Do Battleships have a futue?

[yavoon]

in iraq we are moving in fast on a nation that has but on finger on the sea in order to conquer it. we still fight lots of standoff battles, lots of defensive wars. it may not be a good way to fight a war but its wut we do.

to characterize the current campaign in iraq as how "we now use our military" is silly.

[Jack_www]

if they did have sea forces their, carrier based planes and subs would most likely do most of the fighting.

[yavoon]

yes battleships are floating artillery. a very cheap way to deliver a very strong punch up to 20 miles inland and what is actually very accurate. they can loiter and fire on demand. no need to scramble aircraft or launch 1.4 million dollar tamahawks.

and yes battleships would not be shooting at other ships. but certainly u could load other things on battleships if u want. anti ship missiles perhaps.

[yavoon]

also I think its important that while I think america should still have/use battleships. I am not purely talking about their usefulness to america, with its 12 carrier battlegroups.

[raghar]

Originally posted by yavoon
yes battleships are floating artillery. a very cheap way to deliver a very strong punch up to 20 miles inland and .

a 130mm AK-130 multipurpose twin-barrel gun supplied by the Ametist Design Bureau, Izumrud JSC and the Tula Engineering Plant. The main components of the artillery system are a computer-based control system with a multi-band radar, television and optical target sighting, and a gun mount with a turret-mounted Kondensor optical sighting unit. The gun can be operated under fully automatic remote control interfaced to the radar control system, under autonomous control from the sighting unit or can be laid manually. Range is over 22km and maximum rate of fire is 35 rounds/min.


With higher caliber and rocked propeled projectile... it could be really much more.
Batleships with 2 nuclear reactors and electrothermal system or pure electromagnetic system could have much higher range.

[Ned]

Originally posted by raghar

a 130mm AK-130 multipurpose twin-barrel gun supplied by the Ametist Design Bureau, Izumrud JSC and the Tula Engineering Plant. The main components of the artillery system are a computer-based control system with a multi-band radar, television and optical target sighting, and a gun mount with a turret-mounted Kondensor optical sighting unit. The gun can be operated under fully automatic remote control interfaced to the radar control system, under autonomous control from the sighting unit or can be laid manually. Range is over 22km and maximum rate of fire is 35 rounds/min.


With higher caliber and rocked propeled projectile... it could be really much more.
Batleships with 2 nuclear reactors and electrothermal system or pure electromagnetic system could have much higher range.

Battleships could be made very effective if they could fire shells 300 miles with GPS guidance. I didn't read all of the railgun series of posts before, but I think railguns might be able to do this.

But unless they get this capability, they are virtually useless (except as a missle platform) and very expensive to maintain.

[yavoon]

a lot of ur battleship maintenance cost is related to the fact that we have abandoned the battlesihp and the infrastructure to keep it running. to where when it breaks down we simply dont know where to get parts from.

if we hadn't have done that battleships as very heavy floating artillery aren't prohibitive in any way.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Ned


Battleships could be made very effective if they could fire shells 300 miles with GPS guidance. I didn't read all of the railgun series of posts before, but I think railguns might be able to do this.

But unless they get this capability, they are virtually useless (except as a missle platform) and very expensive to maintain.

'

one rail gun in the works can fire a projectile (potentially guided) at mach 10 (way faster than chemical propellants) and over 500 miles.