Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

edit:-eh, never mind.

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.

You don't even need a nuclear power plant to feed a railgun.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

 Ketara wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

They were screening those Aircraft Carrier too. Yet we still lost 11 of them.

 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.

There were only 5 battleship vs battleship engagements in the whole WW2,

Allied battleships were basically reserved for shore bombardment and AA duty, while axis Battleships were slaughtered by allied aircraft.

Even by WW2 battleships were already considered obsolete.

Tyran wrote:
There were only 5 battleship vs battleship engagements in the whole WW2,

Allied battleships were basically reserved for shore bombardment and AA duty, while axis Battleships were slaughtered by allied aircraft.

Even by WW2 battleships were already considered obsolete.

Heck, the last major battleship engagement was the Battle of Jutland back in 1916.

Tyran wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Thanks for that.

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.