Big Battleship Doctrine

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

the ultimate reasoning behind it is greatly increased ammo capacity. A missile launcher fires, and is then empty. But a gun can be reloaded more easily. Also, a 16" gun turret can fire more ordinance at one time than a missile can carry.

Huh? After a gun fires its rounds it is empty too!

A huge battleship might be able to carry more ordinance, but if you look at density of shots per cubic m or per ton, I bet a VLS system with TLAMs beats out a 16" gun turret.

Look at a Burke and notice how little deck space is devoted to the VLS cells, and yet it has 96 rounds.

From eyeballing the front two turrets on an Iowa, I figure they take up around 60m x 20-30m of deckspace, or maybe 1200m^2. A single 8-cell Mk41 VLS occupies around 6m^2. So removing the two front turrets & replacing them with Mk41 VLS cells would give you around 1600 cells! An Iowa only carries around 1200 shells total!

Plus, the VLS cells are less than 8m deep, compared to 16" gun turrets, which go amost all the way through the ship.

And you could ripple off all 1600 rounds in ~13 minutes.

Now granted, 1600 TLAMs would be costly, but the point is, those 16" turrets aren't exactly mass or space efficient.

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Huh? After a gun fires its rounds it is empty too!

A huge battleship might be able to carry more ordinance, but if you look at density of shots per cubic m or per ton, I bet a VLS system with TLAMs beats out a 16" gun turret.

Not on a single shot basis.

Look at a Burke and notice how little deck space is devoted to the VLS cells, and yet it has 96 rounds.

yes

From eyeballing the front two turrets on an Iowa, I figure they take up around 60m x 20-30m of deckspace, or maybe 1200m^2. A single 8-cell Mk41 VLS occupies around 6m^2. So removing the two front turrets & replacing them with Mk41 VLS cells would give you around 1600 cells! An Iowa only carries around 1200 shells total!

If you used PVLS you have the best of both.

Plus, the VLS cells are less than 8m deep, compared to 16" gun turrets, which go amost all the way through the ship.

They go to middeck

And you could ripple off all 1600 rounds in ~13 minutes.

With PVLS you could have the best of both. Probably 1000 TLAMS and the 1200 shells, plus the 3,000+ 155mm shells

Now granted, 1600 TLAMs would be costly, but the point is, those 16" turrets aren't exactly mass or space efficient.

But then again those 16" turrets are also world war 2 design. if we had a modern system it would be simply amazing.

[Dreadnought]

The 16/50 gun turrents of the Iowa class reach down to the 2nd Platform.
I.E. two decks below "Broadway", the 2nd deck below surface and Main deck,
The diagram below is close but not exact in its placement of powder and projectile stores.
Counting down from Main deck to surface level is as follows:
Main deck (Teak)
Second deck (Projectile hoist and spanning try assembly from Third deck up)
Third deck (Broadway and main interior deck) also extra Projectile storage
First platform (Powder bag storage) amount subject to change & Projectile stores
Second platform (Powder bag storage) amount subject to change & Projectile stores.
Third platform (Bilge and Maint platform)

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

But then again those 16" turrets are also world war 2 design. if we had a modern system it would be simply amazing.

Not necessarily.

16" rounds are still 16" rounds. They occupy the same space, perhaps a bit more if they're fancy scramjet rounds. Instead of men, you'll have more machinery performing autoloading tasks.

In any event, a modern triple mount won't use much (if any) less deckspace than its WW2 counterpart, and thus will still be less space efficient than a VLS.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

If you used PVLS you have the best of both.
....
With PVLS you could have the best of both. Probably 1000 TLAMS and the 1200 shells, plus the 3,000+ 155mm shells

Actually no, you can't. Deckspace is deckspace. You can either put a big turret or a group of VLS cells there, not both.

[Dreadnought]

Hows about a hybrid turrent capable of launching both

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Hows about a hybrid turrent capable of launching both

Would you add 8m to its height? Or is the turret ring going to be gigantic - to accomodate penetrating VLS cells and autoloading machinery?

Or are you kidding?

[Dreadnought]

Ah B I see you are catching what im throwing

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Hows about a hybrid turrent capable of launching both

Now instead of VLS, you could attached those 20-pack Affordable Weapon containerized launchers to the roof of a turret.

But then again, you could just fire them off of the backs of cheap LCSs and/or container ships and save yourself the budgetbreaking cost of a BB.

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Actually no, you can't. Deckspace is deckspace. You can either put a big turret or a group of VLS cells there, not both.

PVLS.

Peripheral Vertical Launch System. It goes around the outside of the deck. So the ship could have both.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

PVLS.

Peripheral Vertical Launch System. It goes around the outside of the deck. So the ship could have both.

You can only have both at the cost of a larger, more expensive ship.

[Defcon 6]

Cost is irrelevant. Otherwise the Navy wouldn't be developing the DD(X). The military doesn't care if the ship cost a lot, they just want to make sure its worth the cost.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Cost is irrelevant. Otherwise the Navy wouldn't be developing the DD(X). The military doesn't care if the ship cost a lot, they just want to make sure its worth the cost.

Baloney. What fantasy world are you living on? Cost is everything.

"The Pentagon may back plans for a less ambitious new DD(X) destroyer to cut costs, .."

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...cle_004040.php

"he US Congress has expressed scepticism about the program, capping the price at a level substantially below the estimated $3-5 billion per ship, and cutting advance procurement funding - even as they made procurement changes that would increase the cost of the ships. "

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ives/index.php
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...2006/index.php
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ated/index.php

"The US Navy's embattled next-generation destroyer programme, the DD(X), is entering a key period with several important reviews scheduled and Congress still debating whether to keep or scrap the effort."

http://www.janes.com/regional_news/a...0726_1_n.shtml

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Baloney. What fantasy world are you living on? Cost is everything.

"The Pentagon may back plans for a less ambitious new DD(X) destroyer to cut costs, .."

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...cle_004040.php

"he US Congress has expressed scepticism about the program, capping the price at a level substantially below the estimated $3-5 billion per ship, and cutting advance procurement funding - even as they made procurement changes that would increase the cost of the ships. "

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ives/index.php
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...2006/index.php
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ated/index.php

"The US Navy's embattled next-generation destroyer programme, the DD(X), is entering a key period with several important reviews scheduled and Congress still debating whether to keep or scrap the effort."

http://www.janes.com/regional_news/a...0726_1_n.shtml

I personally cant wait until they unveil the very first one and she goes to sea trials
to run her through the paces then we shall see if it can in fact do what they say it will do.

[Dreadnought]

A really cool looking rendition of what the DDX Destroyer may look like.
Dam get a U.S. flag on that fantail would you already
Im hoping that one visits Philly soon after they are unveiled so I can get a close up look at one.