Return of the battleship.

[kato]

Originally Posted by Lostfleet

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]

Originally Posted by kato

.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]

Originally Posted by Jon K

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.

Originally Posted by Jon K

-Space based reconnaissance system.

Which you'll also need for cruise missile strikes of course.

Originally Posted by Jon K

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.

Originally Posted by Jon K

(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]

Originally Posted by kato

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.

Originally Posted by kato

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.

Originally Posted by kato

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]

Originally Posted by StingrayOZ

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Todjaeger

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.

Originally Posted by Todjaeger

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.

Originally Posted by Todjaeger

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.

Originally Posted by Jon K

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.

Originally Posted by Jon K

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.

Originally Posted by Jon K

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