The Ship Model Forum

I have seen phototech VLS kits (it's basically the deck hatches) and you would just build up the superstructure to the appropriate height.

That's not really the point. While it is possible and feasible to go to sub caliber rounds, there is no longer a need for rifling. And nine of them is heavy overkill...emphasis on "heavy". Three of them would be plenty. That would free up tons for all the additional systems and weapons you suggested. But the biggest issue is cost and logistics. These ships are manpower intensive. And have increased fleet train requirements. They are not so economical to operate.

Well, as additions to the capital ship force, alleviating deployment stress off the CVNs, unfortunately the numbers disagree with you. In fact, the BBs are the most economical choice possible. See recent pages of the thread and the Alaska-class thread.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I find the whole "economics" issue to be irrelevant - the real question is what is the required capability, and then you work to find solutions to meet that capability.

I find it curious that no one has spoken of vertical guns or rail guns.

No single weapon is a panacea - I believe there is a role for naval artillery in the form of:
1. 120mm mortar
2. A weapon with able to fire NATO standard 155mm projectiles at 20nm+
3. A weapon able to deliver a 20-28cm projectile at 25nm+
4. A rail gun able to deliver projectiles at 200nm+
5. Cruise missiles
6. A missile able to deliver an area effect weapon with the same destruction as DPICM (Alternative Warhead Program (AWP)) at 75nm
7. A sea launched IRBM with a range exceeding 1000nm

Actually in todays budget conscious political environment, economics IS the primary issue. The cost to place two of these BBs back in service isn't justified by their usefulness and service life expectancy. Items that would be debated are .

1. The weapons it will carry.
With the advent of newer weapons such as rail guns and lasers. The battlefield effectiveness of carried weapons. cost of conversion. etc.
2. Manning levels .
Battleships are very manpower intensive, not much automation during an era of increased automation .
3. Training and schooling.
Older systems such as engineering and propulsion are badly outdated. Training for these systems must be maintained in the pipeline.
4. Supply and support
Fuel consumption, spare parts for obsolete equipment, stores for increased manning, stores for older weapons(shells, powder etc..)
5. Dollars spent per years expected in service..
How much longer will they be useable, spare parts and maintenance costs.
And theres only four of them. Irreplaceble to say the least. cost prohibitive to build new. VERRRry specialized .
So economics is actually the most relevant issue.
No one would love to see these ships back in service more than I.
And all of the weapons systems that we have bantered about are all good ideas.
But all of the above issues and many more will be debated by politicians and purse string holders and budget cutters.
Not by the ship lovers that we all are.

And in the reality of todays navy its not going to happen ..
Nice fantasy though

Mc

Economics is a collection of scientific theories about the production and exchange of goods and services; it is not a basis for engineering, and the political environment can change at a drop of the hat.

Too often projects fail from the onset because people write-off the solution set without consideration, because of pre-conceived notions about what is, or is not an option. I have seen so many bodged decisions made because organizations lacked the gumption to go back to Congress to ask for reasonable accommodations, that would have been happily sorted out by the appropriators.

When it comes to engineering projects, budget is a properly addressed as a constraint, not as the variable to be optimized. There is a very real difference when making trade-offs necessary in any design.

And no designer has ever truly been given blank check when it comes to weapon design. You would be shocked at the fiscal realities imposed on the military even in the midst of fighting WWII.

We simply cannot run about with our hair on fire because of what we think we cannot do, and get on with the business of making rational choices about what we must do. I am all about realigning our national strategy, eliminating superfluous largess, and slaughtering some sacred cows to focus on what we the country really needs. Those decisions are coming.

..

..

the actual reasons are money, age and theres only 4.
But they would be a submarine commander's dream come true...

"The reason why we don't have battleships in commission today is because they don't represent the image the US Navy wants to present today."

- Admiral Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, United States Navy - Surface Warfare Symposium, January 2009

With all due respect, it's hard to debate with the CNO...

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Unless you happen to be retired, a taxpayer, and work for one of the other branches of the USG - then its open season!

This was after the Captain in charge of the recently canceled 5" ERGM program and I had debated battleships with Adm Roughead for 10 minutes. He conceded after I refuted his reasons of TACAIR replacement, manning, ordnance, and O&M costs, he finally said the above statement. Even he could not continue the debate, and he said that the only reason why they are not in the fleet is because they don't "look" right for the "modern" USN. It makes perfect sense in the world of political correctness.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Unless you happen to be retired, a taxpayer, and work for one of the other branches of the USG - then its open season![/quote]

This was after the Captain in charge of the recently canceled 5" ERGM program and I had debated battleships with Adm Roughead for 10 minutes. He conceded after I refuted his reasons of TACAIR replacement, manning, ordnance, and O&M costs, he finally said the above statement. Even he could not continue the debate, and he said that the only reason why they are not in the fleet is because they don't "look" right for the "modern" USN. It makes perfect sense in the world of political correctness.[/quote]


Damn, you live dangerously David

“I'd like to have two armies: one for display with lovely guns, tanks, little soldiers, staffs, distinguished and doddering Generals, and dear little regimental officers who would be deeply concerned over their General's bowel movements or their Colonel's piles, an army that would be shown for a modest fee on every fairground in the country. The other would be the real one, composed entirely of young enthusiasts in camouflage uniforms, who would not be put on display, but from whom impossible efforts would be demanded and to whom all sorts of tricks would be taught. That's the army in which I should like to fight.”

Jean Lartéguy - An old French Paratrooper who fought in Algeria and Indochine

Great quote, my dear sir!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

David

You mentioned the canceling of the ERGM and have spoken of the trouble adapting some of the guidance packages from larger projectiles via PM. How much work would it take to enable the mk-45 to fire VULCANO rounds? The NFS version has an up to 100km range.

Boy, that's a good question, man. I don't know. It's probably a programming language issue.

There are several things to consider:
- The Mk45 guns the USN has right now are 3 different types and were made by 3 different companies: FMC, United Defense, and BAE.
- They are controlled by at least 2 different GFCS: Mk86 and Mk160.
- The Mk45 Mods1, 2, and 4 have different critical parts.

The critical parts are the EP panels and the ready-service loader (or the gun monkeys call it the "drum"). I don't know how far to technically describe, so I will just say that the Mod1 could fire the Deadeye SAL projectile. The Mod2 could not. The Mod4 is arranged specifically for extended range guided projectiles in excess of 5' in length. It's a programming issue inside the loader (how the rounds are programmed) and in the EP panels (the parts that tell the loader what to program into a GPS guided projectile).

So, with the projectiles, the Oto Volcano rounds undoubtedly speak Oto language, and the USN 5" guns speak FMC, UD, and BAE or Mk86 and Mk160 programming languages.

The 5" Excalibur round is being produced by BAE, and it is probably being readied for the Mk160 (and perhaps the Mk86 as well). I am willing to bet that the rounds will be firable from the Mk45 mod4 only. I would prefer the Excalibur, because it's RAP, ready for Dahlgren and ship-board testing, and it would provide both GPS and Semi-Active Laser seeker capabilities in every projectile.

Honestly, I think the Navy should perform a shoot off with 20 rounds of each type of ammunition at Dahlgren and then another 20 rounds from a newly upgraded CG (Bunker Hill, Antietam, etch) performing NGFS at groups of targets at different ranges at sea and another 20 at a moving target hulk with IR blooms on board. Then, whichever works better...let a contract.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I'd love a shoot off. Are the Ticos getting gun upgrades?

There is a LOT of conflicting information on the net about this. Some reports say yes, they are getting their Mod1 and Mod2 guns upgraded to the Mod4 and some say, hell no! It's not worth the effort!!!

The real answer is that yes, they are receiving upgrades to the gun and ready service loaders.

Pictures from USS Princeton CG-59:

New ready-service loader:


Modified gun, still shrink wrapped!

With this upgrade aboard the CGs, they do not replace the gun shield. The shield remains unchanged, but the internals are completely different. See the barrel length difference.

I say that an upgraded CG should do this instead of a DDG is because the upgraded CGs put the brand new DDGs to shame. The upgraded CGs can perform both BMD and AAW at the same time (a weakness of the DDGs), it has 122 VLS tubes, and two guns with two magazines.

Sure the VLS Aegis system should have been built on a stronger and more resilient hull, but the Ticos still pack a far greater punch and offer a greater capability over even the newest DDG.

If I were to design a properly "modern" CG, I would lengthen a DDG-51 hull to about 600' and give it a modernized CG-52 Aegis and sensor system with 128 - 160 VLS and 2 Mk71 8"/60caliber guns.

By the way....AMDR can suck a big one.... SPY-1(v)D plus the SPQ-9B is an extremely effective system against both ballistic and supersonic sea-skimming threats.

For this project, I will be doing a similar modification to the gun system for economical reasons. There is a large number of Mk45 Mod1 guns from the Spruance-class and first 5 Ticos in inventory. I propose pulling them and upgrading them to the Mod4 and replacing their weather shield with a proper splinter shield of 1 1/2" HSLA-80. That will increase the weight of the mounts quite a bit and slow the traverse rate a little, but it would protect the ships from near miss and other shrapnel. When dealing with a battleship , a ship that is expected to take hits, such armor/splinter protection is necessary.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Thank you David, that was some pretty informative information on the subject. In regards to SPY-1(v)D and SPQA-9B, my one concern is can they use Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination? Separate illuminators have always seemed a failure point to me. I love the APAR SMART-L combo our allies are using and the AMDR seemed like a closer match to its capabilities. Am I wrong in this thinking? I also have to wonder if converting the non VLS Ticos for shore bombardment wouldn't be a good use. I know the spares issue has been raised, but I'm talking about stripping AEGIS off completely. I don't know how much that might change the issue as I have no idea what parts got stripped.