Future of the Battleship

[PO2GRV]

What happened in the Cold War is that somehow the sea became only the high seas (blue water). .

I posit that during the height of the Cold War the USN's emphasis on fighting WW3 on the high seas stems, at least in part, from the presence of NATO where allied european navies focused on the littorals, like the Baltic, and/or specific roles like ASW or maritime patrol of key areas like the GIUK gap. If REFORGER had ever become a real life event it would've meant the USN in the Atlantic with the rest of NATO in the Med, the Baltic etc

Cold War naval philosophy aside, it boggles me that we're still arguing this. The only effective sea control surface asset is the aircraft carrier, which justifiably cost an incredible amount of money to support and operate and Navy's pay that cost glady considering the capability those assets bring.

regarding these remote piloted underwater and surface vehicles: the whole point of operating those types of assets is the fact that they are force multipliers to units that otherwise wouldn't have that much capability or in other words the "bang for the buck". In WW2 you have a patrol vessel that could only cover so much space in so much time. Take a similar, small platform today and equip it with multiple remote systems and it is doing the job of 5 or 10 platforms and [relatively] cheaply to boot.

To take a concept of dispersed deployment/decentralization and try to centralize it on a single large platform is madness and completely defeats the purpose. To misquote a previous poster, all of the drawbacks and none of the benefits

 

[My2Cents]

regarding these remote piloted underwater and surface vehicles: the whole point of operating those types of assets is the fact that they are force multipliers to units that otherwise wouldn't have that much capability or in other words the "bang for the buck". In WW2 you have a patrol vessel that could only cover so much space in so much time. Take a similar, small platform today and equip it with multiple remote systems and it is doing the job of 5 or 10 platforms and [relatively] cheaply to boot.

Actually, the small platforms can only do part of the job of larger vessels, and that is a problem because most people don’t seem to realize it. To reduce the size you need to give up endurance and payload, making them more like aircraft than the platforms they are supposed to replace. In addition the smaller size usually restricts performance in other ways, such as handling in rough seas for a SSVs, and hull speed for USVs and UUVs.

If you are mindful of the limitations USVs and UUVs they can be very useful for things like minesweeping, deployed as stationary or pelagic sensors, or low speed remote mines. But as fast, or even medium speed, attack craft I have many doubts.

Then there are the handling facilities to launch and recover the craft on board the mothership and maintaining the remote craft, and how they effect the mothership’s size, design, and operations. Recovering USVs and UUVs is likely to be a low speed operation. The ideal surface vessel will most likely be closer to a LPD than a destroyer.

 

[PO2GRV]

The ideal surface vessel will most likely be closer to a LPD than a destroyer.

I like your assessments, very astute and I feel your post points out many of the issues we will be seeing addressed in the next decade or three. Regarding the quoted sentence I still feel that that size/displacement in a platform would be much more sustainable than the proposed Do-It-All sea control surface ship of the other poster.

As I've pointed out in my previous posts, that kind of ship will either deliver too little capability for the cost of operating it in groups, or it'll make some enemy sub commander a fine target (and a promotion) if operated alone. Same goes for any large surface sea control asset developed as a "modern day battleship"

 

[ProM]

Actually, the small platforms can only do part of the job of larger vessels, .

No they can do different things. It is true that they cannot do all that a conventional ship can, however it is also true that they can do things that a conventional ship cannot

They cannot be compared. Doctrine; logistics; equipment; information all will change

 

[My2Cents]

No they can do different things. It is true that they cannot do all that a conventional ship can, however it is also true that they can do things that a conventional ship cannot

They cannot be compared. Doctrine; logistics; equipment; information all will change

Yes, but what are the things they will do, that is the question? What will they change?

I am starting a new thread, just for this topic, so let’s move the discussion there.
I have linked the start of the thread here

Many people, some even on this board, see drones as a panacea device, “We’ll put drones on the ship, it will be invincible!”, but it doesn’t work that way. Drones will make a few new things possible and a number of other things easier and better. But the majority of the tasks that need to be done will not be effect by whether drones exist or not.

So let us discuss and answer the questions.

• What will drones do?
  • What can they do that ships and submarines cannot?
  • What tasks can they do better than the mothership?
• What can drones do for poorly, or not at all?
• What will drones change, and how?

 

[Belesari]

Been gone awhile and not really sure i know whats going on on this post (seems to have gone a bit off topic) but here's a thought.

The battleship wasnt a specific ship it was a role. Heavy combatant ment to go into combat with other heavy combatants. For that it had specific traits. Heavy armor, heavy weapons, lots of redundancy. These things are not unnessesary today just arent seen much except for the heavy armaments.

NO SHIP is going to be capable of operating alone agaisnt opposing navies or militaries. This was proven decisively with the sinking of the yamato. The future atleast in hot warzones lies with fleet action not individual super ships. The legionare compared to the knight to put it another way.

This doesnt mean that Capital ships are dead it means they are a peice of a much larger puzzle.

A Super Carrier is the single most flexable weapons system around. It can do anything but lanch tanks in LCAC's. Air superiority is what america see's them as the most that and floating strike platforms. This is not going to end.

OK now back to the part where battleships come into play.

I can see the return of the battleship as a peice in that over all puzzle. They wouldnt be hunting subs or launching marines on V-22's. They would be the heavy hitters of the fleets. Namely the Amphib fleets, and the fleets in the pacific. Specilized for long range strikes with Tomahawks and short to medium ranged strikes with Naval guns. And with a secondary skill in surface combat at either short to long range with harpoon missiles. A pleathora of CIWS and other defensive measures would protect them wear others couldnt be.

Surounded by frigates/ (not really my fav. choice but thats another story) LCS to provide escort vs subs or other threats outside its specialty. Backed up by the DDG's for anti missile/air work.

I appologise if this post is weird up way to late but ill add one more thing.

Many people seem to think smaller carriers just carry less planes. They do but that isnt the whole story. The smaller a carrier the less payload a plane can carry and the less sorties they can get off per day. Its one reason carriers like the chinese carrier now in service would be more of a air defense role than a traditional american long range strike role.

anyways night folks.

 

[PO2GRV]

I feel this thread is quickly approaching the point of Agree to Disagree.

The battleship wasnt a specific ship it was a role. Heavy combatant ment to go into combat with other heavy combatants. For that it had specific traits. Heavy armor, heavy weapons, lots of redundancy. .

I really like this assesment. Very thought provoking

NO SHIP is going to be capable of operating alone agaisnt opposing navies or militaries. This was proven decisively with the sinking of the yamato. The future atleast in hot warzones lies with fleet action not individual super ships. .

Emphasis added. Another excellent point that I feel validates two separate thoughts. First, it is a statement to all those who theorize about some super ship operating alone with a million and twelve different roles and systems that the costs/capability breakdown is heavily skewed: too much cost, not enough capability. Secondly, I feel your statement also makes an unintended point that small, cheap patrol ships are still useful in navies today but get a lot of heat by naysayers because they feel those ships wouldn't survive in a shooting war. Those same naysayers ignore the fact that those small cheap patrol ships (what LCS should've been, not what it is) wouldn't and shouldn't be operating in the war with the fleets but in all the theaters that still hold importance but that are away from the fighting so as to free up those heavier assets to operate in the waters nearest the enemy. But more on that in another thread.

I can see the return of the battleship as a peice in that over all puzzle. They wouldnt be hunting subs or launching marines on V-22's. They would be the heavy hitters of the fleets. Namely the Amphib fleets, and the fleets in the pacific. (a)Specilized for long range strikes with Tomahawks and short to medium ranged strikes with Naval guns. (b)And with a secondary skill in surface combat at either short to long range with harpoon missiles. (c)A pleathora of CIWS and other defensive measures would protect them wear others couldnt be. Surounded by frigates/ (not really my fav. choice but thats another story) LCS to provide escort vs subs or other threats outside its specialty. Backed up by the DDG's for anti missile/air work...

Emphasis added to help me reference your points. I'm having difficulty conceptualizing what the kind of ship you're proposing would look like or what niche it would fill not already being done by smaller, and cheaper platforms. I'll be using the USN for my comparisons.
(a) I feel between SSGNs, which are dedicated strike assets that can operate independently, and other surface assets, which are doing other things when theyre not firing cruise missiles like providing air or ballistic missile defense, that strike is very well covered and as cheaply as possible. The USN is already using this HiLo mix for strike with the above combination: dedicated solo assets and dispersed capability on multirole assets. Regarding the guns, unless a new heavy gun, upward of 8" or higher, is developed over and above the AGS then the need for a larger platform to carry it is unecessary.*
(b) I understand that you were listing ASuW as a secondary role of this ship but I feel it's worth mentioning that ASuW is fairly well covered already in most navies between smaller platforms using missiles like Harpoon and/or onboard helos firing the same
(c) between the escorting assets both large and small and a number of systems this ship embarks to defend itself we're talking alot of money spent in defending this platform. We already spend this much and more to defend and safely operate an aircraft carrier, but as I've said before in this thread, that cost is justified because of the huge capability we get out of an aircraft carrier that even the well designed heavy surface asset that you're proposing just cannot bring

*However, the efficacy and possible merit of a modern 10"-16" rifle aboard ship firing many different loads at supermax range albeit much more cheaply than any railgun type design is -very- interesting but the topic of another post

 

[Belesari]

i agree there are some things we can agree on some we cant.

I will say i saw a modern version of what a new battleship would be armed with. With it was 400+ VLS cells. This is in addition to 6 16in guns.

And not to continue the off topic but i would respond to the mention of smaller ships with this.

Crew is what drives US ship idea's atm. They are the most expensive part. So maximizing the ship/crew/firepower/utility is very important to them.

I've had a convo with someone once who thought we would be fine with basicly fishing vessel sized ships. I then asked what would be loaded on these ships as weapons.......i said ok you have now added X crew which require Y amount of food and supplies. The weapons also mean more weight which means higher fuel cost. Then i asked how far you what to go at what speed..........

To skip over alot of back and forth it came down to this. The US needs larger vessels because of the ways and places it operates. The europeans dont require ships the same size as the US because theirs arent traveling all over the pacfic they deploy basicly in their back yard for far less time.

Doesnt mean small ships arent needed its just something the navcy isnt prioritizing.

Or as you said what the LCS was supposed to be.

I feel this thread is quickly approaching the point of Agree to Disagree.

I really like this assesment. Very thought provoking

Emphasis added. Another excellent point that I feel validates two separate thoughts. First, it is a statement to all those who theorize about some super ship operating alone with a million and twelve different roles and systems that the costs/capability breakdown is heavily skewed: too much cost, not enough capability. Secondly, I feel your statement also makes an unintended point that small, cheap patrol ships are still useful in navies today but get a lot of heat by naysayers because they feel those ships wouldn't survive in a shooting war. Those same naysayers ignore the fact that those small cheap patrol ships (what LCS should've been, not what it is) wouldn't and shouldn't be operating in the war with the fleets but in all the theaters that still hold importance but that are away from the fighting so as to free up those heavier assets to operate in the waters nearest the enemy. But more on that in another thread.
Emphasis added to help me reference your points. I'm having difficulty conceptualizing what the kind of ship you're proposing would look like or what niche it would fill not already being done by smaller, and cheaper platforms. I'll be using the USN for my comparisons.
(a) I feel between SSGNs, which are dedicated strike assets that can operate independently, and other surface assets, which are doing other things when theyre not firing cruise missiles like providing air or ballistic missile defense, that strike is very well covered and as cheaply as possible. The USN is already using this HiLo mix for strike with the above combination: dedicated solo assets and dispersed capability on multirole assets. Regarding the guns, unless a new heavy gun, upward of 8" or higher, is developed over and above the AGS then the need for a larger platform to carry it is unecessary.*
(b) I understand that you were listing ASuW as a secondary role of this ship but I feel it's worth mentioning that ASuW is fairly well covered already in most navies between smaller platforms using missiles like Harpoon and/or onboard helos firing the same
(c) between the escorting assets both large and small and a number of systems this ship embarks to defend itself we're talking alot of money spent in defending this platform. We already spend this much and more to defend and safely operate an aircraft carrier, but as I've said before in this thread, that cost is justified because of the huge capability we get out of an aircraft carrier that even the well designed heavy surface asset that you're proposing just cannot bring

*However, the efficacy and possible merit of a modern 10"-16" rifle aboard ship firing many different loads at supermax range albeit much more cheaply than any railgun type design is -very- interesting but the topic of another post

 

[PO2GRV]

I will say i saw a modern version of what a new battleship would be armed with. With it was 400+ VLS cells. This is in addition to 6 16in guns..

Interesting idea. I've mentioned before how intrigued I am by the idea of a modern big gun. With the advances made with smaller calibers like the AGS we (we as in anyone with the resolve and the funding) could develop a cheap way to deliver large ordinance accurately at great range. But again I have to ask why?
I'm just not convinced it would be the most prudent move ever, and considering half[hearted] attempts at something like it like the Zumwalt it just sours the idea even further

And not to continue the off topic but i would respond to the mention of smaller ships with this. . . . Doesnt mean small ships arent needed its just something the navcy isnt prioritizing.

I just want to clarify that I am not one of the naysayers I mentioned in my previous post. I firmly believe the USN (and other Navies, mind you) is hindering its operations by not investing in small, cheap patrol vessels. I can appreciate your conclusions too about the USN and its ships being shaped by a combination of its geography and operational requirements

 

[Ananda]

If you merged the capability of say a Bay & a T45 (not practical as we have both and can hardly afford to properly equip either). Would that create a more capable ships. a ship of 16,000t, 150-200 VLS, 25 knots, a massive flex deck, full with hanger for 2 merlins, and a dock for great boat handling. 150 crew plus up to 350 personnel. How could such a ship be financed, well it could replace a lot of the deep strike capability undertaken manned aircraft.

I've following this thread for some time, but I believe this statement from 1805 has strong relevance on today conditions, while in same time (perhaps I'm wrong) has not been properly address during discussion in this thread.

In concept arsenal ships or modern Battleships have merit, but can 'realistically' with current conditions, will be a viable Investment from any Navy.
Costs of manning for one thing, increasingly take larger chunk of operating costs, moreover the price of Fuel. Putting everything on One or few large asset, seems for me at this time around like put all your egg in one basket. Can any Navy afford that thinking this time ?

 

[ProM]

The concept of a battleship was;

• Guns that could destroy any smaller warship
• Guns that could out-range any smaller warship
• Armour that could withstand any smaller warship

That was the race the consumed the naval powers to out-build each other;. everything else was an added benefit.

The Iowa class as a result had guns that could project a 1225kg AP shell at 762m/s or a .smaller (862kg) shell at 820m/s. The maximum range was 38km

Now whilst it is hard to directly compare shells and missiles there are some comparisons that can be drawn

The Chinese YJ-12 has a range of 400km, a speed of mach 2.5+ (850m/s) and a weight on 1000kg

Thus the kinetic energy (and thus to a large extent the armour penetration capability) of the missile is slightly higher. Comparisons of shaped charges etc is harder to do on the basis of public information, but I suspect the missile is better shaped and certainly has a lower percentage of explosive The missile is much more likely to hit. So overall they are probably fairly comparabl

A small ship could not carry the big guns that an Iowa could, but they can carry exactly the same missiles.

Thus a small warship (say a frigate) can go head to head with a battleship. It is true that a frigate could not withstand even a single hit from such a missile (or the 16" guns), however a frigate could easily launch a salvo that eliminate a battleship as well

Thus in terms of the original key criteria, a frigate is the equal of battleship.

One can play around with calling other things battleships, but the original concept of the battleship (as say Jackie Fisher would have understood it) is therefore dead

 

[the concerned]

i think the most capable ship we will see bar the carriers will be whatever the US builds to replace the ticonderoga class cruisers which is not the zumwalt destroyers.

 

[1805]

I've following this thread for some time, but I believe this statement from 1805 has strong relevance on today conditions, while in same time (perhaps I'm wrong) has not been properly address during discussion in this thread.

In concept arsenal ships or modern Battleships have merit, but can 'realistically' with current conditions, will be a viable Investment from any Navy.
Costs of manning for one thing, increasingly take larger chunk of operating costs, moreover the price of Fuel. Putting everything on One or few large asset, seems for me at this time around like put all your egg in one basket. Can any Navy afford that thinking this time ?

I think the original concept of an arsenal ship, low cost/cheap build with large numbers of VLS cruise missiles with light armanent would be "putting all your eggs in one vunerable basket". I think merging say a LSD(A) and a Type 45 would have other advantages, and less risk:

- Very capable self defence
- A flexdeck/logistics capability that could carry additional cruise missiles (this would require a reload VLS or alternative launch system), vehicles or logistics.
- The ship would be bigger so the Sampson would be even higher and provided even better coverage for further.
- Better helicopter handling
- Provide even better boat handling for LCVP, Patrol craft.
- Be able to provide a very capable raiding capbility

I would even add a couple of 127mm (preference would be155mm guns). Such a ship is probably not a battleship but would be very cable vessel that would pretty much dominate most countries it was off shore of.

 

[PCShogun]

Seems we beat the Battleship idea to death and obviously, A ship capable of launching 3000+ cruise missiles is overkill and not very effective in supporting amphibious operations. Modern vessels have much smaller guns and therefore cannot support operations with gunfire beyond the coastal areas. With the advent of long range anti ship missiles, the naval gun's role has been significantly reduced to the realm of amphibious operations support and patrol armament.

Current naval guns have a maximum range of about 12nm with a CEP of 300 meters. Their unguided rounds have been designed for explosive potential and fragmentation effects, not penetration, meaning hardened or deep targets near shore would be essentially immune to current naval gunfire should it fall into this short ranged envelope. Proof of this inadequacy would be the number of rounds required to destroy just one oil platform during Desert Storm: 1000+ rounds of 5" fire.

New gun designs and ammunition are being reviewed, however. One, the Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) has a reported range of 59 miles (planned maximum range is 83nm) with a CEP of 50 meters, over twice the range of the old standard 16" guns. While perhaps having a smaller bang on the receiving end, it would be able to reach inland targets in support of a naval operation against land targets. With newer rapid fire guns (10 rounds per minute) and longer range projectiles, Naval vessels could support amphibious operations while remaining beyond the range of conventional artillery and be cost effective to use against low value patrol boats deployed near the coast and in restricted waterways.

 

[1805]

Seems we beat the Battleship idea to death and obviously, A ship capable of launching 3000+ cruise missiles is overkill and not very effective in supporting amphibious operations. Modern vessels have much smaller guns and therefore cannot support operations with gunfire beyond the coastal areas. With the advent of long range anti ship missiles, the naval gun's role has been significantly reduced to the realm of amphibious operations support and patrol armament.

Current naval guns have a maximum range of about 12nm with a CEP of 300 meters. Their unguided rounds have been designed for explosive potential and fragmentation effects, not penetration, meaning hardened or deep targets near shore would be essentially immune to current naval gunfire should it fall into this short ranged envelope. Proof of this inadequacy would be the number of rounds required to destroy just one oil platform during Desert Storm: 1000+ rounds of 5" fire.

New gun designs and ammunition are being reviewed, however. One, the Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) has a reported range of 59 miles (planned maximum range is 83nm) with a CEP of 50 meters, over twice the range of the old standard 16" guns. While perhaps having a smaller bang on the receiving end, it would be able to reach inland targets in support of a naval operation against land targets. With newer rapid fire guns (10 rounds per minute) and longer range projectiles, Naval vessels could support amphibious operations while remaining beyond the range of conventional artillery and be cost effective to use against low value patrol boats deployed near the coast and in restricted waterways.

Agreed these guided/LR munitions have the potential to return the naval gun to a serious anti ship weapon. There could be an argument that the cruise missile/tactical balistic missile could replace the manned high performance aircraft in the deep strike role.

 

[My2Cents]

Agreed these guided/LR munitions have the potential to return the naval gun to a serious anti ship weapon. There could be an argument that the cruise missile/tactical balistic missile could replace the manned high performance aircraft in the deep strike role.

Missiles can, and are preferred for deep strike and attacks involving the penetration of heavy defenses, provided that:

1. The target locations are precisely known.
2. The target are not time critical.

Long range missiles are, for example, of little use against moving targets, or targets that may move. Just look at how many cruise missile attacks missed ObL before 9/11.

Long range missiles are also worthless for dealing with attacks of opportunity, as are often the case when preparing the battlefield and softening up the enemy for a ground attack. Or when dealing with mobile strategic systems, like SCUD launchers.

In these cases aircraft (manned and unmanned) are the only current alternative.

 

[1805]

Missiles can, and are preferred for deep strike and attacks involving the penetration of heavy defenses, provided that:

1. The target locations are precisely known.
2. The target are not time critical.

Long range missiles are, for example, of little use against moving targets, or targets that may move. Just look at how many cruise missile attacks missed ObL before 9/11.

Long range missiles are also worthless for dealing with attacks of opportunity, as are often the case when preparing the battlefield and softening up the enemy for a ground attack. Or when dealing with mobile strategic systems, like SCUD launchers.

In these cases aircraft (manned and unmanned) are the only current alternative.

Agree, but those situations you mention are really the light attack role, that is better suited to helicopters (although I have my doubts there) and dedicated attack aircraft (A10). Using expensive high performance aircraft to launch cruise missles seems expensive.

 

[My2Cents]

Agree, but those situations you mention are really the light attack role, that is better suited to helicopters (although I have my doubts there) and dedicated attack aircraft (A10). Using expensive high performance aircraft to launch cruise missles seems expensive.

Cruise missiles cannot be used against a movable target or one you have to find by eyeball because precise target data is not available. Light attack aircraft lack the range with a decent payload for deep strike missions. Helicopters have even less range, and can only use much lighter weapons (try dropping a 1000 lb JDAM from helicopter).

I don’t think I mentioned aircraft launched cruise missiles, though it is certainly done. Just think of the aircraft as the 1st stage of the missile, giving you a big range boost, or allowing a smaller cheaper missile to be used, or a really big warhead. There is not a ground launched cruise missile remotely big enough to what is needed to deliver a hard target munitions like the 5000 lb. (2268 kg) GBU-28, and are unlikely to be. Probably not even for the smaller 2000 lb (900 kg) range either. Eventually drones may take over the role, but probably not missiles except at short ranges.

What I am saying is you need both. Cruise missiles are good for well defined stationary targets that are not in deep bunkers, while aircraft handle the rest.

 

[PCShogun]

Of course you need more than one type of weapon. Circumstance dictates the weapon to be used.

For an amphibious assault, nothing keeps the bad guys head down better than a continuous barrage of shell fire that is unceasing as the landing craft approach. It also does a great job of detonating mines placed in the area of the assault. You cannot do that with a cruise missile. You can, however, destroy fixed fortifications and radar emplacements further back from the front lines with them without endangering your more expensive (and manned) aircraft. Aircraft are most effective against ground targets when enemy air defenses have been reduced and air superiority has been achieved. Then the fly boys can concentrate on close air support for the Marines sprinting across the sand to victory

 

[Belesari]

Best way i've heard it put yet.

Of course you need more than one type of weapon. Circumstance dictates the weapon to be used.

For an amphibious assault, nothing keeps the bad guys head down better than a continuous barrage of shell fire that is unceasing as the landing craft approach. It also does a great job of detonating mines placed in the area of the assault. You cannot do that with a cruise missile. You can, however, destroy fixed fortifications and radar emplacements further back from the front lines with them without endangering your more expensive (and manned) aircraft. Aircraft are most effective against ground targets when enemy air defenses have been reduced and air superiority has been achieved. Then the fly boys can concentrate on close air support for the Marines sprinting across the sand to victory