Shipbucket

16inch shells do give a lot of options in terms of ammunition design. Large shell=large amount of options.

_________________
Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid. - Albert Einstein
The only stupid questions are the ones that go unasked.
Korean AU

Not to mention the fact that it is nearly impossible for CIWS defenses to eliminate 16 inch shells unlike the slower cruise missiles. They also pack quite the punch for relatively low cost when compared to missiles, something that some militaries have arrogantly overlooked. The reasons why they are not utilized is the relatively short range when compared with missiles and aircraft and relative inaccuracy over great distances. These problems could be solved if funding were put into research and development (perhaps SABOT rounds and smoothbore cannons to improve variety and barrel life) for such improvements, which I have setup in an AU scenario that I will post later.

P.S. to those who say that such an implication would be pointless, a little thought, a $5000 dollar armor penetrating shell with $20,000 improvements to guidance systems that is invisible to the enemy until a massive impact vs a million dollar missile that can be seen on radar and can be eliminated. Personally, I see a potential untapped offensive or defensive implication.

Wow, that shows a tremendous lack of understanding of reality of modern AShMs.

If we look at BrahMos (the flavor of the decade for Anti-ship missiles), it's faster, longer ranged, and not a lot bigger.

As for CIWS not being able to stop a 16" shell, that's a marginal supposition to make at best (look up the C-RAM deployments, or for that matter, IRON DOME). Yes, a 16" shell has a lot of momentum behind it, but it also is reliant on the aerodynamics not changing in midflight (thanks to say, a laser beam or a 30mm shell hitting it).

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

You have a valid argument, a laser could possibly be able to interfere with a shells flight path. Yet the problem with CWIS is that it relies on radar to detect and track incoming threats. While shells could possibly slow to the extent that they could be detected after flying for some distance, shells that are plunging or integrated with rocket boosting of some favor would gain speed, and therefore possibly be extremely are to eliminate. As for BrahMos, I have actually armed the design with the missile system for further ranged targets. My only fuss would be the price tag. It is arguable that a modified shell could reach a comparable price to BrahMos.

shells that have rocket boosting = an rocket/missile.
also, shells go about mach 3, IIRC..... assuming that there are anti-ship missiles that could go mach 2, I would assume that taking out an mach 3 projectile would be possible. detecting them would be absolutely no problem, unless you make them stealthy shaped and covered with RAM materials.... which would raise the cost to about that of an missile of similar size, especially when you count in the barrel life and cost.

you are right with the fact in mind that an phalanx could not stop an large shell, but missiles like ESSM and RAM will most likely be able to stop them before that.

_________________
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

as for C-Ram being used against mortars and various artillery shells, I will say that whatever design I adopt, It will utilize the dynamics of high velocity shells and even SABOW type rounds. conventional 155mm howitzer shells are fired with ark fall in favor and are fired with relatively less speed that what an Abrams 120mm fires (possibly even faster with the 120mm L55 on the Leopard 2a6 & 7) of which I have considered basing my design.

What I am interested in is if someone has feedback on HOW to make a 16 turret guns and shell more versatile and pose a threat modern ships. I know that it is possible, the only limiting factors are that the current real world designs involve 70 year old tech.

In short, you can't. Or rather it can be done cheaper and more easily with missiles.
First off, shells are not hard to spot and track. We've been doing it for years, both to improve accuracy by tracking our own and to improve counter battery fire by spotting and tracking the enemy's. I don't really understand where you get the whole hard to see thing from. Their flight profile are about as unstealthy as it can be and heavy shells in particular have the mother of all launch signatures.
As for hitting them, the Brits have been able to hit targets that are both smaller and faster for more than twenty years.
And then of course there's the fact that they're comparatively short ranged. Base bleed can help alleviate that, but for true missile like ranges you'll need more than that, so you strap a missile to it's rear. Of course now the ranges are getting so long that you'll need active guidance to hit anything, so we strap a guidance package on to it. You can probably see where this is going. Fact is, at this point the gun is nothing more than a huge booster. The shell you're firing is effectively a missile, but it's constrained by the fact that it has to fit down a barrel and it has to be able to stand up to the enormous accelerations produced by the gun. So why not just skip the gun and use a bigger booster or a more powerful sustainer motor? It has the advantage of having a much smaller ship impact, a much more effective layout since it doesn't have to fit into a gunbarrel, a larger warhead for the same reason and it can be seaskimming. And most importantly, it'll cost about the same.
As you can see there's a reason why no-one, outside of the internet that is, is pushing for heavy guns for anti shipping purposes.

_________________
“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.

As an adjunct to what Thiel said, putting even one battleship back into operational condition would be enormously expensive affair. After you've got it back in service, the cost of maintaining and operating it are astronomically high as well. The cost of designing a new ship of the size needed to support 16inch guns is even higher. In short, while guided missiles are expensive, they are cheaper and infinitely more effective against all forms of surface target.

_________________
Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid. - Albert Einstein
The only stupid questions are the ones that go unasked.
Korean AU

I thought they used a land-based Phalanx installation to shoot down incoming mortar rounds??

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

They do. They're called C-RAM in that application IIRC.
There's also a number of other systems available for that application such as the Swiss Millenium Gun + Super Fledermaus FCS combo and the Israeli Iron Dome system.

_________________
“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.