"Modern Battleship?" Topic

Hi all,

reading the Vanguard thread I wonder what a Modern or Modernised battleship would look like.

Imagine:

A- that you have the same resources devoted to making a super-carrier and want to build a new battleship from the ground up.

and/or

B- you have an old battleship (eg Iowa or Vanguard etc) that you want to refit using say half the resources of building a new one.

Then what would you put on it? Armour? Big guns? A giant cruise missile magazine? UAVs? UUVs? Helicopters? Jump-Jets? AA missiles? Anti-sub missiles? Anti-ship missiles? Rail-guns? CIWS?

I guess the main use these days is for shore bombardment. but would it be possible to design something capable of taking on a carrier?

> but would it be possible to design something capable of taking on a carrier?

No.

Any big gun ship will never match the capabilities of a carrier by virtual of the flexible nature of a CVs airgroup.

The US did reconfigure and update the Iowa class BB's in the Reagan years to include Tomahawk and Harpoon missles, improved electronics plus some added automation and formed task groups around them but they still wouldn't stand a chance versus a carrier. No matter the range of over-the-horizon missles on the battleship, a carrier could still target and kill any BBG long before the battleship got within range with any kind of a targeting solution.

To kill a carrier with a ship, it had better be a very quiet submarine instead of a big, noisy target.

Submersible Battleship-armored, with Railguns, Missiles and Torpedo tubes. It can get close enough to the CV to bring it under fire before a strike is launched.

a: It wouldn't so much be a battleship as a battlecruiser. Modern weapons make heavy armor on ships not worth the cost in fuel and lost space to carry it around.

I'd invision a heavy gun-carrier, perhaps armed with railguns. at least 9 guns in three triple-turrets. CIWS and Roling airframe missiles, bristling with lasers to blind missile seakers, chaffe and infrared decoys.

and to answer B, I'd see it almost as immediately tracked down by recon satalites and either hunted by cruise-missile armed aircraft, or sunk by a submarine. The days of a "big gun" ship being purposely used against other ships is over. (not going to deny the POSSIBILITY that frigates or destroyers might get into gun duels)

Fission Power Plants, Including one dedicated to powering a VERY large AA Laser. Railguns in Heavy Armored Turrets, Deployable Sub RPVs to scout underwater and Deploy SEALs, an Armored VLS Missile Array capable of carrying Tomahawk and or/Harpoon ASM. Helo Deck. Onboard SEAL team support housing. Aerial RPVs capable of being launched to extend the ship's "Eyes" in case the ChiComs knock out our satellites. I'm sure i'll think of something else.

Ok, completely pie in the sky but anyway

So to beat the carrier you'd need to do one or more of the following

- Shoot down all its planes before they get close enough to target the battleship. Sounds simple enough, all you need is a large number of highly capable long range anti-aircraft missiles. Problem being targeting and timing – maybe a ring of UAV detector platforms a few hundred miles out from your 'battleship'?

- Shoot down all the enemy ordnance / aircraft at close-ish range – lots and lots of CIWS, short and medium range missiles?

- Some way to hit the carrier before you get within range of its planes. Again, figuring out where it is is the main problem – a network of geostationary satellites coupled with a very accurate long range ballistic missile syatem perhaps?

Oh assuming no nukes allowed!

If you were to up-armor the battleship with high-tech armor similar to that on an M1 Abrahms tank – on a much more massive scale, and improve the CIWS capabilities such as super-high powered lasers in armored turrets – you could build something which could impact/defeat an aircraft carrier and it's battle group. One could also launch UAVs, and Cruise Missiles, which could potentially devastate a carrier battle group. If you take it to the logical conclusion that your UAV's are going to be stealth UAV's, and the same with the cruise missiles – making them very difficult to detect, and nearly impossible to shoot down, absent new technology. If you have enough money, anything is potentially possible.

If your battleship is in space, you might have a chance.

Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Cheers,
JohnG

I'm thinking an "all-laser" BBN might be somewhat plausible. It would have lots of turrets, much like the 5-inch guns on the Iowas, but more of them, possibly in triple or even quadruple mounts. You could use them as a massive CIWS barrage, while using them in a concentrated manner against surface ships. It's likely that 20-30 "5-inch" lasers simultaneously hitting the same spot would probably be far more effective than a few "16-inch" lasers.

The drawback is that it wouldn't have an over-the-horizon capability, so railguns or missiles would still be required for use against ranged targets.

If anything a modern battleship might look more like an upscaled Civil War ironclad for greater stealth.

BCVN-1/2 battleship, 1/2 carrier.

See the Russian Kirov class…..

If I remember correctly one of the selling points about the Iowa is that the armor was so thick that it could shrug off
almost every SSM and ASM warhead. Every game I have seen on the subject shows that. What I would have done with them was add a VLS cell at the aft behind the aft 16inch turret. then I would remove the Tomahawk box launchers and replace them with more Harpoons. They also where not really meant to be carrier killers but to go up against the Kirov based SAG, but what they really excelled in was shore bombardment. Something that our current Navy lacks. Missiles do not equal big guns in support.

Rip out the guts and put in fission powerplant and lots of automation. Three lasers (one port one starboard, located low, and one at the top of the superstructure for a longer horizon) for air missile defense (including theater defense) and for taking out light combatants, phased-array radar on the superstructure, a good layering of CIWS (just in case something gets by the lasers), tons of VLS tubes for AA and AS missiles forward, UAV launchers and helicopter bay aft, 203mm single mounts where most of the 5 inchers used to be.

The ship utilizes datalink capabilities to get targeting info from the unarmed UAVs and launches long range armed UAV strikes, conventional cruise missile, standard missile, and barrages from its 203mm guns against potential threats and targets that come within range and are found. Helicopters provide ASW detection and ASW attack capability (as well as cargo and troop transport services). Additional space freed up by losing a lot of crew to automation would make it able to house a good medical/surgical suite or to carry LOTS more ammo. Additional info for targeting provided by land-based JStars and AWACS platforms.

Some SEALs or SOC-capable Marine contingents aboard would provide the icing on the cake.

Sure, no 16 inchers, but we can't make ammo for those anyway (or so I've heard) and the 8" guns should be good enough with FASCAM rounds to provide some area effect coverage or with laser-guided rounds for point targets.

The other option involves a wave motion gun and some powerful thrusters…

Rob

The other option involves a wave motion gun and some powerful thrusters…

yes yes!

I'd start with the hull plans for a Des Moines-class heavy cruiser (as in, USS Salem). 700 feet long, 80ft beam (rounding). Might be able to get away with not armoring, because of the strength of the point defenses. Also will not take up a carrier slipway for building!

Add nuclear power, no dinosaur-burners here. Two reactors, ~150+MW each. Need to feed a 100MW laser or two (able to kill any missile with a single, fractional-second pulse). None of this 5-second laser kill BS, the laser(s) need to be able to sweep a Soviet-sized cruise missile swarm with no assistance from any other ships.

Other weapons:
at least 6 of the 8" automatic guns, but with newer shell/gun designs for better range. If South Africa can get a 155mm shell out to 73,000m, imagine what you could do with an 8" gun (typically 15-20% better range than a 6" gun)… I would go with 9 guns if that would reduce the build time.

VLS battery of at least 58 cells (2x29), replacing most/all the 5" guns. Also some Harpoon launchers for maneuvering targets (Harpoon is about as expensive as a GPS-guided 8" shell, IIRC).

RAM and Goalkeeper 30mm CIWS. Might rebuild some of the 3"/50 Mk33s as fully automatic, so no crew topside during battlestations. Depends on whether RAM is more effective than a 3" radar-controlled gun.

Helo deck big enough for a CH53E or Osprey.

barracks space for a SEAL platoon or company of Marines.

UAVs for spotting and comms relay for shore forces.

======
Yup, I'm going to park this beast 12.5 nautical miles from your beach and dare people to do something about it.

I'm with Lion. It's not going to be the massive dreadnought of the past. But a good, old fashion CA(N?) would fit the bill. Something probably in the 10,000-20,000 ton range that carries a 8" main battery and a barrage of missiles in a VLS system. Toss in a solid PDS package (AAA cannon/lasers) and a nice electronics array and UAVs and you've got something that will scratch a major naval itch: a solid warship that can move up to the coast, dominate a nice area of coastline/ocean, and provide heavy gunfire support to troops on the shore. I think the marines would totally fall in love with this slugger. To round it out give it a SAG with frigates (anti-sub), destroyers (extra anti-air), and mate her up with an AEGIS cruiser as an consort (a major anti-air boost) and you would have a force that even a carrier battle group would be reluctant to tangle with. A solid fleet could have a carrier battle group, a marine amphib ready group (with a MEU/SOC on board), and one of these SAGs. That would give an admiral some serious firepower and it would be enough to put the fear of God into any nation. Having a fleet like this off your shores would be pretty scary.

But you've got to be realistic here. This ship has a real world mission- dominate an area of shoreline and support the troops. Slugging it out with carrier battle groups really isn't its thing. Smashing targets a shore, providing solid arty for soldiers and marines, and being able to cruise right up to shore and show the flag are the things this little beast is made for.

Really, what we're talking about with the heavy mods people are suggesting is what platform will replace the supercarrier.

Guns, if they're used at all, are shore support artillery. That's a niche. Armor just isn't keeping up with weapons tech, so your best bet is to have many well-protected targets if possible. So there's your battleship. Along with the carrier, it's a Big Slow Target. We endure that because Americans almost always have air dominance and because we need a big slow target to carry an air wing. But eliminate the need for a runway and you don't need the big carrier anymore.

The big change we're seeing right now is the transition to drones. Near-term, drones will deploy from full sized carriers, and then smaller carriers as their size and VTOL capability improves. Eventually, they'll launch like cruise missiles (which are just single-use drones anyway).

So what I think you'll see is a drone air wing distributed among the destroyers and cruisers, with specialist drones replacing their helicopters and a reduced cruise missile complement. Energy weapons replace the CIWS and have to-the-horizon capability. Expect the ships to spread out even more than currently, using advanced IT to coordinate the air wing, and greater use of (drone-carrying) subs. AWACS would be re-imagined as a distributed array of drones.

Marine groups would remain roughly the same, at least while we're still using human soldiers.

Reactive armor, naval scale.

Sorry Wellspring, but I'm an old schooll luddite on the drones thing. Anything that has to be remote guided is vulnerable to some sort of ECM or jamming. Putting all, or a bulk of your eggs in one basket is bad policy. Sorry for the rant.

Big guns and "dumb bombs" dropped or fired from manned platforms have the advantage of being unjammable or unspoofable. Drones UAVs, UUVs, ULVs, and whatever other alphabet soup of unmanned, radio guided equipment out there to carry nastiness to the enemy has a weak link in the command guidence syste, Even so-called "Robotic" systems will have to have brain system armored and shielded against jamming overrides sent by an enemy. Until we get BOLOs I'm afraid we won't be seeing anything like that being used. The only reason the US is playing so heavily with drones now is that we are loathe to risk (perhaps properly) our pilots in a low intensity guerrilla war.

