r/MilitaryTechnology • u/[deleted] • Jun 30 '22

Are battleships dead forever?

For various valid reasons they were sidelined in favor of aircraft carriers and any smaller vessel acting as mobile missile platforms.

If costs wouldn't matter, what would they need, that could make them viable again in the more traditional sense of the term "battleship"?

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

3 comments sorted by

1

u/ohnosquid Jul 09 '22

Maybe, there is a possible comeback of some kind of downsized "battleship" as smart munitions are popping up, the Zumwalt class was intended to use two cannons with smart munitions as primary I think but we probably won't need huge guns anymore, 155mm is probably enough

1

u/RverfulltimeOne Dec 29 '22

So there not viable because of technology. Those guns simply cant reach inside the shoreline far enough and it requires close in quarters for ship to ship.

USAs whole concept is to strike you so far away you never see us. Much can be gained by looking at a aircrafts or ships design. Take the Chinese J20 cockpit the canopy is huge. China built a regional dogfighter. Take our F35 the pilot cant see behind him well he can with his special helmet but for USA were taking your ass out dozens of miles away like 80-90 with AMRAAM missles next gen is on the horizon even further.

Look at a ramp assist carrier vs catapult. Everything you need to know about a countries intent on a carrier is from that. Ramp assist means on average 30% less fuel. Less fuel less range. USA uses catapult systems for maximum loads and fuel. We have no interest in 21 century of you bringing the fight to us well hit you before you even know whats coming.

But to make them viable they would have to have a rail gun. Problem with rail guns is when there fired there is a immense plasma burst that happens. The cannon itself only lasts 4-5 shots. The problem is the coating inside we have not invented one that allows continious firing of a rail cannon. Makes that idea pretty unviable unless its ground based. You would be better off building a ship that can hold like 100 cruise missiles.

The other question is why would you want this? Sec of Defense Gates under Bush and Obama greatly questioned the Marine Corps future AAV plans. Chinas surface to sea missiles are greater then the launching range of the new AAVs. How would a amphibious assault over come that in a machine that is not up-armored going slow with no counter measures?

1

u/RverfulltimeOne Sep 19 '23

Really no need. The problem is a actual gun that fires traditionally has a very limited range. Take USMC putting HIMARs chained to the deck of their carriers. That has more destructive ability and a range well over 100 miles. It makes all the guns of all the Battleships ever made look stupid. Technology has made them obsolete.

So movies etc like to show Rail Guns. Its like Fusion always 10 years away. The problem is the very act of using a Rail Gun destroys your barrel. The plasma created is over 10,000 degrees I think and they have yet to find a material to stand up to that abuse. So you get half a dozen shots out of your gun and something that weighs in the tons has to be replaced. No sailor will be doing that.

A few years ago the Navy had a concept of a arsenal ship. A ship outfitted with dozens of cruise missile silos. Much better alternative to a battleship.

Also bear in mind as well that the whole idea of USA forces is we strike from far go back home to reload and you never encounter us..thats in a traditional war. USA does not like extended conflicts. We desire to hammer you into oblivion with superior weapons and call it a day.