Shipbucket

The BBs sank many vessels duting the war. The Alabama alone sank 15 japanese ships. The superiority of the carrier is the aircraft that they operate and the ordinanve they can deliver. As far as ships go the battleship is more powerful. And they have political backers because the navy would rather spend billions on one brand new ship instead of utilizing what materials they have. An example is the new round of LCAC under development that is 90% the exact same thing as the old ones but the main contractor was told that they would be ordered 10 yrs from now making the project hundreds of millions more expensive. Im not saying that the battleships would be cheaper to bring back into service but what i am saying it the battleships are not as weak as everyone makes them out to be.. Just not the indestructable force they were thought to be. The thing is the ships arent wooden.. They are metal and u can take away and add to as much as you want. If the want was there or even under congressional order the Wisconsin can be brought back into service and still be viable. And i refuse to believe the phalanx isnt proper air defence because if it wasnt it would be employed on our carriers. The phalanx is to destroy incoming missles which it would take been required to demonstrate before purchase. Aircraft launch missles at ships nowadays not bomb them... And even if it wasnt a proper system she could be fitted with anti aircraft missles for air defense like many other countries use.

Sidenote: im typing all this on my phone so if i have a couple typos forgive me lol

So? Smooth-bores killed plenty of people after the rifle was invented, didn't make them less obsolete down the line.
You said it. Aircraft carriers are superior because they carry aircraft capable of delivering a wide array of munitions at long ranges.
Obviously a BB would win if it came up against a carrier without aircraft, but that's like saying an medieval knight is superior to modern infantry, as long as they don't have ammunition for their rifles.
That is called block obsolescence. The navy will need new LCAC's in about ten years or less because the old one are getting worn out and maintaining them is approaching the state where buying new ones is cheaper. SLEP can only do so much. As for why they don't build the same type as the old, technology marches on and so does requirements. Right now, an LCAC can barely carry an M1. Future MBT's are unlikely to get any lighter, and even if they do, it would be very nice to be able to deploy a squad or two of infantry alongside it.
No you can't. Old hulls suffers from no end of fatigue issues.
Aside from the many technical and logistical issues (Where do you get parts for a 600psi boiler that hasn't been build since the forties?) there's the question of manning the beasts.
The USN have no personnel qualified to operate let alone teach how to operate a 600psi boiler, no schools either and the only teaching materiel they have left are the technical manuals. It took more than 100 years, billions of dollars and several lives to build the traditions and experience necessary to operate an effective BB force. 99% of that is gone now and getting it back is a major investment.

The Phalanx is a Close In Weapon System. It's designed to be the absolute last ditch defence.
It's an air defence system the same way a ejection seat is a landing system. It works, but if you have to use it something has gone wrong.
You could probably get away with SeaSparrow, but the radars are going to be tricky. WHile you could probably generate enough power to run them, cooling them is another.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Sea Sparrow was to have been fitted to the Iowas during reactivation, but the launcher could not stand the overpressure from the main guns. As it was, the main battery firing arcs had to be restricted to protect Phalanx from same.

Great idea! As I am a Canada fan,I think that Canadian Forces AU must have the CF-105 Arrow(one of my favorite aircrafts).In internet I came across a site where some guys made fictional versions of it with the MKX as the current.If you want,I can send you these with pm.

I had draw a drawing of the Arrow's there has some times:

You can modify it.

Greetings.

_________________
My motto:Per ardua ad astra (RCAF)
Current Drawings:
USS Midway CVB-41 and later alterations
HMCS Bonaventure CVL-22 and later alterations
Paul 2024

OK,I will give a try,you can take it from "my AU world",but be patient.Also it will be post in planebucket.

For what U are saying on the armor, listen up
Belt 12.1
Bulkheads 11.3
Barbettes 11.6-17.3
Turret faces 19.7
Conning tower 17.5
Armour Deck 6
Now for a Nimitz
Kevlar over vital areas
You're telling me that the Wisconsins armor is inferior to a Nimitzes
Are U kidding me?

May I offer some of my AU Fleet for your Fleet