Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

battleship question

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

  • battleship question

    If u.s navy was worried about the range on the guns for the ships then why havent they just introduced a gun/missle system or a rocket assisted system? we could keep our battleships in use that way. or is it because of the cost?

  • #2
    I'm sure one of the naval experts on this forum could answer this better than I can, but I think part of the reason is simply the age of the existing battleship hulls; none of them are less than 65 years old now, and are becoming quite maintenance intensive. Ask tbmfan how much work is required just to keep the Hornet going, and it's not even an active ship! Also, if you've read your history, you'd know that they've already installed a "gun/missile system" on the BB's in the form of the Tomahawk missile system back in the '80's. Some of the first strikes on Iran back in ODS were the 28 Tomahawk missiles launched from the USS Missouri in 1991. So, the capability is there, but the costs of maintaining such old hulls have become prohibitive.
    Last edited by Stitch; 22 Feb 11,, 21:35. Reason: sp
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by wellman View Post
      If u.s navy was worried about the range on the guns for the ships then why haven't they just introduced a gun/missile system or a rocket assisted system? we could keep our battleships in use that way. or is it because of the cost?
      The battleship as it was in history is gone, replaced by missiles and aircraft, cost was a big factor, and modern systems and requirements changed too. The last battleships were built in WWII, started about 70 years ago, and designed before that - those vintage ships aren't up to current standards and wouldn't be cost effective to upgrade. The USN's current plans for guns are the 155mm AGS, in very limited numbers on the Zumwalt class, and 5" conventional naval guns on destroyers. Down the road will come rail guns. Guns offer economy- relative to missiles, sustained fire, and larger ammunition capacity. Once a gun projectile is developed into a guided missile, it looses most of the economy and becomes less attractive - we are seeing that happen with AGS - now reduced to six tubes on three ships.

      here is a detailed explaination
      http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/bat...tml#post779877
      Last edited by USSWisconsin; 22 Feb 11,, 06:01. Reason: added link
      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

      Comment


      • #4
        Rocket Assisted Projectiles (RAP) have been around for some time. Their first tactical use was during the Viet Nam War where 5"/38 guns were tested with RAP's. The maximum range of a "normal" 5-incher was about 12 miles. The RAP could go 18 miles. But spread was very large and it would take quite a number of rounds to finally hit the target.

        The rocket system did not ignite until the round was almost at apogee (high point of its hyperbolic arc). Then it would kick the round out further. They also tested special rounds (I forget the name of the system) that had a hollow chamber in the base and a small hole in the center. Propellent gases would fill the chamber at a high pressure and when the round left the muzzle the compressed gasses would jet out of the hole increasing the velocity thus increasing the range.

        Oh! Correction to an earlier post. The Missouri fired 31 of her 32 Tomahawk missiles. One of them was a hang fire on one of the aft (portside) launchers. Wisky fired all 32 of hers. I followed those firing reports very closely as I was scheduled to meet with General Dynamics on another missile system they were developing. The launcher was to be right by the uptake stack of the ship and I mentioned the weight problem we would have installing heat ablative panels around the stack in case of a hangfire. They chuckled and said that "Our missiles don't hangfire".

        I replied, "Well, yesterday we just got a report that one of your Tomahawks hangfired on the Missouri. Don't forget Murphy's first law. 'If anything could possibly go wrong, it will'".

        Thank goodness both NAVSEA and LBNSY had the foresight and ability to design and install ablative panels behind the launchers or there would have been a nasty hole in 03 level with a lot of scorched out compartments below decks. The exhaust of a Tomahawk booster is 6,000 degrees Kelvin and 18 to 20% Hydrochloric Acid.

        There were also experimental 5"/54 rounds that actually were rockets. With all parts put together, it looked like a standard projectile mounted in its propellent case. They are loaded as an all-up-round from the magazine and automatically loaded into the gun just as the regular rounds are (no human beings in the gun mount - all robotic).

        But instead of a BANG, you got a WHOOSH and the rocket could be guided by some poor grunt hunking down in the rocks and bushes pointing a laser at the target. But GPS guidance was also considered but at that time was not perfect enough yet to be trustworthy.

        Today's technology may have by-passed my archaic years of working with these systems, but it is nothing new. Only improved so nothing can go wrong -- can go wrong -- can go wrong -- can go wrong.
        Last edited by RustyBattleship; 22 Feb 11,, 08:15.
        Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

        Comment


        • #5
          The rocket system did not ignite until the round was almost at apogee (high point of its hyperbolic arc). Then it would kick the round out further. They also tested special rounds (I forget the name of the system) that had a hollow chamber in the base and a small hole in the center. Propellant gases would fill the chamber at a high pressure and when the round left the muzzle the compressed gasses would jet out of the hole increasing the velocity thus increasing the range.
          Rusty are you referring to the base bleed projectile? I believe the purpose of the exhaust was to reduce drag, by stopping a wake from forming in the air near the projectile. As I understood that design, the decreased in drag extended the range more than the increase in velocity from the small amount of thrust. Perhaps one of our Artillery experts could explain better or more accurately?
          Last edited by USSWisconsin; 04 Mar 11,, 04:19.
          sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
          If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
            Rusty are you referring to the base bleed projectile? I believe the purpose of the exhaust was to reduce drag, by stopping a wake from forming in the air near the projectile. As I understood that design, the decreased in drag extended the range more than the increase in velocity from the small amount of thrust. Perhaps one of our Artillery experts could explain better or more accurately?
            Well, Base Bleed was the term I was looking for. But I think the design was dropped after a few years of testing because whether it filled in the near vacuum cavity behind the base or acted like a rocket didn't really give it much greater range. The space taken up by the Base Bleed chamber served a better purpose by being filled with HE.

            But you are right. We should have one of our Artillery experts come in on this one. Especially one who was involved in the design or testing of Base Bleed Projectiles.
            Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
              Once a gun projectile is developed into a guided missile, it looses most of the economy...
              Between unassisted and rocket assisted there is also the assistance of a traveling charge (link, link, link, link).
              .
              .
              .

              Comment


              • #8
                the Navy was working on the ERGM, Extended Range Guided Munition for the current DDG's and GG's in production and already in the fleet.. they had a maximum range of 63 nautical miles, and were loaded as a 2 piece setup, the gun cradle would first hoist the shell into place, then load the powder behind it. Problems with it (that I've heard) are it caused so much recoil that they couldn't get a reliable gun mount so it was cannexed.. BUT not before the Navy had already designed the mount and installed it on DDG's starting with I think DDG 79, the Oscar Austin.. it's 5'63 caliber vice the 5'54 caliber on the earlier DDG's and CG's.. also the same gun is being retro fitted in the CG's as they undergo their cruiser conversion upgrade.

                Comment

                Working...
                X