Big Battleship Doctrine

[Defcon 6]

I've been debating the usefulness and possiblness of a modern battleship on another forum. This is how it's specs would read. I designed it, and I do believe it is perfect. Does anyone want to talk about what kind of tactics it should or could use? Have any tips on its design? I have an entire doctrine devoted to this type of ship.

Carrier Group:
x1 CVY or Nimitz Class Carrier
x3 DD(X) Class Destroyer
x 3 Ticonderoga Missile Cruiser
x3 Exalibur Class Advanced Battleship
x2 Virginia Class Attack Sub
x1 SeaWolf Class Attack Sub



Exalibur Class Advanced Battleship-
Role: Multi-Mission Surface Warfare/ Blue Water Patrol
Fleet Characteristic: Carrier Group/ Surface Combat Group/ Tactical Battleship Group

Length: 611 ft.
Beam: 79 ft.
Tonnage: 33,000 Tons
Tumblehome Hull design
30 Water tight bulkheads of computerized control

Armor:
Double Hull: For Advanced Survivability (Armor accounts for both inner and outter hull total)

Outer Hull- Titanium/ Tungsten Alloy Sheeted Steel
Explosive Reactive Armor enhanced
Side: 722mm
Deck: 380mm
Turrent: 645mm

*The reason the armor is so high is because it's a double hull design. However the smal amount of space between the hulls will be filled with blocks of kevlar anti-ballistic material. The ER protection can either go on the outside or in the middle space with the kevlar on the interior side.

Crew: 202-369

Tonnage: 33,000 tons

Possibly compadible with Aegis Combat System

Armament:
x9 Advanced Gun system 16" (406mm)/ .60 Deck guns in 4 triple gun turrents
-Will fire Depleted Uranium GPS guided 16" shells.

-x6 (3 twin tubes) carrying Mk. 48 533 mm torpedoes

Close-In Gun System (CIGS)-
x 10
BAE Systems Land and Armaments 57mm Mk 110 naval gun.

x16 155mm AGS Single Turrents
-Will fire GPS/IR guided 155mm shells

The CIGS is highly effective against incoming missiles and aircraft.


Peripheral Vertical Launch System-
The solution consists of 50 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
-SeaWolf Block 2



The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and SeaWolf Missile are both designed to intercept aircraft/ artillary shells and hostile missiles. Combined with the CIGS it makes an effective protective "sheild" although not perfect obviously, still very effective. Combined with the advanced armor survivability is very high.

RADAR:
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.

I used this radar system because it's designed to be highly effective against pop-up style attacks and aerial threats. The biggest threat to a Battleship.

Propulsion:
I've equipped my vessel with MERMAID electrical pods, these give the vessel 360 degrees of movement without a rudder and can operate independantly. Direct hits can no longer disable a rudder or prop. shaft. Greatly increases survivability and fuel efficiency.

6 Alstor MERMAID electrical pods @30MW each
Cruise Speed: 31 kts
Top Speed: 41 kts

The new Exalibur Class Advanced Battleship is part of a modern naval fleet, including carrier groups.

[Anon]

LOL, no one could afford them, not even the USN.

Pity.

PS: To carry the aramament fit you describe would require a ship of roughly double the displacement you've stated.

Even the Iowas are a full 17k tons heavier at full combat load.

[Dreadnought]

Defcon,
I found your ideas very interesting to say the least.
I have a question or two if thats ok..

Ok for comparison ill use BB38 Pennsylvania.

608' long x 97' beam
31,400 tons
Main Arm- 12/14" in four triples
crew-915

Ok so your proposing a new generation battleship

611' long x 79' beam
33,000 tons
Main Arm 9/16" in four triples
crew-202-369

My question is,

1. With a longer length then the Pennsylvania class but with much shorter beam would this new ship be able to handle the weight of a full broadside of 9/16" guns (Pennsy had 12/14")without capsizing or shaking her to pieces?(according to lore Pennsy & Arizona shook like hell under full broadsides.) I understand that she will be heavier then the Pa class but not by much and given the narrower beam one has to wonder if it will handle the broadside weight and still be good seakeeping i.e. extreme draft etc to be an effective fast (41 knot) weapons platform.

I do like the idea of the Mermaid pods. Shame they werent thoughts in WWII.
A battleship with a small crew would really make the Carrier Admirals cringe..lol there goes one more of their excuses..
Ahh a battleship with torpedoes again. Hopefully the submerged design so they hide and hopefully the newer faster design torpedo as well
You seem to have some pretty good ideas maybe do some mock up model drawings to share with us to give us a better understanding as there are a few guys here that may be able to help you enhance your ideas. Good Luck. I know I'd love to see a battleship at sea agin

Also Praxus has a model on here that may help you visualize its under the Multimedia Forum called Model Battleship.

P.S. Please do make sure that you give her a proper "capital" ship name i.e. back to state names and restore some lost glory to us battleship crazies

[thesaint]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Armament:
x9 Advanced Gun system 16" (406mm)/ .60 Deck guns in 4 triple gun turrents
-Will fire Depleted Uranium GPS guided 16" shells.

What do you do with 16" DU ? Bust giant tanks ?

[Anon]

Would make for good bunker busters.

[sparten]

The Tree Huggers will never let 16" DU come into existence. I once had an arguement with one of them over DU rounds which went something like "but they kill people", "yes they are supposed to do that."

[Dreadnought]

You hold those big guns to your opponent countries nose in the traditional USN way and say "this is the way its gonna be" OR ELSE...lmao

[thesaint]

Originally Posted by sparten

The Tree Huggers will never let 16" DU come into existence. I once had an arguement with one of them over DU rounds which went something like "but they kill people", "yes they are supposed to do that."

Guess their objection is more like that they leave lots of crap, after they have killed the people.

Anyway, my point is that DU is used has a penetrator in high velocity rounds.
Naval guns, and 16" above all, fire indirect trajectories.
To hit hardened shelters one would rather use a combination of delayed fuse and shaped charge.

[B.Smitty]

I just don't see the need for something like this.

It would be massively expensive to buy and operate.

It won't help with control of the littorals as well as the LCS/DD(X) combo.

It doesn't have TMD capability of the CG(X).

The USN already has plenty of VLS cells.

A single heavyweight torp could still send it to the bottom.

It has no aviation facilities (or none mentioned).

NGFS will be in fine shape with dual-155mm DD(X)s.

Better to focus on other areas.

[Defcon 6]

Defcon,
I found your ideas very interesting to say the least.
I have a question or two if thats ok..

Of course.

Ok for comparison ill use BB38 Pennsylvania.

It's a little old but will work.

608' long x 97' beam
31,400 tons
Main Arm- 12/14" in four triples
crew-915

My ship is highly automated, reducing weight. Crew of less than 300.

Ok so your proposing a new generation battleship

611' long x 79' beam
33,000 tons
Main Arm 9/16" in four triples
crew-202-369

My question is,

1. With a longer length then the Pennsylvania class but with much shorter beam would this new ship be able to handle the weight of a full broadside of 9/16" guns (Pennsy had 12/14")without capsizing or shaking her to pieces?(according to lore Pennsy & Arizona shook like hell under full broadsides.) I understand that she will be heavier then the Pa class but not by much and given the narrower beam one has to wonder if it will handle the broadside weight and still be good seakeeping i.e. extreme draft etc to be an effective fast (41 knot) weapons platform.

This ship has a double hull, all together consisting of 29 inches of armor in certain places. Thats where the extra weight comes from. The super structure is designed to consist of alluminum and composites. with only reinforcing steel reducing tonnage by 23% when compared to a similar ship. Thats how I was able to stick so much armor on there and keep it at 33,000 tons. The double hull is designed to co-support the super structure.

This ship most likely wouldnt ever come under attack from cannon fire of serious nature. It isn't designed to fight other battleships, but rather ships carrying small caliber cannons and mostly missiles. Hence the SeaWolf Block 2 missiles and the ESSM's.

The Tumblehome hull design offers high stability and shallow draft compared to conventional hulls.

I've calculated draft at roughly 28-34 ft including mermaid pod clearance.

The double hull was specifically designed with the alluminum super structure in mind, alluminum is rather flexible, thus prevents it from shaking to pieces. Another reason for the double hull is to prevent torpedo kills by kinetic force. Modern torpoedes create air pockets under a ship when they explode, attempting to buckle the hull while also putting a large hull in it using its explosive force. My ship is laterally braced to prevent this. So it will take 5-6 modern torpedoes of 650mm size. Thats 8-9 533 mm.

I do like the idea of the Mermaid pods. Shame they werent thoughts in WWII.
A battleship with a small crew would really make the Carrier Admirals cringe..lol there goes one more of their excuses..
Ahh a battleship with torpedoes again. Hopefully the submerged design so they hide and hopefully the newer faster design torpedo as well
You seem to have some pretty good ideas maybe do some mock up model drawings to share with us to give us a better understanding as there are a few guys here that may be able to help you enhance your ideas. Good Luck. I know I'd love to see a battleship at sea agin

This ship uses the Mk.48 torpedoes which are 533mm and submerge, they are capable of anti-ship and anti-submarine operations.

Yes, the Mermaid pods were used on the Queen Mary 2, proving that heavy ships can use them with extreme effectivness. QM2 is a 150,000 ton cruise liner capable of 28 kts. My ship obviously is nuclear powered thus can run at very near mximum potential. And of course there is no rudder so torpedo's have a more difficult time diabling my ship.

Also Praxus has a model on here that may help you visualize its under the Multimedia Forum called Model Battleship.

You would have to take a look at the DD(X) U.S.N destroyer to have a good idea of what my BB would look like. It has a black hull, very low to the water with no railings. So it looks very much like a funny shaped submarine with large guns on the top. This is all done to enhance stealthy aspects, greatly reducing radar crossection. The black outside coating is used to provide a measure against IR guidance while being made of rubber, decreases Acoustic signature. Mermaid pods are very silent ontop of that.

P.S. Please do make sure that you give her a proper "capital" ship name i.e. back to state names and restore some lost glory to us battleship crazies

I didn't give mine a state name simply because it doesn't exist yet. So I call it the exalibur class because it would use ammunition similar to the army's new exalibur artillery shells for it's guns.

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

LOL, no one could afford them, not even the USN.

Pity.

PS: To carry the aramament fit you describe would require a ship of roughly double the displacement you've stated.

Even the Iowas are a full 17k tons heavier at full combat load.

The Iowa is a bad comparison. The Iowa had a crew as large as say...1200-1800+ crew members, meaning you had to house them. Adding a lot of required space. The Iowa is bigger. Most of my ships weight comes from armor. In fact it's only about 23-25,000 tons without the armor. This ship is highly automated, many systems are eliminated.

The Iowa was conventional steam powered. So calculate in about two thousand tons of fuel at full load.

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by thesaint

Guess their objection is more like that they leave lots of crap, after they have killed the people.

Anyway, my point is that DU is used has a penetrator in high velocity rounds.
Naval guns, and 16" above all, fire indirect trajectories.
To hit hardened shelters one would rather use a combination of delayed fuse and shaped charge.

The idea is for it to penetrate naval ships and shore targets equally. The DU rounds are already being used in Abrams tanks with high effectiveness. However you are right about the shaped charges. But the DU capability always allows greater mission load. Thats the reason for including it.

The DU rounds sharpen when they hit armored targets, when they puncture the armor. Tungsten tipped rounds blunt when they hit, going flat at the tip of the shell, reducing penetrating power.

My DU idea is rather loosely based, more off handed in decision. But the reason to use it is always there, higher penetration of non subterranean armored structures.

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

I just don't see the need for something like this.

It would be massively expensive to buy and operate.

It won't help with control of the littorals as well as the LCS/DD(X) combo.

It doesn't have TMD capability of the CG(X).

The USN already has plenty of VLS cells.

A single heavyweight torp could still send it to the bottom.

It has no aviation facilities (or none mentioned).

NGFS will be in fine shape with dual-155mm DD(X)s.

Better to focus on other areas.

I will answer the issues you raised in order.

1.) at 5.26 billion it is affordable given its capability.

2.) Doesn't need to, the DD(X) is for that purpose.

3.) TMD is not a defense term that I know of. If it is, inform me please.

4.) Yet it keeps building more.

5.) It does not need aviation facilities. Thats what aircraft carriers are for. Adding such would increase crew ect ect.

5.) Incorrect. Hullex data proves that 2-4 ADCAP torpedoes would be needed to sink a WW2 battleship. So you can conclude that this modern battleship with more armor and armor of modern design at that, would take 6-8 torpedoes to cause critical damage of a sinking possible nature.

6.) NGFS is crucial to the mission requirement of this ship, however this ship is also designed to take any other ship on the sea, providing immense pressure relief to any carrier group it is part of. The naval guns on this ship are designed with the AGS 155mm gun system in mind using concepts I've created.

Now other information relevant to the questions you've raised.

Littoral missions are irrelvant. The navy is developing smaller ships for that mission. Stand off missiles prevent opposing naval landings or littoral bombardment anyways. So thats where this ship comes in, has long distance extreme offensive power.

The Mission requirements are these:
1.) Capable of engaging Sea or Land targets with equal effectiveness.
2.) Capable of defending against Aerial targets as well as submerges force dislocators such as submarines. It is not invincible, but simply designed with the idea that defense is worthwhile.
3.)Must be capable of sustaining half a dozen or more direct hits and continue fighting.
4.) Must be able to fire with guided shells to allow accurate naval engagements and shore bombardment using its main battery.
5.)High speed
6.) Shock and Awe: Offensive and Deffensive with extreme prejudice.
7.) Main guns must be effective. The idea is to allow the ship to use 20,000 dollar guided 16 inch shells rather than 750,000 dollar tomahawks.


Unit price is around 5.26-5.8 billion dollars. An aircraft carrier is 13 billion and a DD(X) is 4.3 billion. Thats for comparison. Current missile cruisers are 1.3-3.3 billion depending on unit.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

I will answer the issues you raised in order.
1.) at 5.26 billion it is affordable given its capability.

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

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

2.) Doesn't need to, the DD(X) is for that purpose.

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

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

3.) TMD is not a defense term that I know of. If it is, inform me please.

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

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

4.) Yet it keeps building more.

'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.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

5.) It does not need aviation facilities. Thats what aircraft carriers are for. Adding such would increase crew ect ect.

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?

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

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

5.) Incorrect. Hullex data proves that 2-4 ADCAP torpedoes would be needed to sink a WW2 battleship. So you can conclude that this modern battleship with more armor and armor of modern design at that, would take 6-8 torpedoes to cause critical damage of a sinking possible nature.

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

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

6.) NGFS is crucial to the mission requirement of this ship, however this ship is also designed to take any other ship on the sea, providing immense pressure relief to any carrier group it is part of. The naval guns on this ship are designed with the AGS 155mm gun system in mind using concepts I've created.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Littoral missions are irrelvant. The navy is developing smaller ships for that mission. Stand off missiles prevent opposing naval landings or littoral bombardment anyways. So thats where this ship comes in, has long distance extreme offensive power.

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

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

The Mission requirements are these:
1.) Capable of engaging Sea or Land targets with equal effectiveness.

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

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

2.) Capable of defending against Aerial targets as well as submerges force dislocators such as submarines. It is not invincible, but simply designed with the idea that defense is worthwhile.

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

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

3.)Must be capable of sustaining half a dozen or more direct hits and continue fighting.

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

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

4.) Must be able to fire with guided shells to allow accurate naval engagements and shore bombardment using its main battery.

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

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

5.)High speed

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

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

6.) Shock and Awe: Offensive and Deffensive with extreme prejudice.

Perhaps, but not worth the price, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

7.) Main guns must be effective. The idea is to allow the ship to use 20,000 dollar guided 16 inch shells rather than 750,000 dollar tomahawks.

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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Unit price is around 5.26-5.8 billion dollars. An aircraft carrier is 13 billion and a DD(X) is 4.3 billion. Thats for comparison. Current missile cruisers are 1.3-3.3 billion depending on unit.

How'd you come up with this price? My guess is a new build would probably be at least twice as expensive as DD(X), since it's more than twice the size. Probably more, considering how many expensive guns it has on it. Using large amounts of tungsten and titanium in the armor will definitely jack the price up too.


A few other notes, DU is effective in sabots for tank guns, but I doubt it'd really be worthwhile for naval guns. A full-caliber, solid 16" DU round would be MASSIVELY heavy and would probably vastly reduce its range. Besides, penetration was never a problem for battleship guns. The Mk7 16" rounds could go through 30 feet of concrete. That's plenty.

ERA relies on disrupting hyper-velocity shape charged jets or sabots, in order to reduce their penetration. Since no AShM weapons use hyper-velocity as their penetration mechanism, I doubt it'd be worthwhile.

You mentioned 9x16" guns but then you say four triple turrets (12 guns). Which is it?

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.

[Defcon 6]

B. Smitty. The following is more detailed specs of this ship design.

Also, the issues you raise have been brought up and answered already here-
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/sh...0&page=1&pp=10

U.S.N ships usually have state names, especially BB's, however this one doesn't exist so I'm going to name it after the Army atillery gps shells called Exalibur. My ship design uses guided shells, which is my reason for doing so. But if you really want to give it a state name for the idea of using it in the U.S.N we can call it the Illinois Class.

First lets consider it's mission requirements:
1.) Capable of engaging Sea or Land targets with equal effectiveness.
2.) Capable of defending against Aerial targets as well as submerged force dislocators such as submarines. It is not invincible, but simply designed with the idea that defense is worthwhile.
3.)Must be capable of sustaining half a dozen or more direct hits and continue fighting.
4.) Must be able to fire with guided shells to allow accurate naval engagements and shore bombardment using its main battery.
5.)High speed
6.) Shock and Awe: Offensive and Deffensive with extreme prejudice.
7.) Main guns must be effective. The idea is to allow the ship to use 20,000 dollar guided 16 inch shells rather than 750,000 dollar tomahawks when possible.

Exalibur Class Advanced Battleship-
Role: Multi-Mission Surface Warfare/ Blue Water Patrol
Fleet Characteristic: Carrier Group/ Surface Combat Group/ Tactical Battleship Group

Length: 611 ft.
Beam: 79 ft.
Tonnage: 33,000 Tons
Tumblehome Hull design
30 Water tight bulkheads of computerized control
90 Compartments with a bulkhead on either side (horizontal) arranged in rows of 3.

The armor contributes a great deal to a rather light platform as far as tonnage goes. If you want to attempt to understand my theory for using armor, go to this page:
http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_1.html

This page is less accurate but an alternative the above page:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Miscarmr.htm

What I discovered is that an exocet anti-ship missile can penetrate 2.75" of steel armor. A cruise missile much higher than that, but also ineffective against heavy armor. The idea was to design a system to allow the ship to survive several direct hits and continue fighting. Mission requirement states half a dozen direct hits.

Unit Price:
$5.26-5.8 billion dollars.
Price was taken into account under the following factors.
Recycled aluminum: $310 per ton.
Steel: $295 per ton. (overpriced to account for market changes)
Titanium: $0.58 cents per pound.
Labor and shipyard costs: +28%

Armor:
Double Hull: For Advanced Survivability (Armor accounts for both inner and outter hull total)
Outer Hull- Titanium/ Tungsten Alloy Sheeted Steel
Explosive Reactive Armor enhanced
Side: 722mm
Deck: 380mm
Turrent: 645mm
I've wondered about E.R protection, and right now I'm simply mentioning it as a concept for this armor plan.

The double hull is a double hull for a lot of reasons:

Increased armor capacity while maintaining stability.
The superstructure of the ship is composed mostly of aluminum and composites with steel reinforcing. The hull it laterally braced to prevent torpedo kills from kinetic forces. Without a double hull, the bracing would be more difficult to implement. The aluminum superstructure reduces weight by as much as 23% not counting armor. The role of the steel reinforced portions is to keep the ship solid, especially for the lateral bracing arguement.

Crew: 202-369
Possibly compadible with Aegis Combat System

Armament:
x9 Advanced Gun system 16" (406mm)/ .60 Deck guns in 3 triple gun turrents
-Will fire GPS guided 16" shells.

-x6 (3 twin tubes) carrying Mk. 48 533 mm torpedoes

Close-In Gun System (CIGS)-
x 10
BAE Systems Land and Armaments 57mm Mk 110 naval gun.

x16 155mm AGS Single Turrents
-Will fire GPS/IR guided 155mm shells

The CIGS is highly effective against incoming missiles and aircraft.

Peripheral Vertical Launch System-
The solution consists of 50 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
-SeaWolf Block 2

The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and SeaWolf Missile are both designed to intercept aircraft/ artillary shells and hostile missiles. Combined with the CIGS it makes an effective protective "sheild" although not perfect obviously, still very effective. Combined with the advanced armor survivability is very high. Ship was designed with the idea that defense is worthwhile to prevent loss of investment.

RADAR:
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.

I used this radar system because it's designed to be highly effective against pop-up style attacks and aerial threats. The biggest threat to a Battleship.

Propulsion:
I've equipped my vessel with MERMAID electrical pods, these give the vessel 360 degrees of movement without a rudder and can operate independantly. Direct hits can no longer disable a rudder or prop. shaft. Greatly increases survivability and fuel efficiency.

6 Alstor MERMAID electrical pods @30MW each Max
Cruise Speed: 31 kts
Top Speed: 41 kts

The new Exalibur Class Advanced Battleship is part of a modern naval fleet, including carrier groups.

The AGS 16" Gun System:
Housed in rounded blister turrets as I like to call them, totally my design. They are blister shaped sticking aobve deck, as low as possible to the hull.
Uses liquid propellant
320+ mile range when using liquid propellant.
Uses hydraulic automatic loading systems controlled electronically. Fire rate as high as 5-6 rds a minute.