Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Replace the Iowas

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Replace the Iowas

    You're a naval architect, and the USN calls on you to design a new, large, fast surface combatant to replace the Iowa class. The missions of this new warship?
    -Fast carrier escort
    -Surface combatant
    -Area air defense
    -Naval fire support platform
    You are put in charge of designing a ship that meets these missions, though how you meet them is entirely up to you. Guns or missiles, armour or stealth, gas turbines or nuclear power, you make the decisions.

    Why am I asking this? Plain old curiosity as to what form a modern battleship would take.

    I'd go with a ship in the 35-45,000 tonne range. Long and slim, and nuclear-powered (with gas turbines for back-up), to hopefully achieve a speed of 30+ knots. Radar would probably be AN/SPY-3, maybe the SAMPSON system designed by the RN. Double-hull design, with extensive compartmentalization for survivability. The ship would incorporate radar signature reduction features, like the elimination of right angles and reduced equipment on deck, giving the ship a very clean superstructure. Cooling systems on the funnels, similar to those on the Type 45s, would reduce the infared signature as well. This might not make the ship stealthy, but it would make it just a bit harder to target. Prairie/masker would be used to reduce the sonar signature as well. Armour would most likely be equivalent to that of the Iowas, as no other surface combatant I can think of can put a dent into that kind of armour today. Armaments? I'd go with a single 16"/50 two gun turret of a new design based on the Mark 7, but enhanced by the improvements of modern technology. Another four 155mm single gun turrets would round out the gun armament. Missiles, however, would be the primary armament, with an extensive peripheral VLS, to give the ship an even greater missile capacity than the Ticonderogas. ASROC would also be used, to give the ship a bit of it's own ASW capability. CIWS would be covered by four Goalkeeper guns mounted on the superstructure, supplemented by four RIM-116 SeaRAM launchers. Aircraft complement would include MH-60R Seahawks and UCAV drones.

    Of course, I'm just an enthusiast. I'm sure all you professionals have far better, more practical ideas. Or don't think the Iowas shouldn't be replaced at all, and that gap in the mission capabilities of the USN is irrelevant given the nature of modern naval warfare.

  • #2
    Already have one, 2 class actually that fulfill those missions. They are called

    Tico Cruisers and Burke Destroyers.

    Why do you want to replace a class that has served little purpose for the last 50 or so years?

    Comment


    • #3
      Two words Korea and Vietnam. Not such little purposes.:))
      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

      Comment


      • #4
        Let's not start this again

        Please? :(
        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't get the fascination over trying to bring the battleship back. What capability does it bring that's not available otherwise on the modern battlefield? Given the cost it would take to construct, what strategic impact would it have? If it would only provide a tactical effect, then is the bang worth the buck?
          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
            Let's not start this again

            Please? :(

            Don't worry. Not going there.

            Comment


            • #7
              Anyone who knows who I am knows that I have done this two times over on this forum. Feel free to dig through my posts to find the images I have posted. I think the most flexible platform that I posted here, by far, is the heavy gun cruiser concept that I posted.

              Edit: I'll save you the trouble.
              Attached Files
              Last edited by maximusslade; 19 Dec 09,, 06:46.
              Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...

              Comment


              • #8
                Build a few more Ohio class and arm them to the teeth with Tomahawks like we've already done with 4 of the Ohio's. As far as surface combatants what do we really need? Just anti missile and anti aircraft platforms. If we need to bombard a shoreline (we never will again) then just use the converted Ohio's and bombers.

                Really, we don't need anything beyond what we already have. Our Navy is the largest, most powerful, and most advanced in the world as it is, someone would have to be pretty stupid to challenge it.
                "If a man does his best, what else is there?"
                -General George Patton Jr.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Michigan_Guy View Post
                  Build a few more Ohio class and arm them to the teeth with Tomahawks like we've already done with 4 of the Ohio's. As far as surface combatants what do we really need? Just anti missile and anti aircraft platforms. If we need to bombard a shoreline (we never will again) then just use the converted Ohio's and bombers.

