Battleship and Battlecruiser in 21st century
- Thread starter kevin JJW
- Start date
Re: Battleship 21st century
A battleship in the 24th century will be different from those of the past. Battleships will be designed to be able to carry VTL aircraft. Also it will be designed to carry a lot of cruise missiles and helicopters Also the battle will be designed to provide organic fire support for amphibious landing invasions, like the D Day invasion of Normandy in WWII.
A battleship in the 24th century will be different from those of the past. Battleships will be designed to be able to carry VTL aircraft. Also it will be designed to carry a lot of cruise missiles and helicopters Also the battle will be designed to provide organic fire support for amphibious landing invasions, like the D Day invasion of Normandy in WWII.
Re: Battleship 21st century
24th century? Been watching too much Star Trek (Me too probably!). We're only just into the 21st century (well I am I think). But seriously, I think the lines between different type of warship will continue to blur in the coming years, and aircraft are just another weapon system in this respect, but I would draw your attention to design studies carried out in the 80s to see if it would be feasible to produce DDG sized ships carrying a couple of Sea Harriers in addition to a normal destroyers armament.
The conclusion was that while it was physically possible, it was uneconomic as the support facilities for two aircraft were the same as for six or ten or more, so if you are going to have V/STOL aircraft aboard a ship then you may as well have a reasonable number, and on anything smaller than the hypothetical Battleships and Battlecruisers being dicussed here it would not be worthwhile unless the smaller ship became a full carrier and not a hybrid wardship. Space and weight for the flight deck and hangar will have a large 'ship impact' which will have to be balanced against other weapon systems (placing a VLS silo in the middle of the flight deck is inadvisable, as the missiles may fire without warning and any aircraft in close proximity could be damaged by the blast of the missiles' booster rocket) so the question of wether to place the aircraft aboard the BBG or remove them to another ship (a small carrier, SCS sized) becomes pertinent.
24th century? Been watching too much Star Trek (Me too probably!). We're only just into the 21st century (well I am I think). But seriously, I think the lines between different type of warship will continue to blur in the coming years, and aircraft are just another weapon system in this respect, but I would draw your attention to design studies carried out in the 80s to see if it would be feasible to produce DDG sized ships carrying a couple of Sea Harriers in addition to a normal destroyers armament.
The conclusion was that while it was physically possible, it was uneconomic as the support facilities for two aircraft were the same as for six or ten or more, so if you are going to have V/STOL aircraft aboard a ship then you may as well have a reasonable number, and on anything smaller than the hypothetical Battleships and Battlecruisers being dicussed here it would not be worthwhile unless the smaller ship became a full carrier and not a hybrid wardship. Space and weight for the flight deck and hangar will have a large 'ship impact' which will have to be balanced against other weapon systems (placing a VLS silo in the middle of the flight deck is inadvisable, as the missiles may fire without warning and any aircraft in close proximity could be damaged by the blast of the missiles' booster rocket) so the question of wether to place the aircraft aboard the BBG or remove them to another ship (a small carrier, SCS sized) becomes pertinent.
Just a quickie!
The traditional roles for a Battleship were
a) Flag Carrier - National symbol
b) Surface Raider
c) Ship of the Line
d) On Shore Bombardment.
Of these a) is now the province of the FW Carrier, whilst b) and c) are are now carried out by Missile Destroyers and Air Craft.
Only d) really has an opening for a large Non Carrier Combat Vessel.
To fill that vacancy, it would be possible to build a heavily armed and armoured Troop Carrier and Landing Assault Ship; not just for Marines but for Army as Well.
My best guess would be a Carrier Sized ship with heavy ship to shore missile batteries - plus defensive systems and which can carry troops, their Armoured Vehicles, ammunition and Supplies and Landing Craft.
Such a ship would need to operate in conjuction with the "Amphibeous Assault Ship" Carriers and various escorts. Such a group operating with a Carrier Battle Group would certainly represent a very formidable combination.
The traditional roles for a Battleship were
a) Flag Carrier - National symbol
b) Surface Raider
c) Ship of the Line
d) On Shore Bombardment.
Of these a) is now the province of the FW Carrier, whilst b) and c) are are now carried out by Missile Destroyers and Air Craft.
Only d) really has an opening for a large Non Carrier Combat Vessel.
To fill that vacancy, it would be possible to build a heavily armed and armoured Troop Carrier and Landing Assault Ship; not just for Marines but for Army as Well.
My best guess would be a Carrier Sized ship with heavy ship to shore missile batteries - plus defensive systems and which can carry troops, their Armoured Vehicles, ammunition and Supplies and Landing Craft.
