Return of the battleship.

[Feanor]

So like a Kirov but modern and on steroids?

 

[Waylander]

I am still sceptical about the armour stuff. Against what kind of threats do you want to armor it?

Modern backbreaking torpedos and mines cannot be countered by a heavy underwater armor belt.
Anti-ship missiles are going to wreack the exposed sensors, bridge etc. for a mission kill even if they can't penetrate the main armor belt. Not to talk of these huge russian ones diving through the upper decks.

And LGBs are also impossible to armor against.

No, the best defense is still some good layers of active and passive protection systems as a heavily armoured battleship isn't much safer than a normal modern ship as soon as the defense systems are penetrated.

 

[Bonza]

I'd add that they already have a gigantic vessel that's armed to the teeth with missiles and highly resistant to attack (via evading detection), it's called an Ohio SSGN. Need AEGIS and anti-air capabilities? That can be provided by pretty much every major surface combatant in the US Navy. So why bother building a battleship?

 

[My2Cents]

So like a Kirov but modern and on steroids?

Probably more like a Kiev. You need more ASW aircraft than a Kirov type design can support if the intent is to ‘go it alone’ (i.e. no escorts).

And if you are not ‘going it alone’, how would a battleship be superior to a pair of cheaper(?) destroyers working together?

 

[RubiconNZ]

Probably more like a Kiev. You need more ASW aircraft than a Kirov type design can support if the intent is to ‘go it alone’ (i.e. no escorts).

And if you are not ‘going it alone’, how would a battleship be superior to a pair of cheaper(?) destroyers working together?

To add some perspective to survivability Chuck Hill linked to this CGBlog article on Information Dissemination re: discussion on this question posted by Galrahn.

Given that sinex's are the closest thing to experience since the 80's this is something to keep in mind. Not to mention the only ship kill since the Falklands was by Torpedo it also shows the utility of the sub or at least the heavy weight torpedo.

On this train of thought. Why do ships not carry heavy weight torpedoes?

 

[Feanor]

Probably more like a Kiev. You need more ASW aircraft than a Kirov type design can support if the intent is to ‘go it alone’ (i.e. no escorts).

And if you are not ‘going it alone’, how would a battleship be superior to a pair of cheaper(?) destroyers working together?

I'm assuming that the ship is intended to operate as the center piece of a task force, much the same way the Kirov's have been used.

 

[StingrayOZ]

On this train of thought. Why do ships not carry heavy weight torpedoes?

Ships carry torpedoes to sink submarines, not other ships. You don't even need a direct hit to sink a submarine, infact, a disarmed torpedo hitting a submarine is enough to sink it. Torpedos are too slow for surface vessels, the action up there happens a lot quicker, as soon as you are spotted.

 

[Belesari]

Well as far as the US building battleships i dont think they would ask for a "go it alone vessel". BUT a battleship i can see. Large vessel. Heavy CIWS. Atleast 80 to 100 TLAM'S in VLS. Multiple rocket launch systems like on the US MLRS (we have new missiles able to go 180mi and hit a small area very accuratly) At least enough for a real good salvo. And ALOT of reloads. It needs to be able to do this for a Long time.

Or instead of the MLRS and fewer VLS. 6-9 8"/55 cal. Naval guns.

8"/55 caliber Mark 71 gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They said accuracy was a problem But i've heard from others sources that the gun would have worked much better on something bigger than a small frigate.

Plus we now have smart artillery rounds so.

Again none of these have the power of a 16in HE but...

That was one of the good things about the 16in of the Iowa's they could fire for a long time

 

[RubiconNZ]

Ships carry torpedoes to sink submarines, not other ships. You don't even need a direct hit to sink a submarine, infact, a disarmed torpedo hitting a submarine is enough to sink it. Torpedos are too slow for surface vessels, the action up there happens a lot quicker, as soon as you are spotted.

Just to clarify, you are saying torpedo's are two slow for ship to ship action?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yes.

Your on a ship, you have the position of an enemy vessel. Its roughly on the horizon.

You can fire a seaskimming missile and it take a few seconds to hit travelling near sonic speeds. Fire a shell and again a few seconds at supersonic. Or a torpedo, making its way at 40-50kt taking many minutes to hit the target.

Now if they see you, they might decide to deploy counter measures and run, flat out (proberly firing missiles at you). Your torpedo won't be able to close the gap before it runs out of fuel. Look at the LCS, with cruising speed above 45kt, it would have to drive into your torpedo to hit it (one reason why they might be very useful for submarine hunting).

Something that may force the upsize of ships is larger missiles/radar for ICBM intercepts. One huge mobile interception/missile platform. Basically you could park it near a country (but in blue water) and have every kind of defence avalible with out the Russians or China kicking a fuss about land based silos.

35,000t
24 x GMD - Huge silo based missile for space interceptions. Could also house ICBM if required (peacekeeper/Minuteman/Trident ~25m long)?
48 x SM-3 1B - bigger SM3, VLS tubes extra long to take lengthend versions
64 x PAC-3
128 x TLam - Strike Allows it to be a major strike platform.
32 x SM-2ER/SM6
64 x ESSM
CIWS

Huge X band radar domes.File:X band radar platform entering Pearl on Heavy lift Marlin.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would sit under the protection of a Carrier group, or multiple carrier groups, and provide protection from ICBM's for those groups and any surrounding countries. It can also be located to best intercept ICBM from moveable launchers.

 

[Feanor]

What would this expensive class of ships provide, that isn't already there?

 

[StingrayOZ]

A complete regional protection system

A platform to deploy GMD off if the other nuclear powers kick up a fuss. Obviously with BMD being deployed the use of mobile launchers will increase as its the only way a deterant can still be effective. With this comes the need to deploy GMD from a mobile platform. The Radar domes are already sea floating, making them more mobile and useful allowing coverage where fixed or semi movable radar domes cannot go (blue water).

You could strip away Tlam/sm2 etc, and other aspects to cut cost and make it a purely single function ship. Or build it with the other functions and just have dedicated space to allow it to carry GMD if ever required.

While expensive, its moveable, so can cover a larger area aslong as the threat is predictable.

 

[Corsair96]

Im suprised that no one else has brought up the Peruvian Navys Almirante Grau Thee last true gun carrier. I used to live in Peru, and people always called it a glorified old ship of the line that had too large of a crew and spent too much money, and frankly I believe with them. The age when you need 9 great big 8 inch guns are gone. You can achieve just as much with missiles and aircraft. Does anyone know why the peruvians are keeping it?

 

[Belesari]

I've heard some very experienced naval, marine and army personel both active and retired say we need guns like those.

True a DDG can hit those targets with TLAM's But after it pops off those rounds.....then what? They only have a few then they have to go get resupplied.

Also cost is a factor cannon rounds are far cheaper than a 1 mil or so tomahawk. Then there is rate of fire. A ship like say the Des Moines class could launch 63 8 in HE rounds a minute and keep this up for quit a while. While like i said in a earlier post i dont think we should build a classic battleship i do think a heavy cruiser would be a good idea. Mostly just for NSFS. And the Mark 71 could fire 12 rounds a minute.

So compare a 70lbs projectile to 15mi/a 260 lb one to 17mi.

8"/55 caliber Mark 71 gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carriers with crews of 5,000 are far more expensive to operate than a Heavy cruiser with a crew of a 400-500 tops. Gives the carriers the ability to focus on targets farther in, air superiority, and watching out for subs and such. Plus the average time to get a plane in the air with a strike package froma cold start is roughly 15-25 minutes from what i've been told. If a ship with guns like those is near and in range....and sense its for NSFS it should be....its a mater of a few minutes.

Not sure why peru has it maybe they think it will help them take back the land chile has had for years.


[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_Moines_class_cruiser[/ame]

Im suprised that no one else has brought up the Peruvian Navys Almirante Grau Thee last true gun carrier. I used to live in Peru, and people always called it a glorified old ship of the line that had too large of a crew and spent too much money, and frankly I believe with them. The age when you need 9 great big 8 inch guns are gone. You can achieve just as much with missiles and aircraft. Does anyone know why the peruvians are keeping it?

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't know why you would want the 8". A big lazy shell with limited range. Unless your going to sail up to earshot of your target its not going to be very useful.

The 6.1" AGS Seems to be more capable and exists now. Fire guided or unguided muntions 150+ km. Each gun can fire 10 rounds a minute until the 600 round (combined) magazine is exhausted and can be reloaded with another 150 rounds. Thats a heck of a lot of shell fire. Something that needs more than a 155mm shell can accept Tlam or guided munitions (500lb bombs).

But then we are building a Zumwalt. Whos main weakness was lack of ABM capability. You are building something that is essentially only useful for amphibous landings etc.

An ABM cruise as I described, would counter entire nuclear capable nations offensive deterants. Its a ship that could potentially/effectively disarm and neuralise an entire nations nuclear weapon system.

 

[Feanor]

A complete regional protection system

A platform to deploy GMD off if the other nuclear powers kick up a fuss. Obviously with BMD being deployed the use of mobile launchers will increase as its the only way a deterant can still be effective. With this comes the need to deploy GMD from a mobile platform. The Radar domes are already sea floating, making them more mobile and useful allowing coverage where fixed or semi movable radar domes cannot go (blue water).

You could strip away Tlam/sm2 etc, and other aspects to cut cost and make it a purely single function ship. Or build it with the other functions and just have dedicated space to allow it to carry GMD if ever required.

While expensive, its moveable, so can cover a larger area aslong as the threat is predictable.

Well they're large, so they're easier to track and larger targets. They're expensive, so you'll have fewer, and losing one will be crucial. They're still going to kick up a fuss. Imagine trying to deploy a ship like that +multiple supporting CVBGs near the White Sea. You really think Russia wouldn't be a little worried?

Mobile launchers, currently their main user is Russia. Given the size of its landmass, where exactly do you plan to position your ships, where they can conveniently intercept? And more importantly, do you really want to undermine Russian nuclear deterrence capability? If anything it will prompt them to invest more into further nuclear weapon production, and at the end of the day even a handful of nukes getting through and hitting cities is an unacceptable cost. So in reality you'd much rather continue with nominal deterrence while shrinking arsenals via bi-lateral negotiations, and compromise on BMD issues at least until the Russia arsenal and productive capabilities are small enough, that you have multiple redundancy in dealing with it. There is also the question of what to do with the rest of the triad, like nuclear cruise missiles that can be launched from thousands of kms away, and SLBMs. The whole thing seems like a bad way to start an arms race.

Again you're talking about very VERY expensive projects. Assuming that the US gov isn't willing to fork up tens of billions for this program, what existing things in the Navy would you cut, to fund this program?

 

[Feanor]

An ABM cruise as I described, would counter entire nuclear capable nations offensive deterants. Its a ship that could potentially/effectively disarm and neuralise an entire nations nuclear weapon system.

Whose arsenals are you worried about? This is a principle question, since Britain, France, and Israel are US allies. The DPRK has yet to produce nuclear missiles, only bombs so far. Bombs also make up the majority of Pakistani, Indian, and Chinese nuclear arsenals, so unless you want to start another nuclear arms race with Russia, I see little use for your ships. There is also the issue that offense will likely be cheaper and simpler then defense in this scenario.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Oh, I don't think its likely it will be built. I should have made that clear. Its a hypothetical solution or a reason why a large "battleship" or cruise might be built.

But for example, NK creates effective nuclear tipped ICBM's. Or Iran. Or there is a sudden proliferation of them to another nation (saudi?). Further uncontrolled break up of Russia? All pretty unlikely, but possible. If there was global nuclear instability, then in the aim of stopping other nations arming themselves they could deploy this ship. While imperfect, the US would be able to appease allies, defend its interests, make it ineffectual to invest in ICBM nuclear technology. Buy time to deploy ground based missiles.

Yes, huge political rammifications. But there is no third party country to lean on, just the US directly. The US can deploy missiles that would outreach (altitude) pretty much all ICBM systems (unlike SM-3).

It wouldn't have to deploy next to the country in question, you could protect the US from the middle of the pacific or from the north pole. Being able to create a missile defence that can take out ICBM mid course yet is mobile would change the game.

While expensive, it actually uses current technology and weapon systems. The hull wouldn't have to be anything fancy.

It would be one hell of a magnet. You would have to screen it with probably several carrier groups. Munitions would be outragously expensive. Billions? More?

 

[My2Cents]

Yes, huge political rammifications. But there is no third party country to lean on, just the US directly. The US can deploy missiles that would outreach (altitude) pretty much all ICBM systems (unlike SM-3).

It wouldn't have to deploy next to the country in question, you could protect the US from the middle of the pacific or from the north pole. Being able to create a missile defence that can take out ICBM mid course yet is mobile would change the game.

While expensive, it actually uses current technology and weapon systems. The hull wouldn't have to be anything fancy.

It would be one hell of a magnet. You would have to screen it with probably several carrier groups. Munitions would be outragously expensive. Billions? More?

If you look at how interceptions work, you will find that you do not want to be too close to the launcher. If you end up in a tail chase geometry an ABM would have to be bigger than the missile it is trying to intercept or it will never catch up. Besides, you need to hit the missile nearly head on to destroy it.

Good ABM launch locations are going to be at least 2/3 the distance from the target missile launcher to the target for mid-course intercepts. Means Hawaii is probably a good spot to defend the west coast from China.

Good news is that you do not need to screen is so much if you are out of range of unfriendly shore based aircraft.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Middle of the pacific, north pole region (where there is no protection), etc. Might also be useful in the mediterranean. She could also sit between China and Hawaii, to intercept strikes to that very important group of islands.

She would be able to protect herself from ICBM with SM-3 and pac-3. The GBM would purely to stop things flying past it towards continents.