Possibility of return of the Battleship?

Do you think building cannon armed dreadnoughts is the answer for future warfare? Giving it an MBT grade composite armor of massive thickness would make AshMs nearly useless against it since most have fragmentation warheads only useful against the unarmored CVs and destroyers of today and while HEAT warheads might penetrate its armor it would only affect one compartment of the modern dreadnought and wont do much damage unless it is extremely lucky enough to hit an ammo compartment. Also giving it a respectable CIWS will negate the threat of missiles and bombs even more. While the base range of an average 406mm projectile would be only about 40km having using assisted shells will give it range surpassing some AshMs. If a 152mm assisted round can go 80km, a 203mm round might go around 120km imagine how much a will a 400+mm round go! The battleship would expend its ammo a lot slower than a missile armed ship. And if a battleships gun could do heavy damage to an armored WW2 cruiser imagine how volleys of guided 406mm shells will pulverize unarmored missile destroyers and carriers. Even so adding missiles will still be a good idea for very long range strikes(the iowas had tomahawks). A modern battleship carrying 460mm turrets(and carrying about 1000 rounds) and 16 brahmos or klub-K missiles would be easily the most powerful ship in the sea. Of course carriers could still be useful but adding a battleship to the task force would make it a lot more powerful.

Pretty much, though atm. and in the near future only usn has use for it. Russia could try however they already have the best land artillery and have so for about 7 decades now. The only difference having a battleship would make is make such artillery sinkable, kinda like the usn's planes.

Many big missiles have shaped-charge warheads.

Good luck stopping that from penetrating your ship, given than some are 500Kg in size.

You would need to make the ship weigh 200,000 tons.

The battleship is dead... air power killed it.

A 1,500kg concrete penetrating bomb dropped from 10,000m and no level of armour will keep you safe.

Look at M1A2 Abrams being taken out with 50kg IEDs... the armour isn't penetrated, but the crew are killed or injured because armour doesn't stop the shock wave of an explosion.

A modern battleship carrying 460mm turrets(and carrying about 1000 rounds) and 16 brahmos or klub-K missiles would be easily the most powerful ship in the sea. Of course carriers could still be useful but adding a battleship to the task force would make it a lot more powerful.

A small tactical missile with a nuclear warhead and your battleship is dead. A single nuclear armed torpedo would do the same without having to make its way through air defence screens.

Your ship would be so heavy it will either be very slow, or will need to be owned by Saudi Arabia to fuel it.

A huge 16 inch gun is not all it is cracked up to be... each 406mm barrel weighs hundreds of tons, each gun turret weighs thousands of tons on its own and it needs a crew of over 100 just to man one turret.

Which enemy navy will require 1,000 403mm shells?

In comparison a Single upgraded Kirov with 152mm twin barrel turret can engage lesser ships at 70kms with gunfire, but will have up to 80 supersonic anti ship or land attack cruise missiles. In the near future these can be replaced with hypersonic missiles. Fitting nuclear propulsion will allow high speed and unlimited range. Its armour will not stop much but its air defence missiles and guns will stop most things.

GarryB wrote:The battleship is dead... air power killed it.

A 1,500kg concrete penetrating bomb dropped from 10,000m and no level of armour will keep you safe.

Look at M1A2 Abrams being taken out with 50kg IEDs... the armour isn't penetrated, but the crew are killed or injured because armour doesn't stop the shock wave of an explosion.

A modern battleship carrying 460mm turrets(and carrying about 1000 rounds) and 16 brahmos or klub-K missiles would be easily the most powerful ship in the sea. Of course carriers could still be useful but adding a battleship to the task force would make it a lot more powerful.

A small tactical missile with a nuclear warhead and your battleship is dead. A single nuclear armed torpedo would do the same without having to make its way through air defence screens.

Your ship would be so heavy it will either be very slow, or will need to be owned by Saudi Arabia to fuel it.

A huge 16 inch gun is not all it is cracked up to be... each 406mm barrel weighs hundreds of tons, each gun turret weighs thousands of tons on its own and it needs a crew of over 100 just to man one turret.

Which enemy navy will require 1,000 403mm shells?

In comparison a Single upgraded Kirov with 152mm twin barrel turret can engage lesser ships at 70kms with gunfire, but will have up to 80 supersonic anti ship or land attack cruise missiles. In the near future these can be replaced with hypersonic missiles. Fitting nuclear propulsion will allow high speed and unlimited range. Its armour will not stop much but its air defence missiles and guns will stop most things.

Most battleships have and had over 30knots speed while most modern ships can manage 25 knots at most.

What aircraft would even have the chance to drop the bomb when it would be easily shot modern SAM and CIWS systems?
Besides a harpooh or P-800 would do only external plash damage if it hits not doing and critical damage at all?
Engaging a carrier battlegroup would definately require 100s of 406mm shells.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Most battleships have and had over 30knots speed while most modern ships can manage 25 knots at most.
What aircraft would even have the chance to drop the bomb when it would be easily shot modern SAM and CIWS systems?
Besides a harpooh or P-800 would do only external plash damage if it hits not doing and critical damage at all?
Engaging a carrier battlegroup would definately require 100s of 406mm shells.

Hmm, make it unmanned, have tough but non ferromagnetic armor, nuclear powered, stealthy, able to submerge and have railguns that can fire from underwater(it extends to the surface). Also give it the best ADS and torpedo defences plus mine defence and make it ... supercavitating.

Most battleships have and had over 30knots speed while most modern ships can manage 25 knots at most.

A WWII battleship could be easily located today under full steam simply by the smoke trail it would leave that would be visible from space.

Second... it is basic physics that modern large ships peak at about 32-36knts, there were a few WWII ships that could go that fast but not many... and certainly not for very long.

If you want to reach design range then you would do so at about 18 knts for conventionally powered vessels.

What aircraft would even have the chance to drop the bomb when it would be easily shot modern SAM and CIWS systems?

Dude. I have said that the average 406mm gun barrel weighs hundreds of tons... each turret is over 1,000 tons... do you not understand what you are saying?

You want a modern vessel with the equivalent of a frigate balanced on its deck worth of gun turrets alone, and to get the thickness of armour you are talking about over the entire vessel you would be talking about a ship 3-4 times heavier than a Nimitz class carrier. If you want to move something like that through the water you will need about 10 nuclear power units... and your guns are not even going to have the firing range of an old Uran let alone the upgraded model.

Let it go.

No level of armour will be sufficient because your enemies are not stupid... if you use heavy armour they will use nukes.

Even the oldest model Kh-22Ms came with shaped charge warheads designed to concentrate the explosion on such a small area as to assure the penetration of any armour structure... the purpose was to cut the vessel in half, but it would destroy your battleship too.

Besides a harpooh or P-800 would do only external plash damage if it hits not doing and critical damage at all?

Even the relatively small warhead of the Harpoon would smash optics and sensors and break windows and do other damage even if it didn't penetrate. The Soviet supersonic AShMs had much heavier warheads and would likely do rather more damage in their conventional versions.

Engaging a carrier battlegroup would definately require 100s of 406mm shells.

Except no battle group commander would let an enemy battleship anywhere near it... that battleship would be hammered with air power and anti ship missiles.

Look at the Yamato... it sank too.

Hmm, make it unmanned, have tough but non ferromagnetic armor, nuclear powered, stealthy, able to submerge and have railguns that can fire from underwater(it extends to the surface). Also give it the best ADS and torpedo defences plus mine defence and make it ... supercavitating.

Sounds like a great idea for a comic book, but in terms of a real weapon it would be pathetic and extremely expensive.

Besides if the battleship can have SAMs and stuff to protect it from aircraft... why does it need all that armour? It expend enormous amounts of energy just moving around and no matter how much power you give it it will be slow.

Yeah, the weight issue is basically the number one biggest flaw in any modern "battleship". Think how heavy a tank array is, considering how tiny relative to a ship it is.

What about underwater protection? Agility?

The idea is beyond impractical.

GarryB wrote:
Sounds like a great idea for a comic book, but in terms of a real weapon it would be pathetic and extremely expensive.
Besides if the battleship can have SAMs and stuff to protect it from aircraft... why does it need all that armour? It expend enormous amounts of energy just moving around and no matter how much power you give it it will be slow.

Hmm, while I'm at it I might as well add that it can transform into a giant robot and go to space, how is that?
But seriously GarryB and TR1 are right, having that kind of battleship, well any kind of battleship would serve not much purpose today, or anytime in the future(with one minor exception). However, if supported with enough airpower of its own, you can get away with a smaller battleship. However, in space, when fledgling space powers are still being formed, battleships would reign supreme.
Well, until the first effective space fighter-bombers appear anyway.

A good example is the US Iowa class... they were perfectly safe as long as WWIII didn't start... if it did a single nuclear armed torpedo and they would be toast.

They only reactivated them because they were available and they reactivated them because of the power of their guns, not because of their armour.

They wanted heavy shells for naval gun support operations. The ability to drop rounds the size of aircraft delivered bombs 24/7 was appealing... but overall like the big German railway guns of WWII they were not worth the effort or money and were horribly vulnerable.

Should Russia, China, India and Iran build battleships?  While it is a pro US forum, try to read and understand the point the author is trying to make and apply it to Russia, China, India and Iran.  He makes a compelling case that battleships are not obsolete.

http://www.combatreform.org/battleships.htm

Gun ships are useful, but the aircraft has replaced the battleship as the king of the sea.

