Nuclear powered Battleship?
- Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Oops!
The literal quote is this:
"By the time Operation Desert Storm concluded on Feb. 28, 1991, the Wisconsin and her sister battleship, USS Missouri, had delivered more than one million pounds of ordnance on the enemy from their 16-inch guns... Fire from the battleships was so overwhelming that an Iraqui garrison actually surrendered to one of the USS Wisconsin unmanned aerial vehicle."
The replacements are seven DDG-1000 class destroyers - at $3,3 billion apiece. "These slower, thin-skinned vessels are to be equipped with unproven Advance Gun System designed to fire rounds weighing only 63 pounds but costing nearly $100,000 each."
I´m not surprised if someone is pushing NEW and weak ships to replace OLD and strong ones. Anyway it must be the so called "experts" that are lost the Vietnam War and are losing Iraq.
The dreadnoughts still have a lot of action in themselves.
The literal quote is this:
"By the time Operation Desert Storm concluded on Feb. 28, 1991, the Wisconsin and her sister battleship, USS Missouri, had delivered more than one million pounds of ordnance on the enemy from their 16-inch guns... Fire from the battleships was so overwhelming that an Iraqui garrison actually surrendered to one of the USS Wisconsin unmanned aerial vehicle."
The replacements are seven DDG-1000 class destroyers - at $3,3 billion apiece. "These slower, thin-skinned vessels are to be equipped with unproven Advance Gun System designed to fire rounds weighing only 63 pounds but costing nearly $100,000 each."
I´m not surprised if someone is pushing NEW and weak ships to replace OLD and strong ones. Anyway it must be the so called "experts" that are lost the Vietnam War and are losing Iraq.
The dreadnoughts still have a lot of action in themselves.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
- marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1852
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
Not 115mm. 155mm. Roughly 6".
Certainly not intended as BB replacement, but the guns are supposed to provide a long range bombardment capability with rocket assisted shells.
What will eventually happen is hard to say. Lots of new concepts in those ships and not much money, what with the Iraq war and the US economy in recession.
Certainly not intended as BB replacement, but the guns are supposed to provide a long range bombardment capability with rocket assisted shells.
What will eventually happen is hard to say. Lots of new concepts in those ships and not much money, what with the Iraq war and the US economy in recession.
I was just reading the previous pages on this topic, and I was wondering wheather there was going to be any performance improvement between the sixty year old battlewagon vs the brand new Zumwalt cruiser. I mean, besides saving a little money (although it would probably be cheaper to keep the already existing Iowa beasts than to buy an entire new AEGIS class) is there a major increase in speed, armament, and sensors. Are they even going to bother to put any armor on the Zumwalts?
Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?
I think many of you have made some great points about the pros and cons of a nuclear battleship. As thrilling as the idea is, it may be that it is not practical to place nuclear reactors in the Iowa-class battleships. Some of the vulnerabilities that have been described would make this a non-starter. It would only inspire enemies of America to aspire to sinking an American treasure, as our four remaining battleships are indeed treasures.
But this forum is about hypothetical naval scenarios. So why would talk of nuclear battleships be restricted to retrofitting existing battleships? Why not discuss what we might have if we started from a clean slate and designed her the right way from the beginning? And I don’t mean the ever-researched destroyers and cruisers being used to insult the battleship name. Granted, American shipbuilding isn’t what it used to be, but let’s say we can have this done the way we think a true dreadnought should be, with Iowa-class or better armor.
A battleship should not require a battle group to escort it and should be capable of engaging multiple threat vessels concurrently. Two or three battleships working together should be capable of engaging and destroying a carrier battle group.
I don’t think all of the technologies are truly at the implementation stage yet, but here is what I think would make for a legitimate introduction of the BBN vessel:
Armaments
12 16-inch Guns (4 turrets)
4 Electromagnetic Rail Guns (4 turrets)
16 Lasers (MW class)
16 Dedicated Harpoon Anti-Ship Missile Batteries (4 quad cell launchers)
24 Peripheral Vertical Launch System Magazines (Cruise missiles, Sea Sparrow missiles, antisubmarine rockets, standard missiles, and other missiles)
20 155-mm guns
20 MK 45 5-inch guns
20 MK 57 Torpedo Batteries (4 fwd, 4 aft, 6 port, 6 stbd)
18 RIM-116 Sea RAM Anti-Air Missile Batteries
42 Phalanx or Goalkeeper (mix) Close-In Weapons Systems Guns
24 GAU-8 Avenger 30-mm cannon turrets
6 Patriot Anti-Missile Batteries
80 MK 38 25-mm manually operated machine guns
Combat Systems
“Aegis successor” battlespace management system – integrated sensor fusion (optical, radar, lidar, acoustic, IR, etc. sensors combined with GPS, inertial navigation, and sensor/state vector data from other vehicles); simultaneous tracking and classification of 1000+ surface, subsurface, land, and aerial targets; target assignment and concurrent engagement of all armaments; and vehicle health management.
Propulsion and Power
16 large waterjets (8 forward propulsion, 8 forward/steering)
TBD (4?) 100 MW nuclear reactors
Embarked Aircraft
12 Pioneer UAVs
4 UH1-Y Venom Utility Helicopters
8 AH1-Z Super Cobra Attach Helicopters
But this forum is about hypothetical naval scenarios. So why would talk of nuclear battleships be restricted to retrofitting existing battleships? Why not discuss what we might have if we started from a clean slate and designed her the right way from the beginning? And I don’t mean the ever-researched destroyers and cruisers being used to insult the battleship name. Granted, American shipbuilding isn’t what it used to be, but let’s say we can have this done the way we think a true dreadnought should be, with Iowa-class or better armor.
A battleship should not require a battle group to escort it and should be capable of engaging multiple threat vessels concurrently. Two or three battleships working together should be capable of engaging and destroying a carrier battle group.
I don’t think all of the technologies are truly at the implementation stage yet, but here is what I think would make for a legitimate introduction of the BBN vessel:
Armaments
12 16-inch Guns (4 turrets)
4 Electromagnetic Rail Guns (4 turrets)
16 Lasers (MW class)
16 Dedicated Harpoon Anti-Ship Missile Batteries (4 quad cell launchers)
24 Peripheral Vertical Launch System Magazines (Cruise missiles, Sea Sparrow missiles, antisubmarine rockets, standard missiles, and other missiles)
20 155-mm guns
20 MK 45 5-inch guns
20 MK 57 Torpedo Batteries (4 fwd, 4 aft, 6 port, 6 stbd)
18 RIM-116 Sea RAM Anti-Air Missile Batteries
42 Phalanx or Goalkeeper (mix) Close-In Weapons Systems Guns
24 GAU-8 Avenger 30-mm cannon turrets
6 Patriot Anti-Missile Batteries
80 MK 38 25-mm manually operated machine guns
Combat Systems
“Aegis successor” battlespace management system – integrated sensor fusion (optical, radar, lidar, acoustic, IR, etc. sensors combined with GPS, inertial navigation, and sensor/state vector data from other vehicles); simultaneous tracking and classification of 1000+ surface, subsurface, land, and aerial targets; target assignment and concurrent engagement of all armaments; and vehicle health management.
Propulsion and Power
16 large waterjets (8 forward propulsion, 8 forward/steering)
TBD (4?) 100 MW nuclear reactors
Embarked Aircraft
12 Pioneer UAVs
4 UH1-Y Venom Utility Helicopters
8 AH1-Z Super Cobra Attach Helicopters
- marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1852
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?
Welcome to the forum!!!!!
Do you think that all this stuff can be acomodated on a battleship size deck?
Do you think that all this stuff can be acomodated on a battleship size deck?
Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?
With all these rockets and lasers the big guns would hardly be needed.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
- marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1852
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?
Moreover, the BB would need to be named Yamato....
Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?
However rhoward didn't go for those 18.1 inch guns, or even the 21 inch guns Hitler once said he wanted.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
- marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1852
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?
I mean spaceship Yamato....