What-If Modern USN Battleship

[carr]

..

[carr]

..

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

With a BB at 900+shipI think we can really get a lot done. While the guns lay silent, the ship
could be conducting missile strikes, or most likely ISR with Shadow and ScanEagle UAVs.

[MatthewB]

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.

Lasers cannot be used at all as artillery, and they kind of suck at Anti-Ship as well, due to only being able to fire LoS.

And using a satellite mirror won�t work due to atmospheric distortions.

Rail-guys, though.... There you have all kinds of fun things you can do, included variable ballistic rounds (They have propellant and guidance systems to create extreme ballistics, making it possible to really confuse counter-battery fire). And that isn�t even the funnest thing you can do with them.

MB

[Admhawk]

Bob, Sorry this has taken so long, but life gets in the way.

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

What an odd and backward statement!
If you're in that kind of battle, it's the enemy that's in the wrong kind of battle because they're about to be obliterated by a battleship.

It�s not a backward statement at all. You said it yourself, a modern battleship is, primarily, a land attack platform and, secondarily, an anti-surface platform.

I agree.

To that end, a BB will have a large group of escorts to keep it safe, just like a modern Carrier Strike Group. That�s current Naval doctrine and strategy.

If a BB is offshore making holes in the ground of some enemy, what will it be fighting around it that requires so many defensive weapons?
- If there is another fleet nearby, the BB won�t be doing NFGS, it will be staying out of range or attacking the opposing fleet.
- If there are Aircraft coming in, the Carriers better be active as well as the rest of the battlegroup.
- If there are swarms of fast boats, why isn�t there a fleet taking them out?
- Etc, etc�

When I say the wrong kind of battle, I mean that the BB doesn�t operate alone and neither is it the only asset that is considered for an engagement. If a modern BB is being attacked by overwhelming firepower, then it�s pretty much game over because that means everything else has failed and the enemy is going to win. Or nobody wins because the big red button has been pushed.

A Naval planner wouldn�t send a BB into a fist fight with other Navies, without a whole lot of planning and support.

Current USN Strategy embraces the concept of Distributed Lethality.
http://www.navy.mil/strategic/SurfaceFo ... ontrol.pdf

While Current Naval Doctrine strives for a balance and offers peacetime objectives with deterrents to make fighting undesireable. NDP-1-Naval-Warfare-(Mar-2010)
https://dnnlgwick.blob.core.windows.net ... B7L%2FY%3D

If a modern BB was sent to fight a battle, it would be in a group. A typical standard formation provides a number of layers of defense within the battlespace, designed to give maximum protection to the fleet's high value units (HVUs). If a Carrier is present, it will have Combat Air Patrol and early warning aircraft 200 nautical miles (370 km) or more out from the main body. The ships of the outer screen operate between 12 and 25 nautical miles (22 and 46 km) from the main body. The inner screen is within 10 nautical miles (19 km) of the HVUs.

You do know how many defensive weapons a WWII Iowa had, right? Do you understand why they had that many? They had them so that they could stay in the fight even if the ship received damage.

Actually, they had them because they were so ineffective. If they had any hope of hitting a plane, they had to throw as much lead into the sky as possible to have any chance of hitting it. Missiles can be fired from pretty far away and are getting pretty fast. However, it only takes one hit to disable an incoming missile. The accuracy of modern AAW is far superior to those of WWII. So following modern practice, you simply don�t need as many.

Let's take the extreme case of a BB with a single close in AAW weapon. If it gets hit, even by simple shrapnel - it's unarmored, then the entire BB is just a floating target to be slowly pounded below the waves. Okay, that's valid, so let's give the ship two AAW weapons.

I agree. I neglected AAW weapons on my design, most likely because I was overwhelmed by the coolness of it.

A BB is MEANT to be in heavy fighting. Its unarmored topsides may well be riddled. That being the case, we're going to want as many AAW weapons as we can fit so that no amount of damage will leave the ship defenseless. This is also why I called for weapons that have their own sensors - so that no single hit can take out a radar and render all the AAW weapons inoperative.

I totally disagree. A BB used for NGFS shouldn�t be in heavy fighting. That�s what the screen of escorts are for. Same as a carrier. There is also the possibility of interference between so many sensors going active at once, then you�d have to have programming to determine which targets are selected so a million shots don�t concentrate on one missile, ignoring the others. Development of software seems to be a huge weakness in the modern day, delaying a number of weapon systems.

A note on responses - I'll gladly DISCUSS my battleship concept - it's fun - but I won't respond to people who want to nitpick, criticize, and argue for the sake of argument. We have several of those people on this forum and they contribute nothing worthwhile.

No need to be rude. Discussions include Criticisms and arguments to support ones views. If you can�t stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen. If my earlier response seemed heated, or angry, it was probably just the short pointed form it took.

Maybe consider throwing out your concept of a modern BB. You had a drawing that was, apparently, more of a cool-factor than a real concept. Maybe give it some thought and offer your modern BB features and see how they compare to mine?

I did. You dismissed it because I thought it was cool. Your response wasn�t what I expected. That doesn�t mean I didn�t think about it. Did you even read my responses to your queries? There may be some refinements that could be made, but I believe the concepts have merit.

For the record, I�m a huge fan of the Iowa Class. I�m even working on a 9 foot RC version of the New Jersey. I just don�t think 70 year old gun technology is sustainable in this day and age, no matter how cool it is. I also don't think that enough armor could be put on a ship to protect it. I also think Nuclear power is the only way to go with large ships. It reduces the amount of time needed to refuel, therefore the vulnerable UNREP window is smaller.

[navydavesof]

Admhawk, nice post but...no, I won�t suppport it. Your belief on BBs seems to be based more on lore rather than reality. There is a very practical reactivation and maintenance plan for the 65 year old Iowas. A new BB would be that plus 60 years...

[Admhawk]

Admhawk, nice post but...no, I won�t suppport it. Your belief on BBs seems to be based more on lore rather than reality. There is a very practical reactivation and maintenance plan for the 65 year old Iowas. A new BB would be that plus 60 years...

I'm not sure I understand "lore rather than reality", can you expand on that?

Which reactivation plan do you refer to? Link?

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

Here is my first draft of what the modern BB might look like!

Very capable and heavily loaded. What do you think?

[EJM]

Here is my first draft of what the modern BB might look like!

NewBB one half.jpg

Very capable and heavily loaded. What do you think?

Do you have a higher res version of that pic available? Some details are a bit hard to see. But I do love the concept! Very creative!

[InchHigh]

If a Kirov and an Iowa had a baby ...

[EJM]

I thought it was a cross between a Burke & an Iowa.

Or a Burke, Iowa, and HMS Daring.

[navydavesof]

I thought it was a cross between a Burke & an Iowa.

Or a Burke, Iowa, and HMS Daring.

An incredible 3some.

[navydavesof]

I just received the base model for this project and some pieces from shapeways. I am really excited about this. While work is getting busy and hectic, we will continue the discussion.

I especially want to focus on:
- Armor (especially missile defense)
- Torpedo defense system
- Armament
- Air facilities for UAVs and occasional air det
- Sensors
- Propulsion type
- Brass etch set
- Boat storage and boat type
- Embarked Marines? For what purpose?
- Paint scheme
- Use of wood on the deck
- The first reliable use of non legacy (SPS-48/49) air search radars but retaining the SPQ-9

...and this will all be dictated by mission set. What kind of mission should a modern day battleship execute? We will do the opposite of what the Navy does and actually dictate a mission FIRST and then configure a platform to meet that mission with room to grow.

[carr]

..

[InchHigh]

The Iowas rarely (never?) engaged in shore bombardment.

You should check that. Missouri bombarded Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the Japanese home islands during WWII. I'm sure the others were used as well.

[carr]

..

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

Base model is in hand. 16� turrets are in hand, 155mm/52caliber mounts and barrels are in hand. Now it�s time to lengthen and widen this bad boy. We�re looking at 2.5� in length and widen her by .4�

After the spacers, then the armor belt needs to go on, and the notched stern needs to be lengthened by about an inch. Easy day!