Big Battleship Doctrine

[Defcon 6]

The Arsenal ship could get by with a small crew because it was basically a floating VLS freighter. It had minimal sensors and no guns. It took all of its queueing and fire control from other vessels. Therefore, it only needed enough crew to drive & maintain the boat.

If I read it right, your ship still uses significant DD(X) compoents (MFR and associated combat systems).

It has a rough superset of the armament, sensors and combat systems of DD(X), and will have a larger, nuclear propulsion system.

Plus the 1950s-era guns & turret systems are far more manpower-intensive than modern turrets. A triple 16" Iowa turret had a minimum crew of, what, 77 sailors?

Doesn't use 1950's turrets. Any gun system used is AGS. It might be labeled 1950 since it has no data on the AGS, so I have to enter it manually.

My turrets using AGS are unmanned as the DD(X) turrets are. Using hydraulic loading systems and liquid propellant there is no need to man them.

Okay, lets set the price at 2.2 billion. The problem here is we don't know exactly what is in the DD(X). The price for the DD(X) even a 3 billion indicates something other than what we have all seen. So going and saying that my ship is unrealistic because it's using some DD(X) systems ect, we don't know what the DD(X) uses.

I know however exactly whats going into this ship.

Nuclear power uses steam technology. They use steam turbines, so the nuclear concept isn't space intensive, it's automated. Even in nuclear power plants the reactors are automated.

Optimistically, a single mount might require a third of them, and you have three turrets, so figure 70-odd sailors just for the 16" gun turrets.

Wouldn't make any sense to use obsolete technology. So I'm estimating 2 crew to control each of the larger turrets, those 2 crew are located in fire support.

$986 billion is still less than a Burke, which has been in full-rate production (amortized development costs) for years now, is far smaller, with a smaller weapons suite.

Also, even at full-rate, DD(X)s are still supposed to cost in the $3 billion range.

IMHO, scrap metal won't help drive down the price much. Most of the cost is tied up in amortized development, the weapons systems and C4ISR.

Plus, it's also nuclear.

As above, I'll raise it to 2.2 billion to throw u 2 a bone.


Yes, but the Queen Mary 2 doesn't have 16" guns, SPY-3/MFR, PVLS, or armor.

Oh, and it isn't nuclear-powered. [/quote]

Dpesm't matter. Theres 150,000 tons of material going into it. Armor doesn't matter, you wouldn't calculate its cost as dramatically higher. We don't have the systems to produce it, but that doesn't matter. Especially since the Navy just developed a new type of steel for armoring purposes. Nuclear powered systems are actually cheaper because they take up less space, are far more fuel efficient and give out more power overall. The queen mary 2 has several huge engines powering it. The 16" guns are questionable as we can't estimate how much it would cost. However considering we could use existing AGS technology the only R&D would be actual mechanical aspects. In term, the DD(X) AGS system didn't cost much to develop compared to say...the PLVS or hull design.

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The Queen mary is a freakin luxury cruiser.

You're not including R&D costs, Sys integration costs, and even your per unit cost is crazy low.

5 billion MINIMUM for one of these ships.

It isn't built on DD(X) technology. It uses a conventional hull with existing technology running it outside of the automation. The DD(X) looks pretty stealthy, so I'm guessing that there is something adding to price that has a lot to do with that. Remember the Sea Shadow was a launch board for navy technology.

The fact it was a luxury liner makes no difference. Check my post from pg 2 or 3, that explains why a luxury liner is a good comparison when considering price without e-warfare or weapons systems. Because without those, all a DD(X) is, would be a small cruise ship. It's the weapons and warfare systems that add the cost. The Montana Class Battleship would cost about 400 million dollars if built today. Most people don't realize that because they don't actually understand how ships are built and where costs come from.

A unit price of 2.2 billion is being generous. It's really not any bigger than the DD(X). It's a matter of the armor that adds the weight. Check the statistics, it's roughly a little more in weight than a DD(X) without the armor.

Regardless, it's built to be cheap. Scrap metal would reduce the cost quite a good bit. And it's possible to decommission a Burke and rip the hardware out and re use it for say...one of these ships. They are wanting to replace the burkes anyways. Now the unit cost is less than 1 billion. See what I mean?

