Will Trump keep his promise to bring back battleships?

Will Trump keep his promise to bring back battleships?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=IUZu8bvxJs4
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

lol, why? Because daddy Reagan thought it was a good idea to make America look tough during the COLD WAR? The zumwalt provides enough fire support without being as ridiculously big.

>$800,000 ammunition

awww did the big boom scare the faggot in you or the communist?

every shot is 40 less mexicans on welfare

That's what happens when you cancel shipment of new, advanced weapons. The price of everything goes up in return to make up for R&D.

Being quiet in warfare is usually a good thing unless you're aiming for shock and awe.

it will be fun to sink them again

ok

/thread.

It'd be 1% of that if Congress hadn't welched on most of the order.

Aren't battleships trash now? Actually wasn't that Japan's problem in WWII, that they invested into heavy battleships and not carriers?

[muffled nuclear explosion in the distance]

I think you need to review the scoreboard again.

Yup

You dumb japs didn't even get close to sinking one and yet you lost almost every single yomato.

>Actually wasn't that Japan's problem in WWII, that they invested into heavy battleships and not carriers?

Japan had more carriers than the US for most of the war. Especially after pearl harbor. Battleships won the war in the pacific. American battleships.

They did get some postwar improvements, mainly from radar advances, but even then the Iowas were only accurate to ~150 meters at that forever-hyped 30 meter range. You may as well go with third world USSR-surplus rockets if you're going to be content with that kind of accuracy.

>being so ass blasted that you still go and cry at the oil slick

Battleships weren't necessarily trash, carriers were just game changing. Battleships are great for bombardment. We used the Iowa-Class battleship from WWII off and on all they way up to 1992.

Carriers serve no purpose in the modern world. They're sitting ducks to things like missile hordes or mass submarine attack. The better investment is for in space/moon mounted weaponry which the enemy can't attack in a war.

30 km range, zzzzzz

Yes it is a tragedy whenever America looses a ship completely because it rarely happens.
When hundreds of tonnes of Japanese shipping is sent to the bottom of the pacific it's called Tuesday.

Thats not true. The Battleship for most of the war acted as mobile aa cover for the carriers.

It was easy to dry my tears at Tokyo. What kind of fucktard makes a city out of paper? Hope it kept you warm.

>sinking hotels
>impressive

Kek. For all of their hype Yamatos were at most match for a South Dakota-class yank battleship (which to top it all of displaced about half as much as an yamato did).

Battleships pretty much became completely obsolete as a serious weapon of war during 1930s thanks to the improvements in aircraft tech.

I can't tell if you're joking or autistic

For the USN they do - their job is to interdict submarine/naval bombers when the Russians invade Europe and we need to ferry troops across the Atlantic.

Plus they give us a convenient airport to fuck other countries in the ass with. But yeah, as actual surface combatants they're obsolete.

US battleships sunk or struck by the Japanese Imperial Navy:
USS Arizona
USS Oklahoma
Both during Pearl Harbor

Japanese battleships sunk by the US Navy:
Japanese battleship Fusō
Japanese battleship Yamashiro
Japanese battleship Ise
Japanese battleship Nagato (strucked)
Japanese battleship Mutsu
Japanese battleship Yamato
Japanese battleship Musashi

Name one thing I said wrong. My point about carriers has been proven in numerous war game simulations. If you think outer orbit weaponry isn't the next step in military hardware then you're mistaken.

And then go next door to see where vengeance was finalized.

Battleships are the best for Carpet Bombarding shore lines , Launching Hit and Run attacks by amphibious assault craft.

Large Battleships can also be modified to carry 4 attack choppers

These will occur in the war with muslims which will break out.Muslims dont have any hi tech in their armed forces. Only off the shelf tech which is about 20 years old.

They sank more than Arizona and Oklahoma, it's just that those two were beyond repair.

>as actual surface combatants they're obsolete.

Being able to completely own an entire 630 nmi radius is never obsolete.

BASED

Fuck America

...

Oh hey

>It is possible to kill a few carriers
>lets invest billions and break the outer space treaty and cause an arms race in space for some guns in space meme
You must be autistic then.

>mutsu

That boat was sunk by Japanese incompetence without US having to do anything.

>interdict

You mean intercept?

>when the Russians invade

This just a total non sequiturm, left over cold war paranoia. Besides that, this isn't how war is going to be conducted in the future. There are no possible scenarios left for which a carrier could realistically be used for.

BRING BACK THE COLORADO

>Muh shitty plywood test target totally represents as real carrier

No. It would take literally hundreds of missiles fired near simultaneously to even have a chance of getting through carrier defense systems. It can't be done.

>If I call it a meme his point is invalid.

Seems like you're the autistic one. You've spent so much time on Sup Forums you left it formulate your arguments for you.

$800,000 of freedom

>You mean intercept?
No.

Congratulations, you just discovered modern naval warfare.

Did he died?

Right, in which the carrier is still viable because no one we're likely to go to war with can possibly afford the cost of the ammunition, not to mention the loss of manpower and equipment that would be lost in the attempt.

Calling me out for calling it a meme doesn't make it a good idea.
I would be cheaper and less time consuming to build 10 Gerald R Fords, there is not enough anti ship missiles in Russia or China to take out 10 carriers on top of the existing fleet
An orbital guns is a retarded idia for the foreseeable future

You are aware that there's a whole carrier group with anti missile technology, right? The US Navy is not the German Kriegsmarine, whosent a heavy cruiser and a battleship out at high sea without escort, running toward their doom.

No shit, really?

Huh. It's almost as if people have been planning around that fact for fifty goddamn years.

yes - he's going to lock horns with china

You're wrong you fucking imbecile pull your head out of your ass. Your the kind of bastard who thinks all space exploration is a bad idea well guess what dick head it starts with fucking weapons. Once they have an arms race in space before you know it we've got canons on Jupiter. You're not thinking clearly and it's really giving me the shits.

>You're not thinking clearly
Where do you think we are?

SUBMARINES, YOU FOOL

this

Im not against space exploration but building 10 carriers is much more cost effective than a single space gun

>We're going to build 32 ships and 320,000 railgun shells!
>jk we're just making 3 ships and 300 shells
>What do you mean we still have to pay the full R&D cost?
Same shit as the F-22. At best politicians are too retarded to realize that you lose the down payment when you back out, at worst they have ties to the development firms and don't want to actually modernize the military because it would mean less development contracts.

What a useless ship.

If it can be brought down by a cheap dinky plane, don't fucking buy it.

> moon mounted weaponry
Moon-mounted laser will have huge lens for making good beam, like 10mi diam. There's no options

What do you expect? We have a Congress of manchildren elected by a public too stupid to wipe their own ass - the thought of actually investing in our future might as well be in Japanese - they can't even comprehend it.

What do you mean? Your English is quite broken I'm sorry.

I think he's saying it's not possible given our current technology.

Nothing was ever possible by current technology.

Fire

>asks about battleships
>pic not related

Fire isn't a technology it's an element

Why not just replace the huge antiquated guns with a fuck tonne of missiles?

ffs that's a cruiser you dick

Excellent shitpost, Jap.
Here, have a (you)

Missiles are only useful for taking out carriers, which, ironically, renders carriers totally obsolete. Space/moon mounted weaponry in the next 10 years will make missiles obsolete.

That's quite a picture

>Spruance-class destroyer
>Ticoderoga-class cruiser
>Arleigh Burke destroyer
>Long Beach cruiser
>Oliver Hazard Frigate
>Nimitz-class fleet carrier
>Iowa-class battleship
>A few replenishment vessels I can't identify

Wew.

never seen a 'zumwalt'
post a picture

>fire is an element
Heraclitus plz go

...

HMS Sheffield would say otherwise

youtube.com/watch?v=IUZu8bvxJs4

youtube.com/watch?v=IUZu8bvxJs4

>expecting me to watch a video

Put your argument in written form you stupid fucking moron.

>4 billion dollar battleship
>one 1million dollar chinese cruise missile kills it

Its 2016, Battleships aren't cost effective.

Why the fuck would we want battle ships? We could spend the same amount and get way more effective, and much more subs and other smaller ships that are actually useful instead of being glorified bunkers.

Not a fucking chance. Setting aside the massive treaty violation and the fact that we aren't the only nation with lift capacity, space based weaponry is still completely retarded.

What the retarded fuck do you think is magical about being in space? It costs a fucking ton of cash just to put something up there, where maintenance becomes incredibly expensive or impossible.

i suppose Indian battleships can be powered by poo to carry poo for the purpose to be sunk and sink into the ocean to provide deep sea lives with sustenance and potentially make a man-made island out of poop in the middle of nowhere.

What argument? It's proof that makes your statement invalid, there is no argument.

>that flag

oh right

They thought about doing that with 70's arsenal ship but that project got cancelled.

>battleships

wait when did he say this?

I'd be willing to bet that in some military warehouse somewhere there are still some shells and ammo left over from ww2

>Nips wanting to sink this

None of this has shit compared to pic related. Time to bring back the good old days

Most embarrassing poster in the thread

FAKE AND GAY statement CTR shill

600 ft long is still ridiculously big for a glass cannon that could probably be sunk by a somali with an RPG

wew the autism is real with this faggot

>FAKE AND GAY statement CTR shill
You're pathetic.

fuck yeah, battlships

>Battleship
>Pic related is a cruiser
You clearly don't browse /k/

I'll sink my dick into her, if you know what I mean

Will trump finally mandate assault kayaks for every able bodied man woman and child?

that's just water
post a picture of the ship

...

Says the country with no coastline

God bless you, admiral Yamamoto.

kek

THIS.

>Space Weaponry
Hey let's make weapons that do the exact same thing the ones we have now do, but cost 100 times as much and have a 20 second window of opportunity every week. Yeah nah cunt