Design a modern battleship
-
maybe have 6 big guns? cos if u get missiles for support u can have some system to shoot it down... n for the missile protection will the phalanx AA system work??
-
Anyone has any specs on the weapon systems that we have for the new La Fayatte "Formiable" class stealth frigates?
-
hmmm ray seems like you basically want an ocean going artillery platform. not very useful tho. insurgents fighting in the middle east would be out of range of a battleship sitting in the persian gulf. they don't mass in numbers far from civilian areas to make bombardment feasible either.
conventional enemies like china or russia would sink it easily (assuming that the US ever does the now inconcievable act of striking coastal cities indiscrimanately). billy mitchell showed long ago that a 2000lb bomb dropped near a well armoured battleship was more than enuff to blow the hull off. no amount of armour or countermeasures is gonna save the battleship from aerial or naval enemies intent on killing it. remember that whatever countermeasures the US is likely to develop can be used on other ships so ultimately even its survivability is not going to factor in its usefulness if other more nimble ships can be as hard to kill. you could have a group of ships protecting it like in a carrier but thats a huge cost for far less usefulness.
perhaps if you told us what you think a battleship could be used for specifically people would be more enthused with the idea. -
A big artillery machine? That does not require use of air transport to bring over and not need to operate from a nearby base or country?
Kinda like the role of aircraft carrier...can operate in neutral waters, despite being able to deploy aircraft from land. -
Also about the threat of aircraft and missile, I was talking about developing a CIWS powerful enough to clear almost all incoming missiles or aircraft.
New devlopements, not using existing ones, which is what many are thinking about. -
ok how would you use such a battleship? you've got some ideas about what it should do. lets say a standoff between china and the us over taiwan? or the war in iraq or afghanistan. or perhaps the operations against the abu sayaaf in the philippines. or any situation in which you think a battleship is useful.
-
I'm not saying a battleship is designed for a future war, instead I am talking about designing a battleship that can fit its role in the modern day, where missiles, submarines and carriers are considered lethal weapons.
Design a battleship that can survive in the modern day, simple as that. -
gundamn - impluse?Originally posted by ray243:I'm not saying a battleship is designed for a future war, instead I am talking about designing a battleship that can fit its role in the modern day, where missiles, submarines and carriers are considered lethal weapons.
Design a battleship that can survive in the modern day, simple as that. -
Shit Pageaus sunk??? Damn
-
When the US re-activated their 4 mothballed battleships in the 1980's, armour against modern missiles (such as Exocet, with up to 160kg warhead), proponents claimed, was not an issue for battleships. That's because the battleships, with at least 16 inch (nearly 45 cm) of hardened steel armour is almost impervious to modern, relatively lighweight missiles (unless they hit at the right place).Originally posted by fudgester:I doubt it. You'd need lots and lots of armour to defend against a Harpoon or a Gabriel, and that would weigh the ship down. And even then, that's no guarantee that the missile won't cause damage.
.
Remember the biggest battleships, Yamato and Mushashi, had to be sunk by over twenty 500 pound bombs + torpedo hits. Of course credit goes to the crew for excellent use of waterproof compartments to keep these warships afloat so long. For a bigger missile like the Brahmos, I think you'll still have to have multiple hits to cause significant damage.
Although these BB have been retired, certain advantages they offer have been missed by the US Navy and Marine Corp - including their 16 inch guns for shore bombardment (range >20 miles) as a prelude to amphibious landing. True, the WWII era 16 inch guns are less accurate than missiles and these ships require a crew of nearly 2000. But shells are cheaper to deliver than using aircraft (not to mention the loss of aircraft if shot down, political cost of a pilot captured as POW etc). Besides, many (including those on the receiving end) say the psychological impact of having a 16 inch shell (2700 pound shell, enough to clear a helicopter landing zone in the Vietnamese jungle) fired at you is nearly as bad as enduring a B-52 bombing raid. Anyway, the Littoral combat ship (LCS) is supposed to address some of these loss in capabilities (shore bombardment using two 155mm howitzers) plus its own stealth features, ability to operate in shallow waters, small crew (under 100), multi-mission capability etc.
I doubt if the BB will ever be revived, but sort of re-incarnated in another smaller, more survivable, more versatile form. -
yes yes but what would you have the battleship do and how would you have it do it? Is it a task that cannot be accomplished more cheaply and efficiently by current equipment and doctrines?Originally posted by ray243:I'm not saying a battleship is designed for a future war, instead I am talking about designing a battleship that can fit its role in the modern day, where missiles, submarines and carriers are considered lethal weapons.
Design a battleship that can survive in the modern day, simple as that. -
Criteria:Originally posted by ray243:I'm not saying a battleship is designed for a future war, instead I am talking about designing a battleship that can fit its role in the modern day, where missiles, submarines and carriers are considered lethal weapons.
Design a battleship that can survive in the modern day, simple as that.
Torpedo Buldges
Able to make 32+ Knots
Nucleared powered to follow CVN
Able to be on sea for extended durations
High automation to save manpower
Possible Role of Battleship - Weapons Platform
Possible Weaponry needed based on today's systems:
4 CIWS - Phalnax + SRAM or better
36 Long Range Anti Aircraft/ Missile Missile (Aegis?)
48 Harpoon Anti Ship Missiles
100 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles
8 76mm DP Guns in double mounts (if a 105mm DP is realistic, then i will want it)
Advanced Radar
The 76mm guns can act as fire support and AA also. The BB can then perform as a missile shield for the carrier and if needed to support an invasion, launch the tomahawks on targets. once sea superiority is achieved, the BB can move closer to shore to fire its DP guns on targets.
