|
|
Post by wolfpack on Dec 6, 2016 22:46:35 GMT -6
here we shall discuss the problems facing a modern battleship and how to counter these problems to make battleships a ship you actually see fighting not touting the flag and looking nice
|
|
|
|
Post by fightingflattops on Dec 7, 2016 3:33:16 GMT -6
yes you can. just give me 50 bilions dollar each.
|
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 7, 2016 5:41:02 GMT -6
My answer is no. This is all just my opinion but it's too much money and resources to build one ship that one ADCAP or foreign equivalent can cripple or sink by blowing up underneath it and breaking the keel. Large, precision anti-ship ballistic missiles will soon be a thing as well if they are not already and they would be difficult if not impossible to destroy in their terminal phase. Better to spend that money on several Burke or Zumwalt (obviously though something more cost effective than the Zumwalts) sized ships to spread the vulnerability and not lose all capability if one is damaged/sunk. Few things make holes in the ground better than a full broadside from a battleship but they make good artificial reefs too. Precision guided weapons can make up for the lack of sheer firepower.
Until there is some science fiction defense like the shields in Star Trek where larger displacement means more power generation capability which means stronger shields and better defense, the day of the battleship is done. The large aircraft carrier may be done soon as well where navies would be better served by a larger number of 40-50,000 ton ships carrying unmanned vehicles where greater numbers of hulls is more survivable and cost effective than one 100,000 ton monster.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyblazer on Dec 7, 2016 6:12:23 GMT -6
I voted Yes purely on the grounds of it could be done but much like everyone else around here would agree it would be a waste of resources in doing so. Much like with everything, anything is possible if you have enough money to pull it off.
|
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Dec 7, 2016 6:21:52 GMT -6
I believe offensive capabilities today are too big to make armor effective. A single missile, carried by small warship, submarine or a plane can sink any vessel. BB may not actually sink, but the damage would still be devastating, sending her to dock for months. So same money, that you spent to build BB, can give you multiple light ships, and if one sinks, others can still fight without problems. At the same time, you no longer need multiple barrels to hit opponent. Often one-two would be just enough, so you do not need large warship. In fact, stealth and electronic countermeasures are way better "armour" than armour itself  First works better if ship is smaller and for second size doesn't matter. Besides, people often say that battleship died with Arizona, Prince of Wales, or Yamato. But I see much bigger change in Taffy 3 defence and sinking of Roma. First shown how heavy surface task force failed miserably against light opponent with large offensive capabilities. It also shown that radar directed gunfire, even from light caliber guns (5in), is devastating, as hit ratio raised dramatically, turning smoke screens from desperation measure to a cloaking device allowing hitting repeatedly without being even seen. Second, shown how a huge, modern BB can be devastatingly damaged by a single remotely controlled projectile launched from the edge of effective AA defense. Six planes, each with single glide bomb achieved 3 hits (amazing 50%!) and sunk one BB and heavily damaged another without losses. |
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 7, 2016 6:22:15 GMT -6
Large, precision anti-ship ballistic missiles will soon be a thing as well if they are not already The technological challenges of those are not insignificant. I wouldn't say it's a certainty that offensive capability will outpace countermeasures in this regards. |
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Dec 7, 2016 6:58:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Dec 7, 2016 7:03:38 GMT -6
Six planes, each with single glide bomb achieved 3 hits (amazing 50%!) and sunk one BB and heavily damaged another without losses. There was a second wave of five planes, which achieved nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Dec 7, 2016 7:16:53 GMT -6
I will say I don't see heavily armored ships armed with 11 to 18 inch guns returning, but I could perhaps see large gun-armed cruisers of similar size to battleships being built in the near-ish future. The range and accuracy of cannons is increasing while missiles and aircraft have to cope with CIWS.
If development of missile, aircraft, and drone countermeasure systems exceeds missile, aircraft, and drone development, which it very well might, I think we'll see a return to gun-based ships. And thinking about it now, assuming gun-based countermeasures don't outpace gun development, armor might become important again, which in turn would make more damaging guns necessary, and then suddenly we'd have battleships again.
So overall I guess my opinion is that if the technological development trends go in a certain way, which the chance for is significant, we could see a return to battleships. And if they go other ways I think the battleship will be dead for awhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 7, 2016 7:21:56 GMT -6
So overall I guess my opinion is that if the technological development trends go in a certain way, which the chance for is significant, we could see a return to battleships. And if they go other ways I think the battleship will be dead for awhile. It's very hard to make predictions, especially about the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Dec 7, 2016 7:34:59 GMT -6
So overall I guess my opinion is that if the technological development trends go in a certain way, which the chance for is significant, we could see a return to battleships. And if they go other ways I think the battleship will be dead for awhile. It's very hard to make predictions, especially about the future. Indeed. The exact reason why I answered "maybe." Things must happen in a certain way for us to see battleships being built again. If things happen in a different way we'll continue to see the same concepts of modern ships go on and on. Things could happen in another way resulting in carriers becoming completely obsolete. Drones could replace piloted aircraft and cause a shift in how aircraft carriers are built. Or maybe the risks of having your drones hacked or disabled becomes so great that piloted aircraft remain the way to go. We can't predict it so we can only look at what we have developed today and what could be developed from the stuff we have today. Although I don't think a return to battleships is likely, I do think the chance of a return is significant. |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 7, 2016 7:43:16 GMT -6
I've always thought that was a handsome class of ships in an Imperial Star Destroyer kind of way. Technically though, I think they are properly called battlecruisers. I believe the OP was specifically questioning the feasibility of a modern, heavily armed and heavily armored ship. I think the Kirov's are as close as we are going to get to either in the modern age however. |
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 7, 2016 8:19:12 GMT -6
I agree with the earlier post about counter measures, so if someone developed the ship equivalent of ERA (on tanks to negate HEAT) for missiles then we may see the return of the big ship with a relatively heavy gun armament. Note the relatively, in that # of guns and size will be reduced I feel due to radar guidance and shell tech. I however feel they will not be the same size as the modern capital ship (carriers) due to cost. Tho I find it extremely funny to note that modern cruisers and some "destroyers" are already bigger than a lot of battleships that were made.
Side note can anyone imagine what a modern AMC would look like with the size of both merchant ships and cruise liners nowadays?
|
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Dec 7, 2016 8:39:55 GMT -6
I agree with the earlier post about counter measures, so if someone developed the ship equivalent of ERA (on tanks to negate HEAT) for missiles then we may see the return of the big ship with a relatively heavy gun armament. Note the relatively, in that # of guns and size will be reduced I feel due to radar guidance and shell tech. I however feel they will not be the same size as the modern capital ship (carriers) due to cost. Tho I find it extremely funny to note that modern cruisers and some "destroyers" are already bigger than a lot of battleships that were made. Side note can anyone imagine what a modern AMC would look like with the size of both merchant ships and cruise liners nowadays? Well, the "ERA" for missiles is probably just better CIWS systems which can destroy missiles further out and more accurately. I'd say feasible. |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 7, 2016 9:20:40 GMT -6
ERA regarding armored vehicle defense stands for Explosive Reactive Armor. Not really a practical idea for coating the side of something the size of a warship or considering the size difference between a HEAT round and an anti-ship missile. |
|
First works better if ship is smaller and for second size doesn't matter.
