Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Crazy idea to replace the battleships.
kirby1    2/10/2007 6:07:43 PM
I've definitly heard the debate between the Navy and the Marines concerning the fate of the Iowa Class Battleships. The Marines love the Sixteen inch guns, the Navy hates the battleships. They claim that its too much money, too much vessel, too much maintenance, and too much trouble. The marines look at the guns currently mounted on the Arliegh Burkes, Ticonderogas, and Zumwalt class boats, and (Just like your exe)says "Looks a little small to me." So heres my crazy, probably not logical idea for a solution. Why not highjack the turrets from the BBs, and mount two of them on a new hull? Something vaguely similar to the Admiral Sheer style pocketbattleships that the Germans deployed during world war two. All she really needs would be her two turrets, some drones for artillery spotting, and possibly a CIWS system for selfdefense. The marines keep thier fire support. The Navy doesn't have some giant WWII relics to maintain. I imagine two of these vessels, one in the pacific, and one in the Atlantic. These two boats are specifically act as an interem design until new systems come along that can sufficiently replace them (IE the electromagnetic railguns that the navy is currently experimenting with.)can replace them.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13   NEXT
historynut       2/27/2007 12:06:08 PM












If I can pack 500 bullets and use a railgun to achieve the same effects that packing missiles can into a space wherwe I have only 100 missiles then I go bullet. Substituting electric shove for rocket fuel means I can pack more killbodies in the given space. My killbodies can be valvejet steered to home in as PGMs. It still makes the railgun killbody about 1/3 the cost of the equivalent rocket maybe 1/4 the cost plus I obtain five times as many in the magazine. Now when you get into the 1000 kilometer + range rockets start to make more sense. But even then if you were to lob nuclear packages out of the railgun, there comes a point when at about 3500 kilometers+ the railgun starts to overtake the missile again. Using a railgun launcher  to dispensing with the first two stages of a rocket saves you 70% of the fuel, and half the cost for a competitive ICBM.

Herald





But can you build a guidance that can fit in those bullets and survive the massive G's and EM fields?  And will it cost less than an arm and a leg?   It's the guidance that drives the cost of these munitions. 

Unguided, those 3500km+ bullets will have a CEP measured in tens of kilometers.





The massive G's may be less of a problem then the EM fields. With a rail gun you could start the bullet slower with less of a shock then build up speed. The EM fields are the big problem.
As a line of sight weapon with unguided bullets it could still be very dangerous.



If you wish some thinking on the use of Railguns and Laser's in combat try the Sci Fri series HAMMER'S SLAMMERS by David Drake. He's put some thinking into the up's and down's of both.



One point he made was that a powerful rail gun could take out anything in line of sight. The speed of the round would make it a point and shoot weapon. Not too good for airplanes, missiles etc. Plus it could take out any rounds fired at it.





Just so ya know Drake had powerguns, not railguns in his series, they operated similar to the Keith Laumer's Hellbore in that energized a gram of material so it gave up its free electrons and turned into plasma then shot it out the barrel at some insanely high velocity. In Drake's case he used energized bits of copper.
Try Seas of Venus (Sorry it was a David Drake book just not a Hammers Slammers book). Most of his books do have powerguns and lasers. Railguns would make very good AA weapons because of there high velocity and very short time to target. Used as AA you may even be able to just use solid shot and not worry about a fuse. Like the anti-tank rounds used by the M1 tank.
 
Quote    Reply

apoorexcuse    Another benfit, not quite   2/27/2007 12:43:38 PM
      
one other benefit of railguns:  ke rounds fired magnetically means no gun magazine detonation if struck and more rounds stored in the same size magazine space.

Unfortunately hitting the capacitor will cause a detonation, and I can barely imagine the damage of a capacitor that large with charge being struck and punctured by a high speed slug of metal.  Even it were not to "rapidly disassemble" the oils are very flammable.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       2/27/2007 8:00:13 PM

90%  of the targets a seapower wants to hit are. I should be more clear when I write. That includes people by the way.


I don't even think this is true.  Look at the recent history of conflicts involving USN strike activity. 

ODS - basically only Kuwait and the southeastern portion of Iraq were within 150km of the Persian Gulf.  The rest of Iraq wasn't.

OAF - none of the former Yugoslavia is within 150km.

OEF - none of Aghanistan within 150km

OIF - only a small sliver of Iraq within 150km

Seapower played a vital strike role in all of those conflicts.  Mostly through navair and cruise missiles. 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       2/27/2007 10:27:46 PM
 
 
 
 
 
Aside from forcible entry which the 150 kilometers gives, there are enough targets[and contingencies wherein the targets within reach would be engaged] to justify the gun range.
 
Herald. 
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       2/28/2007 6:05:37 AM

Aside from forcible entry which the 150 kilometers gives, there are enough targets[and contingencies wherein the targets within reach would be engaged] to justify the gun range.


Unfortunately you won't even get 150km inland in a high threat scenario.  The ship will have to stand off at least 50km to stay over-the-horizon.  So you really only get, at best, 100km inland in these situations.

But in any case, I still question the wisdom of building a large, expensive gun mount that can only be fitted to large, expensive (and likely small in number) warships, that has to fire expensive, difficult to design and develop, gun-launched missiles to achieve that range. 

Why not toss all that out and develop a suite of VLS missiles that can be fired from any of the 10,000 VLS tubes in the USN, can have a variety of sizes and warheads, and isn't constrained by the difficulties of surviving tens of thousands of Gs during launch?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       2/28/2007 8:51:09 AM
But in any case, I still question the wisdom of building a large, expensive gun mount that can only be fitted to large, expensive (and likely small in number) warships, that has to fire expensive, difficult to design and develop, gun-launched missiles to achieve that range. 

Why not toss all that out and develop a suite of VLS missiles that can be fired from any of the 10,000 VLS tubes in the USN, can have a variety of sizes and warheads, and isn't constrained by the difficulties of surviving tens of thousands of Gs during launch?

My main point exactly.
Only the (few) DDX/DDG1000 will get AGS.
All others most likely will soldier on with 5" gun mounts (too bad we never planned an AGS Jr, kind of like MONARC, utilizing Crusader tech, which we could've installed in place of 127mm Mk45 turrets...But of course, such a suggestion could well and all have doomed the DDX program.)
 
A new generation of VLS SSMs would give enhanced surface strike capability to all the USN's cruisers, destroyers, and frigates, not just a very small select few.
 
Does anyone know if LRLAP is planned to be compatible with land-based 155mm systems?
Seems at least the USMC, especially if launching off USN amphibs, would benefit from the projectile. Or is it being restricted to Navy-only use?                                                                                              

 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       2/28/2007 11:14:26 AM

My main point exactly.
Only the (few) DDX/DDG1000 will get AGS.

All others most likely will soldier on with 5" gun mounts (too bad we never planned an AGS Jr, kind of like MONARC, utilizing Crusader tech, which we could've installed in place of 127mm Mk45 turrets...But of course, such a suggestion could well and all have doomed the DDX program.)

 

A new generation of VLS SSMs would give enhanced surface strike capability to all the USN's cruisers, destroyers, and frigates, not just a very small select few.

 

Does anyone know if LRLAP is planned to be compatible with land-based 155mm systems?

Seems at least the USMC, especially if launching off USN amphibs, would benefit from the projectile. Or is it being restricted to Navy-only use?                                                                                              




I don't think LRLAP will work in existing, land-based guns, but i might be wrong.

The USN is going to need to wake up and smell the dollars and realize most NGFS will likely come from 5" guns anyway, as there'll be over 100 mounts in service on CGs and DDGs. 

And a bigger bang for buck would be to add longer-ranged, but otherwise normal 5" projectiles, adapt a CCF fuze, and add a smaller number of ERGM/Vulcano extreme range rounds. 

And for the really long-ranged, high volume stuff, go with dense pack, VLS SSM. 

I'm not crazy about MONARC.  I think the UK approach of rebarreling their 114mm mounts with Braveheart 155mm barrels is a better idea.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapon...

Probably could do the same with Mk45 mounts and Pzh2000 or some other barrel.

Of course there are several problems with any of this ideas,

1.  They may require bagged charges, or development of a new charge system and modifications to the chamber.
2.  They may not be flexible or fast enough to handle the traditional non-NGFS roles filled by 5" mounts today.
3.  They may not hit the ranges or volumes of fire desired by the USMC.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       2/28/2007 12:46:10 PM



Aside from forcible entry which the 150 kilometers gives, there are enough targets[and contingencies wherein the targets within reach would be engaged] to justify the gun range.




Unfortunately you won't even get 150km inland in a high threat scenario.  The ship will have to stand off at least 50km to stay over-the-horizon.  So you really only get, at best, 100km inland in these situations.

But in any case, I still question the wisdom of building a large, expensive gun mount that can only be fitted to large, expensive (and likely small in number) warships, that has to fire expensive, difficult to design and develop, gun-launched missiles to achieve that range. 

Why not toss all that out and develop a suite of VLS missiles that can be fired from any of the 10,000 VLS tubes in the USN, can have a variety of sizes and warheads, and isn't constrained by the difficulties of surviving tens of thousands of Gs during launch?


Because once you solve the railgun problem you have a viable hypersonic antiaircraft  and anti-missile GUN.

Point and shoot.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       2/28/2007 1:59:53 PM


Because once you solve the railgun problem you have a viable hypersonic antiaircraft  and anti-missile GUN.

Point and shoot.

Herald


Who cares.  We already have OPERATIONAL high supersonic antiaircraft/anti-missile MISSILES (ESSM, SM-2).  We have hypersonic missiles on the drawing board or adaptable (SM-3, SM-6, THAAD, PAC-3).

It's a solution to a problem we've already solved.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Missiles are lead and predict one shot munitions.   2/28/2007 2:07:36 PM
With a repeating railgun you can radar/visually walk the solution into the target track.

Bullets are also CHEAPER than rockets.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy