Build a modern battleship

[cruise ship caden]

Describe what you think a modern battleship would look like and what sensors it would have and what it would be armed with

 

[Temeraire]

Describe what you think a modern battleship would look like and what sensors it would have and what it would be armed with

Pair of large gun turrets forward, many missiles and CIWS, possibly a few smaller secondary guns and facilities aft for helicopters

 

[F.L.]

Aren't the Kirovs a form of modern battleship ?

 

[cruise ship caden]

Aren't the Kirovs a form of modern battleship ?
View attachment 719363

i consider these the closest thing to a modern battleship although they are designated battlecruisers

 

[F.L.]

i consider these the closest thing to a modern battleship although they are designated battlecruisers

French being my vernacular, I don't really understand the nuance between battleship and battlecruiser.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

In terms of classifications I think battlecruiser is more appropriate for what a realistic future design might look like. One of the fundamental distinctions between the two (although there are always exceptions) is the level of armor protection. And against the sort of missiles and torpedoes a capable opponent might field it is unrealistic to provide enough armor to negate such threats. So ultimately the physical armor on a modern battlecruiser would be pretty limited and it would have to rely on countermeasures, missile defenses, and CIWS as the last line of defense.

Of course when people think of battleships they think of the big guns. Theoretically it might be possible to leverage the sort of work and research done for projects like the strategic long range cannon. I suppose the end result might be a 11" (280mm) or 12" (305mm) caliber gun but to get the range desired would be difficult. I'd imagine the easiest but shortest range option would probably be a lot the 155mm AGS of the Zumwalt class but scaled up. Of course the 155mm AGS on those ships is currently just dead weight without any shells to fire because they were deemed too expensive and much of that is due to the fact that there are only 6 of these gun mounts across 3 ships. Considering that not even the United States would be able to afford a large number of the sort of modern "battleship" we are trying to envision here, I'm not sure how you could make this idea cost effective.
Then there a whole host of more exotic technologies that could greatly increase range, but also risk and overall cost. Ramjet shells, liquid propellent, combustion light gas guns, railguns.

French being my vernacular, I don't really understand the nuance between battleship and battlecruiser.

As always with warship classifications it gets kind of complicated. The first battlecruisers were the successors to the armored cruisers and like HMS Dreadnought did away with the intermediate caliber of guns in favor of a uniform main battery of large caliber guns. They had less armor than a battleship but greater speed and that was the fundamental difference.

But by the time WWII comes around advancements in design and technology resulted in fast battleships which were a blend of both. The ultimate example is probably the Iowa class which has the same level of armor as the South Dakota class that preceded it but can reach roughly 33 knots which is comparable or greater than any battlecruiser that was actually completed as such.

And lets not talk about "large cruisers" like a certain class named after US territories at the time. That's a can of worms.

 

[Lc89]

Arsenal ship 2.0?

 

[cruise ship caden]

French being my vernacular, I don't really understand the nuance between battleship and battlecruiser.

back then battlecruisers were lightly armored but fast with battleship caliber weapons

 

[cruise ship caden]

Arsenal ship 2.0?

arsenal ship could be a modern battleship as ive seen concepts of arsenal ships with a 72 pennant number

 

[Dilandu]

The main problem in "new battleship" concept is protection. It make no sence to build battleship, if its armor could not protect it from hits. And there are major problem with armoring against modern weapons:

* Supersonic anti-ship missiles could hit at Mach 2.5+ and more. The kinetic energy of their impact is much greater than 16-inch shell fired point-blank. And since they mostly attack from above, hitting target from high-speed dive, it's the deck area that must be armored against them.

* Shaped-charge warheads on even the subsonic missiles are perfectly able to penetrate armor plates of up to absurd thickness. The large shaping cavity on, say, "Termit" missile (old P-15) threw down a explosively-formed penetrator - essentially a massive "teardrop" of cold solid metal - on the velocity of more than 2 km/s. And again, the decks would suffer the hit.

* Missiles with diving warhead (or torpedoes, carried by missiles) represent the underwater part of the problem. Armor is useless against underwater strikes. And modern torpedoes are more than capable to cause crippling damage to even large warships.

* Even if armoring the hull is (somehow) possible, it's absolutely impossible to armor the superstructure - specifically the radar antennas. Without which the battleship would be blind and deaf, even if its armor wasn't penetrated. Sure, it could fight under external guidance... but what's the point of building an armored battleship, if it only capable to work as support unit under remote control? Unarmored arsenal ship would work as well - and would be much cheaper.

* Finally, armor is not only giving dubious advantages. It also have major disadvantages. Armored ships are much harder to repair (you need to cut through armor plates to do it). The weight of armor decrease their floatability in case of flooding damage. And armor forced - due to weight consideration - to stuck all vital part of ship close togeter, so they would fit into as small armored space as possible. So basically you can't efficiently dispecre vitals around the ships, and any hit that penetrated armor would took out something vital.

 

[publiusr]

Perhaps something as simple as a foam lined hull could cut back on the Rehbinder effect (if any) below the waterline.

As sensors perhaps turn the ocean transparent...instead of degaussing ships---perhaps magnetic drag can be used as a shield...electronics would have to be simple...perhaps a return to mechanical computers...the whole ship an ECM.

 

[Dilandu]

Perhaps something as simple as a foam lined hull could cut back on the Rehbinder effect (if any) below the waterline

Exactly how its supposed to work?

..instead of degaussing ships---perhaps magnetic drag can be used as a shield..

I'm not sure I understood you.

electronics would have to be simple...perhaps a return to mechanical computers...the whole ship an ECM.

So you basically suggesting the armless battleship?

 

[publiusr]

Guns only...the idea of the foam is to keep water off the hull so as to prevent the Rehbinder effect---which allows glass to be cut underwater with simple scissors.

Now if memory serves, welded hull Liberty ships suffered worse than their riveted sisters. I never believed in that crap about the Philadelphia Experiment...but a part of me wonders what the effect of a floating Wardenclyffe at sea would have on sensitive modern electronics. Gambier Bay was the only carrier sunk by deck guns...but will that remain the case?

 

[cruise ship caden]

The main problem in "new battleship" concept is protection. It make no sence to build battleship, if its armor could not protect it from hits. And there are major problem with armoring against modern weapons:

* Supersonic anti-ship missiles could hit at Mach 2.5+ and more. The kinetic energy of their impact is much greater than 16-inch shell fired point-blank. And since they mostly attack from above, hitting target from high-speed dive, it's the deck area that must be armored against them.

* Shaped-charge warheads on even the subsonic missiles are perfectly able to penetrate armor plates of up to absurd thickness. The large shaping cavity on, say, "Termit" missile (old P-15) threw down a explosively-formed penetrator - essentially a massive "teardrop" of cold solid metal - on the velocity of more than 2 km/s. And again, the decks would suffer the hit.

* Missiles with diving warhead (or torpedoes, carried by missiles) represent the underwater part of the problem. Armor is useless against underwater strikes. And modern torpedoes are more than capable to cause crippling damage to even large warships.

* Even if armoring the hull is (somehow) possible, it's absolutely impossible to armor the superstructure - specifically the radar antennas. Without which the battleship would be blind and deaf, even if its armor wasn't penetrated. Sure, it could fight under external guidance... but what's the point of building an armored battleship, if it only capable to work as support unit under remote control? Unarmored arsenal ship would work as well - and would be much cheaper.

* Finally, armor is not only giving dubious advantages. It also have major disadvantages. Armored ships are much harder to repair (you need to cut through armor plates to do it). The weight of armor decrease their floatability in case of flooding damage. And armor forced - due to weight consideration - to stuck all vital part of ship close togeter, so they would fit into as small armored space as possible. So basically you can't efficiently dispecre vitals around the ships, and any hit that penetrated armor would took out something vital.

thats why modern ships are relativly unarmored except for kirov class with 3 inches over vitals

 

[Dilandu]

thats why modern ships are relativly unarmored except for kirov class with 3 inches over vitals

Yep. And armor of Kirov-class is basically anti-fragment protection - not to stop a direct hit, but to protect against shockwave and fragments tearing through the ship in case of hit. Nuclear powered cruisers are costly; it's reasonable to give it at least some degree of additional protection (if USSR have kevlar armor in 1970s, I suppose it would install kevlar plates instead of steel ones - as on modern US supercarriers - but at this time only steel was available).

 

[Dilandu]

Guns only...

Guns only with mechanical fire control? Your battleship would lose a gun duel with a modern destroyer.

 

[chimeric oncogene]

Battleships are an obsolete concept.
What is probably required for sea control is a large nuclear powered aircraft carrier and an air wing of modern anti-submarine, fighter, strike, and radar planes.
Failing that, some sort of strike cruiser a la the old CSGN concepts with a giant sonar, giant radar, magnificent computerized command and control center, helicopter facilities, and missile payload.

In modern warfare conducted under informatized conditions, sensors, computers, and command and control are your sword and shield, the coin and currency of battle. Accordingly, they comprise the biggest ticket items on your warship, and probably will end up dominating design considerations and capability discussions.

Instead of thickness of armor and caliber of gun, one would be expected to discuss warships in terms of acuity of radar and sophistication of computers, and effectiveness of communications with missiles, gun rounds, and aircraft (possibly originating from the warship itself or mounted on some other platform).

 

[uk 75]

The role of the battleship in the Royal Navy as a capital ship able to sink or force an enemy fleet to stay in port has been taken over by the nuclear submarine as HMS Conqueror proved in 1982.

 

[Scott Kenny]

French being my vernacular, I don't really understand the nuance between battleship and battlecruiser.

A battle cruiser is battleship guns with only cruiser protection, and usually cruiser or cruiser+ speed.
A battleship has enough armor to only lose a couple of compartments to their own main guns.

And sarcastically, a fast battleship is when a battleship cosplays as a cruiser.
As the Eldraeverse puts it:

On the sea or in space, a battlecruiser is a cruiser putting on the airs of a battleship, and a fast battleship is a battleship cosplaying as a cruiser. This doesn’t become a problem until the types start to overlap.

thats why modern ships are relativly unarmored except for kirov class with 3 inches over vitals

Most USN ships have spall liners or enough armor to stop the splinters of a cruise missile.


==================

Now, as to what I think a modern battleship would look like.

35,000 tons or so, 245m long and 28m abeam. (Yes, that's the size of an Alaska-class Large Cruiser)
Stealth design like a Zumwalt, just 200ft longer and 12ft wider beam.
two reactors, IEP. Total generation capacity of at least 330megawatts electrical. (Reactors based on the A1Bs in the Ford-class, may or may not actually be A1Bs).
Major watertight compartment bulkheads are on the order of 3" Special Treatment Steel or HY80+.

Standard SPY-6 radar with 69 RMAs per facing, ~30ft wide antennas.

VLS cells are a mix of Mk41 (~128 minimum) and Mk57 (80 minimum, probably more like 160). May also have "Destroyer Payload Modules" for missiles too big to fit into Mk57. (forward 3 decks of the bow area have 2 small corridors for access between the Mk41 and Mk57, but there's minimum stuff in the bow past the VLS)
Has a pair of 155mm guns that use NATO-standard ammunition. Not sure if 1 forward and 1 aft or both forward. (edit: Or If the Army does a bunch of 8" guns for their ramjet shells, use 8" guns on this class as well and firing the same shells.)
Quartet of 57mm Mk110s for swarming small boats.
At least 2x RAM missile launchers as well.

Has a laser or lasers powerful enough to do the Gundam "wave the laser across the sky and watch every missile blow up", on the order of 100MW beam energy (and ~165MW electrical input). This is why it needs two reactors.

Enough hangar space for 2x H53s, but intended to operate 2x H60s and 2x MQ-8Cs or equivalent.

Intended to go into hostile waters and dare someone to shoot at it.

Lead ship in class is named Ernest E. Evans.

 

[Dilandu]

A battle cruiser is battleship guns with only cruiser protection, and usually cruiser or cruiser+ speed.

That's not an exhaustive definition; for example, German battlecruisers have lighter armament, but the same protection as battleships. And Russian "Izmail"-class battlecruisers were supposed to have even better protection than many cotemporary battleships.

And sarcastically, a fast battleship is when a battleship cosplays as a cruiser.

Again, no. You are trying to use a functional classification, while it actually was technical.

To put it simply, battlecruiser is a "not balanced" capital ship. It sacrificed some of standard capital ship qualities - like armor, armament, seakeeping ability, ect. - for a speed advantage. Generally it was a forced solution; 1910s - 1920s powerplants were simply too big and heavy, so to get a 5+ knot speed advantage your powerplant needed to be enormous. You could not build balanced capital ship that would also be fast - you needed to sacrifice some other quality.

Fast battleship is a balanced fast capital ship. The advances in powerplant designs by 1930s essentially allowed to double output in a half of old powerplant size/mass. So it became possible to just build high-speed capital ships, without the need to sacrifice anything.

Most USN ships have spall liners or enough armor to stop the splinters of a cruise missile.

Kevlar plates over vitals, as far as I knew.

 

[Dilandu]

Has a laser or lasers powerful enough to do the Gundam "wave the laser across the sky and watch every missile blow up", on the order of 100MW beam energy (and ~165MW electrical input). This is why it needs two reactors.

You realize that:

* 100 MWt combat-capable laser is still theoretical?
* It would require rather large focusing system just to avoid melting its own mirror?
* You can't "wave the laser across the sky and watch every missile blow up"; you need to precisely target each missile and focus the beam on it.
* You require 55+% power-to-beam conversion for this laser. While it was achieved at laboratories, it would took significant time and efforts to make anything like that combat-ready.

Basically your laser is two generations ahead of what could be achieved right now, and required major technological breakthroughts.

 

[uk 75]

The evolution of weapons from guns, torpedos, aircraft and missiles has increased the range of projectiles a ship can launch at an opponent.
Nuclear warheads have meant that no amount of protection can ensure a ship survives but Kevlar plates and well trained damage parties can help against lesser threats.
The role of big guns as opposed to missiles is debatable.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You realize that:

* 100 MWt combat-capable laser is still theoretical?
* It would require rather large focusing system just to avoid melting its own mirror?
* You can't "wave the laser across the sky and watch every missile blow up"; you need to precisely target each missile and focus the beam on it.
* You require 55+% power-to-beam conversion for this laser. While it was achieved at laboratories, it would took significant time and efforts to make anything like that combat-ready.

Basically your laser is two generations ahead of what could be achieved right now, and required major technological breakthroughts.

Yes, I'm aware that it's well above what we have available.

"wave the laser across the sky" is something of a figure of speech. I'm talking needing less than 250milliseconds to destroy any given missile.

 

[Archibald]

Here is my own take at "battlecruiser" vs "battleship".

Between 1906 when Dreadnought happened, and 1930, it was not possible to build the "perfect" battleship that is one which had all three important features
- SPEED : 27 kt or more
- ARMOR: against its own shells caliber
- GUNS: 9*15-inch or 8*16-inch

Only the 1930's battleships managed that: Iowa, Richelieu, Bismarck, Roma and others.

Before that date: something had to give. Usually, it was speed: 21 kt "only" allowed "full" armor and "full" gun battery. Example: USS Colorado class.

The british got an early breakthrough with the Queen Elizabeth "fast battleships" (24 kt) but wanted something even faster.

Queen Elizabeth-class battleship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This clearly shows the speed limitations of the time: how much did it cost going from 21 kt to 23-24 kt, and then to 28 kt.

And thus (Beatty and Fisher) circa 1913 decided to try something different: speed (25 kt+) and guns, BUT: screw the armor. That was the price to pay to speed while keeping a realistic gun battery.

Hence was born the battlecruiser. It was supposed to kill cruisers (light, heavy, armored) while escaping the fully armored battleships at 21 kt: thanks to its speed.

