Even from the savings you can have by shooting cheap artillery shells.I asked an AI:>how much cheaper is smokeless powder compared to an energy equivalent of solid rocket fuel>Smokeless powder is not cheaper—typically several times more expensive (often 2–10× or more) per unit of chemical energy than bulk solid rocket propellant (mainly APCP), depending on grade, scale, and market (military/industrial vs. retail/hobby).So basically, it is just cheaper to build rockets.
>Guys guys look at me gyus look I'm being stupid hey gyus look aren't I funny guys laugh please laugh guys wait guuuuys
No shit they don't make sense. They only would with railguns and even then missiles are cheaper.
Ya but battleships have aura and they make thirdies irrationally mad
>>65467733>I don't think battleships make any sense nowWelcome to what everyone else figured out about 80 years ago. If there is going to be a modern Battleship, it will be in name only like how todays modern Destroyers barely resemble those of the past.
>>65467754back to pleddit, brainlet
>>65467855checked, the 20th century 'warship categories' no longer existNavies today sail around in Toyota Camrysor glocks / stupidHornetsOne Size Fits All Kleenex has triumphed globally
>>65467733Iowas were running off the inertia of 16 inch guns being really useful on top of the fact they had all the weapons of a contemporary destroyer as well as early spotting drones.Now that the shell plant has been long closed down, there isn't any real incentive to restart all the infrastructure just to push a niche on now 80 year old ships that smell of old rubber sealant, it's just tracking their would-be replacements in the conventional artillery role has been a shitshow.
>>65468105Brown retard detected. You’re just mad your fucking Bangladeshi shithole can’t build one of these things
Battleships are only back in discussion because of an orange sundowning.>I asked an AIgarrot yourself
>>65467733Do you also like tea?
>>65468483(You)'re Indian. And 28-IQ
>>65467754Russians just don't want anyone else to have them.
>>65467754>Ya but battleships have aura and they make thirdies irrationally madThat effect was very noticeable back in the Eighties. We all had a collective snicker about it at the time.
>>65467855I hate when the vls spruance gets left outabout 2/3 spru-cans were fitted with vls which had the potential to carry 69 anti ship missiles each. There is simply no defense against that. Just two of those things, escorted by an aaw cruiser and a pair of perries of course, could have wiped out the entire northern fleet and then still have some space left for land strikes.
or 61 asrocs
>>65467733>I don't think battleships make any sense nowThey don't, you needed a giant ship to carry giant cannons but with missiles it makes more sense to build more smaller ships instead of one huge one so you get economics of scale, increased readiness and can sustain some attrition.>I asked an AIAnon use the ball of electric fat in your head.>cost of propellantThis is like buying a car based on the cost of brake pads, it's such a tiny fraction of the all up cost it's a terrible metric.
>>65468934But with lasers and railguns it makes more sense to make larger ships for more power generation and extreme endurance.
>>65468961They fit a nuclear reactor in this in 1969, if you want more power and endurance go nuclear instead of building huge.
>>65467733>I asked the virtual assistant a loaded question so it helped me confirm my bias, what do you guys think?
>>65468537Not really. There’s been retards (read as: marines) trying to come up with reasons to bring back the battleships since the battleships were decommissioned. The first time.
>>65468965>100 kWWhat kind of energy weapon do you think you're going to power with that?
>>65469051Are you pretending to be stupid?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_modular_reactor_designs
>>65467733I guess it is good that the "battleship" is just a bigger missile cruiser.Going into the drone v missile thing:Propeller drones aren't that much cheaper than jet drones or rockets. Russia is increasingly using jet powered gerans as cruise missiles, with the majority being jet rather than propeller. In some ways a guided missile is cheaper than a drone of equivalent range and payload. The rocket missile is obviously faster than a jet cruise missile or propeller drone.Just funny to see the 15km deep frontline dominated by small fiberoptic drones and the deep strikes done by one way jet powered drones (at what point is it a cruise missile?) and ballistic missiles.
>>65469063Did you think you had a point here? What did you think it was?
>>65467733>Be Battleship circa 2030s-2040s+>Decked out with CIWS, ABM and high energy lasers combined with advanced EW jamming capabilities>All while being supported by destroyers and frigates adding to the defense making missiles borderline useless>Even if one slips through, have enough armor to be able to tank the hit and stay in the fight>Sport hypervelocity railguns for anti-ship and 16-inch guns for fuck-you-anti-ship and for naval bombardment against land based targets>"Battleships are useless"Also>Even from the savings you can have by shooting cheap artillery shells16-inch guns are not "artillery". One shell has upwards to around six times the explosive yield of field artillery. Naval bombardment is a whole other animal compared to artillery support. >>65467746>missiles are cheaper than railguns In what fucking world?
>>65468934>They don't, you needed a giant ship to carry giant cannons but with missiles it makes more sense to build more smaller ships instead of one huge one so you get economics of scale, increased readiness and can sustain some attrition.The orange man battleship is an arsenal ship with navy damage control and navy top speeds. The theory is the Ticonderoga, Zumwalt and others don't carry enough VLS cells and aren't capable of reloading themselves except in the best sea state.From the Iran war it does seem obvious that the navy and military in general need a lot more missiles. War with China looks bleak both with the number of missiles that would be required and the current depletion of stocks.5000 nuclear ICBMs suddenly doesn't feel like overkill.
>>65469077> In what fucking world?In the world where missiles exist and operationally useful railguns don’t.
>>65469071My point is naval reactors are small, much smaller than the fuel tanks of a little destroyer. You don't need a big ship for a A1B reactor.>>65469090I agree with more missiles but I think having 20 ships with 100 missiles is better than having one ship with 2000.
>>65469119>You don't need a big ship for a A1B reactor.Oh really? How big is and how much does it weigh?
>>65469117For starters that doesn't explain why missiles are cheaper when firing a railgun just takes electricity and the round doesn't even need to have an explosive yield. Second, the Navy axed the railgun program because they figured they can just use air power to defeat any enemy naval force. Something they might walk back on in the not too distant future.
>>65469131You can just look up pictures of naval reactors yourself.https://www.twz.com/nuclear/supercarrier-uss-gerald-r-ford-to-act-as-floating-nuclear-power-plant-for-facilities-on-land
>>65469138>A1B reactor componentsDid you think that was the entire reactor and all of the necessary ancillary systems?
>>65469025>There’s been retards (read as: marines) trying to come up with reasons to bring back the battleships since the battleships were decommissioned. Thing is, 127 mm Vulcano rounds have twice the range of Iowa's 16-inchers, are more accurate, and you don't need 50k tons of ship to lug several hundred of them around (along with their launch platform).
>>65468934 Problem: you don't have an unlimited manpower pool to staff those more economical reformermobiles (especially compared to your adversary) while 40 years of advancements in automation means a crew of the same size as your good old fashioned destroyer from the Regan years can man a significantly larger vessel which can bring more armaments and/or equipment into the theater of war. Sure, if guns aren't your thing, you can make them into more missiles. Or you can add more air defenses if you're feeling lucky, or even an additional helicopter wing to give enemy boomers (of the submersible type) something to chew on. Or a more advanced sensory suite, given the radar tumor has only grown bigger with each succeeding block.
>>65469136NTA, but Railguns that want to actually hit point targets at beyond the range of conventional guns without blowing through an infeasible amount of ammunition need to use guided rounds, which basically turns them into gun launched ballistic missiles with a comparable price tag, similar time till target and less warhead mass. For conventional tube artillery this is an acceptable tradeoff if you just want to be able to use your tube artillery to shoot cheap dumb rounds most of the time and occasionally flex into precision munitions, but if you primarily intend to use your gun for things which require guided munitions (like area air defense) then the benefits are pretty questionable compared to the downsides.
>>65467733>I asked an AI
>>65469071It was a question and you didn't answer it, proving you are stupid.
>>65467754>massive sour grapes from the bannan gallery about BBB (Big Beautiful Battleships) after Ukraine chads troll the zigger fleet into irrelevanceHmm im nooooticing
>>65467733>I asked an AI:Yeah, and I asked your mom's pussy. It said you're an even bigger cunt than it is. Yummy.Go bait somewhere else.
>>65469757True but look at the carrier situation, 11 in service 2 being refueled, 2 being refitted, 1 being maintained, 2 on shore leave leaving only 4 capable of being deployed.This is why paying the extra money to drive recruitment and have more ships is worth while, if you want to have 4 huge missile cruisers ready to fight you need to build at least 11.
>>65467733>amerifats fall behind on shipbuilding>”w-we d-dont n-need them a-anyway!toppest of keks
>>65469948Odessa status?
>>65467733>I asked an AI:Saaar
>>65468537And it only shows thirdie retardation because BBGN's guns are for cheap air defense with deep magazines, not surface bombardment.
>>65467733Let me let you in on a secret: In hindsight, they haven't made much sense any more by the 1940's.
>>65467855>USS GyattKek.
>>65469077>16-inch guns are not "artillery".Do they fire ballistic projectiles with an explosive charge on indirect trajectories? Then guess what, they are artillery.Pic relevant, also artillery.
>>65469136Because a missile is cheaper and easier to shoot than a guided railgun round. Ignoring that the main issue with railguns is the unacceptable barrel wear per shot, you need big power generators to power big railguns. Which requires more maintenance than a missile. Until you can make railguns cheaper to fire (and maintain) a missile is going to be better. That's ignoring that railguns have limited arcs because it's conventional artillery, while a missile can be launched from the air or sea or land and is thus much more versatile.
>>65469077>Be Battleship circa 2030s-2040s+>eat an anti-ship missile>armor fails abysmally due to AshMs being able to carry warheads that laugh at any amount of armor you can put on a boat without sinking it>back to base for 18+ months and a $5 billion repair bill, having achieved nothing>battleships unironically are worse than useless, they're an active liabilityFTFY
>>65469090Building more hulls full of empty VLS cells is not how you solve the Navy's problem of needing more missiles, anon. We can't even fill up the existing fleet as is.
>>65469792>which basically turns them into gun launched ballistic missiles with a comparable price tagHVP costs $85,000 per shell.
>>65469757That's a bad take. Any such magical automation can just as much be applied to a 10k-ton DDG.
>>65470019Open for business outside of zigger delusions. Unlike any russian port in the Black Sea, I might add.
>>65470133If you're automating everything anyway, why is 10k tons better than 20k tons?
>>65470132HVPs are literally the only benefit so far from the massively expensive railgun research the US did. It means they can be fired from conventional artillery and don't need dedicated railgun hardware. The issue with railguns is that to get them to a deployable level is so cost intensive that a missile, which is more expensive per unit, is still cheaper. Unless one can prevent the railgun from being worn out so quickly, you'll never have railguns on a ship because it is nearly logistically impossible to replace a barrel. Even somehow making it 100 rounds before repair is still unacceptable. It's the reason why the USA cancelled BAE's new artillery research. They could not (at reasonable cost) fix the barrel wear issue. Thus a VLS missile tube requires almost no maintenance after launch, swapping out heavily worn, highly specialised railgun barrels in the middle of the ocean is logistically unfeasible and highly expensive. Nor would 'going to a base' to do it be reasonable either.
>>65470146>It means they can be fired from conventional artillery and don't need dedicated railgun hardware.The HVP can be fired from 155mm howitzers, 127mm naval guns, or a railgun. The difference is the speed at which it can be fired, and the engagement window offered by that speed. It's suitable for intercepting drones or cruise missiles from a 155mm, but needs to be fired from a naval gun in order to intercept ballistic missiles. From a railgun, it's capable of engaging maneuvering hypersonic weapons.>It's the reason why the USA cancelled BAE's new artillery researchI'm not sure if you're referencing ERCA or EMLRG here, but the requirements for a self propelled howitzer and a shore bombardment railgun and an air defense railgun are all very different so this isn't particularly relevant to the system we're discussing.
>I asked an AIKill yourself
>>65470132Which puts it in the ballpark of stuff like GMLRS that has a similar or better performance in most regards, while requiring a gun to fire and having dramatically less effect of target.There isn't any magic to this - if you want to get a projectile up to speed, you can either do it by bolting it to a cheap rocket, or by beefing up its shell and acceleration hardening its electronics and then shooting it out of a gun. Either way, once it is fired it does basically the same thing. You just get to decide whether you would rather use cheap but bulky rocket boosters to accelerate the projectile, or whether you would rather suffer the need to have a dedicated gun based launch platform and then suffer a bunch of weight and cost penalties in the form of warhead size restriction, acceleration hardened electronics and a protective shell that can withstand being shot out of a gun. Broadly speaking, if you aren't already bringing the gun for something else then the benefits to gun launched guided munitions are pretty marginal.
>>65469077Naval artillery is artillery.
>>65470215GMLRS isn't hypersonic or capable of intercepting aerial threats. The fact that a less capable missile costs as much as a more capable guided shell is just my point.
>>65470171Right but nobody is going to refit ships with expensive and logically unsound railguns. The HVP can be fired from 5" fine, so it's fine to do that. No need to make a new ship with railguns and capacitors to do it. Or refit, as I said. Railguns are not deployment capable yet, despite what China says.>this isn't particularly relevant to the system we're discussing.ERCA, obviously, since EMLRG was a railgun. It's absolutely, 100%, objectively relevant to the system we're discussing. It isn't an expensive railgun yet it was cancelled because barrel wear was considered unacceptable and BAE's proposed solutions were too expensive to proceed with. So if the military cancelled a project of conventional, well researched and understood method of firing because barrel wear was considered unacceptable. You're now telling the military to proceed with a system which has unacceptable barrel wear (even more so than the M1299) and is even less logically sound to maintain. So yes, it is absolutely relevant to the discussion of railguns, because if something many times better in terms of wear was cancelled, why the fuck would you think they'd go with a system that is even worse, not leasable to repair on deployment and would require either entirely new ship design built around it or total refit of existing hulls?Until railguns can fire hundreds if not thousands of rounds before replacement, you're not going to build a ship with them outside of prototype demonstrations, which is why the Trump ''''''Battleship'''''' is not going to happen (or be what Trump was).
>>65470124A 500lb warhead from a harpon or exorcet is going to do fuck all to a battleship
