Big Battleship Doctrine

[Defcon 6]

How did you come up with that figure? I would anticipate at LEAST twice DD(X), maybe more.

No, my ship uses a lot of recycled metal. The idea is that I designed it to use parts and technologies from the DD(X) and CG(X) line of future naal vessels.

And every BB we buy would mean fewer DD(X)s.

The USN wants to field fewer ships anyways.

Sorry, Theater Missile Defense - shooting down short-ranged ballistic missiles. (think anti-Scud)

Yes I understand this now. I already had selected the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and British SeaWolf Block 2 missiles for use. The SeaWolf has a 70km range, enabling it to hit ICBM's. However, its loadout is of greater variety than the CG(X), so it could equip the same missiles that the CG(X) could.

'More' in the context of new missions that need attention. DD(X) and LCS help solve the littorals problem, plus the Burke design is getting old. CG(X) provides next-gen area air defense and TMD.

This ship handles the job of more ships effectively. The Navy already has selected Littoral ships for that purpose.

Well, if you want it to operate independently, or as part of a SAG, someone needs to have aviation facilities. Who's going to be spotting for your giganto-guns?

I'm considering UAV support. However it doesn't operate as a single unit.

At minimum, I'd scrap the rear turrets and dedicate the entire section to a large flight deck and hanger for UAVs and helos. Maybe even a large, multi-misison area like the Danish Flexible Support Ship.

http://navalteam.dk/supportship.htm

Not happening. Sorry.

Ok, if not sink, then mission-kill it.

Saying that is easy, doing it is a different matter alltogether, your talking about a mobitility or comm kill. But the ship has been designed with such tactics in mind, meaning your already fighting an up-hill battle, just to fight this ONE ship.

We don't need 16" guns for NGFS. The 155mm AGS is spec'd to provide an entire artillery battery's worth of fire support. Each DD(X) has two. That's plenty.

I argued this on the other forum earlier. But it's not true. Go and check what rickusn said. The 5 inch shells can only go 100 miles, opposed to my 320 mile range shells.

Ship vs. ship just doesn't really happen anymore, except in the littorals. And if it does, it's via long-ranged cruise missile, not guns.

For littorals, chances are you'll be going up against a gun-boat or fast attack craft and even the 155mm AGS is overkill here. Better to hit them with a missile from a helo or UAV, or a 57mm round or NLOS-LS missile from an LCS.

My ship is capable of 41 kts. It's faster than any ship in service now.

It doesn't operate ship to ship, as you noticed it is part of a fleet. Whether SCG or Carrier based.

And a fast attack craft can't outrun a missile. if it gets close, my ship has a CIWS.

Speaking of that, it has a 57mm CIWS.

And every massively expensive BB we bought would mean fewer LCSs and DD(X)s.

They aren't that expensive compared to a 13 billion dollar aircraft carrier. Like the carrier, this ship is a force multiplier in its own way. And the Navy as I have said wants to field fewer ships.

As can DD(X), Burkes, Tyco's, LCSs, etc., at a far lower price.

No they can't. sorry.

A half dozen hits will undoubtably shred any exposed antennas, leaving you blind and deaf and a mission-kill.

It has two retractable com arrays as backup measures. Which don't cost that much.

DD(X), Burkes and Tico's will be able to do this with Excaliber/ANSR/LRLAP.

With smaller guns. They don't meet the mission requirements currently needed.

No higher (or not much higher) than existing and near future vessels.

No, it is faster. Check your data again. The DD(X) isn't meant to exceed 33 kts.

Perhaps, but not worth the price, IMHO.

Sure it is.

Well, I'm guessing you won't be able to build a $20k guided 16" round, since we're having trouble building $20k guided 155mm and 5" rounds.

Last time I checked the guided 155mm's cost 9k and were working fine. Show some sources because what you are saying just isn't true.

Besides, TacTom is somewhat cheaper and can go 7-900 miles and can be fired by any VLS ship in the fleet. What kind of range do your 16" rounds have?

My ship is equipped with the Tactical Tomahawk missiles. Tactical Tomahawk is just an advanced Tomahawk TLAM really.

If anything, we should just focus on cheaper VLS missiles. JASSM is less than $500k. But something a lot smaller and cheaper rmight be worthwile - something where 4 to 9 can be carried per VLS/PVLS, but packs the punch of a 250lb SDB and has TacTom range.

