www.ditl.org

Nah I support the decommisioning of them. Even if a bigger threat like Russia or China came up they would have such a limited roll as to make them not cost effective.

Teaos wrote:Nah I support the decommisioning of them. Even if a bigger threat like Russia or China came up they would have such a limited roll as to make them not cost effective.

I agree with the decomissioning of the old ones, because there's just only so much refitting you can do. What Tsukiyumi is suggesting, I think, is the creation of modernized replacements. Replacements, say, heavily seeded with cruise and anti-ship missiles, those missile interdiction chainguns, and enhanced anti-submarine capabilities to go with that set of 16" guns (however many you'd put on).

You could cut the 16" ammunition store a lot, since those would be specific-use weapons. Pack a lot of various other modern munitions on in the meantime.

But what use are 16" guns nowadays? Cruise missiles work just as well. Thy already have missile destroyers which is pretty much what you are wanting minus the guns.

Teaos wrote:But what use are 16" guns nowadays? Cruise missiles work just as well. Thy already have missile destroyers which is pretty much what you are wanting minus the guns.

Cruise missiles have electronics and guidance sytems that can be jammed, they're expensive, and they're big so a hip can only carry a limited supply. An HE shell on a ballistic trajectory is relatively cheap, can't be jammed, and can be carried in quantity. If missiles were universally superior then tube artillery would have been phased out already - instead it still makes up the bulk of field artillery.

Artillary is small and cheap. Battleships are big and kinda hard to not see coming.

The scenario that you want them used in is a war with a big threat country... a country that can very probably blow the ship out of the water with their cruise missiles.

Teaos wrote:Artillary is small and cheap. Battleships are big and kinda hard to not see coming.

The scenario that you want them used in is a war with a big threat country... a country that can very probably blow the ship out of the water with their cruise missiles.

That's what all that missile interdiction business is about. If cruise missiles are that effective at range, then we're wasting out money on aircraft carriers too, because they'd be just as vulnerable.

A BB with a big armored belt might not be so much, though. I'm not sure what kind of armor belt it takes to stop a conventional cruise missile. Well, you couldn't stop it, I should say, but greatly constrain the damage.

The benifits of aircraft carriers out way the cost Battleships dont.

Teaos wrote:The benifits of aircraft carriers out way the cost Battleships dont.

And the fact that one or two Iowa-class ships ended up being trotted out of mothballs for support in every major conflict up until this last? What I'm saying is that there's a particular niche that those big guns fill, and that we can't keep using the Iowas forever. Particularly since they've all been stricken from the naval register now.

I'm not proposing a dozen-ship run. I'm talking about perhaps a pair of ships, and that to maximize the use of the hull, the big guns could be supplemented with modern firepower in various and interesting ways.

BBs are no more vulnerable to long-range missile fire than carriers. Less so, even, since they have armor belts that restrict the damage. CVs only have the added advantage of taking 80 planes and an extra 2000 crew to the bottom with them when they sink. I mean, Iowas are like half the displacement of a Nimitz CVN. With some good design sense, you could build a pair of them, nuclear powered, for I daresay less than the cost of fully outfitting a single Ford-class ship.

Well, Tsukiyumi, there are no contemporary battleships because naval guns like those are obsolete. There are missile and rocket munitions to fill every purpose that those big guns had, and to do it more efficiently. The Ticonderoga-class IS today's battleship.

However, with the USN in the middle of somewhat-succesful rail gun R&D, you very well might see a dreadnought-type of ship back in action...

And that's the point here. There are missions that just require that bang that a Negh'Var can provide - and that other ships can't.

That is pretty much exactly what I'm proposing, Jordanis. With the recent trend of stealthy hulls, a large, fast, nuclear powered vessel using ship-to-ship missiles, Tomahawks, and 16" cannons, protected by the Phalanx system could be a very effective asset, regardless of its mission. The stealth configuration would protect against all but the most expensive systems, and the Phalanx could deal with a lot of threats, if used properly.

I know it would be staggeringly expensive, but with our level of technology, I see no reason why such a vessel couldn't be submersible as well; you then have a fast, stealthy vessel that can engage a wide range of targets, and appear without warning off of an enemy coastline. With a small flight deck, a number of UCAVs could be fielded for area defense, and torpedo tubes for anti-submarine warfare. Throw in the sonic torpedo defense currently under development, and I can envision a ship like that outclassing an entire fleet, if not out-gunning it.

Mikey: with railguns as well, something like this would be the dominant force in naval warfare until the 22nd century.

As ship with a rail gun of the type that the Navy is working on could very literally sit in the dead center of the Atlantic and shell targets in Africa, Europe, or the Americas.

Ouch.

The coolest thing I've heard is space porn rail guns. But that would break several treaties.

Teaos wrote:...space porn rail guns...

Freudian slip, anyone?

Hey, it's hardly the first around here.