21st century battleships

[Sidewinder]

After reading Michael Sparks' proposal to return the Iowa class battleships to service (several board members noted his proposal was UTTERLY RETARDED in this thread, I thought of challenging technologically-minded members to design a battleship with contemporary technology (no force fields or energy shields unless we're able to produce working prototypes within the next three years, a figure chosen because that's how much time passed from the day the USS Iowa was laid down and the day she was commissioned); that can fulfill a battleship's mission of long-range bombardment; and that can actually survive in a 21st century naval battle.

In my opinion, the USN already has a 21st century battleship in service: the USS Ohio. Stealth defends her instead of armor (an Air Force guy once boasted, "If we can see it, we can hit it, and if we can hit it, we can kill it," but it's hard to hit and kill something you can't see). Her Tomahawk cruise missiles can perform long-range bombardment (firing a cruise missile costs considerably more than firing a 16-inch shell, but it's also considerably cheaper than having to repair or replace a warship because she had to get within 38 km of a target instead of 2500 km, giving the enemy ample time to detect, track, and attack her). In the 90s, there were plans to arm submarines with surface-to-air missiles to attack patrol planes (the French Navy's idea was to launch SAMs the way modern subs launch antiship missiles, from underwater, while the USN's idea was to deploy to the surface an unmanned SAM launcher, connected to the still underwater sub by cables); although the technology we had then made the plans unfeasible, it MIGHT become feasible within the next decade, reducing one of a conventional battleship's greatest vulnerabilities.

Any other ideas for a battleship that's actually effective and efficient in a 21st century naval battle?

[Kanastrous]

To me 'battleship' specifically means a big heavily armored hull for the purpose of moving huge-ass naval artillery tubes around.

If 'battleship' instead means any platform suitable for bombarding a distant target with lots of high explosives then yes, the Ohio class submarines sure fit the bill, for me.

[Sidewinder]

In the 90s, I read one of those combat reform books, which said that while a tank will be obsolete in the 21st century battlefield, the CONCEPT of a tank (a mobile direct-fire weapon within a protected space) won't; this reinterpretation was meant to let the authors fill a tank's role with something "better." I'm using a similar reinterpretation, defining a battleship as "a well-protected warship capable of long-range bombardment of land and sea surface targets."

[Kanastrous]

A Nimitz-class aircraft carrier fits that bill, too.

So do Aegis cruisers and destroyers, I think. Don't they carry land-attack missiles as well as air-defense munitions?

[Kanastrous]

ghetto edit - so far as I understand, the tank has not proved obsolete on the 21st century battlefield, at least, not yet...

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The only time a battleship would ever return is perhaps when rail guns come to fore. But even so, you'd expect the ship to have some future incarnation of the Aegis defence system and other things. Then the question that needs to be addressed is whether it is worth while building an upscaled cruiser/destroyer when a smaller ship could do the trick.

[Balrog]

From what I understand, railguns could signal a return of, if not exactly battleships, then something akin to them. With a railgun you get to stand off at missile-like ranges and bombard the target accurately at a fraction fo the cost of a normal cruise missile. You just need a ship big enough to hold a reactor that can supply the needed power and carry enough guns to make the whole thing worthwhile.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Large ship

KRN Lahnajha, as commissioned on December 31st, 1986 into the Royal Kætjhasti Navy (one of my alternate-universe fiction series), a Nuclear Strike Cruiser (CSGN).

Displacement full load 26,000 long tons.

Titanium splinter armour around the reactor spaces, kevlar splinter armour around CIC, wire guides for the radars, and engineering control. 3.7in belt covering machinery spaces and magazines with kevlar box splinter armour on the magazines, with a 2in deck; cruiser-rate TDS--sufficient armour to defend, in short, against missile fragmentation, the occurrence of an incoming AShM being destroyed at very short range so that it showers a ship in high-velocity burning fragments. This is the only realistic modern threat that can reliably be armoured against, and protection is total for this case along with several other less likely ones, as well as providing defence against near-misses by torpedoes and protecting against radiation and nuclear blast effects.

Armament consists of
-- 2 x 64-cell VLS and 1 x 16-cell VLS for 144 VLS cells, 128 of them for conventional weapons and 16 for nuclear weapons as designed. VLS capable of four-packing the Improved Slikha, the Kætjhasti equivalent to the ESSM;
-- 1 x 8-cell heavy VLS for FLIH-84 Mach 3.5 cruise missiles, long-range nuclear land-attack or shorter range, diving conventional anti-ship, currently being refitted to carry four-packs of a supersonic cruise missile similar in size to Tomahawk but with less range and launched by a rocket booster on a ballistic trajectory before separation.
-- 3 x 8in/55cal. Originally designed for two, the hull was lengthened for a third gun despite admiralty protests due to a demand in the Reichstagasti that the ships should match the firepower of the 6 x 11.1in/50cal armed CBGs they were replacing; they do, as the semi-automatic 8in/55cal guns can lay within 10% of the same amount of metal on target as the 11.1in rifles of the Kamunashjhad-class CBGs they replaced.
-- 4 Helicopters in two hangars with amidships flying off: Heavy ASW and AEW models carried.
-- 4 x IRK-14 anti-torpedo rocket launchers tied to advanced sonars and the central battle control computers; these provide an active defence against terminal attack torpedoes.
-- 4 x quadruple Nakama SSM launchers (Harpoon clones, basically) : 16 missiles total.
-- 4 x RAM launchers (21-missile variant) -- deployed at the same time and largely the same as the German variant. One fore, one aft, one on the fore hangar amidships, one on the aft hangar amidships, occupying Phalanx mount points (and later Goalkeeper mount points) 1, 4 - 6.
-- 2 x Sea RAM launchers (independent development from the German variant) (11 missile variant) on the broadsides of the foreward superstructure at Phalanx points 2 and 3.
-- 4 x 40mm twin DARDO "fast fourty" Type A mounts with CIWS capability.
-- 2 x triple ASW torpedo tubes.
-- Note: Originally was supposed to be armed with 4 x DARDO pre-CIWS capability + 4 x Goalkeeper 30mm for CIWS. Contract disputes with the Netherlands guaranteed that the Goalkeeper procurement was not available in time; at the time the Deralis Chancellorship was pursuing closer relations with the United States which included missile defence exchanges. As a result, Phalanx was procured as a temporary substitute with two extra mounts (due to the perceived unreliability, it was thought that six would yield four operational at any one time) hung on the sides of the superstructure for a total of six Phalanx, Goalkeeper being installed later. During refits in the early 2000s, this ship (and her sisters who were built with 4 Goalkeeper from the start) had their Goalkeeper mounts removed, their DARDO mounts upgraded to CIWS capability, and Goalkeeper replaced by RAM, with the empty pedestals for Phalanx on the Lahnajha being fitted with Sea RAM as backup mounts, a provision then added to the other four ships of the class.

[Sarevok]

The battleship as defined by the very people who created it over a 100 years ago is as dead as the Greek Phalanx and horse cavalry charge. It is as pointless to argue semantics to redefine battleships as it is to argue SCUD missile launchers as a medieval catapult because it also shoots stuff on a ballistic trajectory.

Well you might get railgun armed ships. But that depends on laser and other missile interception technology. Even then you are unlikely to get a large warship because a small nuke is cheaper than 50000 ton railgun armed monstera protected by nuclear powered lasers.

[Stark]

Needs more pictures that break formatting, even on 1650x1080?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The likelihood of a laser armed vessel is quite minute in the next 1-2 decades unless some radically new technology emerges.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Needs more pictures that break formatting, even on 1650x1080? :)

Oh come on. It's a Sidewinder thread, who could possibly care about a formatting break in a Sidewinder thread?

[Stark]

Y'know, I really don't have an answer for that.

[cosmicalstorm]

I read the Axis of Time trilogy by John Birmingham the other year, it contained some pretty neat ideas about the future of naval warfare.
Im not qualified to say how realistic it is but I would recommend this series to anyone who is interested in this area.

[PainRack]

No mention of an arsenal ship yet?

[Big Phil]

Two alternatives:

#1 - A missile-equipped Sea Control Ship, sort of like Kirov or Kiev, would be the closest modern analogy to a battleship. Metal armor, big guns, etc., are not particularly useful, but lots of electronics, lots of missiles, and maybe even some airplanes might work. Bear in mind that Kiev/Kirov are pretty limited designs. They still need lots of support, particularly if going up against a carrier battle group.

#2 - a Monitor, like HMS Abercrombie or HMS Roberts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_class_monitor). Just put artillery on a small hull and use it for shore bombardments.

Overall, I don't see the need for a 21st Century battleship. It would be cool, but a complete waste of money.

[Starglider]

We had this debate about nine months ago. My main contribution was pointing out that nanostructured materials currently under development may seriously alter the playing field, possibly enough to make heavy armour worthwhile again.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

Two alternatives:

#1 - A missile-equipped Sea Control Ship, sort of like Kirov or Kiev, would be the closest modern analogy to a battleship. Metal armor, big guns, etc., are not particularly useful, but lots of electronics, lots of missiles, and maybe even some airplanes might work. Bear in mind that Kiev/Kirov are pretty limited designs. They still need lots of support, particularly if going up against a carrier battle group.

#2 - a Monitor, like HMS Abercrombie or HMS Roberts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_class_monitor). Just put artillery on a small hull and use it for shore bombardments.

Overall, I don't see the need for a 21st Century battleship. It would be cool, but a complete waste of money.

The Kiev is an aviation cruiser, not a missile armed sea-control ship (except int hat is is missile armed and is a sea control ship, but the missile armament is more of an add-on to the aviation capability)

the DDG-1000 is also technically a 'monitor' type ship, it's 155mm guns being for shore bombardment.

the problem with Big Gun Battleships is two fold: The first is that the big guns have been supplanted by missiles and aircraft for anti-ship work. and the second is that Big guns are less than ideal for shore-bombardment given their large 'danger zone' for deadly shrapnel etc. which increases collateral and friendly damage compared to cheaper, faster-firing, smaller guns (in the 155mm range) supported by missiles and guided air-craft ordnance to take on heavier, fortified targets (A 2000 lb laser-guided bunker-buster is better for attacking fortified targets than a 3,000 lb 16in. naval shell)

[Kanastrous]

When was the last sustained battleship artillery operation? Lebanon in the 1980s?

[Sea Skimmer]

When was the last sustained battleship artillery operation? Lebanon in the 1980s?

About 1000 16in rounds got fired in the Gulf War, 400ish in Lebanon, 3000 or so for Vietnam, and just WAY more in Korean and WW2. Most of the rounds fired in Lebanon got fired off all one day, about 15 different targets, mostly Syrian artillery positions, so that probably was the last time a battleship conducted a really intensive bombardment.

No mention of an arsenal ship yet?

Arsenal ship is closer to a concrete ammunition barge then a battleship; and only one man in the USN ever took it seriously. If you really wanted to classify it as an existing ship type then I’d suggest it’s a monitor.

As for the battleship, the concept is dead and will remain dead.

[Big Phil]

Two alternatives:

#1 - A missile-equipped Sea Control Ship, sort of like Kirov or Kiev, would be the closest modern analogy to a battleship. Metal armor, big guns, etc., are not particularly useful, but lots of electronics, lots of missiles, and maybe even some airplanes might work. Bear in mind that Kiev/Kirov are pretty limited designs. They still need lots of support, particularly if going up against a carrier battle group.

#2 - a Monitor, like HMS Abercrombie or HMS Roberts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_class_monitor). Just put artillery on a small hull and use it for shore bombardments.

Overall, I don't see the need for a 21st Century battleship. It would be cool, but a complete waste of money.

The Kiev is an aviation cruiser, not a missile armed sea-control ship (except int hat is is missile armed and is a sea control ship, but the missile armament is more of an add-on to the aviation capability)


the DDG-1000 is also technically a 'monitor' type ship, it's 155mm guns being for shore bombardment.

the problem with Big Gun Battleships is two fold: The first is that the big guns have been supplanted by missiles and aircraft for anti-ship work. and the second is that Big guns are less than ideal for shore-bombardment given their large 'danger zone' for deadly shrapnel etc. which increases collateral and friendly damage compared to cheaper, faster-firing, smaller guns (in the 155mm range) supported by missiles and guided air-craft ordnance to take on heavier, fortified targets (A 2000 lb laser-guided bunker-buster is better for attacking fortified targets than a 3,000 lb 16in. naval shell)

If you're responding to me, you should probably read a little closer and see that I said a battleship was unnecessary and wasteful today.

[Veramocor]

How does battleship armor stand up to anti-ship missiles, especially the supersonic ones?

[phongn]

How does battleship armor stand up to anti-ship missiles, especially the supersonic ones?

It doesn't.

[Sea Skimmer]

How does battleship armor stand up to anti-ship missiles, especially the supersonic ones?

All the way back in September 1943 fifteen German bombers attacked the Italian battlefleet as it steamed to surrender at Malta. Two crude Fritz-X guided bombs, built out of 1,400kg AP weapons, struck battleship Roma; one plunged clear through the hull including both armored decks, before exploding in the water UNDER the ship. The second bomb a;sp pierced both armored decks but exploded in hull… right inside the forward main battery magazine. The magazine exploded at once, blowing an entire turret over the side. Roma broke in half and sank in 22 minutes with most of her crew. A second battleship, Italia, was hit once, but reached Malta with 3,000 tons of flooding and reduced speed.

This incident was taken so seriously that it caused the USN to initiative research into what became Project Bumblebee, the ultimate result of which was the Terrier/Talos/Tartar series of naval surface to air missiles. Those weapons and associated radar and command systems revolutionized warship design and sealed the transition from the old big gun era to the modern warship.

Air weapons have not gotten weaker since 1943; and in fact as far as aircraft bombs went the Fritz-X was nothing very large at all for its time. Roma didn’t have the best armor around either, but even the best armored ship was hideously vulnerable to this, the first practical guided anti ship weapon.

Reality is a modern shoulder fired anti tank rocket can defeat the thickest armor on the largest battleship ever built, the faceplates of Yamato’s main battery turrets. Against a supersonic anti ship missile thick armor is just a joke, those missiles strike with the velocity of battleship caliber shells and yet have far greater mass like aircraft bombs. The battleships armor would help to localize damage (localize being a relative term, it will still be massive) but that localization effect could be achieved with much lighter armor, modern warships do have some light armor to protect critical spaces from fragmentation and blast, but not direct hits.

With a proper warhead and modern guidance systems it is perfect possible to devise a weapon which will deliberately strike a battleship in its rather large main battery magazine and explode it. Game over man, game over.

[petesampras]

In my opinion, the USN already has a 21st century battleship in service: the USS Ohio. Stealth defends her instead of armor (an Air Force guy once boasted, "If we can see it, we can hit it, and if we can hit it, we can kill it," but it's hard to hit and kill something you can't see).

Good point, and definitely in keeping with the intended meaning of the phrase "heavily armoured warship". Furthermore, I posit that media propoganda is the new "big guns", and hence a floating broadcasting centre (with stealth abilities of course) will be the new battleship.