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:
Power projection involves a lot more than matching two potential mini-carriers against the combined airforces of China and North Korea.

Exactly my point. The capabilities of these ships as planned or that the could be adapted to are not enough to represent any sort of practical power projection capability. Their air group is too small and the types that can be carried are too limited. While Japan could buy VTOL F-35s they haven't. While Japan could have made ski-jump ships, they haven't. The design of these ships is consistent with the defensive needs of Japan rather than some kind of attempt to develop the ability to expand her sphere of influence.

These ships do provide valuable experience for the development of a follow on class of larger carriers and assault ships a decade or so down the road. Watch for those if you think Japan is going to look at expanding again.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I believe Great Britain changed their mind over which F-35 variant they were intending on building twice fairly recently. It would be a simple matter for Japan to change its mind in the next few months. One must also consider (as I said before), the possibility of the adaptation of the carrier for other forms of aircraft, including the ones currently in the possession of the Japanese Airforce.

Short of the mecha-carrier you described earlier, that's not possible. It's not large enough for conventional operations.

As someone more familiar with ships than aircraft, I'll willingly bow to your experience if you tell me that current Japanese aircraft would be unable to land on a ships modified along the lines I gave earlier (aka, a selection of extra 50m deck space/arrestor wires/catapult/etc).

Assuming that is indeed the case, I would not be surprised to see a small selection of F35-B's being purchased in the near future.

Jefffar wrote:


Exactly my point. The capabilities of these ships as planned or that the could be adapted to are not enough to represent any sort of practical power projection capability. Their air group is too small and the types that can be carried are too limited. While Japan could buy VTOL F-35s they haven't. While Japan could have made ski-jump ships, they haven't. The design of these ships is consistent with the defensive needs of Japan rather than some kind of attempt to develop the ability to expand her sphere of influence.

'Sphere of influence' is quite different to 'power projection'.

Regardless, there are many potential scenarios worldwide in which the ability to swing a carrier by the neighbourhood and project localised airpower could be very useful. From retrieving hostages in Somalia to interfering in other conflicts further south in the South China Sea, these faux-destroyers offer Japan expanded operational capacities and political options. They're not going to suddenly allow Japan to conduct invasions in South America or China, but then I don't think anyone was suggesting that to begin with.

On rail guns: Rail guns are at current, despite the Navy';s efforts otherwise, a horizon to horizon weapon.

A 16" mark 7 can fire OVER the horizon at a target. Using modern Smart munitions, a 16" Mark 7 could conceivably hit a target 10 feet across. Or deliver a submunition payload. Or a tactical nuclear strike.

On Torpedoes: a torpedo is a threat to any surface ship. However, like with aircraft first you have to get through it's screening escorts, and submarine detection technology has some a long way since 1945. A lot of people like to point to the loss of the General Belgrano, but miss that this attack was a sub commander's wet dream, with an unaware target that had obsolete torpedo protection by 1940's standards, that was separated from it's escort and in poor visibility.


Like with the loss of the Roma, Perfect Storm scenarios will usually sink a ship, regardless of how modern or well defended it is.

Regarding submarines, one could also point to the performance of HMS Gotland while leased to the US Navy a couple of years ago. The US Navy obviously have learned since then (since that was the entire point), but with new generations of submarines being put into service the fundamental issue remains; subs are dangerous.

 Seaward wrote:
Hey, we know how to do naval aviation at night, which is more than can be said for anyone else.

We win.

Depends who you're asking, some of us are of the opinion that the right way to do naval aviation is to not do naval aviation ;P

In an emergency situation, the fitting of a catapult and ramp for aircraft launching wouldn't be too difficult a task.

It takes A LOT more than JUST a catapult and ramp to conduct fixed wing operations from a character, and even though its possible to retrofit everything these ships would need (provided they aren't set up with this capability in mind) a few months in drydock to make it happen.

And since I do not think the Japanese Navy is run by fools, I would be heavily surprised if it had not been designed with such adaptations in mind (and possibly even with the suitable components to do so already being built or in storage).

The Japanese arguably lost World War 2 BECAUSE its Navy was run by fools ;P

I am, by the way, preeeeeetty personally familiar with flying planes off boats.

Yes, yes, we know, you're a naval aviator, please check your ego at the door ;P (P.S. - Top Gun = WORST MOVIE EVER.)

Which I know sounds bizarre are feth, but atm of anti-ship missiles currently in use, only the Russian Granit has sufficient penetrating power, and it's too large to be carried by aircraft. Or most submarines. In theory you could mission kill one via cumulative effects of ten to fifty hits with conventional ASW, or a lucky shot kill with, say, one of those new hyper penetration MOABs that the US is working on. To pull off either of these though would require the sacrifice of a VERY large number of aircraft, assuming the battleship has modern CIWS.

