Nuclear powered Battleship?

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara »

If I take a rather large missile, screw of the tip and glue a 16" shell to it, program it to fly a ballistic trajectory, it will do the same or more damage and is by all means just as "indestructible" as the shell.
Right!!! But I don´t think any antiship missile now in use can carry a 1 ton warhead. Harpoon carries a 230 kg warhead and the much vaunted Exocet just a 160 kg one.

Code: Select all

The missile may have some sensors on board, but the do not have to be in the tip.
The guidance systems that needs no sensors at the head are the inercial (of no use here), beam riders (not longer used) and wire guided. All radar guided missile needs an antenna, and if you don´t put it on the head the metal in front would prevent the radio waves been received. Moreover, anything in front must be dielectric (ie: plastic). In the case of infrared or TV guidance, the tip must be plastic too (in this case a material transparent to the corresponding waveleght).
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Marcelo wrote:
Quote:
If I take a rather large missile, screw of the tip and glue a 16" shell to it, program it to fly a ballistic trajectory, it will do the same or more damage and is by all means just as "indestructible" as the shell.


Right!!! But I don´t think any antiship missile now in use can carry a 1 ton warhead. Harpoon carries a 230 kg warhead and the much vaunted Exocet just a 160 kg one.

Code:
The missile may have some sensors on board, but the do not have to be in the tip.


The guidance systems that needs no sensors at the head are the inercial (of no use here), beam riders (not longer used) and wire guided. All radar guided missile needs an antenna, and if you don´t put it on the head the metal in front would prevent the radio waves been received. Moreover, anything in front must be dielectric (ie: plastic). In the case of infrared or TV guidance, the tip must be plastic too (in this case a material transparent to the corresponding waveleght).

For example, the Penguin anti-ship missile (brand new) has a 270 pound (120 kg) warhead. No big deal compared with a 16" Mark VII shell.
As for the Phalanx CIWS there was a test done in which one 5" shell was stopped... but in an ideal and perfectly controlled situation: the ship was static, the 5" shell was fired alone with a fly path near the ship, etc. etc. If you thought about an engagement like the one at Denmarck Straits with ships at high speed, manouvering, bad weather and eight 15" shells being fired broadside the chances the CIWS to get them (and if it get SOME of them, doing some harm to them) are dramatically less. The CIWS system must have a Phalanx per shell in order to be sure that a great percentage of them will be intercepted.

As for what happened to USS Cole. Maybe I said it wrong: the vessel is fragile IF COMPARED to a Battleship´s armour arragement. If the same detonation happened in the same circumstances to an Iowa or the Bismarck I doubt a lot that the US Navy will require to rent a Norwegian salvage ship to take the ship back to the US (Well, I have to admit that a salvage vessel that can take a Battleship must be around 800 meters long :? )
No ship is invulnerable, but some ships are stronger than others, being the Battleships the strongest.

Best regards!
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Captain Morgan
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:27 am
Location: The Great Lakes, USA

Post by Captain Morgan »

As a former US Navy Nuclear Officer I can say the Iowas could have probaly fit 4 A1W (Enterprise) reactors in the boiler room spaces. The Enterprise used 6 for propulsion and 2 to supply steam for catapults during flight operations (at least according to Nukes I know who were on the Big E). One of the major problems to install the reactor plants in Iowa class ships ithe the cut that would re reqired though the armored decks to install the reactor vessels and then for refuelings later. A CVN doesn't have near as much interference in the way because they were designed with the refuelling in mind. If you have seen any of the photos of the California class CGN's after decomissioning you will have an idea od what I mean. To refuel one of those CGN's you had to remove most of the superstructure to perfom the refuelling. The old fuel goes up and out and the new fuel goes down in into the reactor vessel. It is easier to refuel a submarine but you make a large hull cut while it sits in drydock. I did a SSBN refueling overhaul at Newport News in the early 1980's while the Vinson was being finished.
Oh the one easy thing about putting 4 A1W plants into an Iowa would be the secondary steam plant is the right design for it since it was a 600 pound steam plant, compared to the later 1200 psig steam plants of the late 1950's and 1960. All the early USN nuclear plants operated at 600 psi steam side.
There are 2 types of vessels out there. One type is called a target. If it isn't capable of silently doing 30+ knots at 2000 ft depth its always considered a target. The vessel that can silently go fast and deep is the one the targets are afraid of.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara »

Can you tell the weight of the reactors?
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Marcelo:
Can you tell the weight of the reactors?
That´s the big mistery. There´s no way to know how much one of those reactors weight.

Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
ontheslipway
Supporter
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:19 am

Post by ontheslipway »

Karl wrote:If you thought about an engagement like the one at Denmarck Straits with ships at high speed, manouvering, bad weather and eight 15" shells being fired broadside the chances the CIWS to get them (and if it get SOME of them, doing some harm to them) are dramatically less.
Note that a weapon with modern control isn't slowed down by any ship motion or weather. Also, from a salvo of 8 shells, 2 close range defense weapons can choose the 2 shells most likely to hit. In a straddle, only a few shells find their target. If more shells are on target, the dispersive pattern of the close range defense may hit more shells.

The damage of USS Cole is allegedly worse than expexted. I hear some degree of armor is being considered for newer vessels (?), but I suppose against blast damage. No ship can arm itself for a dedicated armor piercing weapon or a missile that chooses to be a torpedo at the last instant.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

foeth wrote:
Karl wrote:If you thought about an engagement like the one at Denmarck Straits with ships at high speed, manouvering, bad weather and eight 15" shells being fired broadside the chances the CIWS to get them (and if it get SOME of them, doing some harm to them) are dramatically less.
Note that a weapon with modern control isn't slowed down by any ship motion or weather. Also, from a salvo of 8 shells, 2 close range defense weapons can choose the 2 shells most likely to hit. In a straddle, only a few shells find their target. If more shells are on target, the dispersive pattern of the close range defense may hit more shells.

The damage of USS Cole is allegedly worse than expexted. I hear some degree of armor is being considered for newer vessels (?), but I suppose against blast damage. No ship can arm itself for a dedicated armor piercing weapon or a missile that chooses to be a torpedo at the last instant.
The principle of a CIWS is to destroy guidance or payload of the target. I don't think it would be effective against a battleship shell.

I'm absolutely certain that modifications are being made to the Burke class destroyers as a result of the Cole incident. They will modify ships as they are scheduled for yard periods and change new construction as well. That always happens when a ship takes major damage. Lessons learned. I expect it will be in the area of redundancy of certain systems such as backup power generation, pumping, fire mains, etc.

There is nothing like actual damage to find design flaws.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

I just borrowed a friend´s very thick magazine published by the US Defense Dept. in the 80s called: "Soviet Military Power".
The issue was of 1986. In it all the aspects of Soviet military might are analysed including the naval resources and strategies followed by the commies.
In the chapter of naval power there are many comparisons between the US and USSR (SSN, SSBN, Aircraft Carriers, etc. etc.) Then the authors bring attention to the brand new (and very beautifull) KIROV Class Nuclear Powered Battlecruisers (quite a name, ah?). The US didn´t had anything like those magnificent surface units, so, the US Defense Dept. states that the US must had in operation their Iowa Class Battleships in what was called Battleship Battle Groups to shadow this new ships.
It appears that there was, in the middle of the Cold War, an expected duel between dreadnoughts and modern nuclear powered battlecruisers. If the Soviet Union hadn´t throw the towel or if the Chinese Navy someday comes forward with something like that (buying the Russian BCs?) then the BBs must be considered as practical combat units. In this case, the nuclear power for powerplant is an option to be considered.
Just a thought.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara »

Hi Karl:

That was a very interesting magazine. I saw it quit a lot ago. Bear in mind that the US services tended to overate their Soviets counterparts, in part because of lack of intelligence, and in part because it was a mean of requesting more money!!!
User avatar
_Derfflinger_
Supporter
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:01 pm
Location: Missouri, USA

Post by _Derfflinger_ »

marcelo_malara wrote:Hi Karl:

That was a very interesting magazine. I saw it quit a lot ago. Bear in mind that the US services tended to overate their Soviets counterparts, in part because of lack of intelligence, and in part because it was a mean of requesting more money!!!
And, it was also an appropriate way to view your major potential adversary. Over estimations are a less serious matter than him surprising you with how capable he is!

Derf
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

You have to admit that the Soviet Navy in the 80s was very fine and in a way to challenge US predominance. It´s a shame the commies, at the end, surrendered in such a humiliating way.
And the KIROVS were outstanding beautiful and powerfull BATTLECRUISERS (can they be called that, by definition???). And a duel of a couple of these beasts against a Battleship Group with one or two Iowas would be a great DER TAG.

Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

On Christmas eve I borrowed my father´s last number of Soldier of Fortune. In the very last page there was an article written by no less than Lt. Col. (ret) Oliver North (remember the Iran-Contras scandal from the 80ies?).
Well, the article´s title is: "Save our Battlewagons". Col. North tells how usefull the BBs are for the US Navy and specially for the Marines. As a matter of fact the marines are lobbying to retain the last two commisioned Iowa Class dreadnoughts.
The interesting part is that North tells about the US incursions in Lebannon in 1983. The first air raid was carried by Intruders from a CVN against Sirian outposts and artillery positions. In the operation 3 Intruders were lost and the mission wasn´t all that succesfull. The next time an Iowa Class dreadnought opened fire against the Sirians including, this time, anti aircraft artillery. After some hours of barrage the Sirians were silenced, forever.
Not too bad for an aging dreadnought?
North is plain and simple: no warship in the arsenals of the US or any other country is as reliable as a gun platform as the Iowas. The Marines want them behind them when they had to hit the beaches in foreign lands. He saids (which I´m not too sure) that from their reactivation in the 80ies, the Iowas had fired some 1,000,000 tons of ordnance.
But North also says that the Congress is expecting to send the dreadnoughts to their operational end (to become musseums) soon because some contractor offers 10 new light warships that can substitute them. The funny thing is that these replacements´ more heavy shell is of... 65 pounds instead of the 1,700+ of the Iowa´s (It sounds like the guy who sold the USS Cole to the USN in first place).
Again. Isn´t the inteligent move, instead of retiring the most strongest ships in the USN arsenal, to go nuclear instead and have them, what, some 60 more years?
And remember, Ollie North knows what he´s talking about.

Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara »

He saids (which I´m not too sure) that from their reactivation in the 80ies, the Iowas had fired some 1,000,000 tons of ordnance.
Hi Karl, it sounds as they have fired about 1,000,000 rounds, or 250,000 each. It doesn´t sound credible.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Marcelo:
Quote:
He saids (which I´m not too sure) that from their reactivation in the 80ies, the Iowas had fired some 1,000,000 tons of ordnance.

Hi Karl, it sounds as they have fired about 1,000,000 rounds, or 250,000 each. It doesn´t sound credible.
Yeah. I´m gonna check the article again but the number 1,000,000 was very present there.
It´s good to hear from you again.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara »

Thank you for the welcome my friend. Hope you and the other members will have a Happy New Year too.
Post Reply