Is a modern battleship feasible?

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
If I'm not mistaken, Treaty of Versailles defines a battleship as a weight class above 15,000 tons. That weight was defined by the Dreadnaught.

Heavy Cruisers was something above 8,000 to 12,000 tons. Light cruisers are 5,000 tons at least. Destroyers were anything under.

Many of todays frigates would be classified as destroyers by WWII weight standards. And today's destroyers would be cruisers.
 

Scratch

Captain
Regarding the ammo of those modern BBs, aka Ohio SSGNs, just wondering are there CMs capable of multible engagements/ releasing sub-munitions??
Not to my knowledge, but that could be really helpfull to prepare a landing. Might be more effective than just throwing warheads at enemy formations/positions.
I'm thinking of CMs that could release "little HARM", BLU-108 etc ...
 

Kim Jong Il

Banned Idiot
I once read study on turning a BB into "arsenal ship" by adding Mk 41 cells. One of the 16in turrets would have been removed. However naval engineers figured out that if any 16in turret was removed it would seriouslly effect the seaworthyness of the ship in a most negative manner.

Keeping a BB in service is not cost effective. The fuel, the manpower and the ammunition cost is prohibitive. the USN has not enough trained personnel to operate the unique machinery plant on an Iowa class.

That is the price you have to pay for freedom.
more constructive comments please. We have a rule against one-liners
- TUP
 

montyp165

Junior Member
The PLAN should consider some form of arsenal ship, the barrage fire of something like that could be very useful.
 

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Regarding the ammo of those modern BBs, aka Ohio SSGNs, just wondering are there CMs capable of multible engagements/ releasing sub-munitions??
Not to my knowledge, but that could be really helpfull to prepare a landing. Might be more effective than just throwing warheads at enemy formations/positions.
I'm thinking of CMs that could release "little HARM", BLU-108 etc ...

A Tomahawk variant has a cluster munitions warhead. Cruise missiles are typically used, along with stealth aircraft, in the very first hour of combat operations, when the enemy is at its most deadliest. The tomahawk is used to take out fixed SAM sites, Radar sites, and C&C centers. These typically are fixed and well defended. As soon as the enemy's combat capability is sufficiently degraded that the risk to conventional aircraft is "acceptable", is when you see normal bombing runs.

Using a tomahawk cruise missile for close airsupport is very cost prohibative. These are usually done via dumb bombs with GPS fins.

The PLAN should consider some form of arsenal ship, the barrage fire of something like that could be very useful.

It depends on the cost of the barrage fire relative to its effectiveness. Arsenal ship's can run out of missiles very rapidly if used with the same frequency for air support. Once they are out of ammo, they are out of the war for a while.

The Ohio SSGN is basically a missile barge that frees VLS tubes of your typical surface combatant for other missiles (such as SM-3, ESSM, etc) Now that the last of the Spruanch are gone, the USN was needing more strike allocated VLS tubes.

If you want to see a modern battleship, look no further than the Kirov battle cruisers. A main battery of about 20 shipwreck missiles is not something you take lightly.
 
Last edited:

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
The PLAN should consider some form of arsenal ship, the barrage fire of something like that could be very useful.

I'm in favor of taking something like the 094 SSBN platform and turning it into a SSGN. If you could pack cruise missiles like the USN Ohio-class, it may be possible to install 64-96 sub-launched cruise missiles in place of 16 x JL-2's.
 

eecsmaster

Junior Member
I don't think putting conventional weapons on a strategic platform is a good idea, especially when your strategic deterent is as weak as China's.
 

bigstick61

Junior Member
Battleships are pretty well protected. A virtue of their armor protection not forseen during their development was that their internal side armor belt is better suited against missiles with shaped-charge warheads than the conventional, external side belts. The reason why the internal belt was adopted was because its angle was too steep for ship that had to be narrow enough to pass through the Panama Canal. The angle was stepp because inclining it increases the effective thickness without actually having thicker plates, thus saving weight, which was an important consideration in the design, as the Iowas were meant to be very fast.

Whe a missile hits the side, the blast must penetrate 1.5" of STS armor plate on the outside of the hull. Then it has to go through another 1.5" plate angled at 15 degrees after a few feet of space, and after going through more space, it must go through a 12.1" Class A (face hardened) armor belt backed by .825" STS plate angled at 19 degrees, which increases the effective thickness to around 17.5". After penetrating the belt, the blast would go into a compartment whose deck is STS plate, the roof is Class B armor plate and STS plate, and the bulkheads are 1" STS plate, which is designed to contain blast and shrapnel damage from penetrating shells. Once it goes through this, it is then free to damage the insides of the ship. A hit through the deck would have to penetrate 1.5" of STS plate, and after going through some space (between the main and second decks), it would have to penetrate 4.75" of Class B Armor (thicker over the steering gear and main machinery) combined with 1.25" of STS, and then after some more space, it would have to go throuh a .625" STS splinter deck, and the third deck would be next, which also is made of STS plate.

The main threat from missile attacks is not the destruction of the ship, but damage to electronics and exposed systems, which can inhiit the ship's ability to fight. One advantage that the battleships have in this regard is systems redundancy, as well as blast-hardened electronics, which must be made such due to the blast from the 16" guns. The ship has 4 secondary battery directors, 3 main battery directors (one housed in the armored conning tower's upper level), and also has surface and 2D air search radars. The turrets also have their own optical fire control components and radar velocimeters, as well as fire control computers. The secondary battery has optical fire control instruments as well. If there is loss of power, the secondary battery can be operated manually, as can the directors, which can use only optics for fire control, and do so effectively. This all helps to keep the ship in the fight, despite taking on considerable damage. There are also to CICs, one behind the armored conning tower, and another deep in the ship in the plotting rooms.

Against side-hitting torpedoes and mines, there is considerable protection. It was hypothesized that the side-defense system would have to be hit by 5 21" torpedoes striking simultaneously at certain intervals on one side of the ship to put it in jeopardy, although torpedo attack can result in a mission kill, depending upon the extent of the damage (the North Carolina, with an inferior system, was able to speed up after being hit by sub torpedoes and continue to operate, although she eventually had to return for repairs). There are 5 torpedo bulkeads and empty and liquid-loaded tanks and a holding bulkhead which the torpedo has to have its blast go through. One of the torpedo bulkheads is the armor belt. A weak point is where the No.! turret is, as the fine lines cause the system to be thin at that point. Against underbottom attack, the ship is more vulnerable, although it is protected as best as a warship can be. Like carriers, it is fitted with a tripple bottom, with one set of tanks being liquid loaded to aid in absorbption of the blast. Something which has never been tested is whether the ship would have a strong enough structure to stay intact if the keel were broken; noteworthy is that fact that the Class B Armor is considered to significantly strengthen the ship in this regard, although how much in this scenario is unknown.

An Iowa-class battleship is a formidable weapons platform. It's 16" guns can wreak havoc on land and surface targets, and since the modernizations, the guns are more versatile due to more shell types being available, such as DPICMs, special airburst shells (including one meant to defeat massed torpedo plane, and in mordern times, missile attacks), and other projectile types. Highly developed and near entering service was a 13.65" extended-range projectile which extended the range to over 35nm and could, if necesary, be fitted with a guidance system, although under normal conditions, it would not be so fitted. DARPA had also been developing an 11" rocket-assisted extended range shell with a 100nm range and which would come standard with guidance packages. Still being developed at China Lake are scramjet projectiles which can achieve an even greater range with short flight times.

An advantage the battleship has in shore bombardment/fire support missions is that in a period oftime it can put out more ordnance than a carrier, and do so continuously in all weather, something that carrier aircraft cannot do. It can also do so at reduced cost, and with at least as good accuracy. (Against surface targets, using only optical fire control, a battleship in an exercise was able to outscore naval aviators). The AP shells can also penetrate up to 36 feet of reinforced concrete, depending upon the range, something which bombs that can be fitted on naval aircraft cannot do.The extended range projectiles would have significantly improved this on the whole. Also, there is no risk of pilots being lost during NGFS missions, and the shells cannot be shot down. They can also provvide missiles to anti-ship and land attack missions. The planned 1990s modernization would have seen the Iowas have their Tomahawk ABLs removed and replaced with 96 vertical launch cells in four armored VLS launchers; Sea Sparrow launchers would have been fitted seperately, but a modernization using current technology would likely substitiute vertically-luanched ESSMs in quad-packs, to give the ship a moder air defense system.

The ships are also very fast (with an emergency speed of 35.4 knots, faster than any carrier currently in service, and full speed at over 33 knots), and also, when moving at higher speeds on the open ocean, highly manoeuverable. They also can be used as flagships. The battleship really does bring alot to naval surface warfare. What its main drawback is is that it is manpower intensive (although not nearly as much as a carrier, which is over 4 times as manpower intensive). The charge that it is also expensive to operate is largely unfounded, as its annual O&M costs are 1/10 those of a carrier, and not significantly more than a modern destroyer or cruiser.
 

goldenpanda

Banned Idiot
I'm in favor of taking something like the 094 SSBN platform and turning it into a SSGN. If you could pack cruise missiles like the USN Ohio-class, it may be possible to install 64-96 sub-launched cruise missiles in place of 16 x JL-2's.

I really like this idea. In a Taiwan scenario, China needs an aggressive conventional attack posture that can threaten US assets anywhere in the world. For that it needs these SSGN's. Just two of these boats running lose can help discourage attack against PLAN ports, for example.

China has the ability to maintain nuclear 2nd strike AND build these SSGN's. Some of the missiles should carry tactical nukes anyway.

To me this is such a good idea I wouldn't be surprised if half of type 94's end up in this configuration, provided China can develop the VLS technology quickly.
 

Tasman

Junior Member
Naval Gun Fire Suppourt is almost completly oumoded. There may never ever again be ,by the USMC, a direct frontal assult on a beach such as Normandy or Inchon. Modern tactics call for a flanking manuever away from enemy strongholds and a flanking move to attack the enemy.

Attack aircraft can soften up enemy strongholds better than Naval gun fire.

Well perhaps not completely. In March, 2003, during the Second Gulf War, RN and RAN ships supported Royal Marines very effectively in what became known as "Five Inch Friday".

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


However, I agree that for any large scale amphibious operation it would be aircraft and cruise missiles that would provide most of the firepower. Nevertheless, NGS from 4.5", 5" (127mm) or 155mm guns still has an effective role to play, IMO.

From the US Navy perspective, the closest thing to this, outside of the refitting of the actual Iowa class battleships in the 1980s, was the study done in the 1990s for the arsenal ship by the US Navy.

It seems a great pity to me that this design was not pursued. With the decommissioning of the Spruance class the number of VLS cells available for TLAMs has greatly declined. IMO, the large number of VLS cells and the small crew requirement combine to make this an attractive proposition.

I'm in favor of taking something like the 094 SSBN platform and turning it into a SSGN. If you could pack cruise missiles like the USN Ohio-class, it may be possible to install 64-96 sub-launched cruise missiles in place of 16 x JL-2's.

I agree with you and goldenpanda that a move in this direction would be a smart decision by PLAN.

Cheers
 
Top