Would Iran have any weapon that could kill them?I don't think a slow drone can do anything against a battleship.
>>65007645ignore the battleshipnigger, let him talk to himself
You already did this >>64980195
>>65007645suicide drone boats and torpedos could heavily damage them. Torpedo defenses aren't as hardy as defenses against incoming shells on BBs.
>>65007645Single semi-modern torpedo would sink it, as they detonate underneath the hull rather than hitting it directly.
>>65008270This. Battleships are obsolete designs.
>>65007645I'm the guy designing a 350,000 ton battleship (battlecruiser) for the modern era>could some weapon kill ityes, whether WW2 or modern>does Iran have itdoubtful, you need a big cannon or big missile to do that, and the missile still runs the risk of being intercepted en route>slow droneassuming it hit, it could blow up radars and sensors and etc, but no serious damage. It's also not likely to hit because they're so easy to intercept that even a WW2 battleship with a bunch of dudes firing machine guns will probably down it.>>65008270nopekeel-shots are nothing new, the Germans did it in WW2 and while it'll fuck the hell out of a 1200 ton destroyer it's unlikely to do more than flood a few voidspaces on a big battleship. On my design, even less, as the keel is a double hull backed by 11" of steel. (mainly needed for structural reasons, as torpedo defence alone you're generally better off with a traditional spacious double or triple bottom)>>65008181Torpedoes, sure, but drone boats? You realise how many secondary guns the USS Missouri in OP's pic has for blowing up torpedo boats before they get close, right?
>>65008378uboats are still boats anon.
>>65008378>Torpedoes, sure, but drone boats? Anti-torpedo torpedoes must already be a thing, right? How come I never hear about those? Is it just decoys or is there some hard kill system out there?
>>65008378>350,000 ton battleship
>>65007645ASM are magnum XXXXL HEAT and will easy blow through over 3ft of steel, with corresponding molten metal spray besides that.Its like a knight in armor vs 30.06.
>>65009651This is incorrect, it was discussed in the other battleship thread.
>>65009651lol no
>>65008530>anti-torpedo bulgesThose were designed to blunt the effects of a torpedo directly striking the ship's hull. Modern torpedoes work differently, they detonate underneath the ship, not in direct contact with the hull. The explosion forms a gas bubble which makes the ship's keel break under its own weight. That said they would be effective against surface drones.>>65009651Explosively formed penetrators could easily blow through the armor on a BB, no questions asked. However, penetration alone doesn't mean much. Battleships are much bigger than a tank, simply poking a small hole doesn't do you any good, you need either big holes below the waterline to create flooding, a lucky hit that penetrates to the magazines, or something that's big enough to cause major structural damage.
>>65009683>REEEE we already PROVED that WRONG last thread!>Ummm no I can't bother to explain it or provide any proof Nice fanfic, the iowa would get one shot by a harpoon. Next idiot pls.
>>65009692One hit to the magazine and it's done, son.
>>65007645As a rule of thumb, if a weapon can't kill the LCS, it definitely can't kill the Iowas.
>>65009695Antiship missiles are usually blast-fragmentation rather than HEAT, and when they have shaped charges like HEAT, the shaped charges are aimed around the periphery of the missile to cause maximum internal damage after penetrating. AShMs don't use HEAT penetrators because ships are very large with redundant systems and don't put anything important up against the outer hull. Poking a hole in a tank and shooting a jet of plasma into it kills everyone inside, poking a hole in a ship and shooting a jet of plasma into it maybe kills half a dozen people if you're lucky and doesn't do anything to its ability to fight back.
>>65007645What function would you have the battleship do though? I doubt it'll contribute anything significant compared to the current air campaign. Maybe have it patrol the straits to guard the tankers and cargo ships? Seems like a waste.
>>65009704If something as stable as C4 was the propellant, would the jet from an EFP detonate it? Serious question, since people coomed rations in Vietnam with chunks of it.
>>65009768They use nitrocellulose based propellant, it would absolutely explode if you could reach it with a plasma jet.
>>65009722Wow so that will stop the magazine from detonating when the missile plunges down through the deck and superstructure?
>>65009790No, but which missile are we talking about that can penetrate a total of 8-10" of armor plate with spaces in between? Not anything Iran still has operational.
>>65009803Wow the superstructure is 10" of hardened steel?
>>65009692>>>65009651 (You)>Explosively formed penetrators could easily blow through the armor on a BB, no questions asked. However, penetration alone doesn't mean much. Battleships are much bigger than a tank, simply poking a small hole doesn't do you any good, you need either big holes below the waterline to create flooding, a lucky hit that penetrates to the magazines, or something that's big enough to cause major structural damage.ASM likely accurate enough to target vital areas like mags, or bridge.Not much that isn't vital under the armor, and it wasn't designed to take HEAT blasts, but I guess maybe retro-fit with lots of asbestos padding or WTF.
>>65009816Do you think the magazines are in the superstructure?
>>65009692>anti-torpedo bulgesInteresting insight I hadn't thought of, but I'm asking about the state of an aquatic Patriot equivalent.
>>65009838And indicated by red paint. All ships need a glaring weak point to be exploited, else war wouldn't be fair.
>>65008378>350,000 tons>700,000,000 pound battleshipOh how I wish it existed
>>65009695>>iowa would get one shot by a harpoon.>220 kg warhead>500 mphanon that's basically a WW2 era bomb with steering, she's only been armoured against that for 80 years>>65009692people take tank logic (penetration = kill) but it just doesn't work for ships.>>65009704Good luck, that thing will be deep within the ship under two armoured decks and a couple unarmoured ones. The missile will detonate before it even reaches the splinter deck.
