Could battleships with a comeback with guided rounds?

Could battleships with a comeback with guided rounds?
16 inch guns would be able to lob comparatively cheap but highly destructive shells to 29 miles.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Missiles can lob a bigger payload further and with the same, if not better accuracy, and mid-course correction. Not going to happen.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      idiot

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Missiles can lob a bigger payload further and with the same, if not better accuracy, and mid-course correction. Not going to happen.

      But at a much higher price.

      Current war showed us we need not hundreds, not thousands, but tens of thousands of guided munitions.

      While OP is (obviously) a homosexual, perhaps an idea of some smooth bore, low pressure naval canon would make sense.

      Sure, we tried it before on tanks and it failed, but ships have a lot bigger storage.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >But at a much higher price.
        no you homosexual it should be the same price as a guided shell

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        > But at a much higher price.
        Cost is irrelevant when you need to absolutely positively kill that fricking thing now. And besides that, once you start throwing in guidance, you’re not really saving that much money.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Also, if cost is THAT much of a problem, it’s much easier to just…build cheaper missiles than to spend billions and billions of dollars on a large warship with large naval guns.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why a large warship just put in a 155mm turret instead of VLS cells and start mogging third world turdies for a fraction of the cost

            And cost is important when you only need 10million$ instead of 100million$ to wipe the floor with sand people their strategy goes down the drain

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >for a fraction of the cost
              it costs the same you moron

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                A Tomahawk costs 2Mil$ has a 450kg Warhead
                A Excalibur shell costs 112k$ with a 5kg Warhead
                The 127mm Vulcano ones cost next to nothing with the training ones starting at 4,5k and the real ones supposedly at 70k.

                As Bombing third worlders requiers lots of small strikes instead of one big one I stand by my statement that its cheaper to bomb them that way

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                > As Bombing third worlders requiers lots of small strikes
                Then the solution is, again, designing cheaper missiles. Or just not worrying about cost, because you can build a boatload of tomahawks for the price of one battleship. Or just don’t send any ships at all and instead use a couple of million dollar drones shooting $150,000 hellfires.

                New guided shells have a range of up to 50 miles which should be enough to wipe out some houtis and their drones

                I dont say that guided missles arent great but guns could be a cost effective solution to third world ape outs.

                > New guided shells have a range of up to 50 miles
                Wow, fifty whole miles?! That’s…1/20th the range of a tomahawk.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Also, yes. I agree that using unguided or guided artillery is cheaper than using missiles.

                My point is, when you’re a competent, well-funded Navy, the difference in cost between a shell and a missile does. Not. Matter. Not when you actually NEED them.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                a missile equivalent to this shell would costs the same homosexual

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                but it does not exist moron while the artillery one exists

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >but it does not exist
                yes moron because it's useless

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >As Bombing third worlders requiers lots of small strikes instead of one big one I stand by my statement that its cheaper to bomb them that way
                so you use lots of small cheap missiles you moron
                it's not a shell you moron it's a missile that is just fired from a gun

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You understand a tomahawk has a 1000lb warhead, right? When you start scaling missiles down smaller, to fit Excalibur size, they're even cheaper than the guided artillery

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              > Why a large warship just put in a 155mm turret instead of VLS cells

              >5-inch/54 caliber Mk 45 Gun
              >Effective firing range: 20 miles

              >Block Vb Tomahawk
              >Operational range: 1000+ miles
              That’s why.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                New guided shells have a range of up to 50 miles which should be enough to wipe out some houtis and their drones

                I dont say that guided missles arent great but guns could be a cost effective solution to third world ape outs.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        you keep thinking like you are a country who is poor.

        The nations that would sling this shit around, those weapons are a fricking drop in the bucket. Once you get mass production up and running it becomes less about material cost and more about cost of time.

        The raw component cost of an "off the shelf" guidance system is less than a cheap smartphone. The actuators and moving surfaces are more expensive, and even they are cheap.

        A modern war is about the ability to achieve scale of production.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >>But at a much higher price.
      If you think a guidance system that can survive the acceleration of getting blasted out of a 16" gun is going to be cheaper than that on a missile then I've bad news anon.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    When you can print money cost is not a concern.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Warriortard thread. Do not engage

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    29 miles of range was good in 1935. It's uselessly small in 2024.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The wops can do 74 miles with Vulcano shells

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the shells may be cheap compared to missiles, but operating a battleship isn't.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can do that with a 127mm cannon and to some degree 76mm.
    Land based tube artillery works best at 155mm with lower velocities.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Large gun probably. More like single turret monitors.
    But again, how has heavy industry fell since no one build barrel bore larger than 155 after cold war? And then makr stockpiles of shells?

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Doubled length gun gives you a range around 500km with 180kg payload. Or 180km altitude if you needed to shoot at a space ships coming in for a landing.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What are you planning to destroy with a 57mm? A rowboat?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      According to the video = fast moving boats and drones

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    > Could battleships with a comeback
    No.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >no explanation how it works
    shit video

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >moron doesn't understand that the shell has the same equipment as a missile and so would cost nearly as much

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Technically, it doesn’t.
      A shell will need far more hardened electronics to cope with a physics of being fired.

      But a missile is going to have more propellant, so it all evens out in the end.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Existing models don't cost nearly as much.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >29 miles
    No. Not unless there are genuine stealth ships developed that can get that close without getting missiled on the approach.
    Maybe as a secondary armament for a few ships to do cheap but accurate coastal bombardment.
    Shit with the red sea situation I could see half a dozen mid sized battleships being commissioned just to stomp on thridies when they get uppity.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, not when an F/A-18 can rifle four GBU-31's with JDAM-ER from 50 miles away

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >29 miles
    oh, so about 1/10th of what it needs to be

    all signs point to NO

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >29 miles
    that's it?
    LRASM has a ~600 mile range
    Modern Tomahawks have a 1000+ mile range

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      and ASMs are pretty effective at taking out ships, as it turns out.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That seems extremely painful.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    For what you’d cost with an entire dedicated ship firing special snowflake munitions you could do much quicker and better with air sorties.
    >inb4 muh air defense
    Vatniks have proven time and time again the only threat they pose to anything flying are civilian airliners and their own equipment, and odds are almost certain that the Chinese are not any better. And with aircraft you technically have near unlimited range to drop munitions from. I unironically wish the Iowa was still in servace, but it makes sense why the battleship concept died in the water after the mid 20th Century.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    could they?
    yes
    will they?
    no

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >cheap
    It it's guided, it's not gonna be significantly cheaper than a rocket.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >cheap
    >each barrel cost 50 million dollars and lasts a few hundred shots
    >shell+propellant is 100k a pop

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Could battleships with a comeback with guided rounds?
    battleships needed 10 guns because they couldn't hit shit
    you only need 1 gun if it's guided
    also missiles are much more valuable than low range shells

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *