The Return of the Battleship? It's possible.

Gomez Adams

Gomez Adams

Grammar Fascist
Staff member
Dec 1, 2020
12,368
7,310
113
Suwanee, Georgia
exposingwot.com
This issue of Popular Mechanics talks about the U.S. Army's new Super Long Range Cannon (SLRC). It's been in development for a few years now and is supposed to enter testing by 2023.

The estimated range is going to be 1,500 miles. For those keeping score, that's about 1,470 miles further than the most powerful battleship guns ever fired.

The problem with the cannon, according to Popular Mechanics, is that it is a towed gun so large that it requires paved roads (and pretty good ones at that) to be positioned. This isn't like a field Howitzer you can set up pretty much anywhere.

So that opens up a question: How could you best position this cannon on a global scale?

In a word: Battleships.

Of course, it wont be a battleship like the Iowa class or anything like that. It'll probably be a long, low profile ship along the lines of a stealth destroyer or missile frigate and carry 4 to 6 of these SLRC's.

You'd be able to park that battleship in international waters and hit pretty much any target you wanted with impunity.

It'll be interesting to see if it happens.
 
First off I'll believe a 1500 mile range cannon when I see it. Those big assed railway guns of Germany didn't even have a fraction of that range. The only thing I can think of would be one of those rail guns they've been working on for years that haven't amounted to anything. Even if they make those work there's no warhead. It's a projectile only so there's very limited bang for your buck per shell. I just don't see it happening.
 
Hugo Stiglitz said:
First off I'll believe a 1500 mile range cannon when I see it. Those big assed railway guns of Germany didn't even have a fraction of that range. The only thing I can think of would be one of those rail guns they've been working on for years that haven't amounted to anything. Even if they make those work there's no warhead. It's a projectile only so there's very limited bang for your buck per shell. I just don't see it happening.
Click to expand...

Rocket assisted round or hyper-sonic rail-gun with ballistic trajectory capability. Canadians developed a cement laden 'bomb' which when delivered from a high enough altitude had huge penetration with minimal non-combatant engagement (that's right, drop a big enough piece of concrete and viola).

Then there's always 'anything travelling at hyper-sonic speeds is very dangerous' - even Styrofoam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hugo Stiglitz and Gomez Adams
I don't see the point. If you have missles that already do that why do you need a gun? It's just another way to waste money on weapons we'll never use.
 
Treaties on missiles, ballistic and cruise.
Besides those types of weapons have an ongoing thermal radiation for at least part of their flight (need power to fly). So they can be spotted by satellites in the right place.

Artillery (except perhaps any nuclear arty shells) is not covered under most non-proliferation treaties as it wasn't seen as a threatening weapon.

Making artillery that uses rail-gun propulsion that can send a round/weapon your enemies way with almost no launch signature, no flight signature (unless you are already actively listening for hyper-sonic signatures) and possibly with a one-minute (or less) flight time is a scary weapon to have available. Most (if not all) projectiles from these systems are obliterated.

Now imagine having a building in downtown Nashville suddenly evaporate/collapse with no residual evidence - who do you blame?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hugo Stiglitz and Gomez Adams
Zeedox said:
Artillery (except perhaps any nuclear arty shells) is not covered under most non-proliferation treaties as it wasn't seen as a threatening weapon.
Click to expand...
I had never considered that.

Zeedox said:
Making artillery that uses rail-gun propulsion that can send a round/weapon your enemies way with almost no launch signature, no flight signature (unless you are already actively listening for hyper-sonic signatures) and possibly with a one-minute (or less) flight time is a scary weapon to have available. Most (if not all) projectiles from these systems are obliterated.
Click to expand...
I had never thought about that either. Not a military guy. Sometimes you gotta spell shit out for us civilian lackies. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom