21st century battleship thought experiment

[Aaron Fox]

If the Navy receives more money, it is wasted in more expensive toys (aka pork for the big companies that give jobs for politicians and admirals) and not in more and better paid non-coms. That's how it works.

That partially falls into the usual MIC conspiracy BS that likes to float around like the flu. The majority of the US military budget isn't to buying new 'toys' as you would call it (and to be honest, the US Navy and Airforce needed replacement aircraft a decade ago but Iraq delayed the planned replacements, especially as it showed that our aircraft are beyond their viable frontline lifespans by that point), it's mostly in two/three things: maintenance, training, and spare equipment (i.e. new boots, new uniforms, etc., basically anything that can wear out needs to be replaced). The US military budget can barely cover those right now, especially since the GOP is so dead set on tax cuts despite the fact that they don't truly work and things like tax increases and investing in the economy do.

The mimitary all get a standard pay.
They have to raise the pay of ALL military service members

... and this is also a major stumbling block.

 

[paulobrito]

The mimitary all get a standard pay.
They have to raise the pay of ALL military service members

Well, good luck with that. Is way easier to get two new carriers, for example.

 

[Zachowon]

The military budget increase is what increases the pay....
So yeah.

 

[Morphic Tide]

especially since the GOP is so dead set on tax cuts despite the fact that they don't truly work and things like tax increases and investing in the economy do.

The function of tax-cuts is to invest in the economy, by way of the public spending their own money as they please, instead of sucking it all up to deal with the state's needs. There's a lot more flow of capital in the civilian sector than the military-industrial complex (it does exist, regardless of how much political clout it may or may not have), and it's much more widely spread out through the economy than basically any government project in history.

Taxes for stimulus are not about the government buying things, they're about the government enabling the public to buy things. Subsidies for common goods, wage offsets, workfare projects like the Hoover Dam, not throwing money at the entirely-real-even-if-it's-not-a-big-political-power military industrial complex. Because a lot of that money vanishes up the asses of executives and such, it's too many layers up in the economy to be a solid return on investment for economic gains.

Of course, for tax cuts to work you have to actually cut taxes on people who spend money on actual things, not the people who are just going to buy a third yacht or immediately throw it back in the stock market. Middle-class, not millionaires.

---

As for the thread topic, my own idea would be reusing the Alaska's 13 inch guns with only minor modernizations, focusing work on rocket artillery shells for those guns. They cost far less in maintenance than railguns will any time soon, and rocket artillery at that size is very likely more cost effective for shore bombardment than missiles or railguns, with the obvious projectile guidance allowing for full accuracy at the edge of range as opposed to railguns simply being a very fast kinetic impactor.

This would be monstrously expensive in the short run as you have a lot of industry to rebuild for those barrels, but you have minimal R&D costs in only upsizing modern artillery shells as opposed to making it contingent on getting railguns fully worked out, and once you've built them they'll tolerate budget cuts and accept quite sizable "plug and play" modernizations via shell improvement, whereas railguns are likely to need massive wiring changes if not power plant improvements to keep upgrading as the power draw increases alongside vastly more frequent full-barrel replacement.

Beyond that, I'd simultaneously go with small railguns for the dual-purpose mount, specifically designed around not being the maintenance hell monsters currently prioritized in R&D, actually focused on anti-air and anti-projectile duties, relying on the low per-shot cost of the 13 inch guns to be using them against all surface combatants instead of needing to bother with the multi-million anti-ship missiles or low-endurance high-maintenance railguns.

And have it truly armored against anything short of estimated modernizations of 10 inch guns, so that it demands anti-shipping missiles it should be designed to near enough ignore. To my understanding, anti-ship missiles are reliant on blowing holes below the waterline to sink ships with flooding, with minimal deep damage potential. Dealing with this is most directly done with having an armored citadel well behind the outer hull, too deep for the missiles to damage, with sufficient buoyancy to carry the rest of the hull flooding.

The ideal is to be impractically costly to deal with unless the opponent commits to railguns or re-developing big gun ships of their own, or start lobbing tactical nukes. The former is terrible for prolonged service with current technology, while the second is a hideous up-front cost not many countries can soak because they either don't have nearly as strong a tax base or need a hell of a lot more layers of rebuilding. And the third should need no elaboration. For "Global Police" United States, getting the money back over twenty years of not using missiles on everything is likely enough to pass Congress's sniff-test should the military ask.

 

[Aaron Fox]

The function of tax-cuts is to invest in the economy, by way of the public spending their own money as they please, instead of sucking it all up to deal with the state's needs. There's a lot more flow of capital in the civilian sector than the military-industrial complex (it does exist, regardless of how much political clout it may or may not have), and it's much more widely spread out through the economy than basically any government project in history.

Taxes for stimulus are not about the government buying things, they're about the government enabling the public to buy things. Subsidies for common goods, wage offsets, workfare projects like the Hoover Dam, not throwing money at the entirely-real-even-if-it's-not-a-big-political-power military industrial complex. Because a lot of that money vanishes up the asses of executives and such, it's too many layers up in the economy to be a solid return on investment for economic gains.

Of course, for tax cuts to work you have to actually cut taxes on people who spend money on actual things, not the people who are just going to buy a third yacht or immediately throw it back in the stock market. Middle-class, not millionaires.

---

As for the thread topic, my own idea would be reusing the Alaska's 13 inch guns with only minor modernizations, focusing work on rocket artillery shells for those guns. They cost far less in maintenance than railguns will any time soon, and rocket artillery at that size is very likely more cost effective for shore bombardment than missiles or railguns, with the obvious projectile guidance allowing for full accuracy at the edge of range as opposed to railguns simply being a very fast kinetic impactor.

This would be monstrously expensive in the short run as you have a lot of industry to rebuild for those barrels, but you have minimal R&D costs in only upsizing modern artillery shells as opposed to making it contingent on getting railguns fully worked out, and once you've built them they'll tolerate budget cuts and accept quite sizable "plug and play" modernizations via shell improvement, whereas railguns are likely to need massive wiring changes if not power plant improvements to keep upgrading as the power draw increases alongside vastly more frequent full-barrel replacement.

Beyond that, I'd simultaneously go with small railguns for the dual-purpose mount, specifically designed around not being the maintenance hell monsters currently prioritized in R&D, actually focused on anti-air and anti-projectile duties, relying on the low per-shot cost of the 13 inch guns to be using them against all surface combatants instead of needing to bother with the multi-million anti-ship missiles or low-endurance high-maintenance railguns.

And have it truly armored against anything short of estimated modernizations of 10 inch guns, so that it demands anti-shipping missiles it should be designed to near enough ignore. To my understanding, anti-ship missiles are reliant on blowing holes below the waterline to sink ships with flooding, with minimal deep damage potential. Dealing with this is most directly done with having an armored citadel well behind the outer hull, too deep for the missiles to damage, with sufficient buoyancy to carry the rest of the hull flooding.

The ideal is to be impractically costly to deal with unless the opponent commits to railguns or re-developing big gun ships of their own, or start lobbing tactical nukes. The former is terrible for prolonged service with current technology, while the second is a hideous up-front cost not many countries can soak because they either don't have nearly as strong a tax base or need a hell of a lot more layers of rebuilding. And the third should need no elaboration. For "Global Police" United States, getting the money back over twenty years of not using missiles on everything is likely enough to pass Congress's sniff-test should the military ask.

We all know that 'trickle down' is a lie. The Bushes called it part of Voodoo Economics for a good reason.

Historically it isn't tax cuts but direct investment (usually through infrastructure) that improves the economy. Tax cuts simply don't work other than causing having the money to sit in bank accounts doing nothing.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

Reject Modernity, return to tradition!

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Reject Modernity, return to tradition!

18th century ships of the line are just so god damn gorgeous. There's a reason some of my favourite spaceship designs of all time hail from Disney's Treasure Planet. Can you imagine what a military sci-fi with those sorts of ships would look like?

In some respects, come to think of it, I'm not sure the broadside will ever become outdated. Indeed, the "ship of the line" pattern may come back for space fleet combat. At least, certain stages of it.

 

[Morphic Tide]

We all know that 'trickle down' is a lie. The Bushes called it part of Voodoo Economics for a good reason.

Historically it isn't tax cuts but direct investment (usually through infrastructure) that improves the economy. Tax cuts simply don't work other than causing having the money to sit in bank accounts doing nothing.

...My statement was that it's trickle-down that doesn't work, rather than tax cuts. With the current state of affairs, there isn't any "infrastructure" to build to improve the economy considerably, only marginal long-term improvements from maintenance put off for too long, leaving workfare projects like the Hoover Dam where the primary goal is just to employ people rather than actually meet a broad public need.

"Investing in the economy" has a pile of qualifiers. You can't just have the US Army Corp of Engineers repair a highway, they would largely be payed that money anyways so you aren't increasing the flow of capital from their wages, nor are you making a new highway to offer further economic opportunity. For infrastructure to bolster the economy at large, it has to be some source of additional opportunity, which we've largely run out of unless you want to do something like make Internet access a public utility and get gigabit connections in Montana.

 

[Aaron Fox]

...My statement was that it's trickle-down that doesn't work, rather than tax cuts. With the current state of affairs, there isn't any "infrastructure" to build to improve the economy considerably, only marginal long-term improvements from maintenance put off for too long, leaving workfare projects like the Hoover Dam where the primary goal is just to employ people rather than actually meet a broad public need.

"Investing in the economy" has a pile of qualifiers. You can't just have the US Army Corp of Engineers repair a highway, they would largely be payed that money anyways so you aren't increasing the flow of capital from their wages, nor are you making a new highway to offer further economic opportunity. For infrastructure to bolster the economy at large, it has to be some source of additional opportunity, which we've largely run out of unless you want to do something like make Internet access a public utility and get gigabit connections in Montana.

Thing is, tax cuts are trickle-down, no way about it I'm afraid, triply so with how the GOP likes to do it. Also, investing in the economy is more than infrastructure, it's just that infrastructure is the most obvious and has one of the higher ROIs of the various options (economic capacity is heavily reliant on the infrastructure), even maintenance of the infrastructure would do wonders (better-maintained infrastructure means faster travel times). Another is small business initiatives to boost the local economy.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Until we really have railguns ready for deployment, any kind of battleship is simply a waste of time, effort, and money.

The combination of US surveillance capabilities and SSN's makes any kind of actual naval battle a thing of the past. The US's satellites do track every single surface combatant on the entire planet in real time all the time and in conjunction with the abilities of the SSN fleet, anything less than a full blown fleet can basically be sunk at will and with near zero risk. Basically, if it is a surface combatant and the US wants it dead than if it is in blue water, it dies without even realizing that an enemy was about.

Commerce interdiction is likewise pretty trivial for the US. Bluntly speaking, if the US simple said that some port or ports were off limits to trade and that the US was willing to enforce that edict militarily, there isn't an ocean going commercial vessel in the world that would come within a hundred miles of whatever port it is.

Commerce protection is basically a lost cause for any other nation in the world. Bluntly speaking, most of the world's navies would die in an afternoon with no real ability to argue the point if the US even looked in their direction. And the handful that wouldn't simply lack the number of blue water hulls needed to protect their commerce at scale. And in full blown war, a single carrier air wing would find it trivial to sink any commercial vessel attempting to sail within at least five hundred miles of the carrier in any direction.

The limited precision strike mission is better handled by the airforce, carriers, and cruise missiles.

The only potential role for a battleship is as a bombardment platform able to remain in blue water, outside the littorals, and engage in heavy sustained bombardment of enemy infrastructure ashore. Cruise missiles and bombing missions cost upwards of a million bucks per target and even with war time priorities and magazines, the number of cruise missiles and strike missions that the navy can carry out is relatively limited.

The battleship role is as a rail gun armed, nuclear powered, bombardment platform carrying thousands of artillery shells and able to tie into the entire network of surveillance and targeting options. Something able to range from outside the littorals at least a few hundred miles into an enemies interior and engage in large scale, sustained, precision bombardment not just in support of ground forces but able to make that ground invasion economically viable by being able to carry out a hundred or more of those cruise missile missions for the same price tag as a single missile.

While such a platform would be useful in more limited situations, its true value would only exist in the event of basically WW3 against China, France, the UK, Japan, or Australia. On that list, only China is even a potential threat in that way and that is highly unlikely to change.

Against any lesser enemy, the SSGN fleet carrying full warloads is more than able to fulfill the large scale bombardment role sufficiently (especially in combination with the carrier's and USAF) to achieve rapid and complete victory and while they would expend a great deal of expensive munitions, the cost of those munitions would be less than the cost of designing, building, crewing, and deploying a modern battleship.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The combination of US surveillance capabilities and SSN's makes any kind of actual naval battle a thing of the past.

I wouldn't dispute the might of the US Navy, but I'd disagree here. Fleet actions are default for naval conflict, and we are in but an intermission. Due to technological progress (which is the trademark of our age) a weapon may shake the balance of power and dominate the battlefield. Then counter measures catch up, the weapon loses its dominance, and then finds its place in the wider battle fleet. This will happen to submarines, just as it has done to every other class of warship.

 

[Aaron Fox]

@Emperor Tippy, that sort of thing won't happen for long, SSNs and other submarines are going to be simply another arrow in the quiver for a combined arms force instead of a determination of combat like you would think thanks to the US and other nations investing heavily into laser technology. With a switch of frequencies from IR (which everyone who knows about lasers will tell you IR just simply sucks as a laser wavelength, the only reason it is even researched to begin with is that its easy) to Blue-Green and UV (blue-green wavelengths have been known to be seawater transparent for decades, that's how Traveller and GURPS got the entire idea from, it is also surprising to note that softer UV wavelengths are also seawater transparent surprisingly enough, came up in my research into lasers) and torpedoes need to be spammed like missiles in order to be effective (i.e. you need every tube of your Virginia or Akula class submarine at one target just to hope you can get a shot in).

 

[Doomsought]

With a switch of frequencies from IR (which everyone who knows about lasers will tell you IR just simply sucks as a laser wavelength, the only reason it is even researched to begin with is that its easy) to Blue-Green and UV (blue-green wavelengths have been known to be seawater transparent for decades, that's how Traveller and GURPS got the entire idea from,

We want to avoid visible spectrum of light because people have eyes and lasers can reflect enough light to blind if they are deadly. UV light it pretty good since it is ionizing radiation, which increases its damage profile.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Thing is, tax cuts are trickle-down, no way about it I'm afraid, triply so with how the GOP likes to do it.

How is a tax cut to brackets under $150k trickle-down? It is literally and directly more money in the pocket of the lower classes, because the determinant is that it's a tax cut to them. Are you just compulsively incapable of ever changing your mind in argument or something?

 

[Doomsought]

Trickle down economics is a false flag created by left wingers to allow them to gaslight an argument against tax cuts.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Trickle down economics is a false flag created by left wingers to allow them to gaslight an argument against tax cuts.

No, trickle-down is a thing Republicans have advocated for, but they don't use that term now for how utterly toxic it has become because it's too on-the-nose for "Tax breaks and subsidies for the trillion-dollar mega-corps and their CEOs". It's a very specific kind of tax cut that was once "mainstream" economic theory, but has been proven to be bullshit many, many times over since.

 

[Captain X]

Can y'all discuss taxes elsewhere? I'm here to fantasize about battleships thank you very much.

 

[Sailor.X]

Until we really have railguns ready for deployment, any kind of battleship is simply a waste of time, effort, and money.

The combination of US surveillance capabilities and SSN's makes any kind of actual naval battle a thing of the past. The US's satellites do track every single surface combatant on the entire planet in real time all the time and in conjunction with the abilities of the SSN fleet, anything less than a full blown fleet can basically be sunk at will and with near zero risk. Basically, if it is a surface combatant and the US wants it dead than if it is in blue water, it dies without even realizing that an enemy was about.

Commerce interdiction is likewise pretty trivial for the US. Bluntly speaking, if the US simple said that some port or ports were off limits to trade and that the US was willing to enforce that edict militarily, there isn't an ocean going commercial vessel in the world that would come within a hundred miles of whatever port it is.

Commerce protection is basically a lost cause for any other nation in the world. Bluntly speaking, most of the world's navies would die in an afternoon with no real ability to argue the point if the US even looked in their direction. And the handful that wouldn't simply lack the number of blue water hulls needed to protect their commerce at scale. And in full blown war, a single carrier air wing would find it trivial to sink any commercial vessel attempting to sail within at least five hundred miles of the carrier in any direction.

The limited precision strike mission is better handled by the airforce, carriers, and cruise missiles.

The only potential role for a battleship is as a bombardment platform able to remain in blue water, outside the littorals, and engage in heavy sustained bombardment of enemy infrastructure ashore. Cruise missiles and bombing missions cost upwards of a million bucks per target and even with war time priorities and magazines, the number of cruise missiles and strike missions that the navy can carry out is relatively limited.

The battleship role is as a rail gun armed, nuclear powered, bombardment platform carrying thousands of artillery shells and able to tie into the entire network of surveillance and targeting options. Something able to range from outside the littorals at least a few hundred miles into an enemies interior and engage in large scale, sustained, precision bombardment not just in support of ground forces but able to make that ground invasion economically viable by being able to carry out a hundred or more of those cruise missile missions for the same price tag as a single missile.

While such a platform would be useful in more limited situations, its true value would only exist in the event of basically WW3 against China, France, the UK, Japan, or Australia. On that list, only China is even a potential threat in that way and that is highly unlikely to change.

Against any lesser enemy, the SSGN fleet carrying full warloads is more than able to fulfill the large scale bombardment role sufficiently (especially in combination with the carrier's and USAF) to achieve rapid and complete victory and while they would expend a great deal of expensive munitions, the cost of those munitions would be less than the cost of designing, building, crewing, and deploying a modern battleship.

There is not any Submarine on the planet that can evade a full Battlegroup Sonar Ping. Trust me they wargamed that a lot during the Cold War. And each time the Sub was found. It is just a little know fact.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

There is not any Submarine on the planet that can evade a full Battlegroup Sonar Ping. Trust me they wargamed that a lot during the Cold War. And each time the Sub was found. It is just a little know fact.

I presume in an actual combat situation, aforementioned unfortunate sub would then get swarmed by the fleet's frigate escort, along with attached submarines?

In the future I could definitely perceive submarines acting as the scout and screening force for the fleet, perhaps even skirmishing with other subs before the main action begins. For that role, alongside prowling the oceans of the world, they'd be invaluable.

 

[Sailor.X]

I presume in an actual combat situation, aforementioned unfortunate sub would then get swarmed by the fleet's frigate escort, along with attached submarines?

In the future I could definitely perceive submarines acting as the scout and screening force for the fleet, perhaps even skirmishing with other subs before the main action begins. For that role, alongside prowling the oceans of the world, they'd be invaluable.

Anything with ASW assets will be spamming that poor Sub. Torpedoes ASROCS, and Depth Charges