                  Really, we don't need anything beyond what we already have. Our Navy is the largest, most powerful, and most advanced in the world as it is, someone would have to be pretty stupid to challenge it.
                  Agreed. Though I wonder what happens to our navy in the next 25 years. Hopefully our fleet won't shrink too much and the Chinese don't develop delusions of grandeur...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Shek View Post
                    I don't get the fascination over trying to bring the battleship back. What capability does it bring that's not available otherwise on the modern battlefield? Given the cost it would take to construct, what strategic impact would it have? If it would only provide a tactical effect, then is the bang worth the buck?
                    It's nostalgia and a yearning for a time when warships looked like warships and were in-your-face about it....AND could actually take damage instead of laying dead in the water after a single AShM hit.

                    I feel the same way frankly, but I'm also a realist: There's no need for battleships or battleship-like warships in this day and age. Among (many) other things, isn't simply not fiscally viable. So, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers!"
                    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I thought about this a few time before. I have always thought battleships were some of the most BAD A** pieces of military equipment ever built and it would be awesome to still have a few roaming the world oceans and "hot spots".

                      But the reality is; as a few have already stated there are no real tactical or strategic advantage to having a battleship in today’s military. Battleships historically provided three distinct functions 1) to attack shore positions and "soften-up" beaches for an amphibious assault. 2) Ship to ship naval surface warfare, and 3) Naval "Show-of-Force".

                      When was the last time we performed a true combat amphibious assault on a beach? If surface targets need to be hit via combat ships, the Tomahawk cruise missile is the weapon of choice, usually fired from cruisers, destroyers or submarines. The last ship-to-ship engagement? With advanced submarines, torpedoes, and Harpoon ASM's this will more than likely never happen again. And finally Naval "Show-of-Force", which would strike more fear; a single ship with a limited engagement range of -100 miles or a nuclear powered aircraft carrier with 80+ combat aircraft and its carrier battle group armed with Tomahawks that are able to engage multiple targets within several thousand miles of its position?

                      Just my thoughts,
                      Randy

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Planes, Trains and Iowa Class Battlewagons

                        Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                        It's nostalgia and a yearning for a time when warships looked like warships and were in-your-face about it....AND could actually take damage instead of laying dead in the water after a single AShM hit.

                        I feel the same way frankly, but I'm also a realist: There's no need for battleships or battleship-like warships in this day and age. Among (many) other things, isn't simply not fiscally viable. So, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers!"
                        ;)


                        UP " Big Boys", Radial Piston Engine driven aeroplanes and last but not least Iowa Class Battlewagons.

                        That last sentence of top Hatter is the kicker.

                        No more, no less be said.
                        Last edited by connaye; 20 Dec 09,, 05:50.
                        " Lite all burners, make all steam! "

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Starlifter99 View Post
                          When was the last time we performed a true combat amphibious assault on a beach?
                          2003, Al Faw Peninsula, firesupport provided by RN and RAN frigates.

                          If surface targets need to be hit via combat ships, the Tomahawk cruise missile is the weapon of choice, usually fired from cruisers, destroyers or submarines.
                          Shells are cheaper and give quicker reaction if in range, however modern 4.5", 5" and 6"/155mm shells outrange or match the range of WW2 14/15/16" shells now with greater accuracy.

                          The last ship-to-ship engagement? With advanced submarines, torpedoes, and Harpoon ASM's this will more than likely never happen again.
                          Not USN, but in 2008 the Russian black sea fleet annihilated the Georgian navy at sea. Other then that, RoK Vs DPRK in 2009, 2002 etc. RN versus Iraqi Navy in 1991...

                          And finally Naval "Show-of-Force", which would strike more fear; a single ship with a limited engagement range of -100 miles or a nuclear powered aircraft carrier with 80+ combat aircraft and its carrier battle group armed with Tomahawks that are able to engage multiple targets within several thousand miles of its position?

                          Just my thoughts,
                          Randy
                          Which ever one is "seen". A frigate or destroyer is enough of a show of force as long as it is hammered in that if anything happens, the next thing to show up will be a carrier battlegroup or similar (aka. 18th/19th century gunboat diplomacy).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Regarding the "show of force" aspect of BB's vs. other ships, I'd say a BB is FAR impressive to the average citizen, especially of foreign countries.

                            That right there is a good enough reason for me to bring a couple back. Look up the pics from when Mighty Mo visited Sydney, Australia....shorelines are jammed. People love these ships.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Maximuscle - my latest - Bringing back the British Battle Cruiser.

                              Last edited by Stan; 20 Dec 09,, 20:30.
                              Naval Warfare Discussion is dying on WAB

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X