Such a ship would need to operate in conjuction with the "Amphibeous Assault Ship" Carriers and various escorts. Such a group operating with a Carrier Battle Group would certainly represent a very formidable combination.
most of all battle ships were the fortess in the sea. Back when the ships were wood and hippyes were steel (or before
) guns were the only meas of destroying enemy ships. So the bigger gus the merryer. Also you needed to whitstand enemy fire as well and there the extensive armour. When the japanese invented that one its worth of trying to ease the armour for making them more faster the oddity of battle-cruiser appeared.
But those days are gone and I think naval terminology should move onwards. the entire nature of surface warfare have changed dramatically and there possiple fantasyes of big ships firing massive ammount of missiles arent just worth of the costs. Perhaps ordanance ship to shell landing zones has its benefits (but down sizes becouse its higly needy requirments would make it single purpose luxury that even USN couldn't afford) but call that sort of almoust-auxillary a battle ship is like calling lizzard a dragon...I say let the past remain in past and lets not ruin the appeal and magnificent glory of the big gun ships by bringing too futuristic what ifs around...or least start inventing different names to them.
) guns were the only meas of destroying enemy ships. So the bigger gus the merryer. Also you needed to whitstand enemy fire as well and there the extensive armour. When the japanese invented that one its worth of trying to ease the armour for making them more faster the oddity of battle-cruiser appeared.But those days are gone and I think naval terminology should move onwards. the entire nature of surface warfare have changed dramatically and there possiple fantasyes of big ships firing massive ammount of missiles arent just worth of the costs. Perhaps ordanance ship to shell landing zones has its benefits (but down sizes becouse its higly needy requirments would make it single purpose luxury that even USN couldn't afford) but call that sort of almoust-auxillary a battle ship is like calling lizzard a dragon...I say let the past remain in past and lets not ruin the appeal and magnificent glory of the big gun ships by bringing too futuristic what ifs around...or least start inventing different names to them.
Yes I agree, I was really just trying to find a role that a Super Dreadnaught sized ship might be needed for. Not only however would such a ship be very expensive, it would also be too vulnerable. I would assume such a ship could carry a Heavy Battalion or a Light Division, so one major missile strike would be a major disaster.
It would therefore make better sense to use a larger number of smaller ships.
Interestingly though why you would regard such a ship as almost an Auxillery, you could almost make a similair claim about a Carrier, afterall it is just a floating airfield, its power not being intrinsic but based on the other equipment it carries. In the case of a Carrier, Aircraft, for the Assault ship its Marine or Army formations. Technically, the assault ship I would be more of an actual Warship than a Carrier as it would have its own Offensive Capabilty with its Shore Bombardment Batteries.
Going back to Battleships however, I do have a comment that may shock you!
Whilst there is no doubt the Dreadnaught was a major Technological Achievement, I would argue that as an effective Military weapon system, they were in fact a failure!!
Think about it, for such a massive Investment in Money, Resources and Manpower you would expect weapons that delivered a decisive blow in any combat. This simply did not happen- except once in 1904. After that nothing, countries maintained large fleets that stayed mainly in Port during Wartime. When two major fleets did meet at Jutland in 1916 the result was Indecisive and both fleets returned to Port. There were no major Fleet engagements between Battleships after that. Indeed most Battleship stories after that were disasters which illustrated just how vulnerable these behemoths were.
In truth, I suspect that the Battleship was the Naval equivalent of the Maginot Line; a magnificent symbol but pretty much obsolete by the time they were first built, a glorious fantasy based on Trafalga just as in 1914 Infantry still marched into Battle in the style of Waterloo, untill Machine Guns and Exploding Artillery Shells quickly buried that notion.
The Battleship was a symbol of Progress and Political Power, simply to be able to build, operate and maintain such vessels was a statement, just as Nuclear weapons are today.
It would therefore make better sense to use a larger number of smaller ships.
Interestingly though why you would regard such a ship as almost an Auxillery, you could almost make a similair claim about a Carrier, afterall it is just a floating airfield, its power not being intrinsic but based on the other equipment it carries. In the case of a Carrier, Aircraft, for the Assault ship its Marine or Army formations. Technically, the assault ship I would be more of an actual Warship than a Carrier as it would have its own Offensive Capabilty with its Shore Bombardment Batteries.
Going back to Battleships however, I do have a comment that may shock you!
Whilst there is no doubt the Dreadnaught was a major Technological Achievement, I would argue that as an effective Military weapon system, they were in fact a failure!!
