This is a discussion on Return of the battleship. within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Todjaeger what do you think of the potential of adding an arsenal ship to the current make up of a ...
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 10,631
Threads:
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon K
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon K
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon K
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon K
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon K
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
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves." Forum rules, read them!
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Return of the battleships 
