What is needed to replace the Battleship?

[Legend]

I was reading through some old threads (specifically the "Nuclear Powered Battleship") and I came across the notion, that besides having insanely hardy armor, all battleships were for, was to have a ship in your navy that could sink other navy's ships with impunity, or as close to it as your economy could get. In these highly technological times, how much is really needed to sink a typical "Modern Warship" short of sending a torpedo under it's belly? I wish to make the point, that most modern ships, excluding CVN's, are merely steel hulls with a meduim caliber gun, a fancy radar, and a missile battery of some shape and size. How difficult would it really be to either:

A- Put enough holes into the hull to flood it.
B- Get a good shot into the missile battery to incinerate it.
C- Destroy enough of the typically large superstructure to take out enough of the command structure or sensor suites.


To do this effectively and easy I wish to mention a few new technologies that are upcoming to possibly fill our beloved and unfortunate gap...
1. The Railgun
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 31461.html
http://www.chips.navy.mil/archives/07_J ... ilgun.html

2. An improved version of the single barrel 8in turret.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Cali ... weight_Gun

3. An "Armored Cruiser", "Cruiser Killer", or "Turtle Cruiser". Basically a ship armored to withstand current 5" shells and small missiles, and containing enough 5" (Mk45) guns to dispatch of enemies quickly. The Oto Melera might work too...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov_class_battlecruiser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shadow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Class


I also might mention, that with the correct manufacturing skills, current technologies allow us to make parts faster and cheaper, so we should theoretically be able to create many of these ships to replace current cruiser and destroyer classes. I have heard that the production of the LCS, the again "theoretical" sucessor to the Hazard Perry Class, a cheap and mass produced warship, has been inhibited by complicated and expensive solutions where cheaper parts and simpler fixes could have been used.

[Bgile]

Well, the rail gun doesn't seem to be ready for prime time yet, and a modern warship has to be capable of a lot more than just killing other warships. Lots of people say they can build ships cheaper and better than what current navies can do, but they are mostly just uninformed curmudgeons. If you can build more cost effective ships than Bath Iron Works for example, you probably have a job waiting for you.

[Legend]

...a modern warship has to be capable of a lot more than just killing other warships...

What would this entail?

And your point of the difficulties of making more efficient ships is valid. However, my point of the Perry's still stands! They were heavily modular ships and therefore could easily be constructed, modified, and repaired! I say the United Nations requires another such design. Bath Ironworks does a great job with their Destroyers, but as far as making them able to be mass produced, the United States has fallen greatly in it's capability to cheaply and efficiently create new ships.

[Bgile]

The OHPs were good ASW ships, but their capability was marginal beyond that. I'm not sure how you can build a good multifunction ship without spending a lot of money on today's technology. Battleships were never cheap in the money of the day, and naval vessels today are correspondingly expensive to achieve the capability they need in today's environment. The LCS is intended to be a cheap design to handle specialized threats with mission packages, but even they have become controversial because of all the expense and teething problems associated with their high speed hull forms.

We could build small ships with WWII gunfire capability fairly cheaply, but their use would be very limited in today's environment. I just don't see an easy answer from a US point of view. If we were a small country that only needed ships to operate off our own shores for a few weeks at a time, it would be a lot easier.

[yellowtail3]

don't need a replacement

spend far too much on Navy as it is. been on a wartime footing for what - near seventy years, roughly?

I liked OHP. Man, they could accelerate...

[GhostBattleship]

Something like the Kirov class battlecruiser perhaps?

Although I don't think that's going to happen (any time soon anyway) the navy is satisfied with it's ships, we've got a lot of cruisers, destroyer, subs and frigates. And aircraft carriers have decent weapons systems and they do IIRC have an armour belt as well.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Gentlemen,

There IS a replacement for the battleship from some time now. It´s indeed an American creation: the SSN and the SSBN. Those are the modern dreadnoughts. They can beat whatever floats (or flies) and run deep and silent. The new subs are the superior naval weapons now. No need of expensive, irrelevant surface units.

Best regards

[Legend]

Can submarines fight terrorists or pirates? They are amazing warships, but the one thing I believe they lack in modern times is a form of surface weaponry. I wish they could cram some form of small or medium caliber weaponry. A computerized aiming system with a bofors perhaps? The one problem engineers would hit would be effectively streamlining the system.

