Build a modern battleship

[CastleBravo]

I still think anything over 8-inch should be a vertical gun.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Welp that's definitely killing the Fords and the BBG won't be able to use the Panama canal...

Did you forget that the Panama Canal got new, wider locks?

168ft max width

 

[Seragina]

The modern battleship's rival is the carrier or rather the ability of the airwing to strike distant targets.
There's no point for old fashioned cannon minded designs with limited range.

 

[cccgong]

Concur, the various US v China wargames have seen any grouping of ships getting mugged by AShBMs and hypersonics, which means that lone ships must have enough firepower to protect themselves and a logistics ship.




The S5W nuclear plant was made in the hundreds for subs, and it meets most of the SMR definitions. Only makes about 20MWe if you bolt the main engines to electrical generators (15,000hp plus whatever the ship service TGs made)

And I still struggle to see how any Navy is going to accept a virtually unmanned reactor for service.



The USN first faced swarms of antiship missiles in WW2. We called them Kamikazes, and the guidance system for those missiles was a person willing to trade his life for the life of an entire ship. What the USN learned in WW2 was that 20mm and 40mm AA guns would not stop a Kamikaze in the terminal dive, they needed AA guns that would take down the kamikaze before it could kinematically reach the ship. Hence the 3"/50 automatics replacing Bofors 40mm. Two twin 3" mounts would replace 3 quad Bofors.

And yes, the CIWS systems work well enough when there are only a couple of leakers past all the layers of SAMs and even fighters in the Outer Air Battle.

Fighters are operating 200+nmi away from the carrier group, with the goal of shooting down the bombers carrying multiple AShCMs before they launch but still able to engage the missiles as well. Then the big long range SAMs like Talos or SM6 engage whatever gets past the fighters. Then SM2s engage whatever gets past the SM6s, and engage whatever they missed the first round. Now it's time for ESSMs to take a swing at whatever got past the fighters, at least one volley of SM6s, and 2 volleys of SM2s. ESSMs only have time for one volley before it's time for RAM to be engaging. RAM only has time for one shot before CIWS is up.

"You only need to get 2 missiles to the ship to overwhelm CIWS!"

Sure, that's technically true, CIWS mounts have limited ready ammunition onboard.

But let's run the math on just how many missiles that takes, assuming a 0.5 Pk for each layer:

2 missiles for CIWS.​

4 missiles for RAM.​

8 missiles for ESSM.​

32 missiles for two volleys of SM2s.​

64 missiles for SM6.​

128 missiles for the fighters.​

So you'd need to send 24 planes each carrying 6 missiles, just to get one ship kill. And remember, the typical carrier group has 7 ships in it: carrier, 2x cruisers, 4x destroyers. Now you need to send 168 planes carrying nearly 900 missiles to kill the entire carrier group.



No gun system smaller than 3" will stop a supersonic missile far enough away to prevent the fragments from shredding the antennas etc and mission-killing the ship.

Guided 57mm may have the range for this, 57mm flak does not.

The half of the attraction of SMR is that it's unmanned. The other parts are that it's cheap, available, and small (all of which are helped a ton by being unmanned). By shoving in a traditional naval PWR design you eliminate virtually everything that makes a SMR attractive beyond we don't need as much fuel anymore.

When your fighters when refueled have a shorter range than ASBM on aircraft, the fighters are more or less useless. Also good luck finding the Chinese Gen 5/6 aircraft before they launch their payloads from 500-1000 miles away. Their payloads are or can also be LO meaning you're going to have problems finding them to vector in fighters. There's also enough range on these missiles that you have to cover an obscene amount of area to have any chance of seeing the missiles, before we factor in their low RCS.

You might say, well we will just put ships closer to China in the path of the missiles detect things earlier. Well they are even worse defend than the carrier. It'll just provide you more time before your carrier is killed, as the Chinese need to chew through those before they engage the carrier. It might increase your carrier lifespan from 2.5 hours from war start to 12 hours. But the end effect is the same.

You will never get to fire off the vast majority of your self defense missiles or even entire layers. ASBM/hypersonics bypasses CIWS, ESSM, SM2, fighter air defense entirely. This is also ignoring land based ASBM such as DF-21 and DF-26 with 1000/3000 mile ranges. You can barely get close enough to Taiwan to launch strike at Chinese landing ships with re-fueling without being engaged by the DF-21. The Chinese unvieled 4 hypersonic antiship missiles last year alone with 1000+ mile range which can fit in sub torpedo tubes, VLS cells, aircraft, and land based launchers.

You also have many fewer SM-3/6 than the Chinese have ASBM these days meaning you physically cannot engage all of the targets coming at your before you even factor in leak rates. The Chinese also likely have a faster production rate on their ASBM than the west has on SM3/6. This will be helped if/when PAC3 is VLS integrated, but I expect Chinese manufacturing to still scale much faster

There's a good reason to just focus on long range missiles so you can trade blows at similar or longer range than the Chinese missiles without having to sail for a day or two to get into and out of your firing range while being fired upon. Having an ultra expensive 1st/2nd stage (aircraft carrier/fighter) doesn't make sense when you can just make the missile bigger to eliminate the fighter and allow for a much smaller ship to launch the missile (DD/CG instead of a carrier launching a fighter when then launches a missile)

 

[insidersource]

I mean the term 'Battleship' but just as much for corvette, frigate etc.

Used to be corvettes, frigates and destroyers had a clear anti air or subsurface role because although cruisers were larger than destroyers and on down, role became more important and frigates larger than destroyers etc.

So, what should we call these ships? Simpler with subs for sure.

What are the requirements of a battleship?

1) To park off the coast and use its firepower to bombard the enemy.

2) To have very long range so it could cruise the open ocean hunting enemy ships.

3) To serve as a capital ship.

4) Displacement between 35,000 and 70,000 ton.

5) Be able to survive incoming enemy munitions.



Point 1. The most VLS cells of any US ship in history and a railgun. Check

Point 2. Nuclear powered, fast and infinite range to hunt in open oceans. Check

Point 3: Capital ship. Check.

Point 4: Displacement greater than 35,000 ton Check.

Point 5: Instead of surviving incoming munitions using armor the new battleship does the same job with CIWS. Check.

Ladies and gentlemen we have a battleship.

The heaviest Heavycruiser was the Admiral Hipper class at 19,000 ton.

The heaviest battlecruiser was the Alaska-class at 34,803 ton

Over 35,000 ton it is battleship.

 

[shin_getter]

We are not answering the real question, the real elephant in the room

A weapon system earns prestige by satisfying four core criteria:

• Prohibitive Cost and Industrial Mastery: It must act as an economic "flex." Anyone can manufacture a simple explosive or a basic drone, but only a premier global power possesses the industrial infrastructure, metallurgy, and fiscal surplus to build an aircraft carrier or a fleet of stealth bombers.
• Active, Assertive Agency: Prestigious weapons project power outward. They hunt, strike, and dominate space. Naval mines, by contrast, are passive, defensive, and un-heroic—they sit in the dark waiting for an accidental collision. They lack the visible intent of an attacking force.
• Visuality and Spectacle: Prestige requires an audience. A battleship firing a full broadside creates a massive kinetic spectacle. It looks like power incarnate. A cyber-weapon or an electronic warfare jammer might win a modern war silently, but it cannot be easily paraded down a capital city’s boulevard.
• Concentration of Risk and Value: Prestige inherently involves putting immense value on the line. A capital ship concentrates thousands of crew members and an entire nation's pride into a single hull. It signals an extreme willingness to engage in high-stakes, decisive combat

-----
For deterrence to work, a rival must believe you possess overwhelming capability. A fleet of cheap, practical naval mines or hidden cyber-warfare suites might be incredibly lethal if a war breaks out, but because they are hidden, passive, or visually underwhelming, they make poor deterrents.

Military hierarchies, governments, and citizens do not think purely in terms of cold, analytical data like "kill-to-cost ratios." Human beings are deeply visual, narrative-driven creatures. We require symbols that project order, safety, and absolute authority.

Basically, people are dumb and can not count above 3 and you need assets that appeal to their dumbness.

I propose bigger lasers, no BIGGEST LASERS. Lasers enough to pwn geostationary because land lasers at home can't do it~

 

[Josh_TN]

I'm uncertain how many relays will be required for these sats as the region of intrest is near China which is conviently where their ground stations and other intel costumers are. They can also just downlink when they are away from jamming sources over a different part of the world but that would invovle 10s of minutes of intel stallness. Though this delay is likely still acceptable. Additionally if you have an automatic system, the sat itself is unjammable as it would just broadcast its data to the downlink station regardless of how jammed it is. You would need to jam/destroy the downlink stations.

I really doubt anything under 500 miles altitude is talking directly to China from more a thousand miles off their coast in UHF, but I could be wrong. How long until a friendly station is available depends totally on the orbit, but a polar orbit typical of observation satellites basically lets the world travel to it, not the other way around. US recon satellites typically upload to a satellite in GEO or to a satellite in a Molniya orbit over the target area (invariably Asia, also similar orbit for ELINT satellites like JUMPSEAT or TRUMPET). However you dice it, sans laser mesh network, which is a newer thing and requires a certain sized constellation, LEO needs to uplink to a higher orbit to downlink to a control station in (near) realtime. The US also has the advantage of global downlinks connected to hard wired, be it Hawaii, Australia, Diego, Qatar, or wherever.

Those relay satellites are at around 20,000 miles where they can receive most any signal, including a shit load of ground based jamming with a lot more power and only marginally more distance (if any, depending on geometry) than a LEO satellite. The only publicly known system that does anything like this is a relocatable US one with a really forgettable generic name - counter communication system, new version Meadowlands. But there’s no reason an entire building sized antenna in Guam could not be dedicated to the purpose either. ETA: always wondered if some of the numerous satellite com domes on USN ships did not have a dual/alternate function of uplink jamming - plenty of power on a mobile platform).

You can download data next time you pass over a friendly download site, and I assume that’s how most current commercial systems work. But that is with an obvious severe lag time that is not target grade information.

Obviously laser mesh networks solve all of this, and I know China has two separate ones it is beginning to orbit. So that is just a matter of time. But my point is, reliable realtime satellite communications are non trivial.

 

[Josh_TN]

Visual sensors are also much much cheaper to deploy so you can deploy 10s - 100s for the costs of any radar system, and you can easily overcome the target identification/discrimination task that plauged visible sensors for decades with ML now.

Absolutely, and both the US and PRC have hundreds of, discounting commercial vendors. But they are still weather limited and sometimes day/night limited, and always have very narrow search areas with minuscule dwell times (notable exception: several PRC EO sats in GEO over Singapore). Relay is still necessary for realtime unless laser linked like Starshield (again with the exception of the GEO sats; US does not deplane equivalent).

 

[Josh_TN]

I'm uncertain obscurants and decoys will do too much due to favorable engagement geometries for ASBM/hypersonics (steep dive) and mutlispectral sensors.

I consider it questionable that hypersonics or ballistics have anything multispectral. AFAIK all previous guided MARVs were radar, and it is hard for me to imagine hypersonic gliders or re-entry vehicles having optical or IR sensors. That said, basic bitch SRBOC could potentially push chaff and flares to obscure a target. IR obscurent smoke is standard on any modern ARV. Pandara Fog was experimented with by the USN using army smoke generators integrated with uptake stacks of Burkes. So you could literally generate a wide spectrum optical/IR/x band smoke screen en mass, assuming you had to. I always wondered if perhaps tactical munition dispensers with mixed obscurent smoke could not simply be heavily loaded on to F-18s so they could rapidly “bomb” their own carriers with 10,000 lbs of mixed cluster munitions for cover.

A smarter way to go about this might be to instead use a swarm of UAVs to fake a target rather than obscure one. The USN experimented with Perdix drones drones from flare dispensers that effectively could act as smart chaff. If you needed to fool an EO sensor, that might be as simple as massed upward facing LED lighting, especially if the actual target was obscured.

There also was an entire program dedicated to persistent hovering decoys, basically super nukla.

I do know what the USN project Nemisis cooked up, but many years ago they were already hard at work trying to creating realistic cross spectrum decoys. I would not rule out the possibility that real targets might be obscured and false positives might be injected during the 10-20 minute flight time of any DF-21/26.

ETA: I am also interested in the max elevation angle of the USNs test laser systems. That might be another way to narrow spectrum options for an incoming seeker, even if dazzling orbital sensors is not practical.

 

[Josh_TN]

I want to note that anything you suggest here can also be applied to disrupting CEC capability, without which midcourse BM interception is impossible and terminal BM interception becomes very difficult.

CEC has been replaced with NIFCCA and I believe most of the system utilizes internal lines of communication within the task force, which should be difficult to jam. But clearly early warning of ballistic attack is essential and could potentially be denied. The main difference I see is that current US ballistic early warning satellites operate in GEO or Molniya orbits to begin with, and should not need a relay, and that the new LEO SDA missile tracking system is explicitly laser mesh linked along with the tactical communications network being orbited next to it. A additional MEO system is also about to orbited. None of that is fool proof, but it is probably harder to jam or screw with either compared to a non mesh LEO satellite, and clearly the US is attempting to cover every base when it comes to BM warning/tracking. I am unaware of similar PRC programs outside their GEO IR satellites, but then the US is hardly a major ballistic missile threat…currently…

 

[JS23]

The modern battleship's rival is the carrier or rather the ability of the airwing to strike distant targets.
There's no point for old fashioned cannon minded designs with limited range.

