The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:29 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, 6, 7 ... 29  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
What kind of AAW system would you guys suggest be put on a battleship?

Some things to keep in mind are:

1) It's a capital ship so it would likely be outfitted like a CVN or an LHD.

2) Would we want to improve her defensive weapons beyond basic point defense (NSSM and RAM), with some kind of full fledge AAW capability making her a full BBG, or would we want to simply provide her NULKA and upgraded CIWS mounts?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:03 pm
Posts: 466
I've been thinking about this, What if the third or aft main battery turret was removed completely ? Then that alone would make room for the long range missile mounts, and because that is centralized in the ship the outer sides of that mount would make room for a sparrow missile mount on either side. Then at the aft mount gun tubs they could easily mount 2 phalanx systems. Then as a reflection of WWII ships they could easily mount another 2 phalanx on top of main gun mount 2. Also run down both sides of the ship you could also mount the 25mm chain guns.
The only real threat that I see that could really sink a modernized BB is the new supersonic torpedoes. Of course the escort ships could provide some sort of defense against such a threat, but with the reaction time being so little, that this threat alone will most likely keep the big girls grounded indefinitely. Realistically why would the bean counters ever let a ship of that size ever return to active duty, with the major costs of refitting, upgrades and maintenance. When a major weakness in her defense is so clear and so easy to capitalize on!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Quote:
I've been thinking about this, What if the third or aft main battery turret was removed completely ? Then that alone would make room for the long range missile mounts, and because that is centralized in the ship the outer sides of that mount would make room for a sparrow missile mount on either side. Then at the aft mount gun tubs they could easily mount 2 phalanx systems. Then as a reflection of WWII ships they could easily mount another 2 phalanx on top of main gun mount 2. Also run down both sides of the ship you could also mount the 25mm chain guns.
Realistically why would the bean counters ever let a ship of that size ever return to active duty, with the major costs of refitting, upgrades and maintenance. When a major weakness in her defense is so clear and so easy to capitalize on!!

You might want to read the rest of the thread. The missile systems are best done by VLS in the super structure. We only lose capability by removing a gun turret.

We have already talked about a lot of the things you said here, especially the Phalax issue. I think it was only two posts back Phalanx was addressed. There are several reasons why Phalanx on the turrets is a bad idea, but mainly they would be destroyed by the over-pressure of the guns. Size is on the ship's side. With missiles and torpedoes the way they are, you want to either be really small or really large, but you don't want to be in the middle. Cost is not an issue. Modernization and reactivation is pretty cheap. So, let's address what we have not:
Quote:
The only real threat that I see that could really sink a modernized BB is the new supersonic torpedoes. Of course the escort ships could provide some sort of defense against such a threat, but with the reaction time being so little, that this threat alone will most likely keep the big girls grounded indefinitely.

If that's true then all ships would be grounded. The battleships have the best torpedo defense system ever built. They can withstand as much torpedo damage as a carrier.

So, what about the direction system?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:03 pm
Posts: 466
That is very true about the defense of the torpedoes, but in now a day navy you have to have a carrier in theater, you don't really have to have a BB. I was just thinking of a new role for the BB. What if you still removed the aft main and installed as many missile to missile weapon systems as possible. Kind of like the patriot missile system. I know that there is another system than the pat but I forget what it's called. With the European missile shield being shut down by O'bama, there is a serious need for a mobile ballistic missile defense system. I think four of the ships with about eight different sets of systems on board the world would have a lot better night of sleep with these systems parked off shore, especially if you live with in the range of Kym yun ill.( I know I spelled that wrong North Korea's wacko dictator).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Quote:
but in now a day navy you have to have a carrier in theater, you don't really have to have a BB.

Well, you see, that's the thing. We don't have enough carriers to "have to have" a carrier in theater. The carrier fills the roll of a capital ship capable of delivering significantly more power than a group of small escorts over a greater range. When that is the capability requirement in a capital ship, and you have fewer carriers than "presence" requires, then you have to look other places for capital ships that can provide "presence". Presence is another of the battleship's strengths.

While the battleship does not deliver ordnance at the same ranges as a carrier, it delivers significantly more ordnance in volume and speed than a cluster of smaller ships and acts as a center piece (capital) ship for significantly less money than an aircraft carrier.

When you cannot afford a carrier but still need as massive power projection as possible with the money available, you look around to see what you have. A battleship provides a massive ordnance delivery capability for significantly less cost than a carrier. One of the advantages is that a battleship gives you as many if not more capital ships to maintain presence with very sharp teeth when you are not allowed to have as many carriers as you want.

So my exercise here is to see what other people think cost-effective upgrades to the battleships that I have not thought of already.

Quote:
What if you still removed the aft main and installed as many missile to missile weapon systems as possible.

The ship would be really out of trim. It would nose down badly. Even if the weight of the turret were kept somewhere on the stern of the ship, Patriot is a land base system that has a terrible time on a moving platform. The Navy has Aegis equipped for anti-ballistic missile, and it works very well to this point. Last I read we had 16 cruisers and destroyers so equipped. The battleships would need Aegis installed (which really can't be) and would only provide a capability we already have in place of a more valuable capability on a unique platform like a battleship. You can't put 16" guns on a cruiser, and they already come on a battleship.

Quote:
I think four of the ships with about eight different sets of systems on board the world would have a lot better night of sleep with these systems parked off shore, especially if you live with in the range of Kym yun ill.

CGs and DDGs take care of that. The Marines, Army, and Special Forces are the ones who sleep better because a battleship is off the coast. The pirates and terrorists have a hard time sleeping, which is so, so good.

Even though we can upgrade the defenses on a battleship, battleships are hugely offensive platforms. That quality that is rare and makes it an asset.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:50 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11302
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Along the vein of anti-torpedo defense, perhaps install some underwater decoy launchers for use against torpedoes?

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Timmy C wrote:
Along the vein of anti-torpedo defense, perhaps install some underwater decoy launchers for use against torpedoes?

They were all equipped with the Nixie Torpedo decoy upon their '80s reactivations. I am sure there have been improvements in the system since the '80s. Other than that, NIXIE is a widly used system in the Navy. In fact, every sincle ship in the Navy might have it.

I wonder if there is a new decoy type of system.


Attachments:
File comment: The NIXIE ports come are the two holes in Iowa's stern. The decoys come out of there and trail in the water.
08_uss_iowa_bb61_stern.jpg
08_uss_iowa_bb61_stern.jpg [ 91.34 KiB | Viewed 948 times ]

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:19 pm
Posts: 122
This is an interesting subject to start off with.

The first thing is removing one of the turrets i would think is not in the best interest of the ship considering the main reason for the re-activation was the 16"50 Cal main batteries, which no other ship in the fleet has that caliber of gun afloat. Rather remove the 5"guns and use that space for a VLS system, considering there are 6 left on the ship. ALso bring into use the rocket assisted round for the 16"50 main batteries and you have increased the range greatly.

The biggest issue with those ships is the main propulsion systems. The cost of up keep of these ships was the main reason for there decommissionings. So if they modernize the power plant systems i would imagine that would be a cost savings during the life of the ship while in service.

Just some thoughts.

Regards
Dave


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:03 pm
Posts: 466
Although I do agree with both of you on the rear turret removal. I feel that the ship still has 6-16" guns and that is still pretty impressive for naval guns for the current navy. I was just simply trying to stir up some thoughts as to what could be utilized for a more efficient BB for the current navy.
I do think that for a major upgrade it all lies in the munitions that could possible be used for multiple different roles.Like you have to have a heavy hitter shell, a bunker buster shell, a disbursement shell for large area ground force attacks. I was just thinking of maybe a shell that would go along with the ground disbursement shell but for naval targets. have the shell disburse around 1/2-3/4 mile above the water and each individual round be able to read different targets and be able to hit 2-3 even 4 different targets. Once the individual rounds find a target send a gps cordinate back to a unmanned A/C and then relayed back to the BB to let the big guns let loose with exact positioning to give 100% hit probability. I don't know, just throwing things out there. Take care and please lat me know how bad of an idea this is. :lol_pound:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
prowannab wrote:
I feel that the ship still has 6-16" guns and that is still pretty impressive for naval guns for the current navy.

Check out my USS Kentucky thread on here. It is a project I started and would like to finish if I have the time, but it's what I think the Kentucky would have looked like if she were finished as a guided missile battleship in 1961 AND if she had been modernized in the 1980s with better AAW systems and Mk26 launchers and all the things the Iowas received.

Quote:
I was just simply trying to stir up some thoughts as to what could be utilized for a more efficient BB for the current navy.
I do think that for a major upgrade it all lies in the munitions that could possible be used for multiple different roles.

Absolutely it's possible. The 16" guns had all kinds of new munitions ready to be put into service by 1993. The submunition round had 660 mortars in it, and RAP round went 120nm, the discarding sabot round went 46nm easy, etc. There were lots ready for development and fielding. Decommissioning was a political move, not a military one.