[GhostBattleship]

Gentlemen,

There IS a replacement for the battleship from some time now. It´s indeed an American creation: the SSN and the SSBN. Those are the modern dreadnoughts. They can beat whatever floats (or flies) and run deep and silent. The new subs are the superior naval weapons now. No need of expensive, irrelevant surface units.

Best regards

Expensive and irrelevant?

I hardly think carriers and amphibious assault ships are irrelevant, and what about ASW?

Submarines have their place but they're not going to make every other ship obsolete and they can't really beat what flies they have virtually no AA and no troop carrying ability and they can't beat whatever floats. Torpedoes from a surface ship for instance?

[yellowtail3]

Can submarines fight terrorists or pirates?

depends on what that means. They can launch land-attach cruise missiles.

'pirates' of the type lately in the news are sometimes fisherman starved because of western overfishing and dumping of toxic materials in their waters.

They're best handled by a couple mounted M2 Brownings and a modicum of awareness. Long-term, but practicing justice. They make good reading after the fact, but wars and shooting should be avoided. Probably not a concept to go over well, with some of our younger forum members here..

[Karl Heidenreich]

Expensive and irrelevant?

I hardly think carriers and amphibious assault ships are irrelevant, and what about ASW?

Submarines have their place but they're not going to make every other ship obsolete and they can't really beat what flies they have virtually no AA and no troop carrying ability and they can't beat whatever floats. Torpedoes from a surface ship for instance?

I was refering to the battleship, not to carriers or any other sort of actual ships. Of course the naval strategy needs of carriers and the infantry needs amphibious assault ships. Those cannot be eliminated of the lists. My mention is that, as a superior naval weapon, the SSN and the SSBN are the ultimate ones.

[GhostBattleship]

Expensive and irrelevant?

I hardly think carriers and amphibious assault ships are irrelevant, and what about ASW?

Submarines have their place but they're not going to make every other ship obsolete and they can't really beat what flies they have virtually no AA and no troop carrying ability and they can't beat whatever floats. Torpedoes from a surface ship for instance?

I was refering to the battleship, not to carriers or any other sort of actual ships. Of course the naval strategy needs of carriers and the infantry needs amphibious assault ships. Those cannot be eliminated of the lists. My mention is that, as a superior naval weapon, the SSN and the SSBN are the ultimate ones.

Oh. . . Sorry, I get you.

I agree that subs have their uses although ultimate weapon is a bit of stretch IMO
As much as I like battleships there's not really a place where an armoured vessel with big guns could used effectively in a modern battle they had their time but like the knight (another armoured hard-hitting battle unit) they became to expensive and better (and cheaper) weapons saw the end of them.

I personally think if rail-guns become viable they'll be mounted on the Zumwalts, Burkes and Ticonderoga vessels and perhaps a few on CVN's. And while I do think armour on warships will make a comeback it won't be for a battleship.

Although perhaps we'll Kirov a rail gun armed cruiser

[Karl Heidenreich]

One problem with surface units is that they work on a flat surface, they are some sort of bi dimensional vessel. The sub, on other hand, is three dimensional, using depth as part of it´s variables.


And... uhm... sorry for the confusion. I quote you as yellowtail when it wasn´t the case, so, my apologies for both of you...

[GhostBattleship]

One problem with surface units is that they work on a flat surface, they are some sort of bi dimensional vessel. The sub, on other hand, is three dimensional, using depth as part of it´s variables.

Indeed, don't get me wrong I like subs (I have fond memories of reading 'The Hunt for Red October' as a kid)

And... uhm... sorry for the confusion. I quote you as yellowtail when it wasn´t the case, so, my apologies for both of you...

Mistaken me for yellowtail indeed! Ooooohhhhh I've never been so ooohhhhh

Seriously though, it's no big deal (for me anyhow )

[Bgile]

One problem with surface units is that they work on a flat surface, they are some sort of bi dimensional vessel. The sub, on other hand, is three dimensional, using depth as part of it´s variables.

Submarines can't deal well with anything in the air, so they are three dimensional only below the surface. A surface ship can deal with air, surface, and submarine threats, so they are more three dimensional than submarines. They aren't great at the underwater dimension, but they are much better at that than submarines are at dealing with aircraft.