Arguably, the only guns on the battleship should be an encircling array of small guns for engaging small boats, USVs, UAVs, etc. A target like this will probably get swarmed by drone boats at the earliest opportunity, meanwhile any old-school artillery is just burning VLS space.

 

[Desertfox]

And once the USN tried to stuff CPS into the DDGX they couldn't fit both CPS and guns into 15-17ktons. They also categorically rejected having some DDGX with CPS and no gun with others with no CPS but including gun.

The USN keeps trying to have its cake and eat it too, just like they wanted a bespoke off-the-shelf frigate...

If you can't fit both, you can't fit both, go find another solution that doesnt involve white elephants and killing the very much needed DDG(X).

If you want to sling CPS from inside ASBM range put them on submarines. BBG(X) money would have been better spent on expanding the Columbia SSBN line for extra SSGNs and buying a few more Virginias. The USN already has the solution on hand.

 

[Dilandu]

And here I thought a 0.5Pk was excessively negative. Aren't most Pk numbers thrown around in the 0.8 range?

No, it's just your model is highly simplified. It assumes that ship fight missiles in vaccuum - all missiles are always visible, there are no horizon, detection & tracking is done perfectly at all distances, there is no countermeasures, ect. On practice, the situation would be much more complicated.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The USN keeps trying to have its cake and eat it too, just like they wanted a bespoke off-the-shelf frigate...

If you can't fit both, you can't fit both, go find another solution that doesnt involve white elephants and killing the very much needed DDG(X).

The solution was a bigger ship, but a bigger ship was not going to be called a Destroyer.

And now we go back to a ~10kton DDG.

No, it's just your model is highly simplified. It assumes that ship fight missiles in vaccuum - all missiles are always visible, there are no horizon, detection & tracking is done perfectly at all distances, there is no countermeasures, ect. On practice, the situation would be much more complicated.

Fair enough. I had been assuming a simple 0.5Pk per level since that makes the math easy.

 

[Dilandu]

Fair enough. I had been assuming a simple 0.5Pk per level since that makes the math easy.

Yes, but don't forget that USS Stark should be able to engage (theoretically) at least three missiles - with its Mk-31 GMLS, 76-mm autocannon and Vulcan CIWS. But on practice, she didn't even fire a single shot.

 

[stever_sl]

Wow, this conversation really morphed! A personal opinion on the actual original topic - battleships had several roles. They provided shore bombardment, they could fight any ship afloat, their speed and extensive antiaircraft batteries were used to protect aircraft carriers. With today's technologies, all of these roles are done better and much cheaper with aircraft and missiles. They proved to be eminently sinkable themselves by those same aircraft and missiles, so all that's left is some sort of ceremonial use, a big impressive "thing" to impress people. Or at least that's how it looks to me, after spending 40+ years in military operations analysis. Not trying to be offensive to anyone, just sharing a viewpoint.

 

[Cirov]

Arguably, the only guns on the battleship should be an encircling array of small guns for engaging small boats, USVs, UAVs, etc. A target like this will probably get swarmed by drone boats at the earliest opportunity, meanwhile any old-school artillery is just burning VLS space.

Small loss. The USN can't actually fill the VLS space it already has, in peacetime. In wartime, the fraction of filled cells will plummet even if war production leads to a doubling or quintupling of missile production. So a weapons system that delivers lesser capability than VLS, but with greater availability, will be an excellent use of volume and deck space.

 

[shin_getter]

Small loss. The USN can't actually fill the VLS space it already has, in peacetime. In wartime, the fraction of filled cells will plummet even if war production leads to a doubling or quintupling of missile production.

Sounds like spending money to buy missiles will increase combat power more than buying platforms that have no ammo.

But platforms are shiny and visible, while ammo stocks are invisible~

 

[johnpjones1775]

What are the requirements of a battleship?

1) To park off the coast and use its firepower to bombard the enemy.

2) To have very long range so it could cruise the open ocean hunting enemy ships.

3) To serve as a capital ship.

4) Displacement between 35,000 and 70,000 ton.

5) Be able to survive incoming enemy munitions.



Point 1. The most VLS cells of any US ship in history and a railgun. Check

Point 2. Nuclear powered, fast and infinite range to hunt in open oceans. Check

Point 3: Capital ship. Check.

Point 4: Displacement greater than 35,000 ton Check.

Point 5: Instead of surviving incoming munitions using armor the new battleship does the same job with CIWS. Check.

Ladies and gentlemen we have a battleship.

The heaviest Heavycruiser was the Admiral Hipper class at 19,000 ton.

The heaviest battlecruiser was the Alaska-class at 34,803 ton

Over 35,000 ton it is battleship.

There’s been plenty of battleships with tonnage below 35k tons…

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sounds like spending money to buy missiles will increase combat power more than buying platforms that have no ammo.

But platforms are shiny and visible, while ammo stocks are invisible~

You also need platforms to send on missions.

There are ~25 Burkes deployed at any given time.

~12-16 of them are part of carrier groups.​

~3-4 of them are part of ARGs​

~5-10 are available to be elsewhere, usually closer to 5.​

That's it. The mighty USN only has about 5 ships it can send someplace to say "hey, we're watching" without sending a full MEU or carrier group.

 

[CastleBravo]

Would a nuclear reactor double that HP? If so there ya go. If not, I’m sure they could tweak the hull form to get it up there or at least closer

You don't need a nuke plant to double San Antonio's HP. Replacing two of the diesels with MT30 turbines would nearly triple it. The shafts and screws are probably the bigger obstacle.

 

[CastleBravo]

What part of the battleship design we’ve seen so far would make it any better at defending against sea baby style USVs? Based on mk41 VLS and 5” count it’s no more capable of defending itself against UAVs than a tico is. Burkes are not properly armed against USVs either (currently), so what in the world makes you think that this massive high end vessel will not just be swarmed by drones both air and sea, and destroyed at least to the point of a mission kill if not straight up sinking or some where in between?

Compared to Tico, you don't think adding 4x 30mm guns, 2x CUAS launchers, six lasers, another ~80 VLS cells, ~400 crew, lots of hanger and flight deck space, and potentially a railgun will improve it's ability to defend against low end threats? Also keep in mind that the ship has lots of room to add future capabilities as new tech develops.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Would a nuclear reactor double that HP? If so there ya go.

Depends on the reactor(s).

Using a pair of S6W/S8G/S9G/S1B (all ~220MWth ea) would only give about 100,000shp. A single A1B (~700MWth) would double the currently-installed power, making an easy 350,000shp to the screws. If the Navy could be persuaded to make a single-reactor surface ship.

If not, I’m sure they could tweak the hull form to get it up there or at least closer

San Antonios have a length:beam ratio of about 6.8:1. Since the "good speed" hull form is more like 8.5:1, we're either talking about lengthening the San Antonio hull to ~850ft long or narrowing it to 80ft.

The easy stretch of the hull would be amidships through the rectangular sections of the hull, though I'd also recommend a redesign of the stern, getting rid of the well deck to get better lines aft. Maybe extending aft to get a transom stern, which could give a nice place for a Mk41 install.

There’s been plenty of battleships with tonnage below 35k tons…

Not since about 1920.

What part of the battleship design we’ve seen so far would make it any better at defending against sea baby style USVs? Based on mk41 VLS and 5” count it’s no more capable of defending itself against UAVs than a tico is. Burkes are not properly armed against USVs either (currently), so what in the world makes you think that this massive high end vessel will not just be swarmed by drones both air and sea, and destroyed at least to the point of a mission kill if not straight up sinking or some where in between?

Defense against USVs is the job of the 5" mk45, 30mm Mk38s, C-UAS, ODINs, and bigass lasers. And the Phalanx if someone puts them into surface mode/manual control.

Few if any shooting wars will be vs peer adversaries. I'm not saying we don't need to prepare for that war, but odds are good the USN will mostly be fighting against less complex threats employed in large numbers.

Designing a warship around non-peer adversaries is misguided at best.

A modern ship needs to be able to handle both the asymmetric threats and the top end ballistic and hypersonic threats.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Depends on the reactor(s).

Using a pair of S6W/S8G/S9G/S1B (all ~220MWth ea) would only give about 100,000shp. A single A1B (~700MWth) would double the currently-installed power, making an easy 350,000shp to the screws. If the Navy could be persuaded to make a single-reactor surface ship.



San Antonios have a length:beam ratio of about 6.8:1. Since the "good speed" hull form is more like 8.5:1, we're either talking about lengthening the San Antonio hull to ~850ft long or narrowing it to 80ft.

The easy stretch of the hull would be amidships through the rectangular sections of the hull, though I'd also recommend a redesign of the stern, getting rid of the well deck to get better lines aft. Maybe extending aft to get a transom stern, which could give a nice place for a Mk41 install.




Not since about 1920.




Defense against USVs is the job of the 5" mk45, 30mm Mk38s, C-UAS, ODINs, and bigass lasers. And the Phalanx if someone puts them into surface mode/manual control.




Designing a warship around non-peer adversaries is misguided at best.

A modern ship needs to be able to handle both the asymmetric threats and the top end ballistic and hypersonic threats.

5” suffers the RoF problem. Not high enough for a swarm. Lasers do not show any indication of being operationally deployable yet despite a few peace time test deployments.
Mk38 mod4s are a good place to be for this work, but they need more.
I doubt they’ll be putting phalanx on the BBGX, it’ll probably be RAM, or if they want gun based it would make so much more sense to go with a mk110.

I have not seen anything listing any CUAS systems that will be installed, let alone able to see how effective they are.

Drop the stupid pipe dream railgun, and replace it with either another 5” gun or a fwd mk110

 

[Scott Kenny]

5” suffers the RoF problem. Not high enough for a swarm.

OTO Melara figured out how to get 32rpm out of their version, and gave it 4x ready drums. So you can have 14 rounds of any given type ready to fire, 54 total.

Lasers do not show any indication of being operationally deployable yet despite a few peace time test deployments.

Pretty sure there's been combat use of one of the lasers in the Red Sea.

Mk38 mod4s are a good place to be for this work, but they need more.

Do you need more than 4? going to 6 would be relatively easy, they go amidships by or in front of the RAM launchers.

Admittedly, my preference is actually 4x Mk110s (since I can't get 76mm Sovraponte) plus 4-6x Mk38s. Mk110s where the current Mk38s are in the drawing, Mk38s mounted lower down.

I doubt they’ll be putting phalanx on the BBGX, it’ll probably be RAM, or if they want gun based it would make so much more sense to go with a mk110.

drawing says RAM, but I still think there's a need for Phalanx. Phalanx is the difference between a mission kill and a total loss.

I have not seen anything listing any CUAS systems that will be installed, let alone able to see how effective they are.

Considering that those are likely APKWS/LOGIR 70mm rockets and Hellfires in a single mount, or one of the other combination mounts.

Drop the stupid pipe dream railgun, and replace it with either another 5” gun or a fwd mk110

The railgun design mockups are about the same size as a 5" plus magazine. So I guess you could put 3x 5" up forward in a triangle?

 

[shin_getter]

You also need platforms to send on missions.

There are ~25 Burkes deployed at any given time.

~12-16 of them are part of carrier groups.​

~3-4 of them are part of ARGs​

~5-10 are available to be elsewhere, usually closer to 5.​

That's it. The mighty USN only has about 5 ships it can send someplace to say "hey, we're watching" without sending a full MEU or carrier group.

What, you don't have enough hulls for the sea control mission?

Sounds like it is time to build cheaper hulls that are likely smaller. Building expensive hulls that are big is obviously the wrong idea!
--
Though I always wonder how the USN manage to wear itself out in peace time. Can't they be like most other navies and just stay in port most of the time, it is not like the US don't have bases, tankers and long range weapons everywhere if they want to influence things quickly.

Seems like "the only way to maintain a budget is to spent it" logic at work again.

 

[johnpjones1775]

OTO Melara figured out how to get 32rpm out of their version, and gave it 4x ready drums. So you can have 14 rounds of any given type ready to fire, 54 total.




Pretty sure there's been combat use of one of the lasers in the Red Sea.




Do you need more than 4? going to 6 would be relatively easy, they go amidships by or in front of the RAM launchers.

Admittedly, my preference is actually 4x Mk110s (since I can't get 76mm Sovraponte) plus 4-6x Mk38s. Mk110s where the current Mk38s are in the drawing, Mk38s mounted lower down.




drawing says RAM, but I still think there's a need for Phalanx. Phalanx is the difference between a mission kill and a total loss.



Considering that those are likely APKWS/LOGIR 70mm rockets and Hellfires in a single mount, or one of the other combination mounts.



The railgun design mockups are about the same size as a 5" plus magazine. So I guess you could put 3x 5" up forward in a triangle?

There’s been no combat usage of a laser any where in the world afaik.

I think you’re thinking of the 2016 ponce deployment of a laser (Helios?) and the 2016 Houthi missile launches, but there’s no evidence of the laser being used, and all evidence points to missiles
(I once found a site that went through the acquisitions of missiles the following year indicated 1 SM of some sort and 2 ESSMs were fired per in bound threat. Haven’t been able to find it since lol.)

As for the OTO 5”, great, we don’t have that system.

I’d probably cream my pants if they gave it 4 mk110s.
I have no hard evidence for my minimum of 6, beyond vibes based on my experience as a mk38 gunner.

 

[MadRat]

Arguably, the only guns on the battleship should be an encircling array of small guns for engaging small boats, USVs, UAVs, etc. A target like this will probably get swarmed by drone boats at the earliest opportunity, meanwhile any old-school artillery is just burning VLS space.

Guns mounted around the hull to ensure fire is from different directions and from multiple elevations and angles. It is not a two-dimensional envelope, the world operates in three to six depending on multiple domains of viewpoint.

 

[Ainen]

Well, its more of psychological concept of "ship is so big, and weapons are so small... surely we could fit some more?" I recall how in 1980s USN admirals lamented, that Soviet warships "looks more powerful" due to more weapon systems visible.

On practice, while adding more CIWS is usually possible, its just not practical, because CIWS are last resort weapon. And if the situation is so bad, that 1-2 CIWS would not help... then a dozen likely won't help also.

They likely will, and with proper target distribution they can be mathematically very hard to push through. The problem is ciws, much like modern DP guns, are damn expensive systems for what they are (many dozen of million usd apiece, nominal/ppp).

Especially truly proper ones, able to function even when onboard power is lost.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There’s been no combat usage of a laser any where in the world afaik.

I think you’re thinking of the 2016 ponce deployment of a laser (Helios?) and the 2016 Houthi missile launches, but there’s no evidence of the laser being used, and all evidence points to missiles

Could be, though I'm sure I've seen a report somewhere. FML if I can remember where, though. Damn brain fog.

(I once found a site that went through the acquisitions of missiles the following year indicated 1 SM of some sort and 2 ESSMs were fired per in bound threat. Haven’t been able to find it since lol.)

That makes it sound like the Standards were really sucking, then, if they're consistently firing ESSMs after a Standard!

As for the OTO 5”, great, we don’t have that system.

We can either modify the existing 5" or buy the OTO to get the rate of fire.

I’d probably cream my pants if they gave it 4 mk110s.

It is a pretty glorious outfitting.

The problem with the sketched design is where to put the forward Mk38s, barring making some nice bridge wings to hang them on.

I have no hard evidence for my minimum of 6, beyond vibes based on my experience as a mk38 gunner.

I mean, if we look at the small guns as "anti torpedo boat guns" and compare to 1890s-1910s ship designs and adjust for automatic rate of fire, 2x Mk110 (edit) 57mm and 4x Mk38s is about all you'd need. 4x Mk110 and 6x Mk38 if you're going heavy.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What, you don't have enough hulls for the sea control mission?

Well, there's also the 25x LCS (~12-16 ships at sea), but when the USN retired all the frigates without replacement we lost nearly 120 hulls (57x FFG and 56x FF) to do the classic "let people know the US is watching" missions!

So yeah.

We don't have enough hulls.

Nevermind going from ~90x attack subs down to IIRC ~50.

Though I always wonder how the USN manage to wear itself out in peace time. Can't they be like most other navies and just stay in port most of the time, it is not like the US don't have bases, tankers and long range weapons everywhere if they want to influence things quickly.

No.

You only have competent crews by being at sea, doing the things.

The RN used to know this, but got bent over by Treasury until they forgot it.

 

[MadRat]

Missiles have only gotten through to undefended targets of opportunity. None have penetrated dedicated defenses installed on major warships when used as designed.

And the quantity of modern major warships hit is quite small. Russia's Moskva was the last major ship sunk by a missile and it failed to take a defensive action for an unknown reason. INS Eilat was not equipped to fight off missiles in 1967. HMS Sheffield failed to take defensive action in 1982. The Soviet Musson was sank in 1987 during an exercise, because it was not in a defensive stance to defend itself when a ballistic missile hit it in error. No modern US Navy warships have been struck by enemy missiles except for the USS Stark, which failed to take defensive action in 1987.

 

[NMaude]

It is a pretty glorious outfitting.

By Mk-110 I assume you're referring to the 8" Mk-110 cannon?

 

[Scott Kenny]

By Mk-110 I assume you're referring to the 8" Mk-110 cannon?

No, Mk110 is the 57mm

 

[NMaude]

No, Mk110 is the 57mm

Oh, just a 2.25" caliber. A couple of 8" guns would be good IMO or perhaps two twin 8" turrets.

 

[JS23]

Small loss. The USN can't actually fill the VLS space it already has, in peacetime. In wartime, the fraction of filled cells will plummet even if war production leads to a doubling or quintupling of missile production. So a weapons system that delivers lesser capability than VLS, but with greater availability, will be an excellent use of volume and deck space.

Yeah, but the critical question is what are you shooting at with it? Anything big enough to warrant a traditional big deck cannon to shoot at--i.e., a relatively large vessel, if we're talking a sliding scale that starts with RHBs and kamikaze drone boats on the far end--is something that you would absolutely rather fire a capable anti-ship missile at, especially if you wind up with access to some of the in-development smaller, lower-cost missiles geared at engaging small frigates and corvettes.

The only targets you'd rather not shoot a missile at are the aforementioned RHBs, drone boats, torpedo boats, etc., as well as aerial drones and drone swarms. For all of those, you're probably better off with a bunch of 30mm Bushmasters with those proximity fuse rounds they're developing for anti-drone work.

Railguns are a potential game-changer in terms of potentially slinging self-guiding hypersonic glide projectiles over the horizon, but the key word there is "potential".

 

[johnpjones1775]

Could be, though I'm sure I've seen a report somewhere. FML if I can remember where, though. Damn brain fog.



That makes it sound like the Standards were really sucking, then, if they're consistently firing ESSMs after a Standard!




We can either modify the existing 5" or buy the OTO to get the rate of fire.




It is a pretty glorious outfitting.

The problem with the sketched design is where to put the forward Mk38s, barring making some nice bridge wings to hang them on.



I mean, if we look at the small guns as "anti torpedo boat guns" and compare to 1890s-1910s ship designs and adjust for automatic rate of fire, 2x Mk110 (edit) 57mm and 4x Mk38s is about all you'd need. 4x Mk110 and 6x Mk38 if you're going heavy.

Yeah 2 57s and 4 30s should be enough, but since the mod4s have airburst ammunition and tied into the ship’s actual FCS I’d still want 6-8 so some can be watching the waves and some watching the skies. 3-4 should be what we arm our destroyers and frigates with.

We don’t know how the future of naval warfare will evolve, and swarms of USVs may get ever larger, and ever more capable including speed. Hydrofoil USVs may be a thing, perhaps some sort of armoring to mitigate some damage, particularly from fragments, etc. they shift away from suicide boats and more toward FIAC armed with hellfire equivalents. We’ve already seen sea babies armed with unguided rockets and MANPADS after all

Idk how similar the mk45 and the OTO guns are for modifying them to meet those standards, and buying the OTO guns would require a whole new 5” gun.

Edit
I would imagine the doctrine is one standard and 2 ESSMs all fired at the same time rather than ripple fired in a shoot, look, shoot manner

 

[johnpjones1775]

By Mk-110 I assume you're referring to the 8" Mk-110 cannon?

You’re thinking of the mk71 8” gun

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yeah, but the critical question is what are you shooting at with it? Anything big enough to warrant a traditional big deck cannon to shoot at--i.e., a relatively large vessel, if we're talking a sliding scale that starts with RHBs and kamikaze drone boats on the far end--is something that you would absolutely rather fire a capable anti-ship missile at, especially if you wind up with access to some of the in-development smaller, lower-cost missiles geared at engaging small frigates and corvettes.

Or just swat them with a dual-mode SAM. Catching most of 1500lbs at Mach 2+ is kinda hard on the target.

 

[Cirov]

Railguns are a potential game-changer in terms of potentially slinging self-guiding hypersonic glide projectiles over the horizon, but the key word there is "potential".

Railguns are nonsense technology from the most basic physics perspective. If they ever work, it will require revolutionary magic-tech like room-temperature superconductors and magmatter. We also already have a good system for delivering self-guiding hypersonic glide projectiles over the horizon---missiles.

I don't think missiles are going to be very available to sling at just any target, but I've spoken my piece. The thread is only nine pages, a substantial fraction I spend hawking my case. Easy enough to find if you're curious.