Most needed in US NAVY

**Dreadnought** · 14 Nov 05,, 15:25

Originally Posted by brandon_tortle

what the us navy needs is the ddx class battleship with a power plant strong enough to power several rail gun turrents would greatly reduce the need for aircraft carriers. someone mentioned that the iowa class battle ships have only fixed guns and no aircraft. that is untrue the iowa class lost its broadside turrets for tomahawk missle turrets the iowa class battleship also lost its manned prop plane they used to cat apult from the rear main turret . the mannned plane was replaced with a smaller remote controlled plane. both of these planes served the same pupose on the battleship target aquistion and veryify that target was destroyed.the ddx will use sattelites for targetting

The Iowa's only gave up two pairs of the 5"/38 on each side when they recieved their overhaul in the eighties (1981-1982) leaving them with three 5"/38 mounts two fore and one aft to make up her secondary battery. Upon overhaul she also recieved four Tomahawk missle batteries on each side of the ship as well as two batteries of Harppon missles on each side of the ship. Also added was the phalanx cannons (CIWS) being two mounts on each side of the ship along with various electronic upgrades. So in reality she only lost two sets of 5"/38 on each side and still very capable of broadsides with the remaining three sets along with the main 16"/50 guns.

The picture below shows New Jerseys secondary mounts while being towed to her berth in New Jersey. Note you can only see two 5"/38 on each side. The aft set is out of view. But three sets remain. All of the Iowas carried float planes. 3 OS2U Kingfisher planes (1943-1945) 2 Curtiss SC1 Seahawk floatplanes ( 1945-1947) 1 Sikorsky HO3S-1 helicopter (1951-1953) and finally from 1983 on they carried 1 Kayman SH-2 Seasprite helicopter. These ofcoarse were before they started carrying the unmanned drone planes for recon purposes.

**TopHatter** · 14 Nov 05,, 16:17

Originally Posted by brandon_tortle

what the us navy needs is the ddx class battleship with a power plant strong enough to power several rail gun turrents would greatly reduce the need for aircraft carriers. someone mentioned that the iowa class battle ships have only fixed guns and no aircraft. that is untrue the iowa class lost its broadside turrets for tomahawk missle turrets the iowa class battleship also lost its manned prop plane they used to cat apult from the rear main turret . the mannned plane was replaced with a smaller remote controlled plane. both of these planes served the same pupose on the battleship target aquistion and veryify that target was destroyed.the ddx will use sattelites for targetting

Hi Brandon
It's always nice to see another member interested in naval affairs.
Drop by the Introductions forum and tell us a little bit about yourself and welcome to the WAB!

**B.Smitty** · 15 Nov 05,, 18:44

Voted for the LCS.

We have CVBGs, we have ABs, and SSNs/SSBNs. We don't need BBs.

We do need a relatively inexpensive but numerous platform to patrol the worlds oceans & run down Al Qaeda.

I would've preferred it to be larger and more frigate-like, (say a modified version of the Spanish F100 class) but you take what you can get.

**TopHatter** · 15 Nov 05,, 22:22

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Voted for the LCS.

We have CVBGs, we have ABs, and SSNs/SSBNs. We don't need BBs.

We do need a relatively inexpensive but numerous platform to patrol the worlds oceans & run down Al Qaeda.

I would've preferred it to be larger and more frigate-like, (say a modified version of the Spanish F100 class) but you take what you can get.

Agreed, frigate size is definitely the way to go for an LCS.
Longer endurance, better crew comforts, more of everything really.

The only things that would need to be given very careful attention is making sure it has a shallow draft and excellent maneuverability.
Otherwise, you have just built yourself a....frigate.

And the CVBG Mafia will rejoice

**Dreadnought** · 16 Nov 05,, 00:39

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Agreed, frigate size is definitely the way to go for an LCS.
Longer endurance, better crew comforts, more of everything really.

The only things that would need to be given very careful attention is making sure it has a shallow draft and excellent maneuverability.
Otherwise, you have just built yourself a....frigate.

And the CVBG Mafia will rejoice

A faster heavily armed frigate hopefully

**B.Smitty** · 16 Nov 05,, 01:47

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

A faster heavily armed frigate hopefully

Faster and more heavily armed than what?

The F100 has AEGIS, 48 VLS cells, Harpoons, torpedoes, CIWS, and a 5-inch gun. Not bad for a ship costing half as much as an AB. And it can carry two MH-60 sized helos.

Changes might include C4 enhancements, Nulka, a different CIWS, the longer Mk45 mod 4 to fire ANSR/ERGM, a smaller version of the DBR from DD(X), general crew reduction efforts, etc. More range would also be nice.

The LCS as envisioned will always have a shallower draft though.

**Dreadnought** · 16 Nov 05,, 17:52

Ok im not putting down or doubting the Spanish F100 design. But I think we need something a little more accomidating to us to actually patrol the worlds oceans (Spain doesnt). As TH mentioned the shallow draft and manuverability are definately required. They should also consider since they want to patrol the world oceans that the bow section be kept dry or fairly dry but with a shallow draft this will require some tedious design work considering its design and displacement. When I stated better armed and faster I have read up on the first LCS (Hull #LCS O1) USS Freedom and found her to be armed very well as far as protection and detection as well as fast (40-50 sprint speed). The only thing I dont like is the 5"/62 on the front of her. The updated version (Mk 45 Mod 4) is stated to have a range of 60 nautical miles if im correct (better then 21 miles originally). IMO 5"/62 isint big enough for her. The range is excellent but why not a larger caliber say 6"-8"? The older Mk16 8" Auto loading gun i think is much more sutible (perhaps a newer and more compact upgrade) albeit older for greater punching power at shorter ranges outside of the CIWS coverage and not within reasonable missle range. This would be for the area that lies between CIWS coverage and missle shots. If your going into rivers etc CIWS wont help unless a mortar or missle is fired at the ship unless ofcoarse modified. Its really an awesome looking design but IMO the Navy needs to get away from the 5" guns and go larger armament of all its ships. Remember the service life is 20 years on that hull and with how fast technologies change IMO 5"/62 isint enough. Ouside out that an awesome looking boat

**Warhawk** · 16 Nov 05,, 17:54

Most needed in the US Navy? In my opinion, a carrier based air superiority fighter.

**Bill** · 16 Nov 05,, 21:53

That would be nice...

**B.Smitty** · 17 Nov 05,, 03:13

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

The only thing I dont like is the 5"/62 on the front of her. The updated version (Mk 45 Mod 4) is stated to have a range of 60 nautical miles if im correct (better then 21 miles originally). IMO 5"/62 isint big enough for her. The range is excellent but why not a larger caliber say 6"-8"? The older Mk16 8" Auto loading gun i think is much more sutible (perhaps a newer and more compact upgrade) albeit older for greater punching power at shorter ranges outside of the CIWS coverage and not within reasonable missle range.

Umm, the LCS is a 2800 ton ship, the F100 is a 5800 ton ship. An 8" gun is not going to work on either.

Remember the job of the LCS (or an F100 replacement) is not to bombard beaches. It's to provide relatively economic, littoral forward presense, maritime patrol, anti-mine, ASW, and ASuW.

The gun spec'd for the LCS prototype is a 57mm Bofors, not a 5".

The Mod 4 would be an easy upgrade for the F100, anything larger would be expensive and unsuitable for the mission of this ship.

The weapons the F100 has are fine. If anything they might be overkill. I could see reducing the VLS cells to make room for more electronics or multi-mission areas.

One site had the draught of the F100 at 15ft, compared to 10ft for the LCS, or 20ft for a Burke.

Is that shallow enough? I don't know.

The best thing about a real frigate, IMHO, besides the range, is that it doesn't have to do the time-wasting module swap when the mission changes. It, presumably, has enough room to be multi-mission out of the box.

**B.Smitty** · 17 Nov 05,, 03:20

Originally Posted by Warhawk

Most needed in the US Navy? In my opinion, a carrier based air superiority fighter.

Hmm, just about any scenario I can think of, the USN is either going to have USAF support for OCA, or would need F-22 level capability to really have a chance with so few airframes.

A long-ranged, stealthy striker would be preferable, IMHO. J-UCAS maybe. Or what the A-12 was supposed to be.

**Dreadnought** · 17 Nov 05,, 13:50

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Umm, the LCS is a 2800 ton ship, the F100 is a 5800 ton ship. An 8" gun is not going to work on either.

Remember the job of the LCS (or an F100 replacement) is not to bombard beaches. It's to provide relatively economic, littoral forward presense, maritime patrol, anti-mine, ASW, and ASuW.

The gun spec'd for the LCS prototype is a 57mm Bofors, not a 5".

The Mod 4 would be an easy upgrade for the F100, anything larger would be expensive and unsuitable for the mission of this ship.

The weapons the F100 has are fine. If anything they might be overkill. I could see reducing the VLS cells to make room for more electronics or multi-mission areas.

One site had the draught of the F100 at 15ft, compared to 10ft for the LCS, or 20ft for a Burke.

Is that shallow enough? I don't know.

The best thing about a real frigate, IMHO, besides the range, is that it doesn't have to do the time-wasting module swap when the mission changes. It, presumably, has enough room to be multi-mission out of the box.

You will have to excuse me as I mistated the information above. Sorry guys my bust as to reply to something so fast to much going on here

The 5"/62 were meant for the DDX program.

**Gun Grape** · 21 Nov 05,, 02:27

Maybe you BB fanatics will someday learn what the US Navy learned in 1942. We don't need BBs. No battleships were authorized after WW2 started. The second pair of Iowas were delayed due to higher priorities in shipbuilding. Montana class were DoA. Forget what Meyers, Sparks and Stearman claim.

Of course many of you Pro Bbs also think the F-14 was the greatest thing since sliced bread and think the F-18 is a POS. I'm sure some of you know why CVs have a smaller but more capable airwing now than in days of old. (A-6/F-14 days)

I voted for the LCS

**Dreadnought** · 21 Nov 05,, 05:00

I really didnt vote for anything but im just against a single small caliber gun on the front of the LCS. It should be of a larger caliber. And actually I admire both of the above aircraft among several others. : )

**Warhawk** · 21 Nov 05,, 20:40

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Hmm, just about any scenario I can think of, the USN is either going to have USAF support for OCA, or would need F-22 level capability to really have a chance with so few airframes.

A long-ranged, stealthy striker would be preferable, IMHO. J-UCAS maybe. Or what the A-12 was supposed to be.

Well, in my humble opinion, and no offense to our USAF friends, the Navy should not have to rely on the USAF for fleet defense, interdiction, or air superiority. CVBGs are supposed to be force projection assets capable of operating independently. Also, if the CVBG is out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean it cannot rely on USAF for F-22 support.

I agree with you though, the Navy needed an A-12 variant, but it already has two bombtrucks, the F-18 and F-35. I just don't think the F-18 or the F-35 can handle interdiction or fleet defense missions.