Do Battleships have a futue?

Odin · March 20, 2003, 15:15

I think they do, as massive cruise missile launchers and carrier-killers. Remove those guns they have and replace them with small missle launchers to take out carriers behind a convoy of distroyers. Any other Ideas on ressurecting the "Queen of the Seas"?

Sava · March 20, 2003, 15:18

As expensive as they are, ships of that size aren't worth the expense. Smaller ships do that same job effectively. No reason to keep around a real expensive, large missile platform.

Japher · March 20, 2003, 15:18

Luxury Liners!!! Think about it; a caribian cruise in a battleship. One could launch fire works out the guns, or it could be used for some really expensive skeet shooting!

Az · March 20, 2003, 15:19

I don't think they have any future, at least in conflicts between powers.

Neither do carriers, If spy sats would be positioned globally, to detect their exact location at all times. When this is established, carriers are pretty much dead meat.

rah · March 20, 2003, 15:20

No, it's putting too many eggs in one basket. (a large one anyway)

While it would make a good missle platform, it's too much. Better to have a dozen small ones.

The battleship in it's current form can still participate in "shock an awe" tactics. They are still quite impressive but just too big of a target that must be defended.

Arrian · March 20, 2003, 15:20

Why would it be worth the expense of modifying them, though, if all you're going to get is another missle platform? We have smaller, less costly ships (in terms of operational costs) for that.

I think the battleship concept is toast, for a while at least (who knows what they will develop in the distant future?)

-Arrian

Az · March 20, 2003, 15:22

What about carriers?

If carriers would be pinpointed at all times, they'd be just as dead meat as carriers were.

rah · March 20, 2003, 16:01

Carriers are part of battle groups that are designed to protect them.

el freako · March 20, 2003, 16:03

True,

I think that the carrier is as obsolete now as the big-gunned Battleship was in the 1930's.

The reason no-one notices this is for the same reason that no one noticed 70 years ago - no major competition between maritime powers.

el freako · March 20, 2003, 16:07

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Carriers are part of battle groups that are designed to protect them.

I'd like to see them protect it from 500 cruise missiles (which together cost around half of the value of the carrier and probably a quarter of the whole task force)

Berzerker · March 20, 2003, 16:09

But carriers do what no other ship can, carry jets. If you could always depend on land airbases all over the world, then and only then would carriers be obsolete.

Kramerman · March 20, 2003, 16:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
I think they do, as massive cruise missile launchers and carrier-killers. Remove those guns they have and replace them with small missle launchers to take out carriers behind a convoy of distroyers. Any other Ideas on ressurecting the "Queen of the Seas"?

Sadly, i dont think they could be returned to the glorious days they once had. as others have said, other ships can do the same job better, and with much lower cost. Why remove the gun turrets only to add missile launchers? Then it is no longer a battle ship, it is just a big, over-priced hulk of a ship with some missile launchers on it.

Perhaps, in the future when/if antimissile defenses become so powerful and sophisticated that destroying navey ships with missiles is near-impossible, the glory of the big guns will be returned, but in a different form as ship killers. With the use of rail gun technology, the velocity of the projectiles would make them all but impossibel to intercept, and a few of these on a massive platform (ie battleship) would herald back the "queen of the seas". The nice thing about potential rail guns is that they can launch projectiles over 500 miles, so they could take the place of tactical missiles not only for antiship actions, buit also for inland bombardment.

Kman

Az · March 20, 2003, 16:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
But carriers do what no other ship can, carry jets. If you could always depend on land airbases all over the world, then and only then would carriers be obsolete.

Yet, if they can be taken out, what's the point? By placing Geostationary spysats that would be placed above the places where they should come from, They can be traced precisely. IIRC, this was impossible in the cold war, photographic spysats had to be placed on NEOs, a thousand miles up or so. therefore, a carrier had time to "escape". Recently, the technology advanced to such a level that locating a thing as big as a carrier shouldn't be much of a problem. And then, they're dead meat. Air launched cruise missiles, SS-cruise missiles. bam.

This is not terrorist group stuff. A leader like Saddam, could pull it off, if his economy wouldn't have been destroyed by sanctions after GW1.

You know, if Saddam had any wit, he could've built quite a regional power. could've rivaled us, even.

VetLegion · March 20, 2003, 16:44

Quote:

And then, they're dead meat. Air launched cruise missiles, SS-cruise missiles. bam.

But how many? All the ships in a group have those rapid fire machineguns that are computer guided and destroy a missile when everything else fails. I think that is pretty effective stuff. And also a carrier can survive a good deal of shots. So how many would you have to shoot at it to kill it?

Az · March 20, 2003, 16:54

Quote:

But how many? All the ships in a group have those rapid fire machineguns that are computer guided and destroy a missile when everything else fails. I think that is pretty effective stuff. And also a carrier can survive a good deal of shots. So how many would you have to shoot at it to kill it?

I think that a battle group will get it's heart torn out by a single wave of 200 missiles. imagine 200 cruise missiles launched simultaneously, or in swift succession. I don't think that the air defences could handle that.

MichaeltheGreat · March 20, 2003, 17:05

Quote:

Originally posted by el freako

I'd like to see them protect it from 500 cruise missiles (which together cost around half of the value of the carrier and probably a quarter of the whole task force)

I'd like to see any nation in the world other than the US put together enough platforms to launch 500 cruise missiles and have the launch platforms live long enough to fire them against a carrier battle group.

gunkulator · March 20, 2003, 17:08

All US ships have at least one Phalanx: a close in weapons system that is essentially a gatling gun. It is crudely aimed in a direction and then continually puts up a wall of depleted uranium until its radar sees no more targets.

CivII players can appreciate the irony of how a phalanx can defeat a cruise missile.

MichaeltheGreat · March 20, 2003, 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

I think that a battle group will get it's heart torn out by a single wave of 200 missiles. imagine 200 cruise missiles launched simultaneously, or in swift succession. I don't think that the air defences could handle that.

What range of ASM's are we talking here? The bigger ship launched Soviet models had ranges of a little of 300 miles, and for the most part, you trade range for payload. Launching a wave of two hundred close enough to simultanously would take about 15 good size launch platforms. (AEGIS cruiser firing TASM's, etc.) That's more firepower concentrated in a surface battle group than any navy has, and it also requires additional ships for ASW and FAD duties.

It would financially break most countries and take them years before they could put together a blue water navy like that.

MichaeltheGreat · March 20, 2003, 17:15

Quote:

Originally posted by gunkulator
All US ships have at least one Phalanx: a close in weapons system that is essentially a gatling gun. It is crudely aimed in a direction and then continually puts up a wall of depleted uranium until its radar sees no more targets.

CivII players can appreciate the irony of how a phalanx can defeat a cruise missile.

CIWS takes several seconds to engage each target. If you have 6-8 missiles enter CIWS range, most will get through. It's up to the AEGIS cruisers and destroyers, and the air intercept capability of the carrier's fighters to prevent anything from getting into CIWS range.

Az · March 20, 2003, 17:16

I am talking shore based launchers.

MichaeltheGreat · March 20, 2003, 17:23

Moving up someplace like the gulf would be dicey, but there'd be no problem anyplace where you have maneuvering room. At standoff range, the missiles have a lot of inbound flight time, and generally there's a capability gap between the effective strike range of the carrier's air group and the much lesser range of the missile batteries.

Az · March 20, 2003, 17:35

What's the Tomahawk's range?

Illyrien · March 20, 2003, 18:16

Keep in mind that cruise missiles can be launched from planes, thereby giving it a much longer range than a converted battleship ever could.

A Carrier can project power quite far, much futher then land-based or the hypothetical battleship can, therefore carriers still have some value.

ColdWizard · March 20, 2003, 18:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
What's the Tomahawk's range?

about 1000 miles, iirc. Tomahawks are used against land targets though.

CyberGnu · March 20, 2003, 18:34

Kramerman, good post

korn469 · March 20, 2003, 18:36

also you can convert Ohio class ballistic missile submarines into cruise missile platforms as noted here

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...ue_6/ssgn.html

one little factoid about this possibility

Quote:

Maximum Strike - Launch tubes 3 through 24 would be fitted with 7-pack cruise missile canisters. The SSGN would have the potential to fire all 154 (22 x 7) missiles in as little as six minutes

Odin · March 20, 2003, 18:47

I guess you are right, Kman. I was thinking about this when I was using AEGIS Crusiers in CIV3, I was thinking of some kind of battleship-AEGIS Cruiser combo.

Berzerker · March 20, 2003, 19:23

Azazel - You can flood any ship or battle group with missiles, so why have a fleet at all? If 2 or 3 cruise missiles at a million a piece can sink a smaller ship like a destroyer, the comparative cost is and will be in favor of the cruise missiles. Carriers do what no other ship can, carry planes. Attack technology always precedes defense technology, but you don't give up valuable attack capabilities offered by floating airfields just because the current defense can be overwhelmed.

yavoon · March 20, 2003, 19:26

battleships are extremely useful as seabased artillery. it wsa a shame we decommisioned so many.

Kramerman · March 20, 2003, 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
I guess you are right, Kman. I was thinking about this when I was using AEGIS Crusiers in CIV3, I was thinking of some kind of battleship-AEGIS Cruiser combo.

Well, I dunno of anything like this in the works, but I do know of an ultra modern trimaran battleship on the drawing called the LEVIATHAN. It will be 750 feet long, but due to its design adn propulsion would be amazingly fast and agile (things called azipod thrusters on the sides help make it incrediblely dexterous), its design also giving it great durability and even stealthy features. Its secondary armory would be multiple missile launchers and aropund 80 unmanned ariel and underwater vehicles. Its main armament will be two rail guns, both theoretically will be able to launch potentially guided shells 500 miles at speeds of over mach 10!. Its still on the drawing boards tho, probably wont be seeing this thing for at least another 20, or 25 years.

In the meantime many new futuristic destroyers are on there way to production, or will soon be entering production, such as theh DD-X stealth destroyer, which should debut around 2011, and the CG-X crusier, which should come out around 2018. Stealthy features are another way that helps modern navies try to defeat the threat of radar guided missile attacks, but missile attacks will still be a threat.