Build a modern battleship

[Monk78]

If by battleship you mean a capital ship then a SSGN like Oscar or Ohio class is the modern incarnation
If you mean a coastal bombardment weapon we need to bring back gun monitors that could be very cheap and effective weapons, even in modern era

 

[Archibald]

If by battleship you mean a capital ship then a SSGN like Oscar or Ohio class is the modern incarnation
If you mean a coastal bombardment weapon we need to bring back gun monitors that could be very cheap and effective weapons, even in modern era

Yep, a big nuclear sub with a crapton of antiship and cruise missiles... also agree on monitors. Main problem is that nowadays there are no naval guns bigger than five inch.
How about a monitor with a few Mk.71 8-inch guns, in the 1970's ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-inch/55-caliber_Mark_71_gun
What was wrong with that gun, by the way ?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yep, a big nuclear sub with a crapton of antiship and cruise missiles... also agree on monitors. Main problem is that nowadays there are no naval guns bigger than five inch.
How about a monitor with a few Mk.71 8-inch guns, in the 1970's ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-inch/55-caliber_Mark_71_gun
What was wrong with that gun, by the way ?

Only gained 2nmi range over the 5".

4000yds is your helmsman screwing up a heading for a few minutes.

 

[royabulgaf]

Back around the turn of the 20th century the US Navy built a ship with what were called Dynamite guns, the USS Vesuvius (You can Wiki it). It fired 15 inch shells from fixed compressed air guns. I imagine the range could be altered by adjusting the pressure. It would be simple enough to recreate this with say a railgun. You could pump out the shells all day from guns with little recoil. Want more range? Slap on a rocket booster. This would be the battleship of 1944 on replacement. Remember =from 1945 on the only battleships that got any use were the Iowas. They were around because they were paid for and unique in firepower and armor. To recreate a modern (1980s) battleship would probably cost nearly as much as an aircraft carrier with less capability.

 

[Dilandu]

You could pump out the shells all day from guns with little recoil.

Erm... why do you assume railgun didn't have recoil?

Want more range? Slap on a rocket booster.

Actually just designing artillery rocket container to fit Mk-41 cell would probably be much cheaper and simpler.

 

[Dilandu]

P.S. Actually, I just calculated a bit - it seems that the optimal fire support solution may be ground-launched small diameter bomb quad-packed into Mk-41 cell. The SDB diameter is about 7-8 inches; it's perfectly within the ESSM missile 10 inch diameter. So with the addition of jet vanes control package, it could be launched vertically and lofted on required altitude to glide toward target. Merely allocating one Mk-41 module (8 cells) for the quad-packed GLSDB would provide 32 highly accurate missiles of 150+ km range. And for the prolonged support missions more missiles could be fit (48 VLC - half of Arleigh Burke total capacity - would provide 192 missiles).

 

[MadRat]

If I was going for a modern battleship it would be built around a supertanker built to be unsunkable with redundant power sources, cabling routes, etc. Built it to be mostly fireproof and act as a missile magnet to keep the fleet escorts alive. Focus on automation to minimize manpower. Landing strip on top that can handle jets or twirlies. A couple of ramps on the front of the deck for F-35B operations. (F-35B replaces need for big guns.) Multiple topside shelters for aircraft. Distributed Goalkeeper CIWS array of 5-6 turrets guns and an equal number of RAM launchers. A couple dozen manually aimed HMGs to secure itself from seadrones and pirates. Plenty of room for any number of Mk41 launchers on the perimeter. Plenty of draft height to support the longest naval missiles. Focus on role as remote launcher to save costs of all the radars that can be on frigates and destroyers around it. Initial unit can be names USS Timex. Remember the old slogan, "Takes a licking but keeps on ticking."

 

[Dilandu]

If I was going for a modern battleship it would be built around a supertanker built to be unsunkable with redundant power sources, cabling routes, etc.

Erm. Torpedoes. Torpedo, exploding under keel, could easily break a supertanker in half - its hull did not have ruggedness to survive this. Even supercarriers with their massive torpedo protection would not took a hit lightly.

 

[Yellow Palace]

A strong argument can be made that the modern aircraft carrier is the successor to the battlecruiser. It carries the most powerful armament available, is as fast as is reasonably possible, and doesn't worry too much about protection.

By analogy, therefore, the successor to the battleship should carry at least as many aircraft as a modern aircraft carrier, be effectively protected (including its armament, i.e. an armoured hangar!) against air-launched weapons, but be about 20% slower than the 'fast' carrier - i.e. about 27 knots. Design of a protective scheme that achieves this is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[Dilandu]

By analogy, therefore, the successor to the battleship should carry at least as many aircraft as a modern aircraft carrier, be effectively protected (including its armament, i.e. an armoured hangar!) against air-launched weapons, but be about 20% slower than the 'fast' carrier - i.e. about 27 knots. Design of a protective scheme that achieves this is left as an exercise for the reader

Well, USN toyed with "megacarrier" concept during Cold War...

 

[Scott Kenny]

A strong argument can be made that the modern aircraft carrier is the successor to the battlecruiser. It carries the most powerful armament available, is as fast as is reasonably possible, and doesn't worry too much about protection.

By analogy, therefore, the successor to the battleship should carry at least as many aircraft as a modern aircraft carrier, be effectively protected (including its armament, i.e. an armoured hangar!) against air-launched weapons, but be about 20% slower than the 'fast' carrier - i.e. about 27 knots. Design of a protective scheme that achieves this is left as an exercise for the reader.

Disagree.

There simply is no possible protection scheme capable of dealing with a 1000+lb shaped charge warhead that reaches the ship. The defensive scheme is to not let the missiles hit in the first place.

Remember, there are antitank missiles with shaped charge warheads that are claimed to penetrate 1000mm of RHAe. Those warheads are 80-152mm in diameter and are powered by 5-10kg of explosive.

How much penetration do you think you could get out of a 530mm diameter warhead with 500kg of explosive?

 

[uk 75]

If one is looking for an impressively large and aggressive looking surface ship the Kirov class is the closest modern equivalent of the battleship/battle cruiser. In peacetime and limited wars such a vessel "shows the flag" very effectively.
In a full on war, however, it is not much more survivable than a Burke or Type 45 destroyer.

 

[Monk78]

If one is looking for an impressively large and aggressive looking surface ship the Kirov class is the closest modern equivalent of the battleship/battle cruiser. In peacetime and limited wars such a vessel "shows the flag" very effectively.
In a full on war, however, it is not much more survivable than a Burke or Type 45 destroyer.

In a nuclear war it can be useful as a arsenal of nuclear tipped cruise missiles and can potentially take out an entire CVBG with one strike even it perishes itself

 

[Yellow Palace]

Disagree.

No you don't.

The point is exactly that - you can't build a ship that has battleship-level protection against modern weapons. That wasn't even possible in the late 1940s. Therefore, regardless of what combat systems you put on it, no modern warship is fit to stand in the line of battle, and cannot be considered a true battleship.

A large surface combatant with a large battery of long-range missiles might be considered a battlecruiser. Maybe. If its missiles gave it striking power in the same class as an aircraft carrier. I'd argue no such ship has ever been built - even the KIROV class are 'merely' allowed to reach the natural size for cruisers in the 1980s.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In a nuclear war it can be useful as a arsenal of nuclear tipped cruise missiles and can potentially take out an entire CVBG with one strike even it perishes itself

Only has 20x missiles. Yes, they're P700 Granit/SS-N-19 Shipwrecks, but it's still only 20 missiles.

Example:

Hawkeye detects the missile launch, whatever BARCAP take shots at them, then the Aegis ships get to play. As long as the Hawkeye stays over 100km away from the Kirov, it's relatively safe from SAMs. They might increase standoff to 150-200km to make up for an unpleasant intel oops regarding S300F range.​

​

P700s fly at Mach 1.6 at low altitude, that's roughly 1km every 2 seconds. P700s also have a ~600km range, so we have a total flight time of about ~1200sec (20 minutes).​

​

So, BARCAP takes whatever shots they can at the missile group. Let's say BARCAP fails utterly, splashes no birds over 10 minutes shooting time. AMRAAMs against small targets.​

​

Aegis ships can now start engaging missiles that are a good 300km out, taking tracking data from the Hawkeye(s). SM2s have a speed of roughly 1km/sec, first interceptions happen at ~200km range (there may be a bit of a wait till missiles close in for older SM2s to be within range), ~400sec to impact. 20x SM2s are fired here.​

​

Aegis ships then launch a second volley of 16x SM2s at however many missiles remain, let's say the extreme range only got us 4 hits with 16 incoming remaining. Second volley intercepts at about 160km, and gets half the missiles with 8 remaining. 320sec to impact​

​

Third volley of 8x SM2s intercepts at 100km range. For argument sake, this volley will also only get half the missiles. 4 missiles remaining, 200sec to impact.​

​

Fourth volley of 4x SM2s intercepts at about 60km range. For sake of argument, this volley will also only get half the missiles. 2 missiles remaining, 120sec to impact.​

​

Fifth volley of 4x SM2s intercepts at about 40km range. This is possibly close enough to get the shipboard illuminator radars in play, and a Tico has 4 of them. 2 illuminators per incoming. The dice really don't like the US today, so one missile remaining, 80sec to impact.​

​

There is still enough time to launch another volley, but this time it's 4x ESSMs. They intercept at about 24km. For whatever reason, all 4 ESSMs miss (told you the dice hate the US today). One missile remaining, ~48sec to impact.​

​

Second volley of 4x ESSMs intercepts at about 16km. ~30 sec to impact.​

​

There's still time for a third volley of 4x ESSMs, intercepting at 10km. ~20sec to impact.​

​

Fourth volley of 4x ESSMs or first volley of RAM, intercepting at 6km. ~12sec to impact.​

There's still time for a second RAM volley, intercepting at 4km, ~8sec to impact.​

There might be time to get a third RAM volley in, intercepting at ~2.5km, 5sec to impact.​

​

CIWS starts the engagement at about 1.5km/3sec to impact and ceases fire at 500m/1sec to impact.​

Total expended: 52x SM2s, 12-16x ESSMs, 0-2x RAM, ~500rds 20mm CIWS.

With the dice absolutely hating the US today, that's one just-about-empty Tico.

If we bump up the SM2 P(hit) to 0.8, it looks even worse for a Kirov trying something.

No you don't.

The point is exactly that - you can't build a ship that has battleship-level protection against modern weapons. That wasn't even possible in the late 1940s. Therefore, regardless of what combat systems you put on it, no modern warship is fit to stand in the line of battle, and cannot be considered a true battleship.

A large surface combatant with a large battery of long-range missiles might be considered a battlecruiser. Maybe. If its missiles gave it striking power in the same class as an aircraft carrier. I'd argue no such ship has ever been built - even the KIROV class are 'merely' allowed to reach the natural size for cruisers in the 1980s.

I follow your reasoning, I'm just not sure I agree with it. But I don't have a good argument for why we should count defensive missiles as armor, either.