Future Battleship/Capital Ship Discussion

[RAL's_pal?]

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

I think this thread has lost it's train of thought.

So?

A lot of the threads get sidetracked, that's part of the fun.

[Feanor]

Originally Posted by gunnut

What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?

Much better clip: YouTube - Papa Palpatine

''oh that real f*ucking original and who's gonna give me loan jackhole? You? You got an atm on that light bright torso?''

[The Chap]

Is VLS superior to big guns. I would like to explore subs. Not boomers per se. but relatively shallow (less than 100m) armored battleships. One hundred metres of H2O is decent armour. Then add the steel? Many armament options suggest themselves:

Surface and fire (big guns )

Cruise

Super cav. torps (I know that there is no need to submerge)

upUp blue/green dew.

Surface scatter small munitions.

It would scare the living etc.

[Dreadnought]

Read a very interesting article this weekend compliments of a friend on the railgun technology that is pressing ever forward for the newer frigates. Very interesting indeed and looking at it in a sensible way not very far in the future mind you.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Read a very interesting article this weekend compliments of a friend on the railgun technology that is pressing ever forward for the newer frigates. Very interesting indeed and looking at it in a sensible way not very far in the future mind you.

Fusion power has been "not very far in the future" for decades now.

I'll believe in railguns when the first meant-to-be-operational weapon begins development. Until then, they're just a bunch of R&D projects.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Fusion power has been "not very far in the future" for decades now.

I'll believe in railguns when the first meant-to-be-operational weapon begins development. Until then, they're just a bunch of R&D projects.

Well according to reports they have already named "in service" dates meaning a fully operational weapons system aboard. So I would be inclined to believe they have already been through the first phases of development.

[The Chap]

Send me a reminder and I'll dig out a fairly recent JDW vis-a-vis naval naer future systems.

[Russell_Detoyat]

A little about my Battleship Design.
Length= 875 ft
Width=110 ft (stable Gun Platform)
Weight=45000 tonnes(standard)
75000 tonnes(full Load)
Main Battery= 12x15in.(38cm) Guns(Take out a small coastal City)

[The Chap]

As always, I find stealth to be a waste of time and cash. Any modern ship of consequence can be tracked from orbit. Wake, heat plume, big bloody magnetic ping. Take y'choice.

Mind you, hats off for the thread. I thought that I had free time!

My instinct is to go modular-volume. I have a kink for compact liquid metal reactors. I suppose a plus side might be that the smaller volume allows the disposition to be heavily protected.

I also tend toward the larger scale hull, mainly as more modular "pods" could be equiped and there is always the pay off of greater (volumetric)displacement allowing a thicker skin!

The keel must be stupidly uber armoured and strenthened then re-enforced after being buffered and cross-braced. Twice. Let alone marine munitions, the sea Herself can break a ship. Going down to an enemy is one thing but sinking to a rouge wave is simply unfair.

The job of mid range guns seems to be done more efficiently by missiles.

I'd like a few big (relatively) dumb 18 inch guns in a triple mount. (Aft)

VLS abeem

Some sort of VERY tall mast (they can see us - lets make sure they know we can see them) Could alway put a next gen. DEW on the top, away from the spray?

Finally, in the front two "pods" whatever saucy long range arty arpa can invent. I'm assuming multiple liquid core powertrain.

Anti-sub? Autonymous curtain.

Ditto anti-air. Flies 'round shite if y'will.

BBs were always most effective as diplomatic tools.

[2DREZQ]

Originally Posted by HoratioNelson

In WWI and WWII, a battleship's secondary guns (ranging from 3in to 5in in calibre) were quick firing, dual-purpose guns used both against fast targets like enemy torpedo boats and against aerial threats. Torpedo boats aren't too much of a threat in the modern era, with submarines fulfilling their role far more efficiently

Didn't we have a naval exercise a few years ago where a "rogue" US commander "sank" most of the fleet with low tech stuff like a massed speedboat & patrol boat attack using 100's of these vessels with anit-ship missiles and machine guns? How do you stop 100% of them when there may be 1000?

Maybe a 500-600 foot hull, at least as torpedo and mine resistant as an Iowa, with armored decks and superstructure, mounting a massive broadside of very rapid fire guns, between 155mm and 5 inch, along with a CIWS capable of defending against multiple incoming. The radar/computer system targets everything afloat that isn't ID'd as friendly. With really fast processing and autoloading guns could you guarantee a hit with 4-5 shots per target? (I assume a 5" round would finish off most small craft with a single hit.) The Iowa's carried 10 5" on each side of the superstructure, 20 guns. Forego the 16" completely in favor of 50 5". With each twin mount (directed by my new mythical FCS) taking out one threat every 45 seconds (10 seconds per shot x 2 tubes = 8-9 rounds) 15 seconds to slew(?) the mount around and change elevation to engage a new target. (of course the radar tracks the outgoing rounds and corrects automatically) x 25 mounts that's 25 kills per minute. In 15 minutes you could make martyrs of 375 attacking vessels. I'm guessing a 5" shell has a range of what, 10 miles?

There you have your protective envelope against low tech, but willing-to-die-for-god enemies.

It would be a lot cheaper than trying to refloat a sunken CVN. Or explain why a multi-billion dollar warship was rendered mission-incapable be some fanatic with an RPG and a 200-horse evinrude.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Originally Posted by 2DREZQ

Didn't we have a naval exercise...

Dude, long time no see. Welcome back.

[2DREZQ]

Yeah I've been accused of being dead so many times I'm beginning to enjoy it.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by The Chap

As always, I find stealth to be a waste of time and cash. Any modern ship of consequence can be tracked from orbit. Wake, heat plume, big bloody magnetic ping. Take y'choice.

Stealth doesn't just reduce detection ranges of radar, it also complicates AShM seeker acquisition. Couple it with a good ECM suite, and the combo will likely soft-kill many incoming missiles.

[The Chap]

Ahh ... I'm in agreement re: ECM. All good stuff, don't leave home without it etc. What bothers me is the mincing about with the architecture of a ship.

[Rick DeBay]

I've decided to flesh out the Capital Surface Warship proposed in Col. Welch's paper 'A Case Study in Solving the Naval Surface Fire Support Capabilities Gap.'

The fire requirements are already partially defined by the USMC. This sets the range requirements for shore bombardment as between 41nm and 63nm, with a time-on-target of 2.5 minutes (I'm using the initial requirement set, not the later one where it was 2.5 minutes to launch ordinance).
Volume and weight of fire was not defined, so I propose the equivalent of a Marine Artillery Regiment. I'm assuming a forced landing that requires major naval artillery support will be by an entire Marine Expeditionary Force, which normally enjoys the support of a MAR (more or less). To simplify I'll make an MAR equivalent to 96 M777 howitzers.

There needs to be sensors to enable counter-battery fire, and the ability to plan and coordinate the fire missions. From what I remember detection and communication was a major deficiency reported in the USMC requirements document.

The ship needs to operate in a hostile littoral environment, and it should be difficult to mission kill. Therefore it must be able to defend itself against missile, torpedo, and air attacks, and be able to survive a hit(s) from most credible threats. If needed, it should be able to leave the area at a good speed, even with one propulsion unit disabled.

For blue-water missions, I'd require terminally guided ballistic rounds with a range of 200nm+. This number was cobbled together from the maritime strike range of an F/A-18 plus the range of a Harpoon. A future objective would be to meet the greater range offered by the Lightning-II.

Given that this will be a capital ship, it should be able to support a task-group with flag accommodations, maintenance, and communications.

Once the requirements are complete, I'd like to discuss a ship or ship(s) that could meet them.