Modern Battleships

[Wyrmshadow]

These would help too.

Spoiler :

 

[19Delta]

I wanted to do the USS Kentucky. Don't know when I'll get around to it though.

 

[timerover51]

I think that some of us here has either neglected to read the top of my first post, or has read it and ignored it. Let me reiterate, this is purely fictional. I have always been a fan of big guns and battleships are no exception.

While I do appreciate German engineering and the Germans do have a habit of excellence when it comes to making weapons, I don't have a case of German "fanboyism." I have always liked the design of the Bismarck and Tirpitz. I don't see how it would be impossible to modernize ships like this. If the Japanese can replace the power plants in their battleships with more modern updates, then why can't a conventional powered ship be upgraded to nuclear power? If we can put a man on the moon, then why would this be impossible?

In an existing ship, is is a matter of weight distribution and available volume. A pair of nuclear reactors, which is what a modernized battleship would need, are two very heavy and concentrated masses, that need to be adequately supported by the hull. A ships boiler plant is both lighter and spread out more, so that the weight is distributed along the hull. A reactor's weight does not vary much with power, and the weight is composed primarily of reactor shielding, which is pretty much fixed regardless of reactor size. Concentrated weights like that in a ship place an immense strain on the hull, which would require a massive rebuild of the midships portion of the ship, including the removal of both the deck and side armor, which is not a task to be undertaken lightly. Then there is the volume needed for the heat exchanger and turbines. The heat exchanger takes pressurized and extremely hot water from the reactor, and uses it to heat the water into steam to drive the ship's turbines. It cannot heat the steam to the same degree as the existing 850 degree Fahrenheit/600 pounds per square inch boiler system used by the battleships, so it will require larger turbines to produce the same amount of power. Those larger turbines are going to take up more room than the existing ones, and there is no volume present for the heat exchanger system. To get that volume, you would need to cut the ship in half, move the fore and aft sections further apart, and then build an entire new midsection for the ship, suitably reinforced to take the added stresses. You would also need to add additional deck and side armor to cover the newly added volume. More dense weight, a square foot of armor 12 inches thick weighs about 500 pounds. Since the guns, mountings, turret and barbette structure are now farther apart, and proportionately closer to the ends of the ship, stresses go up there, and structural reinforcement will be needed. All of this added weight means more draft and/or more beam to compensate. Since available harbors and dry dock sills dictate maximum draft, beam is going to go up, which means that your deck armor increases again. You find yourself in a vicious weight spiral that is very hard to break. One reason why nuclear carriers are so big is to have sufficient internal volume for their power plants. They are less weight critical as they do not have massive amounts of thick side belt and deck armor.

If you want a nuclear powered battleship, it would be easier to design a new hull from scratch and then use the guns, mountings, barbette armor, and side and deck armor from existing ships to arm it. When the Japanese and the British (the Queen Elizabeth class was extensively modernized between wars with new boilers and turbines as well) modernized their battleships between the wars, less efficient boiler plants were replaced by plants operating at higher temperatures and pressures, resulting in the same or better performance with far fewer boilers and the same or newer turbines. The new power plants actually were both lighter and took up less volume. That would not be the case of a nuclear plant of equivalent power.

After all arguments for or against the use of the battleship is over, one fact still remains, this is a what-if scenario, and more importantly, this is MY what-if scenario. If I want to make a Bismarck sprout legs,tap dance, quack like a duck, and recite the pledge of alliegance, then that is my perogative. I did say that I would accept criticism earlier, but maybe I chose the wrong word. I'm not trying to put anyone on blast, but I'm not interested in the reality of this scenario. Hell, the Japanese took a sunken Yamato and made a star cruiser that could take on entire fleets of ships and win. Why can't I enjoy an escape from reality occasionally?

As far as the gun vs. the missile goes, I present this very simple argument. Bullets fly faster than missiles, are less expensive than missiles, and don't require expensive fuel to reach their targets.

I am not against battleships at all, since I was writing briefs for the Marine Corps in the early 1990s to keep the ships in commission. I LIKE having 16 inch guns available, and having the Iowas in the First Gulf War was a big help to the Marines, from several perspectives. They were experimenting with taking left over conventional rounds from the US Army's 280mm Atomic cannon and using them as very long range projectives, reaching out to 70,000 to 90,000 yards depending on configuration and other improvements to the projectiles. One of the problems with the flight deck concepts for the Iowas was wind turbulence from the superstructure, and also the hot exhaust gases from the stacks when the ship was steaming at speed. Conversely, it is now easier to add missiles to them for air defense as you can use the Vertical Launch Missile System for anything from the British Extended Range Sea Wolf missiles to varieties of the US Navy Standard Missile. I would happily take six 16 inch forward, and two 32 round blocks of Sea Wolfs and a 61 round block of Standards aft any day of the week, plus build two new ships with the now available turrets and barbettes from the modernized ones.

After then, they served no operational purpose, given that armour was obsolete, and a 7500 ton DLG could fire a nuclear Terrier quite some distance, with far more damage than a mere gun.

This type of comment was bandied about quite a bit in the late 1950s and early 1960s, until killed by a bunch of nasty facts. The Terrier was a beam-riding missile and the nuclear warhead was command detonated by the firing ship. This means that the nuclear missile was a horizon-limited weapon, and the potential added range of the missile was meaningless. Use of the nuclear Terrier in an surface role was widely viewed as a "two for one shot". You killed both the target and the firing ship. The Terrier was also horribly unreliable until a massive Get-Well program launched in the mid to late 60s got reliability up to somewhere near that demanded when the missile specification was written. See Norman Friedman's UN Naval Weapons for a brief unclassified description of the problem and solution. Second, the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in anything less than a full-scale war with the Soviet Union was killed very dead by the government, and a conventional Terrier is in no way comparable to a 16 inch shell. In addition, the Navy did have a small number of nuclear 16 inch round made and stockpiled, and looked at using the nuclear rounds from the Army's 280mm gun for extended range projectiles. Those rounds could have been used for over-the-horizon shots not possible with the nuclear Terrier or Talos. Also, a missile cruiser had a very limited number of nuclear rounds, and they were to be saved for use against large enemy formations of aircraft that would otherwise saturate the ship's fire control system and allow leakers through without being engaged.

To incorporate them, you would need an exceptionally favourable POD and scenario that does not feature advanced subs, nuclear weapons, or advances in aerial armament (the latter is what kills the last vestige of a battleship armament - when one has carrier aircraft capable of attacking in all weather conditions at range, the battleships and indeed gunships become the epitome of superfluous.)

There are very few 3rd World air forces currently that have all-weather attack aircraft, and pretty much none with weapons capable of successfully attacking a battleship. As for subs, I would expect that the performance of most 3rd World navy subs against the US Navy to be similar to the Argentine experience during the Falkland Islands war in 1982, i.e. nuisances only. The most effective aerial weapon used against them in WW2 no longer exists, that being the large warhead air-dropped torpedo, with a warhead of about 600 or so pounds of Torpex (1200 pounds TNT-equivalent). Current air-dropped torpedos are all intended for anti-sub use, and have warheads of around 100 pounds (roughly 300 pounds TNT-equivalent). Aside from the US B-52, no military aircraft exists that can carry anything like the British 6 ton Tallboy used on the Tirpitz, or the 4400 pound Fritz-X guided armor-piercing bomb used on HMS Warspite, the USS Savannah (which survived a direct magazine hit by one), and the Italian RMS Roma, sunk by several hits. As for the current run of anti-ship cruise missiles, they can damage but not kill, and most will not do that much damage to an Iowa.

The heavily-armored battleship has outlived the weapons that were most effective against it.

Side note on US nuclear weapon policy and other nations actions. Based on my experience with the Marines in the First Gulf War, the US will preemptively use a nuclear weapon on a 3rd World county to attack its nuclear facilities and/or launch sites only if a nuclear attack on the US and/or its allies is viewed to be imminent, or nuclear weapons have already been used on the US and/or its allies. In no other situations would nuclear weapon use be considered, and that includes chemical agent or biological agent attacks on the US and/or its allies.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

This type of comment was bandied about quite a bit in the late 1950s and early 1960s, until killed by a bunch of nasty facts. The Terrier was a beam-riding missile and the nuclear warhead was command detonated by the firing ship. This means that the nuclear missile was a horizon-limited weapon, and the potential added range of the missile was meaningless. Use of the nuclear Terrier in an surface role was widely viewed as a "two for one shot". You killed both the target and the firing ship. The Terrier was also horribly unreliable until a massive Get-Well program launched in the mid to late 60s got reliability up to somewhere near that demanded when the missile specification was written. See Norman Friedman's UN Naval Weapons for a brief unclassified description of the problem and solution.

Second, the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in anything less than a full-scale war with the Soviet Union was killed very dead by the government, and a conventional Terrier is in no way comparable to a 16 inch shell. In addition, the Navy did have a small number of nuclear 16 inch round made and stockpiled, and looked at using the nuclear rounds from the Army's 280mm gun for extended range projectiles. Those rounds could have been used for over-the-horizon shots not possible with the nuclear Terrier or Talos. Also, a missile cruiser had a very limited number of nuclear rounds, and they were to be saved for use against large enemy formations of aircraft that would otherwise saturate the ship's fire control system and allow leakers through without being engaged.

There are very few 3rd World air forces currently that have all-weather attack aircraft, and pretty much none with weapons capable of successfully attacking a battleship. As for subs, I would expect that the performance of most 3rd World navy subs against the US Navy to be similar to the Argentine experience during the Falkland Islands war in 1982, i.e. nuisances only.