Back to the original question:

A) I'd start off working with the Alaska Class Large, Heavy Cruiser as a baseline. Build it with 12" railguns in three double gun turrets. Keep a good selection of dumb and smart rounds for the thing. also add a suite of Harpoon and Tomahawk launchers for Anti Ship/Deep Strike capability. If a cheaper deep strike TLAM cruise missile is available, lets use that. Use the Standard SAM suite and CIWS for AA/AM work and some sort of helipad area that could take a large chopper of the CH-53 class or Osprey as well as have room for a compliment of Marines and or SEALs for commando raids or strikes. This should be designed to stow the bird inside the ship if possible.
Finally the armor. The biggest problem with an armored ship today is that for the US at least we do not possess the rolling mills capable of making the armor for a ship in the Alaska Class, let alone the Iowas. It was the real reason for retiring the big gun boys. Still some form of modern composite armors could be arranged to protect the ship and vital areas such as the CIC and electronics areas from attack.

B) Since we're talking about a fantasy environment here Take a ship lie the Iowa or Texas and strip out the Diesle boilers, Add a couple 150MW Nuke plants, strip out the old rifles for railguns of smaller caliber (8 to 12 inch range), add necessary Electronic suites as well as modern Standard/ Sidewinder based SAM batteries with 20MM and 30MM CIWS batteries for closer in work. For the Texas a Helipad would be a nice touch.

The two big advantages that Big Gun warships have or had in a modern combat environment were the fact that they packed over the horizon punch and also had that punch in a DUMB format. Go ahead, pop a nuke over the Iowa for an EMP effect. The old vacuum tube based and electromechanical system for gun aiming from the 1940's will still work and still kill you if you're in range. Even though the "big guys might not emply nukes today there are a bunch of "small fry" that would love to try it and "know" that the US or Western powers would do nothing along a response in kind about it.

You don't need turrets. Use the proposed vertical gun automatic system that fit into a VLS. 100+ range with GPS guided shells. High rate of fire (15 rounds per minute, IIRC).

But don't think you're going to take on a supercarrier without missiles in the other VLS tubes.

As to armor, that much weight would slow down the ship--surely we can come up with alternative ways of protecting the ship: stealth, anti-missile, even laser.

As to design, if you can put an Xbow on a trimaran, you'd have a very stable firing platform. So why not scale up the LCS (We did specify huge resources available)?

The vertical gun has a significant problem. You cannot engage a target within traditional gun range, 15nm/30km, so you'd actually need TWO separate gun systems.

The 8" guns of the Des Moines are able to be built and maintained with the technology we have available today, and are theoretically capable of reaching at least 85km once we apply the Extended Range Full Bore technologies developed by Gerald Bull and perfected by the South Africans. Like I said, the G5/52 ER gun tube throws a specialist shell 73km, more than twice the conventional range of a 155.

But I'm building a ship for a different niche than picking a fight with a carrier group.

If I wanted to just kill a carrier, well, that's what they make subs for. No, seriously. If I was building a modern 'battleship' specifically intended to destroy a carrier group, I would just build more Seawolf-class subs or some modified Virginia-class. 40 heavyweight weapons, in a platform rumored to exceed 45 knots submerged. A single torpedo will kill anything short of a Carrier.

"but would it be possible to design something capable of taking on a carrier?"

Of course

"Modern weapons make heavy armor on ships not worth the cost in fuel and lost space to carry it around."

That's absolutely not true. The only vessel suited for gunboat diplomacy in restricted waters like the Gulf is a battleship.

It's the only type of vessel that could survive a surprise first strike long enough for help to arrive – and the PR importance of something like that sailing into disputed waters is huge.

What you should be looking at are the WW1 & WW2 British Monitors – 2 x 15" guns on a light cruiser's displacement – one even shoehorned in an extra 18" gun with limited traverse, plus some lighter guns in the 3"-4" range for local defence. There were smaller versions too, for river work – generally 1 x 9.2" and 1 x 6" with a couple of light pieces.

Weapon range is limited by physics, but it is very hard to jam or decoy a shell in flight. All they need are the co-ordinates of the target & their own location.

Construction of the ship would be relatively easy – a small, shallow draft civilian tanker hull with some STS plating installed during building, MilSpec electronics & fitout.

The real problem is that the plant for making really big naval artillery is mostly gone, as are the fabricating shops to make the gun mounts.

Construction of the ship would be relatively easy – a small, shallow draft civilian tanker hull with some STS plating installed during building, MilSpec electronics & fitout.

No, you need to design a hull for the stresses of firing a big gun from the keel up. Even a 155mm would likely rip up the deckplates if you just did a surface mount.

The real problem is that the plant for making really big naval artillery is mostly gone, as are the fabricating shops to make the gun mounts.

That's the other reason why I went with the 8" guns. Most nations still have a few 8" howitzers lurking in depots, and the facilities to make new barrels.

EMP Weapon. If you want a bunch of high tech fighter jets to fall out of the sky before they get to you, invest in a good EMP weapon. But then it really becomes a cruiser and not a battleship (as mentioned above a couple of times). Technically a capital ship is a ship-to-ship fighter not a ship-to-air fighter.

Very simple, you upgrade an Iowa Class BB but always have a carrier escort. That is the only way to survive. However how many potential enemy nations have super carriers? Like none. In the future there will be no need to build a BB from scratch you just take an Iowa and upgrade it. Give it air cover from an escorting carrier.

BBs have required air cover since WWII. Remember the Prince of Wales, Repulse, Bismark and any number of Japanese BBs. Heck don't forget the Arizona, West Virginia and Oklahoma. You will always need air cover. Modern shore base bombers and reach out and touch you from a long way.

Iowas are nice, and probably the only thing still afloat today that can laugh at an Exocet, but their internal spaces are poorly laid out.

If you stuck a nuclear reactor or two in there to replace all the oil-burners, it'd be easier to find crew for them. Not a lot of people still know how to make the old systems work, and there are NO SPARE PARTS. Remember the accident on the Iowa, where the #2 gun on the B turret went boom? link *The turret was NEVER REPAIRED*.

That's why I'd rather build a new set of Des Moines class CAs with improved 8" guns and nuclear power. Besides, the USS America (LHA-6) design stated that nuclear power would be cheaper than oil-burning if the cost of crude hit and stayed above $140 USD a barrel by 2040.

Oh, I might reshape the superstructure a bit for 'stealth'. Not that a ship is all that stealthy, generally, but anything you can do to make radar-guided anti-ship missiles less likely to hit in the first place is a good thing.

A modern battleship?

That's actually quite easy to envisage… picture a KIROV class, with extra space for a battery of 16-inch cannons somewhere for the serious earth-lifting ability.

Oddly enough, the Iowa class was actually recommissioned for the very purpose of counteracting the Kirov class, because the US hadn't prepared for anything like her to be in existance.

Of course, they didn't need it because they could just swamp Kirov with missiles, but like any good Surface vessel, she was the lynchpin for a main Surface Action Group – much like the rebuilt BB's were for Gulf War I.

Carriers are powerful, but aircraft are incredibly inefficient with regards to personnel and physical space. My personal suggestion would be a stealthy arsenal ship with upwards of three or four hundred missile tubes and no gun armament past two retractable CIWS units. The idea would be to overwhelm the CVBG's antimissile defenses and return to stealthy configuration as quickly as possible. The efficacy of this approach would be enhanced by the use of low-observable missiles to delay defensive engagement as long as possible.

Guns are definitely a good feature for naval gunfire support. However, these could probably be confined to littoral monitors. LCS would be a lot more formidable with a few railguns

Timbo W wrote:

Imagine:

A- that you have the same resources devoted to making a super-carrier and want to build a new battleship from the ground up.

I don't think we could do it. Like manned spaceflight, supersonic air passenger transport, regular hovercraft services across the Channel and VTOL combat aircraft, making big-gun battleships is a lost capability. Nobody could roll the armoured steel, nobody could make guns that size. We no longer have the technology, and, unfortunately, it's not cheap enough to be kept alive by a community of enthusiastic amateurs (unlike flint-knapping, thatching, and perhaps manned spaceflight).

Dream on, Carruthers.

All the best,

John.