Lets Build it, in theory.

JustinT · Post by **JustinT** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:31 am

Well , since theres plenty of ideas, technology etc into what a battleship could/should have, what say we simply build an outline here as to what we all would have as built into/onto/etc a battleship. from my limited knowledge, id suggest -

18" main armament in 3 triple turrets
a small batery of 5-6" secondary armament
a wide heavy mix of BOFORS, SAMS, PHALANXs, etc for AA defence, short and long range
torpedo tubes primarily based for antisub defence
Nuclear power for long range
Helipad designed for a pair of helis, both for antisub and recon
a top speed of at least 35-40 knots, however it could be done

thats just my very base outline to get the topic going, who else would like to suggest what could go into it?

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:58 pm

A thread like this one was discussed over a year ago. As a matter of fact it were two different threads:

One regarding the perfect BB.
The other about a nuclear powered BB.

viewtopic.php?t=584&start=0

viewtopic.php?t=784&start=0

viewtopic.php?t=641

Best regards...

RF · Post by RF » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:26 am

Is it not the case that the US Navy had or still has such a ship, used in the Iraq wars - the USS Iowa, the only differences being that the artillery is 16 inch and not 18 inch, and of course the armament included Tomahawk missiles, the reson for the ship being deployed.

RF · Post by RF » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:32 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:A thread like this one was discussed over a year ago. As a matter of fact it were two different threads:

One regarding the perfect BB.
The other about a nuclear powered BB.

As I recall it the threads did not actually consider the best BB design that would genuinely conform to the Washington Naval Treaties ie. maximum 35,000 tons weight and maximum calibre of 16 inch, and restricted to the technology available in say 1940.
The problem with the threads is that people follow what the Germans and Japanese did, break the rules to create the biggest possible floating behemoth possible....

lwd · Post by **lwd** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:13 pm

If you postulate 35,000 ton max then the question becomes do you want a balanced design or not. If you want a balanced design then you are probably limited to 14" guns. If not then it becomes a matter of what are you willing to trade off for what return. In any case the "best" BB to fit these criteria will probably vary from one country to the next to at least some extent.

Ramius · Post by **Ramius** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:36 am

The perfect BB in my eyes is what the Montana should have been. 3x4 16in turrets. In modern terms though, i think a mix of Phalanx and RAM's would be the best. For secondary armament, the common Otobreda 76mm Rapid Fire model would have been perfect. It is a compact gun, fast, acurate, and is a well proven AA and surface weapon. The best DP gun for a perfect (modern) BB. VLS tubes for T-LAM's and Harpoons. Also it would obviously incorperate AEGIS phased array radar. I think a nuclear powered one would be the best, why not have nearly unlimited range? It would obviously need good speed, atleast 35 knots. Would a Reactor make it possible for 40kn

lwd · Post by **lwd** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:25 pm

I think I'd pick the 5"/54 over the 76mm gun for a dual purpose secondary. Goal keeper would be a good dual purpose tertiary. A couple of flavors of SAMS and anit ship missiles to round things out.

Bgile · Post by **Bgile** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:39 pm

The Iowa class have all been pretty much permanently retired from service.

In any case, they are too manpower intensive. A new ship with 16" guns wouldn't need armor nearly as heavy, but the guns would have to be autoloading, which would make them much heavier. You wouldn't want as many guns, but at least as much ammunition. You would have to design a rocket assisted projectile with terminal guidance and so far that has been elusive ... too expensive per shell. That is one of the problems the US Navy is still trying to solve with the new 155mm gun.

Aegis is part of an AA system involving the SM-(n) series of missiles, so pretty much useless on a battleship. It would need to be escorted by an Aegis ship if the enemy had a realistic air attack capability.

There is little point in making a heavy ship faster than it's escorts. If you want a 40 kt battleship you are going to have to rebuild your entire escort fleet. That is one reason modern carriers are in the 30 kt range. It's fast, but economical. Also, maximum speed isn't as important today because weapons have much greater range, so a few thousand yards advantage in pursuit or escape isn't as relevant as in WWII.

lwd · Post by **lwd** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:56 pm

Bgile wrote:.... A new ship with 16" guns wouldn't need armor nearly as heavy, but the guns would have to be autoloading, which would make them much heavier. You wouldn't want as many guns, but at least as much ammunition.

