[Svartalfiar]

On my phone so this is short and not very quote-y.

The thing is, is that the larger guns aren’t really used for naval combat. Maybe in WWII when you had groups of ships, and your 1% hit rate was multiplied by 20 targets. Yes, modern round guidance systems are more accurate, but 8”+ guns are going to be used for shore bombardment, where there’s a greater area of effect and a miss isn’t as much of a miss.

On the other hand, scaling down you start losing out on impact and how much damage you can do. Equal momentum does not equal the same punch across different bores.

[LonePalm]

I think we are in general agreement here.

The original article highlighted the weapon as a lower cost method of killing cruise missiles and drones over the Sea Sparrow and SM2 missile systems. For this purpose you would WANT the Mk45 5" or the 76mm OTO Melara.

Larger calibers are preferable for shore bombardment but for that purpose you don't need the HVP guided projectiles. Standard ammunition works just fine. Naval Gun Fire Support (NGFS) is a MUCH simpler fire control solution vs that of hitting a surface vessel, drone, aircraft, or missile.

The point remains that our current ship hulls are not designed for and would not be able to handle a scaled up version of the Mk45 5" gun. This means that new classes of ships would have to be designed and built.

Yes, we could bring back 2 or 3 of the Iowa BBs but it might be cheaper to design and build new ships. Bringing back the BBs would be faster but if they are needed that badly then we have much bigger problems. Notably, the failure of our Intelligence Services to identify the looming threat that the BBs would be the counter to.

WWG1WGA

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)