The most effective aerial weapon used against them in WW2 no longer exists, that being the large warhead air-dropped torpedo, with a warhead of about 600 or so pounds of Torpex (1200 pounds TNT-equivalent). Current air-dropped torpedos are all intended for anti-sub use, and have warheads of around 100 pounds (roughly 300 pounds TNT-equivalent). Aside from the US B-52, no military aircraft exists that can carry anything like the British 6 ton Tallboy used on the Tirpitz, or the 4400 pound Fritz-X guided armor-piercing bomb used on HMS Warspite, the USS Savannah (which survived a direct magazine hit by one), and the Italian RMS Roma, sunk by several hits. As for the current run of anti-ship cruise missiles, they can damage but not kill, and most will not do that much damage to an Iowa.

The heavily-armored battleship has outlived the weapons that were most effective against it.

1.) The doctrine of the time for amphibious operations did call for atomic bombardment, firstly with the Katies, then later with other nuclear capable platforms, such as the bombardment missiles explored in the 1960s.
The Terrier was not the only option, with Talos also offering a capability, and ASROC also having a surface burst warhead in the case of a Sverdlov picking on an ocean escort. For details, Friedman's US Amphibious Ships, US Battleships, US Cruisers, US Destroyers, the Postwar Naval Revolution and Navies in the Nuclear Age have the best resources.

Yes, Terrier in particular and 3T in general were unreliable, but they werre troubleshot (in place of the Typhon programme). The ships that went to sea in 1960 with the earlier missiles were capable of taking the upgraded ones, and of taking SM-1 or SM-2 after NTU in the 80s.

2.) For the time period where battleship conversion was contemplated, in the mid to late 50s, the notion of engaging in anything other than nuclear war with the Soviet Union was being downplayed. It is only later on in the epoch of the flexible response that the great opprobrium against the employment of nuclear weapons came about, as typified by the differing security mechanisms on weapons and other developments. Furthermore, it is only when faced with a very different type of war again that the utility of heavy bombardment makes an entrance.

For over the horizon shots, carrier based aircraft provide the capability for atomic attack on a platform that would already be in the fleet.

3.) It is incorrect to suggest that there are not the weapons to attack, damage and sink a battleship in existance.
Firstly, we have the Soviet SSMs and ASMs from the 1950s onwards designed to attack heavy Western armoured ships, and their later relatives such as Exocet, Harpoon etc. The larger ones would penetrate the belt with shaped charge warheads, and the smaller more modern ones provide the ability to mission kill the ship by destroying radar, comms, fire control and wrecking the top works.

Secondly, we have the bomb. 2000lb AP and SAP bombs were sufficient to penetrate any battleship deck armour in WW2, and postwar considerations by the British resulted in the conclusion that even a 70000t monster with a 12" deck would not stop heavy bombs.
These were followed in the early postwar period by the likes of Tiny Tim, Disney and other large rockets or rocket propelled bombs.
It would not be inordinantly outside of the realms of possibility to fit a JDAM kit or equivalent to a 2000lb bomb and set it to explode at a certain depth.

It does depend what part of the postwar era we are talking about.

Thirdly, the sub threat has evolved since 1982, and whilst I don't count myself as one of the crowd that kowtows at the very mention of the Kilos, there are a number of quiet conventional subs that can fire modern under the keel torpedoes that would break the back of a battleship. There is a quite vigorous ongoing conversation regarding this on the Navweaps forums.

I'm certainly not saying that battleships are hopelessly vulnerable, but that their defences are not configured towards current threats, or threats that were in existence from the late 50s onwards. This is not to say they did not have utility at certain times, but that there are other, more cost effective and more versatile solutions.

 

[Wyrmshadow]

Well I still have this thing I've put on the back burner.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I think that some of us here has either neglected to read the top of my first post, or has read it and ignored it. Let me reiterate, this is purely fictional. I have always been a fan of big guns and battleships are no exception.

While I do appreciate German engineering and the Germans do have a habit of excellence when it comes to making weapons, I don't have a case of German "fanboyism." I have always liked the design of the Bismarck and Tirpitz. I don't see how it would be impossible to modernize ships like this.

If the Japanese can replace the power plants in their battleships with more modern updates, then why can't a conventional powered ship be upgraded to nuclear power? If we can put a man on the moon, then why would this be impossible?

After all arguments for or against the use of the battleship is over, one fact still remains, this is a what-if scenario, and more importantly, this is MY what-if scenario. If I want to make a Bismarck sprout legs,tap dance, quack like a duck, and recite the pledge of alliegance, then that is my perogative. I did say that I would accept criticism earlier, but maybe I chose the wrong word. I'm not trying to put anyone on blast, but I'm not interested in the reality of this scenario. Hell, the Japanese took a sunken Yamato and made a star cruiser that could take on entire fleets of ships and win. Why can't I enjoy an escape from reality occasionally?

