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 I am thinking along the lines of a "future Ticonderoga" as they are now being withdrawn from service, in any case the first of class has.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
Iano    RE:Future RN Light Cruisers   4/26/2005 3:32:52 PM
I should like to see a cruiser of about 10 000 tons. Ditch the 4.5" and mount rail gun - when this technology is practical. At least a point air defence missile system, 2 triple torpedo tubes and some sort of CIWS/RAM, but the real punch would come from a number of missiles like the Russians have developed to cripple American aircraft carriers. Crazy, fast, massive, powerful, stealthy surface-to-surface missiles. Ballistic missile defence and anti satellite missiles would increase the ships usefulness. 2-3 helicopters would be a definite plus to give the ship all-round capability. Perhaps a single STOVL multi-mission aircraft could be mounted, not for CAP, but to extend the ships offensive reach. These ships would operate alongside destroyers (approx 7000 tons) and frigates (approx 5000 tons) in a equivalent of the American "surface action group". Britain has 20 frigates and 8 destroyers, now you are not going to say each of the CVFs will require 10 frigates and 4 destroyers to defend it? We have enough escorts to assign some around cruisers to give us more groups and more options in wartime. Additionally I'd like to see a class of multi role corvettes (approx 800 tons) and "patrol escort cutters" (think of an OPV, about 1600 tons but with a warfighting capability in one aspect like ASW, AAW etc) procured to emphasise the importance of shallow water ops. These cruisers could act as a sort of "mother ship", overseeing the coastal forces and protecting them against greater predators, using their helos to deter SSKs, carrying supplies that the smaller vessels could not embark, and acting as a floating command post for CAP/fighter cover over the area. Britain and America are reliant largely on aircraft for their ASuW punch. Russia tended towards submarines. It is time someone entrusted surface ships to take on other surface ships. Of course lets keep aircraft carriers and submarines, they are of great value. But why should surface forces be relegated to guarding the aircraft carrier only? Ian
 
Quote    Reply

ShallowThinker1    RE:Future Cruisers/Battleships   4/26/2005 9:17:47 PM
This is probably a dumb question, but based on some of the discussions over on the artillery board it would seem to me that counter-battery radar would make using cruisers/battleships problematic for shore bombardment. Doesn't CBR spell the end of big gunships used against significant opponents and, if the opponent isn't significant, why wouldn't existing aircraft capabilities suffice?
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Future Cruisers/Battleships   4/26/2005 9:37:23 PM
Actually you don't need CBR radar, just a simple surface search radar that you can buy for your yatch can see a 10,000 ton destroyer at 15 miles. The USN used to use the Raytheon Pathfinder (1900N) as a backup Navigation radar. The thinking behind Naval Gunfire Support is it will have a range of 100 NM and a fire rate of 12 rounds/minute (???). The argument is that a ship can stay on station for a long time. The rounds would have to be GPS guided to give them a chance of hitting anything at 100NM. Cost per round is $15K. The next level up is the rail-gun. It's supposed to provide a range of 200+NM.
 
Quote    Reply

Iano    RE:Future Cruisers/Battleships   4/27/2005 3:20:29 PM
My future cruiser wouldn't use conventional gunfire, or even ERGM/RAP if I could help it. It would be a platform to return ASuW to the surface forces, by the use of dedicated warship-killing missiles, suitable for use against the hardest of targets. Missiles like the Russians would've used to break the back of the Nimitz class CVNs if it was ever called for and if they ever got the chance to. They based the 24,500 ton Kirov class around these missiles. In addition the mounting of an electromagnetic rail gun would have ENORMOUS advantages, not just in shore bombardment but in an ASuW role also! This valuable ship would have to incorporate a certain number of other weapons systems as self-defence capability against likely threats - point air defence missile system a la Sea Wolf, lightweight torpedo tubes a la Sting Ray, and CIWS a la Goalkeeper & Sea RAM. Other systems like helos or STOVL aircraft would be for their reconnaisance capability and general purpose usefulness rather than any specific application. Et voila, grouped with a destroyer or 2, a frigate or 3/4, a hunter killer and an auxiliary, you have the ability to conduct AAW, ASuW, ASW, EW and sigint, and all other kinds of good stuff, without the massive cost of carriers and aircraft. Feedback anyone? Ian
 
Quote    Reply

thegreatchimp       10/11/2008 7:07:41 PM
From what I've read up, there is already protype rail guns mounted on destroyers for testing. Could expect to see rail guns on any new ship designs in 10 to 15 years time. The main problem with rail drivers are massive power demand. The ship wouldn't NEED to be nuclear powered, but it would make sense. They also burn out their barrels after a few shots (from friction when they fire). When I last checked, the techs were trying to make an alloy that would solve this problem. Don't know where they're at now to be honest.
The ship would probably be no bigger than a 15000 tons diplacement. Which is comparable to a WW2 heavy cruiser.
But as some of the other articles on this site mention, it'll probably be classed as a frigate or destroyer for some crazy reason!
It wouldn't be any bigger becasue it doesn't tactically make sense anymore to have 1 big ship when 2 or 3 smaller ones can do the same job and be more flexible and less vulnerable than a single ship. Appareantly even the next gerneration of carriers are gonna be smaller, greater in number, and (like you were saying) have VTOLs, STOLs and choppers.
 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    All depends on just how big you want that railgun, and...   10/11/2008 8:36:35 PM
Some of the debates we've had on other threads here about naval gunfire at some point bring up the issues (difficulties) that have been experienced in the gun-fired PGM programs.
 
For some reasons or other, the US has yet to field a service-ready munition for its principal ship guns, the 127mm Mk 45 series.
For a time, the USN was looking at the 155mm AGS as some sort of Naval Fire Support saviour, what with its anticipated LRLAP "shells" that would've outshot any other naval artillery to date.
 
So if we can't even get a gun-fired PGM built for a 5-inch gun that barely even fires at 1000 meters per second,
for the last roughly 30 years we (US) have had artillery gun-fired PGMs in development (Copperhead started it all in the 1970s),
what makes anyone think we can effectively create a PGM for a railgun that fires it shells at several thousand meters per second?
(won't be doing it anytime soon, seeing as we can't even get it done for these lower velocity weapons.)
 
Surely no one here thinks that we'd been firing those hypervelocity shells to their theoretical target ranges of a few hundred km, and be firing them unguided?
 
Seeing as we can't keep unguided things accurate enough (small enough CEP to actually hit the intended target) when firing them over ranges of 30-50km with speeds of up to 1000m/sec,
what makes anyone think that railguns firing at higher velocities and much longer ranges are somehow miraculously going to be more precise without any guidance and control devices built into them?
 
No, for long range surface attack (land or sea), we're probably just better off to develop hypersonic missiles, whose launch acceleration curves and  G forces are a lot more tolerable on the internal electronics (plus no massive electromagnetic fields of the gun to interfere with them).
 
Where the railgun might excel at is for closer range warfare: anti air and anti missile systems at visual ranges (within 20km?),
where the very high velocity and relatively flatter trajectory (than any current guns) of even an unguided round leaves little time for maneuver for the attacking aircraft or missile,
especially the closer you get to the railgun-equipped ship trying to shoot you down,
and even as a weapon for use against surface targets.
Plus, at such high velocities, even a single rail gun bullet's KE impact will be considerably more destructive to an aircraft or large antiship missile than a bullet or shell from a typical modern-day CIWS/AA gun of a much lower velocity.
 
Reactive materials, as seen in the article in this Aviation Week/DTI e-magazine  March 2008  , on page 13,
might be able to create a very damaging munition without the need for complex fuzes and electronics that have to be strengthened for the launches from a rail gun.
 
Such a close range weapon need not be of very large caliber (20-100mm should suffice), so power requirements wouldn't be as intensive as for something akin to a 6-inch class tube design to hurl larger, much-heavier rounds to a few hundred km or better.
The only power crunch might be caused by any desires to make the weapon have a high rate of fire (generally, the smaller the round, the faster we can fire them, so there may well be a power curve apex that says where it's better effective to use larger rounds at a lower rate of fire).
 
Another big issue for rail gun use on ships in addition to its barrel (magnets, rails) heating issues,
arcing along bad surfaces, and any potential saltwater susceptibility,
is that those higher velocities will mean the shells could travel much farther for a given elevation, so we'd need to be more cautious the closer we get to civilian and commercial areas. After all, we don't want the collateral damage risk of explosively punching large deep holes in commercial shipping, offshore facilities, or seaside industrial or recreational areas
when we're engaging a legitimate target that thinks it can hide amongst things we don't want to destroy.
 
Directed energy weapons like lasers and microwave beams will suffer from atmospheric and weather conditions,
but rail guns shouldn't suffer any more degradation than any other ship guns,
other than possibly the ammunition coming apart much faster if it starts to tumble or its flight destabilizes at higher velocities.
 
Match the weapon to the intende
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       10/21/2008 3:17:29 AM
From a Royal Navy point of view, this is never going to happen - far better to spend the money on getting air wings for both carriers and making sure that a good selection of UAVs will be available. For the money involved, putting all the systems the Type 45's are fitted for *into* the ships will be much better.
 
Rail gun armed super cruisers are nice to have but an F-35 with a rack full of SDB's will do a better job at less risk.
 
Ian
 

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics