by navydavesof » Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:04 pm
The quote function double quoted half way down.
GMG4RWF wrote:I don't know where your getting this Idea that every time one of those guns goes off everything in a 5 mile radius ceases to exist, the Iowas never had a single Mk38 turret destroyed when they fired their guns. & they had 40mm & 20mm guns mounted even closer (even directly under them). Those positions are fine.
It's not within 5 miles, you just have to be aware of the damage the overpressure, especially repeated discharges, causes on modern electronics. Right around the barrels, the pressure winds up being between 10-20 PSI, and that is right where the 57mm guns are placed. If Turret 2 were to fire over the shoulder, the muzzles would be close to the 57mm guns. The 57mm guns have a Kevlar strengthened fiberglass weather shield, not the STS armor protection of the 5"/38caliber mounts. So, unless you want to greatly reduce the arc of Turret 2's fire, then yes, it is a bad position, a very bad position.
GMG4RWF wrote:Once again, when did the bow 20mm or 40mm of any U.S. BB (or CV) ever get destroyed by water spray? if those gun mounts can't take a little water then they don't belong on a ship.
Yes, the bow 40mm on the Newport News was destroyed in a storm and was never replaced. But that's not the issue. The 30mm Bushmasters are heavily electronically controlled, not manually like the WWII tech. The Bushmasters have electro optical guidance and electric drive that cannot withstand the wash the 20mm and 40mm guns could.
GMG4RWF wrote:He has the same # the Iowas had in Mk38s & they had plenty of boats.
You have to take into account that the USN does not employ boats the same way the did in WWII. Also with his configuration the space where the Iowas originally had boats is now taken up By Harpoons and VLS tubes.
GMG4RWF wrote:How do you know how much volume of fire the ship will require on a given mission,
I am in the expeditionary side of the Navy, and I am reasonably well versed in NSFS, NGFS, CAS, and theater operations. A single ship should not be tasked with fighting the whole war, nor would she.
GMG4RWF wrote:...she could find herself in a modern Peleliu situation, where multiple Marine units are pined down and calling for fire support, or laying multiple layers over a few, 5 mounts are more than reasonable.
If so, would she be there by her self or would she be accompanied by other fire support ships, carriers, USAF, etc? She does not need to fight the whole war by herself, and you really could not afford to arm her to do it, either.
GMG4RWF wrote:...doesn't need the AGS-L version though, she would have plenty of room for the full AGS mount![/qoute]I don't think you understand how much internal space the AGS requires. The single full AGS would consume the entire bow of a DDG-51. Similar on a BB, the entire space from Mount 51 to 52 would be consumed by a single mount. So, no, there is not plent of room for the full AGS mount in the mounts in question.
GMG4RWF wrote:Though I would think the 57mm's are redundant,
Another thing you must keep in mind, is that the 57mm gun is almost as large as a Mk45 5" gun. That takes up a lot of deck space anywhere you put it.
GMG4RWF wrote:I'd replace them & the 30mm's with 40mm twin Breda's for primary AMS
Why mix so many calibers to do the same job? Why not chose one over the other?
GMG4RWF wrote:with the Mk15s as autonomous backup this gives you a layered defence & if the Mk15's run out of ammo you still have something.
There are lots of Mk15s out there. Are you referring to the Phalanx CIWS? Why have it be autonomous instead of coordinating its fire with the rest of the self defense suite?
But yes, the 16" gun blast is a very big deal. If you read the South Dakota's battle damage report, you will see that as she fired over her shoulder, the overpressure from Turret 2 damaged her super structure and 5" guns.
The quote function double quoted half way down.
[quote="GMG4RWF"]I don't know where your getting this Idea that every time one of those guns goes off everything in a 5 mile radius ceases to exist, the Iowas never had a single Mk38 turret destroyed when they fired their guns. & they had 40mm & 20mm guns mounted even closer (even directly under them). Those positions are fine.[/quote]It's not within 5 miles, you just have to be aware of the damage the overpressure, especially repeated discharges, causes on modern electronics. Right around the barrels, the pressure winds up being between 10-20 PSI, and that is right where the 57mm guns are placed. If Turret 2 were to fire over the shoulder, the muzzles would be close to the 57mm guns. The 57mm guns have a Kevlar strengthened fiberglass weather shield, not the STS armor protection of the 5"/38caliber mounts. So, unless you want to greatly reduce the arc of Turret 2's fire, then yes, it is a bad position, a very bad position.
[quote="GMG4RWF"]Once again, when did the bow 20mm or 40mm of any U.S. BB (or CV) ever get destroyed by water spray? if those gun mounts can't take a little water then they don't belong on a ship.[/quote]Yes, the bow 40mm on the Newport News was destroyed in a storm and was never replaced. But that's not the issue. The 30mm Bushmasters are heavily electronically controlled, not manually like the WWII tech. The Bushmasters have electro optical guidance and electric drive that cannot withstand the wash the 20mm and 40mm guns could.
[quote="GMG4RWF"]He has the same # the Iowas had in Mk38s & they had plenty of boats.[/quote]You have to take into account that the USN does not employ boats the same way the did in WWII. Also with his configuration the space where the Iowas originally had boats is now taken up By Harpoons and VLS tubes.
[quote="GMG4RWF"]How do you know how much volume of fire the ship will require on a given mission,[/quote]I am in the expeditionary side of the Navy, and I am reasonably well versed in NSFS, NGFS, CAS, and theater operations. A single ship should not be tasked with fighting the whole war, nor would she.
[quote="GMG4RWF"]...she could find herself in a modern Peleliu situation, where multiple Marine units are pined down and calling for fire support, or laying multiple layers over a few, 5 mounts are more than reasonable.[/quote]If so, would she be there by her self or would she be accompanied by other fire support ships, carriers, USAF, etc? She does not need to fight the whole war by herself, and you really could not afford to arm her to do it, either.
[quote="GMG4RWF"]...doesn't need the AGS-L version though, she would have plenty of room for the full AGS mount![/qoute]I don't think you understand how much internal space the AGS requires. The single full AGS would consume the entire bow of a DDG-51. Similar on a BB, the entire space from Mount 51 to 52 would be consumed by a single mount. So, no, there is not plent of room for the full AGS mount in the mounts in question.
[quote="GMG4RWF"]Though I would think the 57mm's are redundant,[/quote]Another thing you must keep in mind, is that the 57mm gun is almost as large as a Mk45 5" gun. That takes up a lot of deck space anywhere you put it.
[quote="GMG4RWF"]I'd replace them & the 30mm's with 40mm twin Breda's for primary AMS[/quote]Why mix so many calibers to do the same job? Why not chose one over the other?
[quote="GMG4RWF"]with the Mk15s as autonomous backup this gives you a layered defence & if the Mk15's run out of ammo you still have something.[/quote][/quote]There are lots of Mk15s out there. Are you referring to the Phalanx CIWS? Why have it be autonomous instead of coordinating its fire with the rest of the self defense suite?
But yes, the 16" gun blast is a very big deal. If you read the South Dakota's battle damage report, you will see that as she fired over her shoulder, the overpressure from Turret 2 damaged her super structure and 5" guns.