Battleship and Battlecruiser in 21st century

Battleships are so beautyful... I hate this times when everything is small and cowardly launched from hundred km away. If it wasn't for nuclear weapons, hugh combatants in the sea, in land and in the air would have been developed, following the path that was walked troughout the 20th century until 1945.

I think Battleships would be key. If you put them in your reserve fleet your set. Battleships can provide heavy fire support, lobbing thousands of shells per minute. It has the technology at this point to survive on the sea. Harpoons were fitted on the Missouri and Wisconsin battleships. Plus it has the capability for UAVs along with a big-@$$ helipad. I remember starting a thread similar to this at PDF. It was a good discussion. No flaming, which is rare there. Anyway, Battshlips would be key to softening up targets along, let's say the North Korea coast. The number of bunkered anti-ship missiles there is crazy. Even though they are 70s-era Chinese ground-to-sea missiles, they still pose a threat to LCs. Battleships would wreak havoc on bunkered troops too. I mean I would piss in my pants if hundreds of shells were landing a few feet away from me for hours.

kevin JJW said:

Soviet battlecruiser Kirov

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

USS Iowa (BB-61)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BBG 21

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Arsenal Ship

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Someone asked about a BB(X) idea in another thread, so here it is. Hope you all like it.


BB(X) Illinois Class (BB-71)
Advanced Modern Battleship
Length: 889’
Beam: 108’
Draft: 26'
Cruise Speed: 33 kts
Dash Speed: 35.1 kts
Tonnage: 49,000 tons light/ 55,000 tons full/ 59,000 tons max war cap.
Unit Price: 6.8- 7 B

BB(X) will have a "tumblehome" hull form, i.e. a design in which hull slopes inward from above the waterline. This will significantly reduce the radar cross section since such a slope returns a much less defined radar image rather than a more hard-angled hull form.

Requirements for the Integrated Deckhouse EDM is that it is fully EMC (Electromagetic Compatibility) shielded with reduced infrared and radar signatures. Measures to fulfill these conditions include an all-composite superstructure, low signature electronically steered arrays, an integrated multi-function mast and low radar and infrared signatures. Other measures to reduce the vessel's infrared signature include the development of an exhaust suppressor.

Harris Corporation has been awarded a contract for the development of the Common Data Link (CDL) X/Ku-band phased array antenna systems, which will be integrated into the Integrated Deckhouse Assembly. The multi-beam electronically-steered antenna will allow connectivity with up to eight CDL terminals.

Dude, you guys sound like it is illegal for battleships and battlecruisers to drop its guns.

Now, I really don't think and do not want America to have more BB/BC, since our cruisers (and even destroyers!) already have Tomahawks onboard, and maybe drones.

I don't think manpower is a problem. Just compare the CVs of America to those of Britain and France, and you will notice, it is possible to reduce the crew on big ships. American CVs right now seems pretty darn crew-inefficient.

As for the BBG/BCG's new weapons, you can have:
Instead of 16' guns, large calibre MLRS(A-100 or WS in China, Smerch in Russia, etc) and 6' inches, and give the guns the ability to launch missiles as an option.
Instead of those 80 40mm guns and 49 20mm guns, a long range SAM(like SM-2, THAADS, HQ-9, etc), maybe a 2nd short range SAM system.
16-24 ASMs (Hopefully as good as Shipwreck is at least on paper, but not as huge, C-602?)
LACMs like Babur and Tomahawk for long strike strike.
ASROC and torpedos for ASW (Default) (Maybe even mortars of some sort, as they can't be jammed)
Choppers and drones (Default, replaces the seaplane, but you might want to include a seaplane too.)
8 CIWS
Dinghies and ROVs for non-combat uses.

The new German F125 Frigates will be somewhat like a small Battleship



armament:

-155mm PZH2000 Turret (Most likely V-Lap Ammo with 70km Range)



- Navalized MLRS (New Guided MLRS)



- 6 Bullet CIWS Systems



- 2 Sea RAM



- 8 RBS15 MK3 ASHM with secondary cruise missile capability

-Underwaterdrone

- 2 NH90

- 4 33ft Speedboats (The Ships supply's 50 special forces with extra command room ect.)

sumdud said:

I don't think manpower is a problem. Just compare the CVs of America to those of Britain and France, and you will notice, it is possible to reduce the crew on big ships. American CVs right now seems pretty darn crew-inefficient.

Click to expand...

US CV are far bigger and has alot of other fleet function which the european CV doesn't do, so i will not encourage a direct comparison for crew-efficiency. the US CV crew size will drop when newer automated system are introduced in the new ship; so yes, it is not using the best technology for crew reduction

The answer alot more than a battleship. IF the target is close say 50 miles away, most of the A/C takeoff weight will be devoted to ordinance. Aircraft like the Super Hornet can as much tonnage as a single broadside. Attack squadrons can lauched, bombed, recovered, and rearmed for a whole 24 hour period and can deliver more explosive power than a battleship for the same time. That assuming that a battleship can continue to fire for that long. BArrels will get to hot and ammo problems. It is far easier to relaod a carrier at sea than a battleship

Click to expand...

no it can't... :rofl: like your planes doesn't need to cool off while the barrel does?

also, how much more expensive would your 24 hour planes only attack cost? using carriers for everything will result in overpriced warfare. there is a budget you know, the more you spend on fuel; the less F22 you can buy... little wonder why the B2s had to be scraped now...

21st Century Battleship
The Arsenal Ship was an attempt to update the battleship for a new millennia.
A 21st Century Battleship
Enlarge Image
There’s been an ongoing debate in US Naval circles, whether the Iowa battleships or the DDX destroyer is the appropriate choice for Marine firepower support. Another contender, and far more relevant in the 21st Century would be the Arsenal Ship. This vessel was proposed in the 1990's as an all-missile adjunct to the carrier force, but was prematurely cancelled, because the Navy had doubts about the design, and thought it a threat to its new construction carriers and destroyers. Now it appears the DDX is too expensive, and the Navy is trying to decrease the number of aircraft carriers in service, it seems is the time to rethink this revolutionary type of warship. An arsenal ship could carry all forms of ordinance currently in the military service, including army rockets and missiles for shore bombardment.

I never understood the infatuation of large displacement surface combatants. The USN started a strike cruiser program back in the 70's in response to the Kirov. It was cancelled because the IOWA was brought back into service.

Large surface combatant's power is better disperce to several destroyers, which aggregately is more survivable, effective, and can be at more places than just a single ship. Look at Russia's navy, 30 percent of the northern fleets capability is in the Peter the Great (kirov class). This means that the northern fleet will ose 30 percent of its power anytime that ship goes on repairs, damage, or sunk. A force of 5-6 Sovremnney, about equal in cost in terms of money and crew, is more effective and survivable.

IDonT said:

I never understood the infatuation of large displacement surface combatants. The USN started a strike cruiser program back in the 70's in response to the Kirov. It was cancelled because the IOWA was brought back into service.

Large surface combatant's power is better disperce to several destroyers, which aggregately is more survivable, effective, and can be at more places than just a single ship. Look at Russia's navy, 30 percent of the northern fleets capability is in the Peter the Great (kirov class). This means that the northern fleet will ose 30 percent of its power anytime that ship goes on repairs, damage, or sunk. A force of 5-6 Sovremnney, about equal in cost in terms of money and crew, is more effective and survivable.

Click to expand...

So true. Large surface combantants are outmoded. This is a new age of surface combatants. The USN has 50 DDG's, 22 CG's and two operational SSGN's with two more on the way. With all that and the way most modern navies dispurse their firepower...Why put all your "eggs" in a few large baskets?