Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Scourge of Ages on April 13, 2012, 02:31:00 pm
-
The low-to-the-water warship will feature a wave-piercing hull, composite deckhouse, electric drive propulsion, advanced sonar, missiles, and powerful guns that fire rocket-propelled warheads as far as 100 miles. It's also longer and heavier than existing destroyers — but will have half the crew because of automated systems.
[...]
The Zumwalt's 155 mm deck guns were built to pound the shore with guided projectiles to pave the way for the Marines to arrive in landing craft, and they're far more cost-effective in certain situations than cruise missiles, said Eric Wertheim, author of the "Naval Institute's Guide to Combat Fleets of the World."
The smaller crew also represents a substantial cost savings, he added.
Down the road, the ship could one day be equipped with an electromagnetic railgun, a powerful weapon that uses a magnetic field and electric current to fire a projectile at several times the speed of sound.
See also: http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2009/09/ddg-1000-zumwalt-destroyers-in-photos.html
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_S1Gu2hX9S6c/Sq7zU-QHuSI/AAAAAAAANrU/8p8T_bnqPEQ/s800/DDG1000.jpg)
Remind you of anything?
(http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/images/Gtcfenris.jpg)
-
there were a lot more than three fenrises
e: given how fast those fenrises blew up though, they were probably comparable on the expensive boondoggle scale. dd zumwalt: at least it's not the lcs
-
Dammit, that's an ugly concept art for a deadly weapon.
-
Dammit, that's an ugly concept art for a deadly weapon.
No kidding
But really, after watching Stargate for the past year, I've come to adopt this whole "there's bigger things than what we've got on this here planet" mentality thus making me ask why
Although railgun... very cool
-
Interesting. They have selected to use composites in the hull. I'll guess that probably the rest of the Armed Forces in the world just wait and see what happens. Battleships of this design failed in the war between Russia and Japanese due to poor damage control and hull stability problems while maneuvering.
I'm kind of drawn between whether I would cancel this thing immediately if I could, or supporting the engineers to push it even faster. While this thing is probably not well armored to trade a lot of blows, the funny thing here is that it probably doesn't even need to.
But I do note US Navy seems to be decreasing in the overall tonnage.
-
Interesting. They have selected to use composites in the hull. I'll guess that probably the rest of the Armed Forces in the world just wait and see what happens. Battleships of this design failed in the war between Russia and Japanese due to poor damage control and hull stability problems while maneuvering.
That was when, 1904 to 1905? ISTR material science having made quite a few breakthroughs in the time since then....
-
Interesting. They have selected to use composites in the hull. I'll guess that probably the rest of the Armed Forces in the world just wait and see what happens. Battleships of this design failed in the war between Russia and Japanese due to poor damage control and hull stability problems while maneuvering.
That was when, 1904 to 1905? ISTR material science having made quite a few breakthroughs in the time since then....
Yes I know, but the Physics have not changed either. Plus the latest attempt to do a stealth ship with large amount of composite materials seems to have failed. F-22 has a lot of maintenance problems with the composites and other radar cross section reducing materials that makes it a lot less mission capable than originally thought of. I'm a little bit suspicious of the composite armors to be used in a ship since the environmental challenges are huge, salty water, temperature differences, low frequency vibration, scratching etc. Not to mention the possibility of getting shot at.
-
I agree that the Zumwalt is a pretty extreme design, but Stealth in shipbuilding is a developed science. Modern frigate and destroyer classes like the dutch De Zeven Provincien class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Zeven_Provinci%C3%ABn_class_frigate), the german F124 Sachsen class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsen_class_frigate), the danish Iver Huitfeld class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iver_Huitfeldt_class_frigate), or the norwegian Fridtjof Nansen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridtjof_Nansen_class_frigate) and Skjold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skjold_class_patrol_boat) classes all incorporate stealth features in terms of their general hull design and hull composition.
-
Comparing a 1904/1905 wavepiercing design to a modern wavepiercing design is not a meaningful comment and should never have been treated as such.
-
Agreed, my comments were more aimed at the materials used, not the general hull design. Should have been more clear there, I guess.
-
I agree that the Zumwalt is a pretty extreme design, but Stealth in shipbuilding is a developed science. Modern frigate and destroyer classes like the dutch De Zeven Provincien class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Zeven_Provinci%C3%ABn_class_frigate), the german F124 Sachsen class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsen_class_frigate), the danish Iver Huitfeld class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iver_Huitfeldt_class_frigate), or the norwegian Fridtjof Nansen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridtjof_Nansen_class_frigate) and Skjold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skjold_class_patrol_boat) classes all incorporate stealth features in terms of their general hull design and hull composition.
You forgot Finn's Hamina missile boat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamina_class_missile_boat
-
Even the Arleigh Burkes have some stealth considerations in their design, not enough to make them truly stealth but enough to make them much smaller on radar.
-
Or the awesome-looking Independence-class LCS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_class_littoral_combat_ship). Love the trimaran design.
-
Or the awesome-looking Independence-class LCS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_class_littoral_combat_ship). Love the trimaran design.
there it is! the worst ship
-
Or the awesome-looking Independence-class LCS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_class_littoral_combat_ship). Love the trimaran design.
Looking awesome is about all it does, the LCS is a poor joke of a design in terms of capabilities.
Hey guys remember when our low-mix ships could actually do self-defense AAW? Good times.
-
Or the awesome-looking Independence-class LCS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_class_littoral_combat_ship). Love the trimaran design.
Looking awesome is about all it does, the LCS is a poor joke of a design in terms of capabilities.
Hey guys remember when our low-mix ships could actually do self-defense AAW? Good times.
excuse me, the lcs has advanced defensive capabilities; when threatened, the warship dissolves on the molecular level
-
Something is very wrong when I want a Knox or Garcia back over what I actually have.
-
/me sighs in sadness...
at least you folks have some ships to be proud of. Croatian navy has a grand total of 5 missile boats, 2 of which were bought off from Finland. And thats about it. )if you want to read up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Navy))
-
Croatian navy has a grand total of 5 missile boats, 2 of which were bought off from Finland.
All of which are legitimately more capable warships than the goddamn LCS.
-
/me sighs in sadness...
at least you folks have some ships to be proud of. Croatian navy has a grand total of 5 missile boats, 2 of which were bought off from Finland. And thats about it. )if you want to read up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Navy))
while it's not much of a navy, these missile boats do outperform the LCS in two key areas:
1. missile
2. boat
-
Polish Navy is somewhat better, but only a bit. Two OHPs, of which one serves as a spare part magazine for the other. The rest are minelayers, dingies and post-Soviet junk. But at least there's plenty of it.
On the other hand, we have something worse than LCS. The Gawron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawron-class_corvette). The only thing it exceeded at was being a bottomless well into which government could throw money. It doesn't even look cool. At least the LCS is afloat, though it's not that difficult to change that. :) The Gawron, on the other hand, will most likely soon find it's way to a certain salesman with flapping arms and plaid jacket...
-
Heh, well it seems the LCS's are much worse than I ever thought. But then, their description as corvettes seems to be accurate. At a glance, the Independence seems to be the better ship (over the Freedom-class) with respect to armament and capability, but the mission profile of the ships suggest that they are designed for counter-insurgency type operations rather than fleet engagements, or what have you. This isn't a bad thing, but the problem is... why do I need a stealthy ship to do what Coast Gaurd clippers usually do anyway?
As far as general warfare goes, I assume that the LCS would have a "module" for such a thing - at least the Independence looks like it has some infrastructure for missile engagements with its VLS. However, the lack of built-in AA capability, something you'd want in a ship like this, is quite far off and away. The RAM is quite short range indeed, and not a deterrant for a fighter that would simply avoid the ship if it can identify the threat via RWR. Slapping some Sea Harpoon tubes and Sea Sparrow (or, even better, an AIM-120 derivative) launchers on the ship would at least make the ship a credible thread, but I guess there's a module for that, right?
That adresses the long-range engagement characteristics of the ship, if you can call them that. Without Standard Missiles, it's really not too scary a boat. The best thing about its low RCS in warfare... actual warfare between competant powers... is that it might help the ship remain fairly well hidden from ships with actual weapons, while the sensor suite of the ships might help it detect those actual threats, and avoid them. Either way, it won't do much... without a module. So, I suppose being a littoral vessel, it might work well close to the shore. But, in a hostile engagement zone, the ship is made for speed, and given the status of modern ship armor, it won't do well if it can be engaged in visual rage against competant artillery. And a 57mm gun is not going to bombard shore targets particularly well, either... Maybe you could park a few 105's on the helipads? That could be a really swell module to boot! But your direct assault roles are still going to be limited, and probably a bad idea.
So then, it appears to be a special forces ship. Back in the 60's and early 70's, the US developed some horrifically competant spec ops forces... And then we fired them. Now we seem to realize that those were good things to have against irregular combatants, who are simply regular combatants without the means to conduct regular warfare. So, now it's a miniaturized assault platform... probably with a module for that, too... to deliver marauding black ops teams in dinghys or small barges with Humvees to the odd corners of the world. Actually, it sounds like GI Joe would love this thing. And, given the small package, would probably be economical enough to sell in an action playset. Unfortunately, reality indicates that is not the case.
So, it is a highly sophisticated boat to hunt down Somalian pirates invading the US. Because they would totally do that. And then, we can chase down their already radar-less bass boats, completely undetected! Finally, once we've chased those dirty dogs back to where they came from, we can invade them with small teams of elite operatives. This sounds like a completely good idea.
...Please, fire my government. I'm begging you.
-
So what is actually required is a submersible Iowa-Class BB with a sizable VLS battery and a modern CIWS suite.
-
If it could shoot down planes, missiles and nukes it won't need to be submersible.
In fact, IMHO, if the South Dakota was able to shoot down 26 planes in 1 day using cutting edge WW II tech (radar gun laying and proximity shells), a modern BB would be just as capable of defending itself.
It was the Yamato's (and all IJN ships in general) lack of a proper AA suite that gave battleships a bad name...
And one more thing- 9 railguns instead of the good old 16 inchers (which in fact could reach 70 km or so using 500 kg subcaliber ammo) would make a modern BB even more awesome.
-
A modern dreadnought could be quite a good idea. A nuclear powered DN could boast fore and aft railgun batteries, a big VLS battery amidships and still have enough space to mount a large CIWS suite and a couple of long range SAM launchers. Perhaps it could even have a small flight deck for F-35s and helos squeezed somewhere around the stern. Also, with stealthy design, it could appear destroyer sized on most radars, while carrying as much firepower as a small CBG. Unfortunately, the cost of such a ship would most likely me somewhat high.
-
So, now it's a miniaturized assault platform... probably with a module for that, too...
Troo faxs: My father had friends in NavSea during the LCS design process and they wanted to do just this.
Except they couldn't.
SEALS don't go anywhere without high-quality encrypted comms that the crew size and ship layout and size won't support.
-
Guys, I don't think you quite, uh, get how naval warfare works.
What's the most important combat system aboard a warship?
-
So what is actually required is a submersible Iowa-Class BB with a sizable VLS battery and a modern CIWS suite.
(https://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p9HazWQ-PPflZi7HeF7SZCJsqw3iyFa32kkAx3d0fch3W-Ua8wkciAI66sST9JyH6htqZTcpBE93Wp1ePU4KMmA/Sub-1.jpg?psid=1)
In all seriousness, that's more like a submersible version of the Zumwalt. It's also French.
And, don't get me wrong, I've liked the Zumwalt from the moment I saw it, though I seem to keep getting reasons to like it less. The problem with many of the new and upcoming weapon systems is that they don't seem to fully replace their predecessors. So, although the LCS isn't a bad concept in many regards, it's a bad replacement for an actual frigate, and it's not a terribly cost-effective system to spend money on. The Zumwalt is an interesting study...
For instance, I read in a blog some time back that there was a prior ship offered for procurement consideration to the government and thus the Navy. This vessel was intended as a surface attack ship and it was brimming with VLS batteries. The project was also shut down and deactivated. The Zumwalt, by comparison, is also brimming with VLS batteries, and was designed from the onset to have such. It's also having those batteries arranged in a pattern that will allow any ordnance blow-out to be directed away from the central hull, very safe and novel indeed. And its superstructure is packed with advanced sensors, giving a new level of sensory awareness to the fleet. However, last time I checked, those VLS batteries weren't meshing too well with Standard Missiles... This problem might have been rectified by now, and it might not have been. But, from my last solid understanding of the ship, it means that the Zumwalt, whose sensors and huge missile array should make it the terror of the high seas for hostile aviators everywhere, won't actually be shooting the missiles. It will be directing older ships with Standard SAMs against those targets! So, it's effectively the surface attack ship reborn.
Currently, those aren't railguns, either. They're 155mm guns, which are an appreciable step-up from the 5-in (approx 127mm) guns on most ships. But, I'm not sure how well they act as ack, which 5-in guns with that nasty radar-guidance do pretty well at. Those are complimented by a pair of 40mm weapons, which I believe replace the CWIS found on most ships currently in service. I assume your small vessel targets also would rather not want to deal with those. So, again, the Zumwalt is a ground pounder that can point other ships at the aerial threats in the region. If the hull is being made weaker with respect to direct engagements (via composite materials), that might be a very bad thing, as in its current configuration it might very well be getting shot at from the shore.
At the end of the day, the Zumwalt isn't really a destroyer, either. It's more like the pocket battleships from WWII. And given the current threat environment, that's not a bad thing. But, it doesn't really replace anything, which is a bad thing, because the hardware won't take well to SAMs at the moment. So, it's a better ship than the LCS, which cannot decide what it is, but it too is a victim of lost direction. Unlike the LCS, I would say that you would benefit from having more than two.
-
I think that Zumwalt could greatly benefit from an AIM-120 derivative which would fit it's VLS systems. It could be a good idea in general to replace Standards with this hypothetical derivative (AIM-120 being a very good missile), especially if it could use components from the Slammer.
-
I don't think it was only in Japan where battleships failed. Germany and UK had their share as well, and really, their effectiveness was never worth even close to the amount of money spent on building them. The same with Russian, Italian and French designs. The same with US as well.
Regarding the most important combat system, I think that would be the communications, detection systems and fire control. Not the actual weapons themselves.
LTC would seem useful for me if they hadn't built it that large. Zumwalt seems a little bit same sort of compromise, they would like to have it stealthy which compromises the armor by some amount, yet it should according to my understanding replace carrier escort destroyers which actually can be expected to come under fire - and since the carrier is relatively hard to make stealthy, the general location of the group is known as well when the carrier is detected. Unless they plan using naval guerrilla tactics with that ship, but then again, these tactics would work even better with a multitude of smaller ships or boats.
What it comes to materials, no, I still don't believe that in the case of ships, the armor mostly made of composites would be better than metallic plating in protection. There are definite advantages on metal compared to composites in a couple of fields. However, composites allow better stealth which reduces the possibility of the detection and getting shot in the first place.
If I had to go to war here, I prefer the un-armored personnel carrier (glass fiber) here over the armored one (steel). Weird, huh? Much greater mobility adds an element of surprise, which is what I like.
-
What's the most important combat system aboard a warship?
Sensor, arguably.
In all seriousness the LCS can tow an array and launch a helo as well as the Knox and Garcia could, and it's fast enough for evading torpedoes with some warning, so it's in theory a decent ASW platform. It can also replace the aging mine countermeasures fleet.
It still lacks the self-defense AAW capability it really needs to survive a modern environment and the anti-surface warfare package is a joke without the NLOS. There are perhaps a couple of places in the world such a ship is actually suited to operating, African and the Eastern Indian Ocean, and that's as long as the old soviet FACs stay away.
The Zumwalt on the other hand is a coherent strike ship design, meant to haul Tomahawks or Harpoons around in large numbers and thereby provide a decent base on which to build a Surface Action Group, something the USN has been lacking more or less since the gun stopped being a weapon of decision.
-
Yeah, it's shameful how dreadful battleships were at literally every role, including their intended purpose (shore bombardment). Over the course of the dreadnought/battleship evolutionary arc they proved themselves fundamentally excellent at only a few things- blowing themselves up, getting torpedoed and hitting mines high on the list.
In the actual combat role they proved to be pretty bad at hitting things with their guns, which is pretty much the punch line to the whole joke.
You can always spot an armchair admiral by the fact that they fantasize over the wrong systems. There's one capability which hits way above the rest and it's the one that makes the American navy so dangerous.
What's the most important combat system aboard a warship?
Sensor, arguably.
Exactly.
For some reason these things never turn up on fantasy battleship lists, even though they're far and away the most important combat system.
-
I think that Zumwalt could greatly benefit from an AIM-120 derivative which would fit it's VLS systems. It could be a good idea in general to replace Standards with this hypothetical derivative (AIM-120 being a very good missile), especially if it could use components from the Slammer.
That's a moronic statement, no offense.
The '120 is a medium range system that would act just as it does now in aircraft - replacement of the former medium-range system, the AIM-7. Not to mention that most ships have medium and short-range systems to begin with, so I'll grant you that some medium-range cabability would be nice...
