The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:49 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Modern USN Battleship
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2018 12:14 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2963
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: 2059
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: 570
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 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2963
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: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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: 570
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: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1840
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: 2113
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 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2963
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 561 times ]

Attachment:
1B336A5B-6AD8-45D8-A3E2-C15F39C31F72.jpeg
1B336A5B-6AD8-45D8-A3E2-C15F39C31F72.jpeg [ 32.96 KiB | Viewed 561 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 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2963
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: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2018 8:26 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2963
Hey, Bob!!!
carr wrote:
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!

Indeed, awesome evaluation. I understand your want for super redundancy of CIWS and SeaRAM. I am having a hard time justifying and placing so many mounts. The biggest thing is that the main guns would risk damaging a lot of them unless they were all clustered super close together.

How should the stacks and super structures be arranged?

I am still looking on my Kirov to get to me, then I will begin with lengthening her to 900"+ and widening her to 106". That part should be great fun!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2018 8:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2018 9:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:00 pm
Posts: 570
Location: Bowmanville, ON, Canada
It sounds like you just want to build more Iowas.

Tell me, where can the armor and 16" guns be made?

It would probably take as long for the manufacturing capability to be created as it would getting the rail guns up to par.

How about lasers? They're starting to be viable weapons.

If you need that many defensive weapons, you're in the wrong kind of battle.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2018 10:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1840
carr, what scale model are you using that 1/4" plastic on as I use 1 or 2 1mm thick strips on 1/400 & 1/600 scale ships but will probably use more to widen out Revell's 1/429 scale Arizona to make the 1919 version of the USS South Dakota?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 8:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 8:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 8:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 4:40 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2963
carr wrote:
I was doing a 1/350 extension of a Burke hull to a large cruiser dimension. I can't recall how many pieces I used to achieve the desired spacing. I think it was one or two to widen it and maybe four or five to lengthen it. Something on that order. I widened the hull by a real half inch or so and lengthened it by an inch or inch and a half or thereabouts.

That's pretty cool. When lengthening and widening hulls, I now chose how the bow looks. If I am looking to making a longer version of a Burke, I chose the Japanese DDGs that have 64 VLS forward, because the sweep is longer and more proportional whereas the Burks have a shorter upward sweep. The shorter sweep, to me, looks goofy and does not really flow with "conventional" designs. With this BB design, I will be using a Kirov hull and lengthening it by 68mm (2.5") and widening it by 8mm (.31") to represent 900'. I have not settled on that length yet; I may bump it up to 915 or 921 if needed. The notched stern will accommodate a rather large UAV hangar with enough space to embark two MH-53s if indigenous mine clearing is necessary.

The water-line armor belt will appear very thick, but that will only be, because it is a layered armor system with voids and meshes as opposed to a very thick unitarian piece.

The main gun turrets will appear nearly the same as those of an Iowa. The only possible difference may be the elimination of the secondary sights (the little numbs, not the ears) on the sides of the turrets.

I will either use the British 155mm version of their 4.5" mount or a slightly enlarged Mk45 Mod4 mounting a 155mm barrel for the secondary battery. I am leaning toward the Mk45 Mod155mm. :thumbs_up_1:

I am still wondering whether to use phased arrays or rotating radars. Regardless, this ship will not have SPY or Aegis aboard. At most it will have a modernized NTU Mk74 Tartar-D AAW system.

carr makes an interesting point about having a great number of CIWS/PDS. I will have more on this ship than other desigs, but I don't believe I will be going as far as his 12 SeaRAM and 12 CIWS...HOWEVER...I really look forward to his model and seeing a ship with such a large number of CIWS. I am particularly looking forward to seeing their arrangement!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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