What is needed to replace the Battleship?

The warships of today's navies, current naval events, ships in the news, etc.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: What is needed to replace the Battleship?

Postby RF » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:49 pm

What is needed to replace the battleship - well battleships were effectively replaced by carriers, with their much longer reach......and of course the SSM which can be launched from a much smaller vessel.

What is needed to replace the battleship could be rephrased - what is needed to bring back the battleship as a front line instrument of war? I suspect the answer might be to increase the firepower and reach of the battleship, so it can shoot at targets at greater ranges than carriers with less risk - but there is the problem of deriving gunnery solutions on targets way beyond its visual threshold.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: What is needed to replace the Battleship?

Postby lwd » Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:06 pm

Perhaps more important would be the ability to pack econmical and efficient defenses on such a ship so that it had a good chance of surviving against modern antiship weapons. The offensive weapons are not that hard to come by.

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: What is needed to replace the Battleship?

Postby Legend » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:18 pm

The railgun? The 8in gun? Anything larger than a 5" standard naval artillery is near extinct! I do suppport your point though, again bringing economical power into the equation. That was thw whole point of the OHP class!
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: What is needed to replace the Battleship?

Postby hammy » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:39 am

Is th heavy Industry around still to make the big guns ?

Not in the UK , biggest thing they make here nowadays is a 155mm , it seems missiles are used for anything wanting more punch .

And actually , though battleships guns have been used against shore targets frequently , they aren't actually OPTIMISED for that job , and without a specially developed high capacity H E shell specifically for the job , the normal projectiles aren't particularly effective unles you are tring to hit a hardened target .
Slow rate of fire too .

A Cleveland or Belfast revamped C A would probably do as effective a job with a high capacity shell , stand out 5 miles off-shore and hit most things within a 12 to 15 mile radius ( assuming youve fitted a naval variant of some modern 155mm gun instead of the old 6inch ) and with only 6 shots per barrel per minute (the old WW2 sustained rate of fire ) , 12 x 6 = 30 rds into the target zone = one every two seconds or so , nasty .

I read in here an interesting thesis by some U S marines colonel who did it for his Masters degree , arguing for a new breed of fire support ship ,
but it seemed flawed when he said he didn't think a "Weapons barge" type of ship was wanted , but something along the lines of an Iowa/Montana revisited with a discarding sabot projectile that could reach 50 miles inland .

Isnt that called an A10 "Warthog" ground attack airplane ?
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: What is needed to replace the Battleship?

Postby RF » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:17 pm

lwd wrote:Perhaps more important would be the ability to pack econmical and efficient defenses on such a ship so that it had a good chance of surviving against modern antiship weapons. The offensive weapons are not that hard to come by.


But so are the technologies of defensive weapons. One aspect arising from the size of a battleship is that it could be used for example as a ''punchbag'' to draw enemy fire and thus provide cover for other, less prominent forces to enable them to strike more effectively while the enemy is distracted.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: What is needed to replace the Battleship?

Postby lwd » Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:09 pm

RF wrote:
lwd wrote:Perhaps more important would be the ability to pack econmical and efficient defenses on such a ship so that it had a good chance of surviving against modern antiship weapons. The offensive weapons are not that hard to come by.


But so are the technologies of defensive weapons. ....


But it's not just defensive weapons it's armor as well. And you have to put it all together on a ship that can move at a reasonable speed, can be actually built, payed for, and operated. I submit that offensive weapons are actually the easy part indeed some guns and VL cells and your done there.

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: What is needed to replace the Battleship?

Postby Legend » Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:13 am

Yes but how many currently operational ships have the firepower to compete with a battleship at firing range?
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: What is needed to replace the Battleship?

Postby RF » Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:13 pm

This is an interesting point Legend, particulary when it comes to protection from direct hits received from a battleships main armament guns.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: What is needed to replace the Battleship?

Postby Legend » Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:11 pm

Well... the fact of the matter is it was hard for even a battleship of the time to take a heavy hit like that without taking pause or damage of some kind. My point merely hints that if a ship was in a combat situation with a large caliber warship... unless it had matching penetration and damage power it would not inflict as much damage as the other ship... resulting in the weaker ship's destruction.
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: What is needed to replace the Battleship?

Postby RF » Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:45 pm

Which in a roundabout way brings back the question of armour protection for the smaller ships.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: What is needed to replace the Battleship?

Postby Legend » Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:35 pm

Fair enough. Is there currently a defensive armor system lightweight enough to be placed on small warships... yet robust enough to absorb any damage of current Naval Artillery, Missiles, and upcoming weapons? Kevlar comes to mind... lots and lots of Kevlar.
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: What is needed to replace the Battleship?

Postby Bgile » Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:52 pm

Kevlar is used in modern warships as part of the protection of critical spaces, but there are limits to what can be done one a given displacement. Most modern warships are quite small compared to a WWII battleship. Also, I note that infantry body armor now includes more than just Kevlar. Plates are inserted in special pockets for protection against rifles. I doubt whether Kevlar is terribly effective against modern shaped charge weapons, either. It's design seems predicated on stopping penetration of physical objects.

sineatimorar
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:42 pm

Re: What is needed to replace the Battleship?

Postby sineatimorar » Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:15 am

A shape charge is just a highly directed blast front/ shock wave. Against soft fluid filled object ie a man's body, Kevlar would not do much in the way of stopping damage. That is simple fluid mechanics really. Completely different story when talking about hard metallic imcompressable objects like ships. It is also not just Kevlar cloth/ fibres, but what compound is used to bind the kevlar into a solid barrier.

It is more a question of shock and awe factor without actually destroying anything really. That is the most successful roll played by the battleship as when it can time to use them as designed, it was really a bit of a anti-climax with imperfect results.

While subs have become the capital ships of today, they tend to be out of sight and therefore out mind until they are unleashed. While slightly un-nerving not all that scary really. Imagine the statment implied by having a impervious surface vessel with the ability to reach any part of your country, sailing just off shore and nothing you send it way can stop it from occurring ? Ultimate power projection. Get what you want without the expense of a hot war.
Remember this principle held true for close to 40 years during the cold war. It was called mutually assured destruction.

Guest

Re: What is needed to replace the Battleship?

Postby Guest » Sun Mar 27, 2016 5:48 pm

Resurrection in progress!! I love this forum.

While BB's were designed to "survive" against other BB's, the BB's primary rolls were to sink convoys (supplies win and lose wars) and provide amphibious assault support.

The Russians and I assume the US, have submarine and DD launched anti-ship missiles that carry considerably more HE than a 16" shell, have AP tips and cruise across the surface of the water at the same velocity a 16" leaves the muzzle. The sad reality (I love BB's) is that a modern DD would knock a BB out from 2-3x the engagement range of the BB in one or two hits. A Mk-48 ADCAP would completely disable of not outright tear the un-armored hull bottom to shreds as it detonates beneath the keel. 50-tons of steel without longitudinal support would be a swift ending.

One other guy mentioned that the SS(n) have replaced the BB's in a surface warfare roll, 100% agree with this.

What's missing in today's environment is amphibious support for tens of thousands rolling up onto a reinforced beach head against larger elements. The BB's could send 2000# HE rounds at the enemy for days; no one would be sleeping, wills would be broken and reinforced elements would be significantly weakened. The problem arises when you bring a ship within 10-14 miles of a coast, you are exposed to the same anti-ship missiles launched from ashore many times that distance away.

Steve-M
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:38 pm

Re: What is needed to replace the Battleship?

Postby Steve-M » Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:48 pm

IMHO, the BB concept of old is pretty well dead. OTOH, a large surface combatant may again become a significant factor in force projection as things like railguns and high-powered lasers for CIWS continue to develop. I envision a ship more akin to an enlarged, futuristic Zumwalt class, i.e. a stealthy vessel with enough generating capacity for the aforementioned weapons systems, a fair number of VLS cells, and a flight deck to handle a reasonable number of helos and drones. As far as protection goes, such a ship ought to be able to withstand hits from smaller anti-ship weapons like the Harpoon without exploding into a great ball of fire from a single hit. OTOH, no sense going overboard as any practical amount of armor is still relatively trivial to defeat by opponents with modern military capabilities.


Return to “World Navies Today”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest