In the matter of battleship viability, not classed as such, but not too short of the definition, are the Russia Kirov Class Heavy Missile Cruisers. Of the four vessels originally completed, "Peter the Great" is still active one is already in the shipyards undergoing refit and modernisation, And General Popov announced the intent another would follow it back inot service, the current disposition of the fourth such vessel is unknown at this time. With the reduced northern sea ice and opening up of huge areas of the norther ocean to surface vessels, these Heavy Cruisers can take on a far more meaningful role in any future conflict.
NERO1234

Originally Posted by nero1234

Who wants to use a ballistic missile for the purpose?

The PLAN's ASBM is the latest on the block! The Brahmos has had a bad test record and about a year ago India was making noises about terminating the project! The initial operations date has been moved back with the regularity of the Bulava submarine launched ballistic missile.

Originally Posted by nero1234

The new kid on the block, although not so new really, is the high velocity, nuclear capable, cruise missile.

No.... that is second to the newest! The anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM)is the newest threat because it can not be intercepted by a large percentage of self defense missiles. The last couple of issues of US Naval Proceedings has had articles assisting this threat. It is what the PLAN plans to use to keep American carriers to far away from Taiwan to be of any assistance.

Originally Posted by nero1234

>> The current generations are supersonic, but the BrahMos joint venture expects to have the hypersonic version up and running in now less than 3 years.

The mach two ASCM is dangerous in its terminal phase but, before that it has altitude, can be detected and killed. All the talk is about how to deal with the threat once it comes over the horizon and maneuvering wildly. One version of the Brahmos initially discussed but, never developed was the variant that would be launched between 40,000 to 50,000 feet by a launch aircraft, climb to 80,000 feet at Mach 2.5, oscillate around that altitude until it is almost directly over the target ship then, dive straight down at Mach 3.5! There is no window for any type of gun system and, it is in the cone of silence for most radars so missiles can not kill it in the terminal phase of flight.

I find it interesting that the very navies that are developing these Mach two plus ASCMs and the ASBMs are the countries most interested in obtaining new carriers.... why do you suspect that is? Could it be the countries with these weapons and still want to have a carrier or two, do not see these new weapons as some sort "end all be all!"

Originally Posted by nero1234

Sorry, Aegis just isn't up to it anymore.

How do you know?

Originally Posted by nero1234

Sorry, Aegis just isn't up to it anymore.

The Navy has had success in shooting down the Vandal target missile which simulates the Mach two plus sea skimming missile. About ten years ago, I saw a video on a program where the announcer stated the Navy doesn't want you to see this. It was an engagement between the Phalanx and the Vandal doing Mach two about ten feet above the water. (Now the Vandal is only thirteen inches in diameter, about one fourth the size of its Soviet counter-part.) At one mile the Phalanx started firing. It was less than three-quarter of a mile before one could see the Vandal and that was only because the splashes that were indicating where the missile was. At one-half mile the Vandal started breaking into several large pieces. What the Navy did not want the world to see was the large chunks hitting the target ship. I have looked long and hard but, I only saw that video once.

One reason the Navy is so high on the "co-operative engagement combat" (CEC), where one aegis ship detects the incoming missile while a second ship fires a missile at the target missile. The first aegis ship controls the intercepting missile to intercept. This is an important feature against high speed targets.

Personally, I think the Navy learned how to cry about what its equipment CAN'T DO, just like the USAF did, especially at Cope India 2004. It wasn't until six months later the world learned of the ROE's which put everything into perspective. Until then, each time the USAF cried about needing more money for the F-22 because the F-15C was so painfully inadequate against the Su-30MKI, Congress provided more money.

[QUOTE=nero1234;566443
Sorry, Aegis just isn't up to it anymore.[/QUOTE]

And you know this How?
When I was in we did simulations of incoming nuke cruise missiles and ICBM's and the Aegis, was more than capable of dropping one out of the sky when its fitted with the proper anti missile defense missiles.



And I've been out for 10 years now, I'm sure they have some new toys that will drop incoming missiles, which means they could put that system on a Battleship if they wanted to, personally though if I was a third world terrorist country I wouldn't bother with a battleship, I'd use my navy for that

Lol, anyone who say the Aircraft Carrier is obsolete don't know what the carrier is for. Everything is able to be countered. There are SAMs, but planes aren't obsolete now are they? Same with the carrier, it can be countered, but it all depends on how the country uses it's carriers

Whoever said the country will use the aircraft carriers recklessly?

It is for fast aircraft projection overseas especially if the country can't get a air base in a nearby place.
It is to protect ships FROM air craft. Would you send ships alone to handle an airforce without a carrier? The Falklands war proves that Carriers are still necessary. Without the carrier with the harrier, UK could not hope of beating Argentina because of limited air superiority.

Not only that, but carriers can be difficult to find and attack. You guys think it is easy to take on a carrier defended by a battle group? Also, carriers can always launch the air craft from far away (will limit loitering time), but if necessary, it will be done. Carriers aren't a see-and-destroy like some of you put it. As long as there is Oceans, there will be carriers (unless some special way of transporting stuff from space or something)! You going to send transports ships and other stuff to countries defenseless against planes?


Just my two-cents. Anyone who think carriers are useless in modern warfare, should definitely not be a Admiral lol.

Aircraft Carriers are virtually mobile bases, so it's like having a huge base moving around 3/4 of Earth's surface. How could it be obsolete? Until there is a new superweapon.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

Lol, anyone who say the Aircraft Carrier is obsolete don't know what the carrier is for. Everything is able to be countered. There are SAMs, but planes aren't obsolete now are they? Same with the carrier, it can be countered, but it all depends on how the country uses it's carriers


Just my two-cents. Anyone who think carriers are useless in modern warfare, should definitely not be a Admiral lol.

You mean like maybe.....I dunno...making a carrier look like a freighter at night in the med when the Soviet destroyers and us weer playing tag?

And as for your two cents, I think your two cents are worth more like $2 dollars than 2 cents

Age old question, is this weapon obsolete? No, not until something better comes along, I don't see that happening for a while, if at all!!

ditto ...

lol
they will be with us for along time yet,the capabilities they provide, nothing can match them.