SuperBattleShip- ( Leviathan Class )

[EclipsetheRuin]

This maybe a stupid idea, but I think that the United States Navy should build a SuperBattleShip ( I dubbed it the Leviathan Class ). I believe that a mammoth capital ship, would menace and make enemy navies cower at its firepower. The Leviathan would include a large assorment of weaponry, including the classic 16 inch big guns, refitted with newer barrels, capable of extended range. It would also include the 11 inch guns that could fire 200 miles. This superbattleship would also include a large VLS system. The defencive power of this beast would be just as potent. SAMS, and advanced version of the Phalax system, and Anti-Submarine Torpedos. To accomdate this large arsenal of firepower, the Leviathan would be approximently 2000-2500 feet long. However, it would not resembe a conventional warship. It would resembe the arsenal ship, ( sittin low in the water) more than a regular battleship. Because of its large size, it would send off a huge radar signature, to lessen this problem, steath tech woud be employed onto this colossal ship. The technology on this ship would be state of the art and a majority of the ship would be automated. However, a substantial crew would be needed. The Leviathan definatly would have many drawbacks, including large radar signature, hefty price, and a gigantic propulsion system. But the firepower of this ship would be unmatched. Combined with a large fleet of Carriers, Cruisers, etc... there would be no stopping the US navy. I know you could send a nuke into the fleet however, it would start a nuclear war, which most countries no not want ( M.A.D.)thus the end of the world. Maybe im a retarded student, sitting on his computer too much, but I think this idea could work. Please leave comments.

[ajaybhutani]

I think no idea is bad. Sometimes they work in the same way .. sometimes with some modifications.As the famous saying goes If u get and idea and find it that it dsnt work .Teh next time u/others know that u cant do it this way adn so its stil of great improtance..

I think with a lot of submarine defence high range air defence it might job. I think people like OoE etc can tell bettter about the feasibility.

[Horrido]

Actually, this idea has already been discussed, the most extreme ideas being a "Montana" class BBG (after the proposed, but cancelled, successors to the Iowa-class BBs from WW II) with four, three-barreled turrets of 16 in, which could fire SCRAM shells out to roughly 1000 nautical miles, the shells being GPS, radar, laser, and/or IR guided. Concepts include chobbam armor, a trimaran hull, extensive VLS capable of housing up to 120 SM-3/4 SAMs, 5-inch side-guns, a laser self-defense system, and hangar for either ASW helos or VTOL UCAVs. Stealth isn't too diffcult to achieve by proper angling of the surfaces. Cost is the only real issue.

[Franco Lolan]

I'm not sure I see the purpose in a "Leviathan": seems like a nice target. In possible war w/ PRC thats exactly what they want, a large platform that they can do massive missile strike against. What would its primary weapon be? the 16"? Although it was awesome, I think its archaic now. This is pretty scathing, plz dont take it offensively against yourself.

[Horrido]

The primary purpose of a modern BB is to literally put TONS of shells onto a target. With an estimated 1000 mile range (which outranges modern carrier aircraft capabilities, assuming one refueling stop to and fro), you could readily take out enemy ships, destroy airfields, bridges, communications, virtually any target, much more cheaply, quickly, and effectively than using carrier aircraft. A battleship built to WW II standards is virtually impervious to cruise missile attack, and take many topedoes to finally sink something of that size and strength. We have NOTHING that can adequately support a beach invasion in service today. A new BB would remedy that. It's certainly not archaic, you simply have to think in terms of what modern technology has to offer.

[Praxus]

Originally Posted by Franco Lolan

I'm not sure I see the purpose in a "Leviathan": seems like a nice target. In possible war w/ PRC thats exactly what they want, a large platform that they can do massive missile strike against. What would its primary weapon be? the 16"? Although it was awesome, I think its archaic now. This is pretty scathing, plz dont take it offensively against yourself.

Missile strikes are worthless against an upgraded Battleship. Beyond it's armor it would be protected with AEGIS Radar, ESSM, RAM, and SM-2. The only actual threat to it would be submarine forces and torpedos. This could be easily countered with a complement of ASW Aircraft and submarine/ASW escort.

A single Iowa can deliver as much firepower in a single day as roughly 6 Super Carriers. With a mix compliment of long range 11" SABOT rounds and 16" shells it have the firepower of roughly 4 Super Carriers.

As far as firepower on targert per dollar goes the Battles Ships can not be beat.

[Officer of Engineers]

Everytime someone post these things, the words "bomb magnet" keeps coming to mind.

[EclipsetheRuin]

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Everytime someone post these things, the words "bomb magnet" keeps coming to mind.

Yes, it could be destroyed by a nuke, however, if it was annihilated by a nuclear bomb, there would be a nuclear holocaust. If this ship is hit by a bomb, this gives the USA to reign down 20,000 nukes onto the enemy.

[Horrido]

And a carrier isn't a bomb magnet? With long-endurance UCAV AWACs, a modern BBG could provide for its own air defense.

[Garry]

Originally Posted by Praxus

Missile strikes are worthless against an upgraded Battleship. Beyond it's armor it would be protected with AEGIS Radar, ESSM, RAM, and SM-2. The only actual threat to it would be submarine forces and torpedos. This could be easily countered with a complement of ASW Aircraft and submarine/ASW escort.

A single Iowa can deliver as much firepower in a single day as roughly 6 Super Carriers. With a mix compliment of long range 11" SABOT rounds and 16" shells it have the firepower of roughly 4 Super Carriers.

As far as firepower on targert per dollar goes the Battles Ships can not be beat.

I would call it a a large steal coffine..... you would spend much more efforts/resources trying to protect this ultimate concentration of firepower and vulnerability than enemy attempting to kill it.....

don't tell us that missile strikes are worthless.... just one shell has killed HSM Hood in 1941... a supersonic Granit missile has far more power than that

[Garry]

Originally Posted by Horrido

And a carrier isn't a bomb magnet? With long-endurance UCAV AWACs, a modern BBG could provide for its own air defense.

indeed a good question..... one carrier is worth $3.5bn-4bn and it takes half decade to build it and another half decade to design....

one Shkval torpedo is sold to China at $5-7mln.....
one Granit missile would cost less than $2mln....
one mosquito missile is less than $0.3mln....

in 1950-es convoy had to make sure than no submurine gets to carrier as close as 3 miles, in 60-es it was about 10-miles. In 70-es it grew to 200km. And now a good salvo from 500km would be lethal... Where this trend is going?

don't you feel the assymetry? Yes you need to spend much more resources to design and sustain defencing systems than your enemy would spend to design and sustain systems to attack it....

Correct me if I am wrong but this fundamental rule of the war applies almost everywhere.....

[Jay]

one Shkval torpedo is sold to China at $5-7mln.....
one Granit missile would cost less than $2mln....
one mosquito missile is less than $0.3mln....

In that case, then land based TBM and ABM's will face the same destiny, dont you think??

Atleast in the open seas, if you have enough ASW resouces to comb it, along with an AEGIS equipped resource for TMD, I guess you can safely assume that the battleship can deliver its punch.

don't you feel the assymetry? Yes you need to spend much more resources to design and sustain defencing systems than your enemy would spend to design and sustain systems to attack it....

Its been the case all the time. Most of the Russian missiles and torpedoes are developed just keeping that in mind.
But USA still builds bigger ships, while Russia still is building longer range missiles and torpedoes.

In the other battleship thread one of the Soviet commander said If we ever face one of those battleships (I think Iowa), it'll really be a night mare for the Soviet fleet or something of that sort.

[Praxus]

Everytime someone post these things, the words "bomb magnet" keeps coming to mind.

Tell me who is going to bomb them?

Certainly not a middle eastern country or north korea. Certainly not China.

Not a single Iowa Class Battleship was sunk or even mission killed during WW2, Korea, Vietnam, or the Gulf War.

Now we are not talking about an Iowa with 1982 era equipment. I am talking about two ships that can be modernized and run for the price of a single DD(X). It would have the ability to hit strategic targets out to 1000 miles with Tactical Tommahawks. It could hit tacticle/strategic targets with it's main guns out to 100-200nm.

These ships would be highly effective against third world nations. Unless the Government has a secret plan to attack Russia or the EU I find it HIGHLY unlikely the Battleships would be in any danger of being sunk.

[Jay]

well, China has some of those advanced missiles that Russia has, Moskit, Sunburn to name a few.

[Officer of Engineers]

One word - kamakazie