Do Battleships have a futue?

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Dissident
uhh we have no battleships in the U.S. Navy

I was wondering...

[Master Zen]

No gun in the arsenal has the power of a battleship's 16 inch guns. If they could be used securely (i.e. naval and air cover) they provide unmatched for bombardment.

However, they are rather expensive to maintain so perhaps they truly are obsolete

they were pretty cool though...

BTW, does anyone know if there are still any non-US dreadnoughts anywhere as museums or something?

[Az]

Railguns, are they those Gaussian rifle things? If so, you need very long barrels

You can accelerate the slug using a stronger field, as well.

[Urban Ranger]

Sikander,

Okay, if you are not counting the launching platform (the plane), and the launching platform of the launching platform (the carrier), sure.


Master Zen,

Not sure about battleships, but IIRC, an ex-Soviet carrier is being used as a floating restaurant in China.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Railguns, are they those Gaussian rifle things? If so, you need very long barrels.

I dont think so, tho im not exactly sure what a gaussian rifle is...

Basically they are guns that use electromagnetic force of two oppositely charged 'rails' to propell a projectile to insane velocities. Some examples I talked about in a post earlier in the thread.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Sikander,

Okay, if you are not counting the launching platform (the plane), and the launching platform of the launching platform (the carrier), sure.

My point is that you get better mileage out of the aircraft with a missle than you do with a missle only, because the aircraft is a much more fuel efficient flyer. Cruise missles are designed to take advantage of this fact by being in effect small kamikaze aircraft. The main problem with them is that they are really expensive, the cost per ton of explosive is in the millions. Which is why (as you point out) it is better to have a reusable aircraft dropping glide bombs in most cases.

[MRT144]

i want satellites that shoot energy ala SOL from akira

[Wraith]

--"Railguns, are they those Gaussian rifle things? If so, you need very long barrels."

There are a couple variations. Rail guns (what you're probably thinking of) and coil guns. Neither of them really need long barrels, though. Especially not when you've got a nuclear reactor onboard to pump energy into them. That's the main drawback of railguns (one of the UT designs uses 9 MJ per shot), but that's pretty much irrelevant on a large ship.

UT Austin is involved in one of the military projects.

Wraith
e to the x dy dx! e to the y dy! sin x cos x ln y!

[MRT144]

whats the point of a railgun?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MRT144
whats the point of a railgun?

They use electricity rather than chemicals to obtain power, which has several benefits. For one thing, you don't have to store, use or measure powder, which makes them safer, significantly increases the rate of fire, significantly reduces the amount of heat generated, and significantly reduces the amount of maintainance the gun needs. The space saved by the elimination of the propellant leaves more space for shells. The lack of muzzle flash increases security and reduces the shielding for sensors etc. Also the weight of the gun is greatly reduced, as you don't have to have tons of steel dedicated to keeping the pressure from the charge contained until the shell leaves the barrel. Instead you might just have a tubular cage to steer (and accellerate) the projectile as it leaves.

[Az]

The UT site seems to lack links to actual material. I liked that they mentioned a space launch related research in utilizing the same technology.

[MRT144]

but are all the benefits outweighed by the cost/energy required?

[Az]

They aren't. a nuke warship has usually tons of energy to spare.

[Wraith]

--"whats the point of a railgun?"

Ligher shells at extremely high velocities. The force equation is F=M*V^2, so speeding them up gives you a much more powerful round.

--"significantly increases the rate of fire"

I know a couple of the currently developed railguns have very high rates of fire, but last I heard none of them could sustain it for more than a couple dozen rounds. The problem with railguns is that there's actual physical contact between the shell and the barrel (coil guns do not have this problem, but require much more complicated electronics). This puts a limit on the rate of fire, since none of the shells will be completely frictionless. They've had a problem with the friction (even using Teflon coated rounds) turning enough of the barrel lining to plasma to interfere with later shots...

--"The space saved by the elimination of the propellant leaves more space for shells."

The shells are significantly smaller, as well. Easier to transport and load, and of course you can carry a heck of a lot more of them.

--"The UT site seems to lack links to actual material."

They are pretty thin on actual material. A few years ago there was a fair bit of interesting stuff there. I've got a couple other links on another machine I can post tonight if anyone's still interested.

--"but are all the benefits outweighed by the cost/energy required?"

Not on a nuclear powered wessel (not a spelling error, but a movie reference).

Railguns will probably first see deployment on destroyer class ships, but they're also under developement for the army's next major MBT change. The 9 MJ gun I mentioned was an army project, but for a large-bore weapon. The MBT probably wouldn't need a round that large, and would be going with the smaller project (was it 2 or 3 MJ? Something like that).
One of the side-effects of the railgun projects has been the interesting power storage projects. Capacitors just won't cut it for the kind of sustained-output-small-footprint needed.

Wraith
"One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine..."
- From a Soviet Junior Lt.s Notebook

[SpencerH]

As I recall, Reagan reactivated the battleships because the guns on smaller ships couldnt reach the necessary targets onshore and their use provided a safe alternative (for the pilots not those being bombarded) to the ground attack aircraft that were vulnerable to even relatively unsophisticated SAM's.

That being said, a smaller (cheaper) ship than a battleship that could provide onshore bombardment at distances comparable to those achieved by 16" guns could be of use.