The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed Oct 21, 2020 5:08 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 561 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 29  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Quote:
[That sounds pretty useless for anything other than fixed facilities. How much lethality does that round have to a platoon or company of soldiers, for example, or a group of insurgents holed up in a building? What is its final ballistics trajectory; I.E. is it going to still have a large horizontal component that might cause it to pass through the targeted building or can we give it a highly vertical trajectory so that it isn't a massive PR disaster?


The steepest the round came in at during test for max range was 45 degrees. I don't see why the fusing would be a problem (inside a building). We already have fuses that do that. The explosive delivered is extra. When a projectile arrives at Mack 3 it is carrying a lot of energy as it is. I don't have a weight on the warhead but it's 2 feet long and 6 inches in diameter "hyper explosive" not the standard high yield Composition D in most 16" rounds.

Quote:
12 minutes.... too long. Can't be used in fluid situations. That's why aircraft are tasked to loiter overhead.

You know aircraft do not loiter very long. Historically from Vietnam to today, there is too much area for aircraft to be on station all the time. They are only around for widows. Even when they are around, it frequently takes 30 minutes to get on station, so 12 minutes is way favorable, and that's on the longest possible range! Most of the operations the battleship will be engaged in will be within 120nm of the coast, and there are great munitions for that mission. The battleship is there 24 hours a day for a long time, and everything inside of their 120nm arch is vulnerable to 16” artillery. Yes, shadows are a problem, but people don’t always stay in there, and if they do for long, you position the ship to drop the rounds in on the far side of the hill. That is basic gunnery techniques.

Quote:
They also provide better deterrent due to the noise and presence they have; if you could set up a rolling barrage from a close ship that kept a constant boom-boom then yes, you can keep their heads down, but a 12 minute lag in control just does not provide for good support.

Once the aircraft drop its ordnance, they're done, so it does not matter if they make a lot of nose as ask to be shot down. :smallsmile:

Like I said, these are all debunked arguments that have been addressed. The battleship is there as long as it has ammo. NSFS has always trumped TACAIR. Some people refuse to believe it, but every time there has been NSFS in range of one's position, it has been absolutely preferred.

All these new rounds, new UAVs, and VLS tubes is make the battleship even more effective and even more applicable to the current world situation.

Lebanon
Syria
North Korea
Somalia

are the countries off the top of my head that have high priority in the world of terrorism that are well within 16" range, especially the 120nm rounds. Don't forget 80% of all third world countries are within 16" range, and 90% of population and developed area is within 5-20 miles of the shore.

That's another compelling reason why battleships are perfect for the littoral operations concerning the War on Terror, or any such "over seas contingency" stuff. :big_grin:

Of course there are ranges beyond that of the battleship's guns! The carriers do not need to be swapped for battleships, they compliment each other in their capabilities. Battleships are the cheap way of delivering ordnance within their range, and on top of that, they are highly effective. Outside the gun’s range, send aircraft so aircraft are not so stretched.

Just like in the '80s, the battleships would not be in carrier groups. They are not escorts. They are the center of their own battle groups (strike groups these days) and they would operate on their own and would be available to sprint to amphib groups if a surprise forced entry or departure was needed. :woo_hoo:

In 2006 when we were pulling people out of Lebanon, TACAIR was requested but denied, because the Syrian SAM cpability on 4 ocassions from people I have talked to. At least 4 times they had no TACAIR because the risk was too great. Naval gunnery.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10058
Location: EG48
I will agree to disagree with you then. I get tired of this form of auto-eroticism fairly quickly.... but I'm not saying anything negative about this thread.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Quote:
I get tired of this form of auto-eroticism fairly quickly....


Huh. I wonder what that means.

autoeroticism [ˌɔːtəʊɪˈrɒtɪˌsɪzəm], autoerotism [ˌɔːtəʊˈɛrəˌtɪzəm]
n
(Psychology) Psychol the arousal and use of one's own body as a sexual object, as through masturbation
autoerotic adj

OH, YUCK! Tracy, come on! :twitch: I don't stand in front of the mirror and do that! Ewww. That's what a girl friend is for, and boy does she do a good job :cool_2:

But seriously, the battleships are good for going where a we don't need to send a carrier but sometimes have to. So, instead of sending a carrier to the @$$hole of the world, Somalia, instead of where it does much more good, like the Persian Gulf, then we can send a battleship group and maintain a presence and pretty significant power projection capability for little relative money.

I will get back to you with the 7 to 10 missions a battleship does in place of a carrier. It's quoted a number of times. The one place I know for sure is Iowa Class Battleships: Their Design, Weapons and Equipment by Sumrall. The most recent number I saw was 10 of 12 missions, but I don't have a link to that one nor can I quote the source.

I am sorry the logic does not work out for you.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Anyway, back to the original purpose of this thread: Modifications made to the Iowas to make them better under a budget. If you need the stipulations again, hit up the beginning of Page 1 for clarification.

What would you like to see to bring the Iowa-class battleships up to electronics par and missile par with other surface combatants out there?

Remember, the Ticos have a max of 122 VLS tubes, and the Burkes have 96, and Aegis is way too fragile to go on the battleships. Something else is needed, an upgrade that addresses a new threat the battleships have not seen before.

Let the ideas roll!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11265
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
navydavesof wrote:
Something else is needed, an upgrade that addresses a new threat the battleships have not seen before.

Let the ideas roll!


So let us see what they -have- seen before, and how it was addressed:
Air: AA guns
Surface: big guns
Undersea: armour, size, helicopter?
Electronic warfare: giving, not receiving
Missiles: Phalanx


Not seen:
EM Pulse: Are they hardened against that?
Suicide boats: small guns with the ability to shoot at an extreme downward angle.
Anything else: It's hard to exhaust a negative.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 1028
Location: Porto, Portugal
If you're going to cut down on an Iowa's crew size, what are the chances of replacing them with Marines and helos?

If we're talking about using them in litoral warfare, a battle group around a battleship and a LHD might be the best of two worlds, with both air cover and artillery support, no?

Marco


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Quote:
If you're going to cut down on an Iowa's crew size, what are the chances of replacing them with Marines and helos?

What kind of helo and Marine capacity are you talking about? The commando conversion like Rusty White did is out of this particular scenerio due to cost. That conversion would take a really long time and would cost a whole lot of money.

However, my modernization has nearly the entire stern raised a foot like the fantails on the Iowas are now accomodating AFFF facilities. The entire elevated flight deck would be non-skid or flightdeck material and marked/fitted for a landing area for CH-53s, CH-46s, SH-60s, and with a greater replinishment capacity.

The purpose for this kind of stern configuration would be for launching SOF troops, an HVBSS team, and possibly embarked Marines.

Quote:
If we're talking about using them in litoral warfare, a battle group around a battleship and a LHD might be the best of two worlds, with both air cover and artillery support, no?

I certainly think that any amphibious operation going down would have the LHD/LHA, and the battleship would arrive to support the operation. I don't think they should run around together as a single group, though. For instance, the Makin Island MSG and the Iowa BSG would arrive off the coast of Lebanon, because the entire US population needed to get away, and needs NSFS like they did in 2006. Possibly Syria does something, and forces accumulate, and the two groups converge pretty quickly.

To me, it is preferable to have two capital ships as the center of two independent groups, because it gives you the ability to control twice as much area as a single group with two capital ships. When the concentration of power is suspected, both groups can operate within relative proximity of the area of interest. Just like with CVNs and LHDs, if the situation develops to where an assault is necessay, the two can converge on the area, and we will have the concentration necessary.

To accomplish the mission I believe you're talking about (a NSFS presence with an amphibious strike group) we should have escort ships equipped with heavy enough gunnery to provide a constant credible NSFS capability. The Spruance-class with the Mk71 8"/55 caliber gun up front would have done that remarkably well.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Quote:
Sounds compelling, but I have a few logic based questions.

AWESOME!!!

Quote:
How do you guide a 16" round with no fins and no manner to shift its' weight?

The barrle launched adaptive munition (BLAM) is a fuse on a pintle that literally goes where the original fuses go. The pintle maneuvers around, shifting drag on the round. The added drag alters the course of the round. This does not offer very much maneuverabilty, however, it provides enough to correct as much as a 600meter CEP to (I believe) only 3 meters max. So, you have to lay in a fire-control solution with either a guided or unguided round. The pintle fuse offers the maneuverability that brings it down from standard deflection and dispursion to a pin-point.

Quote:
If we'd still be using the standard rounds as needed, then the rifling would/must remain unchanged, correct?

Correct. The rifle patern, 2 twists for the length, remains the same. The only thing that would change that is the launch velocity. So far, everything we have put though, or wanted to, the 16"/50caliber barrels works well with the existing rifling.

Quote:
Would'nt the cost for producing these limited use projectiles be ridiculous?

The BLAM fuses was at $4,000 in 1991. I bet they'd be cheaper today.

The SCRAM jet rounds were quoted by Pratt&Whittney at $100,000 a piece in 2005.

16" 120nm RAP rounds were priced at $60,000 in 1991.

Quote:
How would you guide a finless, spinning projectile anyway?

See above :big_grin:

Quote:
BTW, whom are you trying to convince that we need these ships back in service?
[/quote]
Well, the case has already been made and a wonderful paper was written. Only congress can bring them back. The answer is to bring back at least the Iowa and Wisconsin. Politics is the only thing really standing in the way of reactivation and another 25 years of great service.

The ships are shockingly aggressive looking and offer a great deterrant. Let's not forget: When the USS Kitty Hawk transitted the Straights of Hormuz, Iranian missile craft would penetrate the group and make physical contact with the Kitty Hawk's hull (ramming) before turning around and running off.

Every time the battleships entered the Persian Gulf, the entire Southern half of the Iran/Iraq War would go quiet, including all naval activity. These are historical facts, and they support the effectiveness of the battleship...sometimes dwarfing that of the super carrier.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:23 am 
Tracy White wrote:
I will agree to disagree with you then. I get tired of this form of auto-eroticism fairly quickly.... but I'm not saying anything negative about this thread.



Not the words I would have chosen, but I do agree!


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
goldenpony wrote:
Tracy White wrote:
I will agree to disagree with you then. I get tired of this form of auto-eroticism fairly quickly.... but I'm not saying anything negative about this thread.



Not the words I would have chosen, but I do agree!

I love you guys. :wink:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:30 pm
Posts: 346
I'm enjoying this thread. I'm one of the ones that believe Wisconsin and Iowa should be utilized. :smallsmile:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:24 pm 
Hello guys, greetings from the Netherlands.

I read a few years ago the thriller ''STALIN'' A story about a Battleship ordered by ''nice'' Mr, Josef Stalin
to outclass the Yamato's from the japs. Very nice story.
300 meter length, 20'' (TWENTY INCH) GUNS. !!!!!!
Was laid up in Wladiwostok and in the 90-'s when the russian Navy was almost banktrupt some officers
(on instignation of an group of seapirates ) found it a very well idea to go on piracy themselves and
stop big cruiseships to loiter them of all their money and jewelry.
And also for the greater selfrespect of the russian navy that they could still mean a force to reckon
with on the oceans.
And just imagine yourself : a small wooden 40 feet boat with a small bunch of pirates with KA -47 and
a rocketlauncher --- OR---- a 900 feet Battleship pouring his 16 '' guns into you nostrils while youre
standing at the railing of the first class deck !!!!!
So they stopped a few ships and robbed them to the bones, butt then gouverments where so in shock and first
didn't want to believe that pirates would use a battleship that they asked goof old Uncle Sam if they
could send a carrier to get these pirates.
Instead the Navy (not wanting to risk a Carrier, and some airforces already undertook attacks on the Stalin battleship
and only learned that air to air rockets where like antique speares against 60 cm of armour and that all sophisticated
ECM and radar are not responding to old fashioned 20 and 40 mm massive slugs)decided that the only remedy to deal with this threat was also a battleship, even better two battleships to reactivate and to chase the Stalin .
Well, then starts a hunt for the russian superbattleship that is not willing to surrender and even wants to fight it out
with the former cold war adversary.
Well, for the end (and on the risk of being regarded as a sadistic fellow shipmodellor)I'm NOT going to give away the ending.
Just try go get the book and read for yourself, its a very good book.
For now, in three days the IPMS Nationals are here and I have my regiongroup a stand on this show, the largest on the
mainland of europe.
So far for now,
greetings Chris


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Chris,

Neato! That would be a very interesting piece to read.

People have a misconception about armor a lot of the time. They don't understand battleship armor can very effectively stop any missiles fired today.

This does not mean, however, that the battleships are invulnerable. I just means for their size they can take as much if not a little more punishment than a Nimitz-class carrier. The number in the 1980s was 100 tomahawk cruise missiles, 6 1000 lb bombs on the deck, unlimited Exocet and Harpoons, impervious to 5", 6 Mk48 ADCAPS along the entire length, and 12 SS-N-19 Shipwrecks (carrier killers with 2,200lb warheads). Armor helps out more than people think.

It's like if the Forrestals were the only super carriers we ever made, and they were mothballed only a few years after we made them, and we reverted to improved Essex-class carriers for 40 years. The Forrestals would be shockingly valuable assets given to us by past generations. The battleships are the same.

I still owe Tracy White the 7 out of 10 carrier missions battleships fill! Tomorrow the answer will come.

I hope this information adds to yoru knowledge.

-navydave

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Alright, guys, this is how I would modernize an Iowa-class battleship today:

2 Phalanx Block 1B mounts forward

2 RAM aft (amidships ahead of the aft stack)

96-128 Mk41 Mod 15 VLS tubes arranged in either 16x2 amidships and 32x2 aft or 32x2 amidships and 32x2 aft.

16 SLAM missiles in canisters

NULKA decoys

SPG-51D+ in place of all Mk37 secondary battery guidance positions

Modernized New Threat Upgrade suite
- SPS-48J (on aft mast), SPS-49E, Mk86+ missile direction system, SYS-2 (V) director computer, mid-course directorsx4

Full UAV suite with permanent UIC UAV detachment

Mk45 Mod4 guns in existing 5"/38cal mounts

A/N TPQ-37 Fire-finder (aft mast)

Up tp 10,000 tones of HY-100 armor installation on the stern deck and major JP-8 fuel capacity between decks 1&2 with port and starboard blow-out/drains.

Depending on budget:
Propulsion upgrade to that of the Makin Island

Variable Pitch propellers

437 cases of woop-ass

Complete screw redesign to eliminate stern vibration issues suffered since 1942.

C4I radomes on the forward fire-control tower, mast, aft mast, and possibly aft fire-control tower.

Mk-160 GFCS

Arleigh Burke-style optical range finders mounted on the "crow's nest"

Low-light cameras fitted in all range finding equipment

Immediate production of all 16" ERGM rounds

Anything else, guys? AND what do you think? Which pieces are unnecessary or what is missing?

-navydave

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
My two pennies on the pile here...

We'll start with the Guns:

First - 33nm range is being conservative - that's not even upgrading the guns to a truly modern use of the lessons of the man I term "Our Artillery Lord and Master" one Gerald Bull. The lessons that are the very reason that just about ever single 155mm howitzer in the world now outranges American guns - Extended Range Full Bore Munitions. What is this? They start by revising the rifling, boring out the gun just a hair - the round is bigger to fit in, more so because the new rifling removes the need for Driving Bands to generate the rifling spin. Now, Driving Bands are the weak spot in artillery rounds, because if you use propellant too strong, you'll blow the band off and the round won't go much of anywhere. Without the band, now we can use heavier propellant, putting more force behind a boat-tailed Base Bleed or Rocket Assist munition - the difference on payload is no different between the two packages, as the Base Bleed Gas Cartridge was originally designed to be optionally replacable with a rocket motor to boost the flight speed and extend the climb profile on the round.

Second - Scramjet rounds were a slightly different breed - they were smaller-caliber rounds that were fitted with a sabot to be fired from the 16" guns, so as to protect the scramjet internals during launch and avoid any other problems.

Third - If you wanted to go even further on improving the guns, you could improve the ignition of the charge with designs such as Electro-Thermal Chemical Ignition, which burns the propellant faster, and hotter, causing it to fully burn up in the course of launching the shell - this means even more power behind the round flying down range.


Then let's move to the systems...

First - AEGIS is unlikely, but the fact is, the defensive suite needs to be upgraded. Some form of AAW/ASW suite needs to be installed, as let's face it, this would be the kind of situation that will be brought up every time the carrier-humpers or the sub-gropers will step in the way of any concept of a battleship in service - it invariably does. "Oh, torpedoes will rape it" "An Aircraft Carrier can kick its ass from hundreds of miles away" etc etc etc. Of course, they also tend to forget the legendary case of Mo vs Wasp Group + Constellation during RIMPAC '91. Over the course of three days, and somehow Connie's planes just couldn't find the Missouri, in BROAD DAYLIGHT, let alone the night engagement when she beat the stuffing out of the Wasp group riding in like the Lone ranger, all guns blazing, knowing Full Well the group had Nothing that could stop her. Yeah, Oops.

Second - her powerplant needs to be R/R with an Upgraded model, hands bloody down. That was one of the expenses quoted when the time came around to review the operating costs of the Big Hitters. Maintenance costs were her biggest liability, but of course, those factored in because the fracking beancounters were too anal retentive when they reactivated and upgraded them in the first place. Funny how that works, isn't it? Rather than put out money to upgrade the powerplant and propulsion in the original reactivation, they cannibalized every other battleship they could to get the propulsion systems for the Big Four, because they couldn't even get new equipment for them. Hell or high water, if you're looking at reinstating the Battleships, they need a new powerplant, and nutshot any stupid beancounter that gets in the way this time.


Realistically, there's a lot that could be done to upgrade the Battleships, especially their main guns, that Modern knowledge could add to them. But to get there, you have to get past the carrier-humpers, the sub-gropers and the bean counters - long story short? Good Luck.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:46 pm
Posts: 18
This may seem sacrilegious in this thread to mention this, but what are your guys' opinions on the DDG-1000 and the CG(X)? Anyone up for an Iowa vs Zumwalt comparison? Speaking of the Zumwalt, does anyone know what the current construction status is? The last report (July 2008) indicated that the first two ships would be under construction by now, but I'm pretty sure that hasn't happened yet.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:03 pm
Posts: 466
I kind of jumped here from the beginning of the thread so if this was said before forgive me. I would of course advance the ships protective systems first, but then with today's gun technology so far superior to what it was when the ship was built, I would keep all the main turrets,and upgrade the barrels with maybe longer and better rifled barrels for longer range shots. Then you can add special munitions like the cluster bomb, or like I seen a new German tank have the ability to hit a target 9 times in quick succession for hardened targets like under ground bunkers. Cost wise 9 shells plus the powder and the men to operate the system I feel would come up a lot cheaper than one cruise missile. With todays computer , and GPS systems I'm sure they could get the accuracy down to about the same as a cruise missile given a certain range. Of course I think nuclear propulsion is the way to go for such a large ship, and that would also clear up room some room at least on deck. For possible long range weapons as well.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Quote:
This may seem sacrilegious in this thread to mention this, but what are your guys' opinions on the DDG-1000 and the CG(X)?


DDG-1000 and CG(X) are unfortnately too expensive for the Navy to buy in large enough numbers to do anything with. In fact, they are shockingly expensive. With only 3 DDG-1000s purchased, their extreme cost on purchase price and repair bills, they will be novelty items and extremely high-value assets. Remember, the Navy is paying $6.1 billion [Proceedings] for the first hull. That is more expensive than a nucler powered aircraft carrier.

If they cost around what the Arleigh Burke DDGs cost, they would be a good investment, but they are way, way too expensive to buy. The only reason why the Navy is having three built is because in Lockheed Martin's contract, the Navy was going to have to pay for two ships even if they canceled the project. So, instead, the navy went ahead and said, "well, since we're paying for two ships, let's have them." [DDG-1000 land attack coordinator]. Honestly, a smart choice. Procurement of the third ship is actually still in the air.

Quote:
Anyone up for an Iowa vs Zumwalt comparison?

Sure! The Iowa is a battleship. Zumwalt is a destroyer. There really is not much of a comparison. The only reason to compare them is beacause the Zumwalt was supposed to be "the replacement" for the Iowas. With even the largest weapons load out proposal, the Zumwalt was never going to approach what an Iowa-class battleship did with gunnery or what it COULD DO with gunnery. Because the debate with Zumwalt was always what "could it do" the equal comparison had to be made, "what could thd Iowas do?". The Iowas out performed the Zumwalt in every category except radar cross section. The Iowas "look like a tug boat pulling a barge" on radar. There are reports out there that directly compare numbers between an Iowa and the Zumwalt from gunnery to protection to range to potential armament to cost. There was no comparison between the two ships. The only rival a battleship has as far as capability is a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, and CVNs carry more total ordnance, go faster, are nuclear powered, and can strike deeper inland.

It just really sucks the Zumwalt costs so very much! They are interesting ships and look like they have a lot of potential as far as covert strike and support missions.

I have been pursing this topic since 2001, and I would like to hear what other people have read about Zumwalt vs. Iowa.

Quote:
Speaking of the Zumwalt, does anyone know what the current construction status is? The last report (July 2008) indicated that the first two ships would be under construction by now, but I'm pretty sure that hasn't happened yet

Awesome question. I would also like to see some pictures of construction. I am sure I saw the modular construction of that kind of hull. I have a supsicion it was LCS-2 instead of DDG-1000 though.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
prowannab wrote:
I kind of jumped here from the beginning of the thread so if this was said before forgive me. I would of course advance the ships protective systems first, but then with today's gun technology so far superior to what it was when the ship was built, I would keep all the main turrets,and upgrade the barrels with maybe longer and better rifled barrels for longer range shots. Then you can add special munitions like the cluster bomb, or like I seen a new German tank have the ability to hit a target 9 times in quick succession for hardened targets like under ground bunkers. Cost wise 9 shells plus the powder and the men to operate the system I feel would come up a lot cheaper than one cruise missile. With todays computer , and GPS systems I'm sure they could get the accuracy down to about the same as a cruise missile given a certain range. Of course I think nuclear propulsion is the way to go for such a large ship, and that would also clear up room some room at least on deck. For possible long range weapons as well.

Pretty good observations that a lot of people usually miss. I think you'd like reading the other posts. Different barrels were already designed, still 16"/50 caliber but just mono-barrel instead of lined barrels. They would have cut down on barrel errosion quite a bit.

Guided and other special munitions have alrady been developed and some tested, others just built. These rounds and new propellants are ready to be produced, and they would be an easy production line to start.

The Mk45 Mod4 gun would go in place of the existing Mk12 5"/38 caliber guns. This conversion will be easy. The Mk45 is literally a gun sitting on top of a box 2 decks deep. To install it, literally all that is done is the guts of the ammunition and handling room will be removed, and the entire assembly dropped into the armored box that frames up the handling room.

Newport News submitted a nuclear propulsion conversion in the late 1980s for the Iowas that would have cost $1.2 billion per ship and would have taken one ship out of service for 3 years. doing such a thing today would be pretty rough. The current propulsion plant is reliable and can be automated so it has far fewer personnel manning it.

I hope you like the rest of the thread!


Attachments:
File comment: Here is the modern gun I was talking about. While this is only the Mod2, I have been told the Mod4 has the same below-deck configuration.
WNUS_5-54_mk45_Installation_pic.jpg
WNUS_5-54_mk45_Installation_pic.jpg [ 24.96 KiB | Viewed 1228 times ]

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Oops! See next!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Last edited by navydavesof on Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 561 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 29  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 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

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