Quote:
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.
While I share your enthusiasm for pushing forward the technology of gunnery, I understand that even if the battleships were to be reactivated, I don't believe they would receive the kind of gunnery upgrade you're talking about. That is such a departure from traditional gunnery that we would have to spend a long time developing it. The rotating band, for instance, is because the outside of the shell is so hard that it would smash over the rifling so it wouldn't be useful anymore. Os, if you're suggesting the entire exterior of the round be copper or some other soft material that would engage the lands and grooves of the rifling, I understand what you're saying.
The only big deal with the propulsion plants on the Iowas was manning. BAE systems already has a plan produced to automate the plants so three men would be on watch for 4 boilers at a time, and if all 8 were active 6 men would be on watch instead of 8 men per boiler per watch section. So, replacement would not be necessary. Training on the Babcocks/Wilcox boilers is no big deal. Send the Enginemen to school for three months to get back up on the boilers and call it an NEC (C-school). No big deal.
The only restrictions the 16"/50 cal guns, to my understanding, was chamber pressure. The barrels were SUPPOSEDLY over designed to a margin of 3x but there is no safe way to confidently push into the upper pressures. Heat is not a problem for those barrels. There is no compromising them with temperature from the burning propellants. Better propellant, however, is a completely positive thing. That is something that must be done no matter what. 50 year old shells is one thing. 50 year old powder...no. Let's just make new stuff.
Quote:
First - AEGIS is unlikely, but the fact is, the defensive suite needs to be upgraded.
Indeed. Aegis has its place, and battleships are not it to me. It costs too much, and the SPY-1 cannot take the over pressure; that is established. The SPY-3 might not either.
Quote:
Some form of AAW/ASW suite needs to be installed...
The only ASW I would put on it is ASROC in the VLS tubes. Making this thing a super mission ship is way too much. There were proposals for Aegis and a sonar suite with passive arrays between turrets 1 and 2. There was a battle carrier upgrade, but come one. They tried it on either the America or JFK. I think it was the America. These big ships pushing out greater than 200,000 shp just make too much noise for their own sonar to hear anything of use, and they have escorts.
Quote:
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.
No one knows about those engagements. Even when they find out about them, they shrug them off, because the case does not fit their belief structure. To them, battleships are archaic dinosaurs, and that's it. It does not matter what evidence comes forward, such as the comment made about me deriving sexual pleasure from myself
Some people will not let facts get in the way of their beliefs. Instead, they will call you names.
Quote:
...they need a new power plant, and nutshot any stupid beancounter that gets in the way this time.
I am still for keeping the original plants. Automating them takes care of the cost issue. I have asked project lead on the battleship reactivation of the 1980s for his opinion on this. I will let you know what he says. My thoughts are above.
Keep it coming, guys!