A Modern Battleship?

[Fermi2]

I would suspect that they would operate in the same areas as the assault transport ships in case fire support is needed.  Similar to the way the Iowas were employed.  Places like Lebanon, N. Korea, or the Persian Gulf.  Keep in mind that what we are talking about is a concept and not necessarily an all big gun BB.  It could even be something like the arsenal ship that was recently studied.

 

Having nuclear power was not a mandatory requirement for ship under discussion.  It was just an idea being tossed about.

 

Also, IIRC, the Kirovs were nuclear propelled and they worried the USN quite a bit when they appeared.

265422[/snapback]

 

 

No they actually didn't wory the USN all that much. The USN had SSNs and CVBG that could easily have taken care of a Kirov. The USN recognized them as an obsolete concept with a very unreliable power plant. The Kirovs were essentially mean looking pieces of junk.

 

So far as nuclear power. You just said the vessel in question would perform the same duties as an attack transport. In other words it'll be under enemy fire...

 

Mike

[Bob B]

...So far as nuclear power. You just said the vessel in question would perform the same duties as an attack transport. In other words it'll be under enemy fire...

 

Mike

265428[/snapback]

 

Was it never thought that other nuclear powered vessels might come under fire?

 

In the event of a war, the US carrier battlegroups of the cold war would have probably come under attack by the Soviets. US missle subs would have been hunted by Soviet attack subs.

 

Also, here is what I said, "...I would suspect that they would operate in the same areas as the assault transport ships in case fire support is needed. Similar to the way the Iowas were employed." not the same duties.

 

Bob

Edited January 2, 2006 by Bob B

[George Newbill]

If it were me I would just buy the biggest gun available for example the 203mm self propelled howitzers that the US Army retired or something even larger out of Russian stocks and put them on a seagoing monitor and call it a day.

 

100% off the shelf, paint it gray....

[Daniel Papp]

Are you sure about that power requirement?  The information I have seen indicates that you need a MW of power for each MJ of energy.  My information could be wrong though (or just outdated).  A lot depends on how efficient the guns are as well.

 

Here are the "specifications" for one of the EM guns proposed for the DDX.

 

...

•Firing Rate – 6 to 12 Rnds/Min

•Power Req - 15 to 30 MW

•Range – > 200 nm

•Kinetic Energy/Target – 17 MJ(ERGM - 7 MJ, LRLAP - 14 MJ)

...

 

Again, my information points to that we could not provide the DDX (78MW total power -  I do not see how 93,870 shp [70MW] can be expected to propel a 12,000+ ton ship @ 30kts) with enough power to make two 155mm EM guns realistic for it.  You & gewing want to mount 4 larger guns that would require at more than 4 times as much power (more than twice as much power per gun & twice as many guns).

265353[/snapback]

 

After a bit googling I found railguns have ~25-30% efficiency. That means if there's 100MW available for the railgun, I can get roughly 25MW effective railgun power, giving one shot every 20s. That means the main armament should be reduced to half (Furious, anyone?).

[Smitty]

Ok, this is a silly thread, but what the hay,

 

It's doubtful that the U.S. would want to sell anything to Dear Leader, given his propensity to abduct U.S. citizens. Fortunately, the French and Russians will sell to anyone.

 

My ship looks suspiciously like the Thales CVF design. But no really, it's a battleship! It's all part of my grand deception.

 

Displacement: 58,000-65,000 tons

Length: at least 275m

Propulsion: Integrated Full Electric Propulsion (IFEP) with 4 WR-21 gas turbines

 

Armament:

 

2 x 210mm vertical guns with 500rnds each.

32 x Sylver VLS cells with Aster-15-SAAM

4 x 25mm OTO Melara CIWS

 

Sensors:

 

EMPAR radar

Selex S1850M air and surface search radar

Selex RASS surface search radar

Selex SPN 753(V)4 navigation radar

 

Countermeasures:

 

SLAT torpedo defense system

Sigen ECM/ESM

NGDS decoy system

 

Aircraft:

 

30-40 aircraft (Rafale-M, Merlin-AEW, Merlin-ASW)

3 Catapults (Probably US-made unfortunately. Ramp if the US balks)

 

For guns I intend on partnering with France to produce a 210mm vertical gun system not unlike the 155mm VGAS proposed for DD-21/DD(X). Rounds will need to use the forthcoming Galileo satellite network for guidance, so we aren't reliant on U.S. controlled GPS. We would "shoot" for a 100nm range with rocket-assisted rounds.

 

One nice benefit of vertical guns is that if the whole gun project tanks, we haven't invested much in terms of deckspace and we could still complete the ship as "just" a carrier.

Edited January 2, 2006 by Smitty

[Guest pfcem]

It's doubtful that the U.S. would want to sell anything to Dear Leader, given his propensity to abduct U.S. citizens.  Fortunately, the French and Russians will sell to anyone.

265581[/snapback]

How do you know? The original post was unclear on that but I think it assumed that (given an unlimited budget) you could pretty much get anything you wanted from where ever you wanted it from.

 

You may be right however. Certain not incorrect to assume so.

 

 

 

My ship looks suspiciously like the Thales CVF design.  But no really, it's a battleship!  It's all part of my grand deception.

 

[additional text deleted to save space]

 

One nice benefit of vertical guns is that if the whole gun project tanks, we haven't invested much in terms of deckspace and we could still complete the ship as "just" a carrier.

265581[/snapback]

That is a interesting approach.

 

I think the leader wants a real battleship though, not a psuedo-battleship.

 

OTH, he may like the idea of combining a battleship with a carrier & give you a bonus for your incite.

[Smitty]

How do you know?  The original post was unclear on that but I think it assumed that (given an unlimited budget) you could pretty much get anything you wanted from where ever you wanted it from.

 

I don't know, but the U.S. is pretty picky about who it sends advanced military technology to, unless of course they have oil, or something else we want.

 

I think the leader wants a real battleship though, not a psuedo-battleship.

 

Of course he does, but he's obviously a loon.

 

OTOH, giving him a "real" battleship may actually be better, as he will spend a ton on something of dubious value, potentially advancing his eventual downfall.

[Guest pfcem]

Of course he does, but he's obviously a loon.  

 

OTOH, giving him a "real" battleship may actually be better, as he will spend a ton on something of dubious value, potentially advancing his eventual downfall.

265598[/snapback]

That is one of the issues I am struggling with on a possible revision of my prior USMC design.

 

Do I really want this individual to have a "good" ship ore something that more looks good that actually is good (maybe I would design in an "Achilles Heal" that could be used against the ship if it is "misused")?

[Ivanhoe]

One nice benefit of vertical guns is that if the whole gun project tanks, we haven't invested much in terms of deckspace and we could still complete the ship as "just" a carrier.

265581[/snapback]

 

On the other hand, if the project tanks then a more conventional 150-200mm artillery gun converted to terrestrial use (either towed or SP) would offer the Dear Leader's army some modern arty technology and possibly an export portfolio. Likewise with long range rockets convertable to MLRS systems.

 

If we continue to have radical weather in 3rd world areas, that big unused hull might pay for itself if fitted with a giant desalinization system. Sell potable water to the UN and NGOs for a buck a gallon when typhoons/earthquakes/hurricanes hit.

[Hellfish6]

Would a modern battleship really need to be well armored?

 

I'm thinking something like a 20,000 ton vessel with one or two twin 16-in turrets forward (using guns from the Iowa-class) and 192+ Tomahawk/ATACMS cells on the rear deck. Doesn't need to be well armored or particularly fast. Just park it off a coast and let it have some fun. Only thing I can't predict is how a 20,000 ton ship will deal with the recoil of those 16 inchers.

[DougRichards]

Would a modern battleship really need to be well armored?

 

I'm thinking something like a 20,000 ton vessel with one or two twin 16-in turrets forward (using guns from the Iowa-class) and 192+ Tomahawk/ATACMS cells on the rear deck. Doesn't need to be well armored or particularly fast. Just park it off a coast and let it have some fun. Only thing I can't predict is how a 20,000 ton ship will deal with the recoil of those 16 inchers.

265727[/snapback]

 

Well the large light cruiser HMS Furious of 1917 shipped two 18in guns on a deep load displacement of 23,000 tonnes.

 

The Erebus class monitor carried a twin 15in turret on a displacement of 7000 Tonnes.

[Bob B]

Well the large light cruiser HMS Furious of 1917 shipped two 18in guns on a deep load displacement of 23,000 tonnes.

 

The Erebus class monitor carried a twin 15in turret on a displacement of 7000 Tonnes.

266139[/snapback]

 

 

The half sisters Courageous and Glorius were similar but carried four 15 inch guns in twin turrets. IIRC, all were built with the pre war idea of supporting landings in the Baltic. They combined shallow draft, speed, and big guns. In reality they proved fragile. All were chosen for conversion to carriers.

 

The Brits built several classes of big gun monitors to support landings. The Roberts class was similar in layout. Interesting ships.

[DB]

Are you sure about that power requirement?  The information I have seen indicates that you need a MW of power for each MJ of energy.  My information could be wrong though (or just outdated).  A lot depends on how efficient the guns are as well.

 

Here are the "specifications" for one of the EM guns proposed for the DDX.

 

•Projectile Mass – 15 kg

•Launch Mass – 20 kg

•Launch Velocity – 2.5 km/s

•Muzzle Energy – 63 MJ

•Barrel Length – 10 to 12 m

•Peak Accel. – 45 to 38 kgee’s

•Firing Rate – 6 to 12 Rnds/Min

•Power Req - 15 to 30 MW

•Range – > 200 nm

•Kinetic Energy/Target – 17 MJ(ERGM - 7 MJ, LRLAP - 14 MJ)

Again, my information points to that we could not provide the DDX (78MW total power -  I do not see how 93,870 shp [70MW] can be expected to propel a 12,000+ ton ship @ 30kts) with enough power to make two 155mm EM guns realistic for it.  You & gewing want to mount 4 larger guns that would require at more than 4 times as much power (more than twice as much power per gun & twice as many guns).

265353[/snapback]

 

You trade off time between shots versus power available, because joules are watts * seconds, so as a rule of thumb "1 MW power per MJ muzzle energy" sucks, sorry to say.

 

Your example gives 6-12 rounds/minute with power of 15-30 MW, suggeting energy consumed per shot is 15MW * 10s (or 30MW * 5s) for a total of 150MW.s (aka MJ) to generate 63 MJ muzzle energy.

 

If the power requirement to move the ship is about the same as for a Tico (10,000tons @30knots @80,000hp - given nearly thirty years of hull fluid dynamics improvement should make the power requirements for 12,000tons about the same)

that leaves around 14,000hp "spare" for the EM guns, say about 10.5MW, assuming that the "hotel" load is negligible in comparison. That gives you a shot every 15 seconds for the NFS ship.

 

Now, the same excess power applied to the big guns would give you 500MJ at the same efficiency (danger, unwarranted extrapolation) as your example in a little under two minutes. Of course, running at 20 knots instead of 30 would probably halve the power drawn by the engines and thus give you much reduced recharge times, say one fifth of this example, something like 23 seconds.

 

I think it is reasonable to consider that a ship is not likely to be cruising at full speed when engaged in NGFS, and the slower you go the more excess power you have.

 

Alternatively, you could have a separate genset that you spin up only when providing main gun fire - something like using cruise and sprint turbines in the Invincibles, for example.

 

Whether you can scale the gun technology to launch 1000kg shells is of course another matter.

 

David

[Guest pfcem]

You trade off time between shots versus power available, because joules are watts * seconds, so as a rule of thumb "1 MW power per MJ muzzle energy" sucks, sorry to say.

 

Your example gives 6-12 rounds/minute with power of 15-30 MW, suggeting energy consumed per shot is 15MW * 10s (or 30MW * 5s) for a total of 150MW.s (aka MJ) to generate 63 MJ muzzle energy.

266318[/snapback]

Note that this is the power requiterment for a single gun firing a 15kg projectile. Scale that up to the size of projectile most people want & the power requirements become enormous.

 

Also note that my thoughts are based on that the EM gun has been dropped from the DDX because they could not provide enough power to for 2 "155mm class" guns (I assume that they were looking at EM with comparable ME to that of a alternative "traditonal" 155mm gun).

 

 

 

If the power requirement to move the ship is about the same as for a Tico (10,000tons @30knots @80,000hp - given nearly thirty years of hull fluid dynamics improvement should make the power requirements for 12,000tons about the same)

that leaves around 14,000hp "spare" for the EM guns, say about 10.5MW, assuming that the "hotel" load is negligible in comparison. That gives you a shot every 15 seconds for the NFS ship.

266318[/snapback]

The size of ship being discussed here is cloer in size to the larger DD-21/early DDX than the slightly scaled down one now envisioned. That means 14, 000 tons, possibly more depending on the amount of "armor" protection the ship has.

 

 

 

Now, the same excess power applied to the big guns would give you 500MJ at the same efficiency (danger, unwarranted extrapolation) as your example in a little under two minutes. Of course, running at 20 knots instead of 30 would probably halve the power drawn by the engines and thus give you much reduced recharge times, say one fifth of this example, something like 23 seconds.

 

I think it is reasonable to consider that a ship is not likely to be cruising at full speed when engaged in NGFS, and the slower you go the more excess power you have.

266318[/snapback]

 

It is true that you can use ~half of the power that would otherwise be used to propel the ship for the guns when firing as you are not all that likely to be firing the guns while traveling a top speed. But with the size of guns that have been proposed for this ship, the guns require much more power than what is needed to propel the ship.

 

 

 

Alternatively, you could have a separate genset that you spin up only when providing main gun fire - something like using cruise and sprint turbines in the Invincibles, for example.

 

Whether you can scale the gun technology to launch 1000kg shells is of course another matter.

266318[/snapback]

I am simply pointing out that it the 70+MW of power available to the DDX was deamed insufficient for just two "155mm class" EM guns, then providing enough power for four "8-10in class" EM guns is going to be at least four times as difficult (at lease twice as much power per gun & twice as many guns).

[gewing]

In my defense, I did point out that it was very possible the EM guns wouldn't work, and proposed an alternative.

 

 

[Macarthur]

And just how are these going to be paid for?

 

And what governemnt with ICBMs is ever going to let these get launched?

 

Even with non-nuke warheads a barrage of ICBMs with terminal guidance will make a mess of any of these on the slips

 

which reminds me, what shipyard would ever have any capacity to build the larger of these?

265385[/snapback]

 

I make no Excuses, all three are ridiculous in every sense of the word when put against the modern worlds capabilities. ALthough ICBM's are a bit of a stretch for the last one, its no larger than a Nimitz, you'd really only need one ICBM, but thats true of any BB class ship so what does it matter?

[DB]

[blah, blah, blah - much talk, signifying nothing.

266366[/snapback]

I was merely demonstrating that your rule of thumb was bogus, with a worked example.

 

As for the 12000 ton vs 14000 ton thing, whatever floats your boat - there are only two people posting on this site who think that anything bigger than 155mm is essential, and you're both acting out adolescent fantasies, like the hypothetical nuthatch who would be wasting his petrodollars on such a white elephant.

 

Have a Happy New Year.

 

David

[gewing]

I was merely demonstrating that your rule of thumb was bogus, with a worked example.

 

As for the 12000 ton vs 14000 ton thing, whatever floats your boat - there are only two people posting on this site who think that anything bigger than 155mm is essential, and you're both acting out adolescent fantasies, like the hypothetical nuthatch who would be wasting his petrodollars on such a white elephant.

 

Have a Happy New Year.

 

David

267850[/snapback]

 

 

 

I LIKE the idea of a larger than 155mm gun, but the main reason I used the Mk71 8" mount was that the initial question involved the Demand by the sponsor for 8"+ guns.

[Guest pfcem]

I was merely demonstrating that your rule of thumb was bogus, with a worked example.

 

As for the 12000 ton vs 14000 ton thing, whatever floats your boat - there are only two people posting on this site who think that anything bigger than 155mm is essential, and you're both acting out adolescent fantasies, like the hypothetical nuthatch who would be wasting his petrodollars on such a white elephant.

 

Have a Happy New Year.

 

David

267850[/snapback]

On the contrary, there are a couple of people on this board who have spoken to some Marines about that they feel they need for NFS. I would think that Marines would have a better idea of what is needed than a bunch of pencil pushers in Washington DC.

 

Also do not foget that this thread is a fanasy thread where the customer specifically stated that he wanted a proper battleship.

 

Also not that I never stated any rule of thumb but if 70+MW is insufficient for two 155mm class guns, then the power requirements for four much larger & more powerful guns is going to be quite difficult to acheive.

Edited January 9, 2006 by pfcem

[TDHM]

On the contrary, there are a couple of people on this board who have spoken to some Marines about that they feel they need for NFS.  I would think that Marines would have a better idea of what is needed than a bunch of pencil pushers in Washington DC.

 

Also do not foget that this thread is a fanasy thread where the customer specifically stated that he wanted a proper battleship.

267937[/snapback]

 

How many Marines do you actually know? And how come the Marines and former marines on this site, are hardly vocal in support for 'proper' NSFS? Given that many indeed will have never even seen what 'proper' NSFS is, and have merely had to make do with NSFS comparable to what most armies have. Strange how all Armies are not screaming for 'proper' Artillery either...

 

Also if the Marines do have a better idea than a bunch of pencil pushers in Washington DC, then why don't they change their stated requirements, as found in OMTFS?

[Guest pfcem]

How many Marines do you actually know? And how come the Marines and former marines on this site, are hardly vocal in support for 'proper' NSFS? Given that many indeed will have never even seen what 'proper' NSFS is, and have merely had to make do with NSFS comparable to what most armies have. Strange how all Armies are not screaming for 'proper' Artillery either...

268028[/snapback]

I do not know who on this board are maries & who are not but I have spoken to quite a few Marines over the past decade & they, being the ones who's lives are at stake are concerned that NFS has not been made a higher priority & feel that something bigger than a 155mm gun is needed. Opinions very ranging from 8" -16" guns.

 

 

 

Also if the Marines do have a better idea than a bunch of pencil pushers in Washington DC, then why don't they change their stated requirements, as found in OMTFS?

268028[/snapback]

Because it is pencil-pushers in Washington who make such determinations, not grunts.

[Chris Werb]

I do not know who on this board are maries & who are not but I have spoken to quite a few Marines over the past decade & they, being the ones who's lives are at stake are concerned that NFS has not been made a higher priority & feel that something bigger than a 155mm gun is needed.  Opinions very ranging from 8" -16" guns.

 

I've spoken to lots of 'ex SAS' men in pubs*, who, to a man, decry the move to 5.56mm and would have us go back to 7.62 or preferably .303 for its 'knock-down' power and far superior accuracy. These men also explode the 'myth' of optical sights, all having won the Queen's Prize at Bisley with an iron sighted SLR competing against scoped SA80s.

 

*Every British pub has at least one.

[Per Andersson]

On the contrary, there are a couple of people on this board who have spoken to some Marines about that they feel they need for NFS.  I would think that Marines would have a better idea of what is needed than a bunch of pencil pushers in Washington DC.

267937[/snapback]

 

If the pencil-pushers have done a valid operational analysis of NFS, then what the Marines 'feel' is pretty unimportant.

 

In WWI, the Royal Navy 'felt' that convoying would cause larger losses of merchantmen than merchantmen sailing solo. They were wrong.

[Guest pfcem]

Note again that this is a fantasy thread where the ruler of some nation has said the he wants a battleship. We can only guess as to what for but NFS is probably a more than fair bet.

[TDHM]

I do not know who on this board are maries & who are not but I have spoken to quite a few Marines over the past decade & they, being the ones who's lives are at stake are concerned that NFS has not been made a higher priority & feel that something bigger than a 155mm gun is needed.  Opinions very ranging from 8" -16" guns.

 

You've spoken to a quite a few marines over the past decade. Well pardon me, but I don't believe that many marines in the past decade have conducted an amphibous assault since possibly Greneda, nor would most even have known what 8" or 16" gunfire actaully achieves. Don't you find it strange how the US army gets by with 155mm gunfire, MLRS and Air support? Why aren't they screaming for a bigger artillery piece? Why did the 8" SPG get withdrawn?

 

Because it is pencil-pushers in Washington who make such determinations, not grunts.

 

Right... www.dtic.mil/jv2010/usmc/omfts.pdf . So the USMC absolutely did not set the requirements? http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/accurat...nd%20timely.htm

 

Nor here? OMFTS and the requirements set forth have been set by the USMC, and wanted by USMC. True, NSFS solutions like ALAM & LASM have been canned, but quite emphatically, the USMC do not want the Iowas. They are a piss poor solution, which can't do the job in the first place.

268155[/snapback]