The Ship Model Forum

Alright, a few people have asked for the napkin art, so here it is. I was stuck on an aircraft for several hours, so I fleshed out a more indepth sketch than the last few I have done.

God it's horrible....but you asked for it

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

You sure could, but that's an awful lot of different weapon systems. I think how the Navy figures it is: If you are going to have VLS tubes, and they can all be strike length, then get all strike length. That way you can have the most diverse mix of weapons and a greater payload flexibility than having a bunch of different VLS launchers.

The Navy does not have a whole bunch of missiles in stock, so there is no reason to put hundreds of missiles on a ship. A reasonably large number for a surface ship is 128. The battleship would be more strike oriented anyway, so 128 strike length tubes would be best so you can carry 8-cells of quad ESSM and the rest TLAM with a only a handful SM-2s if any. While they could, the battleship should not carry them. ESSM is plenty. SM-2s are for escorts.

I am surprised at the VLS version of RAM. Current RAM launchers already work very, very well. All you have to do is point and shoot where as in a VLS cell it has to come up vertically and know where to go from there.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Hi Dave,
I don't know if you have seen this or not http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06279r.pdf

Just going through the Power Point slides, it appears that the brass set up BB modernization to fail.
For example, though the GAO compares the effectiveness of 5" 38 on BB's,s to 5" 54 & 62 and 8" 60 on Burkes an DDX, there is no evident thought given to replacing the 5" 38's with those weapons.

Likewise, the GAO was not provided with any data as to the costs of a modernized Iowa Class versus the cost of the proposed platforms. Yet there is an intimation that the Navy would need 30 some DDX's to get the firepower of the Iowa's.

I also note that there is no consideration of survivability.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Now for some technical questions.
1. Is it necessary to retain the old radar perched atop the 16" range finders? Could you mount something more up-to-date up there?
2. Is it necessary to maintain the 01 deck clear space abaft the #2 16" turret? To put it another way, how often did the ships fire back over their shoulders, so to speak?

My point about the three sizes of VLS launcher was that would seem to have three different height, as in LxWxH, so you could maximize your strike missile capacity and tuck the other launchers in where there is space for the smaller size.

Russ

Yes, I have. I talked with the admiral, a pilot, who was the advisor to the GAO for that report in early 2009. The things he brought up were 30 year old battleship myths and misconceptions. When I presented him with factual evidence and my sources, he got flustered an walked off. You are right. The people who advised the GAO in that report were there to discredit the battleships and not present facts.

Indeed.

People who want to discredit the battleships dance around the facts and only select what they want to support their conclusion. Survivability is one of the biggest ones. People don’t understand how effective battleship armor is. They think any cruise missile can penetrate it. Only one is suspected to, and that’s the SS-N-19. “You hit it from the top, because that’s the thinnest,” they say. Right. South Dakota took a 500lb bomb on top of one of her turrets. No repairs were necessary, and the crew inside did not even know they had been hit. No other missiles pose a threat. As I am sure you noticed in my Modernize Iowa and Wisconsin thread I brought up and countered most of the arguments against the battleships with the fact of the matter.

You could use something more up to date, but nothing you can fit up there is better for range finding. The only modernizations I would suggest to that radar is replacing unsupported equipment like electron vacuum tubes up there but nothing more. Those range finding radars are very capable.


Yes, the guns need as great of firing arch as possible. When responding to a call for fire, all turrets need to maneuver as much as possible without changing the course of the ship. They also need to stay on target as the ship maneuvers. If the firing arch is reduced greatly, Turret 2 would only be able to stay on target for a short amount of time. Why do you ask? What would you put back there? Even though that area is flat, the VLS tubes would have to start at the armored deck and go up from there, so they would be sticking up quite a bit. Unless you design a lot of extra protection around the VLS tube you would not want to necessarily penetrate the armored deck for a VLS canister.

I understand. I would suggest only that since the Harpoon is only 15' long and the Tactical length tube accommodates missiles 3.5 feet longer that banks of tactical length tubes be set aside for large numbers of Harpoons, 32-64, while the rest of the tubes can be fitted for Tomahawks and ESSMs. Eight tomahawks in exchange for 32 ESSMs is not an unreasonable sacrifice.

Would you want to stair step VLS tubes down the side of the ship? That would give the ship a lot more missiles, but how many are you suggesting the ship have? Keep in mind, we don't have enough missiles to fill all of the VLS tubes of deployable VLS armed ships in the fleet, and ships never go to sea fully loaded. It would be an asset to have a ship with 192 Tomahawks in theater during a high intensity war, but I don't think such an armed ship is a very likely possibility. We should just send two ships instead of one and boost the missiles in theater more than a single greater capacity ship and increase the survivability of the weapons, because they're on more ships.

Does all of that make enough sense?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Yep, Understand.

I was thinking stairstep, but with loosing the Mk37 directors, I thought there might be room elsewhere. Just have to consider the back blast.

_________________
Russ

If you did lose the Mk37 directors, which I think is a good idea they just have to be replaced with another tracking system. If you suggest to place a VLS arrangement in its place you would have missiles rising up past the super structure, which is not a good idea. The missiles do error some times, and if it rises past the structure (forward fire control tower) one may very well hit the ship on its way up. Having it rise up past the stack I believe would be feasible, though. The stack does not stand nearly as tall as the forward fire control tower so Harpoons around where the aft stack and Phalanx are on a current Iowa would work well.

Also, I have to add that my last post was predicated on the fact that we need to get Harpoons into VLS tubes as fast as possible. If it takes 8-16 Harpoons to destroy a target (a reasonable estimation) then a battleship should be able to independently take out 4-5 ships with missiles. The surface area of 8 harpoons (2 Mk141 launchers) is almost as large as a 32-cell VLS arrangement. As you can see, VLS Harpoon is the way to go.

I think 128 strike tubes for variable mission is appropriate with up to 64 tactical tubes preserved for Harpoons (total of 192 tubes). How many missile tubes are you thinking about for the ship?

As a side note, a project I am going to do down the line a little is how the Iowas would have looked after the Warfighting Improvement Program slated to be started in 1993 starting with USS Iowa and gone to all 4 battleships. The upgrade would have taken the ships to 2010 before their SLEP. This model is going to be a gift to a friend of mine who was the man who drew up all of the 1981 reactivation and WIP modifications to the Iowas. They would have received a whole host of upgrades in and outside the ship, but the visible ones would have been the Mk-29 NATO Sea Sparrow launcher in place of Mts 53 and 54, 96 VLS tubes, replace the remaining 5" battery with 5"/54caliber duel gun mounts that were to be on the Montana-class BBs (designs and materials were sent to Crane, Indiana for fabrication in 1989), TAS-23, an enclosed access to the bridge, permanent RPV/UAV structure on the stern, preparations for RAM CIWS to replace the aft 2 Phalanx CIWS, and an "Intel Gathering System used on the Spruances," which I can only surmise was the Outboard system.

I look forward to how many missiles and other requirements you think the ship should have!!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I've always been fascinated by the Outboard system but have only been able to find very generalized descriptions and no photos. Even Capt. Potter's book has only a fairly generalized description involving a series of deck edge antennae. Do you have any further info or photos? I've wondered what became of Outboard. Is it still in service? If not, does it have a modern equivalent? Potter's book suggests that it was highly effective.

Thanks,
Bob

I know! Isn't it cool? I don't have any more photos, but I asked CAPT Potter about it, and apparently it is a very small system. It's an array that is on the stern of the Spruances housed inside of what look like propeller guards on small boats and a series of rings just under TACAN on the main mast.

From the sounds of it, that's all it is, but apparently it's very useful. I don't know if it's still used or if another version has been made in its place.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

As I understand Mk-41 VLS, the tubes are in modules of 8 tubes/cells. 4 modules make a magazine (4 tubes x 8 tubes).
How about 4 strike magazines (128 tubes) between the stacks.

2x Tactical modules, 8 tubes to port and 8 to stbd of the aft stack.

CIWS Ram port and Stbd between aft stack and main battery director

Where the aft Mk 37 was, how about a 57mm Mk 110

In place of the forward stack Mk 37's, RAM's

In place of all 5" 38's, 5" 62 Mk 45 in 02 deck positions and 8" 62's in 01 deck positions,

Forward Mk 37 pedestal gets sensors.

I'd like to stick UAV facilities someplace And maybe facilities for the small craft nobody talks about

_________________
Russ

For redundacy, I would suggest 1 arrangement on either side of centerline with maintenance access between the two.

