MY ideas for a FUTURISTIC BB

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by RAL's_pal?

I don't follow which museum has what, but I always thought the largest collection of museum ships was the one with the Intrepid, Edson and so on. Oh well, another museum I'll never see.

Actually the Intrepid museum is - at the moment - gutted of ships, with only USS Growler remaining.

USS Intrepid is away on an "overhaul"

Throughout the last several years, the Intrepid museum has operated a fund for the restoration, raising over $60 million to refit the Intrepid, to improve its exhibits for visitors, and improve Pier 86.

On December 5, 2006, after the removal of 39,000 cubic yards (30,000 m³) of muck from under the ship and around its four giant screws, Intrepid was successfully removed from its pier and was towed to Bayonne. The Intrepid is scheduled to return to Pier 86 in September of 2008.

The aircraft carrier Intrepid made a D-Day “landing” on Staten Island, Wednesday, June 6th, after being towed from a slip at Bayonne Dry Dock & Repair Corp.

While in Staten Island, Intrepid will undergo the next phase of her refurbishment, and receive an $8 million interior renovation.

Of that, $4.5 million has been raised – $3.5 million is yet to be procured. Never-before-seen areas of the ship including the fo’c’sle (commonly known as the anchor chain room), general berthing quarters and the ship’s machine shop will be opened to the public for the first time.

The hangar deck will feature a new layout and design including new interactive exhibits.

USS Edson was removed from the museum and put back in mothballs (apparently she wasn't a big enough attraction). She was replaced with a Concorde SST displayed on a floating barge.
The SST will be displayed on the dock under the new plans for the site.

The Edson served as a museum ship at the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum in New York City from 30 June 1989 to 2004 when it was replaced by a Concorde airliner.

The Saginaw Valley Naval Ship Museum, Bay City, Michigan and the Wisconsin Naval Ship Association, Sheboygan, Wisconsin are both in the process of submitting applications to the Naval Sea Systems Command, to relocate the ship and reinstate it as a museum ship in their respective locations.

The Navy is expected to announce its decision in the spring of 2008.

The ship is currently located in Philadelphia and would be towed to the site selected by the Navy at the expense of the sponsoring organization.

Battleship Cove in Fall River has 1 battleship, 1 destroyer, 1 submarine, 1 missile corvette and 2 PT boats.

(And yes, I know, you really don't care )

[SteaminDemon]

First question is for Gun Grape. If the shells were capable of going out to 350NM or further would you be in support of the proposed ship that Maximus has come up with? I would, even if it is 100 NM.

In case you do not know, I do support the current reactivation of the Battleships. That has been a debate that has been around forever, and has been debated as such. However, my views for reactivation have been a little different, although I do agree with many of the views of some pro reactivation folks, and have weighed what the anti reactivation crowd has said, I do agree with some of their feelings and have learned a lot from both sides. The Iowa's have their pro's and con's, as does every ship afloat. To say they offer nothing at all is simply not true, as is saying bringing them back will be an end all, which is simply not true as well.

A chief advantage if brought back now is what they would do for the current rotations of today. I did post in another thread about rotations and how they would be substantially improved if the Battleships were added to the fleet. That is just one of the reasons for my support of their reactivations. You can not do that with a Tin can, nor a straw bottom cruiser or any ship that is currently on the drawing board. If we are to ever bring them back, I feel all four should be brought back, instead of just two like the USNFSA was pushing for. If you are going to do it, do it right, not half *****.

Other reasons include their outstanding plant redundancy and reliability, and their ability to aid the fleet in churning out parts. To add to that, our repair ships are not what they used to be (as far as numbers go) and we could sure use some more ships that have a machine shop that can not only support their needs, but that of other ships also. We lost 4 AOE's, which were prematurely retired.....well, except maybe USS Detroit. The only way we should have kept her around was with a thorough SLEP. So a ship that can carry that extra fuel for her escorts is a plus.

Her firepower. That is another plus for the fleet. It can and should be improved upon. VLS and improved 5" guns along with extended range 16" projectiles, Goalkeeper CIWS, among other things. Gun grape, help me out on this one, There is a radar, I can not remember the designation, but it is able to track multiple targets like AEGIS is able to, and would be able to be installed on the Iowa's. I heard of the MK 160 (improved fire control), but it is not the one that is on my mind.

The pork barrel projects, cost plus fee nightmares, LRLAP, DDX, ERGM, LPD overruns and so on. Battleship reactivation and the costs associated with implementing the 16" extended range munition program would be a drop in the bucket compared to the above mentioned.

Take it easy for now.

[RAL's_pal?]

Originally Posted by TopHatter

USS Edson was removed from the museum and put back in mothballs (apparently she wasn't a big enough attraction).

I knew a guy who was on the Edson. He said that once a year they'd show the Twilight Zone episode that had the Edson in it.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Battleship Cove in Fall River has 1 battleship, 1 destroyer, 1 submarine, 1 missile corvette and 2 PT boats.

(And yes, I know, you really don't care

I can't get excited about traveling a distance and then getting a token tour that includes the main deck and maybe the mess decks. You got to go into an engine room on the BB, right? But, fireroom??

Instead of Dread and the Jersey, I'd think more about Pearl with the Arizona Memorial and the Misery. There's a lot more interesting stuff in Hawaii IMHO.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

First question is for Gun Grape. If the shells were capable of going out to 350NM or further would you be in support of the proposed ship that Maximus has come up with? I would, even if it is 100 NM.

If they are small shells. Big bullets, with big casualty zones don't do me any good if I am in an engaged fight. The standard for 16in back in the 1980s was that anything within 2000 meters was "Danger Close" So big bullets mean that I have to engage them way off. OK if you are in the desert. bad anywhere else.

You can do this with things like GMLRS
LiveLeak.com - Taking out Insurgent sniper

A 12/14/16in round couldn't even be considered.

The Iowa's have their pro's and con's, as does every ship afloat. To say they offer nothing at all is simply not true, as is saying bringing them back will be an end all, which is simply not true as well.

What do you think an Iowa, in their present configuration, brings to the Navy?

Other reasons include their outstanding plant redundancy and reliability, and their ability to aid the fleet in churning out parts. To add to that, our repair ships are not what they used to be (as far as numbers go) and we could sure use some more ships that have a machine shop that can not only support their needs, but that of other ships also.

Most classes can fab parts for their own ships use and the bigger ships LHA/LHD/CVs all have machine shops that can support the rest of the Taskforce.

So a ship that can carry that extra fuel for her escorts is a plus.

Then don't waste the money of a 60yr old hull. Use it to build a new oiler

Her firepower. That is another plus for the fleet. It can and should be improved upon. VLS and improved 5" guns along with extended range 16" projectiles, Goalkeeper CIWS, among other things. Gun grape, help me out on this one, There is a radar, I can not remember the designation, but it is able to track multiple targets like AEGIS is able to, and would be able to be installed on the Iowa's. I heard of the MK 160 (improved fire control), but it is not the one that is on my mind.

The pork barrel projects, cost plus fee nightmares, LRLAP, DDX, ERGM, LPD overruns and so on. Battleship reactivation and the costs associated with implementing the 16" extended range munition program would be a drop in the bucket compared to the above mentioned.

Why do you think that the BB reactivation or 16in ER projectiles would not be the same pork barrel nightmares that everything else is?

My biggest problem with people that want to reactivate the Battleships is that even they talk about how the ships need armament upgrades, radar upgrades and comm upgrades. If you are going to spend all that money build a new hull and design it to your specs and needs. Not work around a 60yr old hull where you have to make design compromise after compromise.

[maximusslade]

Originally Posted by RAL's_pal?

I cant get excited about traveling a distance and then getting a token tour that includes the main deck and maybe the mess decks. You got to go into an engine room on the BB, right? But, fireroom??

Instead of Dread and the Jersey, I'd think more about Pearl with the Arizona Memorial and the Misery. There's a lot more interesting stuff in Hawaii IMHO.

Having been to Battleship Cove more than once I can say that it is a little more than a token tour. Other than the usual, bridge, turret, officer country tour, other sites include an engine room, an electical switchgear room, CIC, powder handling rooms, two or three levels of shell handling in #2 turret, 5" magazines, 40MM magazines, and a couple other things I might have forgotten.

[maximusslade]

Ok, here we go. Here I have the latest incarnation of my USS Constitution battlecruiser.



I deleted the Phalanx guns and added 6 Goalkeepers; 2 at the bow, 2 at the stern and two amidships. I deleted the fixed harpoon launchers and added 4 12 shot movable launders. Added 24 VLS canisters just forward of the bridge. Deleted 8 of the 5" guns and deleted all of the 76MMs. And the main guns I am going with a 12''/54 or 60 for now. Let me know what you guys think.

How about this as well? For those 12 inch guns, how about a 5" (possibly rocket assisted for really long range use) sabot round that could be used for some long range precision and small bang work and use the 12'' round for closer up, heavy duty work. Think about it, 5" round with a 12" charge? Would pretty much be like shooting a .22 using a 50BMG charge. That will put some whiz on the round. Let me hear your thoughts.

[maximusslade]

Oh yeah, almost forgot, I also added six RAM launchers.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

2 at the bow, 2 at the stern

get rid of them. You want them high. At bow level they will not see incoming missiles until the very last second and for boat targets they have a small engagement range. Keep them high for better slant angles and engagement times.

I deleted the fixed harpoon launchers and added 4 12 shot movable launders.

Why? your 2 forward one restrict you big gun shooting due to blast damage and they will be taking water in anything but calm seas. The
Sparktricians and gunners mates will "love" you for that. VLS capable poon will be out in 2010. Plan for using them.

How about this as well? For those 12 inch guns, how about a 5" (possibly rocket assisted for really long range use) sabot round that could be used for some long range precision and small bang work and use the 12'' round for closer up, heavy duty work. Think about it, 5" round with a 12" charge? Would pretty much be like shooting a .22 using a 50BMG charge. That will put some whiz on the round. Let me hear your thoughts.

No, Sabot rounds are never a good thing for fire support planning. Especially if you are planning on shooting it over the heads of friendly troops.

[maximusslade]

What is 'Poon?'

As for the sabot, I was actually thinking of something close to a 5" guided muniton. You know, a 5" bomb with steering fins and a guidance package up front. Kinda like a 250 lb guided bomb shot from a gun.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

What is 'Poon?'

Harpoon. A 12 pack launcher will be pretty slow and heavy what are you launching out of it?

As for the sabot, I was actually thinking of something close to a 5" guided muniton. You know, a 5" bomb with steering fins and a guidance package up front. Kinda like a 250 lb guided bomb shot from a gun.

Won't matter. You always plan on inconsistent sabot break away, no break away, partial breakaway. So you have to plan for where the packing material lands or what happens if you have partial breakaway and the projectile starts tumbling.

We do the same with deployable fins (Ie Copperhead) You must plan for fins not deploying.

You don't shoot those types of rounds over the heads of friendly troop.

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

get rid of them. You want them high. At bow level they will not see incoming missiles until the very last second and for boat targets they have a small engagement range. Keep them high for better slant angles and engagement times.

What GG said

Maximus, think about how they are mounted on real-world naval vessals.

Invariably they are high up and on the superstructure.

The only times I've seen them "down low" is on a ship whose top decks are already high above the waterline, like aviation ships.

[maximusslade]

Ok, so I deleted the Harpoon launchers and assumed that they will be put in VLS soon. I also deleted the forward and aft CIWS and put 3 on the centerline, high in the superstruction that way they can engage targets on both beams. I left the RAM as they were. I kept the guns.

[SteaminDemon]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

If they are small shells. Big bullets, with big casualty zones don't do me any good if I am in an engaged fight. The standard for 16in back in the 1980s was that anything within 2000 meters was "Danger Close" So big bullets mean that I have to engage them way off. OK if you are in the desert. bad anywhere else..

Well, the Iowa would not have just "big bullets". If reactivated (and the 16" Extended range PJ's were included), She would have 16", 13&11" Sabot, as well as her 5". She would be able to engage more than just one type of target.

You can do this with things like GMLRS
LiveLeak.com - Taking out Insurgent sniper

A 12/14/16in round couldn't even be considered.

That is why it pays to have a mix of systems and include above comment.

What do you think an Iowa, in their present configuration, brings to the Navy?

Even in her present configuration, she brings her reliability, redundancy, and firepower out to 24NM. Along with out dated ABL's, older PHALANX, out dated comms equipment and so on. However, I do not agree that if they were to come back, that is the way we should keep the battleships, more on that later.

Most classes can fab parts for their own ships use and the bigger ships LHA/LHD/CVs all have machine shops that can support the rest of the Taskforce.

Well, the LHA's & LHD's machine shops (even the CVN's) have enough to worry about with the ship and the air wing. They were jambed up to where we couldn't get a shaft for our distillate pump among other things. So for a majority of the time with embarked Marines, your above statement is not true.

Then don't waste the money of a 60yr old hull. Use it to build a new oiler

It wouldn't be a waste of money, the oiler wouldn't be able to come near the battleships capabilities. We wasted money when we decommed our 4 AOE's.

Originally Posted by by me

Her firepower. That is another plus for the fleet. It can and should be improved upon. VLS and improved 5" guns along with extended range 16" projectiles, Goalkeeper CIWS, among other things. Gun grape, help me out on this one, There is a radar, I can not remember the designation, but it is able to track multiple targets like AEGIS is able to, and would be able to be installed on the Iowa's. I heard of the MK 160 (improved fire control), but it is not the one that is on my mind.

Why do you think that the BB reactivation or 16in ER projectiles would not be the same pork barrel nightmares that everything else is?

Well, that depends on who the contract is awarded to and how it is awarded. It should be an FPI ( Fixed price incentive) contract with a ceiling of maybe 10 to 20% at the most to account for any design changes if they should happen. Many a contractor are real happy with the way things are going now. They are getting paid with a majority of it being for just making CAD drawings, models, and air time on the discovery channel among other things.

My biggest problem with people that want to reactivate the Battleships is that even they talk about how the ships need armament upgrades, radar upgrades and comm upgrades. If you are going to spend all that money build a new hull and design it to your specs and needs. Not work around a 60yr old hull where you have to make design compromise after compromise.

Just in case you didn't know, even our current ships receive modernization and upgrading. Whether it be improved generator controls, wind screen's for the outer casing, fuel compensating systems, improved comms equipment, SHIPALTS, MECHALTS, and the things mentioned above are all going on. They have to work around the already built hull. Don't forget about the design and money that was poured in to the SSGN project as well. The same would be the case for the Iowa's. Why would you not want to upgrade, as is being done currently to many ships? Even with newer ships, they have to make design compromises. Would it be cost effective just to build new ones instead of upgrading them as we are doing now? No. The Iowa's can adapt to changes, as they already have.

So, by using those hulls, we would be able to get those ships out there a lot quicker instead of starting from scratch. So from there you would be able to have better rotations that will not only benefit the ships, but the sailors as well. If go is the word, then we can begin working on a new design, and gain much valuable information about what should be carried over and what improvements should be made to the new design. Though old, there is much we can learn from the past.

One other thing Gun grape, can you help me out on that radar question I asked earlier? I can't remember which Mark it was.

Take it easy for now
Steamin Demon

[FOG3]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

Well, the Iowa would not have just "big bullets". If reactivated (and the 16" Extended range PJ's were included), She would have 16", 13&11" Sabot, as well as her 5". She would be able to engage more than just one type of target.

That is why it pays to have a mix of systems and include above comment.

A person arguing the value of pre-Dreadnought concepts over the Dreadnought concept that is responsible for the modern perception of "Battleships." How interesting. As is the lack of why 12-16" all big gun battleship armament was of such great value compared to 6-11" Cruiser main guns.

Especially when the only noteworthy action of HMS Dreadnought herself was ramming a German Uboat that would have sent her to the bottom if not for some mechanical trouble.

It wouldn't be a waste of money, the oiler wouldn't be able to come near the battleships capabilities. We wasted money when we decommed our 4 AOE's.

So, how do you feed a gas turbine unrefined coal?

Perry-class FFG: Gas Turbines
LCS: Gas Turbines & Diesel
CG-47 Ticonderogas: Gas Turbines
DDG 51 Arleigh Burkes: Gas turbines
DDG-1000 Zumwalts: Gas Turbines
SSNs: PWR and Diesel
CVN: PWRs and a lot of liquid fuel on board for everything else

BB-61 Iowas: Coal fired steam power plants

The modern escorts don't use coal, and the CVN carries what they actually do use and can refuel them in transit. Evidence the BB-61 class can do so for modern ships using modern gas turbines?

[SteaminDemon]

Originally Posted by FOG3

A person arguing the value of pre-Dreadnought concepts over the Dreadnought concept that is responsible for the modern perception of "Battleships." How interesting. As is the lack of why 12-16" all big gun battleship armament was of such great value compared to 6-11" Cruiser main guns.

So, how do you feed a gas turbine unrefined coal?

Why would you be carrying coal? The Iowa Class battleships carry and burn DFM (Diesel Fuel Marine) which is the same fuel that a gas turbine powered ship burns. And to add to that, they are able to burn JP-5 as well. No one is talking about pre dreadnought battleships.

As to the value of the guns, whatever you can bring to the scene is valuable.