Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: BBG + BBG/CVN Battlegroup
OzWarrior    7/2/2006 8:43:58 AM
I was thinking, if the US decided to build a modern battleship, with the big guns (I was thinkg 8 16" in two quad mounts then 5' nad 3' extras) but also integrated helos and a large VLS battery you'd have an extremly powerful warship that could deal with any surface threat imaginable and take as much of a beating as anyone could give. It has already been discussed the amount of power needed to get through a battleships armour. So here we have a ship with the armour to stand in close to shore to provide gunnery support for ground units. And provide Long range missile support without being worried about getting hit themselves. and the "Sh!+-in-their-pants" factor of a battlegroup with a Battleship and CVN would be amazing. Being able to send a Capital ship into someones harbour without facing anything that can sink her with 80+ warplanes 5 minutes away is a powerful tool. Stregic WMD is pointless nowadays becuase no one has the bals to use them in anger sending a convetional force into a harbour that can level anything within 40km of it is a much stronger message. As a side note I think the ability to put over 8 tons of steel and HE into another ship in a single salvo is pretty neat.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Griffin    RE:BBG + BBG/CVN Battlegroup   7/2/2006 10:37:03 PM
OZWarrior, I'd think that if, and I doubt this would ever occur, but IF they were to look at a large gun platform, they would reduce the number of 16 inch guns. The reason being is that cruise missiles, and anti-shipping missiles, would replace what had in WWII been a need for more big guns. I'd also think that you would see a large number of SAM's and rapid firing guns from phalynx to 57mm and 76mm guns for air and close in defence. The reduction in the number of large, medium and small guns required would also ensure one could downsize the new BB in terms of overall size, making them faster and more efficient killers. I concur on the use of multiple helo's in an ASW role. With advances in munitions, etc. we may find that 8-inch guns using missile assisted propulsion tied to GPS and other targeting advances could reduce the need for the 16-inch. Of course all of this is pure speculation on something that will never get the navy's support, nor that of the defence industry that likes more expensive systems that get politicians giddy to spend $$$$.
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan    RE:BBG + BBG/CVN Battlegroup   7/2/2006 10:50:55 PM
A smaller nuke powered battleship with a squadron of UAVs, UUVs, rail guns, direct energy missile defense and missiles would be nicer to have.
Quote    Reply

OzWarrior    RE:BBG + BBG/CVN Battlegroup   7/2/2006 11:15:55 PM
Well until someone shows me a rail gun or energy weapon that works effectively, I'll stick with my guns.
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:BBG + BBG/CVN Battlegroup Griffin   7/4/2006 7:56:36 AM
You said The reduction in the number of large, medium and small guns required would also ensure one could downsize the new BB in terms of overall size, making them faster and more efficient killers. Actually, the reason why the WW2 BB's were as big as they were was to enable the highest speed possible. For speed, once you are over missile boat size, the bigger the better. There must be a technical reason for this, but I can't recall what it is at the moment.
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:BBG + BBG/CVN Battlegroup Griffin   7/4/2006 8:53:24 PM
With the Virginia-class it seem to me, that the equivalent firepower is there. maybe missiles are expensive; but 16 inch shell aren't cheap either - and the crew is a lot smaller.
Quote    Reply

OzWarrior    RE:BBG + BBG/CVN Battlegroup Griffin   7/5/2006 3:50:02 AM
A 16" shell and a TLAM are going to have very different price tags. If your man on the ground asks for you to take out a building within range of the guns, costwise, the gun would be the better choice. Ozzy
Quote    Reply

xylene    RE:BBG + BBG/CVN Battlegroup Griffin   7/7/2006 4:56:44 AM
I wonder if modern shipyards would have problems trying to build ships with large armor scantlings. Maybe newer specialized types of armor, such as on the Challenger II or Abrams tank could be used.
Quote    Reply

OzWarrior    RE:BBG + BBG/CVN Battlegroup Griffin   7/7/2006 5:18:08 AM
Just a bit of a side track. Are ships still designed to have enough armour to resist its own weaponry? Or has this passed favour? Ozzy
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:BBG + BBG/CVN Battlegroup Griffin   7/7/2006 8:05:57 PM
Ozzy wrote:"A 16" shell and a TLAM are going to have very different price tags. If your man on the ground asks for you to take out a building within range of the guns, costwise, the gun would be the better choice." Not necessarily. The ship that goes along with that 16" shell has a MASSIVE O&M pricetag. Smaller ships and subs are FAR less expensive to operate. Plus, a single, unguided 16" shell isn't likely to hit the building on the first try. More likely you'll have to fire many, which may not just destroy the building, but also several city blocks around it.
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:BBG + BBG/CVN Battlegroup   7/10/2006 8:52:30 PM
Some times, when people try to go solo hi-tech, they loose a little bit of reality-like in the 50s/early 60s when it was the thing to just have missiles on fighters. We all know what happened to that theory(and by some of the brightest minds/soldiers) Some said the tank is obsolete. People tend to stay away from the middle ground. A large ship with armour to withstand the lucky shot(and if a frigate(stark) can withstand 2 exocet missiles, then a BB can do a "little" better)and large enough guns to do damage, but not to large as to require to many crew(=cost) and slow ROF. With modern technology, it would seem to be simple to make the projectile "smart" and with new propellants/tech, you can extend the range greatly. Prior, simple 155mm shells had a max range of probably 25400 meters for the best-16 miles-the average was about 18-20000meters, but with new tech/barrels/propellants, etc, now you can have with ERFBs 30000 meters, or ERFB-HB-BB 39000 meters or so(about 25 miles) Thusly, I would bet, that if you had, sorta like oz said, but 14" guns, you could have a 1400 1800 lb projectile with the explosive punch of a 16 or 18" shell equiv(2400/3800lb) precision guided, out to a range of 80km if not more(50miles)(Dare I say 100-200km or more with modern tech). It could also carry a wide range of material-HE, Cluster bomb units, Mines, Anti tank projectiles, Deep bore, etc..... Instead of a full crew and only 1 shot per 40 seconds, perhaps, automated, you could fire 3 rounds per barrel/minute. You have a much higher rate of fire and cut down on crew/costs(but maintaining the automation might be expensive) So, say, 4 turrents of twin guns to cut down on weight=8 guns. Then you have, say , your 155mm(6.1") at 8x2=16 guns, and they could be automated, and have the extended range and much higher rate of fire...(perhaps 40/50km or more and 10+rds/barrel/minute) For defense, you have 4-6 CIWS, plus some verticle standards/sparrows, or whatever is new today for air defense-say a 24 cell, with 48 missiles, and you could also have your cruise missiles-say 32 or so, and whatever other missile system, plus shoulder fired, and then several 25mm cannon for the pesky suicide boats. Add in 4-6 uavs, and you have eyes on, dead-on accuracy and a long, deadly reach. lenght-perhaphs 700 ft, weight, with good armour, about 50000tns, crew, about 700-800. Respectible draft, Modern radar, fire control, targeting, GPS, etc.... Nuclear power cuts fuel costs, gives add. power for a 35-40knt speed. Cost: perhaps 1 to 1.5 billion, and rougly 1/6 the cost of a carrier to operate per yr, or mabey 2x the cost for a regular GMC. You have fire power, you have reach. You have affordable cost, you have minimal crew. You have an effective deterrent. Cruise missiles can be shot down-and several of ours have been. Try detecting, let alone, shoot down a 14" projectile comming to you from just out of the atmosphere at 3600mph or so Just ask some of the survivors of Omaha beach what they though of the DD that got to within 100 yds of shore and provided point-blank 5" fire, and cruisers that got to a few hundred yds and provided accurate 6-8" support. Kinda hard to do even with todays aerial weapons relying on the falability of guided ordinace dropped from several miles away.
Quote    Reply
1 2