What would the best space battleship design be?

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

I am implying large  vehicles, not little robotic space fighters. what would be the best design for a space battleship be?

[PB666]

Here we go again, there are several threads already on this matter.

[Nibb31]

Oh no, not again.

Use the search, Luke.

[razark]

An asteroid with a nuclear engine and a collision course.

[Ultimate Steve]

In pervious threads, as well as KSP's Naval Battle Club, it was determined that Armor would be useless. This was against conventional weapons. We have Nukes. Any battle in space would Kesslerize Earth, making it impossible to battle in Earth orbit for the foreseeable future. So, the best ship would be a ten mile long armorless ship with eight million nukes and an antimatter bomb at the center which would blow up when the ship was too critically damaged. So, sort of like a suicide bomber ship. It would also have to release its nukes fairly quickly, before the enemy released theirs.

[sojourner]

There is no "best".  It all depends on technology levels.  The Constitution used to be "best". The Iowa class used to be "best". The Spanish Galleon used to be "best".

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

34 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

In pervious threads, as well as KSP's Naval Battle Club, it was determined that Armor would be useless. This was against conventional weapons. We have Nukes. Any battle in space would Kesslerize Earth, making it impossible to battle in Earth orbit for the foreseeable future. So, the best ship would be a ten mile long armorless ship with eight million nukes and an antimatter bomb at the center which would blow up when the ship was too critically damaged. So, sort of like a suicide bomber ship. It would also have to release its nukes fairly quickly, before the enemy released theirs.

so like the project Orion battleship? good point. 

 

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Oh no, not again.

Use the search, Luke.

sorry.

im sort of talking about design details, for example, what propulsion system, principles of operation, etc. my idea is to have radial missile silos, with guns on "towers" 

[wumpus]

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Oh no, not again.

Use the search, Luke.

One search term is "Mike".  Your choices are Mike, and swarms of drones.  And Mike only made sense in a specific context of an invasion of Earth.

The "real" answer is an ICBM.  Yes, they are designed to fly through space.  They are unstoppable weapons (the only winning move is not to have a nuclear war).  And they have yet to be superseded (nobody plans on building Mike).  The USSR built some sort of orbiting armed space station, but it never appeared effective.  But thousands of ICBMs were built (I think, although all nations together might not have cracked 2000 boosters), making it a very real "space battleship" compared to paper designs that were never seriously budget for even during Reagan's "Star Wars" fantasy, much less what pops up in these threads.

[Elukka]

9 hours ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

sorry.

im sort of talking about design details, for example, what propulsion system, principles of operation, etc. my idea is to have radial missile silos, with guns on "towers" 

Depends on your assumption of technology, strategic environment and ship role. What you're asking is impossible to answer because it's a bit like asking what the best design for a vehicle on Earth would be, without knowing if you're talking about a motorcycle or a supersonic airliner.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Elukka

[Nibb31]

12 hours ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

im sort of talking about design details, for example, what propulsion system, principles of operation, etc. my idea is to have radial missile silos, with guns on "towers" 

So why are you posting this in the science forums when this is clearly about science fiction ?

This has been discussed plenty of times before. Why don't you go and read all those old threads?

Edited June 21, 2016 by Nibb31

[RainDreamer]

If we are talking about scifi... make a warp ship with ultra dense hull and launch it through space to cut other ships. Or if weight is actually a matter, just keep the warp drive and take it for a joy ride before stopping right before target, releasing deadly raditation.

Realistic though...We might just have a mobile refueling platform for drones with perhaps some point defense systems, probably. Cheap and effective. 

Edited June 21, 2016 by RainDreamer

[kerbiloid]

A giant space amoeba. It will enshroud and digest anything it meets, withstand any damages from kessleroids and meteoroids, partially vaporize but then condense back under nukes.

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

8 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

So why are you posting this in the science forums when this is clearly about science fiction ?

This has been discussed plenty of times before. Why don't you go and read all those old threads?

i guess you have a point, but could you be less negative? how do i get this thread shut down?

[Frozen_Heart]

An ASAT missile.

[Bill Phil]

None. You don't want a space battleship. Even modern navies are moving away from big and bulky ships with huge guns and thick armor. Smaller ships can now pack a bigger punch with warheads, with better precision, and they're faster. No point in battleships...

Now, on to the more general point about space combat: there's no point. It's even more of a MAD than our current situation. At least more than 10% of the human population would survive a nuclear holocaust now. But the kind of holocaust that we could create once we're truly spacefaring? No one would ever go to war. Instead, they'd just go somewhere else. Cost to benefit for war has been rising recently, peace will come. Not because the people want it, but because war is friggin expensive. Why waste money killing people when you can exploit them to make more? Although, that economic incentive for peace won't last forever...

11 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

So why are you posting this in the science forums when this is clearly about science fiction ?

This has been discussed plenty of times before. Why don't you go and read all those old threads?

Because new ideas can still arise.

[sojourner]

44 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Even modern navies are moving away from big and bulky ships with huge guns and thick armor. Smaller ships can now pack a bigger punch with warheads, with better precision, and they're faster.

Not entirely true. U.S. Destroyers have been consistently getting larger over time. Compare the Zumwalt (600 feet long) class to the Arleigh Burke (500 feet long).

[Bill Phil]

3 minutes ago, sojourner said:

Not entirely true. U.S. Destroyers have been consistently getting larger over time. Compare the Zumwalt (600 feet long) class to the Arleigh Burke (500 feet long).

Not quite big and bulky.

Also, what about width, or displacement?

[sojourner]

1 minute ago, Bill Phil said:

Not quite big and bulky.

Also, what about width, or displacement?

Zumwalt is about 1/3 larger in both.

[Bill Phil]

1 minute ago, sojourner said:

Zumwalt is about 1/3 larger in both.

The Draft on the Burke is slightly larger.

Also, the changes don't involve adding bigger guns and thicker armor, do they? Not as much, at the very least. Ships are getting smaller, but they might get bigger on occasion.

[sojourner]

 

Draft is limited by operational need to enter shallow waters. But hey, take that victory. Ya got me. The Zumwalt is "smaller", Yeah, um, ok. Ships are getting smaller, contrary to evidence given.

 

Fun fact: The Zumwalt and Arleigh Burke are both longer than the Nevada class WW! battleship.  Though since they don't carry all that armor, of less displacement.

Edited June 21, 2016 by sojourner

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

Zumwalt was cancelled, wasn't it?

[sojourner]

The second was just christened.

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

oh, that good.

[Bill Phil]

On 6/21/2016 at 0:29 PM, sojourner said:

 

Draft is limited by operational need to enter shallow waters. But hey, take that victory. Ya got me. The Zumwalt is "smaller", Yeah, um, ok. Ships are getting smaller, contrary to evidence given.

 

Fun fact: The Zumwalt and Arleigh Burke are both longer than the Nevada class WW! battleship.  Though since they don't carry all that armor, of less displacement.

Any trend isn't perfect. What's the total displacement of the US Navy? Total actual mass? Yeah, sometimes they go up, but then they'll go back down in time.

[Elukka]

The core of the US navy is really the carriers, which are the biggest, most expensive warships I can think of by a large margin, and they won't be getting any smaller. It doesn't really seem like the cruisers or destroyers are getting any smaller either. I'm really not seeing this trend.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Elukka