Return of the Battleships???

I’ll just go with the flow and say that the days of the battleship is over. Small ships are needed for escort duty and anti-pirate/anti-terrorist activities, not big lumbering monsters.

Rest in peace, boys…

I like the idea of a common hull……….on could be an AAW/AsuW platform….another an air capable platform, and a third a gunfire support/AsuW ship………just a thought…

Admitting my thorough ignorance about the arsenal ship (and modern systems in general), I would have grave concerns about the stability and stress issues inherent in splicing an Iowa turret onto this ship. What are the dimensions and displacement of the arsenal ship?

This Arsenal ship concept has a interchangable midbody, I like the idea of fitting a 16” Iowa class turret to one of these midbody modules and deploying it as needed.
http://www.memach.com/nuhm/arsenal.htm

Battleships were designed with protection to resist shellfire from the anticipated opponents. Today a BB would have to deal with a variety of threats from SSM and various PGM’s. The payloads would be heavier. Would an armor scene optimized for gunfire resistance be that effective against the new threats.
Also, the new weapons of today require more than just deck space to install a launcher. You need more power, more electronics and more command & control resources.
In terms of a ship loaded with missiles – didn’t they propose something like that called the Arsenal Ship. It was a floating missile farm. Aside from all the other problems, it put a lot of valuable offensive and defensive armament in one hull.

Figures for Baltimore’s crew complement range from 1426 to 2039; for Iowa, I see figures from 1921 to 2700.

A little of that went to slightly thickened armor, but most was the weight of the mount gear. Iowa turrets start at 1700 tons….

With automated gun loading they could reduce the number of guns per turret to 2. Also the armour of the turret could be removed completely. Removing one gun alone would probably take away 300 tons, removing all the armour should get the turret below 1,000 tons.

In comparison a modern 5 inch gun without ammo would probably weigh about 100 tons. Increase the calibre more than 3 times and of course it is going to get heavier. There is no limit or restictions on calibre or barrel length either. This would probably be a very long barrel weapon but the calibre is harder to define. It is going to be rather different to the WWII 16 inch gun so they are not tied to that calibre. It depends upon the propellent chosen or the means of propulsion. EM guns might do better with longer lighter rounds but you will need to meet a requirement of range and HE power on target. It would make more sense to define the requirements before commiting to a barrel size.

What was the crew of a Baltimore? Compared to an Iowa?

I don’t know if this is a helpful guide, but after the Baltimore class heavy cruisers, the US went to auto 8in guns, and the weight of a triple turret went from 300 tons to 450 tons. A little of that went to slightly thickened armor, but most was the weight of the mount gear. Iowa turrets start at 1700 tons….

The armour plate on those turrets is feet thick. They are rediculously heavy. Each barrel alone weighs over 100 tons. The Idea of the gun is a good one… the disposable portion is relatively cheap so you can use it more than a missile system where the expensive bits are destroyed everytime you use it.

The original turrets are manually loaded. The cost of mechanising the loading process within the confines of the existing turret makes it more expensive, not less so. That arsenal ship proposed has a bit of promise, but an arsenal ship with one large turret and say 2-300 cells that could carry anything from a tomahawk though to a standard through to a MLRS rocket with the latter used for shore bombardment is interesting. I wonder if there is a need for such a system however… Planes will always be the preferred option even if they would be more expensive the Navy will not want to be able to replace them… otherwise they might have a fight on their hands to keep their carriers from the greatest threat to the USN… congress. :diablo:

Fitting the 16 inch guns of the Iowa class to a modern ship is one idea, but it takes about 200 odd crew men to man one gun turret plus the magazine and aiming etc etc.

Why not develop a nice big modern gun with mechanical ammo handling and loading with a new range of ammo from laser guided munitions through to standard shells.

Maybe they could remove a existing gun barrel and fit it into a new turret with auto loading equipment etc.

I still think it would be cheaper just to fit a whole turret as it is, into a new low cost hull. After all, there will only be a occasional need for shore bombardment operations, so its not worth spending alot of time and money on the capability.

Except the major problem with replacing guns with cruise missiles is the cost of each cruise missile.

With the Navy the US has they don’t need to hide underwater to attack ground targets.

Fitting the 16 inch guns of the Iowa class to a modern ship is one idea, but it takes about 200 odd crew men to man one gun turret plus the magazine and aiming etc etc.

Why not develop a nice big modern gun with mechanical ammo handling and loading with a new range of ammo from laser guided munitions through to standard shells.

You could even make it an electro magnetic gun rail gun type weapon that is optimised to engage coastal targets with HE shells. Anything further inland than 50km or so would be easier and cheaper to engage with aircraft or cruise missiles.

At least get rid of the 5in 38s and put in modern 5in guns…..or poss 6.2in……..

Wow…can’t believe they are actually considering this! I think it would be great to see two of them back in action, but I would not be for modifying their profiles to the extent of removing any of the main gun armament…however I do believe they can be modified with more modern weapons that require less manpower to operate and reduce costs, as they attempted to do with the last round of modernizations/reactivations and the additions of Harpoon and Tomahawks….I hope they come back, I’ll be standing on the deck of the USS New Jersey in about a month and a half, something I’ve wanted to do all my life!

Mark

I wouldn’t reactivate the Iowas…….WAY too manpower intensive……..aren’t the new DDX “destroyers” supposed to have 155mm guns? I would propose some sort of new “gun cruiser” (CA) with 2 to 4 8in guns or 6 to 8 155mm guns and decent AA missile systems……..

We had a discussion about the Iowas in another thread recently, I remember reading something recently stating that most personnel would be unretired retired Navy personnel and contracted specialists. The draw on the navy’s current pool of trained personnel would be small, equivalent to crewing 1 Arleigh Burke. The cost of reactivating the BBs is about that of two Arleigh Burkes.

Indonesia got one Sverdlow, Hull 03, and named it Sipidan, from what I’ve found so far.

http://www.milparade.com/security/30/070x.htm

I have to agree, this ships need to have a good long sleep now, they have saved the world enough (Kinda like Doctor Who really).

One these lines, but slightly off topic, does anyone have any pics of the Indonesian Sverdlovs? I remember reading about two or three of them operating in TNI-AN service but can’t find any pics or reference these days, most just talk about the Russian service ships.

I wouldn’t reactivate the Iowas…….WAY too manpower intensive……..aren’t the new DDX “destroyers” supposed to have 155mm guns? I would propose some sort of new “gun cruiser” (CA) with 2 to 4 8in guns or 6 to 8 155mm guns and decent AA missile systems……..

That’s why I said it’s a good idea, I was thinking along the lines of expanding the program.

Rather than a traditional battleship, why not a floating TLAM platform? Converting some of the Ohio’s into SSGNs is a really good idea. Battleships are by no means all that hard to find, but an Ohio would be another story.

You do know that four Ohio’s are being converted to SSGNs already right?

Daniel