MY ideas for a FUTURISTIC BB

[RAL's_pal?]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

No comments on my cruiser???

Ok, if you must ask....


What, no sonar dome?

How about the new bow technologies? Have you thought about incorporating them in your design?

[maximusslade]

No, no sonodome. I haven't really geared this ship towards antisubmarine duty. Bow shape. If you are referring to that of the Zumwalt, I would be interested to see how dry the deck stays in the North Atlantic in winter vs. that of a more conventional shape. Yes, I know that the Iowas had very wet bows due to the shape of thier bows and what I have done is (if you look at the hull shape drawings I made, which are in the first post) that the bow while slender at the waterline for increased speed, it is much wider at the weather deck, creating a "V'' shape that pushes water out before it reaches the level of the deck. Not to say the deck will never get wet, that is just plain foolish to say. BUT, I will not say that a Zumwalt type bow wont fare better. After all that shape bow has been used in naval ships two millenia ago (look at Greek and Roman warships, namely for the bow ram) and also in warships of the 19th and 20th century (not the bows on some of the BB's in the photos I posted). So in short, being an amature, I think that this type of bow will fare better in heavy seas.

[gunnut]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

No comments on my cruiser???

I like it. It's closer to my concept of an NGFS ship.

If you had a chance to go through all the other threads on battleship/NGFS you'd find that I proposed a much more simplified form of your cruiser for the duty.

She's more like a type of armored cruiser. Very basic to cut down cost and construction time. There should be enough armor to withstand shells of up to 76mm. She would have 2, maybe 3 tubes of 6" or 8" guns in single turrets. She would displace no more than 15,000t. Other than the main guns, she would have up to 4 76mm or 57mm guns. She would have 64 ESSMs quad-packed in 2 8 cell Mk 41 launchers. There will be no AEGIS since she's not built for fleet air defense. There will only be basic hull mounted sonar and Mk. 46 torpedoes for emergency self defense. There will be, however, a decent sized helo hanger and deck space for up to 3 medium helos.

I think a ship like that is entirely adequate for NGFS. She would be of limited use for anything else though. But if we pack all the capabilities we want into her, then we might as well buy more Ticos and Burkes.

Fitz, if you could, please comment on my concept. I know it's probably a ship looking for a mission, but it's always fun...for me.

[FOG3]

Originally Posted by gunnut

I like it. It's closer to my concept of an NGFS ship.

If you had a chance to go through all the other threads on battleship/NGFS you'd find that I proposed a much more simplified form of your cruiser for the duty.

She's more like a type of armored cruiser. Very basic to cut down cost and construction time. There should be enough armor to withstand shells of up to 76mm. She would have 2, maybe 3 tubes of 6" or 8" guns in single turrets. She would displace no more than 15,000t. Other than the main guns, she would have up to 4 76mm or 57mm guns. She would have 64 ESSMs quad-packed in 2 8 cell Mk 41 launchers. There will be no AEGIS since she's not built for fleet air defense. There will only be basic hull mounted sonar and Mk. 46 torpedoes for emergency self defense. There will be, however, a decent sized helo hanger and deck space for up to 3 medium helos.

I think a ship like that is entirely adequate for NGFS. She would be of limited use for anything else though. But if we pack all the capabilities we want into her, then we might as well buy more Ticos and Burkes.

The thing is the closer you get to shore the more hardware can be easily arranged against you, whether truck based rockets, some manner of coastal guns, SSKs or otherwise. This means you either need a ship like the Zumwalt with exceptional sensors to begin with or you need a ship with exceptional sensors like the Zumwalt escorting your ship. Tico and Burkes are getting old as is their equipment, and technology otherwise hasn't been standing still. Seems as how both Ticos and Burkes ton significantly less then Zumwalts, and are louder they couldn't be upgraded to the same capability even if one was will to rip them down completely and build up from there. Plus the more ships and noise involved the more likely they are to figure out just where you are and thus do something effective against you.

If you can't pick up the threats your force is now unviable. You can't shoot what you don't see. I would personally have to say your ship reflects false economy. Especially when the Navy has to basically fight for every ship and sailor.

[fitz]

Originally Posted by gunnut

I like it. It's closer to my concept of an NGFS ship.

If you had a chance to go through all the other threads on battleship/NGFS you'd find that I proposed a much more simplified form of your cruiser for the duty.

She's more like a type of armored cruiser. Very basic to cut down cost and construction time. There should be enough armor to withstand shells of up to 76mm. She would have 2, maybe 3 tubes of 6" or 8" guns in single turrets. She would displace no more than 15,000t. Other than the main guns, she would have up to 4 76mm or 57mm guns. She would have 64 ESSMs quad-packed in 2 8 cell Mk 41 launchers. There will be no AEGIS since she's not built for fleet air defense. There will only be basic hull mounted sonar and Mk. 46 torpedoes for emergency self defense. There will be, however, a decent sized helo hanger and deck space for up to 3 medium helos.

I think a ship like that is entirely adequate for NGFS. She would be of limited use for anything else though. But if we pack all the capabilities we want into her, then we might as well buy more Ticos and Burkes.

Fitz, if you could, please comment on my concept. I know it's probably a ship looking for a mission, but it's always fun...for me.

Well, since you asked...

Keeping in mind that I am no expert and nothing I say should necessarily be taken internally, I do have a few (of my usual) thoughts.

First off, what is this ship supposed to do? Before you can have an answer you need to know and understand the question. If you start wit the answer then try to come up with a question that fits your answer after the fact you end up with a big CF that isn't very useful - but probably cool looking and expensive.

Is this a multi-mission surface combattant (cruiser) or is it a fire support ship? It certainly doesn't seem intended to do anything than lob artillery projectiles at land targets so it is no cruiser. If the goal is to build a strictly NSFS ship then you have your work cut out for you because the more useful a ship is, the more likely it is not only to get built but have a long and fruitful service life. All too often the most highly specialized ships end up having the shortest service lives.

In other words, this boat needs to earn its keep on a daily basis.

"...enough armor to withstand shells of up to 76mm."

This puzzles me. Enough armor where exactly? Machinery spaces? Magazines? CIC? Waveguides? Belt? Standard shell plating should actually hold up pretty well against 76mm/62 gunfire at typical combat ranges anyway. To prevent that from even happening though you would want to dispatch the potential threat (presumably a Lurssen/Combattante type FAC) quickly with a semi-active missile like Standard or Sea Sparrow anyway - ala Joshan. Coastal guns of this caliber should NEVER be an issue or your really doing something wrong.

"She would have 2, maybe 3 tubes of 6" or 8" guns in single turrets."

Which one, how many and why? This is not a trivial point. The number of gun mounts is a critical issue. 2 is IMHO a minimum as it protects against a single-point failure knocking out all of your gun power ala Goose Green. Do you need more than 2? That depends on what requirements you are trying to meet.

DDG-1000 has two gun mounts, each designed to meet a requirement to be equivilant to 1 battery of Marine 155mm M198 howitzers. In typical practice one howitzer battery would be used in direct support of one Marine battalion. Two mounts on DDG-1000 provides for the redundancy I mentioned above and allows one ship to support up to two battalion sized forces simultaneously, even if widely spaced, or mass fires on a single target. A third gun perhaps would allow for redundancy while supporting fire against two targets or in support of two separate units and it could allow an option for supporting fire against a third target or massing fire against a second target. The tradeoff is in ship size and cost. How important is this added capability? How likely is it one ship will engage 3 targets simultaneously or support three separate battalion sized combat elements simultaneously? Is there some other capability that could be put in place of the weight and volume of that 3rd gun that would provide a better value?

Which brings up the next point. This is a NSFS ship with no NSFS missiles? Long range strike and interdiction and the attack of high value targets would be a natural part of the NSFS mission that would be outside the scope of gunfire either for range or lethality reasons. A glaring omission IMHO.

And what about that main gun caliber. Again not a decision made lightly. You will find no shortage of people who will insist than anything less than 8-inch/203mm is a useless pop-gun and yet the Marines are officially quite happy with their 155mm howitzers and somehow manage to get by just fine using nothing larger. They won the Pacific island-hopping campaign using 75mm as the standard direct-support gun caliber and used 105mm up until about 15-20 years ago. All things being equal a 203mm gun will have greater range and greater individual round lethality than a 155mm gun. It will also be larger and heavier and its ammunition will consume a much greater volume and weight for a given number of rounds. History shows us that volume of fire is usually far more important than individual round lethality so that the advantages of a 203mm gun do not necessarily outwiegh the advantages.

A 155mm gun has less individual round lethality but not by any means an order-of-magnutide less. The difference is probably unimportant in the vast majority of possible likely scenario's. Remember what I said earlier about Korea where even with the ready availability of battleships and cruisers with 6-inch, 8-inch and 16-inch guns 95% of the rounds delivered by ships were still of the 5-inch variety. That tells me at least that volume is more important than caliber. Additioanally the 155mm mount will be smaller and lighter which makes for a smaller, less expensive ship OR a ship of the same size with more weight and volume reserve available for other mission equipment, fuel, ammunition, additional guns, etc. The 155mm rounds being smaller and lighter will be easier to handle and more can be carried within a given weight and volume than 203mm rounds - a critical demand for maintaining high-volume fire. There is a big potential cost advantage in going 155mm as well. Currently all investment in advanced payloads for artillery is happening in 155mm - absolutely nothing is happening in 203mm. Thus developments in land artillery munitions can be more readily (cheaply) be adapted into the naval sphere.

"Other than the main guns, she would have up to 4 76mm or 57mm guns."

Why 4 guns? And which one (hint: if this ship is for the USN the 57mm Mk 110 it is). What will they be used for? How will they be controlled?

"She would displace no more than 15,000t

If this ship only does NSFS and nothing else and only has 2, or even 3 gun mounts then you don't need this much ship.

"There will be, however, a decent sized helo hanger and deck space for up to 3 medium helos."

I assume you mean SH60-type aircraft. Why 3? What are they going to be tasked for? Why no UAV's for target acquisition and designation?

And why 64 ESSM? For ship self defense 32 should be way more than adequate.

Some last points not mentioned in your description.

What are you going to use to drive this thing? CODAD? COGAG? CODOG? Some manner of electric drive with diesel and or GT generators?

How fast is it going to be? What sort of endurance? How much ammunition and stores? What about electronics - search radars, ESM, ECM, passive, target acquistion, communications? What is "a basic sonar'? A mine avoidance set? A small high-frequency hull set? A conformal array?

OK, that's all I got for now, valued at precisely $0.02

[maximusslade]

Fitz, I'll give it a nickel. LOL I have been giving the warship I have been working a LOT of thought since I started this forum. I have taken everything everyone has said into great consideration. Some I have agreed with other things not so much. Hopefully in a week or so I will have updated/new pics for everyone to see. I hope everyone likes.

[gunnut]

Originally Posted by fitz

OK, that's all I got for now, valued at precisely $0.02

Thanks. Lots of stuff I never thought of.

Like I said, it's just a ship looking for a mission.

I personally NGFS can be achieved throught current assets we already have, especially carrier aviation and UAVs. I just love gun cruisers and battlecruisers. It's a shame their careers in naval history were so short.

[SnowLeopard]

Reminds me of my ship designing as a child. I was entranced by the Moscow design, really knew only of WW II and 50's large ships, so my designs called for large caliber guns forward, flight deck for Harrier types from the mack back.

Which comes down to the point: what is expected mission? If those aircraft are for attacking the beach, then why do I need the guns? I can put this ship far out of range of his systems and still attack. But if the guns are the primary system for attacking the beach, then why do I need the aircraft?

Or perhaps he's a commerce raider? Well, if so, he has far too much firepower to be that.

And so forth.

One doesn't put ballistic missiles on BB, a ship of that sort because the purpose of a BM platform is to go out and hide. If the purpose of the platform is to engage the enemy, like a fast attack, then BM's on it is the wrong deal.

Further, there is another concern about BM's. One doesn't attack another's BM platform unless is really serious, end of the world type stuff. Start attacking the BM platform, destroying them, and the other guy is faced with Use it or Lose it and at that point................

Now, not rackinig this futuristic BB over the coals. What I am saying is that for each weapons system that is placed on it, consider what the mission is, whether or not each mission conflicts with another mission, with the basic design of the ship.
_________________________________________
("He didn't goes under the Cylon guns, so he didn't deserve any of the prize. What's the drill?"--Croft
"Commander Adama will be briefing you."--Starbuck, (wtte), Battlestar Galactica: "The Gun on Ice Planet Zero")

[SteaminDemon]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

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.

You make it sound like the 5" is the end all. Which it is simply not. There are too many variables in warfare. What about the hard targets that need to be destroyed? Will the 5" be able to do the job? No, so you would utilize your 16" projectile. Having both at your disposal instead of one is much better.

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. .

I agree. But our current 5" armament does not even come close.

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".

How can we really be sure of how they "will be"?

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

Another good point you bring up. The thing is, you never know what your enemy is going to throw at you, so why not be prepared? Example, our submarines, we have not "technically" fired a torpedo since WW2, but we still have our submarines. So does that mean there is no need for submarines at all? No. We need assurance (and they are good at other missions as well).

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..

The best zippo I got was from an AOE. It was a gift, and the engraving was unbelievable. But as to the machine shops being able to support the rest of the battle group, it becomes a very daunting task, and given the limitations of an LHD machine shop, it becomes damn near impossible.

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

The refuel capability is a huge plus, but as you and I know that is not the only justification for reactivation.

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..

Kind of the same happenings of today. Most of the proposed ships are going places never gone before. IE DDX, LCS and so on. They couldn't even get the LPD right. It is deeper than just the ship. Contracting and the dollar signs are causing unnecessary problems. Extended range 16" projectiles however, have already been attempted (even though for a short time due to decom)

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..

How do we know, if we don't try. A drop in the bucket of what was wasted could have been used for fielding the "wonder rounds". An LHD and a BB are two different animals. I feel the return from both ships are assets.

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.

Well technically, the car that drove off the lot in 43 will only appreciate in value opposed to your new car, which after a few years will drop quite a bit. And also, if that car made in 43 was stronger than the new car, I would rather incorporate those things into the older car and keep my passengers safe while riding in style, as well as saving a bunch of money

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..

You do not have to install sit up bunks. That would be a decision the Navy would make based upon final crew requirements and available space. Not all ships have sit up bunks either. But as for mixed crew, it would require separate berthing spaces, which would not really pose a great deal of issues. Male and female berthing spaces do not differ all that much if you have ever been in either of the two. It was not a problem for the AOE's, I don't see why it would be a problem for the BB's.

As far as "bring all trash to RAS 5 for dumping", we still do that. Adding plastic processing machines (disk makers) would not be a big deal. But a pulper on the other hand would require plumbing and other things. The pulper among other things, would be a question that would be better answered by Rusty.

You and I agree that new ships (unlike LCS and scratch some other garbage as well) should be built. But for the short and mid term, Reactivating the Iowa's would right now benefit the fleet in a great manner. Adding the Iowa's would make rotations outstanding. It would allow for a greater In Port/At Sea rotation for the entire fleet, that would not only be a morale booster, but a benefit for the ships themselves. We would be able to have 5 Groups (CVB's, BB's, and LHA's/LHD's that would be able to be deployed around the clock at a far better rotation than what we have now, and will have for a long time. That right there is a huge advantage in both upkeep, capability, morale and family life and would come with a cost that is as I have said "a drop in the bucket" compared to the other programs that have come and gone, and have done nothing to aid the fleet.
While the Iowa's are active, research will most likely occur on how to improve the "new hulls", what works, what doesn't and what can be improved upon for the next generation of ships.

A small investment, that can help improve our fleet is an asset. The Iowa's have proven themselves before, and I do not think they would be a disappointment this time around either.

A little off topic, but not totally, John McCain will be the best bet for fighting the pork in the contracting of today. So, hopefully we will be able to further enhance our Military, while reducing the budget raping that is going on.

You can't keep throwing money at something and expect it to perform....well, minus an exotic dancer....,without first providing objectives, guidelines, limitations and investment protection.

It has been an interesting and informative thread (as are many).

Maximus, you changed your cruiser design from 12 to 8" guns. Why not keep the 12" guns and add one 8" aft of the forward turret, and one 8" aft of the after turret (both raised 8's raised above the 12's or even make em 14's) as well as one port and stbd along with some 155's. If you don't mind re drawing, I think that would add more versatility to the platform.

As far as the 8" projectiles, there are still some in our inventory that you can tool around with.

Take it easy all.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

You make it sound like the 5" is the end all. Which it is simply not. There are too many variables in warfare. What about the hard targets that need to be destroyed? Will the 5" be able to do the job? No, so you would utilize your 16" projectile. Having both at your disposal instead of one is much better.

The reason that you think that is when you talk about fire support, you are focusing on Naval Gun Fire. I see NGF as part of the fires triad. One leg of that 3 legged stool. Got something that the 5" cannot handle? Fine, we have planes in a CAS stack with either GPS guided or Laser guided bombs that will handle the problem. Or the AH-1s with Hellfire or Tow2. Its not 5" solution or nothing.

