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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13   NEXT
B.Smitty       2/10/2007 11:26:55 PM
Is there a debate between the Navy and Marines about the Iowas?  Neither service feels they are viable systems anymore.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       2/11/2007 12:04:58 AM
nobody has built a big gun monitor since the 20's - for good reasons
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       2/11/2007 6:19:51 AM
One hit on the monitor by a missile and it will be disabled, one hit by a torpedo, it will be sunk.

One hit on the battle ship by a missle, people will get hurt but theres armour, one hit by a torpedo might slow the battleship down??? sink but not immediate.

 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       2/11/2007 10:36:01 AM
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.
 
 
Quote    Reply

KlubMarcus       2/12/2007 3:42:19 AM
No, that is a waste of time. Battleships run on steam generation. Steam plants, steam heating, boilers, etc... is labor intensive. To get the crew down for an old ship you will need to spend so much money to tear out the guts that you might as well built one or two modern warships from the keel up.
 
Quote    Reply

Claymore       2/13/2007 12:37:39 AM
2000 sailors on an IOWA is too inefficient just for guns with 20 mile ranges. Those days are over, to resource intensive.

A cheap ship with rockets could get the same effect with a small crew these days. All that armor is worthless

 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       2/13/2007 12:45:11 AM
What about replacing the power plant with a reactor, replacing the turrets with rail guns and mounting DEWs?  BBs would also make durable mother ships for unmanned surface and underwater attack drones.

I suppose the decision would come down to a cost analysis of designing a new ship and fabricating a new hull versus cutting open the BBs and gutting them but leaving the structure intact.

I would think most of the BB refit cost would be in man-hours and basic engineering of the upgrades, versus the infamous costs and timely deliver involved in procuring new US warships.

 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID       2/13/2007 2:14:35 AM
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.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       2/13/2007 6:42:00 AM
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.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Think about it FS,   2/13/2007 11:29:20 AM

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.

Just try to get at the propulsion guts of an IOWA.

Do you have any idea of how much armor and superstructure  you have to remove to change out those turbines for some 95,000 cshp[675 Mw] equivalent Hyundai diesel engines?

How about rebuilding the engineering spaces to take the more massive diesels?

Then you have to replace all the armor and superstructure.

EXAMPLE of this dumb idea;

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/5765/ussnevada1920ew2.jpg">
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/2136/ussnevadamu1.jpg">

Notice that this is the USS NEVADA modernized after the Japanese made rebuilding it a cost necessary proposition? Notice I didn't say cost effective? I would have scrapped her and recycled her steel into subs and destroyers at the time.

No effort was made to change the powerplant or the basic armament all that much. We just patched holes, put On a new superstructure, trunked her funnels, updated her fire control, and sent her out to sink the YAMASHIRO.

You propose that what we do to the IOWAs would be far more expensive and rebuild intensive. Why?

Build the DDX and install a pair of 200 MW 15.5 centimeter railguns and PVLS and sneak it past Congress by not telling them its the arsenal ship in sheep's clothing. Be done with it. It will cost half of what the IOWA X will cost to rebuild from the keel up. 

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



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics