[StarSlayer]

Dear Fall River,

We're taking back BB-59 and converting it to a missile tub.

Love,

The Navy

It is kinda funny, a modern DDG can put a Tomahawk though the window of the Kremlin and had more firepower then the USN WW2 combined, yet a Fletcher could probably stop some nut in a motorboat a football field away much quicker.

[General Battuta]

Missouri's armor was penetrated by friendly fire from an escort's CIWS. I don't think it'd stand up to a full-blown antiship missile.

[headdie]

if i can chip in anything, unless there is a major destabilization in global politics the biggest threat to any warship is a terrorist with a motor boat or shore fired rocket which means a carrier operating in deep water will be safer than a battleship operating <3 miles from the coast as the carrier is positioned in such a way that
1 you would need either a big rocket or deep water capable boat to get near it
and
2 the carrier would have more time to detect and respond to any possible threat

also we are forgetting utility
the battle ship has 1 application: smashing the daylights out of something water or shore bound.
The carrier is not only capable of launching aircraft with specialized for task weapons but also is capable of launching reconnaissance into enemy, some countries base AWACs aircraft increasing detection range and command and control abilities of the battle-group and can be used as a mobile relief center in an humanitarian emergency if some one chose to employ the ship in such a way.

tbh until such time as orbital warfare comes into play the carrier will be the core of any navy operating to be a global threat

[Scotty]

I think it would be cool to just mount a big gun or two on a carrier.  Don't know how that would work out practically, but it would sure as hell be cool.

[headdie]

I think it would be cool to just mount a big gun or two on a carrier.  Don't know how that would work out practically, but it would sure as hell be cool.

Something like
                                                    ____
                                                    |      |
                                                    |      |
          --------------------------------------------------------------------
   ____/------                                                                     --------\_____
  |____         |                                                                   |           _____|
           |____|                                                                   |_____|
           \                                                                                    |
             \                                                                                  |
               \________________________________________|

[Thaeris]

Some carriers in WWII had some fairly large guns on them... 5in at least. And with multiple weapons of the same type in one turret.

...Though I don't believe there were any carriers with more than two big guns to a turret.

I believe the last class of US assault carriers retired actually had 5in gun turrets, though. So, it's not a concept too far out of date.

[NGTM-1R]

Missouri's armor was penetrated by friendly fire from an escort's CIWS. I don't think it'd stand up to a full-blown antiship missile.

Superstructural armor. Her main armor deck is one deck below the obvious main deck. Penetrating .5" of STS isn't much of a feat. The main armor deck and armor belt are without a doubt proof against any antiship missile currently in service.

[MR_T3D]

well it is designed to fool missiles into premature;7 detonation
if an enemy knew enough about the design of a ship,  one could relatively easily design weapon system(s) to defeat it, or at least severly damage it.

[NGTM-1R]

Not really. The belt/main deck armor is proof because modern missiles are HE. Even adding a fuze delay would not do any good as it would simply bounce off. A shaped charge or HEAT warhead could penetrate, but those are considered unuseful against any other ship design, and so not cost-effective.

[General Battuta]

Missouri's armor was penetrated by friendly fire from an escort's CIWS. I don't think it'd stand up to a full-blown antiship missile.

Superstructural armor. Her main armor deck is one deck below the obvious main deck. Penetrating .5" of STS isn't much of a feat. The main armor deck and armor belt are without a doubt proof against any antiship missile currently in service.

Yeah, but the ship's going to be mission-killed by losing its superstructure, and pop-up, top-down missile attacks (like against a tank) aren't difficult to arrange. A battleship's armor really protects only two things: the machinery and the magazines. The stuff on the superstructure is all anti-strafing/splinter plating. Lose the superstructure, you lose fire control, radar, everything important. Plus you're probably burning by then.

Also, I'm not sure we can say they're 'no doubt proof'. Ships with equivalent armor belts were overcome again and again by bombing and torpedoes (often simply by not hitting where the belt was). The number of cheap ASMs you can put in the air suggests to me that Missouri would be wasted pretty quick.

[Kosh]

Missouri's armor was penetrated by friendly fire from an escort's CIWS. I don't think it'd stand up to a full-blown antiship missile.

Superstructural armor. Her main armor deck is one deck below the obvious main deck. Penetrating .5" of STS isn't much of a feat. The main armor deck and armor belt are without a doubt proof against any antiship missile currently in service.

Good point. So from your point of view why not bring them back into service?

[NGTM-1R]

They're expensive, and specialized.

[General Battuta]

Missouri's armor was penetrated by friendly fire from an escort's CIWS. I don't think it'd stand up to a full-blown antiship missile.

Superstructural armor. Her main armor deck is one deck below the obvious main deck. Penetrating .5" of STS isn't much of a feat. The main armor deck and armor belt are without a doubt proof against any antiship missile currently in service.

Good point. So from your point of view why not bring them back into service?

I already addressed this. The ship does not function without a superstructure. It doesn't matter how good the armor belt is, that .5" of anti-strafe/splinter armor is not good enough.

[Kosh]

I already addressed this.

I was asking NGHTM1R.

[TrashMan]

Missouri's armor was penetrated by friendly fire from an escort's CIWS. I don't think it'd stand up to a full-blown antiship missile.

Sauce or it didn't happen.

EDIT:
You fail at understanding navy warfare and ship design Batutta.

Battleship, and ESPECIALLY the Iowa, are designed for redundancy and being especially hard to mission-kill.
You can turn it into a burning piece of scrap - but it will still float and fire. Fire control, ammo and the guns - heck, all mission-critical areas - are the most protected ones.

[IceFire]

Missouri's armor was penetrated by friendly fire from an escort's CIWS. I don't think it'd stand up to a full-blown antiship missile.

Sauce or it didn't happen.

EDIT:
You fail at understanding navy warfare and ship design Batutta.

Battleship, and ESPECIALLY the Iowa, are designed for redundancy and being especially hard to mission-kill.
You can turn it into a burning piece of scrap - but it will still float and fire. Fire control, ammo and the guns - heck, all mission-critical areas - are the most protected ones.

While I know and understand what you're saying...its still largely a mission-kill if that kind of scenario were to happen.  Sure the battleships of old, especially the Iowa class, were designed to last through some serious stand up fights.  But despite all of that if you are at the point where your superstructure is a burning hulk then its likely the enemy has the ability to strike at will and even if say half of the main batteries are still effective...thats not a good place to be in.

The Bismarck still had a measure of functionality when the Royal Navy cornered the ship and blasted it to pieces.  The TV documentary from a few years ago confirmed that the Bismarck sank due to scuttling rather than the torpedoes or shells from the Royal Navy.  I guess my point is if its that bad already then the overall usefulness of a giant unsinkable hunk of metal is greatly questionable.  Even if some of it still functions...its not really a significant player in the battle anymore.  In the modern day that would mean that you would also be effectively blind due to lack of sensors.

[Kosh]

The TV documentary from a few years ago confirmed that the Bismarck sank due to scuttling rather than the torpedoes or shells from the Royal Navy.  I guess my point is if its that bad already then the overall usefulness of a giant unsinkable hunk of metal is greatly questionable.

When it was cornered the first RN salvo knocked out the bridge and fire control IIRC, so it couldn't shoot back. Given it's appearent difficulty to sink imagine if the Royal Navy didn't get the lucky shot......

[General Battuta]

Missouri's armor was penetrated by friendly fire from an escort's CIWS. I don't think it'd stand up to a full-blown antiship missile.

Sauce or it didn't happen.

EDIT:
You fail at understanding navy warfare and ship design Batutta.

Battleship, and ESPECIALLY the Iowa, are designed for redundancy and being especially hard to mission-kill.
You can turn it into a burning piece of scrap - but it will still float and fire. Fire control, ammo and the guns - heck, all mission-critical areas - are the most protected ones.

The ship will not be able to fight without the superstructure. End of story. Radar, comms, everything: it's up there.

Compare the cost of even a hundred ASMs to the cost of the Missouri, not to mention the cost of such a humiliating defeat to the US, and it's easy to see why battleships are gone.

The fact that the Yamato could be taken out by WWII bombers and torpedo planes suggests that Missouri is going to end up just the same way in the face of a saturation ASM attack. The same is probably true of today's carriers, mind, but at least they don't have to get so close.

[headdie]

Missouri's armor was penetrated by friendly fire from an escort's CIWS. I don't think it'd stand up to a full-blown antiship missile.

Sauce or it didn't happen.

EDIT:
You fail at understanding navy warfare and ship design Batutta.

Battleship, and ESPECIALLY the Iowa, are designed for redundancy and being especially hard to mission-kill.
You can turn it into a burning piece of scrap - but it will still float and fire. Fire control, ammo and the guns - heck, all mission-critical areas - are the most protected ones.

The ship will not be able to fight without the superstructure. End of story. Radar, comms, everything: it's up there.

Compare the cost of even a hundred ASMs to the cost of the Missouri, not to mention the cost of such a humiliating defeat to the US, and it's easy to see why battleships are gone.

The fact that the Yamato could be taken out by WWII bombers and torpedo planes suggests that Missouri is going to end up just the same way in the face of a saturation ASM attack. The same is probably true of today's carriers, mind, but at least they don't have to get so close.

the other thing about carriers is they have a wider range of capabilities than battleships

[redsniper]

Wait, the Missouri? Wasn't that the ship in MGS4?