Do Battleships have a futue? - Page 3

Jack_www · March 21, 2003, 03:00

Yavoon some times I make typos ok. I dont pick on anyones grammar, and I can assure you that I am a real person. Carries and cuirse missles can out range a battle ship by far, and the curise missles can carry nuclear warhead and are pecision guided weapons, very accurate. They phased out battleships for a reason and they are not as cheep as you claim they are to be.

Aircraft Carriers can project force almost anywhere on the earth and are a moblie airfleid. IF you got the money, they money is spent much better on Carriers then on Battleships.

BattleShips where used for bombarding bunkers and other fortified postions on the coast, and now with the bombs the US has, these bombs can do the job. Also US strategy is to move inland fast, not wait around, which carriers fit this role more nicely. And because of battleships limmited range, the are useless once your forces are far inland, while carriers are still usefull.

Jon Shafer · March 21, 2003, 03:06

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
there are many many situations where we could use battleships w/o fear of them being sunk.

Against a modern nation, your Battleships are just bit floating targets. Against Iraq/some Latin American/African nation, maybe you don't have to worry about that sort of thing. Against France? Against Russia? You're only going to be adding a nice new landmark on the bottom of the ocean.

Jack_www · March 21, 2003, 03:08

Even Iraq could possibly get the anti ship missles and sink a battleship.

Dis · March 21, 2003, 03:36

uhh we have no battleships in the U.S. Navy

Zylka · March 21, 2003, 04:29

Serious consideration:

A remote controlled battleship showdown would be the biggest treat for masses of fireball awed Americans along the shores of San Fran, etc.

I'm not going to deny that making these beasts remote controllable for battle wouldn't cost millions... but c'mon! Sometimes you've just got to spoil your people

Dis · March 21, 2003, 04:31

in any case- since I'm too lazy to read the thread.

Using them as a tourist attraction would also be expensive.

In order for them to be cost effective, the entire interior would have to be redesigned. And the engine rooms would have to be replaced. It can be difficult finding replacement parts for that stuff. The Navy can sometimes get them made if need be, but civilians cannot do that.

They should remain as is: tourist attractions that will never move again.

Zylka · March 21, 2003, 04:59

Why could they not make great llittle coral reefs, for diving attraction? A remote control battleship fight in San Bay would not only be 10 times better than any airshow gone wrong, or the most destructive monster truck show ever - it would simply send a sincere message to the rest of the world...

Sikander · March 21, 2003, 05:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Most aeroplanes have became missile launching platforms. So you can do away with the planes and just launch them missiles.

You lose a lot of payload by having the missle carry itself all the way to the target. The plane has much better mileage.

Sikander · March 21, 2003, 05:18

While the era of the Missourri class battleship is over, I think that there may still be some life left in warships whose primary armament will be guns. Imagine a very long rail or chemically propelled gun built perhaps along the entire length of a ship. Perhaps two per ship side by side. They would launch their ordanance very high into the air, and many many miles inland (depending on the tech, the range might be truly astounding), where the warheads would be terminally guided by satellite to their targets. No planes, no pilots, no problem.

Az · March 21, 2003, 05:21

I was thinking along the lines of Railguns as well, but I don't think they should be THAT long.

I think they'll be mounted on turrets similar to the main guns of today, but they'll extend from both sides, in order to create bigger barrel length.

Zylka · March 21, 2003, 05:31

No one knows of the political message I was hinting at, right?

Urban Ranger · March 21, 2003, 05:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander
You lose a lot of payload by having the missle carry itself all the way to the target. The plane has much better mileage.

Why? The planes only act as a launching platform, nothing more. Granted, these plaforms are reusable, but they are also very expensive, and can easily be destroyed. And if you want to put in stealth ability, this limits the amount of munition they can carry further.

An advantage of planes have is they can drop bombs, which are a lot more effective in terms of destruction/mass.

Sikander · March 21, 2003, 05:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I was thinking along the lines of Railguns as well, but I don't think they should be THAT long.

I think they'll be mounted on turrets similar to the main guns of today, but they'll extend from both sides, in order to create bigger barrel length.

I'd have to sit down with a physics guru in order to decide how long they should be, but it would be my intention to make them shoot several hundred miles. This makes them a competitor with the carrier group as far as power projection goes, and at a fraction of the cost per ton of ordinance delivered.

Urban Ranger · March 21, 2003, 05:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I was thinking along the lines of Railguns as well, but I don't think they should be THAT long.

Railguns, are they those Gaussian rifle things? If so, you need very long barrels.

Sikander · March 21, 2003, 05:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Why? The planes only act as a launching platform, nothing more. Granted, these plaforms are reusable, but they are also very expensive, and can easily be destroyed. And if you want to put in stealth ability, this limits the amount of munition they can carry further.

An advantage of planes have is they can drop bombs, which are a lot more effective in terms of destruction/mass.

If you are using a solid fueled missle which has plenty of range to reach its target, then you may as well launch it without the aircraft. But the warhead is going to be smaller than it could otherwise be if you used a plane to haul it closer to its target and reduced the fuel in the missle, replacing it with more warhead. Just as you can get more warhead on target with a glide bomb than any missle, you can get more warhead on target the less the missle is filled with propellant rather than payload.

Sarxis · March 21, 2003, 05:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
uhh we have no battleships in the U.S. Navy

I was wondering...

Master Zen · March 21, 2003, 05:44

No gun in the arsenal has the power of a battleship's 16 inch guns. If they could be used securely (i.e. naval and air cover) they provide unmatched for bombardment.

However, they are rather expensive to maintain so perhaps they truly are obsolete

they were pretty cool though...

BTW, does anyone know if there are still any non-US dreadnoughts anywhere as museums or something?

Az · March 21, 2003, 05:52

Quote:

Railguns, are they those Gaussian rifle things? If so, you need very long barrels

You can accelerate the slug using a stronger field, as well.

Urban Ranger · March 21, 2003, 05:52

Sikander,

Okay, if you are not counting the launching platform (the plane), and the launching platform of the launching platform (the carrier), sure.

Master Zen,

Not sure about battleships, but IIRC, an ex-Soviet carrier is being used as a floating restaurant in China.

Kramerman · March 21, 2003, 05:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Railguns, are they those Gaussian rifle things? If so, you need very long barrels.

I dont think so, tho im not exactly sure what a gaussian rifle is...

Basically they are guns that use electromagnetic force of two oppositely charged 'rails' to propell a projectile to insane velocities. Some examples I talked about in a post earlier in the thread.

Sikander · March 21, 2003, 06:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Sikander,

Okay, if you are not counting the launching platform (the plane), and the launching platform of the launching platform (the carrier), sure.

My point is that you get better mileage out of the aircraft with a missle than you do with a missle only, because the aircraft is a much more fuel efficient flyer. Cruise missles are designed to take advantage of this fact by being in effect small kamikaze aircraft. The main problem with them is that they are really expensive, the cost per ton of explosive is in the millions. Which is why (as you point out) it is better to have a reusable aircraft dropping glide bombs in most cases.

MRT144 · March 21, 2003, 07:04

i want satellites that shoot energy ala SOL from akira

Wraith · March 21, 2003, 08:50

--"Railguns, are they those Gaussian rifle things? If so, you need very long barrels."

There are a couple variations. Rail guns (what you're probably thinking of) and coil guns. Neither of them really need long barrels, though. Especially not when you've got a nuclear reactor onboard to pump energy into them. That's the main drawback of railguns (one of the UT designs uses 9 MJ per shot), but that's pretty much irrelevant on a large ship.

UT Austin is involved in one of the military projects.

Wraith
e to the x dy dx! e to the y dy! sin x cos x ln y!

MRT144 · March 21, 2003, 08:54

whats the point of a railgun?

Sikander · March 21, 2003, 09:18

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
whats the point of a railgun?

They use electricity rather than chemicals to obtain power, which has several benefits. For one thing, you don't have to store, use or measure powder, which makes them safer, significantly increases the rate of fire, significantly reduces the amount of heat generated, and significantly reduces the amount of maintainance the gun needs. The space saved by the elimination of the propellant leaves more space for shells. The lack of muzzle flash increases security and reduces the shielding for sensors etc. Also the weight of the gun is greatly reduced, as you don't have to have tons of steel dedicated to keeping the pressure from the charge contained until the shell leaves the barrel. Instead you might just have a tubular cage to steer (and accellerate) the projectile as it leaves.

Az · March 21, 2003, 09:34

The UT site seems to lack links to actual material. I liked that they mentioned a space launch related research in utilizing the same technology.

MRT144 · March 21, 2003, 09:43

but are all the benefits outweighed by the cost/energy required?

Az · March 21, 2003, 09:51

They aren't. a nuke warship has usually tons of energy to spare.

Wraith · March 21, 2003, 10:26

--"whats the point of a railgun?"

Ligher shells at extremely high velocities. The force equation is F=M*V^2, so speeding them up gives you a much more powerful round.

--"significantly increases the rate of fire"

I know a couple of the currently developed railguns have very high rates of fire, but last I heard none of them could sustain it for more than a couple dozen rounds. The problem with railguns is that there's actual physical contact between the shell and the barrel (coil guns do not have this problem, but require much more complicated electronics). This puts a limit on the rate of fire, since none of the shells will be completely frictionless. They've had a problem with the friction (even using Teflon coated rounds) turning enough of the barrel lining to plasma to interfere with later shots...

--"The space saved by the elimination of the propellant leaves more space for shells."

The shells are significantly smaller, as well. Easier to transport and load, and of course you can carry a heck of a lot more of them.

--"The UT site seems to lack links to actual material."

They are pretty thin on actual material. A few years ago there was a fair bit of interesting stuff there. I've got a couple other links on another machine I can post tonight if anyone's still interested.

--"but are all the benefits outweighed by the cost/energy required?"

Not on a nuclear powered wessel (not a spelling error, but a movie reference).

Railguns will probably first see deployment on destroyer class ships, but they're also under developement for the army's next major MBT change. The 9 MJ gun I mentioned was an army project, but for a large-bore weapon. The MBT probably wouldn't need a round that large, and would be going with the smaller project (was it 2 or 3 MJ? Something like that).
One of the side-effects of the railgun projects has been the interesting power storage projects. Capacitors just won't cut it for the kind of sustained-output-small-footprint needed.

Wraith
"One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine..."
- From a Soviet Junior Lt.s Notebook

SpencerH · March 21, 2003, 10:37

As I recall, Reagan reactivated the battleships because the guns on smaller ships couldnt reach the necessary targets onshore and their use provided a safe alternative (for the pilots not those being bombarded) to the ground attack aircraft that were vulnerable to even relatively unsophisticated SAM's.

That being said, a smaller (cheaper) ship than a battleship that could provide onshore bombardment at distances comparable to those achieved by 16" guns could be of use.