Nuclear powered Battleship?

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
dougieo
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:36 am
Location: Scotland

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by dougieo » Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:41 pm

lwd wrote:Wasn't one of the ships based at or commonly found at the space station (I'm blanking on the name) a combat focused design. I thought I remembered it having almost as much fire power as Enterprise and a crew of 10-20.

that will be the "Defiant" from Deep Space 9 I think

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

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Legend » Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:50 pm

Okay... I just read through this again and have seen some good points made. Due to modern hydrodynamics and computer calculations, the Nimitz Class (hulls) take half as much horsepower to accelerate to 30+knots (35-40knots) than the Iowa Class did. I was also looking at comparisons... and the Nimitz Class hull isn't that far off from size than the designed Montana size. I may be stretching it here... but wouldn't it be an obvious decision, if we were to make a new battleship, to place it within a modified (ARMORED!!!!!!!) Nimitz Class Hull? (Including propellers, Reactors, Turbines, and Hull Shape).

Other issues are Radar to be used and DP Secondaries.

For radar... If we are considering adding a load of SM-2's and -3's (I am atleast) I would reccomend planning in the DBR (link below) for full functionality, utilizing only one collective radar system instead of multiple feeds.

Secondary Armament... There are many different options, I have an attatchment of data from multiple DP systems currently in production. I would reccomend the 76mm for it's compactness, range, and RoF, though some might want the new 57mm for it's INSANE RoF... It's not uploading... Dumb system won't accept Excel files. I had these:

Mark 71 (8in) Shell Weight: 260lbs RoF: 12 (lbs per minute): 3120 Range: 18miles
AGS (6.1in) Shell Weight: 225lbs RoF: 10 lbspm: 2250 Range: 59miles
Otobreda (5in) Shell Weight: 70lbs RoF: 40 lbspm: 2800 Range: 18.7miles
Mark 45 (5in) Shell Weight: 70lbs RoF: 20 lbspm: 1400 Range: 20miles
Mark 8 (4.5in) Shell Weight: 46lbs Rof: 25 lbspm: 1150 Range: 12miles
French 100mm Shell Weight: 38lbs RoF: 78 lbspm: 2964 Range: 10.5miles
Otobreda (3in) Shell Weight: 27lbs RoF: 120 lbspm: 3240 Range: 18.7miles
Mark 110 (2.2in)Shell Weight: 14lbs Rof: 220 lbspm: 3080 Range: 10.5miles

http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/rids ... br_pdf.pdf
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

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

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:07 am

Legend,

You find it! Good! I think that a Nimitz Class hull is too big for the Montana but not to the extreme H class 120,000 ton superbattleship. The problem is to install an armour on it. I think they are wide enough for a very effective ATS. Now the gunnery must be 20", if not I don´t see any sense in going so big.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

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

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Legend » Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:40 am

From conparing the length of the deck to the waterline length the Nimitz Hull looks to be around 1,000 feet long, while the planned Montana Class was to have a total length of 920ft... so around 890-900 for it's waterline length. You do make a very valid point though, perhaps we could scale it down. The point I am trying to make is that the Nimitz's shape is much more hydrodynamic and streamlined than Iowa or Montana ever would be.

Or... we could use the extra hundred feet the Nimitz Hull gives us for VLS and other applications... perhaps an extended helicopter deck? The ship I have been refining over the last two years is 1000 feet long and makes use of the spaces where the boiler stacks were used, mainly for VLS and a large 100x100 helicopter deck...

0-Stern-4 Props
1-triple turret (16in) #4
2-Triple turret #3 with RAM on top
3- VLS magazines surrounded by six DP (I used 76mm Otomeleras)
4- 100x100 Helicopter Pad (takes full beam)
5- Helicopter Hanger (Communication Systems and Phalanx ontop)
6- Bridges and Command centers with Spy-2 Radar ontop, surrounded by six 76mm's
7- Triple Turret #2 with RAM ontop
8- Triple Turret #1
9- Bow (bulbous) with thruster

Mine has a beam of 110ft total, a length of 1000ft, waterline length of 982.5ft, a draft of 30ft, and an air draft (waterline up) of 110 ft. I used 12x76mm Otomeleras as DP... as they provided a good Rof, "lbspm", and range... but while penetration is doubtable... that's what the 16in is for.
Attachments
Copy of BB-6 Side.jpg
Numbered BB-6 (Nuclear BB)
Copy of BB-6 Side.jpg (33.86 KiB) Viewed 1030 times
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

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

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:18 am

Legend,

With such a ship and such technology, why stay with 16" guns? The Germans demostrated with their H Class that such a ship could easily carry 18" and 20". Even by 1921 the British already considered their new BB and BC with 20" guns.

By the way, I like the Phalanx.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

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

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Legend » Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:48 am

Thank you. I drew all of that up in AutoCAD Classic then colored it up in Word Color... otherwise I can't upload DWG files. The RAM is supposed to be more accurate but I added both... since we all know that DU rounds can't be fooled by countermeasures.

Karl, The fact that our (The US) Navy has proven and used the 16in since WWII with good effect is reason enough to use them. I am not sure if we have any rounds left but it would seem our experience in making them would be greater than with the 20in... though with the computing power we have now... I agree that using 20in would be more appealing... but for me atleast there is a sentimental tie to the 16in. Another thing... I was thinking we could probably make the 16in turrets autoloading... how fast would the 20in be compared to that? Probably allot slower due to the enormous weight.

The other question is what would be the ideal DP? I have crossed out the British 4.5in for it's all around low performance compared to others... crossed out the 8in due to it's RoF... though i do like the idea of using that in cruisers... maybe a modern version for cruisers. The AGS seems a very good system to use... though im not sure of it's AA capabilities... it's RoF is bad... so maybe not. The OtoBreda has very good capabilities for it's size, good RoF, lbspm, range... The Mk110, which i ran into recently, seems like another good option, with it's appealing RoF very good for AA, though the range is really bad.
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

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

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:17 am

With nowadays fire controls and a 20" guns you don´t need to reload, need a board where to strike out your enemies.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

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

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Legend » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:42 am

You would be surprised. With current operations, mostly ground support, you hit one target head on and the rest of the terrorists come out like an upturned anthill! But you are right, where naval targets are concerned, one hit will kill just about anything left sailing in our world now. Another reason why I like the idea of a "Modern Battleship"... it would allot for cheaper dispatch of targets instead of expensive missiles.

I do have to admit though, there are two other options that are making their way up the charts of equal power to the naval artillery of the battleship.

One: Railguns. The potential power is really becoming a serious matter. Sending a projectile at mach 7 is enough to penetrate and destroy any target easily, along with having a flat trajectory for easy targeting.

Two: Lasers. The technology to be able to fry electronics is available, with special detonations (and some say by overpowering the SPY-1/2 that it can fry an aircraft within five miles), but lasers are now able to fry through armor and ship skins very easily at range... though it is an absolute flat trajectory.
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1151
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by marcelo_malara » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:07 am

The fact that our (The US) Navy has proven and used the 16in since WWII with good effect
Am I missing a post WWII naval battle???

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

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Legend » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:09 am

Um... no. I was just saying that about Vietnam, Korea, and The Gulf... Ground support...
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by yellowtail3 » Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:05 am

not all that good effect. BBs, in modern context, are a money pit with very little value to them.

One could make the argument, that they've been that for the last... 100 years or so.
Shift Colors... underway.

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

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:24 pm

But they are beautiful and classy.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Kyler » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:32 pm

I think the only way anyone could conceive spending billions of dollars on new battleships is that you combine them battleship with a amphibious assault ship like the San Antonio Class.

The ship would have the ability to support landing ground troops with artillery and missiles, protect other ships with its VLS air defense system, and launch and land amphibious vehicles and helicopters from the ship.
"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?

Post by Legend » Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:24 pm

Hell, at that point you could SAVE billions by not making any escourts for this thing! I have a design that shows the BBN having a full transom stern with enough space to carry fifteen EFV's...

Yellowtail, Battlehips, especially a BBN, have enough naval power and influence that would make your nation an undoubtable controlling power. Same influence as a CVN, though when it starts exploding around them and they can't see the aircraft... Anyways, were not here to argue about whether we should have a BBN or not, but what it would be.
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Kyler » Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:39 pm

True a powerful BBN would be a force to recon within itself, but carriers themselves need a large support system of picket ships, support ships, and submarines to help protect them and the battlegroup.

A BBN by itself would be putting all your eggs in one basket.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

Post Reply