Is the "Battleship" obsolete?

The force on the rail gun shell is about twice that of a conventional shell. Below is a good run down on development issues from 2007, click on link.

http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=node/1247

 

Yah, although that was with the USSR, through the UN. It's not clear to me that the CIS is actually successor, assignee, whatever the words of art are for inheriting the agreements that the USSR signed off on. & the Outer Space Treaty only addresses nuclear & other weapons of mass destruction. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarisation_of_space)

So a kinetic weapon doesn't seem like it would be covered there.

In any event, I was just answering the OP - if BBs now are mostly for shore bombardment, Do we need BBs anymore? If it's only for the shore bombardment, then No.

Personally, I think the BBs - or any likely successor in the shore bombardment duty - would be as much to show the flag & rattle the saber - a kinda show of force without having to actually pull the trigger. But an orbit-to-ground capacity is attractive for several reasons - no rust, lots of electronics, high physical security, hard to approach orbit without lighting a lot of radars. If you mine asteroids, etc. for the mass, you don't even have to haul much stuff up the gravity well. If you harness solar for the smelting & power generation, it might become a relatively low-cost solution to force projection beyond the horizon, as it were. & if the tech proves out for the power generation, then you've paved the way for solar-power-to-ground power collection/transmission.

It sounds like a win-win to me.

 

Actually Battlecruisers tended to carry about the same guns as Battleships but had less armour.

 

Problem being that pumps are noisy and make it easier to kill a sub that is using them. Then again, American subs are noisy to begin with.

 

American subs are extremely quiet compared to other nations. Soviet subs were horrible despite what Hunt for Red October portrayed. China's subs are very noisy as well.

 

No, American subs, because they're nuclear, are noisy as hell as nuclear subs can't go into a proper silent running mode.

 

Comparatively they are still quieter. Diesel electric subs have very limited range and are only suitable for coastal patrols. The only subs that can traverse the globe without refueling all the time are nuclear ones. Soviet and Chinese nuclear subs are far noisier than American ones. This is one of the reasons why the USSR kept most of their nuclear capacity with ICBMs compared to the US which had half its nuclear arsenal on submarines.

 

True. Which was when they went against Battleships they often came out the looser. A 14-18" shell could penetrate their hulls pretty easily. As could the AP bombs the aircraft cropped on them.

But in the modern era, they are of sufficient thickness to protect them against missiles, which are really the only real threat ships face today.

 

Well, there was chain shot, grape shot, etc., not just solid ball shot. But generally cannon were for reducing fortifications, yes. Massed platoons were a product of of the need for command control; it's hard to control a body of even a few hundred troops if they're allowed to wander around at random, much less a battle line involving 10's of thousands, and massed fire was important in an era with one shot muskets. A mass of muskets numbering say, 75, against a skirmish line numbering 30 is going to win and hold its objective, all other things being equal. Offensives in those days required something like 3 - 5 to 1 advantage as a general rule. A mass formation would indeed take heavier casualties over open ground than a thin skirmish line, but the skirmishers won't take out all of the massed formation before they're killed or their position overrun. Machine guns changed all that, of course, as far as infantry tactics are concerned. Skirmisk lines were also vulnerable to cavalry raids, who could eaisly punch through them and create havoc on depots and supply trains.

 

I'll add that the Soviets used essentially the same tactics in WW II in their offensives. They don't have that kind of manpower any more, but groups like Al Quada and ISIS do, as far as being able to take casualties, though in an entirely different kind of tactical warfare, and only going after civilian targets.

 

Depends on what doctrine you want to apply but let it be said.... only 3 ways to touch soil, by Air, land or sea. Smart money says keep the Battleship in support for now until doctrine changes.

 

And that is true. Especially chain shot for use on ships for destroying rigging and sails. But in land warfare, that was generally held as a last ditch defense by the artillery when they were about to get overrun. A giant shotgun blast and move to safer ground.

But I do not see how those would work for a rail gun. And a rail gun round at loose infantry would be like shooting them with solid shot.

Actually, if you look closely I do not actually want the "Battleship" returned, but at least 1 class of ship made with some of the same principals used in their design.

Larger bore guns and more of them then the 1 or 2 5" pop guns that ships have now, and armor thick enough to actually eliminate the threat of a ship being crippled or sunk by a single missile hit.

As I said, the role of the Battleship, not an actual return of the BB class themselves.

 

The only thing I can think of is some kind flechette gimmick of some sort, where the round is set to splinter at some point overhead; doesn't sound very practical, but then I'm not much of a tech outside of some electronics and alittle optics and vacuum systems.

Don't know, myself; I see air power taking the place of a lot arty missions in the future, and with that also infantry support, but then using infantry is becoming very politically unpopular; don't have any idea how that is all going to wash out in the future, but I have a feeling it's not going to go well. I'll go with multi-purpose carriers as opposed to 'pure' gunships for a 100, Alex.

 

Also light gas guns and scramjet projectiles. That would be a carrier killer and own the sea.

 

Actually, the claims about Artillery have been around at least since WWI.

Recoilless cannons, the early analog gunnery computers (instead of iron sights and dead reckoning), and automatic adjustments also made the same claim. And we all know how WWI and WWII turned out with these advancements and more. Did nothing to eliminate the need for infantry, just killed more of them before they took their objectives.

And trust me, after serving in the Infantry for a decade our own "trust" in getting support generally follows the following list, in order of most trusted to least trusted.

1. Organic support (Company-Battalion level indirect fire - mortars)
2. Division support (artillery)
3. Naval Gunfire (high in the Marines, lower in the Army because of lack of familiarity)
4. Helicopters
5. CAS specific aircraft (A-10)
5. Non-CAS aircraft (Anything not "low and slow)
6. Bombers

Myself, I really could not care less if infantry is "popular" or not. In reality, you might as well try to claim that cops on the beat will be replaced by video cameras as far as I am concerned. A world where policing is done without cameras is about as realistic as a world without infantry. You can not do anything but terrorize people unless you have "boots on the ground".

 

The goal of the US Navy is to field 12 brand new Ohio class ballistic missile submarines and a 300 ship fleet.

With 44 ships under construction and another 8 under contract, we're at 289 ships.

The USN, even more so than the USAF, is America's primary deterrence for aggression...it is imperative we continue to maintain the stongest Navy on the face of the Earth.

I don't know the particulars about what "type" or "class" of ships are better than others; other than the obvious mission of ballistic missile submarines is nuclear deterrence; but what is important is not short changing the budget of our Navy.

 

Do you mean Littoral class ships?

 

Yup, couldn't remember how it was spelled.

 

Littoral ships really are a really foolish concept if you ask me.

Not enough guns to be effective at shore bombardment. Not enough missiles to be effective at fleet defense. Stealth, which is rather worthless when talking about anything other then going up close to s ashore and letting go with guns (something we really have not done for ages).

Frankly, I just don't get them. And a great many others do not either. And most of the time a nation uses it's fleet as a sign of strength. Our carriers are 150 miles off your shore so you had better pay attention when we ask you to stop. Our battleship is steaming up and down your coastline and will obliterate everything if you attack us.

Kind of the entire reason behind "walk softly but carry a big stick". If the stick is invisible, it is not very much of a stick, is it?

 

Small screening ships are essential to carrier group operations.

 

Fascinating concept. I have thought for sometime that it is curious that Battleships(heavily armored vessels) are largely impervious to what could likely be targeted at them other than torpedoes.

I hadn't considered the Alaska as a conceptual idea- but the idea of a heavily armored shore bombardment vessel that could largely ignore the missiles is compelling. I don't know that there would be any reason for a secondary battery of 5" though for traditions sake it is appealing.

I would imagine it would be possible to automate the loading even of 12" guns which would reduce crew count, reduce exterior softpoints that could be vulnerable and the majority of crew would be safely behind 7 inches of steel.

2 triple turrets of 12" guns, with enough ammo to linger and threaten to inflict damage, along with the capacity for launching missles......make it so....

 

They're just multi-function light duty auxillaries. Probably the program is aimed at overseas sales more than anything else. I think they're kind of cool, but then I'm not going to be paying the full costs of them, so it doesn't matter ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship

 

And many agree with you, though I think the main player recently resigned.

 

Oh this I am aware. But this does not really do that job very well.

Look at the Freedom class. A 57mm gun with less then 900 rounds, 4 .50 machine guns, 2 30mm cannons, and 21 Rolling Airframe Missiles (range of less then 6 miles). The Independence class is pretty much the same.

Sorry, when your longest range weapon has a range of less then 6 miles, it is pretty crappy as a screening ship. And the idea of "stealth" ships when you are defending ships that have nothing stealth about them (like a carrier) is also pretty foolish. The lack of any kind of real weaponry to me makes them more appropriate to the Coast Guard then the US Navy (not knocking the CG, just different mission).

People in here are screaming that the age of guns is dead. Yet the newest technology ships can actually shoot farther with their guns then they can with any of their missiles. How silly is that?

I mention the Alaska class, because it is probably the most well known of the Heavy Cruisers. But another good design was the early hybrid Boston class. In this they took 2 Baltimore class cruisers, removed their rear turret, and installed a RIM-2 SAM system (much like the New Jersey almost had done during refit). These ships served well for decades, especially in missions up and down the North Vietnamese coast largely shelling positions at will (as did the New Jersey).

Our first generation of missile cruisers were all WWII era cruisers that they simply adapted to fire missiles. And ironically most of them (like the Boston class) survived longer in their gun role then they did in their missile role. Replacing missile systems is expensive, and by Vietnam the RIM-2 was an antique. There had been proposals to bring her back in and refit her with a more modern system, but she was to valuable in her gun role off the North Vietnam cost to remove from service for 2-3 years to do the refit.

And in the Gulf War, remember what the first platform was that fired cruise missiles at Iraq. The BBs were often among the first ships sent into the Persian Gulf, because they were armored to shrug off most missiles and could steam up close to shore and use their guns to take out shore positions (now missile batteries instead of coastal artillery).

Interestingly, many keep saying the "age of gun is dead". Yet every time we have had gun ships, even in the era of cruise missiles and supersonic nuclear bombers, we keep finding roles for them. And in the LCS we are even seeing naval gun ranges extended to incredible distances (over 100 miles). So why are we doing this if guns are dead? I love this contradiction, and simply want to see some of the old parts brought back.

As the saying goes, if your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail. And right now in our Navy, every problem calls for a missile. Simply because we no longer have any guns they want to shoot missiles at everything.

After all, it was not all that long ago when a certain President made headlines when he was quoted as saying "When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive." If we at least had guns we would have a decent alternative to firing a $2 million missile. Right now, that is really all we got most of the time though.