There's quite a few ways of looking at this:c3k wrote: Wed Dec 24, 2025 3:09 am Random thoughts in SUPPORT of a modern BB-concept ship:
1. ARMOR. ARMOR. ARMOR. Current ships seem to be eggshells with hammers. Everyone assumes nukes, so armor would be negated, so we have thin-hulled ships. However, rational minds have prevailed in all conflicts since nuclear weapons were first used. I would think that conventional combat would continue. In what sense is 12" of hardened steel bad to have on ship? It's got to have some better protection against the HE rounds. Most missiles have "soft" penetrators. They rely on pure HE, possibly some HEAT (but that's easily mitigated.) So, armor would help survivability, yes?
The first is that armour is HEAVY and would require significant sacrifices elsewhere.
Secondly, all the stuff you need to be effective in a modern fight (i.e. sensors, radar, comms) needs to be on the outside of this armour and is still vulnerable. Additionally, engagements are typically going to be at much greater distances where your main concern will be AShM (assuming surface engagement) which are usually much more accurate and potentially even be targeted at specific points on a ship. At which point that cost and space would be better taken up by defensive armaments - the best armour is not being hit, after all.
Until the cold war, a focus was put on sinking ships, but with these vulnerabilities that armour can't really mitigate there's a greater focus on mission kills because it has virtually the same effect in the short term.
That said, I do think there's some argument to be made to add *some* additional armour considering the threat from drone swarms. Where that would be though, I have no idea. Probably just better to add more lasers/microwaves/ECM.
