Battleship and Battlecruiser in 21st century

[kevin JJW]

Soviet battlecruiser Kirov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_battlecruiser_Kirov
USS Iowa (BB-61)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_%28BB-61%29
BBG 21
http://www.combatreform.com/battleships.htm

Arsenal Ship
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...senal_ship.htm

[swimmerXC]

Ok....
Moving this thread to World Armed Forces

[Su-34]

Battleship in 21st century needs these specifications:

1. AEGIS-type combat system
2. Large enough ( 20,000 tons+ ) to carry lots of VLS-launched air defence missiles and land-attack cruise missiles.
3. Nuclear powered to provide fast speed.
4. 300mm caliber guns for short-range attack.
5. Electro-Magnetic Gun, like in DD(X).
6. Powerful radar.

[DPRKPTboat]

The age of the battleship is dead. Look how long the General Belgrano lasted in the Falklands war. If the Russians are still operating the Kirov, the sensible thing to do would be to donate it to a museum.
A battleship is basically just a huge floating fortress with loads of heavy weapons attatched. It sounds like a useful piece of hardware, but its based around an ancient form of naval battle in which ships face each other at close quarters in big sea battles. In the modern world of long range ASMs, FACs, submarines, bomber aircraft and aircraft carriers, this type of warfare no longe exists. The battleship cannot get close enough to use its powerful arnament in a modern engagement without being bombed or hit by a missile. It is now just a slow, overweight behemoth that is little more than a sitting duck in modern warfare. Smaller ships still fight, but from a long way off using missiles. And you don't need a huge armoured ship, just to carry missiles. There is just no place for it anymore.

[bd popeye]

Battleships are just obsolete. That all there is to it. Shore bombardment is conducted with precision guide munitions like JDAM's. 5" shells while not able to cause the damage of 16" shell they are still a lethal force. From what I understand most amphib assaults would be a flanking manuver not a direct assult. So limited naval gunfire would be needed.

I cannot post about the Russian battle cruiser I will say this about a USN BB. They were awesome ships. But their time has past long ago. To update one with more modern techno wizardry would cost probally $2 billion US dollars.

The modern USN arsenl ship an Ohio class SSGN is capable of carrying 154 cruise missiles of various types.

[SampanViking]

Oh dear - I do go a bit misty eyed when we talk about Battleships and Battle Cruisers - we lost family on the Hood.

There has to be a difference between platform and function. What kind of modern system platform could provide the same heavy bombardment and close support role that were associated with Dreadnaughts.

[bd popeye]

Oh dear - I do go a bit misty eyed when we talk about Battleships and Battle Cruisers - we lost family on the Hood.

There has to be a difference between platform and function. What kind of modern system platform could provide the same heavy bombardment and close support role that were associated with Dreadnaughts.

You lost family on the Hood? Interesting and sad. I love to read about that ship. It was important to sink the Bismarck . But to put the HMS Hood to sea without completing the re-fit and shipyard workers still aboard was just plain wrong...

In modern warfare..close suppourt can be provided by rapid fire 5" guns. Attack helos. And precision guided munitions deliverd by aircraft...Not to mention cruise missiles.

[adeptitus]

I don't foresee any new battleships being built. The Russians are not likely to build additional ships of the Kirov class either. Currently they only have 1 Kirov class heavy missile cruiser in operation, with another in repair and the other 3 scrapped. A better link to the Kirov class:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov_class_battlecruiser

While traditional heavy battleships are obsolete, there is a general trend in building heavier A/C's. If we look at future A/C's for USN, Royal Navy (CVF), French Navy, Indian Navy, and even Italian & Spanish Navy, they're getting bigger and heavier.

[SampanViking]

Yes, not immediate family, a great uncle and a 2nd Cousin (I believe). One of my brothers married into a local family and they lost one family member as well, but I cannot remember the details

The Hood was largely symbolic, it was only really a Heavy Cruiser with extra Armour strapped on. Just look at the old film footage and you will see how low it sits in the water. A product of post WW1 austerity.

There is nothing that unusual about my family in this repsect, nearly every Navy family from the Portsmouth Area (Hoods home Port) lost people that day. One of my brothers In-laws (another local family) had had white hair since he was 22. It turned white when he saw his best mate get his head blown off whilst on convoy duty to Malta in 42.

God this is morbid - what have I been drinking:confused: I supose I had better sober up and resume normal service tomorrow . Sorry:o

[Skycom Type 2]

While I personally don’t mind the style of combat reform takes, many others might be put of by its extremism. So I refer you to

http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm

as a better source, or at least easier to read, than combat reform.

Umm I would also like to point out that the Belgrano was not a battleship it was a light crusier and weight about 2/5 the weight of a true BB.

As pointed out earlier aviation can do all and more work than a BB, but I would like to mention the fact that those aircraft cost in the millions and can, and have been shot down with a possible public relations disaster if the pilots are caught.

Counterpoint: a battleship is a billion dollar craft with 1500+ crew and possibility some 1000 marines for the Iowa, so if you lose it then you’ll have a bigger problem.

