MY ideas for a FUTURISTIC BB

[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?

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?

You even edited your post and still fail to realize that the BB-61 Iowa Class Battleships burn DFM. Not Coal. They have never burned coal. Prior to their modernization they burned NSFO (Navy Special Fuel Oil). All those ships you mentioned above burn DFM. The Iowa class battleships carry DFM and burn DFM.

[FOG3]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

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.

Not originally, and I seem to recall that conversion caused some issues.

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

No one is talking about pre dreadnought battleships.

Oh, but we are because this involves theory of the Battleship to justify its existence. Despite what some of you seem to think God did not deliver the Iowas from on high into a vacuum with their divinely mighty armor and guns. They're just ships made by man, just like all the rest.

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

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

Here's a 2kT nuke, but if you use it they're be an international incident. Is it useful?


Last I checked the USMC was not big on getting on the whole idea of getting wiped out by their own guns, and Cruisers were preferred for NGFS in WW2 for the same reason.

EDIT:
Fine, it burned liquid fuel. I admit to assuming boilers meant coal, especially as I recall mention of coal bunker in earlier discussions. It's not like I ever claimed to be an expert on the things, so no need to get all crotchy about it. In case you haven't noticed Global Security doesn't make a real point to outline the actual fuel used.

[SteaminDemon]

Originally Posted by FOG3

Not originally, and I seem to recall that conversion caused some issues.

How can you recall anything if you aren't able to grasp the fact that BB-61 - BB64 burn DFM and have never once in their existence burned coal? The Pump end was modified to handle DFM. No issues. Also, the steam piping for the fuel heaters were blanked off.

The B&W 600 PSI M-Type Boilers that are on board all the Iowa Class Battleships (BB-61 - 64) were never designed, never did burn coal and could in no way shape or form burn coal. They never had coal bunkers or anything of that sort. Please get your facts straight.

[SteaminDemon]

Originally Posted by FOG3

EDIT:
Fine, it burned liquid fuel. I admit to assuming boilers meant coal, especially as I recall mention of coal bunker in earlier discussions. It's not like I ever claimed to be an expert on the things, so no need to get all crotchy about it. In case you haven't noticed Global Security doesn't make a real point to outline the actual fuel used.

...Fog, you have me rolling. First laugh of the day. Bring some coal and you can shovel it in my gas boiler. J/K

And as far as the Nuke....depends, it would sure make them think twice.

[RAL's_pal?]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

How can you recall anything if you aren't able to grasp the fact that BB-61 - BB64 burn DFM and have never once in their existence burned coal? The Pump end was modified to handle DFM. No issues. Also, the steam piping for the fuel heaters were blanked off.

I don't remember the fuel oil heaters at all, however the Iowas had new steam fuel oil pumps installed, lower level foward bulkhead, IIRC and 150# steam (atomizing steam, 365 degrees) lines were added to heat the fuel oil just before it reached the burners.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

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.

There is no such radar.

[Gun Grape]

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.

But you seem to have missed my post that Sabot rounds will not be fired over the heads of friendly troops. So none of those things will except the 5" will be there to provide NGF to troops on the ground.

Even in her present configuration, she brings her reliability, redundancy, and firepower out to 24NM.

And FtS/OMFTS states that in an amphibious operation ships will be at least 25 miles from the beach. So she could almost reach shore.

Modern amphibious assaults will be like those that the RM/USMC did in Umm Qasr and Al Faw.
An element lands in an undefended area/friendly territory, assembles and then attacks from a flank while another unit may conduct a standard LCU/AAV type assault , a OTH helo assault or both. No more "Hey did*le ,straight up the middle"

Now if we are storming Tarawa again, I'll give her a call.

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.

You just didn't ask nice enough I've done 7 floats and the only time the shops were working hard was during Deny Flight, where we were flying 24/7 and providing rotation for TRAP alert. Even then the machine shot was able to take a broken pack frame(we were Testing new packs) figure out why it broke, what needed to be done to fix the problem and fabricate replacements for 2 infantry companies. Also had time to engrave various Zippos for us too That was on the Kearsarge.

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.

It will more than fill the shoes if the justification fro recommissioning is refuel capability.

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.

No way. Going places never gone before with a ton of work to be figured out. Its the same bottomless pit that SADArm was. A 30 yr project that was obsolete and too expensive when they finally got it to work.

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.

Becaust those ships that are being SLEPed and upgraded don't have 60+ yr old hulls. Its one thing to SLEP a Tarawa at 30-35 yrs, after various overhauls, to get another 15 yrs out of her. A total hull life of 50yrs. Its another thing to SLEP a 60+ yr old ship. Especially for the return you will get. All those wonder rounds will still be on the drawing board or under limited testing 15 yrs after commissioning.

And the big argument against it is that the hull/steel is the cheapest part of the ship. Why would I want to put a new stereo, GPS, MP3, OnStar, Impact glass reinforced doors, airbags ect in a car that drove off the lot in 1943. The investment doesn't pay off. Better to buy me a new car, with no miles and have those things installed

So, by using those hulls, we would be able to get those ships out there a lot quicker instead of starting from scratch.

I'll leave the expert opinion to Rusty, but I'm betting bringing them up to mixed crew standards and the sit-up bunks and all the mechanical,and plumbing work, to bring them into the No more "Bring your trash to the fantail for dumping" it may be faster and less expensive to start from scratch. I'm sure the people that would be tasked with doing those mods would eat a lot less rolaids.

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.

I'll have to look for it.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by 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.

Slade,

One of the problems with your designs (leaving aside the concept itself) is that they don't take main gun blast into account.

The easiest way to mitigate this major problem would be to concentrate your main battery forward, and locate blast-sensitive items (VLS, radar / sensors, aviation facilities, etc...) aft.

In case you wish to further investigate issues related to blast overpressure, I'd suggest you take a look at these documents :

1. 16-Inch Gunblast Experiments, by J. Yagla, NSWC Dahlgren, February 1989 (ref. NSWC-TR-88-407).

2. Sixteen-Inch Gun Blast and the Battleship Reactivation Program, by J. Yagla, Naval Engineers Journal, Vol. 99, Issue #3, 1987.

3. Gun Blast from Naval Guns, by M.F. Walther, Naval Weapons Lab. Dahlgren, August 1972 (ref. NWL-TR-2733).

[fitz]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Slade,

One of the problems with your designs (leaving aside the concept itself) is that they don't take main gun blast into account.

The easiest way to mitigate this major problem would be to concentrate your main battery forward, and locate blast-sensitive items (VLS, radar / sensors, aviation facilities, etc...) aft.

I've been holding my breath up until now because... well, I find the whole concept silly in the extreme - but I believe there are things to be learned even with silly concepts. And you just struck on one of them.

This design suffers from backwards thinking and antiquated ideas. Instead of deciding on a mission, a set of requirements and then looking at various alternatives to find the best solution to those requirements the author has designed a ship based on an emotional attachment for a bygone era and now has to come up with something for it to do. That's bass ackwards and guarantee's an end product that will be a bloated white whale.

That complaint aside, lets get to the practical problems of the ship as presented.

What first strikes me is how antiquated it looks. The layout seems to pay litle notice to the fact that 70 years have gone by since the height of the battleship era.

Why does the superstructure look like something out of the1930's instead of something designed in an era when electronics dominate ship design?

Why the fore and aft main battery arrangement? Is there some intention to get into a gun battle with other battleships?

Why arrange the secondary battery on the beam? In the good ol' days the secondary gun battery was arranged to provide 360-degree coverage against attack from aircraft and destroyers. Today one would want a maximum broadside for attacking land targets.

And one last one - Why have optical range finders on the main battery turrets?!?!?!?!?

It seems to me a ship designed for modern requirements is going to have a large block superstructure similar to that of DDG-1000 with fixed phased array radars for surface search, volume search, fire control and aircraft control - not the tiny towers of the 1930's.

There is no great advantage to spreading the main battery mounts forward and aft, and no reason to if the primary reason for having them is attacking land targets. Indeed, there would be a great many advantages to mounting them forward. Blast interference problems could be mitigated and it would allow for a more ideal placement of the aviation facilities closer to amidships. DDG-1000 again sets the example here with her guns concentrated forward to allow for much improved aviation facilities over the losing rival design which had conventional fore/aft gun placement.

The next issue of course would be how many major caliber guns one actually needs. Since we don't have any requirements to meet this is a tough one - usually to give an answer one has to know what the question is. Why two twins? Why not one twin? Or one triple? Or two singles? Each solution has its merits and its problems.

Under the circumstances I think we can set aside discussions of caliber.

What about that secondary battery. Past experience has shown us that while battleships and those big phallic guns get 99.999998% of the attention, smaller caliber guns do the lions share of the work. If memory serves (and it is probably off a hair or more) at Iwo Jima for example battleships fired something like 9,000 main battery rounds while 180,000 5-inch rounds were fired in the same battle. 90% of all naval gunfire support in Korea was provided by 5-inch guns.

If the role of this ships guns is to provide NSFS then we will need more secondary guns than main battery guns. To be most useful they should be on the centerline, not sided on the beams - or at the very least side-by-side with clear arcs at high firing elevations. In other words, the layout here is all wrong - again it looks like a throwback to obsolete notions of a bygone era. The choice of secondary gun should be pretty obvious - AGS. No reason to reinvent the wheel here.

Now we have a serious shortage of centerline space (what else is new) which means this ship should be adopting the newer peripheral VLS, not the old Mk 41 nests. The layout of the VLS here is terribly inefficient at any rate.

That's all for now.

[maximusslade]

Last I checked the USMC was not big on getting on the whole idea of getting wiped out by their own guns, and Cruisers were preferred for NGFS in WW2 for the same reason.

I read a bit of Navy and other military history. Never did I read anything about Marines griping about how "inaccurate" the guns on the WW I vingage BB's were, let alone the Iowas. But I'm certain someone can find something. A theory I might project, maybe, just maybe, sailors brought up in the age of missles and rockets don't know squat about naval gunnery as opposed to those old salts that earned their shell backs or did their midshipman cruises on those old teak decks of those divinely mightily armed and armored ships. Just an idea...

It seems to me a ship designed for modern requirements is going to have a large block superstructure similar to that of DDG-1000 with fixed phased array radars for surface search, volume search, fire control and aircraft control - not the tiny towers of the 1930's.

DD-1000 = FUGLY ship. That is all I am going to say on that, other than the fact that I AM NOT a naval architect.

LOL, those aren't optical range finders! They're giant lasers (insert Mr. Evil voice).

But in all seriousness, Fitz, you have provided some of the most useful "negitive' criticism I have recieved thus far. Thank you and I will give it all some thought. As for the nastalgia though, that would very much hold true for the Montana I drew up. As for the Constitution though, I am working at the disadvantage of not having a whole heck of a lot of knowledge and experience with modern naval electronics, so I am doing the best I can there with what I know. (Engineering is more my forte.) But you are right, the 5" gun did have the lion's share of use for shore bombardment, definatly something I will take into further consideration.

I am curious as to how you define how a VLS layout is inefficient though.

[maximusslade]

Wait a second. Don't they fire 120MM sabot tank rounds over Marine's heads??? What the heck are those tankers thinking?!?!?

[maximusslade]

Here is a serious question. How often do men need to work or more specifically, walk on or near the tops of VLS cells? This is important!

[fitz]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

DD-1000 = FUGLY ship. That is all I am going to say on that, other than the fact that I AM NOT a naval architect.

Fugly has nothing to do with it.

I am curious as to how you define how a VLS layout is inefficient though.

You've got what look like a 64-cell (presumably Mk 41) here, another one there, then some 8-cells here and there with a couple of groups of 32 in-between. I can't quite figure out why. 4 groups of 64 (paired side-by-side) would be a more efficient layout. Given that this will by necessity be a long ship and will be hurting far more for precious centerline space than your drawings indicate, a peripheral VLS makes more sense for the majority of VLS cells though. By the way, you can't go bigger than 64 on a Mk 41 VLS.

When laying things out look at how modern ships are arranged. Aegis ships for example all have a similar look. This is because SPY-1 is packaged in one of several different types of standardized deckhouses sized to accomodate this rather large system. Deviate from that and you have a substantial redesign to deal with. Pay attention too to the enormous amount of topside volume in a modern ship compared to those of 50-60-70 years ago. Those big superstructures are necessary to house all the electronics, command spaces, computers and to hang all the various transmitters, recievers, etc of the modern surface combattant.

Signature reduction of course is essential and the many angles of your ship don't do it many favors. A simpler, bulkier design would be more efficient, if less sexy.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

I read a bit of Navy and other military history. Never did I read anything about Marines griping about how "inaccurate" the guns on the WW I vingage BB's were, let alone the Iowas. But I'm certain someone can find something.

Yes we can. Go to the official Marine Corps history of the island hopping campaigns in the Pacific in WW2.. They are broke down by campaign. Can also read the official Army and Navy history’s and the pertinent fire support sections on the ETO You can also look at the NGF effectiveness reports conducted concerning fire support during the Korean war and the CinCPacFlt surface fire study in1969 (?)(Year from memory may have been 68)

It helps if you read official documents vice Clancy and Time life books.

Originally Posted by maximusslade

A theory I might project, maybe, just maybe, sailors brought up in the age of missles and rockets don't know squat about naval gunnery as opposed to those old salts that earned their shell backs or did their midshipman cruises on those old teak decks of those divinely mightily armed and armored ships. Just an idea..

Are you speaking about the sailors that crewed the guns in the 80s?

Or are you inferring that posters on this thread have not ever seen naval gunfire, specifically 16in naval gunfire, so any deficiencies they perceive is due to lack of “real” knowledge and personal experience? Just asking

Originally Posted by maximusslade

. Wait a second. Don't they fire 120MM sabot tank rounds over Marine's heads??? What the heck are those tankers thinking?!?!?

Have you ever seen this? If so when? Or is this just a smart remark to show your ignorance.

No they don’t fire Sabot rounds over the heads of Marines. I would even like for you to show me pictures of Bradleys firing Sabot rounds over the heads of friendly troops.

Do you know what a surface danger zone is? The M1 has a SDZ that goes out in a 90 deg angle from the tube out 200 meters. At that time it is 400 meters in width and continues for 1000 meters in length. Friendly troops cannot be in that area when the weapon is fired. Except in a combat emergency. Notice I didn’t say combat but a combat emergency.

The sabot rounds from the brads 25mm AP round poise a problem due to the discarded sabot that falls to the ground shortly after leaving the muzzle. The danger area extends out 400 meters along the gun-target line and along an arc of 10 degrees from the muzzle out to 400 meters on either side of the gun-target line. Infantry soldiers in this area require overhead cover and protection (a berm or tree) from the rear.

[maximusslade]

Yes, I am ignorant of all things gun related. I should probably check to see if I have any Clancy or Time Life books I need to throw out.

But in all seriousness, I do have a serious question. Never having been a ground pounder of any sort (unless you count college, which is another story), so I am wondering how one defines the difference between "combat'' and a "combat emergency." I really am not trying to be a smartass with that one. I really want to know.