Battleship to regain dominance in sea warfare ?

Today air power is a decisive factor and aircraft carriers dominate marine warfare since Second World War. However, with the advent of femtosecond lasers the amount of power delivered in pulse can reach terra-watts (e.g. as one being used in NIF). The filament created by such a laser can cut through any material, and in particular can damage/detonate any incoming missile. The ship protected by anti missile defense based on lasers should be immune to air assaults. The only thread left are kinetic penetrators that are not affected by lasers and this means big guns and heavy armor. Are Battleships be back in 21’st century ?

-al

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So just how does the laser protect the big battleship from underwater torpedo's? If the radar cannot detect the missiles because they are at sea level that to would create a problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

torpedoes doesn't change equation, since they affect air carrier and battleship same way. (how about anti-torpedoes nets?) As for the low flying missiles, they are detected very well but in close range (few km) which is too late for today defense systems. Lasers should be fast enough to deal with them.
-al

 

And a smaller faster ship will have more chance of escaping.

Not while under weigh...

Detected very well? They're getting lower and faster (and more dense).
More difficult to detect and hit, and if the entire thing isn't taken out...

 

there are no fast enough ship to outrun guided torpeado. With dumb one your chances are much better.

You know, rep rate for lasers is very high (kHz,MHz,GHz,...). I lay a bet it is easier to double laser rep rate then double number of missiles. The rest is computer power.

 

Depends on how soon they're spotted doesn't it?

No, it's detecting a low hypersonic target and then getting a firing solution before it impacts.
Doesn't matter how good the weapon is if you don't pick up the target in the sea clutter.

 

No, If you can't confuse it and you run slower it will get you, perhaps little later if you paddle faster.

So computers are important and your detection system too. If missile can be detected within 2km distance, this gives something like 2-3 sec to react. Movable mirror technology actuates with 50Hz, so should be fast enough. The biggest hard nut I see is reliable detection, for that I can only speculate. At close distance you have benefit of detecting not only the hypersonic target, but also the compressed air distortion, so it is little easier.

 

What if they put a mirror on the tip of the missile to reflect the laser away?

 

Tut tut.
Basics: if you spot it far enough away and start running then it runs out of fuel before it catches you...
Or the launching sub decides that his exposure is going to be too high to wait and track the target to impact so he forgets about it and looks for an easier target.

IF it can be detected, they're getting faster and lower.

 

Makes no difference if laser beam has enough power density.

 

lower is not a problem since typically you have unobstructed horizon on the high see. faster, how fast they are flying ? 2-3 Machs ? This still leave more then a second to react with 1km detection. Lowering the signature might make things more diffcult, but if you want it to fly at very high speeds the areodynamics can't be ignored.

 

The most deadly weapon is still the AK-47.

 

Didn't I just mention sea clutter?
Lower is a serious problem, because you get returns from the sea itself.

Sunburn currently does Mach 2.5 at 5 metres or so and faster/ lower ones are not far away.
And the faster missiles get the more they can use body lift and lose the wings - the main reflector for radar.

 

.
Doppler radar can eliminate all the clutter, since they look only at shifted frequencies corresponding to targets moving toward you.

Hmm, It looks (from my reading) that for now Sunburn can sneak undetected under Navy radar system. Looks like detection is as a weakest link in this hypothetical defence system.

 

Of course it can: when looking at a fixed background.
Which the sea is not.
Sea clutter is the REASON sea-skimmer missiles were invented.

Sunburn is/ was the threat that worried the USN most.
To the extent that they bought some from the Russians...

 

The battleship deferred to the carrier because a carrier has a greater striking range using its embarked airwing. Read about the Battle of the Coral Sea. It was the first naval engagement where two fleets clashed without entering visual range, and is widely regarded by naval historians as the battleship's death knell.

The 16"/50cal rifles of the famed Iowa class battleships had a max effective range of around 40km. Today, a F/A-18E has a combat radius of 730km. A carrier strike group can cover about 330 times as much geographical area as one of the old Iowas could with its rifles, with more ordnance delivery options, and far more reliable communication with ground troops. The battleship is an obvious loser here, and until an indirect fire weapon exists that has (just a guess here) at least a few hundred km of range, carrier-based strike aircraft will continue to be the mainstay of naval tactical power projection.

For some personal anecdotes, I'm currently part of an ANGLICO company. The only time I've personally called for naval surface fire support (NSFS - shipboard guns or missiles) was for clearing a beachhead of mines during a training exercise. Coordinating a NSFS fire mission has a detached feeling to it, because the fire controlman on the other end of the radio is nestled in the dark corner of CIC on a cruiser or destroyer bobbing way out in the blue. Close air support (CAS) missions, on the other hand, have a more intimate feeling. The pilot you're talking to overhead can see the target you're vectoring him in on, and can respond to changes in the target's behavior by altering their approach. Pilots also can use their birds-eye view of the battlefield to provide tactical intel in real-time, like warning of an enemy presence around the next corner. Finally, the sound of low-bypass turbofans roaring over the battlefield, sometimes chasing a sonic boom, can have a powerful psychological effect on blue and red forces alike, especially when said engine noise correlates with stuff exploding all around you.

The US Navy has examined lasers before (the Sea Light program) and other neat direct fire weapons like railguns (they've got the world's most powerful over in Maryland right now). You are right in that directed energy effectors are someday probably going to make great defensive weapons. However, the primary mission of a carrier group is to secure the battlespace at sea and project power ashore, over the horizon; about 20km from the weatherdecks of a surface ship. You need indirect fires for that. Interestingly enough, the Zumwalt class is supposedly going to pack a pair of 155mm smoothbore cannons that will fire somewhat of a gun-launched missile able to hit targets out to around 200km with a circular error probable of 50 meters. Very impressive range and precision for a surface fire, but nowhere near the interdiction range of strike aircraft. I hope it doesn't get canceled. I know the Marine Corps has wanted a capability like that for a long, long time.

 

Well, that is a bit unlikely as the launch aircraft would be detected by the carrier's fleet defense and/or early warning aircraft before they got close enough to launch their missiles from standoff range.

 

Owned

 

I think it is possible that the battleship will be back which is kind of good. I always liked them. Avaiation allowed naval warfare to extend its reach and deliver ordinance more effectively and accurately. But with the age of electronics, I think manned aircraft will be a thing of the past. Planes could be flown remotely...now I know aviators are not going to like it. But it is reality.