Build a modern battleship

[Dilandu]

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

Well, the Kirov armor was mainly anti-fragmens. USSR just didn't have kevlar production on hand, so it used steel to get nearly the same result.

 

[Dilandu]

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...

Because ASM-3 is supersonic, and have massive advantages in terms of speed and time of flight. As well as in terms of penetration, since it hit target at more than Mach 3 - with more kinetic energy than 16-inch gun fired point-blank.

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

You are talking about Yemen rebels, which at this time have very limited resources. Their new toys - like Iranian-delivered anti-ship ballistics - are MUCH more modern, you know.

Basically your armored ship would be useful only against extremely limited enemy with no patrons to provide even modest weapon upgrades.

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.

The absolute majority of modern ASM's are of modular design - simply because it simplify the production and modernization. Swapping the warhead section on Harpoon's isn't even a major rework:

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.

And? Were there any targets worthy of shaped charge warhead on Harpoon?

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.

Why? The shaped-charge warhead is perfectly multi-purpose.

 

[Kat Tsun]

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.

Good thing they're easy to defeat with soft kill measures or anti-aircraft missiles.

Not so much for Exocet, though.

Because ASM-3 is supersonic, and have massive advantages in terms of speed and time of flight. As well as in terms of penetration, since it hit target at more than Mach 3 - with more kinetic energy than 16-inch gun fired point-blank.

You're correct that ASM-3 was designed to defeat armored ships that ASM-2 cannot handle. That was the main driver for its terminal dive.

There was/is an expectation that PLAN surface ships will have some sort of novel belt array that precludes, or reduces, penetration at waterline. Hitting the magazine at a steep dive angle becomes more efficient. You can't armor the top of a VLS box. You might be able to armor a VLS box sufficiently that it serves as a blowout magazine though.

Which would also be part of the armor scheme tbh.

I suspect weight and mass concerns will drive armoring of magazines and CICs directly rather than full span belts, though, but the full span scheme was talked about in a NAVSEA monograph. Staggered machinery and IEP might be sufficient for damage control and allow a ship to fight hurt though the US has little experience here.

You are talking about Yemen rebels, which at this time have very limited resources. Their new toys - like Iranian-delivered anti-ship ballistics - are MUCH more modern, you know.

Everyone has limited resources. Narrowing the available selection of limited quantities of weapons that can defeat a target is always useful.

Basically your armored ship would be useful only against extremely limited enemy with no patrons to provide even modest weapon upgrades.

"Your"? No, this is the USN and the PLAN: the two largest navies on the planet.

The mythical patrons providing advanced weapons simply do not exist in reality.

The absolute majority of modern ASM's are of modular design - simply because it simplify the production and modernization. Swapping the warhead section on Harpoon's isn't even a major rework:

Peacetime assembly lines are not significant enough to support this without detracting from new production. By the time new lines are spooled up in wartime, the navies will likely be gone, and the war will be over.

And? Were there any targets worthy of shaped charge warhead on Harpoon?

Slava? Kirov? Kiev? Harpoon didn't receive a shaped charge until it needed to become a long range AGM-65 to hit Iraqi HASes with the SLAM-ER anyway. If a ship with armor appears, it probably still won't receive this, right up until the missile dents an armor belt.

Why? The shaped-charge warhead is perfectly multi-purpose.

Because they don't exist in most missiles. It's that simple.

Most missiles are designed with blast fragmentation warheads. Termite is the exception. They're designed to blow as large a hole as possible in a functionally unarmored ship, and allow for ingress of water to as many compartments as possible, because no ship can be armored against a thermonuclear warhead. Stopping them at, or before, the waterline is the most important concern.

Retrofitting missiles likely costs as much, or more, than simply designing and producing a new missile. Because not only will you want a new missile, you will need a separate line to produce the old type missiles to replace existing inventory, and a third line to disassemble existing missiles and refit new warheads onto them.

Just-in-time logistics runs the world and that includes anti ship missile inventories.

However we now live in an era where making ships is easier than ever, productivity is insanely high, and it has become economically feasible to consider a return of light cruiser sized vessels. South Korea and Japan already have some, as does the PLAN, and it will likely be the USA and UK's turns with the DDG(X) and Type 83 in the next decade.

I don't think DDG(X) will incorporate an armor belt but there might be one for a CG(X) if it ever got money.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Good thing they're easy to defeat with soft kill measures or anti-aircraft missiles.

Not so much for Exocet, though.

It'd be simple enough to either replace warheads in existing Exocets, or buy new Exocets with a ~150kg shaped charge with a fragmentation outer casing.

Hell, SLAM-ERs have a 360kg (800lb) warhead.

I don't think DDG(X) will incorporate an armor belt but there might be one for a CG(X) if it ever got money.

I don't think CGX will get an armor belt. Shipboard armor was literally discarded because it's a lot faster to make a weapon able to punch that armor than it is to make passive armor protection strong enough to withstand such a warhead.

 

[Dilandu]

Good thing they're easy to defeat with soft kill measures or anti-aircraft missiles.

It's the late 50s missile, what do you expect out of it?

You're correct that ASM-3 was designed to defeat armored ships that ASM-2 cannot handle. That was the main driver for its terminal dive.

No. It was designed to penetrate Chinese carrier group air defenses, after it become clear that with PLAN deploying its own AEW planes the idea of "slowly sneaking below radar" (i.e. subsonic sea-skimmer missile) is not efficient anymore. The ability to kill armored ships is just the cherry on top.

There was/is an expectation that PLAN surface ships will have some sort of novel belt array that precludes, or reduces, penetration at waterline. Hitting the magazine at a steep dive angle becomes more efficient. You can't armor the top of a VLS box. You might be able to armor a VLS box sufficiently that it serves as a blowout magazine though.

Never heard anything about that. Doesn't seems likely, since it would require Chinese warships to be significantly bigger and heavier than they are.

Everyone has limited resources. Narrowing the available selection of limited quantities of weapons that can defeat a target is always useful.

There are limited resources in terms "we must make this 1950s missile work, its the best we have" and limited resources in terms "I doubt we can afford ordering another five hundred missiles this year without cutting some costs".

"Your"? No, this is the USN and the PLAN: the two largest navies on the planet.

Neither of them is actually trying anything like that. Theoretical discussions arent equivalent of "it works"

The mythical patrons providing advanced weapons simply do not exist in reality.

Oh, so Yemen rebels anti-ship ballistic missiles - of which they already launched several dozens - are just growing on trees? Be real, please.

Peacetime assembly lines are not significant enough to support this without detracting from new production. By the time new lines are spooled up in wartime, the navies will likely be gone, and the war will be over.

Considering that warheads are among the simplest components of any modern missile, if you have bottleneck HERE, then you better rethink all your procurement strategy.

By the time new lines are spooled up in wartime, the navies will likely be gone, and the war will be over.

Ahhhhhh, that was really funny. Now, look at Easter Europe for the last three years.

Slava? Kirov? Kiev?

Neither of which have anything more than anti-fragment protection.

Because they don't exist in most missiles. It's that simple.

And why they don't exist? Bingo, because there isn't much need to have them.

Most missiles are designed with blast fragmentation warheads. Termite is the exception

Wrong again. Almost all Soviet school anti-ship missiles have shaped charge warheads. Even many anti-submarine missiles carried a shaped-charge secondary.

Retrofitting missiles likely costs as much, or more, than simply designing and producing a new missile

Not even remotely close, this is just the routine upgrade.

Because not only will you want a new missile, you will need a separate line to produce the old type missiles to replace existing inventory, and a third line to disassemble existing missiles and refit new warheads onto them.

Newsflash: the existing missile stockpile is often refitted, so the lines to do exactly that exists by definition.

 

[Dilandu]

It'd be simple enough to either replace warheads in existing Exocets, or buy new Exocets with a ~150kg shaped charge with a fragmentation outer casing.

Hell, SLAM-ERs have a 360kg (800lb) warhead.

Exactly. The best thing about shaped charges - they do not reduce the HE/fragmentation efficiency of warhead. So the missile with shaped charge against armored targets would also work perfectly well against unarmored. The Termit was designed mainly to kill large armored ships - battleships and gun cruisers - but as Egyptian and Indian experience demonstrated, it worked perfectly fine against thin-skinned destroyers too. Because half-ton shaped charge is a Very Big HEA Bomb by definition.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

I suspect weight and mass concerns will drive armoring of magazines and CICs directly rather than full span belts, though, but the full span scheme was talked about in a NAVSEA monograph. Staggered machinery and IEP might be sufficient for damage control and allow a ship to fight hurt though the US has little experience here.

Do you have a link to this monograph?

 

[Kat Tsun]

No. It was designed to penetrate Chinese carrier group air defenses, after it become clear that with PLAN deploying its own AEW planes the idea of "slowly sneaking below radar" (i.e. subsonic sea-skimmer missile) is not efficient anymore. The ability to kill armored ships is just the cherry on top.

An LO missile akin to JASSM would be more efficient.

Never heard anything about that. Doesn't seems likely, since it would require Chinese warships to be significantly bigger and heavier than they are.

I'll ask my friend who had the file but IIRC it talked about a hypothetical armor array on Type 055s or something. It didn't go into detail except to suggest that a terminal dive on specific areas of the ship (CIC, VLS, etc.) would be more effective than punching holes into a purpose built battle damage void on the side.

There are limited resources in terms "we must make this 1950s missile work, its the best we have" and limited resources in terms "I doubt we can afford ordering another five hundred missiles this year without cutting some costs".

My point is I don't think retrofitting a missile in stockpile is very cheap. Otherwise, everyone would have their blast-frag Harpoons replaced by the SLAM-ER hollow charge, HAS-busting warheads decades ago. The AGM-84E was retired almost 20 years and the AGM-84H has been in service for nearly 20 years. This is especially true for Japan and Norway which have huge weapon factories. They haven't though. In fact, they're still making SAP blast-frag warhead missiles, like Naval Strike Missile.

While it's plausible to retrofit these missiles, look at how slowly most militaries have been reacting, and how it took literal years of cajoling to get factories spun up to produce new old ordnance, like M777 barrels. An armored ship would likely be viable to be protected against the vast majority of global inventory of cruise missiles for its entire lifespan.

Considering that warheads are among the simplest components of any modern missile, if you have bottleneck HERE, then you better rethink all your procurement strategy.

Yeah we're working on it: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/nat...-factory-since-the-1980s-in-kentucky/3704804/

Neither of them is actually trying anything like that. Theoretical discussions arent equivalent of "it works"

1) Nobody knows this besides Chinese NAMEs. The PLAN could very well be producing an armored cruiser. 12-13,000 tons full load would allow for a modicum of armoring of magazines, CIC, and computer rooms at least. Possibly bulkheads dividing the machinery spaces too.
2) The thread is asking of "modern battleship" which is purely theoretical. The result is a 1940s light cruiser (Juneau, Atlanta, etc.) with VLS, a deck gun or two, Aegis-type radar, a pair of helicopters, and GT or nuke plants. That's it.

It's very simple and fairly easy to build for either world superpower, and even some regional powers, as it's mostly a budget question.

Do you have a link to this monograph?

SFAC Report 9030-04-C1.

The main reason for the author suggesting return to armor is that the ships would likely need to sail alone, as DDGs like USS Mason have, through areas where light anti-ship weapons are proliferated. This was all long before the PLAN got muscular as all hell inside 15 years though.

Not super useful in a potential Pacific War 2, since the use of tactical nuclear weapons will drive protection concerns, but for any other kind of war it's probably nice to have if you can manage it.

 

[Ainen]

Well, the Kirov armor was mainly anti-fragmens. USSR just didn't have kevlar production on hand, so it used steel to get nearly the same result.

i don't remember 1144 armor being declassified or even reliably leaked.
There's a well known scheme; it's notional and shows coverage only.

Exactly. The best thing about shaped charges - they do not reduce the HE/fragmentation efficiency of warhead. So the missile with shaped charge against armored targets would also work perfectly well against unarmored. The Termit was designed mainly to kill large armored ships - battleships and gun cruisers - but as Egyptian and Indian experience demonstrated, it worked perfectly fine against thin-skinned destroyers too. Because half-ton shaped charge is a Very Big HEA Bomb by definition.

For unprotected targets it's this way. For protected ones - while penetration can be extreme(but it still can be dealt with), external explosion by itself doesn't kill a big surface vessel.
You need to either hit something catastrophic precisely with jet(s), or have the warhead delivered deep inside.

 

[Dilandu]

An LO missile akin to JASSM would be more efficient.

Debatable. There are arguments both "pro" and "contra", but the general modern trend seems to look toward supersonic missiles. Japan and Taiwan already developed one, and Europe is working on their own.

I'll ask my friend who had the file but IIRC it talked about a hypothetical armor array on Type 055s or something. It didn't go into detail except to suggest that a terminal dive on specific areas of the ship (CIC, VLS, etc.) would be more effective than punching holes into a purpose built battle damage void on the side.

I.e. it's again some kind of theoretical discussions.

My point is I don't think retrofitting a missile in stockpile is very cheap.

It is not VERY cheap, but it's relatively cheap in comparison to building new missiles. It's order of magnitude cheap in comparison to building an armored warship.

Otherwise, everyone would have their blast-frag Harpoons replaced by the SLAM-ER hollow charge, HAS-busting warheads decades ago.

Why bother? Nobody is using armored warships anymore, so why bother with shaped charges?

While it's plausible to retrofit these missiles, look at how slowly most militaries have been reacting, and how it took literal years of cajoling to get factories spun up to produce new old ordnance, like M777 barrels. An armored ship would likely be viable to be protected against the vast majority of global inventory of cruise missiles for its entire lifespan.

It would not, because the efforts to refit the missiles would be pretty small-scale. And some countries, like China and Russia (and those who use Chinese or Russian equipment) just have shaped charges on ASM's by definition.

1) Nobody knows this besides Chinese NAMEs. The PLAN could very well be producing an armored cruiser. 12-13,000 tons full load would allow for a modicum of armoring of magazines, CIC, and computer rooms at least. Possibly bulkheads dividing the machinery spaces too.

Why should they bother with that?

It's very simple and fairly easy to build for either world superpower, and even some regional powers, as it's mostly a budget question.

Yeah, and it would be very simple to destroy - as simple as any unarmored ship.

SFAC Report 9030-04-C1.

That?

 

[Kat Tsun]

Debatable. There are arguments both "pro" and "contra", but the general modern trend seems to look toward supersonic missiles. Japan and Taiwan already developed one, and Europe is working on their own.

It's not really that debatable, tbf.

I suspect ASM-3 is mostly about time on target at range, so not so much the missile surviving as the carrier aircraft, and being able to do TOT strikes at long-ish range before the solution becomes too out of date. The USN doesn't really need to do this because it can "synergize the joint multi-domain operational kill chain" with a string of buzzwords and real-time observation through a GMTI satellite constellation.

The only problem is that the PLAN is getting that ability too...

I.e. it's again some kind of theoretical discussions.

In a thread about a "modern battleship"? You don't say.

It is not VERY cheap, but it's relatively cheap in comparison to building new missiles. It's order of magnitude cheap in comparison to building an armored warship.

Adding steel, or some form of protection scheme, and making a ship slightly bigger is not a substantial barrier.

It would not, because the efforts to refit the missiles would be pretty small-scale.

Then they would be rapidly expended in combat and be less effective.

And some countries, like China and Russia (and those who use Chinese or Russian equipment) just have shaped charges on ASM's by definition.

Any kind of passive armor reduces the cones and depth of penetration of a hollow charge, though.

A double hull surface ship with a typical 3/8-1/2" STS outer hull, comparmentalized voids, and internal turtleback would probably be more effective than a straight belt against both threats. You could even put some sort of foam or aerated rubber inside the void space to really hurt the fairly shallow penetration depth of the typical SAP warhead. That was looked at for the DD-21 designs and I wouldn't be shocked if CVV incorporated multiple voids and rubber or acrylic for SAP protection.

Trading entry and post penetration effects for a narrower, higher penetrating cone is exactly the opposite that you want for a anti-ship missile, and if you can make sea skimmers less effective you've successfully obsoleted a large portion of the inventoried firepower of anti-ship weapons worldwide, which is no trivial thing.

Unfortunately the USA would rather spend money on tiny ships instead of really big ones.

Why should they bother with that?

Because it would make Harpoon sad.

Yeah, and it would be very simple to destroy - as simple as any unarmored ship.

It would not, by definition, if it is immune to sea skimming anti-ship cruise missiles in the ~500 kg class on vital spaces. At the very least, that's going to invalidate the vast majority of USN missiles.

It gets hit a couple times, sails back to port after a day of fire control, and comes back a month later.

The biggest concern the PLAN would have are nuclear ALCMs and SLCMs obliterating their high capacity shipyards.

View attachment 757267

Ye.

Historical Review of Cruiser Characteristics, Roles and Missions

web.archive.org

 

[Dilandu]

Adding steel, or some form of protection scheme, and making a ship slightly bigger is not a substantial barrier.

"Slightly"? So you did not try to calculate how much exactly it would weight?

Well, I actually done this several years ago:



I tried to add a minimal armor for Project 1164 cruiser. One armored box spreading between 140 and 265 transverse frames, covering the engine rooms and S-300F missile drums. Vertically, it spread from upper deck to 3 meters below waterline (in case of underwater hits).

So it was an armored box 65 meters in lenght, 10 meters in height and 20 meters wide. The thickness was uniform - 10 cm (circa 4 inch) of steel.

Calculating the weight of just armored sides and deck, I got the total weight of added armor to be about 2030 tons. To make ship capable of handling this load, it would need to be at very least 50% bigger.

So no. It would make ship substantially bigger. While adding very little to its actual survivability. In my thought experiment, the armor covered only machinery & SAM magazines; not even the flotation supply. If you want more armor, the weight would increase - substantially. Roughly speaking, your "armored destroyer" would be about twice as big as unarmored with the same armament.

 

[Ainen]

I suspect ASM-3 is mostly about time on target at range, so not so much the missile surviving as the carrier aircraft, and being able to do TOT strikes at long-ish range before the solution becomes too out of date. The USN doesn't really need to do this because it can "synergize the joint multi-domain operational kill chain" with a string of buzzwords and real-time observation through a GMTI satellite constellation.

Ugh. USN always could simply shoot closer(and, when it became available, ensure timely mcu to missiles in flight). Since 1942 it just never ever met with problem to come close to targets, and since 1944 never had problems shadowing them.

RADARSATs are not a survivable answer - not only they're foolable, they're simply primary targets in high level conflict. And there is absolutely nothing that can be done to defend them.

It's possible to make survivable constellations, but it is not applicable to existing GMTI constellations.

 

[Dilandu]

It would not, by definition, if it is immune to sea skimming anti-ship cruise missiles in the ~500 kg class on vital spaces. At the very least, that's going to invalidate the vast majority of USN missiles.

You apparently did not know, that the absolute majority of sea skimming missiles could be programmed to make pop-up maneuver at the terminal approach?

Because it would make Harpoon sad.

For about two years, which would be all the time USN would need to replace HE warhead with HE/shaped charges. After that, Chinese would be stuck with the useless armored ship, which is bigger and cost more to operate, but hardly better.

It gets hit a couple times, sails back to port after a day of fire control, and comes back a month later.

It get hit a couple times... her fire control would be knocked out (since you can't armor the antennas), and then a bomber would kill her with one-ton laser-guided bomb. Or submarine would torpedo her.

 

[Dilandu]

RADARSATs are not a survivable answer - not only they're foolable, they're simply primary targets in high level conflict. And there is absolutely nothing that can be done to defend them.

Well, they could be given self-protection measures - decoys for throwing off terminal targeting, or small kinetic mines to hard-kill the approaching enemy anti-satellite missiles. Problem is, that such systems could not be installed on already-launched satellites...

 

[Ainen]

You apparently did not know, that the absolute majority of sea skimming missiles could be programmed to make pop-up maneuver at the terminal approach?

Deck isn't exactly magic. The problem is that it becomes feasible far beyond any postwar surface combatants, other tha Orlans and Krechets. Maybe Long Beach.

For about two years, which would be all the time USN would need to replace HE warhead with HE/shaped charges. After that, Chinese would be stuck with the useless armored ship, which is bigger and cost more to operate, but hardly better.

Ships from ~14k displacement have more than enough displacement and volume to defend against such warheads.
It isn't difficult to come up with protection solution - solutions can easily be transfered from AFV vehicles.

The problem is it isn't really sensible to make ships larger just for protection. Artillery ships benefited directly from size. Missile ships don't. Something else should drive size and powerplant requirements upwards enough to consider it again.

It get hit a couple times... her fire control would be knocked out (since you can't armor the antennas), and then a bomber would kill her with one-ton laser-guided bomb. Or submarine would torpedo her.

Absolutely solvable problem - if you expect your combatant to get hit. Now, arguably, easier than ever - ships are getting distributed sensor arrays (feeding into fuzed picture) just to get modern situational awareness.

Well, they could be given self-protection measures - decoys for throwing off terminal targeting, or small kinetic mines to hard-kill the approaching enemy anti-satellite missiles. Problem is, that such systems could not be installed on already-launched satellites...

It's possible to install protection(and arguably, for a big GEO satellite it can even be effective enough - at least against direct ascent approach). But it isn't possible to outfight a peer opponent with LEO satellite overflying enemy land at few hundred km every day many times.

 

[Kat Tsun]

You apparently did not know, that the absolute majority of sea skimming missiles could be programmed to make pop-up maneuver at the terminal approach?

A turtleback scheme solves this problem completely? It's only coming down at like a 25-35 degree angle. ASM-3 comes down nearly completely vertically, and might be the only serious threat to an armored ship, besides outsized cruise missiles like Kh-22.

You end up with a ship somewhere between 14,000-28,000 tons, depending on whatever else you want to put in it, like BMD capability.

For about two years, which would be all the time USN would need to replace HE warhead with HE/shaped charges.

Nah, it would take closer to 20.

After that, Chinese would be stuck with the useless armored ship, which is bigger and cost more to operate, but hardly better.

It would add nearly zero real operating cost. The main issue would be growth potential becomes limited due to increased weight, but for a navy with a robust shipbuilding industry behind it ships' growth potential is less important than combatant capability. You just build a new ship to replace the old one.

It get hit a couple times... her fire control would be knocked out (since you can't armor the antennas)

FCS looked at armored antennae using boron and silicon carbide. It's doable.

and then a bomber would kill her with one-ton laser-guided bomb.

CEC, Hawklink, and TLAM datalinks were the main capability drivers of the USN's "fight hurt" philosophy in the '80s. The only thing you really need are electrical connections to launch silos, a functional powerplant, and a radio. That CEC just took forever to roll out is less an issue now, because it's a solved problem, and the PLAN has active radar guided missiles anyway.

Or submarine would torpedo her.

Actually a potential threat! The PLAN, like the IJN, is extremely vulnerable to can-do sub skippers.

It's pretty much about the only real advantage the USN maintains at this point, besides the proven capacity to pull off a kill chain using orbital reconnaissance assets, which is the other only real advantage (and one shared by the USAF!).

Of the two I suspect the submarines have a better chance of lasting until the second weekend.