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

Dutchman · 01-03-2008, 18:56 PM

If a new BB is deployed, it would not be with a WW2 gun and ammunition. In the 80's, a development program was conducted to develope new ammunition for the Iowas. The rounds included a 16" rocket boosted round (60-70 mile range), a 13" sabot (100-120 mile range), a 11" sabot (180+ mile range), and a 11" rocket boosted sabot (projected at 1200 miles). The first two completed development and were approved for deployment just a month or 2 before the BB retirements were decided (think the carrier admirals influenced that?).

If there is an argument for bringing back the battleships, it is the effect of a big ship with that kind of long range hitting power. The navy will never risk its billion dollar DDX's close to shore for fire support operations. Especially since their light construction would be vulnerable to conventional artillary. Name a general that would not willingly trade a couple of howitzers for a DDX. China does not need to defeat the US Navy, just force it back away from Tiawon. The problem with that is if the US Navy had ships that could risk hits without harm (BB's) and still stay in combat range, then that attack doctrine fails. With satillite guided smart munitions, in theory a battleship could sit 400 -500 miles east of Tiawon and sink an attacking fleet. or imagine several BB's cruising the length of the persian gulf taking out the entire Iranian nuke program.

One of the problems of modern ships is they are frankly vulnerable to attack and damage. The Iowas were built for a different standard and there currently is nothing in the world short of nukes that would destroy them. The weapons of today won't and that was a source of real heartburn for the Russians in the 80's.

One of the issues always cited with the iowas is also the heavy crew compliment. Mostly that is because the ship is 1940's technology with no automation. Power plants today use 10% of manpower they used in the 40's because of automation. There is no reason the compliment of an Iowa could not be cut down to less than 500-600 men by modernizing the ships with proven technology from the last 20 years. Replacing their WW2 5" guns with modern weapons, some automation in the 16" gun turrets, automate the boilers, turbines, and other engine spaces, and modern electronics would yield the manpower savings. It might be possible to reduce it further, but I am not sure.

There is also the assumption that we could not build a battleship today. The battleship guns and armor were forged by Bethlehem Steel in the Bethlehem plant. The company is gone and most of the steel mill, but the forge shops are still active as Lehigh Valley Heavy Forge (been there a number of times). The 12,000 ton forge is still pumping out turbine shafts etc. True the Washington shipyard facilities that built up the gun barrels are gone, but that is easily replaced, consisting primarily of hot and cold soak units. That is not an issue. Indeed, one of the more interesting questions would be what size barrel would you actually want to use today. After all, there is nothing that says it would not be practical to build an 18" or 20" barrel. Bigger than that would be too difficult to handle, but it bears looking into. Running some quick calculations, I would guess a a 20' gun could throw a 12 -14" sabot 200 miles. I don't think it would be out of the question to toss a 1000 pound shell 1200 miles with a rocket booster. That seems incredible, but remember the paris gun of WW1 took advantage of the near space atmosphic conditions to hit huge ranges. The Iowas had a sustained firing rate of 2 or 3 rounds per 2 minutes, one of the limiting factors being the heating of the gun barrels. If you assume a practical limit of 1 per minute, that is still 720 rounds in an hour for the ship. A single ship could intheory drop its entire 15,000 ton load in less than 24 hours, rain or shine. The DDX guns can fire a lot faster, but their shells are small and could never inflict the same damage with their whole bunker load compared to a few accurate 16" or 20" shells.

If you were to build a ship, you would probably want to start with the basic Nimitz hull used in the carriers today.

combat load 100,000 tons
standard load 80,000 tons
ammunition load 15,000 tons (guess about 300-400 rounds per gun barrel)

speed 32 knots
radius of operation 10,000 miles with a conventional plant.

Steel hull similar to the Iowas. HS steel coupled with armor belts. A lot cheaper than any exotics and properly designed just as effective.

Aegis radar systems

12 guns 75 caliber, 3 per turret
12 155mm guns identical to the DDX system
Close in gun systems
phalanx close in anti-missle pods

cruise missle tubes (30)
anti-ship missles
anti-submarine missles
anti-torpedo systems
submerged torpedo tubes

4 to 6 helocopters

crew would be around 600 men, give or take. automation would eliminate a lot of men which in turn eliminates a lot of support staff (cooks, etc). plus you should have plenty of room for an admiral or two plus staff.

01-03-2008, 18:56 PM	#114 (permalink)
Dutchman New Member Join Date: 01-03-08 Posts: 8	If a new BB is deployed, it would not be with a WW2 gun and ammunition. In the 80's, a development program was conducted to develope new ammunition for the Iowas. The rounds included a 16" rocket boosted round (60-70 mile range), a 13" sabot (100-120 mile range), a 11" sabot (180+ mile range), and a 11" rocket boosted sabot (projected at 1200 miles). The first two completed development and were approved for deployment just a month or 2 before the BB retirements were decided (think the carrier admirals influenced that?). If there is an argument for bringing back the battleships, it is the effect of a big ship with that kind of long range hitting power. The navy will never risk its billion dollar DDX's close to shore for fire support operations. Especially since their light construction would be vulnerable to conventional artillary. Name a general that would not willingly trade a couple of howitzers for a DDX. China does not need to defeat the US Navy, just force it back away from Tiawon. The problem with that is if the US Navy had ships that could risk hits without harm (BB's) and still stay in combat range, then that attack doctrine fails. With satillite guided smart munitions, in theory a battleship could sit 400 -500 miles east of Tiawon and sink an attacking fleet. or imagine several BB's cruising the length of the persian gulf taking out the entire Iranian nuke program. One of the problems of modern ships is they are frankly vulnerable to attack and damage. The Iowas were built for a different standard and there currently is nothing in the world short of nukes that would destroy them. The weapons of today won't and that was a source of real heartburn for the Russians in the 80's. One of the issues always cited with the iowas is also the heavy crew compliment. Mostly that is because the ship is 1940's technology with no automation. Power plants today use 10% of manpower they used in the 40's because of automation. There is no reason the compliment of an Iowa could not be cut down to less than 500-600 men by modernizing the ships with proven technology from the last 20 years. Replacing their WW2 5" guns with modern weapons, some automation in the 16" gun turrets, automate the boilers, turbines, and other engine spaces, and modern electronics would yield the manpower savings. It might be possible to reduce it further, but I am not sure. There is also the assumption that we could not build a battleship today. The battleship guns and armor were forged by Bethlehem Steel in the Bethlehem plant. The company is gone and most of the steel mill, but the forge shops are still active as Lehigh Valley Heavy Forge (been there a number of times). The 12,000 ton forge is still pumping out turbine shafts etc. True the Washington shipyard facilities that built up the gun barrels are gone, but that is easily replaced, consisting primarily of hot and cold soak units. That is not an issue. Indeed, one of the more interesting questions would be what size barrel would you actually want to use today. After all, there is nothing that says it would not be practical to build an 18" or 20" barrel. Bigger than that would be too difficult to handle, but it bears looking into. Running some quick calculations, I would guess a a 20' gun could throw a 12 -14" sabot 200 miles. I don't think it would be out of the question to toss a 1000 pound shell 1200 miles with a rocket booster. That seems incredible, but remember the paris gun of WW1 took advantage of the near space atmosphic conditions to hit huge ranges. The Iowas had a sustained firing rate of 2 or 3 rounds per 2 minutes, one of the limiting factors being the heating of the gun barrels. If you assume a practical limit of 1 per minute, that is still 720 rounds in an hour for the ship. A single ship could intheory drop its entire 15,000 ton load in less than 24 hours, rain or shine. The DDX guns can fire a lot faster, but their shells are small and could never inflict the same damage with their whole bunker load compared to a few accurate 16" or 20" shells. If you were to build a ship, you would probably want to start with the basic Nimitz hull used in the carriers today. combat load 100,000 tons standard load 80,000 tons ammunition load 15,000 tons (guess about 300-400 rounds per gun barrel) speed 32 knots radius of operation 10,000 miles with a conventional plant. Steel hull similar to the Iowas. HS steel coupled with armor belts. A lot cheaper than any exotics and properly designed just as effective. Aegis radar systems 12 guns 75 caliber, 3 per turret 12 155mm guns identical to the DDX system Close in gun systems phalanx close in anti-missle pods cruise missle tubes (30) anti-ship missles anti-submarine missles anti-torpedo systems submerged torpedo tubes 4 to 6 helocopters crew would be around 600 men, give or take. automation would eliminate a lot of men which in turn eliminates a lot of support staff (cooks, etc). plus you should have plenty of room for an admiral or two plus staff.