For complex reasons however battlecruisers often found themselves in combat along (and against) battleships. Which might not have the speed, but had big guns and decent armor.

End result: Jutland three big KABOOM and Hood own KABOOM, 25 years apart. Battlecruiser weak armor to save speed was definitively the wrong move. And superior speed wasn't a viable avantage.

By the 1930's however it was possible to build "complete" battleships with 100% gun, 100% speed, and 100% armor: no need to try and sacrifice one of the three parameters.

Note that no ship ever traded *guns* to have both armor and velocity. The reason ? in combat, broadside weight is paramount. Only 6 guns, either 15-inch or 16-inch, wouldn't be enough.

 

[red admiral]

It's much more complicated than that, and one of the not mentioned constraints in all this is "cost", and the trade off with numbers.

Post Dreadnought fast battleships were around from the start of the Dreadnought era; design X4 was Dreadnought guns and armour, with 25kts speed. But it was bigger/heavier and more expensive.

On the "not enough armour" side, then this doesn't really seem to stack up against experience - plenty of battlecruisers took severe damage and continued to fight on. The key takeaways for me* are much more around detail design features (e.g. how the armour is supported) and integration (e.g. cable runs, position of interlocks etc., 2ndry battery magazine supply etc.).

If the UK battlecruisers had either a more stable propellant, or simply in-date cordite, then I think the historical question people would be asking is "why did navies persist in building slow battleships?"



* D K Brown's review of wartime experience in The Grand Fleet is a good overview

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Battlecruisers are simply all-Big-Gun turbine-propelled Armoured Cruisers. They're intended to perform the same role, and like Armoured Cruisers are intended to provide the Battlefleet's fast wing in the line of battle.

The Invincible wasn't expected to do anything that the Cressy wasn't also intended to do 8 years earlier.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Between 1906 when Dreadnought happened, and 1930, it was not possible to build the "perfect" battleship that is one which had all three important features
- SPEED : 27 kt or more
- ARMOR: against its own shells caliber
- GUNS: 9*15-inch or 8*16-inch

Only the 1930's battleships managed that: Iowa, Richelieu, Bismarck, Roma and others.

G3 managed to do this in 1921. Iowa on the other hand, did not, protection against super-heavy 16" shells had to wait until the Montana-class.

 

[Dilandu]

Here is my own take at "battlecruiser" vs "battleship".

Between 1906 when Dreadnought happened, and 1930, it was not possible to build the "perfect" battleship that is one which had all three important features

Essentially what I was saying above.

 

[Archibald]

Except G3 wasn't build. But I see the point.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Except G3 wasn't build. But I see the point.

There was nothing in the design which was not technically feasible, we know because most of the innovations were included in the Nelson-class.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Here is my own take at "battlecruiser" vs "battleship".

Between 1906 when Dreadnought happened, and 1930, it was not possible to build the "perfect" battleship that is one which had all three important features
- SPEED : 27 kt or more
- ARMOR: against its own shells caliber
- GUNS: 9*15-inch or 8*16-inch

Only the 1930's battleships managed that: Iowa, Richelieu, Bismarck, Roma and others.

Before that date: something had to give. Usually, it was speed: 21 kt "only" allowed "full" armor and "full" gun battery. Example: USS Colorado class.

The british got an early breakthrough with the Queen Elizabeth "fast battleships" (24 kt) but wanted something even faster.

Queen Elizabeth-class battleship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This clearly shows the speed limitations of the time: how much did it cost going from 21 kt to 23-24 kt, and then to 28 kt.

And thus (Beatty and Fisher) circa 1913 decided to try something different: speed (25 kt+) and guns, BUT: screw the armor. That was the price to pay to speed while keeping a realistic gun battery.

Hence was born the battlecruiser. It was supposed to kill cruisers (light, heavy, armored) while escaping the fully armored battleships at 21 kt: thanks to its speed.

For complex reasons however battlecruisers often found themselves in combat along (and against) battleships. Which might not have the speed, but had big guns and decent armor.