US Army artillery crews have a round for the Paladin that is laser guided. They call it the copper head. It was tested at a range in Iraq on and Iraqi tank. It was fired from the opposite direction of the target, but the round corrected its flight and struck the target with pinpoint accuracy and completely destroyed it.

Anti missile technology has come quite a long way in recent years. There are even systems in experimental phases that can be attached to tanks and armored vehicles that can shoot down incoming warheads like the TOW missile, RPGs, and other anti-tank guided missiles. Anti-missile technology on ships is already past its experimental phases and has been for many years, and with the advent of rolling airframe missiles, CIWS, and the Phalanx, a battleship could be very survivable on a modern battlefield.

Allow me to apologize for any tone in my points that may have caused any pertubation - it was certainly far from my intent.

My only point was to observe that in my view and based on my research on the matter, you are trying to do too much with a platform that doesn't really support it.
The regunning and re-engining cannot be done, except in fantasy, and if we are going for that, then there is no stopping at that alone.

Modernizing is one thing; completely changing the nature of a ship or vehicle is another. It is the nuclear part of things, rather than the changing powerplants

To change the power plant, you would have to cut through the armour of the ship, weakening a lot of strength, remove a lot of internal machinery and internal compartments, redesign the uptakes and space around them, and generally spend an inordinant amount of time and money for something that may not even be viable.
You would also possibly end up having to remove the rear gun turret for weight and space reasons, which would lead to balance problems.
There was thought given to upgrading the power plant on the South Dakotas post WW2 to make them more suitable for fleet ops, and these were some of the problems encountered.

The issue of putting a nuclear power plant on something that is being fired at with heavy shells is one to take into account.

It isn't that BBGNs or BBNs haven't been contemplated in fiction, but generally these are new builds.

It is your scenario, but you did ask for thoughts and suggestions. My initial points were starters in this regard, and I can expand on all of them.

Copperhead has been around since the early-mid 80s, and its issue is cost; advances with cheap air launched missiles and Excalibur have basically set it back into the past.
There was work done in the early 80s for a laser guided 5" naval round called Deadeye, but that was killed by battleship reactivation.

Active defence is a useful development, and can be applied to a number of vessels.

Phalanx is a form of CIWS, but is generally being replaced with SeaRAM due to the obsolescence of the original 20mm Phalanx. It is being found useful for anti-mortar work, but the threats at sea are changing.

RAM is good, but not a be all and end all. It is a short range point defence system.
For a ship to really be part of an operational fleet, it needs its own SAM systems, fired from the standard VLS. ASW systems, including helicopters, are also essential.

For a 1950s upgrade, we would not see 40mm Bofors be used, and perhaps not even 57mm Bofors, as the evolution of threats were such that planes were too fast to track using the older systems. There were plans to refit the Iowas with 3"50 twin mounts, as was done to most of the rest of the fleet.

If the ship is operated by West Germany, then the issue of strategic capable missile systems like Tomahawk being fitted is a political question that would need to be explored in the scenario.

Losing the rear two turrets for aviation and eventual missile VLS is a viable option that still preserves gun power; only some of the USN BBG conversion studies kept 16" guns on the ships...some included upwards of 400 missiles, which would be a great challenge with a limited amount of controllers.

The 15" gun would be capable enough for any ships it would face, with any upgrades coming in some small incremental automation and extension of range with emerging ideas on shell design and the various late 60s experiments with extended range conducted for the 16" gun.
Past 16", it is generally accepted that gun calibre passes the point of diminishing returns.

Additional armour isn't really possible. You can certainly add some Kevlar and what not to superstructure compartments, but it is not possible to go fiddling with the main belt without very major surgery. Given that most modern weapons will not be aimed at the belt, but will hit the deck and superstructure, it isn't the most important part of the ship.

Fitting ASROC would be a good idea to complement the several helicopters that would be deployed.

Replacing the mixed secondary armament with a single, capable calibre is a priority. USN 5"42s would be contemplated, as would French 100mm; I'd lean towards the latter out of the two for the purposes of AAW. Another system to explore is the Bofors 120mm, particularly some of the later variants.

A major problem with incorporating modern systems is fitting the requisite wiring and control systems in a ship not designed for them. It has been argued that the paramount factor of importance for ship design in the postwar era is volume, rather than hull size - modern electronic communication and warfare systems are volume intensive.

A proper CIC would need to be fitted; flagship facilities would be useful.

The USN could afford this; without a major change or simple handwavium, it would not be something that East or West Germany could afford without subsidy. For the Baltic, they are not the most cost effective weapons systems when one considers what you could get for the cost - several dozen jet bombers, four subs and perhaps some cans. For the manpower, one could use it in other ways.

However, working in the bounds of the scenario, it could be done at great expense, with the ships being considered sacrosanct white elephants not to be risked or exercised greatly outside of the big one.

For Prinz Eugen, you'd be looking at something like the Albany class CGs - an expensive conversion that was made obsolete by the DLG.

I would definitely scratch the bit about them surviving the nuclear blasts - too many issues of decontamination, the unlikely situation of them surviving the underwater blast and other factors.

Another issue is the shock resistance or rather, the lack of pre-Bikini ships vs post Bikini construction. This is something that does come up a number of times in different texts and locations.

Tirpitz would end up like a 50s missile cruiser writ large, in the same manner as suggested in the (now known to be incorrect) initial 90s reports on the Project 82R ships.

A BBG with guns wouldn't be an integral part of carrier battle groups per se, but rather incorporated as an amphibious flagship.

If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. It has been some time since I've discussed this matter divorced from ancillary issues.

For resources, apart from the excellent ship pictures put forth by Wyrmshadow, I'd suggest:

Shipbucket
Warships Projects Forum
AltNaval
Wolfs Shipyard
Navweaps Forums
The technical articles on Navweaps
Published works by Norman Friedman mentioned here.
The journal 'Warship'

Wyrmshadow: I'm familiar with that site and it's enthusiastic ideas; it is from Mike Sparks, though, and not the most credible addition to the pro battleship cause, just as the USNFSA used to be a bit too breathless in their advocacy. The window, such as it was, remained open from the premature post Cold War retirement of the Iowas until 2006. Thanks for the blast from the past, though.

The Yamato update is an excellent looking ship - recognizably Japanese, but with a fine modern feel.

The Yamato has some interesting AH potential using the notion of surviving WW2, particularly if taken over by the Soviets; similarly, the Littorios have some features to them that make them attractive to Uncle Joe.

 

[19Delta]

Don't get me wrong, I didn't take offense, and I'm not sore with anyone. My only problem with constructive criticism is when the said critic doesn't come up with a solution to the problem he/she spots. It just seemed to me that your first post was offering up problems and no solutions. It kind of reminded me of someone trying to show me why I shouldn't pursue a particular project. It's like I said before, the backstory doesn't matter, but the end result will still be the same:

A modernized WWII battleship. Upon reading more about ship design and construction, I have given up on the prospect of nuclear power. Coventional power is the way to go.

I can see both sides of the argument on the usefullness of battleships. Yes battleships are vulnerable to air and sea attack, but so are aircraft carriers. A carrier without it's planes has really no use other than it's facilities for situations like relief operations. A battleship can be sunk, but an aircraft can also be shot down, and it takes a lot less effort to shoot down an aircraft than it does to sink a properly protected battleship. A battleship that is paired up with an aircraft carrier could be a lethal force. Guns are better than missiles, and armies are constantly coming up with new ways to deal with shooting down missiles and aircraft but the rounds from an artillery piece are immune to these countermeasures. It goes back to the tank vs. the bradley. In my opinion, the fear factor alone is worth the cost of operating a battleship. If you can scare your enemy to the negotiating table without ever firing a shot, then you have prevented a multi-billion dollar war that will inevitably take the lives many soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

I have talked to soldiers from the US Army infantry that says that tanks are obsolete and that they can kill tanks with no problem. True they have the ability to kill tanks with the Javelin AT missile and it is an effective weapon, but those same infantrymen when faced with tanks in training are always on the radio calling for the tanks for backup. There is a defense system being produced now that can be mounted in the form of small pods on the back of tanks and armored vehicles. It detects an incoming warhead or RPG and quickly targets and destroys it with a smaller warhead before it can cause any damage. The only problem is that it could potentially injure friendly infantry nearby when the incoming warhead is destroyed. Metal storm technology is also being looked at as a solution to anti-missile technology.

I don't disagree with you on the fact that aircraft carriers are extremely effective weapons of war and that is not likely to change. However, any sailor would be concerned if his task force was to have to go up against a battleship (much like the infantryman against the tank) that is properly protected with destroyer escorts and it's own ASW capabilities, because if that battleship is able to get into gun range, the aircraft carrier doesn't stand a chance, and if the carrier is sunk, then the planes have no place to land. They may still sink the battleship, but the heart of a CBG, the carrier is still gone and without a spot to land, the pilots of those multi-million dollar aircraft are going to have to ditch in the ocean.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Don't get me wrong, I didn't take offense, and I'm not sore with anyone. My only problem with constructive criticism is when the said critic doesn't come up with a solution to the problem he/she spots. It just seemed to me that your first post was offering up problems and no solutions. It kind of reminded me of someone trying to show me why I shouldn't pursue a particular project. It's like I said before, the backstory doesn't matter, but the end result will still be the same:

A modernized WWII battleship. Upon reading more about ship design and construction, I have given up on the prospect of nuclear power. Coventional power is the way to go.

I can see both sides of the argument on the usefullness of battleships. Yes battleships are vulnerable to air and sea attack, but so are aircraft carriers. A carrier without it's planes has really no use other than it's facilities for situations like relief operations. A battleship can be sunk, but an aircraft can also be shot down, and it takes a lot less effort to shoot down an aircraft than it does to sink a properly protected battleship. A battleship that is paired up with an aircraft carrier could be a lethal force. Guns are better than missiles, and armies are constantly coming up with new ways to deal with shooting down missiles and aircraft but the rounds from an artillery piece are immune to these countermeasures.

It goes back to the tank vs. the bradley. In my opinion, the fear factor alone is worth the cost of operating a battleship. If you can scare your enemy to the negotiating table without ever firing a shot, then you have prevented a multi-billion dollar war that will inevitably take the lives many soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

I have talked to soldiers from the US Army infantry that says that tanks are obsolete and that they can kill tanks with no problem. True they have the ability to kill tanks with the Javelin AT missile and it is an effective weapon, but those same infantrymen when faced with tanks in training are always on the radio calling for the tanks for backup.

There is a defense system being produced now that can be mounted in the form of small pods on the back of tanks and armored vehicles. It detects an incoming warhead or RPG and quickly targets and destroys it with a smaller warhead before it can cause any damage. The only problem is that it could potentially injure friendly infantry nearby when the incoming warhead is destroyed. Metal storm technology is also being looked at as a solution to anti-missile technology.

I don't disagree with you on the fact that aircraft carriers are extremely effective weapons of war and that is not likely to change. However, any sailor would be concerned if his task force was to have to go up against a battleship (much like the infantryman against the tank) that is properly protected with destroyer escorts and it's own ASW capabilities, because if that battleship is able to get into gun range, the aircraft carrier doesn't stand a chance, and if the carrier is sunk, then the planes have no place to land.

They may still sink the battleship, but the heart of a CBG, the carrier is still gone and without a spot to land, the pilots of those multi-million dollar aircraft are going to have to ditch in the ocean.

G'day once again.

No worries on the vagaries of internet communication. My first post was like fishing in a way - seeing what you wanted. I have a lot to offer, but not all fish are to my tastes. Likewise, not all will be interested in the lure. Suffice it to say I supplied a few issues that were very flawed in my view that needed to be addressed before we could progress on to anything worthwhile I could say; if it were pure fantasy, then there is not much I could add. Some want an echo chamber of agreement, others want something else; I've just been in the world of people being familiar with the general arguments for too long, so forgot the basic niceties. For your understanding and indulgence, you once again have my appreciation.

It seems to me that your argument on the utility of battleships, like those of many people, depends on a lot of 'ifs'. If it can get in range. If it can be supported.

Given such a circumstance, the counterpoint can be put forth - what is the requirement? Does it need 16" or 15" exclusively, or can it be filled with 12", 8" or some other combination of factors. Does it need a vessel that requires a lot of exclusive support as compared to a vessel that would be there anyway as part of a pre-exisiting battlegroup.

It seems as if you have gone around the scenario back to front - looked at the end result, and fixed things to create that. No problem with that in and of itself. However, the basic way things are done is looking at a requirement and working from there.

What does your fleet need?

A current battleship paired with an aircraft carrier is going to be deadly to anything within 20 miles of it. However, a carrier and its support are not going to be sitting off shore within gun range; they will be several hundred miles out to sea, as is appropriate for their role. So using the parallel of WW2 in modern circumstances is not the optimum one for a clear appraisal of the situation.

A battleship, by its classic definition, is one that can deal out great damage and have the ability to take it. Some say that certain types of SSNs and SSBNs fulfill some parts of that requirement on the modern battlefield.

An aircracft can be sunk, but if one is at war, then likely as much, a carrier will be at war. It is there to begin with, and has greater self defence capabilities than a battleship - aircraft, goalkeeper destroyers and cruisers. That is what currently works. If there is to be a major change, the onus is on the side advocating said change to prove it.

Artillery rounds are not immune to countermeasures - a Sea Wolf shot down a 4.5" shell in tests many years ago, and various systems have been tested to knock down rockets, mortars and shells. Most are still under development to the best of my non-involved knowledge, but nothing is immune. It is a case of spending a 250000 buck missile to shoot down a 25000 shell (in the case of the souped up ones that have never actually been made to this day) but if it saves you once a year, it is a good year, to steal the tyre company slogan.

The fear factor is something often referred to, but honestly never proved. If the NVA was not cowed by multiple B-52 raids and the combination of up to 6 carriers plus support off Vietnam, a battleship that was there for only a few months and was outranged by a heavy cruiser is not going to reduce people to jelly; in various texts, the requirements off VN were stated as 1 BB or 2 Des Moines, which corresponds to some passages in Friedman's works. I don't pretend to any inside knowledge of workings at the time or after, but simply state that the psyching out argument is weak at best. No proof other than assertions. I could be wrong, though.
However, even in different circumstances, it isn't the presence of a BB that makes people change their mind - WW1, WW2, Korea, VN, Lebanon, DS.

