What is currently the ultimate or the best multi-role warship class aside from the old battleships and existing aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships? A warship that can do all missions: naval supremacy, anti-submarine warfare, air defense, etc. A warship that can sustain all the navy's needs in defending a country's sovereignty and force projection when there is a pending threat from foreign modern navies. A warship that can stand on its own and live on the sea for a long time. A warship of your dreams that no matter it gets attacked by a nuclear submarine, a fast destroyer, a supersonic fighter-bomber, rapid-firing guns and guided missiles all at the same time... it will still survive and probably win the fight!
Best Multi-Role Warship?
- Thread starter gforce
- Start date
I can't think of any surface warship which is better... They are all vulnerable eventually depending on how strong the attacks are... All surface warships are vulnerable to today's torpedoes, and a swarm of bombing aircraft and missiles... One ship won't have much of a chance unless its up against one threat at a time...
May be the reason why many navies operate their ships in task forces and groups....
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
Any current warship that can come close to my description (let us remove the assault part by several different forces)? The best warship class or the most well-equipped warship class when it comes to multiple missions?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
A Super Star Destoyer. If it was good enough for Darth Vader, it is good enough for that.
Seriously though, there is not real such thing as "the best", particularly in a situation like this.
A good crew with a mediocre vessel will often, perhaps even usually, be able to defeat a good vessel with a mediocre crew.
Now, if someone wishes to come up with a vessel capable of meeting ASuW, Area Air Defence, Land Attack and ASW operations needs, that can certainly be done. However, the more major roles a vessel has, the greater the amount of required equipment and crew, which increases both the cost and size of the vessel. And if all such roles are "packed" into a single vessel, instead of being somewhat more evenly distributed across a number of platforms, that reduces the available footprint of a navy. This becomes even more of an issue when upgrades and maintenance are considered, since that can occupy a third of a naval force at any given moment. By increasing the size, cost and complexity of the vessels, it can have an overall positive impact of fleet capability, but also achieve a negative impact on fleet numbers. This leads to situations where some deployments or patrols just cannot be conducted due to a lack of ships.
Interestingly, this also can increase the risk to a navy or task force, since each ship have greater importance, more care must be taken, less vessels be lost. In effect, the vessels could end up not being deployed in situations where they could be useful due to concerns about the vessels coming under fire, or be damaged or otherwise lost.
Now, if different vessels work together within a task force to meet the overall task force mission requirements, there is an overall reduced and distributed risk, as well as different elements of a task force being able to support one another.
As I hope I have illustrated attempting to achieve what you seem to desire in warship capability is not an easy task, as issues appear and intersect at a number of different levels. This is also without any consideration to in what sort of environment one would be operating is. Open ocean/blue water fleet ops is quite different from what can (or should) be done in more restricted or littoral waterways
-Cheers
chickydawg
New Member
No single warship fits the bill except for 'thundersub'
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Carrier_Blue_Noah
Seriously dude, there is NO SUCH SINGLE WARSHIP like what you described.
Peace!
Rather than looking for big, do-it-all vessels, think of a given vessel as one component of a bigger system. It doesn't have to do everything - it only has to do its part of the job. Think about the system as a whole, and how the capabilities of the various components contribute to create a greater overriding capability. This is more relevant than what the biggest, most multi-role vessel is capable of by itself, because each vessel operates as part of a system.
And as Tod points out, a huge multi-role vessel isn't necessarily in the best interests of that system. I'd recommend you read his post again and take it in because it illustrates the point I'm trying to make far better than I do.
=============================
Hummm....I would have to say the Star Ship Enterprise :dance
F-15 Eagle
New Member
As everyone has already said there is no best ship, however an aircraft carrier is a good all round warship.
Beatmaster
New Member
As others said BIG does not mean good, and BIG is just a nasty thing because each class of surface ships has its own abilities in a wide range of systems and actions it can do, meeting the demand of the specific theatre/ senario.
There are a number of classes that can be pointed out as a multirole platform, because they are packed with a wide range of systems meeting the demands of its owner.
Like brown water. green water and blue water navy platforms.
For example our country has LCF Frigates who are equipped with very modern systems to meet our demands and based on our defence needs.
Also is it wise to consider the facts like? What are you going to do with these vessels?
And can i deploy them for example on nato missions?
In short there are hundereds of things you have to consider before you pick a certain class of surface platform to fill that "Need"
For us these ships are nearly perfect and they can meet any form of danger or situation that they come across.
But this does not mean that the same class ship is good for lets say japan or any country because they might have a completly differend set of needs.
So perhaps you might wanna change the question to:
What class of ship will fit your needs in a given senario?
And even then you will find out that it is very hard to pick a absolute "Best" one because nowadays most navies have some true wonders floating in their harbors.
And as others said there are a number of systems that perform great in a specific senario while that same system might fail in a differend senario.
So thats why most modern navies have task groups where each platform has his own tasks and abilities and together they might come close to perfect. but as a single idividual ship they end up as scrap metal eventually because there is not a single surface vessel on the planet that can take them all, while that same vessel in a task group has a mutch more survival and a lot more bang then alone.
Example look at the carrier groups that the US uses those groups consists out of a number of surface ships that each can do best what they are designed for and together they have enough defence and fire power to overtrow a small county.
So evetually its not what class is the best or the most usefull but its all about the right mix or comination of vessels that are put together for that specific senario.
Cheers
There are a number of classes that can be pointed out as a multirole platform, because they are packed with a wide range of systems meeting the demands of its owner.
Like brown water. green water and blue water navy platforms.
For example our country has LCF Frigates who are equipped with very modern systems to meet our demands and based on our defence needs.
Also is it wise to consider the facts like? What are you going to do with these vessels?
And can i deploy them for example on nato missions?
In short there are hundereds of things you have to consider before you pick a certain class of surface platform to fill that "Need"
For us these ships are nearly perfect and they can meet any form of danger or situation that they come across.
But this does not mean that the same class ship is good for lets say japan or any country because they might have a completly differend set of needs.
So perhaps you might wanna change the question to:
What class of ship will fit your needs in a given senario?
And even then you will find out that it is very hard to pick a absolute "Best" one because nowadays most navies have some true wonders floating in their harbors.
And as others said there are a number of systems that perform great in a specific senario while that same system might fail in a differend senario.
So thats why most modern navies have task groups where each platform has his own tasks and abilities and together they might come close to perfect. but as a single idividual ship they end up as scrap metal eventually because there is not a single surface vessel on the planet that can take them all, while that same vessel in a task group has a mutch more survival and a lot more bang then alone.
Example look at the carrier groups that the US uses those groups consists out of a number of surface ships that each can do best what they are designed for and together they have enough defence and fire power to overtrow a small county.
So evetually its not what class is the best or the most usefull but its all about the right mix or comination of vessels that are put together for that specific senario.
Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Actually an aircraft carrier is a rather poor all-around or general purpose warship. On its own, even with the attached air group, they tend to run into issues providing continous ASuW, ASW and air defence capabilities. This is of course assuming that a given carrier has no escorts.
Granted, aside from some very unusual situations, a carrier would only be operating with a task force (often as the command ship) but there are capability gaps which a carrier just cannot adequately fufill on its own. Hence the history of carrier escorts.
A good all-around warship is generally thought to mean a vessel equally capable of independent or joint task force operations. Such a description does not fit an aircraft carrier.
-Cheers
Whats a good compromise?
I think the Burkes are reasonably capable. Land attack, BMD, air warfare, ASW, helos on some flights. It does some things pretty poorly, but it can do most things, you could launch a small amphib group, or fight pirates, or patrol waters, fight subs, defend against air attacks etc. It can be independant or as a group.
Subs are also very useful as an independant vessel and can do a suprisingly large amount of tasks. However it has serious limitations in air combat, surface escorting, anti pirates etc.
I think the Burkes are reasonably capable. Land attack, BMD, air warfare, ASW, helos on some flights. It does some things pretty poorly, but it can do most things, you could launch a small amphib group, or fight pirates, or patrol waters, fight subs, defend against air attacks etc. It can be independant or as a group.
Subs are also very useful as an independant vessel and can do a suprisingly large amount of tasks. However it has serious limitations in air combat, surface escorting, anti pirates etc.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Err, how about the Invincible class prior to removal of Sea Dart? :gun
How bout we phrase the question in another way: If you had a hot spot, and could only send in one ship, what ship would you want to send in that could deal with a full spectrum of threats and operate independently?
I agree w/above; Carriers are definitely out, there's a reason why CVBGs exist, and its because a carrier is a sitting duck without its support fleet. So that leaves a Destroyer/Cruiser. IIRC, cruisers, historically, are the smallest ships capable of independent operations but since that time the line between the two have been so blurred as to be an exercise in semantics.
In general, I believe the best multi-role warship would probably be a destroyer with the AEGIS system and space for two helos. You've got anti-sub with the helos, anti-air with the Aegis and complementary missiles, and anti shipping with cruise missiles. And of course, more junk you can put on the ship without sacrificing speed/range is a plus.
In which case, there's only three real choices. The Korean KDX-3, the Japanese Atago, or the American Tico. Atago is out because it can only carry one helo and lack of real land-attack missiles, so that leaves the Tico and KDX-3. While the Tico is battle proven, I'd go with the KDX-3. It's heavier, has more power, more missiles, and armed with better CIW systems.
Although, who knows? Maybe the Americans sold the Koreans the AEGIS combat system sub-spec.
I agree w/above; Carriers are definitely out, there's a reason why CVBGs exist, and its because a carrier is a sitting duck without its support fleet. So that leaves a Destroyer/Cruiser. IIRC, cruisers, historically, are the smallest ships capable of independent operations but since that time the line between the two have been so blurred as to be an exercise in semantics.
In general, I believe the best multi-role warship would probably be a destroyer with the AEGIS system and space for two helos. You've got anti-sub with the helos, anti-air with the Aegis and complementary missiles, and anti shipping with cruise missiles. And of course, more junk you can put on the ship without sacrificing speed/range is a plus.
In which case, there's only three real choices. The Korean KDX-3, the Japanese Atago, or the American Tico. Atago is out because it can only carry one helo and lack of real land-attack missiles, so that leaves the Tico and KDX-3. While the Tico is battle proven, I'd go with the KDX-3. It's heavier, has more power, more missiles, and armed with better CIW systems.
Although, who knows? Maybe the Americans sold the Koreans the AEGIS combat system sub-spec.
chickydawg
New Member
Depends on the Hot Spot. Where is it, who are the likely adversaries and what forces do they have at their disposal, how "hot" is it, what other duties does our navy has, how long will the ship has to remain on station, can we resupply it there, are there any friendly forces an/or harbours in the area, what kind of local support can we count on, if any?
All these questions will need to be answered before we can begin to consider what kind of vessel to send.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Stevo, just to clarified, are you saying when Invincible stil have their Sea Dart, they can act as whole multipurpose warships ? Thus can act alone without escort ?
As I recall even in Falkland, Invincible still need their escort for Sea Wolf cover.
Oh jeez, this isn't even my topic.
But let's just say a "hot spot" with underwater, air, and surface combatants. Not allied waters, but allied bases nearby (couple hundred miles away). Ship is being sent as more of a warning (ala placing a CVBG between Taiwan and China) but needs to be able to defend itself should things go terribly wrong. Think Iranian, DPRK waters.
Spec-wise, I think advanced cruisers are the way to go for that kind of situation.