No Aircraft Carriers, How far do battleships develop?

[tallwingedgoat]

I don't see carriers going away, but if a naval surface-to-air-missile was invented in the 1930s, carriers may be limited to a secondary status. Something relatively simple like the Seacat SAM system is not beyond the realm of possibility.

The days of the battleship is going to end sooner or later. Once guided missiles are perfected that will be the prefered way of arming ships rather than with big guns.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

The days of the battleship is going to end sooner or later. Once guided missiles are perfected that will be the prefered way of arming ships rather than with big guns.

Not neccessarily, guns do have several advantages over missiles that I can think of off the top of my head. Missiles can be intercepted/deflected by various kinds of anti-missile technology that has little effect against artillery shells. An artillery shell also costs quite a bit less and takes less time/materials to produce than a missile, an important consideration if battleships are going to be doing lots of firing.

 

[Mote]

Not neccessarily, guns do have several advantages over missiles that I can think of off the top of my head. Missiles can be intercepted/deflected by various kinds of anti-missile technology that has little effect against artillery shells. An artillery shell also costs quite a bit less and takes less time/materials to produce than a missile, an important consideration if battleships are going to be doing lots of firing.

For the same weight, a missile delivers a larger punch. While each individual missile requires more volume than an individual shell, the space required for the entire weapons system is less for the missile is less than that for an artillery system. Unless you add guidance methods to a shell (at which point it is vulnerable to all the same soft-kill methods) it is far more inaccurate than a missile and is also limited in its range.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Missiles can be intercepted/deflected by various kinds of anti-missile technology that has little effect against artillery shells.

Not true, the British Rolling Airframe Missile HAS, in tests, intercepted large-caliber artillery shells.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

In software terms, anti-ship missiles is a killer application. It totally outclass guns.

Number one reason being range. Battle ship guns are measured in miles, missiles are measured in hundreds of miles. Missile range is limited by how much fuel the missile carries, gun range is limited by the size of the gun. By the end of WWII, gun size was reaching practical limits. And even if long range guns were possible, you will have targetting issues much more difficult to solve.

The second reason being weight. Missiles weigh less than a big gun. That means a small corvett can be a leathal warship. It's far cheaper to build smaller missile armed ships than a a huge armoured battleship, a battleship that don't have the reach to hurt the missile ship and therefore forfeit the control of the sea by default.

 

[Archdevil]

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.

I think you're referring to this page.[/quote]

The 16 * 16" design there has speed as 'up to 30 knots', which asssuming it would be possible, would have been significantly faster than contempory American designs.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

Keep in mind radar technology was revolutionizing naval warfare. Radar provided a far longer range awareness than the gun could take advantage. Continued reliance on the gun in the radar age is a non-starter.

 

[Derek Jackson]

In OTL number of medium to large warships in WW2 had 1 or two float planes. Did they ever do anything significant?

 

[alt_historian]

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).



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.

Fair enough.

 

[David S Poepoe]

In OTL number of medium to large warships in WW2 had 1 or two float planes. Did they ever do anything significant?

For the most part they were carried for scouting and shell spotting in long range engagements. Their overall contribution could probably considered quite small given that there were few actions outside the range of either carrier or land based aircraft. It could be argued that they were greater liabilities to their mother ships thru the presence of aviation fuel that could be set afire in combat.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Spare me your "carriers are just better at doing things than battleships" bullshit, David. Next you'll be ragging on Zeppelins.

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.

 

[Kaptin Kurk]

Well, the American Navy keeps touting the Rail Gun Battleships with 800 mile range cannons they claim their building. If anything ever comes of that, maybe the BBs make a come back. Especially if their BB / Submarine hybrids as the American Navy claims their new class of Rail Gun super-ships will be.

I don't know if they'll havre a sexy feminine A.I. voice for their crew to enjoy or not, but hell, why not throw that in too?

 

[alt_historian]

Well, the American Navy keeps touting the Rail Gun Battleships with 800 mile range cannons they claim their building. If anything ever comes of that, maybe the BBs make a come back. Especially if their BB / Submarine hybrids as the American Navy claims their new class of Rail Gun super-ships will be.

I don't know if they'll havre a sexy feminine A.I. voice for their crew to enjoy or not, but hell, why not throw that in too?

Um... is this OTL? Where can I find out about that?

 

[Philip]

Well, the American Navy keeps touting the Rail Gun Battleships with 800 mile range cannons they claim their building. If anything ever comes of that, maybe the BBs make a come back.

Not sure where you heard that claim, but it doesn't sound reasonable. Assuming that the claims about the railgun are correct, it seems much more likely that the USN would build several destroyer sized ships rather than a single battleship.

Especially if their BB / Submarine hybrids as the American Navy claims their new class of Rail Gun super-ships will be.

Where, exactly, are you hearing these claims?

 

[alt_historian]

Not sure where you heard that claim, but it doesn't sound reasonable. Assuming that the claims about the railgun are correct, it seems much more likely that the USN would build several destroyer sized ships rather than a single battleship.

Where, exactly, are you hearing these claims?

That's what I wanted to know. But he hasn't been back yet...

 

[Kaptin Kurk]

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,161194,00.html?wh=wh


There's an article talking about it here. There's others out there. It's not just one source I've come across, and some of them vary (this one says 200 miles not 800 miles) some say the ships will be submeragle, others say they'll be super-fast hydrofoils that zip across the water at nearly the speed of an airplane.

Either way, people do keep talking about these super ships the U.S. Navy is supposed to be designing. I'll try to find more articles.

Navy Railgun Test Sets Record
Virginian-Pilot | February 01, 2008

Science got one step closer to science fiction Thursday morning, when the Navy used an electromagnetic railgun to fire a 7-pound slug at seven times the speed of sound.

The record-breaking shot, witnessed by a roomful of VIPs via remote camera at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, also moved the armed forces further down the road to a faster, safer, lighter, cheaper form of firepower.

Raw Video: Navy Tests Electro-mag Railgun

Moments before, a split screen showed an engineer at a control panel and a target that stood several miles away.

"Armed," he said.

Then: thick smoke.

Target gone.

Applause.

After the shot, Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations and a former gunnery officer, praised the test.

"I never want to see a sailor or Marine in a fair fight," he said. "I always want them to have the advantage."


The railgun's technology is straightforward and potent, making it a long-time favorite of fiction writers and video game makers, though in sometimes fanciful variations, such as a hand-held version in the "Quake" series.

The Navy's railgun is basically a long tube lined with two copper alloy rails. When charged by an enormous pulse of electricity, these rails exert a tremendous force that sends an inert projectile out at incredible speed.
And the more juice generated, the more muzzle velocity the weapon has and the farther and faster the projectile can go.

Thursday's test produced a record 10.86 megajoules, which sent the 7-pound aluminum slug at Mach 7 (more than 5,000 mph) for 80 meters, a roughly 20-millisecond ride.

The Navy's ultimate goal is a ship-mounted weapon capable of firing missiles 200 nautical miles in a six-minute arc into outer space and back to land, guided by GPS.

This dwarfs the range of the Navy's current workhorse gun, the 5- inch MK 45, which shoots about 13 nautical miles.

(continued in article....)

 

[Philip]

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,161194,00.html?wh=wh

That doesn't match your claims.

(this one says 200 miles not 800 miles)

200 is the correct estimate. I doubt you can find one that presents a range of 800nm in the near term. Of course, the more conventional AGS being built by UD will approach a range of 200nm when firing the ERGM/LRLAP/BTERM rounds (BTW, these rounds are more useful than the solid slug of a rail gun. Building a GPS guidance system that can survive the the accelerations of a rail gun is a long way off). Also, both these guns are being designed for the DDG21/DDX/DDG1000 program (2 single mounts per ship) and the CGX (1 single mount per ship). No one classifies these as battleships.

some say the ships will be submeragle,

Not in the near term. None of the current surface combatant programs (LCS/DDG1000/CGX/CVX) have submersibity as a goal or requirement. Maybe you are thinking of the SSGN project?

others say they'll be super-fast hydrofoils that zip across the water at nearly the speed of an airplane.

Not in the near term. Doubtful for the long term. The fastest ship in development in USN is LCS. The goal is around 50 knots -- nowhere near what is typically considered the speed of an airplane. As for the long term, it also seems unlikely. The idea of a large ship (10 000+ tonnes) speeding along at say 200 knots may sound cool, but the same ship slamming into a rouge wave at 200 knots is much less cool. At least from the crew's perspective.

Either way, people do keep talking about these super ships the U.S. Navy is supposed to be designing. I'll try to find more articles.

Which people? Fanboys or legitimate members of the defense industry?

 

[Kaptin Kurk]

That doesn't match your claims.

200 is the correct estimate. I doubt you can find one that presents a range of 800nm in the near term. Of course, the more conventional AGS being built by UD will approach a range of 200nm when firing the ERGM/LRLAP/BTERM rounds (BTW, these rounds are more useful than the solid slug of a rail gun. Building a GPS guidance system that can survive the the accelerations of a rail gun is a long way off). Also, both these guns are being designed for the DDG21/DDX/DDG1000 program (2 single mounts per ship) and the CGX (1 single mount per ship). No one classifies these as battleships.

Not in the near term. None of the current surface combatant programs (LCS/DDG1000/CGX/CVX) have submersibity as a goal or requirement. Maybe you are thinking of the SSGN project?

Not in the near term. Doubtful for the long term. The fastest ship in development in USN is LCS. The goal is around 50 knots -- nowhere near what is typically considered the speed of an airplane. As for the long term, it also seems unlikely. The idea of a large ship (10 000+ tonnes) speeding along at say 200 knots may sound cool, but the same ship slamming into a rouge wave at 200 knots is much less cool. At least from the crew's perspective.

Which people? Fanboys or legitimate members of the defense industry?

"I'm not trying to put a rush on you. I just want to let you know, I've got a little crush on you" - Biggie Smalls.

Chill, man. I'm not trying to uber wank you. Just telling you what I've come across in casual reading. You know better, great. Thanks for the info.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

200 mile gun is nothing compared to a scramjet cruisemissile that can fly just as fast and several times further. All without the expense of the massive motor you'll need for a rail gun.

 

[alt_historian]

A question of definitions

OK. Given the continuing debate on this thread about the relative advantages of battleships vs. carriers, or battleships vs. missiles/missile-armed ships, I thought I would ask something:
How do we define "a battleship"? How many VLS, cruise missiles etc can we stick on it before it ceases being a battleship, as such, and becomes simply a very large, heavily armoured guided missile ship?