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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to put the railguns on a carrier? You'd have the power plant to drive the thing and you'd not lose out on the utility and advantages of having an aircraft carrier. You lose out on the armour (or, well, I guess you could armor a carrier?), but that armour is already of questionable utility anyway.

The Russians have what they call Aircraft Carrying Cruisers instead of aircraft carriers. These ships have sizable antiship missile batteries and enough anti-aircraft guns and missiles to make a significant contribution to their own defense and the defense of their flotilla.

These ships also carry only about half the airgroup that a conventional carrier does.

The primary weapon of the Aircraft Carrier is its aircraft. Anything that reduces the number of aircraft carried, the amount of munitions carried for those aircraft or limits the ability to quickly launch and recover those aircraft is a reduction in the offensive power of the Aircraft Carrier.

Even if there was a way to do it without physically compromising the Carrier's ability to carry aircraft, tactical considerations would mean that the big railgun aircraft carrier would find itself having to choose between the optimum course for the launch and recovery of aircraft versus the optimum course for attacking with the railguns.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to put the railguns on a carrier? You'd have the power plant to drive the thing and you'd not lose out on the utility and advantages of having an aircraft carrier. You lose out on the armour (or, well, I guess you could armor a carrier?), but that armour is already of questionable utility anyway.

It only makes sense as long as Carriers, as they exist today, make sense.

AA technology is advancing quite rapidly. As is Drone technology. Both are going to make dedicated aircraft carriers obsolete.

AA technology, including lasers, will make manned aircraft undesirable because you'll have unacceptable loss of life and trained pilots. Drones will be lighter and the pilots will remain safely somewhere piloting it remotely. Drones can also be launched from much shorter platforms.


As has been theorized for a while, we will likely end up with hybrid ships. Vessels which are both battleships and carriers at the same time. They'll be armed to the teeth and armored like a battleship, but also have runways to launch drones and a few other aircraft. They'll rely less on aircraft alone and focus more on their railgun armament. With drones being used for reconnaissance and occasional fire support missions relying on stealth, since drones are much harder to detect than a conventional aircraft they will also be better when the enemy has air defenses. And losing a drone is no big deal since they'll be relatively cheap and you won't be risking a pilot.

We'll probably make do by slapping a railgun on a carrier at first, but in the long run carriers will become obsolete since they'll simply be unnecessary. They'll have far more space than is necessary for drone aircraft operations, while also not contributing as much as a Battleship with a small drone hanger.

Jefffar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to put the railguns on a carrier? You'd have the power plant to drive the thing and you'd not lose out on the utility and advantages of having an aircraft carrier. You lose out on the armour (or, well, I guess you could armor a carrier?), but that armour is already of questionable utility anyway.

The Russians have what they call Aircraft Carrying Cruisers instead of aircraft carriers. These ships have sizable antiship missile batteries and enough anti-aircraft guns and missiles to make a significant contribution to their own defense and the defense of their flotilla.

These ships also carry only about half the airgroup that a conventional carrier does.

The primary weapon of the Aircraft Carrier is its aircraft. Anything that reduces the number of aircraft carried, the amount of munitions carried for those aircraft or limits the ability to quickly launch and recover those aircraft is a reduction in the offensive power of the Aircraft Carrier.

Even if there was a way to do it without physically compromising the Carrier's ability to carry aircraft, tactical considerations would mean that the big railgun aircraft carrier would find itself having to choose between the optimum course for the launch and recovery of aircraft versus the optimum course for attacking with the railguns.

They do but Russia has smaller Navy and less ships to peform as escort duties.
The carrier has to beable to pull ots own weight, act as carrier and defend the fleet alongside its sisters ot operate in a smaller task group.
The peter the great class is one massive nuclear powered Sam and ground attack missile system.

 Grey Templar wrote:


It only makes sense as long as Carriers, as they exist today, make sense.

Which they will for quite a long time.

AA technology is advancing quite rapidly. As is Drone technology. Both are going to make dedicated aircraft carriers obsolete.

Nice assumption. I have another assumption, what about no.

AA technology, including lasers, will make manned aircraft undesirable because you'll have unacceptable loss of life and trained pilots. Drones will be lighter and the pilots will remain safely somewhere piloting it remotely. Drones can also be launched from much shorter platforms.

Lasers are nowhere close to making planes obsolete. Even drones, which are far lighter, can have reflective armor that makes the resistant to lasers. In addition, one of the best platforms to launch drones are planes.

As has been theorized for a while, we will likely end up with hybrid ships. Vessels which are both battleships and carriers at the same time. They'll be armed to the teeth and armored like a battleship, but also have runways to launch drones and a few other aircraft. They'll rely less on aircraft alone and focus more on their railgun armament. With drones being used for reconnaissance and occasional fire support missions relying on stealth, since drones are much harder to detect than a conventional aircraft they will also be better when the enemy has air defenses. And losing a drone is no big deal since they'll be relatively cheap and you won't be risking a pilot.

We'll probably make do by slapping a railgun on a carrier at first, but in the long run carriers will become obsolete since they'll simply be unnecessary. They'll have far more space than is necessary for drone aircraft operations, while also not contributing as much as a Battleship with a small drone hanger.

And you are again with the idea of armored battleships. Armored battleship, I present you APHE warheads, now die.

 Grey Templar wrote:
AA technology, including lasers, will make manned aircraft undesirable because you'll have unacceptable loss of life and trained pilots.

Yes, drones will become more desirable, especially as their ability to operate independently improves. However, the difference between manned aircraft and drones is negligible in this context. An aircraft carrier is an aircraft carrier regardless of whether its aircraft are piloted from the cockpit or remotely.

Drones will be lighter and the pilots will remain safely somewhere piloting it remotely. Drones can also be launched from much shorter platforms.

Lolwut? Drones are not lighter and do not have shorter takeoff/landing distances, assuming equal capability compared to manned aircraft. The only reason any drones are lighter or able to operate from shorter runways is that those particular drones are smaller and less capable, as their role is not the same as manned aircraft.

As has been theorized for a while, we will likely end up with hybrid ships. Vessels which are both battleships and carriers at the same time. They'll be armed to the teeth and armored like a battleship, but also have runways to launch drones and a few other aircraft. They'll rely less on aircraft alone and focus more on their railgun armament.

IOW, ships that are capable of multiple things but good at none of them. There's a reason we have single-purpose specialists in the real-world navy, and the Soviet hybrid carrier/missile cruiser designs aren't looked upon very favorably.

since drones are much harder to detect than a conventional aircraft

Lolwut? This is not true, at all.

Jefffar wrote:
Thank you. I think your defense of the big railgun shp is fairly well thought out, if somewhat overly romanticized..

Cheers. To clarify - I'm not in any way saying 'railguns will be mounted on large warships and bring in a new age of battleships'. That's just a bunch of guesswork. I don't know, no-one here can. People working on the tech right now would have a pretty good guess, but they would still have to admit to a lot of unknowns. What I am saying is that if railguns develop as a lot people say they can, then that would likely be a pretty handy bit of functionality that would be effectively deployed on a ship. If there are advantages to scaling up to a large size, then potentially you could see very large railguns deployed on battleship sized boats.

With all those if statements it should be clear that I'm not saying this will happen. My only real comment was that if railguns prove to be a valuable weapon with real functionality when deployed on a boat, then all the concerns about the vulnerabilities of battleships aren't really that much of a concern. All large ships are vulnerable, and have been vulnerable for more than a 100 years. The dominant ships of the sea right now, aircraft carriers, are vulnerable in all the ways that a battleship would be. But if the weapon platform is dominant, then the risks of the large platform are worth it. You invest in the support and technologies to minimise the risk, and beyond that you accept that there is always going to be risk in losing ships at sea, nothing will ever be immune to enemy action... you just invest in sufficient effectiveness that you are much more likely to get them before they get you.

 sebster wrote:
The dominant ships of the sea right now, aircraft carriers, are vulnerable in all the ways that a battleship would be.

Again, no, they aren't. A carrier's aircraft provide it with a significant defensive advantage that the battleship can't match. The only way to give the battleship equivalent protection is to hide it behind an aircraft carrier.

 Peregrine wrote:
Or we discuss the subject of the thread, that everyone else has been discussing.

Or you move on from bad questions, and towards better ones. This is how conversation progresses.

Mostly because of inertia. They were already "battleships", so they remained "battleships" even as their use declined and changed.

And that inertia still exists. Ever wondered why mortars are called mortars? Because earlier mortars looked like a mortar from a mortar and pestle. Despite largely falling in to a niche role for a very long time, when they returned to field in large numbers in WWI, they were once again called mortars, despite looking nothing like the mortar of a mortar and pestle.

Then why do you (and other "battleship" advocates) keep doing it?

What? I haven't said once how this tech will play out. Every single post I've said 'if this plays out, then these other things make sense'. Don't make things up, and don't try to argue with me based on things other posters have said. Talk about wasting everyone's time...

Again, the fleet doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with the two advantages I mentioned. If you compare a carrier and its escorts to a battleship with the same escorts the carrier group will be a much tougher target. It has a much greater ability to evade detection, and a defensive perimeter set much farther out by aircraft on defensive duties.

You are still refusing to think this through. Why would a ship with a railgun be denied aircraft cover? Why would you assume that aircraft carriers and ships with railguns must operate in isolation of each other?

No, it's making the assumption that very well understood existing technology can be adapted to a slight variation of an existing problem. We already have the ability to track fast targets at long range, as demonstrated by anti-ICBM weapons. And once you spot the shell it's a trivial math problem to calculate its entire ballistic trajectory, including the point it was fired from*.

If you have perfect knowledge of the velocity and direction of the shell then the maths is simple. However, perfect knowledge is impossible. What you have in almost all cases is 'good enough' knowledge. You have a direction that's accurate enough, and a range that's accurate enough, for a target . As speed and distance from firer increases, you need greater and greater accuracy to get a firing location that's sufficiently accurate.

Increase the speed and range by an order of magnitude, and it's possible that improved systems will be fine. But just assuming they will be because you know the base math is quite simple is very silly.

 jhe90 wrote:

They do but Russia has smaller Navy and less ships to peform as escort duties.
The carrier has to beable to pull ots own weight, act as carrier and defend the fleet alongside its sisters ot operate in a smaller task group.
The peter the great class is one massive nuclear powered Sam and ground attack missile system.

There is also a difference in doctrine.

The first aircraft carrying cruisers were the Moskva class. They could only carry helicopters. Their role was to provide a mobile base for a large number of submarine hunrer-killer helicopters while contributing to the fleets anti-ship and air defense firepower.

The follow on Kiev class added the ability to carry a small number of VTOL fighters. The intent was to provide the fleet some added air defense with a secondary attack ability.

The more recent Kuznetsov class is the first of these aircraft carrying cruisers to actually carry a number of conventional take off fighter and strike aircraft. It is still constrained by the earlier doctrine in which the aircraft carrying cruisers were there to support the fleet. Recent operations in Syria aside, the Kuznetsov class is not prepared to launch an air campaign into a defended, hostile air space.

The Americans, since WW2 have built their carriers to be the primary offensive power of the surgace fleet, and then built the fleet around protecting and supporting the carrier. So an American carrier's job is to carry the largest, most powerful airwing it can (and indeed, a single one of these so-called supercarriers can launch a combat force bigger than the air force of many countries). Meanwhile, the Russians inherited a doctrine that the (nuclear capable) missiles carried by their ships were the primary offensive arm of the fleet and built the aircraft carrying cruisers to support that.

Form follows function. The Russians don't have a supercarrier because they have no need for one. The Americans don't put offensive weapons on their carriers because aircraft are the primary offensive weapon of the fleet.


And finally, a note about drones. If drones are the next big thing in air and naval warfare, then the force that can field the most drones and the biggest drones is likely at a significant advantage. The easiest way to bring a lot of big drones to battle is onboard a big ship designed to launch and recover aircraft ... in other words, an aircraft carrier.

 sebster wrote:
And that inertia still exists. Ever wondered why mortars are called mortars? Because earlier mortars looked like a mortar from a mortar and pestle. Despite largely falling in to a niche role for a very long time, when they returned to field in large numbers in WWI, they were once again called mortars, despite looking nothing like the mortar of a mortar and pestle.

The difference here is that "battleship" and "not battleship" are very relevant differences from a design point of view, while "this mortar doesn't look like a mortar and pestle" is not.

What? I haven't said once how this tech will play out. Every single post I've said 'if this plays out, then these other things make sense'. Don't make things up, and don't try to argue with me based on things other posters have said. Talk about wasting everyone's time..

Conceded. I was mixing your posts up with the people who are stubbornly insisting that their version of the future will happen. Yours did have the "if" attached.

Why would a ship with a railgun be denied aircraft cover?

Because it doesn't carry aircraft?

Why would you assume that aircraft carriers and ships with railguns must operate in isolation of each other?

Because the premise here seems to be "battleships will replace aircraft carriers".

If you have perfect knowledge of the velocity and direction of the shell then the maths is simple. However, perfect knowledge is impossible. What you have in almost all cases is 'good enough' knowledge. You have a direction that's accurate enough, and a range that's accurate enough, for a target . As speed and distance from firer increases, you need greater and greater accuracy to get a firing location that's sufficiently accurate.

Increase the speed and range by an order of magnitude, and it's possible that improved systems will be fine. But just assuming they will be because you know the base math is quite simple is very silly.

Again, we have tracking systems capable of engaging incoming ICBM warheads with direct contact interceptors. Speed and distance are not a problem. So you're left with the minor engineering problem of building the specific system from existing technology, which is substantially easier than building the battleship.

 sebster wrote:

If you have perfect knowledge of the velocity and direction of the shell then the maths is simple. However, perfect knowledge is impossible. What you have in almost all cases is 'good enough' knowledge. You have a direction that's accurate enough, and a range that's accurate enough, for a target . As speed and distance from firer increases, you need greater and greater accuracy to get a firing location that's sufficiently accurate.

Increase the speed and range by an order of magnitude, and it's possible that improved systems will be fine. But just assuming they will be because you know the base math is quite simple is very silly.

Or, you use a hypersonic missile with a range in excess of the railgun and the ability to carry a sensor package that, once it's in the area of the ship that fired the railgun will allow it to detect the ship and home in on it. Better yet you fire a swarm of such missiles and while one flies in a high arc to locate the target, the rest come in at sea skimming height using the sensor information of the 'scout missile' to home in on the target. This is the way the SS-N-19 works now.

In the alternative, you fire an IRBM that dives into the ship from sub orbital altitudes, using its sensors to detect and identify the most important target amoung the ships near where the shell came from. This is the way the DF-21 works now.

Oh, and both of the missiles I just described can carry a nuclear warhead if it's so desired, meaning they wouldn't have to even hit the big railgun ship to cripple it, and it's supporting fleet.

 Peregrine wrote:
Again, no, they aren't. A carrier's aircraft provide it with a significant defensive advantage that the battleship can't match. The only way to give the battleship equivalent protection is to hide it behind an aircraft carrier.

Yes, air cover is great. One of the great things about a carrier's air cover is that it doesn't just screen itself, but all ships in its group. You keep making the whackadoo assumption that this hypothetical railgun carrying boat can't be put in that screen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
The difference here is that "battleship" and "not battleship" are very relevant differences from a design point of view, while "this mortar doesn't look like a mortar and pestle" is not.

An 18th century mortar was very different in design from a modern mortar.People will often keep the name of a thing, but assign it new criteria to fit with a new role better suited to a modern environment.

Conceded. I was mixing your posts up with the people who are stubbornly insisting that their version of the future will happen. Yours did have the "if" attached.

Cool.

Because it doesn't carry aircraft?

Are we playing a hex and chit game? Only one capital ship can be placed in each hex?

Because the premise here seems to be "battleships will replace aircraft carriers".

Please take up that argument with people trying to make that point. I am not making that point, or even hinting at it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jefffar wrote:
Or, you use a hypersonic missile with a range in excess of the railgun and the ability to carry a sensor package that, once it's in the area of the ship that fired the railgun will allow it to detect the ship and home in on it. Better yet you fire a swarm of such missiles and while one flies in a high arc to locate the target, the rest come in at sea skimming height using the sensor information of the 'scout missile' to home in on the target. This is the way the SS-N-19 works now.

In the alternative, you fire an IRBM that dives into the ship from sub orbital altitudes, using its sensors to detect and identify the most important target amoung the ships near where the shell came from. This is the way the DF-21 works now.

Interesting, thanks for the info. What's the current distance from target a carrier group would maintain now, to avoid responses like the above? Would planes like the F35 be staying at close max operational range of 1,000km?

Oh, and both of the missiles I just described can carry a nuclear warhead if it's so desired, meaning they wouldn't have to even hit the big railgun ship to cripple it, and it's supporting fleet.

There's a lot of strategic reasons to avoid the use of nukes, though. Even if they're just restricted to military targets at sea, it risks an escalation.

If someone is directly shelling the territory of a nuclear power, they are already risking a nuclear confrontation..

As for how far the carriers have to stay out, the American Navy has been rushing all the ABM capable ships they can into the Pacific fleet, but there is some question as to how well that would work against a swarm attack. The anti-ship version of the DF-21 has a range of around 800 miles I believe.

The follow on to the DF-21, the DF-26 might push the bubble out as far as 3500 miles.

Overall, the Chinese strategy seems to be one of pushing back the elements that make American strategic power work. If carriers cant operate close enough to launch sorties and AEW&C and Tanker aircraft are vulnerable to super long range air to air missiles, the Americans might find themselves spectators to a Chinese move against Taiwan.

Jefffar wrote:
If someone is directly shelling the territory of a nuclear power, they are already risking a nuclear confrontation..

Well, we don't know if there's a direct conflict on the soil of a nuclear power. It could be that both countries are involved in direct support of allies/proxies.

Even then, while operation on enemy soil would be one step in that escalation, the deployment of nukes would be another step. Not saying it wouldn't happen (its why any step along that path is dangerous, you never know how far both sides will take it), just saying the existance of weapons like that come with other considerations.

As for how far the carriers have to stay out, the American Navy has been rushing all the ABM capable ships they can into the Pacific fleet, but there is some question as to how well that would work against a swarm attack. The anti-ship version of the DF-21 has a range of around 800 miles I believe.

The follow on to the DF-21, the DF-26 might push the bubble out as far as 3500 miles.

Overall, the Chinese strategy seems to be one of pushing back the elements that make American strategic power work. If carriers cant operate close enough to launch sorties and AEW&C and Tanker aircraft are vulnerable to super long range air to air missiles, the Americans might find themselves spectators to a Chinese move against Taiwan.

Interesting, thanks. Would this rely on the Japanese remaining neutral?

The Japanese are not nuetral, they are just constitutionally restricted to defensive action only.

A restriction which they have slowly been removing over the last 20 years or so.

Jefffar wrote:
The Japanese are not nuetral, they are just constitutionally restricted to defensive action only.

A restriction which they have slowly been removing over the last 20 years or so.

Umm, I know the overall Japanese position. My point is more about the Japanese engagement in a specific operation, such as one in Taiwan. In that situation a future Japan might, for a whole host of reasons, elect to remain neutral in the conflict. I was wondering if your description was about the US operating without support of bases in Japan, or if that changes the dynamic.

Well the latest DF-26, if it has an anti-ship mode, should be able to target US ships at harbour both in Japan and in Guam.

This might be the real reason Japan is igetting a priority for ABMs, not just the saber rattling coming from Pyongyang.

The threat to AEW&C and Tanker craft from the new ultra-long range AAM probably won't care where they are based. If the PLAAF can get a fighter carrying one of these missiles within 300 miles of one of these aircraft they can take a shot.