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.

 Ketara wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:

 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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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?

 Grey Templar wrote:


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.

@Grey Templar:

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.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
@Grey Templar:

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.

 djones520 wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
@Grey Templar:

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.

 djones520 wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
@Grey Templar:

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.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
@Grey Templar:

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.

 djones520 wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
@Grey Templar:

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.

 djones520 wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
@Grey Templar:

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.

Why build a new battleship for the ocean, when we can build one for SPACE(!)?

 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?

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

Bro. We're talking about the near future, obviously. Stop acting cute and acting like this isn't going to happen.

And yes, functioning railguns do exist. Here is a video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj1b8wh2Ul4

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Bro. We're talking about the near future, obviously. Stop acting cute and acting like this isn't going to happen.

And yes, functioning railguns do exist. Here is a video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj1b8wh2Ul4

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.

Tyran wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Bro. We're talking about the near future, obviously. Stop acting cute and acting like this isn't going to happen.

And yes, functioning railguns do exist. Here is a video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj1b8wh2Ul4

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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

Tyran wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I tried to make this point earlier. The classification of ANY post WW2 battleship

...all one of them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_(23)

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.