The Mk8 AP round standard anti-battleship round is still the best bunker buster we have developed; penetration of 32' of granit or reinforced concrete.

All of the guided shells were going to be either GPS or laser. GPS is good for stationary targets only. Laser guided gives you the ability to follow something around while the round is in the air, such as a truck.

Now, I am not just talking 16" artillery. Guided artillery has been absolutely neglected by the military and Navy in particular. It is a wonderful technology that needs to be exploited. 16 is the best, 8 is best for CG and DDG ships, and 5" is great for secondary weapons.

But yes, to again answer your question, the guided rounds have been developed, and more can be developed easily. They are any kind of future of battleship or artillery employment. That's why they were developed for the battleships.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Does anyone have input concerning the use of the new laser interceptor weapon system?

This is the one that shoots down artillery rounds, an dof ourse missiles.

Next to that, specifically, what kind of AAW system should the battleship have? My ideas are the LEAST of the Mk92 fire control radar fitted aboard the Perry class FF and the New Threat Upgraded fitted aboard CGs and DDs making them DDGs.

NTU is the next best thing to Aegis, and today with better weapons direction systgems (WDS) NTU would be amazingly good.

So, what do we think, guys?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:03 pm
Posts: 466
In my opinion you would have to remove one of the ships major artillery systems to make room for the laser systems. On that point you would most certainly have to have nuclear power plant just to power that major power system. I mean seriously you have to have a serious amount of battery power to run a system like that. As it was the last time I heard of it took an entire 747 to have enough battery power to run just a couple shots from something like that. but then that also brings us back to what I was speaking of earlier about anti ballistic missile defense systems that were just out of the question, so is it out of the question or not?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
prowannab wrote:
In my opinion you would have to remove one of the ships major artillery systems to make room for the laser systems. On that point you would most certainly have to have nuclear power plant just to power that major power system. I mean seriously you have to have a serious amount of battery power to run a system like that. As it was the last time I heard of it took an entire 747 to have enough battery power to run just a couple shots from something like that. but then that also brings us back to what I was speaking of earlier about anti ballistic missile defense systems that were just out of the question, so is it out of the question or not?


Seriously, no, under no circumstances do you have to remove a turret. Seriously, this has seriously been considered. Seriously.

The laser system is smaller than a Phalanx mount.

But seriously, this system is not about frying a ballistic missile out of the air at 400 miles with 80 megawatts of energy. We're talking about shooting down a cruise missile at 10 miles. Check out the link and then try to find the video on line. It's shot down missiles and 155mm artillery rounds.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 46d3ad113f

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:40 pm
Posts: 1133
Location: New Jersey
I'm a bit confused and maybe somebody could shed more light on this. Who exactly owns the New Jersey and Missouri? Can the fed if necessary reinstate these ships (I'm pretty sure the fed can do anything it wants!)?

I ask this because I've been to the New Jersey multiple times, and as much as I love being able to fully tour the ship, it pains me to see it sitting there as a museum, especially when I consider the rich amount of history the ship has in protecting our nations interests as well as soldiers. It should be out there doing the same to this day. I don't know how much revenue the museum generates per year, but I don't think it's doing as well as the Missouri or Wisconsin, and that's a fear to me. With the Yorktown museum basically being told repair the ship or scrap it I worry that this could happen to the Big J.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:46 pm
Posts: 18
I believe that BB-62 is owned by the State of New Jersey and is officially registered on the National Register of Historical Places, so I think that means BB-62 is somewhat supported by the federal tax payer money.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:31 pm
Posts: 23
Location: New Jersey, US
RhombusJr wrote:
I believe that BB-62 is owned by the State of New Jersey and is officially registered on the National Register of Historical Places, so I think that means BB-62 is somewhat supported by the federal tax payer money.


The New Jersey is "on loan" and subject to recall.

Strict conditions are to be maintained and she is periodically inspected to assure these are met. Failure to maintain her in accordance with these readiness levels can result in her being reclaimed by the Navy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
I was always under that impression with noth New Jersey and Missouri. Even though the Wisconsin has been "struck" from the naval register, she is still preserved exactly as she was being "mothballed".

This effort proves the military utility of the battleships. The wide bredth of missions the battleships can fill as they are proves their worth. The expanded horizons of an upgraded battleship increases, possibly doubles, the missions it can fulfill.

So, anyone up for what degree of AAW upgrades the ship should have?

1. Upgrade point/self-defense weapons (NSSM, RAM, Phalanx Block 1B, upgraded SURBOC and NULKA).

2. Autonomous AAW suite capable of engaging with SM-2s.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
If you guys want a really solid and in depth look into the reactivation of the battleships in the 1980s, there is a new book to add to the list. "A History of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard" by Richard A. Landergraff. You can only buy this on Amazon.com. He was involved in a myriad of incredibly influential events that went down at that ship yard, most notably the reactivation of New Jersey, Missouri, and consultation for the Iowa and Wisconsin.

The depth of knowledge is great, and he sheds light on many, many questions about reactivation such as installation of additional equipment below decks, zinc anode installation that made all the difference in corrosion of the rivets in the hull, shipalts, where more armor was added, why HY-80 steel was used in place of STS, and a host of other questions that had been unanswered by all the other battleship books.

This firsthand account really lays to rest a whole lot of the rumors and conjecture by non-naval architects. It is an incredible read for anyone who wants to have a peak into what really went down with those four ships.

I have been in contact with the author concerning this thread topic, modernizing the Iowas in 2006, and he has been a source of priceless information. If you really want to know...for real...what happened with those ships, I highly encourage you to order and read his book.

So, any takers on the AAW question? We have input illustrating a whole host of CIWS mounts for point defense, but what about an AAW suite? Other than Aegis, because Aegis and battleships don't really mix, what would you offer to put on the ship and where would you put it?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
NTU AAW suite, personally. SPS-48 on an aft mast, standing behind the stack, with the 5" directors replaced for the track/illuminate package of the suite. The two centerline 5" directors would do quite nicely for improving both broadside and full area coverage of any AAW suite. The VLS could support most systems. You'd probably need SPG-55B (C?) systems for the full track and illuminate capacity and to get optimized range, as IIRC the SPG-51 does not provide enough reach to support SM-ER series missiles - notice that all the ones that had SM-ER were 55 operators, not 51's. But, I could be wrong, so who knows.

There's my two pennies, though I'm sure, Dave, you could see me going for broke on the suite and donkey-punch the beancounters who stand in my way. I'm a Battleship man, Damnit!

_________________
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: Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Ladies and Gentlemen, my I introduce the idea-intense Mr. Sauragnmon:

Quote:
NTU AAW suite, personally. SPS-48 on an aft mast, standing behind the stack, with the 5" directors replaced for the track/illuminate package of the suite.

I agree. Once I discovered what made the Kidd-class DDGs so special, I knew that the search for the apex of AAW suite for the battleships had been reached. The New Threat Upgrade in 1988 rivaled Aegis with off-the-shelf parts. With an upgraded version of one of the two weapon direction systems (WDS) that were "upgraded" in the upgrade [the Mk74 and Mk86 (not to be confused with the fire-control system) WDS], I think it is safe to say a modern NTU would be so far and beyond what would be expected that its integration into the Aegis envelope, the battleship and its BSG would be well shielded from cruise missile, theater ballistic missile, and aircraft attack.

For best coverage and best return on the money, even the base-line NTU would be the choice.

Quote:
The VLS could support most systems.

Indeed it could, but I am afraid the SM-2ERs fired by the Laheay, Belknap, etc were unique to those ships and incompatable with VLS. They were too long. As you know, modern ER missiles fit into the tubes fine, and the SPG-62s guide them well. Since the SPG-51 "D" nearly doubled the output of the "B", I have a feeling an "E" or "F" would increase the power even more.

Quote:
and donkey-punch the beancounters who stand in my way.

Oh, my! The donkey-punch is quite a maneuver. Maybe something more vulgar like the "Alabama Hotpocket" might be more appropriate.

This coming weekend will be my first weekend off in 4 weeks straight. I am running a gunshoot this week, and I have our Final Evaluation Process (FEP) next week. So, this weekend, I am going to be running hard on working out and doing my models. I will build at least the mast for my 2006-2009 USS Iowa. After heavy sketching and preparation, I am going to use the mast of the USS Bataan as a basis and customize it to the battleship a little more than that of the later LHDs' arrangements. Then while the plastic is out, the aft mast for the 1988 USS Kentucky (BBG-66). I am basing that one similarly on the aft mast of the USS Longbeach.

I will also be working heavily on the "Future Large Surface Combatant" and USS Spruance upgraded to a DDG and equipped for a primary mission of NSFS through the HM&E Warfighting Improvement Program.

I have my Mk71 Major Caliber Lightweight Gun in, and I am SO happy. I cannot illustrate how awesome this thing is. The craftsmanship is exactly what I hoped for. It's already to go onto Spruance's bow.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


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, 6, 7 ... 29  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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