Not sure this would be heavier. An unmanned turret with a single auto loading 16" gun could be quite a bit smaller than a tripple. Even atripple with autoloaders and no crew space might be smaller. Make it smaller and you make it lighter. I suspect if you automate the entire loading process you can save quite a bit of space and weight.

You would have to design a rocket assisted projectile with terminal guidance and so far that has been elusive ... too expensive per shell. That is one of the problems the US Navy is still trying to solve with the new 155mm gun.

Well the army has done it they seam to feel the trade off between hit percentage and cost is worth it. The navy does to to at least some extent because that's part of the tradeoff with missles. Wasn't the 155 decided on for commonality with army rounds?

Aegis is part of an AA system involving the SM-(n) series of missiles, so pretty much useless on a battleship. It would need to be escorted by an Aegis ship if the enemy had a realistic air attack capability.

Why not build a VLS system into a modern BB. Something like an Iowa class with the rear turret replaced by a VLS system. Then the BB can self escort.

Ramius · Post by **Ramius** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:21 pm

That is what I said, VLS tubes. I also believe the auto loaders is a good idea.

As for the 40kn idea, we were just takling about the best possible BB, not the "most economical"
No offense in any way.

Bgile · Post by **Bgile** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:23 pm

lwd wrote: Not sure this would be heavier. An unmanned turret with a single auto loading 16" gun could be quite a bit smaller than a tripple. Even atripple with autoloaders and no crew space might be smaller. Make it smaller and you make it lighter. I suspect if you automate the entire loading process you can save quite a bit of space and weight.

The USS Newport News was designed with autoloading 8" guns. The Turrets and associated equipment were much larger and heavier than a normal CA. If you went from 3 guns per turret to one, then obviously you could save weight. I believe I made the point that you could make do with fewer guns.

lwd wrote: Well the army has done it they seam to feel the trade off between hit percentage and cost is worth it. The navy does to to at least some extent because that's part of the tradeoff with missles. Wasn't the 155 decided on for commonality with army rounds?

Not really true. The Copperhead round isn't used much at all. It doesn't have real high reliablity and it's very expensive. The army has found that the MLRS is much more cost effective because it's longer range and you put a much bigger warhead behind the guidance package. Also, the guidance package is cheaper because it doesn't have to be designed to withstand the incredible acceleration caused by firing from a gun. Unfortunately there is no commonality with Army 155 shells or propellant. This is probably because of the need for rocket assisted projectiles in the Naval weapon. There isn't enough room in an SP gun for that kind of capability - The complete round is quite large and requires automatic handling equipment.

lwd wrote: Why not build a VLS system into a modern BB. Something like an Iowa class with the rear turret replaced by a VLS system. Then the BB can self escort.

Because the battleship won't always need protection against aircraft, and it makes a very poor ASW platform. In today's low intensity conflicts we almost always have complete air supremacy. Instead of carrying around something very expensive that has to be updated every few years and that you don't need much of the time, you provide the escort when needed.

Bgile · Post by **Bgile** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:26 pm

Actually VLS is a good idea, using tomahawk land attack missiles or equivalent. You just don't need Aegis.

Ramius · Post by **Ramius** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:57 pm

I was just woundering, but would it be good to add fuel tanks anyway? I know the BB has nuclear power, but tanks would allow it to refuel escorts and add to the anti-torpedo scheme.

Bgile · Post by **Bgile** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:45 pm

Ramius wrote:I was just woundering, but would it be good to add fuel tanks anyway? I know the BB has nuclear power, but tanks would allow it to refuel escorts and add to the anti-torpedo scheme.

Assuming the liquid loading scheme used in WWII is still a good idea (and I don't see why not), then I think it would make sense to put fuel in there and equip the ship with pumping/refueling stations for escorts.

Ramius · Post by **Ramius** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:11 am

Thank you bgile

, I thought I remembered something about the Iowas having liquid tanks as protection.