This is a discussion on Return of the battleship. within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Feanor
I believe we have a better chance of taking those missiles out on land with B-2 ...
I believe we have a better chance of taking those missiles out on land with B-2 or F-22/F-35 strikes then we do in the air with ABM. Also these ships are a lot more expensive then simply building more GBI sites.
Unfortunately the US may not have that option. Do you go in an premptively bomb china, russia, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran or do you wait to see what happens. If some radical or unpredictable leader decides to start trouble its too late.
Quote:
Except most current intercepting systems don't work mid course. They either work at the launching stage, when the ICBM is still slow, or they intercept the warheads or missile when they're descending on target.
Which is why GBM has such a tough job and need a range 5 times greater than SM-3 (which has successfully intercepted an orbiting target at 160km). It would be a one stop shop, able to handle pretty much any threat in a region. And also work with other GBM sites internationally.
As for an arms race. Really. Who's entering an arms race with the US? Of any sort? They would only have to brush off some cold war stockpiles to be leaps ahead. And whats the plan? MAD? Well you can't assure the US destruction.
I think there is a niche for a type of "space control" vessel. Its not likely to be built, but it could be built given the right circumstances and needs.
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.
Trophy based systems were in my mind exactly, but how effective would they be against the latest russian supersonic misslies, fo eg :- a brahmos/yakhont weighs 2.5 tonnes, in the terminal stages it might still be weighing over 800 Kgs, isn't the kinetic energy of the debris good enough to do some serious damage ?
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ
Unfortunately the US may not have that option. Do you go in an premptively bomb china, russia, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran or do you wait to see what happens. If some radical or unpredictable leader decides to start trouble its too late.
Silly. You can pre-emptively strike North Korea, or Iran with little problems. Pakistan may be an issue, in that their arsenal is relatively large.
Quote:
Which is why GBM has such a tough job and need a range 5 times greater than SM-3 (which has successfully intercepted an orbiting target at 160km). It would be a one stop shop, able to handle pretty much any threat in a region. And also work with other GBM sites internationally.
In other words a new, expensive, and difficult to realize technology. Why are we not just building more GBI sites, again?
Quote:
As for an arms race. Really. Who's entering an arms race with the US? Of any sort? They would only have to brush off some cold war stockpiles to be leaps ahead. And whats the plan? MAD? Well you can't assure the US destruction.
As far as nuclear weapons production, Russia may not be able to match the US but it certainly can outpace BMD development. The question is do you even want to bring the situation to this point? Do you really want to ruin relations with Russia, piss of the Europeans with your belligerence, and spend a ton of money on giant platforms whose main purpose is to destabilize the world?
As for MAD, yes you can. As it stands the Russian nuclear arsenal is more or less sufficient for the job. It might not destroy the world but it can certainly take out most US major cities, and military installations. Similarly the US arsenal can reduce Russia. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.
Quote:
I think there is a niche for a type of "space control" vessel. Its not likely to be built, but it could be built given the right circumstances and needs.
Key words; circumstances and needs. You're talking about a vessel reminiscent of the worst days of the Cold War. It has no place in today's world. It's expensive, complicated, and un-necessary.
I'm with Feanor on the nuclear weapons. At this point in history, they destabilize global security, heighten tensions and reduce the ability for nations of unequal military power to be able to engage in meaningful talks.
Both the US and Russia have reduced their stockpiles but the vast number still remaining are plenty to still mean that MAD is possible. The threat of global nuclear destruction is reduced but still very much a looming spectre. Why else would both nations agree to open their missile silos so the other's spy satellites can confirm all the nukes are where they should be?
I can't forsee a circumstance where it would be politically advantagous to build a such a ship. Its proberly cheaper than building a intercepting orbital platform or multiple orbital platforms. Proberly less politically difficult than an entire ground based network of interceptors and proberly more effective.
I'm with Feanor on the nuclear weapons. At this point in history, they destabilize global security, heighten tensions and reduce the ability for nations of unequal military power to be able to engage in meaningful talks.
Both the US and Russia have reduced their stockpiles but the vast number still remaining are plenty to still mean that MAD is possible. The threat of global nuclear destruction is reduced but still very much a looming spectre. Why else would both nations agree to open their missile silos so the other's spy satellites can confirm all the nukes are where they should be?
Even if we take you premise to be true that ABM’s make the strategic nuclear situation unstable, the problem is that short and medium range ballistic missiles are coming on line for non-nuclear warfare and the same defensive weapons that will be necessary to defend against those threats are the same as the ones to be used against the ICBM types. Though I admit they would be less effectively that weapons not specifically designed to do so. If you take your premise as fact that alone will be destabilizing.
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.
I know I can can; yet I will refrain from enjoining the ludicrous postulations of a of a theoretical debate about this topic. Tho I find that many posters have a vast knowledge of *power systems* , the Nuclear option is clear, proven, cheap, portable, redundant, and more so, available technologically wise.
A 100K ton Battleship employing Rail Guns, doesn't make for a good ASW platform; nor an effective platform for AA/area defense.
The bigger it is, the more the enemy will seek it out to destroy it.
And an Ohio-class switched to a semi-submersible, with Rail Guns, makes for a VLO platform, and coincidentally has a tonnage which is one third to WW2 era BB's; yet packs a firepower that would exceed 2 or 3 Iowa class BB's.
The Ford class CVN's are plotted to cost $9B per. Is America ready for a $250T dollar Navy? (Using the logic from the original poster.Plus the goal of a 300 ship Fleet.)
I know I can can; yet I will refrain from enjoining the ludicrous postulations of a of a theoretical debate about this topic. Tho I find that many posters have a vast knowledge of *power systems* , the Nuclear option is clear, proven, cheap, portable, redundant, and more so, available technologically wise.
A 100K ton Battleship employing Rail Guns, doesn't make for a good ASW platform; nor an effective platform for AA/area defense.
The bigger it is, the more the enemy will seek it out to destroy it.
And an Ohio-class switched to a semi-submersible, with Rail Guns, makes for a VLO platform, and coincidentally has a tonnage which is one third to WW2 era BB's; yet packs a firepower that would exceed 2 or 3 Iowa class BB's.
The Ford class CVN's are plotted to cost $9B per. Is America ready for a $250T dollar Navy? (Using the logic from the original poster.Plus the goal of a 300 ship Fleet.)
"And an Ohio-class switched to a semi-submersible, with Rail Guns, makes for a VLO platform, and coincidentally has a tonnage which is one third to WW2 era BB's; yet packs a firepower that would exceed 2 or 3 Iowa class BB's."
Doesnt really make sense to do that. The Ohios are old and perpose built to carry VLS. I doubt that the needed structural and power support nessesary to install such a system on them would be logical. However they do excellent in there role of SSGN. So i'd stick with that.
"The Ford class CVN's are plotted to cost $9B per. Is America ready for a $250T dollar Navy?"
Lets look at that $9B vessel. It will last barring loss in combat or some other particluar problem and if it is kept up right 50 year or so. This vessel will be able to fly of a small airforce in support of any conflict, conduct rescue and resupply missions for natural disasters.(like japan, hati, etc). And who's presence can halt a war from beging or end just by showing up.
9B? Worth it.
Now if you were to count up all the money wasted by the US and indeed other countries on stupid things im sure it would far eceed the price of a Modern Heavy warship class. Where did you pull this number from anyways