[Quote:]
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".

How can we really be sure of how they "will be"? [/quote]

Because the US is the "Big Stick". We get to dictate the terms of the battle. And we have more tools to use now.

Think, If WW2 happened today, there would be no need for the island hopping campaign. Our bombers could take off from the US mainland and our fighters could fly cover from Alaska. Most of the island campaign was to secure airstrips for our fighters and bombers to be able to reach Japan.

Another good point you bring up. The thing is, you never know what your enemy is going to throw at you, so why not be prepared? Example, our submarines, we have not "technically" fired a torpedo since WW2, but we still have our submarines. So does that mean there is no need for submarines at all? No. We need assurance (and they are good at other missions as well).

But sinking ships is still a submarines job. We haven't found a replacement for the sub yet.

Direct beach assaults is no longer part of the way the US fights. And even if we wanted to do it that way, we have neither the ships or Marines to do it on a large scale against a competent enemy.

You and I agree that new ships (unlike LCS and scratch some other garbage as well) should be built. But for the short and mid term, Reactivating the Iowa's would right now benefit the fleet in a great manner. Adding the Iowa's would make rotations outstanding. It would allow for a greater In Port/At Sea rotation for the entire fleet, that would not only be a morale booster, but a benefit for the ships themselves. We would be able to have 5 Groups (CVB's, BB's, and LHA's/LHD's that would be able to be deployed around the clock at a far better rotation than what we have now, and will have for a long time. That right there is a huge advantage in both upkeep, capability, morale and family life and would come with a cost that is as I have said "a drop in the bucket" compared to the other programs that have come and gone, and have done nothing to aid the fleet.

Look at the last 15 years. And the role that carriers have played.And the missions that they have been used for. Things that could not be replaced by a battleship.

A carrier would have still been needed in the med continuously. What would a BB have done for Northern Watch (Iraq No Fly zone enforcement), Southern Watch (Same in the Gulf) Deny Flight and the IFOR/SFOR deployments?

A battleship would have never been able to intercept the Achille Lauro hijackers so they could have been brought to justice.

A battleship would not have been able to conduct the type operations during the Gulf of Sidra in the 80s?

A battleship could not have provided support for the Afghanistan operation.

It seems to me that the Navy would be required to have carriers deployed all the time. What would the BB do?

[SteaminDemon]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

The reason that you think that is when you talk about fire support, you are focusing on Naval Gun Fire. I see NGF as part of the fires triad. One leg of that 3 legged stool. Got something that the 5" cannot handle? Fine, we have planes in a CAS stack with either GPS guided or Laser guided bombs that will handle the problem. Or the AH-1s with Hellfire or Tow2. Its not 5" solution or nothing.


Look at the last 15 years. And the role that carriers have played.And the missions that they have been used for. Things that could not be replaced by a battleship.



It seems to me that the Navy would be required to have carriers deployed all the time. What would the BB do?

Quick reply. The first paragraph. Right on, but even with CAS etc, if the battleships are there, why risk the pilot and the bird if the target is within reach of the guns? With a mix of 5", 16", and CAS, we would have even more options at our disposal.

Second and third paragraph. I am not at all saying that a battleship would replace a carrier. Just to remind you, I am both a staunch supporter of the Carriers and Battleships along with the rest of our Navy. All ships have their benefits. The largest ship ,the carrier, was the first to leave from the hurricane Katrina relief efforts. What ship stayed around? An LHD.
With the improved rotations, the carriers would be deployed all the time and would not be affected, but the rotations of the entire fleet would be improved substantially.

Have to run, more later. Thanks Gun Grape.

[fitz]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

Maximus, you changed your cruiser design from 12 to 8" guns. Why not keep the 12" guns and add one 8" aft of the forward turret, and one 8" aft of the after turret (both raised 8's raised above the 12's or even make em 14's) as well as one port and stbd along with some 155's. If you don't mind re drawing, I think that would add more versatility to the platform.

I'll take this a bit deeper...

Why keep the 12-inch guns? What do they give you that some other solution doesn't and at what cost? What requirement do they meet?

Why 8-inch AND 155mm guns? Again the same questions apply - what requirement is being met by the 8-inch that can not be met by the 155mm?

I am to be sure no expert but I have studied NGFS - particularly from Korea and Vietnam - in some detail. One factoid that I came across interested me greatly. 6-inch and 8-inch gunfire tended to be used almost exclusively at ranges the 5-inch guns could not reach. 16-inch in turn tended to be used almost exclusively at targets outside the range of 8-inch gunfire. Additionally, 5-inch guns accounted for roughly 90% of all rounds fired in NGFS missions.

What this tells us I think is a couple of things. Except in isolated (yet frequently recited) cases the greater individual-round lethality of the larger calibers was not really a factor. Being able to reach the target was. Increase the range of the smaller caliber guns and the big ones become less important. Also, volume seems to be of overiding importance, far more so than individual round lethality and volume of fire is most readily provided in smaller calibers.

Bringing us up to today, 155mm seems to provide an optimal mix of lethality, range and cost effectiveness for the vast majority of target sets. Hence the replacement of both 105mm and 203mm guns in the US Army and Marines by 155mm systems. For the gun component of any future surface combattant tasked with NSFS 155mm seems to me to be the optimal caliber to stick with. The few targets that require larger per-round effect can best be dealt with by other systems, be they ship-launched missiles or air-delivered ordnance.

Just MHO valued at precisely $0.02

[SteaminDemon]

Hi Fitz,

You do bring up some good points. However, why compromise on design? For a cruiser of that size, that would be able to support the 12" guns along with 8" and 155's. As goes with Maximus's BB design. There is clearly room for them. So why compromise on just 155's when you can have more? Yes, both platforms would be more versatile. Also, think of the 12" for the cruiser. 8" sabot rounds and even 155 sabot rounds would go even further out of the 12" and 16" guns as well. I would rather have a ship that is capable of more, than just 155's. It would be the same as saying to SWAT team members that "we will now only be carrying the 9MM because it is the most used weapon and we do not need anything else".

If I can bring more options to the fight, IE 16",12", 8" and 155's, the platform would be far more versatile than just 155's and I would be able to take on a broader variety of targets opposed to if I was just carrying 155's around.
How many bouncing betty's can my 16" projectile hold, opposed to my 155MM projectile? A lot more. We need to minimize collateral damage around X target, the 155 will do the job. We need to maximize collateral damage around X target, the 16" will do the job and so on and so forth.

[fitz]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

Hi Fitz,

You do bring up some good points. However, why compromise on design? For a cruiser of that size, that would be able to support the 12" guns along with 8" and 155's. As goes with Maximus's BB design. There is clearly room for them. So why compromise on just 155's when you can have more? Yes, both platforms would be more versatile. Also, think of the 12" for the cruiser. 8" sabot rounds and even 155 sabot rounds would go even further out of the 12" and 16" guns as well. I would rather have a ship that is capable of more, than just 155's. It would be the same as saying to SWAT team members that "we will now only be carrying the 9MM because it is the most used weapon and we do not need anything else".

If I can bring more options to the fight, IE 16",12", 8" and 155's, the platform would be far more versatile than just 155's and I would be able to take on a broader variety of targets opposed to if I was just carrying 155's around.
How many bouncing betty's can my 16" projectile hold, opposed to my 155MM projectile? A lot more. We need to minimize collateral damage around X target, the 155 will do the job. We need to maximize collateral damage around X target, the 16" will do the job and so on and so forth.

While we are at it why not have a pool full of mutated sharks with laser beams on their foreheads?

I say that only half-jokingly. Wouldn't it be neat if... is not a sound basis for procurement policy. It costs years (decades) and billions of dollars to design, develop and test a new high-tech gun system and billions more for its ammunition. If there isn't a clear requirement for it one has to ask are there better ways to spend this time and money?. In the absence of a clear requirement the answer would seem to be a resounding YES.

There may indeed be isolated instances where bigger may be required, but given those limited circumstances there may be more economical means to service those targets as well. LockMart's POLAR for example offers an interesting - and dramatically cheaper/less risky - approach to big guns and it can be fired by any ship in the fleet with a Mk 41 or better VLS and the right software. No need for a specialized uber-cruiser and it delivers more payload per round at a lower cost.

[gunnut]

Originally Posted by fitz

While we are at it why not have a pool full of mutated sharks with laser beams on their foreheads?

Would you settle for sea bass? They are mutated.