New Battleships

[Panda87]

Bigger is to increase the volume of weapon stores in the magazines. Room for a larger variety of weapons installed. High electrical demand in a non-nuclear boat. I can't imagine they'd want bigger 8" or 16" guns for shore bombardment, that's kind of irrelevant today. But more missiles, yes.
Looks big and impressive when in a foreign port just like a carrier does today or battleships did before WWII.
President can say "We have a battleship!" just like "my amp goes to 11".

I’m with you on the last part. It was a manhood measurement achievement to say “We brought back the battleship in the manliest way”. I highly doubt we need more than the 5”. That thing is truly impressive. Without divulging too much information, we could store A LOT of munitions. As in, way more than you could ever imagine, so the use case of these battleships still has me scratching my head. We could clothe, feed and house a lot of Americans with the money one of those will cost.

 

[Ronsant]

They need battleships for electricity production? Or they need them for the electricity for the railgun prototype they’ve been developing for many years?

Electrical output for the radar arrays and the laser weapons ( anti-drone?)

 

[Panda87]

Electrical output for the radar arrays and the laser weapons ( anti-drone?)

DDGs already have AEGIS arrays. SM2s could strike a drone, though it would be an expensive strike. An inbound drone could be targeted with CIWS/Phalanx. 5” might be able to, though concern for round travel post-target at that attitude would be high.

 

[Ronsant]

DDGs already have AEGIS arrays. SM2s could strike a drone, though it would be an expensive strike. An inbound drone could be targeted with CIWS/Phalanx. 5” might be able to, though concern for round travel post-target at that attitude would be high.

I’m no expert. I read that the idea of laser weapons is that they can take out large groups of drones, and they don’t run out of ammunition so long as you have the electrical power to fire the weapon.
I learned a lot from this thread, and I’m glad that the US Navy is gearing up. China makes me nervous.

 

[Panda87]

I’m no expert. I read that the idea of laser weapons is that they can take out large groups of drones, and they don’t run out of ammunition so long as you have the electrical power to fire the weapon.
I learned a lot from this thread, and I’m glad that the US Navy is gearing up. China makes me nervous.

Well I didn’t know about that tech, but it makes sense. I’ve heard rumors of “drone swarms” becoming a thing. It’s been a cool discussion for sure!

 

[greenjp]

It's funny people talk about swarms of drones attacking Navy ships. Unless the ships are in port or otherwise very close to land, this is sort of a silly notion. Our ships will be operating hundreds of miles from shore, so any "drone" is going to end up looking a lot like a Tomahawk cruise missile, or a Predator/Reaper/etc type of unmanned plane.

That said yes systems are in development (or already exist) for defense against a variety of targets large and small other than firing off an SM-2s (or worse, an SM-6) at everything inbound. The latest SLQ-32 is pretty impressive.

jeff

 

[Panda87]

It's funny people talk about swarms of drones attacking Navy ships. Unless the ships are in port or otherwise very close to land, this is sort of a silly notion. Our ships will be operating hundreds of miles from shore, so any "drone" is going to end up looking a lot like a Tomahawk cruise missile, or a Predator/Reaper/etc type of unmanned plane.

That said yes systems are in development (or already exist) for defense against a variety of targets large and small other than firing off an SM-2s (or worse, an SM-6) at everything inbound. The latest SLQ-32 is pretty impressive.

jeff

I won’t speak to which drone we used for team support, but they had hundreds of miles of range and depending on traveled range, quite a long amount of dwell time. I will admit the launch and retrieval systems sucked.

 

[y_p_w]

They need battleships for electricity production? Or they need them for the electricity for the railgun prototype they’ve been developing for many years?

Supposedly for all the directed energy and other tech. But again, I’m skeptical that it has to be that big. It all reeks of some people in the executive branch thinking bigger is somehow better.

