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: 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

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
doggtag       2/13/2007 12:21:20 PM
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?).
 
Quote    Reply

scuttlebut steve    navy has right idea   2/15/2007 7:16:03 AM
   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.
 
Quote    Reply

ens. jack       2/15/2007 9:00:01 PM
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.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       2/16/2007 5:39:07 PM
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.

 
Quote    Reply

BadNews       2/16/2007 6:03:48 PM

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.


I think that what the USMC is looking for and the Navy intends to somehow provide is a means of a Substainable NGFS, we had rocket ships in WWII, while your MLRS concept will provide an immediate hard hitting punch, sustantianed support at long range would be far more conducive to Marine type Operations. What we will problably be seeing in the not too sdistant futre is a rapid fire, 155mm RAP type gun that can fire 10-15 rounds per minute for 3-4 continuous minutes,
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       2/19/2007 12:07:04 PM


I think that what the USMC is looking for and the Navy intends to somehow provide is a means of a Substainable NGFS, we had rocket ships in WWII, while your MLRS concept will provide an immediate hard hitting punch, sustantianed support at long range would be far more conducive to Marine type Operations. What we will problably be seeing in the not too sdistant futre is a rapid fire, 155mm RAP type gun that can fire 10-15 rounds per minute for 3-4 continuous minutes,


15 * 4 is 60 rnds, or 15 VLS cells loaded with quad-pack POLAR missiles. 

There's nothing stopping you from firing 10-15 POLARs per minute for 3-4 minutes.

The big problem with VLS is they're not reloadable at sea.  Guns and mechanical launchers can be.

I've also thought it might be worthwhile to develop a mechanical Naval MLRS launcher similar to the Mk 13 Standard missile launcher, that would take a regular MLRS missile pod and be rapidly reloaded from a magazine underneath.  This magazine, in theory, could be repenlished at sea just as an AGS magazine.

I know mechanical launchers are prone to breaking down, but shouldn't be any more so than a mechanical gun system.

 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       2/19/2007 12:48:29 PM
In the same vein, I've wondered if we shouldn't develop a 6-7" mini-MLRS/POLAR rocket.  This might let you fit 9 per VLS cell or maybe 12 per standard MLRS pod (up from 6 regular MLRS rockets). 

Given appropriately advanced propulsion, a mini-MLRS/POLAR might have a similar range to its larger cousin, with a smaller (though still significantly larger than a 155mm arty round) warhead. 

This would let you fire the same 60rnd mission with half the VLS cells (<7 instead of 15).

One could also imagine borrowing the NETFIRES, JCM or other terminal seeker technologies to provide a true precision option. 

Development could be shared between the US Army and USN.

 
Quote    Reply

Wiz    BBN-X for the 21st century   2/19/2007 1:37:35 PM
I still believe battle ships still has a role in modern day warfare with use of nuclear power plant and rail gun system, as Nanheyangrouchuan mentioned. As an addition, the crew numbers may be reduced by automation and electronics. With nine 16 inch guns of Iowa class to be reconfigured as rail guns, it will reach 290 miles with more than 100 rounds fired per minute from all nine guns, and more with the smaller rail guns. projectiles will reach in 6 minutes to the target.
100 rounds fired per minute, and more than 6000 rounds per hour from just nine of the giant rail guns from nuclear powered rail gun equiped battle ships. That should be enough to destroy most of ground infrastructure at reach in any country. With nuclear power, directed energy systems may also be used for air defense. Nuclear power, rail guns, and automation/electronics are the three components for revival of battle ships  of 21st century. The remaining problem will be maintenance cost and the cost to build one.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Lots o' good stuff!   2/19/2007 2:48:47 PM
Re: POLAR VLS types (smaller sized or standard MLRS dimensions).
I've always been keen on those, simply because only the DDX/DDG1000 will have the AGS 155. But just how many Zummwalts are we getting? Will we even see 6?
Where do the other ships get good surface attack capability, with some suggesting 5" guns even with PGMs are inadequate?
I still don't trust the whole railgun idea: Arsenal Ship was shot down, some suggest, because all those missiles would make it too expensive.
OK, to date, the US's various gun-fired munitions programs have yet to produce a fieldable, within original budget, cheaply-manufactured PGM (Copperhead got expensive, ERGM and others obviously didn't offer something right, or we'd have them in production, in use, in numbers, and Excalibur only works from 155mm guns).
And considering I don't see that it's going to be easy-street developing gun-fired shells whose electronics & steering mechanisms will withstand railgun launch stresses, I wonder just how expensive those railgun-fired guided shells will be...in the neighborhood of a decent SSM?
 
