Battleship and Battlecruiser in 21st century

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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 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.

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 I supose I had better sober up and resume normal service tomorrow . Sorry

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?

http://www.combatreform.com/chuckmye...ltshiprear.jpg

Originally Posted by bd popeye

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

Originally Posted by 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 I supose I had better sober up and resume normal service tomorrow . Sorry

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

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.

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.

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