End result: Jutland three big KABOOM and Hood own KABOOM, 25 years apart. Battlecruiser weak armor to save speed was definitively the wrong move. And superior speed wasn't a viable avantage.

By the 1930's however it was possible to build "complete" battleships with 100% gun, 100% speed, and 100% armor: no need to try and sacrifice one of the three parameters.

Note that no ship ever traded *guns* to have both armor and velocity. The reason ? in combat, broadside weight is paramount. Only 6 guns, either 15-inch or 16-inch, wouldn't be enough.

Arguably, the only time that a class of ship "fast enough to outrun anything that could kill it and well enough armed to kill anything it could catch" was successful at all was the American 44-gun frigates(!). Which were admittedly a very rude surprise to the UKRN, forcing a change in standing orders that were at least 100 years old.

That said, the proximate cause of all the battlecruiser losses was using them like a battleship. Just because it's got battleship sized guns does not mean it can fight battleships. Battlecruisers existed to hunt down the enemy fleet's cruisers, not get stuck into the main line of battle!

"Hunting down the enemy cruisers" was even the design brief for the Alaska-class, but the subs beat the CBs to it. Which left the CBs as fast carrier escorts, but the CBs had about half the 40mm install of any battleship.

 

[CommanderRenHoek]

Trying to do sea control/denial now with guns is a dubious prospect, even if fancy guns like the SLRC ever worked, due to the core problem of terminal guidance at OTH range as well as the fact that 16"/18" shells with modern high-energy explosives will need several hits to down a modern large combatant unless you get lucky with a magazine/missile farm or you bite the bullet (pun intended) and put seekers/datalinks on your shells, but then it stops being cheaper than missiles in an overall system/risk perspective.

Now if you just want a big gun ship for sieging an enemy after their planes/drones/satellites have been cut down, maybe because you want more fire volume than four dozen SLCMs/TBMs per hull, a De Moines/CSGN '76-onward/LockMart 20Kton Arsenal Ship sized vessel with two of whatever long-range big gun one's MIC can reasonably build is probably desirable, at least for me. Such a hull size should be good for endurance, redundancy/survivability, and a modest self-defense suite, without overly breaking the bank.

30+kton hull sizes would get you an area defense suite and SAMs/TBMs. But perhaps it would be better to haul those on a separate hull, unless you have some other constraint like available crews or berthing space or cost, that would lead to a desire for maximizing capability per hull.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Now if you just want a big gun ship for sieging an enemy after their planes/drones/satellites have been cut down, maybe because you want more fire volume than four dozen SLCMs/TBMs per hull, a De Moines/CSGN '76-onward/LockMart 20Kton Arsenal Ship sized vessel with two of whatever long-range big gun one's MIC can reasonably build is probably desirable, at least for me. Such a hull size should be good for endurance, redundancy/survivability, and a modest self-defense suite, without overly breaking the bank.

Especially if you can get coilguns working correctly. Those can be designed to just continuously spray projectiles downrange.

See the "Fleming Launchers" mentioned in passing in The Irregular At Magic High School.

30+kton hull sizes would get you an area defense suite and SAMs/TBMs. But perhaps it would be better to haul those on a separate hull, unless you have some other constraint like available crews or berthing space or cost, that would lead to a desire for maximizing capability per hull.

It's honestly looking like each ship will need to have its own area defense system, capable of dealing with AShBMs, hypersonic cruise missiles or HGBs, and regular air threats.

 

[kqcke for you]

For me a modern Battleship/ Cruiser would be Kirov sized and would carry a lot of VLS cells. Primary large things like the planed G-VLS or Advanced Payload Modules. Now this would probaly be more a thing for land attack with CPS or tomahawk but it needs to be able to defend itself with multiple layers. Stealth and large EW capabilitys are also a big point for me as they are the modern "armor" of the ship.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Arguably, the only time that a class of ship "fast enough to outrun anything that could kill it and well enough armed to kill anything it could catch" was successful at all was the American 44-gun frigates(!). Which were admittedly a very rude surprise to the UKRN, forcing a change in standing orders that were at least 100 years old.

Given the complete lack of knowledge around hydrodynamics at the time, and given the speed of contemporary sailing warships was a product of length and sail area, I doubt that was the case. HMS Speedy, after all, was overhauled by French ships-of-the-line.

That said, the proximate cause of all the battlecruiser losses was using them like a battleship. Just because it's got battleship sized guns does not mean it can fight battleships. Battlecruisers existed to hunt down the enemy fleet's cruisers, not get stuck into the main line of battle!

Battlecruisers were used in the same manner as their Armoured Cruiser ancestors, which were also expected to fight in the line of battle against the enemy fleet, hence the armoured belts introduced from the Cressy-class onwards.

In 1907 Dreadnought was part of the 5th Cruiser Squadron, operating alongside Armoured Cruisers. This was also the case with the first Battlecruisers.

 

[Iomar]

That would be something like Anderson's light battleship (11.000 to 14.000 tonnes) with a stealthy superstructure, 1 turret x 3 x 16"/50 guns, 90+ vertical launch tubes, and 2 x helicopter facilities and launch pad.

 

[uk 75]

The lovers of big guns here are really hankering after a monitor not a battleship.

Roberts-class monitor - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The battleship's ship killing role has moved on to subs and aircraft carriers or destroyers with missiles. The gunnery support for amphibious assaults which some still want is the job of a monitor.

 

[Iomar]

That would be something like Anderson's light battleship (11.000 to 14.000 tonnes) with a stealthy superstructure, 1 turret x 3 x 16"/50 guns, 90+ vertical launch tubes, and 2 x helicopter facilities and launch pad.

View attachment 720425

Which explains why nobody builds battleships - in the traditional sense of the term, not just large heavily armed destroyers - today.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Given the complete lack of knowledge around hydrodynamics at the time, and given the speed of contemporary sailing warships was a product of length and sail area, I doubt that was the case. HMS Speedy, after all, was overhauled by French ships-of-the-line.

Pretty well documented. The 44s with a clean, undamaged bottom could do 14 knots in good wind, and even get within two points of the wind before losing sail power. Ships of the line averaged 10-12.

USS President was captured after running aground and in almost no wind. She had every scrap of canvas available flying, with crews passing buckets of water up to wet the canvas to catch more wind, and with other crew in the small boats rowing to tow her.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Now, as to what I think a modern battleship would look like.

35,000 tons or so, 245m long and 28m abeam. (Yes, that's the size of an Alaska-class Large Cruiser)
Stealth design like a Zumwalt, just 200ft longer and 12ft wider beam.
two reactors, IEP. Total generation capacity of at least 330megawatts electrical. (Reactors based on the A1Bs in the Ford-class, may or may not actually be A1Bs).
Major watertight compartment bulkheads are on the order of 3" Special Treatment Steel or HY80+.

Standard SPY-6 radar with 69 RMAs per facing, ~30ft wide antennas.

VLS cells are a mix of Mk41 (~128 minimum) and Mk57 (80 minimum, probably more like 160). May also have "Destroyer Payload Modules" for missiles too big to fit into Mk57. (forward 3 decks of the bow area have 2 small corridors for access between the Mk41 and Mk57, but there's minimum stuff in the bow past the VLS)
Has a pair of 155mm guns that use NATO-standard ammunition. Not sure if 1 forward and 1 aft or both forward.
Quartet of 57mm Mk110s for swarming small boats.
At least 2x RAM missile launchers as well.

Has a laser or lasers powerful enough to do the Gundam "wave the laser across the sky and watch every missile blow up", on the order of 100MW beam energy (and ~165MW electrical input). This is why it needs two reactors.

Enough hangar space for 2x H53s, but intended to operate 2x H60s and 2x MQ-8Cs or equivalent.

Intended to go into hostile waters and dare someone to shoot at it.

Lead ship in class is named Ernest E. Evans.

If the Army does a bunch of 8" guns for their ramjet shells, use 8" guns on this class as well and firing the same shells.