Think about it, for such a massive Investment in Money, Resources and Manpower you would expect weapons that delivered a decisive blow in any combat. This simply did not happen- except once in 1904. After that nothing, countries maintained large fleets that stayed mainly in Port during Wartime. When two major fleets did meet at Jutland in 1916 the result was Indecisive and both fleets returned to Port. There were no major Fleet engagements between Battleships after that. Indeed most Battleship stories after that were disasters which illustrated just how vulnerable these behemoths were.
In truth, I suspect that the Battleship was the Naval equivalent of the Maginot Line; a magnificent symbol but pretty much obsolete by the time they were first built, a glorious fantasy based on Trafalga just as in 1914 Infantry still marched into Battle in the style of Waterloo, untill Machine Guns and Exploding Artillery Shells quickly buried that notion.
The Battleship was a symbol of Progress and Political Power, simply to be able to build, operate and maintain such vessels was a statement, just as Nuclear weapons are today.
yeas the in the hearth of the battle ships idea is hidden its doom. Its the ultimate tool for weapon race and the manhanian idea would eventually lead into some having the ultimate weapon to theorethically destroy its opponents (yamato for exmple) or like you said, its value as a trhopy or ensing of ones power will lead reluctancy to use it most effectively...Our little armour ships where the text book exmple of this. They were in all means the most effective units to conduct our strategy of coastal defence but their prestige value led to the fact that after we managed to sink one of them to our own mine, the survior werent used in any battle thougth it would have been needed several occasions.
Cold War designs
The Soviet Union planned to build several large cruiser classes, that would be a response for Scharnhorst, then Alaska class vessels in the 1940s and early 1950s, but these plans were abandoned. In Russia, they were called "heavy cruisers" (thyazholyi kreyser).
The first design were project 69 (Kronshtadt) cruisers, with 35,240 tons standard load, 9 guns 305 mm (12 in) and a speed of 32 knots. Two ships were laid in 1939. In 1940 it was decided to complete them according to the project 69I, with 6 guns 380 mm (15 in), bought in Germany, but the German attack on the USSR in 1941 put an end to these plans, and all works were canceled in a favour of more useful ship types, such as submarines.
Next design were project 82 (Stalingrad) cruisers, with 36,500 tons standard load (42,300 tons full load), 9 guns 305 mm and a speed of 35 knots. Three ships were laid in 1951–52, but after Stalin's death they were canceled in April 1953. Apart from high costs, the main reason was, that gun-armed ships became obsolete with an advent of guided missiles. Only a central armoured hull section of the first cruiser Stalingrad was launched in 1954 and then used as a target for rockets.
Admiral Lazarev, the second ship of her class of battlecruiser
Enlarge
Admiral Lazarev, the second ship of her class of battlecruiser
The Soviet Kirov class of Raketny Kreyser (Missile Cruiser), displacing approximately 26,000 tons, is classified as a battlecruiser in the 1996–7 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships, even though in actuality they are very large missile cruisers. Their classification as battlecruisers arises from their displacement, which is roughly equal to that of a World War I battleship, and the fact that they possess more firepower than nearly every other surface ship. However, the Kirov-class lacks the heavy armour that distinguishes battlecruisers from regular cruisers and they are classified as "heavy missile cruisers" in Russia. There were four members of the class completed, Kirov, Frunze, Kalinin, and Yuri Andropov. As the ships were named after Communist personalities, after the fall of the USSR they were given traditional names of the Imperial Russian Navy, respectively Admiral Ushakov, Admiral Lazarev, Admiral Nakhimov, and Petr Velikiy. Due to budget constraints two members of this class have been decommissioned, although Petr Velikiy and Admiral Nakhimov are in active service and funds are being gathered for possible repair of Admiral Lazarev. Nakhimov was returned to service early, at the beginning of 2006, possibly due to increasing tensions in the Middle East and potential Russian naval involvement therein.
Propulsion: nuclear reactors
Length: 251 M
Beam: 28 M
Draft: 9 M
Displacement: 20.000 ton
Endurance: ???
Speed: ???
Armament:
VLS 14 launchers: 100 Missiles
48 YJ-62 SSM
4 Type 730 CIWS
Aircraft: 4 Z-9C ASW 4 KA-27
Crew: 400
Last edited by a moderator:
Kevin the ship you describe would be emense..nearly the size if an Iowa class in length. I'm guess it would weigh in at about 36,000 to 40,000 tons displacement. Probally would not have the armour of that size ship.
The endurance would be unlimited with nuke propulsion. The speed would be equal to an CVN.
The endurance would be unlimited with nuke propulsion. The speed would be equal to an CVN.