Future Battleship/Capital Ship Discussion

[reve893]

you said that's how much another carrier would cost, but what about the airplanes a carrier uses, i think that 16 inch shells are much more cheaper to make and develop than 100 JSF, furthermore they do the job more effectively without risking millions of dollars

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by reve893

you said that's how much another carrier would cost, but what about the airplanes a carrier uses, i think that 16 inch shells are much more cheaper to make and develop than 100 JSF, furthermore they do the job more effectively without risking millions of dollars

Gee lets rehash this idea for the umpteenth time

Sure those 16in shells would be cheaper if we produced enough.

How are they in the CAP role? Oh thats right they just hit the ground and go boom. Unlike a aircraft that can accomplish many missions

Whats the bring back capacity of those 16in rounds? Oh wait, you cannot call them back, update or change targets during flight. Theres another one for a carrier and its planes.

I would continue, but its more fun than I've alloted myself for the evening. At least by myself. The son is staying at his Aunts house tonight

[perfectgeneral]

Going beyond the 155mm guns would probably be done better from the air (ground support bombing), but there may be a percentage in a coastal barrage ship. Losing the sixteen inchers and the smaller guns (than 6.1" ) would offer greater capacity for ammunition. If you are going to really pound a beachead all day you need plenty of ammunition and the ability to reload from alongside. Twelve to eighteen 155mm guns in triple turrets would be plenty. ESSM and TLAM mounted in a mk41 VLS (for air defence and deep strike respectively) should be all the extra firepower this ship needs. I did give serious thought to MLRS from containers, but this is a capability that can be established on the beachead.

[reve893]

i must say that those were some good points you brought up, about airplanes.
but think about this way, a smart bomb costs alot more than a few 16 inch shells, and with today's technology can be very accurate, know if we are fighting a total war who cares about civilians(there fault for voting for the wrong politician), so the 16 inch shell causes greater terror. As good as missile defenses are becoming the jet could easily be shot down, now that would be a lost of money there, i could keep on going but time to play Yuri Revenge.

[Wraith601]

Originally Posted by perfectgeneral

Going beyond the 155mm guns would probably be done better from the air (ground support bombing), but there may be a percentage in a coastal barrage ship. Losing the sixteen inchers and the smaller guns (than 6.1" ) would offer greater capacity for ammunition. If you are going to really pound a beachead all day you need plenty of ammunition and the ability to reload from alongside. Twelve to eighteen 155mm guns in triple turrets would be plenty. ESSM and TLAM mounted in a mk41 VLS (for air defence and deep strike respectively) should be all the extra firepower this ship needs. I did give serious thought to MLRS from containers, but this is a capability that can be established on the beachead.

There's already been work done on firing the MLRS from a Mk 41 IIRC. The modified cell could hold 4 rockets I believe.

[pdf27]

Originally Posted by reve893

know if we are fighting a total war who cares about civilians(there fault for voting for the wrong politician)

Quite apart from the obvious violation of the Geneva & Hague conventions you're proposing there, when exactly was the last time the US fought a total war? What is the likelihood that they will do so in future?

[The Black Ghost]

A battleship would have its positive side in surface fighting and attack on coastal countries, but it would lack elsewhere with its size and easy target.

How powerful is a torpedo these days? WWII battleships could take numerous torpedo hits and stay afloat, but there has been an upgrade since in both armor, countermeasures, and munitions of torpedos, so what it would be today I cannot tell.

[IDonT]

Originally Posted by reve893

you said that's how much another carrier would cost, but what about the airplanes a carrier uses, i think that 16 inch shells are much more cheaper to make and develop than 100 JSF, furthermore they do the job more effectively without risking millions of dollars

Parking a billion dollar BBX within horizon range is risking billions of dollars worth of assets. Truck mounted SSM's are very deadly. One or 2 may not sink it, but mission kill it and do damage that is more expensive than a shot down aircraft.

Furthermore, it is not cost effective to spend billions of dollars for a "one trick" weapons platform and the effectiveness of this trick is questionable.

[dundonrl]

well... as for the powerplant.. make it nuclear, heck the Senate armed service comittee is talking about making the next generation surface combatant nuclear..

if you can have a shell that costs 30,000 dollars (for a guided shell) that has a range of 200+ miles, it's MUCH more cost effective to use that than an aircraft that costs 50,000,000 dollars and risk it and a pilot to do the same job with a JDAM.

also, if your say 100 miles from the coast, and your target is 100 miles inland, your way over the horizon, if your DDG's are taking care of ensuring there are no enemy aircraft up capable of spotting your warships, they are virtually "immune" to ASCM's being launched from land, submarines are another ball game though..

[ArmchairGeneral]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Gee lets rehash this idea for the umpteenth time

Actually, we just bring it up once in a while to make sure you're still around.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Gee lets rehash this idea for the umpteenth time

LOL

Originally Posted by reve893

if we are fighting a total war who cares about civilians(there fault for voting for the wrong politician), so the 16 inch shell causes greater terror.

Or it may provoke a *London Blitz Spirit* like it did at Muroran's Wanishi Iron Works after the shelling of 15 July 1945...

The Druzes weren't exactly *in great terror* either after USS New Jersey fired some 288 16-inch shells *somewhere* in the Shuf mountains on 8 February 1984...

[HoratioNelson]

If the Admiralty of the Royal Navy, or the Secretary of the United States Navy, or the admistrator of some leading modern Navy tasked YOU, that's right YOU, with designing a modern battleship for both NSFS and surface combat concerns, how would you design it? What would it's armaments be? How thick would it's armour be? How fast? How manueverable? What would power it?

Anyways, theoretical ship designs are a big interest of mine and i'd like to know how other battleship enthusiasts on this board would design their ideal modern battleship. I also like to here thoughts upon these theoretical ships. Well, here's my design. Sorry if you don't understand metric. Here's a site with metric conversions:
>:: World Wide Metric ::<

Trafalgar-class Advanced Modern Battleship (AMBB)
Length: 270 metres
Draught: 10 metres
Beam: 35 metres
Crew: 650 officers and men
Propulsion: Electric engines for silent movement. Steam turbines just in case the electric engines malfunction.
Cruise Speed: 33 knots
Hull Design: The hull of the Trafalgar-class would be in the tumblehome form, i.e: the ship's sides slope inwards coming down towards the water. This reduces radar cross-section.
Torpedo Countermeasures: Prairie-Masker noise reduction system, the bands mounted on both the propellor and the main hull, to mask the potential target of the ship. Very little sound will penetrate a curtain of air bubbles, making sonar identification rather difficult
Missile Countermeasures: 6 x Phalanx CIWS positioned along the ship's sides with overlapping fields of fire for maximum effect against incoming missiles.
Armour:
Belt: 307mm
Bulkheads: 290mm
Barbettes: 300mm
Turrets: 505mm
Decks: 195mm
All steel armour
Armament:
9 x 342mm (13.5") main guns in 3 x 3 turrets
35 x Tomahawk cruise missiles in VLS cells
20 x Harpoon AshMs, also in VLS cells
18 x 127 mm (5") secondary guns in 2 x 9 turrets
2 x torpedo tubes, flush with hull (like on a submarine)

That would be my design. Any others?

[RustyBattleship]

I am NOT going to get into this one. Being a Battleship designer (or redesigner) and shipbuilder I definitely have my own ideas. But many would be controversial with many members on this board and I have had it up to my ears in controversy with professional Battleship people in the 1980's.

I'm retired now. Let me vegetate in peace.

[HoratioNelson]

That's really too bad. I had found out you used to be a shipbuilder and was really interested in what you had to say. Oh well, enjoy your retirement.

[gunnut]

Instead of battleships, I would suggest a renewed design of armored cruiser. Battleships are not invincible, doesn't matter how much armor. More armor means more weight, more machinery to push the extra weight, and more money spent on more of everything. All we need is enough armor to protect against 5" guns and small rockets and missiles. I think that's much more cost effective.

Instead of 13.5" guns, I would suggest either 6" or 8" guns, and only 2 or 3 tubes per ship. Modern designs can increase the rate of fire from a single tube to match that of multiple tubes of older design. Fewer guns means less weight, and much lower cost. Anything that can't be destroyed by 6" or 8" of guided shells can be destroyed by missiles or bombs dropped by aircraft.

To lower cost and save weight, my armored cruiser will not have Aegis system. Instead she will only have ESSM and Phalanx for local air defense. She is not designed to operate alone in high threat environment. She is to be part of an overall naval package, specialized in blockade and shore bombardment.

I would add a secondary armament of 4 OTO 76mm Super Rapid or 4 Bofors 57mm auto cannon against boat swarm tactics and supplement the main guns on shore bombardment.

This ship should be highly automated to reduce crew demand.

Even then, I see this ship as too expensive for limited roles she can perform. To increase her capabilities means a massive increase in cost. The money can be better spent on smaller destroyers and frigates that are less vulnerable to air threats and cheaper to replace.

I just thought I throw out my idea of a new armored cruiser for giggles.