A question for the pro-Battleship people on this board

[HoratioNelson]

I have read a lot of the modern battleship designs on this forum. Some, such as Defcon 6's BB(X) were very good and had a lot of thought put into them and their role in modern naval warfare. If actually built, I'm sure the BB(X) would be a fine addition to any modern navy.

But what are we doing with such fine designs? We let them stew, here on the internet, while we debate each other pointlessly on the pros and cons of "Fully Armoured Battlecruisers" as the Brits called the dear Vanguard. But I just need to know something: Are the Pro-BB people here actually doing anything with these designs they think up? Are they writing letters to the Secretary of the Navy? Are they submitting their designs? Are they publishing reports on the possibility of a modern battleship? So far as I can see, no. So, what exactly are you doing to promote modern battleships?

[RustyBattleship]

Originally Posted by HoratioNelson

I have read a lot of the modern battleship designs on this forum. Some, such as Defcon 6's BB(X) were very good and had a lot of thought put into them and their role in modern naval warfare. If actually built, I'm sure the BB(X) would be a fine addition to any modern navy.

But what are we doing with such fine designs? We let them stew, here on the internet, while we debate each other pointlessly on the pros and cons of "Fully Armoured Battlecruisers" as the Brits called the dear Vanguard. But I just need to know something: Are the Pro-BB people here actually doing anything with these designs they think up? Are they writing letters to the Secretary of the Navy? Are they submitting their designs? Are they publishing reports on the possibility of a modern battleship? So far as I can see, no. So, what exactly are you doing to promote modern battleships?

A very logical question. Obviously, most of these people are in no position to get their designs on paper and issued to the construction shops.

Well, some of us (as myself) could be recalled with our past experiences in Battleship construction (as well as other classes of warships).

So, I'm making a list, checking twice (or thrice or fourth) to see who's naughty (lousy BB ideas) or nice (good BB ideas).

Maybe only a dream, but you never know.

[HoratioNelson]

Ahh I see. Still, even someone without a background in the Navy could compile some of the better designs on this site and put them into a letter to the Secretary.

Anyways, I hope my idea fell into the latter category (nice). If it was naughty, oh well, at least you know what not to do, which can be just as important as knowing what to do.

[RustyBattleship]

Originally Posted by HoratioNelson

Ahh I see. Still, even someone without a background in the Navy could compile some of the better designs on this site and put them into a letter to the Secretary.

Anyways, I hope my idea fell into the latter category (nice). If it was naughty, oh well, at least you know what not to do, which can be just as important as knowing what to do.

Even if there NEVER is any official call to design and build a new Battleship, just the exercise in keeping the imagination going is healthy and NOT a waste of time (unless that's all you ever do 24/7 - then you need your CPU confiscated and make an appointment for the rapist. I mean a Therapist).

[RAL's_pal?]

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

A very logical question. Obviously, most of these people are in no position to get their designs on paper and issued to the construction shops.

Well, some of us (as myself) could be recalled with our past experiences in Battleship construction (as well as other classes of warships).

I rarely look at the designs/specifications, but I have seen some on this board and the other BB board. What I don't like about the designs/specifications I've seen, most of it is for weapoanry and then for engineering is a comment like "conventional steam power, 8 boilers" or "nuclear power" or "gas turbine." If someone is going to design something, I hope they also design where all the magazines are going to fit, the crew's berthing, cooling pump rooms and hydraulic pump rooms and some important things like how many and where the generators in engineering and aux spaces that provide the electricity needed to run modern weaponry. Without these little things, (among others) you might was well put a couple of large guns on a barge and tow it around.

[JMH]

Corporations have taken over the military industry in the USA and Battleships are simply unacceptable. Cost effectiveness and the drastic reduction in crew size are the two most important factors in modern warship design today. Also, Naval gunfire support is the least important. Consequently, Battleships are simply not acceptable anymore and to continue to try to resurrect them is like trying to move the Navy back to the days of line of battle tactics, which became obsolete after the Battle of Surigao Strait.

[RAL's_pal?]

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

So, I'm making a list, checking twice (or thrice or fourth) to see who's naughty (lousy BB ideas) or nice (good BB ideas).

Shouldn't you be putting your time to more constructive uses like finding a publisher or writing more fan letters certain actresses?

[Dreadnought]

Well dam give us a set up, wave pool, shop etc. and and ofcoarse that all important operating budget.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by JMH

Corporations have taken over the military industry in the USA and Battleships are simply unacceptable. Cost effectiveness and the drastic reduction in crew size are the two most important factors in modern warship design today. Also, Naval gunfire support is the least important. Consequently, Battleships are simply not acceptable anymore and to continue to try to resurrect them is like trying to move the Navy back to the days of line of battle tactics, which became obsolete after the Battle of Surigao Strait.

Disagree, The Iowas have served as one of the most dependable weapons platforms in the USN Inventory. And still is to this day.Gun line tactics ended with WWII. Their refits and service proved the battlegroup concept to the nay sayers throughout the late 80's to early 90's.

[RustyBattleship]

Originally Posted by RAL's_pal?

Shouldn't you be putting your time to more constructive uses like finding a publisher or writing more fan letters certain actresses?

You are probably right. In between Doctor's appointments and hospital stays. But this is more fun than holding a small bottle in front of you and --- well --- you know.

As for your earlier post, I agree that too many of the ideas posted were on weapons systems. I tried to interject and get them to come up with hull designs first. The ship isn't going anywhere or staying afloat without the proper hull. Protection doesn't have to be of enormously thick armor plate, it can be multiple bulkheads appropriatly spaced. But I don't recall anybody even interested in what the hull cross-section would look like.

But no. Guns, rockets, lasers, death rays is all most of them are interested in.

[Michigan_Guy]

Battleships will be back, but they'll be sporting big ole rail guns instead of giant cannons (ok I wish). Actually it would be interesting if they were to take an Iowa and just replace a mount or 2 with a rail gun mount. Short and long range capability, great accuracy, and they scare people.

[RAL's_pal?]

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

But this is more fun than holding a small bottle in front of you and --- well --- you know.

No, I don't know about holding a small bottle in front of me.... unless you're talking about a "sample."

I remember being with a group of people when we were in the dispensary for our physicals, having passed the apprenticeship tests. A nurse came out and handed each one of us a small bottle and told us to fill it up. Some of us started walking to the bathroom but the majority of people just "whipped it out" and started filling the bottles while standing in the hallway.

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

As for your earlier post, I agree that too many of the ideas posted were on weapons systems. I tried to interject and get them to come up with hull designs first. The ship isn't going anywhere or staying afloat without the proper hull. Protection doesn't have to be of enormously thick armor plate, it can be multiple bulkheads appropriatly spaced. But I don't recall anybody even interested in what the hull cross-section would look like.

It was pretty interesting to see how tough it was to sink the ex-USS Belleau Wood in the SinkEx a while back. I'd like to see hull designs that might hold up against the Mark (whatever) torpedos that explode under the keel.

[HoratioNelson]

Well I can at least explain why I didn't put a lot of thought into hull design: I don't know very much about hulls, don't find them paticularly interesting and see nothing at all wrong with the Iowa hull design as a design base for the next generation of battleships. Hope that explains my actions.

[RustyBattleship]

Originally Posted by HoratioNelson

see nothing at all wrong with the Iowa hull design as a design base for the next generation of battleships. Hope that explains my actions.

The Iowa hull is only a fair start. Upgrades of steels and fabrication methods have changed a fair amount since they were initially designed in 1941. Even the hydrodynamic shape of the hulls (especially the bows and sterns) have dramatically change.

Your selection of power plants will determine if you use fixed pitch or variable pitch propellers.

Your selection of power plants and major auxiliaries will control the size and level of combat protection of the compartments.

Your selection of weapons will determine how much of the ship's hull will be dedicated to physical weapon support. Even the Coil gun probably has some recoil to it even though it's just an overgrown solenoid switch. Though most of the hull support will actually be for supporting the weight of such a monstrous mortar. Rail guns are even worse because of their length rather than the bulk of a coil gun.

So, if I was in charge of designing a new Battleship, I would pay only necessary attention to the weapons until I was satisfied with a hull design, power plant and "armor" first.

Then we can fit the Cylon lightning bolt gun and still make room for Mod 2 of the gun and Revision B of the power supply and Ordalt 77 to satisfy the EPA.

[Dreadnought]

Then we can fit the Cylon lightning bolt gun and still make room for Mod 2 of the gun and Revision B of the power supply and Ordalt 77 to satisfy the EPA.