 

[y_p_w]

It's funny people talk about swarms of drones attacking Navy ships. Unless the ships are in port or otherwise very close to land, this is sort of a silly notion. Our ships will be operating hundreds of miles from shore, so any "drone" is going to end up looking a lot like a Tomahawk cruise missile, or a Predator/Reaper/etc type of unmanned plane.

That said yes systems are in development (or already exist) for defense against a variety of targets large and small other than firing off an SM-2s (or worse, an SM-6) at everything inbound. The latest SLQ-32 is pretty impressive.

jeff

There’s talk about drone carriers that have range and then release more. Not likely massive done swarms though.

 

[y_p_w]

Well I didn’t know about that tech, but it makes sense. I’ve heard rumors of “drone swarms” becoming a thing. It’s been a cool discussion for sure!

There’s more than just lasers, which has an issue in that it’s not an instant destruction of a drone.

There’s airburst ammo, which prox fuzes. It doesn’t need to be a precise hit, but just get close enough to create a burst of tungsten and explosives. There’s several makers including Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, and Rheinmetall.

 

[si1491]

The DDG I was on didn’t use GE turbines. It was powered by Rolls Royce MT30s.

Sounds like the DDG 1001 or 1002 since those are all electric drive and use MT30s for electrical power generation. One other ship class that I know uses it is the Freedom class LCSs.

 

[CleanSump]

There’s more than just lasers, which has an issue in that it’s not an instant destruction of a drone.

There’s airburst ammo, which prox fuzes. It doesn’t need to be a precise hit, but just get close enough to create a burst of tungsten and explosives. There’s several makers including Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, and Rheinmetall.

That's all old tech there. Old Ordie still alive here.
VT Frag was in common usage in WWI for anti-aircraft guns and overhead bursts.
Target detectors were common as dirt when I was an Ordnanceman in the late 70s thru 80s.
Laser target detectors were in air to air missiles even then.
The only thing close to newish and that would require big energy are the directed energy weapons and rail guns or potentially more computing power.
And drones don't have to be launched from land, can be launched from any ship or boat out there, and are AI controlled already - take a look at the hundreds of drones coordinated to draw pictures in the sky during Chinese and other Eastern country celebrations. They were all over this New Years in place of fireworks.
Swarming a ship would be easier than a picture of the King and Queen of Thailand waving.

 

[WeyounDS9]

Not a reply to the previous ccouple of posters, but those who seem to feel larger ships are "not practical":

Maybe a little bit of educating for those members of the hive that dont have a nuanced understanding of weapons effects:
here:

The ship that was discussed prior to my post was a Iowa class Battleship.
most drones are tiny and have a tiny payload and would stuggle to even scratch the paint on any WW1 or 2 large surface combatant.

Battleships often took dozens of hits by torpedos and large bombs to sink.
And "single mines" have also never taken out a "battleship" ever

So in case the enlarged modern ship that was discussed a warship is constructed in acompartmentalized manner and a large and expensive war ship has a signifcant defensive suite , damage control and compartimentalization.

Sometimes laymen study war based on headlines and those often make a un-nuanced impression.

-The Britannic despite being large was taken out by a single mine, true, but it was not a compartmentalized warship. (and to make matters worse the portholes had beeen left open for ventilation in the warm summer in the Med, allowing dramatically increased flooding ads the bow went down)
AND it had a bunch of nurses and doctors but no damage control parties on board, like a proper warship would.

- The USS Stark was hit by two exocet missles not one , (the poster in question stated just one would be enough) and most importantly it was the smallest US ship a FFG7 class frigate, desigend as a surface combatant and not a "battleship", or battle cruiser or missle cruiser.

- The Moskva an admittedly much larger and somewhat modern missle cruiser was hit also by two anti sea missles which were among the largest of their type.
And it very nearly made it back to shore. And the Black Sea is a very constrained battlespace, perhaps not ideal for a powerful ship such as the Moskva that was designed for sea superiority in the open ocean.

So this missle threat does not make large ships impractical.

But what makes such large weapons platforms eminently "practical", is the height thiese platform can accomodate a sensors suite and they in turn being able to send and target missle themselves for large distances.

Also unlike a small ship, they can serve as flagships and extert command and control with room for the large staffs a fleet flagship needs and also handle large volumes of radio traffic both from their equipment and larger manning, than a small warship like a FFG could ever hope to.

Missle technology is nothing new and missles have been a threat since the end of WW2 when the Germans (of course) pioneered this technology, via the Fritz-X guided missle . .

And there there is also the engineering thing, we call "minimum gauge".

This means in laymen's terms that some things need a minimum of size to function at all and can not be infinitly miniatuarized.
So smaller ships will have their minimum radio suite, the minimum engines, the minimum bilge pumps, and the minimal manning always take up a larger proportion of the ships tonnage and complement than with a larger unit.

This also means that these larger weapons platforms become more efficient and out of proportion capable compared to many smaller platforms.

And if you are a Navy and have the choice between 10 large ships or 40 small ones of equal tonnage you will exert more seas superiority combat power with those 10 indiviudally larger vessels.

So if you are not just out to show the flag, for which many small vessels are fine, but are concerned about Sea superiority a smaller number of larger ships will always dominate the equal tonnage (and expense) spread out over many smaller ships.

This makes them eminently "practical".

 

[Panda87]

Not a reply to the previous ccouple of posters, but those who seem to feel larger ships are "not practical":

Maybe a little bit of educating for those members of the hive that dont have a nuanced understanding of weapons effects:
here:

The ship that was discussed prior to my post was a Iowa class Battleship.
most drones are tiny and havr a tiny payload and would stuggle to even sratchs the paint.

Battleships often took dozens of hits by torpedos and large bombs to sink.
And "single mines" have also never taken out a "battleship" ever

So in case the enlarged modern ship that was discussed a warship is constructed in acompartmentalized manner and a large and expensive war ship has a signifcant defensive suite , damage control and compartimentalization.

Sometimes laymen study war based on headlines and those often make a un-nuanced impression.

-The Britannic despite being large was taken out by a single mine, true, but it was not a compartmentalized warship. (and to make matters worse the portholes had beeen left open for ventilation in the warm summer in the med)
AND it had a bunch of nurses and doctors but no damage control parties on board, like a proper warship would.

- The USS Stark was hit by two exocet missles not one , (the posted in question stated just one would be enough) and most importantly it was the smallest US ship desigend as a surface combatant and not a "battleship", or battle cruiser or missle cruiser.

- The Moskva an admittedly much larger and somewhat modern missle cruiser was hit also by two anti sea missles which were among the largest of their type.
And it very nearly made it back to shore. And the Black Sea is a very constrained battlespace, perhaps not ideal for a powerful ship such as the Moskva that was designed for sea superiority in the open ocean.

So this missle threat does not make large ships impractical.

But what makes such large weapons platforms eminently "practical", is the height thiese platform can accomodate a sensors suite and they in turn being able to send and target missle themselves for large distances.

Also unlike a small ship, they can serve as flagships and extert command and control with room for the large staffs a fleet flagship needs and also handle large volumes of radio traffic both from their equipment and larger manning, than a small warship like a FFG could ever hope to.

Missle technology is nothing new and missles have been a threat since the end of WW2 when the Germans (of course) pioneered this technology, via the Fritz-X guided missle . .

And there there is also the engineering thing, we call "minimum gauge".

This means in laymen's terms that some things need a minimum of size to function at all and can not be infinitly miniatuarized.
So smaller ships will have their minimum radio suite, the minimum engines, the minimum bilge pumps, and the minimal manning always take up a larger proportion of the ships tonnage and complement than with a larger unit.

This also means that these larger weapons platforms become more efficient and out of proportion capable compared to many smaller platforms.

And if you are a Navy and have the choice between 10 large ships or 40 small ones of equal tonnage you will exert more seas superiority combat power with those 10 indiviudally larger vessels.

So if you are not just out to show the flag, for which many small vessels are fine, but are concerned about Sea superiority a smaller number of larger ships will always dominate the equal tonnage (and expense) spread out over many smaller ships.

This makes them eminently "practical".

Much of your post makes sense. A lot of folks do not understand compartmentalization.

Your point about being able to handle “large volumes of radio traffic” is not. I can assure you, even small boys can handle copious amounts of traffic, just as much as any flagship ever could. The NCTAMS stations support this even further.

I disagree about several larger ships having superiority over an equal tonnage of smaller ships. Sure, they have the propensity to carry more overall firepower *per ship*, but how much of that can be expended *at one time*? Consider losses as overall AOR percentages. Say you have 10 mega ships, two of those take enough damage to switch the GQ from offense to DC. You’ve just lost 20% of your overall combat effectiveness. In the case of an equal tonnage of smaller ships (Guided Missile Destroyers, Cruisers and Frigates) you’re spreading your attack surface across many more platforms, which necessitates the enemy being also unable to touch as many targets at a single time, tonnage being equal. You also have more platforms delivering warheads to foreheads at a single given point in time. Of course, if you took this to the point of absurdity, say 200 RHIBs, the combat effectiveness would of course be reduced.

 

[WeyounDS9]

Much of your post makes sense. A lot of folks do not understand compartmentalization.

Your point about being able to handle “large volumes of radio traffic” is not. I can assure you, even small boys can handle copious amounts of traffic, just as much as any flagship ever could. The NCTAMS stations support this even further.

I disagree about several larger ships having superiority over an equal tonnage of smaller ships. Sure, they have the propensity to carry more overall firepower *per ship*, but how much of that can be expended *at one time*? Consider losses as overall AOR percentages. Say you have 10 mega ships, two of those take enough damage to switch the GQ from offense to DC. You’ve just lost 20% of your overall combat effectiveness. In the case of an equal tonnage of smaller ships, you’re spreading your attack surface across many more platforms, which necessitates the enemy being also unable to touch as many targets at a single time, tonnage being equal. You also have more platforms delivering warheads to foreheads at a single given point in time. Of course, if you took this to the point of absurdity, say 200 RHIBs, the combat effectiveness would of course be reduced.

Thank oyu for making an analytic reply.
Of course modern Comms suites take away a lot of my Comms points. but a small vessel also would not have the complement to manage it.
Flagship staffs are still large and C3 is still mostly human driven.
The ability to mount your radars taller is alsoa significant advanatge of larger vessels given them better targeting than a equal tonnage smaller fleet would have.
Also smaller vessels are easier to sink so would attritt faster.

All in all in a complex nuanced issue.
I based more of my talking points on a paper I read when I was at an Army postgraduate course, written by a Navy "joint" guy who was in our class explaining these things to us.
And I remember it well since it made eminent sense to me from an engieering and design standpoint.

 

[Panda87]

Thank oyu for making an analytic reply.
Of course modern Comms suites take away a lot of my Comms points. but a small vesserl also would not have the complement to manage it.
Flagship staffs are still large and C3 is still msotly human driven.
The ability to mount your radars taller is alsoa significant advanatge of larger vessels given them better targeting than a equal tonnage smaller fleet would have.
Also smaller vessels are easier to sink si would attritt faster.

All in all in a complex nuanced issue.
I based more of my talking points on a paper I read when I was at an Army postgraduate course, written by a Navy "joint" guy who was in our class explaining these things to use.
And I remember it well since it made eminent sense to me from an engieering and design standpoint.

Agrees on scan/analysis/radar suite height being a strong factor. Agreed also on C3 for flagships, that’s their focal point.

It’s why we have only 1 or so large flagship and many smallboys in a given fleet formation. The “heavy hitting” is done by those smallboys believe it or not. Their power density is astounding compared to the flagships. A single DDG has the capability to possess enough munitions to glass a small country, though that would also be insanely foolish to stock that level of munitions. They are also *incredibly* difficult to sink. I won’t get into manning numbers, but the overall combat effectiveness per crew capita is also significantly more dense with the smallboys.

Source: Former Naval Surface Warfare Specialist and Expeditionary Combat Instructor/Trainer.

Thanks for your service brother.

 

[WeyounDS9]

Agrees on scan/analysis/radar suite height being a strong factor. Agreed also on C3 for flagships, that’s their focal point.

It’s why we have only 1 or so large flagship and many smallboys in a given fleet formation. The “heavy hitting” is done by those smallboys believe it or not. Their power density is astounding compared to the flagships. A single DDG has the capability to possess enough munitions to glass a small country, though that would also be insanely foolish to stock that level of munitions. They are also *incredibly* difficult to sink. I won’t get into manning numbers, but the overall combat effectiveness per crew capita is also significantly more dense with the smallboys.

Source: Former Naval Surface Warfare Specialist and Expeditionary Combat Instructor/Trainer.

Thanks for your service brother.

Also sorry for all my typos, brother
And thanks for a real SW guy to show up here and sprinkle some fidelity into our conversation.
I been very "joint" in my Army career and had some (short) service aboard the USS Blue Ridge as well as with an AF wing.

Though I must confess I had been embedded with the Euros for so long, to me, I dont think of a DDG51 as a "small" vessel.
Quite a few countries make do with 1000 ton Corvettes and a DDG51 dwarfs those.

I used to often read arguments in favor of smaller vessels, in European defense magazines for smaller ships and they seem to be self serving to justify smaller defense budgets.
And to them a MEKO or a FREMM is a large ship.

The South Koreans dont have any of these kind of illusions and produce fantastic full sized (by non US standards) surface combatants.

The old "East" German Parchims sold to Indonesia are under 1000 tons if memory serves and were the largest combatants in the Indonesian fleet.
Needless to say a single DDG51 or Moskva class ship could sink dozens of them w/o breaking a sweat.

 

[Panda87]

Also sorry for all my typos, brother
And thanks for a real SW guy to show up here and sprinkle some fidelity into our conversation.
I been very "joint" in my Army career and had some (short) service aboard the USS Blue Ridge as well as with an AF wing.

Though I must confess I had been embedded with the Euros for so long, to me, I dont think of a DDG51 as a "small" vessel.
Quite a few countries make do with 1000 ton Corvettes and a DDG51 dwarfs those.

I used to often read arguments in favor of smaller vessels, in European defense magazines for smaller ships and they seem to be self serving to justify smaller defense budgets.
And to them a MEKO or a FREMM is a large ship.

The South Koreans dont have any of these kind of illusions and produce fantastic full sized (by non US standards) surface combatants.

The old "East" German Parchims sold to Indonesia are under 1000 tons if memory serves and were the largest combatants in the Indonesian fleet.
Needless to say a single DDG51 or Moskva class ship cold sink dozens of them w/o breaking a sweat.

Of course! Thanks for the great discussion!

Being frank, my time assigned to Army commands was the best time of my time in service. I fit in amazingly with the Joes. I’d likely have done the full 20 had I gone green in the first place.

The Euro folks have a different way of looking at things to be sure. It makes sense given their country sizes, but a lot of them are unable to grasp our perception due to our country size. Things like “You Americans are obsessed with your cars and don’t walk or bike anywhere” without understanding that one of our states is likely larger than their entire country. Lol

The South Koreans on the other hand have some angry, destructive folks for neighbors and have to plan their military strategy accordingly. They are intelligent and capable, so they are able to meet the challenges.

Wish we could sit around shooting the breeze about our service in person. I’d imagine you’ve got some epic stories.

 

[CleanSump]

You don't need to sink a vessel. Get a heck of a fire going and remove her as active in the fight. Most missiles are designed to start big fires, not break a ship's hull.

 

[Panda87]

You don't need to sink a vessel. Get a heck of a fire going and remove her as active in the fight. Most missiles are designed to start big fires, not break a ship's hull.

In a manner of sorts, yes. Fire Suppression systems onboard are impressive. They also displace all oxygen and cause cancer…so there’s that.