# Battleship revival?

## Recommended Posts

Soooo
Are you saying theis class doesn't have any problems, contrary to reported news?
Are you saying they do, but so do the Americans, even though we're not talking about US ships ?
Are you saying they had problems, didn't finish the 5th ship, and two are mothballed ( leaving 2 out of what was supposed to be 5 ), because the Soviet Union broke up 30 years ago ?
And why are you using their break-up as an excuse ?
Why did the Soviet Union break up ?
Oh yeah !
They broke up because the 'arms race' required them to spend too much on weapons like the Kirov class, instead of feeding the people.

Jesus, it's almost like you weren't alive when the Soviet Union collapsed !

• Replies 74
• Created

#### Popular Days

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Are you saying theis class doesn't have any problems, contrary to reported news

What reported news? Propaganda? English speaking news?

Russia is pushing the envelope on a lot of things the US isn't. I'd imagine the Kirov class does this as well.

The US lost an entire Landing Ship sitting in Port.

Problems exist. They aren't existential.

The two mothballed were earlier hulls completed decades ago. The current Kirovs were never completed and therefore are newer so hence not mothballed?

##### Share on other sites

• 1 month later...

In the United States, they decided to abandon the project of a super-powerful gun capable of firing at 2000 kilometers.

According to the Expert, the rejection of the development of the Strategic Long Range Canon (CLC) gun in its new material was reported by The Drive. The published draft of the US defense budget for the 2022 fiscal year does not contain data on the financing of the program.

As stated in the explanation, " this direction will be completed in the 2021 fiscal year." The funds will be reallocated to other projects related, in particular, to the development of long-range ammunition, navigation systems and vehicles

The gun was designed to fire high-precision rockets at a range of more than 1,000 nautical miles (1,852 kilometers). They wanted to transport the platform with the gun using a heavy wheeled tractor Oshkosh M1070 HET (8=8), which has a three-axle semi-trailer.

Research and development work on the program began in 2018. In fiscal year 2020, $61.8 million was allocated to the SLRC program, and$ 62.7 million in 2021.

The other day it became known about the completion of another ambitious American project-a railgun, created in the interests of the US Navy. At one time, they wanted to install it on the destroyer Zumwalt.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SergUpstart said:

In the United States, they decided to abandon the project of a super-powerful gun capable of firing at 2000 kilometers.

According to the Expert, the rejection of the development of the Strategic Long Range Canon (CLC) gun in its new material was reported by The Drive. The published draft of the US defense budget for the 2022 fiscal year does not contain data on the financing of the program.

As stated in the explanation, " this direction will be completed in the 2021 fiscal year." The funds will be reallocated to other projects related, in particular, to the development of long-range ammunition, navigation systems and vehicles

The gun was designed to fire high-precision rockets at a range of more than 1,000 nautical miles (1,852 kilometers). They wanted to transport the platform with the gun using a heavy wheeled tractor Oshkosh M1070 HET (8=8), which has a three-axle semi-trailer.

Research and development work on the program began in 2018. In fiscal year 2020, $61.8 million was allocated to the SLRC program, and$ 62.7 million in 2021.

The other day it became known about the completion of another ambitious American project-a railgun, created in the interests of the US Navy. At one time, they wanted to install it on the destroyer Zumwalt.

Strategic Long Range Cannon is an army project, not navy. Nothing to do with battleships

##### Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, swansont said:

Strategic Long Range Cannon is an army project, not navy. Nothing to do with battleships

The author of this topic at the very beginning expressed the idea that the appearance of super-powerful long-range artillery systems will lead to the revival of battleships. This news also suggests that work on such artillery systems is being curtailed.

##### Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

The author of this topic at the very beginning expressed the idea that the appearance of super-powerful long-range artillery systems will lead to the revival of battleships. This news also suggests that work on such artillery systems is being curtailed.

It's very tempting, to imagine big is better; when big often wins.

Battleships are just bigger target's...

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

The author of this topic at the very beginning expressed the idea that the appearance of super-powerful long-range artillery systems will lead to the revival of battleships.

But it’s a different kind of system (they mention propellant) so it’s not applicable to the navy’s effort, which was a railgun

The requirements for shipboard systems are usually very different than for land-based systems

3 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

This news also suggests that work on such artillery systems is being curtailed.

Then report on the relevant system. And provide a link

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

BTW Russia has Kirov class battlecruiser which has a displacement of 20,000 t, roughly the same as earliest dreadnaughts.

Remember that during ww2 the Yamato required aircraft from 5 carriers and 11 torpedoes to be sunk. And it was all alone without air cover or any other kind of ship around

What do you think of something like this?

Alexander Kolchak class battleship

Displacement: 50,000 t

armament

- 4x 380 mm L/55 smoothbore gun, autoloader, guided shells with radar, laser or TV guidance

- 6x 127 mm L/55 smoothbore gun

- 8x CIWS

- 144x guided missile cells

- nuclear propulsion

- active and passive sonar

- AESA?PESA radar 500+ km range

- 1x helicopter, 4x recon/ASW/EW drones

Edited by Hans de Vries
##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

Battleships are no longer cost effective.

They cost more than $5 billion. And can be sunk by new inventions like hypersonic missiles or super cavitating torpedoes for which there is no known defense which cost far less. Edited by Doctor Derp ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites Posted (edited) And a B-1 can be taken down by a bird strike ( into an engine compressor ). Yet the US still built the B-2. And is tendering out engine replacement for B-52s, to keep them active till 2050, and beyond. A century after they were first built. Edited by MigL ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites 11 hours ago, Doctor Derp said: Battleships are no longer cost effective. They cost more than$5 billion.

