@LittleBootsPro@BladeofSpartan@ConeOfArc The point im trying to make is that a battleship isnt worth the all the resources required to make it work in the modern battlefield.
@LittleBootsPro@BladeofSpartan@ConeOfArc This thing costs almost as much as an aircraft carrier but with only a fraction of the capability and now it also demands a carrier strike group to do it's job?
@LittleBootsPro@BladeofSpartan@ConeOfArc At that point just make more destroyers instead of putting all your eggs in one basket with the battle ship. You don't need that many VLS cells on a single platform.
@wanderinghylian@BrettBaker85452@ConeOfArc Ford class carriers are what's being made now. Also carrier aircraft with standoff munitions outrange every land baed ASM in service so idk what you are talking about.
@LittleBootsPro@BladeofSpartan@ConeOfArc What's the point of having a battleship as a cruse missile launcher when you can achieve the same effect with destroyers?
@FirelordDerpy@ConeOfArc Helos and multirole aircraft can do it better. The Su25 has performed pretty terribly in Ukraine as it is the most shot down fixed wing mand aircraft in the conflict.
Their are better cheaper ways to deal with drones that don't involve keeping outdated equipment in service.
@FirelordDerpy@ConeOfArc This is the A-10 problem all over again. Its too overkill for COIN but would get it's shit rocked in a Peer or neer peer conflict. Just let go already.
@FirelordDerpy@ConeOfArc Resource intensive and gives very little in return.
Armor is irrelevant because shaped charges exist. ( There is a reason everyone focases on speed and standoff weapons)
Drones can linger too.
@ArthurMora19@ConeOfArc I also just forgot to mention that a one 16" shell โ one missile in terms of accuracy, power and range. Its going to take several shells to replicate the effect a single missile would have.
@FirelordDerpy@Rhodan69214715@ConeOfArc Thay are considerably more inaccurate than bombs, which means you would need to fire several shots to hit your target.