Is The Day of the Battleship Returning?

[Kyler]

It has been well known for many years the US Navy has been working on and testing rail gun technology. These weapons have incredible speed, range, and hitting power but require massive amounts of electrical energy and space to put aboard any modern Navy vessel. The USN is still working on the technology but is hopeful in the coming decade or two that such a system will be feasible. While currently there are no large vessels comparable to a battleship being developed to field such a weapon, the technology may warrant such a vessel. If rail guns eventually prove a successful weapon's system, do you think there will be future vessels in line with battleships, but being equipped with large numbers of rail guns instead of naval cannons?

[marcelo_malara]

I don´t. The rail gun wouldn´t modify the vulnerability of the BB to a homing torpedo, to a low power tactical nuke or to a big missile like the Russian Shipwreck. I thing that at most what can be expected is a medium sized warship, aboout 180 m long and 20.000 t, more in line with a big cruiser than with a BB, and which can be mass produced.

Kind regards

[Karl Heidenreich]

The Battleship already exists: it is the SSN and the SSBN. Those two are the battleship of the day. Not even a CVN could withstand their silent menace.

[Kyler]

I don´t. The rail gun wouldn´t modify the vulnerability of the BB to a homing torpedo, to a low power tactical nuke or to a big missile like the Russian Shipwreck. I thing that at most what can be expected is a medium sized warship, aboout 180 m long and 20.000 t, more in line with a big cruiser than with a BB, and which can be mass produced.

Kind regards

I agree with you that much of the modern technology we associate with the need in protecting such a large ship that a battleship is not feasible at this time. Though with the future producing Rail Guns, Direct Energy Weapons, Underwater Unmanned Vehicles, and other technology a future battleship is possible. Though undoubtedly most of the technology will be funneled into large cruiser vessels at first Though the future is uncertain and as all this technology matures a large vessel comparable to a futuristic battleship maybe the only ship that suits the needs of all this technology on one ship.

There have always been arguments between large and small ships and the periods in which they are built dictate their size.

[Kyler]

The Battleship already exists: it is the SSN and the SSBN. Those two are the battleship of the day. Not even a CVN could withstand their silent menace.

A good point of view

Though an SSBN's power is best described by Robert Oppenheimer's famous quotation of ancient Hindu script "I am Death destroyer of Worlds."

[lwd]

I don´t.

While I agree with that. The following ...

The rail gun wouldn´t modify the vulnerability of the BB to a homing torpedo, to a low power tactical nuke or to a big missile like the Russian Shipwreck. ...

Actually an EM gun combined with an advanced fire control system could do all of the above. The problem would be that you really can't armor vs EM guns themselves so you won't see ships armored vs their own weapons again.

[Legend]

I don´t. The rail gun wouldn´t modify the vulnerability of the BB to a homing torpedo, to a low power tactical nuke or to a big missile like the Russian Shipwreck. I thing that at most what can be expected is a medium sized warship, aboout 180 m long and 20.000 t, more in line with a big cruiser than with a BB, and which can be mass produced.

Kind regards

I agree with this. Though I hate more than most to admit it, the time of true, large warships is over. The battleship became too expensive for what the rest of the world had (Besides the retained Iowas... for the Kirovs the Russians created) and too big a target for advanced submarines, as you all have said, the only modern battleships sailing the sea still.

One point I do wish to make though... these new railgun ships do not (from what I understand) need to be quite as big as many assume. The reason battleships became so large is that the guns they began to wield evolved bigger and bigger for the enormous power they gained, and so the platform became equally larger with the space needed to house these guns and to increase speed. These new railguns have the potential to be mounted into a small housing, far smaller per punch that the battleships had. When we could continue making these the size of cruisers... throwing them onto new Arleigh Burkes... why not put them onto a smaller, more versaitle platform.

What happeded to the frigate? After all the Perry class has provided our United Nations with ASW and convoy defense, why not continue developing these LOW COST systems and add modernized and advanced machinery?


More powerful engines
More streamlined hulls
More efficient propellers
New RAM CIWS
Better Radars (Most likely Phased Array... SPY-something? A smaller unit?)
VLS units replacing old single launch systems
AND RAILGUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Of course, with these new railguns, far more powerful generators are required... and while nuclear may be a problem with such a small platform and with political and cost concerns...

[RNfanDan]

What many tend to forget, is that over the past century, the idea of firing a projectile from "point A to Target B" requires that the firing solution must be calculated by the firing ship. Those factors are not fully compensable--things like wind, atmospheric density, temperature, humidity, and probably others as well, are not within control--and that is an inefficient system.

The further downrange that control can be maintained toward the point of impact, the better the odds of the projectile hitting its target. This was first done with piloted aircraft, which could project that control almost to the target itself--especially in the case of dive-bombing. Since then, weapons delivery has progressed with radar and other sensory aids, better aircraft, better weapons, and eventually pilotless aircraft and/or "self-guiding" projectiles.

No matter how one slices it, rail guns are nothing more than projection devices. Unless some means of maintaining point-of-impact control can be found for the projectiles launched from them, no advancement has really been made except for their sheer speed and distance, otherwise they are little more than ultra-modern versions of primitive mortars.

[marcelo_malara]

Unless some means of maintaining point-of-impact control can be found for the projectiles launched from them, no advancement has really been made except for their sheer speed and distance, otherwise they are little more than ultra-modern versions of primitive mortars

It is not like that. The highest the velocity of the projectile, the less its trajectory depends on external factors. An ultra high speed shell would have a lower trajectory, where the winds have less speed, act on the shell less time because of the shorter flight time and has a larger danger zone. Modern electronics would calculate an exact firing solution within microseconds, so there would be a quantum leap in gun performance and accuracy.

[RF]

Presumably over time as energy technology improves the size of ship carrying rail guns could be reduced?

[lwd]

Presumably over time as energy technology improves the size of ship carrying rail guns could be reduced?

Since they were looking at putting them on tanks. Yes I think that's a fair assessment.

[Legend]

Well... we can only assume that a tank version would be considerably smaller than a naval version... Though it makes me curious how they would get the power required on a tank to fire the projectile?

On a ship you have massive generation capabilities, therefore giving the cannon good (more like insane) velocity and therefore accuracy. The RoF depends on two things: One, how fast the mechanism can reload (hopefully a good system could reload fairly fast... like within ten seconds), and Two, how long it takes the (for lack of better term) batteries to recharge.

If they had a nuclear reactor onboard they could potentially fire extremely rapidly... something like every five seconds... and with a projectile that has the capability to punch straight the likes of Iowa herself... that is pretty impressive.

But in reality, I suspect something more along the lines of every ten to fifteen seconds... OOH! I just had a cool idea. What if they incorperated the railgun technology to the Oto Melera 76mm??? Something of that firepower could easily dominate the seas with current armor deployed now. It's not as large as one could hope... I was thinking somewhere along the lines of a 6in projectile... but the Oto Melera Railgun would have enough punch to fly straight through any ship still in service.

One other thought I have had is the system will be purely AP... for I can't think of a way to get a HE or midair detonation with the amount of electromagnetic energy flowing through it at the time of launch... it would fry any electronics on the shell.

[lwd]

Well... we can only assume that a tank version would be considerably smaller than a naval version... Though it makes me curious how they would get the power required on a tank to fire the projectile?....

Getting enough power to fire the projectile wasn't actually a problem. Getting enough to fire several times in rapid succession while moving was.

[Legend]

True. Unless they want to devote an entire M1A2 turbine to power generation... and even then it would be like every minute or so... well... I guess an entire turbine could do it in like... thirty seconds...

A friend of mine gave me an idea... What's the chances we could control a small chemical reaction that could generate the power? Something like the propulsion system on the mk50 torp.... but downsized for multiple shots?