Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnut
I like it. It's closer to my concept of an NGFS ship.
If you had a chance to go through all the other threads on battleship/NGFS you'd find that I proposed a much more simplified form of your cruiser for the duty.
She's more like a type of armored cruiser. Very basic to cut down cost and construction time. There should be enough armor to withstand shells of up to 76mm. She would have 2, maybe 3 tubes of 6" or 8" guns in single turrets. She would displace no more than 15,000t. Other than the main guns, she would have up to 4 76mm or 57mm guns. She would have 64 ESSMs quad-packed in 2 8 cell Mk 41 launchers. There will be no AEGIS since she's not built for fleet air defense. There will only be basic hull mounted sonar and Mk. 46 torpedoes for emergency self defense. There will be, however, a decent sized helo hanger and deck space for up to 3 medium helos.
I think a ship like that is entirely adequate for NGFS. She would be of limited use for anything else though. But if we pack all the capabilities we want into her, then we might as well buy more Ticos and Burkes.
Fitz, if you could, please comment on my concept. I know it's probably a ship looking for a mission, but it's always fun...for me.  |
Well, since you asked...
Keeping in mind that I am no expert and nothing I say should necessarily be taken internally, I do have a few (of my usual) thoughts.
First off, what is this ship supposed to do? Before you can have an answer you need to know and understand the question. If you start wit the answer then try to come up with a question that fits your answer after the fact you end up with a big CF that isn't very useful - but probably cool looking and expensive.
Is this a multi-mission surface combattant (cruiser) or is it a fire support ship? It certainly doesn't seem intended to do anything than lob artillery projectiles at land targets so it is no cruiser. If the goal is to build a strictly NSFS ship then you have your work cut out for you because the more useful a ship is, the more likely it is not only to get built but have a long and fruitful service life. All too often the most highly specialized ships end up having the shortest service lives.
In other words, this boat needs to earn its keep on a daily basis.
"...enough armor to withstand shells of up to 76mm."
This puzzles me. Enough armor where exactly? Machinery spaces? Magazines? CIC? Waveguides? Belt? Standard shell plating should actually hold up pretty well against 76mm/62 gunfire at typical combat ranges anyway. To prevent that from even happening though you would want to dispatch the potential threat (presumably a Lurssen/Combattante type FAC) quickly with a semi-active missile like Standard or Sea Sparrow anyway - ala Joshan. Coastal guns of this caliber should NEVER be an issue or your really doing something wrong.
"She would have 2, maybe 3 tubes of 6" or 8" guns in single turrets."
Which one, how many and why? This is not a trivial point. The number of gun mounts is a critical issue. 2 is IMHO a minimum as it protects against a single-point failure knocking out all of your gun power ala Goose Green. Do you need more than 2? That depends on what requirements you are trying to meet.
DDG-1000 has two gun mounts, each designed to meet a requirement to be equivilant to 1 battery of Marine 155mm M198 howitzers. In typical practice one howitzer battery would be used in direct support of one Marine battalion. Two mounts on DDG-1000 provides for the redundancy I mentioned above and allows one ship to support up to two battalion sized forces simultaneously, even if widely spaced, or mass fires on a single target. A third gun perhaps would allow for redundancy while supporting fire against two targets or in support of two separate units and it could allow an option for supporting fire against a third target or massing fire against a second target. The tradeoff is in ship size and cost. How important is this added capability? How likely is it one ship will engage 3 targets simultaneously or support three separate battalion sized combat elements simultaneously? Is there some other capability that could be put in place of the weight and volume of that 3rd gun that would provide a better value?
Which brings up the next point. This is a NSFS ship with no NSFS missiles? Long range strike and interdiction and the attack of high value targets would be a natural part of the NSFS mission that would be outside the scope of gunfire either for range or lethality reasons. A glaring omission IMHO.
And what about that main gun caliber. Again not a decision made lightly. You will find no shortage of people who will insist than anything less than 8-inch/203mm is a useless
pop-gun and yet the Marines are officially quite happy with their 155mm howitzers and somehow manage to get by just fine using nothing larger. They won the Pacific island-hopping campaign using 75mm as the standard direct-support gun caliber and used 105mm up until about 15-20 years ago. All things being equal a 203mm gun will have greater range and greater individual round lethality than a 155mm gun. It will also be larger and heavier and its ammunition will consume a much greater volume and weight for a given number of rounds. History shows us that volume of fire is usually far more important than individual round lethality so that the advantages of a 203mm gun do not necessarily outwiegh the advantages.
A 155mm gun has less individual round lethality but not by any means an order-of-magnutide less. The difference is probably unimportant in the vast majority of possible likely scenario's. Remember what I said earlier about Korea where even with the ready availability of battleships and cruisers with 6-inch, 8-inch and 16-inch guns 95% of the rounds delivered by ships were still of the 5-inch variety. That tells me at least that volume is more important than caliber. Additioanally the 155mm mount will be smaller and lighter which makes for a smaller, less expensive ship OR a ship of the same size with more weight and volume reserve available for other mission equipment, fuel, ammunition, additional guns, etc. The 155mm rounds being smaller and lighter will be easier to handle and more can be carried within a given weight and volume than 203mm rounds - a critical demand for maintaining high-volume fire. There is a big potential cost advantage in going 155mm as well. Currently all investment in advanced payloads for artillery is happening in 155mm - absolutely nothing is happening in 203mm. Thus developments in land artillery munitions can be more readily (cheaply) be adapted into the naval sphere.
"Other than the main guns, she would have up to 4 76mm or 57mm guns."
Why 4 guns? And which one (hint: if this ship is for the USN the 57mm Mk 110 it is). What will they be used for? How will they be controlled?
"She would displace no more than 15,000t
If this ship only does NSFS and nothing else and only has 2, or even 3 gun mounts then you don't need this much ship.
"There will be, however, a decent sized helo hanger and deck space for up to 3 medium helos."
I assume you mean SH60-type aircraft. Why 3? What are they going to be tasked for? Why no UAV's for target acquisition and designation?
And why 64 ESSM? For ship self defense 32 should be way more than adequate.
Some last points not mentioned in your description.
What are you going to use to drive this thing? CODAD? COGAG? CODOG? Some manner of electric drive with diesel and or GT generators?
How fast is it going to be? What sort of endurance? How much ammunition and stores? What about electronics - search radars, ESM, ECM, passive, target acquistion, communications? What is
"a basic sonar'? A mine avoidance set? A small high-frequency hull set? A conformal array?
OK, that's all I got for now, valued at precisely $0.02