Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Future Cruisers/Battleships
Iano    2/4/2005 7:13:32 AM
Hi there, Does anyone think we will ever see a future cruiser/battleship fitted out with an electromagnetic rail gun? And perhaps TLAM, a STOVL fast jet aircraft (I realise this will be pointless for maintaining combat air patrol, but it could extend the offensive reach of the vessel), flagship capabilities and say a point air defence missile system and lightweight torpedoes for self defence in AAW/ASW. Would a ship that mounts an electromagnetic rail gun need nuclear propulsion in order to provide all that electrical power? Or id this achievable with conventional propulsion? Or what does everyone else think that the capital ships (not carriers or assault ships) of the future will resemble or feature? I am thinking along the lines of a "future Ticonderoga" as they are now being withdrawn from service, in any case the first of class has. Does anyone think the RN could find employment for, or be able to sustain, say 2 such ships? Thanks Ian
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
elcid    RE:Future Cruisers/Battleships   2/4/2005 8:20:12 PM
For what it is wroth, I believe in classical battleships. I am not kidding. And I am a Navy veteran. I know not a single Marine who does not agree. Guns are quite useful for air defense - even anti missile defense - and they are superb for gunfire support and bombardment of ships and shore targets. I think guns are way underrated and underutilized. Guns today are 100% more efficient and have several times the range of their WWII anticedents.
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid    RE:Future Cruisers/Battleships   2/4/2005 8:24:46 PM
"The idea of continuing to use cruise missiles for all targets is borderline insanity. Even the new Tactical Tomahawk costs upwards of $500,000, meaning very little bang for the buck! The rounds for a railgun would be somewhere around $500 (a guess), thus making them more attractive for area targets." You wouldn't use a Tomahawk in that case, you'd use an airstrike, which would bring down cost to about $30,000 or less on the bomb. However in terms of cost efficiency the major factor is payload delivered over range per time unit. If the railgun in your idea for example can only deliver 25 pounds of equivalent high explosive capability (lets assume a small round sabot rather than high explosive shell), it'd need about 28-40 rounds (dependent on whether it was a 700lb warhead all the wya up to 1000lb warhead) to equivalent of a Tomahawk, this of course doesn't include the range factor which can exceed 1100 km. Basically this means that if a target needs to be taken out in a one strike option a Tomahawk currently is more useful, but only superceded by an airstrike where the cost factor is even lower when its combined with more than one bomb being dropped. However in the under 250 mile range well its a toss up between airpower and naval cannons, for instance you could deliver more tonnage over time than an aircraft but an aircraft can deliver a larger payload at one time, I guess it would just depend on the target.
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Future Cruisers/Battleships   2/5/2005 12:46:33 AM
Here's a link to short read on Naval railguns. http://www.battelle.org/navy/railguns.pdf The day of the battleship may have returned.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Future Cruisers/Battleships   2/5/2005 1:33:40 AM
Real guns, on the other hand, are the cheapest bombardment/strike weapons of all. They can use rocket assisted projectiles and/or rocket-guns for launch to extend range, and they can use heavy rounds in close (like within 20 nautical miles). The systems are cheap enough you can put at least four on a ship, and maybe four twins.
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Future Cruisers/Battleships   2/5/2005 1:54:21 AM
As with most things a mix would be best. The railgun would not work for CIWS for example. But the cost of rocket assisted projectiles gets high for area bombardment. Right now I'd settle for a few FramIIs with their 6 5"/38s.
 
Quote    Reply

Iano    RE:Future Cruisers/Battleships   2/5/2005 10:59:08 AM
EW3, sorry, didnt mean to put down your submarine idea too hard! It can be difficult to feel the tone in someones voice in plain text! Just after seeing around HMS Onyx I find it difficult to believe they had room for the sailors and food, let alone fitting guns into submarines. Now isnt the USN's DDX being designed with the provision for a rail gun? And wasnt it 10 000 "darts" they reckoned they could take to sea? Do the USN really believe they could get 250 nm range out of these? Is there any projection for when the technology will mature enough to actually get a rail gun in naval service? I believe the 5 inch gun used by the USN has a 63nm range with RAP? So a 155mm RAP or ERGM gun that may installed in the USN/RN in future, would have even further range, and be very accurate too I should think. Incidentally, didnt Copperhead die out with the Crusader? And are people REALLY working on laser CIWS's? Crazy! When the technology becomes available I would think a battleship with say 2 EM rail guns in turrets fore and aft, another turret with dual 155mm RAP/ERGM guns, a STOVL aircraft to extend its offensive reach, and the neccesary point air defence missiles, lightweight torpedoes, small guns etc, would sound a VERY capable combatant, if these rail guns prove as useful as some people think they will. Ian
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Future Cruisers/Battleships   2/5/2005 12:24:18 PM
Ian, No offense taken. As an engineer I believe all ideas should be put on the table, even if only to say, "yeah we talked about it". The kind of sub I was thinking of was an Ohio class, which is 560 ft long, and removing the missile silos and replacing with rail guns. She'd pop up 75nm from a target area (like a port) and lay in rounds for 2 or 3 minutes, then submerge and disappear. They have land based test beds that have fired projectiles. The big issue of rail gun vs RAP is the cost. One source indicates a RAP is going to cost $50K. http://nationaldefense.ndia.org/issues/2001/Mar/Naval_Guns.htm There is a project that exists already, and is being deployed to Israel that uses a laser called THEL. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-04r.html Even more significant is http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_ABL,,00.html which has potential to shoot down all kinds of targets. I suspect all 3 of these weapons to begin entering the fleet in less than 10 years, the THEL is already being deployed in Israel. Al
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:Future Cruisers/Battleships   2/5/2005 1:15:15 PM
One thing in your favour is that due to being a magnetic weapon, the acceleration of the round is more uniform, thus meaning far less sudden shock. As the round goes up, it accelerates, which produces no real recoil, so in fact, you probably could fit it in an SSBN. This is not to say that I'd want to surface an SSBN in enemy waters, it would be kind of like the 'whack-a-mole' game you get at fairs! The idea of the rail gun is great, and I like the whole idea of using cheap ammunition on targets. The days of shore bombardment for amphibious landings are far from over, and more importantly, naval gunfire is useful for attacking targets in general. In order to scare an enemy, few things beat naval gunfire, and many victories have been won, by demoralising the enemy with artillery saturation, even if it doesn't actually hit the target!
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Future Cruisers/Battleships   2/5/2005 8:03:25 PM
'whack-a-mole' LOL. That is funny. My big thing is stealth. With technology getting better, the torpedoes and missiles are getting smarter. If they can see you, they can kill you. So my first choice in almost all systems is stealth first. Any "front line" aircraft needs to be stealthy. Same is true of ships. I absolutely think the Ohio Class SSGN is a great system. If the bad guys get a rail gun system, even the Aegis class ships are in trouble.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:Future Cruisers/Battleships   2/5/2005 8:28:17 PM
I suspect the threat for Aegis ships isn't going to be some 'cheap' anti-ship missile, but as you say, from land based long range artillery. In places like the Straits of Hormuz (entrance to the Gulf), and other choke points, there will be the possibility of simply denying passage with an artillery barrage. CIWS will not stop incoming artillery, thus even a $1bn Aegis could fall victim to a few thousand dollars worth of artillery shells! I'm sure stealth will continue to be important, though I actually feel that stealth can help make a ship cheaper: you need to minimize the number of systems on deck, so you fit multi-function systems. Thus for the ship, you could keep it down to a simple radar, doing both surface search, and air search. This would be backed up by a simple missile VLS system, and a main gun, plus CIWS/RAM. Hey presto, all the basics of the ship, and all totally standard, thus trimming costs. In addition, stealthier ships favour materials like composites, which are often cheaper than metal, and would allow very quick construction. The faster the boat is built, the cheaper it is, thus the more you can buy, thus unit cost comes down. Rinse, repeat!
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics