Same way ordinary homes are built but slightly more complex
You design the ships dimensions, mass, what it’ll fire, what resources it’ll use etc
You prepare a site for construction of the ship<preparation
You mine the resources for the ship
You put those resources into moulds that will fill the dimensions of the ship<framing and construction(this is happening on said site)
You structure the ship using beams and rods made out of the moulds
You attach the moulds together to the beams overtime until all the dimensions are filled with the needed resources like steel glass etc
You then get the rest of the moulds to construct the final equipment the ship needs like pipes, wires, ac, generators, cannons, telescopes, radio ware etc
And that’s about it
>>405>How are battleships made?
in a shipyard, with industrial workers and tools>what would a country need for it to have domestic ship construction?
access to building materials, the necessary tools and labour pool, specialized port towns help make this more efficient>what does a nation need these days to be a naval power?
productive ports, fuel
you also need a good munitions industry to go with it btw
the collective expertise in large metalworking that both require could be flexible for either, too, which is why the soviets loved them especially compared to other war industries
>>405>How are battleships made?
The term battleship refers to a specific type of warship with large caliber guns and thick armor. Battleships became obsolete in WWII and have not been produced since then. The generic term for a military combat ship is warship, not battleship.
Production of warships and civilian ships are similar. Both require the construction of a hull, out of steel. Today, hulls are often manufactured in large segments and welded together. Modern warships since the 1990s will have hull shapes optimized to reduce their radar signature giving them some degree of "stealth". This stealth is not invisibility but it reduces the range at which a ship could be detected by radar.
After hull assembly, the propulsion of the ship is installed into the hull. Civilian ships and slower warships typically use large diesel engines. Warships that require higher speeds will use gas turbine engines. In the past, steam turbines and reciprocating steam engines which burned oil or coal were common in both civilian and military ships. The ship engines transfer mechanical energy through shafts and gearboxes to turn the propellers of the ship, much like how a car engine transfers power through the gearbox and driveshaft to the car wheels. Electrical generation is an important part of modern ships, especially warships since radar require huge quantities of power. Ships have smaller dedicated engines for electrical generation, separate form the main propulsion engines. In recent years, a concept called "integrated electric propulsion" or IEP is being developed in warships were the main engine generates electricity only. This electricity is used to both propel the ship and also provide onboard power for all other subsystems.
After the propulsion is installed the other subsystems of a ship are installed. Subsystems include wiring to deliver power to all electronic components of the ship, heating and cooling for crew and cargo, living accommodations for crew (food cooking areas, bathrooms, sleeping areas). In addition to the above subsystems war ships will also carry weapons, radars, and other sensors/communication systems. The primary weapons today are not guns (cannons) but missiles. To launch missiles, modern warships have large vertical tubes installed in the deck of the ship, these are called Vertical Launch System or VLS. They are mechanically simpler and can launch missiles faster than older missile launching systems used in the cold war. Missiles armament include missiles for attacking land targets, other ships, aircraft, and submarines.
The biggest threat to ships are aircraft and submarines. Modern warships carry radar to find and shoot down aircraft and missiles, though it is not known just how effective these systems are. Sonar is used to find submarines or intercept torpedoes. Defeating underwater threats is even more difficult than defeating aerial threats so these anti-submarine weapons are probably less effective than anti-air weapons.
>what would a country need for it to have domestic ship construction?
Countries need shipyards which must have sufficient space to fit many ships under construction and large cranes to move heavy equipment onto the ship (including hull modules). They also need skilled labor such as welders and technicians who can install all subsystems of the ship.
>what does a nation need these days to be a naval power?
It's very difficult to be a naval power. Only US, Russia, China, UK, and Japan could be considered naval powers. The US is still the standard for naval power despite its decline. It has both a large number of ships and many high quality ships. China is probably second to the US is all respects except for submarines. Russia is weaker than both the US and China in surface ships but excels in submarines. The UK and Japan are declining powers but still possess a small number of high quality surface warships and submarines. They will likely become less relevant in the coming decades. Maintaining a navy is an unproductive endeavor and requires a large industrial base capable of producing ship hulls as well as the weapon systems that go into warships. Only countries with large and high tech economies can do so. Some countries with large economies but without technical ability to produce all ship components can rely on importing components. India is one example and it may overcome UK and Japan in terms of naval power despite relying on imported parts.
>>413>flexible for either
flexible between either*
Who gives a shit about battleships?
The USA already stopped producing them when they proved they were useless technologies against Somali pirates and fishermen
thanks for the great response.
how important are warships at this point? what is the real focus of naval warfare these days if as >>417
points out that they are growing obsolete. do you agree with them? are submarines more important at this point?
Post this on /AKM/>>405
Well explicitly battleships aren't made anymore, they existed from the mid-19th century until 1946, with the last one being built and launched being the HMS Vanguard in 1946, although she was a crappy 1930s treaty design using 1910s guns so most people consider the Iowa class from 1944 the last battleships, and even further still you have the Sovetsky Soyuz class by the Soviets which were partly completed after WW2, but kinda just sat as empty hulls and were scrapped in 1949.
As to how they were made, it was a very general process that has existed since ships have existed.
First the keel is laid; the keel is the central vertical beam that runs the entire length of the ship. This bears the entire weight of the ship and has to be reinforced, back with wooden ships usually this would be made from a single giant tree, so you can imagine how stuff like the 1st rate ships of the Napoleonic era used giant trees and Britain actually went to war with Denmark when they threatened to cut off their supply of tall trees from the Baltics that they made their ships' keels and masts out of.
So once the keel is laid then you have to lay the skeleton or frame structure, AKA the ribs, these are horizontal beams that frame the bottom of the ship and are also reinforced. These differ slightly from commercial ship beams in that all ships have their keels and beams reinforced as most of the time the biggest force pushing against it it the sea itself.
This is where Battleships start to differ, commercial ships just use structural steel for the rest of the construction, as in they slap steel in the shape they want and call it a day. Battleships do the same thing for the initial hull, but then begin bracing it and compartmentalizing the interior so as to limit damage, flooding and fires. Then once the initial hull is complete comes the armor. Now Battleships aren't armored how you normally think; their entire hull isn't covered in armor. Instead the 'modern' armor scheme of battleships came as a result of early ironclads being too heavy to armour everywhere and so they developed a system called the central battery; that is all the guns, engines and important bits were shoved into the centre of the ship and only that part was properly armored. This concept gave way eventually to the idea of the citadel; the most heavily armoured part of the ship. The citadel is usually the main belt, which is what most people quote as the armour thickness of a ship, but that is a horizontal strip of armour running along the side in the middle, beyond that at the bow and stern are the extended belts, same thing with the deck; the centre is heavily armoured while the ends are called the extended deck and are a lot less armoured. After WW1 it was realized that armouring the extended belt and decks was useless, as the armour had to be the same as the main belt and deck or it was just deadweight, so once again they reverted to the central battery idea and everything was shoved into close as the centre as possible and the rest wasn't armoured. This is called the 'All or Nothing' scheme and is considered the most efficient way to armour a warship. This is important, as armouring a ship means that you're slapping armoured steel along only strips of the ship, the rest is just structural.
Traditionally, armour is best applied as one single piece, it's more efficient this way. If you compress multiple layers it's actually less effective, this is the opposite of how it usually works as space armour usually helps, but naval munitions are generally so large that they have special fusing caps that make it so they can punch through the top layer and then explode so they pierce the lower layer, whereas it can't do that with a single thick strip. So for this special armour foundries are needed, it is incredibly specialized and only certain countries could do it at their height; Britain developed the ability and the US came fairly close to doing it the same but never quite. Germany before WW1 was able to do it, but by the time of WW2 they'd lost it so the Bismarck was armoured with the layered armour which is why it's incredibly overweight for its capabilities. The Soviets also lost this ability as they never saw the need for heavy ship industry and focused on other aspects of industrialization, so the Sovetsky Soyuz was going to be armoured with the layered armour and was also incredibly overweight, but again they were never completed partially because of this fact and also because by the time their hulls were launched the Soviets were getting early missile cruisers.
Once the armour is applied and the structure is complete the hull is launched. This is considered the 'launch' date, as in the day it's off the slipway despite being nowhere close to finished. It's just an empty hull. The fitting out takes place with the hull dragged alongside the dock. Then piece by piece they load the machinery on board, this includes the engines(not the shafts, the shafts are constructed as part of the hull), the guns are lowered into the barbettes, because yes that's right the turrets are actually free sliding things that pop into the hole and historically fall out of ships when they sink upside down because while they have clips to keep them on the tracks that run around the inner ring of the barbette, these are meant to stop them from falling down from their own blasts and damaging the inner ring and not falling up from gravity being upside down.
After that it's the conning tower, more equipment being loaded in and it's just about done besides sea trials, and of course loading more stuff on the ship including ammo, supplies etc, which usually makes the ship's actual tonnage increase by around 20-30% so an empty battleship at no load might be at 36 000 tons, but loaded will be at 42 000. This has been used historically to sneak around naval limitations on ship size, the pocket battleships of Germany were not allowed to be bigger than 10 000 tons, so the Germans provided evidence that they were 10 000 but failed to mention that was unloaded, fully loaded they were 15 000 tons, so when the British fought the Graf Spee in 1939 they were surprised at how much better it was than what its specifications otherwise would have suggested. The Italians also did this by hiding most of their Battleship's tonnage under the water with bulbous bows and were found out when one of their ships had to go into drydock at a British port before WW2 and the British realized "Hey why is your ship so much larger under the waterline than on your blueprints".
Guns are also a factor, as large rifled barrels are hard to make as is the ammunition, because if you have a new calibre of gun you have to have a whole factory dedicated to making just that shell, so if only one ship uses that calibre then that's a waste of a factory, which is why often you'll see navies use slightly smaller guns than they can build simply for logistical reasons. The only times a country has ever done this was the British with HMS Agincourt because it was a ship built for South America but was taken once WW1 started, and the US with the Richelieu's 15 inch guns, they simply had enough factories to just pay one a lot of money to build these 15 inch shells for the Free French.
wtf is that ship real?
No it's a joke about ridiculously tall the main superstructure on Japanese battleships.
>>1002>Sovetsky Soyuz class by the Soviets which were partly completed after WW2, but kinda just sat as empty hulls and were scrapped in 1949.
What was stopping them from being converted into something else, like a carrier for example?
Number of reasons. Battleship hulls don't make good carrier hulls, they're too heavily armoured and don't have the right streamlining. It's a little known fact that a ship's hull shape depends on its designed speed, kind of like an aeroplane but with water, and carriers are actually designed to go really fast since they often need to outpace the wind for their planes to take off. Now the concept of carrier conversions comes from the 1920s conversions after the Washington Naval Treaty, but all of those were actually battlecruisers; the Lexingtons the Amagi and Akagi etc, which were designed to go fast and had less armour than battleships. Battlecruisers are essentially Battleships with armour stripped off to go really fast, and then slowly evolved into fast battleships and every battleship after 1930 was a fast battleship so they just became battleships. Other reasons include inferior steel, realizing that the age of big ships was over after WW2 and a shift to cruisers and submarines and a lot of the hulls were damaged during the German invasion and so in the end the cost/benefit factor just made the Soviets cut their losses and used the scrapped hulls to build the first missile cruisers in the world which on their own made practically all-gun ships obsolete.