¿Cuánto costaría construir un acorazado hoy?

33 pensamientos sobre “¿Cuánto costaría construir un acorazado hoy?”

1. A modern nuclear powered battleship armed with rail guns would be massively powerful. But rail gun technologys just aren't ready yet.

2. I would take the ones in museums to salvage. use the materials and guns etc… to build the new ones,

3. I love battleships, but in the modern setting they are useless unfortunately. We will never have a gun that has the same range as a missile/ A missile launched from a F35 far away from the actual battlegroup. Which is optimal, because it means that the fleet is less exposed. The size would also make it more expensive while providing little benefit to defensive capability. At some point you do not need extra space for the radar or for a 3rd VLS system. But I guess most of you knew this already.

4. A modernized battleship would probobly just scrap the big turrets and gun designs and put some aa defenses or something els to modernize that part

   With such a big chunk will be quite easy to be viewed on radar

5. Well the Japanese launched one of their sunk battleships into space so we need to get on the ball quickly. Mr president we must not allow a space Battleship gap.

6. Battleships are obsolete, tanks and fighters are next.

7. Build it new.

8. Pispoor add placement.

9. What you want on a BB, is railguns, thats why you want a BB, nothing else. Thats why you want a BB back, so some railguns is gona cost a shitton of money.

10. The new carrier costs 13 billion. Granted it has the latest equipment and is much larger than say a modern battleship. So my guess would be 8 to 10 billion for a "battleship" This would have an extensive missile, rail gun and or LASER weapon system backed by conventional "guns" to handle short-range defense and small craft threats. It would have to have several self-defense features. This would have to include drones in various roles, electronic warfare, at least two helicopters for various roles. The issue is how you sell this idea to make something like this and guarantee its extensive use. It would have to be very efficient, nuclear powered, have offensive capabilities vastly superior to all current naval forces, and supreme defenses so nothing can get near it. and have extra abilities making it superior in other ways to most ships. All that in a very survivable package where sinking one would be rather difficult.

11. It would be sevi smaller ships if you built it today… You would have one medium cruiser type thing with the significant guns on it and then you would have a couple of guided missile destroyers if not a destroyer size thing that was built around a gun battery and said missile destroyers complimenting it… Then again I'm not a naval strategist or anything so that is literally the most ignorant opinion you could run across but that's my thoughts on it.

12. I think it would be immensely more valuable to build aircraft capable battlecruisers. One (or two superfiring) quad turret (like the Richelieu) in front with either an angled half deck and offset superstructure (Like the Kiev) or helicopter quarter deck (Like the Jeanne d'Arc or Haruna). Slap a couple VLS tubes and CWIS in there and you'd have an amazing amphibious assault support ship.

13. No way would a new Battleship cost as much as a new Carrier. Even factoring-in inflation, the Iowa class cost less than half the price of the $7 Billion Nimitz class, so say nothing of the $14 Billion Ford class.

14. not if you use slave labor

15. Would obviously be cost prohibitive, so it will also obviously never happen. The big guns are outdated, far better range and BANG for the buck with missiles. The survivability because of a heavy armor belt warrants at least consideration. Modern ships have paper thin armor in comparison. It's the same quality vs quantity argument, but if it stays afloat after a significant hit, well I think that is a valid argument as well…

16. There's a reason why Battleships are obsolete. Aircraft Carriers have a longer range. And Modern Guided Missile Destroyers pack a comparable punch in a smaller, more nimble footprint.

    But if some new innovation managed to create a new need for something the battleship still offers with no viable alternatives, build them new so you can incorporate new tech and automation from the jump. Refits are a bitch. I believe the Iowa-Class still used analogue computers. Imagine how much more compact and efficient a modern desktop computer would be in that role. Modern control systems would probably have a lot of advantages.

17. if we need a battle ship we have all the museum ships drydock spend millions to refurb if push come to shove our battleships are still capable of being reactivated but you know that. hell can we stick a sub reactor in a BB and re-fit modernize it we good to go LOL

18. the rail gun works

19. I’m sure you could build one….but the big question is…..WHY would you build one. The BB class has come and gone. There’s no need for them going forward.

20. "zero infrastructure to build a gun barrel"? look at modern warships – ie Destroyers.

21. You could easily double the cost of the new battleship so around 7 billion.

22. They should bring back the escort carrier, use the LACs as a base design, strip out everything for the marines put in maybe a small nuclear reactor (perhaps the same kind that goes in submarines?) Pull off the transport helicopters and leave a few for ASW work; you've got an escort carrier. This would lessen the risk of a serious gap in firepower if we ever lost a supercarrier for some reason.

23. With today's technology and cruise missiles extending the already long range of 16-inch naval guns, I think they can be a viable strategic alternative to Carriers

24. New Build of course, with all the bells and whistles 🙂 – so nuclear powered, main armament coilguns (railguns wear out, coilguns don't) and VLS-Cells, decent amount of armor (modern ships are tin cans which rely on active defenses and ECM – if they are hit they'll suffer major damage, as seen by British ships during the Falklands, the US-Frigate that was hit by missiles (Exocets!) in the 80s etc.), active and passive defense systems, helicopter-hangars (which can also house drones!) etc. etc. 🙂

25. COILGUN! Why? No damn rails which wear out after "5 shots" (note: It's more than that, but not a lot, certainly less than real artillery barrels!) and also a LOT of VLS-Cells!

26. A BBGN is something I think we could see at some point this century. I also think if any major naval wars happen that the Iowas will probably return to active service.

27. With how anti-air and anti-missile systems are coming having the ability to deploy artillery ships will come back into play. The navy doesn't want the super carriers to be replaced because of cost to build. In the end, it will come down to how fast technology develops in the countering of aircraft and missiles vs needs on the battle field

28. Sounds like jobs to me. Get a response from the unions and local Congressional reps. Money is money whether it is going to give back free college loans or build a new USS Texas.

29. Just think about it… Elon Musk could have built nearly a dozen battleships for the cost he paid for Twitter!

30. Cost savings in new propulsion, mechanisation, fire-fighting, electronics, erc, etc. New build is the way to got. Especially in the area of metallurgy for armament and armour.

31. How much would it cost to crew a battleship

32. today making a separate battleship would be redundant, it has to be a carrier one way or another, only thing would change is to double or tripple its size to accommodate extensive weapons systems – turrets with 20inchers and or railguns, small auxiliary turrets, launchers of anti sub, anti ship anti air, sea to ground and ballistic missiles. but such behemoth would force a real battleship comeback from the enemy to combat against, as it would be too deffendable to approach by tiny aircraft or missiles. a tourtle like battleship would have to rush in with its own huge guns to reach it

33. This is the same issue that comes up when people ask why we don't just build the Saturn V rocket again. While we could build it, we do not have the infrastructure again. So all of that would have to be built again from scratch. Think about it, the build up to the Saturn V, and the build up to the Iowas was gradual over many years and starting smaller and building up from there. Could we? Yes, should we? Well I would love to see a Saturn V launch in my lifetime, and I would love to see another Iowa… If we ever needed another BB it would mean our enemies have made our aircraft and missiles useless. That would be a sad time indeed.

Los comentarios están cerrados.