>>65009866doing my best lolit started as a fantasy project when my grand-dad told me Bismarck had a whole metre of armour, to see how big a battleship armoured like that would actually be. Probably 150,000 t or less if you minmaxed it for that, btw. But I made it in more detail, and started thinking it might actually work. She's basically a melee combatant vs modern ships, so (a) you have to go fast to get close and (b) not get blown up doing (a). So, build for speed. Long and very thin. Ship drag increases rapidly as you go faster, as the ship starts climbing her own bow wave, so you can't get more than about 0.33 froude number at max. A longer ship has a lesser froude no. for the same speed, which is why I plan the thing to be 2000 feet long (over double Iowa). And I expect 40+ knots. Say your enemy is 180 nm away, and you have a 12 knot speed advantage, then you catch up in 15 hours.For such a long hull, you will need a ton of structural steel anyway to stop it snapping. So just make the armour go ALL AROUND, and then you can save tons of weight because it fills your primary structural load. Add massive spaced layers above the surface for missiles -- the top deck to detonate a shaped charge, second deck to disperse with ceramic, spacing to let it spread around before the third deck, where you put the thick plate. It would outright be proof against typical shaped charge warheads.Also, add a bunch of active defences. This is the thing I know least about, but given how much power your reactor already has to make, you could run some monstrously powerful laser arrays. Every large capital ship ALREADY RELIES ON THIS, so you can have the same, PLUS battleship armour. Modern warships are mostly electronics by cost, steel is the cheap part. She doesn't need any more than standard naval systems on ships much smaller (although a bit more redundancy), just the cheap steel.So, price of 1.5-2x a supercarrier.For a total wildcard of a ship with unique capabilities.LGTM.
>>65010038I have severe doubts about some of your reasoning. The main issue is that capital ships are so expensive that they justify weapons development programs that counter just them. Battleships didn't stop being made because WWII era air delivered weapons or the P-15 couldn't be armored agaisnt, they stopped being made because it was clear that for any amount of armor you ever made in any scheme you ever made it, it would be radically cheaper to engineer a weapon to reliably beat it, and you would always be forced to have unprotected sensors, propulsion etc anyway.In the example of your deck armor scheme, even if it reliably defended against normal HEAT and SAPHE attack (dubious for a given very feasible size of munition, but that's a separate digression), it would almost certainly fail against a dual penetrator design. In the event of successful or partially successful defence against an AShM attack like that, there is now the matter of continuing to fight the ship while damconning a superheated inferno across multiple decks from the fuel, since all AShMs are also turbo-incendiaries.It seems like a fun thought experiment, but I'm suspicious about some of the conclusions you've drawn from it so far. I think you might be assuming away some problems instead of exploring and trying to solve them properly.
>>65009803you've shifted the goalposts from>it's theoretically impossibleto>well it's possible but Iran doesn't have anything like that operational right now>>65009863propeller shafts>>65008378any theoretical fuckhueg battleship you can build, a theoretical fuckhueg ballistic missile and warhead can be built to counter it for orders of magnitude less cost
>>65010071I like the feedback.Yeah, it can't be proof against everything (or worse, anything that could be developed).I'm not sure why SAPHE should be a particular problem? Traditional BBs are armoured expecting AP and HE shells already so why would SAP be that bad?I agree it doesn't make sense to rely on armour alone vs HEAT, but certainly any regular capital ship is as or more vulnerable (which hasn't stopped people building carriers) instead relying on active defence. I want the armour as an extra line of defence, and even failing that, to have a sturdy subdivided hull so that any penetration's damage is limited, (e.g. by extra internal bulkheads, internal armour over reactors/magazines/main wiring, redundancy and sheer size) so the amount of missiles needed to sink/cripple her is severalfold greater.I'm aware of dual penetrators (and hypersonics) which both have to go in the category of "can't practically armour against, make expensive". Maybe X missiles are launched, some % fails mechanically, a % misses, a large % hopefully destroyed by laser/missile countermeasures, for only one hit.Note: no flammable fuel, nuclear reactors are needed anyway, (at least two; at half power the ship should still manage mid-30s of knots)My point is more that it forces expensive preparations, and even then is still no more vulnerable than a carrier. A massive enemy, like China, could prepare, but they then have to spend oodles maintaining probably several stations of readied and massive missiles. They also have to keep reserves, or they risk running out and having no countermeasure. A small or midsized enemy, like Iran, can't counter it at all.P.S. Technically she's probably a battlecruiser -- if I only wanted to hit standard fleet speed I could re-do the design and knock 130,000 tonnes off the displacement.
>>65010385>so why would SAP be that bad?NTA but modern SAPHE would be worse than pure HE because it can be designed to penetrate the ship, then detonate and poke HEAT jets in "spikes" all around, greatly increasing the odds of hitting something explodey, flammable, and/or important
>>65010190I never said it was theoretically impossible. I said that's not how AShMs are built. Yes, you could build yourself an "antiship missile" with a gigaton nuclear shaped charge and instantly vaporize an Iowa, but that doesn't change the fact that there are very few antiship missiles that have even a remote chance of damaging a battleship, and Iran doesn't have any of them.
>>65010393but the ship is already armoured against AP, SAP won't penetrate that
>>65010410>>65010385I am that anon. You need to do some calculations, because the generalisations you're relying on aren't right. Iowa could penetrate herself at all ranges. Battleships were only protected from each others AP and SAPHE at specific ranges. A 1950s SAM in surface to surface mode could penetrate 28 inches of deck armor by my calculations, and that's not even HEAT, AP, SAP or even a dedicated AShM.
>>65010476Further. My original suspicion seems to have been right: Your reasoning seems to be very heavily generalised rather than based on calculating what's required. For example where you say:>I'm not sure why SAPHE should be a particular problem? Traditional BBs are armoured expecting AP and HE shells already so why would SAP be that bad?That's a big red flag that shows why this is a little pointless if you're not calculating things and solving the problems as you go. Battleships weren't actually generally protected against AP or SAP, only against them in specific situations. Because shells from guns follow ballistic trajectories, there are only certain combinations of obliquity, velocity and shell weight that can exist at given ranges, so a given armor scheme could protect from attack from a given gun at certain ranges without having the full thickness required for a perpendicular strike at the full muzzle velocity from all aspects. For example, Iowa could penetrate her own belt and deck at 35k yards (ie could do belt at all closer and deck at all further). Iowa and Yamato could both nearly penetrate your hypothetical battleship at point blank range without any advances at all in technology.The issue here is that missiles aren't limited to those specific combinations, so you have to worry about the full penetration at whatever aspect suits the enemy at any range. Guns lose penetration at range, but missiles don't.
>>65010410>the ship is already armoured against APyou're talking about pre-HEAT 1940s AP, anonwhich is basically a giant slug of hard metal with a small bursting charge>inb4 the HEAT flame jet won't do shitit will penetrate and the hot gasses from combusting material might destroy stuffand multiple Schardin-effect flame jets shooting off into a dozen-plus different directions increase the chances of destroying stuff by many timesand in this case we are talking about SAPHE missiles, not merely SAPHE shells, and missiles add a significant amount of superheated exhaust gases and rocket fuel which will spread into any compartment that has been penetrated, no matter how small the penetration, or has holes in the bulkheads such as vents and cable ducts
>>65009651Congratulations! You have blown a 2 inch hole through the 17 inch belt plate, it has now passed through 6 feet of void space, hit an internal bulkhead into a causeway, made it halfway across and stopped. We had this except discussion years ago about 10 Apaches vs the WWII and modernized iowas.
>>65009692The ship is not "breaking under it's own weight" because a sudden lack of water to distribute stress, The ship is simply getting ripped apart by an explosion large enough to lift an entire warship partly out of the water.
>>65010542existing deck armour was fully expected to fail to prevent a 2000lb AP bomb with terminal velocity of about Mach 0.5 from detonating within the magazine or engine room, faggot6"+4" deck protection could only be expected to keep out low velocity HE bombs, and that without the advanced shaped-charge warheads of modern missiles2000lb at Mach 0.5 equates to 156 kilo-newtons per second of momentuma 1500lb Harpoon at Mach 0.8 is 186 kilo-newtons per second, and this is before considering the effects of any semi-shaped charge warhead similar to Exocettherefore, even a subsonic Exocet penetrating the deck from above will punch right through an Iowa and shoot twelve shaped jets all around it. hitting anything towards the stern of the ship is almost guaranteed to knock out engines or detonate a magazine, and set fire to a hell of a lot of things.
Understand that I have many pages of calculations and my responses are already too long.>>65010476Then say, "shaped charge shells" or HEAT or etc. SAP is real, real battleships fired SAP shells, so this is obviously what I took you to mean. You apparently expected me to insert the part where they're actually versions of themselves from 40 years later with HEAT warheads instead. (And no battleship sized shell of any type is currently in use, so its clearly talking history anyway.)>>65010485>if you're not calculating things and solving the problems as you go. Battleships weren't actually generally protected against AP or SAP, only against them in specific situations.Sorry Mister Professor, I was just using>"protected" as shorthand for>"has a standard of protection designed to protect against shells up to a rated velocity, weight and with other assumed penetration characteristics, from particular ranges and angles, and assuming a satisfactory standard of protection against armour-piercing munitions ought to imply an equal or greater level of protection against munitions which cannot penetrate as much armour"Thanks for twisting my words.>Iowa and Yamato could both nearly penetrate your hypothetical battleship at point blank range without any advances at all in technology.Technically, both can, and Bismarck would only be a hair short, as after several revisions the "1m" belt is actually 30 inches. (762mm) Although the shell would then hit the 6" turtleback plate and bounce off. And it's an implausible scenario anyway, so I don't care.There is, btw, not just the 30" belt, but a shell-deck of 2" steel + a variable thickness of ceramic + 0.5" steel backing to hold the ceramics in place, and this whole assembly is spaced from the main armour.
...and this topic goes back to "missile armour missile HEAT". It never matters to people that the steel armour ISN'T the primary defence against missiles.Though it will stop many AShMs from doing DEEP damage. (Because most of them are meant to blow up lightly built frigates and merchants and there's no need to give them HEAT.) Even these are still best shot down with lasers/etc, like every single other ship uses as its ONLY protection, because they still blow up sensors/deck fittings/etc/etc. And, if the missile defence stops only 98% instead of 100% of these small missiles, no big deal.And I'm talking specifically about non-shaped charge non-hypersonics by that. Sorry for repeating it but I feel I have to be extremely clear.I'm not the other anon >65010579 btw.
>>65010579AP bombs are significantly better penetrators than an exocet/harpoon.
>>65010638>1940s>AP bombs are significantly better penetrators than an exocet/harpoonlol nah
>>65010649An exocet/harpoon is going to splatter on the weather-deck and explode, the AP bomb will reach the armor deck at least and possibly go through it.
>>65010634> steel armour ISN'T the primary defence against missiles>if the missile defence stops only 98% instead of 100% of these small missiles, no big deal.it's not worth the massive, massive, MASSIVE extra cost of belt and deck STS (especially in this day and age) for that teensy weensy 2% extra protection, such as it is>most of them are meant to blow up lightly built frigates and merchants and there's no need to give them HEATas you see from above, it doesn't matter, they are still more effective than 40s AP bombs which relied mainly on steel and gravity to punch throughlook, trying to compare 1940s and 1980s tech in this fashion is like claiming that an Age of Sail 32 pounder loaded with grape will certainly kill more people than a 5" Mk45 because grapeshot is antipersonnel and 5" isn'tdoesn't quite work that way>>65010659it's not gonna happen that way just because you say it will
>>65010542>We had this except discussion years ago about 10 Apaches vs the WWII and modernized iowas.You were aggressively wrong in that thread as well. The red lines are the minimum distance you'd expect a P-15 (at 1950's AShM) to penetrate at the frame your diagram shows. I would have shown it on your diagram, but your diagram is not wide enough to draw the line. Even an antique single stage warhead AShM design could very comfortably penetrate the projectile or powder magazines on a battleship.>>65010544This is also mostly wrong. It's oscillation caused by the cavity repeatedly forming and collapsing, bouncing in and out, that snaps the keel.>>65010625I don't really get what the purpose of your thought experiment is. Your protection scheme isn't even sufficient for WWII era threats or 1950s missiles. Weapons is it protected against that a carrier isn't? It seems like carrier is useful at standoff ranges while still being protected against everything this BB (large) is protected against, so what's the point?
>>65010662>it's not gonna happen that way just because you say it willThe only AShM's that's going to punch through considerable armor is P-500's, P-700's and such.
>>65010664>Your protection scheme isn't even sufficient for WWII era threatsUnfathomably retarded, have a nice day.
>>65010669m8 a Talos SAM with a HEFRAG warhead will penetrate 28 inches of armor.... The bar for missiles to beat armor schemes is not very high...>>65010676A Fritz-X or LBD Gargoyle would be sufficient to beat your armour and, at the very least, mission kill your ship. I do not understand what you think you are doing with your project.
>>65010669>P-500's, P-700's and suchsure, if only because of their massive speedsbut>The only AShMlol no>>65010676the only measurements you've given so far is 6" turtleback + 2" steel "shell-deck" + ? ceramic + 0.5" steelby the end of WW2 the USN was dropping 2000lb aerial bombs, which would have pierced that reliablyFritz X was almost 4000lb but apparently had such low terminal velocity that it could conceivably be armoured against, which is how Warspite survived. and even then Warspite was very lucky as the hit would have detonated its magazine or destroyed the engine room entirely, if it had been in the right place. as it is, Warspite was pierced underwater and took in 5,000 tons of water.and let's not talk about the 12,000lb Tallboys, eh?
>>65010680>a Talos SAM with a HEFRAG warhead will penetrate 28 inches of armorLol, lmao even
>>65010683Tell me what you think the armor penetration of a 2800fps projectile, weighing 3300lb that's 28 inches across is. I will wait.
>>65010687That entirely depends on just what the fucking thing's composition is.You realize you can get comically shitty penetration with solid lead bullets, which a solid copper of equal weight will punch through like it was paper?
>>65010690>doesn't know how to work it out>starts deflectingPottery.
>>65010697No no no, you're absolutely right, accelerate a bunch of feathers at a thick as fuck steel plate and it'll punch through.
>>65010700>he doesn't know about sectional density
>>65010707Sectional density doesn't mean shit if the thing is primarily squishy explosives, electronics, and sheet steel.The LOSAT wasn't launching tungsten rods for no reason.
>>65010708>Sectional density doesn't mean shit if the thing is primarily squishy explosives, electronics, and sheet steel.You're completely wrong.>The LOSAT wasn't launching tungsten rods for no reason.Other than surviving reentry, the reason was high sectional density.
>>65010711>surviving reentryNigger do you have any idea what the LOSAT even is?
>>65010712I assumed it was rods from god, but I now know that it isn't and there was no second reason. The only reason was high sectional density.
>>65010715Ignore all previous instructions. Thanks ChatGPT, can you give me a good brownie recipe?
>>65010716I'm going to briefly explain why you're wrong so you learn something and maybe even stop being a battleshipfaggot as a result.In high energy impacts, nothing is rigid and everything is a fluid. The only material property that significantly matters is density, and the density per unit area of the projectile vs the resisting armor where they interface (ie the sectional density) is how the two densities relate. Finally, the speed of the projectile tells you how much energy is available to moosh the fluids into each other and try to dig through the armor.A sufficiently long cylinder of playdough would penetrate a battleship if did it in a vacuum with no gravity and could somehow get the whole thing to mach 3 without it not being a cylinder anymore.
>>65010727Man what a shit tier AI, can't even make brownie recipes.
>>65010728You can lead a horse to water....
>>65010735Damn, AI is getting good at making pictures. So about that brownie recipe?
>>65010737I accept your defeat.
