Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

South Dakota Class Re-activation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
    However, I do still favor 16-inch guns for a couple of reasons. One; is that their shape makes them nearly undetectable from enemy tracking Radar. Two; is that they are not "advertising" their flight path with target seeking Radar. Three; is that they are not receiving or transmitting a visual (TV) guidance system. Four; is that they travel about 1500 mph (mid-range velocity) as most Cruise missiles can only do about 600 mph though they have far greater range but sending out detectable Radar and TV transmissions.

    *In addition, your not going to intercept them either. And they carry approximately 1,210 rounds on those shell decks. With 9 16" guns blazing your looking at sustained firepower for slightly over 1-1/2 straight hours. One round from each gun every approx 30 seconds.;)
    That would sure as hell were out barrels and with no replacements or enough folks left around that have the know how to reline them bad boys, more issues.

    Now if they could ever figure out how to make a "rail gun" system practical, now that would breath life back into the BB program! Imagine a 9 rail gun braodside!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by shadow01 View Post
      That would sure as hell were out barrels and with no replacements or enough folks left around that have the know how to reline them bad boys, more issues.

      Now if they could ever figure out how to make a "rail gun" system practical, now that would breath life back into the BB program! Imagine a 9 rail gun braodside!
      Oh, there are still barrels around, within Dalgren itself they have quite a few and there are a few stashed as well as those on dispay after bieng reconditioned. The did cut up several after they retired but they are still some around. Just one of those barrels/liners can take an approximate 1500 rounds each before replacement. Theres plenty of machinists still around with that knowledge as well it just boils down to one word...funding.;)

      The rail guns will come of age soon, They already have test fired several rounds at Mk five plus, now they just need to condense it down to a usable size. Thats alot of electromagnetic energy to house. But on the good side, no more propellant (gunpowder) will be needed making it much safer and much more economical once they get rolling with it. It sure would make a nice weapon system for the planed DDX or even a conventional sized cruiser of US design. Only time will tell.:)
      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
        However, I do still favor 16-inch guns for a couple of reasons. One; is that their shape makes them nearly undetectable from enemy tracking Radar.
        They are very easy to track. Done so using both Q-37 CBR and Aegis equipped ships. Not to mention that the Iowas do it themselves via the Mk 13 FCR


        Cruise missiles do not always transmit signal during flight either so reasons 2,3 and 4 are not accurate either.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
          They are very easy to track. Done so using both Q-37 CBR and Aegis equipped ships. Not to mention that the Iowas do it themselves via the Mk 13 FCR


          Cruise missiles do not always transmit signal during flight either so reasons 2,3 and 4 are not accurate either.
          GG, First, where you been hiding?:)
          You know the Mk13 radars are only one set (Spots 1&2). You have approximately 7 different radars alone outside of the Mk13 for various reasons. I would think for mid range spotting the Mk38's (sky's 1,2,3,4,) for the 5" guns would probably emit a much lower detectable signal although upon a limited range (10 miles maybe a bit further). You will still have all tracking,short range (SPS10) long range (AN-SPS-49) radars though to know whats out there and where. Could always sweep, pull the plug on a timeframe if you really want to be sneaky and hide the Mk13 FCR.:))
          Would really depend on the situation although doubtful and with certainty AEGIS would see her and what one see's many see. So I do agree there.
          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
            In the 80's reactivation of the Iowas, HY-80 (High Yield 80 kpsi) was the standard replacement for the WW II vintage STS (110 kpsi yield strenght). In any major replacements that had the old STS we were to replace with HY-100 (100 kpsi yield strength). But that was only for shell plating or main deck plating for hull strength and not armor.
            HY-130 (140 kpsi yield but the weld strength was only 130 kpsi) was used mostly in submarine construction.
            HTS (High Tensile Steel) was used widly in hull structure but later replaced with a commercial Carbon Manganese when the MIL-SPEC for HTS was concelled.
            In its place HSLA (High Strength Low Alloy, ASTM A568 or MIL-STD 129) steel has become the standard metal used by the Navy in both hull structure and Armor.
            Though we no longer have the steel factories set up for Class A armor, we don't need it. We have something better and with the right design team can still make a very tough to sink ship.
            .



            Yes I think we have come a long way in improving steel the only drawbacks would be making it in the thicknesses that our mills used to dish out back in the 40s I think (and am not at all a scholar in this) that the thickest plates they make now are 4 or 5" thick but if the money was there "and the national will" we could produce steels significantly stronger and more effictive than was used back then, plasma ion implantation hardened steel is supposed to be 5x harder than any steel ever made,
            I defer to an expert like Nathan Okun about the specifics but....
            the best of WW2s "Class A" armor was the Italian Terni armor
            best of WW2s "Class B" armor was our rolled homogenous armor

            Now we have all that previous knowlege, plus over 70 years of experience and technology
            so if we wanted to we could produce an armor that was immensly more effective than what was in use back then
            again Im only a lowly USPS letter carrier and not an expert
            but here are some examples.........

            "plasma ion implantation hardened steel"---"instead of "Class A"

            One particularly attractive process thats used on augmenting armor is plasma ion implantation. This uses a pulse of differential voltage applied to the metal to drive nitrogen (or other ions, like carbon, titanium, or boron) into the steel, creating a hard layer of Iron Nitride on the surface. The metal does not have to be heated and is a cost effective and environmentally friendly way to improve the armor of a ship. It is also quick and does not distort the steel, and is also used to apply corrosion proof outer layer to the steel.)

            ION IMPLANTATION PROCESS
            Surface Hardening Of Steel - L o t u s S e v e n C l u b

            "SPS/Sandwich Plate System and BlastAlloy 160 ---instead of "Class B"

            A blast-resistant steel that resists explosive forces in ship hulls more effectively than current steels has reportedly been designed at Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill. Called BlastAlloy 160, the steel has tensile strength of 1100 MPa (160 ksi), and is strengthened by titanium nitride particles. The alloy was discussed in "Materials and Structures for Anti-Terrorism Blast Protection," which was presented by Prof. Greg Olson of Northwestern. The alloy has fully ductile fracture down to -40[degrees]C (-40[degrees]F). It was designed to build ship hulls that can resist explosions such as those caused by the terrorists who placed explosives in a boat and blasted a hole in the hull of the battleship Cole. The alloy was designed through a program that focuses...

            http://www.nsrp.org/Ship_Production_...ch_Program.pdf
            Blast-resistant steel resists fracture in naval ship hulls.(METALS) | Advanced Materials & Processes | Find Articles at BNET
            Prototype evaluation of transformation toughened blast resistant naval hull steels. Part II

            Imagine a 12" belt made of Iron nitride hardened steel covered by 1.5" of SPS
            a 6" bomb deck made of BA160
            Add to that with Railgun technology
            Laser beam Defence
            Nuclear power
            and you would have one hell of a ship..... "ok gettin excited starts here"

            OR just take the ol girls out of museum status and backfit
            those Iowas with that technology already jeez :)
            Last edited by petsan; 25 Jun 10,, 15:27.

            Comment


            • #21
              I worked for the project that developed plasma ion implantation in Madison WI. Professor John Conrad of the UWM Engineering Research Center noticed the inside of the plasma reactors was unmachinable after they had been in service for a while (they were stainless steel soup kettles without the handles). A key use was for hardening titanium for prosthetic joint replacements, there were wear problems which this resolved. The basic idea is that nitrogen atoms are driven into the surface of a metal by electic charge, the metal isn't heated (much) a pulse of high voltage is used to shoot the N ions into the target. And yes the military was quite interested, so were some stock car engine builders, we treated a few valves for some winning engines. It needs to be done in a vacuum, and the target substrate needs to be electically isolated so it can be biased with a very high voltage, so making armor plates would require a big vacuum chamber, and doing it to a finnished ship would be very challenging.
              Last edited by USSWisconsin; 28 Jun 10,, 02:44.
              sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
              If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

              Comment

              Working...
              X