Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Battleship_Elisabeth

I appears as if the US Navy's latest round of rail gun tests may be going better

73 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,613
[KNMSU]
Members
6,130 posts
6,352 battles

https://www.google.com/amp/s/defence-blog.com/news/u-s-navy-began-testing-advanced-version-of-long-range-electromagnetic-weapon.html/amp

Fingers crossed. If they could just figure this out, I might see a battlecruiser or battleship built in my lifetime (yes, I am aware it would largely be used for shore bombardment, but I will take what I can get).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
709 posts
21 minutes ago, Battleship_Elisabeth said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/defence-blog.com/news/u-s-navy-began-testing-advanced-version-of-long-range-electromagnetic-weapon.html/amp

Fingers crossed. If they could just figure this out, I might see a battlecruiser or battleship built in my lifetime (yes, I am aware it would largely be used for shore bombardment, but I will take what I can get).

I kind of doubt it.  They mention the railgun ammo would fit in a 5" gun, indicating that the weapon would probably fit on a destroyer.  Add to that, I've always gotten the impression that Battleships were rendered obsolete during WW2 because of the atomic bomb.  Since then, there's just cheaper ways to deliver firepower than a big-gun capital ship.  I also get the sense that the USN would be frustrated trying to fulfill the crew requirements needed for a big-gun capital ship.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
1,751 posts
18,164 battles

 I'm more worried about it not being ready in time to defeat the Decepticons.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[WOLFC]
Members
616 posts
5,094 battles
9 minutes ago, Royeaux said:

I kind of doubt it.  They mention the railgun ammo would fit in a 5" gun, indicating that the weapon would probably fit on a destroyer.  Add to that, I've always gotten the impression that Battleships were rendered obsolete during WW2 because of the atomic bomb.  Since then, there's just cheaper ways to deliver firepower than a big-gun capital ship.  I also get the sense that the USN would be frustrated trying to fulfill the crew requirements needed for a big-gun capital ship.

The aircraft carrier is what made the battleship obselete. This was made evident over the course of WWII. In fact, over the course of the war the USN adjusted their shipbuilding efforts to focus more on more on CVs as the war went on. After the Battle of the Coral Sea and Midway, the USN cancelled the orders for the Montana-class battleships to focus limited resources on the construction of more CVs and smaller support ships. The Iowas were finished largely because they were so far along at the time and their high speed made them ideally suited for escorting the fast carrier task forces. The most advanced battleships ever built by the US Navy were relegated to shore bombardment and AA escort duties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,269 posts
4,008 battles

I'd be more concerned that radical environmentalists get involved and demand that it be solar powered...  Then the ship mounting it would have to tow a string of barges with solar panels to power it... :Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
709 posts
39 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

The aircraft carrier is what made the battleship obselete. This was made evident over the course of WWII. In fact, over the course of the war the USN adjusted their shipbuilding efforts to focus more on more on CVs as the war went on. After the Battle of the Coral Sea and Midway, the USN cancelled the orders for the Montana-class battleships to focus limited resources on the construction of more CVs and smaller support ships. The Iowas were finished largely because they were so far along at the time and their high speed made them ideally suited for escorting the fast carrier task forces. The most advanced battleships ever built by the US Navy were relegated to shore bombardment and AA escort duties.

I've gotten into this before, but I disagree.  The Battle of Samar showed that Battleships were not yet obsolete.  To use a metaphor, it's like a infantryman rifle and a grenade.  Each have their uses in battle as the range of the rifle does not offset the firepower of the grenade.  The reason the most advanced battleships ever built by the USN were relegated to shore bombardment was that the older battleships had already sunk much of the Axis' advanced battleships.  Victory kept the Iowas out of action and the atomic bombs revealed that there were faster, better and cheaper ways of delivering firepower.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
709 posts
55 minutes ago, Murotsu said:

I'd be more concerned that radical environmentalists get involved and demand that it be solar powered...  Then the ship mounting it would have to tow a string of barges with solar panels to power it... :Smile_great:

Eh, just tell them it'll be wind-powered, they won't know the difference.

nJyNwY0.jpg

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,709
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,521 posts
12,810 battles
1 hour ago, Royeaux said:

I kind of doubt it.  They mention the railgun ammo would fit in a 5" gun, indicating that the weapon would probably fit on a destroyer.  Add to that, I've always gotten the impression that Battleships were rendered obsolete during WW2 because of the atomic bomb.  Since then, there's just cheaper ways to deliver firepower than a big-gun capital ship.  I also get the sense that the USN would be frustrated trying to fulfill the crew requirements needed for a big-gun capital ship.

I'm not sure that I'd consider those means cheaper.  More accurate and efficient certainly, but I don't necessarily think that cheaper is true.

The reason BBs were obsoleted their relative impotence in inflicting damage to an enemy.  I think that guns could be a more cost effective option if the appropriate development dollars were spend on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[WOLFC]
Members
616 posts
5,094 battles
15 minutes ago, Royeaux said:

I've gotten into this before, but I disagree.  The Battle of Samar showed that Battleships were not yet obsolete.  To use a metaphor, it's like a infantryman rifle and a grenade.  Each have their uses in battle as the range of the rifle does not offset the firepower of the grenade.  The reason the most advanced battleships ever built by the USN were relegated to shore bombardment was that the older battleships had already sunk much of the Axis' advanced battleships.  Victory kept the Iowas out of action and the atomic bombs revealed that there were faster, better and cheaper ways of delivering firepower.

Perhaps you should use another example if you want to make a case for battleships, and not the battle where the battleship force was turned away by air power and escort ships.

And there were only two engagements between battleships in the Pacific War, resulting in the sinking of three Japanese BBs (although Fuso was sunk by torpedoes before any of the US BBs engaged, so it’s actually two). And Yamashiro’s final battle was so one-sided it was effectively an execution by firing squad. The rest (Kongo, Hiei, Haruna, Musashi, and Yamato) were sunk by either air power or submarines.

Besides, in the years following the end of the war, political realities made the tactical use of nuclear weapons in any conventional conflict not viable. There was still a need for conventional naval weapons systems to deliver long range firepower. The development of guided missles was the final nail in the coffin of the concept of the battleship, but there is a reason the aircraft carrier became the primary capital ship of the world’s leading navies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
709 posts
6 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

I think that guns could be a more cost effective option if the appropriate development dollars were spend on them.

Guns maybe, but not necessarily on a capital ship.

 

9 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

The reason BBs were obsoleted their relative impotence in inflicting damage to an enemy.

Ships of the Line has similar problems, but they were not considered obsolete.  There were just no alternatives that were more economically feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
709 posts
17 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Perhaps you should use another example if you want to make a case for battleships, and not the battle where the battleship force was turned away by air power and escort ships.

Bismarck.  Hood.  Dunkerque.  Kirishima.  Bretagne.  Scharnhorst.  Yamashiro.  And besides, if Kurita had not turned around, what then?  Devastation  The only thing that stood in Kurita's way to devastation was his own willpower.

17 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

And there were only two engagements between battleships in the Pacific War, resulting in the sinking of three Japanese BBs (although Fuso was sunk by torpedoes before any of the US BBs engaged, so it’s actually two). And Yamashiro’s final battle was so one-sided it was effectively an execution by firing squad. The rest (Kongo, Hiei, Haruna, Musashi, and Yamato) were sunk by either air power or submarines.

Proving my point, victory kept the advanced USN Battleship from battle.  The Pacific War was won.

17 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

but there is a reason the aircraft carrier became the primary capital ship of the world’s leading navies. 

No CV on CV engagements have occurred since WW2.  They are the only capital ships in the world's leading navies, which is the only reason they are primary, and the only reason they are still around is that CVs have a utilitarian peacetime role.  The sheer destructive capabilities of a Battleship have not been necessary since WW2.  Cost/Benefit is what obsoleted the Battleship in the Cold War.  

Edited by Royeaux
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,709
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,521 posts
12,810 battles
20 minutes ago, Royeaux said:

Guns maybe, but not necessarily on a capital ship.

 

Ships of the Line has similar problems, but they were not considered obsolete.  There were just no alternatives that were more economically feasible.

Depends on how you determine what is and what is not a capital ship.  In the 1940s, delivering ordinance with precision, required a pilot.  With modern tech, including inflight guidance systems, putting ordinance on target is a trivial problem.  How you get that ordinance to the target is the question at this point.  Is a piloted aircraft the cheapest, most cost effective means?  A chemically powered missile?  I'm not convinced that either of those is cheaper than a guided projectile from a cannon system using modern projectiles.

I also do not believe that a bomber or a guided missile is the required answer for all problems.  Just because a manned bomber /can/ solve the problem, does not mean it's the best choice in all situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[WOLFC]
Members
616 posts
5,094 battles
15 minutes ago, Royeaux said:

Bismarck.  Hood.  Dunkerque.  Kirishima.  Bretagne.  Scharnhorst.  Yamashiro.

Proving my point, victory kept the advanced USN Battleship from battle.  The Pacific War was won.

No CV on CV engagements have occurred since WW2.  They are the only capital ships in the world's leading navies, which is the only reason they are primary, and the only reason they are still around is that CVs have a utilitarian peacetime role.  The sheer destructive capabilities of a Battleship have not been necessary since WW2.  Cost/Benefit is what obsoleted the Battleship in the Cold War.  

Iowa entered service in 1943. The primary role of the battleship, direct short range (by modern measurements) engagements with other capital ships, was rendered obsolete by naval aviation because when it was available it could do the job better. There was no longer a justification for fielding battleships. Of course navies made use of their battleships in WWII, they had already built them. But where are the battleships now? How many battleships were built after WWII?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
709 posts
7 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

There was no longer a justification for fielding battleships. Of course navies made use of their battleships in WWII, they had already built them. But where are the battleships now? How many battleships were built after WWII?

 

23 minutes ago, Royeaux said:

The sheer destructive capabilities of a Battleship have not been necessary since WW2.  Cost/Benefit is what obsoleted the Battleship in the Cold War.  

I already answered your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
709 posts
11 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

Depends on how you determine what is and what is not a capital ship.  In the 1940s, delivering ordinance with precision, required a pilot.  With modern tech, including inflight guidance systems, putting ordinance on target is a trivial problem.  How you get that ordinance to the target is the question at this point.  Is a piloted aircraft the cheapest, most cost effective means?  A chemically powered missile?  I'm not convinced that either of those is cheaper than a guided projectile from a cannon system using modern projectiles.

I also do not believe that a bomber or a guided missile is the required answer for all problems.  Just because a manned bomber /can/ solve the problem, does not mean it's the best choice in all situations.

It's not the gun that would be economically troublesome, but the capital ship needing 1000+ trained crew members needing to operate the ship.  With automation that can be trimmed down but I forsee the USN looking at Destroyers first to mount the new railguns.  Less crew involved.  A Zumwalt only needs 147 crew but a capital ship like USS Gerald Ford needs ‎2,600 approximately.  And the USN has been struggling with having enough trained sailors in the pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[WOLFC]
Members
616 posts
5,094 battles
7 minutes ago, Royeaux said:

 

I already answered your question.

You’re arguing semantics. Because it’s primarly role was supplanted by another weapons system, there was no justification for its continued existence. Every other role could be done well enough by other ships/weapons in a much more cost effective manner. Thus, battleships were rendered obselete in modern naval warfare by the maturation of naval aviation as an effective tool of war.

There are specific combat situations were a calvary saber would be a superior weapon to a KA-BAR, but you don’t see modern armies handing out swords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
563
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,949 posts

Ummm...the railgun tests have always been going good for the US(N). It's a simple matter of keeping funding and not being killed off by Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
709 posts
42 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

There are specific combat situations were a calvary saber would be a superior weapon to a KA-BAR, but you don’t see modern armies handing out swords.

The metaphor is flawed.  You are comparing a melee weapon to a melee weapon which perform identical roles.  A Battleship does not perform the same role as Naval Aviation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[WOLFC]
Members
616 posts
5,094 battles
2 minutes ago, Royeaux said:

The metaphor is flawed.  You are comparing a melee weapon to a melee weapon which perform identical roles.  A Battleship does not perform the same role as Naval Aviation.

:Smile_facepalm: Substitue the knife for an M9. My point still stands. You’re still arguing semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
709 posts
Just now, Nevermore135 said:

:Smile_facepalm: Substitue the knife for an M9. My point still stands. You’re still arguing semantics.

The metaphor is flawed.  There's almost no instance where a cavalry saber would be superior to a M9. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[WOLFC]
Members
616 posts
5,094 battles
13 minutes ago, Royeaux said:

The metaphor is flawed.  There's almost no instance where a cavalry saber would be superior to a M9. 

And there are similarily few practical instances where a Battleship is superior in modern warfare. It’s niche no longer exists. That was my point.

The primary role of the battleship was to engage and sink enemy capital ships and project power. Fleets of the early 20th century were built around the Mahan Doctrine, the decisive battle between capital ships a la the Battle of Jutland. The CV changed the game completely. Without that niche, it was no longer cost effective to build expensive battleships when their primary role was supplanted and their other roles could be performed well enough by other ship types. The CV didn’t replace every role of the battleship, but it didn’t need to.

Once again:

1 hour ago, Nevermore135 said:

You’re arguing semantics. Because it’s primarly role was supplanted by another weapons system, there was no justification for its continued existence. Every other role could be done well enough by other ships/weapons in a much more cost effective manner. Thus, battleships were rendered obselete in modern naval warfare by the maturation of naval aviation as an effective tool of war.

 

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
709 posts
3 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

And there are similarily few practical instances where a Battleship is superior in modern warfare. It’s niche no longer exists. That was my point.

 

 

1 hour ago, Nevermore135 said:

Every other role could be done well enough by other ships/weapons in a much more cost effective manner.

False: The United States Navy is lacking in Fire Support, a role which CVs and other ships types have failed to fill in properly in Modern Warfare.  There's a reason this niche was attempted to be filled by the Zumwalts.  And because the Zumwalts failed, the niche has still not been fulfilled.  Your narrative doesn't work.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[WOLFC]
Members
616 posts
5,094 battles
2 minutes ago, Royeaux said:

 

False: The United States Navy is lacking in Fire Support, a role which CVs and other ships types have failed to fill in properly in Modern Warfare.  There's a reason this niche was attempted to be filled by the Zumwalts.  And because the Zumwalts failed, the niche has still not been fulfilled.  Your narrative doesn't work.

...but that was never the primary role of the battleship. Later wars showed cruisers, both heavy and light, were quite effective in shore bombarment roles. There’s a reason the USN never built more battleships.

Also, you’re moving the goalposts. I never claimed that naval artillery did not have a role in modern warfare. Only that battleships do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
709 posts
7 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Later wars showed cruisers, both heavy and light, were quite effective in shore bombarment roles.

15 minutes ago, Royeaux said:

Every other role could be done well enough by other ships/weapons in a much more cost effective manner.

These ships don't exist anymore in Modern Warfare anymore.

21 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

And there are similarily few practical instances where a Battleship is superior in modern warfare. It’s niche no longer exists.

You’re moving the goalposts.  Remember that I argued against big-gunned capital ships in modern warfare.

Edited by Royeaux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[WOLFC]
Members
616 posts
5,094 battles
11 minutes ago, Royeaux said:

These ships don't exist anymore in Modern Warfare anymore.

You’re moving the goalposts.

...and how does the later absence of cruisers change my assertion that CVs made BBs obselete? It would just mean that the removal of cruisers was in error. 

I don’t see the logic here.

And I the point of my original metaphor was to use two weapons with a similar primary role (melee weapon) to make the comparison between CVs and BBs. In modern warfare (this isn’t COD), the saber (BB) might have a few limited cases where it would be more useful, but the KA-BAR (CV) can fulfill the same primary role better, and it’s other relative deficiencies are either irrelevant or are covered by other tools of war. That fact that you are so hung up on this is quite telling.

Edited by Nevermore135
Changed wording for clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×