If anything we are already focusing on other things. Missiles are easier to inctercept than shells.

Even then you'll never exceed the explosive force of a 3,200 lb 16" shell.

Why 16 155mm guns? Scattering them about the ship will mean that only, probably, half will be able to fire at any one time. Seems wasteful for such an expensive system. Same goes for the 57mm guns.

The 57mm guns are CIWS. In other words they shoot down missiles and aircraft. So your wrong about that one.

The 16 turrets is suppose to be downsized to 10. However regardless this ship is optimized as it is. A 155mm turret costs about 3 million dollars with support systems. So really they don't add much cost, and it's reasonable to have more especially when the 155mm's can be unmanned.

[brownboi4eva]

All i can say is WOW, you should pitch that idea to the navy....pretty damn expensive ship and i'd like a hangar at the back too

[B.Smitty]

[quote=Defcon 6]No, my ship uses a lot of recycled metal. The idea is that I

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

The USN wants to field fewer ships anyways.

Not fewer, massively more expensive ships! They're going to have a hard enough time selling DD(X), let alone a BB!

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Yes I understand this now. I already had selected the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and British SeaWolf Block 2 missiles for use. The SeaWolf has a 70km range, enabling it to hit ICBM's. However, its loadout is of greater variety than the CG(X), so it could equip the same missiles that the CG(X) could.

SeaWolf? Umm, no. ESSM is a more capable missile to begin with and it doesn't have TMD capability.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

This ship handles the job of more ships effectively. The Navy already has selected Littoral ships for that purpose.

Like convoy escort? ASM? Anti-mining ops? Maritime patrol?

I don't think so. It's marginally better than a DD(X) at area air defense owing to its larger VLS complement. The only thing it really does better is surface strike - and at a rather high cost.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

http://navalteam.dk/supportship.htm

Not happening. Sorry.

ok.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

I argued this on the other forum earlier. But it's not true. Go and check what rickusn said. The 5 inch shells can only go 100 miles, opposed to my 320 mile range shells.

If I read that thread correctly, rickusn said 6" guns had trouble with concrete structures in KOREA!

We're a long ways from that war. We have other systems that can handle hardened structures.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

My ship is capable of 41 kts. It's faster than any ship in service now.

And the only time it would use it is for PR stunts.

Seriously, 40kts on an LCS is useful for running down suspicious ships. 40kts on a BB is just for showing off.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

And a fast attack craft can't outrun a missile. if it gets close, my ship has a CIWS.

My point was that a BBs armament is tremendous overkill for the majority of sea control missions.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

They aren't that expensive compared to a 13 billion dollar aircraft carrier. Like the carrier, this ship is a force multiplier in its own way. And the Navy as I have said wants to field fewer ships.

This ship isn't a force multiplier, it's sole value is lobbing tons of ordinance, and it's a value we don't need (at least not given what it'd cost).

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

With smaller guns. They don't meet the mission requirements currently needed.

Which are??

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Last time I checked the guided 155mm's cost 9k and were working fine. Show some sources because what you are saying just isn't true.

ERGM - $50k-100k estimate, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...ve_Targets.htm
Excalibur - $50k estimate, http://www.strategypage.com/dls/arti...0054121018.asp
LRLA - $35k estimate, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...07/ai_n9458660

Now you can guess these will go up - as virtually all defense industry estimates do.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Even then you'll never exceed the explosive force of a 3,200 lb 16" shell.

Yes, but it is overkill in most situations.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

The 16 turrets is suppose to be downsized to 10. However regardless this ship is optimized as it is. A 155mm turret costs about 3 million dollars with support systems. So really they don't add much cost, and it's reasonable to have more especially when the 155mm's can be unmanned.

Where'd you get that number? The Mk110 57mm turret costs almost $7 million.

http://www.army-technology.com/contr...s7/press2.html (11mill Euros for 2 = $13.5mill / 2)

I can only imagine what a triple 16" monster would cost, let alone a 155mm AGS.

[Defcon 6]

Not fewer, massively more expensive ships! They're going to have a hard enough time selling DD(X), let alone a BB!

Time passes and prices go up, thats the way of the world. The Navy is sticking it out with the DD(X) and thats proof enough. See the bottom of this post for details on why cost is an irrelvant arguement. It's like the B-2. The B-2 is a specialized unit thats costs 1.1 billion dollars a piece.

SeaWolf? Umm, no. ESSM is a more capable missile to begin with and it doesn't have TMD capability.

The SeaWolf Block 2 actually does, yes. We are talking missile interception here. The ESSM has less range, while the SeaWolf has greater range and can fire two controlled salvo's.

Apples and oranges, my ship has both. But either way, using the peripheral vertical launch system it's loadout is greater than any current systems. TMD is not something very specific.

http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/...=EN&noeu_id=96

Like convoy escort? ASM? Anti-mining ops? Maritime patrol?

Maritime patrol is called Blue Water patrol as well. And I already listed all of this in my previous post.

I don't think so. It's marginally better than a DD(X) at area air defense owing to its larger VLS complement. The only thing it really does better is surface strike - and at a rather high cost.

Cost isn't very high. I've already given several comparisons. Generalizing like that isn't helping your arguement.

Air defense isn't an issue here since no ship is selected simply for it's air defense. Surface strikes are what ships are built for, so saying "the only thing it really does better is surface strike" is like saying the only thing a ferrari does well is "go fast." Either way you just admitted it does it better. Higher survivability. It is a superior ship when supported by other ships.

If I read that thread correctly, rickusn said 6" guns had trouble with concrete structures in KOREA!

He also have a link. I don't know what point you think your making. As if just because it was in Korea thats some sort of big downside?

We're a long ways from that war. We have other systems that can handle hardened structures.

The USN recomissioned the Iowa battleships during the first gulf war. So very clearly that is not the case. Your trying to push a losing arguement on that issue.

And the only time it would use it is for PR stunts.

Seriously, 40kts on an LCS is useful for running down suspicious ships. 40kts on a BB is just for showing off.

No, it used for surface warfare and high evasion. However your comment there is peculiar. First you said something like, all future ships will go faster than that. Then when I pointed out that your statement was incorrect, now all the sudden it's just for showing off?

Either way surface warfare is changing for naval ships. High speed has a place in evasive and closing warfare tactics.

My point was that a BBs armament is tremendous overkill for the majority of sea control missions.

The Navy just started converting some of it's Ohio class ballistic missile subs to fire tomahawk cruise missiles. So it seems that your saying one thing here, but the Navy is presently doing something totally the opposite of what you have said.

This ship isn't a force multiplier, it's sole value is lobbing tons of ordinance, and it's a value we don't need (at least not given what it'd cost).

You need to check the definition for "lobbing tons of ordinance" and force multipliers. Also you need to read the debate on cruise missile attacks counting as a type of force multiplier due to their operating nature.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...ue_13/ssgn.htm

Read that. It's obvious that the U.S navy is looking to do nothing except lob tons of ordinance. The more my ship can lob, the more the navy will love it.

Which are??

Go and read up on why the Navy recomissioned the Iowa battleships in 1991. They have been mothballed again, however thats simply because they fullfilled their use.

ERGM - $50k-100k estimate, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...ve_Targets.htm
Excalibur - $50k estimate, http://www.strategypage.com/dls/arti...0054121018.asp
LRLA - $35k estimate, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...07/ai_n9458660

Now you can guess these will go up - as virtually all defense industry estimates do.

I seen an estimate as high as 145k. We will just have to wait and see what the 155mm gps shells for the DD(X)'s AGS guns cost.

A tomahawk is $750,000 dollars. So alright, you fire those million dollar missiles and I'll use my $50,000 dollar shells when possible. The 250 billion dollar Gulf War 2 currently in progress just demonstrates the need for cheaper ammunition. We can't keep using million dollar missiles.

I remember, the U.S military using 40 cruise missiles on one bunker. Go figure. Guess they really wish they had a few 16" overkill monstrosities then. Perhaps they could have fired...3 or 4 and got the job done at a fraction of the price.

Yes, but it is overkill in most situations.

The Navy is progressing towards more overkill.

Where'd you get that number? The Mk110 57mm turret costs almost $7 million.

Where did you get your number? That weblink is for a Mk. 3 not a mk. 110

In fact the Mk. 110 is still in development. We don't have a unit price, but its supposed to be more economical.

I can only imagine what a triple 16" monster would cost, let alone a 155mm AGS.

Cost doesn't matter, the DD(X) is running at 4.2 billion dollars. Ships are not going to get cheaper.

And guns are cheaper than missile systems. you should get used to this idea. Rail guns are eventually coming into service, and they will outperform even the AGS system.

I've got something else to say about cost. If you build a 4 billion dollar DD(X) and it gets hit with a cruise missile it's probably going to sink. You just found out the hard way, that defense is worthwile. You just lost 4 billion dollars because of bad luck in war. My ship, on the otherhand is designed to protect the initial investment. Thats why I keep dismissing your cost arguement. It just doesn't matter. For a billion more dollars my ship can take a lot more damage and continue fighting.

[drkfce]

I have a question about your automated systems. Are these ones that have already been developed, or did you anticipate X number of "jobs" would be automated by the time the ship would be "built"?

[Defcon 6]

They either have been developed or are currently in development.

[Defcon 6]

I'm going to take the time to answer another question I don't feel I've given enough time to.

About the cost of the ship. I said 5.2 billion dollars and some people can't understand why or how.

Lets talk about ship building. Because we are talking about the size of the ship, lets forget weapons and electronics since that is irrelevant in the arguement that because its twice as big as a DD(X) it should be twice as expensive.

Ship building, materials and labor.

Lets think cruise ships since thats the easiest way to explain this. The Queen Mary 2 is the largest cruise ship in the world at 1,133 ft. long, 129 ft beam, and 150,000 tons overall. It cost 852 million dollars.

Now why does a ship that uses FAR more steel and materials cost a lot less than a 16,000 ton DD(X)? It's weapons and electronics used for it's e-warfare. Thats where the cost is coming from. But simply making the ship bigger does not add that much cost. Thats why I keep trying to point out that my 5.2 billion dollars is pretty accurate.

Now the ship uses the same electronic warfare systems as a DD(X), and it carries quite a few more weapons, so thats why it costs a billion more than the DD(X). It's the weapons, not the electronics or the size specifically.\

Lets also consider the price of a 16 inch gun turret, of which my ship has 3. Okay, lets say...30 million dollars. Thats probably a modest figure, it's more likely less since this is more of a issue of materials.

Okay, 30 million dollars is a drop in the bucket when you compare it to everything going into a 5 billion dollar ship. Or when you consider that the military used 40+ tomahawks to hit one bunker in Iraq. And the military did this dozens of times. That one strike cost 40 x 750,000 dollars. Do your math. So 16 inch guns that can fire 50,000 dollar shells are actually a lot cheaper in the long run as far as ammunition and the actual cost of the gun themselves goes.

So, saying something like "I don't want to imagine the cost of 16" guns" is fairly pointless. Because it's not important in the big picture of things. And as I have said, it's actually a lot cheaper in the long run.

And saying that cruise missiles have more capability is also pointless. yes they do, but that capability is clear when you view the cost. And my guns can fire at 320 miles, so lets consider a 900 mile range for a cruise missile and a 320 mile range for a 16" shell. The shells can't go as far, sure. Thats why the cruise missile will always be useful. Sometimes targets are out of range of even a cannon that can fire at 320 miles. But at the same time, the cannon is actually more useful for things within that range. So, missiles will never reign supreme.

[smilingassassin]

Just out of curiousity, what would be the projected range of 16" GPS shells?

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Just out of curiousity, what would be the projected range of 16" GPS shells?

The DD(X) Advanced Gun Systems 5 inch guns have a range of 100 miles. So I'm proposing a 16 inch version of that same system, and also using a concept I've created which uses liquid propellant instead of the conventional powder charges. I'm estimating 320 miles using guided shells and my liquid propellant system.

Although if you used advanced shell design such as a scram shell (scram jet shell) then you could extend that range to 700+ miles. However even though scram shells exist in experimental form today, it still requires work. However it's still very promising. And another thing, thats 320 miles with a fairly parabolic trajectory, and perhaps 80 miles broadside when talking about range.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Time passes and prices go up, thats the way of the world. The Navy is sticking it out with the DD(X) and thats proof enough. See the bottom of this post for details on why cost is an irrelvant arguement. It's like the B-2. The B-2 is a specialized unit thats costs 1.1 billion dollars a piece.

Umm, well we'll see how far they stick it out. Remember, the DD(X) is a cost cutting measure from DD-21. Plus they have a ton of other priorities like a new carrier design, LHA(R), CG(X), etc.. I have a feeling a new BB would be at the bottom of the list.

And if we had 20/20 hindsight, the B-2 program would've never made it out the door with that pricetag.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

The SeaWolf Block 2 actually does, yes. We are talking missile interception here. The ESSM has less range, while the SeaWolf has greater range and can fire two controlled salvo's.

SeaWolf is designed to intercept cruise missiles, not ballistic missiles.

Oh and BTW, I seriously doubt SeaWofl outranges ESSM in anything but a manufacturer's brochure. Just look at the missile weights - 140lbs for SeaWolf, 640lbs for ESSM.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Apples and oranges, my ship has both. But either way, using the peripheral vertical launch system it's loadout is greater than any current systems. TMD is not something very specific.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not something very specific". The TMD term is generic, but its usage is specific - defending against ballistic missiles.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Maritime patrol is called Blue Water patrol as well. And I already listed all of this in my previous post.

Yes, you listed it as a mission for your BB, but my point is, using a BB for maritime patrol is massively wasteful. You don't use a BB to runk down junks in SWA, you use an LCS. Nor would you use one to run down open ocean freighters. It's just not cost-effective.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Cost isn't very high. I've already given several comparisons. Generalizing like that isn't helping your arguement.

When the cost of a DD(X) is already considered high - potentially too high for the USN's budget - an even more expensive BB seems out of the question.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

He also have a link. I don't know what point you think your making. As if just because it was in Korea thats some sort of big downside?

I thought I made my point clear. There were no PGMs in Korea, no TacTom, no LRLAP, no JDAM or LGB. So I'm not terribly surprised that 6" guns had problems with concrete structures. Nowadays we have other means of dealing with them.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

The USN recomissioned the Iowa battleships during the first gulf war. So very clearly that is not the case. Your trying to push a losing arguement on that issue.

And fought the second Gulf War without them, so what's your point? Clearly, they didn't make a big enough impact to keep around.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

No, it used for surface warfare and high evasion. However your comment there is peculiar. First you said something like, all future ships will go faster than that. Then when I pointed out that your statement was incorrect, now all the sudden it's just for showing off?

Huh? When you said high speed was a benefit of your BB, I said "No higher (or not much) than existing or near future vessels". I never said future ships will go faster.

I admit that your 41kts is faster than a DD(X)s 33kts. But I submit that it wouldn't be useful and would pose additional costs and design constraints. Against an AShM, a difference of 8kts is going to mean squat. Against a torp it will help a little, but unless this behemouth can accelerate like a Ferrari, it may not get a chance to use it.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Either way surface warfare is changing for naval ships. High speed has a place in evasive and closing warfare tactics.

"Closing warfare tactics"? What is this, the 1940s? High ship speed means squat when then confronting an opposing surface force. It just means you'll outrun your escorts and make a ton of noise for every sub in the area to pick up.

High speeds are potentially useful for LCS, but that's due to it's mission of running down ships during maritime patrols.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

The Navy just started converting some of it's Ohio class ballistic missile subs to fire tomahawk cruise missiles. So it seems that your saying one thing here, but the Navy is presently doing something totally the opposite of what you have said.

Yes but the Ohios already exist and only require a conversion. Your BB is bran-new.

Besides, the Ohios can sneak up to a coastline undetected, while your BB and it's escorts will be seen from hundreds of miles away by maritime patrol aircraft (even with stealth treatments).

In addition, the Ohios are being configured to carry and support SEAL teams, UUVs and are already capable ISR platforms - so they aren't just strike assets.

Your BB doesn't even have a helo pad.


Some other questions,

Why 9x16" guns? Why not 2x8" or 10" or whatever?

The rationale for the Iowa's 16" guns was ship-to-ship BB vs. BB engagements. Since nobody operates BBs these days, and you're planning on a clean-sheet gun design, why stick with design decisions made in the 1920s and 30s?

Plus, automated ammuntion handling on modern turrets means that a single gun can do the job of many WWII style guns. And rocket-assist and advanced propellants mean that smaller caliber weapons can reach as far as larger gun.

Also, how'd you come up with the 320 miles range requirement? What was your rationale?

[Defcon 6]

Umm, well we'll see how far they stick it out. Remember, the DD(X) is a cost cutting measure from DD-21. Plus they have a ton of other priorities like a new carrier design, LHA(R), CG(X), etc.. I have a feeling a new BB would be at the bottom of the list.

And if we had 20/20 hindsight, the B-2 program would've never made it out the door with that pricetag.

DD(X) is going into production by 08-09.

SeaWolf is designed to intercept cruise missiles, not ballistic missiles.

Oh and BTW, I seriously doubt SeaWofl outranges ESSM in anything but a manufacturer's brochure. Just look at the missile weights - 140lbs for SeaWolf, 640lbs for ESSM.

Anyways, regardless this ship does have TMD capability. Go and look at the specs, specifically the missiles it carries. I'll give you a hint, it starts with an S.

Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) is being developed as part of the US Navy’s sea-based ballistic missile defense system and will provide theater-wide defense against medium and long range ballistic missiles. In 1992, the Terrier LEAP (Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile) demonstration program culminated in four flight tests and demonstrated the feasibility of theater-wide ballistic missile defense. This program evolved into today’s SM-3 development program which is based on the SM-2 Block IV airframe and propulsion stack, but incorporates a Third Stage Rocket Motor, a GPS/INS Guidance Section and the SM-3 Kinetic Warhead.

The United States Navy and the Missile Defense Agency are developing Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) as part of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System that will provide allied forces and U.S. protection from short to intermediate range ballistic missiles. The SM-3 Kinetic Warhead (KW) is designed to intercept an incoming ballistic missile outside the earth’s atmosphere. SM-3 is under development by Raytheon at its Missile Systems business unit in Tucson, Arizona.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not something very specific". The TMD term is generic, but its usage is specific - defending against ballistic missiles.

The Patriot missile system is a good example of this. It can intercept cruise missiles or ballistic missiles, and it can hit aircraft too should the target teams choose to do so. Thats an example, it's more about the fire control systems than the actual missile.

Yes, you listed it as a mission for your BB, but my point is, using a BB for maritime patrol is massively wasteful. You don't use a BB to runk down junks in SWA, you use an LCS. Nor would you use one to run down open ocean freighters. It's just not cost-effective.

Evidently you missed the rest of the point. You don't understand the idea of wasteful. And honestly, when is a carrier fleet going to run down a freighter? And another thing, you don't have a clue about what tactics it would use. You haven't considered.

When the cost of a DD(X) is already considered high - potentially too high for the USN's budget - an even more expensive BB seems out of the question.

The DD(X) is not a budget breaker according to the Navy. Your talking about the U.S Military. An aircraft carrier costs 13 billion dollars. A missile cruiser cost 2 billion. And a DD(X) costs 4.2 billion. A 5.2 billion dollar BB that can handle the work of multiple missile cruisers as well as NCSF support as well as limited support in other areas.

I thought I made my point clear. There were no PGMs in Korea, no TacTom, no LRLAP, no JDAM or LGB. So I'm not terribly surprised that 6" guns had problems with concrete structures. Nowadays we have other means of dealing with them.

Million dollar missiles are not a substitute. I already made this point. The military used over 40 tomahawk cruise missiles on ONE bunker in Iraq back in 2003. 40! Do your math. Obviously they don't work for every purpose.

JDAM's have to be dropped within 15 miles of tha target, it's just a guided bomb. So it's irrelevant in this arguement don't you think? A 16" shell can fly 300 miles versus a 15 mile guided bomb?

Even a conventional Iowa class 16" gun could fire 23 miles.

And fought the second Gulf War without them, so what's your point? Clearly, they didn't make a big enough impact to keep around.

No, clearly you don't understand the system or the requirement. They were not activated for this second gul war because they can't get into range since they only have a range of 23 miles. In the first Gulf War they camped off the coast of Kuwait and fired at Iraqi targets in Kuwait. Thats why they aren't activated for this second gulf war. Next time do your research. And also, the secnav is currently thinking about reactivating them because of the DD(X) delay.

Huh? When you said high speed was a benefit of your BB, I said "No higher (or not much) than existing or near future vessels". I never said future ships will go faster.

41 kts is enough to overtake any current vessel on the sea. The ship isn't built to be a speed boat.

I admit that your 41kts is faster than a DD(X)s 33kts. But I submit that it wouldn't be useful and would pose additional costs and design constraints. Against an AShM, a difference of 8kts is going to mean squat. Against a torp it will help a little, but unless this behemouth can accelerate like a Ferrari, it may not get a chance to use it.

I submit that you don't understand how Mermaid pods work. They are more fuel efficient than current naval propulsion applications. Combined with a USN nuclear naval reactor and your point quickly dissolves.

No, no additional cost constraints. Thats the magic behind the Mermaid pod, you can equip multiple pods without huge increases in cost. They can be fit all along the bottom of the vessel. Missiles or torpedoes are after thoughts. They don't matter. Furthermore, I stated what the speed difference is for.

"Closing warfare tactics"? What is this, the 1940s? High ship speed means squat when then confronting an opposing surface force. It just means you'll outrun your escorts and make a ton of noise for every sub in the area to pick up.

Closing warfare is not a term from the 1940's. It's a modern term.

Or rather it was around in some term during the 1940's. This just shows you don't actually understand the concepts or tactics behind such a vessel.

Yes but the Ohios already exist and only require a conversion. Your BB is bran-new.

Irreleavant

Besides, the Ohios can sneak up to a coastline undetected, while your BB and it's escorts will be seen from hundreds of miles away by maritime patrol aircraft (even with stealth treatments).

Have them try it. Its a pontless arguement, submarines are force dislocators.

In addition, the Ohios are being configured to carry and support SEAL teams, UUVs and are already capable ISR platforms - so they aren't just strike assets.

Seal teams are pointless in modern warfare. You don't consider a special ops team as a front line asset. The two gulf wars aside from what you think are not actual wars. They are conflicts really.

Your BB doesn't even have a helo pad.

Doesn't need one. However it does have UAV support. And I suppose it could have helo support, but just not based on the ship. Helo support is irrelevant. The Iowa class BB's do have helo decks. So obviously someone thought of that idea before. This is just a question of whether I believe it's nessesary or not.

Some other questions,

Why 9x16" guns? Why not 2x8" or 10" or whatever?

10 inch guns were rarely used in any naval application, and why underdog it? The 16 inch gun carries possibility for higher caliber and greater range combined with stronger punch.

The rationale for the Iowa's 16" guns was ship-to-ship BB vs. BB engagements. Since nobody operates BBs these days, and you're planning on a clean-sheet gun design, why stick with design decisions made in the 1920s and 30s?

Because those decisions are still forcing naval big wigs to cope with the fact that missiles will never be king. They still need more fire power for ground support. And with the advent of the guided shell, naval warfare is now possible using naval guns once again. And rail guns will just reinforce this when they are perfected. Designing a 10 inch gun is pointless, missiles can handle something that needs less fire power.

Plus, automated ammuntion handling on modern turrets means that a single gun can do the job of many WWII style guns. And rocket-assist and advanced propellants mean that smaller caliber weapons can reach as far as larger gun.

Except, you overlooked the real reason. The Navy needs bigger guns. Their extreme expenses with cruise missiles just reinforces this. A bigger gun can shoot further with those rocket assisted shells. And my advanced propellants increase that range further. Thats is like asking why use a cruise missile when you can use a rocket propelled grenade?

Also, the reason that WW2 style turrets had 3 guns per turret isn't to increase firing rate. They usually fired all at the same time. It was for increased salvo efficiency.

This idea is here to stay. A decade ago the Navy came up with the idea for an arsenal ship. But it didn't have any guns, so they trashes it. All it had was cruise missiles and that was not good enough. So that eventually led to the DD(X), which has extreme range with its gun. Which opens up the reasoning for a BB.

And to be honest, if I used conventional hull design, and kept all the rest of the features I've mentioned, I could build my ship for little more than a current burke cruiser. By I didn't, because I want it to be stealthy, and I want it to have the best features. The Navy wants a futuristic, ship, well here it is.

[Defcon 6]

And another thing, who cares about the cost. You keep arguing for the use of more cruise missiles. Pointless. I've already stated examples where the military has used 40 tomahawks on a single bunker, 20 on a suspected terrorist camp, another 30 for some other target. Each time costing tens of millions of dollars. So who cares about the cost.

Your plan for the navy would be more expensive than mine.