Re: re-loading VLS arrays at sea.
Has the USN removed the take-down gantry cranes that occupied the corner 3 (4?) cells of a given VLS, designed to assist reloading?
I recall that when the USN first started using VLS systems on Ticos, the gantry was part of the array (off to one corner, and occupying 3 cells, thus a supposed 64 cell array only held 61 munitions).
Was it decided to remove the gantry crane on the grounds it was thought there wouldn't be an abundance of reloads available from resupply ships, and they'd have been expensive anyway, large numbers of them?
Or was it thought the ships just would never need that many rounds?
Or was it proven too difficult to reload them at sea?
 
Seems to me, cells filled with multiple smaller missiles would be the way to go (ESSM quads, B Smitty's theoretical POLAR/MLRS Jr), except when truly big rounds like the ABM Standard and TacToms are needed.
 
On a surface-attack, note, I pulled this pic off Naval-Technology.Com's entry for the F100 Alvaro de Bazan Multi-Purpose Frigate for Spain, concerning just what the MK41 series VLS can handle:
 
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f100/images/f100_3s.jpg" width=150 align=left border=0>
 
Mk 41 Launcher TACMS demonstration firing.
 
(I can't see the TACMS myself, so I'll take their word for it.)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Re: unreliability of mechanical missile systems on ships.
Didn't stop us from using them until the more reliable VLS came along.
And I've seen those mechanical reloaders work pretty fast (when they worked), to me, it never seemed a whole lot slower watching a twin-arm rail launcher firing Standards off an early Tico than watching ripple fires off a Burke VLS (is the speed of the launcher the real issue, or is it something in the fire control?). Both of them do have a finite magazine capacity, the only real advantage of the mech system being less overall deck surface area taken up, but the disadvantage being the extra complexities below decks for all the different rounds down there that must be indexed and ran up to the launch rail before firing.
 
As far as other mechanical complexity issues: I notice they dropped the ideas of the more-simpler vertical-launching guns and stuck with tried-and-true turrets with all their traverse and elevation mechanisms and complicated shell feeders.
Consider also the amount of automation (both electronic and mechanical) the future generation of ships will have. Cross your fiingers there won't be an overabundance of mech failures when they're needed to work most.
 
Back to the actual munitions: just how much explosive does a 155mm shell carry?
What's planned for the LRLAP for the AGS?
IIRC, Hellfire's warhead is about 10kg, same neighborhood for NetFire's PAM (LAM was reduced to about kg, but I'm pretty sure it's recently been removed from the FCS Systems' NLOS-LS requirement).
The G-MLRS has like 90kg, to about 70km.
I'm aware POLAR had a greater range (120-160km?), but cannot recall warhead weight.
Question being: how big a warhead do we want to throw how far, how fast?
Again, I'll stress, not eve
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Correction   2/19/2007 2:54:20 PM
(LAM was reduced to about kg, but I'm pretty sure it's recently been removed from the FCS Systems' NLOS-LS requirement).
 
Should have read, "LAM's warhead was smaller, about 5kg (being turbine powered, it needed more room for fuel), but I'm pretty sure it's recently been removed from the FCS Systems' NLOS-LS requirement.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics