Battleship and Battlecruiser in 21st century
- Thread starter kevin JJW
- Start date
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.
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
Junior Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
SampanViking said:
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:
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.
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
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 . SorrySkycom Type 2
New Member
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
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?
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?