Time to Bring Back the Battleships?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Could a submarine hide directly under a battleship?

One could hide under a container ship.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Could a submarine hide directly under a battleship?

There's an idea. Build some battleships (or recommission some) and mount submarines to the bottom in the opposite configuration of the Mistel. The sub crew could lollygag on the deck of the BB in deck chairs drinking piña coladas with little umbrellas in them when not deployed. I will immediately petition DARPA to begin work on the designs.

edit: Actually I've got that wrong. The pilot is in the top plane, right?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Orm

Could a submarine hide directly under a battleship?

There's an idea. Build some battleships (or recommission some) and mount submarines to the bottom in the opposite configuration of the Mistel. The sub crew could lollygag on the deck of the BB in deck chairs drinking piña coladas with little umbrellas in them when not deployed. I will immediately petition DARPA to begin work on the designs.

edit: Actually I've got that wrong. The pilot is in the top plane, right?

I meant to ask if a enemy submarine could hide, for a extended period, just below a moving battleship. Or would it be likely that the sub was detected either by the BB or the escorts?

[Dili]

It would be detected easily. Most modern ships have anti-mine sonars, and i guess some are probably dual use for anti torpedo measures.

[Big B]

Actually, there never really was a time to get rid of 'battleships' (and cruisers) per say.

If you will all remember, it was the idea in the 50's that the next war would be nuclear - that made the "one-hit" ship seem reasonable, because after all - "everyone is going to shoot nukes anyway..."
But 60 years on, we have clearly seen that all-out nuclear war is not really practical, and anything a lightweight ship can do - a heavier weight & much better protected and armed ship can do better, ...could always do better.

It's rather like sports - there is no penalty for being bigger-stronger-faster....there just isn't a time when that is a liability.

The only legitimate concern is cost.... but in war time there has never been a substitute for more capable & more survivable ships.... this is why aircraft carriers (in the US Navy, who could afford to build them) - NEVER got smaller and cheaper. Besides, cost is like the budget - a number never taken seriously.

That being said, bringing back the 4 (beautiful) Iowa's would have to be a step backward - though they could still be useful in wartime.
But building 21st Century major surface combatants, with all the latest advancements of every art, would be the correct way to proceed...and in the process begin a new arms race I suppose.

Since the end of WW2 the Aircraft Carrier School have claimed they were all powerful, while the Submarine Warfare School have claimed everything else is only a sub target...but the Surface Warfare School has never been shown to be out of date - they have only been out special-interest lobbied in the politics of the military.

EDIT: Doesn't anyone remember the folly of Jefferson's "gunboat navy"?, as well as the experts final judgement of the failed experiment of 44 gun frigates?...until the US Navy built them...and after 1812 - that was the only frigate anyone was building until steam.
It's a lesson worth remembering.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Orm

Could a submarine hide directly under a battleship?

One could hide under a container ship.

Yeah, but have you seen the size of some of those? [X(]

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Orm

Could a submarine hide directly under a battleship?

There's an idea. Build some battleships (or recommission some) and mount submarines to the bottom in the opposite configuration of the Mistel. The sub crew could lollygag on the deck of the BB in deck chairs drinking piña coladas with little umbrellas in them when not deployed. I will immediately petition DARPA to begin work on the designs.

edit: Actually I've got that wrong. The pilot is in the top plane, right?

I meant to ask if a enemy submarine could hide, for a extended period, just below a moving battleship. Or would it be likely that the sub was detected either by the BB or the escorts?

I meant to be silly, as usual.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Big B

Actually, there never really was a time to get rid of 'battleships' (and cruisers) per say.

If you will all remember, it was the idea in the 50's that the next war would be nuclear - that made the "one-hit" ship seem reasonable, because after all - "everyone is going to shoot nukes anyway..."
But 60 years on, we have clearly seen that all-out nuclear war is not really practical, and anything a lightweight ship can do - a heavier weight & much better protected and armed ship can do better, ...could always do better.

It's rather like sports - there is no penalty for being bigger-stronger-faster....there just isn't a time when that is a liability.

The only legitimate concern is cost.... but in war time there has never been a substitute for more capable & more survivable ships.... this is why aircraft carriers (in the US Navy, who could afford to build them) - NEVER got smaller and cheaper. Besides, cost is like the budget - a number never taken seriously.

That being said, bringing back the 4 (beautiful) Iowa's would have to be a step backward - though they could still be useful in wartime.
But building 21st Century major surface combatants, with all the latest advancements of every art, would be the correct way to proceed...and in the process begin a new arms race I suppose.

Since the end of WW2 the Aircraft Carrier School have claimed they were all powerful, while the Submarine Warfare School have claimed everything else is only a sub target...but the Surface Warfare School has never been shown to be out of date - they have only been out special-interest lobbied in the politics of the military.

EDIT: Doesn't anyone remember the folly of Jefferson's "gunboat navy"?, as well as the experts final judgement of the failed experiment of 44 gun frigates?...until the US Navy built them...and after 1812 - that was the only frigate anyone was building until steam.
It's a lesson worth remembering.

Oh dear. "Per say"? I don't want to be hard on you (I have a different orientation), but if you were intending to use the Latin expression, it is "per se". I hate doing that, I make speling erors al the time. That was just a bridge too far.

[geofflambert]

We have clearly seen that all -out nuclear war is not really practical.
 
How did we manage to do that?  I must have missed something while napping.  Another question is raised here.  What sort of war is really practical?

[geofflambert]

Oh, geez.  "The only legitimate concern is costs"?  Well, I guess that depends on what your legitimate definitions of what cost is, is.  Oh no, am I channeling Bill Clinton? 
 
War is the most horrible thing our species has ever invented.  Allowing that, war games are great fun.
 
Jefferson's failed gunboat navy?  Those frigates were the finest warships of the day and the British Fleet ordered that they not be engaged unless you outnumbered them.  How were they failed?  They were magnificent and one of them is still commissioned.  And what did Jefferson have to do with them?  He was Secretary of State and the Congress thought building them would be a good idea.  They were extraordinarily correct.  The end of the War of 1812 was decisive and the huge and amazing British Fleet was given cause to respect the US Navy.  Impressment of US sailors ended.  What in the world were you talking about?

[geofflambert]

I'm sorry.  Big B is a very fine fellow.  He is entitled to be wrong about something now and then.  I am as well, though that happens far too often.  But in this case I know what I'm talking about.  I don't know where this stuff comes from. 

[mrchuck]

When, and I choose the word carefully, rail guns become operationally viable, the BB will be back. A hyperdestructive kinetic (= relatively cheap) round delivered over say 400 km at Mach 10? Aircraft and missiles aren't even in the hunt. And you will need humungous power generation (i.e big size) to do it. And you'll want to wrap as much protection as possible around this valuable asset, whatever form it takes.

To me, that's a battleship.

1.21 gigawatts??? How could I have been so careless?!? -- E. Brown.

[Orm]

The end of the War of 1812 was decisive

I do not understand why so many considers this a decisive win. [&:] In my book this war is a draw.

[geofflambert]

What does the E. stands for in E. Brown?  Emmit. 
Do you know what Emmit stands for?  Ant.  Now Achilles had his little army of ant-men.  Called the Myrmidons.  Very fearsome.  Never fail to beware of them. 
 
If you think castles of steel are an appropriate platform for railguns, the fellows developing those will wonder what you are thinking of.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Orm

The end of the War of 1812 was decisive

I do not understand why so many considers this a decisive win. [&:] In my book this war is a draw.

England ruled the waves (no more)
What else do you require? From that point who opposed the US on the seas? No one. The British war-gamed the US up to WWI but nothing ever happened.
In the Treaty of Ghent the US got pretty much everything wanted. What draw are you referring to?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Orm

The end of the War of 1812 was decisive

I do not understand why so many considers this a decisive win. [&:] In my book this war is a draw.

England ruled the waves (no more)
What else do you require? From that point who opposed the US on the seas? No one. The British war-gamed the US up to WWI but nothing ever happened.
In the Treaty of Ghent the US got pretty much everything wanted. What draw are you referring to?

1) This war was a sideshow for United Kingdom. The war with France (or with Napoleon) had priority.
2) At the end of the war UK had almost complete blockade of US. So how can this be called that UK lost control of the seas? At no point was the US navy blockading UK.
3) No territory changed hands.
4) The war could have, and should have, been avoided. Lousy diplomacy on both parts.
5) Why would UK fight with US if the reason just is to prove which navy is the strongest? That would have been a even more senseless war.
6) What was it that US got in the Treaty of Ghent that was so important that it made the war a win? Was it a big concession for UK?

[Bullwinkle58]

The War of 1812 was important for the development of the US and the USN, but not really in purely military terms. It was, as you say, a war that could have been avoided though.

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: desicat

I would like to see how swarms of drones cope with ECM and jamming before deciding to go all in on their employment.

I am certainly no expert.

I am only relaying op-ed pieces I have read i.e. Economist or some such reprint of an expert from Janes for example. As for any Navy going "all in"... well I was posting more specifically to answer the question about big and armored Battleships vs a smaller more nimble fleet - I was not suggesting that this should be the immediate strategy of i.e. the US Navy or her primary allies.

I categorize this as a realistic for many nations especially smaller nations where cost effectiveness comes into play.

While the ECM and Jamming may or may not be overcome two factors come into play:

1) As indicated the "anecdotal evidence" that Command Control could be hacked sufficiently. Never proven just spoken of.

2) Swarms... swarms inferring hundreds and hundreds perhaps thousands. If only one or two gets through with a capable missile they could cause massive disruption to a flotilla, a city, a division on land, a tanks corps. It would not need to be tactical nuclear either... there could possibly be chemical, biological, ECM pulse to knock out command control and communications etc etc. Without being too political some nation states are less than compliant with treaties banning such weapons. See Syria now.

When, and I choose the word carefully, rail guns become operationally viable, the BB will be back. A hyperdestructive kinetic (= relatively cheap) round delivered over say 400 km at Mach 10? Aircraft and missiles aren't even in the hunt. And you will need humungous power generation (i.e big size) to do it. And you'll want to wrap as much protection as possible around this valuable asset, whatever form it takes.

To me, that's a battleship.

Again I do not claim to be an expert.

Rail gun tech has been the surface fleet marketing spin in the US Congress in so far as an outsider can see. Its destructive power impressive. Its cost equally impressive.

I am unsure "when" is practical on a naval platform.

Only that the power generation requirements, size restrictions, cost factors etc favor land based usage, or so I have read.

I read and article that rail gun would neutralize Command Control hack concerns as in a sense it can be used and fired independently - all you need is the juice. However I just don't know enough about the power generations requirements vs size vs platform vs etc etc etc to have a committed opinion.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5


I read and article that rail gun would neutralize Command Control hack concerns as in a sense it can be used and fired independently - all you need is the juice.

No, in addition to the juice you need C&C. OTH targeting is a non-trivial problem, and firing a flat trajectory projectile at a moving target 400 km away is RELALY hard.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Orm

Could a submarine hide directly under a battleship?

One could hide under a container ship.

Yeah, but have you seen the size of some of those? [X(]

I saw one. From underneath. It was very big. [8D]