MY ideas for a FUTURISTIC BB

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by 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!

[JA Boomer]

Originally Posted by fitz

By the way, you can't go bigger than 64 on a Mk 41 VLS.

Hey Fitz, why?

[fitz]

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

Hey Fitz, why?

The Mk 41 VLS does not add any structural reinforcement to the hull. Make a hole in the strength deck for a bigger nest than 64 cells and you start running into serious problems.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Wow, I guess he missed that 1MC announcement "General Quarters, General Quarters,Man Battle Stations missile" "set condition Zebra throughout the ship"

Thats what happens when you break Zebra to sneak a smoke.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

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.

A good example would be your position about to be overrun.

A real world example, Aside from LZ X-ray and They movie "They were soldiers" would be 1st MarDiv HQ in Desert Storm suddenly having Iraqi T-72s pop up. The answer to that was Cobras hovering over the CP firing TOW missiles and guns with brass raining down on the CP occupants.

You do everything you can do to prevent the position from falling. That includes being able to fire all ammo that is not cleared for overhead fire.

Its not a call made lightly. And it cannot be used if say an enemy tank shows up with grunts forward of friendly tanks and the grunts have TOW or Jav that can engage without endangering friendly troops.

We try not to kill our own people.

Now since you remained quiet on this

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

I can pretty much guarantee that this board has 1 or 2 people that has seen NGF in action. Seen 16in gunfire in a combat zone and maybe even conducted real life NGF missions ranging from 76mm to 16in. They might actually know a thing about naval gunnery.

As someone said on another thread (I thing AR) "This isn't Strategypage. We have adults here"

Take a read through the "Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate"
thread. Lots of good info there on NGF, NSFS and battleship reactivation.

[maximusslade]

I just want to put this out there. While I think the Iowas are awesome ships, I am not a huge advocate of reactivating them. Perhaps Rusty is way more versed on this aspect of the ship than I (and probably is), but my issue against is purely in the area of PARTS. I spent my shipboard life on USS Connecticut, a Seawolf class submarine. Being an electrician, there was always stuff to fix. Problem was since only 3 of the boats were built, there were almost no spares floating around in the navy supply system. I could only imagine that sailors aboard the Iowas had the same problems. I have even heard horror stories along the lines that sailors had to canibalize parts from museum ships or mothballed ships. To prevent that, I would forsee the Navy having to practically gut the ships of hardware and installing new stuff. That would be an expensive nightmare. I could be wrong though. Someone let me know.

[maximusslade]

BTW, that video clip looked like it hurt. LOL

[maximusslade]

My latest incarnation of the Constitution....



Yes, I lost the big bore guns, instead I have placed 3 dual 8"/55's. I am certain I will catch heck for not using the 155mm gun, but tough kittens. Eight is as low as I'm going . Is that kind of VLS lay out more efficient? I havent even counted how many are there, lol it may be too many.

I have three Goalkeepers on the centerline and four RAM launchers.

[JA Boomer]

Originally Posted by fitz

The Mk 41 VLS does not add any structural reinforcement to the hull. Make a hole in the strength deck for a bigger nest than 64 cells and you start running into serious problems.

fitz, I dunno about that one. There are so many other factors that go into structural strength.

If you said the a 64 cell capacity was the maximum allowed for the Ticonderoga or Burke classes without some serious (and most likely costly redesigns) I would believe.

But it would seem to me, that if you really wanted to install a 80 cell Mk 41 launcher, it COULD be done. Don't you think?

[JA Boomer]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

My latest incarnation of the Constitution....

Maximus...it looks like a speedboat now

I've always been confused with the idea of periferal VLS launchers. The Mk 41 allows you to concentrate your missile loads, this should make armoring the area and planning damage control easier than if they are spread around the ship. Also, only missile/gun impact in certain areas will hit the missile, versus the periferal design, where a side impact is much more likely to find a resting missile. Although, once the Mk 41 has been hit, the whole load is likely to go...

[maximusslade]

Boomer, I agree it does look like a speed boat now. Maybe I should taper the aft end a little bit. From what little I've read about the PVLS, the idea is that a single hit doesn't knock out a single battery and also the cells are designed to be a type of passive armor, forcing the impact and blast up and outward instead of into the ship. That is why you see "real" PVLS on the fantail. I did it like this so that you are using the PVLS to help protect the steering gear. I think it allows for placement of more missiles there and eases the need for more steel armor around aft steering. But then again it could be my crack pipe talking.

[maximusslade]

NOTE: Yes, I know I forgot to draw in the aft gun on my latest drawing, I'll fix it next time I post the drawing.

Question: What would I lose if I went from 4 shafts to 2 shafts? The ship will be approx 900ft long and some 120ft at the beam. I'm not sure how it got so big, my scale may be off.

[fitz]

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

Maximus...it looks like a speedboat now

I've always been confused with the idea of periferal VLS launchers. The Mk 41 allows you to concentrate your missile loads, this should make armoring the area and planning damage control easier than if they are spread around the ship. Also, only missile/gun impact in certain areas will hit the missile, versus the periferal design, where a side impact is much more likely to find a resting missile. Although, once the Mk 41 has been hit, the whole load is likely to go...

DDG-1000 is the first ship with the new peripheral VLs. Take a look at that ship for a moment. If it had Mk 41's nested together where would you put them?

In place of the 155mm guns?

In place of the flight deck?

Centerline space is as valuable as gold. Anything one can do to move equipment of the centerline is a positive from a packaging standpoint.

Secondly, at least in the Zumwalt application the VLS act as a sort of armor. VLS cells are inherently reinforced anyway. They are advertised on the Zumwalts as a form of armor protection.

Third, spreading them out reduces the chance of a single hit taking out most of your missile battery and causing a huge conflagration.

The other positive is that the cells are much larger than in Mk 41 allowing more growth potential in terms of future weapons systems.

As for the other question about the maximum size of a nested VLS launcher, think about it again. You have to cut an enormous hole in the strength deck of the ship. Mk 41 provides no structural rigidity - it just sits in the whole.

How big a hole do you think you can cut in a deck before you start having major structural problems or require massive (bulky and heavy) reinforcement.

64 is the practical limit. Even Arsenal ship which was rather large and would have been built to merchant, not military standards had groups of 64 cells.

[fitz]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

My latest incarnation of the Constitution....



Yes, I lost the big bore guns, instead I have placed 3 dual 8"/55's. I am certain I will catch heck for not using the 155mm gun, but tough kittens. Eight is as low as I'm going . Is that kind of VLS lay out more efficient? I havent even counted how many are there, lol it may be too many.

I have three Goalkeepers on the centerline and four RAM launchers.

Now your ship is far too lightly armed to justify its size. Its as big as an aircraft carrier and only manages six 203mm guns and not many more VLS than a 10k ton cruiser (the PVLS doesn't count - see below)?!?!?!?!

Why bother?

There seems to be a lot of under utilized hull volume here.

The superstructure is also still far too small to support the kind of electronic equipment the ship would require. Remember you have to get surface search, air search, fire control, navigation and air control radars on there PLUS ESM and ECM, SATCOM, datalink transmitter/recievers, voice radio antenna, optronic systems, etc, etc, etc. And it all has to have enough room so that the emissions from one system don't interfere with another - not to mention internal volume for all the electronic equipment. Again there is a reason why DDG-1000 has such a massive block of a superstructure.


And oh yeah, the weatherdeck should be at least 1 deck higher. That will help keep the decks dry and greater improve internal volume. As it is you don't have nearly enough hull depth to run the PVLS like you have.

[maximusslade]

LOL Sheesh, I can't win for losing!