Future Battleship/Capital Ship Discussion

[Dreadnought]

Wow Rick, Theres quite a few items on that shopping list.

[Rick DeBay]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Wow Rick, Theres quite a few items on that shopping list.

Do any of them not need to be there? Is there anything missing? Does any point need an explanation as to why it's there?

I did leave off the wave-motion gun, shock cannons, and pulse lasers [of Space Battleship Yamato fame].

[RustyBattleship]

[quote=Rick DeBay;436294]Do any of them not need to be there? Is there anything missing? Does any point need an explanation as to why it's there?

I did leave off the wave-motion gun, [quote]

Wave motion: I think you mean gun stabilization. This was introduced into all the 16" guns of the three fast class Battleships in WW II. The Salem class Cruisers also had it. It just took a bunch more years to work the mechanics down small enough to work on a moving tank. But the principals are the same.

So you can go ahead and use that gee-whiz 155mm shell with a rocket motor, satellite guidance, etc. to knock out a target that is only worth 1/10 of what the round costs. Maybe only 1/50 if you include the cost of the gun and barrel wear.

Oh well. It's only money.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Rick DeBay

Do any of them not need to be there? Is there anything missing? Does any point need an explanation as to why it's there?

I did leave off the wave-motion gun, shock cannons, and pulse lasers [of Space Battleship Yamato fame].

Hell no lets go for broke!

[Rick DeBay]

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

Wave motion: I think you mean gun stabilization...

Nope, I meant the big sucker on the bow of the Uchuu Senkan Yamato, previously known as IJN Yamato (see attached image). Too much time spent in front of the TV in the late seventies.

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

So you can go ahead and use that gee-whiz 155mm shell with a rocket motor, satellite guidance, etc. to knock out a target that is only worth 1/10 of what the round costs. Maybe only 1/50 if you include the cost of the gun and barrel wear.

Heh. Most people would have picked a $1,000,000 missile for that task, or better yet have the missile launched from a $50,000,000 plane. And at 1/10, I think you're over-valuing that water buffalo/camel.

[Dreadnought]

Never saw much of it until recent links sent by my nephew. Really cool though.

[Rick DeBay]

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

Wave motion: I think you mean gun stabilization. This was introduced into all the 16" guns of the three fast class Battleships in WW II. The Salem class Cruisers also had it. It just took a bunch more years to work the mechanics down small enough to work on a moving tank. But the principals are the same.

Regarding the Salem's, do you know anything about large gun autoloaders beyond the documents on Gene Slover's web site?
The Salem's could fire ten 8" rounds a minute, and current 5" guns fire up to forty rounds a minute. I'm curious if there are any upper limits (besides crew exhaustion) on how fast two thousand pound shells could be fired, without requiring ridiculously sized motors.

[Dreadnought]

The Salem's (Des Moines class) heavy cruiser were an excellent example of putting steel in the air very quickly at 10 rounds per tube per minute out of the auto eights. In fact so good they were worn out before their time (lots and lots of mileage on those hulls). I was able to get aboard Des Moines before she went to the breakers needless to say she was in fine shape (with exception to the decks) and she went to the breakers with tags still attached on the majority of her equipment.Posted some real good pics of her on the other thread. I still want to get aboard the Salem when I'm up there though.

As far as your question goes...IMO One thought would be hydraulics reconfiguration against electric motor. But as we know hydraulics are fickle things unless the calcs are done to the "t".Unfortunately though both rely on electric motors. But this could probably reduce the numbers of motors but will certainly increase the number of valves and pumps.

[Dutchman]

If a new BB is deployed, it would not be with a WW2 gun and ammunition. In the 80's, a development program was conducted to develope new ammunition for the Iowas. The rounds included a 16" rocket boosted round (60-70 mile range), a 13" sabot (100-120 mile range), a 11" sabot (180+ mile range), and a 11" rocket boosted sabot (projected at 1200 miles). The first two completed development and were approved for deployment just a month or 2 before the BB retirements were decided (think the carrier admirals influenced that?).

If there is an argument for bringing back the battleships, it is the effect of a big ship with that kind of long range hitting power. The navy will never risk its billion dollar DDX's close to shore for fire support operations. Especially since their light construction would be vulnerable to conventional artillary. Name a general that would not willingly trade a couple of howitzers for a DDX. China does not need to defeat the US Navy, just force it back away from Tiawon. The problem with that is if the US Navy had ships that could risk hits without harm (BB's) and still stay in combat range, then that attack doctrine fails. With satillite guided smart munitions, in theory a battleship could sit 400 -500 miles east of Tiawon and sink an attacking fleet. or imagine several BB's cruising the length of the persian gulf taking out the entire Iranian nuke program.

One of the problems of modern ships is they are frankly vulnerable to attack and damage. The Iowas were built for a different standard and there currently is nothing in the world short of nukes that would destroy them. The weapons of today won't and that was a source of real heartburn for the Russians in the 80's.

One of the issues always cited with the iowas is also the heavy crew compliment. Mostly that is because the ship is 1940's technology with no automation. Power plants today use 10% of manpower they used in the 40's because of automation. There is no reason the compliment of an Iowa could not be cut down to less than 500-600 men by modernizing the ships with proven technology from the last 20 years. Replacing their WW2 5" guns with modern weapons, some automation in the 16" gun turrets, automate the boilers, turbines, and other engine spaces, and modern electronics would yield the manpower savings. It might be possible to reduce it further, but I am not sure.

There is also the assumption that we could not build a battleship today. The battleship guns and armor were forged by Bethlehem Steel in the Bethlehem plant. The company is gone and most of the steel mill, but the forge shops are still active as Lehigh Valley Heavy Forge (been there a number of times). The 12,000 ton forge is still pumping out turbine shafts etc. True the Washington shipyard facilities that built up the gun barrels are gone, but that is easily replaced, consisting primarily of hot and cold soak units. That is not an issue. Indeed, one of the more interesting questions would be what size barrel would you actually want to use today. After all, there is nothing that says it would not be practical to build an 18" or 20" barrel. Bigger than that would be too difficult to handle, but it bears looking into. Running some quick calculations, I would guess a a 20' gun could throw a 12 -14" sabot 200 miles. I don't think it would be out of the question to toss a 1000 pound shell 1200 miles with a rocket booster. That seems incredible, but remember the paris gun of WW1 took advantage of the near space atmosphic conditions to hit huge ranges. The Iowas had a sustained firing rate of 2 or 3 rounds per 2 minutes, one of the limiting factors being the heating of the gun barrels. If you assume a practical limit of 1 per minute, that is still 720 rounds in an hour for the ship. A single ship could intheory drop its entire 15,000 ton load in less than 24 hours, rain or shine. The DDX guns can fire a lot faster, but their shells are small and could never inflict the same damage with their whole bunker load compared to a few accurate 16" or 20" shells.

If you were to build a ship, you would probably want to start with the basic Nimitz hull used in the carriers today.

combat load 100,000 tons
standard load 80,000 tons
ammunition load 15,000 tons (guess about 300-400 rounds per gun barrel)

speed 32 knots
radius of operation 10,000 miles with a conventional plant.

Steel hull similar to the Iowas. HS steel coupled with armor belts. A lot cheaper than any exotics and properly designed just as effective.

Aegis radar systems

12 guns 75 caliber, 3 per turret
12 155mm guns identical to the DDX system
Close in gun systems
phalanx close in anti-missle pods

cruise missle tubes (30)
anti-ship missles
anti-submarine missles
anti-torpedo systems
submerged torpedo tubes

4 to 6 helocopters

crew would be around 600 men, give or take. automation would eliminate a lot of men which in turn eliminates a lot of support staff (cooks, etc). plus you should have plenty of room for an admiral or two plus staff.

[IDonT]

Why does a modern surface warship needs many large caliber guns?

Modern surface combantants do not need large caliber guns nor extremely heavy armor. Preventing the ship from being hit in the first place is much more important, whichis a function of detection.

Modern surface vessles are designed to operate dispersedly. That is ships from a Surface Strike Group could be within hundreds of miles from each other. Data links ensure that these ships communicate and exchange information as if they were right next to each other.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Dutchman

The navy will never risk its billion dollar DDX's close to shore for fire support operations.

If we are willing to risk a MAGTF in an amphibious operation that needs fire support, we will certainly be willing to risk a DDX to support it.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Rick DeBay

Do any of them not need to be there? Is there anything missing? Does any point need an explanation as to why it's there?

My main problem with this is it starts with a solution (Capital Surface Warship), and then looks back to the requirements.

There are other ways to meet NSFS requirements besides building huge, expensive, gun-armed warships.

[Rick DeBay]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

My main problem with this is it starts with a solution (Capital Surface Warship), and then looks back to the requirements.

Actually, it started with Col. Welch's paper which showed the requirements flowed naturally in to using large tube artillery. From there I'd like to lay out the requirements, and from there see what kind of ship emerges.

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

There are other ways to meet NSFS requirements besides building huge, expensive, gun-armed warships.

So far our current DDX or carrier options are pretty huge and expensive.
No where in my suggested requirements does it say (besides the title) what kind of ship must emerge. Of course, the post assumes that the reader has read Col Welch's paper.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Rick DeBay

Actually, it started with Col. Welch's paper which showed the requirements flowed naturally in to using large tube artillery. From there I'd like to lay out the requirements, and from there see what kind of ship emerges.

As a long time battleship reactivation nut and friend of Stearman, what other conclusion did you think he would arrive at?

[IDonT]

These are the current capital surface ships that are building or newly built.

Aegis Ships
Burke Class and Derivatives (Japanese Kongo and Atago and Korean Sejong Destroyers)

Flt 1


Flt 2A


Kirishima



Atago



Sejong (this ship has greater tonnage than the Tico Cruisers)