Nuclear powered Battleship?

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Postby lwd » Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:54 pm

Bgile wrote:Both weapons use sabot, which is inert. It's unclear to me why a penetrating rod from a 30mm is going to be more destructive than one from a 20mm. In both cases the missile has to be hit to get results, and in both cases the missile will be destroyed by a hit.

Both used DU rounds although other types are available and I believe the ground mount phalanx does use an alternative round. However a hit isn't necessarily enough to destroy a missile. The theory was that if you did enough damage to the airframe the missile would miss. If that's the plan the more damage you do and the further out the more likely you are to be successful. One of the potential problems for Phalanx was that it might get an airframe "kill" at a range that simply would have little impact on it's effect on the ship.
It's also not obvious to me why you would want to mount a GAU-8 when for about the same weight and deck footprint you can mount a missile with several times the range.

CIWS systems are for leakers. You defintily want longer range systems as well but again some missiles are not easy targets for counter missiles.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Postby Bgile » Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:00 pm

lwd wrote:Both used DU rounds although other types are available and I believe the ground mount phalanx does use an alternative round. However a hit isn't necessarily enough to destroy a missile. The theory was that if you did enough damage to the airframe the missile would miss. If that's the plan the more damage you do and the further out the more likely you are to be successful. One of the potential problems for Phalanx was that it might get an airframe "kill" at a range that simply would have little impact on it's effect on the ship.


No, it doesn't kill by airframe damage. The missile will be coming in almost head on. Any hit will tend to pass through one or all of the guidance package, the warhead, the engine, the fuel and possibly all of those things. It's hard for me to imagine that not mission killing the missile. I do agree that it might be still close enough to damage the ship it has targeted, but I don't think the 30mm version would be any different.

The only ships I can think of which have the current CWIS, you couldn't replace it with the GAU-8 version. You would have to replace a missile system in order to find space and weight for the much larger weapon. I guess you could replace the 5" gun on cruisers and destroyers with it, but I don't feel that is a good idea. The USN seems to agree with me.

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Postby Legend » Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:37 am

Are there any ships that still operate with the Goalkeeper system? I had the impression with the deactivation of the two old british aircraft carriers they were gone from current navies.
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Postby lwd » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:07 pm

Bgile wrote:
lwd wrote:Both used DU rounds although other types are available and I believe the ground mount phalanx does use an alternative round. However a hit isn't necessarily enough to destroy a missile. The theory was that if you did enough damage to the airframe the missile would miss. If that's the plan the more damage you do and the further out the more likely you are to be successful. One of the potential problems for Phalanx was that it might get an airframe "kill" at a range that simply would have little impact on it's effect on the ship.


No, it doesn't kill by airframe damage. The missile will be coming in almost head on. Any hit will tend to pass through one or all of the guidance package, the warhead, the engine, the fuel and possibly all of those things. It's hard for me to imagine that not mission killing the missile. I do agree that it might be still close enough to damage the ship it has targeted, but I don't think the 30mm version would be any different.

When I was working at NSWC Dahlgren that's what I was told. At the ranges you are talking about the guidance package is essentially surperfolous. Like wise the engine and fuel. If you don't detonate the warhead, render it encapable of detonating, or cause the missile go off course in the very short time before impact it doesn't matter. Indeed one of the stories going around while I was there (late 70s) was an eingineer that wanted to be on board the target ship for one of the tests. He reasoned that it should be safe since the missile was suppost to over fly the ship. Saftey wouldn't let him. He was thankful after the test as an airframe "kill" caused the missile to impact the target ship. However there was also speculation that in the case of some of the larger Soviet missiles even detonating the warhead might not be enough to save the ship.
... The USN seems to agree with me.

The US also already invested in Phalanx. They did study a 30mm option at one point but decided to go with Sea Sparrow and later RAM missiles instead. If one were starting from scratch on a major combatant such as we are proposing the choice is not as clear.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Postby Bgile » Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:13 pm

lwd wrote:He was thankful after the test as an airframe "kill" caused the missile to impact the target ship. However there was also speculation that in the case of some of the larger Soviet missiles even detonating the warhead might not be enough to save the ship.


Obviously the "airframe kill" caused the missile to go somewhere it wasn't supposed to, so it probably would have hit the water if it was actually intended to hit the ship.

