Do Battleships have a futue?

[Odin]

I think they do, as massive cruise missile launchers and carrier-killers. Remove those guns they have and replace them with small missle launchers to take out carriers behind a convoy of distroyers. Any other Ideas on ressurecting the "Queen of the Seas"?

[Sava]

As expensive as they are, ships of that size aren't worth the expense. Smaller ships do that same job effectively. No reason to keep around a real expensive, large missile platform.

[Japher]

Luxury Liners!!! Think about it; a caribian cruise in a battleship. One could launch fire works out the guns, or it could be used for some really expensive skeet shooting!

[Az]

I don't think they have any future, at least in conflicts between powers.

Neither do carriers, If spy sats would be positioned globally, to detect their exact location at all times. When this is established, carriers are pretty much dead meat.

[rah]

No, it's putting too many eggs in one basket. (a large one anyway)

While it would make a good missle platform, it's too much. Better to have a dozen small ones.

The battleship in it's current form can still participate in "shock an awe" tactics. They are still quite impressive but just too big of a target that must be defended.

[Arrian]

Why would it be worth the expense of modifying them, though, if all you're going to get is another missle platform? We have smaller, less costly ships (in terms of operational costs) for that.

I think the battleship concept is toast, for a while at least (who knows what they will develop in the distant future?)

-Arrian

[Az]

What about carriers?

If carriers would be pinpointed at all times, they'd be just as dead meat as carriers were.

[rah]

Carriers are part of battle groups that are designed to protect them.

[el freako]

True,

I think that the carrier is as obsolete now as the big-gunned Battleship was in the 1930's.

The reason no-one notices this is for the same reason that no one noticed 70 years ago - no major competition between maritime powers.

[el freako]

Originally posted by rah
Carriers are part of battle groups that are designed to protect them.

I'd like to see them protect it from 500 cruise missiles (which together cost around half of the value of the carrier and probably a quarter of the whole task force)

[Berzerker]

But carriers do what no other ship can, carry jets. If you could always depend on land airbases all over the world, then and only then would carriers be obsolete.

[Kramerman]

Re: Do Battleships have a futue?

Originally posted by Odin
I think they do, as massive cruise missile launchers and carrier-killers. Remove those guns they have and replace them with small missle launchers to take out carriers behind a convoy of distroyers. Any other Ideas on ressurecting the "Queen of the Seas"?

Sadly, i dont think they could be returned to the glorious days they once had. as others have said, other ships can do the same job better, and with much lower cost. Why remove the gun turrets only to add missile launchers? Then it is no longer a battle ship, it is just a big, over-priced hulk of a ship with some missile launchers on it.

Perhaps, in the future when/if antimissile defenses become so powerful and sophisticated that destroying navey ships with missiles is near-impossible, the glory of the big guns will be returned, but in a different form as ship killers. With the use of rail gun technology, the velocity of the projectiles would make them all but impossibel to intercept, and a few of these on a massive platform (ie battleship) would herald back the "queen of the seas". The nice thing about potential rail guns is that they can launch projectiles over 500 miles, so they could take the place of tactical missiles not only for antiship actions, buit also for inland bombardment.

Kman

[Az]

Originally posted by Berzerker
But carriers do what no other ship can, carry jets. If you could always depend on land airbases all over the world, then and only then would carriers be obsolete.

Yet, if they can be taken out, what's the point? By placing Geostationary spysats that would be placed above the places where they should come from, They can be traced precisely. IIRC, this was impossible in the cold war, photographic spysats had to be placed on NEOs, a thousand miles up or so. therefore, a carrier had time to "escape". Recently, the technology advanced to such a level that locating a thing as big as a carrier shouldn't be much of a problem. And then, they're dead meat. Air launched cruise missiles, SS-cruise missiles. bam.

This is not terrorist group stuff. A leader like Saddam, could pull it off, if his economy wouldn't have been destroyed by sanctions after GW1.

You know, if Saddam had any wit, he could've built quite a regional power. could've rivaled us, even.

[VetLegion]

And then, they're dead meat. Air launched cruise missiles, SS-cruise missiles. bam.

But how many? All the ships in a group have those rapid fire machineguns that are computer guided and destroy a missile when everything else fails. I think that is pretty effective stuff. And also a carrier can survive a good deal of shots. So how many would you have to shoot at it to kill it?

[Az]

But how many? All the ships in a group have those rapid fire machineguns that are computer guided and destroy a missile when everything else fails. I think that is pretty effective stuff. And also a carrier can survive a good deal of shots. So how many would you have to shoot at it to kill it?

I think that a battle group will get it's heart torn out by a single wave of 200 missiles. imagine 200 cruise missiles launched simultaneously, or in swift succession. I don't think that the air defences could handle that.