A bit of coastal fire support is handy and certainly heavy calibre guns should continue to be developed but a cruise missile is far more effective and cost efficient than a heavy gun.

ofc. they would want their rivals to field battleships since these are easier to take out with an aircraft carrier than another aircraft carrier.

The missouri class were later in the cold war pretty heavily armed with harpoon anti-ship missiles and tomahawk cruise missiles.
Maybe an stealth battleship with enough missiles and of course guns, would be very usefull (and pretty amazing)!

Armour is no protection when the enemy has tactical nuclear warheads.

For colonial use against some damn natives you can sit it off the coast and pound the terrain, but at the end of the day an aircraft has better reach, a heavier payload, is more versatile... and when the danger is too great... a cruise missile can do the job.

Any kind of surface ship is just a waste of money. It serves for projection of power against minor states, flag parades, PR staff and diplomacy but are only liabilities in a modern conflict scenario. Proved by test. There will be no sea battles in this century, that's for sure.

Hannibal Barca wrote:Any kind of surface ship is just a waste of money. It serves for projection of power against minor states, flag parades, PR staff and diplomacy but are only liabilities in a modern conflict scenario. Proved by test. There will be no sea battles  in this century, that's for sure.

nver say never, as they say. surface ship isnt a waste of money at all- they are the real backbone of any navy ffs.

Hannibal Barca wrote:Any kind of surface ship is just a waste of money. It serves for projection of power against minor states, flag parades, PR staff and diplomacy but are only liabilities in a modern conflict scenario. Proved by test. There will be no sea battles  in this century, that's for sure.

What the heck???

With superior Russian artillery and autoloading technology 8 406mm guns pointing in you direction is the last thing a coastal city wants to see.

Russia should at some point build an artillery ship with about 8 406mm autoloaded guns and lots of smerch rockets and of course enough AD to kill of eaverything 3 carrier groups could throw your way.

Such a ship would be invaluble to ampibious assault and power projection operations.

If there is no nuclear war then you have got to get troops ashore somehow and you have got to enforce you control when you have won.

The-thing-next-door wrote:With superior Russian artillery and autoloading technology 8 406mm guns pointing in you direction is the last thing a coastal city wants to see.

Russia should at some point build an artillery ship with about 8 406mm autoloaded guns and lots of smerch rockets and of course enough AD to kill of eaverything 3 carrier groups could throw your way.

Such a ship would be invaluble to ampibious assault and power projection operations.

If there is no nuclear war then you have got to get troops ashore somehow and you have got to enforce you control when you have won.

These sorts of projects are beyond retarded for the simple fact that they're situational dependent. When is Russia EVER in the foreseeable future going to need a battleship capable of razing a city to the ground with conventional weaponry? That's dumber than Russia investing in supercarriers, which are already being viewed skeptically as simply too situational dependent and of limited use in World War III, if and when it happens. Also, ala Bismark or Yamato, such monstrosities simply become propaganda symbols which provide as much benefit to the enemy in sinking them as they do to the nation keeping them afloat.

Also, good luck throwing 408mm shells at a city and not having the enemy throw nukes back at you... and if the enemy does not possess nuclear weaponry why the hell are you razing their cities to the ground, when clearly they must be a power that presents little threat to Russia.

OminousSpudd wrote:
These sorts of projects are beyond retarded for the simple fact that they're situational dependent. When is Russia EVER in the foreseeable future going to need a battleship capable of razing a city to the ground with conventional weaponry? That's dumber than Russia investing in supercarriers, which are already being viewed skeptically as simply too situational dependent and of limited use in World War III, if and when it happens. Also, ala Bismark or Yamato, such monstrosities simply become propaganda symbols which provide as much benefit to the enemy in sinking them as they do to the nation keeping them afloat.

Also, good luck throwing 408mm shells at a city and not having the enemy throw nukes back at you... and if the enemy does not possess nuclear weaponry why the hell are you razing their cities to the ground, when clearly they must be a power that presents little threat to Russia.

It makes sense for Russia to destroy small countries that have a hostile attitude after world war 3 has been won...or you could just nuke eavey single problem that would work too.

Yes I guess you could just bring back nuclear orbital bombardment after WW3 to make sure no-one will mess with you.

There is no point in developing 406mm guns.... The Russian Navy has never used such a calibre so there is little point in developing one now.

A landing vessel with four 152mm gun turrets would be interesting for landing support, but I suspect a new 203mm gun based on the Coalition gun design with better range and a heavier shell would be interesting but of very specialist use.

If they could get a 130km range with a 110kg round in 203mm calibre with decent accuracy then such a weapon might be useful in some situations, but building some super battleship around it make little sense.

At the end of the day a MiG-29K could carry a bomb 5 times bigger over much greater distances much more efficiently.

If there is an enemy air threat then a calibr cruise missile could deliver a warhead 4 times bigger 20 times further with no risk to support aircraft or air crew.