Almirante Grau carries 6-inch guns (152mm), not 8-inch (203mm).
Return of the battleship.
- Thread starter Tankcrewman2008
- Start date
-
- Tags
- battleship cannon guns ship weapons
- Status
I believe we have a better chance of taking those missiles out on land with B-2 or F-22/F-35 strikes then we do in the air with ABM. Also these ships are a lot more expensive then simply building more GBI sites.
Best case scenario, you're looking at Russia, probably China, maybe India and Pakistan, beefing up their nuclear arsenals immensely. Worst case, a new arms race in WMDs.
Except most current intercepting systems don't work mid course. They either work at the launching stage, when the ICBM is still slow, or they intercept the warheads or missile when they're descending on target.
The amount of support ships would depend directly on the threat nation. Several CVBGs seems excessive.
Believe me, Im living in Qatar right now and Saudi has enough of their own problems to worry about besides nuclear weapons. Don't listen to anything you hear, not every Saudi is rich like here and they do not have enough money or jobs to go around. I'd be more worried if somehow militants launched a coup in Pakistan and took over their bombs.
If you can build a guided rocket assisted munition for a 5in or a 155 (which is basicly what peru's cruiser has) you can build a 8ib one also. With far more firepower and far more range.
From what i've heard the magazine for the ags is a problem to hard to change. Also the MK-71 could fire 12 rds a minute of unguided and 6 rounds for guided (though im not sure how much faster it would be today as this was the 80's). And the 8 in shells carry more than twice the weight in warhead as the 155 or 5in.
Which means even if the AGS fired 10 rds of guided and the MK-71 only fired 6 the MK-71 still wins in weight of ordanence delivered ontarget.
From what i've heard the magazine for the ags is a problem to hard to change. Also the MK-71 could fire 12 rds a minute of unguided and 6 rounds for guided (though im not sure how much faster it would be today as this was the 80's). And the 8 in shells carry more than twice the weight in warhead as the 155 or 5in.
Which means even if the AGS fired 10 rds of guided and the MK-71 only fired 6 the MK-71 still wins in weight of ordanence delivered ontarget.
Hmm i dont know never heard it called that this is what I've mostly heard it refered to as.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System"]Advanced Gun System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File
D(X)_Advanced_Gun_System.jpg" class="image"><img alt="DD(X) Advanced Gun System.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/DD%28X%29_Advanced_Gun_System.jpg/300px-DD%28X%29_Advanced_Gun_System.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/4/48/DD%28X%29_Advanced_Gun_System.jpg/300px-DD%28X%29_Advanced_Gun_System.jpg[/ame]
"The LRLAP ammunition features separate projectile and propellant portions. Total weight is 225 pounds (102 kg), including a bursting charge of 24 pounds (11 kg). The maximum length of the combined munition is 88 inches (220 cm), amounting to about 14 calibers."
MK-71 would be much better Choice for shore work.
A bursting charge of just 24lbs....
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System"]Advanced Gun System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File
D(X)_Advanced_Gun_System.jpg" class="image"><img alt="DD(X) Advanced Gun System.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/DD%28X%29_Advanced_Gun_System.jpg/300px-DD%28X%29_Advanced_Gun_System.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/4/48/DD%28X%29_Advanced_Gun_System.jpg/300px-DD%28X%29_Advanced_Gun_System.jpg[/ame]"The LRLAP ammunition features separate projectile and propellant portions. Total weight is 225 pounds (102 kg), including a bursting charge of 24 pounds (11 kg). The maximum length of the combined munition is 88 inches (220 cm), amounting to about 14 calibers."
MK-71 would be much better Choice for shore work.
A bursting charge of just 24lbs....
Unfortunately the US may not have that option. Do you go in an premptively bomb china, russia, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran or do you wait to see what happens. If some radical or unpredictable leader decides to start trouble its too late.
Which is why GBM has such a tough job and need a range 5 times greater than SM-3 (which has successfully intercepted an orbiting target at 160km). It would be a one stop shop, able to handle pretty much any threat in a region. And also work with other GBM sites internationally.
As for an arms race. Really. Who's entering an arms race with the US? Of any sort? They would only have to brush off some cold war stockpiles to be leaps ahead. And whats the plan? MAD? Well you can't assure the US destruction.
I think there is a niche for a type of "space control" vessel. Its not likely to be built, but it could be built given the right circumstances and needs.
Twinblade
Member
Trophy based systems were in my mind exactly, but how effective would they be against the latest russian supersonic misslies, fo eg :- a brahmos/yakhont weighs 2.5 tonnes, in the terminal stages it might still be weighing over 800 Kgs, isn't the kinetic energy of the debris good enough to do some serious damage ?
Silly. You can pre-emptively strike North Korea, or Iran with little problems. Pakistan may be an issue, in that their arsenal is relatively large.
In other words a new, expensive, and difficult to realize technology. Why are we not just building more GBI sites, again?
As far as nuclear weapons production, Russia may not be able to match the US but it certainly can outpace BMD development. The question is do you even want to bring the situation to this point? Do you really want to ruin relations with Russia, piss of the Europeans with your belligerence, and spend a ton of money on giant platforms whose main purpose is to destabilize the world?
As for MAD, yes you can. As it stands the Russian nuclear arsenal is more or less sufficient for the job. It might not destroy the world but it can certainly take out most US major cities, and military installations. Similarly the US arsenal can reduce Russia. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.
Key words; circumstances and needs. You're talking about a vessel reminiscent of the worst days of the Cold War. It has no place in today's world. It's expensive, complicated, and un-necessary.
I'm with Feanor on the nuclear weapons. At this point in history, they destabilize global security, heighten tensions and reduce the ability for nations of unequal military power to be able to engage in meaningful talks.
Both the US and Russia have reduced their stockpiles but the vast number still remaining are plenty to still mean that MAD is possible. The threat of global nuclear destruction is reduced but still very much a looming spectre. Why else would both nations agree to open their missile silos so the other's spy satellites can confirm all the nukes are where they should be?
Both the US and Russia have reduced their stockpiles but the vast number still remaining are plenty to still mean that MAD is possible. The threat of global nuclear destruction is reduced but still very much a looming spectre. Why else would both nations agree to open their missile silos so the other's spy satellites can confirm all the nukes are where they should be?
I can't forsee a circumstance where it would be politically advantagous to build a such a ship. Its proberly cheaper than building a intercepting orbital platform or multiple orbital platforms. Proberly less politically difficult than an entire ground based network of interceptors and proberly more effective.
Even if we take you premise to be true that ABM’s make the strategic nuclear situation unstable, the problem is that short and medium range ballistic missiles are coming on line for non-nuclear warfare and the same defensive weapons that will be necessary to defend against those threats are the same as the ones to be used against the ICBM types. Though I admit they would be less effectively that weapons not specifically designed to do so. If you take your premise as fact that alone will be destabilizing.
SQDLDR
New Member
I know I can can; yet I will refrain from enjoining the ludicrous postulations of a of a theoretical debate about this topic. Tho I find that many posters have a vast knowledge of *power systems* , the Nuclear option is clear, proven, cheap, portable, redundant, and more so, available technologically wise.
A 100K ton Battleship employing Rail Guns, doesn't make for a good ASW platform; nor an effective platform for AA/area defense.
The bigger it is, the more the enemy will seek it out to destroy it.
And an Ohio-class switched to a semi-submersible, with Rail Guns, makes for a VLO platform, and coincidentally has a tonnage which is one third to WW2 era BB's; yet packs a firepower that would exceed 2 or 3 Iowa class BB's.
The Ford class CVN's are plotted to cost $9B per. Is America ready for a $250T dollar Navy? (Using the logic from the original poster.Plus the goal of a 300 ship Fleet.)
"And an Ohio-class switched to a semi-submersible, with Rail Guns, makes for a VLO platform, and coincidentally has a tonnage which is one third to WW2 era BB's; yet packs a firepower that would exceed 2 or 3 Iowa class BB's."
Doesnt really make sense to do that. The Ohios are old and perpose built to carry VLS. I doubt that the needed structural and power support nessesary to install such a system on them would be logical. However they do excellent in there role of SSGN. So i'd stick with that.
"The Ford class CVN's are plotted to cost $9B per. Is America ready for a $250T dollar Navy?"
Lets look at that $9B vessel. It will last barring loss in combat or some other particluar problem and if it is kept up right 50 year or so. This vessel will be able to fly of a small airforce in support of any conflict, conduct rescue and resupply missions for natural disasters.(like japan, hati, etc). And who's presence can halt a war from beging or end just by showing up.
9B? Worth it.
Now if you were to count up all the money wasted by the US and indeed other countries on stupid things im sure it would far eceed the price of a Modern Heavy warship class. Where did you pull this number from anyways
usnavyrocks
New Member
BBG of the Future
Now, the main arguments about resurrecting the battleship are, from what I can tell, are combat ability, protection against modern day weapons and cost.
Now, I believe we should wait for a few key technologies that would go a long way in increasing the combat power of the battleship.
1: Railguns- Railguns are magnetically driven weapons that fire a shell at 3.5 kilometers a second. A solid chunk of metal flung at Mach 10 will do a significant amount of damage and will have a range of 220 miles. These would be great at replacing the powerful 16 inchers on the battleships now.
2: Metal Storm- Metal Storm is one of the greatest revolutions in firearms technology. The stacked bullets in the barrel allow for a ridiculously high fire rate. This would be a perfect Close-in Weapons System.
3: Lasers- While Metal Storm would be fantastic as a CIWS, I believe it would be a secondary level system. The main system, I believe, would be chemically powered lasers that would be, theoretically, capable of destroying incoming threats as far away as it could see.
On the subject of defenses, battleships have over 12 inches of homogenous steel. I belive could be supplemented by either titanium or Chobham composite armor, possibly both.
Another thing I can imagine for defensive technology is carbon nanotubes. Stronger than steel and only a few molecules thick, it would be light, but extremely tough.
Now finally on the subject of cost. I realize that titanium and Chobham armor would be extremely expensive, but I am of the opinion that they would be worthwhile aditions. If you can make a ship difficult to destroy, all that money would be worth it. Especially to the families of the sailors you would be saving.
I also say for power we should rip out the older power plants and put in nuclear reactor.
And we can supplement the advance technologies with stuff we already have; Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles. Tomahawks have a range 6 times that of a railgun.
I also say we could get rid of the 5 inch guns and replace them with extra missile storage and launchers.
I believe that the combination of railguns and long range missiles would provide striking power equal to an aircraft carrier. The combination of thick armor and advanced point defense systems would make the battleship the closest thing to unsinkable.
Now, the main arguments about resurrecting the battleship are, from what I can tell, are combat ability, protection against modern day weapons and cost.
Now, I believe we should wait for a few key technologies that would go a long way in increasing the combat power of the battleship.
1: Railguns- Railguns are magnetically driven weapons that fire a shell at 3.5 kilometers a second. A solid chunk of metal flung at Mach 10 will do a significant amount of damage and will have a range of 220 miles. These would be great at replacing the powerful 16 inchers on the battleships now.
2: Metal Storm- Metal Storm is one of the greatest revolutions in firearms technology. The stacked bullets in the barrel allow for a ridiculously high fire rate. This would be a perfect Close-in Weapons System.
3: Lasers- While Metal Storm would be fantastic as a CIWS, I believe it would be a secondary level system. The main system, I believe, would be chemically powered lasers that would be, theoretically, capable of destroying incoming threats as far away as it could see.
On the subject of defenses, battleships have over 12 inches of homogenous steel. I belive could be supplemented by either titanium or Chobham composite armor, possibly both.
Another thing I can imagine for defensive technology is carbon nanotubes. Stronger than steel and only a few molecules thick, it would be light, but extremely tough.
Now finally on the subject of cost. I realize that titanium and Chobham armor would be extremely expensive, but I am of the opinion that they would be worthwhile aditions. If you can make a ship difficult to destroy, all that money would be worth it. Especially to the families of the sailors you would be saving.
I also say for power we should rip out the older power plants and put in nuclear reactor.
And we can supplement the advance technologies with stuff we already have; Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles. Tomahawks have a range 6 times that of a railgun.
I also say we could get rid of the 5 inch guns and replace them with extra missile storage and launchers.
I believe that the combination of railguns and long range missiles would provide striking power equal to an aircraft carrier. The combination of thick armor and advanced point defense systems would make the battleship the closest thing to unsinkable.
First of all no ship is unsinkable.
1. What would the mission of this ship be?
2. What can it do that CVNs, SSBNs, SSNs, etc., have trouble doing now?
3. If you are going to expend a significant amount of treasure (and resources) upon this system, are you going to get value for money?
4. Considering the current US financial situation and the fact that the US Defence Dept is staring down the barrel at sequestration, does it have the financial resources and political will, to build a new system that may not add significantly to the security of the nation, for the amount of money and resources that will have to be expended?
5. If the US went ahead with such a system, at what cost to existing and near term future maritime weapons platforms, that may have greater utilisation and survivability in a high threat environment?
IMHO such weapons systems could be installed on CGNs or a DDN if the USN wanted to follow the Russian model. The current problem with lasers is the attenuation of the energy because of the atmosphere, so the weapon is range limited and line of sight only. At sea level it can only hit targets as far as the horizon and none behind obstacles such as hills, mountains etc. I would think rail guns would be similar because of the projectile velocities achieved, so you can't just lob a projectile over an intervening physical obstacle. With regard to Cobham armouring of a warship, especially a large one, it would IMHO be a hideously expensive exercise and I doubt whether Cobham armour would be able to take the repeated hits or the warheads that would be common in naval warfare. Just some thoughts.
At the end of the day a battleship was basically a protected heavy artillery platform and the fact is that big guns have been progressively replaced, since WWI, with, infinitely more versatile and powerful, tactical airpower and more recently missiles. This occurred on land well before it did at sea; remember the Stuka?
Take this thought to the next step, if tactical airpower replaced big guns then logically ships that carry tactical airpower and/or missiles have replaced battleships.
I do not doubt that combatants will get bigger and rail guns and directed energy weapons will become more prevalent, however unless there is a revolutionary change in armour technology (resistance to damage, light weight and low cost) we will never again see the like of the battleship. The best you could ever hope for is a cruiser, maybe a battle cruiser, or carrier.
Take this thought to the next step, if tactical airpower replaced big guns then logically ships that carry tactical airpower and/or missiles have replaced battleships.
I do not doubt that combatants will get bigger and rail guns and directed energy weapons will become more prevalent, however unless there is a revolutionary change in armour technology (resistance to damage, light weight and low cost) we will never again see the like of the battleship. The best you could ever hope for is a cruiser, maybe a battle cruiser, or carrier.
usnavyrocks
New Member
Advantage to the Battleship/Alternative to the Battleship
1: While yes, their isn't much, (heck, nothing) in the budget for creating a highly expensive warship, we are already doing this with the Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers. With the battleships, we already have the hulls and would only need to upgrade them. That could save billions. Undoubtably we will commissioning more Gerald Ford class carriers in the future. Instead of doing this, maybe we could recondition the battleships.
2: The advantage to a railgun and long range missile equipped battleship, is that it can strike from long ranges without putting people at risk as an airstrike from a carrier would do. The big advantage to battleships would be that it could take repeated poundings.
An alternative I thought of to reconditioning the battleships, would be to make a cruiser-sized vessel using lightweight armor (carbon nanotubes, titanium etc), nuclear power, railguns, lasers, Metal Storm and long range missiles.
[Mod edit: Official warning issued to the little fanboy. Read the thread and the Forum Rules before posting again.
We do not cater to children in this forum and if the discussion stays at this level, without cited research (journal name, article title, page reference required) or links, this thread will be closed and thereafter you will be banned.]
1: While yes, their isn't much, (heck, nothing) in the budget for creating a highly expensive warship, we are already doing this with the Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers. With the battleships, we already have the hulls and would only need to upgrade them. That could save billions. Undoubtably we will commissioning more Gerald Ford class carriers in the future. Instead of doing this, maybe we could recondition the battleships.
2: The advantage to a railgun and long range missile equipped battleship, is that it can strike from long ranges without putting people at risk as an airstrike from a carrier would do. The big advantage to battleships would be that it could take repeated poundings.
An alternative I thought of to reconditioning the battleships, would be to make a cruiser-sized vessel using lightweight armor (carbon nanotubes, titanium etc), nuclear power, railguns, lasers, Metal Storm and long range missiles.
[Mod edit: Official warning issued to the little fanboy. Read the thread and the Forum Rules before posting again.
We do not cater to children in this forum and if the discussion stays at this level, without cited research (journal name, article title, page reference required) or links, this thread will be closed and thereafter you will be banned.]
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep, but you already have weapons systems in your armoury that fullfill all those roles. Precision strike can be done with missiles launched form existing assets both seaborne and airborne well outside of the threat zone. You don't need a new platform that will be hideously expensive, be another target, soak up crew and has no real mission apart from creating more brass to polish for sailors and all the other navy navy rubbish that goes with big ships
Last edited by a moderator:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There is no advantage for the USN in having a modernized BB in place of a CVN. Even if a BB were to fire ERGM's, the strike package deliver would still fall well short of what a CAG can reach. Also there is the little matter of such weaponry needing to be developed before it can reach IOC for a BB. Applying the same consideration to a CVN, one would need to factor in the impact on strike package delivery a squVadron of F-35C's carrying JASSM-ER standoff munitions would have.
If memory serves, an F-35C carrying a JASSM-ER should be sufficient to strike a target ~1,900 km away.
It seems people still want to ignore some of the lessons learned at Pearl Harbor. These are namely that no ship is unsinkable, and that aircraft can outmaneuver ships, therefore setting the terms of engagement between ship and aircraft.
Lastly, high value vessels are just that, highly valued by the service, and highly valued as a target by ones opponents. Therefore CVN's operate as part of a battle group, with the various escorting vessels responsible for providing coverage and protection vs. some of the threats against the CVN. A modernized BB (nevermind one of the suggested wunderweapon BB's) would need the same sort of arrangement, otherwise the first encounter the BB has with an unfriendly sub would end with one or more heavyweight torpedoes detonating under the keel of the BB, breaking the back of the ship.
Different roles have evolved for naval vessels, in part because what works best for one particular role, might be unsuitable for another. Attempting to have a single vessel fufill too many roles is going to be an expensive exercise in failure.
-Cheers
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status