I know there is speculation that CWIS won't adequately protect the ship even if it works, but for some reason they are still installing it. It seems to me they would save the weight and money if it didn't work. As I've said, I don't think there is much practical difference between the two systems. Obviously you don't, and that's fine. :)

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Postby lwd » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:49 pm

Bgile wrote: I know there is speculation that CWIS won't adequately protect the ship even if it works, but for some reason they are still installing it. It seems to me they would save the weight and money if it didn't work. As I've said, I don't think there is much practical difference between the two systems.


It's not that it won't work. It will in many cases. And neither will in others. There are indeed some pretty susbstantial practicle differences in the two systems. Indeed as you've pointed out the weight and size are one. Fitting an up graded Goalkeeper on a frigate would be a problem. Even on a destroyer it could be problematic. On a new design battleship it shouldn't be. On such a ship the additional range and leathality might have some significant benefit as part of a layered defence.

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Postby Legend » Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:52 am

Then what about secondaries? Several options of modern secondaries are available, though I was looking for more of the fast firing ones, due to the sixteen inch guns... no penetration needed for anything else. I saw the 76mm an option, along with the various 5in models, and the new Mk110 57mm...
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Postby lwd » Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:06 pm

Asside from the primaries and any anti ship missiles carried other weapons are probably going to be centered around AAW. Layered defences work best and the more layers the more efficient. However more layers also mean more complication and more sophistication required by both the crew and the computers/software as well as logistics. I think I'd go with a mix of 5", 76mm, and 30mm possibly with some 20 or 25mm as well. Missile wise at least two types corresponding to SM-2 and RAM or Sea Sparrow. The above choices are in part because I tend to think of US systems (although the 76mm is Italian I believe or at least was).

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Postby Legend » Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:59 pm

The 76mm is Italian, built by Otobreda, and is a very superior system. I was surprised to find out that the Otobreda version of the 5in has a doubled RoF compared to the Mk45.

Does the 20mm secondaries (Not Phalanx) have range and accuracy enough to be a decent AA gun? I didn't realize that the Arleigh Burkes or Ticonderoga classes had any small secondaries like that anymore...
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Postby Bgile » Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:35 pm

5" is much more effective at shore bombardment than 76mm, and battleships typically used their secondary battery for that purpose about as much as the main battery.

US destroyers are equipped with 25mm systems as anti small boat weapons, as well as machineguns. I don't think the 25mm have an AA capability.

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Postby Kyler » Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:58 pm

One advanatage in the use of DU sabot rounds is because of their self sharping. When DU penetrators strike a metal target the sabot is ground down, though DU does not mushroom like Tungsten but self sharpens and the small pieces of DU that come off the sabot burn at high tempatures, thus allowing a better chance of the sabot exploding the warhead or the propellent of the missile.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Postby Legend » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:07 pm

Bgile wrote:5" is much more effective at shore bombardment than 76mm, and battleships typically used their secondary battery for that purpose about as much as the main battery.

US destroyers are equipped with 25mm systems as anti small boat weapons, as well as machineguns. I don't think the 25mm have an AA capability.


I would guess the extra two inches of diameter would give it superior Bombardment abilities... though like you did say... that is what the 16inchers are for! 76mm surely has far superior AA abilities due to it's better RoF?
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Postby lwd » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:42 pm

5" rounds are bigger and longer range. Some are even guided. Not sure how this trades off vs 76 in AA role. Probably depends on what you are engaging.

For lighter weapons if I'm not going with a gatling gun 25mm is probably as small as I'd go at least if I'm using NATO or US equipment.

Note that at least according to: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm the GAU-8 uses HEI as well as DU subcaliber rounds. Also note the difference in sizes of the 30mm used by the Apache vs the GAU-8 round at http://www.gd-ots.com/sitepages/mca.html 113mm vs 173mm long

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Postby Bgile » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:55 pm

Legend wrote:I would guess the extra two inches of diameter would give it superior Bombardment abilities... though like you did say... that is what the 16inchers are for! 76mm surely has far superior AA abilities due to it's better RoF?


The 5" shell weighs about 70 lbs and the 76mm weighs about 14 lbs. I agree the 76mm is probably a better AA weapon against modern threats, but it probably doesn't even have a fire control mode capable of indirect fire for shore bombardment.

Battleships don't use 16" shells against targets that can be dealt with by 5" guns.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Postby lwd » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:06 pm

The navweapons site has some info on the light weight 8" and a new 155mm gun as well that look quite interesting. If shore bombarment with secondaries is an important mission they deserve a look.


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests