Big Battleship Doctrine

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

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

Well, until it does, it may not. And even then, it may be cancelled. That's the way of military procurement.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

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.

'bout time you noticed that. All this talk about SeaWolf...

Still, my original statement stands - it won't have the TMD capability of CG(X) (which is supposed to get a new air defense sensor suite).

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

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.

Actually no, the original PAC-2 Patriot's missile intercept capability was something of a hack. Notice it didn't do that well in ODS.

PAC-3s are better, but they're lack the range and altitude performance for wide-area coverage. That's where THAAD is supposed to come in.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

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 did I say a carrier fleet would run down a freighter? That's a job for regular surface combatants. Or is that job too menial for your uber BB?

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

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.

Jeez! What rock are you living under? The war in Iraq is forcing all of the services to cut back on modernization.

Try reading this report from the Congressional Budget Office describing some of their reservations with the DD(X) and LCS.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...&from=0#anchor

Oh, and as a mental exercise, try fitting your BB in under their budgeted numbers. How many fewer DD(X)s and LCSs will there be?

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

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.

Umm, no. They used 40 Tomahawks on one bunker complex. That's more than one aimpoint.

Plus, guess what, your BBs guns would've been useless in this situation - Baghdad is 340 miles from the coast.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

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.

No, they deactivated because they were bleeding the Navy's O&M budget dry and only did one thing, somewhat well - NGFS.

Yeah, I'm sure Rumsfeld is thinking hard about it.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

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.

I'm sure they are, but an efficient 33,000 ton ship will still be far more expensive to operate than an efficient 16,000 ton ship.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

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.

Ok, point me to some current naval doctrine that would lead one to believe a major surface combatant needs 40+kt speeds. (and when I mean major surface combatant, I don't mean LCS or Visby or other oversized gunboats)

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

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.

Huh? SEAL teams are pointless? I guess all the teams operating in Afghanistan can just come home then. All the teams that went in before the start of ODS and OIF were just wasting their time.

BTW, I have no idea what your trying to say with your 'actual war' vs 'conflict' remark.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

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.

Well, gosh! I nominate you for SecDef! You obviously have all the answers.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

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.

Who cares if it's ever been used before?! This is a clean sheet design! It's not like you're trying for ammo commonality with Iowa stocks or anything. There's nothing special about 16 inches, or 10, or 8 or whatever. The only 'special' calibers are ones where you might be able to reuse some design and development - primarily 155mm.

Start with requirements. What are the target sets? At what range? How quickly must they be dealt with? (DPMIs over time). And recall that there are other systems in the military to deal with the corner cases (e.g. super-hardened bunkers, etc).

Note, the USAF believes that a measly 250lb bomb can deal with 80% of battlefield targets.

Smaller munitions means lower pricetags and larger numbers for a given weight and volume.

Smaller guns means smaller mounts and more stowed rounds for a given volume.

Smaller, in general, means cheaper.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Designing a 10 inch gun is pointless, missiles can handle something that needs less fire power.

Then I guess the AGS is pointless too. Let's just scrap all calibers below 16".

Or maybe... 16" guns are pointless, larger missiles and bombs can handle targets that need more firepower.

Let me clue you in on a little secret. You can always fire more smaller rounds to get the same area effect as a 16" shell, but you can never fire less than one 16" round.

This means that big guns have less flexibility. The can't be called close to friendlies. They can't be fired into cities (unless you don't mind flattening entire city blocks). They are massive overkill for hitting vehicles or fighting positions or even exposed infantry.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

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?

Ok, let's do a little math. Using your cost estimates, your BB costs a billion more than a DD(X). The production cost of a TacTom is around $600k ($750k is the program cost).

So for each BB, you could by 1600 TacToms!

And each could be carried by any VLS ship in the fleet, not just a the handful of BBs you can afford.

And that doesn't even count the cost of arming the BB!

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

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.

Call me ignorant. What exactly is 'salvo efficiency'?

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

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.

No, it opens up the reasoning for a DD(X). The reasoning for a BB is still several steps beyond.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by 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.

Again, 40 TLAMS to a range of over 340 miles..

20 TLAMs to a range of over 600 miles.

Neither target could've been hit by your BB's guns without exotic rounds.

[Defcon 6]

Defcon, Need to read some of the older threads on BB reactivation . And their worth. Can you name the last time BBs were used for NSFS to support an amphibious landing?

The Navy no longer supports opposing amphibious landings. Everyone knows this.

Please explain how you believe that designing a new 16" turret, barrel, loading system, projectile, projectile guidance and propellant and a new class of ship to mount them to (have I missed anything) will be cheaper than Block 3 and 4 Tac Toms at 500 thou each. Or more important, cheaper than a F/A 18 or B-52 firing the latest version of JSOW/JDAM/JASSM?

It won't, that price is the unit price. Guns are cheaper to design, thats that. Please explain how firing 40 million dollars at the enemy every time you need to hit an armored target is cheap? It's not. The AGS system already exists, so I'm not proposing the creation of something new. Just a scaled up rendition. The projectiles you mention are already being created for the AGS system on the DD(X). By the way, you missed something.

Oh yes the industrial capacity/capability to build these 16" barrels.

The barrels aren't that tremendous to make. Industrial steel support beams weigh more and are usually longer.

Why have you chosen ESSM and Seawolf together? Are the radars compatable?
Why not use RAM and ESSM, since they are both already in the US inventory. And compatable.

I could use the Rim-116b but I concluded SeaWolf is better. Doesn't really matter though, this entire design is theoretical.

If you think you are going to build a ship that isn't Aegis compatable then you are kidding yourself.

I stated it would be Aegis if possible. So I'm not kidding anyone.

Prices of steel and alum are so far off its not even funny. What grade steel are you planning to use? The ability to produce armor strength HHS is lacking in the US. We have had to outsource for some of the armor kits being sent to Iraq.

The prices are right on. Here, I'll even provide sources.

http://www.grede.com/customer_servic...teelPrices.jsp

Says current price is $339 per ton, and if you notice, my price for steel was accurate last month when I drafted these ship specs. Prices for scrap aluminum are rather hard to find. However the price I gave was accurate over a 3 year span, which is the proper way of gauging metal prices, since they fluctuate from day to day.

Additionally I'm considering a new steel alloy the U.S Navy is developing for the CVN carriers.

Same with the alum. Are you planning on using "Beercan" formula alum for your superstructure? Or 5083 grade alum armor? Will it handle the stresses? After the Belknap fire I'm betting that any talk of alum superstructures will go over like a fart in church

Quite frankly it doesn't matter. I could use steel if I wanted.
The armor has no aluminum.

Mermaid pods? Did they get those things working? If they didn't live up to a cruise lines standards what do you think the USN will have to say? From Maritime News in Aug 03:

That story is from 2003. It's old. The Queen Mary 2 set sail January of this year with four Mermaid pods and they have had nothing but praise. Mermaid pods were released in 2002 with initial problems, it was new technology so it really isn't that surpirsing. So yeah, had you bothered to do more than google the subject you would have found plenty of new articles praising the technology. It's an electric motor, you understand that right? It's not as if it's some type of futuristic engine type. Simply a modern rendition of something that's been around for the past century.

The fact that the largest most expensive liner in the Cunard Line (and the world for that matter) uses them, and it's new, just makes clear that your throwing dirt on the matter with an outdated news article.

An AB can change out an engine in less than 72 hours. How long to replace a mermaid pod? can they troubleshoot, change out components/assemblies without having to drydock?

Mermaid pods are self contained, and independant. A Mermaid pod takes less than a day to replace.

For such a large ship and your crew numbers, what will you do about DC? Will you be able to fight the ship and do DC? How many casualties before you have to go offline?

The idea is to prevent damage control. But moreoever this has nothing to do with ship design. Please ask relevant questions in the future.

Check your little "Battlefield tactics" wargame. Why are you waiting until the "enemy" planes get into ESSM range to engage? Neither F-18 nor F-35s can carry AIM-54. Only F-14s could and even now"While they last" they cannot because 54s were taken out of service.

Checking your little "ego", I would point out it's made to be simple. Loadouts for the F-35 have not been specified, and there are three different versions. I simply was using a fire and forget air to air missile with proper range. It's a simple display of tactics, and it does it rather well. As for the enemy planes coming into range of the ESSM, They did engage prior to that.

Many other questions/observations but work on these first.

alright

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Again, 40 TLAMS to a range of over 340 miles..

20 TLAMs to a range of over 600 miles.

Neither target could've been hit by your BB's guns without exotic rounds.

Provide a source for that.

Regardless, as I said, cruise missiles always have a use for targets out of range of the BB guns. For those within range, it's more efficient. Besides, my BB has VLS systems. Quite a few of them.

[Defcon 6]

[quote=B.Smitty]Well, until it does, it may not. And even then, it may be cancelled. That's the way of military procurement.

'bout time you noticed that. All this talk about SeaWolf...

You've been wrong about several things so far.

Still, my original statement stands - it won't have the TMD capability of CG(X) (which is supposed to get a new air defense sensor suite).

Actually your wrong about that. Considering my ship is based around the 21st century fleet designs (DDX, CGX ect.) It will.

Actually no, the original PAC-2 Patriot's missile intercept capability was something of a hack. Notice it didn't do that well in ODS.

PAC-3s are better, but they're lack the range and altitude performance for wide-area coverage. That's where THAAD is supposed to come in.

This demonstrates nothing. My ship has no patriot missile systems, however my statement is still correct. The Patriot missile systems can target aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Interception is something different.

When did I say a carrier fleet would run down a freighter? That's a job for regular surface combatants. Or is that job too menial for your uber BB?

Carrier escorts wouldn't leave their group. So your entire assumption and arguement on that is incorrect.

Jeez! What rock are you living under? The war in Iraq is forcing all of the services to cut back on modernization.

Never said it wasn't. What rock are you living under?

Try reading this report from the Congressional Budget Office describing some of their reservations with the DD(X) and LCS.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...&from=0#anchor

Oh, and as a mental exercise, try fitting your BB in under their budgeted numbers. How many fewer DD(X)s and LCSs will there be?

Thats the idea, to have fewer.

Umm, no. They used 40 Tomahawks on one bunker complex. That's more than one aimpoint.

Trying to make it sound like you were somehow right? Bunker complex's don't span that far. And another thing, it was in the middle of a city.

Plus, guess what, your BBs guns would've been useless in this situation - Baghdad is 340 miles from the coast.

Plus guess what, rocket assisted shells could hit it. Go figure. Besides this, guess what, I already stated cruise missiles have a purpose in things that are out of range. But I've proven you wrong on both counts.

No, they deactivated because they were bleeding the Navy's O&M budget dry and only did one thing, somewhat well - NGFS.

Wrong.

Yeah, I'm sure Rumsfeld is thinking hard about it.

It would be the secnav's duty to consider it. Nice attitude.

I'm sure they are, but an efficient 33,000 ton ship will still be far more expensive to operate than an efficient 16,000 ton ship.

Go figure.

Ok, point me to some current naval doctrine that would lead one to believe a major surface combatant needs 40+kt speeds. (and when I mean major surface combatant, I don't mean LCS or Visby or other oversized gunboats)

Your profile says your a software developer. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't know where to look.

Huh? SEAL teams are pointless? I guess all the teams operating in Afghanistan can just come home then. All the teams that went in before the start of ODS and OIF were just wasting their time.

Irrelevant.

BTW, I have no idea what your trying to say with your 'actual war' vs 'conflict' remark.

If you don't understand those terms...how sad.

Well, gosh! I nominate you for SecDef! You obviously have all the answers.

More than you, thats clear. Nice attitude.
By the way, I'm not the one who thinks they are...a know it all to keep it simple. Your the one that came here, telling me how I don't know anything about this...in my own thread.

Who cares if it's ever been used before?! This is a clean sheet design! It's not like you're trying for ammo commonality with Iowa stocks or anything. There's nothing special about 16 inches, or 10, or 8 or whatever. The only 'special' calibers are ones where you might be able to reuse some design and development - primarily 155mm.

You don't know what your talking about.

Start with requirements. What are the target sets? At what range? How quickly must they be dealt with? (DPMIs over time). And recall that there are other systems in the military to deal with the corner cases (e.g. super-hardened bunkers, etc).

Then they should use them.

Note, the USAF believes that a measly 250lb bomb can deal with 80% of battlefield targets.

Evidently that also makes cruise missiles impractical.

Smaller munitions means lower pricetags and larger numbers for a given weight and volume.

Smaller guns means smaller mounts and more stowed rounds for a given volume.

Smaller, in general, means cheaper.

You don't understand ballistics.

Then I guess the AGS is pointless too. Let's just scrap all calibers below 16".

You just don't get it, we have a 5" AGS. Why build a 10" over a 16"? By the way, a caliber has nothing to do with 16" That proves furthermore you don't understand ballistics.

Let me explain something to you, the desert eagle handgun is .50, while the Iowa battleship guns are .50 as well. You don't even know what your talking about here and it's really starting to irritate me.

Or maybe... 16" guns are pointless, larger missiles and bombs can handle targets that need more firepower.

Well then they should use them more often.

Let me clue you in on a little secret. You can always fire more smaller rounds to get the same area effect as a 16" shell, but you can never fire less than one 16" round.

Wrong, different penetration values. You might end up using x30 5" shells to do the duty of one 16" shell.

This means that big guns have less flexibility. The can't be called close to friendlies. They can't be fired into cities (unless you don't mind flattening entire city blocks). They are massive overkill for hitting vehicles or fighting positions or even exposed infantry.

No this means that for some reason your determined to argue about all the little details, when your case is without base. This ship has 5" turrets as well as 16" turrets as well as Tactical Tomahawks and ADCAP torpedoes. Before you were trying to say a single torpedo would sink this ship, well guess what? You've been wrong about so many things now, just like you were wrong about that.

Ok, let's do a little math. Using your cost estimates, your BB costs a billion more than a DD(X). The production cost of a TacTom is around $600k ($750k is the program cost).

So for each BB, you could by 1600 TacToms!

Seems like a good deal to me.

And each could be carried by any VLS ship in the fleet, not just a the handful of BBs you can afford.

Better get rid of the SSGN's then.

And that doesn't even count the cost of arming the BB!

Heres something you didn't count. Arming them is irrelevant. Because all you do is fire them at a target anyways. If it wasn't going onto my ship, it would go onto another. So thats why thats a pointless statement to make.

Call me ignorant. What exactly is 'salvo efficiency'?

When firing un guided munitons you have something called COF. Which is the chance that the munition would land within the designated target zone. The further away you are, the larger the circle of fire becomes. WW2 guns used un guided munitions, so firing more round increased the chance it would hit the target. Thats the salvo efficiency. And thats also common ballistics.

No, it opens up the reasoning for a DD(X). The reasoning for a BB is still several steps beyond.

Then hurry up and get there, I'm tired of waiting.

Another thing, quit posting. You've made it clear you don't like battleships in any shape way or form, yet all you can do is squabble about every little detail you can find.

"Oh, a 5" gun can do the job" No it can't. Ask someone who knows. Rickusn stated very clearly why, and gave a link to clue you in further. The fact it was in Korea doesn't matter. Because it was still talking about 6" shells not getting the job done! So it doesn't matter that we have TacTom's or JDAM's today. Because you yourself stated that you thought a 5" gun would get the job done, which it won't. 5" shells have their place, but it can naver compete with a 16" shell.

And talking about the 16" shell leveling an entire city block, well now you understand the reasoning behind using something smaller to get the job done.
If I were to take your arguement at face value I would be convinced that if you had the chance you would also rule out 1000 and 2000 lb bombs. Because why have 1000 and 2000 lb bombs when you can use 250 lb bombs?

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Provide a source for that.

Regardless, as I said, cruise missiles always have a use for targets out of range of the BB guns. For those within range, it's more efficient. Besides, my BB has VLS systems. Quite a few of them.

Okey doke.

Kuwait City (on the coast) to Baghdad - 344 miles.

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldcloc...33&long=48.000

Karachi, Pakistan (on the coast) to Kabul, Afghanistan - 678 miles.

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldcloc...00&long=69.167

Your ship has VLS cells, but it's raison d'être is its guns. Your provided two cases where, in your opinion, guns would've been preferable to TLAMs. My goal was to refute those cases.

[Defcon 6]

But again totally pointless. The guns do have plenty of scenario's to be used in. If what you claim is true, then the Navy would have just built the Arsenal ship, but they didn't.

http://www.g2mil.com/SSGN%20Scandal.htm

By the way, my ship is a force multiplier in the same way an SSGN is.
-The SSGN is a Navy “Force Multiplier.” A deployed SSGN greatly increases on-station TLAM availability. Combined with the OHIO-class submarine’s proven history of high operational availability, the SSGN frees up other Naval Forces for priority tasking, such as anti-submarine warfare, controlling the airspace, and even theater ballistic missile defense. Each SSGN will spend fourteen of its remaining twenty-plus operational years after conversion forward deployed.

