Crazy idea to replace the battleships.

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

Herald1234 2/23/2007 9:39:50 AM

Here's a question then:

could the sabot of the railgun projectile actually carry the armature (or brushes or whatever) so the shell itself needn't be subjected to the electrical pulse?

{Yes.]

Effectively, we'd be discarding the useless bit(s) after firing, just like dropping off an extended range booster after it's done its job.

[Again, yes. ]

In such a case, couldn't then the shell be contained/electromagnetically sealed enough to, in principal, act like a large faraday cage so the internal electronics wouldn't even need excessive EM shielding?

[Yes,]

Then when entering the downswing of its trajectory, the shell could release/eject a piece off the tail to allow the GPS receiver to work, and the steering mechanisms could be deployed once the velocity has dropped to a more friendly mile-per-second or so (they could be contained in the aft section near the GPS kit, JDAM style).

[it could deploy a simple spring loaded spike antenna for example. Numerous solutions , including the one you suggest. The spike antenna is more likely as the shell will pick up quite an ionization charge{plasma shell} as it plunges through the atmosphere in descent. You have to stick something out past the ionization to receive radio-or make the plasma sheath itself act as the aerial..]

But, very high velocity kinetic rounds like the LOSAT and CKEM, and even Patriot PAC-3 hit-to-kill, use reaction control thrusters around the nose to course-correct at such high velocities (because mechanical fins may not react fast enough).

[India has solved the problem. Are we to assume that American aerodynamacists are less competent? Forebody jets may be the point option used, but there are some advantages to base steering at MACH 8+. ]

And in that case, can those chunks of solid propellant in the reaction control mechanisms withstand the high electromagnetic stresses without initiating?

[Don't know that one for sure. MACH 5 at burnout at 200 gees over 5 seconds, I'm certain, but accelerated launch MACH 8+ over the interval of a 1/100 th of a second {about 22,700 gees}, I don't know.]

The other issue I see, if we totally contain the shell inside a faraday-esque sabot, can the petals/sleeve discard accurately- and quickly-enough (at those velocities) so as not to interfere with the shell's flight?

[Yes. That is nowhere near the problem of building either the GPS radio guidance unit, steering vanes, or the valve jets]

Herald

Quote Reply

historynut 2/24/2007 11:19:52 AM

I like the general idea. Think it would be better to start with a new ship with a few 16" guns. You would not need as many because we have better targeting so you do not need to fire as many rounds to ensure a hit. Give the ship heavy armour (able to take repeat hits from most of the missiles fired at it). Put missiles in for the targets you do not need a 16" round for. You would use the missiles most of the time wth the 16" guns able to take out what the missile warheads were too small to take out.

Add lots of AA and lot of CIWS (as much as possible) would give you a ship able support the Marines and also provide AA coverage for carriers when at sea. With a new design you could automate a lot more then is now automated cutting the crew big time. I was thinking a trimaran with the guns, missiles and there magazines in the center hull. In the outter hulls you would the AA and CIWS with there magazines. I was thinking lots of CIWS because at sea you would have lots more warning then with something fired from shore.

Quote Reply

Herald1234 2/24/2007 2:42:15 PM

1. If ranges were equal I would use gun before missile on a warship.
2. Heavy armor is not relevant in an environment when I can use hit to kill torpedoes, and MACH 3+ 1 tonne explosive warhead cruise missiles. COMPARTMENTALIZATION is more important,
3. Missiles in three layers. Long, medium, short range The machine cannon is too short ranged to stop the seaskimmer from hitting you.

Herald

Quote Reply

historynut 2/25/2007 3:13:29 PM

1. I like guns more too. My thinking was saving the 16" for when you need something that the missile warheads can't take out.

2. I was thinking of the damage done in the Falklands to unarmoured ships. You would not need to withstand a 16" shell, just armour to lessen damage from missile warheads. Also a lot of the people the ship would be used on would not have the money/skill to operate a sub. A lot would more likely have missiles with smaller warheads. Did not put down compartmentalization because warships always have it.

3. Agree with you on the missiles just think ships need more CIWS for what gets passed the missiles, also CIWS could be used on terrorests on boats with bombs that are too close for missiles to be used on. Knew some people whos job it was to think of ways to disable or destroy ships. Hard to destroy a ship but a small hole in the right spot can put it out of action for a few days or more.

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 2/25/2007 6:50:41 PM

1. If ranges were equal I would use gun before missile on a warship.

If ranges are within UNGUIDED gun range (or rocket-assist plus CCF), then yes, use a gun. Of course if you're in unguided gun range, then you're also in shore-based AShM range - not a good thing.

But if the ranges are such that you have to build a gun-launched missile that must withstand thousands of G's and fit in a restrictive bore, then no, use a missile.

Quote Reply

hybrid 2/25/2007 8:31:49 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.

Wiz it aint the speed of a railgun or any futuristic type "gun" platform thats at issue here in sustainability. Its the logistics of the feeding the monster while not warping the barrel either due to stress from firing or from weather conditions. 100 rounds per minute of 2000lb shells is virtually unrealistic in ANY but sci-fi scenarios. At best you're looking at sustained rates of fire of around 3-10 rounds per minute per barrel if you dont want the whole dang thing to self destruct.

Quote Reply

Herald1234 2/25/2007 8:40:47 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

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 2/25/2007 9:36:30 PM

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.

Quote Reply

Herald1234 2/26/2007 4:45:03 AM

Those nuclear bullets will be in the 250-300 kilogram mass. That will include the rocket motor that steers it in final descent.

Yes.

Lie the first ICBMs if the guidance package fails, Like the latest Chevalanes if the guidance package holds. Its launch shock we have to worry about. Cannon launched PGMs have anywhere from 15,000-22,000 gees to survive. An ICBM shell would have have to at least survive that but the shove phase could seconds long. Quite a trick, since you would in essence be lobbing off a track that is at least three to five kilometers long.

Herald

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 2/26/2007 8:39:24 AM

So wait a second. I guess I'm a bit confused.

Are you suggesting we build a 3-4 kilometer long ship to carry a rail gun firing guided nuclear projectiles?

Quote Reply

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