporary steels at best with very li8ttle expectation of lasting >20 years when built.
The US BBs last a long time? It's not exactly 'quality', and even Japan does't exactly get it.

>>64980210
>Now if only we had a class of ship DESGINED to take on small torpedo boats and other hazards

Maybe a ship that we could specifically build to fight in littoral waters. Like a littoral combat ship. I wonder why noone has thought of that.

>>64980195
>EAGLE SIX THIS IS THE USS MISSOURI WE NEED TARGET COORDINATES TO PROVIDE ACCURATE FIRE SUPPORT

Screw carnival cruises. You know we could find enough people who'd pay good money for a two week cruise on the strait. Just less gambling and dancing, the same amount of drinking and more firing the guns at iranians. Better than disneyworld.

>>65002914
>Just less gambling
I don't know about that, seems like warfare is the biggest gamble of all.

>>64999590
Wisconsin was kept in mothballs iirc until 2012. The guy who runs the New Jersey museum has even answered "could the battleships be fired up again" and the answer is yes, but they'd need to be drydocked to remove the covers on the water intakes, and their navy contract says they can't fuck around with some things like the turbines, reduction gear.
I think a lot of the equipment would still work, e.g. the museum guys have been surprised before that NJ's radar can still spin, the anchor capstan, there's a vid of USS Iowa spinning her rear turret around.

>>65002914
hell yeah

>>65003158
Interesting, didn't know that was the case. Still would take a bit of time for it to be reactivated though, and do stuff like sourcing replacement parts