Big Battleship Doctrine 2

[B.Smitty]

I know, I know, but it's so fun, and I didn't have a chance to join in last time.

For me it's more like an itch I just have to scratch.

The reason for using so many Mk. 15's is simply because that system is defficient in terms of protection, so I used quantity to make up for it.

The fire control radars from all those CIWS will probably step on each other's toes - especially if firing at the same target.

Also why so many 3" guns? The only things they're useful for are AAA and (minor) anti-shipping. And you're already way beyond overkill in both of those areas.

BTW, you're probably spending third- to a half-billion dollars on the 54 3", 35mm and 20mm turrets alone. (Mk.15s are over $5 mil each, IIRC)

[Defcon 6]

[QUOTE=ArmchairGeneral]Don't really understand why it needs so much more protection than a super carrier. And I still can't see where all those guns will fit. Even without armor, 50k isn't that big of a ship, and that's a crap load of gun turrets.
[qoute/]

Can't see???

It's doesn't at this point have armor, and it has less guns than an Iowa even though it's heavier!

9 x 16"/50 cal (Mk 7) in 3 triple turrets
2 forward 1 aft

20 x 5"/38 cal (Mk 12) in ten twin turrets
5 port 5 starboard

later-

12 x 5"/38 cal (Mk 12) in 6 twin turrets
3 port 3 starboard

4 x 20mm/76 cal Mk 15 Vulcan Phalanx 6-barrelled Gatling
2 port 2 starboard
2 x Mk 32 25mm Bushmaster chain gun were installed during "Earnest Will"
12.7mm HMG's and 40mm grenade launchers were carried during "Earnest Will"

32 x RGM-74 Tomahawks in 8 quad Mk 141 ABL launchers
4 port 4 starboard

I honestly don't understand what you mean. And the 3" and 35mm guns on my design are both completely automated, so they aren't crewed.

RAM and ESSM are not interchangeable by any means. RAM is last ditch anti-missile system, basically a CIWS, only with missiles instead of bullets. ESSM is a short to mid range sam. Very fast reaction time, much faster missile than RIM-7, but nothing like the RAM. You'll notice that the Navy is replacing Phalanx with RAM, and Sea Sparrow with ESSM, on the same ships.

I have the information brochures on the Rolling Airframe Missile system. I'll give it some consideration

I know, I know, but it's so fun, and I didn't have a chance to join in last time.

thanks for commenting. i find this a fun topic too.

[Defcon 6]

For me it's more like an itch I just have to scratch.

then by all means do. i like battleship discussions.

The fire control radars from all those CIWS will probably step on each other's toes - especially if firing at the same target.

yes, that was my main worry too.

I've been considering how it might be dealt with other than reducing number of emplacements. But if it's integrated with the ships main system then AEGIS could operate them independetly I assume, but Mk. 15's usually aren't integrated with AEGIS systems so...it's up in the air.

Also why so many 3" guns? The only things they're useful for are AAA and (minor) anti-shipping. And you're already way beyond overkill in both of those areas.

You know, I'm not sure. What do you think a better number is would be?

The actual reasoning behind it is that if the ship did come under attack, and it survived I would assume that some of the ships weapon and defenses would be rended inoperable just by battle damage alone; thus I would want a higher number of emplacements that would remain operational.

BTW, you're probably spending third- to a half-billion dollars on the 54 3", 35mm and 20mm turrets alone. (Mk.15s are over $5 mil each, IIRC)

Thats certainly a lot of money to spend on only three systems. Do you have any revision ideas?

[B.Smitty]

then by all means do. i like battleship discussions.

As you can probably guess from the earlier instances of this thread, I think battleships are anachronisms.

You know, I'm not sure. What do you think a better number is would be?

For 3" guns my number would be zero. They just don't offer anything that isn't covered by other systems.

The actual reasoning behind it is that if the ship did come under attack, and it survived I would assume that some of the ships weapon and defenses would be rended inoperable just by battle damage alone; thus I would want a higher number of emplacements that would remain operational.

Hmm, IMHO, the gun turrets are the least of your worries. More likely you're sensors and/or battle management suite will be knocked out in a hit.

Thats certainly a lot of money to spend on only three systems. Do you have any revision ideas?

I would say, at most, have 4 CIWS total. Could even get by with 2. Pick either RAM, 35mm or 20mm. No need to mix.

Also, if I were to develop a >155mm mount, I'd stick at most one or two single mounts per hull.

Spread them around. No need to take one hit and put a significant fraction of your NGFS outta action.

Just MHO.

And on the GMLRS issue, I think to really make it work, they can't be traditional VLS based. They need to be containerized and easy to replenish.

I'm starting to think that a vertically-launched version that can be fired directly from it's shipping container off of a Theater Support Vessel, LCS, or other transport ship will be closer to ideal - with the thought that it could be quickly replenished from a Sea Base or other forward area.

[Defcon 6]

As you can probably guess from the earlier instances of this thread, I think battleships are anachronisms.



For 3" guns my number would be zero. They just don't offer anything that isn't covered by other systems.



Hmm, IMHO, the gun turrets are the least of your worries. More likely you're sensors and/or battle management suite will be knocked out in a hit.



I would say, at most, have 4 CIWS total. Could even get by with 2. Pick either RAM, 35mm or 20mm. No need to mix.

Also, if I were to develop a >155mm mount, I'd stick at most one or two single mounts per hull.

Spread them around. No need to take one hit and put a significant fraction of your NGFS outta action.

Just MHO.

And on the GMLRS issue, I think to really make it work, they can't be traditional VLS based. They need to be containerized and easy to replenish.

I'm starting to think that a vertically-launched version that can be fired directly from it's shipping container off of a Theater Support Vessel, LCS, or other transport ship will be closer to ideal - with the thought that it could be quickly replenished from a Sea Base or other forward area.

Alright, advice taken and considered. Thanks for the suggestions smitty.

x8 Mk 75's 4 port, 4 starboard

I had to leave some since AGS was considered to be less effective at firing at smaller ships and similar types of surface targets than Mk 45's and Mk 75's.

x4 20mm Mk. 15's 2 Port, 2 Starboard

x12 35mm MDG-351's same locations, 6 port, 6 starboard

I think that the idea that the battleships are an anachronism is somewhat ludicrous notwithstanding the fact that they've been using battleships right up until the gulf war. The fact that they always have been around seem to in my mind venerate the idea that certain groups of people have idiosyncrasies in terms of opinions concerning battleships in the firstplace; albeit I'll point out that they are unfortunately somehwhat limited. However, while they are limited to NFS and AShW, they/this concept would probably carry out its mission goals extremely well. So I say, better that we have a few ships to carry out two missions than a bunch of smaller more ineffective ships that do more missions less well. I mean, even the DD(X) would have failed the NEA scenario, and that is unacceptable considering the opponents that that scenario was suppose to account for. Iowa's and or this ship however would not have, when combined with a low number of other assets.

From that philosophy alone I'm almost more tempted to replace the Mk. 75's that i kept with 5" systems. 5" systems would probably be more useful anyways.

[B.Smitty]

Alright, advice taken and considered. Thanks for the suggestions smitty.

Wow, is this a kinder, gentler Defcon?

x8 Mk 75's 4 port, 4 starboard

I had to leave some since AGS was considered to be less effective at firing at smaller ships and similar types of surface targets than Mk 45's and Mk 75's.

If you want anti-small boat guns, just add four Mk46 30mm stations. They're FAR cheaper, consume less deckspace & have much lower manning.

x4 20mm Mk. 15's 2 Port, 2 Starboard

x12 35mm MDG-351's same locations, 6 port, 6 starboard

Still way too many, IMHO. You just don't need both types.

I think that the idea that the battleships are an anachronism is somewhat ludicrous notwithstanding the fact that they've been using battleships right up until the gulf war. The fact that they always have been around seem to in my mind venerate the idea that certain groups of people have idiosyncrasies in terms of opinions concerning battleships in the firstplace; albeit I'll point out that they are unfortunately somehwhat limited.

We haven't had them for 15 years and we're doing fine. Even during ODS, their contribution was marginal, at best, and at a huge O&M cost.

However, while they are limited to NFS and AShW, they/this concept would probably carry out its mission goals extremely well. So I say, better that we have a few ships to carry out two missions than a bunch of smaller more ineffective ships that do more missions less well. I mean, even the DD(X) would have failed the NEA scenario, and that is unacceptable considering the opponents that that scenario was suppose to account for. Iowa's and or this ship however would not have, when combined with a low number of other assets.

How do you know the Iowas wouldn't have failed the NEA scenario? IIRC, they weren't even considered.

To tell you the truth, maybe it's ok if we can't invade China with an opposed amphibious operation.

[Defcon 6]

Wow, is this a kinder, gentler Defcon?

in the flesh

If you want anti-small boat guns, just add four Mk46 30mm stations. They're FAR cheaper, consume less deckspace & have much lower manning.

That sounds perfect. Are they unmanned and do they target automatically? The Mk 75 is totally automated, and it's useful against mid-sized ships too as well as shore targets if within range.

Still way too many, IMHO. You just don't need both types.

Alright, I'll eliminate the Mk. 15's. But are you sure it'll be as effective against missile swarms?

We haven't had them for 15 years and we're doing fine. Even during ODS, their contribution was marginal, at best, and at a huge O&M cost.

Sorry smitty, but I heartfully disagree. Tophatter once made a post about why...or maybe it was someone else, maybe M21. (sorry TH if it wasn't you! )

It has more to do with how they were being used rather than their ability to acomplish the tasks or something like that.

How do you know the Iowas wouldn't have failed the NEA scenario? IIRC, they weren't even considered.

Well no one can say for sure, so it's perfectly alright for you to disagree with me. However IMHO, with 12 mk. 45's each, two Iowa's would have a combined fire power of 24 mk 45's. So 24 5" guns firing ERGM not to mention x18 16" Mk. 7's? Smitty, I'd say about 27 current NSFS assets could have fulfilled that mission adequately, unfortunately thats a good bit more than the 18 the NEA accounted for. So 2 ships and maybe 3 escorts vs. 27 NSFS ships?

I'm sorry Smitty, but I disagree. I believe the combined firepower of 2 Iowa's would have fulfilled the criteria for NEA.

To tell you the truth, maybe it's ok if we can't invade China with an opposed amphibious operation.

That'd ne nice, because China is a waste of good ammunition.

We all dislike war, but it's a fact of life so we might as well be prepared to fight North Korea or China if such a disaster arises.

[ArmchairGeneral]

I would say, at most, have 4 CIWS total. Could even get by with 2. Pick either RAM, 35mm or 20mm. No need to mix.

Seems to me that there are definite differences between RAM and gun CIWS. RAM may be more effective against mass attacks, but bullets can't be fooled, unlike guided projectiles, bullets are cheaper, and seems like they might have advanteges in fighting off small boats. If I had the room, and I think this ship would, I would have a mix, maybe 4 guns and a couple of RAMs on the ends of the superstructure, or vice versa. Or three of one and two of the other, I don't know, but I would like both if possible.

[B.Smitty]

We all dislike war, but it's a fact of life so we might as well be prepared to fight North Korea or China if such a disaster arises.

We can prepare to fight them without preparing for an opposed amphibious landing of their mainland.

In any event, given the tight budget and the difficulties in justifying the DD(X), I seriously doubt a much larger and more expensive warship would fly.

The best we can hope for, IMHO, is augmenting existing and previously budgeted platforms.

[Defcon 6]

We can prepare to fight them without preparing for an opposed amphibious landing of their mainland.

In any event, given the tight budget and the difficulties in justifying the DD(X), I seriously doubt a much larger and more expensive warship would fly.

The best we can hope for, IMHO, is augmenting existing and previously budgeted platforms.

We need to have the opposed amphibious capability. If we take them at sea then how else do you expect to deal with the world largest army? Can you imagine what would happen if they had something like a draft? We couldn't amass enough forces or put enough boots on the ground to counter that. Opposing landings are a last resort, but probably the only way to deal with certain scenarios.

Even if we don't bring opposing landings into the picture that doesn't change the current discussion outlook. We still don't have the proper NSFS to deal with such scenarios as NEA. And the NEA scenario wasn't based on an opposing landing. Just NFS against strategic and tactical targets.

Yeah, I'm aware that a larger more expensive ship probably wouldn't fly.

But then again I suppose the purpose of this thread is to talk about a proper solution to the problem alltogether. Whether it's arsenal ships or LCS's.

And that last bit, well...we're losing our future platforms. DDX being gone, CGX might follow suit. Nobody can really tell at this point.

[rickusn]

Hey Defcon did you get my PM answer to your question?

[Defcon 6]

Hey Defcon did you get my PM answer to your question?

Oh, I'm so sorry! I did get it, and I was reading through the source and forgot to reply. I'm really am sorry about that.