My ideas for a futuristic BB

[maximusslade]

Hey guys, I know it's been a while since I last posted in this thread. I've been busy blowing up equipment. I have been working off and on with these projects when I have had the time.

Only Terrorists will seek to *maximize collateral damage* as an organizational goal.

I hate playing devil's advocate at times but if that is the case, why do we have strategic nuclear weapons? (Not to be confused with the tactical variety)

Disclaimer: I understand what Shipwreck is saying and I agree that in our culture we minimize collateral damage for a whole myriad of reasons. I am instead asking the question, "If we are to avoid collateral damage at all costs, why do we then have 50mt thermonuclear warheads?"

PS I am pro nuke....

[SteaminDemon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

UTTER NONSENSE.

Among numerous reasons, *maximizing collateral damage* is NOT a legitimate objective in the US Navy.

From the COMMANDER’S HANDBOOK ON THE LAW OF NAVAL OPERATIONS (July 2007 Edition) :

(emphasis added)



Only Terrorists will seek to *maximize collateral damage* as an organizational goal.

I am not speaking of unintentional collateral damage I.E civilians and their homes, and any non mission oriented casualties. Thing's like power plants, ammo dumps, bridges, tunnels, and what have you. Say you fire a projectile, or missile at a military power plant, and you know it may set off the adjacent fuel tanks and destroy the cooling towers, etc. and is part of the goal of destroying the power plant, then that would be intended collateral damage, and therefore ensuring that said powerplant can not be up and running ever. I am in no way saying screw the rest of the area and people where the ordinance will land. I am no terrorist, so you can put the angry face elsewhere. Instead of these misunderstandings we have you can just ask.

collateral damage — Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack. (Joint Publication 3-60)

Been busy lately, not too much time for the boards. Be back again with replies I have not yet made.

SteaminDemon

[The Chap]

Please be kind gents

Best to begin with a compliment, I think. Smashing art.

If you will all be open minded - and this is, after all a future BB design - please ponder the following:

Is there any pressing reason for the bridge to be central?
Given the above, and the power requirements & train losses regarding EW and perhaps DEW and assuming both would be mounted at the highest point above water for OTH, is it not possible to plonk both astern?
Sooo ... if firing 100nm+ would multiple foward placed heavy guns be so radical?

Well, if that hasn't got some tutting, I do have a rather unusual architectural solution that may work toward resolving the "torpedo question".

80,000 tons disp? Fish will break her spine. Lift up, smash down. Why not make her spine subtle? Say 4 hulls? Two centre, bow and stern, hydraulically stiffened and held to seakeeping tolerence by breakaway members ... ?

Normal sailing but not broken back when the fish go bang.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

I am not speaking of unintentional collateral damage I.E civilians and their homes, and any non mission oriented casualties. Thing's like power plants, ammo dumps, bridges, tunnels, and what have you. Say you fire a projectile, or missile at a military power plant, and you know it may set off the adjacent fuel tanks and destroy the cooling towers, etc. and is part of the goal of destroying the power plant, then that would be intended collateral damage, and therefore ensuring that said powerplant can not be up and running ever. I am in no way saying screw the rest of the area and people where the ordinance will land. I am no terrorist, so you can put the angry face elsewhere. Instead of these misunderstandings we have you can just ask.

1. Words have meaning, especially on an influential military-centric forum like WAB. It remains a NONSENSE to suggest that the US should develop weapons that *maximize collateral damage* like you did.

2. Your example of a *military power plant*, including adjacent fuel tanks and cooling towers, is a MILITARY OBJECTIVE, i.e. an object which effectively contributes to the enemy’s war-fighting or war-sustaining capability. As such, it is a perfectly LAWFUL MILITARY TARGET.

3. As already mentioned in another thread, the effectiveness of battleships guns against industrial sites like your power plant has often been GROSSLY EXAGGERATED. For instance, here is what it says in Malcolm Muir's Iowa Class Battleships regarding the shore bombardment conducted against Hitachi Miro on 17 July 1945 (page 65) :

In 51 minutes, the three Iowas [USS Iowa, USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin] shot off 697 16-inch shells, mostly with point detonating fuses set on 'Super Quick', although the Missouri fired one armor-piercing projectile by mistake.

Initial post-bombardment assessments were optimistic. Judging from aerial photographs, Missouri officers concluded the damage to be very severe.

Evaluators on the spot after the war reached a very different conclusion. Only three of the nine industrial areas were hit, and even in those unlucky three, direct damage was slight.

[maximusslade]

Chap, I am very appreciative of your suggestions. I just have a single problem...I am having trouble understanding some of what you are saying . I speak only two languages American English and very bad English. Also, I am unfamiliar with your acronymn DEW. I also dont understand what you mean when you speak of train losses and power requirements. Are you speaking of power requirements for the radar arrays and the like? I do apologize for my ignorance... If you could, please, rewrite your post in a way I may be better able to understand. Many thanks.

P.S. Given some the language you used, I could almost hear the accent as I read your post lol

[maximusslade]

In reference to Steamin's and Shipwreck's conversation....

I know I have said this before in reference to BB guns, but you need to look at for what BB ammunition was designed for. Here I will focus on non AP ammo. AP ammo was designed to penetrate over a foot a hardened steel. NonAP, which I'll just call HE for now (I know there are several types of non ap) HE (unless I am mistaken) was designed for "soft" targets (such as lightly or unarmored ships or things of that nature.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

1. Words have meaning, especially on an influential military-centric forum like WAB. It remains a NONSENSE to suggest that the US should develop weapons that *maximize collateral damage* like you did.

2. Your example of a *military power plant*, including adjacent fuel tanks and cooling towers, is a MILITARY OBJECTIVE, i.e. an object which effectively contributes to the enemy’s war-fighting or war-sustaining capability. As such, it is a perfectly LAWFUL MILITARY TARGET.

3. As already mentioned in another thread, the effectiveness of battleships guns against industrial sites like your power plant has often been GROSSLY EXAGGERATED. For instance, here is what it says in Malcolm Muir's Iowa Class Battleships regarding the shore bombardment conducted against Hitachi Miro on 17 July 1945 (page 65) :

No need to yell, dude. Otherwise, good points. Although there remains that tricky little detail of firebombing and such in WWII.

[maximusslade]

No need to yell, dude. Otherwise, good points. Although there remains that tricky little detail of firebombing and such in WWII.

Don't forget nuclear weapons either

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

Don't forget nuclear weapons either

My guess is all thoughts appealing to collateral damage are moot when the nukes come out. Sooner or later that fallout will reach those that were on the sidelines and not a part. So much for collateral damage in that sense.

[The Chap]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

Chap, I am very appreciative of your suggestions. I just have a single problem...I am having trouble understanding some of what you are saying . I speak only two languages American English and very bad English. Also, I am unfamiliar with your acronymn DEW. I also dont understand what you mean when you speak of train losses and power requirements. Are you speaking of power requirements for the radar arrays and the like? I do apologize for my ignorance... If you could, please, rewrite your post in a way I may be better able to understand. Many thanks.

P.S. Given some the language you used, I could almost hear the accent as I read your post lol

My appologies! Years on the WAB have clearly bread a presumptuous coloquialist!

DEW = Directed Energy Weapon
OTH = Over The Horizon
Fish = poor slang for torpedoes
Train losses covers a load () of issues including problems ranging from simple electrical resistance to meeting sudden spikes in electrical power demand - be they from propulsion, systems or weapons.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Originally Posted by The Chap

My appologies! Years on the WAB have clearly bread a presumptuous coloquialist!

DEW = Directed Energy Weapon
OTH = Over The Horizon
Fish = poor slang for torpedoes
Train losses covers a load () of issues including problems ranging from simple electrical resistance to meeting sudden spikes in electrical power demand - be they from propulsion, systems or weapons.

So basically, stick the super structure on top of the engines to minimize power losses.

[The Chap]

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

So basically, stick the super structure on top of the engines to minimize power losses.

.... depending; for e.g. the weapons may be DEWs or electromanetic-kinetic. If the engines are mechanically conected to the props, stern is best. This would suppose conventional powerplant, requiring immediately proximate generators.
Nuclear generation makes all more flexible for system placement.
Super-conductors for high drain bits and bobs allow even more design freedom.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Originally Posted by The Chap

.... depending; for e.g. the weapons may be DEWs or electromanetic-kinetic. If the engines are mechanically conected to the props, stern is best. This would suppose conventional powerplant, requiring immediately proximate generators.
Nuclear generation makes all more flexible for system placement.
Super-conductors for high drain bits and bobs allow even more design freedom.

Yay for superconductors. I was just reading the other day about some new iron based high temperature superconductors.

[American Empire]

My idea for a new battleship class is as follows. Develope a main armament that takes full advantage of the rail gun techonlogy replacing the Mark 7 naval artillery. Give it 9x16 along with 20x5 guns for secondary armament.

The 16 inch naval artillery would reach out for many miles and bombard the enemy inland. The secondary armament provides firepower when a smaller caliber or higher rate of fire is needed (of course you would have to be much closer to your target to hit them) The new BBs would be around 30,000 to 40,000 tons and be nuclear powered. The 20mm and 40mm guns that served in the AA role in WWII would be replaced by SAMs and chaff and flares would be added to counter anti-ship missiles.

The BB big guns are not nearly as accurate as cruise missiles - and that is what makes them so effective. The enemy knows that the US military can hit a moving vehicle or nail a small building with a missile so they will just get out of the car/building and hide knowing that they are safe so long as we don't know their exact location. but with 2,700 lb shells landing at a rate of say two per minute they will never know when they might be caught in the blast zone. No PGM could produce such a awesome shock and awe effect. The ground will shake, the noise will be intense, and the firestorm would be amazing. No PGM could produce the same kind of destruction those big guns could. With a PGM you have to know exactly where your enemy is with naval artillery you only need to know the general location. They would be up all night listening and watching those guns fire.

The lack of sleep and sheer fear factor would be a nasty blow to their morale and this as history as shown can be a deciding factor. The Marines or in some cases soldiers hitting the beach. That huge naval artillery with every mightly salvo would scream "we got your back" those huge blasts coming up from the ground where the 2,700 hit the ground would been seen by the troops in the landing craft and boast their morale.

Would you want to have those 16 inchers pointing at your enemy? I sure would.
Would you want them pointing at you? I sure as hell wouldn't!

Thats all for now.

[maximusslade]

I am back Gentlemen! I hope you all have been doing well and all such things. Just wanted to let you all know that I have really busy the past couple months (looking for a new house and like things). I just wanted to let you all know that I am continuing work on what I would call a far more realistic and practical verson of my USS Constitution battlecruiser (CCGN-7). I hope you all are looking forward to seeing it as much as I am looking forward to posting
it.