Future Battleship/Capital Ship Discussion

[RustyBattleship]

Originally Posted by gunnut

Wow that's pretty weird.

Does bacon count? I don't like pork chops much. Can I take 8 strips of bacon in its place?

Well, bacon's a little greasy and VERY fatty. It might work but I think Pork Sausages would be better.

[HoratioNelson]

Some technology that Battleship supporters might want to look into is the XM982 Excalibur project. With a range of over 50km and GPS guidance for a CEP (Circular Error Probable) of just 10m, it is far superior to existing naval guns. Adapting the Excalibur technology to large bore naval guns would give any theorectical modern battleship greater range and accuracy than ever before. That would greatly improve a modern battleship's efficiency in modern warfare.

[IDonT]

A question:

Does a modern battleship need to have armor and its primary weapon has to be a gun? That is not a very realistic way of designing a surface warship.

If not, then my modern battleship is the Zumwalt class, stealthy, aware, and lethal.

[HoratioNelson]

The Zumwalt also costs more money than refitting TWO Iowa-class ships, has inferior armament and armour to the Iowa and is overall spinning out of control financially and technologically. But then that's the Navy for you, they always want the most expensive, fanciest ships with the most technology packed into it.

Every modern battleship design i've read on these forums and on the web has been cheaper than the Zumwalt, and most feature superior firepower. I think the Zumwalt is beginning to stink of white elephant. In case you haven't heard that phrase, a white elephant is a supposedly valuable object whose cost and upkeep exceed it's usefulness. In my eyes, the Zumwalt is becoming a white elephant.

[RustyBattleship]

If I was chief engineer of a design agency to design a new type of Battleship, and you guys were my employees on the drafting boards and computers, I would file for bankruptcy.

START WITH THE HULL.

Bulbous Bow?

Clipper Bow?

Square Transom?

Round Transom?

Triple hulled like the Iowa Class?

Triple keels like the Iowa Class?

Breadth (Panama Canal Skinny or Ronald Reagan wide?)

Length?

Type of material for hull plating? (FORGET ARMOR. That is always designed as an add-on).

Transversly framed?

Longetudinly framed?

Propulsion (Nuclear? Babcock and Wilcox boilers? Steam Turbines? Gas Turbines? Standard Propellers? High Slew Propellers? Ducted Propellers? Water Jets?)

Stability (Bilge Keels or Fin Stabilizers?).

Hydrofoils? (very doubtful for that size of ship)

Manueverability? (Rudders only? Engine reversals? Auxiliary Propulsion Units like the Inboard-Outboards on the Perry Class Frigates? Bow mounted cross propeller like on the Tarawa Class?)

After you get the hull designed for acceptance by the Navy (and me), then we can figure out what kinds of weapons and electronics MAY be available by launching date but keep in mind we may have to install present day technologies. So we have to design to take either/or.

Then we can draw Revision B of the hull structural plans to accept the thing-a-mah-bobs and start concentrating on crew accomodations, stowages, sanitary facilities, galleys, classrooms, photo labs, Combat Engagement Centers, repair shops, CBR sealant and CBR procedures, etc. etc.

Forgive me. Just got back from the Dentist and had to take my frustrations out on somebody.

[RustyBattleship]

PS:

There will be a snap quiz next week.

[Parihaka]

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

Hydrofoils? (very doubtful for that size of ship)

Don't care, still like them.

[HoratioNelson]

Forgive me. When I start thinking about battleships, I start thinking about all the latest and greatest technology for blowing stuff up real good. The little details slip my mind. This is why i'll never design ships for the Navy, my ships would be all guns and missiles and electronics and precious little else.

Hydrofoils are a big no no, I know that. That concept works well with speedy little racing boats, but it's just a disaster waiting to happen with a big capital ship.

Bulbous bow is pretty much a standard expectation for naval vessels in this day and age, I don't see any reason to use a clipper bow

Round transom would be a good choice, like on the Iowa, would also be a good choice. Remember, a modern battleship would presumably be using the Iowa as a starting point, as the Iowa was arguably the greatest battleship ever.

For breadth, Panama Canal skinny would be the better choice, as it would allow the ship to traverse between Atlantic and Pacific oceans in far less time. Mobility is an important aspect of modern naval warfare.

I'd also go with transverse framing, with a few longitudal frames as support

Electric engines would be a good choice for propulsion, as they are quiet and offer good energy. MERMAID electric engine pods are a thing to look at for propulsion. Of course, including some steam turbines as back-up wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Bilge keels is my stabilizer of choice for ships. But that's just me.

MERMAID electric engine pods, scattered at even intervals along the battleship's hull would give it full 360 degree manueverability. Far superior to rudders in my opinion. The Queen Mary II uses engine pods for it's propulsion, proving that large ships can be steered with these sorts of engines.

And, well, those are my preferences, based on what knowledge I have acquired in studying ship-building.

[JAD_333]

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

If I was chief engineer of a design agency to design a new type of Battleship, and you guys were my employees on the drafting boards and computers, I would file for bankruptcy.

START WITH THE HULL.

Bulbous Bow?

Clipper Bow?

Square Transom?

Round Transom?

Triple hulled like the Iowa Class?

Triple keels like the Iowa Class?

Breadth (Panama Canal Skinny or Ronald Reagan wide?)

Length?

Type of material for hull plating? (FORGET ARMOR. That is always designed as an add-on).

Transversly framed?

Longetudinly framed?

Propulsion (Nuclear? Babcock and Wilcox boilers? Steam Turbines? Gas Turbines? Standard Propellers? High Slew Propellers? Ducted Propellers? Water Jets?)

Stability (Bilge Keels or Fin Stabilizers?).

Hydrofoils? (very doubtful for that size of ship)

Manueverability? (Rudders only? Engine reversals? Auxiliary Propulsion Units like the Inboard-Outboards on the Perry Class Frigates? Bow mounted cross propeller like on the Tarawa Class?)

After you get the hull designed for acceptance by the Navy (and me), then we can figure out what kinds of weapons and electronics MAY be available by launching date but keep in mind we may have to install present day technologies. So we have to design to take either/or.

Then we can draw Revision B of the hull structural plans to accept the thing-a-mah-bobs and start concentrating on crew accomodations, stowages, sanitary facilities, galleys, classrooms, photo labs, Combat Engagement Centers, repair shops, CBR sealant and CBR procedures, etc. etc.

Forgive me. Just got back from the Dentist and had to take my frustrations out on somebody.

Now, if you'd given that level of attention to Debbie's flooring project, she'd be finished.

[gunnut]

How about taking the Burke hull, armor it up, strip 3/4 of the VLS, downgrade Aegis to SPY-3, and install 2 AGS and 2 57mm Bofors?

This ship will have no practical use other than to win a gun fight against small boats.

[RustyBattleship]

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Now, if you'd given that level of attention to Debbie's flooring project, she'd be finished.

I work in steel and have dabbled in cabinet making. But my daughter is the flooring expert. She installed her own hardwood floors. All I did was cut the plywood sub-floor (to fit over the original 1X6 sub-floor) as neither she or her fiancee knew how to safely use a table saw.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by gunnut

How about taking the Burke hull, armor it up, strip 3/4 of the VLS, downgrade Aegis to SPY-3, and install 2 AGS and 2 57mm Bofors?

This ship will have no practical use other than to win a gun fight against small boats.

If it ever happens to be in the way of a 60kt go-fast, maybe. Otherwise its helo will have to do the job.

And AGS is not going to be a great ASuW weapon. It's all about striking land targets. It won't have the traverse speed or ROF to deal with fast, small boats.

No, IMHO, the way to win a the fight against small boats is to have large numbers of better small boats, and airpower.

[gunnut]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

If it ever happens to be in the way of a 60kt go-fast, maybe. Otherwise its helo will have to do the job.

And AGS is not going to be a great ASuW weapon. It's all about striking land targets. It won't have the traverse speed or ROF to deal with fast, small boats.

No, IMHO, the way to win a the fight against small boats is to have large numbers of better small boats, and airpower.

AGS is for shore bombardment.

I would use the 57mm Bofors or 76mm Super Rapid against small boats. If they get any closer, Phalanx.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Originally Posted by HoratioNelson

That's fine

I've also been thinking about the idea of a double hull for a modern battleship. Essentially there's an inner hull, totally air tight and with enough bouyancy to keep the entire ship afloat if the rest of it is filled with water. It would have at least another 200mm steel armour to protect the inner hull. With two hulls, you'd have one of the toughest ships, ever. Probably be one of the heaviest too, unfortunately.

I believe all of the later battleships were double or triple hulled, like the Iowas. At least a double hull is pretty much vital if you want any significant torpedo protection; torpedo protection depends on void space in between hulls, not armor, so the wider the ship, the more protection. Some of the later unbuilt German designs had enormous space devoted to anti-torpedo measures; I believe the H44 design had something like 30 or 40 feet between the outer and inner hulls. It also displaced 140,000 tons.

[el_guapo]

Pocket battleships. We don't need giant ones.