As for refuting my claim, there are a lot of targets around the world such as in north korea and china, which are within 320 miles. And as I said, those exotic shells I mentioned could go 700+ miles. The ram jet shells I mentioned, which the air force are testing currently. Now even if one of those shells cost the same as a tomahawk, they still deliver more destructive power on target.

Theres also the question of whether a shell could be fired sub orbital. Space is only 30 miles from sea level. So the DD(X) AGS system could indeed fire sub-orbital rounds hitting targets of over 2000 miles. There is no missile answer to this, except perhaps a more vulerable cruise missile that has less range. And that's just the tip of the ice berg, we haven't even started on rail guns yet since they haven't been perfected.

[Defcon 6]

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...cle_003442.php

The DD(X) has entered it's next phase. This article is dated 9/19/2005.

Looks like the Navy is sticking it out for the DD(X) and the 21st century naval fleet concepts.

And Gun Grape, the Navy CVN is going to be equipped with a light layer of newly developed armor. I'll find a link to it if your interested.

I'm thinking of a new classification for my Battleship. I know, BB(X). Maybe I should make alterations so it's more fit to operate with the future 21st century fleet.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Actually your wrong about that. Considering my ship is based around the 21st century fleet designs (DDX, CGX ect.) It will.

CG(X) will have a different sensor suite than DD(X) - specifically designed for area air defense and TMD. You stated in your spec sheet that to lower costs, you were going to use the radar suite from the DD(X). Was this distinction your intent?

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Carrier escorts wouldn't leave their group. So your entire assumption and arguement on that is incorrect.

Escorting carriers is only one job done by major combatants, and more and more marginal one at that, so my assumption and argument is completely valid.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Thats the idea, to have fewer.

Fewer, less expensive platforms, not fewer more expensive platforms.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Trying to make it sound like you were somehow right? Bunker complex's don't span that far. And another thing, it was in the middle of a city.

Oh really? Provide me a source. Don't have one? Here ya go,

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/0321gulf.xml

"Using about 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from four ships and two submarines and a pair of 2,000-lb. bombs dropped by two F-117s, the U.S. Navy and Air Force last Thursday attacked targets in the south and east of Baghdad including radio, television and customs buildings."

Doesn't sound like one big, impenetrable bunker to me. Sounds like a large number of targets.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Plus guess what, rocket assisted shells could hit it. Go figure. Besides this, guess what, I already stated cruise missiles have a purpose in things that are out of range. But I've proven you wrong on both counts.

The stated range of your gun design is 320 miles. How you came up with this number, I have no idea. Your anecdotal evidence for the need of such system was to perform strikes such as those in Baghdad and Afghanistan. My goal was to point out that 320 miles is insufficient for strikes of this type.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Your profile says your a software developer. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't know where to look.

Ahh.. here we go - ad hominem rears its ugly head.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Irrelevant.

How so? My assertion was that SSGNs are useful for more than just their VLS cells. Your assertion, if I read it correctly, is that the USN is desperate for more and therefore came up with the SSGN.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

If you don't understand those terms...how sad.

Yes, I don't understand those terms. Perhaps you could explain them to me? Or did you make them up?

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

More than you, thats clear. Nice attitude.
By the way, I'm not the one who thinks they are...a know it all to keep it simple. Your the one that came here, telling me how I don't know anything about this...in my own thread.

Well, if you put your ideas out on a public, military forum, you can expect people will pick them apart. Welcome to the Internet.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

You don't know what your talking about.

Well, then enlighten me. I frequent these boards to learn things, not just to pontificate.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Then they should use them.

You didn't answer my question. What are the requirements that led you to believe in a 16" gun solution? What are the target sets? At what range? How quickly must they be dealt with? (DPMIs over time).

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Evidently that also makes cruise missiles impractical.

No, but it does make them overkill for 80% of battlefield targets.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

You don't understand ballistics.

Well, I'm no expert, but I do think I have a grasp of the basics.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

You just don't get it, we have a 5" AGS. Why build a 10" over a 16"? By the way, a caliber has nothing to do with 16" That proves furthermore you don't understand ballistics.

Because 10" might give you the range and penetration profile you want without the expense of a larger weapon. I just threw that number out. Frankly I don't know what's possible these days.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Let me explain something to you, the desert eagle handgun is .50, while the Iowa battleship guns are .50 as well. You don't even know what your talking about here and it's really starting to irritate me.

What an apt analogy. IMHO, a .50 Desert Eagle handgun is too much of the wrong type of weapon for any military.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Wrong, different penetration values. You might end up using x30 5" shells to do the duty of one 16" shell.

Massive penetration is only required for a small subset of likely targets. For the rest, 'useful' penetration is enough.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Seems like a good deal to me.

I don't think you quite got what I was implying. I was saying I think the USN would be far better off, instead of your BB, to buy 1600 TLAMs and a DD(X).

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Better get rid of the SSGN's then.

Huh? How does bashing your BB equate to getting rid of SSGNs? I've already said I think they have value beyond their VLS cells.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Heres something you didn't count. Arming them is irrelevant. Because all you do is fire them at a target anyways. If it wasn't going onto my ship, it would go onto another. So thats why thats a pointless statement to make.

Well 16" guns won't go on another ship. That's my main problem. TLAMs will.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

When firing un guided munitons you have something called COF. Which is the chance that the munition would land within the designated target zone. The further away you are, the larger the circle of fire becomes. WW2 guns used un guided munitions, so firing more round increased the chance it would hit the target. Thats the salvo efficiency. And thats also common ballistics.

Ok, I had a feeling it was something like that.

While that may've been an issue when firing ship vs. ship, I see no reason why a single gun with a higher ROF couldn't substitue nowadays. In fact, that's how virtually all modern, large naval guns do it.

The idea is to hit the target, whether it's one gun firing three rounds, or three guns firing one, we're only talking about a short span of time. OTOH, a single gun turret is far less complex (and expensive) and much smaller than a triple mount.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Another thing, quit posting. You've made it clear you don't like battleships in any shape way or form, yet all you can do is squabble about every little detail you can find.

Yes, you're right, I don't think BBs have a place in modern navies. They just don't solve the right set of problems.

So why did you start this thread? Was it so the general Internet could bask in your brilliance, or did you want to have a serious discussion?

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

"Oh, a 5" gun can do the job" No it can't. Ask someone who knows. Rickusn stated very clearly why, and gave a link to clue you in further. The fact it was in Korea doesn't matter. Because it was still talking about 6" shells not getting the job done! So it doesn't matter that we have TacTom's or JDAM's today. Because you yourself stated that you thought a 5" gun would get the job done, which it won't. 5" shells have their place, but it can naver compete with a 16" shell.

Well, AGS is a 6.1" gun, but that's nitpicking..

No, I'm redefining the requirements. I don't think naval gunfire needs to be able to destroy every hardened target on the battlefield. I think the AGS can deal with the 70-80% case, and other systems can handle the rest.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

And talking about the 16" shell leveling an entire city block, well now you understand the reasoning behind using something smaller to get the job done.
If I were to take your arguement at face value I would be convinced that if you had the chance you would also rule out 1000 and 2000 lb bombs. Because why have 1000 and 2000 lb bombs when you can use 250 lb bombs?

No. The marginal cost of having 1000 and 2000lb JDAMS in the inventory is zero, we already have them. The aircraft that can carry them can also carry 250lb SDBs (eventually).

Advanced, 320 mile range, 16" guns and the ships that carry them are not in the inventory, nor are they on any serious drawing board, so the onus is on you to prove the need.

I say the selection of weapons we have now and are planned in the near future will leave the US military in good shape, strike-wise. Therefore the focus (and money) should be in other areas.

[Dreadnought]

I dont know guys im no USN expert but from what I get he has spent time thinking this through from a design stand point it appears expensive and maybe it is but still worth a shot at a drawing board if she passes critical design phases and tests IMO. Remember guys only an idea .Grant you several armament and sensor issues abound but if you could work out a suitable modern stable fast surface attack weapons platform to begin with im sure the rest could fall into place with some major extrapolation concerns. Now Defcon if you could only get to someone (grant you anyone with clout in the USN) to listen to your ideas (albeit they will thumb their nose at anything even remotely called a battleship nowadays) you may just start an idea for something worth building who knows maybe even replace destroyers alltogether at some point like the DDX program is supposed to. This all in theory ofcoarse. I like your ideas and wish you luck. An interesting post none the less.

[Gun Grape]

The barrels aren't that tremendous to make. Industrial steel support beams weigh more and are usually longer.

You have no idea what your talking about do you? There is 1 plac