The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed May 23, 2018 9:45 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Modern USN Battleship
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2018 12:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2918
WHAT IF...

The modern battleship.

Why build a new battleship? Easy, to have a ship with extraordinary survivability to operate in harm's way and conduct sustained strike and support operations. As such, what weapons, sensors, speed, and accommodations should it have?
Weapons, sensors, ECM, anti-torpedo, boats, etc and explanations. I look forward to inputs with he who is he carr!

-Get after it.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2018 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 2000
Location: Vancouver, Canada
What's wrong with an enlarged Zumwalt class with a longer hull and more rail guns as its main battery? Aside from the usual SM-6s and other weapons that would go with AEGIS DDGs...

Say 20,000 tons, 4 triple turret rail guns., plus a drone bay for UAVs that can swarm and carry payloads like the Naval Strike Missile?

A 3D-printing assembly line for spare parts for damage control, as well as for drones, should also be incorporated into such a warship.

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2018 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:00 pm
Posts: 559
Location: Bowmanville, ON, Canada
I still like my idea,
Image

_________________
Darren (Admiral Hawk)
In the not so tropical climate of the Great White North.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2018 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2918
Fascinating!

I am looking at a 900' long ship with:

9x 16"/50-60caliber conventional guns with conventional/base bleed/RAP rounds
6-8x 155mm/52-62caliber guns with conventional/base bleed/RAP rounds
128x Mk41 VLS
32-48 Mk57 VLS2x 21-cell CIWS
6x SeaRAM paired with the 35mm Millennium CIWS

A stern hangar capable of embarking up to 2 HH-53 helos but instead taking on and operating a large number of UAVs operationally.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2018 6:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1752
AdmHawk, your concept is fascinating. Here's a few thoughts for what they're worth.

1. If the drawing is somewhat to scale, as opposed to a conceptual drawing (looks like a Shipbucket drawing which implies scale), the triple turrets look to be about 100 ft wide, by eye. That's ... what's the word I'm looking for? ... ginormous! Is there something that compels that width?

2. I have a problem with rail guns as a main weapon and just as a weapon, in general. A rail gun is a kinetic energy transfer weapon. If you hit you kill (maybe - see below) but if you miss there's no points for a near miss - nothing happens. By contrast, a 16" BB shell gets a LOT of points for a near miss or even a moderately far miss.

Consider a rail projectile that hits the ground a few feet from, say, a tank. On a relative basis, the ground is soft and offers no significant resistance to convert the kinetic energy into work. The round buries itself in the ground and you get a puff of dust. There is no shrapnel. Shoot a rifle bullet into the ground and you'll see the concept. A BB shell that misses by a few feet probably destroys the tank outright and, if not, flips it over into the air several times as it's scooping out a 50 ft diameter crater.

Consider the effect of a hyper velocity projectile on a ship. Given today's extremely thin skinned ships, it's likely the projectile will pass straight through the ship, again, without converting a significant portion of the kinetic energy to work (damage). Again, consider the example of a rifle bullet hitting a sheet of paper. It makes a tiny hole as it passes through but otherwise does no damage. Considering that Japanese BB main gun shells were reported to have passed straight through the South Dakota, I strongly suspect that a rail projectile will pass straight through a modern ship without even noticing it's there!

Thus, as a general purpose weapon, the rail gun is quite limited. It has to directly hit a very solid target. Absent random chance, that kind of precision is impossible without a guidance package which negates the rail gun's main attribute which is the cheapness of the inert round. We could also add a proximity fuze and burst charge to the projectile but then we just have a conventional naval shell and an expensive one, at that!

3. What is the purpose of the "up to four" F-35's (I assume F-35B models)? On a tiny flight deck, the take off would be, essentially, vertical and the aircraft would be unable to take off with any significant fuel or weapons load due to weight. So, what useful function would 4 lightly loaded F-35s with little fuel, fill? The aircraft consume a massive amount of space both flight deck space and internal hangar, fuel storage, maintenance shops, spare parts, berthing, etc. Is it worth all that for four lightly armed, short range aircraft?

4. 300 VLS! Packed around the center mass of the ship? Missiles generally aim for center mass. 300 VLS are going to make for some stunning fireworks displays when hit!

5. Does the ship have any close in AAW defensive weapons? I assume you have ESSM in the VLS but do you have any RAM/SeaRAM/CIWS? Incoming missiles ALWAYS get through! Some kind of close in defense would seem desirable.

Although some of my thoughts are critical, I guess, they're meant as genuine curiosity questions. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the issues rather than trigger an argument. For example, did you give any thought to conventional 16" guns rather than rail guns or, perhaps, a mixed fit of one 16" triple mount and one triple rail mount? Are the aircraft worth the "loss" of a third major gun mount?

Regardless of anything else, it's a very impressive drawing! Well done. It would make a fantastic model.

Regards,
Bob

_________________
Bob Carr
My blog : http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2018 8:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:00 pm
Posts: 559
Location: Bowmanville, ON, Canada
Ha Ha!! You really get serious, don't you?!?!

Not to worry, Your comments don't bother me. :smallsmile:

1. If the drawing is somewhat to scale, as opposed to a conceptual drawing (looks like a Shipbucket drawing which implies scale), the triple turrets look to be about 100 ft wide, by eye. That's ... what's the word I'm looking for? ... ginormous! Is there something that compels that width?

Exactly the reaction you just gave, what a cool Factor!!!


2. I have a problem with rail guns as a main weapon and just as a weapon, in general. A rail gun is a kinetic energy transfer weapon. If you hit you kill (maybe - see below) but if you miss there's no points for a near miss - nothing happens. By contrast, a 16" BB shell gets a LOT of points for a near miss or even a moderately far miss.
Consider a rail projectile that hits the ground a few feet from, say, a tank. On a relative basis, the ground is soft and offers no significant resistance to convert the kinetic energy into work. The round buries itself in the ground and you get a puff of dust. There is no shrapnel. Shoot a rifle bullet into the ground and you'll see the concept. A BB shell that misses by a few feet probably destroys the tank outright and, if not, flips it over into the air several times as it's scooping out a 50 ft diameter crater.
Consider the effect of a hyper velocity projectile on a ship. Given today's extremely thin skinned ships, it's likely the projectile will pass straight through the ship, again, without converting a significant portion of the kinetic energy to work (damage). Again, consider the example of a rifle bullet hitting a sheet of paper. It makes a tiny hole as it passes through but otherwise does no damage. Considering that Japanese BB main gun shells were reported to have passed straight through the South Dakota, I strongly suspect that a rail projectile will pass straight through a modern ship without even noticing it's there!

Don't give up on the Rail Gun just yet!!

The Hypervelocity Projectile is a smart munition (meaning guided) designed to exit existing guns at much higher speeds than the 40 nautical miles of conventional rounds. (in excess of about 1,000 meters per second)
The electromagnetic railgun using the same hypervelocity round, could hit targets at ranges of 50-110 nautical miles away with pinpoint accuracy.

At that velocity, many types of targets could be destroyed through the sheer energy of impact, without requiring an explosive warhead. I agree that there are times when a hunk of metal will go through thin items, but with that kind of energy, when it hits something solid, like an engine, the energy tends to be released. Various kinds of dirt will react differently, but there will still be some damage if the guidance fails.

However, the Navy will have Hypervelocity Projectiles that will carry a guided warhead capable of delivering diverse effects depending on the mission. Imagine a 20” shell, traveling at Mach 5, with a range of 100 miles, hitting a target with pinpoint accuracy and enough explosive to level a city block? What a mind blower!!


3. What is the purpose of the "up to four" F-35's (I assume F-35B models)? On a tiny flight deck, the take off would be, essentially, vertical and the aircraft would be unable to take off with any significant fuel or weapons load due to weight. So, what useful function would 4 lightly loaded F-35s with little fuel, fill? The aircraft consume a massive amount of space both flight deck space and internal hangar, fuel storage, maintenance shops, spare parts, berthing, etc. Is it worth all that for four lightly armed, short range aircraft?

If I had my way, F-14s would be made again for the Navy. However, since I'm not in charge, I'll point out that Many aircraft were less than impressive when introduced. The First F-18's weren't universally liked, but they've mutated into a somewhat decent Navy jet. I have faith the F-35 will get better as well.

Why have them? BB's usually carry Marines. Why not let them bring their toys? Personally, if I were the Captain, I'd have air cover whenever I was vulnerable. In foreign ports, transiting narrow areas, going by Iran. If you aren't in the open ocean, you could be hit with small boats or hand held missiles. Imagine how fast a threat would be neutralized if a couple of jets were constantly circling momma bear. Besides, it's more cool factor..


4. 300 VLS! Packed around the center mass of the ship? Missiles generally aim for center mass. 300 VLS are going to make for some stunning fireworks displays when hit!

The Iowas had Tomahawks and Harpoons in the center area. The Zumwalts have them along the edge fore and aft. It's thought that this reduces the ship’s vulnerability to a single hit. Besides, If you're gonna get hit, you're gonna get hit. It won't make much difference if you blow up in the middle or just right of center. The Hull would have some armor, Carriers are built with decent armor. But really, one torpedo will ruin your whole day. That's why you have a screen of smaller ships.

5. Does the ship have any close in AAW defensive weapons? I assume you have ESSM in the VLS but do you have any RAM/SeaRAM/CIWS? Incoming missiles ALWAYS get through! Some kind of close in defense would seem desirable.

Again, I went in the direction of the Zumwalt. It has, RIM-66 Standard Missile, RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), BGM-109 Tomahawk, RUM-139 VL-ASROC, 155 mm Advanced Gun System, and (2) Mk 46 30 mm gun (GDLS) for close in defence. However, I have yet to see a photo with the 30mm guns installed.

SeaRAM and or CIWS can certainly be added, but I wasn't too worried about that side of things as they come and go during refits.

_________________
Darren (Admiral Hawk)
In the not so tropical climate of the Great White North.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2018 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1752
Admhawk wrote:
Ha Ha!! You really get serious, don't you?!?!

Exactly the reaction you just gave, what a cool Factor!!!

Okay, you appear to have intended the drawing as more of an entertaining concept than a realistic proposal. Nothing wrong with that. I'll refrain from further analysis!

Quote:
Don't give up on the Rail Gun just yet!!

The concern I have, over and above the concerns I previously listed, is that a projectile that solves the problems of guidance, proximity fuzing, and, potentially, explosive burst charge along with being engineered to withstand the stress of firing and acceleration/deceleration, is that the resulting projectile will be prohibitively expensive. Consider the LRLAP projectile for the Zumwalt's AGS. It wound up costing a million dollars per projectile when it was cancelled. Why would this projectile be different? It might not be $1M each but with advanced guidance packages, fuzing, and physical survivability it will not be cheap and cheap was supposed to be the defining attribute of the projectile. It was supposed to be an inert lump of rock, in essence, costing pennies apiece on a relative basis. I have no doubt that we can develop a suitably sophisticated projectile to make it generally applicable but it will come at a hideous cost.

_________________
Bob Carr
My blog : http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2018 9:39 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1721
they did it for the vt fuses during the 1st part of the war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 3:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2074
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Point about the rail guns.

They can fire munitions with an explosive charge.

Only they tend to be metal-plasma penetrators (they blow up a shaped charge a short distance from the target, converting a slug of metal into a plasma discharge that adds to it the energy of the velocity of the round to begin with.

The plasma will penetrate the outer skin, but given it is a fluid, it will fill the space behind the skin, turning it into a superheated oven.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2918
I know the rail gun sounds fun but it’s not going to be a viable weapon of any caliber for a very, very long time. 4” kinetic rounds are not in the same league as 12” guns much less 16”. If they became viable, they at best might find a place as a secondary battery.

I would not even put the AGS on this platform. Instead, I would have a 155mm/60caliber version of the Mk45 or even engineer a modern 155mm/60caliber version of the Mk42.

I would also armor her in the Montana style, being a stacked side armor profile. She would have a Roma exterior main armor belt that could be maintained from outside the skin of the ship.
Attachment:
E6C05754-6F55-43E6-98A7-9C2E44E9CF22.jpeg
E6C05754-6F55-43E6-98A7-9C2E44E9CF22.jpeg [ 32.93 KiB | Viewed 138 times ]

Attachment:
1B336A5B-6AD8-45D8-A3E2-C15F39C31F72.jpeg
1B336A5B-6AD8-45D8-A3E2-C15F39C31F72.jpeg [ 32.96 KiB | Viewed 138 times ]
An inner secondary belt would be between 4-7” thick one frame inboard. The main deck would remain between 1.5” and 2” with a 2.5” splinter deck 20” beneath the main deck. This arrangement would likely defeat all ASCMs today. The bottom would be a triple or quadruple layered armed bottom with CVN style anti-ship missile defeating expanded metal. Essentially it’s a spring metal sponge. Then the armored box we know and love of the Iowas.

The new hull form would eliminate the thin-hull vulnerability Turret 1 on the Iowas seems to have.

She would be powered for 235,000 SHP with a CODAG. I would not worry about nuclear power at all. The diesels being the primary plant and the turbines being secondary.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 11:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2918
While we have talked about the armor arrangement, we will talk about the armament.

Main: I am looking at 3 Iowa/Montana-class turrets with 3 16"/50-60caliber guns.

Secondary: 6-8x Mk42 155mm/62caliber guns.

Defensive: 6-8 SeaRAM CIWS controling Millennium guns.

What do you think?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2018 10:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1752
In my mind, a modern battleship is, primarily, a land attack platform and, secondarily, an anti-surface platform. To that end,

Land attack:
9x 16" in triple turrets
8x 5"/62 single guns (because they exist - if you want to go more WIF then 155mm)
32x Tomahawk
32x Intermediate Range Conventional Ballistic Missiles (more of a WIF)

ASuW - above, as appropriate, plus:
32x VL-LRASM

AAW:
16-32x quad packed ESSM
12x SeaRAM
12x CIWS

Hey, it's a battleship.

This is the ship that should not be constrained by budget.
This is the ship that should be as invulnerable as is possible to make.
This is the ship that should be able to take damage and keep fighting - hence, the larger number of SeaRAM/CIWS.

Hey, you asked!

_________________
Bob Carr
My blog : http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wvtomcat65 and 3 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group