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.

Cronch wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Out of curiosity with the sheer amount of drone weapons, cruise missiles and the like out there. To say nothing of the science fictiony 'Rods from God' type weapons...

Do surface warships have much of a future?

Sure we need patrol ships for anti-piracy/smuggling stuff but won't future capital ships just be submarines with cruise missiles and maybe a railgun (to fire when surfaced)?

If you have enough juice to power a railgun, you have enough juice to power a laser. If you have enough juice to power a really big laser, airforce ceases to be a threat. Not a factor in the immediate future of course, but if we optimistically assume we still have technologically advanced civilization in a 100 years, we could see atmospheric-flight assets become as useless as triremes.

Assuming...

1) Laser technology scales up and becomes a reliable weapon system the way you're expecting.
2) Laser technology solves the aerosol problem (i.e. humidity diffusing the beam, not an insignificant problem at sea, and a very BIG problem in bad weather).
3) Optics technology solves the problem of really high energy outputs scorching the lenses and mirrors.
4) The cost of using and maintaining the laser come down to something reasonable, at the very least cheaper than current SAMs.
5) Aiming technology for the laser can manage to project the beam with sufficient accuracy to hit aircraft outside missile range.
6) The power requirements to run both at the same time don't result in air attacks being sent in just as you start firing the railgun because you can't power both.
7) Aircraft, missile, or anti-laser technology not coming up with something to make the laser ineffective.

Now I get where you're coming from and it works very nicely IN THEORY, but we're a long way from making either the laser or the railgun an operational and effective weapon system. And there's no guarantee either will ever perform as well as you're projecting them to.

And well, stealth. If stealth technology (or ECM jamming) stay ahead of sensor tech then it's a moot point.

SAMs can already do a good job of clearing the sky of aircraft, IF they can find them.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
And well, stealth. If stealth technology (or ECM jamming) stay ahead of sensor tech then it's a moot point.

SAMs can already do a good job of clearing the sky of aircraft, IF they can find them.

Until the SAMs run out, anyway; few ships carry even fifty. It's quite possible to bury a modern fleet under an avalanche of cheap aircraft - if you don't mind spending lives like water - or vast missile spam a la the Soviet model. This is where drones are going to make quite an impact in the not-too-distant future.

 Vulcan wrote:
Once again... DOH!

That's rather the thing with military vehicles like tanks and navel vessels - really by around the end of WW2, gun technology had reached the point where thickness of armor was a moot point in regards to stopping a shell. You give a vehicle enough armor to protect it from what you expect to shoot it, it's too heavy to do anything else.

Layering, shaping, composites, ablative armor, reactive, they're all attempts at solving the problem that it's not effective to just tjrow down thick slabs of armor.

A little late to the party, but everyone knows that a Battleship is destroyed by 4 hits

Back to definitions, I thought what differentiated a cruiser from a destroyer is that a cruiser could operate independently for a considerable amount of time whereas a destroyer required frequent resupply.

Cruisers are generally much larger vessels which can operate independently. Destroyers are purely designed to be a support ship. Which is why destroyers are always with something else while Cruisers can be found by themselves. And at least during WW2, a Cruiser would have more bigger guns than a Destroyer. They're analogues to the 18th-19th century Frigates, and indeed many modern ships that are classified as Cruisers are often called Frigates as well. They are somewhat interchangeable.

Physical definitions are a bit muddy when it comes to modern naval vessels though. Its more of a "what does X navy use Y ship class for" rather than how the ship is built and armed.

Plus, there's a bunch of politics involved. Call something a destroyer and Congress is more likely to approve funding than if you call it a cruiser, for example.

The difference between cruiser and destroyer has become largely arbitrary these days, especially in the US Navy. The Ticonderoga and Spruance class ships were the same hull platform, largely identical to each other, but for armament and electronics. The Ticonderogas were fitted out for air defense and were designated 'cruisers', while the Spruances received primarily anti-sub gear and were classified as 'destroyers'. Even though, again, the hull, machinery, and overall displacements were basically identical.

'Destroyers' in the sense they existed in WW2 essentially disappeared after the 1950's. When radars, missile armament and electronics became the norm, warships became much more expensive. Soviet Navy build like 70 of the traditional Skoryy class, and 27 of Kotlin class, then moved on to missile-armed Kanin-class, which it could afford only eight. So 'destroyers' could be no longer build in numbers and they became basically light cruisers. Frigates stayed as low-cost ASW escort ships for some time, but when they became multi-role vessels, they too essentially changed into cruisers.

Nowadays surface combatants with flag facilities (ie. ability to lead a squadron) are sometimes classified as 'cruisers' but size- and armament-ways they differ little from 'destroyers'.

^ So with this settings. I still wonder why didn't Battleships redefined in similar way but with thicker armor

How well did Kiev class carrier do
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev-class_aircraft_carrier
And why, as Indian CV, why did it losts main guns and missle launchers? are these weapons useless in CV?

And About 'Battleship' movie. Is it made by a fan of Star Blazers (Space Battleship Yamato) or by Dreadnough advocates?

 Lone Cat wrote:

And why, as Indian CV, why did it losts main guns and missle launchers? are these weapons useless in CV?

With modern carriers, the only guns they take are CIWS and some small guns and cannon for small close threats that might pop up.

As for missile launchers, why carry a fixed missile launcher separately when you carry several flying missile launchers as your main purpose anyway?

Last night i've found a thing called 'The Arsenal Ships', a large warships with 500 Tomahawks and has a small canopy bridge rather than classic tall tower, and yes manned by a crew about a strengh of river gunboat. and even has remote controlled features where AEGIS cruiser assumes control (of so many). This warship is said to be under development but Zummwalt Destroyer finished first. Is this a possible successor to Battleships with different genre? (like if Battleships were a successor to Ships of the Line, maybe)

If you quote that dedicated roles are better in naval warfare than hybrid classes like 'Battle Carrier'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_ship

While China already developed BOTH CV of their own, and Anti-warship missiles that outranges ANY american naval jets, it is said they did develop this kind of warships as well.

It's way too many eggs in one basket against any enemy that can fight back, and subs sort of already fill the role.

Also how definitions of 'Battleships' changes? Before HMS Dreadnough they were not that big. Look at Borodino and Mikasa. Are the two about the size of modern destroyers or cruisers?

 Lone Cat wrote:
Also how definitions of 'Battleships' changes? Before HMS Dreadnough they were not that big. Look at Borodino and Mikasa. Are the two about the size of modern destroyers or cruisers?

'Big' is a relative concept. Try comparing them to other ships of the time rather than today. If you compare a carrier from today to a Star Destroyer for example, it's not quite so impressive, eh wot?

 Lone Cat wrote:
Last night i've found a thing called 'The Arsenal Ships', a large warships with 500 Tomahawks and has a small canopy bridge rather than classic tall tower, and yes manned by a crew about a strengh of river gunboat. and even has remote controlled features where AEGIS cruiser assumes control (of so many). This warship is said to be under development but Zummwalt Destroyer finished first. Is this a possible successor to Battleships with different genre? (like if Battleships were a successor to Ships of the Line, maybe)

If you quote that dedicated roles are better in naval warfare than hybrid classes like 'Battle Carrier'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_ship

While China already developed BOTH CV of their own, and Anti-warship missiles that outranges ANY american naval jets, it is said they did develop this kind of warships as well.

Among other problems... do you have any idea how 500 Tomahawks cost? I've heard that under peacetime conditions most U.S. Navy ships sail without a full magazine of missiles simply because of the cost.

The closest we have is a pair of Ohio class SSBNs that were converted to carry four Tomahawks per missile launch tube. It's a hefty loadout.... and there's only two for a reason.

Which is one reason why Railguns are such a desirable thing. Guided Missiles and Bombs are stupid expensive. Completely not worth the cost, and in the event of a large scale war we would quickly run completely out of them.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which is one reason why Railguns are such a desirable thing. Guided Missiles and Bombs are stupid expensive. Completely not worth the cost, and in the event of a large scale war we would quickly run completely out of them.

Which is only true if you don't need precision accuracy out of your railgun. If you're just going to dumb-fire it like unguided artillery then you are correct... to a point. Currently railgun projectiles use some rather expensive materials to withstand the stress of atmospheric travel at that speed. There might be ways to get around this and use cheaper materials... or there might not.

But if you want the sort of pinpoint accuracy we currently get out of laser-guidance, radar-guidance, TV guidance, or GPS guidance you have to include the guidance package in the round, and you have to make the guidance package robust enough to survive the extreme velocity and the heat induced by that velocity. This won't be any cheaper than putting the guidance package on a missile, and could well be quite a bit MORE expensive. And by far and away, the guidance package is the most expensive part of most missiles.

And then there's the usual artillery issue. Sure, you can shoot long distances, but the projectile can be tracked and your location pinpointed from it's ballistic arc. Then they can shoot back at you knowing exactly where you are. That's not always the case with missiles, and is definitely NOT the case with cruise missiles.

^ For now Zummwalt did have a set of relatively lightweight main guns that outranges either Iowa or Yamato's. did the main gun shells used in Zummwalt a combo or gun and rocketry just like 40k bolter rounds?

 Lone Cat wrote:
^ For now Zummwalt did have a set of relatively lightweight main guns that outranges either Iowa or Yamato's. did the main gun shells used in Zummwalt a combo or gun and rocketry just like 40k bolter rounds?

Only the rounds designed for it were so expensive Congress canceled them.

Does anyone know if the Zumwalt can fire dumb rounds, or are it's guns just paperweights now?

Battleships are not making a comeback, there are simply too many weapon systems that can easily kill it.

Missiles, airplanes, torpedoes, nukes and soon railguns.

Lasers can maybe deal with 1 or 2 of these threats, and countermeasures will likely be developed.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which is one reason why Railguns are such a desirable thing. Guided Missiles and Bombs are stupid expensive. Completely not worth the cost, and in the event of a large scale war we would quickly run completely out of them.

Which is only true if you don't need precision accuracy out of your railgun. If you're just going to dumb-fire it like unguided artillery then you are correct... to a point. Currently railgun projectiles use some rather expensive materials to withstand the stress of atmospheric travel at that speed. There might be ways to get around this and use cheaper materials... or there might not.

But if you want the sort of pinpoint accuracy we currently get out of laser-guidance, radar-guidance, TV guidance, or GPS guidance you have to include the guidance package in the round, and you have to make the guidance package robust enough to survive the extreme velocity and the heat induced by that velocity. This won't be any cheaper than putting the guidance package on a missile, and could well be quite a bit MORE expensive. And by far and away, the guidance package is the most expensive part of most missiles.

And then there's the usual artillery issue. Sure, you can shoot long distances, but the projectile can be tracked and your location pinpointed from it's ballistic arc. Then they can shoot back at you knowing exactly where you are. That's not always the case with missiles, and is definitely NOT the case with cruise missiles.

There is no reason a railgun can't be as accurate as a guided missile. Even with dumb unguided rounds. The velocity of the shell eliminates the vast majority of environmental effect on your trajectory, so its all down to your calculations. Modern unguided artillery rounds are already extremely accurate, the US military's 155s can hit reliably within 10m of a target and that is very comparable to a cruise missile. And when you're that close the difference is negligible with the payloads involved, a cruise missile being within 10ft or 5th of the target is of no consequence when it has a blast measured in hundreds of meters. The only difference is that maximum range, which a railgun extends significantly.

Regarding the expensive materials a railgun would be made out of, like Tungsten. You're still cheaper than guided missiles, most of which have multi-million dollar price tags.

Furthermore, the obsession with accuracy in the modern military is a misguided one. We do not need missiles to be as accurate as they are now. It is far too much extra $ investment for no useful gain. Its only use is in reducing collateral damage, something that in a real shooting war will quickly be abandoned as we run out of the expensive guided missiles. Its completely counterproductive.

Besides, you can have both expensive guided railgun projectiles capable of course corrections AND have normal fire and forget dumb shells.

Tyran wrote:
Battleships are not making a comeback, there are simply too many weapon systems that can easily kill it.

Missiles, airplanes, torpedoes, nukes and soon railguns.

Lasers can maybe deal with 1 or 2 of these threats, and countermeasures will likely be developed.

So future navy will be a combo of carriers, subs, and smaller warships? smaller than cruisers.
And did little missile frigates of the 21st century REALLY has a firepower of Super Dreadnoughs of the 1930s-1940s or surpassed them entirely?

One nuclear missile on a frigate could hypothetically have a blast yield greater than all the explosives used in WW2 combined. Nuclear weapons are essentially cheating when trying to compare firepower.

Even without nukes, it's about range as much as it is about firepower. If your enemy has a strike range that is orders of magnitude greater than yours, you're never even going to get to fight back barring a feth-up on your enemy's part.

There are also HVP (Hyper Velocity Projectiles) which is basically ammo that uses existing powder guns (the 5 inch currently, and I think they are making for the 155mm too), not needing rockets or railguns for hypervelocity shooting.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/hyper-velocity-projectile-hvp

Also armor penetration technology has improved a lot and has pretty much left armor behind in the dirt.

Modern APFSDS and bunker busters weapons are simply far more efficient, so even supposedly "weaker" weapons in terms of yield can defeat far greater amounts of armor.