Return of the battleship.

[Tankcrewman2008]

Looking at all these new destroyers and frigates makes me weep I mean there is no armor on these ship's as shown in previous conflicts where warships are damaged or sunk due to ASM's. My main point is old, rusting hulks of the once powerful battleships sit in shallow water for tourists to gaze at while they could be sitting off shore of a hostile country acting as a deterrence. Heavy armor coupled with powerful weaponry makes these behemoths a living nightmare for the smaller pee-wee ships.

Before you all start saying these ships are slow, highly expensive and mentally frustrating to maintain look at the modern age, with new technology and new inexpensive materials you could probably build a 21st century battleship for just over the price of a Nimitz class carrier or more depending on what you want.

Weaponry; New auto-loading guns will decrease the number of personnel needed, Equip the ships with state of the art SAM systems such as PAAMS with a few Goalkeepers, fit the ships with ship launched ASM's and cruise missiles.

Armor; Military analysts state that most ASM's will not be able to penetrate the hull of a battleship even the old ships maybe the large Russian Kitchen missiles but no ones tested. Water armor though I've not read much on this type of armor but it has something to do with physics maybe I'll learn more on that someday, Chobbham or Dorchester armor will be perfect but it would seem the MOD wont give it away neither would it be cost effective in such large quantity's, maybe build the ship out of frozen wood pulp but no i think staying with steel and shaped hull will suffice.

Power plant; Although you may be thinking "Hmmm nuclear would be best" but no your wrong as there is a far more suitable source of power which is Hydrogen power, yes that's right hydrogen is the new nuclear being able to produce energy with no worry's of running out of resources. Obviously only wealthy country's can produce this type of fuel I know in the USA some states use Hydrogen powered cars, Back to battleships I know nuclear seems better because you don't have to refuel all the time but think the resources needed to power reactors will eventually run out.

Well I've probably bored you enough with my constant dribble but feel free to reply.

Cheers

[kato]

Not going into the generic "giant floating target" thing, but specifically some points...

Exactly what would a battleship for "the price of a Nimitz-class carrier" give you in comparative combat and power projection capability?
"new and inexpensive materials"? Let's just say that the price of steel hasn't exactly been dropping over the last 70 years.
As for AShM not able to penetrate a battleship, seriously... if a battleship-level armored ship were to appear, there would long be measures to take it out considered and implemented by the opponents.
As for "old times" - who needs penetration when you can drop a 200 kt warhead within a few hundred meters of it without problems? And yes, exactly that is what say Russian AShM are built for. The non-export kind of course.
Chobham/Dorchester against quarter- to half-ton SAPHE warheads? Please. We're not talking uranium arrows here, or, depending on target zone, even behind-armor effect. Smother the entire ship in that kind of amour - sure, but then we're not looking at a comparative pricing to a Nimitz, but comparative to 15-20 Nimitzes.
Wood pulp, ala Habakkuk? Single nuke, done with. Or a couple dozen Durandals digging holes through and destabilizing the entire structure. A burning oil belt on the water wouldn't be all that beneficial either, i'd assume. Or, you know, operations in like half the planet's waters in which that wood pulp would melt within weeks.
As for hydrogen, guess exactly how to produce that? You don't go and split H2O with nothing.


Someone else think of more.

[StingrayOZ]

There is no practical way you can armour up against modern (or even most older) projectiles (shells or missiles or Torpedos).

The reason why most don't penetrate battleships is because people don't fight with battle ships. It would be very easy to sink a battleship today if it was still fighting.

Armour in some form may come back into fashion. On say small patrol boats against small arms, on larger ships against saturation attacks by micro projectiles (think thousands of guided munitions launched from a mother missile).

Guns are comming back into fashion now with guided munitions. Even larger sizes are reappearing.

But we won't see a return of battleships.

[rjmaz1]

Also as automation increases you no longer need 1000 crew members to perform all the functions of the ship.

Fewer crew can mean a smaller ship. Older battleships carried large guns that could not be fitted onto smaller ships due to weight and recoil. These days destroyers can fit all kinds of powerful guided weapons, so the extra stability/mass is not required.

Instead of adding armor to increase survivability when hit it would be easily to prevent getting hit in the first place.

With current budget costs it looks like big expensive ships such as a battleship has no change of making it. It would have to be nuclear powered due to its large fuel consumption.

I'd personally go along a completely different path. I'd extend production of the Arleigh Burke Class however install them with a pair of 30 year life S9G reactors from virginia class submarines. This would double their purchase price but improve logistics and provide savings in the long run. Better and safer than the DD(X) destoyers. I'd make future America class assault ships with a single S9G reactor. So all front line battlegroups are completely nuclear with a small supply train.

To make up numbers I'd buy cheap 3,000 tone conventionally powered frigates to reach the 300 ship total.

Though it looks like the US has aimed so high that most of the projects now cost so much they may be canceled and left with nothing.

[Feanor]

How about a design like the Kirov class, but more modern. A battleship that is essentially loaded with lots and lots of guided weapons. Not armored, but instead relying on superior range, and superior support assets (maritime patrol, etc) acting as part of a naval task force. Basically a very large missile cruiser.

[AegisFC]

Looking at all these new destroyers and frigates makes me weep I mean there is no armor on these ship's as shown in previous conflicts where warships are damaged or sunk due to ASM's. My main point is old, rusting hulks of the once powerful battleships sit in shallow water for tourists to gaze at while they could be sitting off shore of a hostile country acting as a deterrence. Heavy armor coupled with powerful weaponry makes these behemoths a living nightmare for the smaller pee-wee ships.

Armor is obsolete, some ships such as the Arleigh Burkes have several tons of kevlar armor for anti-fragment protection around vital spaces but full up armored belts as found in WW2 era ships is a dead concept. The armored belts found in old battleships were designed to protect against the common angles of gun fire and those belts do not protect against where a missile is likely to hit, and all the armor in the world would not protect a ship against a ASM that flies down your stacks and explodes in the engine room or takes out unarmored radars, comms gear, or other mission essential equipment. Heavy armor does not protect against torpedoes that will either crack the keel or pop the shaft seals.
You don't get right up close to shore if you don't have to, an Ohio SSGN packs much more firepower and is more effective than any battleship ever was. Historically medium caliber guns in the 5-8 inch range have provided the best fire support rather than the large guns, smaller guns are generally more accurate and have a much smaller danger fire radius.
Active and passive defenses are a much better way to survive a hit than armor.

Before you all start saying these ships are slow, highly expensive and mentally frustrating to maintain look at the modern age, with new technology and new inexpensive materials you could probably build a 21st century battleship for just over the price of a Nimitz class carrier or more depending on what you want.

The Iowa's were never slow. Care to explain that theory with sources? Care to explain how it would fill a mission not already covered by said Nimitz air group, its escorts, submarines and SSGN's?

Armor; Military analysts state that most ASM's will not be able to penetrate the hull of a battleship even the old ships maybe the large Russian Kitchen missiles but no ones tested.

Which analysts? Give names please. There is no proof of this, the armor is designed to withstand shell fire, large supersonic missiles are a whole different game.
The armor on the Iowa's belts is 12.1 in (310 mm) thick, most puny shoulder launched anti-tank missiles can easily penetrate that, granted it won't do much damage but if that little missile can do it what are the chances your whole 12.1 inches of steel can withstand a much larger supersonic missile with a warhead which is a great deal larger?
There is a misconception that the Iowa's were brought back in the 80's as a counter to the Kirov's, that is false, the Iowa's were brought back because they offered the cheapest and fastest way to bring a large number of Tomahawks to sea and there were proposals if the conversion was going to run over budget to leave the guns in a decommissioned state. Once VLS ships started to appear in numbers they were tossed right back into mothballs.

Obviously only wealthy country's can produce this type of fuel I know in the USA some states use Hydrogen powered cars,

Going off topic, but the Honda FCX Clarity is the only hydrogen powered car offered in one state, California and that is lease only. Every other hydrogen car you may of heard of is a development model.

Back to battleships I know nuclear seems better because you don't have to refuel all the time but think the resources needed to power reactors will eventually run out.

Not any time soon.

[gf0012-aust]

Armor; Military analysts state that most ASM's will not be able to penetrate the hull of a battleship even the old ships maybe the large Russian Kitchen missiles but no ones tested. Water armor though I've not read much on this type of armor but it has something to do with physics maybe I'll learn more on that someday, Chobbham or Dorchester armor will be perfect but it would seem the MOD wont give it away neither would it be cost effective in such large quantity's, maybe build the ship out of frozen wood pulp but no i think staying with steel and shaped hull will suffice.


Armour on ships is no longer about metallurgical properties, in fact it's not about metal properties at all now. Armour is a collective of disparate systems such as ewarfare/sig mgt and layered response. It's not about kinetic survivability as it's prohibitive.

As for the issue of Chobham and Dorchester - they were discounted years ago - the serious close in defence work is now on ship based Trophy type systems defending critical parts of the ship like the citadel and the farm.

there's a new generation of immediate self protection emerging.

[the road runner]

I read an article in the NAVY league magazine about how "SHIPS must be sturdy'' when they are constructed for future wars.The article goes on to talk about how a ship that has a large surface area will be more survivable than a ship that has a smaller surface area.Basically a bigger ship will take more damage and be more survivable in battle compared to a smaller ship.

The defence analysists see larger battle ships as obsolete and i would not question there knowladge.....but i find it had to grasp how the above statement makes sense(or it dosent?..it dose to me) and yet so dose the answers by the defence professionals

:confused:

[Tankcrewman2008]

Which analysts? Give names please.

Don't know there exact names but they run a website pretty much showing in detail about all different military things It's called Combatreform though I would call them military analysts others may not. There is a page on there website explaining a 21st century battleship a bit more in depth then mine

As for hydrogen, guess exactly how to produce that? You don't go and split H2O with nothing.

Its all to do with electrolysis, very confusing to me but they zap H20 and split it you'd be better off reading somewhere else about it.

Short reply but I shall return when I'm more alert.

[Waylander]

It's called Combatreform though I would call them military analysts others may not.


Yeeehaw, right at the end of '08 Sparky sneaked into this forum again.

Don't believe a bit of what is written on these combat reform pages.
The guy running this whole show is totally insane and as far away from being an expert as one can be.

AIR-MECH STRIKE NOW!!!!

Aaaah, couldn't resist...

[Falstaff]

How about a design like the Kirov class, but more modern. A battleship that is essentially loaded with lots and lots of guided weapons. Not armored, but instead relying on superior range, and superior support assets (maritime patrol, etc) acting as part of a naval task force.

IMO that pretty much describes around which principles the Ticonderogas and future Zumwalt classes are built, no?
Given you would make a similar but bigger design- what for?
I think it all comes down to the question, what can your battleship or very large missile cruiser do that other assets can't? As kato and AegisFC pointed out, other assets pack a lot more punch, stealth and -most important of all- operational flexibility for the same amount of cash.

A ship like the one tankcrewman describes would essentially be an armoured bomb truck of the seas, right? And a very expensive one as well. What would you use that for?
Battleships became obsolete in WW2 and I personally don't see why the resaons they did have changed.

BTW I don't know what a Kirov would cost today. I'm pretty sure though they were/are very expensive ships. And although I really like big ships (I mean like really big) I'm afraid they are more of an impressive mascot these days.

Power plant; Although you may be thinking "Hmmm nuclear would be best" but no your wrong as there is a far more suitable source of power which is Hydrogen power, yes that's right hydrogen is the new nuclear being able to produce energy with no worry's of running out of resources. Obviously only wealthy country's can produce this type of fuel I know in the USA some states use Hydrogen powered cars, Back to battleships I know nuclear seems better because you don't have to refuel all the time but think the resources needed to power reactors will eventually run out.

Well, I can tell you some' about this. You think about it a few minutes and then you'd better forget about it. Hydrogen as a power source for large ships isn't suitable at all. What makes you think so?
Apart from the fact that generating and storing hydrogen is awfully expensive -as you already realised yourself- and comsumes more energy than you will actually get from your fuel cell, fuel cells have a disadvantage that is imminent with their physical conception: They generate heat in the magnitude of power they generate. This isn't that much of a problem in a 100kW car like the Clarity or a 300kW submarine fuel cell where you have a big cold ocean which makes it easy to get rid of the heat. But now you need 60-100 MW or probably even more. See my point?
Then there's the problem of storage. Would you use liquified H2, stored under pressure inside the hull and still requiring a lot of volume as you would have to use many small storage tanks as you simply can't build a single huge, sufficient one? Imagine if that blows off. And what about underway replenishment? That would probably be huge fun :D
Or will you deal energy density for volume and use (in any way) chemically bound H2 which also needs a lot of internal volume, makes the fuel cell more complicated to operate and has no advantage over conventional fuel whatsoever -on the contrary- apart from the fact that it's "clean"?

OT, but last sunday on Top Gear they said the Clarity was the future of the car. I really love those guys, esp. James May, but this is BS. Honda wanted to make a zero emission car and they did and that's fine. But all car builders have realised that after the hype for fuel cells in cars is over the future car will not be powered by fuel cells.

[kato]

Its all to do with electrolysis, very confusing to me but they zap H20 and split it you'd be better off reading somewhere else about it.

And what do they zap it with? ... electricity. Which comes from? :shudder

And what about underway replenishment? That would probably be huge fun :D

To be fair, one of the Type 404 Elbe tenders is currently being reconfigured to refuel subs with hydrogen and oxygen. Although not liquid H2 afaik, since they have to embed it into the molecular structure of the metal-hydride battery.
And no, we're better not getting any ideas of supplying a battleship from metal-hydride tanks. Oh wait. Someone sell that idea to Sparky.

[Feanor]

IMO that pretty much describes around which principles the Ticonderogas and future Zumwalt classes are built, no?
Given you would make a similar but bigger design- what for?
I think it all comes down to the question, what can your battleship or very large missile cruiser do that other assets can't? As kato and AegisFC pointed out, other assets pack a lot more punch, stealth and -most important of all- operational flexibility for the same amount of cash.

A ship like the one tankcrewman describes would essentially be an armoured bomb truck of the seas, right? And a very expensive one as well. What would you use that for?
Battleships became obsolete in WW2 and I personally don't see why the resaons they did have changed.

BTW I don't know what a Kirov would cost today. I'm pretty sure though they were/are very expensive ships. And although I really like big ships (I mean like really big) I'm afraid they are more of an impressive mascot these days.

They would be able to deliver more payload. They would be able to mount more sensors/processors, acting as C3 for the entire taskforce. They would be able to carry longer range, larger ASMs, and more of them. I guess it would come down to a cost-benefit analysis, which I don't have enough information to deliver.

[Marc 1]

Its all to do with electrolysis, very confusing to me but they zap H20 and split it you'd be better off reading somewhere else about it.
Short reply but I shall return when I'm more alert.

The basics of eletrolysis are about the simplest way to get hydrogen gas, but most hydrogen is obtained by stripping hydrogen off a hydrocarbon in a steam reformer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production So if you were seeking to use hydrogen for environmental reasons, you will miss out unless you are generating electricity from a renewable resource (solar, hydro, wind, tidal geothermal etc).

Storage. BMW have a 6L V12 in extremely limited trial that runs on hydrogen. it has a 125 mile range on 30 US gallons of liquid hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen needs to be kept at -253 degrees C. Add to that about a 50% drop in power from the engine and it's not stacking up too well as a fuel. It is better used in a fuel cell, but even then you still have issues with heat, storage and energy density of the fuel. If you try to store the hydrogen as a comressed gas, you have space issues, as a metal hydride again space.

[Abraham Gubler]

There is an increased focus on protection for warships but this is against more asymetric threats and because of Zero Tolerance of casulties. No one is about to add an armour belt to the next frigate but bullet and fragment proofing and improved blast resistance yes. Kockums are working on a completely blast resistant submarine for the A26/A28 NGU concept. No doubt working from the HY100 steel in Collins (which took a lot of Aussie imput to make work).

As to recomissioning the BB62s it will never happen. Each requires a crew of 3,000. With a single turret manned you are still looking at 1,500. The USN explored building a new ship in the late 1960s that would carry one of those 16" turrets and it only needed a crew of 320!

But to the original point the best defence for a warship against ASMs is not being shot at or shooting them down. Even an armoured belt ship is going to suffer a lot of damage. All armour belts do is stop the ship from sinking. They rarely save lives as case in point the hundreds killed and wounded in battleship battles before the ship sinks. Unless you build a ship with everyone inside the belt - and this would require a massive sized belt - you won't achieve your aim.

Battleships have not been abandoned on a whim, it was because they don't offer much of value to warfighters these days.

[Wooki]

I would agree with GFs input.

But, (with the following disclaimer). I used to do armor and now when asked to do it, I say "no" as you can make more money making tooth brushes.

The concept of armor on naval vessels is most definitely not obsolete, as you have all the advantages that an AFV doesn't. If a Navy wanted to they could create a vessel able to withstand existing Anti Shipping Cruise Missiles, in fact it is quite easy for the USN to do this.

But they don't for these reasons:

Armour on ships is no longer about metallurgical properties, in fact it's not about metal properties at all now. Armour is a collective of disparate systems such as ewarfare/sig mgt and layered response. It's not about kinetic survivability as it's prohibitive.

As for the issue of Chobham and Dorchester - they were discounted years ago - the serious close in defence work is now on ship based Trophy type systems defending critical parts of the ship like the citadel and the farm.

there's a new generation of immediate self protection emerging.

So yes, US industry is capable of making an armored vessel. Yes I will stand up and say it straight that the technology and know how of today could make a sea skimming missile irrelevant.

The key threat is not actually missiles BTW, its torpedoes and mines and this is routinely pondered upon.

Bottom line is just that, the bottom line. The perception is that it is simply easier and cheaper to develop active protection systems, not to mention the iterative training process to use these systems (knowledge, building upon knowledge).

It aint going to change. On top of that you have industry inertia and turf protection. For example to make a change in the CVN (x) as it was called back then, an armor idea for an itsy bitsy little item I suggested captured the imagination of everyone in the room and died a quick death as it had to be approved by no less then 53 individuals ( I will spell it for you F-i-f-t-y T-h-r-e-e) before it had a chance of becoming reality.

Not going to happen friend. Much easier to launch a nulka as it exists and is deployed today :D

And last Chobham?? Why would I use a low mass efficiency armor like Chobham? It is far too complicated and way too heavy and simply wouldn't work at sea (IMHO that is)...


cheers


w

[Wooki]

I
Well, I can tell you some' about this. You think about it a few minutes and then you'd better forget about it. Hydrogen as a power source for large ships isn't suitable at all. What makes you think so? Hydrogen is suitable for larger ships. The rule of thumb is 3 times the volume required for H2 as opposed to normal HFO.

Apart from the fact that generating and storing hydrogen is awfully expensive
No, it isn't as expensive as you believe. For example: There are models to supply the State of Virginia with H2 generated electrical power at around 5c/KWH to the end consumer. That rivals coal.

-as you already realised yourself- and comsumes more energy than you will actually get from your fuel cell, fuel cells have a disadvantage that is imminent with their physical conception: They generate heat in the magnitude of power they generate. This isn't that much of a problem in a 100kW car like the Clarity or a 300kW submarine fuel cell where you have a big cold ocean which makes it easy to get rid of the heat. But now you need 60-100 MW or probably even more. See my point?
This is grossly incorrect. Take a look at a solid oxide fuel cell. The optimum temperature is 1000 Degrees celsius for various configurations using a variety of different materials suitable for operation on a large scale. Waste heat is a good thing as then you can turn that into electricity via a thermocouple.

Then there's the problem of storage. Would you use liquified H2, stored under pressure inside the hull and still requiring a lot of volume as you would have to use many small storage tanks as you simply can't build a single huge, sufficient one? Imagine if that blows off.
Another urban myth. H2 storage is safer and (in a lot of ways) more convenient then storing hydrocarbons. It is (however) diffcult to handle in a submersible. You don't get any "explosions" from H2 going off. In fact you would probably get a flare that would blow itself out and then a build up of ice that would self seal the tank, all within seconds.

And what about underway replenishment? That would probably be huge fun :D
Or will you deal energy density for volume and use (in any way) chemically bound H2 which also needs a lot of internal volume, makes the fuel cell more complicated to operate and has no advantage over conventional fuel whatsoever -on the contrary- apart from the fact that it's "clean"?

Again another urban myth. Hydrogen peroxide is damn safe if used correctly with the appropriate materials. It is one of the reasons it was first used as a rocket fuel. It is only when people start getting greedy for thrust and adding a tertiary fuel (e.g. Me 263 ) that it becomes dangerous.

My observation is that most of these conclusions you have made above are governed by mass media and pulp fiction. take a little time to look at hydrogen power in Iceland. They have a number of informative sites that educate the public on hydrogen power.

Finally one of the primary reasons that it is tricky t use at sea is becasue it is light. Therefore the larger the better and the more efficient your hull form.

Hope that has cleared up a few items for you

cheers

w

[swerve]

No, it isn't as expensive as you believe. For example: There are models to supply the State of Virginia with H2 generated electrical power at around 5c/KWH to the end consumer. That rivals coal.
Where does the hydrogen come from in these models?

I can see the point of hydrogen power for vehicles, but for electricity generation? Why not directly use the electricity you use to make the hydrogen, & cut out the conversion losses & extra machinery?

[Wooki]

Where does the hydrogen come from in these models?

I can see the point of hydrogen power for vehicles, but for electricity generation? Why not directly use the electricity you use to make the hydrogen, & cut out the conversion losses & extra machinery?

Geo-thermal actually. Can't say more then that. But I have heard of other schemes using wind and solar with about the same price to the consumer.

cheers

w

[kato]

Do they have successful sites for the geothermal stations?

'Cuz we got a company around here constantly trying new sites for lack of proper geological structures - but hey, they've stumbled on oil three times by now (and gas reserves once).

How you transmit energy is always a question of infrastructure, not qualities of the carrier medium. Hydrogen as an energy carrier would be useless for me personally for example, considering i'm sitting within a very dense electricity network fed directly from three nuclear plants, one coal plant and two wind power parks, and get waste heat from a nearby coal plant pumped to my house for heating. Oh, and they're building a gas main extension pumping gas straight from Russia less than 5 miles from here, and are looking for geothermal energy sources.

Hydrogen as a carrier medium - in stationary infrastructure, i.e. pipelines - is only valid for areas where other infrastructure (electricity lines, steam pipes) would be badly influenced by external factors such as weather. Or where the installation and maintenance of such infrastructure would at most come equal with hydrogen mains. Ice isn't exactly beneficial for overland electricity networks for example. Meaning, it's a valid carrier medium for Iceland, but not e.g. for most of continental Europe.

[swerve]

Geo-thermal actually. Can't say more then that. But I have heard of other schemes using wind and solar with about the same price to the consumer.

cheers

w
But, but, but . . . . the argument still stands. Why not generate electricity directly? Why put in the extra, costly, step?

[Wooki]

Do they have successful sites for the geothermal stations?

'Cuz we got a company around here constantly trying new sites for lack of proper geological structures - but hey, they've stumbled on oil three times by now (and gas reserves once).

How you transmit energy is always a question of infrastructure, not qualities of the carrier medium. Hydrogen as an energy carrier would be useless for me personally for example, considering i'm sitting within a very dense electricity network fed directly from three nuclear plants, one coal plant and two wind power parks, and get waste heat from a nearby coal plant pumped to my house for heating. Oh, and they're building a gas main extension pumping gas straight from Russia less than 5 miles from here, and are looking for geothermal energy sources.

Hydrogen as a carrier medium - in stationary infrastructure, i.e. pipelines - is only valid for areas where other infrastructure (electricity lines, steam pipes) would be badly influenced by external factors such as weather. Or where the installation and maintenance of such infrastructure would at most come equal with hydrogen mains. Ice isn't exactly beneficial for overland electricity networks for example. Meaning, it's a valid carrier medium for Iceland, but not e.g. for most of continental Europe.

But, but, but . . . . the argument still stands. Why not generate electricity directly? Why put in the extra, costly, step?

Hydrogen (IMHO) really only makes sense when it is transported via ship. It makes a lot of sense in projects where energy is available in a remote location, putting it in a bottle and then taking bottle of energy to where its needed.

That (funnily enough) means it is good for wind where windy places are not normally heavily populated. i.e energy is there but no infrastructure, whether it be solar, wind or geothermal.

If you transport Hydrogen via ship, then what is to say you can't power the ship with it? Makes it easier to transport. If you are powering the ship with it, why don't you take a larger turbine and just plug the ship into the grid when you get to point 'B'

ahhhhhh, I just saved huge infrastructure costs in building a new powerplant.

The ideal market is not Virginia. In fact Virginia is one of the least favorable, but as the numbers worked out there, then that makes the numbers for a more favorable market look really good.... like Europe.

Hydrogen has its place, because if you regard it as energy in a bottle, it basically uses the same infrastructure and know how as the oil and gas industry, which means you save uber bucks on tech transfers and infrastructure costs, plus people "get it"....no loss of labor skill sets and/or experience. "... I've worked in oil and gas since I was knee high to a duck. Now I am working in Hydrogen and the wife is happy..." sort of thing.

and re the thread topic, yes that means creating a war fighting ship of large proportions, but I have argued that the CVN Nimitz and the CVN 21 are too small anyway. They are just big enough to have big ship maintenance costs but too small to get big ship benefits in capability. Make them 200,000 tons or 300,000 tons and they become way more efficient and you start getting into the fabled "sea base" concept.

Oh and armor? Just make it spaced armor or whack in a hydrogen tank and you are good to go.


cheers


w

[peterAustralia]

I do not think this battleship idea is totally unsound, perhaps has merit if scaled down a bit though.

Some examples, HMS Tiger, 1959-1978, was reconfigured with a large helicopter deck and hangar, capable of carrying 4 Sea King helicopters. The 6 inch guns were capable of 20 rounds a minute each. A large ship at 12000 tonnes, but capable of 31.5 knots.

Could such a vessel serve as the basis of a new build ship? I think so. The large light deck and helicopter capability would certainly be useful in amphibious and humanitarian operations. A large ship could also more easily contain a hospital ward and davits and landing craft to assist in amphibious operations. A large ship with large flight-deck would permit flight operations in higher sea states.

Instead of 6 inch guns, perhaps a modern 8 inch gun could be developed that was highly automatic and carrying base bleed shells to improve range. Additionally with new technology these shells can now be aimed and steered via a small drone with a laser designator. Can the work of Gerard Bull be used to increase the range still further as it has been on land artillery?

As to armour larger ships can have a higher proportion of their structure devoted to armour. In the Falklands several ships were lost that possibly needed not to be. Example one ship was lost to an aircraft firing unguided 57mm rockets. A bigger ship would have the space to divide the superstructure into separate modules so as to better withstand blast effects.

Obviously the designers of these ships were working to the best of their ability but at that time armour was not such a big thing. Where to put armour? the logical places would be around the magazines, the command center, bridge, steering gear, electrical, hydraulic and computer conduits. A rough figure might be a thousand tonnes of armour on a 12 thousand tonne ship.

For larger areas perhaps a lighter armour might be used there, so possibly kevlar armour for engine room and the helicopter hangar. I am no expert on the cost/benefit weight issues and blast and projectile protection of traditional armour vs the modern kevlar equivalent.

If designed to carry a lot of helicopters from the outset, perhaps up to 5 or 6 NH90 class helicopters could be carried in a large hangar aft.

Without going to excess, a degree of armour could greatly assist the survivability of a ship, the ability to withstand a missile attack, withstand a bomb or unguided rocket would all be useful. Obviously a new build ship would be built with modern propulsion, be that gas turbines or diesel or both. Do not know anything about this hydrogen stuff. Automation can reduce the crew needed for a large gun as seen by modern automatic 5 inch guns. A larger ship has a naturally longer fatigue life

On cost, yes it would cost a bit, however most of the cost of modern ships is the electronics and weapon systems. If the ship was armed only with short range anti aircraft and missile protection systems, that would certainly assist
in lowering the price. I think a big battle would be to try and avoid getting items placed in the ship, to avoid the temptation to add an area defence SAM, Anti ship missiles, torpedo tubes, control and command facilities etc.

Such a large vessel would I think be quite complimentary to existing frigates and destroyers. Vittorio Veneto and some large Japanese destroyers show the viability of a large hull with a large helicopter hangar combines with a good gun armament.

[Falstaff]

Hydrogen is suitable for larger ships. The rule of thumb is 3 times the volume required for H2 as opposed to normal HFO.

And that's ok for fuel storage on warships or what do you want to say? What storage principle are you talking about?


For example: There are models to supply the State of Virginia with H2 generated electrical power at around 5c/KWH to the end consumer. That rivals coal.


Well fine, we were looking at such models as well, mostly related to providing supply for fuel cell cars. If you're able to make them real, that's fine, give me a call.
Apart from that: What scale of H2 production are we talking about here? And what timeframe?
Because that's essential, you see. My impression was/is that most of these models are based on a lot of assumptions and a lot of "if"s and apart from the fact that I don't quite comprehend the relevance of Virginia being supplied with clean power in this context, it remains to be seen if these models are realistic. In addition to that most people that provide these clean power scenarios have a certain agenda and those who read those icelandic websites should take a little time and question some of the shiny, fancy stuff.
However, if you are to supply H2 for warship use these days it is bloody expensive. You're a little bit ahead of your time, aren't you.

Yes, I know, you're a defence pro and so on, but during my studies I've worked for 2 years on fuel cell car related topics and this time I know well what I'm talking about. Please respect that.
If you're misunderstanding or have the impression that I have no idea what I'm talking about due to my poor english skilld or have questions, you're invited to ask for clarification via posting or PM, I'll be glad to answer and add information. As you don't know my technical background, please do not make statements like the following:


This is grossly incorrect. Take a look at a solid oxide fuel cell. The optimum temperature is 1000 Degrees celsius for various configurations using a variety of different materials suitable for operation on a large scale.


No, it's not. And it really angers me you're talking like that because obviously you're not in the position to call this grossly incorrect.
To start with, how many years do you think will it take until we'll see production ready SOFCs that will generate the amount of power we're talking about here ("on a large scale" :rolleyes:)? This really is future technology.
And still, what's your efficiency factor? Around 50%.
Again, we're talking about one or several fuel cells that provide 60-100 MWs or more for a battleship sized vessel with loads of equipment in it.


Waste heat is a good thing as then you can turn that into electricity via a thermocouple.


Aw man, I know some guys at the thermodynamics institute who would slap you right in the face if you said this to them. Waste heat is a good thing. Ok, if you think so.
Or have there been some breakthroughs in heat recuperation that I didn't hear of that allow you to install the required machinery in a ship with limited space? Around fuel cells that need to deliever 60 or probably more MWs? Do you know how much volume these things need? And what are you then going to use the heat for? To reform natural gas or what? Or use it with a steam turbine or drive a stirling engine?
Again, you're probably talking future technology.


Another urban myth. H2 storage is safer and (in a lot of ways) more convenient then storing hydrocarbons.

Again, what storage principle are you talking about? In the paragraph I was talking simple storage under pressure, as e.g. for welding application, which would be the simplest possibility I can think of. Essentially, compressed H2. Nothing else, apart from any cavernous, inert filling material. And if you have a leak you have a problem. Period.


Again another urban myth. Hydrogen peroxide is damn safe if used correctly with the appropriate materials. It is one of the reasons it was first used as a rocket fuel. It is only when people start getting greedy for thrust and adding a tertiary fuel (e.g. Me 263 ) that it becomes dangerous.


I totally lose you here. Hydrogen peroxide? What are you talking about? Well, for the sake of it, let's talk about it. You know what can happen if there are impurities? Or if there is a leak and hydrogen peroxide gets in contact with e.g. copper? Apart from that I'd rather have some litres of diesel over my skin than your H2O2.
And I said chemically bound storage, which perhaps is the wrong term in english. There are ways to store hydrogen safely, yes, but you deal energy density and/or procedural simplicity for that. Period.


My observation is that most of these conclusions you have made above are governed by mass media and pulp fiction.


My observation is that you're an impertinent person. You're putting together some apples and oranges, believes and future stuff and on this basis you're challenging me in quite a harsh way.
Again, if you have any questions or want to discuss this in a more detailed, factual way, you're welcome. After all, this is not a thread about fuel cell powered ships.

Now for conclusion, you are suggesting that a battleship sized vessel could well be powered by SOFCs generating about let's say 100 MWs of power (that don't exist), fed with H2 produced stored in a way that needs about 3 times the volume than conventional fuel and boosted in their efficiency by heat recuperation small and light enough (which doesn't exist)? And the costs of this roughly equalling a coal powered ship. Did I get it right?



This is OT, but the following remark has to be made: Lately it seems to me that is has become a very common thing here that def pros are acting as if other members didn't know anything, yelling idiot at everyone. That's not correct behaviour!

[kato]

I said, chemically bound storage, which perhaps is the wrong term in english.
Molecular Embedding perhaps?
(i.e. H2 molecules embedded in either a metallic structure or between "sheets" of a carbon-based nanostructure - about the only two ways to store H2 in a chemical structure without binding it straight to another molecule)

[Falstaff]

Molecular Embedding perhaps?
(i.e. H2 molecules embedded in either a metallic structure or between "sheets" of a carbon-based nanostructure - about the only two ways to store H2 in a chemical structure without binding it straight to another molecule)

Yeah, that's more like it. Thanks.

[swerve]

Hydrogen (IMHO) really only makes sense when it is transported via ship. It makes a lot of sense in projects where energy is available in a remote location, putting it in a bottle and then taking bottle of energy to where its needed.

That (funnily enough) means it is good for wind where windy places are not normally heavily populated. i.e energy is there but no infrastructure, whether it be solar, wind or geothermal.
Agreed. Splitting seawater using solar power on a sunny desert coast, or wind power somewhere wet & windy & desolate, then shipping it far away to use it, does make sense. It was the idea of doing it in a populated area that baffled me.

But we digress . . .

[Wooki]

And that's ok for fuel storage on warships or what do you want to say? What storage principle are you talking about?



Well fine, we were looking at such models as well, mostly related to providing supply for fuel cell cars. If you're able to make them real, that's fine, give me a call.
Apart from that: What scale of H2 production are we talking about here? And what timeframe?
Because that's essential, you see. My impression was/is that most of these models are based on a lot of assumptions and a lot of "if"s and apart from the fact that I don't quite comprehend the relevance of Virginia being supplied with clean power in this context, it remains to be seen if these models are realistic. In addition to that most people that provide these clean power scenarios have a certain agenda and those who read those icelandic websites should take a little time and question some of the shiny, fancy stuff.
However, if you are to supply H2 for warship use these days it is bloody expensive. You're a little bit ahead of your time, aren't you.

Yes, I know, you're a defence pro and so on, but during my studies I've worked for 2 years on fuel cell car related topics and this time I know well what I'm talking about. Please respect that.
If you're misunderstanding or have the impression that I have no idea what I'm talking about due to my poor english skilld or have questions, you're invited to ask for clarification via posting or PM, I'll be glad to answer and add information. As you don't know my technical background, please do not make statements like the following:



No, it's not. And it really angers me you're talking like that because obviously you're not in the position to call this grossly incorrect.
To start with, how many years do you think will it take until we'll see production ready SOFCs that will generate the amount of power we're talking about here ("on a large scale" :rolleyes:)? This really is future technology.
And still, what's your efficiency factor? Around 50%.
Again, we're talking about one or several fuel cells that provide 60-100 MWs or more for a battleship sized vessel with loads of equipment in it.



Aw man, I know some guys at the thermodynamics institute who would slap you right in the face if you said this to them. Waste heat is a good thing. Ok, if you think so.
Or have there been some breakthroughs in heat recuperation that I didn't hear of that allow you to install the required machinery in a ship with limited space? Around fuel cells that need to deliever 60 or probably more MWs? Do you know how much volume these things need? And what are you then going to use the heat for? To reform natural gas or what? Or use it with a steam turbine or drive a stirling engine?
Again, you're probably talking future technology.



Again, what storage principle are you talking about? In the paragraph I was talking simple storage under pressure, as e.g. for welding application, which would be the simplest possibility I can think of. Essentially, compressed H2. Nothing else, apart from any cavernous, inert filling material. And if you have a leak you have a problem. Period.



I totally lose you here. Hydrogen peroxide? What are you talking about? Well, for the sake of it, let's talk about it. You know what can happen if there are impurities? Or if there is a leak and hydrogen peroxide gets in contact with e.g. copper? Apart from that I'd rather have some litres of diesel over my skin than your H2O2.
And I said chemically bound storage, which perhaps is the wrong term in english. There are ways to store hydrogen safely, yes, but you deal energy density and/or procedural simplicity for that. Period.



My observation is that you're an impertinent person. You're putting together some apples and oranges, believes and future stuff and on this basis you're challenging me in quite a harsh way.
Again, if you have any questions or want to discuss this in a more detailed, factual way, you're welcome. After all, this is not a thread about fuel cell powered ships.

Now for conclusion, you are suggesting that a battleship sized vessel could well be powered by SOFCs generating about let's say 100 MWs of power (that don't exist), fed with H2 produced stored in a way that needs about 3 times the volume than conventional fuel and boosted in their efficiency by heat recuperation small and light enough (which doesn't exist)? And the costs of this roughly equalling a coal powered ship. Did I get it right?



This is OT, but the following remark has to be made: Lately it seems to me that is has become a very common thing here that def pros are acting as if other members didn't know anything, yelling idiot at everyone. That's not correct behaviour!

Falstaff, you are the one who unloaded both barrels at the thread starter. I felt it appropriate to call you on some gross assumptions you appeared to have made. If my comments regarding technology have shaken your foundations in education (as it appears to have given you a case of future shock) then I can't really apologize, change and innovation are the nature of the beast. You will come across it sooner, or later.

And for the record, no, I don't think you are an "idiot". If anything your English is good enough that I didn't realize you were a non native speaker, and I replied in kind to your post.

cheers


w

[gf0012-aust]

All, Feel free to take the Hydrogen discussion into a new post in the Tech section - but it would be appropriate to stay on topic in here as much as possible.

Again, there's a need to watch how people conduct themselves when discussing things of close importance.

[mig3535]

it would be too expensive to build a battleship considering the fact that carrier with planes can project their power so much further than battleships can with missiles.

Admin: Cross link deleted. You were specifically asked not to do this. It was a request, not a suggestion.

Banned for 1 week for a deliberate violation of a Mods request to not cross link and self promote a web site

[alexsa]

Hydrogen (IMHO) really only makes sense when it is transported via ship. It makes a lot of sense in projects where energy is available in a remote location, putting it in a bottle and then taking bottle of energy to where its needed.

These seems to be a suggestion the Hydrogen will not explode and is less dangerous than hydrocarbons. This is nonsense. Hydrogen by it nature has a very wide explosive range (4% to 75%) and is lighter than air and has a flash point of -259 degree C and a boiling point 252 degrees C. A number of merchant ships have had hatch covers blown off and been lost (with loss of life) when hydrogen generated as a result of oxidisaton of the cargo (we are not talking large volume here) found a source of ignition (this can be as simple as steel on steel contact with hatch covers). Hydrogen escaping into any space poses a serious risk. Teh attached report is a sobering reminder of the risk.

http://www.register-iri.com/content/artspeeche/IntercargoAsia-B.cfm

Diesel on the other hand as a flash point of greater than 60 degrees C (closed cup) and is not even considered a class 3 dangerous good (it comes in at about 62 degrees C). HFO is even less combustable.

As an aside there are currently no ships designed to carry H2 in bulk and it must be shipped as a refrigerated liquid (See UN1966) when shipped in tank/packaged form. There are compressed gas carriers being considered but these are being designed around natural gas.

and re the thread topic, yes that means creating a war fighting ship of large proportions, but I have argued that the CVN Nimitz and the CVN 21 are too small anyway. They are just big enough to have big ship maintenance costs but too small to get big ship benefits in capability. Make them 200,000 tons or 300,000 tons and they become way more efficient and you start getting into the fabled "sea base" concept.

Oh and armor? Just make it spaced armor or whack in a hydrogen tank and you are good to go.


cheers


w

200000 to 300000 tonnes will be an interesting design challenge. Assuming a low block coefficient necessary for high speed it will be a very long ship and there will be significant hull strength issues, particualry in a seaway. By way of an example look at the Emma Maersk. This ships DWT is only 157000 tonnes and the ships is 400m long. Noting cargo ships tend to be heavier than warships and the CVN21 is 100000 tonnes dispalcement on 333m the extrapletion to 200000 to 300000 tonnes is daunting.

http://www.shipgaz.com/magazine/issues/2006/16/1606_article.php

[kato]

Make them 200,000 tons or 300,000 tons and they become way more efficient and you start getting into the fabled "sea base" concept.

I don't really see any use for a ship of such dimensions - even as a carrier.

Despite the large size, you'd run into arrangement problems in carrier operations, unless you keep the embarked aircraft at present numbers - but that would be uneconomical to the max. Think about it - where do you place extra catapults? Elevators? Multiple angled flight decks - because other than that there's pretty much no solution for such problems? Also think for example about the scale of propulsion equipment to bring this carrier to proper aircraft operations speed. Or think of the crew scale.

A battleship of such dimensions runs into similar problems. The size of capital ships has traditionally been driven by two factors weighing in heavily - armament and armor. What kind of modern armament would you envision - a battery of 1000+ VLS cells? Because other than that, there's pretty much zero reason nowadays to go to large scales in ship dimensions. Once you start figuring in the protection package for such a ship though - radar/AAW pickets, ASW ships trailing the seas around it and such - this becomes a moot question; building a handful SSGNs is simply cheaper.

As a seabase - i.e. an integrated package for support of littoral, amphibious and land operations essentially? What for? Sure, i could see MPF ships of such sizes acting in such roles. But, again, there's an economic turnpoint reached - bigger ships always means less ships, and the MPF/Seabase ships are essentially tailored to support a specific externally given force size. Anything beyond that would be excess, and would reduce the possible number of concurrent deployments as well.

[Abraham Gubler]

Despite the large size, you'd run into arrangement problems in carrier operations, unless you keep the embarked aircraft at present numbers - but that would be uneconomical to the max. Think about it - where do you place extra catapults? Elevators? Multiple angled flight decks - because other than that there's pretty much no solution for such problems? Also think for example about the scale of propulsion equipment to bring this carrier to proper aircraft operations speed. Or think of the crew scale.

The size provides you with a bigger flight deck. The only reason carriers have catapults, wind over deck and angled flight decks is because of size limitations even on a 100,000 tonne carrier. The bigger a ship is the more efficient propulsion power can be and crew size.

The 300,000 tonne carrier could have a flight deck 500m long and 150m wide. This is 1.5 times longer and twice as wide as the Nimitz flight deck. Such a carrier could have two parallel runways and a large central deck park and deck edge elevators.

There have been quite a few serious engineering studies of such large carriers. The biggest problems with them are the same problems that face supertankers, that is the deep draft and problems with docking and navigating shallow waters.

[kato]

A 150m wide carrier would have to spend its lifetime in deep seas. And not fit into any canals of course. A 3.5-to-1 length to beam ratio with overhangs? Horrible on the likely block factor (or very susceptible to tipping over), and probably damn near immobile.

Oh, and a F-18 has a minimum safe runway length of around 1800 ft for conventional takeoff on land (official requirement: 2300 ft at min takeoff weight). 1400 ft would be "doable", but not safely so without wind over deck. F-35C has similar requirements. Unless we go with the requisite 800m minimum standards that land airfields for conventional-aircraft STOL operations have, we'll need catapults. And at least turning into the wind. And arresting gear. Read: a carrier - not a floating airfield.

[Abraham Gubler]

A 150m wide carrier would have to spend its lifetime in deep seas. And not fit into any canals of course.

Sure but if anyone was to build such a large carrier they wouldn't be doing so in order to have something nimble for sailing around Danish islands but for sitting 200km offshore with an airwing of 200 aircraft and enough ordnance and fuel to fly them for weeks.

Oh, and a F-18 has a minimum safe runway length of around 1800 ft for conventional takeoff on land (official requirement: 2300 ft at min takeoff weight). 1400 ft would be "doable", but not safely so without wind over deck. F-35C has similar requirements. Unless we go with the requisite 800m minimum standards that land airfields for conventional-aircraft STOL operations have, we'll need catapults. And at least turning into the wind. And arresting gear. Read: a carrier - not a floating airfield.

I never suggested the megacarrier could do away with catapults but tried to place some context into your problems with a big ship. With a 500m long deck why not have 250m long catapults? Who needs an extra 30 knots of wind over deck when the catapult can do it?

I find it really strange that someone can think that size is a hindrance to flight deck operations. Lack of size has always been why flight deck operations have been difficult. The USN went to a supercarrier size (USS Forrestal) in order to have a carrier able to operate for more than 66% of the time in rough waters like Arctic waters.

[kato]

I never suggested the megacarrier could do away with catapults but tried to place some context into your problems with a big ship. With a 500m long deck why not have 250m long catapults? Who needs an extra 30 knots of wind over deck when the catapult can do it?
But - the operative question - is there space for a higher number of catapults?

Realistically, carrier operations isn't about whether you have to turn the ship into the wind, but how quick you can get how many aircraft off the deck and into the air afterwards. Larger catapults do not increase sortie rate. Longer runways do not increase sortie rate (unless you can actually use them to take off CTOL at sub-minute launch rates).

Of course there is still some growth margin to achieve perfect operations with the current 4-catapult supercarrier. But beyond that growth margin (pushing a supercarrier by say about 10-20% in all three dimensions) there's simply no reason to grow further.

While you could transport a larger air group, it's not worth it operationally unless you can get a certain number of aircraft into the air within a certain time frame. 200 aircraft on a carrier - well, that's one wing for defensive CAP, three wings on operational rotation for strikes and other offensive operations between maintenance cycles. Questions that immediately pop up are: How long do you need to get 50 aircraft into the air for your strike/escort package (with four EMALS cats, proper wind condition and perfect taxiing it's between 10 and 30 minutes btw)? Do you need 50 aircraft with at a 250% surge rate simultaneously for the assigned tasks (which percentage of strike operations need it and for which percentage in duration of these operations)? Would it be more flexible and cost-effective to have two carriers with 100 aircraft?

[Abraham Gubler]

But - the operative question - is there space for a higher number of catapults?

Yeah sure. You could easily fit eight catapults alongside each other for a 150m wide flight deck. I don't know how you can think that a huge megacarrier would somehow be a laid out in the same pattern as a current supercarrier or somehow limited in flight deck.

Nice to see you've now gone from 'could never be done' to 'why would you' which of course is a good question and why no one has bothered to grow the size of a super carrier (there is no reason). But if for some operational reason you needed all your air wing eggs in one basket then it would be feasible.

[gf0012-aust]

But - the operative question - is there space for a higher number of catapults?

If you look at the new EM cats which are now on final land based evals - I'd say yes at the physical imposition level. They are taking up less space - and that also means that there then becomes a positive for extra available space on issues of bunkerage.

As indicated though - the issue is the volley rate - EM cats will enable faster cycliing, and hence faster launch rates.

Faster smaller cats (real estate) mean nominally:


bunkerage opportunity
corresponding impact on weapons lifts
corresponding impact on fuel storage
corresponding impact on stowage and maint of aircraft below deck
an impact on overall lift issues - it does mean that larger lifts can also be used. That would mean a change in basic aircraft foldaway engineering, but it could also mean lifting multiple UCAV/UAVs at a time
corresponding impact on taxi queues
corresponding impact on recovery rates as aircraft can be parked off deck without effecting launch and recovery rates



Personally, I'm not a fan of sea-basing sized platforms, but thats neither here nor there anyway.

[kato]

And they "only" needed to switch to a completely new reactor/turbine design to power that, as they can't use the steam directly any more and instead now need to draw 11 MW extra in electric power just for EMALS... (the steam turbines on the two reactors of a Nimitz produce 64 MW total).

[gf0012-aust]

And they "only" needed to switch to a completely new reactor/turbine design to power that, as they can't use the steam directly any more and instead now need to draw 11 MW extra in electric power just for EMALS... (the steam turbines on the two reactors of a Nimitz produce 64 MW total).


The new super conducting engines (and they're already commercial) have 1/3rd the equivalent weight, almost 1/3rd less volumetric mass and close to double the output.

These engines are seriously in consideration for future submarines due to some inherent advantages.

again, one of the huge plusses for the SC engines is a bunkerage release. More real estate means more warfighting space and greater ability to stay and fight longer as more aviation fuel, more weapons and more sophisticated energy intensive ewarfare/sig management systems can be employed.

These are "here and now" engines, so not a buck rogers scenario.....

[StingrayOZ]

Why supersize a super carrier when they don't fill the current ones out with full cold war sized airwings. Didn't the US design the carriers with absolute war time maxiums of 70-80 aircraft?

I could see value in upsizing a carrier to 130-140,000t. For example extend STOVL (F-35B and UAV) and helicopter areas. But then again this would have to be balanced out and be at the cost of the US marine amphibious ships who already do this role. In the end its proberly better to have twice the ships, doing what they each do best. With two carriers you get better battle damage, more flexable maintence, more surge capability, the ability to site them in two different areas to maximise sorties and countless other benifits I haven't covered etc.

Given the US has 11 or 12 carriers at anyone time, and those carriers are expected to be global strategic assets, cutting the number and going for fewer larger ships seems like a risky move.

[gf0012-aust]

Why supersize a super carrier when they don't fill the current ones out with full cold war sized airwings. Didn't the US design the carriers with absolute war time maxiums of 70-80 aircraft?

Using Forrestal as the first of the Supercarriers... she was able to combat embark over 100 aircraft.

The reduction in aircraft numbers over time has been more to do with relative mission efficiencies per weight of capability on target than on maximum aircraft per platform.

A wartime disposition could see all the carriers lift their combat elements as they certainly have the space to do it.

[peterAustralia]

Is it just me or does this thread seem to be a bit daft.

This hydrogen thing, I am sure you can power a surface ship with hydrogen, but please what are the benefits, and do they outweigh the downside (explosive, flammable and/or difficult to store, takes up a lot of space)

As to 200 thousand ton ships. Is this for real, will anyone actually ever build one, no. Can anyone afford to build one, no. Besides, if large multiple runways for a carrier are desired, the obvious route is to go down the mulithull path, such as a trimaran. There was a sketch done by someone at sinodefence forum some months back along these lines.

I might suggest, that better use of time would be spent on seeing what it any armour is appropiate in 21st century. Obviously there is no need now to protect against 15 inch shells. The threat now is missiles, bombs and torpedos. What type of armour is best to protect against blast, what thickness.

What will be the extra cost if say if a thousand tonnes or armour go into a 10 thousand tonne ship, given that theseadays the cost of ships is mostly in the fittings and electronics, the cost of the extra steel by itself is minor. What areas are best armored. Is there a need for a ship that is large and armoured, how much more would it cost versus a conventional ship with identical sensors and weaponry? What about a layer of water between steel plates, that was used in WW2 to protect British battleships against torpedoes.

No one has talked about torpedo protection. If I might suggest, a ship of three identical hulls, with multiple crossbeams. If one hull is badly damaged the remaining hulls would have enough strength and structural integrity to keep the ship whole and intact,,,,, just an idea. The outer hulls would be a good buffer against missiles, they could also be used to place redundant sensors, so that if a sensor on the center hull was knocked out, the backup can do its job.

[Wooki]

These seems to be a suggestion the Hydrogen will not explode and is less dangerous than hydrocarbons. This is nonsense.
Thanks for the input and my last on this. The cited examples are irrelevant to bulk hydrogen. The reality is that the velocity and atomic weight cause a fire (flame front) to behave in ways that are extra-ordinary. A breach in a liquid H2 container will create a combustible atmosphere well away from the vessel. You yourself may have observed this in high velocity vents Alexsa. But first (before a combustible atmosphere can form) any sort of fire will be snuffed by the initial shockwave formed by the hydrogen changing state. It literally takes microseconds for the fire to form and then be blown out.

This has been tested ad nauseum using an API round and liquid Hydrogen container and the results are always the same. the cylinder is punctured, a flame front begins to develop and is snuffed be the velocity of the shockwave. To the observor all you hear is a loud bang. Slow motion photography has to be used to ascertain the formation any sort of flame front.

Like I said, it is an urban myth that bulk H2 transport is dangerous. It is in fact safer then bulk hydrocarbon transport.

And also (as I wrote before) all bets are off in a submersible, where the H2 cannot vent safely. It is the velocity and atomic weight that make H2 safer.

cheers

w

[Salty Dog]

And they "only" needed to switch to a completely new reactor/turbine design to power that, as they can't use the steam directly any more and instead now need to draw 11 MW extra in electric power just for EMALS... (the steam turbines on the two reactors of a Nimitz produce 64 MW total).

I'm sure there will some happy folks on the new CVNs without the steam catapaults. They are temperature sensitive and had to be slowly heated up a day prior to getting underway. EMALs should make life easier.

[alexsa]

Thanks for the input and my last on this. The cited examples are irrelevant to bulk hydrogen. The reality is that the velocity and atomic weight cause a fire (flame front) to behave in ways that are extra-ordinary. A breach in a liquid H2 container will create a combustible atmosphere well away from the vessel. You yourself may have observed this in high velocity vents Alexsa. But first (before a combustible atmosphere can form) any sort of fire will be snuffed by the initial shockwave formed by the hydrogen changing state. It literally takes microseconds for the fire to form and then be blown out.

This has been tested ad nauseum using an API round and liquid Hydrogen container and the results are always the same. the cylinder is punctured, a flame front begins to develop and is snuffed be the velocity of the shockwave. To the observor all you hear is a loud bang. Slow motion photography has to be used to ascertain the formation any sort of flame front.

Like I said, it is an urban myth that bulk H2 transport is dangerous. It is in fact safer then bulk hydrocarbon transport.

And also (as I wrote before) all bets are off in a submersible, where the H2 cannot vent safely. It is the velocity and atomic weight that make H2 safer.

cheers

w

No arguement with the breach of a tank. However the safety case you put assumes all is vented to atmsophere and assumes there is no possbility of accumulation within the ship either from a breach or any operational issues to do with the system.

Personally I think this is far too optmisitic. Even small accumulations of hydrogen are very dangerous.

Enyway enough said

[DoDUSA]

I believe that one issue that has not been addressed completely in this thread is the mission profile of a "next-generation battleship". In order to be effective, the platfom must add the capabilities of the commander. Given that the majority of contemporary naval engagements are occuring the the littoral zone, large ships (on the order of 57,350 tons combat loaded for the BB Iowa) are not as practical for the misson profile.

There is no doubt that a platform that can patrol just off the coast is a potent political and military tool (such as the BB Iowa did during Desert Storm). However, it would seem that the main benifit of the battleship (16 inch main guns for example) are not as useful as they were in the past. While I have no doubt that a "battleship like" ship just off the coast can inspire fear, it is not likely that a ship will find itself in the position of bombarding the shore with its guns.

The real limiting factor is that there are a number of targets that would not be in the range main guns; therefore the ship is worthless. And it is clear that aircraft carriers, and their battle groups, will continue to serve as the primary platform for deep penetrating strikes.

The next limiting factor is the foot print of a shell. The shell fired from a 16 inch gun is massive and has the capacity of destroying a large area. This foot print is not congruent with the need to destory a target that is in an area occupied by non-combatants. While any use of force has the capacity to kill/injure non-combatants, weapons that have a smaller diameter of effect such as the Small Diameter Bomb, are becoming increasingly popular with commanders and politicians. Given that the use of force is increasingly scrutinised in domestic and international politics, hitting the right target at the right time with the right weapon is only going to grow in importance.

While the question of the utility of a next generation battleship is very interesting; the idea of a "missile carrier" is also worth exploring. Specifically, I am thinking about the Arsenal Ship. Before this project was terminated the ship was to combine stealth technology, hundreds of verticle missile launch cells, small crew, and the capacity to remote launch by an AWACS or an Aegis Cruiser.

The argument for cancellation is that the converted Ohio Class SSBNs and the carrier battle groups can carry out the Arsenal ship's mission profile; however, the concepts untility is an interesting question. Interested to see if future ships address the utility of massive main guns especially with the advent of effective rocket assisted shells. Out here.

[kato]

Volume of fire already made an interesting comparison between battleships and carriers in WW2.
A carrier in early WW2 carried 36 SB2C-1 Helldivers and 18 TBF Avengers as attack aircraft, both capable of delivering 2,000 lbs of ordnance typically.
To match a single sortie from this air group, an Iowa BB would have to fire for only 3 minutes. Obviously, on the presumption that you can get a BB within range of the target, this puts the BB at quite an advantage.
However, if you match this up against even a modern carrier air wing and its 48 strike aircraft, the carrier will be at obvious advantage; even with a third of the aircraft carried flying CAP, the wing could perform a sortie with over 500,000 lbs of ordnance. Or the equivalent of 15 minutes of fire from the battleship, an amount where it would easily become the target of counterbattery. Combine that with the standoff capability of the carrier, far increased sortie rates compared to WW2 times and the availability of far more target-discrete ordnance, and using battleships becomes sort of a moot point.
With the advent of carrier-based VLO aircraft and UCAV, an "arsenal ship" faces the same question. For comparison, you'd need over 500 (!) Tactoms to match the above sortie, and of course well over 2000 Tactoms to match the full ammunition capacities of a BB or CVN. Unless - like a SSGN - it can bring further operational capabilities into a theater, the investment just isn't sound.

[Feanor]

The difference comes in price tag, and in having to risk losses among the aircraft. Maximum ordnance delivery is only one of the criteria. How about cost? And would a carrier not require more escorts then an arsenal ship?

[kato]

Depends on how the arsenal ship is fitted actually. Does it take care of AAW itself? Is it considered of high enough strategic value to rate a full ASW screen?

As for cost... the arsenal ship with 512 VLS cells as laid out in 1995 would probably rate between $5-6 billion unit cost by now. Plus the missiles, of course, another half billion dollars. A carrier with its full complement... probably twice that. $10-12 billion should be a good bet. Say we give the arsenal ship only half the escort group too, so we'll have a pretty nice 2:1 cost ratio.

The question would be: Does an arsenal ship provide half the capability of a carrier?

In my opinion, not necessarily. Not in flexibility, not in discriminate air-defence capacity, not in the numerous secondary duties of a carrier. It's a whole 'nother question when we're looking at larger deployments, which would typically demand say three carriers. Iraq, Iran, the like. There's obviously a certain point where replacing some carriers with arsenal ships (operationally) is sustainable. Combining the firepower of a few arsenal ships and the discrimination capability of a carrier in such operations could be a viable option.

[Feanor]

So perhaps rather then replacing one with the other, they could be complementary? Possibly work arsenal ships into the current carrier task forces structure?

[shrubage]

Feanor mentioned earlier on in the thread about how the Kirov class battlecruiser might be the modern equivalent of the battleship. Certainly in terms of displacement its not far off. If you consider the Kirovs principle anti ship armament the P-700 shipwreck, a ship the size of the Kirov is required in order to carry a useful amount of them.

The arsenal ship mentioned would have all its armament in VLSs but perhaps the US navy should go in a different direction. NATO navies have no equivalent of the P 700, but the requirement for such a weapon may arise in the future. So a platform the could mount such a weapon might be useful.

Also naval artillery still has much room to develop, the AGS 155mm gun will have a range of 60 miles, with further developments to come. If such a ship was built guns such as the 8" single mounting the US developed in the 70s could be looked at again.

[DoDUSA]

I believe that the point that Feanor raised is right on the mark. Could or would an Arsenal ship operate independently, such as the current profile of and attack submarine, or would it integrate into the current carrier battle group? Given the released configuration of the Arsenal ship circa 1995 it would appear that unless changed radically it would need to operate as part of a large task force that could provide an air and limited surface screen.

The question of the Kirov Class Battle cruiser is also very interesting.
Given that the US does have a history of large naval construction projects the construction should not pose a serious issue. However, even though an Arsenal project would encounter serious issues, it does have the advantage of using a number of “off the shelf” technologies. Some of these might include the vertical launch cells, the tomahawk BGM-109 series missiles, propulsion systems, etc. However, the real questions are going to come from the Command, Control, and Decision making system.

While I appreciate the absolutely massive firepower that 512 tomahawk missiles can deliver, I am not sure of its utility. It would seem that the vertical launch tubes take up a significant amount of space and do not have the capability to accept alternate missile loads. Given that the tomahawk cannot easily be changed from its current configuration there is limited capacity to develop it mission profile. The carrier battle group has far more flexibility and already has multi-layered capacity and survivability. Again, if the Arsenal ship is to be more than a glorified missile barge it will need to add a new capability to the fleet. Given that tomahawk missiles can be carried by Spruance class destroyer, Arleigh-Burke destroyers, Ticonderoga class cruisers, Virginia SSNs, and the Los Angeles class attack boats it is not as if the fleet is missing the capability.

In addition, it would appear that t-hawk’s mission profile is evolving. Given that the MQ-1 Reaper is quickly becoming a favorite weapons system due to its capacity to linger and fire after discriminating targets. I am interested to see the future development of the Tomahawk, Reaper, and Arsenal ship concepts. Given the need to travel to the target, correctly identify the target, and finally to engage there will need to be a serious evolution on weapons and communications and control. Out here.

[gf0012-aust]

there is a fundamental issue that has not been considered - and that is one of the reasons why the arsenal ships and their step sister concepts were abandoned.

It takes considerably more of a resource and logistics burden to support an arsenal ship than an SSGN. An arsenal ship requires the same support structure as a carrier, an SSGN does not. It's a VLO underwater asset that is hard to detect, and in real terms would require 2 nuclear assets to constantly tail it under a "cold war" threat management model.

Arsenal ships are a disconnected force in a typical Task Force - their mission role is not complimentary at all - they're more suited to inclusion within an ARG - and even then, the nature of their capability is not sympathetic in "absolutes".

There are better ways to spend the money - arsenal skimmers are not it IMO.

[Feanor]

In addition, it would appear that t-hawk’s mission profile is evolving. Given that the MQ-1 Reaper is quickly becoming a favorite weapons system due to its capacity to linger and fire after discriminating targets.

Iirc the Reaper is the MQ-9, is it not? :) MQ-1 is the Predator.

there is a fundamental issue that has not been considered - and that is one of the reasons why the arsenal ships and their step sister concepts were abandoned.

It takes considerably more of a resource and logistics burden to support an arsenal ship than an SSGN. An arsenal ship requires the same support structure as a carrier, an SSGN does not. It's a VLO underwater asset that is hard to detect, and in real terms would require 2 nuclear assets to constantly tail it under a "cold war" threat management model.

Arsenal ships are a disconnected force in a typical Task Force - their mission role is not complimentary at all - they're more suited to inclusion within an ARG - and even then, the nature of their capability is not sympathetic in "absolutes".

There are better ways to spend the money - arsenal skimmers are not it IMO.

So what do you think of the Kirov-class concept, in it's original role? Rather then as flagships which is what they being used as in the VMF now (mainly due to the shrinkage of the VMF itself), as actual nuclear-cruisers. Support ships for potential carrier task-forces?

[AegisFC]

It would seem that the vertical launch tubes take up a significant amount of space and do not have the capability to accept alternate missile loads.

The Mk-41 VLS is one of the most versatile and compact launchers available. They take up less space and are more reliable than old style box and rotary launchers.

[kato]

An Arsenal Ship - if being designed now - would use Mk57 PVLS though, not the old Mk41. See e.g. Zumwalt class.

Mk57 is built with considerable growth margin for BMD, especially regarding exhaust flow, in comparison to Mk41 Strike Variant. In addition, there's an armor block embedded for controlled explosion in case of damage. Canister width has grown from 21" to 28". For 8 cells each (1 Mk41 module / 2 Mk57 modules), twice the empty launcher weight (30.5 tons vs 14.4 tons) and twice the deckspace needed (19 m² vs 9 m²).

Mk 57 data (http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/rids/products/rtnwcm/groups/public/documents/content/rtn_bus_ids_prod_mk57_pdf.pdf)
Mk 41 data (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-tactical.pdf)

Mk57 will be even more flexible regarding missile loads and ease of integration though.

[Salty Dog]

Interesting to note the Mk-41 is produced by Lockheed Martin whilst the Mk-57 is produced by Raytheon.

Raytheon also produces the Standard Missile (SM) variants as well as the ESSM and Tomahawk.

[John Sansom]

One of the attractions of the old battlewagons is that they looked so damn' good. Another is that they did so from all angles and were particularly useful in support of seaborne assaults. That was then, and, as so many posters have noted, this is now.

Design flaws coupled with ammunition mis-management saw the destruction of WWI and WWII British battleships, all with heavily armoured hulls but susceptible to plunging fire because of essentially non-existent deck armour.
The question is, what kind of truly useful armour can be incorporated into a modern battleship design? I guess most of the posters have already filed the answer.

On the plus side, however, Feanor's concept of a missile super-cruiser seems to fit today's bill...but what, in truth, would be its practicality as an investment and in combat application?

[Lostfleet]

On the pscychological side of the question, most of the ships of all navies are between 100-150 meters long, most of them are very capable and lethal especially when operating together. However, none of them could achieve what a huge battleship does a port visit in peace time, which is to impress the public ( enemy or ally). Although in this forum and most of the military circles, size is irrelevant, for the most of the people the bigger is still the better.

That would be the only advantage of the return of the battleship in my opinion. With more silent submarines with more advance torpedoes, with better anti-ship missiles and even with supposively developing anti-ship ballistic missiles, the bigger the ship, it is a bigger target.

Installing a lot of tomahawks or other types of missiles at one ship ( 500 or more) would be very risky, a lot of explosives and propellants at one place and one mal-ignition or insignificant hit would decimate the mother ship. ( Only Ohio version is logical as it is harder to find)

However a ship with conventional gun support could be useful again. With artillery technology advancing, you can be more precise and go far more inland than the 16" guns of Iowas with smaller calliber guns. I wonder if any navy will produce ships that is solely for shore bombardement.

[kato]

Installing a lot of tomahawks or other types of missiles at one ship ( 500 or more) would be very risky, a lot of explosives and propellants at one place and one mal-ignition or insignificant hit would decimate the mother ship. ( Only Ohio version is logical as it is harder to find)

That's why Mk57 adds the armor block in the PVLS - PVLS is supposed to be mounted along the sides of the ship, with the armor facing inward. In a destruction of a PVLS 4-cell block (no matter whether through a terminal misfire or a hit) any explosion is supposed to be directed outwards out the side of the ship.
Regarding mis-ignition, both Mk41 and Mk57 (and pretty much all other Western VLS systems) are designed to survive a complete mis-firing of a missile's thruster while still inside the cell.

[Lostfleet]

do you think it would be feasible for example get a large cargo ship and fill it up with Mk57s to make it a super-missile carrier ship?

[Jon K]

.With the advent of carrier-based VLO aircraft and UCAV, an "arsenal ship" faces the same question. For comparison, you'd need over 500 (!) Tactoms to match the above sortie, and of course well over 2000 Tactoms to match the full ammunition capacities of a BB or CVN. Unless - like a SSGN - it can bring further operational capabilities into a theater, the investment just isn't sound.

In comparisons between missiles (guns) and aircraft it must also be remembered that the operational availability of aircraft compared to missiles (and guns) is much lower and also that a major portion of aircraft sorties will be flown either for self-protection or in order to conduct the air operations (SEAD, escort, tanker, EW etc.).

Personally I don't think CV's are worth their cost anymore, but as they're nice status symbols for medium powers (UK, France) and aspiring superpowers (India and China) they will continue to be built. The USN carriers will have operational lifetime of over 50 years so the amount of sunken investment is so big the carriers will be a factor for a long time.

And what about carrier replacement? Networked strike machinery including following components:

-Space based reconnaissance system. UAV's are nice for fighting insurgencies but I doubt viability of current variants in a major conflict.

-Long range heavy bombers capable of delivering large amounts of cruise missiles in case of forced entry or major conflict, and large amount of GPS-guided ordnance in minor conflicts. For example, a B-2 can carry 160 SDB's, same amount which can be carried stealthly by 20 F-35's.

-SSGN's fairly similar to Ohio-conversions but with their armament expanded by use of tactical missiles (a la cancelled naval ATACMS) for time critical targets

-Long range UAV AEW's to support air defenses and to aid in reconnaissance

-Air defense ships capable of intercepting all kind of atmospheric as well as low earth orbit targets. If needed, their VLS can also hold cruise missiles and tactical missiles as well. These ships should be multifunctional in sense that they also employ 155-8" gun firing very long range ammunition for close-in-strikes. These ships could be constructed in two tiers, namely Tier 1 variant for close-in operations employing maximum stealth (something akin to DDX), Tier 2 for less risky operations farther out in the sea (something like developed modern DDG)

[kato]

In comparisons between missiles (guns) and aircraft it must also be remembered that the operational availability of aircraft compared to missiles (and guns) is much lower and also that a major portion of aircraft sorties will be flown either for self-protection or in order to conduct the air operations (SEAD, escort, tanker, EW etc.).
The above 500,000+ lbs ordnance were calculated with only 40 aircraft on strike sorties (and some self-defence armament). Should be doable for any Supercarrier.
-Space based reconnaissance system.
Which you'll also need for cruise missile strikes of course.
For example, a B-2 can carry 160 SDB's, same amount which can be carried stealthly by 20 F-35's.
Except the B-2 has a 24-hour latency as it deploys from CONUS, and can't loiter and attack targets of opportunity really.
(a la cancelled naval ATACMS) for time critical targets
A somewhat screwy thing. ATACMS costs more per missile than Tomahawk, has a bigger CEP, lower range, and delivers roughly the same payload (newer versions: payload sacrificed for range). Its advantage over Tomahawk - in newer versions - is the near-vertical terminal vector, but it's not like one couldn't reprogram Tomahawk for such vectors for likely far less money than integrating an entirely new missile system with new launchers and all.

[Jon K]

The above 500,000+ lbs ordnance were calculated with only 40 aircraft on strike sorties (and some self-defence armament). Should be doable for any Supercarrier.

How many targets can 40 F/A-18E's or F-35's hit? F-35 can carry, IIRC, 2x JDAM's stealthily. So, exluding SEAD etc. sorties 40x F-35's can hit maximum of about 80 targets in an alpha strike against reasonable opponent. After air defense has been suppressed the situation is naturally different.

Except the B-2 has a 24-hour latency as it deploys from CONUS, and can't loiter and attack targets of opportunity really.

Striking targets of opportunity was done already during 2003 Iraqi war with B-1's destroying Iraqi formations. Long range bomber also has practically a global reach can loiter for a very long time with some B-2 missions, for example, lasting about 50 hours. With fairly minor technical improvements flights can be even longer.

A somewhat screwy thing. ATACMS costs more per missile than Tomahawk, has a bigger CEP, lower range, and delivers roughly the same payload (newer versions: payload sacrificed for range). Its advantage over Tomahawk - in newer versions - is the near-vertical terminal vector, but it's not like one couldn't reprogram Tomahawk for such vectors for likely far less money than integrating an entirely new missile system with new launchers andall.

ATACMS has much shorter flight time while Tomahawk has only a fighter-like speed. Both weapons can, of course, be launched practically immediately compared to fighter aircraft. ATACMS is also much harder to intercept than a cruise missile or aircraft.

Excluding deep penetrating munitions it's not usually the payload but accuracy which really counts, that's why developments like Viper Strike, US Spike and SDB are the no 1 in haute couture.

[Firn]

I think we are shifting too far from the topic of the thread.

While "the return of the battleship" is non-existing, a far-reaching piece of artillery makes a lot of sense on a ship, especially with all the recent and coming developments in this sector. It is perfectly complimentary to the missile payload of a modern combat ship.

[Feanor]

We're exploring the other assets that seem to have taken over the role that the battleship formerly occupied, to get a better understanding of why it isn't coming back, and if any element of it is re-incarnated, in what form it could come in.

[StingrayOZ]

What is a battleship, the definition varies. If you say that a battleship is one who has several heavy guns and is armoured (along the hull) to protect it from guns of that size then I don't think we will see its return.

If we are talking about Ships (more battle cruiser or cruisers) with big artillery, large missile loads for land, sea and air. Then yes.

Im hoping that we will see a return to flat, slabby (lower radar signature) turrets and big low sitting ships (again LO).

I think the day of the manned fighter/bomber carrier is maybe ending (30 years).. So I wonder what will replace them.

[kato]

Im hoping that we will see a return to flat, slabby (lower radar signature) turrets
Err, basically, those were only "flat" in comparison to their width - and only because they housed multiple guns, and allowed those guns low-angle elevation only.

[Todjaeger]

I have been reading this thread with some interest, and feel the need to interject at this point.

With regards to the discussion that has been had on the 'Arsenal ship' IMO such a ship could potentially be a useful component of a fleet/battlegroup. However, just like a carrier in a CBG, the 'Arsenal ship' would likely require escorts to provide ASW and air defence screening. IMO then, apart from the opening day(s) possibly of an invasion, a carrier & aircraft would provide a much better strike option, as the carrier aircraft have much greater flexibility in terms of targeting that ~500 cruise missiles from an 'Arsenal ship'. I could be mistaken, but I believe that a carrier carries onboard sufficient stores for more than 500 strike sorties before needing to re-arm. The real difference IMV is that the 'Arsenal ship' can likely carry out ~500 strikes simultaneously, whereas the carrier aircraft would likely need more time to reach that number of strikes. The flip side of that though is that once the 'arsenal ship' has shot its wad, it becomes nothing more than a big expensive target until is can be re-armed, which would likely need to be done in port, which in turn would likely mean less persistance that a CBG can do.

As for the roles of a carrier group being replaced by long-ranged bombers... I doubt it. AFAIK there are only two countries which currently operate strategic bombers at present, the US and Russia. Such aircraft are quite useful at what they do, deliver bombs to areas far from their base. However, they still cannot perform all that a CBG can do, particularly in terms of power projection. A bomber can hit a target in a given area but they cannot be used to control/deny access to SLOC or airspace, a carrier can and frequently over a fairly large 'footprint' as it were.

Now, I do not think too many additional nations are likely to start operating carriers, as they are rather expensive in economic, technological and manpower terms. Having said that, for those countries that have the resources to support a carrier and have or feel the need to be able to project power, a carrier (and the associated escorts/battlegroup) is likely going to be the way to go for some time.

-Cheers

[willur]

f111 from australia fulfill the strategic bomber role and carry cruise missles :) so I believe that would be 3 and maybe china with it current acqusition of long range bombers

[Todjaeger]

f111 from australia fulfill the strategic bomber role and carry cruise missles :) so I believe that would be 3 and maybe china with it current acqusition of long range bombers

An F-111, even with either the Popeye or Harpoon missiles, only had a strike radius of ~1,600 miles/2,500 km without refueling. While long-ranged, that is not in the same league as strategic bombers like the B-1 Lancer (~6,000km w/o refueling) or the B-52 Stratofortess (8,000+ km).

The F-111 allowed Australia to cross the GAFA and hit targets within the wider region. It did not enable Australia to carry out strikes upon targets outside of the region like it had been able to while the RAN operated HMAS Melbourne and a fixed-wing Fleet Air Arm based upon A-4 Skyhawks.

-Cheers

[Jon K]

The flip side of that though is that once the 'arsenal ship' has shot its wad, it becomes nothing more than a big expensive target until is can be re-armed, which would likely need to be done in port, which in turn would likely mean less persistance that a CBG can do.

On the other hand an arsenal ship is likely to be much less costly and less manpower intensive than a carrier, meaning that a lot more can be used in place of a single carrier. The second option would be to simply buy more normal surface combatants with more VLS cells. Third option might be to develop VLS modules which could be installed in a generic mothership hull, perhaps to an amphibious ship which have quite a lot of hangar room.

There is also one thing to be considered. For a medium power size of France or UK a strike force based on combination of bombers, surface combatants and cruise/tactical missiles will allow a medium power to do an Allied Force sized bombing campaign within hours, while with traditional carriers this would demand weeks or months. Since Korean War the most important thing in crisis has been trying to present the opposition a fait accompli, eg. to change the situation in so short time that the opposition and international community has had no time to react.

As for the roles of a carrier group being replaced by long-ranged bombers... I doubt it. AFAIK there are only two countries which currently operate strategic bombers at present, the US and Russia. Such aircraft are quite useful at what they do, deliver bombs to areas far from their base. However, they still cannot perform all that a CBG can do, particularly in terms of power projection. A bomber can hit a target in a given area but they cannot be used to control/deny access to SLOC or airspace, a carrier can and frequently over a fairly large 'footprint' as it were.

Obviously a carrier can not be replaced by a single system, after all a carrier has strike, reconnaissance and air superiority systems. But even a CBG sans carrier has capability of a very large footprint due to it's ships both in terms of air defense and surface action capability. Additionally the SAM's of a surface action group can operate in territory covered by enemy SAM's without the need for extensive SEAD operations.

Now, I do not think too many additional nations are likely to start operating carriers, as they are rather expensive in economic, technological and manpower terms. Having said that, for those countries that have the resources to support a carrier and have or feel the need to be able to project power, a carrier (and the associated escorts/battlegroup) is likely going to be the way to go for some time.

Yes, sheer inertia will do that, even though in case of India and China carriers can do nothing to help in conflicts in Central Asia.

[Jon K]

One thing on arsenal ships should be noticed. A modern multirole transport aircraft, such as A-330 MRTT, can deliver around 100 cruise missiles to a desired point fairly quickly, launch method shouldn't be too difficult to develop. With aerial refuelling the reach is global. I understand this kind of option was viewed during one, yet another cancelled British program, RAF FOAS study.

Naturally aircraft mounted cruise missiles cannot replace surface ship / submarine launched cruise missiles completely (due to issues of time lag and persistence), but I think this kind of option would make more sense than an arsenal ship for many reasons, first of which is that the launch platform could have additional duties during another scenarios, (transport, refuelling) and lower personnel and deployment costs.

[Todjaeger]

This post makes certain assumptions, based upon USN carrier/CBG practices and equipment.

On the other hand an arsenal ship is likely to be much less costly and less manpower intensive than a carrier, meaning that a lot more can be used in place of a single carrier. The second option would be to simply buy more normal surface combatants with more VLS cells. Third option might be to develop VLS modules which could be installed in a generic mothership hull, perhaps to an amphibious ship which have quite a lot of hangar room.

I agree that an arsenal ship would likely be less costly to build/purchase than a carrier, and certainly less manpower intensive to operate. I am not so certain though that the long-term operational costs would be less. For one thing, the armament (assuming ~500 Tomahawk cruise missiles) runs about US$700 mil for a full loadout, nevermind the cost of the ship, crew, etc. Each individual strike would cost in excess of US$1.4 mil (based off average Tomahawk unit cost). Assuming the arsenal ship had a similar operational lifespan as current USN CVNs (~50 years) it is quite possible that they could cost more to operate delivering the same number of strikes as a CVN would. IMO this is particularly likely since the USN would likely require more arsenal ships than the current # of CV/CVNs, in order to achieve the same level of persistance, as well as requiring additional defence assets to cover capabilities that the arsenal ship is not capable of that a CBG is.


There is also one thing to be considered. For a medium power size of France or UK a strike force based on combination of bombers, surface combatants and cruise/tactical missiles will allow a medium power to do an Allied Force sized bombing campaign within hours, while with traditional carriers this would demand weeks or months. Since Korean War the most important thing in crisis has been trying to present the opposition a fait accompli, eg. to change the situation in so short time that the opposition and international community has had no time to react.

For starters, neither the UK or France currently operate strategic bombers, as such, the only power projection capability they have at long range is either via ship or sub-launched cruise missiles, or from their aircraft carriers. Given the caparatively small-sized navies these nations have (when compared to the USN) IMO they would essentially have an either/or choice of operating a CV/CVN and associated CBG, or operating an arsenal ship and the associated escorts to project power. This then would leave the respective navies with the choice of a rapid, devastating strike capability that is not sustainable, or a less immediately damaging, but far more flexible and sustainable operating capability.


Obviously a carrier can not be replaced by a single system, after all a carrier has strike, reconnaissance and air superiority systems. But even a CBG sans carrier has capability of a very large footprint due to it's ships both in terms of air defense and surface action capability. Additionally the SAM's of a surface action group can operate in territory covered by enemy SAM's without the need for extensive SEAD operations.


True, a surface battlegroup can have a significant presence, even without a carrier... However, without the attached aircraft from the carrier, the situational awareness is significantly degraded due to the lack or organic AEW/AWACS. This in turn means increased risk/vulnerability to air and surface threats. As for the ability to operate in areas covered by hostile SAM systems, this I have to respectfully disagree upon. Presumably if operating within an area covered by a hostile IADS/GBAD systems, then one is operating fairly close inshore. That is not something one would wish to do if avoidable, as it can put the battlegroup within range of land-based systems capable of carrying out attacks upon the battlegroup. Also, because the attacks would be launched from land, they can be potentially harder to detect as the attacks (aircraft, AShM, artillery, etc.) could be potentially lost against ground clutter, particularly since the battlegroup would have a comparatively reduced sensor capability. Additionally, the battlegroup could subject to attack from smallcraft and other FACs which would ordinarily not be a threat, lacking the seaworthiness and range to reach out to sea.

-Cheers

[Feanor]

Todjaeger what do you think of the potential of adding an arsenal ship to the current make up of a USN CBG? This is in my opinion, their most beneficient use. They can deliver the immense immediate first strike with ~500 cruise missiles, leaving the enemy shattered, after which the carrier can take over main payload delivery. It would put less strain on the carrier in terms of operating in the initial opening attack, as more targets would be struck by cruise missiles. And would avoid needing additional escorts for the arsenal ships, as they would benefit from the CBGs defense screens, and air cover.

[Jon K]

Todjaeger what do you think of the potential of adding an arsenal ship to the current make up of a USN CBG? This is in my opinion, their most beneficient use. They can deliver the immense immediate first strike with ~500 cruise missiles, leaving the enemy shattered, after which the carrier can take over main payload delivery. It would put less strain on the carrier in terms of operating in the initial opening attack, as more targets would be struck by cruise missiles. And would avoid needing additional escorts for the arsenal ships, as they would benefit from the CBGs defense screens, and air cover.

Historically this was done during the second night of Operation Iraqi Freedom, when USN launched 381 Tomahawks (out of some 800 expended) during night of 21 March 2003. This was achieved via firing from various launch platforms which also were active in other missions, such as BMD co-ordination, escort duties etc.

Then again, I would be tempted to think that if it wasn't against START regulations in force with US and Russia, arsenal aircrcraft would be far more efficient than arsenal ships.

[Jon K]

I agree that an arsenal ship would likely be less costly to build/purchase than a carrier, and certainly less manpower intensive to operate. I am not so certain though that the long-term operational costs would be less.

One must take into account that cruise missiles and SAM's, while there is some expenditure in training, don't need trained primadonnas to fly them and use avgas etc. to keep up the necessary combat proficiency.

For starters, neither the UK or France currently operate strategic bombers, as such, the only power projection capability they have at long range is either via ship or sub-launched cruise missiles, or from their aircraft carriers. Given the caparatively small-sized navies these nations have (when compared to the USN) IMO they would essentially have an either/or choice of operating a CV/CVN and associated CBG, or operating an arsenal ship and the associated escorts to project power. This then would leave the respective navies with the choice of a rapid, devastating strike capability that is not sustainable, or a less immediately damaging, but far more flexible and sustainable operating capability.

Without aircraft carriers strategic bombers of necessary performance level (for example MRTT / C-17, after all USAF still has B-52's) would be surely financially available. On sustainability it seems unclear whether France or UK will have the capability to operate two CAG's even if the two carriers could be kept operational at similar time. Currently RN has no carrier air groups at all.

True, a surface battlegroup can have a significant presence, even without a carrier... However, without the attached aircraft from the carrier, the situational awareness is significantly degraded due to the lack or organic AEW/AWACS. This in turn means increased risk/vulnerability to air and surface threats.

What I meant is that carrier reach is often overestimated. JSF's combat radius is slated to be 450nm and missions going in deeper will mean either JSF's used for tanker support or tanker support from land bases. S-400 is slated to have theoretical maximum range of some 200nmi's, while SM-6 will also have maximum range of over +200nmi's.

On issue of AEW/AWACS I'd think it's rather questionable whether it's better to have very long range AEW planes or smaller capability AEW planes flying off carriers. The entry of ultra-long-range UAV's will be a game changer here.

But we haven't discussed advantages of different kind of strike force yet. There will be more platforms which will be available for various missions, if today's context is to be thought out Somalian coast and anti-terror missions in Indian Ocean would be singled out. Additionally a strike force not based on carriers is more useful if the area of operations is deep inland (for example Afganistan). On the other hand, a carrier is unnecessary for most peacetime missions.

[Todjaeger]

Need to sleep, so the comments will be brief, for now. Feanor, when I get a chance to think through my thoughts re: your question, I will post my response.

One must take into account that cruise missiles and SAM's, while there is some expenditure in training, don't need trained primadonnas to fly them and use avgas etc. to keep up the necessary combat proficiency.

AND

Without aircraft carriers strategic bombers of necessary performance level (for example MRTT / C-17, after all USAF still has B-52's) would be surely financially available. On sustainability it seems unclear whether France or UK will have the capability to operate two CAG's even if the two carriers could be kept operational at similar time. Currently RN has no carrier air groups at all.

True, but the cruise missiles also have shelf lives, meaning they need to be either replaced or re-manufactured periodically in order to function. Also, what I was alluding to in terms of additional assets covers all the various forces which would need augmentation to cover the same roles a carrier and its associated CBG cover. The Air Force would need additional fighter aircraft, since the Navy would have fewer (or no) fighter aircraft of their own. Additional tanker aircraft would be required if these Air Force fighters ever needed to operate far from available bases. Additional E-3 Sentries would be required to provide the needed situational awareness that is available to (or from) a CBG with its organic AWACS. Additional ships would be needed that are capable of carrying out strike missions as well as ASuW. Additional strategic bomber/strike aircraft would be required... The list goes on and on.

What I meant is that carrier reach is often overestimated. JSF's combat radius is slated to be 450nm and missions going in deeper will mean either JSF's used for tanker support or tanker support from land bases. S-400 is slated to have theoretical maximum range of some 200nmi's, while SM-6 will also have maximum range of over +200nmi's.

These numbers are not correct. The F-35B is the JSF with a radius of action of 450+ n miles, this model is the one slated for use by the USMC and by the RAF AFAIK. The USN model JSF, the F-35C has a radius of action of 700+ n miles. When this is coupled with the AGM-158 JASSM-ER, the CBG then has a standoff attack range out to 1,200+ n miles. This equals or exceeds virtually all of the Tomahawk cruise missile variants that I am aware of, and the JASSM is a LO cruise missile, which should make it less prone to interception than the Tomahawk. If something like buddy tanking is done, the strike range of the JSF (and thus the CBG) is extended even further. Or as an alternative, a single JSF could use several JSOW-ER with a standoff range of 300 n miles, to carry out strikes which could require several different Tomahawks. Not to mention loitering aircraft from a CBG could potentially be called upon to provide CAS by ground troops, that is not an option with something like the arsenal ship.


On issue of AEW/AWACS I'd think it's rather questionable whether it's better to have very long range AEW planes or smaller capability AEW planes flying off carriers. The entry of ultra-long-range UAV's will be a game changer here.


I have to disagree with the above as well. To be useful, an AEW capability has to be loitering on-station at all times. Depending on where a force is operating, a naval battlegroup could be operating somewhere that is several hours flight time from the nearest friendly bases. The E-3 has a listed loiter time of 11 hours, but depending on where it is needed, it could potentially use up much of that time in transit either to or from base. Now, the loiter time could potentially be extended via in-flight refueling, but that would put strain on the AAR fleet, as well as fatiguing the flight crews of both the AAR and E-3 fleets. A CBG currently seems able to provide its AEW needs at all times with the 4 AWACS carried onboard. It would not surprise me if 3 times that number of E-3 Sentries were required to provide the same level of coverage to a naval battlegroup that was operating far from friendly bases.

But we haven't discussed advantages of different kind of strike force yet. There will be more platforms which will be available for various missions, if today's context is to be thought out Somalian coast and anti-terror missions in Indian Ocean would be singled out. Additionally a strike force not based on carriers is more useful if the area of operations is deep inland (for example Afganistan). On the other hand, a carrier is unnecessary for most peacetime missions.

True, discussion has not occurred yet on various types of strikes. It is also true that carriers, and any other sea/naval force for that matter, is of limited use when operating far inland... As for a carrier being unnecessary for most peacetime missions, keep in mind just what a carrier is. On a simplistic level, a carrier is a floating, mobile air base. Therefore, any situation in which aircraft could be useful means a carrier could also potentially be useful as well.

-Cheers

[splat]

On the pscychological side of the question, most of the ships of all navies are between 100-150 meters long, most of them are very capable and lethal especially when operating together. However, none of them could achieve what a huge battleship does a port visit in peace time, which is to impress the public ( enemy or ally). Although in this forum and most of the military circles, size is irrelevant, for the most of the people the bigger is still the better.

That would be the only advantage of the return of the battleship in my opinion. With more silent submarines with more advance torpedoes, with better anti-ship missiles and even with supposively developing anti-ship ballistic missiles, the bigger the ship, it is a bigger target.

Installing a lot of tomahawks or other types of missiles at one ship ( 500 or more) would be very risky, a lot of explosives and propellants at one place and one mal-ignition or insignificant hit would decimate the mother ship. ( Only Ohio version is logical as it is harder to find)

However a ship with conventional gun support could be useful again. With artillery technology advancing, you can be more precise and go far more inland than the 16" guns of Iowas with smaller calliber guns. I wonder if any navy will produce ships that is solely for shore bombardement.

Yeah my sentiments exactly...is an artillery ship a viable proposition for bombardment of the littorals.Say with a frigate/destroyer sized hull with the maximum fitout of guns,both fore and aft and starboard and port.Just a gun ship,less on the sensors and super structure but more on the guns and ordanance.

[MrQuintus]

Of course it is, it would also be a damn sight cheaper than the Zumwalts they're procuring now, even with only a single mount of 2x 8 inch naval guns (1970's era Major Caliber Light Weight Gun programme) you could put the equivalant of 24 small diameter bombs anywhere within 30km or so per minute (probably even further with modernised rounds and charges), I doubt an entire carrier air group could keep pace with that, and with the size that the USN is building it's boats at, and it's new Pro-Nuke doctrine it wouldn't take much effort to put a decent sized gun back on the high seas

[USNlover]

Well, renovating a battleship costs less than building a new FFG So we will be saving money, but we only have about 16 spare barrles and about 20,000 shells left. But the unlimited industral capacity of the US of A can fix that. Call me an oldie but Guns are better than missles. :D

[USNlover]

I need a plan of the Zummalts and of the new CG(X) and of there armaments.
But from What Ive heard the must be an Advancement from Ticonderogia/Arliegh Burkes :confused:

[AegisFC]

Well, renovating a battleship costs less than building a new FFG So we will be saving money,

That 1980's refit that "cost less than an FFG" was very limited in nature, it was basically enough to get the ships operational with some upgraded comms gear, ABL Tomahawks (the real reason they were brought back, they could carry more Tomahawks than any pre-VLS ship in service or in reserve), Phalanx and Harpoon. There were plans that if the reactivation ran over budget to leave the 16 inch guns in an inactive status. As soon as a decent number of VLS ships were commissioned or converted the Iowa's were again tossed back into reserves, they should of been broken up years ago and saved the USN the money wasted keeping them around.

Any reactivation of those relics would require the recreation of all the engineering schools that haven't existed for at least 15 years, which won't be cheap. The same issue would exist for the guns and the fire control system. Good luck finding quality sailors that are willing to go work on old boilers or mechanical computers.

Right now the USN is cutting manpower where possible, adding 4 VERY limited use ships that each require 1,800 men doesn't make sense. These are ships that are not suited for the modern maritime environment, they have only the most basic of defenses and need escorts. The armor belts may not protect against ASM's that hit differently than WW2 era gun fire, even if by some chance they do a missile that hits will still destroy radars, waveguides, antenna, directors and other exposed equipment resulting in a mission kill (making the ship useless), the torpedo protection installed won't help against modern ones that crack a ships keel. All that armor is a hindrance in a damage control situation, it is just dead weight when dealing with flooding.

The 16 inch guns themselves are not very good for fire support. They have a large danger fire radius and are too inaccurate to be used close to friendly troops. History shows that the best fire support comes from the 5-8 inch range, not large caliber naval guns.

[John Sansom]

There are few things finer than the sight of a battlewagon at flank speed...but it really does present a huge and very inviting target to an enemy adequately equipped with missiles of whatever variety (all anti-missile capabilities notwithstanding).

Being darned near 100-percent ignorant in this area, I'd sure appreciate some further opinion on this.

[Thiel]

Yeah my sentiments exactly...is an artillery ship a viable proposition for bombardment of the littorals.Say with a frigate/destroyer sized hull with the maximum fitout of guns,both fore and aft and starboard and port.Just a gun ship,less on the sensors and super structure but more on the guns and ordanance.

Well, it might be doable if the ships weapons were modular, ala the Danish Stanflex 300 ships. They are theoretically capable of carrying up to 4 5-Inch/54-caliber (Mk 45) lightweight guns. Granted, they have to ditch all other weapons systems and they'd have very limited traverse.
A ship designed around this concept can perform highly specialized missions and still be useful for other missions. (Swap the guns for VLS modules)

[kato]

There is no Stanflex-mounted Mk45. The Mk45 on the Absalons doesn't use a Stanflex Gun Module, but a regular mountpoint. The Stanflex gun modules only come with a OTO 76mm or alternatively a 35mm Millenium Gun, and are not compatible with the "standard" Stanflex pallets anyway.

[Thiel]

There is no Stanflex-mounted Mk45. The Mk45 on the Absalons doesn't use a Stanflex Gun Module, but a regular mountpoint. The Stanflex gun modules only come with a OTO 76mm or alternatively a 35mm Millenium Gun, and are not compatible with the "standard" Stanflex pallets anyway.

I doesn't? Goes to show how much I know. That aside, it doesn't disprove the concept though.

[Sea Toby]

In an era when the Chinese are messing with ballistic missiles to strike aircraft carrier task groups, with several hundred ks of range, we are in the missile age. With the improvements with guided shells, much like guided bombs, a five inch gun has the capability to reach further than a legacy 16 inch gun.

I agree with AegisFC, the battlewagons are early twentieth century technology in the twenty-first century. OBSOLETE! Consume too much manpower. Sensors are totally unsupportable.

The Zumwalt program was a naval attempt to address amphibious gunfire support. Do we need larger ships that can carry more than 100 land attack cruise missiles? The US Navy has close to 100 ships which can do so if necessary already. Congress doesn't think we need anymore Zumwalts, that is why they decided to build more Burke class destroyers.

What the government wants is to build many less expensive LCSs. Ships capable of influencing the littoral environment better than the FFG-7s, and maintain an ocean escort ASW role as well.

I understand the glory capital ships represent, but its the McHale's navy that wins wars.

[skeleton]

i didn't read this whole thing so im sorry if i repeat what others have already said, but basically what you would get if you tried to reincarnate a battleship: a bigger slower and much more expensive cruiser. modern cruisers look lightly armored because it uses 5 inches of kevlar armor instead of steel, making its resistance level up there with the big boys. Also the former method of repelling torpedoes wouldn't work because of an key evolution in torpedo technology. torpedoes used to swim relatively close to the surface and hit warships at a point slightly below water level on the ship. to counter this WWII era ships had a ring of heavy army running around the ship, designed to be basically where torpedoes would hit. modern wire guided and electronically guided torpedoes do not function in the same way, mainly to allow submarines to be able to fire torpedoes from deeper depths and increase killing power. instead of hitting at about water level they aim for the bottom of the ships hull to "break its back" this would make the old method of protection completely obsolete. you also couldent add the armor to the bottom where modern torpedoes hit because the ship would become slow and its maneuverability would be extremely low. so you really wouldent even have to bother with an bigger badder ASM you could just put a torpedo in her back.

[skeleton]

as to phycology, theylle respect your ship when it shoots a cruise missle through the gap of thier teeth