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.

A new thread, to discuss the merits, and shortfalls, of the battleship in modern day warfare.

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.

http://www.combatreform.org/battleships.htm

I agree that the battleships resurgence would pair nicely with railgun technology.

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.

Benefits: looks cool, nostalgia.

Drawbacks: loses to a wood boat with an anti-ship missile, primary weapons have no purpose in modern warfare.

 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.

http://www.combatreform.org/battleships.htm

I agree that the battleships resurgence would pair nicely with railgun technology.

This is awesome stuff. Good analysis of why abandoning battleships wasn't necessarily a good idea.

 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 firmly covered under the Rule of Cool.

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.

Worst movie based upon a board game since "Operation".

Wait, what were we talking about again?

I actually *liked* that movie.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

If your oppnent gets a right peg, he will just will know roughly where your ship is and throw out numbers to try to sink it.

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Frazzled sad. Frazzled thought this was a discussion about epic game.

Frazzled say "did you know there was a 3 D version of it? It too was awesome.
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1551/sub-search

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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?

 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.