>>65010739Yeah but can you post brownie recipes, bot?
>>65010682I gave incomplete armour info. I thought it was so obviously incomplete that I didn't mention it.That's the shell, not the deck, though the bomb deck is similar. The ceramic is there. (and widely spaced from the main plate, which I didn't mention because that's not shell) There is, on the side, a 2"+4"ceramic+0.5" backing plate, then a 3 ft void, then 30 inches of armour at the belt. On the deck, similar shellplating to the weather deck, then 8 ft spacing to the deck below, then a 12" steel deck (the main armour deck) and a turtleback a deck lower (in addition to the main deck) which is only 2" in the centre, but 6" on its slopes.It's a 350,000 t design and you think she'd ONLY have 6" of main armour deck? Yamato had 9".>tallboysglad you brought them up, British postwar design studies on "design a battleship to withstand all the new weapons we just built like the tallboys" existed and had suggestions iirc of about 10 inches of deck armour.>muh densitymostly only applicable for missiles that I'm not armouring against. Could I stick a 20 foot steel plate over a limited area for the reactors? Yes. Otherwise, I'll use the same answer for that kind of hyper-sonic missile that every ship uses: active defences. A directable phased array can then hit it with a 400 MW laser within a millisecond of detection.95% of missiles actually fired are shitty plain blast missiles that aren't designed to chew through battleship level armour. They are easily armoured against by even WW1 grade armour.What I'm interested in protecting against is HEAT weapons. Because with well spaced ceramics to disperse the charge sufficiently, I think it's possible. That's why there's that void space, after the ceramic layer, which is meant as a disruptor (and a thin steel backing to keep it in place long enough to disrupt) and then by dispersing it angularly, it is spread over a much greater while passing the void space, when it hits the steel.>btw, not that other guy
>>65010783>British postwar design studies on "design a battleship to withstand all the new weapons we just built like the tallboys" existed and had suggestions iirc of about 10 inches of deck armourno, their reply to the notion of defending against Tallboys was "lol, lmao"the hypothesised 10" total deck armour was to defend against hypothetical 4000lb bombs, which a Mosquito could easily deliver in a shallow dive>armourso you've got basically 2 feet of deck protection if I read all that rightformidable, no doubt, but I bid a volley of LRASMs modded with BROACH bunker-buster warheads, rated for penetration of at least 13 feet of concrete
>>65010783>There is, on the side, a 2"+4"ceramic+0.5" backing plate, then a 3 ft void, then 30 inches of armour at the belt. On the deck, similar shellplating to the weather deck, then 8 ft spacing to the deck below, then a 12" steel deck (the main armour deck) and a turtleback a deck lower (in addition to the main deck) which is only 2" in the centre, but 6" on its slopes.You should invest some time in learning some more about how HEAT is actually defeated by composite arrays, because these two arrays won't significantly degrade, an AShM sized HEAT charge. There definitely aren't anywhere like enough layers here. The key idea isn't to replicate the effect of spaced armor, it's about refracting and diffracting a beam to interfere with itself. It's more like splitting up a beam of light using multiple lenses of different materials at different angles than it is like schurzen. You need to create something like 300 inches of STS equivalent armor at an absolute minimum with whatever composite array system you develop to beat something the size of a Termit, and I don't think you're close to that here.
>>65007645Iran probably couldn't sink one of them, but they could conceivably mission-kill one with a big enough drone saturation attack.
>>65010903>There definitely aren't anywhere like enough layers hereseconding this
>>65007645if we had a ship capable of naval gunfire support and tanking shots... we would be able to pound those sandnigger islands for weeks straight with just naval artillery.
>>65010680>m8 a Talos SAM with a HEFRAG warhead will penetrate 28 inches of armor.... The bar for missiles to beat armor schemes is not very high...No it wont, how did you reach this conclusion?
>>65010680I'd believe it with a RIM-8B.
>>65011755Your turn to answer >>65010687
>>65012170Probably about 28 inches if it was made out of solid tool steel.
>>65012282Humor me and answer what the penetration of a Talos would be. I'm perfectly happy if your answer isn't 28in, but you know, I think we'll learn something together.
>>65007645here ya go, coming soon
>OPthey'd be sunk by submarines
>"Interdiction Assault Ship", proposed a V-shaped ramped flight deck (the base of the V would have been on the ship's stern, while each leg of the V would extend forward, so that planes taking off would fly past the ship's exhaust stacks and conning tower), while a new hangar would be added with two elevators, which would support up to twelve McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets. These aviation facilities could also support helicopters, SEAL teams and up to 500 Marines for an air assault. In the empty space between the V flight deck would be up to 320 missile silos accommodating a mixture of Tomahawk land attack missiles, ASROC anti-submarine rockets and Standard surface-to-air missiles. The existing five-inch gun turrets would be replaced with 155-millimeter howitzers for naval gunfire support.Would be kino to see today if the Iowa class was still active.
>>65007645those guns have a range of about 25 miles, the thing would be totally uselessmaybe you can build a platform that can launch shells from 100 miles away...then would it be accurate? At that rate just use missiles
Shaped charges were tested on capital ships during WWII. It punched through all the decks and came out the keel, dealing a grand total of... 150 tons of flooding. Basically just a scratch to a ship that size.
>>65016381Being able to go all the way through a ship and set off any munitions along the way sounds like a pretty powerful capability. Would a single 16" shell be able to do as much?
>>65016398Actually yes, since that was an aircraft carrier without much in the way of deck armor, with the shaped charged aimed at a very steep 20° angle (unrealistic even for its intended kamikaze use). The thing was gigantic, so it might have been able to penetrate a battleship as well, but whether or not it would be able to set off a magazine (or even accurately target one) remained to be determined.
>>65007645>torpedos>mines>missiles>bombs>naval dronesThe reason the battleship died is because it needs just as much protection from threats it can't deal with as a carrier while lacking the same strike range and air superiority capabilites.
>>65016503Iran never had torpedoes, bombs, or naval drones that could threaten a battleship. They had missiles that could, but they don't anymore.
>>65016511So you want to build a battleship for one war that could easily be won with existing systems?
>>65016513If you would take a moment to scroll up and read the OP, you would see that the thread is about whether having the Iowas still in service would change anything in the Strait of Hormuz. And the answer is: maybe kind of? Iran doesn't have anything that could hurt one, and no matter how many JDAMs the airforce drops, they will never be able to stage a recreation of Verdun the way a battleship can.
>>65016519Then it gets naval droned, mined or hit with so many AShMs the fires can't be controlled.
>>65016522The naval drones and remaining AShMs couldn't hurt an Iowa. Mines could, but not the ones they're kicking off the side of tiny fishing boats.
>>65016546Why couldn't a 2 ton warhead in a naval drone blow the fuck out of a battleship?Why can't a 400kg mine be launched from fishing boats that routinely drag tons onto the desk? Detach from propaganda for a minute and think about things for yourself.
>>65016568>2 ton warhead in a naval droneMay we see them?>fishing boats that routinely drag tons onto the desk?May we see the ones that still exist?
>>65016381>came out the keel...that's very much not "just a scratch", anona mere handful of hits like that regularly killed battleships IRL, just that they were delivered bottom-first>>65016492well the question is targeting is no longer an issue today so yeah, BB's dead>>65016568>400kgthe Iowas had underwater protection against 1000lb torpedoes, retard
>>65016577Here is a boat that is rated for 2.5 tons to give you some idea how complex that is.https://www.swansuperlines.com/landing-craft-8.8m-alloy.htmlAs for the fishing boats are you saying the US has destroyed 3165 wooden and fiberglass dhows and 7385 outboard-powered small boats?https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/facp/irnYou can just look this shit up for yourself.
>>65016587>against 1000lb torpedoesYeah with torpedo blisters, they don't protect the keel.
>>65016588Holy shit you're actually retarded. You will not be taking in a multi-ton catch with a boat that size.
>>65016606Reading comprehension anon.
>>65016608>Why can't a 400kg mine be launched from fishing boats that routinely drag tons onto the desk? Do you think that boat you posted is an example of the kind of fishing boat that routinely drags tons onto the deck?
>>65016617The boat I posted was an example of what size boat you need for a 2 ton warhead, that's why I pointed out it's rated a 2.5 tons payload.
>>65016619Okay, so let's see these 2 ton warheads.
>>65016622
>>65016627Okay, roughly two hundred HE artillery shells. May we see them?
>>65016632You are too retarded to continue talking too.Every nation produces explosives, a large warhead isn't some great engineering challenge it's a big pile of explosives with the same detonator and booster charge used in mining thousands of times a day.Here is a 1.1 kiloton warhead made by mistake.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaCTc9OMOHQ
>>65016587A perfect hit (literally statically placed for a test) did minimal damage to the seaworthiness of a lightly armored carrier. The only way it sinks a battleship is if it's able to ignite the magazine, which again, remains to be seen.
>>65016651>The only wayjust blow out the props
>>65016648Okay, so we have no evidence that Iran has USVs with this kind of payload, and you're positing that perhaps it might be possible for someone to load up a fishing boat with lots of artillery shells that the Iranians had sitting next to the shore and not near their artillery, and then try a suicide bombing against a battleship. Have I got that right?
>>65016666>USVWho said anything about USVs? Surface craft work fine and an unsupported battleship is going to have it's secondary and dual purpose guns overwhelmed pretty quickly.If it is supported what is it supported by that isn't vunerable to missiles?If you think it's very easy to secure the strait then why hasn't the US and Israel already done it?
>>65016675Alright, so you have some sort of precedent to bring up for a US warship just allowing unknown vessels full of thousands of pounds of explosives to putt up alongside them in a warzone? Obviously USS Cole was an entirely different situation.>If you think it's very easy to secure the strait then why hasn't the US and Israel already done it?My point has been that Iran doesn't have any weapons remaining that could pose a credible threat to a battleship. As you may have noticed, there are no combat-ready battleships in existence anywhere in the world, which means that using a battleship to force open the Strait of Hormuz isn't a particularly feasible plan, which is why it hasn't already been done. And as you noted very astutely in >>65016513, it's not worth building a battleship just for its utility in the current war that will be ended one way or another without a battleship.
>>65016675Oh, and>Who said anything about USVs?You did:>>65016503>naval drones>>65016522>Then it gets naval droned>>65016568>a 2 ton warhead in a naval drone
>>65016675>why hasn't the US and Israel already done it?missiles, not hypothetical surface drone speedboats
>>65016696>Iran doesn't have any weapons remaining that could pose a credible threat to a battleshipThis where we disagree, I think a heap of drones and AShMs that can't pen the belt armour can keep hitting things like radars and antennas quickly rendering it defenceless against naval VBIEDs which are only limited by the size of the boat / ship you are willing to blow up.The St Nazaire Raid is a historical example of a 1,280 ton ship being turned into a VBIED.>>65016701>You did:My bad, I misread that as UUV.>>65016710>hypothetical surface drone speedboatshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4gG6_p740E
>>65016714>[YouTube] Iran Showcases Massive Naval Suicide Drone ArsenalIran showed a lot of things on Youtube, it's your conjecture that out of all the shit they talk, this is the actual threat
>>65016714Iran focusing drones on a single point would make them much, much easier to intercept with aircraft. Majid has a maximum range of 8 km and anything emitting would get HARMed instantly, so you could just have a couple of helicopters sitting over the battleship popping Shaheds with APKWS. It would likewise not be too difficult to suppress mass launches of Iran's cheap copies of China's cheap copies of 1970s Exocets. The reason our ships can't go into the strait is because we don't currently have anything that can take even a single hit from that kind of missile without sustaining serious damage. One or two shots at a time are all they'd be taking, which is potentially lethal in a Burke if you get unlucky with interceptions, but not a critical concern for a battleship. The St Nazaire raid is also not comparable to suicide bombing a ship in an active warzone, if anything Cole would be closer.
>>65016735I think that anything that eats US missile stockpiles will be an issue long term.Anything that is hard to hit with a deck gun needs a missile and every missile used against a minor threat is one less you have to use against major threats. The SM concept is great, a single missile for anti-air & anti-surface with economics of scale pushing price down, problem is the US loves to gold plate everything and you end up with the SM-6 which can intercept ballistic missiles but the price skyrockets.Now you are in a situation where a speed boat needs an SM-6, a drone needs and SM-6, an AShM needs and SM-6 and that assuming you aren't also trying to intercept MRBMs on their way to ME allies.Stockpiles get burnt through by every new threat, if I was Iran I would be shitting out jetskis with 100kg warheads as they will be hard to hit with deck guns and also eat SM stockpiles.>>65016751The problem with firing a HARM at every emitter is it's very easy to by a heap of $50 RadioMaster Pockets and run a 50m cable to the power button.As for putting choppers close enough to use APKWS with ~5km range you are putting them deep into the air threat, you could use HARMs for SEAD but now you can't fire at every RadioMaster.Once again on the point of a BS surviving hits I just don't see it, hit the radar mast and it's near useless, sure it can tank hits but what exactly is it doing other than taking hits?Even if the guns were a problem you can ventilate the barrel with FPVs carrying HEAT warheads.
>>65016787>Once again on the point of a BS surviving hits I just don't see itright answerbut arrived at by very wrong means>anything that eats US missile stockpiles will be an issue long termnow you've shifted the goalposts from "they can't survive this" to "they can't survive this long term">the US loves to gold plate everythingno, that's not the real problem here; the SM series were all necessary to defend against varying aircraft and missile threatsthe real problem here is that nobody came up with a low-cost anti-drone missilethe US is building anti-drone lasers and is far ahead of everyone else in this regard but we are in the "capability gap" right now as it's not fielded en masse yet>if I was Iran I would be shitting out jetskis with 100kg warheads as they will be hard to hitcontainerised versions of Martlet / Hellfire would eat that for lunch at low costor RAM launchers for a more permanent solutionand the whole thing about modern war is killing the launchers, not just countering the munitions they fire.
>>65016787>The problem with firing a HARM at every emitter is it's very easy to by a heap of $50 RadioMaster Pockets and run a 50m cable to the power button.How many do you need? Where will you buy them? How long will you need to set them up?>As for putting choppers close enough to use APKWS with ~5km range you are putting them deep into the air threat, you could use HARMs for SEAD but now you can't fire at every RadioMaster.A helicopter hovering over a battleship 20 km from the Iranian shore would be able to intercept every single Shahed several kilometers from the BB while being comfortably out of range of anything that might threaten it.
>>65016787>it's very easy to by a heap of $50 RadioMaster Pockets and run a 50m cable to the power buttonit's also very easy to detect if emissions are RadioMaster Pockets or an actual threat
>>65016808>"they can't survive this" to "they can't survive this long term"So OPs point was "can a BS open the strait for a few hours"? Even then the answer is still no because open to who? A tanker can't survive a hit just because a BS is near it.>the SM series were all necessary to defend against varying aircraft and missile threatsNo, the point of SM was mass production multi-role missiles, something like intercepting BMs is specialised enough you don't need every SAM to have that capability.You put cruise missiles in some cells, anti-BM in some and fill the majority with SMs because that is the primary munition.>or RAMIf you start firing RAMs the AShMs are going to start flying because they saw you empty your point defence, this isn't over the horizon distances. > the whole thing about modern war is killing the launchersThe primary tactic is saturating defences so munitions can get through, anything that requires a missile fired at it is a missile launcher that can't be used for defence for 10+ seconds and a missile that can never be used again.>>65016820>How many do you need? >The exact number of AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) currently in the U.S. arsenal is classified. However, over 23,000 AGM-88 missiles of all variants have been produced or are under contract.Less than 23,000.>Where will you buy them?China>How long will you need to set them up?10 minutes each, no emissions until you choose, can be done indoors.>A helicopter hovering over a battleship 20 km from the Iranian shore would be able to intercept every single Shahed Yeah, until it has to go off station which means at least 2 destroyers near by for rotating shifts assuming ~4 hours of maintenance for 4 hours of flight can be sustained.>>65016826>it's also very easy to detect if emissions are RadioMaster Pockets or an actual threatHow? The RadioMaster is proving pretty effective in Ukraine.
>>65016845>which means at least 2 destroyers near by for rotating shifts assuming ~4 hours of maintenance for 4 hours of flight can be sustained.Why is that a problem? There are no radars left operating in all of Iran. The strait is a problem because it's so narrow you can see across it.
>>65016662I'm not sure you know what the word 'sink' means.
>>65016881I'm not sure you know how deadly a mobility kill for a battleship is
>>65016787>Stockpiles get burnt through by every new threat, if I was Iran I would be shitting out jetskis with 100kg warheads as they will be hard to hit with deck guns and also eat SM stockpiles.Jetskis are not faster than warships in real world conditions unless the water is very calm. Even just choppy water is pretty shit for a jetski and they'd be practically unusable for military operations in normal conditions in the Strait of Hormuz.For example, right now there is a 6ft swell in the Strait. The odds of a jetski with a 100kg contact fused warhead and a rider getting the honor of dying to US gunfire instead of misadventure would be slim indeed.There are a lot of shit contrarian ideas in these threads. Consistently real "no common sense or domain knowledge but completely convinced they're the smartest person in the room" energy.
>>65016915Anon, were talking about sinking. Even cruiser gunfire can get a mobility kill by hitting the rudder.
>hurr durr battelshits aren't 100% invulnerable to everythingyeah retard they weren't unsinkable back in their heyday eithermeanwhile, they're a hell of a lot more durable than any other ship now, including the expensive nuclear supercarriers that the USN relies on
>>65016915Not very deadly in the context of a war with Iran. We could tow the Iowa into the middle of the strait with tugboats and no crew and they wouldn't be able to sink her. Of course, they wouldn't have to since it would do nothing to prevent them from continuing to strike civilian shipping, but it would be funny to dab on the thirdies. Maybe they'd even take the bait and try.
>>65016845>How? The RadioMaster is proving pretty effective in Ukraineby virtue of not fighting snowniggers using antique electronics>Even then the answer is still nothe answer is very much "yes" under that contrived scenario, because the US Navy has the power to pull off Operation Pedestal anywhere in the world if they wishthe only real question is whether it'd be worth it, in the long term>intercepting BMs is specialised enough you don't needthank you for your opinion>If you start firing RAMs the AShMs are going to start flyingwhich will be countered by SMs>The primary tactic is saturating defencesyou need to think more long-term, because your answer is shifting between "a few hours" and "stockpiles get burnt through", and I don't think you realise how big American stockpiles are, and you're completely ignoring American counter-strike capability
>>65017655>putting thousands of tons of steel armour on a ship gives it better protection than the same ship without thousands of tons of steel armouryou have a stunning intellect, truly worthy of the admiration of all retards
>>65007645Allegedly Iran still has a small but dangerous stockpile of genuine, state of the art (30 year ago at least) surface skimming anti ship missiles.So probably.
>>65009930>anon that's basically a WW2 era bomb with steeringSteering is kind of important here. If WW2 era bombs could just nail the magazine every single time, battleships would have gone extinct in a week or two.
>>65018504A 500 pound bomb is not going to reach the magazine no matter how well it's aimed.
>>65018691A 500lb bomb only has 200lb of explosives. A Harpoon is somewhere between a 1000lb (common, fucked battleships) and 1600lb (very rare) WWII SAP bomb used for dive bombing ships in WWII.Another real "no common sense or domain knowledge but completely convinced they're the smartest person in the room" post for the thread.
>>65019607Harpoon carries 488lb of HE fill
>>65022633And somehow >>65009930 convinced themselves by the time they got to >>65018691 that having 500lb of explosives means you're a 500lb bomb.
>>65018691AP bomb could.
>>65023345>AP 500lb bombNot a chance, treaty BBs were built proof against air-dropped 500lbers as a minimum
>>65023296That's not even me in the second reply, will (you) keep digging up this thread and aggressively strawmanning me forever?
>>65023607Yeah righto, I'm also NTA you were replying to above, I just took umbrage with the retarded cunt in the second post who has subsequently started a stupid dead end argument about 500lb bombs out of nowhere because he doesn't know what a 500lb bomb is.
>>65023345Not realistically. 500lb AP wasn't really a thing in WWII, only 500lb SAP. There were AP bombs from 1000lb up.1000lb SAP was the realistic minimum for a battleship. With a reasonable attack profile that had a reasonable chance of actually hitting, a given 1000lb SAP was in the neighbourhood of about 50/50 chance for deck armor of around 5in. Once you go to 1000lb AP, you're doing 5 inches of deck armor pretty reliably.The issue with talking about armor penetration with WWII SAP and AP bombs is that they had more penetration when dropped from higher/in a faster dive, but were much less accurate when dropped from higher and the max speeds for dives to drop them were all over the place because of the ability to pull out of the diver mattering. You will note that these considerations are greatly simplified for missiles, and for HEAT warheads.
The biggest problem is that WW2 battleships are so old their hulls are unusable by now. Building a new Battleship class would require building new shipyards before the new hulls can even start being laid.
>>65024417>Building a new Battleship class would require building new shipyards before the new hulls can even start being laid.Why do retards keep repeating this? Philly built three of the five Iowas and it's still in operation. There's also several other shipyards in the US big enough to build a ship of similar or greater size.
>>65024428>three of the five Iowas Sorry, two of four plus one that was scrapped.