Point: the battleship is the most survivable ship, because it is the most heavily armored, note that this does not apply to the Kirov or the Arsenal ship both of which are really giant missile cruisers.

Ironically enough the disappearance of the battleship from common use, has only caused the battleship to become more invulnerable. The only purpose anti ship, and thus ruling out the use of bunker busters and whatnot, weapons that can sink a battleship are subs, and what ship isn’t vulnerable to subs, and the Russian sunburn and its derivatives.

Quote from the website

Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman has stated that the French Exocet anti-ship missile, which sunk British ships during the 1983 Falklands war, can penetrate 2.75 inches of steel. An Iowa battleship has steel armor from 6-17 inches thick, compared to just a quarter inch on modern Aegis cruisers and destroyers.

Note that I assume Exocet and Harpoon missiles to be of similar performance.

Another thing I have stolen from the site is the effect of presence, while a battleship does make itself vulnerable when it comes near the shore for bombardment, it is making itself seen and thus boost moral.

Still as much as I loathe to admit it there probably will not be another battleship, as common sense however wrong it is dictate that the age of battleships has pasted…a solid swing of a rock will kill someone today just as well as it did 5000 years ago.

China probably won’t build a battleship, though it would help if it really meant to take Taiwan back by force and you could then relocate all those missiles, china’s leaders like all political leaders are concerned about losing face. And building a battleship will probably make them laughing stocks unless they enter a war and prove their worth, even then to regain the title of queen of the seas it would need to sink a carrier, difficult by the sheer number of ships surround one alone.

By the way, back in the day battleships used to have 30-50 anti-air mounts, but the current ones, Iowa and Kirov, have 8 and 1? Respectively, so why can’t they put another 50 phalanxes or kashtan’s, and dare a missile to come at it?

[kevin JJW]

http://www.combatreform.com/chuckmyersinterdictionassaultshiprear.jpg

[darth sidious]

You lost family on the Hood? Interesting and sad. I love to read about that ship. It was important to sink the Bismarck . But to put the HMS Hood to sea without completing the re-fit and shipyard workers still aboard was just plain wrong...

In modern warfare..close suppourt can be provided by rapid fire 5" guns. Attack helos. And precision guided munitions deliverd by aircraft...Not to mention cruise missiles.

I thin you are talking about the prince of wales the new battleship thats barely finished when sent into battle

anthow here you have the weakness of English battlecruiser fully exposed: weak armour the deck plate werent strong enough to stop plunging shells. same thing happened in pearl habour

Yes, not immediate family, a great uncle and a 2nd Cousin (I believe). One of my brothers married into a local family and they lost one family member as well, but I cannot remember the details

The Hood was largely symbolic, it was only really a Heavy Cruiser with extra Armour strapped on. Just look at the old film footage and you will see how low it sits in the water. A product of post WW1 austerity.

There is nothing that unusual about my family in this repsect, nearly every Navy family from the Portsmouth Area (Hoods home Port) lost people that day. One of my brothers In-laws (another local family) had had white hair since he was 22. It turned white when he saw his best mate get his head blown off whilst on convoy duty to Malta in 42.

God this is morbid - what have I been drinking:confused: I supose I had better sober up and resume normal service tomorrow . Sorry:o

no hood had good speed and heavy guns but only light armour

the concept of battlecruiser was too blame they werent suspose to take on battle ships

any how the work progressed too far for the lession learned at jutland to be fully incorperated and a refit to correct got cancealed in 1938:mad:

[kevin JJW]

JN Ise/Hyuga BBCV

By: Daniel H. Jones

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior to World War II several navies operated aircraft carriers or aircraft support ships. The three major powers, England, the USA, and Japan developed what came to be known as fleet carriers and gave much thought as to their most effective employment. From a glance at the ship listings it might seem that the aircraft carrier was the dominant force but this was not so. The "gun club" element still dominated strategic thought in all three navies. Carriers were regarded as supporting ships to the battle line, providing scouting planes to locate the enemy and to launch strikes to "soften up" the opposing fleet so they could be finished off by the battleships. Nowhere was the cult of the battleship as "queen of battle" more strongly entrenched than in the Imperial Japanese Navy. Their strategic plan for fighting the U.S. Navy was to lure the American fleet across the Pacific for a great climactic battle in home waters. The total destruction of this invading force was to be accomplished by... the battleships, much as the Russian fleet was annihilated at the Battle of Tsushima. That the battleship was still predominant in IJN planning is supported by their commitment to the construction of the most powerful examples of the type ever built, the Yamato class. With the formation of the Kido Butai, (the Nagumo task force), the Japanese invented the carrier task force concept that proved so effective later in the war. Obviously there were many officers with advanced ideas regarding carrier aviation but they were still in the minority. In the IJN the "gun club" still controlled planning and policy decisions.

Ironically, the Japanese Navy was to prove the fallacy of this thinking with their preemptive strike on the USN battle line at Pearl Harbor. With no battleships available the USN was forced to shift their emphasis to the aircraft carrier as the center of a striking force, though they still continued to build a new generation of battleships. At the Battle of the Coral Sea neither fleet sighted the other, the entire battle being decided by carrier aircraft. At Midway, when four Japanese carriers were lost orders were issued to continue the operation. The battle fleet was to close and destroy the American ships. After a few hours of steaming towards Midway the orders were rescinded and the surface fleet withdrew. The lesson was obvious and could not be ignored. A surface fleet could not survive without carriers when facing a fleet that had them. The battleships were impotent in the face of this new threat.

In the days following the debacle at Midway, the Japanese Navy frantically sought ways to make good their carrier losses. Some submarine tenders and seaplane tenders were available for conversion to carriers, (they had been designed with this in mind). Suitable liner hulls were taken over for conversion to light carriers. Most radical, especially in the eyes of traditional line officers, was the plan to take four battleships out of the battle line and modify them to operate aircraft. The Fuso, Yamashiro, Isa, and Hyuga were selected for this conversion which consisted of removing the aft two turrets and constructing a handling deck, hangers and two catapults. The decks would not be large enough for take off or for landing aboard so the aircraft would have to be catapult launched and be equipped with floats to land alongside and be hoisted aboard. A new type of fast seaplane, capable of both scouting and attack, was to be designed for these ships. Conversion began on the Ise and Hyuga but the planned work on Fuso and Yamashiro was held back pending testing results from the first two ships. Work on the seaplane, the "Norm", went forward but very few were built. Neither Ise or Hyuga ever operated aircraft apart from some limited testing. There were never enough aircraft to equip the ships and there was also a shortage of trained pilots. In their only sortie in this configuration, the Battle of Leyte Gulf, both ships were part of the Ozawa decoy force and had no aircraft on board. Almost all of the carriers in this group were sunk but both Ise and Hyuga sustained only minor damage.

After returning to home waters, both ships had their catapults removed. This was done to improve the arcs of fire for the center turrets. The IJN was now totally on the defensive and the concept of operating seaplanes on Ise and Hyuga was abandoned. Both ships remained anchored in home waters for the remainder of the war. Both were sunk at Kure Harbor in shallow water by air strikes from US navy carrier planes.

In 1/700 scale Hasegawa has kits of this class in both versions, as a battleship, (Hyuga), about 1941 and as the unique BB/CV, (Ise), after conversion. This article will primarily concentrate on the Ise, the BB/CV version. This is one of the earlier efforts in the waterline series and has a number of omissions and inacuracies, mainly due to the need for many parts to be common to both kits. Too many compromises have been made for the sake of ease of production but most can be dealt with. Bridge levels and platforms are essentially correct for the Ise and apart from cleaning up and adding better parts and photo etch there is little to be concerned with here. (If you are doing the earlier battleship version some major rework is needed on the bridge). One omission should be added, the supporting legs of the underlying tripod structures that the platforms are built on. From the back and side of the bridge these legs are external and very visible. Locate the positions on each level and drill boles on each platform. When assembled, except for the top two levels, insert two lengths of plastic rod through the platforms down to main deck level. This will make a tremendous improvement in the appearance of the bridge structure.

The main problem with the Ise is in the area of the catapults. Hasegawa has the catapults standing alone from the aft structure and this is wrong. A structure connects the catapults to the aft area and this will have to be added. It looks formidable but it is really quite easy to do. See the sketch drawings and the templates for guidance. Note also the forward legs of the aft tripod structure are exposed also. These can be added from plastic rod as was done for the aft side of the bridge.

Masts, particularly the large mainmast, should be replaced with scratch built assemblies from plastic sprue or brass wire. Most of the splinter shields could be improved by replacing with Evergreen plastic strip. Gold Medal Models makes a photo etch sheet, IJN Battleships, that contains the lattice supporting structure around the funnel as well as two catapults. Adding this will improve the model very noticeably.

The supports under the aircraft deck edges are solid triangles of plastic on the kit. These are individual strut supports on the ship and can be improved upon by either replacing or by carving away the back side of the plastic. I prefer the latter method, see sketches. Also, at the stern, the supporting lattice structure is solid and has been simplified. This should be cut away and a scratch built replacement fabricated. This is the hardest job and there is really no short cut that I have discovered. You may opt to forget about doing this as the overhang hides much of the area when looking at the model from above.

All of the guns can be improved by replacement from the Skywave weapons sets, particularly the 25mm which should come from set E-7. Some of the Skywave ship's boats are nicer also. For railings, I recommend the Tom's Model Works, two bar set.

Aircraft: If you resolve to display aircraft on board or on the catapults, there is no "Norm" available but testing was done with the Nakajima "Pete" and with the Kawanishi "Jake". Both types are available from the Skywave sets or from other kits in the waterline series. I would recommend replacing the Hasegawa "Jakes" with other parts as they are a little crude in appearance compared to some of the other planes available.

As you can see, some considerable investments in both time and money for extra materials are necessary to bring this kit up to speed. Whether it is worthwhile depends on how well you like the subject. Ise is one of my favorite ships, having built four models of her over the years in four different scales. If you do all of the suggested modifications and additions the results are very noticeable and the kit can look right at home with other ships in your collection. An old kit is not especially a bad kit, it just needs more work.

[akinkhoo]

a single battleship can deliver more explosive from its guns then the entire wing of a carrier. it is a powerful weapon, but the range of guns makes it limited to only striking coastal targets.

a battleship takes quite a few hits to take it down, but it can be taken down. is it a wise decision to go "tanker"? i don't really know. A battleship's crew size makes it very expensive to operate; but with automated making it's way into nextgen navy ship, will this make it affordable again?

but i think it is never wise to convert a battleship into a battlecarrier because the guns tends to damage stuff on the deck if they fire. you might as well built an armored carrier if you just want the protection... battleship are for raw brute firepower, not power projection... if you want projection, build carriers.

[bd popeye]

a single battleship can deliver more explosive from its guns then the entire wing of a carrier. it is a powerful weapon, but the range of guns makes it limited to only striking coastal targets.

No and yes. An USN CVN airwing can maintain precision guided munitions on target for about five days around the clock. No other ship on Earth can do this. It is true that BB's can only bombard targets within 23 miles of the ship.

a battleship takes quite a few hits to take it down, but it can be taken down. is it a wise decision to go "tanker"? i don't really know. A battleship's crew size makes it very expensive to operate; but with automated making it's way into nextgen navy ship, will this make it affordable again?

Very true. A BB will never again sail into battle for the USN. They just cost to much to operate. There is no more ammo or silk bag powder charges. There are almost no engineer ratings in the USN with BB experience. Those who want to sail them again are nothing but romantics of a bygone era. I would like to post a story I once ready stating that a BB re-fitted with MK41 VLS would be rendered un-seaworthy. I cannot find the story.

The USS Iowa(BB-61) and USS Wisconsin(BB-64) were striken from the Navy list on 17 March 2006. They will never sail again.

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB61.htm

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB64.htm

Battlecruiser? The USN does not need one. The USN will soon have 4 Ohio class SSGN fitted with 154 cruise missiles.

https://www.ohio.navy.mil/html/conversion.htm

[RedMercury]

I understand how cruise missiles and aircraft delivered ordanence have made large guns relatively obsolete. However, there is something to be said about the armor on a battleship, no? Like Skycom Type 2 said, anti-ship missiles aren't unlimited in their penetration. I understand missile warheads can be changed, say, to HEAT, or their speed increased. But all these come at costs which would reduce their effectiveness in some other way--which is precisely the point of having armor. Armor isn't in itself invincible, it forces the attacker to trade off some other advantages to be able to penetrate it, making the design process and fighting an armored system harder. (hehe, imagine reactive armor on a battleship?)

Stealth aside, I think there may be advantages to having one large ship versus multitudes of smaller destroyers or frigates. One is that the communications and perhaps logistics would be somewhat simplified. Second is that defensive weapons can be concentrated on one platform. A battleship bristling with air defense weapons and point defense/last chance weapons plus its armor would be difficult to sink. Perhaps more difficult than the "equivalent" number of smaller ships? The point here being the concentration of defensive firepower. Also, such a large ship, by its bulk, also offers some toughness.

Another possible advantage is that a battleship can mount a nuclear power system easier because of its size, and it can take advantage of the power because of its length. Its larger size also helps endurance by allowing more munitions and supplies to be stored.

Critique away...

[vincelee]

one torp and you're gone.

As for a ship full of point defense systems and guns, it's really just asking for a lot more missiles pointed at it.

[bd popeye]

one torp and you're gone.

As for a ship full of point defense systems and guns, it's really just asking for a lot more missiles pointed at it.

Probally. A torpedo like a MK 48 ADCAP could break that sucker in half. Or mission kill it. I don't care how heavy the armour is.

One of my favorite pics.;)
Though the ADCAP torpedo was the weapon that ultimately sank the Ex-Okinawa, it wasn’t the only ordnance employed against her that day. Prior to the warshot firing, naval air training operations were conducted involving several Maverick and Harpoon missile firings as well as a number of general-purpose bomb drops. Though the Ex-Okinawa did sustain some minor damage during the air exercises, there was never any sign of her going down prematurely. After the actual torpedo detonation, the Ex-Okinawa, due to its large size (598 feet long, 84 feet wide, 13,000 ton light displacement) and watertight condition, listed increasingly for almost four hours before ultimately descend below the surface.
http://www.csp.navy.mil/news/images/SINKEX001.JPG

[akinkhoo]

No and yes. An USN CVN airwing can maintain precision guided munitions on target for about five days on target around the clock. No other ship on Earth can do this. It is true that BB's can only bombard targets within 23 miles of the ship. you should note however, my statement was on the delivery of explosive power. (how many bomb can the airwing drop in a day? how many shell can a battleship land in the same day? i think it is clear what my point was) i am not against your point, just stating you misunderstood what i was saying. ;)

Battlecruiser? the USN does not need one. The USN will soon have 4 Ohio class SSGN fitted with 154 cruise missiles. yes, submergible does offer a very good level of survivability. i think this will continue to be a trend.

---

I don't care how heavy the armour is.
modern battleship have concrete armor the size of a bomb shelter... :D

with proper damage control, it is quite hard to sink it with just 1 hit. unless you hit the munition storage area. the yield of current weapons are not exactly design to defeat the kind of armour found on a modern battleship.

anyway, if you can hit it once, you can most likely hit it again...

[IDonT]

modern battleship have concrete armor the size of a bomb shelter... :D

with proper damage control, it is quite hard to sink it with just 1 hit. unless you hit the munition storage area. the yield of current weapons are not exactly design to defeat the kind of armour found on a modern battleship.

anyway, if you can hit it once, you can most likely hit it again...

A single 4,000 armor piercing delayed fuse LGB, dropped at 20,000 ft., and targeted at one of its turret will penetrate all the way to the magazine blowing up the whole ship.


you should note however, my statement was on the delivery of explosive power. (how many bomb can the airwing drop in a day? how many shell can a battleship land in the same day? i think it is clear what my point was) i am not against your point, just stating you misunderstood what i was saying.

The answer alot more than a battleship. IF the target is close say 50 miles away, most of the A/C takeoff weight will be devoted to ordinance. Aircraft like the Super Hornet can as much tonnage as a single broadside. Attack squadrons can lauched, bombed, recovered, and rearmed for a whole 24 hour period and can deliver more explosive power than a battleship for the same time. That assuming that a battleship can continue to fire for that long. BArrels will get to hot and ammo problems. It is far easier to relaod a carrier at sea than a battleship

[DumLoco]

Battleships are so beautyful... I hate this times when everything is small and cowardly launched from hundred km away. If it wasn't for nuclear weapons, hugh combatants in the sea, in land and in the air would have been developed, following the path that was walked troughout the 20th century until 1945.

[DPRKUnderground]

I think Battleships would be key. If you put them in your reserve fleet your set. Battleships can provide heavy fire support, lobbing thousands of shells per minute. It has the technology at this point to survive on the sea. Harpoons were fitted on the Missouri and Wisconsin battleships. Plus it has the capability for UAVs along with a big-@$$ helipad. I remember starting a thread similar to this at PDF. It was a good discussion. No flaming, which is rare there. Anyway, Battshlips would be key to softening up targets along, let's say the North Korea coast. The number of bunkered anti-ship missiles there is crazy. Even though they are 70s-era Chinese ground-to-sea missiles, they still pose a threat to LCs. Battleships would wreak havoc on bunkered troops too. I mean I would piss in my pants if hundreds of shells were landing a few feet away from me for hours.

[kevin JJW]

Soviet battlecruiser Kirov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_battlecruiser_Kirov
USS Iowa (BB-61)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_%28BB-61%29
BBG 21
http://www.combatreform.com/battleships.htm

Arsenal Ship
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...senal_ship.htm



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/battleships.htm

[kevin JJW]

Someone asked about a BB(X) idea in another thread, so here it is. Hope you all like it.


BB(X) Illinois Class (BB-71)
Advanced Modern Battleship
Length: 889’
Beam: 108’
Draft: 26'
Cruise Speed: 33 kts
Dash Speed: 35.1 kts
Tonnage: 49,000 tons light/ 55,000 tons full/ 59,000 tons max war cap.
Unit Price: 6.8- 7 B

BB(X) will have a "tumblehome" hull form, i.e. a design in which hull slopes inward from above the waterline. This will significantly reduce the radar cross section since such a slope returns a much less defined radar image rather than a more hard-angled hull form.

Requirements for the Integrated Deckhouse EDM is that it is fully EMC (Electromagetic Compatibility) shielded with reduced infrared and radar signatures. Measures to fulfill these conditions include an all-composite superstructure, low signature electronically steered arrays, an integrated multi-function mast and low radar and infrared signatures. Other measures to reduce the vessel's infrared signature include the development of an exhaust suppressor.

Harris Corporation has been awarded a contract for the development of the Common Data Link (CDL) X/Ku-band phased array antenna systems, which will be integrated into the Integrated Deckhouse Assembly. The multi-beam electronically-steered antenna will allow connectivity with up to eight CDL terminals.

http://www.phpbbplanet.com/warshipprojects/viewtopic.php?t=730&mforum=warshipprojects

[sumdud]

Dude, you guys sound like it is illegal for battleships and battlecruisers to drop its guns.

Now, I really don't think and do not want America to have more BB/BC, since our cruisers (and even destroyers!) already have Tomahawks onboard, and maybe drones.

I don't think manpower is a problem. Just compare the CVs of America to those of Britain and France, and you will notice, it is possible to reduce the crew on big ships. American CVs right now seems pretty darn crew-inefficient.

As for the BBG/BCG's new weapons, you can have:
Instead of 16' guns, large calibre MLRS(A-100 or WS in China, Smerch in Russia, etc) and 6' inches, and give the guns the ability to launch missiles as an option.
Instead of those 80 40mm guns and 49 20mm guns, a long range SAM(like SM-2, THAADS, HQ-9, etc), maybe a 2nd short range SAM system.
16-24 ASMs (Hopefully as good as Shipwreck is at least on paper, but not as huge, C-602?)
LACMs like Babur and Tomahawk for long strike strike.
ASROC and torpedos for ASW (Default) (Maybe even mortars of some sort, as they can't be jammed)
Choppers and drones (Default, replaces the seaplane, but you might want to include a seaplane too.)
8 CIWS
Dinghies and ROVs for non-combat uses.

[ger_mark]

The new German F125 Frigates will be somewhat like a small Battleship

http://i6.tinypic.com/1zlvgpv.jpg

armament:

-155mm PZH2000 Turret (Most likely V-Lap Ammo with 70km Range)

http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/img/monarc_52_gr.jpg

- Navalized MLRS (New Guided MLRS)

http://www.wsmr-history.org/Photos/ParkPhotos/mlrs.jpg

- 6 Bullet CIWS Systems

http://www.sipotec.net/Bilder/S33_B1.gif

- 2 Sea RAM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile_Launcher_1.jpg/621px-RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile_Launcher_1.jpg

- 8 RBS15 MK3 ASHM with secondary cruise missile capability

-Underwaterdrone

- 2 NH90

- 4 33ft Speedboats (The Ships supply's 50 special forces with extra command room ect.)

[akinkhoo]

I don't think manpower is a problem. Just compare the CVs of America to those of Britain and France, and you will notice, it is possible to reduce the crew on big ships. American CVs right now seems pretty darn crew-inefficient.US CV are far bigger and has alot of other fleet function which the european CV doesn't do, so i will not encourage a direct comparison for crew-efficiency. the US CV crew size will drop when newer automated system are introduced in the new ship; so yes, it is not using the best technology for crew reduction

The answer alot more than a battleship. IF the target is close say 50 miles away, most of the A/C takeoff weight will be devoted to ordinance. Aircraft like the Super Hornet can as much tonnage as a single broadside. Attack squadrons can lauched, bombed, recovered, and rearmed for a whole 24 hour period and can deliver more explosive power than a battleship for the same time. That assuming that a battleship can continue to fire for that long. BArrels will get to hot and ammo problems. It is far easier to relaod a carrier at sea than a battleshipno it can't... :rofl: like your planes doesn't need to cool off while the barrel does?

also, how much more expensive would your 24 hour planes only attack cost? using carriers for everything will result in overpriced warfare. there is a budget you know, the more you spend on fuel; the less F22 you can buy... little wonder why the B2s had to be scraped now...

[kevin JJW]

21st Century Battleship
The Arsenal Ship was an attempt to update the battleship for a new millennia.
A 21st Century Battleship
Enlarge Image
There’s been an ongoing debate in US Naval circles, whether the Iowa battleships or the DDX destroyer is the appropriate choice for Marine firepower support. Another contender, and far more relevant in the 21st Century would be the Arsenal Ship. This vessel was proposed in the 1990's as an all-missile adjunct to the carrier force, but was prematurely cancelled, because the Navy had doubts about the design, and thought it a threat to its new construction carriers and destroyers. Now it appears the DDX is too expensive, and the Navy is trying to decrease the number of aircraft carriers in service, it seems is the time to rethink this revolutionary type of warship. An arsenal ship could carry all forms of ordinance currently in the military service, including army rockets and missiles for shore bombardment.
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-7-2005-72773.asp

[IDonT]

I never understood the infatuation of large displacement surface combatants. The USN started a strike cruiser program back in the 70's in response to the Kirov. It was cancelled because the IOWA was brought back into service.

Large surface combatant's power is better disperce to several destroyers, which aggregately is more survivable, effective, and can be at more places than just a single ship. Look at Russia's navy, 30 percent of the northern fleets capability is in the Peter the Great (kirov class). This means that the northern fleet will ose 30 percent of its power anytime that ship goes on repairs, damage, or sunk. A force of 5-6 Sovremnney, about equal in cost in terms of money and crew, is more effective and survivable.

[bd popeye]

I never understood the infatuation of large displacement surface combatants. The USN started a strike cruiser program back in the 70's in response to the Kirov. It was cancelled because the IOWA was brought back into service.

Large surface combatant's power is better disperce to several destroyers, which aggregately is more survivable, effective, and can be at more places than just a single ship. Look at Russia's navy, 30 percent of the northern fleets capability is in the Peter the Great (kirov class). This means that the northern fleet will ose 30 percent of its power anytime that ship goes on repairs, damage, or sunk. A force of 5-6 Sovremnney, about equal in cost in terms of money and crew, is more effective and survivable.

So true. Large surface combantants are outmoded. This is a new age of surface combatants. The USN has 50 DDG's, 22 CG's and two operational SSGN's with two more on the way. With all that and the way most modern navies dispurse their firepower...Why put all your "eggs" in a few large baskets?

[kevin JJW]

Battleships
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/battleships.htm

[kevin JJW]

A battleship in the 24th century will be different from those of the past. Battleships will be designed to be able to carry VTL aircraft. Also it will be designed to carry a lot of cruise missiles and helicopters Also the battle will be designed to provide organic fire support for amphibious landing invasions, like the D Day invasion of Normandy in WWII.

[Obi Wan Russell]

A battleship in the 24th century will be different from those of the past. Battleships will be designed to be able to carry VTL aircraft. Also it will be designed to carry a lot of cruise missiles and helicopters Also the battle will be designed to provide organic fire support for amphibious landing invasions, like the D Day invasion of Normandy in WWII.

24th century? Been watching too much Star Trek (Me too probably!). We're only just into the 21st century (well I am I think). But seriously, I think the lines between different type of warship will continue to blur in the coming years, and aircraft are just another weapon system in this respect, but I would draw your attention to design studies carried out in the 80s to see if it would be feasible to produce DDG sized ships carrying a couple of Sea Harriers in addition to a normal destroyers armament.

The conclusion was that while it was physically possible, it was uneconomic as the support facilities for two aircraft were the same as for six or ten or more, so if you are going to have V/STOL aircraft aboard a ship then you may as well have a reasonable number, and on anything smaller than the hypothetical Battleships and Battlecruisers being dicussed here it would not be worthwhile unless the smaller ship became a full carrier and not a hybrid wardship. Space and weight for the flight deck and hangar will have a large 'ship impact' which will have to be balanced against other weapon systems (placing a VLS silo in the middle of the flight deck is inadvisable, as the missiles may fire without warning and any aircraft in close proximity could be damaged by the blast of the missiles' booster rocket) so the question of wether to place the aircraft aboard the BBG or remove them to another ship (a small carrier, SCS sized) becomes pertinent.

[SampanViking]

Just a quickie!

The traditional roles for a Battleship were

a) Flag Carrier - National symbol

b) Surface Raider

c) Ship of the Line

d) On Shore Bombardment.

Of these a) is now the province of the FW Carrier, whilst b) and c) are are now carried out by Missile Destroyers and Air Craft.

Only d) really has an opening for a large Non Carrier Combat Vessel.

To fill that vacancy, it would be possible to build a heavily armed and armoured Troop Carrier and Landing Assault Ship; not just for Marines but for Army as Well.

My best guess would be a Carrier Sized ship with heavy ship to shore missile batteries - plus defensive systems and which can carry troops, their Armoured Vehicles, ammunition and Supplies and Landing Craft.

Such a ship would need to operate in conjuction with the "Amphibeous Assault Ship" Carriers and various escorts. Such a group operating with a Carrier Battle Group would certainly represent a very formidable combination.

[Gollevainen]

most of all battle ships were the fortess in the sea. Back when the ships were wood and hippyes were steel (or before:cool: ) guns were the only meas of destroying enemy ships. So the bigger gus the merryer. Also you needed to whitstand enemy fire as well and there the extensive armour. When the japanese invented that one its worth of trying to ease the armour for making them more faster the oddity of battle-cruiser appeared.

But those days are gone and I think naval terminology should move onwards. the entire nature of surface warfare have changed dramatically and there possiple fantasyes of big ships firing massive ammount of missiles arent just worth of the costs. Perhaps ordanance ship to shell landing zones has its benefits (but down sizes becouse its higly needy requirments would make it single purpose luxury that even USN couldn't afford) but call that sort of almoust-auxillary a battle ship is like calling lizzard a dragon...I say let the past remain in past and lets not ruin the appeal and magnificent glory of the big gun ships by bringing too futuristic what ifs around...or least start inventing different names to them.

[SampanViking]

Yes I agree, I was really just trying to find a role that a Super Dreadnaught sized ship might be needed for. Not only however would such a ship be very expensive, it would also be too vulnerable. I would assume such a ship could carry a Heavy Battalion or a Light Division, so one major missile strike would be a major disaster.

It would therefore make better sense to use a larger number of smaller ships.

Interestingly though why you would regard such a ship as almost an Auxillery, you could almost make a similair claim about a Carrier, afterall it is just a floating airfield, its power not being intrinsic but based on the other equipment it carries. In the case of a Carrier, Aircraft, for the Assault ship its Marine or Army formations. Technically, the assault ship I would be more of an actual Warship than a Carrier as it would have its own Offensive Capabilty with its Shore Bombardment Batteries.

Going back to Battleships however, I do have a comment that may shock you!

Whilst there is no doubt the Dreadnaught was a major Technological Achievement, I would argue that as an effective Military weapon system, they were in fact a failure!!

Think about it, for such a massive Investment in Money, Resources and Manpower you would expect weapons that delivered a decisive blow in any combat. This simply did not happen- except once in 1904. After that nothing, countries maintained large fleets that stayed mainly in Port during Wartime. When two major fleets did meet at Jutland in 1916 the result was Indecisive and both fleets returned to Port. There were no major Fleet engagements between Battleships after that. Indeed most Battleship stories after that were disasters which illustrated just how vulnerable these behemoths were.

In truth, I suspect that the Battleship was the Naval equivalent of the Maginot Line; a magnificent symbol but pretty much obsolete by the time they were first built, a glorious fantasy based on Trafalga just as in 1914 Infantry still marched into Battle in the style of Waterloo, untill Machine Guns and Exploding Artillery Shells quickly buried that notion.

The Battleship was a symbol of Progress and Political Power, simply to be able to build, operate and maintain such vessels was a statement, just as Nuclear weapons are today.

[Gollevainen]

yeas the in the hearth of the battle ships idea is hidden its doom. Its the ultimate tool for weapon race and the manhanian idea would eventually lead into some having the ultimate weapon to theorethically destroy its opponents (yamato for exmple) or like you said, its value as a trhopy or ensing of ones power will lead reluctancy to use it most effectively...Our little armour ships where the text book exmple of this. They were in all means the most effective units to conduct our strategy of coastal defence but their prestige value led to the fact that after we managed to sink one of them to our own mine, the survior werent used in any battle thougth it would have been needed several occasions.

[kevin JJW]

Battleships
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/battleships.htm

Cold War designs

The Soviet Union planned to build several large cruiser classes, that would be a response for Scharnhorst, then Alaska class vessels in the 1940s and early 1950s, but these plans were abandoned. In Russia, they were called "heavy cruisers" (thyazholyi kreyser).

The first design were project 69 (Kronshtadt) cruisers, with 35,240 tons standard load, 9 guns 305 mm (12 in) and a speed of 32 knots. Two ships were laid in 1939. In 1940 it was decided to complete them according to the project 69I, with 6 guns 380 mm (15 in), bought in Germany, but the German attack on the USSR in 1941 put an end to these plans, and all works were canceled in a favour of more useful ship types, such as submarines.

Next design were project 82 (Stalingrad) cruisers, with 36,500 tons standard load (42,300 tons full load), 9 guns 305 mm and a speed of 35 knots. Three ships were laid in 1951–52, but after Stalin's death they were canceled in April 1953. Apart from high costs, the main reason was, that gun-armed ships became obsolete with an advent of guided missiles. Only a central armoured hull section of the first cruiser Stalingrad was launched in 1954 and then used as a target for rockets.
Admiral Lazarev, the second ship of her class of battlecruiser
Enlarge
Admiral Lazarev, the second ship of her class of battlecruiser

The Soviet Kirov class of Raketny Kreyser (Missile Cruiser), displacing approximately 26,000 tons, is classified as a battlecruiser in the 1996–7 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships, even though in actuality they are very large missile cruisers. Their classification as battlecruisers arises from their displacement, which is roughly equal to that of a World War I battleship, and the fact that they possess more firepower than nearly every other surface ship. However, the Kirov-class lacks the heavy armour that distinguishes battlecruisers from regular cruisers and they are classified as "heavy missile cruisers" in Russia. There were four members of the class completed, Kirov, Frunze, Kalinin, and Yuri Andropov. As the ships were named after Communist personalities, after the fall of the USSR they were given traditional names of the Imperial Russian Navy, respectively Admiral Ushakov, Admiral Lazarev, Admiral Nakhimov, and Petr Velikiy. Due to budget constraints two members of this class have been decommissioned, although Petr Velikiy and Admiral Nakhimov are in active service and funds are being gathered for possible repair of Admiral Lazarev. Nakhimov was returned to service early, at the beginning of 2006, possibly due to increasing tensions in the Middle East and potential Russian naval involvement therein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlecruiser

Propulsion: nuclear reactors
Length: 251 M
Beam: 28 M
Draft: 9 M
Displacement: 20.000 ton
Endurance: ???
Speed: ???
Armament:
VLS 14 launchers: 100 Missiles
48 YJ-62 SSM
4 Type 730 CIWS
Aircraft: 4 Z-9C ASW 4 KA-27
Crew: 400

[bd popeye]

Kevin the ship you describe would be emense..nearly the size if an Iowa class in length. I'm guess it would weigh in at about 36,000 to 40,000 tons displacement. Probally would not have the armour of that size ship.

The endurance would be unlimited with nuke propulsion. The speed would be equal to an CVN.

[kevin JJW]

Kevin the ship you describe would be emense..nearly the size if an Iowa class in length. I'm guess it would weigh in at about 36,000 to 40,000 tons displacement. Probally would not have the armour of that size ship.

The endurance would be unlimited with nuke propulsion. The speed would be equal to an CVN.
ps
I was using Project 1144.2 Orlan asa model of a china Battlecruisers.

Project 1144.2 Orlan
Kirov class
Guided Missile Cruiser (Nuclear Powered)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/1144-specs.htm

[adeptitus]

I'd add that the supercarriers of today are larger than any BB built in the past.

Traditional gunboat BB's have been made obsolete, but huge floating ships haven't. If you think about it, the RN CVF is roughly the same displacement as the IJN Yamato, except 18" gun turrets have been replaced by runways and aircraft.

We don't really build guided missile cruisers anymore, but if you look at the Ohio-class SSGN, it's 17,000 - 19,000 tons and prolly carries more cruise missiles than any CG. The Russian Oscar-II is even larger at 24,000 tons and carries 24 supersonic P-700 missiles. Most warships today don't carry that many SSM's.

If I were to draw a comparison, the BB's of yesterday have been replaced by aircraft carriers, while cruisers of yesterday replaced by LHA/LHD's. Missile Cruisers have been passed over in favor of SSGN's.

[Scratch]

Good thought. About the SSGNs, they don't have to carry any AAD systems and weapons wich leaves the space to SSMs. Thus a small force can mount a big attack.