AHC: Nuclear powered Battleship

[CV12Hornet]

And I never said it would stop it. I said, quite explicitly, that it would slow it. Without a war sinking a lot of battleships and showing just how vulnerable battleships were to air power, the arguments of big-gun admirals are going to carry a heavier weight, particularly in admiralties that didn't really buy into carriers. The point is that without the wars battleships are liable to be considered a first-rate weapon into the '50s or '60s, late enough that it's entirely plausible one or more nations commissions a nuclear battleship if for no other reason than to see how it could be integrated into the fleet.

I never said, after all, that it would be practical or lead to widespread adoption of nuclear battleships, only that it could lead to a few getting built.

See, I don't think it would slow it that much, for all the reasons I outlined. Now lets add another one: politics. Remember that firepower/cost spiral I mentioned? That's going to get the attention of the politicians, as will a very important factor that's often overlooked in these debates: carriers cost less to build than battleships*. A politician, who doesn't really understand military matters, looks at the situation, sees the battleships aren't getting bigger guns or more guns, sees carriers are cheaper, and says "Okay, let's cancel these white elephants and build more carriers".

This assuming someone's nuclear-armed air force doesn't pull a Revolt of the Admirals and gets the surface fleet cut down to size in the same time period.

*Carriers have much higher lifetime costs, but that tends to get buried on the balance sheet.

Well, battleships were designed to take hits from 2,700 pound Armor Piercing warheads traveling between MACH 1.5 & 2.2. The shaped charge in the SS-N-2 was very much NOT designed to deal with a foot or so of Class A and STS armor. The Soviets believed that would take several hits from the much larger P-700 to disable (not sink, mission kill) a CVN.

What missiles DO present are serious fire danger (unexpended solid rocket fuel burns at ~4,800°F)

Okay, 1. only the Yamatos were rated against 16" super-heavy AP rounds and 2. considering the RHA penetration of the freaking RPG-7 around this time I find it hard to believe that the Styx's shaped charge is somehow going to do worse on armor penetration. Limited post-armor effect, sure, but getting through the belt itself? Again, would be very surprised if it actually has any serious trouble. Or it could hit the unarmored portions of the hull and just explode.

Look, the point I was arguing against was that a battleship would just shrug these off no problem. We can quibble about how much damage a battleship would take getting hit with a Styx, but I think we can both agree it wouldn't be "dents and scorch marks".

No they are battlecrusiers, Russia names things differently, their aircraft carrier is to them a heavy aircraft cruiser. Its not just on tonnage, its firepower as well. However even on tonnage, 28000t does not even make it the smallest battlecrusier, its bigger than some battleships that fought in WW2. The biggest Heavy cruiser built comes in around 17000t ( ignoring the Alaska's which politics got involved with ). As for the armor layout that's pretty much the same an evolution of the all or nothing as used on all the later battleships.

I mean, "heavy aircraft cruiser" is a reasonable description of the Kievs. And that's a case where it's very much political quibbling.

You're missing the point on the tonnage argument. Directly comparing it to WWII gun vessels is disingenuous because every type of ship in every navy has gotten bigger since. Carriers have gotten bigger, destroyers have gotten bigger, frigates, submarines.

No, the armor layout is not the raft body of the fast battleships. I mean, the information we have on the Kirovs' armor protection is inconsistent to begin with, but from what I've seen it's very similar to the machinery box/magazine box system of WWII cruisers.

And as for firepower, quite frankly a Kirov's SSM count is kind of sad for their size. That's what happens when your ship is a rocket cruiser and a large ASW ship, to borrow the Russian terms, mashed together. The Slavas are half the displacement but carry 80% the SSM firepower, and the Bazalt isn't any smaller than the Granit.

 

[CalBear]

S...


Okay, 1. only the Yamatos were rated against 16" super-heavy AP rounds and 2. considering the RHA penetration of the freaking RPG-7 around this time I find it hard to believe that the Styx's shaped charge is somehow going to do worse on armor penetration. Limited post-armor effect, sure, but getting through the belt itself? Again, would be very surprised if it actually has any serious trouble. Or it could hit the unarmored portions of the hull and just explode.

Look, the point I was arguing against was that a battleship would just shrug these off no problem. We can quibble about how much damage a battleship would take getting hit with a Styx, but I think we can both agree it wouldn't be "dents and scorch marks".


..

RHA isn't STS, isn't even Class A. Very different manufacturing process, VERY different result, into an entirely different target type

Even if it did manage to penetrate the belt, the plasma Jet would leave a hole about the size of a dime, above the waterline. Below the waterline it won't even manage that once it hit the the first liquid filled void of the torpedo protection system it would turn back into bits of metal and drop to the botton of the void. Moreover the citadel has an additional outer structural member, inside the hull made of STS steel. Even if the plasma jet somehow managed to penetrate the outer STS plate, then the Class A belt, it would have begun to lose cohesion even before it hit the STS structural members.

The damage would be to sensors and things like range-finders. Both of which are a serious problem, but to indicate that a SS-N-2 was going to punch through the belt of a BB and do anything beyond annoy the crews at Bremerton simply isn't correct.

 

[CV12Hornet]

RHA isn't STS, isn't even Class A. Very different manufacturing process, VERY different result, into an entirely different target type

Even if it did manage to penetrate the belt, the plasma Jet would leave a hole about the size of a dime, above the waterline. Below the waterline it won't even manage that once it hit the the first liquid filled void of the torpedo protection system it would turn back into bits of metal and drop to the botton of the void. Moreover the citadel has an additional outer structural member, inside the hull made of STS steel. Even if the plasma jet somehow managed to penetrate the outer STS plate, then the Class A belt, it would have begun to lose cohesion even before it hit the STS structural members.

The damage would be to sensors and things like range-finders. Both of which are a serious problem, but to indicate that a SS-N-2 was going to punch through the belt of a BB and do anything beyond annoy the crews at Bremerton simply isn't correct.

Well, since I don't know enough about the metallurgical differences, have it your way.

 

[Blue cat]

The same has been said about supercarriers

True but a supercarrier has air craft that can typically (or perhaps hopefully ?) be expected to attack the launch platforms for the missiles at a reasonable range. A battle ship with World War Two era big guns doesn't really have the same abilities against distant platforms firing missiles against it.

 

[Blue cat]

RHA isn't STS, isn't even Class A. Very different manufacturing process, VERY different result, into an entirely different target type

Even if it did manage to penetrate the belt, the plasma Jet would leave a hole about the size of a dime, above the waterline. Below the waterline it won't even manage that once it hit the the first liquid filled void of the torpedo protection system it would turn back into bits of metal and drop to the botton of the void. Moreover the citadel has an additional outer structural member, inside the hull made of STS steel. Even if the plasma jet somehow managed to penetrate the outer STS plate, then the Class A belt, it would have begun to lose cohesion even before it hit the STS structural members.

The damage would be to sensors and things like range-finders. Both of which are a serious problem, but to indicate that a SS-N-2 was going to punch through the belt of a BB and do anything beyond annoy the crews at Bremerton simply isn't correct.

What if a missile dives and hits the deck armour that is typically much thinner than belt armour ?
If this missile is suitably sophisticated it might try and hit the top of a main gun turret or something similarly vital.

IMHO heavy armoured belts made some sense when an important threat was AP shells from large caliber high velocity naval guns that had reasonably predictable trajectories. If things were really dicy the ship could also maneuver to present a more favourable (for the ship being targeted) target angle to the incoming shells to increase the effectiveness of the armour.

I don't see this working out as well in the missile age. Historically even free fall bombs presented challenges to battle ship armour schemes.

 

[CV12Hornet]

What if a missile dives and hits the deck armour that is typically much thinner than belt armour ?
If this missile is suitably sophisticated it might try and hit the top of a main gun turret or something similarly vital.

IMHO heavy armoured belts made some sense when an important threat was AP shells from large caliber high velocity naval guns that had reasonably predictable trajectories. If things were really dicy the ship could also maneuver to present a more favourable (for the ship being targeted) target angle to the incoming shells to increase the effectiveness of the armour.

I don't see this working out as well in the missile age. Historically even free fall bombs presented challenges to battle ship armour schemes.

It's not suitably sophisticated. It flies in at 150-250 meters and very, very shallowly dives. We're talking 1-2 degrees here.

 

[Blue cat]

It's not suitably sophisticated. It flies in at 150-250 meters and very, very shallowly dives. We're talking 1-2 degrees here.

Fair enough.

I won't pretend to know the in and outs of the Styx, but certain other guided weapons have (or had) a range of avaliable trajectories. In any event if there were lots of targets with heavy armour belts I suspect this aspect of anti ship missile design would get more attention.

 

[DougM]

How about the military (and all of us here) stop looking at war like it is a video game? It is one thing to say that a battle ship can be mission killed by a small (ish) missile and thus is no better then a thin skinned modern cruiser. But it is worlds different to the families of the crew.
A sunk of otherwise destroyed modern cruiser is going to see a lot of dead or injured crew that an old fashioned heavy armored battle ship won’t.
But someplace along the way we seam to have stopped worrying about the lives of the crew and started worrying about the mission killed ships sensors.

 

[Somedevil]

Thinking of battleship propulsion, forger about nuclear, I don’t think a battleship was ever powered by an internal combustion engine. The Deutschland class cruisers were diesel powered, but everything larger was steam powered. Let’s get a diesel into a battleship before we go nuclear.

If anything them being Steam powered makes them better to convert to Nuke

 

[CalBear]

What if a missile dives and hits the deck armour that is typically much thinner than belt armour ?
If this missile is suitably sophisticated it might try and hit the top of a main gun turret or something similarly vital.

IMHO heavy armoured belts made some sense when an important threat was AP shells from large caliber high velocity naval guns that had reasonably predictable trajectories. If things were really dicy the ship could also maneuver to present a more favourable (for the ship being targeted) target angle to the incoming shells to increase the effectiveness of the armour.

I don't see this working out as well in the missile age. Historically even free fall bombs presented challenges to battle ship armour schemes.

Actually Missiles, like guns, are the wrong weapon to consider. Guns and missiles won't sink a BB.

Here is the complete list of dreadnought/super dreadnought battleships sunk solely by gunfire

Bertange (Pre WW I design) sunk at anchor during attack on Mers-el-Kebir

Kirishima (converted BC) Sunk at Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal

That is it. Now there were a number of BB sunk by a combination of gunfire and torpedoes (Bismarck being the poster child, the RN having hit her with everything afloat short of 32 pound muzzle loader), or gunfire and air attack (the fate Hiei), but damage inflicted by gunfire? Two Ships.

What kills battleships are torpedoes, and to a lesser extent, mines. Sub launched, air launched, ship launched, any or a combination of two or three of them. Enough hits by heavy AP bombs will do the trick but that is not an easy play.

 

[MatthewB]

Water egress and gravity sinks ships, nothing else. Unless you cause a catastrophic magazine explosion, shell fire will never sink a battleship. But sinking a battleship really isn’t the goal, it’s all about disabling and destroying the battleship. If it’s a burning hulk yet still afloat, that’s a win.

 

[Miguel Lanius]

How about earlier invention of the laser?

Someone sees the potential of lasers as an AA weapon. Lasers are used in place of AA guns as anti-air weapons. Someone gets the idea of powering them with nuclear power. Cue the Laser Battleship, a battleship made to explode plane or projectile coming towards it.

 

[Blue cat]

Actually Missiles, like guns, are the wrong weapon to consider. Guns and missiles won't sink a BB.

Here is the complete list of dreadnought/super dreadnought battleships sunk solely by gunfire

Bertange (Pre WW I design) sunk at anchor during attack on Mers-el-Kebir

Kirishima (converted BC) Sunk at Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal

That is it. Now there were a number of BB sunk by a combination of gunfire and torpedoes (Bismarck being the poster child, the RN having hit her with everything afloat short of 32 pound muzzle loader), or gunfire and air attack (the fate Hiei), but damage inflicted by gunfire? Two Ships.

What kills battleships are torpedoes, and to a lesser extent, mines. Sub launched, air launched, ship launched, any or a combination of two or three of them. Enough hits by heavy AP bombs will do the trick but that is not an easy play.

While we can quibble over designations I seem to recall HMS Hood was sunk by gun fire along with a number of other battle cruisers.

Notwithstanding the formal designation of Hood she was playing the part of a battle ship when she was sunk.

Bismarck was certainly pounded by gun fire to the point where she couldn't really resist.

Notwithstanding the effectiveness of mines and torpedoes, the destruction of Tirpitz by an AP bomb showed the way of the future. Punch thru the deck armour with a suitable warhead.

Last time I checked the U.S. had a number of air dropped bombs designed to hit hard targets. I don't recall the U.S. currently having any air launched torpedoes designed to target large surface ships.

 

[MatthewB]

I seem to recall HMS Hood....Last time I checked... I don't recall the U.S. currently having..

What is this manner of writing? Whenever I sense I’m becoming condescending I’m going to return to this post to remind myself, don’t be like this guy.

 

[CalBear]

While we can quibble over designations I seem to recall HMS Hood was sunk by gun fire along with a number of battle cruisers.

There really isn't a quibble.

Battleship: Designed to take heavy fire for the largest weapons the enemy deploys. Can survive enormous amounts of damage, especially above water line damage. Vulnerable to sub-surface weapons in large numbers (See Bismarck, Musashi, Yamashiro). Require a good deal of killing. Take a lickin' and keep on tickin'.

Battle Cruiser: Designed as scout, heavily armed, main armor is supposed to be speed. Can NOT survive serious damage from large caliber shell fire either above or below water line. One hit wonders. Excellent way to lose large numbers of expensively trained personnel for a single hit. (See HMS Hood (3 survivors of 1,418 man crew) , HMS Queen Mary (9 survivors of 1,275 man crew).

There really is no comparison between the types. The dreadnought battleship was a brilliant design meant to take on all comers, unfortunately the idea was, fairly rapidly, a victim of ever improving technology. The Battle Cruiser was designed to be able to bully the little kids and run away from the big kids. Unfortunately it looked WAY too much like a big kid itself and proved to be a design error of epic proportions. The fact that the same man, at virtually the same moment, came up with both ideas is a remarkable demonstration that it is possible to be a genius and a flipping idiot at the same time.

 

[Blue cat]

What is this manner of writing? Whenever I sense I’m becoming condescending I’m going to return to this post to remind myself, don’t be like this guy.

It is the style of writing I use when discussing this type of topic on an alternative history web site. Sorry I am not passionate enough about this topic to do extensive research prior to posting so I hedge my verbiage and rely on my recollections from years gone by. Sorry if it bothers you.

 

[Blue cat]

There really isn't a quibble.

Battleship: Designed to take heavy fire for the largest weapons the enemy deploys. Can survive enormous amounts of damage, especially above water line damage. Vulnerable to sub-surface weapons in large numbers (See Bismarck, Musashi, Yamashiro). Require a good deal of killing. Take a lickin' and keep on tickin'.

Battle Cruiser: Designed as scout, heavily armed, main armor is supposed to be speed. Can NOT survive serious damage from large caliber shell fire either above or below water line. One hit wonders. Excellent way to lose large numbers of expensively trained personnel for a single hit. (See HMS Hood (3 survivors of 1,418 man crew) , HMS Queen Mary (9 survivors of 1,275 man crew).

There really is no comparison between the types. The dreadnought battleship was a brilliant design meant to take on all comers, unfortunately the idea was, fairly rapidly, a victim of ever improving technology. The Battle Cruiser was designed to be able to bully the little kids and run away from the big kids. Unfortunately it looked WAY too much like a big kid itself and proved to be a design error of epic proportions. The fact that the same man, at virtually the same moment, came up with both ideas is a remarkable demonstration that it is possible to be a genius and a flipping idiot at the same time.

Sorry I just see 25,000 ton plus vessels with big guns being sent to fight other similar vessels

 

[CV12Hornet]

How about the military (and all of us here) stop looking at war like it is a video game? It is one thing to say that a battle ship can be mission killed by a small (ish) missile and thus is no better then a thin skinned modern cruiser. But it is worlds different to the families of the crew.
A sunk of otherwise destroyed modern cruiser is going to see a lot of dead or injured crew that an old fashioned heavy armored battle ship won’t.
But someplace along the way we seam to have stopped worrying about the lives of the crew and started worrying about the mission killed ships sensors.

Obviously, navies need to build in a certain level of ship and crew survivability, that's just good sense. But the purpose of armor is not to save a ship from being sunk. That's a job for compartmentalization, damage control, and minimizing the volatility of flammables and explosives. For example, powder that wasn't hyper-sensitive cordite probably did more to reduce the odds of British ships getting sunk than any amount of armor. Armor is for keeping a ship in a fight while being shot at, and for modern escorts that's pointless outside of splinter protection in key areas. An escort without its sensors might as well be no escort at all.

Also, it's just way easier these days to develop new warheads to punch through armor than it is to armor past those new warheads. It's an escalating cycle that armor tends to lose. The US Air Force designed, built, and deployed a 5000-lb LGB for Desert Storm in three weeks.

 

[Blue cat]

Obviously, navies need to build in a certain level of ship and crew survivability, that's just good sense. But the purpose of armor is not to save a ship from being sunk. That's a job for compartmentalization, damage control, and minimizing the volatility of flammables and explosives. For example, powder that wasn't hyper-sensitive cordite probably did more to reduce the odds of British ships getting sunk than any amount of armor. Armor is for keeping a ship in a fight while being shot at, and for modern escorts that's pointless outside of splinter protection in key areas. An escort without its sensors might as well be no escort at all.

Also, it's just way easier these days to develop new warheads to punch through armor than it is to armor past those new warheads. It's an escalating cycle that armor tends to lose. The US Air Force designed, built, and deployed a 5000-lb LGB for Desert Storm in three weeks.

I have a vision of a Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb (that reportedly weighs approx 30,000 pounds..) being fitted with a guidance system suitable for use against moving targets (if it doesn't already have one.)

Edit to add, the fusing might conceivably need some changes as well.

 

[EWHM]

Say something like https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/news/a27455/us-navy-railgun-more-powerful/
gets developed and deployed earlier. 100 mile range for projectiles that could be awfully cheap might tempt someone to build a battleship-like platform to use them.