No Aircraft Carriers, How far do battleships develop?

[LightInfa]

For one reason or another, say that the aircraft supporters in western militaries lose out in military development, but aircraft carriers are never developed or built. With no aircraft carriers, what will be future developments in battleships and battlecruisers without aircraft carriers to supplant them? Also, we can assume no Washington Naval Treaty to further stifle aircraft carriers and to allow some of the cooler surface vessels to get into production.

 

[Electric Monk]

Well it's basically ASB to butterfly carriers, but I imagine we wind up with nuclear powered, railgun equipped battleships with laser / MetalStorm point defence which makes them virtually invulnerable to missiles/aircraft (anything they see… dies).

Then of course everybody switches to subs.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I think the designs touted as the US Tillman Battleships are the reasonable limit that battleships can reach. Battleships like Germany's H class are unrealistic. The Yamato class also didn't quite work for the Japanese, but their strategic plans of fighting the US were severely flawed.

Aircraft carriers are just better at doing things than battleships, they are a far more flexible weapons platform.

 

[stevep]

I think the designs touted as the US Tillman Battleships are the reasonable limit that battleships can reach. Battleships like Germany's H class are unrealistic. The Yamato class also didn't quite work for the Japanese, but their strategic plans of fighting the US were severely flawed.

Aircraft carriers are just better at doing things than battleships, they are a far more flexible weapons platform.

David

From what I've read the Tillman designs are pretty unrealistic themselves, being drawn up in response to a political query rather than any real requirement and design operations.

Steve

 

[TheMann]

Modern electronics and missiles these days could make battleships useful, as essentially giant missile platforms. The huge guns of the Iowa class turned out to be quite useful in the Persian Gulf, as the Iraqis discovered to their immense misfortune. 2700-pound shells landing on you hurts like hell.

In some ways, for tighter quarters like the Persian Gulf, battleships could be more useful than aircraft carriers. Instead of having to scramble aircraft to hit a place, just send the co-ordinates to the ship and have it let loose.

But in the WWII scheme of things, what they got to was about as big as you could get. The H-class was way unrealistic, and the Tillmans were little better.

 

[Redbeard]

USN carrier air groups appeared extremely efficient by 1944-45, but were only up against mediocre (at best) air defences.

Had Japanese air defence technology and doctrine been as efficinet as USN in WWII I will claim that carriers would have been seen as an insufficient offensive weapon, and that battleships were needed for the kill.

Try and imagine combat air patrols (CAP) vectored by radar, hundreds of AA guns on each major ship and some even firing radar fused shells and directed by radar. If so it would soon be experienced that carrier attack airgroups usually would be depleted long before decisive results could be inflicted on the enemy fleet, that the battleships were the least vulnerable and that battleships and other big gun ships were needed for the kill. Just see the lack of results by the kamikazes - regular airplanes hoping to survive hardly would have fared better.

Later guided missiles and nuclear powered submarines would challenge the battleship as the most efficient killers, but OTOH almost any kind of vessel now could carry efficient long range weapons (and not just carriers).

IMHO the apparent superiority of the CV since the 40s has mainly been due to them never meeting 1st class opposition - but if you can afford them they of course are excellent instruments in any gunboat diplomacy, and presently it even is difficyult to find any 1st or 2nd class maritime enemy of USA.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Well it's basically ASB to butterfly carriers, but I imagine we wind up with nuclear powered, railgun equipped battleships with laser / MetalStorm point defence which makes them virtually invulnerable to missiles/aircraft (anything they see… dies).

Then of course everybody switches to subs.

Or, everyone just laughs as the ships quickly run out of ammo. Metalstorm isn't some miracle bullet that will always hit instantly; it has to travel just like any other bullet, it has to hit and damage just like any other bullet, and unlike regular bullets metal storm has the very real possibility of running out of ammo in a matter of minutes. Axis of Time aside, Metal Storm and laser defenses have serious limitations.

Modern electronics and missiles these days could make battleships useful, as essentially giant missile platforms. The huge guns of the Iowa class turned out to be quite useful in the Persian Gulf, as the Iraqis discovered to their immense misfortune. 2700-pound shells landing on you hurts like hell.

Which, of course, was why the last of the Iowas was used as a diversionary device, and retired shortly afterwards.

In some ways, for tighter quarters like the Persian Gulf, battleships could be more useful than aircraft carriers. Instead of having to scramble aircraft to hit a place, just send the co-ordinates to the ship and have it let loose.

But then, aircraft don't have the range restrictions of BB guns, and they can deliver it with more finess.

 

[alt_historian]

Further to comments by others:

Although no expert - or even knowledgeable amateur - in this particular field, I would think that without aircraft carriers, battleship / battlecruiser development could indeed take some interesting turns. For the moment, let's also ignore 'halfway house' ideas which were tried OTL, such as carrier/battleships (not sure of the official name), which carried a couple of planes in place of a rear turret, or on a launching platform of some sort fixed to the top of the turret.

Instead, I can see battleships being incrementally improved, as happened up to the end of WWII. Proximity fuses were already giving way to radar guidance by the end of the war. This would, I suppose, become increasingly accurate, and from the 1960s would be supplemented / supplanted by some form of laser guidance for shorter-range guidance.

Maybe the US Navy would get Gerald Bull to help out with increasing the range of their weaponry ... I'm thinking here of rocket-propelled shells.

The only problem here is target designation. Without a carrier air group, and assuming no other planes are involved, how does the battleship reliably hit targets over the horizon?

 

[Electric Monk]

Or, everyone just laughs as the ships quickly run out of ammo. Metalstorm isn't some miracle bullet that will always hit instantly; it has to travel just like any other bullet, it has to hit and damage just like any other bullet, and unlike regular bullets metal storm has the very real possibility of running out of ammo in a matter of minutes. Axis of Time aside, Metal Storm and laser defenses have serious limitations.

Having a bit of fun, mate. Actually I was thinking of the old David Drake novel about the mercenaries on terraformed Venus where they duke it out with battleships on the surface for the domes beneath. (I got it wrong, they used railguns not lasers.)

ETA: Seas of Venus [PDF], from the Baen Free Library, was what I was thinking of:

Powered Aircraft played no part in the wars which puffed in brief fury across the seas of Venus like so many afternoon squalls. No combination of altitutude and absorbent materials could conceal from modern sensors an aircraft's engine and the necessary turbulence of powered flight. And after the quarry was seen—

Battleships and cruisers carried railguns as secondary armament. The slugs accelerated through the atmosphere hit at a significant fraction of light speed; significant, at least, to anything with less than a foot of armor plate to protect it.

No powered aircraft could survive more than three seconds after coming within line of sight of a hostile fleet…

 

[Chengar Qordath]

The only problem here is target designation. Without a carrier air group, and assuming no other planes are involved, how does the battleship reliably hit targets over the horizon?

I suppose once we get into the modern era we could have things like satellite spotting...

 

[Electric Monk]

I suppose once we get into the modern era we could have things like satellite spotting...

Gunboats, hydrofoils, tethered gliders, shells packed with sensors, etc… lots of options.

 

[Alexius]

Do shipboard helicopters get butterflied away with the carriers? If not, I could see a BBGN being built with a flight deck aft for ASW helicopters- kind of like an uber-Kirov. The Kirov's Top Steer target acquisition radar has a range of 300 km- plenty for over-the-horizon. Add some land-attack missiles and a few bigger guns, and you have a BBGN.

Later on, I might post a few more ideas for what battleship technology would have reached by 2008.

Before radar technology reaches this level, helicopters (or catapult-launched seaplanes) would be used for spotting.

 

[alt_historian]

Do shipboard helicopters get butterflied away with the carriers? If not, I could see a BBGN being built with a flight deck aft for ASW helicopters- kind of like an uber-Kirov. The Kirov's Top Steer target acquisition radar has a range of 300 km- plenty for over-the-horizon. Add some land-attack missiles and a few bigger guns, and you have a BBGN.

Later on, I might post a few more ideas for what battleship technology would have reached by 2008.

Before radar technology reaches this level, helicopters (or catapult-launched seaplanes) would be used for spotting.

Sorry, I'm not up on naval shorthand. I know BB means battleship, CV means carrier and so on - but what is BBGN short for? battleship, something, nuclear?

 

[Archdevil]

G stands for guided weapons, i.e. missiles.

Modern 'battleships' would indeed most likely resemble the Russian Kirovs.

Or, missiles eliminate the need for large surface ships completely and submarines rule. Without large surface ships (be they carriers or battleships), there is no need for destroyers and frigates to protect them.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

G stands for guided weapons, i.e. missiles.

Modern 'battleships' would indeed most likely resemble the Russian Kirovs.

Or, missiles eliminate the need for large surface ships completely and submarines rule. Without large surface ships (be they carriers or battleships), there is no need for destroyers and frigates to protect them.

You need escorts to escort merchantmen, even if you have no carriers. And in peacetime to show the flag and patrol areas of importance.

 

[Mote]

USN carrier air groups appeared extremely efficient by 1944-45, but were only up against mediocre (at best) air defences.

Had Japanese air defence technology and doctrine been as efficinet as USN in WWII I will claim that carriers would have been seen as an insufficient offensive weapon, and that battleships were needed for the kill.

Try and imagine combat air patrols (CAP) vectored by radar, hundreds of AA guns on each major ship and some even firing radar fused shells and directed by radar. If so it would soon be experienced that carrier attack airgroups usually would be depleted long before decisive results could be inflicted on the enemy fleet, that the battleships were the least vulnerable and that battleships and other big gun ships were needed for the kill.

It means rather more expensive attacks, but nothing much more than that. Going in for the kill requires nothing more than a torpedo attack by destroyers if you've sufficiently put them out of action to allow such a closing. Do remember that a kill isn't strictly speaking the purpose, it's an added benefit. The purpose of any naval operation is to achieve a particular goal (which itself may consist of denying the enemy achievement of his goal). As such, even if they are able to withdraw a damaged force with no ship losses, you've still won.

Just see the lack of results by the kamikazes - regular airplanes hoping to survive hardly would have fared better.

Would have actually. Well trained and experienced fighter pilots in up to date fighter aircraft would be sufficient to keep CAP from completely thrashing the incoming strike in most cases. As aerial interceptions were the cause of the majority of kamikaze losses (half of all attacks were splashed by CAP), this greatly increases the likelihood of a strike making it in. As it was, out of all kamikaze sorties, 15% managed to make a direct hit or damaging near miss in the waters off Okinawa. Therefore, assuming such a technological parity, an Essex carrier's strike by 36 dive bombers and 18 torpedo bombers would be expected to achieve no fewer than five hits or near misses with bombs and two torpedo strikes. However, as mentioned, a capable fighter escort would make more damage likely. This is also not considering the added effectiveness that would result from fewer fighters being carried aboard the defending ships due to the need for a large anti-fleet strike force.

Source

Later guided missiles and nuclear powered submarines would challenge the battleship as the most efficient killers, but OTOH almost any kind of vessel now could carry efficient long range weapons (and not just carriers).

But carriers will still have a range advantage and, more importantly, a superior scouting ability. It doesn't matter how long ranged of a missile you may have if you cannot fire it until the enemy is within fifteen miles (due to limitations on the radar horizon of a ship mounted radar).

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Heh, I play a forum-based, online, RolePlaying Game called 'NationStates'(look me up, Im Red Tide2).

We have these ships called 'Superdreadnoughts'(SDs). These were essentially oversized Battleships that had massive guns(24-31 inches), very thick armor, and were loaded down with VLS tubes, secondary armament, and point defense weapons. They, as well as Supercarriers, were used as flagships.

For awhile, the large consensus was that Battleships and SDs were slightly superior to Aircraft Carriers if used properly. The normal arguements were that shells could penetrate further then missiles, missiles were easier to shoot down then shells, etc...

But then a trend began to develop against SDs starting sometime last year. With missiles made specifically for sinking SDs and Battleships.

The real death knell for the pro-SD crowd was when a guy known as Questers/Hogsweat(he owns both nations) converted to the Carrier/Missile crowd and wrote the following rant:

http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=513

He basically says that even a Real Life Battleship(such as the Iowa) could be sunk by Real Life anti-ship missiles... and the problem was exacerbated by NS's more-sophisticated anti-ship missiles.

So SD's and Battleships are still around, their just used more in a support role now.

Okay, I am done being off-topic.

 

[alt_historian]

Hey, I was on NationStates some months ago. I was 'Ethicania' (I know, bad name for a country. Then again, we do have Liberia, which seems just as clunky to me).

I was one of those people who commented on the forums, but didn't join in the more involved, role-playing aspects which you discuss.
[/thread derailment]

So... @ Mote: yes, carriers would still have a range advantage - if it were not for the existence of such things as the type of radar Alexius talks about, with a 300km target acquisition range. Assume you also have cruise missiles / SRBMs of some kind on board, and why is this system inferior to a carrier. Oh yeah - except for the fact it doesn't risk the deaths of highly trained pilots, that is...

 

[Mote]

So... @ Mote: yes, carriers would still have a range advantage - if it were not for the existence of such things as the type of radar Alexius talks about, with a 300km target acquisition range.

You only get that against ships with an aerial platform. Against the top of a ship 250 feet high, you'd need a platform located at 15,000 feet. That calls for a fixed wing aircraft of some sort (especially since acquisition range is less than the radar horizon).

Assume you also have cruise missiles / SRBMs of some kind on board, and why is this system inferior to a carrier.

Because there are severe issues with over the horizon targeting, it's why the US Navy is so fond of man-in-the-loop systems. Missiles are stupid, if you launch them like that, they'll strike the first target of sufficient size that they find (assuming they even go to where the target is). That means that there is an extreme risk of hitting neutral or friendly shipping instead of the enemy. Additionally, pilots are capable of reacting to the situation and adapting to changed circumstances, whereas missiles are not.

 

[David S Poepoe]

David

From what I've read the Tillman designs are pretty unrealistic themselves, being drawn up in response to a political query rather than any real requirement and design operations.

Steve

There were a whole series of designs contemplated and some of them were unrealistic. Particularly those with the sextuple turrets. The 'well within the bounds of reason' designs mounted 15x18in turrets, five triple turrets, and that pretty much is the limit for a non-WNT generation of warships. There is a point where not just the expense of the ship itself is too great, but also the infrastructure just to build it, port it, dock it and supply it. Also these ships get so expensive that they basically are not placed into harm's way for fear of losing them.

Kudos to Electric Monk for reminding people about David Drake's Surface Action / Seas of Venus. Its an excellent read for battleship lovers.

There is a Imperial Russian battleship design that mounts 16x16in guns in four quadruple turrets which probably can also take the cake as the ne plus ultra battleship, but I don't believe she has the speed to rival the Americans.