World Affairs Board - View Single Post - Future Battleship/Capital Ship Discussion

gunnut · 06-20-2007, 17:03 PM

Instead of battleships, I would suggest a renewed design of armored cruiser. Battleships are not invincible, doesn't matter how much armor. More armor means more weight, more machinery to push the extra weight, and more money spent on more of everything. All we need is enough armor to protect against 5" guns and small rockets and missiles. I think that's much more cost effective.

Instead of 13.5" guns, I would suggest either 6" or 8" guns, and only 2 or 3 tubes per ship. Modern designs can increase the rate of fire from a single tube to match that of multiple tubes of older design. Fewer guns means less weight, and much lower cost. Anything that can't be destroyed by 6" or 8" of guided shells can be destroyed by missiles or bombs dropped by aircraft.

To lower cost and save weight, my armored cruiser will not have Aegis system. Instead she will only have ESSM and Phalanx for local air defense. She is not designed to operate alone in high threat environment. She is to be part of an overall naval package, specialized in blockade and shore bombardment.

I would add a secondary armament of 4 OTO 76mm Super Rapid or 4 Bofors 57mm auto cannon against boat swarm tactics and supplement the main guns on shore bombardment.

This ship should be highly automated to reduce crew demand.

Even then, I see this ship as too expensive for limited roles she can perform. To increase her capabilities means a massive increase in cost. The money can be better spent on smaller destroyers and frigates that are less vulnerable to air threats and cheaper to replace.

I just thought I throw out my idea of a new armored cruiser for giggles.

06-20-2007, 17:03 PM	#30 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 10,274 Country:	Instead of battleships, I would suggest a renewed design of armored cruiser. Battleships are not invincible, doesn't matter how much armor. More armor means more weight, more machinery to push the extra weight, and more money spent on more of everything. All we need is enough armor to protect against 5" guns and small rockets and missiles. I think that's much more cost effective. Instead of 13.5" guns, I would suggest either 6" or 8" guns, and only 2 or 3 tubes per ship. Modern designs can increase the rate of fire from a single tube to match that of multiple tubes of older design. Fewer guns means less weight, and much lower cost. Anything that can't be destroyed by 6" or 8" of guided shells can be destroyed by missiles or bombs dropped by aircraft. To lower cost and save weight, my armored cruiser will not have Aegis system. Instead she will only have ESSM and Phalanx for local air defense. She is not designed to operate alone in high threat environment. She is to be part of an overall naval package, specialized in blockade and shore bombardment. I would add a secondary armament of 4 OTO 76mm Super Rapid or 4 Bofors 57mm auto cannon against boat swarm tactics and supplement the main guns on shore bombardment. This ship should be highly automated to reduce crew demand. Even then, I see this ship as too expensive for limited roles she can perform. To increase her capabilities means a massive increase in cost. The money can be better spent on smaller destroyers and frigates that are less vulnerable to air threats and cheaper to replace. I just thought I throw out my idea of a new armored cruiser for giggles. __________________ "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.