Shipbucket

So, what would you kill to build something like this?
Carrier construction is already as low as it can get without loosing the capability completely.
You can't slow down DDG production because it's going to need just as many escorts as a CVN.
You can't touch the amphibs either, since they are the reason you're building it in the first place
You can't slow down SSN/SSBN production for much the same reasons as the carrier.
That leaves us with the LCS and preciously little else, and the killing that program won't even be enough for a tech demonstrator.
You could probably cut a lot of research programs, but that would leave you behind on the development curve, something you're not interested in either.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

I still don't see anything that can not be done by the zumwalts. even if you are right, just building one extra zumwalt would solve a lot already, IMO.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Well Colonel Shawn A. Welch addressed that;







We have 11 super carriers. And 9 40,000 t Amphibious Assault ships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp_class ... sault_ship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarawa_cla ... sault_ship

Our air cover is fine. Not to mention, 4 simulated BB's made more kills in the OMFTS scenario than air power did within their designated range bands.

Check my previous post for the link to this doc btw.

I have to go back to work now. I'll pick this back up later.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

That's absolutely true. Basically it comes down to cost comparisons. I'll talk a little about that when I get off work and have some time here at home.

You should definitely read that doc tho Lance, you'd probably find it really interesting.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

That doesn't really answer my question.
It's clear that you're not going to get this ship* and everything else the USN has now/under construction.
Now, right now the USN operates 11 carriers. As I understand it they are looking at reducing that to 10 within the foreseeable future in order to cut costs. Further cuts have been considered, but if they go lover, construction costs would either explode or the relevant industries go out of business. Same with the support facilities.
So I ask again which of the ships currently in service are you going to scrap/sell off to be available to afford this BBX?

Note, I'm not saying that it wouldn't be better at shore bombardment than a carrier, a dedicated platform will almost always be. However aside from range, a carrier can do a whole lot more than a BBX. You're comparing pocket calculators with laptops. Sure, a calculator is a lot cheaper than a laptop and it can do all the math I'm ever going to need, however I'd still buy a laptop because it can do so many other things aside from math.

*I'm assuming a single ship because otherwise the results are going to go butterfly.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Well Colonel Shawn Welch isn't advocating for a BB(X), he keeps things simple within the scenarios I outlined above. His modern capital warship would be similar to the Iowa, not the DD(X). Thus much cheaper than my BB(X) concept. His thesis relies mostly on existing technology. He outlays several scenarios for mitigating the joint fires gap. However, building a modern capital warship with major caliber guns would be feasible with the elimination of the planned 12th CVN set to be laid down 2015-2019, and most cost effective.

Also, Colonel Welch outlines some of the long-range projectiles designed for 16" guns for the Iowa's, which are still viable for future research/production. One was a mass-fraction rocket based projectile designed in the 70's, which would have had a range in excess of 200 nm, and a Ram jet projectile, which had a feasible range of 400 nm.

The main problem here, is that you're actually comparing two different scenarios. It is true that a carrier and future battleship would be very different. However the difference is, is that we already have 11 carriers. However, we have no surface assets capable of mitigating the joint-fires gap. He's arguing for balance.

Debating a BB(X) is inherently different. Because the ship I outlined in the beginning of this thread is 2/3rd the price of a carrier, much more than the more simple capital warship that the Colonel outlines, and while it would easily mitigate the joint-fires gap, it fills a different role. It depends on what you're wanting to discuss as far as the BB(X) goes.

I originally conceived the BB(X) when the Chinese unveiled their DF-21D ballistic anti-ship missile. It's a medium range ballistic missile converted to a be armed with a kinetic kill warhead. Possibly with MIRV's, all armed with kinetic kill warheads. Currently the USN has stated that there may be no known defenses that could reliably defend against such a threat once it's in the terminal phase. (It's speed upon impact is in excess of Mach 10). They've also used another version of the same missile to shoot down a satellite in relatively high-earth orbit.

A BB(X) is designed with the idea that carriers may not be able to operate with the same amount of ease in combat zones as they did in the past. A BB(X) could have a relatively small RCS and the ability to operate with more viability in contested combat zones with an opponent that has similar weapons to the Chinese. With technologies like this, we have to assume that they can destroy a carrier as long as they can target it. This may lead to ASAT operations on both sides (to destroy spy satellites/GPS satellites capable of locating and targeting them). While a BB(X) wouldn't be invincible to radar by any means, it could have a much smaller RCS than a carrier, which has a giant flat flight deck to worry about.

The idea being, that a BB(X) could move in and hit ballistic missile locations, along with stealth aircraft in lieu of a carrier moving into range for more conventional strike missions. A BB(X) also would not be exposed to advanced SAM threats, while carrier aircraft would in the early stages of any type of opening strike. With the known missile locations hopefully knocked out, a carrier could enter into range more safely than otherwise. This of course assumes that the DF-21D is the only type of missile taken into consideration for such a scenario (it has a range of 3000 km). And of course it would also mitigate the joint-fires gap as well. Joy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASBM

Also, it's important to remember that a battleship with cruise missiles and UAV's can easily have a range of 1200-1700 miles. And can fill many of the missions a carrier can within that range. A carrier has a similar range, except when accounting for refueling. In order to understand the problems with the joint-fires gap, you'll have to read his thesis. It will explain everything to you very clearly regarding that problem.

Also, one BB(X) or one Capital Warship wouldn't be able to mitigate the joint-fires gap. Because one ship cannot be on station all year long. It has to take its crew back home at the end of their deployment, has to refuel/rearm, has to do any number of things that take it away from it's combat zone. Therefore you need around 3-4 ships to adequately fulfill the needs of the USMC and USN.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

You're still not answering my question. I'm asking where you'd get the money. The USN is set to cut its carrier force to 10 carriers within the foreseeable future (Decom date for the Nimitz has yet to be released AFAIK, but I'm sure it has been decided on some level already)
Any less than that and the cost will skyrocket or the capability to build said carriers will disappear, so there's no 12th carrier to replace.
It doesn't matter whether it costs a third or less of what a carrier does, fact is there's no money to buy an additional class of capital ships unless you cut somewhere else, and as I've listed above the options are pretty limited.
And we haven't even begun on all the other issues a battleship has to deal with. (Hint: There's a whole lot of them)

Edit: While it's true that the US (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't have any weapon capable of intercepting the DF-21D once it has gone terminal, it's equally true that the Chineese (or anyone else for that matter) have the means to target anything but stationary targets. OTH radars aren't accurate enough, an aircraft won't survive long enough inside the CVBGs radar envelope, subs can't remain silent and transmit the data at the same time and satellites can't be repositioned fast enough.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Just a point CATZ, re activating the Iowa's is not an option any more, their too old and tired, they are,what? nearly 70 years old? They just cannot do what they did in their glory days,in 2000 the sea going Iowa's could not reach 28 knots and their guns are really old, they might not have been replaced since the 50's and I doubt there are many unused guns left over

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

That's what Colonel Welch also believes. However he covered that in his thesis, just so he could say he covered all feasible options that are relevant to the situation. He basically did a Pro's and Con's of all the different options, as he "laid them out on the table." Then gave his conclusion at the end.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

There's none. They sold the last barrels and liners a couple of months ago.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.