Therefore, to me, in the absence of any conclusive proof outside of assertions, and extracts from 'The Operations of the Fast Battleships' used in isolation, the psychological argument is ephemeral.

Javelins can go where tanks can't, just as tacair and other firepower projection capabilities can go where one type of gunfire can't. In Northern Iraq during the initial phases of OIF, the Javelin was used effectively tactically in a manner where a battleship shell couldn't be. However, the comparison was tanks, and as I recall 173rd were followed by the QRF of 1 ID; they did go into action after the fact.

However, the various tactical utility of tactically applied weapons systems is perhaps not as relevant to the discussion at hand.

In the same campaign, the first use of direct support NGFS happened since VN, with RN and RAN ships supporting the assault on the Al Faw with 4.5 and 5" gunfire. This was the first time since VN in support of troops - DS, Lebanon etc were a different matter. They were able to fire closer and address the threats faced. It worked.

Metal Storm is viewed by many as a pie-in-the-sky tech, or a boondoggle. Certainly the way they have conducted their business and the lack of any real systems in service since the mid 1990s points towards their advertising being bigger than their bite. Nothing new there.

That situation hasn't happened since 1940 for a reason. Modern carriers can engage ships 360 miles away and destroy them. Things have changed since the twins caught the RN carrier.

I'd think any carrier group commander would welcome engaging a battleships, as the only ones left afloat are of an old, non shock proof design, have little to no air defence, and no anti-ship power outside of their guns. Add in destroyers, cruisers, et al and we are just gilding the lily - providing support to a white elephant that doesn't lift its weight, can't contribute to the air battle, and doesn't have any modern missiles.
Better to use them in a SAG, shooting from 500 miles away at targets ashore, than waste them on something old and not wanted.

Those planes, the subs that go with them, and the escorts that go with them, are going to severely impair the abilities of the battleship to conduct operations beyond visual range. Then the aircraft can go back, refuel, and come back with precision guided bombs with certain fusing options that will go through decks and cause catastrophic damage. That is in the circumstance where a sub doesn' get within range and shoot a spread of four heavyweight modern torpedoes at the ship.

In conclusion, it is best not to resort to a mix of arguments for the capabilities of a ship. Better to decide on a requirement, and build the ship to it, and then postulate how it evolves.

To return to the original scenario, for the life of me, I can't see how a WG or DDR could afford such a ship. USN, RN, Soviets - no problem with appropriate story. MN, MM - maybe. Defeated Axis powers - by the time they re-arm, other solutions suit them better.

What is the strategic circumstance?
What is the balance of power?
What is the mission?
What are the limitations on the force?

These can do with an answer.

 

[19Delta]

Now we're getting somewhere. The end result is that we have a modernized Bismarck class battleship that isn't too outside of the realm of reality here. I'm not quite going for the "Space Battleship Yamato" thing here.

I read a news report somewhere that the US Army shot an arty round out of the sky with an experimental laser, but I never heard anything about the missile. My argument remains the same though, arty rounds are cheaper to produce than missiles, fly faster, and don't require fuel. As far as the extensive cost of laser guided arty rounds go, the US Army is rushing to equip it's morter teams with laser guided morter rounds, so they can't be that expensive. Arty rounds can be stopped, but it is a lot harder than stopping a missile. Based on my experience, I would take a gun over a missile any day, because my personal guidance system isn't as likely to fail as the the guidance system on a missile is.

This isn't so much a scenario so much as a brainstorm as to what this ship will look like when it is modernized. I really liked wyrmshadow's version, but I wanted to make something of my own design and I was hoping for some ideas on how to go about it.

For the sake of civ, you aren't going to see the power plant anyways so we could say that it is powered by 10,000 hamsters running on little wheels and no one is ever going to know the difference.

I like the idea of upgunning the ship. I decided on 16 inch guns because the USN uses 16 inch guns and since NATO has a standard round for rifles and machine guns, then they would probably have a standard round for battleship guns as well. I've heard arguments as to how it would be impossible to replace the current armament with new guns in new turrets, but I want to know how we can make this work now. If the design simply doesn't allow for such an upgrade, then what about keeping the same dual turrets and just replacing the guns with 16 inch .50 guns of similar design to the Iowa class battleships?

Next issue is AA defense. Existing mounts would have to be upgraded, but new capabilities would have to be added as well. Phalanx, RAM, SAM, countermeasures like chaff, new radar, other CIWS, and something similar to the system that is being experimented on with armored vehicles that can intercept incoming warheads. I think that it would also be a good idea to add some kind of ASW capabilities. Maybe the ability to deploy decoy countermeasures to handle the threat of incoming torpedoes. How effective would flak guns be against modern combat aircraft? I know that jet engines don't respond well to foreign objects (like a goose or a sailor's goggles) entering the jet intake.

I can't think of anything else at this point. I think that for now, we should focus on these issues. The thing is, this ship is for civ. You can have access to a unit in civ, but you don't start paying maintenance and building costs until you actually produce it. Much like the real world. I'm sure that Germany still has the designs for the Bismarck on the books somewhere, and if they had enough money and the desire, then they could build another one. That is what I'm going for here. You don't have to build one just because you have the designs on the books, but the option is there if you want to.

 

[timerover51]

I like the idea of upgunning the ship. I decided on 16 inch guns because the USN uses 16 inch guns and since NATO has a standard round for rifles and machine guns, then they would probably have a standard round for battleship guns as well. I've heard arguments as to how it would be impossible to replace the current armament with new guns in new turrets, but I want to know how we can make this work now. If the design simply doesn't allow for such an upgrade, then what about keeping the same dual turrets and just replacing the guns with 16 inch .50 guns of similar design to the Iowa class battleships?

It would take me a while to come up with a very detailed answer covering upgunning, but off the top of my head, you might be able to replace the 15 inch guns with a slimmed-down 16"/45 or 16"/50 gun on a one for one basis. I am not sure if you could use the overweight 2700 pound AP round, but the Navy did make some test 2240 pound AP rounds when the battleships were reactivated. The 1900 pound High Capacity explosive round should not pose a problem for ammunition handling. You might want to consider changing the loading of that round from Explosive D, ammonium picrate, to something with better fragmentation, like either Picratol or one of the newer insensitive explosives similar to the used in the Hellfire warhead. You might need to restrict firing of the guns to one per turret, depending on the recoil stresses involved in firing a much heavier round. The Bismarck's 15" round weighed about 1650 pounds verses the 1900 pound and 2240 pound weight of the US 16".

You could probably replace the 15cm guns with 155mm howitzer barrels on a one to one basis, which gives you the ability to fire the Copperhead round, as will as the full range of standard 155mm ammunition. The six guns a side is like having two full batteries onboard the ship.

Next issue is AA defense. Existing mounts would have to be upgraded, but new capabilities would have to be added as well. Phalanx, RAM, SAM, countermeasures like chaff, new radar, other CIWS, and something similar to the system that is being experimented on with armored vehicles that can intercept incoming warheads. I think that it would also be a good idea to add some kind of ASW capabilities. Maybe the ability to deploy decoy countermeasures to handle the threat of incoming torpedoes. How effective would flak guns be against modern combat aircraft? I know that jet engines don't respond well to foreign objects (like a goose or a sailor's goggles) entering the jet intake.

Giving it further thought, you could probably replace the twin 10.5cm mounts with single lightweight 5"/54 mounts, the current US Navy standard mount. That would give you a reasonable capability against attack with free-fall bombs, based on the results of the 1982 Falkland Islands war, plus the ability to fire chaff rounds, and the standard US Navy Ammunition. The reason for carrying both the 155mm and the 5"/54 is that the 155mm is far superior for shore bombardment uses and good antiship capacity, while the 5"/54 has much better antiaircraft and high-speed surface ship engagement capacity. The guns complement each other. The smaller close in weapons would not pose that great a problem with mounting. As for ASW capacity, you could put a helicopter hanger and landing platform in the space occupied by the Arado floatplanes, combined with a pair of triple mounts for the Mark 46 torpedo, with the helicopters supplying dipping sonar and sonobouy capacity, along with over the horizon targeting for the main battery. Since you need a bulbous box on the ship, a Mark 26 sonar could be worked in.

The main thing with the power plant is increasing the electrical generating capacity. You also need more internal volume to handle all of the new fire control systems, and radar and sonar systems. If you build a new ship, that can be worked in easily. A new-built ship is far easier to work with than a conversion.

By the way, have you looked at the British 15" gun monitors used in both WW1 and WW2 as an alternate way of getting heavy guns to sea?

As for design data and drawing, there is a far amount of that available at the US National Archives and the US Navy Operational Archives, courtesy of the US Naval Mission to Europe at the end of WW2.

 

[Roman Legion]

So are you looking for a Battleship with Missiles? If so I made that some time ago. Not as nearly as great looking as Wyrm's, heck, his was good enough, I borrowed GFX to make mine. I can get you a link if you want..

 

[Samez]

Did ever someone put some icbms on a bb? Iirc in the early days of slbms the problem was their size.. so why not use these huge ships...

 

[19Delta]

Wyrmshadow already made the arsenal ship, so I think the problem of having a ship that can fire ICBMs has been solved. It's not so much looking for a battleship that can fire missiles, but building modernized battleships with WWII designs. Eventually, I may move into a completely new design, but I'll save that for later.