MY ideas for a FUTURISTIC BB

[mweber24]

The 155mm AGS is less than three years from Initial Operational Capability. Any new technology has risk, but since it would take a few years to build a battleship anyway (and it is a dream project anyway), I figured you might as well go for the gold Working at a COCOM staff, I can tell you that being able to delivery firepower in just enough quantities is much more important in today's warfare than gross overkill. It is simply unacceptable to level a city block to take out a machine gun nest, so for a BBs firepower to be useful, it would need to be scaleable to an extent much greater than in the past. A 7.62 and a 5.56 round are still both designed to kill a person, but a BB shell should be scaled to kill maybe one person, or a whole lot.

MV^2 will take care of the difference in shell mass. Modern propellents (or electromagnatism) can get a small shell at hyper velocities with post barrel boost (rocket assist). Bigger generally is better, but it is generally easier to make small seem bigger than to make big have a small effect, which is required in modern warfare. Bigger gun also mean much bigger space and weight for the gun, more recoil, and more big moving parts, and a launcher that is harder to armor.

Electric drive will be used on DDG-1000. It has been previously used on BBs in the past, as well as the Lexington class (CV2). Not really a new concept, but much better technology available today. Projected weapons and sensors simply require a huge electrical load, so an all electric ship could take advantage of shifting unneeded propulsive power to other systems without having too many engines. Elimination of propellor shafts are also big benifits to internal space and damage control. The Queen Mary 2 already uses these drives in service, the technology is not unproven, and it is fuel efficient (if the ship is not nuclear).

[Maxor]

I don't understand the whole point of havine a small impact naval gun for shore bombardment. Extreme accuracy I understand firing a non-explosive armour peircing shell at a ballistic angle and you have very little collateral damage surrounding your target if you hit. If you miss thats a different story. Fused explosive shells you can have overkill with but even then its not really particualarly likely that anything you would want to be firing at with a battleship will have anything close to it that you worry that much about hitting collaterally.

[maximusslade]

Hmm, I think you make a very good point Maxor. I totally neglected to think about non explosive shells, much like those concrete filled bomb casings that were used in our most recent conflict.

[mweber24]

Most strike missions carried out in the last 20 years were in urban environments. Collateral damage is a HUGE concern. A BB weapon that cannot deliver precise, proportional, firepower at long distance (50 plus NM) will NOT be used, not matter how sexy. I think a mix of explosive shells and non-explosive would have be available (assuming rail guns ever work). The non explosive shell might have come controlable impact power, but not at long range (it will come down screaming from heaven with MASSIVE amounts of kinetic energy), so a fuzed explosive projectile would be required, and it would also be better for wide area bombardment if determined necessary, with fuzed air bursts.

[BBwarrior]

Just want to say...Great designs!! BB Montana looks so sleek and modern. I wonder how much greater her combined firepower - it looks like you have VLS as part of the design - would be as compared to DDG-1000?

[maximusslade]

At the last time i counted, there were 360 VLS launchers. Maybe it's overkill, but if I understand VLS correctly, they can launch a variety of ordinance; including Tomahawk, Standard, Seasparrow.

Again, you guys make think it's overkill, but please let me describe the premise underwhich I designed these ships. I did not design these things thinking about what the Navy needs NOW, but rather what I think the Navy

[maximusslade]

whoops...

...but rather what I think the Navy WILL need in the future. There are several growing powers out there that are working very hard at developing blue water navies, navies that could rival ours. It is for that time that I design my nuclear powered, guided missle battleship. The idea is that this ship can carry a massive amount of fire power and armor so that it and others like it can destroy enemy battlegroups AND withstand enemy fire and survive with low loss of life and maintain some combat capability.

[maximusslade]

I guess i should put some specs out there for this thing.
(Please bear in mind I am an amature naval architect LOL and if soemthing seems genuinley way out there let me now. If it is just a tiny bit of a stretch, just chalk it up to ignorance LOL. )

Montana (BBGN72)
Displacement: 80,000 tons
Length: 925 feet (overall)
Beam: 125 feet
Draught: 36 feet
Guestimated crew: 1100

Armament

12 16''/50 cal Mk10 (yeah, i guessed a mark.. probably wouldnt go with the same mark as the Iowas)

12 5"/54 (many might suggest the 155MM gun in single mounts and reduced to maybe 4 guns. I could go with that, but I havent drawn it yet LOL)

360 VLS launcers (stick what you want in em)

16 20mm CIWS (refer to the "wall of lead" post above.

48 Harpoons (Yeah I know... Old stuff, but it's on the drawing and can be easily deleted. If anyone has got something better they could stick in the lauchers I am open to suggestions. Perhaps i can swap em out for RAM launchers.)

56 SeaSparrows (In 8x7 launchers. Again, if anyone has suggestions let me know)

2 x 4 76mm guns (I know, what's the use, right? I thought it looked good on the drawing, while they may never be installed on a capitol ship, they will stay on the drawing cause *I* think they look damned cool.)

Armor

Main Belt: 14'' Class A on 1" STS External Belt Inclined 10 degrees from vertical
Secondary belt (i.e. the belt internal to the bulge on the sides below the surface): tapered 5"to 1" Class A
Weather Deck: 2"
Armor Deck: 5"
Splinter Deck: 1''
Bulkheads: 15"
Barbettes: 21" - 18"
Turrets:
Face: 18''
Roof: 9"
Sides: 10''
Rear: 10''

Conning Tower: 18'' w/ 6" roof

I would like to incorporate a hull design that would incorporate 5 load bearing keels that would better withstand the effects of ADCAP type torpedos. That might be a pipe dream, but I think it could work.

Machinery
2 x 250MW pressurized water reactors powering 4 steam generators
4 geared low pressure turbines
4 geared high pressure turbines for 225,000shp
4 8MW Turbine Generators

Now I need you SWO daddys input on this. For back up generators what do they use these days? GTG's or Deisels?

Let me know what you guys think.

[JA Boomer]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

56 SeaSparrows (In 8x7 launchers)

In seperate Mk 21/29 box launchers?

What's the point...ESSM can be quad-packed in standard Mk 41 VLS canisters.

[maximusslade]

I take it ESSM is tech lingo for SeaSparrow. If so, sure quad packs are fine if that is what they are put in. And if that is the case, show me a picture and I'll try to adjust my picture accordingly.

[maximusslade]

OK, i should have done some research before I responded. Looking at it, my first inclination is to keep the VLS cells for the land attack and antiship missles and keep the ESSM in the box launchers. The primary mission of this ship is not AAW, but I want it to have some AAW capability. But on the other hand with four rounds per cell and 360 cells to work with, it would save a tiny bit of weight to get rid of the boxes... It could be suggested that I get rid of the boxes and use the space for RAM laucnhers... which might work. The lauchers though, now that I look at it, are close to where they would get punished my muzzleblast, so I probably should delete them altogether.

I am thinking of rearraging the lay out of stuff in the superstructure. That may be where you find the RAM in the future.

[JA Boomer]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

I take it ESSM is tech lingo for SeaSparrow.

ESSM = Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile. It's the next generation of Sea Sparrow, and is said to be VERY accurate. So much, that recent Arleigh Burke class Destroyers have been built without the CIWS's in place, because they carry ESSM in the Mk 41's.

Originally Posted by maximusslade

show me a picture and I'll try to adjust my picture accordingly.

Why, they come in canisters for the Mk 41, you can't see them in your designs, a lid for a Mk 41 canister looks the same no matter what it's packin' underneath.

Originally Posted by maximusslade

Looking at it, my first inclination is to keep the VLS cells for the land attack and antiship missles and keep the ESSM in the box launchers. The primary mission of this ship is not AAW, but I want it to have some AAW capability. But on the other hand with four rounds per cell and 360 cells to work with

The POINT would be that you could carry the same number of Sea Sparrow missile as your 7 Mk 21/29 box launchers in just 14 Mk 41 VLS canisters. You can also vary the number of ESSM's carried with mission requirements using the Mk 41, and I wouldn’t worry about swapping a few TLAM's for ESSM's when you've got 360 canisters on board.

The biggest reason is probably is to eliminate a missile launcher class from your design. Having all these weapons and launchers is cool...but not practical.

Originally Posted by maximusslade

I am thinking of rearraging the lay out of stuff in the superstructure. That may be where you find the RAM in the future.

I look forward to seeing it. Perhaps replace half of the Phalanx mounts with RAM launchers?

[JA Boomer]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

Before I do I just want everyone to know that this project is my baby and I am a little sensitive about it ( i guess anyone would be if they put 4 years into it) so please let the critisism be just and well founded. I want critics, not haters, LOL

Maximus...I LOVE your designs don't get me wrong. But if you want constructive criticism, here it is.

We've already covered the deletion of the Sea Sparrow and the Mk 21/29 launchers, to be replaced with ESSM in the Mk 41's.

I think you've got too many Phalanx's on the ship (either Constitution or Montana) if you left the two on the bow, two on the stern, and four on the quadrants of the superstructure, I think that would be more than adequate. Maybe delete the other 4-8 (I can't find them all in the pictures )

If you’re building a new class of battleship, why not build an upgraded Harpoon missile while you’re at it, one that can be deployed via the Mk 41 launchers. More flexible IMO, since it could be fired at a target in any direction, and gives the ship’s commander operational flexibility with the missile load. This would delete the dedicated Mk 141 Haproon launchers.

I would swap the 4 76mm gun mounts for the RAM launchers. They have a longer reach than the Phalanx, and 4 should be plenty.

If you’re worried about the ESSM and Harpoons taking up the space for TLAM's and other missile types, add more Mk 41 cells!

Let me know what you think...as I think you’re kind of partial to having as many different launchers as possible

[maximusslade]

Some very good suggestions and comments have been made in the past few days. I am very appreciative. Please keep them coming, I am beginning to update the drawings according to some, not all, suggestions. I have definatly given them a lot of thought.

I like the idea of Harpoons in Mk41 launchers. I think I may draw that in, but seeing as Harpoon is designed by and is the intellectual property of Boeing, I will leave it to them to design the new Harpoon and catch up with our forward thinking.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

I like the idea of Harpoons in Mk41 launchers. I think I may draw that in, but seeing as Harpoon is designed by and is the intellectual property of Boeing, I will leave it to them to design the new Harpoon and catch up with our forward thinking.

Its called harpoon Block III. IOC 2011