Future of the Battleship

Status
Not open for further replies.

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I think it has a future capabilty wise but not financially.i'm sure with modern technologies you could make a devestating ship but the nearest anyones going to get to it is the zumwalt class destroyers(unfortunately).I was looking on google maps and noticed that the USS missouri still has its tomahawk launchers on it even though they call it a museum.It would be nice for the RN to build 2 land attack cruisers to go with the CV's that their building making sure they have the firepower to properly back the cv's up
Very outdated Tomahawk launchers. Modern surface ship launched Tomahawk variants do not use armored box launchers, Mk-41 VLS only.
Those box launchers were the only real reason why the Iowas were recommissioned in the 80's. At the time they were the only ships in mothballs in decent condition that could cheaply take more than a handful of ABL's and the refits were very limited in scope and the plan was if the project ran over budget was to leave the main battery in a decommissioned state. Once enough Mk-41 ships were commissioned or modified the Iowa's were once again thrown back into mothballs since they are freaking expensive to run.

I'm wondering how well today's anti-ship weapons are designed to deal with WW2 level armor protection (which one could reinforce further with e.g. ceramics, kevlar etc)... that's a factor to consider.

+ Large caliber guns will remain in demand for supporting any coastal landing op.

+ packing more than 16 AShM/LAM will certainly be a bonus. (think Iowa's v Kirov)

+ problem remains air defences (think Kirov v Iowa): one woul need an excort, much like a carrier would need one.
You can't armor sensors and comms gear and without those the ship is useless. Also some anti-ship missiles have the option to do a pop-up attack and dive down the stack and explode in the main spaces.
Also one of the lessons of WW2 was that heavy armor is a hinderance in a damage control situtation since it is just dead weight. Armor has its uses but these days it is mostly limited to anti-splinter protection on vital spaces.
 

kev 99

Member
I'm wondering how well today's anti-ship weapons are designed to deal with WW2 level armor protection (which one could reinforce further with e.g. ceramics, kevlar etc)... that's a factor to consider.

+ Large caliber guns will remain in demand for supporting any coastal landing op.

+ packing more than 16 AShM/LAM will certainly be a bonus. (think Iowa's v Kirov)

+ problem remains air defences (think Kirov v Iowa): one woul need an excort, much like a carrier would need one.
DK Brown has previously stated that an Exocet would have comparable pentration to a WWII era 12 inch AP shell, based on that I would say old style ship armour is more than a little pointless.
 

PO2GRV

Member
Well there goes the argument some like to make about the survivability of armor. It would seem that the only real argument for bringing the big gun battleships back would be for NSFS. AGS seems to be a capable weapon, and I feel that while it could be even better at NSFS if it were a larger caliber (8" or more) it is still a good system, on paper atleast. Hopefully it doesn't die with the Zumwalts.

I was very intrigued by the development work done for firing sabot 11" rounds out of the IOWAs 16" rifles, but again, unless you're going to build a new ship around one or two 16" guns (actual barrels not turrets) aboard then why bother? The capability one can get out the 16" guns are just not worth the cost of supporting the rest of the IOWAs attached to it
 

kev 99

Member
The credicbility of the Phoenix Think Tank has to be open to serious question, some of the stuff they've come out with has been pretty ridiculous, their arguments denouncing the RAF's performance during the Gulf War spring to mind, as do their case for air based sea power over land based.

Regarding this particular proposal, it looks like a pretty damn expensive ship.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Probably the modern variant of the battleship is the Arsenal ship. I thought that concept was long ago dead and burried, but last year came through that:
Arsenal Ships - The Phoenix ThinkTank - Naval Think Tank
I would appreciate any comments, also on the PhoenixTT.
Looks like something Lewis Paige dreamed up I think - the thing is, it'd have the entire current stock of UK TLAM on board it - does that sound sensible?
I'm not sure why the thing is specified with SAMPSON/S8150 either - if we had spare cash for SAMPSON then I'd vote it be fitted, with CEC to the two carriers.

I can't see the point in building a specialised ship to that specification when there's space for 16 cells on the 6 Type 45's - that'd be 72 cells brought immediately into service at a fairly low cost on an already well protected set of hulls.

Type 26 would bring potentially 16 x 13 ships worth of TLAM cells into play - that's 208.

Better to add components to existing ships at low cost relative to commissioning and maintaining an entirely new ship.

If, after all that, we are still short of VLS tubes for TLAM, then I'd either vote for a batch 2 Astute run of another two, working in the missile cell from the Virginia (12 TLAM I believe) or for a conventional role to be assigned to the incoming Successor boats, with a fifth boat in type being added, allowing for one nuclear and one conventional boat to be at sea.

The proposed common missile compartment for the Ohio and Vanguard replacement has a facility to allow TLAM cells to be inserted.

Not, of course, that we have enough TLAM to fill them..

Ian
 

kev 99

Member
I'm not sure why the thing is specified with SAMPSON/S8150 either - if we had spare cash for SAMPSON then I'd vote it be fitted, with CEC to the two carriers.

Ian
Or even 2 Type 46 destroyers, like T45s but with longer VLS, hey presto an have an arsenal type ship that is also a destroyer.

;)

edit - after a second look it does indeed look like something Lewis Page would dream up; in fact he has argued for such ships based on the grounds that they are using merchant hulls and therefore cheap. A quick look at the specs and it becomes obvious they are anything but.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Or even 2 Type 46 destroyers, like T45s but with longer VLS, hey presto an have an arsenal type ship that is also a destroyer.

;)

Well, the existing 45's already have space for strike length VLS - 16 of 'em...we've way more spaces to put TLAM capable VLS than we currently have TLAM missiles on tap.

The more I look at that arsenal ship, the more I see Paige's hand in it - he's always had this thing about how wonderful things would be if you tipped all the good stuff out of a destroyer and stuck it into a container ship, as magically, it'd be cheap and stuff.

And...stuff...

Edit : must have typed this after you'd updated!
 

kev 99

Member
Well, the existing 45's already have space for strike length VLS - 16 of 'em...we've way more spaces to put TLAM capable VLS than we currently have TLAM missiles on tap.

The more I look at that arsenal ship, the more I see Paige's hand in it - he's always had this thing about how wonderful things would be if you tipped all the good stuff out of a destroyer and stuck it into a container ship, as magically, it'd be cheap and stuff.

And...stuff...

Edit : must have typed this after you'd updated!
Looks like it ;)

The specs on that thing are mental, Sampson, shedloads of vls, 4 Phalanx, 4 MK 110 57mm and 2 Medigum calbre guns, sonar as well, hanger for 8 Merlin's and 16 Hummingbirds, all on a big slow, noisy hull with an RCS the size of a small moon, crazy.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
:faints:

Sorry, I've just read the document more closely and they're talking about 120 containers, not cells - and they're talking 3,600 TLAM capability.

The numbers don't add up as they talking 30 cells per container and I thought Mk41 came in 8 cell units.

This is magic lala land design. I mean, just seriously...


Don't give me whatever they were smoking when dreaming this thing up, I'll stick with crack.

Back of a fag packet calculations - it's got everything a 45 has on board in terms of radar and other sensors plus weapons - last time I heard of a unit cost for a 45 was £750 for just one more. Tack on another few hundred mill for the Mk110's, extra 1b's and the 3600 Mk41s and I reckon you're into a billion and a half.

Then go buy 3600 TLAMS...

Five billion all up?

Seriously...?


3600 TLAMS? Who are we going to war with? EVERYONE ON THE PLANET AT THE SAME TIME?
 

kev 99

Member
:faints:

Sorry, I've just read the document more closely and they're talking about 120 containers, not cells - and they're talking 3,600 TLAM capability.

The numbers don't add up as they talking 30 cells per container and I thought Mk41 came in 8 cell units.

This is magic lala land design. I mean, just seriously...


Don't give me whatever they were smoking when dreaming this thing up, I'll stick with crack.

Back of a fag packet calculations - it's got everything a 45 has on board in terms of radar and other sensors plus weapons - last time I heard of a unit cost for a 45 was £750 for just one more. Tack on another few hundred mill for the Mk110's, extra 1b's and the 3600 Mk41s and I reckon you're into a billion and a half.

Then go buy 3600 TLAMS...

Five billion all up?

Seriously...?


3600 TLAMS? Who are we going to war with? EVERYONE ON THE PLANET AT THE SAME TIME?
Add in the cost of finding 8 Merlins and 16 Hummingbirds, plus the 4 Mk110s and 2 Medium calbire guns.
 

exPrivate

Member
Thanks, guys! For me it is like a wet dream of a navymaniac too. And looks as useless as a battleship nowadays. To use it only as a deterrent looks like chasing a fly with a hammer. :D
 

PO2GRV

Member
Thanks, guys! For me it is like a wet dream of a navymaniac too. And looks as useless as a battleship nowadays. To use it only as a deterrent looks like chasing a fly with a hammer. :D
again, the Arsenal ship concept is only practical as an SSGN like the converted OHIOs. No escorts needed, much more survivable, can get closer to the target country/enemy without detection, and taken all these together -much- cheaper
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
and one more thing - they're touting a crew of 60..this thing has the same props as a CVF plus I think 8 thruster pods (why..?) It's also got the same sensor fitout as a type 45.

Conservatively, without too much attention to damage control, and just to keep the ship moving in the correct direction, man the sensors etc, I'm guessing 150 at a bare minimum.

"Procurement would therefore be of 4-8 vessels, equally divided between roles of Arsenal and Auxiliary, with the former costing probably less than £350million and the latter less than £150million to purchase and convert; the ‘containers’ would of course be extra and this figure would depend upon how many were procured, as well as what missiles were loaded into them. "

Seriously, where did the £350 million figure come from?
 

1805

New Member
I think the original US concept of an arsenal ship was c500 silos very lightly armed and low cost build, then moved on to 256. I quite like the idea, but is seems unwise to put such a large capability in one vunerable ship.

the150 odd on a converted Ohio seem an effective number, but they are only cheap because they were freed up from their original role. and how secure is a sub when is fires a cruise missile, if you're firing off large number of cruise missile it must give it's position away.

The concept of merging two ships concepts into one larger ships is an interesting one. The JC1 is a good example, both Spain and Italy operated small carriers and separate assault ships buy merging the two they have a more a sizable and capable ship in both roles (but less hulls so maybe less flexibe).

If you merged the capability of say a Bay & a T45 (not practical as we have both and can hardly afford to properly equip either). Would that create a more capable ships. a ship of 16,000t, 150-200 VLS, 25 knots, a massive flex deck, full with hanger for 2 merlins, and a dock for great boat handling. 150 crew plus up to 350 personnel. How could such a ship be financed, well it could replace a lot of the deep strike capability undetaken manned aircraft.
 

rip

New Member
I just got finished watching the trailer for the movie Battleship and I got to wonderring, is there a place for the Battleship in today's navy? With its big guns and imposing size it is a potent phsycological tool for amphibious landings and modern day targeting systems can put its missiles and shells anywhere within its range. But the Battleship is still a weapon of yesterday that can be attacked successfully with modern weapons. So tell me is the Battleship done or does it have a future?
The original idea of building a battle ship was to use them to engage as the major striking force as part of large fleet to fleet engagements with the goal, that afterward the big and decisive battle was fought between fleets, the winner of which would then be in control of the sea. The last time that story played out that way was in 1905 at the Battle of Tsushima. The historical goal of naval warfare has always been the same. And it has been to control the major sea-lanes of the world with all the valuable commerce which is carried on them. When naval units are used as augments to land forces in costal fights or in river campaigns they have always be secondary roll to the navy. The control of profitable trade, be it land or sea creates both wealth and power and thus the fate of nations for centuries. But as we found in WW II, that large (fleet on fleet) engagements are, in most part, a thing of the past. And when they do happen (we may never see one happen again) it is the air component which has become the decisive factor in there outcome. It is true that battleships did find great utility for a time as antiaircraft platforms in screening carriers and for some time longer than that in the roll in shore bombardment to support land operations but that was not the job they were designed to do.

Many of todays’ dreamers that look back on the days of the battleship and justify their continued existence, for their proven utility in the roll of shore bombardment a roll and they are justified to some extent in supporting in that we have no adequate platform to fulfill that roll in the fleet today. The littorals of the world are more dangerous to ships than they have ever been before and such an investment in men and materials to use anything with the same investment as an historical battleship, would be very risky commitment of scarce resources to say the least.

