nobody has built a big gun monitor since the 20's - for good reasons

It would be far less expensive and quite more efficient to modernize battleship whom hull can last a century, in order to reduce manpower to few hundred men by using on the shelf systems.

 

Nice thought but I think the real issue is cost benefit analysis.

 

If we could get some serious range out of those rail guns we'd really be talking. I mean enough to project power inland...enough to compete with aircraft. We're not going to be storming the beaches of Normandy...that's not the kind of NGFS we need.

 

As an offensive weapon, I think the relative lack of precision in the rail gun makes it a bit of a liability in today's precision driven world. Not to mention lack of flexibility/range relative to aircraft.

 

Cruiser size vessels could manage the DEWs and UUVs.

 

It is nice in that a BB with rail gun shells will probably store absolutely unprecedented amounts of deliverable firepower at a relatively low cost(again relative to aircraft). That's what we would hope to get I believe.

 

The question isn't so much if it's feasible, IMO, but whether or not it's REALLY worth it.

Boilers can be replaced by modern diesels or turbines.Or even a modern steam plant.

Ammunition storage can be given a little automation.

I don't see any reason why your old battleship could not be reduced down to a crew of 800 men or less using on the shelf systems and few hundred million $ in engineering.

The true is that your navy want all its money for carrier first concerning power projection.

It is why they try hard to kill DDX as a cost effective weapon for power projection compare to planes, transforming it in a very expensive ship with a reduced load of cruise missile.

Sounds like someone here's been playing Command & Conquer: Generals/Zero Hour. There's a twin turret Graf Spee-looking battleship in the game you can call on for fire support.

 

If gun tubes is what's desired over VLS missile batteries, why do we need 16" rifles to do it?

 

Sounds like we're getting another 155mm vs 8inch thread going.

I've mentioned in various threads that Gerry Bull 210mm  Al Fao artillery system the Iraqis had (in limited numbers) going into Desert Shield/Desert Storm, whose 57km range (Extended Range Full Bore Base Bleed shells) was one of the systems that had the US-led coalition worrying about being out-gunned (although, fortunately for us, the Iraqis had no competent forward directors with which to guide/adjust the guns' fire).

 

Wouldn't two triple 210mm turrets (look at the performance we're hoping for from the 155mm AGS and its LRLAP shells-180km... wouldn't bigger barrels then give us better range?), and consider the fire support capability we'd have in six tubes instead of two.

Plus, if the naval railgun ever matures into a fielded system, consider how much more performance we'd get from a 210mm model rather than 155 (if that's the caliber that will make it to ships).

But then again, the amount of power necessary to run a ship and 6 rail guns instead of just two would be prohibitive, to the point we'd need nuclear reactors rather than gas turbines to power the ship (something some Navy brass and Congressmen are questioning now).

Considering all the fewer DDX/DDG1000s we're going to get in the end (even fewer CG-X?), we might as well make them nuke boats.

Not like we'll ever want to risk them in harm's way anyway, considering their cost.

 

And we'll need those railgun ranges (>200km) if we're ever going to deploy our next big gun ships, considering that 300km-range Brahmos type supersonic SSMs will be making a greater appearance around the world, as we don't want our ship, stealthy or not, within reach of an adversary with weapons of that magnitude.

(the DD(X) design may be stealthy, but are its AGS shells? Wouldn't they still register on surveillance radars? That could be an enemy's advantage, as he'd have a basic idea from where the DD(X) was firing, perhaps within enough proximity he can launch a large scale counter attack.

 

So in the end, we shouldn't give anyone any advantage: instead of big guns, I suggest Arsenal Ship-sized batteries of our own supersonic SSMs (RATTLRS types?).

   you know what?  the navy is doing just what it needs to do right now.  those four ships make for awesome shore bombardment platforms, but the expense of using them is very high so these platforms (which still have 20-30 years of hull life in them) are kept preserved enough so that if the need arrives in the future (talk about railguns and sh##t when they are actually ready to be fielded fellas) we could bring one or more back. 

   for the record, the marines do have a shore bombardment requirement (need for the ships, or something else that can pound the crap out of someone as far inland as possible without the million dollar per unit cruise missiles) that the navy has been working on for years (extreme long range guns) but until the tech is there and the ships are built (stealthy, very efficient electric drive to power the guns) these behemoths are the fallback plan.

I say replace'em. the zumwalts will be faster and more efficient. they're already designed with vls tubes plus 155mm guns that should provide more than enough backup for marines. the battleships have been obsolete since the falklands when the brits used nothing larger than 5inchers to provide cover (like you told your prom date) bigger ain't always better. versatility is what counts.

I've often wondered if the long-ranged and volume fire reqs couldn't be met by a navalized MLRS or POLAR style VLS-GMLRS. 

The navalized MLRS would have the advantage of being able to fire in-production GMLRS and ATACMs rounds today, and would be easily reloadable at sea.

POLAR would've had longer range, and using up extra VLS cells with relatively cheap POLAR four-packs sounds nice, but you can't easily reload them at sea.

Obviously, these would still need to be supplemented with naval gunfire, but perhaps the 5" guns aboard Ticos and Burkes would be enough, especially if ERGM ever enters production.

Not sure what platform would be best suited for an N/GMLRS.  Maybe it could be an LCS module.  Or maybe it could be a module for a smaller vessel or USV.