...But the '120 is a waste of space in the VLS. Not to mention the loss of performance you get from not having the missile in a dedicated launcher, even if it has an additional booster (as most surface-launched variants of aerial weapons have). The Standard makes bomber pilots think about the consequences of getting too close to a fleet if they manage to elude the fighter compliment. Just look at the following figures:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-174.html
Furthermore, the '120, sorry to say this, is not going to prove much of a threat to ballistic missiles. Not. Going. To. Happen. The Standard, however, is probably one of the best systems in the world for that purpose. The most ironic thing is that Raytheon, who designs the launcher systems on the DDG-1000, seems to have made it incompatible with their own weapons systems. Conspiracy theorists, begin your musings!
-
In the actual combat role they proved to be pretty bad at hitting things with their guns, which is pretty much the punch line to the whole joke.
Considering this was endemic to all weapons systems of the time, though, it's hardly fair to single them out for it.
-
I think that Zumwalt could greatly benefit from an AIM-120 derivative which would fit it's VLS systems. It could be a good idea in general to replace Standards with this hypothetical derivative (AIM-120 being a very good missile), especially if it could use components from the Slammer.
That's a moronic statement, no offense.
The '120 is a medium range system that would act just as it does now in aircraft - replacement of the former medium-range system, the AIM-7. Not to mention that most ships have medium and short-range systems to begin with, so I'll grant you that some medium-range cabability would be nice...
...But the '120 is a waste of space in the VLS. Not to mention the loss of performance you get from not having the missile in a dedicated launcher, even if it has an additional booster (as most surface-launched variants of aerial weapons have). The Standard makes bomber pilots think about the consequences of getting too close to a fleet if they manage to elude the fighter compliment. Just look at the following figures:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-174.html
Furthermore, the '120, sorry to say this, is not going to prove much of a threat to ballistic missiles. Not. Going. To. Happen. The Standard, however, is probably one of the best systems in the world for that purpose. The most ironic thing is that Raytheon, who designs the launcher systems on the DDG-1000, seems to have made it incompatible with their own weapons systems. Conspiracy theorists, begin your musings!
Not to self. Don't post in two threads, on two forums at once. :)
I meant to mention that Zumwalt's launchers should be compatible with the recently introduced ERAM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ERAM) missile (which just has a seeker similar to AIM-120), while discussing SLAMRAAM on the different forum. While it'd be nice to have some form of the latter fitted on the Zumwalt, it's way too small for use in VLS and should have a dedicated launcher.
It'd be very strange if Raytheon made the Zumwalt's VLS incompatible with the missile they just introduced. Maybe they have another long-range SAM in the works, or an upgrade kit for RIM-174, and wanted to make sure US Navy buys it.
-
West Virginia shot the IJN Yamashiro with the first salvo, fired from a range of nearly 21 km, using only radar for aiming.
SoDak shot down 26 planes in one day, but then there was the North Carolina, which destroyed 7-14 planes in 8 minutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_North_Carolina_(BB-55)#Service_in_World_War_II).
I'd say the ships were accurate enough to get the job done, both against surface and air targets.
-
Well, it's very possible this article has been updated since I last saw it - refer to the "Controversy" section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt_class_destroyer
According to Raytheon, the SM-2 (Standard Missile) issue is mostly a farce, though it does seem to be incompatible with the SM-3, which is what I meant to reference:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html
The SM-6, what I posted in my previous respone, is the exact same thing as the ERAM, or rather, it is the ERAM. However, not being able to launch the SM-3 is an issue, and I'm not sure why it's so.
-
West Virginia shot the IJN Yamashiro with the first salvo, fired from a range of nearly 21 km, using only radar for aiming.
And look how little she accomplished for it!
SoDak shot down 26 planes in one day, but then there was the North Carolina, which destroyed 7-14 planes in 8 minutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_North_Carolina_(BB-55)#Service_in_World_War_II).
I'd say the ships were accurate enough to get the job done, both against surface and air targets.[/color]
If the 'job' is 'doing very little', then yes I suppose they were perfectly adequate. If the job is 'functioning as a warship', no, not nearly; they underperformed enormously compared to the expense of building and maintaining them, and compared to their competition.
Anyone who believes there exists a mission for a battleship analog in today's waters knows very little about the missions in demand or the means by which they are achieved. They were obsolete when they were built and they remain obsolete now.
-
However, not being able to launch the SM-3 is an issue, and I'm not sure why it's so.
I'm not really sure why anyone would think this, tbh, as the SM-2 is more than capable for interception of a ballistic inbound; SM-3's extra range is necessary for standing off the shore of North Korea and shooting down missiles as they launch, but...so what? It's not like there are many missions that will require that. We're not going to park off the Pletsk launch complex and pop missiles as they launch, nor the Chinese equivalent. Interception over the target may not be as safe or clean but it will do.
-
They were obsolete when they were built
I wouldn't go that far. They were rendered obsolete by the introduction of air power into naval warfare (so, yeah, the Iowas and similar were obsolete when built, but earlier battleship designs weren't). If sensors are a warship's most important system, then its air wing if it has one is certainly the second.
-
They were obsolete when they were built
I wouldn't go that far. They were rendered obsolete by the introduction of air power into naval warfare (so, yeah, the Iowas and similar were obsolete when built, but earlier battleship designs weren't). If sensors are a warship's most important system, then its air wing if it has one is certainly the second.
I dunno, the history of battleships as ships that do battle is littered with them dying in stupid ways even before the advent of the combat aircraft. They did occasionally blow each other up, but they were also fond of blowing themselves up, stepping on mines, getting interdicted by sailboats dropping mines, and befriending torpedoes or being so terrified of said torpedoes that they did all kinds of goofy things, ilu jellicoe, call me
-
/me sighs in sadness...
at least you folks have some ships to be proud of. Croatian navy has a grand total of 5 missile boats, 2 of which were bought off from Finland. And thats about it. )if you want to read up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Navy))
at least you guys have salty beaches to brag about.
bolivians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivian_Navy) are so stubborn it's unbelievable.
-
Earlier BB designs were just as obsolete. Their primary mission (killing other BBs) never materialized in a big fashion in either of the World Wars, as submarines turned out to be much more efficient at killing ships.
-
If you happen to be playing a ww2 submarine simulator and manage to find and sink a battleship, then the BB is actually useful for the first time in it's life. For getting your tonnage score up :P
-
All of that being said, I was able to go on a tour of the USS New Jersey, and man, Iowa-class battleships look freaking AWESOME.
-
They sure do. Meaning they are successful in their most important secondary mission, which is public relations :P
-
Earlier BB designs were just as obsolete. Their primary mission (killing other BBs) never materialized in a big fashion in either of the World Wars, as submarines turned out to be much more efficient at killing ships.
Sadly, as a thesis, that doesn't really appear to hold up. You're equating the ability to kill ships with the ability to kill battleships; more importantly, you're equating the ability to kill ships with primary mission of a battleship. Like most surface ships they are designed to kill similar ships, but that does not make it their primary mission.
Battleships are power-projection tools, like most military objects. Their mission is to assert control of the sea, securing it for the passage of friendly shipping and denying passage to enemy shipping. In that mission, they were in general wildly successful. The British Grand Fleet decided the course of the First World War. They did it in the legislature, by building more dreadnaught battleships than the High Seas Fleet could realistically destroy, but they did it nonetheless.
-
I will defer to your judgement on this issue.
-
I'd also note that the aircraft carrier didn't immediately change the equation of the need for battleships as a counterforce to other battleships, and nor did the submarine. Submarines and aircraft are, in essence, weapons of sea denial. They can make an area unsafe for the enemy, but their respective limitations mean they can't really make it safe for the passage of your forces. That was good enough to starve an island nation like the UK or Japan, but it would not suffice against Germany or the United States. Surface ships are required to take and hold water much as infantry are required to take and hold ground. (Hence why carriers have escorts.) There was a time before the carrier was able to sweep away enemy surface craft reliably and with little danger.
The turning point is about mid-1943, as the tools and doctrine of the aircraft carrier were not yet sufficiently developed before that to render them safe against a fast battleship making a run in under cover of darkness from outside the range of their strike and recon aircraft. (Spruance avoided this very fate at Midway explicitly over the objections of his carrier commanders, while Hornet, if it hadn't already been a blazing hulk, would have become one rather quickly at Santa Cruz. The repeated Japanese bombardments of Guadalcanal also offer good evidence that the range of aircraft was not quite sufficient to always catch enemy ships in the open.) Even if only to defend the carriers against others of their kind in a night engagement, they had a purpose and a place until then.
After that, though, the equivalent tonnage in destroyers would have been a better use.