But there still is a place in the naval order of battle for a new kind of battleship. A ship meant to control the sealains and leave the battles of the littorals in the future, of which there will be many, to the ships that are already being built today that address those challenges. The necessity of controlling the sealains is a hard fact of which the world will always be dependent but it is often a neglected factor in strategic planning until it is too late. More time, men, and ships were put to sea in WW II as escorts or to keep the sealains open that ever were engaged in fleet or even squadron level engagements. They just don’t make the history books but they were just as vital to winning the war. It took hundreds of small escorts of many types and large numbers of air-craft and more than a few capital ships to do this one single vital task. It took more ships to do this job than the Navy today has of all kinds. The navy is smaller but the oceans are just as big as ever. The battleship I propose would have a combination of qualities that the current fleet severely lacks today but which the fleet did have in the past before the lessons of both WW I and WW II were forgotten.

There was a time that second kind of battleship existed and it was the Germans’ made them. They were called pocket battleships. They were units designed to operate as lone hunters far out at sea and were intended to function without other supporting units. They were not built to act as the primary punch of fleet actions but to be faster than any other battleship that could out gun them and to be stronger than any other ship that could match its speed. In the case the Germans' they never though they could control the seas with them but only to disrupt their enemy’s free use of the sea. The pocket battleship was designed as a weapon for use by a sophisticated but numerically weak navy of which the Germans were. The German navy was always far too small to challenge their enemies’ control of the sea. But they were intended only to deny the free and easy access of the sea for their enemies use. Enemies that would then be required to use many more times the Pocket battleships cost in men and material to counter them. What we now call asymmetric warfare. It is a function in modern sea warfare, which is now far more effectively done by submarines. The submarine is the sea denial weapon of choice for today and they are very effective ones. The major threat today to the big Navy’s of the world, which come from the smaller and weaker navy’s, are submarines’, the truly greatest asymmetric weapon of all time.

To combat this proven threat we once had decanted ASW carriers with their own escorts groups whose main job was to keep the sea-lanes open and to hunt submarines. And even with the less capable submarines of that time it was no easy job even with all the resources that were decanaled to it. But we cannot afford that approach anymore it is just too expensive. Our current fleet has the ASW capacity to defend its self from submarines but it is very doubtful that they can also defend the vast sealains of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. To use the old approach would require hundreds if not thousands of ships which we do not have and could not build in time when it was proven once again by hard experience that we needed them all along.

There are other lesser threats to the sealains. Long range bomber and patrol aircraft is one, disguised and undisguised surface raiders for another, and pirates, intelligence gathering ships, neutrals that will have to be closely watched and monitored, and don’t forget free floating self-activated mines. These threats will have to countered as well. What I propose to meet these threats is a 3D battle ship as the primary sea control ship of the navy to meet all of those needs. Like the pocket battleship of the past it would be designed to operate alone and not require any escorts to do its primary function. The 3D battleship will travel the deep oceans of the world often out of range of most land based aircraft keeping the sealains intact and securing the supply lines while the rest of the fleet prosecutes the fighting closer to shore where the major battles will undoubtedly be fought in the combined arms, net centric fashion that is being planned for. It can do this job far more cheaply and effectively than assigning multiple units from the general fleet and thus reducing the fighting fleets’ overall effectiveness for the battles that they were designed to fight.

This new battleship would be a combination of a small ASW carrier, a guided missile cruiser and mobile transport and servicing platform for the robot warriors of the future. For best effect it should be nuclear powered or be some kind of nuclear/gas turbine hybrid. This is because it will spend most of its time at sea running at medium speed. It would have all the capacities that a full up guides missile cruiser has and carry all the net centric warfare features as a well for it will have and use the same systems. In a pinch it can be used as an axillary carrier or cruiser in combined fleet actions and it would have the same anti air and ABM defense weapons as today’s DDG’s except it would carry a lot more missile cells ( not quit an arsenal ship but still have a punch)and not have any guns. This ship is not for use in the littorals. The additional missile cells would be filled with a lot more of both long rang ant-ship, and land attack cruise missiles and ASROCs’ rounds than is the normal in DDG cell load outs but few ant-aircraft. And it would have much better living accommodations for it crew. Why? Because these ships will, proportionally be spending much more of their time in war or at peace at sea than most ships.
On the carrier side it would have only one electric catapult and that catapult will be seldom uses in everyday operations, it will be used usually only to receive an occasional COD flight but you can image other uses that this added flexibility could mean in some situations. Normally it would carry (4) F-35B’s (4) ASW helicopters, (2) large lifting helicopters or (2) V-22 Ospreys (the use of which will be explained later) and several different kinds’ air, surface, and sub-surface drones. It would have extensive lower deck hanger space for the number of aircraft it carries and space for many large maintenance shops.

It would carry Air, surface, and subsurface drones and all of the felicities need to service them. And that is what will allow it to fulfill its primary function. It could also support a couple of E-2D’s under some circumstances. It would be a big capital ship but far smaller, cheaper, and with far fewer people than a fleet carrier. Though capable of land attack missions of the hit and run nature, it would not have the deep magazines or vast fuel supply of aviation full a regular carrier requires for its kind of normal sustaining operations as we use them today which is mainly to dominate the air space over coastal regions.

But as capable as this ship would be, even if the navy built ten of them, it wouldn’t be enough to get the job done if this ship didn’t have other functions and abilities. Ladies and gentlemen we are entering the age of the robot, sometime called drones. What this ship would do in both peace time and at war is cruse the sealains servicing the hundreds of UAV’s of the wave rider kind that will constantly be patrolling the sealains of interest detecting submarines, ships, floating mines, as well as other enemy UAV’s, and also recording weather, water conditions which have an effect on sonars active and passive and then reporting them back by satellite. The same source from where they will get their updated instructions. The heavy lift air-craft, be the helicopters or V-22’s would drop off UAV’s to glide in the currents to best effect, starting at up to three hundred miles from the battleship sails its plotted course without interruption. And then the same aircraft would to be used to pick up UAV’s at sea, again up to three hundred mills from the carrier to be returned for servicing and redeployment. That way they keep the sealains continually monitored.

To see a glimpse into the future and what it will look like at the following article. But there will be air patrolling drowns and undersea attack drown lunched only when that have a hard contact. Surface drones that will check out and follow surface craft of interest and more that I have not thought of but someone will.

Autonomous underwater vehicles (auvs) http://my.fit.edu/~swood/26_Wood_first.pdf
 

My2Cents

Active Member
Sorry, I've just read the document more closely and they're talking about 120 containers, not cells - and they're talking 3,600 TLAM capability.

The numbers don't add up as they talking 30 cells per container and I thought Mk41 came in 8 cell units.
  • He is not using Mk41, they are a custom build based on a container the size of 2 ‘High Cube’ ISO containers stacked on top of each other.
  • Presumably the guns and CIWS will be built on other containers. At least the CIWS is a standalone system, but integrating the guns with the rest of the ships sensors, and keeping them aligned will be … an ongoing task.
  • He doesn’t say anything about how he is going to handle and maintain the aircraft. I suspect he is planning to store them in the ‘Flexideck’ space, below the weapon containers, though how and where they will bring them up for launch is not addressed.
For those of you who haven’t done it, click on the image of the Tomahawk cruise missile, there is a copy of the same report with illustrations that will come up. Check the ones one page 5.

One thing that struck me was that there is no way that they can mount the radars that will not be partially blocked by containers, leaving huge gaps in the coverage. Given the (lack of) visibility from the ship’s bridge they might even have a hard time staying in formation.
Don't give me whatever they were smoking when dreaming this thing up, I'll stick with crack.
I been use “I don’t know what you are smoking, but I’ll take a hit”. I like yours better, mind if I borrow it? ;)
 

My2Cents

Active Member
There was a time that second kind of battleship existed and it was the Germans’ made them. They were called pocket battleships. They were units designed to operate as lone hunters far out at sea and were intended to function without other supporting units. They were not built to act as the primary punch of fleet actions but to be faster than any other battleship that could out gun them and to be stronger than any other ship that could match its speed. In the case the Germans' they never though they could control the seas with them but only to disrupt their enemy’s free use of the sea. The pocket battleship was designed as a weapon for use by a sophisticated but numerically weak navy of which the Germans were. The German navy was always far too small to challenge their enemies’ control of the sea. But they were intended only to deny the free and easy access of the sea for their enemies use. Enemies that would then be required to use many more times the Pocket battleships cost in men and material to counter them.
Didn’t work very well. While it takes many times the pocket battleship’s cost in warships to hunt it down, that hunt is relatively brief, and generally without compensating losses on the hunter’s side. The camouflaged auxiliary cruisers, like the Atlantis, were much more effective.
To combat this proven threat we once had decanted ASW carriers with their own escorts groups whose main job was to keep the sea-lanes open and to hunt submarines. And even with the less capable submarines of that time it was no easy job even with all the resources that were decanaled to it. But we cannot afford that approach anymore it is just too expensive. Our current fleet has the ASW capacity to defend its self from submarines but it is very doubtful that they can also defend the vast sealains of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. To use the old approach would require hundreds if not thousands of ships which we do not have and could not build in time when it was proven once again by hard experience that we needed them all along.
Back then submarine detection by aircraft was visual only. A pair of helicopters with sonar buoy’s is worth more than a ‘jeep’ carrier for ASW.
There are other lesser threats to the sealains. Long range bomber and patrol aircraft is one, disguised and undisguised surface raiders for another, and pirates, intelligence gathering ships, neutrals that will have to be closely watched and monitored, and don’t forget free floating self-activated mines. These threats will have to countered as well. What I propose to meet these threats is a 3D battle ship as the primary sea control ship of the navy to meet all of those needs. Like the pocket battleship of the past it would be designed to operate alone and not require any escorts to do its primary function. The 3D battleship will travel the deep oceans of the world often out of range of most land based aircraft keeping the sealains intact and securing the supply lines while the rest of the fleet prosecutes the fighting closer to shore where the major battles will undoubtedly be fought in the combined arms, net centric fashion that is being planned for. It can do this job far more cheaply and effectively than assigning multiple units from the general fleet and thus reducing the fighting fleets’ overall effectiveness for the battles that they were designed to fight.
Sounds more like a job for a DE than a battleship, and you while you probably can’t afford enough of either, you can get 2x to 3x as many for the same cost. You need numbers for this task more than overwhelming capabilities.
This new battleship would be a combination of a small ASW carrier, a guided missile cruiser and mobile transport and servicing platform for the robot warriors of the future. For best effect it should be nuclear powered or be some kind of nuclear/gas turbine hybrid. This is because it will spend most of its time at sea running at medium speed. It would have all the capacities that a full up guides missile cruiser has and carry all the net centric warfare features as a well for it will have and use the same systems. In a pinch it can be used as an axillary carrier or cruiser in combined fleet actions and it would have the same anti air and ABM defense weapons as today’s DDG’s except it would carry a lot more missile cells ( not quit an arsenal ship but still have a punch)and not have any guns. This ship is not for use in the littorals. The additional missile cells would be filled with a lot more of both long rang ant-ship, and land attack cruise missiles and ASROCs’ rounds than is the normal in DDG cell load outs but few ant-aircraft. And it would have much better living accommodations for it crew. Why? Because these ships will, proportionally be spending much more of their time in war or at peace at sea than most ships.
On the carrier side it would have only one electric catapult and that catapult will be seldom uses in everyday operations, it will be used usually only to receive an occasional COD flight but you can image other uses that this added flexibility could mean in some situations. Normally it would carry (4) F-35B’s (4) ASW helicopters, (2) large lifting helicopters or (2) V-22 Ospreys (the use of which will be explained later) and several different kinds’ air, surface, and sub-surface drones. It would have extensive lower deck hanger space for the number of aircraft it carries and space for many large maintenance shops.

It would carry Air, surface, and subsurface drones and all of the felicities need to service them. And that is what will allow it to fulfill its primary function. It could also support a couple of E-2D’s under some circumstances. It would be a big capital ship but far smaller, cheaper, and with far fewer people than a fleet carrier. Though capable of land attack missions of the hit and run nature, it would not have the deep magazines or vast fuel supply of aviation full a regular carrier requires for its kind of normal sustaining operations as we use them today which is mainly to dominate the air space over coastal regions.
Sounds like a slant deck cruiser to me. So let’s use a Kiev class carrier, the original Baku/Admiral Gorshkov would be the closest to the design, as the model. Looks like it could handle the air wing and UAVs. Probably have to stretch it some to add space for the surface and subsurface drones, a lot more if you want to add the nuke, let’s say 50,000 tons with conventional power, and 60,000 tons with nuclear. Probably cost at least 1/3 to 1/2 as much as a Ford class carrier.

And don’t stint on the fuel, without escorts you will need to keep those ASW helicopters in the air on an almost constant basis. You might even need to increase the number.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member

  • I been use “I don’t know what you are smoking, but I’ll take a hit”. I like yours better, mind if I borrow it? ;)


  • Feel free, it's granted as public commons, was quite proud of it at the time as I sputtered in total disbelief at the idea of spending the entire type 26 budget on reloads for a cargo ship with ISO containers for missile cells :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top