Return of the battleship.

[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
Mk 41 data

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.