Future of the Battleship

[My2Cents]

Its secondary mission would probably be as a Flagship and anti surface warfare. Just because you have those bug buns doesnt mean no other weapons are possible.

Not sure that is a good idea, as the bombardment missions would require it to move within range of the shore batteries. As well as being a obvious BFT. A well protected carrier or anonymous cruiser seems more appropriate.

Another is cost in both weapons and personel. While a modern battleship wouldnt require the massive 2,000+ personel it did before they would still require hundreds to operate right and a massive investment in weapons systems.

They had already reduced the manpower in the 1980 to around 1800 by removing the manned 20mm and 40mm anti-aircraft mounts.

 

[StobieWan]

Not sure that is a good idea, as the bombardment missions would require it to move within range of the shore batteries. As well as being a obvious BFT. A well protected carrier or anonymous cruiser seems more appropriate.

They had already reduced the manpower in the 1980 to around 1800 by removing the manned 20mm and 40mm anti-aircraft mounts.

They got it down to I think 1620 by doing that, plus landing four of the twin five inch mounts. That's still enough to crew about 8 DDG-1000's however.

 

[Belesari]

Not sure that is a good idea, as the bombardment missions would require it to move within range of the shore batteries. As well as being a obvious BFT. A well protected carrier or anonymous cruiser seems more appropriate.

They had already reduced the manpower in the 1980 to around 1800 by removing the manned 20mm and 40mm anti-aircraft mounts.

Yes and no. If you were to use Extended range munitions like the AGS has but built for a 16in gun you could probably have a range of 50-100mi with say a 255lb warhead to hit the enemy with. Compared to say a 24lbs warhead of the AGS.

More and more companies are building and doing R&D on Long range cannon ammo. Hell even 5in guns have them now. Current Naval doctrine calls for the Amphibs or anyone really to get within 50mi of the shore (this i dont think is realistic and is likely no longer possible with the canceling of the EFV. The AAV has no where near the range, speed or endurance).

So making a vessel that can survive and provide the Firepower for amphibious operations or even just firesupport in country would be a good thing.

 

[My2Cents]

Yes and no. If you were to use Extended range munitions like the AGS has but built for a 16in gun you could probably have a range of 50-100mi with say a 255lb warhead to hit the enemy with. Compared to say a 24lbs warhead of the AGS.

More and more companies are building and doing R&D on Long range cannon ammo. Hell even 5in guns have them now. Current Naval doctrine calls for the Amphibs or anyone really to get within 50mi of the shore (this i dont think is realistic and is likely no longer possible with the canceling of the EFV. The AAV has no where near the range, speed or endurance).

So making a vessel that can survive and provide the Firepower for amphibious operations or even just firesupport in country would be a good thing.

Fine, both the battleship and the self-propelled artillery will have extended range munitions, so both can hit each other. Both are mobile. The self-propelled artillery is composed of many small dispersed targets, they will degrade slowly. The battleship is one big target, the guns and command structures are armored and hard to damage with the guns available, so it will degrade slowly, but the sensors and communications are not. The battleship guns can kill with a single hit, but are slow to fire. The self-propelled artillery will damage, generally by a small amount with every hit, but fire much more rapidly, and there are more of them.

And that doesn’t even address the missiles.

But how does any of this make the battleship a good choice for a command ship, rather than a bad one? The vulnerable communications mean that in the event of an artillery duel with batteries on the shore that even if the ship survives the fleet commander is likely to be cut off from the rest of his command, which is unacceptable.

 

[Volkodav]

I speculated some time ago on another site that developments in directed energy weapons, guided projectiles and electro magnetic guns would / could make a gun (as opposed to missile) armed frigate / destroyer viable at some point in the future. This thread and seeing the movie (hours of my life I will never get back) have caused me to revisit this idea.

• Lasers and guided 127 or 155mm RAP could handle local air defence, lasers and guided 57-76mm RAP point defence (I believe there have been investigations into whether a 155mm airburst could be used in CRAM missions as well), with the guns also providing anti surface fire and of course NGS.

• The platform would be integrated all electric and as such able to use the main propulsion as required to boost power to the combat systems.

• The larger calibre guns would be EM meaning no charges taking up space in the magazines the small calibre guns likely would be cased telescoped type again increasing magazine capacity.

• The ships sensors would be hardened and distributed (think dozens or even hundreds of elements scattered in groups over the superstructure of the ship) leading to a gradual decay in capability rather than a catastrophic loss in most battle damage situations. They would make extensive use of CEC or similar.

• The ship would also carry a couple of helos and rotary UCAVs to extend sensor range as well as providing off board anti surface and ASW capability and a level of force protection.

• A couple of USVs providing same.

• A couple of UUVs providing same.

• Possibly look at fitting heavy weight torpedoes for ASW.

This ship could resemble a traditional (1940s / 1950s) destroyer, two twin turrets forward and a single twin or even another pair of twins’ aft, medium guns on the wings and light guns (lasers) situated around the superstructure. The torpedo tubes (likely fixed) would be behind doors in the midriff. UUV/USV and RIBS launched from an integral stern launch ramp/ recovery cradle and stowed in an adjacent covered bay also in the stern. Aviation facilities would be at approx ¾ ships length as per Spruance, or Sovremenny class destroyers.

 

[fretburner]

But how does any of this make the battleship a good choice for a command ship, rather than a bad one? The vulnerable communications mean that in the event of an artillery duel with batteries on the shore that even if the ship survives the fleet commander is likely to be cut off from the rest of his command, which is unacceptable.

Didn't Nimitz and Halsey use the Iowa-class Battleships as flagships? If they can command their fleets on board these capital ships then, maybe they can do it now as well?

I'm more curious about how those 16-inch guns would mess up radars and communications equipment though.

 

[1805]

Didn't Nimitz and Halsey use the Iowa-class Battleships as flagships? If they can command their fleets on board these capital ships then, maybe they can do it now as well?

I'm more curious about how those 16-inch guns would mess up radars and communications equipment though.

What firing them or being hit bit them?

 

[1805]

Its one f those reasons i roll my eyes when people vent "the age of the super carrier is dead long live the helicopter carrier!".

The Super carrier is simply the most versitile, weapons, system ever made.

For instance How many ships are around from the year the Enterprise Launched?

A carrier is far easier to convert weapons wise than a destroyer or battleship. Think of the generations of aircraft that have been off her decks. Its amazing to realise many of the people aboard her now could have had grand fathers fly off of her decks or any of the inumerable jobs she has had done on her.

Replace the carrier? Cool what 20 other warships will do her job.

Thats two different questions, agree on the later, carriers are far more flexible than other surface ships, the big E is a great example but you could also quote the HMS Hermes/INS Viraat.

However a super carrier v small helicopter carrier, your are not comparing like with like. Excluding the aircraft capability/cost for one moment, yes 1 Nimitz v 1 Invincible we know who would win, but when you take in the costs into consideration, 1 Nimitz v say at 10 Invincibles, not so clear cut (thats 10 runways v 4 cats, 20 v 4 lifts, far greater landing capability?).

 

[Belesari]

Thats two different questions, agree on the later, carriers are far more flexible than other surface ships, the big E is a great example but you could also quote the HMS Hermes/INS Viraat.

However a super carrier v small helicopter carrier, your are not comparing like with like. Excluding the aircraft capability/cost for one moment, yes 1 Nimitz v 1 Invincible we know who would win, but when you take in the costs into consideration, 1 Nimitz v say at 10 Invincibles, not so clear cut (thats 10 runways v 4 cats, 20 v 4 lifts, far greater landing capability?).

The problem is they arent equal. The Harrier has a few problems same as all jump jet style aircraft are going to have. Range and load.

The Great thing about the Super carrier is that you can launch a aircraft with a full load out. Not only that you can have refuliers/EW/Hawkeyes/ etc.

Add in all that and the Nimitz can out range the Harrier fleet considerably. Not only that the cat based fighters are going to out perform the Jump jet based fighters.

Also the Super carrier has better speed and protection.

And remember Most of the Time those Carriers like ours are going to be spread out around the world or in port. So instead of 1 carrier vs 10 it would be 1 carrier vs 5 maybe tops and i dont think they could break the layers of defense around the carrier also.

 

[1805]

The problem is they arent equal. The Harrier has a few problems same as all jump jet style aircraft are going to have. Range and load.

The Great thing about the Super carrier is that you can launch a aircraft with a full load out. Not only that you can have refuliers/EW/Hawkeyes/ etc.

Add in all that and the Nimitz can out range the Harrier fleet considerably. Not only that the cat based fighters are going to out perform the Jump jet based fighters.

Also the Super carrier has better speed and protection.

And remember Most of the Time those Carriers like ours are going to be spread out around the world or in port. So instead of 1 carrier vs 10 it would be 1 carrier vs 5 maybe tops and i dont think they could break the layers of defense around the carrier also.

I gap between a "jump jet" and conventional aircraft performance may no be as great as you estimate, there are very few example to base it on, an you ignore the advantages. The UK never had the funds to develop a full sized aircraft, even with the considerable endorsement of the USMC it was at the end of the day a light attack aircraft.

We now have the potential comparison of the F35b v F35c, but its only one example. The other areas of AEW & tankers could be overcome at a fraction of the funds the USN has spent of aircraft types. I actually not saying one is clearly better than the other, but it is not clear cut, if the USN had gone that way it's carriers would very different from the crop of Harrier carriers.

I aware also its unfair on the Nimitz as it's nuclear powered and so more expensive to build v a GT build.

 

[My2Cents]

Didn't Nimitz and Halsey use the Iowa-class Battleships as flagships? If they can command their fleets on board these capital ships then, maybe they can do it now as well?

That was 70 years ago. Different period with different with different technologies demand different ways of doing things. And while both did use battleships on occasions, Nimitz seems to have spent more time with his flag on light cruisers and Halsey on carriers than battleships.

Makes sense really. This was a period before reliable high baud long range communications and automatic encryption systems, communications was laborious and slow. If you wanted detailed information you often had to go see and talk with the people responsible yourself. Command in a sea battle between ships involved watching the enemy out a window, manual tracking plots were usually behind and often in error. In an air battle the best information was in the radio room of one of the carriers listening to the reports as they came in, so that is where most of the commanders would be.

Nimitz was the Commander-in-Commander Pacific Ocean Area, not a fleet commander, which covering the vast area from California to Japan and from the Aleutians to Australia. So Nimitz was almost continuously on the move. It is a little difficult to justify detaching a battleship as the CinC’s private yacht or even a heavy cruiser as these are major combatants, but a light cruiser is not, and they were among the fastest vessels in the fleet.

Halsey commanded the Southern Pacific Ocean Area, 1/3 of Nimitz’s command, which allowed him to mostly travel with the fleet. He preferred carriers because that was where the action was, with their greater communications ability and immediate access to all aircraft reports. Carriers epitomized his slogan of “Hit hard, hit fast, hit often”, and he wanted to be there to do it, to the point of seeing frequently the older (slow) battleships as more of a hindrance than an asset to his fast carriers.

 

[Belesari]

I gap between a "jump jet" and conventional aircraft performance may no be as great as you estimate, there are very few example to base it on, an you ignore the advantages. The UK never had the funds to develop a full sized aircraft, even with the considerable endorsement of the USMC it was at the end of the day a light attack aircraft.

We now have the potential comparison of the F35b v F35c, but its only one example. The other areas of AEW & tankers could be overcome at a fraction of the funds the USN has spent of aircraft types. I actually not saying one is clearly better than the other, but it is not clear cut, if the USN had gone that way it's carriers would very different from the crop of Harrier carriers.

I aware also its unfair on the Nimitz as it's nuclear powered and so more expensive to build v a GT build.

I think in the end the benefits of the big fleet carrier out weigh the positives of the Smaller carriers.

 

[Belesari]

That was 70 years ago. Different period with different with different technologies demand different ways of doing things. And while both did use battleships on occasions, Nimitz seems to have spent more time with his flag on light cruisers and Halsey on carriers than battleships.

Makes sense really. This was a period before reliable high baud long range communications and automatic encryption systems, communications was laborious and slow. If you wanted detailed information you often had to go see and talk with the people responsible yourself. Command in a sea battle between ships involved watching the enemy out a window, manual tracking plots were usually behind and often in error. In an air battle the best information was in the radio room of one of the carriers listening to the reports as they came in, so that is where most of the commanders would be.

Nimitz was the Commander-in-Commander Pacific Ocean Area, not a fleet commander, which covering the vast area from California to Japan and from the Aleutians to Australia. So Nimitz was almost continuously on the move. It is a little difficult to justify detaching a battleship as the CinC’s private yacht or even a heavy cruiser as these are major combatants, but a light cruiser is not, and they were among the fastest vessels in the fleet.

Halsey commanded the Southern Pacific Ocean Area, 1/3 of Nimitz’s command, which allowed him to mostly travel with the fleet. He preferred carriers because that was where the action was, with their greater communications ability and immediate access to all aircraft reports. Carriers epitomized his slogan of “Hit hard, hit fast, hit often”, and he wanted to be there to do it, to the point of seeing frequently the older (slow) battleships as more of a hindrance than an asset to his fast carriers.

But the Iowa's did form their own battle groups BBBG.

And the fact that Vulnerable radar instelations can be destroyed counts with any other vessel anyways. Having radar arrays both forward and aft on the super structure would help.

And the need for keeping up with the New Fast carriers was one of the reasons the Iowa class was moddified to a fast battleship design.

 

[My2Cents]

And the fact that Vulnerable radar instelations can be destroyed counts with any other vessel anyways. Having radar arrays both forward and aft on the super structure would help.

Correct. But that is no excuse for putting your fleet commander on a vessel whose purpose is to get into and survive a gunner dual with the shore batteries, even though nearly all its antennas will be destroyed blocking communications and the fleet commanders control.

Better to put the fleet command in something standing back out of easy range.

 

[ASSAIL]

Correct. But that is no excuse for putting your fleet commander on a vessel whose purpose is to get into and survive a gunner dual with the shore batteries, even though nearly all its antennas will be destroyed blocking communications and the fleet commanders control.

Better to put the fleet command in something standing back out of easy range.

The USN has moved on. C4I is now the so specialised that no individual combattant has the capacity for "Fleet" Command. This is the domain of the "Blue Ridge class ships.
Naturally Task Groups and Task Forces are commanded from the appropriate assets.

 

[alexsa]

Didn't Nimitz and Halsey use the Iowa-class Battleships as flagships? If they can command their fleets on board these capital ships then, maybe they can do it now as well?

.

And Nelson used the HMS Victory (which is also still around), appropriate at the time but hardly relevant to todays situation.

Just because the look good and have armour does not make them effective in todays' circumstances.

 

[fretburner]

And Nelson used the HMS Victory (which is also still around), appropriate at the time but hardly relevant to todays situation.

Just because the look good and have armour does not make them effective in todays' circumstances.

I'm not really counting on the thick armor of a theoretical new, modern battleship, but more of its guns. If you don't need to bombard the enemy on/in-shore, then you can be a command ship 100% (although this looks like a terrible waste of good guns).

I'm also not so sure about C4I being too specialized. After all, there are "mobile" command and control units/vehicles right? You probably need more than what an army battalion needs for a fleet, but I'm sure it can be done.

Although, I have to concede that command ships probably needs to be far back and out of reach of the enemy, versus being near the shore.

A battleship as a command ship now looks like a horrible idea.

 

[Volkodav]

And Nelson used the HMS Victory (which is also still around), appropriate at the time but hardly relevant to todays situation.

Just because the look good and have armour does not make them effective in todays' circumstances.

I don't know, if Argentina moves on the Falklands the RN may be calling on Victory, Warrior and Belfast to make up numbers, they could possibly press Cutty Sark into service as a troop ship as well.

 

[StobieWan]

I don't know, if Argentina moves on the Falklands the RN may be calling on Victory, Warrior and Belfast to make up numbers, they could possibly press Cutty Sark into service as a troop ship as well.

Have a look at the Argentine OOB - we look positively virile and healthy by comparison.

 

[Volkodav]

Have a look at the Argentine OOB - we look positively virile and healthy by comparison.

Just taking a silly topic to its silly extreme. Then again could Argentina possibly have located and secretly raised von Spees squadron and be refitting them with modern systems ready to do battle against the RN on 8 December 2014?