I dunno if I agree fully. First of all, I assume by battleship you actually MEAN battleship (and I'll lump in Aircraft Carriers as well since they are similar enough in terms of defensive ability) which as far as I know are no longer in use with any fleet in any nation on the planet. This is an important distinction to make, because aircraft are more than capable of taking down frigates, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (its regularly practiced via "sink-ex" on old decommissioned vessels). Now, in the case of these

As for sacrificing large numbers of aircraft, again questionable. First of all CIWS has a nasty habit of not working a large portion of the time. Thats not to say that it doesn't track and engage correctly, that is to say that the entire friggin system is broken and non-functional (or rather is "down for repair"), at least thats the case on the cruisers my friends have been on. Besides that, while I'm not too keen on the "stealth" aircraft craze, defensive systems have evolved to the point that an aircraft could get reasonably close without much risk. Also, I think you underestimate the capabilities of other missile systems. No, I doubt a single missile will bring one down, but that isn't really the point in modern naval warfare. Naval weapon systems are mostly designed to KILL the crew and cause DAMAGE to ship infrastructure, not to sink the ship itself. Why go through the effort of sending it to the bottom of the sea when you can just leave it a burning, bloody mess?

 Frazzled wrote:
You mean retrofit ...again.

It is the year 2057. The Aliens have come, and they are not peaceful. Humanity's last hope is...the Texas!

I can think of a deadlier scenario than that. America's deadliest enemies (Canada and Vietnam) join forces and overrun the States. Only The Texas can save them!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Regarding submarines, one could also point to the performance of HMS Gotland while leased to the US Navy a couple of years ago. The US Navy obviously have learned since then (since that was the entire point), but with new generations of submarines being put into service the fundamental issue remains; subs are dangerous.

The Falklands War showed that subs are probably THE most dangerous thing patrolling the seas these days, and that's not because some of them carry nukes I might be wrong.

I'm trying to dig up the information, but technically, we could put railguns on our ships now.

The problem now is technical (isn't it aways). The gun barrel (or rail) is only good for a few shots before it needs to be replaced. Either they figure out a way to shield the material better (technical) or there's a material that can withstand the heat/friction after each shot.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Depends who you're asking, some of us are of the opinion that the right way to do naval aviation is to not do naval aviation ;P

That entirely cedes the ability to fight at sea, but okay.

 Seaward wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Depends who you're asking, some of us are of the opinion that the right way to do naval aviation is to not do naval aviation ;P

That entirely cedes the ability to fight at sea, but okay.

20th century thinking.

Missiles are the way to go, launched from subs or ships. In the future lasers will help too.
Drones can fly from land or maybe launched cruise missile style fromt he above.

I'm waiting for sattellites to have the capacity to drop small bits of metal at high relativistic speeds, and of course, sharks with frigging lazers.

chaos0xomega wrote:


I dunno if I agree fully. First of all, I assume by battleship you actually MEAN battleship (and I'll lump in Aircraft Carriers as well since they are similar enough in terms of defensive ability) which as far as I know are no longer in use with any fleet in any nation on the planet. This is an important distinction to make, because aircraft are more than capable of taking down frigates, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (its regularly practiced via "sink-ex" on old decommissioned vessels). Now, in the case of these

Well... no. A carrier, even a big US fleet carrier, has a laughable defense (passive or active) compared to a battleship's potential fitting. A carrier's defense is first and foremost it's aircraft, quickly followed by running away. In the late 80s and early 90's, in US Navy wargames, battleships successfully chased down and 'killed' fleet carriers, the only ships to do so other than subs, including other carriers.

chaos0xomega wrote:

As for sacrificing large numbers of aircraft, again questionable. First of all CIWS has a nasty habit of not working a large portion of the time. Thats not to say that it doesn't track and engage correctly, that is to say that the entire friggin system is broken and non-functional (or rather is "down for repair"), at least thats the case on the cruisers my friends have been on. Besides that, while I'm not too keen on the "stealth" aircraft craze, defensive systems have evolved to the point that an aircraft could get reasonably close without much risk. Also, I think you underestimate the capabilities of other missile systems. No, I doubt a single missile will bring one down, but that isn't really the point in modern naval warfare. Naval weapon systems are mostly designed to KILL the crew and cause DAMAGE to ship infrastructure, not to sink the ship itself. Why go through the effort of sending it to the bottom of the sea when you can just leave it a burning, bloody mess?

Well, first of all, you put your CIWS in stand alone mode when that happens (remember that each RIM and Phalanx gun can operate independently, as well as have manual [yes really]). It's not as effective but does work. Secondly, if the CIWS on a battleship is anything like it's other fire control systems, one system begin down wouldn't even slow it down. IIRC each battleship has something like 8 separate, redundant fire-control systems, and that's before you start shooting on manual. Secondly, a Nimitz class carrier carries 4 CIWS systems, IIRC. A battleship can carry something like 15 or more. and that's not counting the possibility of swapping out a turret for VLS or using a duel purpose system like the 127mm Oto for secondaries.

I ran the upgrade idea past some guys from RAAF, their (conservative) estimate was 45 planes to get a mission kill on it, without escorts, at 25% casualties, at least. Their basic plan was to harass it with smaller ASMs to try and swamp it with targets and keep it painted until they could drop several MOABs on it. They figured that would inflict sufficient damage to force it to withdraw.

And, no, I'm not underestimating ASM's power, but I do understand how they work and how a battleship works. Modern ASM work by detonating a small warhead charge against the hull of the ship, in theory allowing the missile access to the ship so that a larger explosive charge and the missiles remaining fuel can then be detonated internally, causing that firey mess you were talking about.

This approach does not work on US battleships due to the fact that to pass through the Panama canal, they use internal armor belts. This means that the missile's penetrating warhead explodes on the ships steel skin, but the secondary charge is then blocked from entering by a 17 inch thick or greater Class A armor. (think armor skirts).

This also does not take into account the sheer level of redundancy and reinforcement a battleship has, compared to modern ships. Remember that most modern ships are not built with taking large numbers of direct hits in mind.

Just a little example of something a battleship can survive:



This is the Wilson cloud from atomic test Baker. Several of the battleships present within 'ground zero' remained afloat, the though the USS Arkansas was flipped end over end by the bomb and sank, she's still largely intact on the seabed. USS Pennsylvania took on water but remained afloat, due to the nuke loosening a patch on a torpedo hit she had suffered earlier.

Ships that sank marked with red Xs:

IIRC even a full sized railgun would be smaller than what battleships used to carry, especially when you take into account ammo storage. It just needs to have the power provided by the reactor and its ammunition(which is inert and not in danger of exploding if it gets hit by enemy fire)

Now you could build super sized railguns and put them on dedicated battleships, but they would probably be very rare beasts. Able to lob slugs hundreds of miles. One ship could probably cover the entire north Atlantic

But why, aside from how freaking cool it would be, would you spend tons of money on a dedicated battleship when you can get similar direct fire power projection by simply retrofitting an existing carrier with a few Railguns?

Because the battleship will be much less vulnerable. Of course, the moment someone else finishes a working naval Railgun that armour might not be enough anymore...

Is it impossible to give a carrier the same type of armor that a battleship gets?

Are we really giving our main modern warships paper armor compared to outmoded battleships of yesteryear?

 Grey Templar wrote:
IIRC even a full sized railgun would be smaller than what battleships used to carry, especially when you take into account ammo storage. It just needs to have the power provided by the reactor and its ammunition(which is inert and not in danger of exploding if it gets hit by enemy fire)

Now you could build super sized railguns and put them on dedicated battleships, but they would probably be very rare beasts. Able to lob slugs hundreds of miles. One ship could probably cover the entire north Atlantic

But why, aside from how freaking cool it would be, would you spend tons of money on a dedicated battleship when you can get similar direct fire power projection by simply retrofitting an existing carrier with a few Railguns?

Speaking of Rail Guns...

Is it really going to be that effective? At sea level, you can only see about 3 miles before concave of the horizon... So, on a battleship, the gun would be what... 100ft from the sea? Then, it's effective range would be 12 miles..right?

How effective would that be?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Is it impossible to give a carrier the same type of armor that a battleship gets?

Are we really giving our main modern warships paper armor compared to outmoded battleships of yesteryear?

Probably, but given the sheer size of a supercarrier the top speed would likely be drastically affected. Also, there's still the issue of torpedoes being able to break the ship's keel.

 whembly wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
IIRC even a full sized railgun would be smaller than what battleships used to carry, especially when you take into account ammo storage. It just needs to have the power provided by the reactor and its ammunition(which is inert and not in danger of exploding if it gets hit by enemy fire)

Now you could build super sized railguns and put them on dedicated battleships, but they would probably be very rare beasts. Able to lob slugs hundreds of miles. One ship could probably cover the entire north Atlantic

But why, aside from how freaking cool it would be, would you spend tons of money on a dedicated battleship when you can get similar direct fire power projection by simply retrofitting an existing carrier with a few Railguns?

Speaking of Rail Guns...

Is it really going to be that effective? At sea level, you can only see about 3 miles before concave of the horizon... So, on a battleship, the gun would be what... 100ft from the sea? Then, it's effective range would be 12 miles..right?

How effective would that be?

Railguns have a parabolic trajectory like any projectile. They can be lobbed over the horizon.

I saw an article once about the Naval Railgun project and they are saying the railgun has an effective range of 400ish miles with accuracy up to 12 meters from the target point.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
IIRC even a full sized railgun would be smaller than what battleships used to carry, especially when you take into account ammo storage. It just needs to have the power provided by the reactor and its ammunition(which is inert and not in danger of exploding if it gets hit by enemy fire)

Now you could build super sized railguns and put them on dedicated battleships, but they would probably be very rare beasts. Able to lob slugs hundreds of miles. One ship could probably cover the entire north Atlantic

But why, aside from how freaking cool it would be, would you spend tons of money on a dedicated battleship when you can get similar direct fire power projection by simply retrofitting an existing carrier with a few Railguns?

Speaking of Rail Guns...

Is it really going to be that effective? At sea level, you can only see about 3 miles before concave of the horizon... So, on a battleship, the gun would be what... 100ft from the sea? Then, it's effective range would be 12 miles..right?

How effective would that be?

Railguns have a parabolic trajectory like any projectile. They can be lobbed over the horizon.

I saw an article once about the Naval Railgun project and they are saying the railgun has an effective range of 400ish miles with accuracy up to 12 meters from the target point.

Well...huh. I was under the impression that it was powerfull enough that it woundn't have that kind of trajectory. Dayum... 400 miles? o.O

We are talking a very steep parabolic trajectory to hit stuff. Its going to be hitting its targets practically vertical.

I should mention the 400 miles is only theoretical at this point. In the near future we're looking at something more in the range of 100 miles.

One test of the weapon had the projectile travel 7 kilometers after penetrating 1/8inch steel plate. this is the first railgun that is planned to be put into service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

The re-militarization of good old Yamato is a wonderful thing.

Mark my words - Article 9 of their constitution will be stricken, amended, or de facto nullified within 10 years.

From a realpolitik standpoint, we (the West) need a strong ally in the region to act as a bulwark against Chinese and Russian imperialism / expansionism. Not just economically strong. Militarily strong.

Both Japan and the U.S. recognize this, so all of Japan's moves towards re-militarization over the past decade have been made with the blessing of the U.S. (there have been many baby steps before this).

The benefits to Japan from an economic and morale standpoint will be tremendous. Their whole economy and society could stand a good kick in the ass, and re-militarization is just what the doctor ordered. Along with a hefty dose of nationalism.

It's just great. I can't wait.

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
The re-militarization of good old Yamato is a wonderful thing.

Mark my words - Article 9 of their constitution will be stricken, amended, or de facto nullified within 10 years.

From a realpolitik standpoint, we (the West) need a strong ally in the region to act as a bulwark against Chinese and Russian imperialism / expansionism. Not just economically strong. Militarily strong.

Both Japan and the U.S. recognize this, so all of Japan's moves towards re-militarization over the past decade have been made with the blessing of the U.S. (there have been many baby steps before this).

The benefits to Japan from an economic and morale standpoint will be tremendous. Their whole economy and society could stand a good kick in the ass, and re-militarization is just what the doctor ordered. Along with a hefty dose of nationalism.

It's just great. I can't wait.

Alternatively we could quite pull our military out just trade with everyone in a nice peaceful manner. My dauighter was in diapers the last time we weren't activly in a war. Enough already.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
The re-militarization of good old Yamato is a wonderful thing.

Mark my words - Article 9 of their constitution will be stricken, amended, or de facto nullified within 10 years.

From a realpolitik standpoint, we (the West) need a strong ally in the region to act as a bulwark against Chinese and Russian imperialism / expansionism. Not just economically strong. Militarily strong.

Both Japan and the U.S. recognize this, so all of Japan's moves towards re-militarization over the past decade have been made with the blessing of the U.S. (there have been many baby steps before this).

The benefits to Japan from an economic and morale standpoint will be tremendous. Their whole economy and society could stand a good kick in the ass, and re-militarization is just what the doctor ordered. Along with a hefty dose of nationalism.

It's just great. I can't wait.

Alternatively we could quite pull our military out just trade with everyone in a nice peaceful manner. My dauighter was in diapers the last time we weren't activly in a war. Enough already.

I agree, that would be wonderful. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way :\

Why not? Please cite the negative thing that happens to the US if we did?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Is it impossible to give a carrier the same type of armor that a battleship gets?

Are we really giving our main modern warships paper armor compared to outmoded battleships of yesteryear?

I'll just start off by pointing out that I'm not a pro at these matters, so if I'm talking out my ass feel free to correct me.

I'd imagine that a carrier, being bigger and requiring greater internal space for aircraft than a battleship would need, would need more armour compared to its size. With increased size comes increased weight, which slows the ship down. Similarly, if the carrier has to carry fuel and weapons for the aircraft while the Railgun ammunition for the battleship is all solid, the battleship won't turn into a giant torch the moment someone manages to hit the ammunition stores.

Regarding the armour, according to Wikipedia the USS George H W Bush has 2.5" Kevlar armour over vital spaces. The USS Missouri has 9.5" of deck armour and a hull armour around 11-12", with the turrets boasting 17". Wiki doesn't say what material, but I'd assume it to be steel. The Nimitz class is a 100,000 ton monster with almost no armour; adding 12" of armour would probably weigh quite a bit.

There's a reason we don't use battleships anymore. Just throwing it out there.

But maybe we should!


Rule of Cool wins wars right?

 Easy E wrote:
But maybe we should!


Rule of Cool wins wars right?

Only where the Law Awesome but Practical applies

 Grey Templar wrote:

Railguns have a parabolic trajectory like any projectile. They can be lobbed over the horizon.

I saw an article once about the Naval Railgun project and they are saying the railgun has an effective range of 400ish miles with accuracy up to 12 meters from the target point.

I have that article someplace. It's hilarious. They never do explain how the smart projectile will use it's wings to maneuver outside the Earth's atmosphere (for those who don't know aerodynamics, that's impossible, as wings require air pressure to work) or how the projectile will accelerate to faster than it's terminal velocity on reentry without burning up or using any sort of propellant. For it to work as advertised, it's have to impact traveling a faster than it's initial muzzle velocity.

Further, the rail-gun, while it has impressive pen, inflicts relatively little damage to an object the size of a ship. Any ship.

Battleships used a combination of class A and Class B steel armor. Previously, carriers used a small amount of class B.

Seaward: on why we don't use battleships anymore: that's three fold. The first is the historic pissing contest between carrier and admiral commanders. It went to the extreme that the Iowa's number 2 turret explosion and 50 odd dead sailors can be laid at it's feet. The second is that battleships have just one use: blowing things up. When it comes to peace time humanitarian missions, they suck. This means that they cost almost as much as a carrier, but are only useful during war. So a frugal country tends to buy them over battleships. The third is that battleship building is considered right up there with a nuclear weapons program as far as diplomacy goes. A battleship has, after all, just one use.

 Seaward wrote:
There's a reason we don't use battleships anymore. Just throwing it out there.

Expense in maintenance. Remember that they were recommissioned during the Gulf War and that it'd be cheaper to refit them than to build the Zumwalts and still result in greater firepower.

The Pyotr Veliky and the other battle cruisers of the Kirov class may or may not count as well, although they're obviously not American.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Pyotr Veliky and the other battle cruisers of the Kirov class may or may not count as well, although they're obviously not American.

I always love the language that Congress was told: 'It's a super heavy battlecruiser, not a battleship'. Technically true, as it has a very different weapon loadout compared ot US battleships, but interestingly enough, the only thing the US could come up with was battleships to counter it. It would annihilate every other ship in an entire carrier taskforce, but the battleships would run it down and kill it afterward. Hence the recommissioning and late-80's early 90's update to battleships. Interestingly enough they got barrel wear down so low per shot they gave up on that as a meaningful measurement of barrel life.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


I dunno if I agree fully. First of all, I assume by battleship you actually MEAN battleship (and I'll lump in Aircraft Carriers as well since they are similar enough in terms of defensive ability) which as far as I know are no longer in use with any fleet in any nation on the planet. This is an important distinction to make, because aircraft are more than capable of taking down frigates, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (its regularly practiced via "sink-ex" on old decommissioned vessels). Now, in the case of these

Well... no. A carrier, even a big US fleet carrier, has a laughable defense (passive or active) compared to a battleship's potential fitting. A carrier's defense is first and foremost it's aircraft, quickly followed by running away. In the late 80s and early 90's, in US Navy wargames, battleships successfully chased down and 'killed' fleet carriers, the only ships to do so other than subs, including other carriers.

...

During extensive wargames held in 1939 to 1945, battleships failed numerous times to chase down and "kill" carrier fleets.