Wouldn't it be better to postpone such a decision till the advent of high-powered electric railguns or something similar?

 

I'm not sure about the economic viability of a blue ocean platform used primarily for coastal support (as I take it the idea here is to provide fire support) even without the presence of precision-guided munitions. But perhaps if a heavily armored hull is retained to protect against third world threat, while other, more expensive defensive options are eschewed then there would be a leftover budget for a marine complement.

 

I'm not sure about the accuracy of long-range naval support with sci-fi guns though, or what kind of trajectories are available.

 

I found this page via a Google search. I was pondering the concept of a 21st century battleship. What I ran across was a lot of pages and discussions about how big gun battleships could fit modern technology. That's not what I was hoping for. Aircraft carriers able to project their offensive capabilities far beyond the range of any gun in existence makes the old time battleships redundant and inferior, thus, not worth the expense. I was thinking more along the lines of a larger more modern version of the Russian Kirovs, in other words, a missile based battleship with more firepower and better protected than the current Ticonderoga class cruisers as well as the larger Kirovs. A ship that could be a viable and less costly replacement for the expensive and vulnerable supercarriers. The ship I'm thinking of would of course, have more SSM and automatic gun mounts than the cruisers in addition to ASW -which the old school battleships totally lacked- and AA -both missile and gun mounts-.  The missile mounts would be popup VLS. The Ship would also have much more protiction than the tin can cruisers currently in use. Lastly the ships would have nuclear propulsion. I've been a major fan of the WWII Iowa class for a long time, but the one thing that disturbed me was the 1980s modernization. What bothered me was the wasted potential of the large amounts of deck and hangar space. Even though the Iowas carried several helicopters, none of them were ASW. The installation of the Phalanx AA system provided excellent point defense but the lack of Guided missile AA made little sense to me. This made the Iowas the same liability that battleships were in both world wars. They needed huge escorts because there were certain types of weapons, like subs and massed aircraft, that the battleships had no effective defense against. These were the same weaknesses that doomed such ships in the first place. I feel that with the systems available at the time, combined with the Iowas size, a capital ship that was more independent of external support could have been achieved. At that point they might have justified their operating costs. At present the United States Navy doesn't really need capitol ships outside their carriers and ballistic missile subs. The Russian Fleet is the only potential enemy that would justify such ships and the probability of war between the US and Russia is much less than it once was. Any thoughts?

Well, from my layman's perspective I'm not so sure about your willingness to abandon carriers for larger missile ships. That is the way things have been going, but there will continue to be things missiles can't do that aircraft can. And your idea that carriers are not used against America's enemies today is ludicrous. No nation can trade on the high seas without the sufferance of the US navy, and other than control of the high seas US carriers often project both potential power and actual power into hotspots around the globe. Not everywhere has a friendly airbase.

Excellent points, both of you. A joy to read. :)

 

I think I would prefer aircraft though, as they have speed of relocation going for them as well. But in another decade or two a railgun destroyer should be economical. If it isn't already?

I was thinking more along the lines of a larger more modern version of the Russian Kirovs, in other words, a missile based battleship with more firepower and better protected than the current Ticonderoga class cruisers as well as the larger Kirovs. A ship that could be a viable and less costly replacement for the expensive and vulnerable supercarriers. The ship I'm thinking of would of course, have more SSM and automatic gun mounts than the cruisers in addition to ASW -which the old school battleships totally lacked- and AA -both missile and gun mounts-.

Well the refurb battleships lacked AAMs for a good reason. Sea Sparrow boxes couldn't survive the overpressure from the 16" guns firing. Installing VLS + Aegis would have displaced the guns that were the whole reason for reviving them in the first place and were the one unique and irreplaceable feature of the battleships.

 

Short of some sort of breakthrough in Rail guns, no ship is going to be able to affordably replace a Carrier. Missiles are essentially throw away aircraft and SDBs or JDAMs are always going to be a LOT cheaper. Nor can guns possibly have the range of the aircraft.

The missile mounts would be popup VLS.

The Ship would also have much more protiction than the tin can cruisers currently in use.

Protection? In what sense. They don't armor things anymore because the simple fact is that you can't possibly armor a ship enough to protect against warheads or bombs. This was true back in WWII and hasn't really changed since then. Even if you did make some sort of a "new armored" ship, it's a lot simpler and easier to adjust the warheads/missiles to be effective, than it is to increase the armor. The vast increase in the effectiveness of weapons like JDAM or SDB only makes this more true.

 

I'm not convinced that a Kirov is significantly harder to kill than an AB or Tico in terms of missiles/radars, aside from the extra damage resistance due to the sizes. Having your eggs in multiple baskets is always a good idea and the horrific expense of large ships is the reason why people basically don't build them any more.

 

Aircraft carriers are the sizes they are because they have to be. If they could get the same capability off of a smaller hull, they'd be doing so.

Lastly the ships would have nuclear propulsion.

Your assessment of the feasibility of a heavily armored guided missile battleship idea is exactly what I was looking for. Offensive properties have all but negated the capabilities of armored protection. regarding the revamped Iowas the interference to SAMs caused by the 16 inch guns never crossed my mind. I do have to ask why the guns didn't interfere with the Tomahawk and Harpoon missile systems though and I still believe a couple of ASW helicopters wouldn't have hurt.

The Tomahawks were in armored box launchers. The Harpoons, it's less clear, but I forgot to check my book on the Iowas last night. Their launchers didn't seem to be different from the regular ones. I suspect that they are simply less sensitive to shock than Sea Sparrow missiles and they don't have the fire control radar built into the SS mounts to worry about.

 

As far as the helos goes, yes it wouldn't have hurt, but they really weren't intended to be hunting subs and pretty much anything else in the navy would have been better at it. So when you have limited budgets you have to make choices.

When I referred to pop up VLS systems I meant it in terms of the missile launchers being under the deck and raised to fire -like in the later Ticonderogas and Kirovs- I wasn't referring to the way the missile performs -like certain Russian SSMs.

What about the viability of a heavily armored shallow draft monitor armed with autoloading 155mm howitzers?.

I envision a fairly wide low superstructure type ship with a lot of sloped Chobam type armor. Put in about 8 155mm howiters per broadside in some kind of armored casement. Maybe one or 2 120mm ala M1 Abrams anti tank guns per broadside as well. UAV launch capability for fire designation, CIWS (?) - Phalanx, and Anti missile missiles.

I envision a heavily armored ship that you can sail right into someones harbor and pound the crap out of them while being almost impervious to most shore based weapons.

You wouldn't want to use this where you don't have local air superiority but in the instance you need to pound some 3rd world city into submission or the Marines need something to cover their back while they are doing an Amphibious operation it could be useful.

Maybe assign one per Marine expeditionary force and keep one or two stationed in the persian Gulf to scare the crap out the Iranian Revolutionary Guards speedboats.