if we did build a new class we could work on some of the problems listed like AA defence, crew numbers and automate some of the fuctions with modern 5 inch guns etc.
Also those bigger hulls would be ideal for prototype laser and rail guns. more room for the tech, and its easier to make something big
My goodness... I was just looking for a cost analysis of battleship shells vs surface to air missiles, and I stumbled upon this projected future of a battleship. I don't have the technical grounding to analyze it, but the battleship looks unrecognizable after the proposed upgrades.
Range of guns . Magazine explosion dangers.
Air attack
Subs
Require escorts and heavy support that cannot go close as they can.
Anti air defence and anti missile.
Crews size/cost
Speed can be one
They have answers too but just thought id at least make it clear I like idea but undertsnad problems.
jhe90 wrote: Too much reading this late but Il read it later.
Key problems.
Range of guns . Magazine explosion dangers.
Air attack
Subs
Require escorts and heavy support that cannot go close as they can.
Anti air defence and anti missile.
Crews size/cost
Speed can be one
They have answers too but just thought id at least make it clear I like idea but undertsnad problems.
None of those are really actually problems.
1) Railguns will have ranges roughly around 220 miles once they are made, and unlike missiles cannot be shot down. Also the ammunition is dirt cheap relatively speaking. A few hundred dollars instead of 6 figures and up. Sure, they don't have the range of a missile, but thats irrelevant if the missile can't hit you, which modern SAM and laser defense systems are promising. https://www.cnet.com/news/futuristic-navy-railgun-with-220-mile-range-closer-to-reality/ And those ranges are only going to get larger, potentially up to 400 miles.
Magazine fires are also a non-issue if you're talking about battleship viability. Every warship has a magazine, including aircraft carriers(who also have fuel for their aircraft). They're actually more vulnerable to magazine explosions because they're not as armored. But then actually a Railgun armed battleship would not have a huge magazine of explosive shells since Railgun projectiles do not carry ordinance. They're utterly inert chunks of metal and only use their kinetic impact to do damage.
2) Air Attack. With AA lasers and its own missile coverage, a battleship is no more vulnerable to air attack than a Carrier is. And unlike a Carrier, it can devote its massive amounts of deck space to offensive and defensive weaponry. While carrier are almost practically floating around naked.
3) Submarines. Do you think a Battleship is wandering around the ocean alone? Its going to be part of a fleet. Carriers are just as, if not more, vulnerable to Submarines as Battleships. Thats why Destroyers are tasked with sweeping the area for submarines.
4) Umm, no. thats not how it works. The escort vessels go everywhere the Battleship can go. Actually, its they who can go more places than it can because of less water depth. But thats totally irrelevant to the viability of Battleships.
5) A battleship can pack a ton of AA and SAM batteries while still having plenty of main guns. Mounting a lot of guns is basically the entire point of Battleships. They're more than capable of mounting their own AA weaponry.
6) Relative to the costs of using missiles, a battleship becomes feasible. Missiles are hideously expensive. A stupid Patriot missile costs $1-6 million dollars EACH!!!. An Iowa class Battleship costs(accounting for inflation) $135 million. It would take a lot of Patriot missiles to sink an Iowa class battleship, and thats before they were modernized in the 80s.
7) Speed is not a problem. The Iowa class battleships were actually FASTER than the Nimitz class aircraft carriers. A new modern battleship could easily keep up, and likely outpace, the Nimitz.
Railguns and more practical AA lasers will most like lead to gunships becoming a viable, perhaps the only viable, method of naval warfare.
Railguns and conventional artillery have the advantages that they cannot be shot down, intercepted, or otherwise stopped once they are fired. And they can also engage targets out of line of sight. They're also far cheaper and more damaging than missiles.
Missiles are great, till you realize they're way too expensive to be practical and when people develop counter measures. Lasers are going to be the death of mid-sized missiles and aircraft. Only something like an ICBM or larger aircraft will be able to operate under a laser net, and even then they're going to become more expensive and heavier to mount any laser defenses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gitzbitah wrote: My goodness... I was just looking for a cost analysis of battleship shells vs surface to air missiles, and I stumbled upon this projected future of a battleship. I don't have the technical grounding to analyze it, but the battleship looks unrecognizable after the proposed upgrades.
Grey Templar wrote: 1) Railguns will have ranges roughly around 220 miles once they are made, and unlike missiles cannot be shot down.
Uh, no. Railgun shots can be shot down, by the same lasers that supposedly make missiles irrelevant. And railguns still aren't a functioning weapon yet, since we keep having that pesky "melt the rails after a single shot" problem.
2) Air Attack. With AA lasers and its own missile coverage, a battleship is no more vulnerable to air attack than a Carrier is. And unlike a Carrier, it can devote its massive amounts of deck space to offensive and defensive weaponry. While carrier are almost practically floating around naked.
The difference is that the carrier's own AA weapons are its last resort. Its primary defense is the ability to put up a shield of interceptor aircraft hundreds of miles out, far outside of missile range. A battleship can't do that, and has to let a threat get within range of its own weapons before it can engage.
4) Umm, no. thats not how it works. The escort vessels go everywhere the Battleship can go. Actually, its they who can go more places than it can because of less water depth. But thats totally irrelevant to the viability of Battleships.
It's entirely relevant because the whole point of the battleship is its armor (which is borderline useless against modern weapons). If you're exposing the paper-armored escorts to the fire the battleship's armor is supposedly necessary to protect against then "sink the escorts, then deal with the battleship" becomes a viable strategy. And if you don't feel like using the escorts as suicide meatshields and bring the battleship in alone then, well, have fun with the submarines and anti-ship missiles.
6) Relative to the costs of using missiles, a battleship becomes feasible. Missiles are hideously expensive. A stupid Patriot missile costs $1-6 million dollars EACH!!!. An Iowa class Battleship costs(accounting for inflation) $135 million. It would take a lot of Patriot missiles to sink an Iowa class battleship, and thats before they were modernized in the 80s.
IOW, for the cost of a battleship I can throw 100+ anti-ship missiles at it in a mass wave attack capable of overwhelming any possible defense. And that's just talking about the hull cost of the battleship, not the cost or morale effects of its crew.
And of course it would take a ton of patriot missiles to sink a battleship, because you're talking about an AA missile with a limited warhead designed to intercept fragile targets. Heavy anti-ship missiles are not going to be nearly so kind. Even if your enemy is generous enough to not use nuclear warheads they're going to very quickly mission-kill the battleship. It doesn't matter if the battleship is still floating if all of its exposed sensors/lasers/etc have been destroyed, the war will be over before it can be restored to fighting condition.
Battleships are cool, but useless. They cost huge amounts of money and are very vulnerable because they are big, slow targets that can't hide anywhere and tend to sink when hit by something. Building a battleship is like putting all of your eggs in a single basket (that can way too easily be broken when a sneaky submarine sneaks by).
Aircraft carriers have many of those same problems of course, but they offer the unique benefit of long-distance force projection. Battleships don't. Battleships just blow offer firepower, which can also be offered by aircraft or cheaper ships that can fulfill other roles beyond just blowing stuff up.
Battleships were useful in an era where such firepower was needed to blow up the opponent's ships, but now that aircraft or anti-ship missiles fulfill that role much more efficiently they have become outdated. I don't think there is a role on the battlefield that they can fulfill that can't be fulfilled more effectively by something else.
The only benefit of a battleship that I can see is that the ammunition for its cannons is way cheaper than missiles. But that is kinda canceled out by the much higher cost of the ship and crew itself I think.
Grey Templar wrote: 1) Railguns will have ranges roughly around 220 miles once they are made, and unlike missiles cannot be shot down.
Uh, no. Railgun shots can be shot down, by the same lasers that supposedly make missiles irrelevant. And railguns still aren't a functioning weapon yet, since we keep having that pesky "melt the rails after a single shot" problem.
I'm not seeing how a beam of light is going to significantly alter the flight trajectory of a hunk of metal going at Mach 7. With a missile, the focused light would cause damage to the avionics, or an explosion of the payload. The amount of heat that is already being generated by the rail gun projectile, from travelling at 7200 mph, the laser isn't going to be able to do anything significant to it, for the split second that it will be able to focus it's beam on the target.
djones520 wrote: I'm not seeing how a beam of light is going to significantly alter the flight trajectory of a hunk of metal going at Mach 7. With a missile, the focused light would cause damage to the avionics, or an explosion of the payload. The amount of heat that is already being generated by the rail gun projectile, from travelling at 7200 mph, the laser isn't going to be able to do anything significant to it, for the split second that it will be able to focus it's beam on the target.
At mach 7 the sheer aerodynamic forces involved will tear the shell apart if there's any damage or instability. You don't have to melt the whole thing, you just have to start a crack or knock it off center so that it tumbles out of control. If you're hitting something hard enough to burn through the metal structure of a missile and damage the inside bits you're going to do enough damage to the shell that it loses control and/or breaks up.
Also, remember that a lot of anti-ship missiles are coming in at mach 2-3, so the tracking and time to kill problems are almost as bad.
I think i would have enjoyed this thread substantially more if you had lied and said that battleships were primed for a big comeback and it was a great idea.
No one in their right mind would build a battleship these days. One of the reasons I was told in Operations Specialist class (The US Navy ship strategy and tactics part) as to why battleships are useless is because they do require escorts.
When you group escorts together like that to protect a battleship, it means they have to stay within a relatively close distance to the battleship to act as protection. Unfortunately, this makes them extremely vulnerable to nuclear attack. With multiple warheads being available on just one nuclear missile, the era of the battleship is over. No nation would throw that kind of money at a battleship that could so easily be destroyed. It is why you haven't seen a new one built since the invention of Nuclear Weapons.
I'm not an expert in naval tactics but it seems to me that being able to defend against a nuclear attack is an ability very few oceangoing vessels of any size or class can boast.
Ouze wrote: I'm not an expert in naval tactics but it seems to me that being able to defend against a nuclear attack is an ability very few oceangoing vessels of any size or class can boast.
The difference is that other ships don't spend huge amounts of money on all that marginally-useful armor.
Ouze wrote: I'm not an expert in naval tactics but it seems to me that being able to defend against a nuclear attack is an ability very few oceangoing vessels of any size or class can boast.
That's very true, but in the case of a battleship, because they do need escorts to stay alive, that means losing an entire fleet to a nuke, not just a battleship.
Honestly, if you're starting to get hit by nuclear weapons I think whether you lose a fleet or one ship is going to be the least of your issues. We'd already be at the "everyone dies!" stage anyway.
Ouze wrote: I'm not an expert in naval tactics but it seems to me that being able to defend against a nuclear attack is an ability very few oceangoing vessels of any size or class can boast.
This.
The true carrier killer missiles fielded by the Soviets during the cold war all had an option for a nuclear warhead. This means the big battleship was just as vulnerable to AShMs as a carrier. The added armour was great against the other threats, but anyone serious about trying to sink a carrier planned to resort to nuclear weapons anyway.
The way to protect against a nuke is to intercept it far enough away from the target that even if it does go off, you're in good shape. Now the latest variation of the long range SAMs carried by American ships theoretically can do this, but you're better off hedging your bets by having them on escort vessels that can be positioned between the Carrier/Battleship and the threat.
There's regularly UK warships docked outside my office, and I always walk away more impressed with the deck guns than the missile tubes.
I know they're old fashioned and largely out classed, but I'd love to see one capable of a proper broadside. They're just such an outrageous statement!
Mind you, I'm still hung up on the Age of Sail, when you had to get in close whilst out manouvering your - just like Trafalgar.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Honestly, if you're starting to get hit by nuclear weapons I think whether you lose a fleet or one ship is going to be the least of your issues. We'd already be at the "everyone dies!" stage anyway.
I agree. Survivability of a battleship group against a nuke surely is small potatoes in the face of it being the target of the opening shot of a nuclear world war 3.
I think it's mostly because wars are now won with aircraft and cruise missles, not big expensive ships trading blows. Same reason we don't have massive waves of bombers- antiquated technology.
You know, that's a very interesting distinction. I'd say a battleship, and indeed, bomber wings would reemerge almost immediately if we ever find ourselves in a traditional war again. Right now our wars tend to revolve around asymmetric warfare and police actions. For these types of wars, precision strikes is more important than endurance. A drone strike can't stop an infantry company, but it is far better suited to strike an isolated training camp. Artillery, naval or otherwise, is too imprecise for our present war style. Can you imagine the negative press from accidentally blowing a 500 yd diameter hole in a city block?
On the other hand- A Zumwalt should be able to carry about 300-400 missiles. An Arleigh Burke looks like it can launch a hundred or so. It's less clear how long a carrier could maintain a bombardment. But an Iowa class, which would be outdated were a modern battleship to be constructed, carried over 1,000 rounds for its main guns internally. Their ability to maintain fire on a target is not matched by anything in our current arsenal. Granted, it's not needed in our current war footing. But if we're seriously concerned about war with Russia or China arising- it's a good bet that we will need conventional bombardment capabilities.
As a last ditch fun bonus- those battleships are also already capable of deploying nuclear battleship shells, turning them into the largest nuclear artillery on the planet. I'm not sure how that would be useful, honestly. But it bears mentioning.
Gitzbitah wrote: But if we're seriously concerned about war with Russia or China arising- it's a good bet that we will need conventional bombardment capabilities.
No, it's not a good bet at all. A war with Russia or China would inevitably go nuclear, at which point the only thing that matters is ICBMs.
Gitzbitah wrote: You know, that's a very interesting distinction. I'd say a battleship, and indeed, bomber wings would reemerge almost immediately if we ever find ourselves in a traditional war again. Right now our wars tend to revolve around asymmetric warfare and police actions. For these types of wars, precision strikes is more important than endurance. A drone strike can't stop an infantry company, but it is far better suited to strike an isolated training camp. Artillery, naval or otherwise, is too imprecise for our present war style. Can you imagine the negative press from accidentally blowing a 500 yd diameter hole in a city block?
On the other hand- A Zumwalt should be able to carry about 300-400 missiles. An Arleigh Burke looks like it can launch a hundred or so. It's less clear how long a carrier could maintain a bombardment. But an Iowa class, which would be outdated were a modern battleship to be constructed, carried over 1,000 rounds for its main guns internally. Their ability to maintain fire on a target is not matched by anything in our current arsenal. Granted, it's not needed in our current war footing. But if we're seriously concerned about war with Russia or China arising- it's a good bet that we will need conventional bombardment capabilities.
As a last ditch fun bonus- those battleships are also already capable of deploying nuclear battleship shells, turning them into the largest nuclear artillery on the planet. I'm not sure how that would be useful, honestly. But it bears mentioning.
If North Korea or one of the less advanced nations went hot. You would want a BB in service if your gonna have to fight a regular campign. There outdated in some roles but they excel in there niche. Enemy costal artillery is gonna not stand a chance.
You want to conduct landing against hostile coast, its part the morale boost you give your men seeing that steel fortress laying into the beachead spitting flames and generally putting down a intensify of fore on one place few elese van deliver.
Or the enemy cowering as one ton shells make 10m deep crators and sound like freight trains as they pass over.
They also make any unit inside 20 miles a no go zone for enemies. Low in modern age but there big. The guns look big and they are a far more visual and physical deterrent.
Gitzbitah wrote: But if we're seriously concerned about war with Russia or China arising- it's a good bet that we will need conventional bombardment capabilities.
No, it's not a good bet at all. A war with Russia or China would inevitably go nuclear, at which point the only thing that matters is ICBMs.
As a counterpoint, I do not recall any nukes being involved when Russia invaded the Crimean. Nor were they used when the United States invaded Afghanistan or Iraq.
I don't doubt if it came to losing the homeland or using nukes that a war would turn nuclear- but it is far more likely for a proxy conflict to turn into direct conflict in a neutral country. At that point, you would have two well equipped professional militaries at war- but without the all or nothing mentality that would cause nuclear release. Under those circumstances, I think conventional war would be more likely than nuclear war. And conflicts like that are almost certain to precede any attempt to invade a nuclear power. Russia, China and the United States are all intent on expanding their sphere of influence. Eventually, that will overlap.
I think it's reasonable to assume we are going to have a type of modern battleship in the future. It probably will be called a railship because it's going to be glistening with railguns of different types. It's primary role will be bombadment with it's mainbattery (which will have a range of 400+ miles) Max range could easily be 1000 or more miles if the tech continues to improve. Another role it will have is an impenetrable AA buble extending out to approx 200+ miles with secondary battery being composed of smaller railguns capable of intercepting other railgun shots/missles/aircraft.
It won't be a battleship though technically. More or less it wont have any additional armor compared to our cruisers. It will likely be fast (In the 35knt+ range) and it will typically be escorted by an entire carrier taskforce.
In tandem with carrier groups the railship will easily destroy fixed ground defenses within main battery range and provide air cover for opperations and kill hard targets (bunkers)(buildings) as a form of quick artillery.
It's not like carriers can't do all this now - it's just that lives and aircraft are expensive to risk. 10kg slugs that railguns will be chucking cost approximately gak. It's also fair to say that the railgun will be more effective at breaking hard targets - because raw velocity on target is brutally effective at destroying things (even things that are under ground).
It remains to be seen how they will be utilized but they probably will exist.
Gitzbitah wrote: But if we're seriously concerned about war with Russia or China arising- it's a good bet that we will need conventional bombardment capabilities.
No, it's not a good bet at all. A war with Russia or China would inevitably go nuclear, at which point the only thing that matters is ICBMs.
This is a good point - makes you wonder though - How effective could a battleship with a huge complement of rail-guns be at protecting coastal cities from nuclear attack?
It won't be a battleship though technically. More or less it wont have any additional armor compared to our cruisers. It will likely be fast (In the 35knt+ range) and it will typically be escorted by an entire carrier taskforce.
The warship classification you're looking for is 'Battlecruiser', that is to say, a warship of equivalent size and armament to a battleship which removes the armour to focus instead on speed and range.
It won't be a battleship though technically. More or less it wont have any additional armor compared to our cruisers. It will likely be fast (In the 35knt+ range) and it will typically be escorted by an entire carrier taskforce.
The warship classification you're looking for is 'Battlecruiser', that is to say, a warship of equivalent size and armament to a battleship which removes the armour to focus instead on speed and range.
I guess any modern battleship would be a battle-cruiser based on the definition of a battle-cruiser. It's just that no real battleship would be made again - the idea of tanking hits in a ship was lost in WW2 - all ships can be sunk if they get hit. Better to out-range and outrun and outgun an enemy with firepower of this magnitude. It's basically the same argument when it comes to the Iowa Class ships. Technically you could call them battle-cruisers because the ships design was focused more on speed rather than heavy armor but in a head to head they would have beat any actual battleship before they even knew what hit them (due to always having the advantage in a battle due to high speed and superior range/fire-control over enemy battleships). I would just call this the evolution of the battleship class rather than calling every battleship post Iowa a battle cruiser.
It won't be a battleship though technically. More or less it wont have any additional armor compared to our cruisers. It will likely be fast (In the 35knt+ range) and it will typically be escorted by an entire carrier taskforce.
The warship classification you're looking for is 'Battlecruiser', that is to say, a warship of equivalent size and armament to a battleship which removes the armour to focus instead on speed and range.
I guess any modern battleship would be a battle-cruiser based on the definition of a battle-cruiser. It's just that no real battleship would be made again - the idea of tanking hits in a ship was lost in WW2 - all ships can be sunk if they get hit. Better to out-range and outrun and outgun an enemy with firepower of this magnitude. It's basically the same argument when it comes to the Iowa Class ships. Technically you could call them battle-cruisers because the ships design was focused more on speed rather than heavy armor but in a head to head they would have beat any actual battleship before they even knew what hit them (due to always having the advantage in a battle due to high speed and superior range/fire-control over enemy battleships). I would just call this the evolution of the battleship class rather than calling every battleship post Iowa a battle cruiser.
The tactical purpose of a lightly armoured cruiser is not generally to stand in the line of battle. It's for safeguarding smaller ships from being attacked by anything less than a major fleet action, or acting independently (or with other cruisers) to prey upon isolated commerce and smaller warships groups (other cruisers, destroyers, corvettes, etc).
That's why the speed is essential; it's designed to be able to flee from any armoured warship of equivalent size and firepower (which is in turn weighed down by the armour and cannot catch it) whilst being able to outgun and match speed with smaller targets. It doesn't outgun or outfight the battleship. In most fleets, a battleship and battlecruiser retain identical fire control systems as they have identical armament (honking big guns!) If a battleship squares up to a battlecruiser for a 1v1, assuming both fleets are of equivalent technological parity, the battlecruiser will get smashed as it cannot endure the punishment from the battleship, which can in turn soak up the return fire.
The superior engines are there to ensure that it can escape the battleship, and not have to engage in any fight in which it doesn't have the upper hand. That's why it's the battle 'cruiser' and not the battle 'ship'. The engines permit it to dictate the best course of action; to flee or fight.
The reason why battleships or armoured cruisers are no longer utilised is the same reason why regular cruisers and destroyers have been sized up and begun to perform the functions of more traditional fleet combatants; namely that nobody bothers building navies anymore and so there's no need to plan for fleet to fleet (or even ship to ship so much) actions. If China decides to try and match US naval power, and the battleship/cruiser re-emerge as a result, you'll see the roles revert back to more traditional ones.
I would be very surprised to see the Battleship make a comeback barring some major technological disruption that negates aircraft, drones, mines, torpedoes and long range munitions. Far smaller and cheaper vessels can carry weapond capable of defeating battleships, often from ranges outside the range of the big guns, and those big gun ships are enormously expensive.
Even at their height, when Battleships ostensibly ruled the waves, they almost never actually fought even through two world wars, such that each instancr was a rare and memorable event with usually no decisive ultimate conclusion or they were caught out and destroyed by overwhelming numbers. They were too valuable to lose, too expensive to operate, and ultimately they were impractical to win naval battles with. Aircraft, submarines and larger destroyers and smaller cruisers have come to dominate naval warfare for a reason.
Ouze wrote: I'm not an expert in naval tactics but it seems to me that being able to defend against a nuclear attack is an ability very few oceangoing vessels of any size or class can boast.
That's very true, but in the case of a battleship, because they do need escorts to stay alive, that means losing an entire fleet to a nuke, not just a battleship.
Carriers need escorts 100% more than Battleships do. A battleship can at least take a pounding by itself and still survive. Carriers cannot. But you'd still be operating a complete fleet. Naval vessels have not been able to operate independently for hundreds of years aside from Submarines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: I would be very surprised to see the Battleship make a comeback barring some major technological disruption that negates aircraft, drones, mines, torpedoes and long range munitions.
As mentioned. Lasers. That takes away Aircraft and any long range projectiles that aren't railguns or conventional artillery. Mines, torpedoes, and the like are not arguments against battleships because those things are even deadlier to carriers and the other ships which currently exist. A battleship can take a few hits from a torpedo or mines. A carrier or cruiser really cannot. And thats why you have other vessels to screen for those objects.
No, Lasers will not be able to shoot down a railgun shot as Peregrine claims. Sure, you only need to cause a little bit of damage to make it veer off course, but you will not have the time to do that vs a Railgun projectile traveling at Mach7. Much less dozens and dozens of them at once. Missiles are traveling substantially slower than a railgun shot. there is an insane difference between Mach1-2 and Mach7.
The Navy is very close to fixing the issues with the guns barrels wearing out, and they're already able to make multiple shots. Its only a very short matter of time before they get to the realm of feasibility.
It won't be a battleship though technically. More or less it wont have any additional armor compared to our cruisers. It will likely be fast (In the 35knt+ range) and it will typically be escorted by an entire carrier taskforce.
The warship classification you're looking for is 'Battlecruiser', that is to say, a warship of equivalent size and armament to a battleship which removes the armour to focus instead on speed and range.
I guess any modern battleship would be a battle-cruiser based on the definition of a battle-cruiser. It's just that no real battleship would be made again - the idea of tanking hits in a ship was lost in WW2 - all ships can be sunk if they get hit. Better to out-range and outrun and outgun an enemy with firepower of this magnitude. It's basically the same argument when it comes to the Iowa Class ships. Technically you could call them battle-cruisers because the ships design was focused more on speed rather than heavy armor but in a head to head they would have beat any actual battleship before they even knew what hit them (due to always having the advantage in a battle due to high speed and superior range/fire-control over enemy battleships). I would just call this the evolution of the battleship class rather than calling every battleship post Iowa a battle cruiser.
Well a battle crusier... The main advantages of a larger battle cruiser over a cruiser could be carrying more ammo/missiles, range, they can carry longer fuel tanks, even refuel there escorts. Also potential to power via nuclear. Infinite ranges at a lower speed.
Also you could mount a bigger fire control and radar system etc and get a ship with rail guns teamed to top of Line gun plot fore control and a advanced radar to track targets and feed data into a combined fleet AA grid or mount a larger hull and ability to act as a fleet or mission command.
Only need a few but now your BB is a flagship, fire control centre and can pack a heavy radar that smaller ships cannot mount as easily.
The problem was there only one use... Now how about you give hem more uses?
As mentioned. Lasers. That takes away Aircraft and any long range projectiles that aren't railguns or conventional artillery.
Maybe? But lasers still are restricted to visual ranges, and in fact would have less range than big artillery as artillery can be lobbed beyond the horizon in a ballistic arc where a laser cannot. Lasers can also be disrupted by smoke, fog, reflective surfaces, etc that dramatically decreases effectiveness.
And big lasers can be mounted to smaller, cheaper, stealthier vessels that could do the same job. You dont need three or four turrets (each the size of a multistory office building) with 2-4 weapons in each the way you do with guns that need that many guns to achieve hits and maintain rate of fire.
Lasers also lack an explosive component, they can superheat material, they can slice and cut, but if they hit something hard and resistant with nothing immediately combustible, they're not going to be as destructive as an explosive filled shell or missile. Lasers would also be more vulnerable to EMP and electronic warfare than shells (though perhaps not missiles).
Mines, torpedoes, and the like are not arguments against battleships because those things are even deadlier to carriers and the other ships which currently exist.
Battleships must expose themselves more to these dangers. A carrier can sit back 300 miles away or more from a combat zone, a battleship, even with lasers, could not.
A battleship can take a few hits from a torpedo or mines.
Depends on where, Battleships have been crippled or killed by single mines or torpedoes before, but sure, maybe.
A carrier or cruiser really cannot. And thats why you have other vessels to screen for those objects.
There are cruisers and carriers that have survived torpedoes and mines too, and carriers could be uparmored if necessary, but again just fundamentally dont have to put themselves near such weapons in the first place.
Railguns suffer from the same flaw as artillery. Namely, you have to know exactly where a target is, and hope that there's nothing in between you and it. It's hard enough to hit a target when you're piloting a drone with a camera on the front. When your target is 100km away and it's a foggy night, you've no hope. Global targeting would be an aid, but it's far from precise and would be one of the first things an enemy would hit in a conflict. It's not much good either if you end up whacking a fishing boat or flock of geese mid-flight either.
That's not to say it's not a wonderful invention, but as with any new technological advance, it has its limitations.
Lasers meanwhile may well turn into a hard counter for missiles/airborne torpedoes. An aircraft can deploy chaff, maneouvre, and take various other countermeasures against a laser weapon/AA fire, but long range missiles and drones are more susceptible to that sort of counterfire. Missiles travel fast, but the speed of light is faster.
Naturally though, it's a weather dependent weapon, amongst various other flaws. Again, a nice piece of kit, but will always suffer from certain limitations.
Should lasers live up to their promise, I would not be surprised to see dedicated laser defence ships designed for fleet movements and protection. Destroyer sized with the best possible detection and computer targeting in order to whack anything coming in at speed. If they prove to be effective, and America finds an enemy willing to engage in a naval arms race, we may well see a return of the armoured cruiser. I doubt we'll see a return to the larger battleship though.
No, they don't. Carriers and Battleships need escorts the same, neither needs them more than the other. The difference, and it is a very big difference, is that a carrier group can project their power to far greater distances than a battleship group can. Carrier groups are also more defendable than a battleship group because of this.
The threats to the US navy today do not warrant a battleship being built. In every theater, what the navy faces are smaller, faster ships that have aluminum armor. There is no need for 16 inch guns because no one else is building battleships either.
No, they don't. Carriers and Battleships need escorts the same, neither needs them more than the other. The difference, and it is a very big difference, is that a carrier group can project their power to far greater distances than a battleship group can. Carrier groups are also more defendable than a battleship group because of this.
The threats to the US navy today do not warrant a battleship being built. In every theater, what the navy faces are smaller, faster ships that have aluminum armor. There is no need for 16 inch guns because no one else is building battleships either.
The entire thrust of the discussion is that those 16" guns are necessary for things other then naval combat. AKA murderfacing the ever living feth out of everything with 25 miles of the shore line.
No, they don't. Carriers and Battleships need escorts the same, neither needs them more than the other. The difference, and it is a very big difference, is that a carrier group can project their power to far greater distances than a battleship group can. Carrier groups are also more defendable than a battleship group because of this.
The threats to the US navy today do not warrant a battleship being built. In every theater, what the navy faces are smaller, faster ships that have aluminum armor. There is no need for 16 inch guns because no one else is building battleships either.
The entire thrust of the discussion is that those 16" guns are necessary for things other then naval combat. AKA murderfacing the ever living feth out of everything with 25 miles of the shore line.
Well also ig another navy starts thr thing where warships threaten to ram each other..
One of those big ships. Ram, yeah you ain't gonna win.
Back yo point. Its about the intensity and duration of bombardment one can level at targets and as ww2 0
Proved they can do these fire missions for a few hours straight before having to rearm.
They have can be laying down 18 rounds a minute, each weighing a ton.
Even conservative that's hundreds of tons of steel and explosive flying at you every hour.
Hundreds of bone shaking impacts and watching the ground torn asunder by 30 fpot crators.
They ain't subtle by any means but when you brute firepower. Its what they do.
No, they don't. Carriers and Battleships need escorts the same, neither needs them more than the other. The difference, and it is a very big difference, is that a carrier group can project their power to far greater distances than a battleship group can. Carrier groups are also more defendable than a battleship group because of this.
The threats to the US navy today do not warrant a battleship being built. In every theater, what the navy faces are smaller, faster ships that have aluminum armor. There is no need for 16 inch guns because no one else is building battleships either.
The entire thrust of the discussion is that those 16" guns are necessary for things other then naval combat. AKA murderfacing the ever living feth out of everything with 25 miles of the shore line.
Nope, the military has better things to do that with that are less expensive. They can take a carrier group, load the planes up with all kinds of air to ground missiles, and all kinds of bombs, and get the same effect. That's why they taught us that battleships are pretty much useless now.
No, they don't. Carriers and Battleships need escorts the same, neither needs them more than the other. The difference, and it is a very big difference, is that a carrier group can project their power to far greater distances than a battleship group can. Carrier groups are also more defendable than a battleship group because of this.
The threats to the US navy today do not warrant a battleship being built. In every theater, what the navy faces are smaller, faster ships that have aluminum armor. There is no need for 16 inch guns because no one else is building battleships either.
The entire thrust of the discussion is that those 16" guns are necessary for things other then naval combat. AKA murderfacing the ever living feth out of everything with 25 miles of the shore line.
Nope, the military has better things to do that with that are less expensive. They can take a carrier group, load the planes up with all kinds of air to ground missiles, and get the same effect. That's why they taught us that battleships are pretty much useless now.
I don't think you quite grasp how expensive it would be for a carrier based Wing to deliver the type of raw firepower that a single battleship can. I'm not even sure that a carrier can do that, to be honest.
No, they don't. Carriers and Battleships need escorts the same, neither needs them more than the other. The difference, and it is a very big difference, is that a carrier group can project their power to far greater distances than a battleship group can. Carrier groups are also more defendable than a battleship group because of this.
The threats to the US navy today do not warrant a battleship being built. In every theater, what the navy faces are smaller, faster ships that have aluminum armor. There is no need for 16 inch guns because no one else is building battleships either.
The entire thrust of the discussion is that those 16" guns are necessary for things other then naval combat. AKA murderfacing the ever living feth out of everything with 25 miles of the shore line.
Nope, the military has better things to do that with that are less expensive. They can take a carrier group, load the planes up with all kinds of air to ground missiles, and get the same effect. That's why they taught us that battleships are pretty much useless now.
I don't think you quite grasp how expensive it would be for a carrier based Wing to deliver the type of raw firepower that a single battleship can. I'm not even sure that a carrier can do that, to be honest.
Dumb bombs maybe. There cheap. Rocket pods and such.
But some of the missiles are 50k to hundreds of thousands or more each for the fancy types.
Smart weapons cost a fortune,
I was an Operations Specialist in the United States Navy. My job was entirely in the Combat Information Center onboard ships. I have first hand experience with naval tactics and strategies and also know intimately what kind of firepower a carrier and its battlegroup are capable of unleashing. Battleships have fantastic firepower to be sure, but it is limited range, and doesn't come anywhere close to what a carrier can lay down with it's planes. A modern carrier has more firepower on board than any other ship in the world. They can most certainly do what the old battleships could, and more. And they can do it from a greater distance. Which means, they can run bombardments of enemy territory 24/7 365 days a year with over 300+ planes and can re- supply easily because they are nowhere near the action. Most of the world has no idea of what kind of firepower just one of our carriers are capable of. And then you add that we also have its battlegroup and sometimes extra pseudo carriers escorting them and things just get silly.
I will also point out that even though some of those missiles can be expensive, so are the gunpowder and shells needed to shoot the big guns on the battleships. The difference there is that it doesn't take as many missiles to kill a bunker as it does 16" guns. one shot with modern day missile usually does a bunker in. Back in WW2, those bunkers survived multiple shots from our 16 inch guns before they finally went down.
Well, the problem is you are just comparing modern Aircraft capabilities vs WW2 era battleships. You're not accounting for what a modern/future battleship would have in comparison. You're not accounting for what Railguns and lasers are going to do.
All those precious aircraft which can indeed put down a lot of(very hideously expensive) firepower will get made expensive lawn ornaments by AA lasers. Effectively making the only way to put down that firepower be with a battleship.
Railguns will easily penetrate bunkers, and for far cheaper than the multi-million dollar missiles aircraft can use.
No, they don't. Carriers and Battleships need escorts the same, neither needs them more than the other. The difference, and it is a very big difference, is that a carrier group can project their power to far greater distances than a battleship group can. Carrier groups are also more defendable than a battleship group because of this.
The threats to the US navy today do not warrant a battleship being built. In every theater, what the navy faces are smaller, faster ships that have aluminum armor. There is no need for 16 inch guns because no one else is building battleships either.
The entire thrust of the discussion is that those 16" guns are necessary for things other then naval combat. AKA murderfacing the ever living feth out of everything with 25 miles of the shore line.
Or eventually up to 400 miles in the case of a railgun.
Yes, you do need visual acquisition of a target, but that also applies to planes and missiles.
Regarding lasers being stopped by weather. This is true, however the same thing goes for missiles and aircraft. They will also be hindered by inclement weather to a good extent. And both still need visual confirmation of the target. Missiles don't acquire target coordinates by themselves. If your AA lasers are being hindered by fog, then your opponents are also going to find acquiring a target lock on your warship to be equally difficult.
As for line of sight, this is also true. However there are many ways of increasing this line of sight if you absolutely need to. A lightweight small UAV can carry a AA laser high up in the atmosphere while remaining largely undetectable. You could mount AA lasers on a satellite in space, which would give you an insane amount of coverage. Line of sight vs targets that are airborne is also significantly more than targets that are on the planet's surface. Even simply putting a laser on the top of the ship's superstructure would give significant increases in range.
One place that I could see Battleships/Cruisers being useful over carriers is in attrition. How fast could anybody replace their super-duper modern planes once they start taking casualties? Not "Sink the carrier" sort of losses (as those can be assumed to also result in the loss of a battleship), but "Major losses to enemy anti-aircraft and fighters". In contrast, any industrialized nation should be able to quickly replace our hypothetical railgun shot. So a sci-fi battlecruiser may not be as good as a carrier in most situations, but it avoids becoming the worlds most expensive paperweight in the way an aircraft carrier could.
Grey Templar wrote: A battleship can take a few hits from a torpedo or mines.
Uh, no, they really can't. A single torpedo under the keel is instant death even without getting into nuclear weapons. The same is probably true of anti-ship missiles, one will likely mission-kill a battleship even if the burning wreckage stays afloat for a while longer.
No, Lasers will not be able to shoot down a railgun shot as Peregrine claims. Sure, you only need to cause a little bit of damage to make it veer off course, but you will not have the time to do that vs a Railgun projectile traveling at Mach7. Much less dozens and dozens of them at once. Missiles are traveling substantially slower than a railgun shot. there is an insane difference between Mach1-2 and Mach7.
The key difference there is that the missile is a guided weapon capable of evasive maneuvers and coming in a few feet above sea level to minimize engagement time, while the railgun shot is a ballistic weapon lofted in a high arc where it can be shot at for most of its flight. That is, if radar determines that the railgun shot is even going to hit, instead of being a clean miss that can be ignored. Something you can't do, of course, with a guided missile that is capable of making course corrections to ensure a hit.
The Navy is very close to fixing the issues with the guns barrels wearing out, and they're already able to make multiple shots. Its only a very short matter of time before they get to the realm of feasibility.
We shall see. When the impressive feat for your miracle weapon so far is "can fire more than one shot before destroying itself" it has a long way to go.
Grey Templar wrote: Railguns will easily penetrate bunkers, and for far cheaper than the multi-million dollar missiles aircraft can use.
If they hit, that is. The hypothetical railgun is an unguided kinetic weapon, even a slight error in aim will result in a clean miss. And at that supposed 400 mile range there's almost zero chance that the gun will be aimed accurately enough to get a hit. That missile, on the other hand, is pretty close to one shot, one kill.
AKA murderfacing the ever living feth out of everything with 25 miles of the shore line.
AKA coming in close against anti-ship missile/submarines/etc that can one-shot a battleship. AKA committing suicide. Against a salvo of mach 2.5 anti-ship missiles you have about 45 seconds from launch to impact, and that's assuming the full 25 mile range. If you're bombarding inland targets and the launchers are near the coast you might have considerably less time. And if even a single missile gets through your battleship is dead. The same is true of submarines. Since you have to get into a nice predictable location the submarines can lurk silently in position and wait for you to come to them, at which point you take a torpedo salvo that is almost certainly a kill.
TL;DR: Shore bombardment only works against low-tech enemies that can't threaten the battleship, in which case pretty much any weapon can get the job done.
Yes, you do need visual acquisition of a target, but that also applies to planes and missiles.
Not necessarily. Aircraft and missiles can be launched to the general area of a target and pick up the final location en route. A railgun shot, on the other hand, has to be perfectly aimed at the moment it is fired and can't be used for speculative area fire like HE shell artillery.
If your AA lasers are being hindered by fog, then your opponents are also going to find acquiring a target lock on your warship to be equally difficult.
Not necessarily. Not all detection methods are hindered by clouds. Radar, for example, can see right through clouds. And the missile guided by that radar doesn't have any problems with dissipating energy on the fog, it flies right through and kills its target.
A lightweight small UAV can carry a AA laser high up in the atmosphere while remaining largely undetectable.
Wait, what happened to the idea that aircraft and missiles are instantly killed by enemy lasers? How is your laser UAV (which has to be pretty huge to carry a laser capable of damaging anything) staying alive?
You could mount AA lasers on a satellite in space, which would give you an insane amount of coverage.
No you can't. Even if you can work out the technical obstacles to making space-based lasers practical (and there are many of them) that laser satellite is illegal. And if you break the treaties making it illegal you'll find that, in any war against a peer-level opponent, your laser satellites will be destroyed as soon as the war begins. Anti-satellite weapons are trivially easy to make, and the only reason nobody uses them is that we've collectively agreed that we don't want this to happen.
Easy E wrote: Why build a new battleship for the ocean, when we can build one for SPACE(!)?
It would probably costs a factor of 1000x more to build a warship in space than on earth is the main reason. Eventually we might get there. We are going to need a space elevator or some other efficient method to get materials into space before we can do that. However, A spaceship loaded with lots of railguns and hundreds of automated defense laser turrets could easily bring a world to it's knees.
I am appalled at the lack of tactical discussion of the favored strategy of dispersion vs. clustering. Am I the only person who put white pegs down on where my opponent dropped rounds so I could see where he thought I was and maybe he had actually hidden his?
If your AA lasers are being hindered by fog, then your opponents are also going to find acquiring a target lock on your warship to be equally difficult.
Not necessarily. Not all detection methods are hindered by clouds. Radar, for example, can see right through clouds. And the missile guided by that radar doesn't have any problems with dissipating energy on the fog, it flies right through and kills its target.
The battleship isn't going to be only relying on lasers you know. We'll still have SAM batteries as well for scenarios like that.
A lightweight small UAV can carry a AA laser high up in the atmosphere while remaining largely undetectable.
Wait, what happened to the idea that aircraft and missiles are instantly killed by enemy lasers? How is your laser UAV (which has to be pretty huge to carry a laser capable of damaging anything) staying alive?
A small UAV like this would be nearly impossible to detect, and it would relocate immediately after firing its laser. Even one large enough to carry a powerful laser like this would still be nearly impossible to detect when it wasn't firing the laser. It would have next to no emissions to trace and no readable power signature unless it was firing its laser, plus it would be 100-150 miles up in the air which would also make it much harder to detect. And it would quickly disappear again once it stopped firing.
You could mount AA lasers on a satellite in space, which would give you an insane amount of coverage.
No you can't. Even if you can work out the technical obstacles to making space-based lasers practical (and there are many of them) that laser satellite is illegal. And if you break the treaties making it illegal you'll find that, in any war against a peer-level opponent, your laser satellites will be destroyed as soon as the war begins. Anti-satellite weapons are trivially easy to make, and the only reason nobody uses them is that we've collectively agreed that we don't want this to happen.
I'm pretty sure that treaty only bans WMDs in space. A laser does not qualify as a WMD. Even things like Kinetic weapons are technically allowed by the treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
As for anti-satellite weapons, pretty sure those all involve a missile of some kind(or another satellite). The very things a laser would eat alive. Which would make putting a laser AA satellite in orbit basically a luxury for the first country to get it, as whoever got there first could shoot down anybody else before they got theirs operational.
Frazzled wrote: I am appalled at the lack of tactical discussion of the favored strategy of dispersion vs. clustering.
I mix it up to avoid becoming predictable. Gotta be wily if you want to stay afloat on the high seas!
Am I the only person who put white pegs down on where my opponent dropped rounds so I could see where he thought I was and maybe he had actually hidden his?
That's... that's brilliant. I have learned something today, and I haven't even finished my morning caffeine!
Grey Templar wrote: Well, the problem is you are just comparing modern Aircraft capabilities vs WW2 era battleships. You're not accounting for what a modern/future battleship would have in comparison. You're not accounting for what Railguns and lasers are going to do.
We don't have railguns unless you are from the future. In addition, railguns will have an even easier time sinking a battleship because the armor is doing gak against it. So congratulations, the battlecruiser is back while the battleship is still a wild dream.
Lasers are closer, but they are still not here yet.
All those precious aircraft which can indeed put down a lot of(very hideously expensive) firepower will get made expensive lawn ornaments by AA lasers. Effectively making the only way to put down that firepower be with a battleship.
Lasers will make the the battleship even more useless than the missiles. Those guns fire explosive shells that can pretty much be intercepted by a laser
Railguns will easily penetrate bunkers, and for far cheaper than the multi-million dollar missiles aircraft can use.
Again, we don't have railguns
Or eventually up to 400 miles in the case of a railgun.
Do you see a railgun? because I don't, nope, not a functional railgun here yet
Regarding lasers being stopped by weather. This is true, however the same thing goes for missiles and aircraft. They will also be hindered by inclement weather to a good extent. And both still need visual confirmation of the target. Missiles don't acquire target coordinates by themselves. If your AA lasers are being hindered by fog, then your opponents are also going to find acquiring a target lock on your warship to be equally difficult. As for line of sight, this is also true. However there are many ways of increasing this line of sight if you absolutely need to. A lightweight small UAV can carry a AA laser high up in the atmosphere while remaining largely undetectable. You could mount AA lasers on a satellite in space, which would give you an insane amount of coverage. Line of sight vs targets that are airborne is also significantly more than targets that are on the planet's surface. Even simply putting a laser on the top of the ship's superstructure would give significant increases in range.
And lasers will be even more effective against the shells of a battleship.
A battleship is two things, guns and armor. Someday the railgun may bring guns back, but the armor is still useless. Railguns and lasers aren't going to bring back the battleship, although they may bring back the battlecruiser.
And in the next few decades, they are going to be firing projectiles potentially up to 400 miles. The weapon is going to undergo massive improvements. They will fix the issues where the gun tends to wear out rapidly. They will improve the ranges.
You're basically acting like the military leaders of Europe did in WW1. Head in the sand regarding new improvements in technology and refusing to adapt in response.
And in the next few decades, they are going to be firing projectiles potentially up to 400 miles. The weapon is going to undergo massive improvements. They will fix the issues where the gun tends to wear out rapidly. They will improve the ranges.
You're basically acting like the military leaders of Europe did in WW1. Head in the sand regarding new improvements in technology and refusing to adapt in response.
And then you will have a battlecruiser, not a battleship.
And that will last until we figure ways to install the power generation in smaller ships to give them railguns. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the current plan is to give railguns to destroyers, because even a functional railgun doesn't make a battlecruiser viable, much less a battleship.
And in the next few decades, they are going to be firing projectiles potentially up to 400 miles. The weapon is going to undergo massive improvements. They will fix the issues where the gun tends to wear out rapidly. They will improve the ranges.
You're basically acting like the military leaders of Europe did in WW1. Head in the sand regarding new improvements in technology and refusing to adapt in response.
And then you will have a battlecruiser, not a battleship.
And that will last until we figure ways to install the power generation in smaller ships to give them railguns. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the current plan is to give railguns to destroyers, because even a functional railgun doesn't make a battlecruiser viable, much less a battleship.
I tried to make this point earlier. The classification of ANY post WW2 battleship would be battlecrusier based on the fact that it wouldn't be armored and would need to push 33-35 knts to keep up with the carriers. People will end up calling them battleships as a battle crusier is a sub class of battleship which is only useful as a classification IF there are also armored BB's which can tank their own guns (these CANT exist do to weapons>armor technology).
For the purposes of this discussion - lets just use the battleship/battle cruiser term interchangeably if we are talking about a modern battleship.
When it comes to railguns - they require massive power generation - a significant amount of space on a small ship would have to be dedicated to a rail type weapon. I'm not saying a destro or cruiser can't utilize a railgun (some US cruisers ALREADY do) this isn't the ideal situation. The ideal situation would be to design a ship capable of servicing an entire task forces artillery needs without having to make expensive upgrades to your smaller vessels. In other words - a battleship explicitly designed to have multiple railguns capable of high rates of fire. The ability of a ship like this would be unprecedented. Easily capable of providing artilery support to a 400+ mile radius on the battlefeild.
I tried to make this point earlier. The classification of ANY post WW2 battleship would be battlecrusier based on the fact that it wouldn't be armored and would need to push 33-35 knts to keep up with the carriers. People will end up calling them battleships as a battle crusier is a sub class of battleship which is only useful as a classification IF there are also armored BB's which can tank their own guns (these CANT exist do to weapons>armor technology).
For the purposes of this discussion - lets just use the battleship/battle cruiser term interchangeably if we are talking about a modern battleship.
Ok, still I doubt it will be viable. Laser technology is nowhere close to making missiles obsolete, and missiles make large warships obsolete.
I tried to make this point earlier. The classification of ANY post WW2 battleship would be battlecrusier based on the fact that it wouldn't be armored and would need to push 33-35 knts to keep up with the carriers. People will end up calling them battleships as a battle crusier is a sub class of battleship which is only useful as a classification IF there are also armored BB's which can tank their own guns (these CANT exist do to weapons>armor technology).
For the purposes of this discussion - lets just use the battleship/battle cruiser term interchangeably if we are talking about a modern battleship.
Ok, still I doubt it will be viable. Laser technology is nowhere close to making missiles obsolete, and missiles make large warships obsolete.
Offensively - lasers are a long way off. A long way. But defensively lasers are already on the front lines destroying missles and the like. However - much like lasers are destroying missles in battle. Railguns will be able to pick planes right out of the sky because they have such high velocity and as technology get better that velocity is only going to get higher.
Missles will never be obsolete though - soon missles will develope which are much harder to detect. They will likely develope counter messures and possibly split into several smaller missels when under attack to insure they get hits. For accuracy at long range missiles will always be the best - but they will always be the most expensive and easiest to intercept.
Xenomancers wrote: Offensively - lasers are a long way off. A long way. But defensively lasers are already on the front lines destroying missles and the like. However - much like lasers are destroying missles in battle. Railguns will be able to pick planes right out of the sky because they have such high velocity and as technology get better that velocity is only going to get higher.
Missles will never be obsolete though - soon missles will develope which are much harder to detect. They will likely develope counter messures and possibly split into several smaller missels when under attack to insure they get hits. For accuracy at long range missiles will always be the best - but they will always be the most expensive and easiest to intercept.
That doesn't change that battleships are obsolete. The problem with battleships is that a few hits make them useless, it is the classical example of putting all eggs in one basket. Lasers improve defense, but multiple smaller ships are still much more survivable that one big ship.
would be battlecrusier based on the fact that it wouldn't be armored
She had 14 inches of armour at the thickest point. In comparison, HMS Hood, the last battlecruiser (for comparisons sake), had only 12 at the thickest point, and much less all over the other points of the ship compared to Vanguard.
People will end up calling them battleships as a battle crusier is a sub class of battleship
Not really. They're a mixture of two classes, the battleship and the cruiser. Hence the term 'battle-cruiser'. It was as much one as the other, both in conception and construction.
For the purposes of this discussion - lets just use the battleship/battle cruiser term interchangeably if we are talking about a modern battleship.
Let's not. A battlecruiser has a specific function and is constructed along specific lines. It has a separate name for a reason. The informal 'fast battleship' is still a battleship. It's still designed to be able to slug it out with another battleship (and is armoured accordingly).
Frankly, a 'fast' battleship is ultimately just a battleship with more modern engines. Sure, a WW2 'fast battleship' could probably function like a battlecruiser when dealing with WWI vintage battleships, and that's why the differentiation was made, but that's a question of technological obsolesence and wear and tear; a battle-cruiser built at the same time would have still attained at least five knots on them due to not being weighed down by the armour. There are many tricks which can be utilised by a canny constructor to squeeze some speed out through shape and leaving some sections unarmoured, but a dedicated battlecruiser will always outrun a battleship optimised for speed.
For a general rule of thumb; If you're considering something with cruiser level armour but battleship level armament? It's a Battlecruiser. If it's packing larger ordnance, or extra armour, subdivided compartments, and so forth to make it harder to sink than a cruiser (at an inevitable sacrifice of speed)? It's a Battleship.
Xenomancers wrote: Offensively - lasers are a long way off. A long way. But defensively lasers are already on the front lines destroying missles and the like. However - much like lasers are destroying missles in battle. Railguns will be able to pick planes right out of the sky because they have such high velocity and as technology get better that velocity is only going to get higher.
Missles will never be obsolete though - soon missles will develope which are much harder to detect. They will likely develope counter messures and possibly split into several smaller missels when under attack to insure they get hits. For accuracy at long range missiles will always be the best - but they will always be the most expensive and easiest to intercept.
That doesn't change that battleships are obsolete. The problem with battleships is that a few hits make them useless, it is the classical example of putting all eggs in one basket. Lasers improve defense, but multiple smaller ships are still much more survivable that one big ship.
You have to understand why battleships became obsolete. It wasn't because they could be destroyed by an aircraft (that's every ship) It's because the range of their primary weapon was beaten several fold by aircraft. Then post WW2 with the invention of guided missiles battleships took another hit in viability. Guns with a range of 30 km just have no value in modern naval arenas. Lets change that up though lets say battleships have an effective range of 400 miles - which is comparable to guided missiles. Suddenly they are viable again.
Xenomancers wrote: You have to understand why battleships became obsolete. It wasn't because they could be destroyed by an aircraft (that's every ship) It's because the range of their primary weapon was beaten several fold by aircraft. Then post WW2 with the invention of guided missiles battleships took another hit in viability. Guns with a range of 30 km just have no value in modern naval arenas. Lets change that up though lets say battleships have an effective range of 400 miles - which is comparable to guided missiles. Suddenly they are viable again.
If that was true then we would have missile battleships or battlecruiser, but the closest we have is a Russian large guided missile cruiser.
It is true that basically all ships can be destroyed by aircraft or missiles, which makes large ships even more irrelevant because then any small missile ship can at the very least mission kill a battleship.
combing a few things mentioned here we stat off with a nice large armoured hull to protect against lighter missiles and USS Cole attacks etc.
now add the Navy rail guns at 400 mile planned range, with a larger hull like this 40,000 to 50,000 ton range we have space to play with. extra power generation to truly make best use of them.
standard good rack of VLS with cruise, and all the good stuff the bad guys hate, configurable for more sea, ground and air attack load outs.
Now guns need aiming. small drone type hanger maybe, acting as eyes. advanced gun plot computers and a latest gen radar, we can fit a bigger one as big ship.
AA... big weakness.
but
Laser defence and CRAM as close in, plenty of room to mount a mix of VLS and other cells with everything from medium range to maybe even patriot level IV systems capable of stopping a inter ballistic missile in ranges or maybe even bigger anti air weaponry a smaller ship cannot.
combine with a good comms so you can maybe have option of a combined fire solution, using multiple ships as combined AA grid?
not so weak now.
Power and speed, nuclear... powers the rail guns, lasers etc. basic speed, maybe boosted by fuel eneges llike Russian petter the great.
so not slow. target to keep up with a carrier min. maybe faster hopefully.
next. crew, automation brings down crew, rail guns need less loaders etc. 5 inch guns are replaced by modern auto turrets.
that brings down crew.
Lasty as a extra, install enhanced comms and command suite so can act as a command flagship to a battle group, extra room for crew etc,
now its ixed a few weak points. more multi role, and a modern warship for a modern age.
think that's everything but it adds up to a 400 mile gun, missile, strong AA suite warship.
Railguns are not going to have an effective range of 400 miles, especially on a platform that is moving with every wave. You might be able to throw a shell that far, but without some form of guidance system there's no way you're going to be able to aim the gun perfectly enough to hit a target at that distance. And if you're using guided shells the "just cheap inert spikes of metal" advantage over missiles disappears.
Xenomancers wrote: You have to understand why battleships became obsolete. It wasn't because they could be destroyed by an aircraft (that's every ship) It's because the range of their primary weapon was beaten several fold by aircraft. Then post WW2 with the invention of guided missiles battleships took another hit in viability. Guns with a range of 30 km just have no value in modern naval arenas. Lets change that up though lets say battleships have an effective range of 400 miles - which is comparable to guided missiles. Suddenly they are viable again.
If that was true then we would have missile battleships or battlecruiser, but the closest we have is a Russian large guided missile cruiser.
It is true that basically all ships can be destroyed by aircraft or missiles, which makes large ships even more irrelevant because then any small missile ship can at the very least mission kill a battleship.
Which is why its important to actually be able to take a hit, which modern warships simply cannot do.
So called "modern" naval design has suffered a bit, at least for the US, in terms of neglecting durability. We've become complacent and built stuff under the assumption the enemy will never shoot back at our ships, and that we will always have air superiority. Dangerous assumptions to say the least, because when the day comes that they aren't true we'll have problems.
A hypothetical modern battleship(or indeed even the old Iowas) wouldn't be easy to mission kill with a small missile armed vessel. You'd have to get very very lucky with that missile. It would surprise many people to learn that many anti-ship missiles built today would actually have trouble taking out a WW2 era battleship simply because of the armor, modern missiles for shooting ships aren't designed to kill a ship that is actually armored. They're built assuming the tin cans that everybody uses today, not something that is actually armored. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, many anti-ship missiles are designed to explode after penetration, where they simply blow through the thin outer skin of a modern ship with their kinetic energy and then explode. Such a missile would do nothing vs a WW2 era battleship's armor, it would get smashed to pieces and just deflect, and maybe explode on the exterior causing only superficial damage.
Then take on top of that that this hypothetical battleship would have superior armor design relative to a WW2 battleship, similar levels of protection while weighing less. Allowing the vessel to weigh less while also providing better protection. They would also be given more armor on their upper decks and below the water, to shore up the general weaknesses. You could even go for a similar upper deck design to the Zumwalt destroyers, in the sense that you would cover most of the ship in sloped armor instead of having a flat deck over a large area.
A ton of weight would simply be saved by switching to railguns as primary armament. The railgun's would weigh less, as would their ammunition, relative to WW2 cannons. This saved weight would translate into more ammunition storage(ammunition which doesn't have a risk of exploding) or even more armor.
This battleship would also be nuclear powered for obvious reasons. Possibly as many as 3-4 reactors, to power both the Railguns, lasers, and give the vessel extra speed. It bears reminding that the Iowa class weren't actually slow. They were actually faster than the Nimitz class carriers are(Iowa 32.5 kn vs the Nimitz 30 kn)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Railguns are not going to have an effective range of 400 miles, especially on a platform that is moving with every wave. You might be able to throw a shell that far, but without some form of guidance system there's no way you're going to be able to aim the gun perfectly enough to hit a target at that distance. And if you're using guided shells the "just cheap inert spikes of metal" advantage over missiles disappears.
You're somewhat over-obsessing about accuracy. But given the wonderful gyroscopic systems that modern tanks are fitted with, which allow them to maintain a nearly perfectly still gun while still moving at full speed(or even doing donuts), a railgun on a battleship could maintain its target coordinates even with some waves. And sometimes accuracy to within a few meters is just completely unnecessary, though the testing that has been done so far is showing railguns to be extremely accurate.
A ship as large as a battleship also tends to be very very stable in the water. The larger a vessel is, the more stable its platform becomes due to its mass. A battleship would be a very stable platform even in moderately wavy waters. That would actually be a massive advantage over a smaller railgun armed vessel, the battleship would maintain a much more stable firing platform. If WW2 battleships could maintain satisfactory accuracy with their guns, a modern battleship would be able to do even better. Even at long ranges.
Railguns of course would likely have the choice of guided shells for when accuracy is needed. And they would still be exponentially cheaper than a missile, and still have the advantage of "can't be shot down". So no, the advantage doesn't disappear. You are still saving a massive amount of $$$ by not using a missile.
A hypothetical modern battleship(or indeed even the old Iowas) wouldn't be easy to mission kill with a small missile armed vessel. You'd have to get very very lucky with that missile. It would surprise many people to learn that many anti-ship missiles built today would actually have trouble taking out a WW2 era battleship simply because of the armor, modern missiles for shooting ships aren't designed to kill a ship that is actually armored. They're built assuming the tin cans that everybody uses today, not something that is actually armored. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, many anti-ship missiles are designed to explode after penetration, where they simply blow through the thin outer skin of a modern ship with their kinetic energy and then explode. Such a missile would do nothing vs a WW2 era battleship's armor, it would get smashed to pieces and just deflect, and maybe explode on the exterior causing only superficial damage.
You don't need to sink a battleship to mission kill it. It doesn't matter that a missile cannot penetrate the armor of the battleship, because it can easily take the radar. Without the radar, the battleship can do nothing except go home.
Battleships are absurdly hard to sink, but are hilariously easy to mission kill.
A hypothetical modern battleship(or indeed even the old Iowas) wouldn't be easy to mission kill with a small missile armed vessel. You'd have to get very very lucky with that missile. It would surprise many people to learn that many anti-ship missiles built today would actually have trouble taking out a WW2 era battleship simply because of the armor, modern missiles for shooting ships aren't designed to kill a ship that is actually armored. They're built assuming the tin cans that everybody uses today, not something that is actually armored. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, many anti-ship missiles are designed to explode after penetration, where they simply blow through the thin outer skin of a modern ship with their kinetic energy and then explode. Such a missile would do nothing vs a WW2 era battleship's armor, it would get smashed to pieces and just deflect, and maybe explode on the exterior causing only superficial damage.
You don't need to sink a battleship to mission kill it. It doesn't matter that a missile cannot penetrate the armor of the battleship, because it can easily take the radar. Without the radar, the battleship can do nothing except go home.
Battleships are absurdly hard to sink, but are hilariously easy to mission kill.
Considering that each turret of the Iowa held it's fire control radar, you'd have to destroy each turret to mission kill the thing.
You don't build these types of machines with a single point of failure. Redundancy after redundancy.
Battle Cruiser or Pocket Battleship ..In the US arsenal its called the Zumwalt class Destroyer..it has as much fire power as the Alaska Class from WWII with plenty of AA and ASW to boot..
oh and the Gun range is farther than the Harpoon class anti ship missiles..
morfydd wrote: Battle Cruiser or Pocket Battleship ..In the US arsenal its called the Zumwalt class Destroyer..it has as much fire power as the Alaska Class from WWII with plenty of AA and ASW to boot..
oh and the Gun range is farther than the Harpoon class anti ship missiles..
Considering that each turret of the Iowa held it's fire control radar, you'd have to destroy each turret to mission kill the thing.
You don't build these types of machines with a single point of failure. Redundancy after redundancy.
The radars weren't inside turrets and they weren't armored.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also it isn't as if building anti-battleship missiles is impossible
The first guided weapon, which wasn't even a missile, two shot a battleship. One wonders what we could do with a modern missile designed to break a battleship in two.
morfydd wrote: Battle Cruiser or Pocket Battleship ..In the US arsenal its called the Zumwalt class Destroyer..it has as much fire power as the Alaska Class from WWII with plenty of AA and ASW to boot..
oh and the Gun range is farther than the Harpoon class anti ship missiles..
Peregrine wrote: Railguns are not going to have an effective range of 400 miles, especially on a platform that is moving with every wave. You might be able to throw a shell that far, but without some form of guidance system there's no way you're going to be able to aim the gun perfectly enough to hit a target at that distance. And if you're using guided shells the "just cheap inert spikes of metal" advantage over missiles disappears.
Railgun range is literally limitless. 400 is a reasonable goal for 10 years from now. In 20 probably capable of 1000. There is no limit other than light speed to how fast you can fire a slug out of a railgun. After a certain point though the munitions will have to be guided because variable at these ranges will be too much to overcome - which will present new challenges but make the weapon even more deadly. It doesn't need to be more than 400 miles to completely change naval warfare ether.
It may not literally be limitless, but practically speaking Railguns will likely top out at "any point on the planet" once you gain enough power to send the slug into orbit, which will be within all our lifetimes. At which point even without guidance you could target anywhere in the world with the right angle and velocity. Railguns like that would probably be put in buildings instead of on ships though since you don't need to move at that point to get range.
Grey Templar wrote: At which point even without guidance you could target anywhere in the world with the right angle and velocity.
No, you can't. ICBMs manage to work over that distance because nuclear warheads don't need precision accuracy. An inert lump of metal is not going to be anywhere near accurate enough over that distance to be a useful weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Railgun range is literally limitless. 400 is a reasonable goal for 10 years from now. In 20 probably capable of 1000. There is no limit other than light speed to how fast you can fire a slug out of a railgun. After a certain point though the munitions will have to be guided because variable at these ranges will be too much to overcome - which will present new challenges but make the weapon even more deadly. It doesn't need to be more than 400 miles to completely change naval warfare ether.
Again, it's not about how far you can physically throw the shell, it's about effective range. An ordinary pistol can send a bullet out to some pretty extreme ranges if you fire at a 45* angle like an artillery gun, but you aren't going to hit anything except by sheer luck. Over 400 mile range slight aim errors from things like the gears to turn the gun being 0.001" off result in shots missing the target. And with a gun mounted on a ship that is constantly moving from waves, engine vibration, etc, accuracy at 400 miles is going to be so poor that there's no point in wasting a shell.
Well, given that the designers of the Railgun have explicitly used 400 miles as a future potential range, I would think that you are clearly wrong. If they think they can hit something that far away with a railgun in the near future, they're probably on to something. We're not just making stuff up here. The people working on the actual railgun have said 400 miles is on the table as a potential figure. And really, potentially you could with enough math figure out what angle and velocity would be needed to launch a projectile anywhere in the world.
Would such a worldwide railgun shot use guided projectiles? Most likely. But theoretically an unguided shot could also be made with the proper math. And even if you had to use guided projectiles, it would still be way cheaper than a missile.
Grey Templar wrote: Well, given that the designers of the Railgun have explicitly used 400 miles as a future potential range, I would think that you are clearly wrong.
You do know that people with a product to sell often over-hype it to get sales, right? Given the fact that this hypothetical 400 mile railgun is nowhere close to existing I don't think the claim should be taken too seriously.
And really, potentially you could with enough math figure out what angle and velocity would be needed to launch a projectile anywhere in the world.
Again, it's not about doing the math, it's about things preventing perfect execution of this theoretical shot. At that range even very slight errors result in huge deviations from the target point, and you can't account for things like slight errors in the aiming mechanism, different winds along the shell's route, etc. Doing the math on a ballistic trajectory is easy but you still aren't going to hit anything at 400 miles.
And even if you had to use guided projectiles, it would still be way cheaper than a missile.
{citation needed}
Yes, you save money by not having to pay for the missile's engine, but now you have to build (and pay for) a guidance system that can survive the stress of firing. It's quite possible that the cost savings will not be that great, or even that the guided railgun shell will cost more than a missile with equivalent range and firepower.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: There is no limit other than light speed to how fast you can fire a slug out of a railgun.
Theoretically? No, no limit. From a practical engineering point of view? There's absolutely a limit, and we're seeing it right now with the difficulty in keeping the rails intact for more than one shot. The more energy you put into the shot the more of a problem this becomes.
One thing that comes to mind though - if the railgun promises to become such a powerful weapon, will the ships carrying one also have to fear it? A battleship might not be significantly easier to hit than a destroyer in a big ocean, but will it have armor able to withstand a hit from something like a 20 kg tungsten rod that moves at Mach 7?
Since this could be cheaper than a missile there's no sense in not checking if you could use it against naval assets, right?
Jehan-reznor wrote: IMHO the battleship of old will be used as support role, mobile artillery, or as a railgun weapon where it will be used as a deterrent.
morfydd wrote: Battle Cruiser or Pocket Battleship ..In the US arsenal its called the Zumwalt class Destroyer..it has as much fire power as the Alaska Class from WWII with plenty of AA and ASW to boot..
oh and the Gun range is farther than the Harpoon class anti ship missiles..
Its also a good example of "the cost is too damn high!"
Honestly, I feel that the US is somewhat falling into the same trap the Germans fell into during WW2. Over-engineering and overspending on stuff.
Zumwalt also can't take a hit at all. its 100% reliant on not being seen, but thats not always possible.
I disagree with you about armor. Armor today is really only effective against small arms. Instead I'd say building a ship that can take a hit has a lot more to do with construction than armor. Having good backup systems, solid bulkhead designs, and good damage control systems will be far more effective and less burdensome than armor. Not to mention having the best air intercepting systems. I also disagree about the Germans. The high quality of their mar machines was one of the main reasons they had such early success - insane leadership is what did them in. If the germans focused on air superiority rather than wasting huge amounts of resources on attacking brittish cities with V1's/V2's - we would probably be living in a very different world.
It's interesting to me though - this discussion had me thinking about the german super gun that was built in france - the "V3". It was destroyed before it was operational but had it been - london would have been brought to ruins. The battery of guns had a range of about 120 miles (these were tested at another site - they worked). I feel like a battleship with railguns would function in much the same way - except it would be mobile and provide huge amounts of AA coverage for a fleet. It's scary to think of. A ship like this would basically force nuclear war on an opponent because there would be no other option.
While thats definitely true for the Germans, they were definitely also victims of over-engineering. Their vehicles were too complicated for what needed to be done, especially in terms of cost and logistical support(like repairs).
The Railgun would indeed be much like a mobile V3(without the danger of it blowing itself up).
Armor isn't really only effective vs small arms. The Abrams tank is somewhat famously incapable of penetrating its own armor. Imagine a similar layer being part of a battleship's armor(the bulk of which would be cheaper steel, but with one layer of composites).
Grey Templar wrote: While thats definitely true for the Germans, they were definitely also victims of over-engineering. Their vehicles were too complicated for what needed to be done, especially in terms of cost and logistical support(like repairs).
The Railgun would indeed be much like a mobile V3(without the danger of it blowing itself up).
Armor isn't really only effective vs small arms. The Abrams tank is somewhat famously incapable of penetrating its own armor. Imagine a similar layer being part of a battleship's armor(the bulk of which would be cheaper steel, but with one layer of composites).
Advances in armor are probably going to be some kind of graphine coating. The stuff is supposedly 200 times stronger than steel (it's literally a hexagonal sheet of atomic bonds) the aren't quite there yet though. To actually produce the stuff on the scale of a ship or to be able to coat one with a thin layer of it...hard to say they have it in our lifetimes. It's safe to say that when they do figure it out - we will have a material that could reasonably be used as armor against a railgun.
I highly doubt a abrams could take an AP round from it's own gun except at extreme angles and ranges. From what I've learned the AP round from an abrams. Is that it can penetrate any armor that is thinner than it's round is long. Roughly 24". This is similar to what a railgun will fire. Except it will fire it at 10x + the speed.
Grey Templar wrote: While thats definitely true for the Germans, they were definitely also victims of over-engineering. Their vehicles were too complicated for what needed to be done, especially in terms of cost and logistical support(like repairs).
The Railgun would indeed be much like a mobile V3(without the danger of it blowing itself up).
Armor isn't really only effective vs small arms. The Abrams tank is somewhat famously incapable of penetrating its own armor. Imagine a similar layer being part of a battleship's armor(the bulk of which would be cheaper steel, but with one layer of composites).
Advances in armor are probably going to be some kind of graphine coating. The stuff is supposedly 200 times stronger than steel (it's literally a hexagonal sheet of atomic bonds) the aren't quite there yet though. To actually produce the stuff on the scale of a ship or to be able to coat one with a thin layer of it...hard to say they have it in our lifetimes. It's safe to say that when they do figure it out - we will have a material that could reasonably be used as armor against a railgun.
I highly doubt a abrams could take an AP round from it's own gun except at extreme angles and ranges. From what I've learned the AP round from an abrams. Is that it can penetrate any armor that is thinner than it's round is long. Roughly 24". This is similar to what a railgun will fire. Except it will fire it at 10x + the speed.
Some tanks have already taken to using carbon plating to decrease weight, the Type 10 for example. It has a whole slew of situational armour sets, using a lot of carbon plating. It's expensive as feth, but the Japanese need it so that their tanks can operate on their infrastructure (which has far lower weight limits). And the tanks need to be easily trasnportable between the islands. This was actualy a big problem with the Type 90, it could only really operate on the largest island because of it's size and weight.
Seriously though, the Type 10 is a cool tank. It can go 70 km/h backwards and forwards, and fire on the move accurately while doing so. Never seen battle though, so it's known limitations are based solely on test data.
As far as the Abrams, there is that story floated around of a tank platoon that couldn't scuttle one of their tanks that was stuck in terrain (I think it was stuck in a muddy ditch or something) because of the reactive armour, but I don't know how credible that is. It also might have the the M1, not the M1A1 or M1A2, which had a 105mm gun, rather than the ubiquitous reinmetal 120mm.
Grey Templar wrote: While thats definitely true for the Germans, they were definitely also victims of over-engineering. Their vehicles were too complicated for what needed to be done, especially in terms of cost and logistical support(like repairs).
The Railgun would indeed be much like a mobile V3(without the danger of it blowing itself up).
Armor isn't really only effective vs small arms. The Abrams tank is somewhat famously incapable of penetrating its own armor. Imagine a similar layer being part of a battleship's armor(the bulk of which would be cheaper steel, but with one layer of composites).
Advances in armor are probably going to be some kind of graphine coating. The stuff is supposedly 200 times stronger than steel (it's literally a hexagonal sheet of atomic bonds) the aren't quite there yet though. To actually produce the stuff on the scale of a ship or to be able to coat one with a thin layer of it...hard to say they have it in our lifetimes. It's safe to say that when they do figure it out - we will have a material that could reasonably be used as armor against a railgun.
I highly doubt a abrams could take an AP round from it's own gun except at extreme angles and ranges. From what I've learned the AP round from an abrams. Is that it can penetrate any armor that is thinner than it's round is long. Roughly 24". This is similar to what a railgun will fire. Except it will fire it at 10x + the speed.
The Abrams can indeed survive its own gun. I recall a situation during I think it was either Iraq or maybe the Gulf War? when an Abrams got bogged down somewhere, so the tank group decided they needed to abandon it. They tried to destroy it with another Abrams, but were unable to penetrate the armor. So they were forced to use explosives inside the Abrams itself.
As I recall when the wreckage of said tank was recovered, they just needed to replace the turret and it was fully operational.
On the other hand, at least 1 Abrams was KOd by the 25mm of a Bradly Fighting Vehicle during a friendly fire incident, which just goes to show that nothing can be made invulnerable to a lucky hit.
I've read reports of M1A1 armor bouncing an AP sabot in desert storm off the frontal turret armor (that is where it is the thickest) range wasn't mentioned. It was a friendly fire incident though so likely a pretty long range shot. Several times M1A1 took AP hits in the side of the turret and in side armor and were completely destroyed (from other M1A1's). Pretty dang impressive stuff though - this tank is a mack daddy.
Back more on topic though. Tanks are armored because it makes sense for them to be armored. As a close infantry support vehicle - they are going to be around a lot of small arms fire which they are immune to. A modern battleship has no reason to be in range of anything that can hurt it - so armor would probably be just slowing it down. It's defense against things that can hurt it at long range will be counter-measures and interceptors and aircraft - in the end no amount of armor is going to protect you from a torpedo/tactical nuke/ or anti-ship missile.
Xenomancers 721669 9278792 5dd4a6 wrote:I also disagree about the Germans. The high quality of their mar machines was one of the main reasons they had such early success - insane leadership is what did them in. If the germans focused on air superiority rather than wasting huge amounts of resources on attacking brittish cities with V1's/V2's - we would probably be living in a very different world.
No, what did them in was the sheer size of the US and Russia. Once the US and its massive advantage in industrial capacity entered the war Germany was doomed, and the only question was how long it would take for them to lose.
Grey Templar wrote: Imagine a similar layer being part of a battleship's armor(the bulk of which would be cheaper steel, but with one layer of composites).
The problem, besides the immense difficulty of adding enough armor to stop modern weapons without making a ship that is too heavy to function, is that you can't armor things like radar, gun barrels, etc. So you might be able to protect the crew and prevent the ship from sinking, but it's still going to be easy to mission-kill it and send it home to a shipyard for much longer than the realistic duration of a modern war.
Xenomancers 721669 9278792 5dd4a6 wrote:I also disagree about the Germans. The high quality of their mar machines was one of the main reasons they had such early success - insane leadership is what did them in. If the germans focused on air superiority rather than wasting huge amounts of resources on attacking brittish cities with V1's/V2's - we would probably be living in a very different world.
No, what did them in was the sheer size of the US and Russia. Once the US and its massive advantage in industrial capacity entered the war Germany was doomed, and the only question was how long it would take for them to lose.
Grey Templar wrote: Imagine a similar layer being part of a battleship's armor(the bulk of which would be cheaper steel, but with one layer of composites).
The problem, besides the immense difficulty of adding enough armor to stop modern weapons without making a ship that is too heavy to function, is that you can't armor things like radar, gun barrels, etc. So you might be able to protect the crew and prevent the ship from sinking, but it's still going to be easy to mission-kill it and send it home to a shipyard for much longer than the realistic duration of a modern war.
The extreme strengh of the Iowa class was the fact the entire ship was built from high grade steel.
It meant thr internal structure was stringer than other nations unable to afford such a expense.
Building thr inner structure to cheep steel loses that advantage. Also high grade steel you could have a stronger or equal hull for less mass. Better ship.
True modern armour tech could restult in some areas of ship being extremely protected with areas like bow lighter to save weight.
You're way overestimating the ability to aim for stuff like Radar and Gun barrels, and the ability to armor them.
You're also overestimating what modern missiles can actually do. As has been mentioned many times. Modern anti-ship missiles actually would fall flat on their face vs even a WW2 battleship's armor. Nobody today armors their ships, so no anti-ship missiles are able to penetrate much armor.
Railguns could also quite easily be completely contained, with no exposed parts other than the end of the barrel. You keep the entire barrel of the gun encased in an armored ball turret.
Grey Templar wrote: You're way overestimating the ability to aim for stuff like Radar and Gun barrels, and the ability to armor them.
You're also overestimating what modern missiles can actually do. As has been mentioned many times. Modern anti-ship missiles actually would fall flat on their face vs even a WW2 battleship's armor. Nobody today armors their ships, so no anti-ship missiles are able to penetrate much armor.
Railguns could also quite easily be completely contained, with no exposed parts other than the end of the barrel. You keep the entire barrel of the gun encased in an armored ball turret.
Or a nice domed turret. The gun encased in a slot and make it recessed back fairly deep into expose minimal barrel. Harder to damage thr barrels. With it set right you could raise a high angle shot and not still risk much damage. (the also added advatages of being wether proofed away)
It only needs thr gun and loading system on that level. Power supply can be several decks below and armoured down below the belt in the ships belly.
Munitions need no special storage as there non explosive. Not got same risk of magazine explosions HE rounds create.
Grey Templar wrote: You're way overestimating the ability to aim for stuff like Radar and Gun barrels, and the ability to armor them.
Who said anything about aiming directly? When a 1500lb warhead goes off it's going to damage exposed delicate bits. Remember, one major obstacle to getting the WWII-era battleships operational in any useful capacity was the fact that even firing their own guns would destroy the delicate modern hardware they needed.
(And that's just considering conventional weapons. If tactical nukes are an option mission-killing is almost inevitable.)
Nobody today armors their ships, so no anti-ship missiles are able to penetrate much armor.
Nope. The various Russian heavy anti-ship missiles have armor-piercing warheads, when they aren't using nukes. And if anyone actually started using heavily armored battleships again you can guarantee that new missile designs that prioritize armor penetration would appear.
Railguns could also quite easily be completely contained, with no exposed parts other than the end of the barrel. You keep the entire barrel of the gun encased in an armored ball turret.
Uh, no. That is a massive amount of extra armor required for a minimal gain in protection, and massive problems in aiming this ridiculously heavy ball of armor plate at a target. There's a reason real-world battleships had exposed gun barrels.
Nope. The various Russian heavy anti-ship missiles have armor-piercing warheads, when they aren't using nukes. And if anyone actually started using heavily armored battleships again you can guarantee that new missile designs that prioritize armor penetration would appear.
And just for an example, the first guided bomb, the Fritz X, had no problem crippling battleships with single hits, and it two shot a battleship.
Nope. The various Russian heavy anti-ship missiles have armor-piercing warheads, when they aren't using nukes. And if anyone actually started using heavily armored battleships again you can guarantee that new missile designs that prioritize armor penetration would appear.
And just for an example, the first guided bomb, the Fritz X, had no problem crippling battleships with single hits, and it two shot a battleship.
Yes, but the Roma didn't have these.
Edit: For the record, it's scary as every living hell when you're outside and those things start going off...
Torpedoes are the real threat to all ships. We're taught that a ship can eat a few missiles and still float (maybe even limited fighting, situation/vessel dependent), but a torpedo is nearly always game over.
Blacksails wrote: Torpedoes are the real threat to all ships. We're taught that a ship can eat a few missiles and still float (maybe even limited fighting, situation/vessel dependent), but a torpedo is nearly always game over.
Torpedoes are basically instant death to a lot of ships.
Xenomancers 721669 9278792 5dd4a6 wrote:I also disagree about the Germans. The high quality of their mar machines was one of the main reasons they had such early success - insane leadership is what did them in. If the germans focused on air superiority rather than wasting huge amounts of resources on attacking brittish cities with V1's/V2's - we would probably be living in a very different world.
No, what did them in was the sheer size of the US and Russia. Once the US and its massive advantage in industrial capacity entered the war Germany was doomed, and the only question was how long it would take for them to lose.
Grey Templar wrote: Imagine a similar layer being part of a battleship's armor(the bulk of which would be cheaper steel, but with one layer of composites).
The problem, besides the immense difficulty of adding enough armor to stop modern weapons without making a ship that is too heavy to function, is that you can't armor things like radar, gun barrels, etc. So you might be able to protect the crew and prevent the ship from sinking, but it's still going to be easy to mission-kill it and send it home to a shipyard for much longer than the realistic duration of a modern war.
Also the iconic German tanks came later in the war, in the beginning they mostly had light tanks and it was not the quality of the tanks but how they used them, some Russian tank designs and even french tanks were better armored at the beginning of the war.
Blacksails wrote: Torpedoes are the real threat to all ships. We're taught that a ship can eat a few missiles and still float (maybe even limited fighting, situation/vessel dependent), but a torpedo is nearly always game over.
Torpedoes are basically instant death to a lot of ships.
Which again, isn't an argument against battleships. That applies to ALL ships. Its why Destroyer's exist, to hunt down those pesky submarines and keep them away from the big ships.
If "torpedoes are bad m'kay!" was a strike vs battleships, it would also be a strike vs carriers and any other ship besides destroyers.
Blacksails wrote: Torpedoes are the real threat to all ships. We're taught that a ship can eat a few missiles and still float (maybe even limited fighting, situation/vessel dependent), but a torpedo is nearly always game over.
Torpedoes are basically instant death to a lot of ships.
Which again, isn't an argument against battleships. That applies to ALL ships. Its why Destroyer's exist, to hunt down those pesky submarines and keep them away from the big ships.
If "torpedoes are bad m'kay!" was a strike vs battleships, it would also be a strike vs carriers and any other ship besides destroyers.
When the argument is "armour is useless", it very much is an argument against battleships. The big strength of battleships are their armor, and if that is useless, then it serves no purpose. Some sort of missile battle-cruiser might make sense (like Russia's).
If "torpedoes are bad m'kay!" was a strike vs battleships, it would also be a strike vs carriers and any other ship besides destroyers.
No. Besides the fact that a battleship is defined by its armor range makes a huge difference. The carrier can launch attacks from a much longer distance, spending the whole time on random courses through a vast volume of empty ocean where the sub can't easily set an ambush. The battleship is a much easier target to catch.
Blacksails wrote: Not to mention the carrier brings more ASW platforms to detect and deter the sub. The battleship would have at best a hangar for two ASW helos.
And you people keep acting as if the Battleship is going to be going it solo. It will have other ships accompanying it, including escort carriers and destroyers who will be tasked with keeping submarines away. You know, exactly what the navy does with our big aircraft carriers right now.
The Battleship fills a sorely needed niche in the fleet. That of shore bombardment, that doesn't cost an absurd amount of money, while being able to take a hit if necessary. 220-400 miles of bombardment range is actually fairly comparable to ranges we have used carriers for airstrikes. Carriers aren't sending their aircraft out at maximum operating ranges usually.
A battleship with railguns with 220 miles of range could sit just off the coast of Israel and hit anywhere in Lebanon, Jordan, most of Syria, and most places of import in Egypt.
And nothing prevents a battleship that is moving from firing accurately. The guns would have gyro-stabilization on an already very stable platform.
The Battleship fills a sorely needed niche in the fleet. That of shore bombardment, that doesn't cost an absurd amount of money, while being able to take a hit if necessary.
You don't need a battleship to do that, nothing stops you for slapping a railgun to a cruiser or destroyer. So instead of having a few railguns in an absurdly large ship, you have several railguns distributed in several ships.
Same for the lasers, you don't need a large ship for that.
The Battleship fills a sorely needed niche in the fleet. That of shore bombardment, that doesn't cost an absurd amount of money, while being able to take a hit if necessary.
You don't need a battleship to do that, nothing stops you for slapping a railgun to a cruiser or destroyer. So instead of having a few railguns in an absurdly large ship, you have several railguns distributed in several ships.
Same for the lasers, you don't need a large ship for that.
That's possible - they have a prototype railgun on a cruiser already - we will see how effective it is soon. I am going to assume after the railgun proves it's self that a large ship featuring many rail-guns with sufficient power generation is going to be bigger than anything we have on the sees right now. Also - the more power you can generate - the faster you can fire a projectile. So in this case bigger really is better.
The Battleship fills a sorely needed niche in the fleet. That of shore bombardment, that doesn't cost an absurd amount of money, while being able to take a hit if necessary.
You don't need a battleship to do that, nothing stops you for slapping a railgun to a cruiser or destroyer. So instead of having a few railguns in an absurdly large ship, you have several railguns distributed in several ships.
Same for the lasers, you don't need a large ship for that.
That's possible - they have a prototype railgun on a cruiser already - we will see how effective it is soon. I am going to assume after the railgun proves it's self that a large ship featuring many rail-guns with sufficient power generation is going to be bigger than anything we have on the sees right now. Also - the more power you can generate - the faster you can fire a projectile. So in this case bigger really is better.
No it isn't when we already can power a railgun in a smaller ship and when there are far more factors than simple power involved. You have to make sure that the electric circuit can support greater loads, and that the gun itself doesn't overheat and can support the extra stress.
And even if you manage to do that, the increased rof must be high enough to justify having a railgun in a large ship instead of 5 railguns in 5 smaller ships.
Yes, you CAN put a railgun on a smaller ship. However the Railgun has major power consumption needs, which basically mandates you have a nuclear reactor. Which takes up a good chunk of space. Which in turn on a smaller ship means you've basically dedicated the entire ship to that railgun.
A large vessel like a Battleship has the space to have multiple reactors and multiple larger railguns, while still having space for other weapon systems. You completely lose this economy of scale on a small ship.
I think it's far too early to see if such a concept has any practicality. It's aces in the cool factor of course.
that is one cool ship. Rule of cool has it already a plus point in my book.
Right? I like the idea that a future warship would combine the best elements of both aircraft carrier and battleship, but I would include submersible in that equation. Something that could bring heavy firepower, launch aerial offensive and defensive platforms and also submerge would be a nasty combination. I don't see why not a flotilla couldn't have submarine capabilities. High surface speeds combined with the ability to submerge and continue operations below? Yes, please. I can easily see in the future where drones will be a better choice than manned aircraft too - heck, this is practically true today (little concern for g-force, no need to provide for space and protection for a crew).
Now if we get carried away we can include retractable treads on this beast so it can go over land for short distances and not get locked by whatever body of water its in. And let's throw in a high speed auger on the nose for close attacks too!
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, you CAN put a railgun on a smaller ship. However the Railgun has major power consumption needs, which basically mandates you have a nuclear reactor. Which takes up a good chunk of space. Which in turn on a smaller ship means you've basically dedicated the entire ship to that railgun.
A large vessel like a Battleship has the space to have multiple reactors and multiple larger railguns, while still having space for other weapon systems. You completely lose this economy of scale on a small ship.
Except that the current plans for the railgun are putting them on the Zumwalt destroyer, and for that it means we have the technology to put railguns on destroyer sized ships without needing to dedicate all of it to the railgun.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, you CAN put a railgun on a smaller ship. However the Railgun has major power consumption needs, which basically mandates you have a nuclear reactor. Which takes up a good chunk of space. Which in turn on a smaller ship means you've basically dedicated the entire ship to that railgun.
A large vessel like a Battleship has the space to have multiple reactors and multiple larger railguns, while still having space for other weapon systems. You completely lose this economy of scale on a small ship.
Except that the current plans for the railgun are putting them on the Zumwalt destroyer, and for that it means we have the technology to put railguns on destroyer sized ships without needing to dedicate all of it to the railgun.
Perhaps not all of it, but most of it to where you have a ship that only has 1 primary weapon system.
Its far more cost effective to make a larger ship that can carry more of those weapon systems. Economies of scale applies here. Small =/= good.
Uh, no. That is a massive amount of extra armor required for a minimal gain in protection, and massive problems in aiming this ridiculously heavy ball of armor plate at a target. There's a reason real-world battleships had exposed gun barrels.
Somebody forgot the Moncrieff Gun Mounting system.
More seriously, somebody could take a crack at an updated Staunch class gunboat modified to be a destroyer or something without much real effort. Wouldn't be a battleship, but stick enough of 'em together and you'd be able to lob out the firepower of one.
Perhaps not all of it, but most of it to where you have a ship that only has 1 primary weapon system.
Its far more cost effective to make a larger ship that can carry more of those weapon systems. Economies of scale applies here. Small =/= good.
The primary weapon system are missiles, which don't require power.
A large ship carrying multiple railguns also would be far more expensive, cost effectiveness matters little if the final cost is still prohibitively expensive.
Also it would be unreliable, as the last thing you want is a missile barrage crippling or outright sinking it.
Perhaps not all of it, but most of it to where you have a ship that only has 1 primary weapon system.
Its far more cost effective to make a larger ship that can carry more of those weapon systems. Economies of scale applies here. Small =/= good.
A large ship carrying multiple railguns also would be far more expensive, cost effectiveness matters little if the final cost is still prohibitively expensive.
Also it would be unreliable, as the last thing you want is a missile barrage crippling or outright sinking it.
Due to the scale, the battleship would be the cheaper and more effective use of money. You might be able to get 3-4 railgun armed cruisers for the cost of a single railgun/laser defense battleship. But the battleship would have exponentially more firepower than the cruisers combined due to its size as it could mount 8-10 railguns instead of the 1 per cruiser.
And again with missiles. Lasers and other counter measures are going to make stuff like that not a viable method of crippling the battleship. And even if 1-2 got through, the battleship could take multiple hits and still be functional. You'd have to be insanely lucky to have 1-2 missiles make a modern battleship have to return to port for repairs.
I thought we went over the fact that a battleship is by definition a heavily armoured vessel. You can have a heavily armed vessel minus the armour, and it wouldn't be battleship so much as a battle cruiser (or just cruiser in more modern terminology).
There's no reason you couldn't fit a nuclear reactor on a cruiser or even frigate sized surface vessel to power these theoretical weapons we honestly don't even know much about. A Tyco is already 200ft longer than a nuke boat, and displaces almost 3k more tonnage. RCN frigates are roughly the size of an LA, so you could jam a power plant large enough in there.
In reality, you'd be better served leaving off the extra armour and keeping the vessel light enough to reach the required speeds to keep up with the carrier, which then wouldn't make it much of a battleship anymore.
I think its also a complete stretch to state a theoretical battleship would have exponential firepower over a future theoretical frigate/destroyer/cruiser. Even just looking at modern differences between frigates/destroyers/cruisers, the firepower gap isn't tremendous. An Arleigh is packing maybe a dozen less missiles than a Tyco and one less gun, but the same Harpoon complement and helo complement. European frigates like the FREMM have maybe half the VLS capability, same Harpoon capability, and similar helo complement. This isn't even touching on support systems like torpedoes and sonar systems.
Therefore, its not a simple method of adding up guns and saying one platform is more efficient or a better use of money than multiple smaller ones. Those multiple smaller vessels present multiple threats from multiple angles, all with their own overlapping radar and sonar coverage, with far more air support for OTHT and ASW capability, while theoretically having similar railgun firepower (if we're still hammering on about a weapon system we know very little about, let alone as a practical, tried tested and true weapon system).
Point is, you're not really arguing for a battleship so much as you are a modern cruiser with updated weaponry.
umm, you do know that the Iowa class battleships were just as fast or faster than what the Nimitz class carriers are currently capable of achieving. Heavily armored =/= slow.
Grey Templar wrote: umm, you do know that the Iowa class battleships were just as fast or faster than what the Nimitz class carriers are currently capable of achieving. Heavily armored =/= slow.
Oh I'm aware. You're also not considering how much faster and more maneuverable a lighter, less armoured version would be. Plus, do you really think the listed speed value on wiki is the max speed of the carriers? Further, how long would the battleship be able to maintain that speed? Putting that much steel through water at that speed requires a massive amount of fuel, even more than say, a similarly sized warship with less armour.
One of the proven methods of defeating torpedoes is through the use of excessive and specific maneuvers that require agility. A large, heavily armoured ship is that much more vulnerable, when the armour won't be doing much in the first place.
Again, you're hung up on the battleship notion when the modern version would just be an upgunned (or similarly gunned) cruiser.
And again with missiles. Lasers and other counter measures are going to make stuff like that not a viable method of crippling the battleship. And even if 1-2 got through, the battleship could take multiple hits and still be functional. You'd have to be insanely lucky to have 1-2 missiles make a modern battleship have to return to port for repairs.
Laser and other countermeasure are not perfect, missiles will get through. A battleship will be the target of dozens if not hundreds of anti-ship missiles, and you only need a few hits to take out the radars which aren't armored.
And that's assuming none of those missiles carry APHE warheads (which to be fair are rare in current anti-ship missiles), because those things will punch through armor as if it wasn't there.
In regards to size constraints with nuclear reactors.
1) When used on aircraft carriers it was found that nuclear powered carriers had more room for aircraft, ammunition and aviation fuel when they no longer needed to haul large quantities of fuel for the ship.
2) In the 1960s and 70s they were outfitting cruisers and destroyers, both significantly smaller than a battleship with Nuclear Power Plants.
So, if a nuclear power plant is a required element of railgun use, smaller vessels can indeed use them and will likely find some additional benefits in terms of improved internal space to do so.
I don't get the arguments pointing out that you can blow up a battleship. Of course you can. It's a boat on the water, and in the modern age of guided missiles you can always blow one of those up, no matter how they get built.
But the same also applies to aircraft carriers, and despite it the US navy builds it's world dominating power around aircraft carriers. Because the weapons platforms you can put on an aircraft carrier not only make the risk of losing the carrier worth it, the effectiveness of those planes make it that much harder for the enemy to actually ID and target the carrier with anti-ship missiles.
The same argument could be made for a battleship, if railguns can be developed at the capability that is sometimes suggested. I mean, being able to put shell on target from 200km is an insane capability. If the gun reaches that potential, then it makes sense to stick it on a battleship sized boat. Because having that kind of killing power on a ship would be so insanely effective that it's worth the vulnerability of the ship.
sebster wrote: But the same also applies to aircraft carriers, and despite it the US navy builds it's world dominating power around aircraft carriers.
But it doesn't really apply the same. First of all, a battleship as a concept is defined by its heavy armor. If the armor isn't effective anymore then you don't have battleships in the conventional sense. You might have ships armed with guns for shore bombardment missions, but they won't be battleships. Second, the carrier is not as vulnerable as the battleship. It might die just as fast if it actually gets hit, but it's much less likely to get hit in the first place. Its aircraft push the defensive perimeter out to a much longer distance, and it has a greater ability to hide in the vast emptiness of the open ocean where even knowing where to aim an attack becomes a difficult challenge.
sebster wrote: But the same also applies to aircraft carriers, and despite it the US navy builds it's world dominating power around aircraft carriers.
But it doesn't really apply the same. First of all, a battleship as a concept is defined by its heavy armor. If the armor isn't effective anymore then you don't have battleships in the conventional sense. You might have ships armed with guns for shore bombardment missions, but they won't be battleships. Second, the carrier is not as vulnerable as the battleship. It might die just as fast if it actually gets hit, but it's much less likely to get hit in the first place. Its aircraft push the defensive perimeter out to a much longer distance, and it has a greater ability to hide in the vast emptiness of the open ocean where even knowing where to aim an attack becomes a difficult challenge.
I agree with everything you just said. However - ship classification is largely vocabulary issue. Lets talk about the real issue - large ships fielding multiple long range rail-guns. I think inevitably they are going to be called battleships - even though they don't have heavy armor schemes. Do you really think people will call them battle-cruisers when they are likely the biggest and most deadly ships in the fleet?
To your point about vulnerability you are correct - large multiple rail-gun ships (man I wish we could just call them battleships) will be even more vulnerable than carriers on their own at sea. Like carriers though - will always be part of a fleet consisting multiple escorts and also carriers. The vulnerability isn't actually a weakness because it will be impossible to exploit without facing the whole battle-group.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: You don't even need a nuclear power plant to feed a railgun.
It's not about need - it's about what would be the most effective.
sebster wrote: But the same also applies to aircraft carriers, and despite it the US navy builds it's world dominating power around aircraft carriers.
But it doesn't really apply the same. First of all, a battleship as a concept is defined by its heavy armor. If the armor isn't effective anymore then you don't have battleships in the conventional sense. You might have ships armed with guns for shore bombardment missions, but they won't be battleships. Second, the carrier is not as vulnerable as the battleship. It might die just as fast if it actually gets hit, but it's much less likely to get hit in the first place. Its aircraft push the defensive perimeter out to a much longer distance, and it has a greater ability to hide in the vast emptiness of the open ocean where even knowing where to aim an attack becomes a difficult challenge.
I agree with everything you just said. However - ship classification is largely vocabulary issue. Lets talk about the real issue - large ships fielding multiple long range rail-guns. I think inevitably they are going to be called battleships - even though they don't have heavy armor schemes. Do you really think people will call them battle-cruisers when they are likely the biggest and most deadly ships in the fleet?
I mean, we call Russia's battle-cruiser a battle-cruiser, so no.
sebster wrote: But the same also applies to aircraft carriers, and despite it the US navy builds it's world dominating power around aircraft carriers.
But it doesn't really apply the same. First of all, a battleship as a concept is defined by its heavy armor. If the armor isn't effective anymore then you don't have battleships in the conventional sense. You might have ships armed with guns for shore bombardment missions, but they won't be battleships. Second, the carrier is not as vulnerable as the battleship. It might die just as fast if it actually gets hit, but it's much less likely to get hit in the first place. Its aircraft push the defensive perimeter out to a much longer distance, and it has a greater ability to hide in the vast emptiness of the open ocean where even knowing where to aim an attack becomes a difficult challenge.
I agree with everything you just said. However - ship classification is largely vocabulary issue. Lets talk about the real issue - large ships fielding multiple long range rail-guns. I think inevitably they are going to be called battleships - even though they don't have heavy armor schemes. Do you really think people will call them battle-cruisers when they are likely the biggest and most deadly ships in the fleet?
I mean, we call Russia's battle-cruiser a battle-cruiser, so no.
Haha I'm just going to let this go. Arguing with war buffs about ship classification and how it should relate to modern navies is a fools errand. In the end it doesn't matter what we call large railgun chuckers - The question is will they exist and how effective will they be.
Haha I'm just going to let this go. Arguing with war buffs about ship classification and how it should relate to modern navies is a fools errand.
In other words, 'I am wrong and refuse to admit it'.
Warship classification is quite integral to a discussion about warships. Classification is given according to both design by the constructors and the intended strategic/tactical role the ship is intended to fulfill.
When discussing whether or not 'battleships' might make a comeback or not, arguing that 'battle-cruisers' might make a comeback instead is a worthwhile line of enquiry. Insisting on calling them battleships? You might as well call them frigates or corvettes. Use clear terminology and both sides of a discussion can proceed on a sound basis. Insisting on doing the equivalent of calling an aircraft designed for ground attack a 'fighter' doesn't help anyone.
Haha I'm just going to let this go. Arguing with war buffs about ship classification and how it should relate to modern navies is a fools errand.
In other words, 'I am wrong and refuse to admit it'.
Warship classification is quite integral to a discussion about warships. Classification is given according to both design by the constructors and the intended strategic/tactical role the ship is intended to fulfill.
When discussing whether or not 'battleships' might make a comeback or not, arguing that 'battle-cruisers' might make a comeback instead is a worthwhile line of enquiry. Insisting on calling them battleships? You might as well call them frigates or corvettes. Use clear terminology and both sides of a discussion can proceed on a sound basis. Insisting on doing the equivalent of calling an aircraft designed for ground attack a 'fighter' doesn't help anyone.
Although I will say, knowing the whole deal with the Alaska-class, a hypothetical railgun cruiser would probably be classed as "large crusier" (CB) instead of "battle-cruiser" (CC). Although I will never understand why battlecruiser isn't BC.
sebster wrote: But the same also applies to aircraft carriers, and despite it the US navy builds it's world dominating power around aircraft carriers.
But it doesn't really apply the same. First of all, a battleship as a concept is defined by its heavy armor. If the armor isn't effective anymore then you don't have battleships in the conventional sense. You might have ships armed with guns for shore bombardment missions, but they won't be battleships. Second, the carrier is not as vulnerable as the battleship. It might die just as fast if it actually gets hit, but it's much less likely to get hit in the first place. Its aircraft push the defensive perimeter out to a much longer distance, and it has a greater ability to hide in the vast emptiness of the open ocean where even knowing where to aim an attack becomes a difficult challenge.
If aircraft become ineffective, you become incapable of pushing out that defensive perimeter. At which point you MUST use armored vessels again.
You're making a false assumption, that Aircraft will always be usable and never have something counter them so totally as AA lasers will almost certainly do.
Also, with ranges of 220-400 miles, a railgun armed battleship could still play the exact same game a Carrier does. Hit you from so far away you are not sure of the location of your attacker. With the added benefit of having projectiles that cannot be countered, no risk to your own soldiers piloting vulnerable aircraft directly over enemy territory, and ultimately saving buckets of $$$ by not using insanely expensive missiles and aircraft.
A modern fast battleship armed with railguns will easily put accurate firepower on target while remaining just as safe and elusive as an Aircraft carrier. And if it does come under direct attack, it will have the advantage of being able to survive hits and fight its way out.
As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the US Navy has actually NEVER lost a Battleship during combat operations. We did however lose 11 aircraft carriers.
sebster wrote: But the same also applies to aircraft carriers, and despite it the US navy builds it's world dominating power around aircraft carriers.
But it doesn't really apply the same. First of all, a battleship as a concept is defined by its heavy armor. If the armor isn't effective anymore then you don't have battleships in the conventional sense. You might have ships armed with guns for shore bombardment missions, but they won't be battleships. Second, the carrier is not as vulnerable as the battleship. It might die just as fast if it actually gets hit, but it's much less likely to get hit in the first place. Its aircraft push the defensive perimeter out to a much longer distance, and it has a greater ability to hide in the vast emptiness of the open ocean where even knowing where to aim an attack becomes a difficult challenge.
If aircraft become ineffective, you become incapable of pushing out that defensive perimeter. At which point you MUST use armored vessels again.
You're making a false assumption, that Aircraft will always be usable and never have something counter them so totally as AA lasers will almost certainly do.
Also, with ranges of 220-400 miles, a railgun armed battleship could still play the exact same game a Carrier does. Hit you from so far away you are not sure of the location of your attacker. With the added benefit of having projectiles that cannot be countered, no risk to your own soldiers piloting vulnerable aircraft directly over enemy territory, and ultimately saving buckets of $$$ by not using insanely expensive missiles and aircraft.
A modern fast battleship armed with railguns will easily put accurate firepower on target while remaining just as safe and elusive as an Aircraft carrier. And if it does come under direct attack, it will have the advantage of being able to survive hits and fight its way out.
As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the US Navy has actually NEVER lost a Battleship during combat operations. We did however lose 11 aircraft carriers.
That's because we had hundreds of destroyers screening for them - wouldn't be any different today.
Grey Templar wrote: They were screening those Aircraft Carrier too. Yet we still lost 11 of them.
Being the primary target of Japanese aircraft might have a lot to do with it. Then ofc you have to consider the AA firepower an Iowa class battleship was putting out. Aircraft had no chance to get close to it. New Mexicos and Colorados were too slow to get into any trouble - likely the last ships to arrive into a battle-zone.
Allied battleships were basically reserved for shore bombardment and AA duty, while axis Battleships were slaughtered by allied aircraft.
Which is basically what a post-modern Railgun battleship would do. AA duty via laser defenses, and bombardment of targets upwards of 220-400 miles away. While also being armored as a precaution against enemy attacks in the event they get through.
sebster wrote: But the same also applies to aircraft carriers, and despite it the US navy builds it's world dominating power around aircraft carriers.
But it doesn't really apply the same. First of all, a battleship as a concept is defined by its heavy armor. If the armor isn't effective anymore then you don't have battleships in the conventional sense. You might have ships armed with guns for shore bombardment missions, but they won't be battleships. Second, the carrier is not as vulnerable as the battleship. It might die just as fast if it actually gets hit, but it's much less likely to get hit in the first place. Its aircraft push the defensive perimeter out to a much longer distance, and it has a greater ability to hide in the vast emptiness of the open ocean where even knowing where to aim an attack becomes a difficult challenge.
I get the former, but can you explain the latter - in terms of why a carrier has that ability more than, well, almost any other large ship?
Grey Templar wrote: You're making a false assumption, that Aircraft will always be usable and never have something counter them so totally as AA lasers will almost certainly do.
{citation needed}
AA lasers aren't anywhere near an automatic counter to aircraft in the immediate future, and if you want to start talking about some distant scifi-type future then who knows what else might exist besides those powerful lasers or how wars will be fought. You're assuming a very specific path of technological development with no real evidence provided to support it.
Also, with ranges of 220-400 miles, a railgun armed battleship could still play the exact same game a Carrier does. Hit you from so far away you are not sure of the location of your attacker. With the added benefit of having projectiles that cannot be countered, no risk to your own soldiers piloting vulnerable aircraft directly over enemy territory, and ultimately saving buckets of $$$ by not using insanely expensive missiles and aircraft.
Nope, not at all. A ballistic railgun shot can be traced back to the exact location it was fired from before the shell even hits the target. As soon as the battleship fires it broadcasts a giant flashing "I'm here, aim your missiles at me" sign for everyone to see. And if you use guided rounds (which still have to spend energy on maneuvering, reducing their range) then the supposed cheap firepower that is the intent of the battleship is no longer cheap.
And, again, remember that the 2-400 mile railgun is still marketing hype, not a working weapon. We haven't solved the rail destruction problem (which only gets worse as you try to increase the range of the railgun), and it's incredibly unlikely that the railgun will have enough accuracy to do more than "hit somewhere in the city just to kill some random people" at 400 miles without expensive guided shells.
As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the US Navy has actually NEVER lost a Battleship during combat operations. We did however lose 11 aircraft carriers.
That's not really a relevant comparison, as WWII ships did not face the same level of "your armor will not save you" weapons that modern ships have to deal with. And, as mentioned, the aircraft carriers were the focus of the war and the primary target, the battleships were not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I get the former, but can you explain the latter - in terms of why a carrier has that ability more than, well, almost any other large ship?
It's because the carrier can spend most of its time moving around on random courses far away from its targets. It needs to turn into the wind when launching or recovering aircraft, but is otherwise free to maneuver. Ships with shorter range need to be closer to their targets, significantly reducing the volume they have to hide in. So just finding where the carrier is to launch an attack is a non-trivial problem.
Just to clarify: An expensive guided shell is still going to be cheaper than an expensive​ since guided missile and the ship will be able to carry a lot more shells than it can missiles.
With that out of the way...
We, know our modern world, already have the ability to detect a firing artillery unit, locate it and launch a salvo of shells/rockets/missiles back at it all before the first shell has landed just by tracking the inbound shell on radar. A battlecry user may be able to shoot and scoot better than land based artillery systems, but its first salvo will give the enemy a very good idea of its location.
We also, with modern technology, have something called CRAM. This stands for Counter Rocket Artillery and Missile. We have the ability to use guns (and in some cases missiles and even freakin' lasers!) to destroy or deflect incoming artillery systems of today. If technology moves forward to the point where railguns become the artillery weapon of choice, we'd have to assume that CRAM also improves to a similar level as a possible counter. Now this won't stop all of the shells, but it will stop a lot of them.
In regards to the AA lasers. In the 1930s it was thought that a few machineguns and automatic cannons could protect a ship from air attack. Then we had Pearl Harbour and the Battle of the Midway that proved that wrong. So they gave dozens of anti-aircraft guns to ships and started making dedicated anti-aircraft ships, but still aircraft were killing ships. So they gave ships anti-aircraft missiles and still aircraft killed ships (though now the ships could occasionally bring down airliners they misidentified).
The point is, each time a system was developed to protect the ships, technological or tactical solutions were made to overcome it. Yes, AA lasers have a lot of potential, but there are counters. Placing reflective or ablative armour on the front of anti-ship missiles is a technological soulution. Flying through clouds or fog until close enough to launch an attack is a tactical solution.
That there are counters to a weapon system doesn't necessarily make it useless. There are lots of anti-tank weapons out there, but new tanks are still an important item for any army.
It does mean you have to anticipate that the enemy will attempt to counter what you have, figure out the ways they might and develop your own counter counter measures.
So the counter to the big railgun ship is to find it and kill it with air attack, long range anti-ship missiles and submarines. So the big railgun ship needs to stay undedected as long as possible, and then be able to defend against these attacks for the remainder of the engagement.
Armour won't be the key to defense because torpedoes will ignore it and any enemy hunting battleships is likely doing so with missiles powerful enough that the armour won't really help.
Air defense on the ship only helps so much against any aircraft and missiles, and not at all against submarines. So ultimately this ship will need a bunch of escorts and air support. Which makes sense, BBs haven't operated seperate of CVs since the early stages of WWII.
Since we need a flotilla of smaller ships to protect the big railgun ship anyway, the question becomes why can't we mount railguns on these ships too? And, if it turns out they can carry the railguns and, because they are more numerous, make it harder for the enemy to silence those guns completely than bringing down the single ship, well then, what do we need the big railgun ship for?
Peregrine wrote: But it doesn't really apply the same. First of all, a battleship as a concept is defined by its heavy armor. If the armor isn't effective anymore then you don't have battleships in the conventional sense. You might have ships armed with guns for shore bombardment missions, but they won't be battleships.
You've completely missed my point. I'll copy paste it again;
"If the gun reaches that potential, then it makes sense to stick it on a battleship sized boat. Because having that kind of killing power on a ship would be so insanely effective that it's worth the vulnerability of the ship."
Do you get the point now? If railguns reach the capabilities plenty suggest they will, then it makes sense to make such a gun mobile by putting it on a big, battleship sized boat. Whether you call that thing a battleship or a floaty mcshootgun is the world's most boring conversation, what matters is the development of a new kind of platform, a very large boat carrying a weapon with massive range and damage potential.
Second, the carrier is not as vulnerable as the battleship. It might die just as fast if it actually gets hit, but it's much less likely to get hit in the first place. Its aircraft push the defensive perimeter out to a much longer distance, and it has a greater ability to hide in the vast emptiness of the open ocean where even knowing where to aim an attack becomes a difficult challenge.
Both ships work as part of fleet groups. Hell, they could operate within a single fleet group. Your argument here doesn't work at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jefffar wrote: We, know our modern world, already have the ability to detect a firing artillery unit, locate it and launch a salvo of shells/rockets/missiles back at it all before the first shell has landed just by tracking the inbound shell on radar. A battlecry user may be able to shoot and scoot better than land based artillery systems, but its first salvo will give the enemy a very good idea of its location.
Counter measures developed to respond to shellfire from 20km away can't just be switched to responding against shellfire from 200km away.
We also, with modern technology, have something called CRAM. This stands for Counter Rocket Artillery and Missile. We have the ability to use guns (and in some cases missiles and even freakin' lasers!) to destroy or deflect incoming artillery systems of today. If technology moves forward to the point where railguns become the artillery weapon of choice, we'd have to assume that CRAM also improves to a similar level as a possible counter. Now this won't stop all of the shells, but it will stop a lot of them.
We can't just assume that. I'm not saying it can't happen, but sometimes defensive measures have different limits compared to offensive weapons (and sometimes vice versa). You note yourself that AA weapons have never developed as that effective a counter. As such it can't just assumed that anti-artillery shields will adapt to railgun type weapons, as stopping shells with that size and speed might not be very practical at all.
But I think your post was a good one, and summed up very well how this weapon will fit in to war. It will have specific strengths, and specific vulnerabilities.
Is it even possible to shoot down a railgun round? An antiship missile is the size of a telephone pole and moving mach 2, vs a round with a cross section of like, 5 inches, moving 5 times faster?
There are no practical, existing laser based CIWS yet, right?
Ouze wrote: Is it even possible to shoot down a railgun round? An antiship missile is the size of a telephone pole and moving mach 2, vs a round with a cross section of like, 5 inches, moving 5 times faster?
There are no practical, existing laser based CIWS yet, right?
Only experimental and prototypes and test models at this stage. Same with rail guns but there mostly USA and BAE in the UK.
Israel and America are developing them.
sebster wrote: Do you get the point now? If railguns reach the capabilities plenty suggest they will, then it makes sense to make such a gun mobile by putting it on a big, battleship sized boat. Whether you call that thing a battleship or a floaty mcshootgun is the world's most boring conversation, what matters is the development of a new kind of platform, a very large boat carrying a weapon with massive range and damage potential.
Words matter. The subject of this thread is "are battleships relevant", not "will ships ever mount railguns". A battleship is defined by more than being huge and carrying a gun, and a poorly armored shore bombardment platform is not a battleship. Nor is "put a railgun on our missile cruisers instead of the conventional gun", which is the direction the US navy is currently going with its future railguns.
Both ships work as part of fleet groups. Hell, they could operate within a single fleet group. Your argument here doesn't work at all.
Working as part of a fleet group doesn't change the situation, because the advantage in not getting hit comes from the aircraft carrier, not its escorts. And yes, in theory you could put this not-a-battleship shore bombardment platform into a carrier fleet, but the people arguing in favor of battleships being relevant keep insisting that aircraft and missiles will become obsolete and battleships will replace aircraft carriers.
Counter measures developed to respond to shellfire from 20km away can't just be switched to responding against shellfire from 200km away.
Not instantly, but the technology is the same. The radar detection used to track the shell back to its origin is the same, and whether you're feeding the coordinates to a battery of conventional artillery or anti-ship missiles is a trivial detail. It's certainly going to be much easier to adapt existing countermeasures to be effective against the new threat than it will be to build the railgun and its platform
sebster wrote: Counter measures developed to respond to shellfire from 20km away can't just be switched to responding against shellfire from 200km away..
There radars that control the system work based on the trajectory of the projectile, so the range to the shooter doesn't matter in terms of locating it.
There already exist hypersonic anti-ship cruis missiles with ranges approaching 400 miles that have the ability to detect targets and co-ordinate attacks as a group and carry a nuclear warhead (SS-N-19, developed in the 1970s). There are also ballistic anti ship missiles with ranges in excess of 800 miles (D-21 and DF-26 developed by Chna in the 1990s/2000s). Add he time it will take to get the large railgun ship from the design table to the high seas and yes, the big railgun ship is going to be well within the enemy's capability to kill by the time it is in range to let loose with those big guns.
Heck, by that time, the other guys may also have their big railguns too, just mounted in fixed installations or on railway trains.
sebster wrote: We can't just assume that. I'm not saying it can't happen, but sometimes defensive measures have different limits compared to offensive weapons (and sometimes vice versa). You note yourself that AA weapons have never developed as that effective a counter. As such it can't just assumed that anti-artillery shields will adapt to railgun type weapons, as stopping shells with that size and speed might not be very practical at all.
Assuming only one side can develop their technology while the other side remains stagnant is the sort of thing that got the Allies into so much trouble during the early phases of the war in the Pacific. They simply assumed that the Japanese planes and ships weren't capable of doing the very things they were built to do, despite the fact that they had people who fought the Japanese in China telling them that the Japanese were a serious threat.
And an advanced CRAM system need not stop the shells, merely degrade their ability to successfully attack their targets. Knocking the shell far enough off course to cause it to miss is one way. Reducing its speed or mass to the point it is no longer a threat to the target is another.
Of course the easiest is to make it so that the big railgun ship doesn't know where the target exactly is. If there are no aircraft and UAVs providing targeting updates to the big railgun ship, it will have to rely on satellites which will only provided it practical information on stationary targets. Oh, and both the Chinese and the Russians have demonstrated the capability to take out satellites.
sebster wrote: But I think your post was a good one, and summed up very well how this weapon will fit in to war. It will have specific strengths, and specific vulnerabilities.
Thank you. I think your defense of the big railgun shp is fairly well thought out, if somewhat overly romanticized..
Peregrine wrote: Words matter. The subject of this thread is "are battleships relevant", not "will ships ever mount railguns".
And that was a bad question, because the platform is secondary to the weapons system it carries. The purpose of the former is to carry the latter. As such the question that means something is 'what is the best way to deploy this new weapons system'.
So we strike the old question and make a new one.
A battleship is defined by more than being huge and carrying a gun, and a poorly armored shore bombardment platform is not a battleship.[/quote[]
That doesn't work, because 'battleship' has meant a lot of things over 200 years. Hell, even after WWII when their armour was no longer reliable and their weapon systems did restrict them to bombardment roles... we still called them battleships.
[qute]Nor is "put a railgun on our missile cruisers instead of the conventional gun", which is the direction the US navy is currently going with its future railguns.
Which, as I said earlier, is a question of the development of railguns. If the optimum design is for ships at cruiser size, then that's what we'll see. If even larger systems had greater advantages, then they'll need ships at that size.
There's not much value is declaring this early on how a technology must play out.
Working as part of a fleet group doesn't change the situation, because the advantage in not getting hit comes from the aircraft carrier, not its escorts.
No, there's a whole series of ships in the carrier group who are there to protect the carrier. The missile cruisers and destroyers aren't there for moral support. You are right that the ability of the carrier to stay mobile while deploying aircraft helps conceal it. But you are wrong in just not thinking about the tactical capabilities and concealment abilities of a ship with a 200km range on its gun.
Not instantly, but the technology is the same.
Assuming it can just upgraded to a shell coming from ten times the range at many times the speed is just deciding future will be whatever you want it to be to support your argument.
sebster wrote: So we strike the old question and make a new one.
Or we discuss the subject of the thread, that everyone else has been discussing.
Hell, even after WWII when their armour was no longer reliable and their weapon systems did restrict them to bombardment roles... we still called them battleships.
Mostly because of inertia. They were already "battleships", so they remained "battleships" even as their use declined and changed.
There's not much value is declaring this early on how a technology must play out.
Then why do you (and other "battleship" advocates) keep doing it? I keep seeing over and over again how railguns are going to work at all, railguns are going to have 200 mile effective range with unguided shells, etc. In fact, everything beyond "small-scale railgun on a destroyer" is entirely speculation that has nothing to do with current plans.
No, there's a whole series of ships in the carrier group who are there to protect the carrier. The missile cruisers and destroyers aren't there for moral support. You are right that the ability of the carrier to stay mobile while deploying aircraft helps conceal it. But you are wrong in just not thinking about the tactical capabilities and concealment abilities of a ship with a 200km range on its gun.
Again, the fleet doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with the two advantages I mentioned. If you compare a carrier and its escorts to a battleship with the same escorts the carrier group will be a much tougher target. It has a much greater ability to evade detection, and a defensive perimeter set much farther out by aircraft on defensive duties.
Assuming it can just upgraded to a shell coming from ten times the range at many times the speed is just deciding future will be whatever you want it to be to support your argument.
No, it's making the assumption that very well understood existing technology can be adapted to a slight variation of an existing problem. We already have the ability to track fast targets at long range, as demonstrated by anti-ICBM weapons. And once you spot the shell it's a trivial math problem to calculate its entire ballistic trajectory, including the point it was fired from*. The obstacles to implementing a counter to hypothetical future railguns are the "we want an AR-15 that uses 6mm rounds instead of 5.56mm" sort of problem. Yes, you have to do a little bit of work to build and debug the new product, but it's not a very complicated problem. The only reason we don't have the systems already is that there's currently no need for them.
*And I mean trivial. If your radar tracking is accurate enough and you're willing to automate the system you can have your counter-battery fire (whether it's railguns of your own or a salvo of anti-ship missiles) on its way to the battleship's exact location less than a second after the first railgun shot comes above the horizon.
Wouldn't it make more sense to put the railguns on a carrier? You'd have the power plant to drive the thing and you'd not lose out on the utility and advantages of having an aircraft carrier. You lose out on the armour (or, well, I guess you could armor a carrier?), but that armour is already of questionable utility anyway.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Wouldn't it make more sense to put the railguns on a carrier? You'd have the power plant to drive the thing and you'd not lose out on the utility and advantages of having an aircraft carrier. You lose out on the armour (or, well, I guess you could armor a carrier?), but that armour is already of questionable utility anyway.
The Russians have what they call Aircraft Carrying Cruisers instead of aircraft carriers. These ships have sizable antiship missile batteries and enough anti-aircraft guns and missiles to make a significant contribution to their own defense and the defense of their flotilla.
These ships also carry only about half the airgroup that a conventional carrier does.
The primary weapon of the Aircraft Carrier is its aircraft. Anything that reduces the number of aircraft carried, the amount of munitions carried for those aircraft or limits the ability to quickly launch and recover those aircraft is a reduction in the offensive power of the Aircraft Carrier.
Even if there was a way to do it without physically compromising the Carrier's ability to carry aircraft, tactical considerations would mean that the big railgun aircraft carrier would find itself having to choose between the optimum course for the launch and recovery of aircraft versus the optimum course for attacking with the railguns.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Wouldn't it make more sense to put the railguns on a carrier? You'd have the power plant to drive the thing and you'd not lose out on the utility and advantages of having an aircraft carrier. You lose out on the armour (or, well, I guess you could armor a carrier?), but that armour is already of questionable utility anyway.
It only makes sense as long as Carriers, as they exist today, make sense.
AA technology is advancing quite rapidly. As is Drone technology. Both are going to make dedicated aircraft carriers obsolete.
AA technology, including lasers, will make manned aircraft undesirable because you'll have unacceptable loss of life and trained pilots. Drones will be lighter and the pilots will remain safely somewhere piloting it remotely. Drones can also be launched from much shorter platforms.
As has been theorized for a while, we will likely end up with hybrid ships. Vessels which are both battleships and carriers at the same time. They'll be armed to the teeth and armored like a battleship, but also have runways to launch drones and a few other aircraft. They'll rely less on aircraft alone and focus more on their railgun armament. With drones being used for reconnaissance and occasional fire support missions relying on stealth, since drones are much harder to detect than a conventional aircraft they will also be better when the enemy has air defenses. And losing a drone is no big deal since they'll be relatively cheap and you won't be risking a pilot.
We'll probably make do by slapping a railgun on a carrier at first, but in the long run carriers will become obsolete since they'll simply be unnecessary. They'll have far more space than is necessary for drone aircraft operations, while also not contributing as much as a Battleship with a small drone hanger.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Wouldn't it make more sense to put the railguns on a carrier? You'd have the power plant to drive the thing and you'd not lose out on the utility and advantages of having an aircraft carrier. You lose out on the armour (or, well, I guess you could armor a carrier?), but that armour is already of questionable utility anyway.
The Russians have what they call Aircraft Carrying Cruisers instead of aircraft carriers. These ships have sizable antiship missile batteries and enough anti-aircraft guns and missiles to make a significant contribution to their own defense and the defense of their flotilla.
These ships also carry only about half the airgroup that a conventional carrier does.
The primary weapon of the Aircraft Carrier is its aircraft. Anything that reduces the number of aircraft carried, the amount of munitions carried for those aircraft or limits the ability to quickly launch and recover those aircraft is a reduction in the offensive power of the Aircraft Carrier.
Even if there was a way to do it without physically compromising the Carrier's ability to carry aircraft, tactical considerations would mean that the big railgun aircraft carrier would find itself having to choose between the optimum course for the launch and recovery of aircraft versus the optimum course for attacking with the railguns.
They do but Russia has smaller Navy and less ships to peform as escort duties.
The carrier has to beable to pull ots own weight, act as carrier and defend the fleet alongside its sisters ot operate in a smaller task group.
The peter the great class is one massive nuclear powered Sam and ground attack missile system.
It only makes sense as long as Carriers, as they exist today, make sense.
Which they will for quite a long time.
AA technology is advancing quite rapidly. As is Drone technology. Both are going to make dedicated aircraft carriers obsolete.
Nice assumption. I have another assumption, what about no.
AA technology, including lasers, will make manned aircraft undesirable because you'll have unacceptable loss of life and trained pilots. Drones will be lighter and the pilots will remain safely somewhere piloting it remotely. Drones can also be launched from much shorter platforms.
Lasers are nowhere close to making planes obsolete. Even drones, which are far lighter, can have reflective armor that makes the resistant to lasers. In addition, one of the best platforms to launch drones are planes.
As has been theorized for a while, we will likely end up with hybrid ships. Vessels which are both battleships and carriers at the same time. They'll be armed to the teeth and armored like a battleship, but also have runways to launch drones and a few other aircraft. They'll rely less on aircraft alone and focus more on their railgun armament. With drones being used for reconnaissance and occasional fire support missions relying on stealth, since drones are much harder to detect than a conventional aircraft they will also be better when the enemy has air defenses. And losing a drone is no big deal since they'll be relatively cheap and you won't be risking a pilot.
We'll probably make do by slapping a railgun on a carrier at first, but in the long run carriers will become obsolete since they'll simply be unnecessary. They'll have far more space than is necessary for drone aircraft operations, while also not contributing as much as a Battleship with a small drone hanger.
And you are again with the idea of armored battleships. Armored battleship, I present you APHE warheads, now die.
Grey Templar wrote: AA technology, including lasers, will make manned aircraft undesirable because you'll have unacceptable loss of life and trained pilots.
Yes, drones will become more desirable, especially as their ability to operate independently improves. However, the difference between manned aircraft and drones is negligible in this context. An aircraft carrier is an aircraft carrier regardless of whether its aircraft are piloted from the cockpit or remotely.
Drones will be lighter and the pilots will remain safely somewhere piloting it remotely. Drones can also be launched from much shorter platforms.
Lolwut? Drones are not lighter and do not have shorter takeoff/landing distances, assuming equal capability compared to manned aircraft. The only reason any drones are lighter or able to operate from shorter runways is that those particular drones are smaller and less capable, as their role is not the same as manned aircraft.
As has been theorized for a while, we will likely end up with hybrid ships. Vessels which are both battleships and carriers at the same time. They'll be armed to the teeth and armored like a battleship, but also have runways to launch drones and a few other aircraft. They'll rely less on aircraft alone and focus more on their railgun armament.
IOW, ships that are capable of multiple things but good at none of them. There's a reason we have single-purpose specialists in the real-world navy, and the Soviet hybrid carrier/missile cruiser designs aren't looked upon very favorably.
since drones are much harder to detect than a conventional aircraft
Jefffar wrote: Thank you. I think your defense of the big railgun shp is fairly well thought out, if somewhat overly romanticized..
Cheers. To clarify - I'm not in any way saying 'railguns will be mounted on large warships and bring in a new age of battleships'. That's just a bunch of guesswork. I don't know, no-one here can. People working on the tech right now would have a pretty good guess, but they would still have to admit to a lot of unknowns. What I am saying is that if railguns develop as a lot people say they can, then that would likely be a pretty handy bit of functionality that would be effectively deployed on a ship. If there are advantages to scaling up to a large size, then potentially you could see very large railguns deployed on battleship sized boats.
With all those if statements it should be clear that I'm not saying this will happen. My only real comment was that if railguns prove to be a valuable weapon with real functionality when deployed on a boat, then all the concerns about the vulnerabilities of battleships aren't really that much of a concern. All large ships are vulnerable, and have been vulnerable for more than a 100 years. The dominant ships of the sea right now, aircraft carriers, are vulnerable in all the ways that a battleship would be. But if the weapon platform is dominant, then the risks of the large platform are worth it. You invest in the support and technologies to minimise the risk, and beyond that you accept that there is always going to be risk in losing ships at sea, nothing will ever be immune to enemy action... you just invest in sufficient effectiveness that you are much more likely to get them before they get you.
sebster wrote: The dominant ships of the sea right now, aircraft carriers, are vulnerable in all the ways that a battleship would be.
Again, no, they aren't. A carrier's aircraft provide it with a significant defensive advantage that the battleship can't match. The only way to give the battleship equivalent protection is to hide it behind an aircraft carrier.
Peregrine wrote: Or we discuss the subject of the thread, that everyone else has been discussing.
Or you move on from bad questions, and towards better ones. This is how conversation progresses.
Mostly because of inertia. They were already "battleships", so they remained "battleships" even as their use declined and changed.
And that inertia still exists. Ever wondered why mortars are called mortars? Because earlier mortars looked like a mortar from a mortar and pestle. Despite largely falling in to a niche role for a very long time, when they returned to field in large numbers in WWI, they were once again called mortars, despite looking nothing like the mortar of a mortar and pestle.
Then why do you (and other "battleship" advocates) keep doing it?
What? I haven't said once how this tech will play out. Every single post I've said 'if this plays out, then these other things make sense'. Don't make things up, and don't try to argue with me based on things other posters have said. Talk about wasting everyone's time...
Again, the fleet doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with the two advantages I mentioned. If you compare a carrier and its escorts to a battleship with the same escorts the carrier group will be a much tougher target. It has a much greater ability to evade detection, and a defensive perimeter set much farther out by aircraft on defensive duties.
You are still refusing to think this through. Why would a ship with a railgun be denied aircraft cover? Why would you assume that aircraft carriers and ships with railguns must operate in isolation of each other?
No, it's making the assumption that very well understood existing technology can be adapted to a slight variation of an existing problem. We already have the ability to track fast targets at long range, as demonstrated by anti-ICBM weapons. And once you spot the shell it's a trivial math problem to calculate its entire ballistic trajectory, including the point it was fired from*.
If you have perfect knowledge of the velocity and direction of the shell then the maths is simple. However, perfect knowledge is impossible. What you have in almost all cases is 'good enough' knowledge. You have a direction that's accurate enough, and a range that's accurate enough, for a target . As speed and distance from firer increases, you need greater and greater accuracy to get a firing location that's sufficiently accurate.
Increase the speed and range by an order of magnitude, and it's possible that improved systems will be fine. But just assuming they will be because you know the base math is quite simple is very silly.
They do but Russia has smaller Navy and less ships to peform as escort duties.
The carrier has to beable to pull ots own weight, act as carrier and defend the fleet alongside its sisters ot operate in a smaller task group.
The peter the great class is one massive nuclear powered Sam and ground attack missile system.
There is also a difference in doctrine.
The first aircraft carrying cruisers were the Moskva class. They could only carry helicopters. Their role was to provide a mobile base for a large number of submarine hunrer-killer helicopters while contributing to the fleets anti-ship and air defense firepower.
The follow on Kiev class added the ability to carry a small number of VTOL fighters. The intent was to provide the fleet some added air defense with a secondary attack ability.
The more recent Kuznetsov class is the first of these aircraft carrying cruisers to actually carry a number of conventional take off fighter and strike aircraft. It is still constrained by the earlier doctrine in which the aircraft carrying cruisers were there to support the fleet. Recent operations in Syria aside, the Kuznetsov class is not prepared to launch an air campaign into a defended, hostile air space.
The Americans, since WW2 have built their carriers to be the primary offensive power of the surgace fleet, and then built the fleet around protecting and supporting the carrier. So an American carrier's job is to carry the largest, most powerful airwing it can (and indeed, a single one of these so-called supercarriers can launch a combat force bigger than the air force of many countries). Meanwhile, the Russians inherited a doctrine that the (nuclear capable) missiles carried by their ships were the primary offensive arm of the fleet and built the aircraft carrying cruisers to support that.
Form follows function. The Russians don't have a supercarrier because they have no need for one. The Americans don't put offensive weapons on their carriers because aircraft are the primary offensive weapon of the fleet.
And finally, a note about drones. If drones are the next big thing in air and naval warfare, then the force that can field the most drones and the biggest drones is likely at a significant advantage. The easiest way to bring a lot of big drones to battle is onboard a big ship designed to launch and recover aircraft ... in other words, an aircraft carrier.
sebster wrote: And that inertia still exists. Ever wondered why mortars are called mortars? Because earlier mortars looked like a mortar from a mortar and pestle. Despite largely falling in to a niche role for a very long time, when they returned to field in large numbers in WWI, they were once again called mortars, despite looking nothing like the mortar of a mortar and pestle.
The difference here is that "battleship" and "not battleship" are very relevant differences from a design point of view, while "this mortar doesn't look like a mortar and pestle" is not.
What? I haven't said once how this tech will play out. Every single post I've said 'if this plays out, then these other things make sense'. Don't make things up, and don't try to argue with me based on things other posters have said. Talk about wasting everyone's time..
Conceded. I was mixing your posts up with the people who are stubbornly insisting that their version of the future will happen. Yours did have the "if" attached.
Why would a ship with a railgun be denied aircraft cover?
Because it doesn't carry aircraft?
Why would you assume that aircraft carriers and ships with railguns must operate in isolation of each other?
Because the premise here seems to be "battleships will replace aircraft carriers".
If you have perfect knowledge of the velocity and direction of the shell then the maths is simple. However, perfect knowledge is impossible. What you have in almost all cases is 'good enough' knowledge. You have a direction that's accurate enough, and a range that's accurate enough, for a target . As speed and distance from firer increases, you need greater and greater accuracy to get a firing location that's sufficiently accurate.
Increase the speed and range by an order of magnitude, and it's possible that improved systems will be fine. But just assuming they will be because you know the base math is quite simple is very silly.
Again, we have tracking systems capable of engaging incoming ICBM warheads with direct contact interceptors. Speed and distance are not a problem. So you're left with the minor engineering problem of building the specific system from existing technology, which is substantially easier than building the battleship.
If you have perfect knowledge of the velocity and direction of the shell then the maths is simple. However, perfect knowledge is impossible. What you have in almost all cases is 'good enough' knowledge. You have a direction that's accurate enough, and a range that's accurate enough, for a target . As speed and distance from firer increases, you need greater and greater accuracy to get a firing location that's sufficiently accurate.
Increase the speed and range by an order of magnitude, and it's possible that improved systems will be fine. But just assuming they will be because you know the base math is quite simple is very silly.
Or, you use a hypersonic missile with a range in excess of the railgun and the ability to carry a sensor package that, once it's in the area of the ship that fired the railgun will allow it to detect the ship and home in on it. Better yet you fire a swarm of such missiles and while one flies in a high arc to locate the target, the rest come in at sea skimming height using the sensor information of the 'scout missile' to home in on the target. This is the way the SS-N-19 works now.
In the alternative, you fire an IRBM that dives into the ship from sub orbital altitudes, using its sensors to detect and identify the most important target amoung the ships near where the shell came from. This is the way the DF-21 works now.
Oh, and both of the missiles I just described can carry a nuclear warhead if it's so desired, meaning they wouldn't have to even hit the big railgun ship to cripple it, and it's supporting fleet.
Peregrine wrote: Again, no, they aren't. A carrier's aircraft provide it with a significant defensive advantage that the battleship can't match. The only way to give the battleship equivalent protection is to hide it behind an aircraft carrier.
Yes, air cover is great. One of the great things about a carrier's air cover is that it doesn't just screen itself, but all ships in its group. You keep making the whackadoo assumption that this hypothetical railgun carrying boat can't be put in that screen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: The difference here is that "battleship" and "not battleship" are very relevant differences from a design point of view, while "this mortar doesn't look like a mortar and pestle" is not.
An 18th century mortar was very different in design from a modern mortar.People will often keep the name of a thing, but assign it new criteria to fit with a new role better suited to a modern environment.
Conceded. I was mixing your posts up with the people who are stubbornly insisting that their version of the future will happen. Yours did have the "if" attached.
Cool.
Because it doesn't carry aircraft?
Are we playing a hex and chit game? Only one capital ship can be placed in each hex?
Because the premise here seems to be "battleships will replace aircraft carriers".
Please take up that argument with people trying to make that point. I am not making that point, or even hinting at it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jefffar wrote: Or, you use a hypersonic missile with a range in excess of the railgun and the ability to carry a sensor package that, once it's in the area of the ship that fired the railgun will allow it to detect the ship and home in on it. Better yet you fire a swarm of such missiles and while one flies in a high arc to locate the target, the rest come in at sea skimming height using the sensor information of the 'scout missile' to home in on the target. This is the way the SS-N-19 works now.
In the alternative, you fire an IRBM that dives into the ship from sub orbital altitudes, using its sensors to detect and identify the most important target amoung the ships near where the shell came from. This is the way the DF-21 works now.
Interesting, thanks for the info. What's the current distance from target a carrier group would maintain now, to avoid responses like the above? Would planes like the F35 be staying at close max operational range of 1,000km?
Oh, and both of the missiles I just described can carry a nuclear warhead if it's so desired, meaning they wouldn't have to even hit the big railgun ship to cripple it, and it's supporting fleet.
There's a lot of strategic reasons to avoid the use of nukes, though. Even if they're just restricted to military targets at sea, it risks an escalation.
If someone is directly shelling the territory of a nuclear power, they are already risking a nuclear confrontation..
As for how far the carriers have to stay out, the American Navy has been rushing all the ABM capable ships they can into the Pacific fleet, but there is some question as to how well that would work against a swarm attack. The anti-ship version of the DF-21 has a range of around 800 miles I believe.
The follow on to the DF-21, the DF-26 might push the bubble out as far as 3500 miles.
Overall, the Chinese strategy seems to be one of pushing back the elements that make American strategic power work. If carriers cant operate close enough to launch sorties and AEW&C and Tanker aircraft are vulnerable to super long range air to air missiles, the Americans might find themselves spectators to a Chinese move against Taiwan.
Jefffar wrote: If someone is directly shelling the territory of a nuclear power, they are already risking a nuclear confrontation..
Well, we don't know if there's a direct conflict on the soil of a nuclear power. It could be that both countries are involved in direct support of allies/proxies.
Even then, while operation on enemy soil would be one step in that escalation, the deployment of nukes would be another step. Not saying it wouldn't happen (its why any step along that path is dangerous, you never know how far both sides will take it), just saying the existance of weapons like that come with other considerations.
As for how far the carriers have to stay out, the American Navy has been rushing all the ABM capable ships they can into the Pacific fleet, but there is some question as to how well that would work against a swarm attack. The anti-ship version of the DF-21 has a range of around 800 miles I believe.
The follow on to the DF-21, the DF-26 might push the bubble out as far as 3500 miles.
Overall, the Chinese strategy seems to be one of pushing back the elements that make American strategic power work. If carriers cant operate close enough to launch sorties and AEW&C and Tanker aircraft are vulnerable to super long range air to air missiles, the Americans might find themselves spectators to a Chinese move against Taiwan.
Interesting, thanks. Would this rely on the Japanese remaining neutral?
Jefffar wrote: The Japanese are not nuetral, they are just constitutionally restricted to defensive action only.
A restriction which they have slowly been removing over the last 20 years or so.
Umm, I know the overall Japanese position. My point is more about the Japanese engagement in a specific operation, such as one in Taiwan. In that situation a future Japan might, for a whole host of reasons, elect to remain neutral in the conflict. I was wondering if your description was about the US operating without support of bases in Japan, or if that changes the dynamic.
Well the latest DF-26, if it has an anti-ship mode, should be able to target US ships at harbour both in Japan and in Guam.
This might be the real reason Japan is igetting a priority for ABMs, not just the saber rattling coming from Pyongyang.
The threat to AEW&C and Tanker craft from the new ultra-long range AAM probably won't care where they are based. If the PLAAF can get a fighter carrying one of these missiles within 300 miles of one of these aircraft they can take a shot.
