Modern Battleships- The BB(X)

Thiel wrote:

Rodondo wrote:

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

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

Right, but the thesis is a couple years old. lol.

I've never been a fan of reactivating those rust buckets either. That's why we have a BB(X) thread, and not a "Iowa reactivation" thread.

It's important to remember that I'm not Pro-BB in the conventional sense.

I think the best options are, in order of preference:

1.) Build capital warships with major caliber guns

2.) Build 7-24 DD(X)'s.

3.) Reactivate the Iowa's.

Colonel Welch has roughly similar preferences. With the best option clearly being to build a new capital warship, and the second best option being to build additional DD(X)'s.

Option 3 would now require the re-construction of infrastructure for production of said guns and liners.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

Thiel wrote:

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.

The Navy is still wanting to build a 12th carrier. Since we're talking about 2015-2019 here, it's still by no way certain that they will not.

Also, the DF-21 has been modified into the SC-19, which shot down a satellite. So clearly they can hit moving targets. Ones traveling at Mach 25, at that.

Also, about hitting moving surface targets:

China has recently launched a series of satellites to support its ASBM efforts:

Yaogan-VII electro-optical satellite - 9 December 2009
Yaogan-VIII synthetic aperture radar satellite - 14 December 2009
Yaogan-IX Naval Ocean Surveillance System (NOSS) constellation (3 satellites in formation) - 5 March 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

CATZ wrote:

The Navy is still wanting to build a 12th carrier. Since we're talking about 2015-2019 here, it's still by no way certain that they will not.

No, they are building replacements for the ones that will be decommed over the next decade or so.

_________________
“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.

Thiel wrote:

CATZ wrote:

The Navy is still wanting to build a 12th carrier. Since we're talking about 2015-2019 here, it's still by no way certain that they will not.

No, they are building replacements for the ones that will be decommed over the next decade or so.

Colonel Welch talks about the plans to build a 12th carrier in his thesis. How true that remains now, several years later, is unknown to me.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

barnest2 wrote:

Okay, I thought I would extend my post to some critique.

Your ship is currently costing 600-800 million dollars for than a current super-carrier. Hell, it's over 3 billions dollars more than the Ford class currently under construction. Why should the US military build one of these instead of 1-2 super-carriers?

Your weapon outfit:
Why are you mounting 16' guns? A 5 inch gun is the biggest gun needed in the modern day. An 8 inch gun would be too much really, and this feels like an excuse to have big guns, when there is no need for them strategically. There are no surface combatants that need 16 inch shells placed into their deck at high speed, and mounting 3 triple 5 inch turrets would be completely adequate for the task of shore bombardment.
Added to this, making 16 inch barrels is a very expensive task, and one that hasn't been done (I believe) for at least 40 years or so (I don't know when Iowa's barrels were last replaced, if ever).

The 6 inch guns to port and starboard, which I'm going to assume is 4 twin turrets (though may be two quad turrets). These should be your primary armament. Why even have a secondary armament when you have such a big primary armament, that will be used only for shore bombardment? You're adding cost, and it feels like the only reason is in order to make it more like battleships of old. If for some reason we accepted the proposal of three 16 inch turrets, we have no reason for a secondary gun armament, assuming you ave a capable AA and AS missile armament.

You have eight millennium guns for point defence... while I don't think you need more than four on the centreline, I will accept this, as such a big ship will need very, very good active defences.

I have no comments on the VLS load out. It's load-out is more than capable of engaging surface, air, and submerged targets.

So based entirely on the weapons mounted, it feels like you are aiming for the feel of an old time battleship, with it's large gun armament, for no better reason than for it to look well armed. You do not need this many barrels, particularly not with the missile armament.

So I restate my initial question. What do you see this ship doing?

Quote:

Your ship is currently costing 600-800 million dollars for than a current super-carrier. Hell, it's over 3 billions dollars more than the Ford class currently under construction. Why should the US military build one of these instead of 1-2 super-carriers?

According to Colonel Welch and the G.A.O, a new carrier costs roughly $13.0 billion to build. And the air-wing for it will cost an additional $19 billion.

So I'm not sure where you are getting that crazy estimation of 600-800 million dollars more than the 6-7 billion dollar BB(X)'s.

Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, the Ford Class costs $14.0 billion to build.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._ ... ft_carrier

Quote:

Your weapon outfit:
Why are you mounting 16' guns? A 5 inch gun is the biggest gun needed in the modern day. An 8 inch gun would be too much really, and this feels like an excuse to have big guns, when there is no need for them strategically. There are no surface combatants that need 16 inch shells placed into their deck at high speed, and mounting 3 triple 5 inch turrets would be completely adequate for the task of shore bombardment.
Added to this, making 16 inch barrels is a very expensive task, and one that hasn't been done (I believe) for at least 40 years or so (I don't know when Iowa's barrels were last replaced, if ever).

Because 16" guns are far more effective for mitigating the joint-fires gap than 5" munitions. And result in far more kills than 5" or carrier-aircraft in the OMFTS scenario. It has nothing to do with armor penetration, but rather, with rounds on target and number of targets overall stipulated by the scenario. Currently, we use bunker busting bombs to hit some of these targets, however doing so places the aircraft dropping them in danger.

Lethality comparisons:

[ img ]

With the advent of guided projectiles, there is no reason not to use major caliber gunfire instead of air ordinance, when the target is within range.

Quote:

The 6 inch guns to port and starboard, which I'm going to assume is 4 twin turrets (though may be two quad turrets). These should be your primary armament. Why even have a secondary armament when you have such a big primary armament, that will be used only for shore bombardment? You're adding cost, and it feels like the only reason is in order to make it more like battleships of old. If for some reason we accepted the proposal of three 16 inch turrets, we have no reason for a secondary gun armament, assuming you ave a capable AA and AS missile armament.

Because you can carry more rounds, thus stay on station longer, when using smaller guns to accomplish the missions which do not require heavy ordinance on target to achieve probable lethality. Also, some missions may be in areas where civilians or other non-engageable assets are in the vicinity, thus a large gun round may not be suitable. In such a case, smaller 155mm shells can be used to prevent unacceptable collateral damage.

Quote:

You have eight millennium guns for point defence... while I don't think you need more than four on the centreline, I will accept this, as such a big ship will need very, very good active defences.

True.

My main concern was saturation attacks, which are considered the most viable threat against ships defended by AEGIS, or AEGIS escorts.

Quote:

So based entirely on the weapons mounted, it feels like you are aiming for the feel of an old time battleship, with it's large gun armament, for no better reason than for it to look well armed. You do not need this many barrels, particularly not with the missile armament.

VLS cannot currently be reloaded at sea. Thus have limitations resulting thereof. Which is one of the reasons major caliber gunfire is considered optimal for mitigating the Joint-Fires gap. It's also why the capital surface warships in the OMFTS scenario achieved higher kills than both carriers, DD(X)'s and conventional 5" armed DDG-51's.

Quote:

So I restate my initial question. What do you see this ship doing

I discussed that a couple posts ago. Opening strikes and forced entry scenario's being my main concerns; especially against opponents with weaponry similar to the Chinese. I.e, the ability to threaten carriers to a significant degree, limiting their viability to operate in a contested combat zone.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

I thought it was 6-7 billion to build a Nimitz or Ford.

_________________
Salide - Denton - The Interrealms

I am not very active on the forums anymore, but work is still being done on my AUs. Visit the Salidan Altiverse Page on the SB Wiki for more information. All current work is being done on Google Docs.
If anyone wishes for their nations to interact with the countries of the Salidan Altiverse, please send me a PM, after which we can further discuss through email.

ezgo394 wrote:

I thought it was 6-7 billion to build a Nimitz or Ford.

Depends how you break down the cost, and if you add in R&D cost as well into the unit price.

The carrier itself is around 9 billion according to the most up to date reports from the G.A.O.

So more like 14 billion per ship in real terms. Plus 19 billion for the airwing.

So realistically you can have 4 BB(X)'s for the cost of one Ford class CVN.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

CATZ wrote:

So more like 14 billion per ship in real terms. Plus 19 billion for the airwing.

So realistically you can have 4 BB(X)'s for the cost of one Ford class CVN.

Are you unable to read your own sources?

It's 19 for the ship and the airwing.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

and the ship you showed would be much costlier, thanks to ALL THOSE WEAPONS AND RADARS! I suppose 1 or 2 for the price of an CVN would be more realistic, even if this would not be the case in real life, which I would suppose it would (development costs and all...)

_________________
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

acelanceloet wrote:

That Russian BBG? It's not the same thing as the concept used in this thread.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

Shipbucket

Who is online