Build a modern battleship

[Monk78]

If by battleship you mean a capital ship then a SSGN like Oscar or Ohio class is the modern incarnation
If you mean a coastal bombardment weapon we need to bring back gun monitors that could be very cheap and effective weapons, even in modern era

 

[Archibald]

If by battleship you mean a capital ship then a SSGN like Oscar or Ohio class is the modern incarnation
If you mean a coastal bombardment weapon we need to bring back gun monitors that could be very cheap and effective weapons, even in modern era

Yep, a big nuclear sub with a crapton of antiship and cruise missiles... also agree on monitors. Main problem is that nowadays there are no naval guns bigger than five inch.
How about a monitor with a few Mk.71 8-inch guns, in the 1970's ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-inch/55-caliber_Mark_71_gun
What was wrong with that gun, by the way ?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yep, a big nuclear sub with a crapton of antiship and cruise missiles... also agree on monitors. Main problem is that nowadays there are no naval guns bigger than five inch.
How about a monitor with a few Mk.71 8-inch guns, in the 1970's ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-inch/55-caliber_Mark_71_gun
What was wrong with that gun, by the way ?

Only gained 2nmi range over the 5".

4000yds is your helmsman screwing up a heading for a few minutes.

 

[royabulgaf]

Back around the turn of the 20th century the US Navy built a ship with what were called Dynamite guns, the USS Vesuvius (You can Wiki it). It fired 15 inch shells from fixed compressed air guns. I imagine the range could be altered by adjusting the pressure. It would be simple enough to recreate this with say a railgun. You could pump out the shells all day from guns with little recoil. Want more range? Slap on a rocket booster. This would be the battleship of 1944 on replacement. Remember =from 1945 on the only battleships that got any use were the Iowas. They were around because they were paid for and unique in firepower and armor. To recreate a modern (1980s) battleship would probably cost nearly as much as an aircraft carrier with less capability.

 

[Dilandu]

You could pump out the shells all day from guns with little recoil.

Erm... why do you assume railgun didn't have recoil?

Want more range? Slap on a rocket booster.

Actually just designing artillery rocket container to fit Mk-41 cell would probably be much cheaper and simpler.

 

[Dilandu]

P.S. Actually, I just calculated a bit - it seems that the optimal fire support solution may be ground-launched small diameter bomb quad-packed into Mk-41 cell. The SDB diameter is about 7-8 inches; it's perfectly within the ESSM missile 10 inch diameter. So with the addition of jet vanes control package, it could be launched vertically and lofted on required altitude to glide toward target. Merely allocating one Mk-41 module (8 cells) for the quad-packed GLSDB would provide 32 highly accurate missiles of 150+ km range. And for the prolonged support missions more missiles could be fit (48 VLC - half of Arleigh Burke total capacity - would provide 192 missiles).

 

[MadRat]

If I was going for a modern battleship it would be built around a supertanker built to be unsunkable with redundant power sources, cabling routes, etc. Built it to be mostly fireproof and act as a missile magnet to keep the fleet escorts alive. Focus on automation to minimize manpower. Landing strip on top that can handle jets or twirlies. A couple of ramps on the front of the deck for F-35B operations. (F-35B replaces need for big guns.) Multiple topside shelters for aircraft. Distributed Goalkeeper CIWS array of 5-6 turrets guns and an equal number of RAM launchers. A couple dozen manually aimed HMGs to secure itself from seadrones and pirates. Plenty of room for any number of Mk41 launchers on the perimeter. Plenty of draft height to support the longest naval missiles. Focus on role as remote launcher to save costs of all the radars that can be on frigates and destroyers around it. Initial unit can be names USS Timex. Remember the old slogan, "Takes a licking but keeps on ticking."

 

[Dilandu]

If I was going for a modern battleship it would be built around a supertanker built to be unsunkable with redundant power sources, cabling routes, etc.

Erm. Torpedoes. Torpedo, exploding under keel, could easily break a supertanker in half - its hull did not have ruggedness to survive this. Even supercarriers with their massive torpedo protection would not took a hit lightly.

 

[Yellow Palace]

A strong argument can be made that the modern aircraft carrier is the successor to the battlecruiser. It carries the most powerful armament available, is as fast as is reasonably possible, and doesn't worry too much about protection.

By analogy, therefore, the successor to the battleship should carry at least as many aircraft as a modern aircraft carrier, be effectively protected (including its armament, i.e. an armoured hangar!) against air-launched weapons, but be about 20% slower than the 'fast' carrier - i.e. about 27 knots. Design of a protective scheme that achieves this is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[Dilandu]

By analogy, therefore, the successor to the battleship should carry at least as many aircraft as a modern aircraft carrier, be effectively protected (including its armament, i.e. an armoured hangar!) against air-launched weapons, but be about 20% slower than the 'fast' carrier - i.e. about 27 knots. Design of a protective scheme that achieves this is left as an exercise for the reader

Well, USN toyed with "megacarrier" concept during Cold War...

 

[Scott Kenny]

A strong argument can be made that the modern aircraft carrier is the successor to the battlecruiser. It carries the most powerful armament available, is as fast as is reasonably possible, and doesn't worry too much about protection.

By analogy, therefore, the successor to the battleship should carry at least as many aircraft as a modern aircraft carrier, be effectively protected (including its armament, i.e. an armoured hangar!) against air-launched weapons, but be about 20% slower than the 'fast' carrier - i.e. about 27 knots. Design of a protective scheme that achieves this is left as an exercise for the reader.

Disagree.

There simply is no possible protection scheme capable of dealing with a 1000+lb shaped charge warhead that reaches the ship. The defensive scheme is to not let the missiles hit in the first place.

Remember, there are antitank missiles with shaped charge warheads that are claimed to penetrate 1000mm of RHAe. Those warheads are 80-152mm in diameter and are powered by 5-10kg of explosive.

How much penetration do you think you could get out of a 530mm diameter warhead with 500kg of explosive?

 

[uk 75]

If one is looking for an impressively large and aggressive looking surface ship the Kirov class is the closest modern equivalent of the battleship/battle cruiser. In peacetime and limited wars such a vessel "shows the flag" very effectively.
In a full on war, however, it is not much more survivable than a Burke or Type 45 destroyer.

 

[Monk78]

If one is looking for an impressively large and aggressive looking surface ship the Kirov class is the closest modern equivalent of the battleship/battle cruiser. In peacetime and limited wars such a vessel "shows the flag" very effectively.
In a full on war, however, it is not much more survivable than a Burke or Type 45 destroyer.

In a nuclear war it can be useful as a arsenal of nuclear tipped cruise missiles and can potentially take out an entire CVBG with one strike even it perishes itself

 

[Yellow Palace]

Disagree.

No you don't.

The point is exactly that - you can't build a ship that has battleship-level protection against modern weapons. That wasn't even possible in the late 1940s. Therefore, regardless of what combat systems you put on it, no modern warship is fit to stand in the line of battle, and cannot be considered a true battleship.

A large surface combatant with a large battery of long-range missiles might be considered a battlecruiser. Maybe. If its missiles gave it striking power in the same class as an aircraft carrier. I'd argue no such ship has ever been built - even the KIROV class are 'merely' allowed to reach the natural size for cruisers in the 1980s.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In a nuclear war it can be useful as a arsenal of nuclear tipped cruise missiles and can potentially take out an entire CVBG with one strike even it perishes itself

Only has 20x missiles. Yes, they're P700 Granit/SS-N-19 Shipwrecks, but it's still only 20 missiles.

Example:

Hawkeye detects the missile launch, whatever BARCAP take shots at them, then the Aegis ships get to play. As long as the Hawkeye stays over 100km away from the Kirov, it's relatively safe from SAMs. They might increase standoff to 150-200km to make up for an unpleasant intel oops regarding S300F range.​

​

P700s fly at Mach 1.6 at low altitude, that's roughly 1km every 2 seconds. P700s also have a ~600km range, so we have a total flight time of about ~1200sec (20 minutes).​

​

So, BARCAP takes whatever shots they can at the missile group. Let's say BARCAP fails utterly, splashes no birds over 10 minutes shooting time. AMRAAMs against small targets.​

​

Aegis ships can now start engaging missiles that are a good 300km out, taking tracking data from the Hawkeye(s). SM2s have a speed of roughly 1km/sec, first interceptions happen at ~200km range (there may be a bit of a wait till missiles close in for older SM2s to be within range), ~400sec to impact. 20x SM2s are fired here.​

​

Aegis ships then launch a second volley of 16x SM2s at however many missiles remain, let's say the extreme range only got us 4 hits with 16 incoming remaining. Second volley intercepts at about 160km, and gets half the missiles with 8 remaining. 320sec to impact​

​

Third volley of 8x SM2s intercepts at 100km range. For argument sake, this volley will also only get half the missiles. 4 missiles remaining, 200sec to impact.​

​

Fourth volley of 4x SM2s intercepts at about 60km range. For sake of argument, this volley will also only get half the missiles. 2 missiles remaining, 120sec to impact.​

​

Fifth volley of 4x SM2s intercepts at about 40km range. This is possibly close enough to get the shipboard illuminator radars in play, and a Tico has 4 of them. 2 illuminators per incoming. The dice really don't like the US today, so one missile remaining, 80sec to impact.​

​

There is still enough time to launch another volley, but this time it's 4x ESSMs. They intercept at about 24km. For whatever reason, all 4 ESSMs miss (told you the dice hate the US today). One missile remaining, ~48sec to impact.​

​

Second volley of 4x ESSMs intercepts at about 16km. ~30 sec to impact.​

​

There's still time for a third volley of 4x ESSMs, intercepting at 10km. ~20sec to impact.​

​

Fourth volley of 4x ESSMs or first volley of RAM, intercepting at 6km. ~12sec to impact.​

There's still time for a second RAM volley, intercepting at 4km, ~8sec to impact.​

There might be time to get a third RAM volley in, intercepting at ~2.5km, 5sec to impact.​

​

CIWS starts the engagement at about 1.5km/3sec to impact and ceases fire at 500m/1sec to impact.​

Total expended: 52x SM2s, 12-16x ESSMs, 0-2x RAM, ~500rds 20mm CIWS.

With the dice absolutely hating the US today, that's one just-about-empty Tico.

If we bump up the SM2 P(hit) to 0.8, it looks even worse for a Kirov trying something.

No you don't.

The point is exactly that - you can't build a ship that has battleship-level protection against modern weapons. That wasn't even possible in the late 1940s. Therefore, regardless of what combat systems you put on it, no modern warship is fit to stand in the line of battle, and cannot be considered a true battleship.

A large surface combatant with a large battery of long-range missiles might be considered a battlecruiser. Maybe. If its missiles gave it striking power in the same class as an aircraft carrier. I'd argue no such ship has ever been built - even the KIROV class are 'merely' allowed to reach the natural size for cruisers in the 1980s.

I follow your reasoning, I'm just not sure I agree with it. But I don't have a good argument for why we should count defensive missiles as armor, either.

 

[Emoneyessir1369]

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

I would like to assume that we roll with two sets of the new advanced long range guns with auto older equipped to load both torrets(originally on the stealth battleship) I would would haves set of 128 VLS stations with Tomahawk capabilities and all sorts of fire power. I would have cIWS,( maybe 2) sea sparrows launchers added to the deck front and rear set in a manner for reload ability while under way. Sea RAM, A modern Hedge Hog system for Sub Defense, several Torpedo tubes that shoot out 200 - 1000 yards before entering the water for final attack run.
I’d use an old school armored hull
If it could work which would make it bigger have either a single or double Jet pump propulsion if double than one on each corner of the rear to enhance defensive maneuvers.(high torque thrust). Fitted with the best Radar American money can buy. Lastly counter measures as far as smoke, decoys, advanced Jamming, optional towed array.
Not sure if it be feasible to pop a pair of Hypersonic Etreme range anti ship missiles to start the battle off just right. No helicopter deck but a small rack hidden amongst all the fun tools is a small launch station for advanced small naval drones rigged with a warhead it fires and itself carries a second warhead into the ship . Each drone also flies autonomously or can be controlled by on board. When autonomously attacking the drones communicate for advanced attack plan targeting vulnerable areas on the opposing ship. (Could attach these drones by wire guidance to avoid jamming but preferably having strong enough systems to avoid being jammed be best.) That’s my Battle Ship

 

[Dilandu]

Aegis ships can now start engaging missiles that are a good 300km out, taking tracking data from the Hawkeye(s). SM2s have a speed of roughly 1km/sec, first interceptions happen at ~200km range (there may be a bit of a wait till missiles close in for older SM2s to be within range), ~400sec to impact. 20x SM2s are fired here.

One problem with yout calculations; SM-2's have at best a very limited over-the-horizon capability (a IR sensor strapped on side is a "better than nothing" kind of capability). So as long as P-700's stay below the horizon, your hit probability on them is very low.

Also you kinda missed the P-700s ECM's package.

 

[Kat Tsun]

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

1-3" inches of HY80-100 belt over the machinery, CIC, and computer rooms. Blast boxes for the 5-6" deck gun(s) and 96-128 VLS cells to vent penetrations upwards. Two helicopters. Gas turbine or nuclear propulsion. IEP powerplant akin to Type 45. 18,000-25,000 tons, depending on crew and sensor fit.

 

[Dilandu]

1-3" inches of HY80-100 belt over the machinery, CIC, and computer rooms.

What exactly this armor is supposed to protect from?

 

[Scott Kenny]

What exactly this armor is supposed to protect from?

Splinters.

One problem with yout calculations; SM-2's have at best a very limited over-the-horizon capability (a IR sensor strapped on side is a "better than nothing" kind of capability). So as long as P-700's stay below the horizon, your hit probability on them is very low.

I understood that SM2s are capable of getting midcourse updates from Hawkeyes, and a supersonic target at low altitude glows very nicely for IR seekers. Especially against cold North Atlantic water that's maybe 8degC. 4degC if you're up in the GIUK.

Also you kinda missed the P-700s ECM's package.

That was assumed in the number of successful intercepts. The SM2s have a combined Pk of 0.365 (19 downed with 52 missiles fired) Plus I absolutely screwed over the ESSMs, giving them a Pk of 0.

 

[Dilandu]

I understood that SM2s are capable of getting midcourse updates from Hawkeyes, and a supersonic target at low altitude glows very nicely for IR seekers. Especially against cold North Atlantic water that's maybe 8degC. 4degC if you're up in the GIUK.

SM-2? I rather doubt that. The RIM-66M line was developed in 1990s as sort-of improvised solution, and I don't recall them being able to work directly with E-2D, which was fielded in mid-2010s. At most, they could work through ship's Aegis that would got targeting data from Hawkeye.

The IR seeker on RIM-66M isn't exactly some magical solution either. Its small and not very advanced. Better than nothing, I suppose, but we are talkig about engaging Granit. Which is amongst the very best even now, decades after it first appeared.

Basically, OTH engagement with RIM-66M/RIM-156A would work, but it likely wouldn't work good. Neither of those missiles could work directly with E-2D (unlike SM-6), so they would reky completely on their parent ship figuring out of E-2D data the firing solution.

 

[Dilandu]

That was assumed in the number of successful intercepts. The SM2s have a combined Pk of 0.365 (19 downed with 52 missiles fired) Plus I absolutely screwed over the ESSMs, giving them a Pk of 0.

The Soviet calculations generally advises a salvo of two 949A submarines - i.e. 48 Granit missiles - to penetrate carrier strike group defenses and hit the carrier enough times to disable it.

 

[Grey Havoc]

How many were recommended in a strike with the standard 200 Kiloton anti-carrier warhead if the tactical & sub-strategic nukes had been broken out?

 

[Dilandu]

How many were recommended in a strike with the standard 200 Kiloton anti-carrier warhead if the tactical & sub-strategic nukes had been broken out?

As far as I knew, the same numbers. Not every Granite was equipped by nuclear warhead, and submarines could not switch their load as fast as, say, Maritime Strike Aviation bombers. So the equation remained the same, two-boat salvo to guarantee the penetration of outer, inner and self defenses & hit the high-value target inside. After the carrier got disabled, the maritime strike bombers or other sumbarines (with less advanced missiles) could be sent to target the escort ships.

 

[Scott Kenny]

How many were recommended in a strike with the standard 200 Kiloton anti-carrier warhead if the tactical & sub-strategic nukes had been broken out?

In that case, you'd only need to get one missile through, and it'd probably detonate outside Phalanx CIWS range. Just because CIWS has a pretty high Pk, and it wouldn't take many hits to render the nuke incapable of detonation.

200kt has a big fireball, but an underwater explosion at ~2km distance would likely be more effective.

As far as I knew, the same numbers. Not every Granite was equipped by nuclear warhead, and submarines could not switch their load as fast as, say, Maritime Strike Aviation bombers. So the equation remained the same, two-boat salvo to guarantee the penetration of outer, inner and self defenses & hit the high-value target inside. After the carrier got disabled, the maritime strike bombers or other sumbarines (with less advanced missiles) could be sent to target the escort ships.

Likely overkill for the job, but much easier planning if only a few Granits per ship were nuclear tipped.

 

[Dilandu]

Likely overkill for the job, but much easier planning if only a few Granits per ship were nuclear tipped

Well, the idea was not merely to "rush to the carrier", but to target the escort ships also, thus complicating the defense efforts and forcing them to chose between self-defense and protection of the carrier. The Granit's have several pre-programmed schemes of action, that they could adapt to the specific situation - to ensure optimal penetration chances.

 

[Kat Tsun]

What exactly this armor is supposed to protect from?

Lightly constructed cruise missiles such as Exocets, Harpoons, and Saccades and anything smaller (Hellfire, Penguin, etc.).

Being of similar speed and design to an MXY-7, similar "light cruiser"-level armor will stop them, or at least not completely disable the escort.

Combined with the need for modern sensors and helicopters it will likely end up as big as old heavy cruisers though.

Such a ship would be a principal escort for a CVN or a centerpiece of a SAG, akin to the Ticonderogas or the Kirovs and Slavas, tbh.

Splinters.

Two to three inches of HY80 is overkill for any splinter. That's dealt with sufficiently by spall liners and quarter to half inch of armor steel (HY80). This is for stopping HC shells and cruise missiles, something sorely lacking with current escorts, as they're all coming from an age where tactical nukes were anticipated to be heavily used. IIRC the JASDF designed the ASM-3 with the expectation that the Chinese either have, or will soon deploy, armored ships capable of stopping Harpoon-size missiles. This is why it dives at such a high terminal angle through the deck.

But until those types of high terminal diving weapons proliferate, and such older, subsonic weapons age out of inventory, there will always be a benefit to gain from armoring against such things if only to preclude a re-occurrence of Stark.

 

[Yellow Palace]

1-3" inches of HY80-100 belt over the machinery, CIC, and computer rooms.

There are better materials available than high tensile steel for these purposes. But yes, this is the kind of protection scheme you want to keep the ship from being disabled by light weapons and near misses.

The Soviet calculations generally advises a salvo of two 949A submarines - i.e. 48 Granit missiles - to penetrate carrier strike group defenses and hit the carrier enough times to disable it.

You know, my reference concept for an excessively large surface combatant does have 48 tubes for a Granit/Conventional Prompt Strike sized missile...

Integrated electric drive with four MT30s, lots of missiles, the most powerful radar/EW suite you can get to sea - I'd be looking for 6-metre AESAs - and a couple of big honking guns. I've not stacked up the measurements, but I'd be surprised if it was less than 280 metres long and 55,000 tonnes.

Totally impractical and probably not all that effective, but fun to imagine.

 

[Dilandu]

Lightly constructed cruise missiles such as Exocets, Harpoons, and Saccades and anything smaller (Hellfire, Penguin, etc.).

Being of similar speed and design to an MXY-7, similar "light cruiser"-level armor will stop them, or at least not completely disable the escort.

Exocet, Otomat and many others are equipped with shaped charge warheads, so they would punch through this armor as through cardboard, frankly.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Exocet, Otomat and many others are equipped with shaped charge warheads, so they would punch through this armor as through cardboard, frankly.

Exocet doesn't have a "shaped charge" warhead like a Termite. It has a self-forging fragment warhead that still has to get through armor using a SAP tip. This is significantly tougher against a multiple inch armor belt.

Most anti-ship missiles today have warheads similar to Bullpup, which is to say they're blast-frag unitary charges, or variations of that with slightly thicker steel cases for penetration (SAP). Shaped charges are rare outside of large P-15 type missiles, which are not the type of threat that is fired at U.S. ships with any regularity since Silkworm is long out of production in favor of Saccade.

The main threat in inventory now, and likely 20-30 years into the future, is a lightly constructed aluminum frame missile, with a turbojet engine traveling between 600-750 mph, and carrying a 200-400 lbs high explosive or multiple-EFP semi-armor piercing warhead designed to punch through quarter to half-inch thick structural steel hulls.

Invalidating such a threat during narrow strait operations such as Hormuz, or near-shore like Horn of Africa or Persian Gulf, would be good.

 

[Archibald]

How good would CAESAR howitzers been on a ship ? modern-day monitor anybody ?

 

[Dilandu]

Most anti-ship missiles today have warheads similar to Bullpup, which is to say they're blast-frag unitary charges, or variations of that with slightly thicker steel cases for penetration (SAP). Shaped charges are rare outside of large P-15 type missiles, which are not the type of threat that is fired at U.S. ships with any regularity since Silkworm is long out of production in favor of Saccade.

Problem is, that it is quite easy to replace warheads with shaped charges on existing missiles. Much easier, than to build an armored warship. So as soon as someone would start to put -

Two to three inches of HY80

- on warships, the other guys would implement a warhead modernization long before the armored warship would even be launched.

So no; as soon as armor re-appeared, the anti-armor warheads would re-appear too.

 

[Scott Kenny]

So no; as soon as armor re-appeared, the anti-armor warheads would re-appear too.

Agreed.

Hell, I'm expecting to see BROACH type tandem warheads becoming the new standard for cruise missiles.

Two to three inches of HY80 is overkill for any splinter. That's dealt with sufficiently by spall liners and quarter to half inch of armor steel (HY80).

While likely true, there may be structural or weight&balance reasons to have a couple inches of HY80 down in the guts of the ship.

 

[yeetmahboi]

1-3" inches of HY80-100 belt over the machinery, CIC, and computer rooms.

If we are talking LOS protection, some lighter, more "exotic" material can help.

What exactly this armor is supposed to protect from?

3 inches is quite close to what is used on Kirov, so I expect the same threats to both.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Problem is, that it is quite easy to replace warheads with shaped charges on existing missiles.

The Japanese could have easily done this to ASM-2 and met the initial operational requirements. They spent their time developing ASM-3.

I wonder why one of the most industrialized countries in the world would do that...

Much easier, than to build an armored warship. So as soon as someone would start to put -

I somehow doubt this given the fact that USS Mason was attacked by two 70 year old cruise missiles in 2016.

In theory it is easy to retrofit existing inventories, because most of the weapon is already assembled, and you don't need a new turbine. In reality, it is extremely difficult, and very rarely done because it requires pulling labor away from production and retrofitting systems which are not designed to be retrofit in the first place.

In reality, weapons trickle in to replace existing inventory, and only as old stockpiles age out. They will do what is cheapest, not what is most militarily effective, because what is cheapest wins in peacetime. Making a system that is designed to be assembled once and put in a warehouse for >30 years is absolutely the cheapest option, but it is also the best option, because it is impossible to know what the future holds.

F-22 already ate its upgrade potential with some sort of avionics bay which is why it has the funny IRST pods instead of an EOTS nose.

Something similar might happen if a cruise missile has space for a shaped charge warhead and ballast, or a blast-frag warhead and dispensing decoys, but needs both decoys and shaped charges. This would drive demand for a new missile.

But that's not the main motivator. The main motivator is to keep a combat ship afloat and in the fight after being hit by a light anti-ship missile or a near miss from a medium or heavy missile, and to win running gun duels for when your ships run out of missiles, which is apparently a funny thing that happens in a lot of wargamed matters.

Perhaps the Italians were right about the deck gun thing but 5" isn't a slouch.

- on warships, the other guys would implement a warhead modernization long before the armored warship would even be launched.

So no; as soon as armor re-appeared, the anti-armor warheads would re-appear too.

America still uses Harpoon with the same old blast-frag warheads, 50 years after its introduction, which is literally enough time for a major fleet unit to be designed, built, put into service, and age out to be replaced by a new design. Passive armor is a very serious topic about NAVSEA these days, but it's probably getting more actual steel bent and welded in the PRC, because they have the industry to spare for it.

Any kind of advanced armor piercing, or in ASM-3's case armor avoiding, missile would necessarily be few in quantity. For years, perhaps decades.

Agreed.

Hell, I'm expecting to see BROACH type tandem warheads becoming the new standard for cruise missiles.



While likely true, there may be structural or weight&balance reasons to have a couple inches of HY80 down in the guts of the ship.

The ship would need to be bigger I guess? That's not terribly hard since steel is cheap and air is free. You'd probably looking at heavy cruiser size. Burkes are somewhere between a light cruiser and a very very big destroyer, with the exception of having a mere half inch of steel short of their extra half inch strengthening strake like USS Cole has.

Which means maybe a couple dozen at most get built.

It would be a nice thing for a Tico replacement to have.

It doesn't literally have to be an armor belt, it's just the most obvious and readily available solution, so it's the one that gets talked about. It could be something more advanced, like a series of voids and baffles, as Yellow Palace pointed out. In that sense, the Carter-era CVV might be instructive, as it apparently had some advanced magazine protections against cruise missile attack over the Nimitz but I don't know what that was.

 

[yeetmahboi]

warships, the other guys would implement a warhead modernization long before the armored warship would even be launched.

So no; as soon as armor re-appeared, the anti-armor warheads would re-appear too

A shaped charge is either:

• broad enough to form an EFP capable of penetrating multiple thin skin compartments
• or sharp enough to form a SCJ that can punch a hole through the thickest armour at the expense of penetration LOS distance.

I'm not advocating for heavily armoured warships anytime soon, but carefully designed armour schemes can greatly complicate the others' AShMs attacks, having to devote large spatial reserves to warheads. Previously we have only put hard steel on warships, now lightweight NERA arrays are on the table too. Combine that with the immense self defense a BBGN can possess....

 

[yeetmahboi]

it's probably getting more actual steel bent and welded in the PRC,

I have my doubt PLAN's protection and ergonomics standards are close to the state of the art in the USN.

 

[Kat Tsun]

I have my doubt PLAN's protection and ergonomics standards are close to the state of the art in the USN.

The USN's "protection standards" are 3/8th's an inch of HY80 and a strengthening strake for another half inch.

It gets bodied by a heavy hollow charge from a Silkworm.

It gets worse if you're a Tico. Way worse. Because we're talking aluminum now.

The most important part is that the USN takes about 30 years to iterate a design. The PLAN takes about 30 months.

 

[yeetmahboi]

It gets bodied by a heavy hollow charge from a Silkworm

Color me suprised, a Termit has nearly 500kgs for a shaped charged!

CGBL has *maybe* slightly greater weight at full load than a Type 055, despite having way less RCS reduction and weapon weight. The current state of the art is Zumwalt, a whole decade newer.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The USN's "protection standards" are 3/8th's an inch of HY80 and a strengthening strake for another half inch.

It gets bodied by a heavy hollow charge from a Silkworm.

Yeah, because a 500kg shaped charge is enough to blow through the turret face or roof of an Iowa and go all the way down to the magazine.