Author Topic: Need for a modern battleship (Read 927 times)

republic · « **on:** April 10, 2007, 02:00:16 PM »

I read this interesting article: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003416.html

Which begs the question....why has there been no replacement for 'shipborne artillery'? Should the need ever arise that we must storm the beachhead...what would we do?

After the carpet bombing from the 52's, all we have are 5inchers, and a scant few at that. What do we do with dug in targets not 'worth' a million dollar missile and unreachable by the 5inch (rather by range or protection)....

Sure a railgun is in the works, but it seems to be the classic response of "throwing money at the problem"...and how many years until it actually goes into service? Why not design a modern coastal artillery bombardment ship.

And if they did....what would it look like? Wouldn't need the thick armor, would have to be fast and have very high endurance, would probably need a shallow draft. What size projectile would be needed for bombardment rather than anti-ship?

A modern monitor perhaps? Or go all out and create a "Kirov class with guns"?

Or...just dust off the Iowa class?

Reschke · « **Reply #1 on:** April 10, 2007, 02:34:33 PM »

You fire up the Iowa class BB's and let them do the job once again. Where else can you get a ship mounted 16" gun that can toss rounds out to 25+ miles with pretty good accuracy in a short amount of time and expenditure?

I read somewhere that the Navy was changing the way the next carriers could be configured because they needed more flexibility for the future. So they are going to make them somewhat modular like a cubicle style office setting. The reason being is that scrapping a ship is expensive since the body of the ship could function for many years after the internal components have become obsolete. Therefore in making it sort of modular they are able to upgrade and change the layout without rebuilding the ship from scratch.

Bucky73 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 10, 2007, 02:46:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reschke
You fire up the Iowa class BB's and let them do the job once again. Where else can you get a ship mounted 16" gun that can toss rounds out to 25+ miles with pretty good accuracy in a short amount of time and expenditure?

I read somewhere that the Navy was changing the way the next carriers could be configured because they needed more flexibility for the future. So they are going to make them somewhat modular like a cubicle style office setting. The reason being is that scrapping a ship is expensive since the body of the ship could function for many years after the internal components have become obsolete. Therefore in making it sort of modular they are able to upgrade and change the layout without rebuilding the ship from scratch.

You are correct on both:D

Chairboy · « **Reply #3 on:** April 10, 2007, 03:15:46 PM »

The railgun is well past the crazy stage, they're firing projectiles already. The advantages they bring are significant, I'm pretty sure bombardment will be the new hotness (again) in a few years because of it.

The rounds are faster, and they anticipate being able to project kinetic bombardment to 200 miles, slightly further than chemical rounds.

Also, since the fuel is not part of the projectile, they can carry more rounds and use other flexible and efficient fuel sources, like nuclear or diesel. Powder casings, while giving a big bang, aren't as efficient as modern chemical fuels that can be converted to electricity more efficiently per volume.

I wrote here a year or two ago about how I'm convinced that railguns will move to tanks, which will become hybrid so they can support the power demands, and how these kinds of rounds will probably replace many cruise missiles and ground -to-air anti-aircraft rockets.

Nilsen · « **Reply #4 on:** April 10, 2007, 04:07:06 PM »

There are projects underway that includes low cost artillery missiles and 155mm guns with 100nm (aprox) range. Those plus cruisemissiles put on excisting ships are prolly alot cheaper than keeping the big battleships crewed and maintained plus you can have more spread around the globe.

Hornet33 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 10, 2007, 04:13:15 PM »

In this day and age I seriously doubt there will ever be a need for shore bombardment, let alone large scale amphibious assults. With the new smart weapons being developed for use by Air Force, Navy, and Marine aircraft the need to pound a beach till it looks like the surface of the moon is gone.

Back when it took hundreds of tons of bombs and shells dropped from several dozen planes or fired from many guns to hit a single target, the need for a battleship was there. Now we have weapons that can be dropped from standoff range, glide into the target zone, and take out multiple targets with high precision in a single drop.

Even the Army is getting onboard with standard artillery systems to make them smart. The Excalibre 155mm artillery shell is a good excample. It is a GPS guided shell that has demonstrated pin point accuracy out to 15 miles. Instead of having to fire 30-40 shells and hope most hit close enough to the target to destroy or damage it, you only need one and that has a better than 95% chance of detroying the target with the first shot.

It's no longer about the amount of ordinace you put of target, it's about using just enough to get the job done.

Beside who are we going to invade from the sea that we can't already handle with what we have? China????

Wolfala · « **Reply #6 on:** April 10, 2007, 04:31:05 PM »

Its a good point Hornet, though my boss would tend to disagree with you on a couple points.

1. He drove the Wisconson during the Gulf War 91.
2. The Marines currently have no shore bombardment capability - you can fire excalibur rounds at $100,000 a pop, but it doesn't get around having the capability of having to do more. You aren't going to fire a rail gun in ashore if all you have is KE rounds.
3. If you remember back, the reason the BB's were reactivated during the Cold War was b/c of the Kirov and heavy battle cruisers the USSR was putting out - mostly being missile boats, the armor belt on the BB's was suitable to countering those battle cruisers and still retaining their shore bombardment capability.
4. China is reverse engineering Russia's gear - albiet not always successfully, but knowing they are tearing down a Carrier to try and cut 30 years off the learning curve says its a blue water challenge.

And 5:

Sometimes we need **** to blow up with these guns. I know a few people in the Bay Area who could use a stray round or 10, and the Iowa is parked right up the block.

But on the upside - a little story from Korea:

"Scratch One T-34

Hitting a tank with a 16-in. shell from a battleship's main battery is something like potting a mouse with an elephant gun. It isn't often done--but when it is, there isn't much left of the mouse.

One night last week the 45,000-ton U.S. battleship Wisconsin (which relieved the New Jersey last month) lay off Korea's east coast, firing her secondary batteries of 5-in. guns in support of U.N. ground troops ashore. Finally came a call for heavier fire. The No 2 turret crew swung into action and five 16-in. shells, weighing a ton apiece, whistled into the target area, 8,000 yards away.

Result: direct hits on two Communist gun emplacements, one T-34 tank. Said an observer: "With what's left of that baby (the tank), they can't even make carpet tacks."

Chairboy · « **Reply #7 on:** April 10, 2007, 04:31:32 PM »

That's the thing, the railgun artillery can give you the reach of a medium-range missile, hypersonic delivery, and they are planning on integrating smart terminal guidance so they can put the round through a window or target a specific tank.

It gets awful cheap when you leave most of the delivery system back on the ship.

Fishu · « **Reply #8 on:** April 10, 2007, 04:57:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hornet33
In this day and age I seriously doubt there will ever be a need for shore bombardment, let alone large scale amphibious assults. With the new smart weapons being developed for use by Air Force, Navy, and Marine aircraft the need to pound a beach till it looks like the surface of the moon is gone.

Except a 16" round gives little thought for the enemy AA, will be delivered in a minute or so and nothing can stop it once it's fired.

All the new toys for planes are rather expensive and the planes itself are valuable.

Though, the running costs for a single BB are somewhat high too; just to deliver a handful of rounds every few years. Would be interesting to know how much a single round costs overall when the running costs are added to it and how it compares to planes with more costly ordnance.

Nilsen · « **Reply #9 on:** April 10, 2007, 05:21:45 PM »

1: Buy a good size used cargo ship

2: strenghten sertain parts of the deck

3: mount a few 155mm turrets and a few mk41 launchers

4: skip any defencive weapons and radars so you can keep the crew and cost at a minimum

4: keep a couple of Burkes and/or Ticos + a sub around for protection

5: voila.. you have "cheap" and awsome firepower parked outside a coast.

For 99% of the time thats all you need in todays "wars".

Chairboy · « **Reply #10 on:** April 10, 2007, 05:26:01 PM »

Heck yes, like the old Q-ship concept from WWII.

I was thinking the same thing, except instead of hard-mounting the weapons, you drive self-propelled artillery on-deck. The Navy has almost totally self-contained Tomahawk batteries that can be mounted quickly, and I'm sure they have fire control equipment that can integrate all of it pretty easily if you're willing to direct teams of people instead of having it all show up on a single pretty display.

* Self propelled artillery.
* Self propelled MLRS launchers.
* Tomahawk batteries

Puff the magic cargo ship.

Maverick · « **Reply #11 on:** April 10, 2007, 08:55:09 PM »

Nilesen,

I was thinking about the same idea except I figured the top weight of the operation would be prohibitive putting a battery of tubes up there. It might work out better especially for accuracy by using the MRLS systme mounted on deck.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 10, 2007, 09:57:04 PM »

They could always bring back a Des Moines Class Heavy cruiser.

Main Battery:
Guns: 8 inch/55 caliber in three triple turrets
Gun Barrel: Mk 16 Mod 0
Muzzle Velocity: 2,800 ft/sec
Crew: 45 (turret)
Weight: 451 tons (turret)
Rate of fire: 10 rpgpm (rounds per gun per minute)
Projectiles: High capacity (shore bombardment): 260 pounds, Armor Piercing: 335 pounds
Range: 30,100 yards (AP) at 41 degrees 31,350 yards (HC) at 45 degrees
Notes: These guns were the first 8" guns to use cased (semi-fixed) ammunition instead of bag/shell loading. They were also the world's first automatic 8" gun. These guns could be loaded at any elevation from -5 to +41 degrees. They were dual purpose guns (AA and ASuW). The gun houses on all three turrets are quite spacious due to the fact they were designed with room for the installation of optical rangefinders, which were omitted from final plans.

look at that rate of fire.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #13 on:** April 10, 2007, 10:02:14 PM »

GTO, that was my first thought as well. Too bad there's only one left and it's a museum ship.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 10, 2007, 10:06:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DiabloTX
GTO, that was my first thought as well. Too bad there's only one left and it's a museum ship.

Thats a sad pic. Seems she didnt get turned into a musuem then.

Amazing ships.

Not bad looking either. If only they ha,d had one in late 42 near the canal.