[Defcon 6]

Forget the scrap metal idea, heres something from one of my other threads

Starting in the mid-1990s, the Navy focused on the development of high-strength low-alloy steel (HSLA-65, -80, and -100) for ship construction in the thickness range of 5/16-inch. to 1-5/8 inch. HSLA-65 and HSLA-100 steels are being considered for immediate application as the primary structure in the DD (X), CVN 77, and CVNX 1 for weight reduction and fabrication cost savings. More recently, Division metallurgists have collaborated with researchers from Japan in a cooperative program to develop structurally acceptable methods to use “under-matched” strength weldments for use with high-strength steel alloys (yield strength greater than 150 ksi). This technology has the potential to significantly reduce the costs of high-strength steel in ship construction.

The Navy believe that the new carriers can shed a few pounds if this steel is used in the carrier hulls. Preliminary calculations indicated that if it was used in hull plate, it could provide equal or greater service life than the traditional high-strength steel, but be thinner, and therefore weigh less. The same would be true for the hull's interior supporting structures.

HSLA-65 is stronger and tougher than conventional steel, and has proven itself in commercial bridges, pipelines and other ship above-deck structures. Rigorous certification testing of this new steel is underway

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit.../cvx-design.htm

This new steel is nearly as strong as Titanium endurance wise.

[Defcon 6]

As it is, my battleship design, tactics and fleet design are near flawless. Especially with my new BB(X) Montana class.

I'm also planning to purchase Harpoon 3, a strategic naval combat simulator. I can use this to test my combat theory's.

With or without the support of current 21st century designs, it's the ultimate in naval combat. I'm thinking about writing up specs for an advanced dreadnought now. whether it's realistic or not the strategy can not be doubted.

By the way, I need a 3D modeler's help to make a 3d image of this thing. Any takers?

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

As it is, my battleship design, tactics and fleet design are near flawless. Especially with my new BB(X) Montana class.

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Evidently it is since no one has had any suggestions. Very clearly I did ask for imput on it.

And since no one has any thing to say, my current doctrine for attack is perfect. It must be. And if you don't think so, either throw your arguement out into the open or add your ideas to the thread.

[Defcon 6]

Montana X Class BB(X)-70, U.S Advanced Battleship laid down 2005

Displacement:
86,050 t light; 87,826 t standard; 88,784 t normal; 89,550 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
927.00 ft / 895.00 ft x 124.00 ft x 28.00 ft (normal load)
282.55 m / 272.80 m x 37.80 m x 8.53 m

Armament:
12 - 18.10" / 460 mm guns (4x3 guns), 2,964 lbs / 1,344 kg shells, 2005 Model AGS
Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turrets
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 3 raised mounts
8 - 6.10" / 155 mm guns in single mounts, 113.62 lbs / 51.54 kg shells, 2005 AGS Model
Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turrets
on side, all amidships
6 - 8.00" / 203 mm guns (2x3 guns), 256.00lbs / 116.12 kg shells, 2005 AGS Model
Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turrets
on centreline ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 38,023 lbs / 17,247 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
18- 57mm BAE Land and Armaments CIWS
8-Submerged 650mm ADCAP Torpedo Launchers

Peripheral Vertical Launch System-
The solution consists of 65 four-cell PVLS situated round the perimeter of the deck, rather than the usual centrally located VLS. This would reduce the ship's vulnerability to a single hit.
-Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (Raytheon RIM-162)
-SM-3 Standard Missile
-Tactical Tomahawk or Tomahawk TLAM
-Harpoon ASM

x6 MRLS 12 cell box units on retracting mounts
x12 Armed UAV systems supported

Posseses Theater Missile Defense.

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 18.9" / 480 mm 578.50 ft / 176.33 m 12.87 ft / 3.92 m
Ends: 12.0" / 305 mm 311.48 ft / 94.94 m 12.87 ft / 3.92 m
5.02 ft / 1.53 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 18.9" / 480 mm 578.50 ft / 176.33 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
17.2" / 437 mm 578.50 ft / 176.33 m 25.49 ft / 7.77 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 14.0" / 356 mm -
2nd: 9.00" / 229 mm 9.00" / 229 mm -
3rd: 10.0" / 254 mm 10.0" / 254 mm -

- Armour deck: 9.00" / 229 mm

All armor composed of HSLA-100 Steel, the new Naval steel which is stronger than conventional carbon steel, and has a yield of 150 ksi.

The hull is a double hull design. The between hull space is filled with kevlar bricks, to prevent armor splintering and protect further against shaped warheads.

Armor is sheeted with a Titanium layer.



Machinery:
Nuclear Power
Electric motors, 14 Mermaid Pods, 633,607 shp / 472,671 Kw = 37.90 kts
Range 200,000 nm at 31.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,724 tons

Complement:
289-323

Cost:
$6.107 billion

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 42,125 tons, 47.4 %
- Belts: 11,766 tons, 13.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 9,384 tons, 10.6 %
- Armament: 1,173 tons, 1.3 %
- Armour Deck: 19,803 tons, 22.3 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 15,158 tons, 17.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 28,767 tons, 32.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,734 tons, 3.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
107,506 lbs / 48,764 Kg = 36.3 x 18.1 " / 460 mm shells or 48.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.58
Metacentric height 13.3 ft / 4.1 m
Roll period: 13.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 47 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.62
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.88


Hull form characteristics:
Tumblehome Hull design/ double hull with triple bottom
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 1.000
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.22 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 33.66 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 67 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 86
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.82 ft / 10.00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 20.88 ft / 6.36 m
- Mid (50 %): 20.88 ft / 6.36 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 20.88 ft / 6.36 m
- Stern: 20.88 ft / 6.36 m
- Average freeboard: 21.84 ft / 6.66 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 67.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 184.0 %
Waterplane Area: 118,935 Square feet or 11,049 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 123 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 207 lbs/sq ft or 1,010 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.47
- Longitudinal: 0.79
- Overall: 0.92
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

SPY-3 with Aegis Mk7 Baseline 7.0b/CEC
The radar suite will consist of a dual band radar for horizon and volume search, an L-band volume search radar (VSR) integrated with the AN/SPY-3 multi-function radar already being developed by Raytheon for the US Navy. The two radars are to be integrated at waveform level for enhanced surveillance and tracking capability. The AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) is an X-band active phased-array radar designed to detect low-observable anti-ship cruise missiles and support fire-control illumination for the ESSM and Standard Missiles.

Rear Helo-deck can accomodate x3 AH-1 Super cobra gunships, however no hangar space is available to store them. Or a single Chinook can land for utility and cargo purposes. A cargo hatch is located just at the end of this Helo-pad. Munitions and cargo can be loaded directly to and from the helo-pad, and then transported to the munitions bunkers through a cargo lift located in this cargo bay.

[Defcon 6]

Lets contemplate the idea of less super carriers.

[Defcon 6]

Could you give me any reference on those Ram Jet shells that the Air force is testing? Those that apply to Naval gunfire. I hope you are not using the NASA X-43
Scramjet project. Or the 120mm gun scramjet project. As they do not apply to a 16in weapon.

http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/newsre...1/2001-287.htm

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/newsre...1/2001-287.htm

No that was research that helped develop the 120mm scramjet round. GASL was taken over by ATK industries. The work is going towards the 120mm tank shell. ATK is also the company that built the X-43. That is going towards a space shuttle replacement.

Feel free to read the reasoning on why a scramjet round is easier to produce for a 120mm cannon compared to a 16in cannon. Your an engineer, you tell me.


Puters been down for a few days due to a mesh of breaker box and lightning. Good news is that the surge protector worked

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Ahh ok, now I understand what he was talking about.

Yes, I misused the term 'caliber' when referencing the 16" gun. My mistake.

No you didn't. 16" is the caliber of the gun.

He mixed definitions in his response. 50 cal is the length of the 16in tube. .50 cal is the diameter of the machinegun bullet. If you say .50 is the cal of the machine gun than 16 in is the cal of the naval gun not 50 cal

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

My turrets using AGS are unmanned as the DD(X) turrets are. Using hydraulic loading systems and liquid propellant there is no need to man them.

About every 20 years people start thinking that liquid propellants are a good idea. And they are always shown the error of their way.

Nuclear power uses steam technology. They use steam turbines, so the nuclear concept isn't space intensive, it's automated. Even in nuclear power plants the reactors are automated.

So now you are doubling the size of the engine crew. With nuclear power you need a Nuc Eng crew and a steam plant crew.

Why not use LM2500 powerplants. You know, the thing that powers the Burkes, Ticos, And Wasp class from LHD-8, the new LHA(R). An engine that shares commonallity with a aircraft engine that is used by the AF and civilian fleets all over the world. Making emergency repair parts easier to obtain. Also the engine that is used on the QM2. And they are not huge engines as you state below

Dpesm't matter. Theres 150,000 tons of material going into it. Armor doesn't matter, you wouldn't calculate its cost as dramatically higher. We don't have the systems to produce it, but that doesn't matter. Especially since the Navy just developed a new type of steel for armoring purposes. Nuclear powered systems are actually cheaper because they take up less space, are far more fuel efficient and give out more power overall. The queen mary 2 has several huge engines powering it. The 16" guns are questionable as we can't estimate how much it would cost. However considering we could use existing AGS technology the only R&D would be actual mechanical aspects. In term, the DD(X) AGS system didn't cost much to develop compared to say...the PLVS or hull design.

The "new" navy steel isn't armor its structural steel. It does matter because the BB will have more steel. More compartments ect... In addition the structural integrity around the 16 in mounts will have to withstand quite a bit of force.
Might want to work on a VGAS type mount for it.

You have some other design flaws but the one that you must answer to satisfy the Navy. When the mermaid pods go "**** up" and lock in place, what will you do for emergenc steering? And when that fails, then what? US Navy ships normally have triple redundency on critical systems. Whats yours?

[Defcon 6]

About every 20 years people start thinking that liquid propellants are a good idea. And they are always shown the error of their way.

Then show away. Because gun, the options are running out and liquids if used right have far greater potential, right? But I have never seen anyone else suggest such a thing so if every 20 people say it I guess my idea is pretty popular.

Why not use LM2500 powerplants. You know, the thing that powers the Burkes, Ticos, And Wasp class from LHD-8, the new LHA(R). An engine that shares commonallity with a aircraft engine that is used by the AF and civilian fleets all over the world. Making emergency repair parts easier to obtain. Also the engine that is used on the QM2. And they are not huge engines as you state below

They are quite large, especially for a 33,000 tons ship that needs over 200,000 hp. But maybe your right.

The "new" navy steel isn't armor its structural steel. It dose matter because the BB will have more steel, more compartments ect... In addition the structural integrity around the 16 in mounts will have to withstand quite a bit of force.
Might want to work on a VGAS type mount for it

Yes I made ene entire thread devoted to it here on the Naval forum. It does however appear they are using it as armor. Hull plating at ay rate.


By the way, somebody on another forum read your past posts regarding caliber and told me to ask you this.

I can see that.

I repeat that in the context of US artillery systems :

1. The M185 cannon is a 155-mm/39-cal and not /38-cal.

2. The caliber of a tube is the diameter of the bore measured at the muzzle between opposite lands.

3. The caliber length of a tube is the distance from the muzzle to the face of the breech recess and is expressed in calibers.

Think you can copy and paste those 3 points and submit it on the other board, if you disagree with any of the above ?

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

No you didn't. 16" is the caliber of the gun.

He mixed definitions in his response. 50 cal is the length of the 16in tube. .50 cal is the diameter of the machinegun bullet. If you say .50 is the cal of the machine gun than 16 in is the cal of the naval gun not 50 cal

My guns are still .60 and 16" am I correct? The barrel isn longer than that of an Iowa class.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

No you didn't. 16" is the caliber of the gun.

He mixed definitions in his response. 50 cal is the length of the 16in tube. .50 cal is the diameter of the machinegun bullet. If you say .50 is the cal of the machine gun than 16 in is the cal of the naval gun not 50 cal

Ahh, well good then.