/k/ - Weapons

>>568657

Just realized I am a faggot and forgot to link to the article:

http://www.towerofjade.com/bi/iowarefit.html

>>568657

>How much of this is a meme?

Compared to designing and building a modern ship from the ground up? A complete meme.

>a battleship launching scramjet missiles from GLGGs has a 600 naut. mile radius sphere of influence

Depends on the cannon and projectile. In theory it's possible to launch a satellite-killer from a conventional 16" gun, therefore range isn't really a problem with CLGGs firing ramjets. Finding and targeting the enemy is the challenge.

Also, don't forget that having a dozen ships all carrying a single big gun is better than having a single battleship with 12 guns.

>>568658

>mandatory capabilities

>muhltyrole

The only mandatory capabilities are offensive, and since its a battleship the main offensive weapon should be the cannon. Nix the amphibious nonsense, trash the mission module. CIWS and air defense are a requirement, but only because the air threat is so dangerous. Sub defense should be carried out by smaller ships that specialize in that.

>hydrogen

Is a very small atom, it leaks through everything. The only way to keep it under pressure is to cryogenically cool it, this slows brownian motion and limits leakage. It's a huge danger if stored, because its explosive and even when burning it creates invisible (ultraviolet) fire. Also expensive as hell, might as well fuel the ship with gold.

Methane is superior, it's dirt cheap, molecule is large enough to be safely stored, and it can run the gas turbine powering the ship.

>nuclear power

>three nuclear cores of a supercarrier

Where do you put them? What would they be used for???? 60% of that energy would be a waste, used only to heat the water around the ship. Not to mention the cost or expense.

If a navy wanted to go the dozen smaller ships route, they could do something like this:

>one turret with a big (400-500mm) CLGG cannon on the front, it can be rotated 270 degrees

>a "castle" on the middle, it has the bridge, sensors, lots of CIWS (to give a 360 degrees coverage), missiles (if they are even needed when there is the cannon), even torpedo launchers to launch anti-torpedo torpedoes

>the rear is there for that mission module meme, you could install anything from a helipad to a module for muhreens

This way they could spam one kind of ship to do nearly everything, and they'd have a retarded amount of firepower.

>>568681

>the gas tanks can be used to fuel the actual ships engine and the guns at the same time

Wouldn't you have to use liquified gas for that to work?

>>568705

Please tell me that model was built for April's fool.

>>568710

Not for a shaft turbine. I know of a company that uses methane to fuel a turbine generator for exploration in the territories.

>>568684

Fluorine canisters exist you know

Iowas cost as much as a Arleigh Burke-class destroyer cost to build once you factor in inflation.

Why destroy a historical ship, when the ships were morale black holes when they were reactivated?

We have better steel that's stronger and lighter than what Granpa's generation used.

Building New Seawolves make more sense than a Iowa's replacement.

>>568764

>>>/reddit/

>>568699

>>568983

You know that USN ships would only reverse into cargo ships if you mounted a purpose built ram on the prow. If you added a ramming blade to the stern then they'd somehow manage to get the ship moving sideways when they collided with civilian vessels.

>>568681

>Scramjet shell have already been tested on the 16 incher, and they gave 200-400 mile ranges.

Link pls? i didn't hear about the scramjet projectile having already been tested, i thought it was a theory thing only. Did the tests mention any feasibility for anti-air usage, or does it just move too fast?

Another thought is to go the full meme and drop a nuclear reactor and railguns on it, but that kinda defeats the purpose of bringing back the Iowa.

>>568995

>Aircraft Carrier drifting

This needs to become a thing.

>>568988

Nice dubs, that would at least slow them down ridiculously, which could make the collisions less damaging …

It would be better if more boring to simply make arsenal ships a thing and have small, stupid fast ships with target designation and a rack or two of their own missiles, asroc and a gun and CIWS.

>>570248

Wouldn't those fast attack ships be all but suicide missions for their crew?

>>570271

I didn't know we called small destroyers suicide boats.

How expensive would missiles be such as a Tomahawk missile if the Government were to not allow the manufactures to rip the tax payers off?

>>570397

If the industry were nationalized it would run even less efficiently and costs would be even higher than they are now.

>hydrogen

I always see people focusing on making a system as efficient as possible, but it ends up being an unrealistic nightmare. Try as much as possible to work with off the shelf technology.

>>570232

I'm guessing here, but this might be one source:

>>570271

>>570391

Modern ships are suicide boats regardless of size, have been since the invention of the anti ship missile. It was possible to evade or armor against a torpedo, but it's impossible to evade or armor against a missile. A modern day carrier would be simple to gut.

>>570397

A guy built a cruise missile superior to the tomahawk in range, guidance and payload for under $5000.

http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/missilemanbook.shtml

A 10-100km missile could cost less than $1000.

>>570403

That doesn't mean that the .gov can't figure out how to not rip taxpayers off.

I'll use NASA's commercial cargo program went rather well, and congress/nasa, when it was passed, both thought that there wasn't enough money behind it to work, but nasa got 3 new resupply vehicles out of it, and far cheaper launch costs too.

Setting a competitive, goals-based contract system that promises cash not just with a finished product, but on completing research milestones(and giving said research to the military), is the proper way to go.

>>570452

>one NZer outdoes the norks, alone, in his basement

>>570452

If all boats are suicide boats, then small destroyer sized hydrofoil boats with two CIWS modules, gun and racks of vls missiles makes more sense than large boats with the exception of arsenal ships and aircraft carriers.

>>570538

>I'll use NASA's commercial cargo program went rather well, and congress/nasa, when it was passed, both thought that there wasn't enough money behind it to work, but nasa got 3 new resupply vehicles out of it, and far cheaper launch costs too.

Yeah, which is proof that private corporations tend to work more efficiently than the state. Their way of figuring out "how to not rip taxpayers off" was to acknowledge they had no idea how to do this and let the private sector handle it.