It will probably be only slightly larger than a WW2 crusier -
computer controlled battleship?
dun need 2000 man, a few can do....from mainland..... -
You missed inter-stellar travel hyperdrives.Originally posted by abao:Criteria:
Torpedo Buldges
Able to make 32+ Knots
Nucleared powered to follow CVN
Able to be on sea for extended durations
High automation to save manpower
Possible Role of Battleship - Weapons Platform
Possible Weaponry needed based on today's systems:
4 CIWS - Phalnax + SRAM or better
36 Long Range Anti Aircraft/ Missile Missile (Aegis?)
48 Harpoon Anti Ship Missiles
100 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles
8 76mm DP Guns in double mounts (if a 105mm DP is realistic, then i will want it)
Advanced Radar
The 76mm guns can act as fire support and AA also. The BB can then perform as a missile shield for the carrier and if needed to support an invasion, launch the tomahawks on targets. once sea superiority is achieved, the BB can move closer to shore to fire its DP guns on targets.
It will probably be only slightly larger than a WW2 crusier
Unless it flies, don't bother. Everybody's moving into network centric warfare, using multiple platforms' sensors and weapons. Why bother taking one huge step backwards with a battleship? -
I think there is still a place for a mobile naval gun platform is this day and age. It may not need to be the size of a battleship but the power of artillery can turn the tide of war.
Imagine a floating platform with about 6 guns onboard. thats some serious firepower and its way more mobile than land based artillery systems. Of course it has to be protected as its defenses wont be very strong. Perhaps if possible throw in a few phalanxes and other air defense systems but the main job of the vessel will be to provide naval gun fire support for friendly troops. I think it will be useful to singapore as the region is full of water. -
OOT: USS Dwight D. Eisenhower is escorted by 14 warships and a submarine. Information courtesy of Jeremy Clarkson (of all people).Originally posted by ray243:Although a battleship can scare people alot more than seeing a aircraft carrier...
In a middle of battle, if you saw a aircraft carrier in range of your site...you will be thinking the Aircraft carrier is going to be so screwed.
If you saw a battleship, you are going to be thinking ' I'm so screwed' -
Would the escort defense be USEFUL if they can allow an enemy warship to get into VISUAL range of the carrier?
-
Yes, Artillery is useful, I'll never contest that. But having a battleship to provide fire support isn't particularly cost effective either.
In this day and age, whatever needs to be bombarded can be done with a few Hornets loaded with JDAMs with greater precision. So whats the point of having battleships anymore. I just need more planes and more JDAMs.
I don't need a battleship to sink ships, nor to just bombard land. I need harpoons or torpedoes.
For anything else, theres always a master card. -
GUNDAM FREEDOM IMPULSE
WHAT A GREAT IDEA I HAVE CONTRIBUTE -
Use a submarine design and add a hovercraft ability to it and TATA
Can submerge and storm landing points and even possible to travel on land
If possible put 1 or 2 harriers/helicopters in it so it can be an aircraft carrier too 
-
PGM r limited in number due 2 their high cost & better suite 2 attacking particular target
2 prove my point, how do u lock-on to enemy infantry 
tat why conventional arty can never be really replaces with PGM at lest not in e forseeable future 
But a battle ship for shore bombardment is way 2 costy la, just mount a 155MM howizer on a frigate or destroyer will do la, e Germans had done it in tests -
You don't need to lock on to enemy infantry. You just need to ground stabilize the targeting pod and flip the laser arm switch.Originally posted by spartan6:PGM r limited in number due 2 their high cost & better suite 2 attacking particular target 2 prove my point, how do u lock-on to enemy infantry tat why conventional arty can never be really replaces with PGM at lest not in e forseeable future
But a battle ship for shore bombardment is way 2 costy la, just mount a 155MM howizer on a frigate or destroyer will do la, e Germans had done it in tests
Secondly, IMO infantry that are considered worthy targets are generally found near the front. Hence are generally within range of friendly artillery if available. So you don't have to drop anything on them. Infantry found deep in enemy territory, isn't really worth bombing since they pose no threat. Even if they are targets of opportunities...
A bombardment battleship is definitely not the cost efficient way to go.
However, a nice large logistic ship, with ability to refuel, re-arm ships would be nice for really long missions. Like a floating mini-naval base. -
i dun think missiles can replace shells for artillery bombardment. Perhaps the MLRS but not precision missiles. that would be too costly.
And i was not suggesting the use of battleships for artillery support, I suggested a smaller vessel with about six howitzers. Heck, it can even just be on a floating barge but that aint small either
But I just realised, why not put an MLRS system or two on a vessel? Smaller more compact and way more firepower with the capability to make the munitions smart when needed. It will be combining the best of both worlds. Feel free to discuss or flame.
-
The Iowas can manage 30 knots. They are classified as Fast Battleships. I believe the British Vanguard which has since been decommissioned is of similar speed as well.Originally posted by abao:Criteria:
Torpedo Buldges
Able to make 32+ Knots
Nucleared powered to follow CVN
Able to be on sea for extended durations
High automation to save manpower
Possible Role of Battleship - Weapons Platform
Possible Weaponry needed based on today's systems:
4 CIWS - Phalnax + SRAM or better
36 Long Range Anti Aircraft/ Missile Missile (Aegis?)
48 Harpoon Anti Ship Missiles
100 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles
8 76mm DP Guns in double mounts (if a 105mm DP is realistic, then i will want it)
Advanced Radar
The 76mm guns can act as fire support and AA also. The BB can then perform as a missile shield for the carrier and if needed to support an invasion, launch the tomahawks on targets. once sea superiority is achieved, the BB can move closer to shore to fire its DP guns on targets.
It will probably be only slightly larger than a WW2 crusier
Gas Turbines can perform as well as a Nuclear Powered vessel.
Rail Guns outperform all offensive missile systems. -
OK, but wat im trying 2 say is PGM dun have e volume of arty