Return of the battleship.

[Tankcrewman2008]

Looking at all these new destroyers and frigates makes me weep I mean there is no armor on these ship's as shown in previous conflicts where warships are damaged or sunk due to ASM's. My main point is old, rusting hulks of the once powerful battleships sit in shallow water for tourists to gaze at while they could be sitting off shore of a hostile country acting as a deterrence. Heavy armor coupled with powerful weaponry makes these behemoths a living nightmare for the smaller pee-wee ships.

Before you all start saying these ships are slow, highly expensive and mentally frustrating to maintain look at the modern age, with new technology and new inexpensive materials you could probably build a 21st century battleship for just over the price of a Nimitz class carrier or more depending on what you want.

Weaponry; New auto-loading guns will decrease the number of personnel needed, Equip the ships with state of the art SAM systems such as PAAMS with a few Goalkeepers, fit the ships with ship launched ASM's and cruise missiles.

Armor; Military analysts state that most ASM's will not be able to penetrate the hull of a battleship even the old ships maybe the large Russian Kitchen missiles but no ones tested. Water armor though I've not read much on this type of armor but it has something to do with physics maybe I'll learn more on that someday, Chobbham or Dorchester armor will be perfect but it would seem the MOD wont give it away neither would it be cost effective in such large quantity's, maybe build the ship out of frozen wood pulp but no i think staying with steel and shaped hull will suffice.

Power plant; Although you may be thinking "Hmmm nuclear would be best" but no your wrong as there is a far more suitable source of power which is Hydrogen power, yes that's right hydrogen is the new nuclear being able to produce energy with no worry's of running out of resources. Obviously only wealthy country's can produce this type of fuel I know in the USA some states use Hydrogen powered cars, Back to battleships I know nuclear seems better because you don't have to refuel all the time but think the resources needed to power reactors will eventually run out.

Well I've probably bored you enough with my constant dribble but feel free to reply.

Cheers

 

[kato]

Not going into the generic "giant floating target" thing, but specifically some points...

• Exactly what would a battleship for "the price of a Nimitz-class carrier" give you in comparative combat and power projection capability?
• "new and inexpensive materials"? Let's just say that the price of steel hasn't exactly been dropping over the last 70 years.
• As for AShM not able to penetrate a battleship, seriously... if a battleship-level armored ship were to appear, there would long be measures to take it out considered and implemented by the opponents.
• As for "old times" - who needs penetration when you can drop a 200 kt warhead within a few hundred meters of it without problems? And yes, exactly that is what say Russian AShM are built for. The non-export kind of course.
• Chobham/Dorchester against quarter- to half-ton SAPHE warheads? Please. We're not talking uranium arrows here, or, depending on target zone, even behind-armor effect. Smother the entire ship in that kind of amour - sure, but then we're not looking at a comparative pricing to a Nimitz, but comparative to 15-20 Nimitzes.
• Wood pulp, ala Habakkuk? Single nuke, done with. Or a couple dozen Durandals digging holes through and destabilizing the entire structure. A burning oil belt on the water wouldn't be all that beneficial either, i'd assume. Or, you know, operations in like half the planet's waters in which that wood pulp would melt within weeks.
• As for hydrogen, guess exactly how to produce that? You don't go and split H2O with nothing.

Someone else think of more.

 

[StingrayOZ]

There is no practical way you can armour up against modern (or even most older) projectiles (shells or missiles or Torpedos).

The reason why most don't penetrate battleships is because people don't fight with battle ships. It would be very easy to sink a battleship today if it was still fighting.

Armour in some form may come back into fashion. On say small patrol boats against small arms, on larger ships against saturation attacks by micro projectiles (think thousands of guided munitions launched from a mother missile).

Guns are comming back into fashion now with guided munitions. Even larger sizes are reappearing.

But we won't see a return of battleships.

 

[rjmaz1]

Also as automation increases you no longer need 1000 crew members to perform all the functions of the ship.

Fewer crew can mean a smaller ship. Older battleships carried large guns that could not be fitted onto smaller ships due to weight and recoil. These days destroyers can fit all kinds of powerful guided weapons, so the extra stability/mass is not required.

Instead of adding armor to increase survivability when hit it would be easily to prevent getting hit in the first place.

With current budget costs it looks like big expensive ships such as a battleship has no change of making it. It would have to be nuclear powered due to its large fuel consumption.

I'd personally go along a completely different path. I'd extend production of the Arleigh Burke Class however install them with a pair of 30 year life S9G reactors from virginia class submarines. This would double their purchase price but improve logistics and provide savings in the long run. Better and safer than the DD(X) destoyers. I'd make future America class assault ships with a single S9G reactor. So all front line battlegroups are completely nuclear with a small supply train.

To make up numbers I'd buy cheap 3,000 tone conventionally powered frigates to reach the 300 ship total.

Though it looks like the US has aimed so high that most of the projects now cost so much they may be canceled and left with nothing.

 

[Feanor]

How about a design like the Kirov class, but more modern. A battleship that is essentially loaded with lots and lots of guided weapons. Not armored, but instead relying on superior range, and superior support assets (maritime patrol, etc) acting as part of a naval task force. Basically a very large missile cruiser.

 

[AegisFC]

Looking at all these new destroyers and frigates makes me weep I mean there is no armor on these ship's as shown in previous conflicts where warships are damaged or sunk due to ASM's. My main point is old, rusting hulks of the once powerful battleships sit in shallow water for tourists to gaze at while they could be sitting off shore of a hostile country acting as a deterrence. Heavy armor coupled with powerful weaponry makes these behemoths a living nightmare for the smaller pee-wee ships.

Armor is obsolete, some ships such as the Arleigh Burkes have several tons of kevlar armor for anti-fragment protection around vital spaces but full up armored belts as found in WW2 era ships is a dead concept. The armored belts found in old battleships were designed to protect against the common angles of gun fire and those belts do not protect against where a missile is likely to hit, and all the armor in the world would not protect a ship against a ASM that flies down your stacks and explodes in the engine room or takes out unarmored radars, comms gear, or other mission essential equipment. Heavy armor does not protect against torpedoes that will either crack the keel or pop the shaft seals.
You don't get right up close to shore if you don't have to, an Ohio SSGN packs much more firepower and is more effective than any battleship ever was. Historically medium caliber guns in the 5-8 inch range have provided the best fire support rather than the large guns, smaller guns are generally more accurate and have a much smaller danger fire radius.
Active and passive defenses are a much better way to survive a hit than armor.

Before you all start saying these ships are slow, highly expensive and mentally frustrating to maintain look at the modern age, with new technology and new inexpensive materials you could probably build a 21st century battleship for just over the price of a Nimitz class carrier or more depending on what you want.

The Iowa's were never slow. Care to explain that theory with sources? Care to explain how it would fill a mission not already covered by said Nimitz air group, its escorts, submarines and SSGN's?

Armor; Military analysts state that most ASM's will not be able to penetrate the hull of a battleship even the old ships maybe the large Russian Kitchen missiles but no ones tested.

Which analysts? Give names please. There is no proof of this, the armor is designed to withstand shell fire, large supersonic missiles are a whole different game.
The armor on the Iowa's belts is 12.1 in (310 mm) thick, most puny shoulder launched anti-tank missiles can easily penetrate that, granted it won't do much damage but if that little missile can do it what are the chances your whole 12.1 inches of steel can withstand a much larger supersonic missile with a warhead which is a great deal larger?
There is a misconception that the Iowa's were brought back in the 80's as a counter to the Kirov's, that is false, the Iowa's were brought back because they offered the cheapest and fastest way to bring a large number of Tomahawks to sea and there were proposals if the conversion was going to run over budget to leave the guns in a decommissioned state. Once VLS ships started to appear in numbers they were tossed right back into mothballs.

Obviously only wealthy country's can produce this type of fuel I know in the USA some states use Hydrogen powered cars,

Going off topic, but the Honda FCX Clarity is the only hydrogen powered car offered in one state, California and that is lease only. Every other hydrogen car you may of heard of is a development model.

Back to battleships I know nuclear seems better because you don't have to refuel all the time but think the resources needed to power reactors will eventually run out.

Not any time soon.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Armor; Military analysts state that most ASM's will not be able to penetrate the hull of a battleship even the old ships maybe the large Russian Kitchen missiles but no ones tested. Water armor though I've not read much on this type of armor but it has something to do with physics maybe I'll learn more on that someday, Chobbham or Dorchester armor will be perfect but it would seem the MOD wont give it away neither would it be cost effective in such large quantity's, maybe build the ship out of frozen wood pulp but no i think staying with steel and shaped hull will suffice.

Armour on ships is no longer about metallurgical properties, in fact it's not about metal properties at all now. Armour is a collective of disparate systems such as ewarfare/sig mgt and layered response. It's not about kinetic survivability as it's prohibitive.

As for the issue of Chobham and Dorchester - they were discounted years ago - the serious close in defence work is now on ship based Trophy type systems defending critical parts of the ship like the citadel and the farm.

there's a new generation of immediate self protection emerging.

 

[the road runner]

I read an article in the NAVY league magazine about how "SHIPS must be sturdy'' when they are constructed for future wars.The article goes on to talk about how a ship that has a large surface area will be more survivable than a ship that has a smaller surface area.Basically a bigger ship will take more damage and be more survivable in battle compared to a smaller ship.

The defence analysists see larger battle ships as obsolete and i would not question there knowladge.....but i find it had to grasp how the above statement makes sense(or it dosent?..it dose to me) and yet so dose the answers by the defence professionals

 

[Tankcrewman2008]

Which analysts? Give names please.

Don't know there exact names but they run a website pretty much showing in detail about all different military things It's called Combatreform though I would call them military analysts others may not. There is a page on there website explaining a 21st century battleship a bit more in depth then mine

As for hydrogen, guess exactly how to produce that? You don't go and split H2O with nothing.

Its all to do with electrolysis, very confusing to me but they zap H20 and split it you'd be better off reading somewhere else about it.

Short reply but I shall return when I'm more alert.

 

[Waylander]

It's called Combatreform though I would call them military analysts others may not.

Yeeehaw, right at the end of '08 Sparky sneaked into this forum again.

Don't believe a bit of what is written on these combat reform pages.
The guy running this whole show is totally insane and as far away from being an expert as one can be.

AIR-MECH STRIKE NOW!!!!

Aaaah, couldn't resist...

 

[Falstaff]

How about a design like the Kirov class, but more modern. A battleship that is essentially loaded with lots and lots of guided weapons. Not armored, but instead relying on superior range, and superior support assets (maritime patrol, etc) acting as part of a naval task force.

IMO that pretty much describes around which principles the Ticonderogas and future Zumwalt classes are built, no?
Given you would make a similar but bigger design- what for?
I think it all comes down to the question, what can your battleship or very large missile cruiser do that other assets can't? As kato and AegisFC pointed out, other assets pack a lot more punch, stealth and -most important of all- operational flexibility for the same amount of cash.

A ship like the one tankcrewman describes would essentially be an armoured bomb truck of the seas, right? And a very expensive one as well. What would you use that for?
Battleships became obsolete in WW2 and I personally don't see why the resaons they did have changed.

BTW I don't know what a Kirov would cost today. I'm pretty sure though they were/are very expensive ships. And although I really like big ships (I mean like really big) I'm afraid they are more of an impressive mascot these days.

Power plant; Although you may be thinking "Hmmm nuclear would be best" but no your wrong as there is a far more suitable source of power which is Hydrogen power, yes that's right hydrogen is the new nuclear being able to produce energy with no worry's of running out of resources. Obviously only wealthy country's can produce this type of fuel I know in the USA some states use Hydrogen powered cars, Back to battleships I know nuclear seems better because you don't have to refuel all the time but think the resources needed to power reactors will eventually run out.

Well, I can tell you some' about this. You think about it a few minutes and then you'd better forget about it. Hydrogen as a power source for large ships isn't suitable at all. What makes you think so?
Apart from the fact that generating and storing hydrogen is awfully expensive -as you already realised yourself- and comsumes more energy than you will actually get from your fuel cell, fuel cells have a disadvantage that is imminent with their physical conception: They generate heat in the magnitude of power they generate. This isn't that much of a problem in a 100kW car like the Clarity or a 300kW submarine fuel cell where you have a big cold ocean which makes it easy to get rid of the heat. But now you need 60-100 MW or probably even more. See my point?
Then there's the problem of storage. Would you use liquified H2, stored under pressure inside the hull and still requiring a lot of volume as you would have to use many small storage tanks as you simply can't build a single huge, sufficient one? Imagine if that blows off. And what about underway replenishment? That would probably be huge fun
Or will you deal energy density for volume and use (in any way) chemically bound H2 which also needs a lot of internal volume, makes the fuel cell more complicated to operate and has no advantage over conventional fuel whatsoever -on the contrary- apart from the fact that it's "clean"?

OT, but last sunday on Top Gear they said the Clarity was the future of the car. I really love those guys, esp. James May, but this is BS. Honda wanted to make a zero emission car and they did and that's fine. But all car builders have realised that after the hype for fuel cells in cars is over the future car will not be powered by fuel cells.

 

[kato]

Its all to do with electrolysis, very confusing to me but they zap H20 and split it you'd be better off reading somewhere else about it.

And what do they zap it with? ... electricity. Which comes from? :shudder

And what about underway replenishment? That would probably be huge fun

To be fair, one of the Type 404 Elbe tenders is currently being reconfigured to refuel subs with hydrogen and oxygen. Although not liquid H2 afaik, since they have to embed it into the molecular structure of the metal-hydride battery.
And no, we're better not getting any ideas of supplying a battleship from metal-hydride tanks. Oh wait. Someone sell that idea to Sparky.

 

[Feanor]

IMO that pretty much describes around which principles the Ticonderogas and future Zumwalt classes are built, no?
Given you would make a similar but bigger design- what for?
I think it all comes down to the question, what can your battleship or very large missile cruiser do that other assets can't? As kato and AegisFC pointed out, other assets pack a lot more punch, stealth and -most important of all- operational flexibility for the same amount of cash.

A ship like the one tankcrewman describes would essentially be an armoured bomb truck of the seas, right? And a very expensive one as well. What would you use that for?
Battleships became obsolete in WW2 and I personally don't see why the resaons they did have changed.

BTW I don't know what a Kirov would cost today. I'm pretty sure though they were/are very expensive ships. And although I really like big ships (I mean like really big) I'm afraid they are more of an impressive mascot these days.

They would be able to deliver more payload. They would be able to mount more sensors/processors, acting as C3 for the entire taskforce. They would be able to carry longer range, larger ASMs, and more of them. I guess it would come down to a cost-benefit analysis, which I don't have enough information to deliver.

 

[Marc 1]

Its all to do with electrolysis, very confusing to me but they zap H20 and split it you'd be better off reading somewhere else about it.
Short reply but I shall return when I'm more alert.

The basics of eletrolysis are about the simplest way to get hydrogen gas, but most hydrogen is obtained by stripping hydrogen off a hydrocarbon in a steam reformer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production So if you were seeking to use hydrogen for environmental reasons, you will miss out unless you are generating electricity from a renewable resource (solar, hydro, wind, tidal geothermal etc).

Storage. BMW have a 6L V12 in extremely limited trial that runs on hydrogen. it has a 125 mile range on 30 US gallons of liquid hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen needs to be kept at -253 degrees C. Add to that about a 50% drop in power from the engine and it's not stacking up too well as a fuel. It is better used in a fuel cell, but even then you still have issues with heat, storage and energy density of the fuel. If you try to store the hydrogen as a comressed gas, you have space issues, as a metal hydride again space.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There is an increased focus on protection for warships but this is against more asymetric threats and because of Zero Tolerance of casulties. No one is about to add an armour belt to the next frigate but bullet and fragment proofing and improved blast resistance yes. Kockums are working on a completely blast resistant submarine for the A26/A28 NGU concept. No doubt working from the HY100 steel in Collins (which took a lot of Aussie imput to make work).

As to recomissioning the BB62s it will never happen. Each requires a crew of 3,000. With a single turret manned you are still looking at 1,500. The USN explored building a new ship in the late 1960s that would carry one of those 16" turrets and it only needed a crew of 320!

But to the original point the best defence for a warship against ASMs is not being shot at or shooting them down. Even an armoured belt ship is going to suffer a lot of damage. All armour belts do is stop the ship from sinking. They rarely save lives as case in point the hundreds killed and wounded in battleship battles before the ship sinks. Unless you build a ship with everyone inside the belt - and this would require a massive sized belt - you won't achieve your aim.

Battleships have not been abandoned on a whim, it was because they don't offer much of value to warfighters these days.

 

[Wooki]

OK, I'm up

I would agree with GFs input.

But, (with the following disclaimer). I used to do armor and now when asked to do it, I say "no" as you can make more money making tooth brushes.

The concept of armor on naval vessels is most definitely not obsolete, as you have all the advantages that an AFV doesn't. If a Navy wanted to they could create a vessel able to withstand existing Anti Shipping Cruise Missiles, in fact it is quite easy for the USN to do this.

But they don't for these reasons:

Armour on ships is no longer about metallurgical properties, in fact it's not about metal properties at all now. Armour is a collective of disparate systems such as ewarfare/sig mgt and layered response. It's not about kinetic survivability as it's prohibitive.

As for the issue of Chobham and Dorchester - they were discounted years ago - the serious close in defence work is now on ship based Trophy type systems defending critical parts of the ship like the citadel and the farm.

there's a new generation of immediate self protection emerging.

So yes, US industry is capable of making an armored vessel. Yes I will stand up and say it straight that the technology and know how of today could make a sea skimming missile irrelevant.

The key threat is not actually missiles BTW, its torpedoes and mines and this is routinely pondered upon.

Bottom line is just that, the bottom line. The perception is that it is simply easier and cheaper to develop active protection systems, not to mention the iterative training process to use these systems (knowledge, building upon knowledge).

It aint going to change. On top of that you have industry inertia and turf protection. For example to make a change in the CVN (x) as it was called back then, an armor idea for an itsy bitsy little item I suggested captured the imagination of everyone in the room and died a quick death as it had to be approved by no less then 53 individuals ( I will spell it for you F-i-f-t-y T-h-r-e-e) before it had a chance of becoming reality.

Not going to happen friend. Much easier to launch a nulka as it exists and is deployed today

And last Chobham?? Why would I use a low mass efficiency armor like Chobham? It is far too complicated and way too heavy and simply wouldn't work at sea (IMHO that is)...


cheers


w

 

[Wooki]

I
Well, I can tell you some' about this. You think about it a few minutes and then you'd better forget about it. Hydrogen as a power source for large ships isn't suitable at all. What makes you think so?

Hydrogen is suitable for larger ships. The rule of thumb is 3 times the volume required for H2 as opposed to normal HFO.

Apart from the fact that generating and storing hydrogen is awfully expensive

No, it isn't as expensive as you believe. For example: There are models to supply the State of Virginia with H2 generated electrical power at around 5c/KWH to the end consumer. That rivals coal.

-as you already realised yourself- and comsumes more energy than you will actually get from your fuel cell, fuel cells have a disadvantage that is imminent with their physical conception: They generate heat in the magnitude of power they generate. This isn't that much of a problem in a 100kW car like the Clarity or a 300kW submarine fuel cell where you have a big cold ocean which makes it easy to get rid of the heat. But now you need 60-100 MW or probably even more. See my point?

This is grossly incorrect. Take a look at a solid oxide fuel cell. The optimum temperature is 1000 Degrees celsius for various configurations using a variety of different materials suitable for operation on a large scale. Waste heat is a good thing as then you can turn that into electricity via a thermocouple.

Then there's the problem of storage. Would you use liquified H2, stored under pressure inside the hull and still requiring a lot of volume as you would have to use many small storage tanks as you simply can't build a single huge, sufficient one? Imagine if that blows off.

Another urban myth. H2 storage is safer and (in a lot of ways) more convenient then storing hydrocarbons. It is (however) diffcult to handle in a submersible. You don't get any "explosions" from H2 going off. In fact you would probably get a flare that would blow itself out and then a build up of ice that would self seal the tank, all within seconds.

And what about underway replenishment? That would probably be huge fun
Or will you deal energy density for volume and use (in any way) chemically bound H2 which also needs a lot of internal volume, makes the fuel cell more complicated to operate and has no advantage over conventional fuel whatsoever -on the contrary- apart from the fact that it's "clean"?

Again another urban myth. Hydrogen peroxide is damn safe if used correctly with the appropriate materials. It is one of the reasons it was first used as a rocket fuel. It is only when people start getting greedy for thrust and adding a tertiary fuel (e.g. Me 263 ) that it becomes dangerous.

My observation is that most of these conclusions you have made above are governed by mass media and pulp fiction. take a little time to look at hydrogen power in Iceland. They have a number of informative sites that educate the public on hydrogen power.

Finally one of the primary reasons that it is tricky t use at sea is becasue it is light. Therefore the larger the better and the more efficient your hull form.

Hope that has cleared up a few items for you

cheers

w

 

[swerve]

No, it isn't as expensive as you believe. For example: There are models to supply the State of Virginia with H2 generated electrical power at around 5c/KWH to the end consumer. That rivals coal.

Where does the hydrogen come from in these models?

I can see the point of hydrogen power for vehicles, but for electricity generation? Why not directly use the electricity you use to make the hydrogen, & cut out the conversion losses & extra machinery?

 

[Wooki]

Where does the hydrogen come from in these models?

I can see the point of hydrogen power for vehicles, but for electricity generation? Why not directly use the electricity you use to make the hydrogen, & cut out the conversion losses & extra machinery?

Geo-thermal actually. Can't say more then that. But I have heard of other schemes using wind and solar with about the same price to the consumer.

cheers

w

 

[kato]

Do they have successful sites for the geothermal stations?

'Cuz we got a company around here constantly trying new sites for lack of proper geological structures - but hey, they've stumbled on oil three times by now (and gas reserves once).

How you transmit energy is always a question of infrastructure, not qualities of the carrier medium. Hydrogen as an energy carrier would be useless for me personally for example, considering i'm sitting within a very dense electricity network fed directly from three nuclear plants, one coal plant and two wind power parks, and get waste heat from a nearby coal plant pumped to my house for heating. Oh, and they're building a gas main extension pumping gas straight from Russia less than 5 miles from here, and are looking for geothermal energy sources.

Hydrogen as a carrier medium - in stationary infrastructure, i.e. pipelines - is only valid for areas where other infrastructure (electricity lines, steam pipes) would be badly influenced by external factors such as weather. Or where the installation and maintenance of such infrastructure would at most come equal with hydrogen mains. Ice isn't exactly beneficial for overland electricity networks for example. Meaning, it's a valid carrier medium for Iceland, but not e.g. for most of continental Europe.