Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 12131415161718192021
Results 301 to 308 of 308

Thread: Big Battleship Doctrine

  1. #301
    Contributor ace16807's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Jan 08
    Posts
    729
    Based off the estimate defcon 6 gave, carriers are more expensive than what it would take to refit a battleship. I agree that carriers are more flexible however.

  2. #302
    Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 05
    Location
    Oak Hill, VA
    Posts
    577
    Goodness.. It's back!! The thread that won't die!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchman View Post
    If there is an argument for bringing back the battleships, it is the effect of a big ship with that kind of long range hitting power. The navy will never risk its billion dollar DDX's close to shore for fire support operations. Especially since their light construction would be vulnerable to conventional artillary.
    If they're willing to risk a MAGTF in an amphibious operation, they'll certainly risk a DDX.

    Artillery fire is not a threat to the DDX. AGSs will have enough range to sit over the horizon and still reach far inland.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchman View Post
    China does not need to defeat the US Navy, just force it back away from Tiawon. The problem with that is if the US Navy had ships that could risk hits without harm (BB's) and still stay in combat range, then that attack doctrine fails.
    The Navy has vessels it can risk in high-threat situations - submarines.

    Plus TLAMs and air power already provide long range strike capabilities.
    Last edited by B.Smitty; 07 Jan 08, at 03:03.

  3. #303
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchman View Post
    I have been scanning the thread and there are several missed points. If a new BB is deployed, it would not be with a WW2 gun and ammunition. In the 80's, a development program was conducted to develope new ammunition for the Iowas. The rounds included a 16" rocket boosted round (60-70 mile range), a 13" sabot (100-120 mile range), a 11" sabot (180+ mile range), and a 11" rocket boosted sabot (projected at 1200 miles). The first two completed development and were approved for deployment just a month or 2 before the BB retirements were decided (think the carrier admirals influenced that?).
    the only rounds that were anywhere near to production ready were the 11 and 13 in SABOT. Neither of them were RA The 13in sabot had a max range of 70 thous meters. About 43 miles no where near your 100-120.

    bet your using some of the HARP data and confusing it things that could be done with 16/50 in the real world.

    Sounds like you've been listening to stuff from Stearmans group.

    With satillite guided smart munitions, in theory a battleship could sit 400 -500 miles east of Tiawon and sink an attacking fleet. or imagine several BB's cruising the length of the persian gulf taking out the entire Iranian nuke program.
    Wow you really should read the reports on how many Sats would be needed to ID and target ships moving in the straits. Heres a hint, more than all to sats the US now has in orbit world wide. How about a little reality based thinking?

    Maybe the last post in "The thread that would not die"

  4. #304
    Military Professional maximusslade's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 08
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    801
    Hello Gentlemen,

    I am a new comer to this forum. I joined because I found this thread about Defcon's BB. About myself, I am a pro BBer and former nuclear trained electrician aboard a Seawolf class submarine. I usually dont respond to stuff in forums, but after seeing what everyone has to say, I HAVE to give my two cents worth, so here we go....

    Defcon, the general description of your ship is absolute crap. It is hard for a pro BBer like myself to say that, but I have to. With all the weight of armor, armament, and whatnot that you plan to put on to this ship you will require a hull shape and size that is between that of the Iowa hull and a modern CV hull. I don't want to go into details but I can say my info comes from a book on my shelf titled, Theory and Fundementals of Shipbuilding and Naval Architecture. Secondly, for that nice fancy nuclear propulsion plant you are thinking of using, for a plant that sized to go the speed you want it will require more than your 200+ crew you have planned, and that is just for the engineering plant. And do not start with the whole automation crap. The public and NRC and most most importantly, the organization known as NAVAL REACTORS will not allow for the type of automation you speak of.

    Speaking of automation...automatic 16" turrets??? How in heck do you plan to automate them? even of you combined projectile and powder into a single cartridge, these arent 5" rounds we are talking about at a couple hundred pounds a piece. You are talking mechanisims that would need to move objects upward of two tons quickly and safely. Those machines require space. Those machines require power.

    About armor... ballistic nylon? Sure, it's good stuff but it aint cheap, more importantly... IT BURNS, just like your planned aluminum superstruction... just ask the guys on USS Stark how that works out when you are hit. If you would like some actual information about US BB class A, B, and STS armor, you just ask and I'll point you in the right direction.

    Now, I dont know much about combat radar and guidance systems... it is not in my realm of expertise, but I do know that the concussions and vibrations caused by your "Super16's" would tear those poor circuits and sensors apart, hence why you didnt see too many improved electronics suites on the Iowas.

    Well that is all I can say about that at the moment as time is short and the topic REALLY long. If anyone has comments I'd be happy to hear them.

    On a similar note, I have been drawing up my own ideas for a future BB or BC (battlecruiser for all you non navy types LOL ). It is an idea of mine that I has evolved over several years. If anyone is interested in hearing more let me know and I can post some specs and PICTURES that i've drawn up.
    Can't wait to hear from you all.

  5. #305
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by maximusslade View Post
    Hello Gentlemen,

    I am a new comer to this forum. I joined because I found this thread about Defcon's BB. About myself, I am a pro BBer and former nuclear trained electrician aboard a Seawolf class submarine. I usually dont respond to stuff in forums, but after seeing what everyone has to say, I HAVE to give my two cents worth, so here we go....
    Hello Slade,

    There is another guy on this forum that has many experiences with BBs. he is RustyBattleship. You should get to know him.

    On a similar note, I have been drawing up my own ideas for a future BB or BC (battlecruiser for all you non navy types LOL ). It is an idea of mine that I has evolved over several years. If anyone is interested in hearing more let me know and I can post some specs and PICTURES that i've drawn up.
    Can't wait to hear from you all.
    Please do post these pictures and specs. We are greatly interested but make sure that nothing is classified. We take a dim view of posting classified information or information, although it is not classified, but will put people
    's lives in danger. Although I am dying to know these information, I know where my limits are.

    Oh by the way, Welcome to the forum and I hope you will have a good time in this brotherhood (..ahem.. ) and sisterhood I forgot we have some females here on this forum. Don't worry. There are no pretty females on this forum. I kinda chased them away with my aggressive amorous personality.

  6. #306
    Military Professional maximusslade's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 08
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    801
    Many thanks And I have posted my pics for all to see.
    Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...

  7. #307

    Join Date
    03 Jan 08
    Posts
    10
    It is a funny thing these days, but the whole argument goes back and forth over things until the whole point of why there was a desire to have the BB's in the fleet.

    To gungrape,

    my information for long range rounds was not related to the harp data, but from individuals I knew who were involved in munitions development in the Navy. The harp work was very different and could have yeilded some useful data, but frankly it is possible today to model on computers most of what was learned at the time Harp was active. I have actually seen some very interesting supersonic modeling and wind tunnel testing of ballistic shapes that could result in superior range. Changing to a smooth bore tube with fin stabilization alone would have a significant impact. The research the Army did on stabilizing high velocity armor piercing rounds in particular is interesting though not totally relivant. If there was a real interest in developing a true long range muntion, the basic research has been done and the engineering would not be as dificult as people suppose. The long range 155mm munitions are actually harder since you don't have the size to work with.


    maximusslade made a comment about the vibratin and shock of the guns wacking the radars and electronics. If the equipment were that sensitive, a hit on the the current operational platforms would knock it out, rendering it junk. What is the difference? Shock loading is an issue, but there is plenty of applications today so I think that is more an application issue require engineering input.

    Automating a 16 inch gun is possible. The issue is the form of the ammunition and the rate. A high speed loading cycle requires much larger equipment then a moderate rate cycle. The early automation systems were bulky, but modern hydraulics can easily do it. The weight is not an issue. I have seen a number of highly automated appications in heavy industry, particularly steel mills, handling hundred ton ingots easily and quickly. The space and layout of the powder magazines in the existing two ships would be a problem to adopt since they were based manual efforts. The old powder bags would not be safe and that would have to be thought out.

    Rate of fire woud depend on the mission. The use of guided munitions would reduce the need for mass bombardments for most appications, but the point of the heavy rounds is the lethal power to deep and hardened installations. If however you were interested in annihilating a large area with soft skinned vehicles or men on foot, a 16 inch sub-munitions shell would hold orders of magnitudes more killing power than the DDX 155 mm round.

    I personnally don't see why you would not adopt the 155 mm gun from the DDX and use it in place of the 5"/38's on the Iowas. There would be issues under the deck, but there is room to work with it. The 5's were kept in the 80's because there simply was not enough reason to remove them.

    Automation of a conventional steam plant such as the Iowas already have would be simple. The technonolgy is in fact 30-40 years old in the power industry though it would require upgrades for shock and impacts.

    The truth is the Iowas would not be ideal, but a huge step forward is possible quickly and at lower cost than a new hull. The need do to counter is

    I think the realy problem I our weapons are getting to be so expensive, we can not risk them in the same way we did. The DDX is so expensive and it is vulnerable. So many navy guys forget that the Army's Crusader howitzer had the same ballistic performance as the DDX. A single battery of guns could and probaby would be to take out the DDX if the ship closed in to support the troop on land. The battleships however would and could be sent it right to their door step. 155 rounds are impressive agaist trees, dirt etc. What would hurt them? Torpedos from subs would do real damage to the ships. Deploying the BB's thogh would create serious headaches for Chinese.

    I think the Iowas could and should be used as test beds for technology, things would be different if we had to build a totally new BB.

  8. #308
    Banned Shipwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jan 06
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchman View Post
    my information for long range rounds was not related to the harp data, but from individuals I knew who were involved in munitions development in the Navy.
    Whatever they told you, it's bogus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchman View Post
    So many navy guys forget that the Army's Crusader howitzer had the same ballistic performance as the DDX.
    This is bogus too.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 125
    Last Post: 21 Jun 08,, 04:33
  2. Battleship History Article
    By rickusn in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 17 Jan 07,, 16:16
  3. Big Battleship Doctrine 2
    By Defcon 6 in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 581
    Last Post: 16 Jun 06,, 21:37

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •