https://www.popularmechanics.c...ing-back-battleship/

This would make the Chicoms think a bit about their expansion in those Pacific islands they keep building up.

Fat chance. The Navy needs to stop stepping on its on dick as it continues to screw up everything it touches while not fixing anything it owns.

The Zumwalt's Advanced Gun System (155mm for the Army guys) was a dismal failure, not only because of the runaway costs but, the ammunition and the overall system in-general was too exquisite. Gun fire support isn't complicated, however all the futurists-types had other ideas.

The other project has been the rail-gun, which the Navy has been throwing money at its research for 20-years minimum. While seeing chunks of metal fly at ridiculous speeds will make any grown man smile, getting it to work consistently, exposed to the battering of the ocean, seems to be the trick. Too many exquisite systems.

Navy should've further developed the 8" gun and made put that on its cruisers, while 5" could live on its DDG and FFG.

Plus they are great against Alien invaders, "Art of War, fight the enemy where they aren't!"




Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...b_channel=MovieClips

Given my limited knowledge of the current state of ADCAP torpedos and anti-ship missiles, such a project does not seem practical. Or survivable.
And the 1000 mile range gun? Dont we have missile systems that fill the same role?

Party poopers...

I"m all for it!

Maybe we should build some space battleships...

Large single targets seem at an inherent disadvantage given the existing technology for swarming, coordinated, self correcting and evading tech and lightweight concentrated explosive payloads.

Monkey Ha Ha Ha Ha !

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckFinley:
Large single targets seem at an inherent disadvantage given the existing technology for swarming, coordinated, self correcting and evading tech and lightweight concentrated explosive payloads.

Maybe. But you could park the battleship (if this works out like the article said and get 1000 mile range out of the cannon) a pretty fair distance out at sea and have that much space for anti drone warfare to protect the super defense fortress . . er, battleship.

But again, its a pretty long shot for battleships to come back (pun fully intended). But me and monkey can dream.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
And the 1000 mile range gun? Dont we have missile systems that fill the same role?

Could a large cannon round be potentially harder for missile defense systems to defeat than a cruise missile?

I know that was one of the benefits touted for some of the theoretical kinetic strike systems, like the idea of dropping tungsten rods from satellites in orbit.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
I"m all for it!

Maybe we should build some space battleships...

Space Battleship Yamato! er, Missouri!!!

quote:

Could a large cannon round be potentially harder for air defense systems to defeat than a cruise missile?

More importantly is it cheaper and more space efficient.

Can I safely and easily store “15 projectiles” for the space of a TLAM and have them cost less and be easier to maintain?

I HAVE KNOW IDEA the answer to the above I am just looking at it how I would in the position of making a change.

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckFinley:
Large single targets seem at an inherent disadvantage given the existing technology for swarming, coordinated, self correcting and evading tech and lightweight concentrated explosive payloads.

Maybe time to abandon the US continent. We're just sitting ducks...

(A new battleship could simply be another tool in the arsenal, and continually looking at enhancing with a newer platform and removing less capable platform(s), was the intent of the post for thoughtful consideration. And since, we, the taxpayers, pay for these things, a few braincells consumed in the pros and cons are not that costly.)

quote:

Originally posted by Dzozer:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
I"m all for it!

Maybe we should build some space battleships...

Space Battleship Yamato! er, Missouri!!!

How about a Mercury class Battlestar? I know that's more of a carrier, but they pack a punch all by themselves.

Battleships were all the rage prior to the Great War; “Jutland” was a draw between the German High Seas Fleet and the British Grand Fleet. Even though Jutland was a tactical victory for Germany, strategically the status quo favored the British with the naval blockade.

“Taranto” was a dress rehearsal for “Pearl Harbor“, and the aircraft carrier ascended the naval hierarchy. But now, the carrier is too expensive to be put into harm’s way without a huge protective screen.

The new Littoral Combat Ship has too many problems to make them useful, and their development is being terminated.

There’s going to be another “Revolt of the Admirals”, but it will also involve the generals from the Army and the Air Force against Space Force, the newest kid on the block with the high techy bells and whistles.

quote:

Could a large cannon round be potentially harder for missile defense systems to defeat than a cruise missile

Missiles use fragmentation to destroy incoming missiles. So, it blows up in the path or upon directing hitting the incoming missile...which is supersonic, so it basically self destructs.

An artillery round is a package of HR surrounded by a steel shell. Depending upon the fusing as to when it explodes, wether in the air above troops or after it burrows into another ship or bunker.

I can’t see a 1600pound +/- 16” round being deflected by much. Smaller rounds like a 5” HE round weigh in at about 85 pounds each.

You be the judge.

The main advantage is it's a work around the missle treaty. Missiles are limited on their range, like 500km.

Here's a little info....two years old .

https://breakingdefense.com/20...-1000-mile-supergun/

B4, it sank.

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:...and the aircraft carrier ascended the naval hierarchy. But now, the carrier is too expensive to be put into harm’s way without a huge protective screen.

Aircraft carriers have always had a large protective screen; in-fact all capitol ships have had large group of escorts. When carrier task forces are organized, they definitely do not look like the photo ops of a single carrier battle group or, the rinky-dink multi-country exercises. Any offensive strike operation, you're gonna have several carriers operating together with a massive concentric ring of escorts. Your offensive arms for the navy is your aircraft from those carriers and submarines; cruise missiles (and later hypersonics) allow all those surface escorts to have a hand in throwing punches.

quote:

There’s going to be another “Revolt of the Admirals”, but it will also involve the generals from the Army and the Air Force against Space Force, the newest kid on the block with the high techy bells and whistles.

Space Force is merely an arm off the USAF, similar to how the USMC is an arm off the USN, funding bump for admin reasons but, nothing beyond what the former Space Command was already playing with.

Where the revolt should be directed is why the army is still getting a giant chunk of funding, when the fight is out in the Pacific. Not to mention why Congress hasn't been getting into the DoD with its inefficiencies with the current Combatant Commanders that are wearing out ships to go into the Persian Gulf, when the threat is over in the Western Pacific.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
Where the revolt should be directed is why the army is still getting a giant chunk of funding, when the fight is out in the Pacific.

A not-insignificant portion of the likely fight is in the Pacific. but the Pacific is not the be-all and end-all of the fight.