Right on.

I think the defensive armament of an LHD is about right for a BB. That is 3 Phalanx and 2 RAM. Due to semetry and utility I would suggest 4 Phalanx and 2 RAM.
Maintaining 2 RAM and 4 Phalanx would be best, because each RAM mount can take out between 11 and 15 missiles, and a Phalanx mount can take out between 8 and 10 missiles before running out of ammunition. Thus for both mounts to equal about the same kill ratio, a 4 to 2 ratio of Phalanx to RAM makes the most sense for a new construction Kentucky.

I understand that everyone has a real boner over the Mk110, but what people don't realize is that Phalanx Block 1B and the Bushmaster Mk38 Mod2 do the exact same thing. The automatically controlled Bushmaster is remarkably effective. So, one needs to ask himself: would you sacrifice a SPG-62/Mk91 illuminator or RAM for a Mk110 or a Mk45 5' gun or an Mk71 8" gun for a Mk110? Probably not. I like the idea of the Mk110 in place of the aft Mk37, but I think a RAM there is probably best.

I would have an illuminator (SPG-51 D/E or SPG-62 Mod2 Track/Scan) in place of the Mk-37 but forward of that would be a RAM mount.

I would only have Mk71Mod2 8"/60s in place of the 5" guns. If there is room in the O2 level, I would place your Mk110s there.

Illuminator.

What kind of small craft are you talking about? A boat, or a UAV? I would have the UAVs inside of the hanger and boats inside of the enclosed boat house.

For your consideration, here is a small line-drawing modification.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Hmm, I am curious about the need for the 8" guns. What role do they serve for which the 16" are overkill and 5" are too weak? Having the 8" reminds me of the pre-dreadnought configurations.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

You actually just answered you own question.

Just like you said, the 16" are too much and the 5" are too weak. The 5" guns are primarily useless so they are dropped completely. There will be no 5" guns on this ship, because they are useless. The 8" are what are needed for the mojority of fire missions. When large targets are designated, that 16" will be employed.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I have to leave for a while. I am attending a Navy school on big ship weapon systems for the next month or so. I will not be checking the forum frequently, so if you have any direct issues, ideas, or questions, PM me, and we will talk.

Happy modeling, guys, and Cliffy B, get work done on that DDH before I beat you to it, slacker!!!

EDIT: I actually have more time than I thought, so keep the critiques coming! For those interested, let's build a new battleship!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Here is a look at the new construction Montana as well. We are looking at 256 VLS tubes, 128 Tomahawks and 64 Harpoons fill the strike tubes of the ship. That is an aweful lot more than just the 128 VLS tubes that some in the Navy dictate.

This is the way to provide the maximum volume for fire, strike and support capability in place of super-expensive lost aircraft carriers. Either an Iowa or a Montana battleship would require less than 1/4 the crew of a carrier, 1/8th the annual cost, and deliver 4-8 times the ordnance of a CVN carrier. An Iowa or a Montana would indeed be the the center of a strike group, relieving the CVN deployment stress with an extra 2-4 hulls, and let the carriers go where carriers need to go instead of places where the carriers can't go but CGs and DDGs just can't do the job. Battleships might indeed rule the day, because of economic reality. Because ofeconomic reality. Does anyone have any rebuttles?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Russ,

I must correct and clarify something I said earlier. I said that going above 128 VLS tubes would not be wise because of current missile inventories...and then only a couple posts later I listed 192-256 tubes on a Montana and can be applied to the Kentucky as well.

The contradiction was that I did not positively clarify 64 of those tubes would be dedicated Harpoon tubes (tactical length), and 128 variable mission tubes (strike length). In such a configuration, the ship would have a load-out that would include 100-120 tomahawks, 8 tubes of ESSM (32 missiles), and 64 Harpoons.

For clarification, the ship should need to be able to sink or heavily damage 4-5 cruiser or destroyer type ships with missiles alone, and the Harpoon family is the only reliable anti-ship missile in the US Navy.

For the actual VLS arrangement, Russ, I would suggest they be situated in an almost peripheral type arrangement in 32-cell increments on the O-4 level. Amidships I would arrange two 32-cell side by side (narrow sides facing forward and aft with width facing the side of the ship) about 15' from center-line on both port and starboard with the Harpoon arrangement just aft of the aft stack on either side of the aft illuminators. Both VLS arrangements would be in line with each other.

Do you plan to make a model of this maybe?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Dave,

That arrangement is pretty much what I was thinking. Wish I could draw on here.
This is how I was picturing it
Between the stacks
1234--1234 Center line 1234--1234
x8__________________x8
or
1234 Centerline 1234
x8____________x8
1234__________1234
x8_____________x8

But I don't have the dimensions yet so don't know which is possible. Then:

1234 Stack 1234
x8________x8
But you're thinking
~~~~Stack~~~~~~~
1234_______1234
x8__________x8
~~~Director

Now, I'm trying to keep it quiet but I have a 1/350 NJ on its way to me from HK.
Now who can be convinced (or threatened, if needed) into casting 8" 60 mounts and turning the tubes??

_________________
Russ

I really didn't answer your question very well, Timmy. Let me try this again.

While I do believe 3 different large caliber guns are necessary, the 5" is not one of them. Sixteen-inch can destroy a wide variety of targets, but a lot of the time chasing down a Toyota Tacoma with a 16" round is awfully cool, but you risk destroying a lot more than just that truck. So, in the open countryside, oh, yeah! Turn that Toyota into a topographical change to the country! Inside a city, however, a smaller caliber weapon is required. The 5" can engage the truck (soft targets), but that's it. The 8", however, can be used against hardened targets and the truck. This way the truck gets destroyed without taking out everything else in 300 yard diameter. I suggest the only reason to have any 5" guns on the ship would be in the case that you could not put 8" guns on board...and that might actually be the case.

The next question is about the third gun: a small caliber weapon necessary to engage small craft. I believe the capability gap between the 8" and the next best thing(Mk38Mod2) is too great. Historically engaging small boats with big gun mounts is really difficult and should be avoided. Small "go fast" combatants are very dangerous to all ships, and as of now, what is needed is a Mk110 type gun to effectively neutralize them. While the Phalanx and Mk38Mod2 rip boats up, they are really only good for point defense, and Phalanx needs to be saved for anti-ship missiles and not necessarily small missile or gun craft.

So I suggest the large guns systems to be 16”, 8”, and 57mm.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Good points, and I agree mostly. However, I do wonder about the location of hardened targets that 5" cannot penetrate - how many hardened targets are in areas too sensitive for a 16" round? My stereotypical view is a roughly isolated location out in the middle of the countryside with fields or plains all around, not in the middle of a city or village. You know better than I, so let me know!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

[quote="Russ2146"]Russ, I see your key-board representation, and I raise you my own! Actually I am not quite smart enough to get your diagram, so in addition to the written description a couple of posts ago, here is my own representation. This is a top-down view, and it's the general arrangement.

Key:
| = RAM mount
^ or v = track and scan illuminator
|| = 32-cell VLS
I = stack
p = phalanx
... = spacers because the forum will not recognize spaces before the first letter of a paragraph.

.....|
.....^

.p.......p
.....I
.....I
..||..||
..||..||
.p......p
.....I
.....I
..||..||
..||v||
.....v
.....|

I hope this gets the picture I am seeing across. From the sounds of it this might be about what you have in mind, too. Now, in order to keep the O-4 level as narrow as possible, we might just need to do strips of modules a single module wide instead of 2 the wide a 32-cell requires here. The length would be a little greater, but it would be narrower. Once I get a basic overhead view of a Montana, I will be able to do a little alteration to better reprenset the idea.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I think maybe the same jerk-face who posted this picture in the "Reduced Cost Burke" thread. He apparently has Mk71 guns. I bet he even designed a reduced RCS housing and a 60caliber barrel.

Timmy,
Penetration: I would suggest that even though the building would be ruined anyway, busting bunkers under buildings without taking the building down (like USAF uses bunker busters) is a need for a low-yield hardened target penetration capability. The penetration is just extra reason for the 8". The overall effectiveness of the 8" over the 5" (2.5-3 times as powerful) is the real calling for 5" replacement throughout the entire fleet.

Also, the extra range of the 8" family is a good reason to have the 8" capability. Certainly the further you need to shoot, you will eventually have to step up into the 16" gun, but the potential unnecessary or unwanted destructive force of the 16" can be mitigated by the long legs of an 8" over a 5".

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance