Return of the battleship.

[Wooki]

While it may not be all that hard to design a ship capable of withstanding the recoil of a 155mm railgun, designing one cpable of supplying it with power is an entirely different matter.
According to NavWeaps.com, the 155mm railguns projectiles will have 125MJ worth of kinetic energy when they leave the barrel. Given the massive amount of cooling necessary, I guess that the gun will need about twice as much energy, meaning that it'll take 250MJ to launch. All that energy has to come from the ships powerplants.

Just FYI guys. A railgun produces zero recoil. Why? Because it creates a Lorentz force at one end of the conductive rails. If you place a free standing ( and preferably conductive) object at the other end of the rails, that object will be attracted to the Lorentz force. The rail gun works because by the time the object reaches the Lorrentz force it is traveling at an enormous velocity and "escapes" out the other side. You also at the same time turn off the switch (not unlike a linear track motor). There is no recoil.

cheers

w

ps: BTW. No one happened to notice the media blitz by Bloom Energy and their SOFC (Solid Oxide Fuel Cell) did they? And here I was told that it was a technology of tomorrow.:hul

 

[swerve]

These rail guns should have (very slightly) lower peak forces as they are accelerating the projectile the whole length of the barrel and not just in an explosion.

IIRC, modern propellants don't explode in one sudden shock, but (deliberately) in a relatively slow, or staged, expansion, so that they continue to accelerate the projectile for the full length of the barrel.

But the rate of acceleration drops off, so I think you're right that the rail gun should have a lower peak force for the same total acceleration.

 

[Belesari]

Just FYI guys. A railgun produces zero recoil. Why? Because it creates a Lorentz force at one end of the conductive rails. If you place a free standing ( and preferably conductive) object at the other end of the rails, that object will be attracted to the Lorentz force. The rail gun works because by the time the object reaches the Lorrentz force it is traveling at an enormous velocity and "escapes" out the other side. You also at the same time turn off the switch (not unlike a linear track motor). There is no recoil.

cheers

w

ps: BTW. No one happened to notice the media blitz by Bloom Energy and their SOFC (Solid Oxide Fuel Cell) did they? And here I was told that it was a technology of tomorrow.:hul

Still nothing will beat my favorite news (or why the MSM should never touch military technology news) story of all time. Fox news started a story that israeli tanks had shields....not metal but like on star trek :lol It was just a new missile defense weapon of theres that launched warheads into the path of the object.
But it was funny while it lasted.

But anyways the railguns are still in the development stage but right now there having problems with the guns shattering themselves when they fire so.....

 

[Sailor Dale]

Battlewagons!

:smash

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

Touché' I agree with you completely! The small, lighter ships may be good for some things, BUT, when it comes to survivability, FORGET ABOUT IT!!! A missile that would sink a smaller ship would not damage a Battle wagon!!!

 

[John Sansom]

:smash

Touché' I agree with you completely! The small, lighter ships may be good for some things, BUT, when it comes to survivability, FORGET ABOUT IT!!! A missile that would sink a smaller ship would not damage a Battle wagon!!!

Sailor Dale's agreement with TankCrewman 2008 with respect to the very significant role(s) still available for battlewagons and their ilk is.....well, refreshing. Yes, refits with upgraded weapons systems are probably somewhat more than possible...and hydrogen as a fuel source sounds good-ish.

Role definition may be another matter, but I sure would like to hear from others in this overall respect. What, for instance, are the downsides in all this? I'm sure some pretty good cogent arguments can be made on the "nay" side, but would they be strong enough to discount TankCrewman's general proposition?

During the earlier stages of WWII, air power pretty well proved that battleships weren't going to be able to cut it. After all, it was "string bags" that really took out the Bismark, and aircraft which bottled up the Tirpitz. And in the Far East, Britian's pride succumbed quickly to Japanese attacks from the air.

On the plus side, vessels like the "Big Mo" did yeoman work in delivering pre-invasion (just about everywhere) suppressive fire.

The whole business is a bit of a conundrum. Sure would like to see some un-conundrumating comments on it.
:dance

 

[Belesari]

hmmmm

Sailor Dale's agreement with TankCrewman 2008 with respect to the very significant role(s) still available for battlewagons and their ilk is.....well, refreshing. Yes, refits with upgraded weapons systems are probably somewhat more than possible...and hydrogen as a fuel source sounds good-ish.

Role definition may be another matter, but I sure would like to hear from others in this overall respect. What, for instance, are the downsides in all this? I'm sure some pretty good cogent arguments can be made on the "nay" side, but would they be strong enough to discount TankCrewman's general proposition?

During the earlier stages of WWII, air power pretty well proved that battleships weren't going to be able to cut it. After all, it was "string bags" that really took out the Bismark, and aircraft which bottled up the Tirpitz. And in the Far East, Britian's pride succumbed quickly to Japanese attacks from the air.

On the plus side, vessels like the "Big Mo" did yeoman work in delivering pre-invasion (just about everywhere) suppressive fire.

The whole business is a bit of a conundrum. Sure would like to see some un-conundrumating comments on it.
:dance

Dont see the hydrogen power happening. One is that hydrogen is EXTREMELY FLAMABLE. thats why it makes great rocket fuel. Really nuclear IS the best way to go current reactor designs go what 30 yrs without a need for a refueling? The cost in fuel other wise is just to much.

The battlewagons could be refitted with an enourmous amount of defensive systems. say 6 phalanx stations and various other anti missile systems. And if your gonna do it dont half a$$ it gut the old girls and do a GOOD job. If done right you could reduce crew requirements alot.

 

[John Sansom]

Dont see the hydrogen power happening. One is that hydrogen is EXTREMELY FLAMABLE. thats why it makes great rocket fuel. Really nuclear IS the best way to go current reactor designs go what 30 yrs without a need for a refueling? The cost in fuel other wise is just to much.

The battlewagons could be refitted with an enourmous amount of defensive systems. say 6 phalanx stations and various other anti missile systems. And if your gonna do it dont half a$$ it gut the old girls and do a GOOD job. If done right you could reduce crew requirements alot.

No sweat with the hydrogen concern.However, there are currently some hydrogen systems being messed around with, so......

I, too, feel that nuclear is a good option, but there would probably be a hefty political price to pay in announcing that kind of a refit configuration. When ther US laumched the first of her nuclear submarines, it was seen as a wholly significant advance in the marine defence business. Time goes by, however, and minds change. Charges levied against nuclear power in any configuration are often based on whole-cloth assessments if not on downright fanatsy vis-a-vis absolutely worst case scenarios. These are not the things that bring comfort to a politicians heart.

The other consideration involves dollars and cents...another political hurdle, most particularly at this time.

Next up is the operational question. These are very big targets we're talking about. Could their presence in unfriendly waters encourage a "rogue" response?

 

[Thiel]

:smash

Touché' I agree with you completely! The small, lighter ships may be good for some things, BUT, when it comes to survivability, FORGET ABOUT IT!!! A missile that would sink a smaller ship would not damage a Battle wagon!!!

Sure, you get better survivability in case of a hit, but is it worth the cost? You can build an awful lot of DDGs for the same money. And just so you know, the BB won't be significantly better at avoiding hits than a DDG.
Besides, missiles haven't become less dangerous than WWII era dumb bombs, and they were certainly more than capable enough at killing BBs.

Sailor Dale's agreement with TankCrewman 2008 with respect to the very significant role(s) still available for battlewagons and their ilk is.....well, refreshing. Yes, refits with upgraded weapons systems are probably somewhat more than possible...and hydrogen as a fuel source sounds good-ish. Role definition may be another matter, but I sure would like to hear from others in this overall respect.

What roles? AAW is already covered, same with ASuW and ASW. That only leaves shore bombardment, and for that you won't need a BB. A far more suited craft would be a Monitor. A single turret keeps maintenance and crew requirements down, without compromising its NSGFS potential. (Name one instance where one of the Iowa's needed all nine tubes.)
AA weapons should consist of a couple of CIWS (RAM or Phalanx depending on what you prefer.) and short ranged missiles like ESSM. Leave the Standards and the heavy radars on the ships designed to use them, since this brings down weight and cost, again without compromising its primary mission. Whether you stick TacToms on it is up to you, but personally I don't see the reason. No matter what launcher you fit it with, they'll take up space and increase weight, cost and manning. Leave them on the DDGs and CGs, they are more than capable of launching them anyway.
Speed shouldn't be too high, 25 knots at most, since it only needs to be able to keep up with the anfib units. (No point in supporting a landing that hasn't arrived yet) Diesel, or if you like, gas turbines should be more than capable enough of meeting that requirement. Certainly no need to go nuclear. And before someone starts harping me about how Nuclear is cheaper than fossil fuel, that isn't true. The cost of refuelling and maintaining a nuclear infrastructure is still far higher than a traditional fossil fuel infrastructure.
How much you armour it (If at all) depends on how much you want to pay for it, and how advanced an AAW suite you're going to fit on it.
Plus, the rather unglamorous nature of a Monitor will keep people from forming battlegroups around them. In my opinion, forming BB battlegroups where one of the more ridiculous (and costly) things the USN has ever done.

What, for instance, are the downsides in all this? I'm sure some pretty good cogent arguments can be made on the "nay" side, but would they be strong enough to discount TankCrewman's general proposition?

Cost. Whether you refit or build new, operating BBs with assorted escorts will put another heavy load on the USNs budget, a budget that is already stretched to near the breaking point, without adding any significant capabilities. The moment the struggle moves away from the coastal region, the BB (or monitor for that matter) becomes useless.
And again, you can buy an awful lot of destroyers for the same amount of money.

During the earlier stages of WWII, air power pretty well proved that battleships weren't going to be able to cut it. After all, it was "string bags" that really took out the Bismark, and aircraft which bottled up the Tirpitz. And in the Far East, Britian's pride succumbed quickly to Japanese attacks from the air.

On the plus side, vessels like the "Big Mo" did yeoman work in delivering pre-invasion (just about everywhere) suppressive fire.

See my comment about Monitors above. If shore bombardment is all you're going to do, you won't need a BB.

No sweat with the hydrogen concern.However, there are currently some hydrogen systems being messed around with, so......

True, but the submarines that uses them, like the German Type 212 (Or is it 214?), are small and like all SSKs designed for extreme energy efficiency. Something a BB with all its power hogging systems most certainly isn't. The trouble with hydrogen in comparison to diesel is its low energy density and the trouble associated with handling it. In order to store a meaningful amount of it, you need to compress it, using either pressure or refrigeration. Both those methods needs fairly large amounts of power.
And you still have to deal with the fire hazard.
And yes, I know the Germans have developed a way of storing it that solves that, but from what little info that has been released, I gather that it doesn't scale well.

Next up is the operational question. These are very big targets we're talking about. Could their presence in unfriendly waters encourage a "rogue" response?

It'll attract all the threats a CVN does, but since it has to be far closer to the shore to perform its mission, it'll be easier to hit.

The battlewagons could be refitted with an enourmous amount of defensive systems. say 6 phalanx stations and various other anti missile systems. And if your gonna do it dont half a$$ it gut the old girls and do a GOOD job. If done right you could reduce crew requirements alot.

Depending on who you ask, getting the BBs back in service with an absolute minimum amount of upgrades will take between 6 and 15 months, most of which is going to be yard time.
Upgrading them to the level you're talking about will take years.
By the time you've designed the upgrade and guttet them completely, you might as well have started over from scratch.
But you still need to find a good reason why they even need to be back in service. As I've already summed up, most of the current roles are already taken.

 

[Belesari]

Sure, you get better survivability in case of a hit, but is it worth the cost? You can build an awful lot of DDGs for the same money. And just so you know, the BB won't be significantly better at avoiding hits than a DDG.
Besides, missiles haven't become less dangerous than WWII era dumb bombs, and they were certainly more than capable enough at killing BBs.


What roles? AAW is already covered, same with ASuW and ASW. That only leaves shore bombardment, and for that you won't need a BB. A far more suited craft would be a Monitor. A single turret keeps maintenance and crew requirements down, without compromising its NSGFS potential. (Name one instance where one of the Iowa's needed all nine tubes.)
AA weapons should consist of a couple of CIWS (RAM or Phalanx depending on what you prefer.) and short ranged missiles like ESSM. Leave the Standards and the heavy radars on the ships designed to use them, since this brings down weight and cost, again without compromising its primary mission. Whether you stick TacToms on it is up to you, but personally I don't see the reason. No matter what launcher you fit it with, they'll take up space and increase weight, cost and manning. Leave them on the DDGs and CGs, they are more than capable of launching them anyway.
Speed shouldn't be too high, 25 knots at most, since it only needs to be able to keep up with the anfib units. (No point in supporting a landing that hasn't arrived yet) Diesel, or if you like, gas turbines should be more than capable enough of meeting that requirement. Certainly no need to go nuclear. And before someone starts harping me about how Nuclear is cheaper than fossil fuel, that isn't true. The cost of refuelling and maintaining a nuclear infrastructure is still far higher than a traditional fossil fuel infrastructure.
How much you armour it (If at all) depends on how much you want to pay for it, and how advanced an AAW suite you're going to fit on it.
Plus, the rather unglamorous nature of a Monitor will keep people from forming battlegroups around them. In my opinion, forming BB battlegroups where one of the more ridiculous (and costly) things the USN has ever done.


Cost. Whether you refit or build new, operating BBs with assorted escorts will put another heavy load on the USNs budget, a budget that is already stretched to near the breaking point, without adding any significant capabilities. The moment the struggle moves away from the coastal region, the BB (or monitor for that matter) becomes useless.
And again, you can buy an awful lot of destroyers for the same amount of money.


See my comment about Monitors above. If shore bombardment is all you're going to do, you won't need a BB.


True, but the submarines that uses them, like the German Type 212 (Or is it 214?), are small and like all SSKs designed for extreme energy efficiency. Something a BB with all its power hogging systems most certainly isn't. The trouble with hydrogen in comparison to diesel is its low energy density and the trouble associated with handling it. In order to store a meaningful amount of it, you need to compress it, using either pressure or refrigeration. Both those methods needs fairly large amounts of power.
And you still have to deal with the fire hazard.
And yes, I know the Germans have developed a way of storing it that solves that, but from what little info that has been released, I gather that it doesn't scale well.



It'll attract all the threats a CVN does, but since it has to be far closer to the shore to perform its mission, it'll be easier to hit.



Depending on who you ask, getting the BBs back in service with an absolute minimum amount of upgrades will take between 6 and 15 months, most of which is going to be yard time.
Upgrading them to the level you're talking about will take years.
By the time you've designed the upgrade and guttet them completely, you might as well have started over from scratch.
But you still need to find a good reason why they even need to be back in service. As I've already summed up, most of the current roles are already taken.

The need would be fire support. Sustained firesupport in a high threat area. That is the only reason i can see bringing back the iowas. That or a sudden dearth of ships. However i think we need atleast a heavy cruiser to battlecruiser. Not alot just 4 or 5. These would be to support amphib ships as the send forces inshore as well as to continue softening up hostile forces in areas where the threat to traditional aircraft is to high. Think of the SSBN's we converted to tomahawk carriers but with more variety of weapons and a arsenal ship.

That or at the same time we build new cruisers just use the cruiser platforms as a template for a NSFS vessels. Just more AA.

The avowed reason i always heard for cutting the battlewagons wasnt that they were obsolete or useless but because each one had a crew of over 1200 men. And what most people dont understand is its our personel cost where we out spend the rest of the world.

 

[John Sansom]

The need would be fire support. Sustained firesupport in a high threat area. That is the only reason i can see bringing back the iowas. That or a sudden dearth of ships. However i think we need atleast a heavy cruiser to battlecruiser. Not alot just 4 or 5. These would be to support amphib ships as the send forces inshore as well as to continue softening up hostile forces in areas where the threat to traditional aircraft is to high. Think of the SSBN's we converted to tomahawk carriers but with more variety of weapons and a arsenal ship.

That or at the same time we build new cruisers just use the cruiser platforms as a template for a NSFS vessels. Just more AA.

The avowed reason i always heard for cutting the battlewagons wasnt that they were obsolete or useless but because each one had a crew of over 1200 men. And what most people dont understand is its our personel cost where we out spend the rest of the world.

Many thanks to Thiel, Sailor Dale and Belesari for helping to keep my head on straight.

I have to admit that the cost of a ship's complement had not, until now, entered my thinking. By the same token, casting back a whole bunch of years ago, manpower costs weren't considered as possible deterrents to weapons and wagons development. At that time, the need was urgent, and the need was immediate.

Today, though, very careful attention has to be paid to cost/benefit equations. We can't just promote the re-invention of battlewagons just because they're big and beautiful--which observation seems to have me ensnared.

Let's keep this going so some more doors can be opened by people who know how to open 'em.

 

[Thiel]

The need would be fire support. Sustained firesupport in a high threat area. That is the only reason i can see bringing back the iowas. That or a sudden dearth of ships.

Why would you want them in a high threat environment? No anfib is going to go there anyway.
Modern landing techniques doesn't work in high threat environments. they rely on airpower to reduce the threat to a level were they can move in the anfibs, without endangering them overly much.

However i think we need atleast a heavy cruiser to battlecruiser. Not alot just 4 or 5.

But why cruisers? A monitor style ship is far more capable at providing fire support, since that is its primary and only mission. Battlecruisers' and cruisers' primary mission has always been either ASuW or AAW.

These would be to support amphib ships as the send forces inshore as well as to continue softening up hostile forces in areas where the threat to traditional aircraft is to high.

But in any situation where the threat to aircrafts is too high, the threat to ships operating close to shore is going to be even higher.

Think of the SSBN's we converted to tomahawk carriers but with more variety of weapons and a arsenal ship.

Yes? I fail to see what a missile armed sub and a concept that is deader than disco has to do with a gun toting NSFS platform.

That or at the same time we build new cruisers just use the cruiser platforms as a template for a NSFS vessels. Just more AA.

Again, why cruisers for dedicated NSFS platforms? If you're going the Big gun route, cruisers aren't the best solution. Now, if you went for a general purpose cruiser with a AGS or similar system thrown in as a bonus, then a cruiser is as good as anything, but if it's going to be a one-trick-pony, then you'll have to look at something like a Monitor.

The avowed reason i always heard for cutting the battlewagons wasnt that they were obsolete or useless but because each one had a crew of over 1200 men. And what most people dont understand is its our personel cost where we out spend the rest of the world.

Quite right, they were far to costly compared to the capabilities they brought with them.
High manning requirements aren't a barrier in and of itself, just look at the carriers, but if they don't bring a comparative level of capability with them, it just isn't worth it.

 

[Belesari]

@Thiel:smash

Um you kinda missed the entire point of what i said or atleast what i tried to say.

When i mentioned the converted SSBN's AND the arsenal ships what i ment was a large warships with a large arsenal of weapons. Depending on the area of operations these ships could mount a variety of munitions from SM-3's and future versions to land attack missiles or something like a naval atacms missile.
-------------------------------------
"Again, why cruisers for dedicated NSFS platforms? If you're going the Big gun route, cruisers aren't the best solution. Now, if you went for a general purpose cruiser with a AGS or similar system thrown in as a bonus, then a cruiser is as good as anything, but if it's going to be a one-trick-pony, then you'll have to look at something like a Monitor"

That part you got. Plans are in the works for replacments for the Tico's replacment. Why not include based on the new cruisers design for a flight of 4 to 5 ships with a more land attack mission orientation.

BTW this needn't be a gun platform. One thing that has always mystified me wass the fact that the navy doesnt have some type of navalized version of many of the armies MLRS missiles.

New versions of ATACMS have great accuracy and can hit a target at almost 200 miles.
----------------------------------------------
The thing that kinda makes me not want to rely on carriers for all our land attack needs is there might come a time in the next 10 to 30 yrs where the US and its allies (depending on if they feel like going, which is partly our fault we treat our allies-and im not really talking about our european allies-like crap.) cant obtain airsuperiority.
Or where the anti air threat is to extensive and if we send in a carrier strike group they would get shot out of the sky in short order costing dozens of american lives and billions of dollars of taxpayers money in equipment. Anti air defenses are progressing at a frightening rate. And drones are no where near good enough wont be for a long time.

China will continue as will russia and other to sale there weapons to anyone who pays. Our stealth systems can be defeated its been shown as doable before.
---------------------------------------
Erm for the monitor i dont see something like that ever happening. People ask why we build milti billion dollar carriers when they cost so much to maintaine and man. Simple, versatility.
Have a ground target that needs to be pounded? Hornet strike. Need some air superiority cause theres a buncha migs buzzzing towards the fleet? Hornet strike. And on and on and on.

So i dont see a ship being built with such a nitch role.

If we were facing a threat from a land based missile site or railgun site. Sounds awesome. But it has nothing else to do. The original battlships protected carriers threw a simple means of laying down a Huge amount of AAA. Imagine of all that AA had been radar controlled? Nothing would get threw until it took out the BS. But they also softened targets on shore and at sea were death to whatever was hit by there guns.

I dont see the battleship comming back for a while. I figure the next big gun BS will be space based. Because in space i dont really have a limiting factor on my guns as long as your in range.

 

[Marc 1]

Um you kinda missed the entire point of what i said or atleast what i tried to say.

No, you have missed how amphibious operations are looking to be conducted (as have many other posters here) and that there have been um....Just a few advances on WWII when it comes to the anti air battle.


----------------------------------------------

The thing that kinda makes me not want to rely on carriers for all our land attack needs is there might come a time in the next 10 to 30 yrs where the US and its allies (depending on if they feel like going, which is partly our fault we treat our allies-and im not really talking about our european allies-like crap.) cant obtain airsuperiority.
Or where the anti air threat is to extensive and if we send in a carrier strike group they would get shot out of the sky in short order costing dozens of american lives and billions of dollars of taxpayers money in equipment. Anti air defenses are progressing at a frightening rate. And drones are no where near good enough wont be for a long time.

What exactly makes you so sure that the USN and USAF won't get air superiority? Given the relative cost in dollars and lives, a few carrier Air groups worth of losses would be cheaper than losing a large number of surface ships and worse, not being able to achieve the mission (amphib landing).

China will continue as will russia and other to sale there weapons to anyone who pays.

Yep, its called business - the spirit of free enterprise. What America has been espousing for centuries.

Our stealth systems can be defeated its been shown as doable before.

By? Are you referring to the one single F117 Nighthawk that was downed by the Serbs? If so that was more a mission planning failure - none were lost in Desert Storm or conflicts since. The F117 is no longer in service having been replaced by far more capable designs. What other proof do you have that 'stealth' is regularly being defeated?

The original battlships protected carriers threw a simple means of laying down a Huge amount of AAA.

And didn't do that well at that role either. Many Kamikaze planes got through.

Imagine of all that AA had been radar controlled?

All of that AA would be useless against aircraft that would most probably be firing antiship missiles over the horizon.

But they also softened targets on shore and at sea were death to whatever was hit by there guns.

Given that in future the USN/USMC hopes to avoid the type of heavily contested landings performed in WWII and Korea, that's a pretty slim excuse for a battlewagon. Most assaults will be taking place from beyond the range of the big ships guns anyway - moving ashore on LCAC's, EFV's and V22's.

I dont see the battleship comming back for a while. I figure the next big gun BS will be space based. Because in space i dont really have a limiting factor on my guns as long as your in range.

No limitations? How about power? Resupplying projectiles? Targeting? Vulnerability to other anti-sattelite devices (China tested one a few years ago).

 

[Belesari]

No, you have missed how amphibious operations are looking to be conducted (as have many other posters here) and that there have been um....Just a few advances on WWII when it comes to the anti air battle.


----------------------------------------------


What exactly makes you so sure that the USN and USAF won't get air superiority? Given the relative cost in dollars and lives, a few carrier Air groups worth of losses would be cheaper than losing a large number of surface ships and worse, not being able to achieve the mission (amphib landing).



Yep, its called business - the spirit of free enterprise. What America has been espousing for centuries.



By? Are you referring to the one single F117 Nighthawk that was downed by the Serbs? If so that was more a mission planning failure - none were lost in Desert Storm or conflicts since. The F117 is no longer in service having been replaced by far more capable designs. What other proof do you have that 'stealth' is regularly being defeated?




And didn't do that well at that role either. Many Kamikaze planes got through.



All of that AA would be useless against aircraft that would most probably be firing antiship missiles over the horizon.



Given that in future the USN/USMC hopes to avoid the type of heavily contested landings performed in WWII and Korea, that's a pretty slim excuse for a battlewagon. Most assaults will be taking place from beyond the range of the big ships guns anyway - moving ashore on LCAC's, EFV's and V22's.



No limitations? How about power? Resupplying projectiles? Targeting? Vulnerability to other anti-sattelite devices (China tested one a few years ago).

Wow nice burn.......or not so much.

I will reply to a couple things though.
-----------------------------
"All of that AA would be useless against aircraft that would most probably be firing antiship missiles over the horizon."

I was refering to radar controlled anti aircraft cannons. You know like on i believe britains last battleship and many other vessels of the 50s. And the weapons of the time didnt have all that many anti ship missiles.

------------------------------
"Given that in future the USN/USMC hopes to avoid the type of heavily contested landings performed in WWII and Korea, that's a pretty slim excuse for a battlewagon. Most assaults will be taking place from beyond the range of the big ships guns anyway - moving ashore on LCAC's, EFV's and V22's."

Ok the LCAC's i think are going to be replaced not shure with what so cant really say anything on its effectivness. The EFV's last i heard are being Massively reworked because if i remember correctly they were "too ambitious". V22's cool just make sure there arent to many anti air defenses. And that you have a good escort for em' as the cobras cant keep up.

Also the current Amphib ships i believe are supposed to launch from 50 miles out.......thats a long way out.

My point was that the anti air defenses are getting better at a stupid speed. How many people have sold there systems capable of intercepting and tracking our super stealthy aircraft? Dont know but i figure SOMEONE has the technology in some ready or nearly ready form.
------------------------------------

"What exactly makes you so sure that the USN and USAF won't get air superiority? Given the relative cost in dollars and lives, a few carrier Air groups worth of losses would be cheaper than losing a large number of surface ships and worse, not being able to achieve the mission (amphib landing)."

Thats one reason we are upping the anti air defenses on our next gen burks and other ships. Our ships are vulnerable to masses of cheap but powerful surface to surface missiles from numerous also cheap vessels.


And seriously have you looked at whats being worked out in our country lately? We spend most of our budget now on entitlment programs and it just got alot bigger. The airforce is going to be the first to suffer. Then the navy.

If china on the other hand in the next 2 decades decides it needs more resources are we gonna be capable of airsuperiority against what could then be a FAR larger and more powerful airforce and navy?
------------------------------------

"No limitations? How about power? Resupplying projectiles? Targeting? Vulnerability to other anti-sattelite devices (China tested one a few years ago).[/QUOTE]"

Power: depend on weapon how much power your applying, capacitor reserve size etc alot of things.

Proj resupply: Em depends. What is the projectile. what is your target etc.

Targeting: depends on speed, manuverability, size, mass, etc. and most of all weapon.

LOL and china super anti sat weapon? You mean the huge rocket that blew apart a satelite that never changed direction? Not when you can hit it 1000km from you with laser defense while you bombard targets from out near the moon. Each projectile will have the force of 10 to 15 hiroshimas? Thats a laugh.
---------------------------------
So yes i still worry about our reliance on stealth. No im not trying to be a but hole.

 

[Marc 1]

Wow nice burn.......or not so much.

I will reply to a couple things though.
-----------------------------
"All of that AA would be useless against aircraft that would most probably be firing antiship missiles over the horizon."

I was refering to radar controlled anti aircraft cannons. You know like on i believe britains last battleship and many other vessels of the 50s. And the weapons of the time didnt have all that many anti ship missiles.

Radar controlled - both the radar and the majority of the weaponry are line of sight - if the air to surface missile is fired from below the radar horizon you will not even see the launching aircraft. If you had a carrier with AWACS - funny thing is you would see them - and probably before the enemy aircraft had launched their missiles.. Now are you beginning to understand why a carrier is so much more useful than a battleship.

This thread is talking about reactivating the battlewagons now. What happened 60 years ago is irrelevant to protecting the vessels in todays threat environment.

Ok the LCAC's i think are going to be replaced not shure with what so cant really say anything on its effectivness. The EFV's last i heard are being Massively reworked because if i remember correctly they were "too ambitious". V22's cool just make sure there arent to many anti air defenses. And that you have a good escort for em' as the cobras cant keep up.

Whatever the LCAC's are to be replaced with will probably offer similar capabilities. The EFV will similarly offer similar capabilities to what it does now and has recently passed a couple of recent hurdles. The USMC will not go back to motoring toward a beach at 7 knots again. V22's don't have to fly flat out everywhere - in Afghanistan they often have to formate with far slower craft, so fine, they hang back a little or are launched later after the cobra's have softened up the positions.

Also the current Amphib ships i believe are supposed to launch from 50 miles out.......thats a long way out.

So how do you suggest the battleships which you wish to keep with the fleet because of its amazing AA ability - are going to perform the NGS role when the range of their guns is well short of 50 miles?

My point was that the anti air defenses are getting better at a stupid speed.

Which is one of the reasons why Lo technology is so important. if you cannot see an aircraft - you cannot shoot it down. That negates all the "getting better at stupid speed" issue. Incidentally which ystems are you talking about?

How many people have sold there systems capable of intercepting and tracking our super stealthy aircraft?

I have no idea any such system exists. Do you? What is the name of this system that can shoot down a "stealth" aircraft - and what range can it detect a LO platform from?

Dont know but i figure SOMEONE has the technology in some ready or nearly ready form.

The US is investing heavily (some would say betting the farm) on LO technologies (stealth) - why would they do that if they didn't have faith in that technology providing the best possible impact? In other words, the US doesn't believe that these anti stealth radar systems exist or are so limited as to be at a very low level of effectiveness right now and into the future.

Thats one reason we are upping the anti air defenses on our next gen burks and other ships.

Define upping - what additional anti-air defences? There have probably been incremental improvements but not a heap more AA weaponry. If anything in recent years the threat that has not been adaquetly provided for is against the small surface craft.

Our ships are vulnerable to masses of cheap but powerful surface to surface missiles from numerous also cheap vessels.

How does a battleship help defend against that? A carrier can launch air strikes against these vessels before they are withing firing range.

And seriously have you looked at whats being worked out in our country lately? We spend most of our budget now on entitlment programs and it just got alot bigger. The airforce is going to be the first to suffer. Then the navy.

So why waste money reactivating hulls that were designed to face a threat that existed in the 1930's and doesn't exist today (other battleships). Some of the ideas such as installing nuclear power plants is bordering on the ridiculous. How do we get these reactors into the ship? Pass them piece by piece down a companionway? To undertake a retrofit of that scale on a ship that old would definately cost more than designing a building a brand new battleship.

If china on the other hand in the next 2 decades decides it needs more resources are we gonna be capable of airsuperiority against what could then be a FAR larger and more powerful airforce and navy?

The US has never been that worried about being outnumbered - the soviets and the Chinese have at times outnumbered the US or NATO forces sometimes by a margin of over 4 to 1. What matters is the qualatative advantage - and so far in LO technologies the US and its allies will have the upper hand. China is investing heavily in military technology and have qualatatively improved their forces by a large margin - BUT they are still inferior at this stage. IF your government so decides that it cannot cede the upper hand, the US will start investing more in upgrading its armed forces.

Power: depend on weapon how much power your applying, capacitor reserve size etc alot of things.

Where does the power come from to charge the capacitors?

Proj resupply: Em depends. What is the projectile. what is your target etc.

How do you resupply these projectiles to the rail gun in space? Where is the technology sufficiently developed to do this?

Targeting: depends on speed, manuverability, size, mass, etc. and most of all weapon.

LOL and china super anti sat weapon? You mean the huge rocket that blew apart a satelite that never changed direction? Not when you can hit it 1000km from you with laser defense while you bombard targets from out near the moon. Each projectile will have the force of 10 to 15 hiroshimas? Thats a laugh.

So, where is this weapon? Sounds awesome, but is no more than a fantasy at this stage. What happened to thinking the battleship was what was needed?

 

[Bonza]

Wow nice burn.......or not so much.

I will reply to a couple things though.
-----------------------------
"All of that AA would be useless against aircraft that would most probably be firing antiship missiles over the horizon."

I was refering to radar controlled anti aircraft cannons. You know like on i believe britains last battleship and many other vessels of the 50s. And the weapons of the time didnt have all that many anti ship missiles.

------------------------------
"Given that in future the USN/USMC hopes to avoid the type of heavily contested landings performed in WWII and Korea, that's a pretty slim excuse for a battlewagon. Most assaults will be taking place from beyond the range of the big ships guns anyway - moving ashore on LCAC's, EFV's and V22's."

Ok the LCAC's i think are going to be replaced not shure with what so cant really say anything on its effectivness. The EFV's last i heard are being Massively reworked because if i remember correctly they were "too ambitious". V22's cool just make sure there arent to many anti air defenses. And that you have a good escort for em' as the cobras cant keep up.

Also the current Amphib ships i believe are supposed to launch from 50 miles out.......thats a long way out.

My point was that the anti air defenses are getting better at a stupid speed. How many people have sold there systems capable of intercepting and tracking our super stealthy aircraft? Dont know but i figure SOMEONE has the technology in some ready or nearly ready form.
------------------------------------

"What exactly makes you so sure that the USN and USAF won't get air superiority? Given the relative cost in dollars and lives, a few carrier Air groups worth of losses would be cheaper than losing a large number of surface ships and worse, not being able to achieve the mission (amphib landing)."

Thats one reason we are upping the anti air defenses on our next gen burks and other ships. Our ships are vulnerable to masses of cheap but powerful surface to surface missiles from numerous also cheap vessels.


And seriously have you looked at whats being worked out in our country lately? We spend most of our budget now on entitlment programs and it just got alot bigger. The airforce is going to be the first to suffer. Then the navy.

If china on the other hand in the next 2 decades decides it needs more resources are we gonna be capable of airsuperiority against what could then be a FAR larger and more powerful airforce and navy?
------------------------------------

"No limitations? How about power? Resupplying projectiles? Targeting? Vulnerability to other anti-sattelite devices (China tested one a few years ago).

Power: depend on weapon how much power your applying, capacitor reserve size etc alot of things.

Proj resupply: Em depends. What is the projectile. what is your target etc.

Targeting: depends on speed, manuverability, size, mass, etc. and most of all weapon.

LOL and china super anti sat weapon? You mean the huge rocket that blew apart a satelite that never changed direction? Not when you can hit it 1000km from you with laser defense while you bombard targets from out near the moon. Each projectile will have the force of 10 to 15 hiroshimas? Thats a laugh.
---------------------------------
So yes i still worry about our reliance on stealth. No im not trying to be a but hole.

With respect, I think there are things you haven't considered. You say such a vessel would be useful if a force cannot attain air superiority - but why on earth would you put a huge, expensive naval asset within support fires range of a coastline over which you did not have air superiority?

Your logic that systems capable of tracking and engaging "super stealthy" aircraft are proliferating is sort of flawed, I think. If such systems were so close to being practical, why are we seeing a global investment in low observable technologies from all over the globe? Everything from front-line fighters to UCAVs are being designed for LO - if this was not a significant advantage, then billions of dollars are being wasted by people and organisations with a lot more actual data than we have. So I doubt it.

Assuming though that such systems were practical, why do you think a shell or missile from a "battleship" is going to fare any better? If you have a system that can track and engage an F-22 (for example) I don't see why it would have ANY problems tracking and engaging missiles or cannon shells fired from a support ship. Also you say "V-22 is cool, just make sure there aren't too many air defences" when your whole point is that air superiority can't be assured due to the prevalence of air defences. Do you see a contradiction here?

The "reliance on stealth" as you describe it ignores the other massive advantages with which the United States military operates. Consider logistics, information dominance, standoff capability. There's far, far more to US military and expeditionary capability than just LO capability.

And finally, calling the Chinese attempt to deploy an anti-satellite capability a "laugh" when you're seriously talking about a space battleship is a bit two faced, don't you think?

I'm not trying to be rude here, and by no means am I "in the loop" when it comes to the theory of opposed landings, but I think the above should be at least considered.

 

[Belesari]

With respect, I think there are things you haven't considered. You say such a vessel would be useful if a force cannot attain air superiority - but why on earth would you put a huge, expensive naval asset within support fires range of a coastline over which you did not have air superiority?

Your logic that systems capable of tracking and engaging "super stealthy" aircraft are proliferating is sort of flawed, I think. If such systems were so close to being practical, why are we seeing a global investment in low observable technologies from all over the globe? Everything from front-line fighters to UCAVs are being designed for LO - if this was not a significant advantage, then billions of dollars are being wasted by people and organisations with a lot more actual data than we have. So I doubt it.

Assuming though that such systems were practical, why do you think a shell or missile from a "battleship" is going to fare any better? If you have a system that can track and engage an F-22 (for example) I don't see why it would have ANY problems tracking and engaging missiles or cannon shells fired from a support ship. Also you say "V-22 is cool, just make sure there aren't too many air defences" when your whole point is that air superiority can't be assured due to the prevalence of air defences. Do you see a contradiction here?

The "reliance on stealth" as you describe it ignores the other massive advantages with which the United States military operates. Consider logistics, information dominance, standoff capability. There's far, far more to US military and expeditionary capability than just LO capability.

And finally, calling the Chinese attempt to deploy an anti-satellite capability a "laugh" when you're seriously talking about a space battleship is a bit two faced, don't you think?

I'm not trying to be rude here, and by no means am I "in the loop" when it comes to the theory of opposed landings, but I think the above should be at least considered.

"And finally, calling the Chinese attempt to deploy an anti-satellite capability a "laugh" when you're seriously talking about a space battleship is a bit two faced, don't you think?"
Not when you consider what i was thinking 80 to 120 yrs in the future. Its kinda like compareing a greek ram from the 40BC against a ship of the line. Im not calling people stupid just that my point wasnt taken how I ment it.

but i have to go to work so...

 

[Bonza]

"And finally, calling the Chinese attempt to deploy an anti-satellite capability a "laugh" when you're seriously talking about a space battleship is a bit two faced, don't you think?"
Not when you consider what i was thinking 80 to 120 yrs in the future. Its kinda like compareing a greek ram from the 40BC against a ship of the line. Im not calling people stupid just that my point wasnt taken how I ment it.

but i have to go to work so...

Erm, yes, but you made a direct comparison between the two. If you're going to do so, then you need to allow for a century of development of the anti-satellite capability as well, right? Not as though ground based anti-space capability is going to remain static while people build armed spacecraft, is it? Comparing a present day capability to one from a century in the future is ridiculous, as you pointed out in your example, but in your original post, that's exactly what you did when you said:

LOL and china super anti sat weapon? You mean the huge rocket that blew apart a satelite that never changed direction? Not when you can hit it 1000km from you with laser defense while you bombard targets from out near the moon. Each projectile will have the force of 10 to 15 hiroshimas? Thats a laugh.

With all due respect, if you're talking a century in the future, there's a very apparent inconsistency in the comparison you might want to think about. Not trying to be adversarial, just honest advice.

Very off topic anyway, apologies mods.

 

[joeroot]

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

i would have to agree with you
i guess we could use a little more naval fire power with the events of Somalian pirates and increasing hostilities with foreign countries close to water i would be good to let it rain some beautiful musik from offshore to inland and if we wewre to recycle the metal of ol ships and use that we could possibly cut the cost down

 

[Thiel]

i would have to agree with you
i guess we could use a little more naval fire power with the events of Somalian pirates and increasing hostilities with foreign countries close to water i would be good to let it rain some beautiful musik from offshore to inland and if we wewre to recycle the metal of ol ships and use that we could possibly cut the cost down

Why in the world would you use a BB to fight pirates armed with AK 47s and RPG 7s?