And can be sunk by new inventions like hypersonic missiles or super cavitating torpedoes for which there is no known defense which cost far less.

The same applies to aircraft carriers but they still make them.

##### Share on other sites

A ship in the 40,000+ t range with 12-16 CIWS would be VERY hard to sink by any aircraft carrier. You'd need a combined force of aircraft from 4+ carriers to sink it. Or 5-10 cruiders and it would still be extremely hard.

If the ship operates together with other ships, then it's almost impossible to sink except by a massive force.

##### Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Hans de Vries said:

A ship in the 40,000+ t range with 12-16 CIWS would be VERY hard to sink by any aircraft carrier. You'd need a combined force of aircraft from 4+ carriers to sink it. Or 5-10 cruiders and it would still be extremely hard.

If the ship operates together with other ships, then it's almost impossible to sink except by a massive force.

Wouldn't that apply to a battleship was well?

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Wouldn't that apply to a battleship was well?

I was talking about a battleship.

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hans de Vries said:

I was talking about a battleship.

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

More or less anything above 25,000t that is not a carrier is a battleship. I am of an opinion that modern lack of battleships is due to cultural choice rather than actual lack of combat effectiveness. A battleship weighting 40,000t could carry 3-4 helicopters, 1-2 F-35 and a ton of weaponry. It would be  a very formidable weapon

Edited by Hans de Vries
##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hans de Vries said:

More or less anything above 25,000t that is not a carrier is a battleship. I am of an opinion that modern lack of battleships is due to cultural choice rather than actual lack of combat effectiveness. A battleship weighting 40,000t could carry 3-4 helicopters, 1-2 F-35 and a ton of weaponry. It would be  a very formidable weapon

What’s the reason to think you could launch/land an F-35 on such a vessel? F-35B is not vertical take-off.  It still needs >150m of runway.

##### Share on other sites

F-35B can do vertical take-off and landing ( VTOL ), but with much reduced payload and range. A rolling take-off is used to increase load-out.
They would not be used on battleships for lack of below deck storage, and proper vertical take-off area ( engine exhaust can buckle steel decks ).

##### Share on other sites

13 hours ago, MigL said:

F-35B can do vertical take-off and landing ( VTOL ), but with much reduced payload and range. A rolling take-off is used to increase load-out.

“Can land vertically like a helicopter and take-off in very short distances. ” STOVL, not VTOL

Is Lockheed Martin a good enough source?

##### Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

Is Lockheed Martin a good enough source?

Usually acceptable, but not as good as seeing it with your own eyes ...

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Usually acceptable, but not as good as seeing it with your own eyes ...

Indeed, but is that a much more reliable source?

Edited by dimreepr
##### Share on other sites

That is the difference between operational capabilities and operational utilization.
The F-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JASF competition because the ( then ) X-35 could take off vertically, while the x-32 could not.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but is that a much more reliable source?

It’s from Lockheed, so it’s equally reliable, but the accompanying text is

“An F-35B test aircraft completes its first-ever vertical takeoff (VTO) at NAS Patuxent River, Md., on May 10, 2013. While not a capability used in combat, VTOs are required for repositioning of the STOVL in environments where a jet could not perform a short takeoff. In these cases, the jet, with a limited amount of fuel, would execute a VTO to travel a short distance.”

IOW, little fuel and no combat payload.

So in the context of the original claim that you could put these on a battleship as part of its battle capability, it’s not a VTO aircraft.

##### Share on other sites

Don't want to be a stickler about this but the F-35b has a greater radius of action than the plane it replaces with the US Marine Corps, the McD-D/BAE AV-8B Harrier II. So even in VTO it is 'useable'.
It has internal weapon bays ( otherwise it would not be very stealthy, would it ) for carrying missiles or JDAMs ( GPS guided bombs ) and the thrust available from its engine is enough for VTO in this configuration.
It was expressly built with this capability in mind as this video of the x-35 from the early 2000s shows

Another capability the Marines wanted was the ability to fly backwards, as they had practiced such maneuvers from the hover with the AV-8Bs. Since the 'lobster tail' rear nozzle can be rotated past 90o, and the front vertical nozzle has adjustable vanes, other users of the F-35B, like the Brits, have even practiced backward landings on the HMS Qeen Elizabeth. See this article
F-35B lands backwards on HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier | Aerospace Testing International

The fact that these capabilities are not often used in practice sorties doesn't mean they cannot be performed in an emergency, or conflict, situation.

( sorry if I sound like a military hardware fan boy )

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 6/24/2021 at 10:08 PM, Moontanman said:

The same applies to aircraft carriers but they still make them.

They claim laser based interception systems will be developed in the future to keep the current aircraft carrier based strategy viable.

Carriers are screened and flanked by escort craft to protect them.

Battleships would be a direct competitor to aircraft carriers.

If a battleship could hit a target 100 miles away with relative accuracy. An aircraft carrier could launch bombers that hit the same target 100 miles away, with greater accuracy. They're both competing for the same job.

On 6/25/2021 at 7:45 AM, Hans de Vries said:

A ship in the 40,000+ t range with 12-16 CIWS would be VERY hard to sink by any aircraft carrier. You'd need a combined force of aircraft from 4+ carriers to sink it. Or 5-10 cruiders and it would still be extremely hard.

If the ship operates together with other ships, then it's almost impossible to sink except by a massive force.

A single battleship or aircraft carrier could be sunk.

By a single small nuclear tipped missile or torpedo.

Especially new ships like the Gerald Ford carrier which appear to have been poorly designed.

Edited by Doctor Derp

## Create an account

Register a new account