Big Battleship Doctrine

[Bill]

It's politics man, you know that even better than me given your higher ascension of the ranks.

We've many, many times in our history pursued the wrong weapons at the wrong times...so even if the BBs were a viable alternative, the politics alone would prevent us pursuing them.

That's the reality of the situation.

[Bill]

In WWII we all know of the famous incident where halsey abandoned the carriers and went in pursuit of the Japanese Battleships.

In so doing, he left our jeep carrier task force naked, and they had to withdrawal, leaving our marines ashore unsupplied and unsupported.

If carriers are so much better....why did an entire task force of jeep carriers run for their lives from the Japanese BB TF bearing down on them?

And why were US BBs assigned to protect them to begin with?

What WWII did was remove the BB from the centerpiece of the fleet, but even in late 44 as events clearly showed the BBs big guns were still a lethally dangerous weapons system, able to overmatch even carrier TFs under the proper circumstances.

Is the carrier the rightful centerpiece of the fleet? Yes(though a submariner would no doubt disagree).

Does that make battleships and their big guns useless and obsolete? Not IMO it doesn't.

Sure, judged with circa 1940's munitions and barrels they're of limited utility. But with modern munitions and guns....they'd be anything but.(and you have rightfully and honestly conceded that point in the past on the other thread where we first tasted each others blood, lol)

Just using straight up AGS/ERGM developed technologies the BB with modern 16" barrels would be the second most dominant surface combatant afloat, behind only the mighty US Supercarriers.

It's an issue of money and politics. Just like everything else in Washington.

[TopHatter]

In WWII we all know of the famous incident where halsey abandoned the carriers and went in pursuit of the Japanese Battleships.

In so doing, he left our jeep carrier task force naked, and they had to withdrawal, leaving our marines ashore unsupplied and unsupported.

If carriers are so much better....why did an entire task force of jeep carriers run for their lives from the Japanese BB TF bearing down on them?

And why were US BBs assigned to protect them to begin with?

I was just thinking of the urgent radio messages sent out by Sprague and Kinkaid:
All they were screaming for was "fast battleships" and "[battleship commander VADM Willis] Lee".

[Defcon 6]

"Fast battleships! We need fast battleships! we can't get the big irons off our trail!"

Did it sound something like that? lol.

[Bill]

"I was just thinking of the urgent radio messages sent out by Sprague and Kinkaid:
All they were screaming for was "fast battleships" and "[battleship commander VADM Willis] Lee"."

Apparently no one bothered to tell them the fast BB's were obsolete or that their big Mk7 16"/50 guns and massive armored protection were useless.

[TopHatter]

"I was just thinking of the urgent radio messages sent out by Sprague and Kinkaid:
All they were screaming for was "fast battleships" and "[battleship commander VADM Willis] Lee"."

Apparently no one bothered to tell them the fast BB's were obsolete or that their big Mk7 16"/50 guns and massive armored protection were useless.

For fleet defence, air and surface, they were incomperable...especially if the nearest big carriers were off chasing a decoy.

[Gun Grape]

"I was just thinking of the urgent radio messages sent out by Sprague and Kinkaid:
All they were screaming for was "fast battleships" and "[battleship commander VADM Willis] Lee"."

Apparently no one bothered to tell them the fast BB's were obsolete or that their big Mk7 16"/50 guns and massive armored protection were useless.

As we have previously discussed, BBs are the best platforms to fight BBs. Once the enemy no longer has BBs then that element of their usefullness goes away. The only Japanese BB that was sunk by gunfire that included a US BB was the Yamashiro (Going off memory, correct me if I'm wrong) And she was first disabled by DDs. Sunk by BBs and CAs

So what were they REALLY" good for? The Navy stated that the 8" gun cruisers were the most accurate and best shore bombardment weapons of the war. They were great AA ships but the government realized that the material and manpower resources that it takes to build a BB could be better spent. And they realized that in 1942.

In the whole time that BBs were around you can point to 1 time that they were needed and wern't there. Their not being there was actually a good thing for the Marine Corps. Because of the airsupport being pulled, the Marines were able to justify their own air wings and the control of them.

[Defcon 6]

As we have previously discussed, BBs are the best platforms to fight BBs. Once the enemy no longer has BBs then that element of their usefullness goes away. The only Japanese BB that was sunk by gunfire that included a US BB was the Yamashiro (Going off memory, correct me if I'm wrong) And she was first disabled by DDs. Sunk by BBs and CAs

So what were they REALLY" good for? The Navy stated that the 8" gun cruisers were the most accurate and best shore bombardment weapons of the war. They were great AA ships but the government realized that the material and manpower resources that it takes to build a BB could be better spent. And they realized that in 1942.

In the whole time that BBs were around you can point to 1 time that they were needed and wern't there. Their not being there was actually a good thing for the Marine Corps. Because of the airsupport being pulled, the Marines were able to justify their own air wings and the control of them.

The 8" cruisers didn't use guided munitions. Nothing on the ocean today could withstand a modern advanced battleship. my version has x8 the offensive power of a DD(X) and can withstand much more damage. Nothing could compare today.

The supercarrier has it's place, but like a carrier my version of an advanced battleship is also a force multiplier. It can defend and attack equally. Money is just that, money. Air power is a pointless factoid. In contested airspace air power won't be an option.

[Gun Grape]

Since the introduction of smokeless ammunition powders and the high muzzle velocities which they made possible, there has been a constant search for improved ballistic performance for both civilian and military purposes. However, these searches have had different objectives which have led to different outcomes.


It is probable that conventional chemistry has pushed muzzle velocities about as far as they can go; the rate of expansion of propellant gasses places a practical ceiling on muzzle velocity of around 6,000 fps. The military are now examining other technologies such as electromagnetic rail guns, which have on test fired 300 gm projectiles at over 13,000 fps, with projectiles of a few grams being accelerated to over 30,000 fps. At the moment, the massive power supplies needed to achieve these results preclude any practical application, but there can be little doubt as to where the future lies.

You really should post the author and source if you paste something.

Good article but how does it apply to our discussion? The question was what do you know about propellants and why no one has gotten Liquids to work.

Comon knowledge that in long range applications, the baseline/avg for US rifled weapons are in the low 800 MPS area for MV. Good stability, acceptable wear on tubes and all the other things we like. Problems with the guidance thing being the G-load. We have been bypassing that sticky point by using rocket assist. Almost got electronics to work on 5" and 155. I think that they will become dependable throughout the propellant range within a few years.

The other problem being shock resistance for the payload and the explosives used.

Why we havn't got LP to work. How modern big bore propellants work

Best "Barney style" answer I've ever seen was from John S. Canning a
Combat Systems Engineer at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA. Wish I had seen this when I was a Blockhouse Guy! Anyway here goes:

Normal gun propellants for large bore guns are produced in propellant grains. These grains are fairly good size, measuring about half an inch in diameter and about an inch or so in length.

Consider a solid propellant grain and the way it burns. Make the assumption that any particular grain will begin to burn everywhere on its exterior surface simultaneously. Overall burn rate is a function of the particular propellant, breech pressure, and the exposed surface area that is burning. As the propellant begins to burn, the pressure behind the projectile continues to rise until the projectile begins to move. When the projectile begins to move, the volume in the breech increases.

When the volume increases, the pressure in the breech tends to rise slower. the point is that projectile motion
will adversely affect breech pressure because breech volume keeps
increasing. This, in turn, causes a drop in burn rate, or at
least adversely affects the acceleration of burn rate.

At the same time as this is going on, the surface area of
the propellant grain is also decreasing because it is being burned away, exposing more propellant, which also burns away, making it even smaller, ... ad infinauseum. The net result is that propellant gas is generated at much slower rates than you'd like and the projectile doesn't come out as fast as you'd like.
What you really want to have happen is to have the pressure behind the
projectile rise as continuously and as smoothly as it can.

One way to help do this is to use what is called a
perforated propellant grain. These things look like strange
hamburger helper noodles. Instead of a single hole, or
"perforation", through the center, they have a bunch. Seven- and
nine-perf propellants have been used. The idea here is that when
they begin to burn all over, "all over" includes the insides of
the perforations too. So, while the outside burning surface is
getting smaller, the inside burning surface is getting bigger. If
the propellant type, grain design, gun, and projectile are all
properly matched you get a smoothly rising pressure as the
projectile moves down the barrel, but not for the entire length
of the barrel

Now, consider the size and shape of pistol/rifle powder.
What do you think would happen if you were to use it as the
propellant for a large bore gun? It has a LARGE total initial
area to set on fire. The initial burn rate would be so high it would cause the pressure to spike behind the projectile before it can move, which would raise the burn rate, which would spike the pressure further, which would.....BANG!!!!

Solid propellants are just that - solid. You can predict what the
surface area exposed to burning is as a function of time with
them. You can't do this as well with liquid propellants because
they slosh around and change their exposed surface shapes and
amounts - even while burning. Also, one of the biggest
variables in gun accuracy at range is muzzle velocity. They will
need a VERY predictable burning rate in order to properly control
muzzle velocity.

What are the advantages of LP? Faster resupply, we can pump it like JP-8
If feed rates and all the other problems can be worked out we would get a smoother travel down the tube. Which means less shock=electronics don't have to be hardened as much=cheaper production. And no waste. No more burning unused incraments.

What I saw with the Crusader program, the few times I got to go to Yuma,. Leaks in the hoses cause fires and explosions. The pump piston, for a 155/39 cannon was as big as a 16" breachblock. And if the liquid wasn't pumped fast enough they got ignition in the feed hoses and metered storage tank. Boom.

As you try to figure it out Defcon. Remember that the Propellants will have to meet military non-sensitivity standards.

[Gun Grape]

"I'll bet 50-75 years before they are ready for primetime. ie reliable enough for military use."

Oh i'll take that bet for ANY amount you wish to wager.(let's see, 50 years ago in 1955 the F-86 Sabre was state of the art, and 75 years ago in 1930 we were still flying bi-planes).

$10,000 year 2005 USD okay with you Gunny?(more would be much, much better)

I put scramshells at 10 years, and railguns at 20 years. I figure 15 years for useful tactical lasers(fighter sized units).

Well in 50 years I'll be 92. You will be close. So money won't do us much good. How about a roadtrip to TJ. Looser buys the beer and "Entertainment"

[Gun Grape]

From my standpoint we'll have scramjet shells when we have scramjet missiles. From the designers point it's not that different. Back in the 60's people would have said building the SR-71 and XB-70 would be an impossible feat, but they were designed and built and perfected.

Well, we have had deployed RamJet missiles since the 50s.(Bomarc and Talos) Havn't seen any RamJet powered shells. Have you? And we will both agree that Ramjet tech would be easier to transfer to gun shells than scramjet tech.


SR-71 (A-12) flew in 1962. It had a Ramjet powered recon drone, D-21. That flew in 66

[Bill]

"Well in 50 years I'll be 92. You will be close. So money won't do us much good. How about a roadtrip to TJ. Looser buys the beer and "Entertainment""

Lol, yer on brother.

Not sure i agree ramjets would be easier to adapt at all to guns.

The beauty of the scramjet is two fold.

1) No moving parts at all
2) the velocity required to start the combustion process is almost entirely delivered by the guns propellant charge(and this is an area where improvements should be seen as more R&D dollars are spent).

I figure 10 years before a militarily useful prototype is ready, and probably 15 years before it's in service.

I figure it will first appear on the 120mm gun of the Abrams, and then branch out to 155mm land based and naval artillery.

Even a 155mm will see an exponential increase in range and probably a 2-4x increase in impact velocity.

Couple it with simple GAINS guidance, and every 155mm gun in the inventory becomes a true long range precision weapons system.

It will take time, and a lot of $, but to me it's the most readily available of the big 3 21st century technologies we're pursuing(rain guns, lasers, scramjets/shells).

I also think Lasers will come on line a good decade before rail guns do. I'm just not at all impressed with the current state/rate of development of rail guns.

[Gun Grape]

.

I figure 10 years before a militarily useful prototype is ready, and probably 15 years before it's in service.

I figure it will first appear on the 120mm gun of the Abrams, and then branch out to 155mm land based and naval artillery.

Half agree, 120 Abrams will be first. The MV is almost fast enough for ScramJet already. Rounds leaving tube at 1650 mps while Mach 5 is around 1655 mps. This will be pretty easy to do.

Next will probably be 5"/62 at 1052 mps. But then the snag come in. 155/39 firing a Super Charge 8 (M203) only hits 827 Have to almost double that for a scramjet.

But it is almost at the range of a RamJet. As are the 5"/54 (808) and 16"/50 (820). And thats using old WW2 propellents for the 16"

[Defcon 6]

As I have already pointed out, the air force has already tested a scram jet shell. You said it yourself. It was the precursor to the 120mm scramshell version.

[Bill]

"Next will probably be 5"/62 at 1052 mps. But then the snag come in. 155/39 firing a Super Charge 8 (M203) only hits 827 Have to almost double that for a scramjet."

What i would pursue to try to get around that is to utilize a RAP booster fitted to the scram shell.

That will still leave us well short of the current requirements for scramjet ignition...but as technology progresses i expect the ignition velocity threshold will be continually lowered by incremental improvements to the inlet system. As venturi technology is improved so will the velocity of the air passing through the venturi.

It will take time though. Remember i'm giving a 10 year time frame for any scramshell to be a viable prototype, and i agree it will be the 120 mike mike first. Everything after that will take more time, so we'll probably see the naval gun systems come next(AGS i believe has a much longer bbl than the 38cal bbls of land based howitzers), followed finally by land based guns. I also expect that serious experimentation with scramjet powered systems of smaller and smaller bore will be pursued.

It really depends on the pace at which lasers progress though.

If lasers see just a few more breakthroughs scramjet direct fire systems could get bypassed almost entirely.

Unfortunately the batteries in my crystal ball died, i shoulda got freakin' energizers.

LOL