Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 1 battles to post in this section.
howardxu_23

Role of large calibre naval guns in modern warfare

5 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[COMFY]
Players
792 posts
1,983 battles

Looking at how the current modern navy runs, I pretty surprised that the modern missile destroyers could be as expensive as a post treaty ww2 battleship, even when adjusted for inflation, while nearly costing as much as one or more to keep it running, and missiles are not cheap either (Zumwalt class anyone? The money invested them at this point is better off on either more subs/cvs/cheaper DDs/even designing and building a BB) , Plus they have 0 in terms of armor, so if they take any hits from their own weapon the best case is that it ends up crippled.(cwis? Just fire a dozen missiles at it to overwhelm it), hence losing a costly ship, while a BB is designed to withstand a large amount of ordinance thrown at it before it goes down.

 

Plus from what I know they even use the missiles vs stationary land targets, where heavy naval artillery could see a use(imo at least), yet there is no actual ship that is suitable for that role. My thought is that they could put 1/2 BB calibre guns on a destroyer or a frigate hull, effectively turning it into a monitor so it can serve in a shore bombardment role, and since guided shells like the M982 Excalibur exist, it should be reasonable to assume that one could scale that up to solve any accuracy issues that a regular shell could cause, and to increase effectiveness vs moving ocean targets. Plus shells are noticeably a lot harder to shoot down with ciwis, and even if it possible to shoot it down, There is still the option to spam them a lot faster then you can with missiles, since as far as I’m concerned with what I can see, real life guided missiles are not actually sent in cool massive barrages that some games portray.

 

the other option is to actually build a proper large BB with thick armor, armor schemes, redundancies and all that, from scratch instead of trying to mordensie old BBs and arm it with large calibre cannons and missiles. It does not need to have as many guns as the ww2 bbs as it can fit a VLS missile system in place of one of the turrets if needed.

 

thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
25,427 posts
13,863 battles

The time of BB is over.

There were some attempts (some successfull) to use bigger guns for coastal support in the past, but the usefuleness is limited.

 

Quote

Modular Naval Artillery Concept (MONARC) was a study of the German defence industry about mounting the turret of the PzH 2000 self-propelled howitzer on a naval ship of frigate size.

....

Rheinmetall, the producer of PzH 2000's gun system, plans to design special smart naval rounds that will boost the range of the gun from 30 km with standard NATO ammunition and 40 km with assisted rounds to over 80 km (50 mi), more than that of many anti-ship missiles.

 

Quote

Oto Melara Vulcano ammunition:

"VULCANO" is a family of unguided (BER) and guided (GLR) ammunition for the 76mm, 127mm naval guns and 155mm land artillery systems"

  • GLR (Guided Long Range)
  • Guided ammunition for NFS
  • Up to 100Km range▪Autonomous IMU+GPS guidance
  • Precise shore bombardment firing
  • Notched HE warhead
  • SAL terminal guidance

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
325 posts
4,648 battles

to build these ships, would mean making the armour out of the same composites used to make MBTs. otherwise it would just be a waste of steel. and what you would get is a ship that fires shells that are basically bolter rounds from 40k due to having guidance and propulsion of their own, and costing enough to reflect that.

 

the 'gun' might come back. but it'l be railgun instead of big gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SNUBS]
Players
95 posts

I've been thinking similar.


In my head I have an image of something like an Iowa or Kurfurst type BB but instead of the typical main guns have rail guns fitted and replace all the AA mounts for CWIS/SAM launcher and Laser weapons. Add a VLS battery and some sort of anti torp counter measures as well as modern gas turbine engines (or nuke), full modern rewire for a full combat sensor & target engagement suite and surely you would have one stacked ship.
Obviously as above, there is the argument of the amount of resources required for such a vessel, but I do have the question of how modern anti ship missiles would fare against 14-18" of solid armour... Or maybe you wouldn't even need conventional thick steel armour with the advent of modern armour such as Dorchester armour used on the abrams battle tanks and take advantage of spaced armour arrangements etc to save resources and weight?

I know that they fitted the Iowa with CWIS and such for the gulf but nothing like I'm suggesting above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-RM-]
Beta Tester
2,052 posts
8,195 battles
21 minutes ago, MahBallz said:

but I do have the question of how modern anti ship missiles would fare against 14-18" of solid armour...

Pretty damn good. Considering most naval based missiles don't necessarily strike at the belt armor of ships but instead go for the superstructure or are proximity fused. And if they do go for the belt or the like, well it is a ~200 kg warhead of TNT travelling in excess of 800 km/h on most ship to ship missiles.

 

The best defense against modern ship missiles is to either shoot it down or not allow it to find you in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×