Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 17181920212223242526
Results 376 to 381 of 381

Thread: My ideas for a futuristic BB

  1. #376
    Regular
    Join Date
    16 Jun 07
    Location
    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    128
    The quality may not be as good as those pieces, but I do have a friend who does 3D modeling on naval vessels. He's an amateur, but fairly good at what he does, and would probably do it for free. I could speak to him about this if you're interested.

  2. #377
    Military Professional maximusslade's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 08
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    800
    sure, i would appreciate it
    Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...

  3. #378
    New Member
    Join Date
    02 Mar 09
    Posts
    3
    Ohh i like the montana!

    I am currently in college to become a Naval Architect. i have been dreaming of becoming one for many years.

    I have been drawing up designs for future Cruisers and destryoers to rival the new zumwalt, and cruiser classes. One of my main goals when i get my degree is to bring back the Battleships. So I have started my own version of the Montana (BB-72) When I have finished these designs I will post them.

  4. #379
    Patron
    Join Date
    29 Mar 08
    Posts
    191
    Evening Gentleman

    I have just finished reading through the pages of this topic.
    I must say you are all a wealth of information!

    Gents what I know about designing and building a ship you can fit on DocHayes $0.20-cents

    For a long time I have been a big fan and advocate of naval fire support!
    As an Infantryman / Assault Pioneer, the largest caliber I have seen (during training – not combat!) NGFS has been of the 127mm (5’) type – which although visually impressive, lacked destructive power that I envisage and would want!
    Unfortunately naval gun fire support is an art form that tends to come and go in the West, predominantly (I personally assume!) due o our heavy over reliance and faith in advanced technologies (not to much difference in Western Armies coming and going faith in mortars really!!)
    A long time ago, but I can not remember where, I recall reading about one of the bridges in North Vietnam, that the USAF (and I think the USN?) sent mission after mission of strike aircraft against at perilous risk and danger of aircraft and more importantly their crews, when it was stated it was well known that the USN’s 16in gun battleships could have downed that bridge very quickly, cheaper! (has anyone else heard this story?)

    Maximusslade I love your designs – well done and my hats off to you.

    I really like the purposeful look of your original ‘Battlecruiser, ‘USS Constitution’

    I am also impressed that you went for a raised hanger (above deck) arrangement, as I have just been reading about the problem the USN experienced with the below-deck hanger arrangement of the its Virginia Class CGN’s

    If I may gents, I would like to voice my thoughts on a modern purpose-built Battlecruise/Heavy criuser.
    Nor is it critacisam of your great work either Maximusslade!

    My views-
    Sorry if I ramble on……………………………….


    I think for budgetary and operational reasons – not to mention the support of Congress (especially after the ridicules and expensive debacle of the Zumwalt-class destroyer project, which is going to leave a very long and lasting bad taist in Congress mouth), I think the modern Battlecruiser / Heavy cruiser design will have to have and show some multi-role flexibility.
    Even the incorporation of the design to facilitate a primary role of Littoral War Fighting, would give this proposed Battlecruiser / Heavy Cruiser a greater chance of acceptance within the USN’s Order of Battle and the gaining of support of Congress.

    The design will need to be as practically sized as possible – size and displacement being a great factor in the designs price and the size and output of its machinery!

    The design will have to be designed with the greatest consideration of automation, so as to minimize the crew size.

    I have always been an advocate of self contained, multi-role platforms that are an effective jack of all trades and master of none.
    As much as I will cop flak for it……………….I believe that way to much money is spent by the USN on specialized classes of ships, so as to escort the likes of modern aircraft carriers (and in this case potentially our future Battlecruiser!)
    Add to this the cost and logistics of crews needed for these escorts (especially when the cost and difficulty of recruiting and retention is considered)
    Do not get me wrong – I am not advocating that this future Battlecruiser should have every conceivable weapons system and sensor fit hanging off her, for I know this is not practical or functional.
    But what I am supportive of is that the likes of our future Battlecruiser should be fitted with its own Aegis combat system and the AN/SPY-1 radar systems, after all with the compactness and simplicity of the likes of the Mk41 VLS, coupled to the size of this design, these ships could and should contribute more to its own active defence in AAW and ant-ship warfare.
    While its smaller number of needed escorts could assist and expand the AAW and anti-ship radius and specialize in more in the likes of flexable ASW protection.

    I both like and support the idea of two twin 280mm (11 in) turret arrangement, as being the prime naval fire support weapons.
    The reason for the two twins is that I have a great belief in the importance of operational and functional redundency – especially so when Im the Digger waiting on that naval gun fire support (I personaly know that in the Royal Australian Navy – the double ended arrangement of its now long retired Charles. F. Adams Class DDG’s are missed greatly – prodomanently because of this redundancy factor!)
    The reason I have support this semi large calibre is due to the fact that with modern metal and forging technology, coupled with precision guidence technology, the likes of the giant and powerful 406mm (16 in) guns are way over kill, overly heavy and space consuming.
    I still think that the likes of the 155mm (6.10 in) gun is still to small and light, when you have the luxury of building a purpose-built ship of this class and size.
    No I like the idea of 280mm gun for the reason of its range potential over that of 5’, 6’, 8’ guns, as well as its flexability in its round-size capability to carry an effective destructive payload, guidence package’s and its ability to be more easly adapted to be used as a delivey system for the interdiction of area targets behind the front line.
    For a long time I have been very concerned with the United States Military (and my country – Australia!) focusing to much on COIN/Peacekeeping ways of war fighting, and I often think that due mostly for political reasons, that they have and are compromising its conventional warfare fighting capability.
    With modern military technology, metal and composite material technology and research, I would invisage these 280mm (11 in) guns would utilise and incorporate the R&D used in the Zumwalt-class destroyers Advanced Gun System (AGS).
    It would have a fully automated storage and loading system, meaning that it would have a high rate of fire.
    The 280mm guns would be water-cooled to incease rate of fire and prolong barrel life.

    As the design will not be expected to go head-to-head with an equivilant gun armend ship, the traditional heavy, thick and expensive armour of the Battlecruiser / Heavy Cruiser will not be a burden to its design – although saying this, and its closer proxsimity to hostile shores, so as to give naval gunfire support and interdiction, I would like to see some greater effort of armour and composite materials (ceramics and cabon fibre) protection to the design vital areas, due to its some-what greater exposure to harms way!

    One weapon I would like to see aboard such a purpose-built ship, that nobody seems to have mentioned, and which seems to have been forgoten and no longer apriciated by Western navy’s is that of the reasnably cheap, simple and effective (and moral shattering) multiple launch rocket.
    I have spoken to WWII and Korean War vetrans who swear by its effectiveness and phyicological power against an enemy during an assault landings!

    The system I envisage is a naval variant of the U.S Army’s M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System.
    Just imagin the fire power two of these systems aboard the Maximusslade’s ‘Battlecruiser, ‘USS Constitution’ would have and contribute!
    This system is capable of firing guided and unguided projectiles to a distance of up to 42 km (26.1 miles). Firing ballistic missiles, (such as the U.S. Army Tactical Missile System—ATACMS) it is capable of reaching out to 300 km (186 miles) with the warhead reaching a maximal altitude of ~50 km (164,000 ft).
    It would naturaly need to be located somewhere it is not going to fry everything – maybe needing retractable and water cooled blast shields
    As well as be located so that it can be reloaded easly and safely – saying this the manual army way of reloading is some whatcumbersome, and yet I would say exceptable (my only hope and dread is that the Navy would keep to ‘keep it simple stupid’!!!!
    Imagine this type of fire power being brought to bare on an area target – i.e beachhead.
    Not to mention the interdiction and deep strike capability of the likes of the U.S. Army Tactical Missile System—ATACMS – with its capability of reaching out to 300 km (186 miles) with the warhead reaching a maximal altitude of ~50 km (164,000 ft).

    I would like to see a strong combination of RAM and Goalkeeper CIWS’s (again I think to much faith is put into missile technology! I like the idea and principle of rockets roaring and bullets flying in combination and layer.)

    As for secondary gun armament I would go for the likes of four single 76mm (3in) OTO Melara 76 mm/62 cal Or four single 127mm (5in) Mk45/54 cal DP lightweight mount.

    I would think it not to difficult to develop a VL variant of the venrable Harpoon SSM, to allow compatability with the likes of the Mk41 VLS, if the USN so-deemed it a requirement – although saying this I think the Harpoon is long overdue for a more advanced and capable replacement!
    But saying all this I find no problem with using the simple and effective fixed Mk-140 quad launchers – after all this will leave more cells free for ESSM, SM-2 Standard and Tomahawks and hopefully one day a revived RUM-125 ‘Sea Lance’.

    I agree with the incorporation of a sonar system to be incorporated into the design!

    I would like to see the incorporation of a minimal of two multi-role meduim helicopters into the design – these being used primararly for ASW and over-th-horizan targeting.
    This same capable helicopter hanger, maintanance and repair facilities, should also incorporate system to support, maintain and operate the likes of Bell 918 ‘Eagle Eye’ VTOL RPV, allowing target spotting and target illumination of target at a stand- off distance with accuracy and safety.

    As for Mk41 VLS vs. Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS)? I am somewhat a fan of the Mk41 system and the simplity and fire rate that it offers. Where as the Peripheral Vertical Launch System is somewhat new to me.
    Thanks to forum members explaining the advantages (especially the minimizing the battle damage advantage of this arrangement!) I guess for this good and sensable reason and to maximise battle damage, I would be inclind to support PVLS.
    Well thanks again gents for a great topic, which has allowed me to vent a long loved topic

    P.S. Maximusslade if not to much of an ask could I ask that you give a crack at incorporating a couple of M270 MLRS launchers into your design?

    Come to think about itt I would guess the stern would be the best location for rocket plume on launch reasons

    Regards Pioneer
    Attached Images Attached Images    

  5. #380
    Military Professional maximusslade's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 08
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    800
    P.S. Maximusslade if not to much of an ask could I ask that you give a crack at incorporating a couple of M270 MLRS launchers into your design?
    Space and weight being a premium on warships, I would think that a better solution would be to do exactly as they did back in WWII. That is, to build simple, seaworthy platforms (i think they used LSTs back then) on which to mount the M270s. I would envision a 2,000ton corvette or frigate sized ship with 2 M270 lauchers with the ability to reload and an additional 1 or 2 57mm or 76mm gun. No real need for any sophisticated radars or comms, just your basic naviational arrays and radio room. Something like this could be shallow draft for close in work. One could also build a varient armed with 2 AGS or some plain old 5 inchers. Trade off is that to keep numbers up and cost down, they will have to forego comples missile systems. I imagine one could fix the quad harpoon launchers if need be, but not much beyond that. The ships would have to rely upon more complex radar stuff from other ships in the fleet, but I see that as OK since these ships would probably never operate alone. These would be purpose built ships for specific situations.
    Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...

  6. #381
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,721
    Quote Originally Posted by maximusslade View Post
    Space and weight being a premium on warships, I would think that a better solution would be to do exactly as they did back in WWII. That is, to build simple, seaworthy platforms (i think they used LSTs back then) on which to mount the M270s. I would envision a 2,000ton corvette or frigate sized ship with 2 M270 lauchers with the ability to reload and an additional 1 or 2 57mm or 76mm gun. No real need for any sophisticated radars or comms, just your basic naviational arrays and radio room. Something like this could be shallow draft for close in work. One could also build a varient armed with 2 AGS or some plain old 5 inchers. Trade off is that to keep numbers up and cost down, they will have to forego comples missile systems. I imagine one could fix the quad harpoon launchers if need be, but not much beyond that. The ships would have to rely upon more complex radar stuff from other ships in the fleet, but I see that as OK since these ships would probably never operate alone. These would be purpose built ships for specific situations.
    Max, If you ever read the reports of the KM Prince Eugan after WWII when she left Philadelphia Naval Yard bound for the Bikinni tests you would be laughing at what you posted above. She literally had an olive drab US Army van aboard loaded with portable radar equipment that was substituting for her real radars since certain features had been removed before her sailing. I'll see if I can find the link.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=Q5I...lphia#PPA64,M1

    Pg.64 shows a picture of the van located on her bridge structure.

    You can also see in the background one of her main battery guns being removed via sling and hoist for inspection.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 28 May 09, at 18:35.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Chinese Military’s Strategic Mind-set
    By xinhui in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 117
    Last Post: 02 Dec 10,, 02:56
  2. India may test futuristic jets by 2015
    By Yusuf in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 21 Aug 08,, 15:25
  3. Obama tested ideas in classroom
    By tim52 in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 30 Jul 08,, 19:16

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •