Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 7
Link Posted: 8/29/2015 6:51:00 PM EDT
[#1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Yes. Nothing puts the fear of god in the enemy like 16" guns raining down giant projectiles on their heads.






View Quote



I beg to differ.  Someone starts popping off nine 16" guns in my direction, I might get lucky.

Someone plants an AGM-114 right where I am, I don't need luck, I need Jesus, Mohammed, the Ahura Mazda, Ishvara, Odin, and/or a healthy dose of enthusiastic ancestors, depending on my faith.
Link Posted: 8/29/2015 8:28:45 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
And armored so that anything short of a nuke bounces off.
View Quote


Good luck with that....
Link Posted: 8/29/2015 8:30:59 PM EDT
[#3]
Unless giant robots attack, I say no.
Link Posted: 8/29/2015 8:45:33 PM EDT
[#4]




Link Posted: 8/29/2015 9:56:52 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
As much as I love the awe inspiring IOWAs, no to "bring back."

However, HELL YES to a new design of similar size/armor, but with a modern propulsion plant and next gen weapons/Combat Systems - whatever is in the works that makes Aegis look simplistic and crude.
View Quote


Armor is nothing but increased fuel costs.

There's nothing a modern BBG could do that DDG could not, and you'll never get a BBGN because nuke is too expensive.

Link Posted: 8/29/2015 10:14:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Armor is nothing but increased fuel costs.

There's nothing a modern BBG could do that DDG could not, and you'll never get a BBGN because nuke is too expensive.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
As much as I love the awe inspiring IOWAs, no to "bring back."

However, HELL YES to a new design of similar size/armor, but with a modern propulsion plant and next gen weapons/Combat Systems - whatever is in the works that makes Aegis look simplistic and crude.


Armor is nothing but increased fuel costs.

There's nothing a modern BBG could do that DDG could not, and you'll never get a BBGN because nuke is too expensive.



This is impossible to fap to...
Link Posted: 8/29/2015 10:17:38 PM EDT
[#7]
i miss shoeh8er.

Link Posted: 8/29/2015 10:19:07 PM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Hate to say it, but no.  Battleships are awesome floating testosterone supplements, but still obsolete.  One decent cruise missile, and all that $$$, weapons, and men are at the bottom of the ocean.  I'd call it a floating version of the gigantic German artillery pieces of the World Wars: impressive as hell, not actually all that practical.  I'd rather have 3 destroyers (or one carrier) for the money/material it takes to make 1 battleship.
View Quote



Most modern "destroyers" are larger than what we once referred to as "heavy cruisers".

Currently, even large anti-ship cruise missiles are designed around blast-type warheads to destroy unarmored ship systems. It's the ship equivilent to the "mobility kill" on a tank. Armored ships would require newer warhead designs or the use of nukes.

Also, remember that CIWS have improved dramatically, and recent testing with lasers have been highly promising. In truth, in the near future a traditional fast, heavily-armored battleship design with a mix of large-caliber guns and missiles would be quite feasible from both a tactical and strategic standpoint. Only problem is, according to my dad who was once in the ship construction field, our industries simply are not up to the task of producing the required components and armor any more.
Link Posted: 8/29/2015 10:21:46 PM EDT
[#9]
If they could make small rail guns then sure.  No missiles would get close and you can't shoot down rail gun projectiles.
Link Posted: 8/29/2015 11:12:01 PM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Most modern "destroyers" are larger than what we once referred to as "heavy cruisers".

Currently, even large anti-ship cruise missiles are designed around blast-type warheads to destroy unarmored ship systems. It's the ship equivilent to the "mobility kill" on a tank. Armored ships would require newer warhead designs or the use of nukes.

Also, remember that CIWS have improved dramatically, and recent testing with lasers have been highly promising. In truth, in the near future a traditional fast, heavily-armored battleship design with a mix of large-caliber guns and missiles would be quite feasible from both a tactical and strategic standpoint. Only problem is, according to my dad who was once in the ship construction field, our industries simply are not up to the task of producing the required components and armor any more.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hate to say it, but no.  Battleships are awesome floating testosterone supplements, but still obsolete.  One decent cruise missile, and all that $$$, weapons, and men are at the bottom of the ocean.  I'd call it a floating version of the gigantic German artillery pieces of the World Wars: impressive as hell, not actually all that practical.  I'd rather have 3 destroyers (or one carrier) for the money/material it takes to make 1 battleship.



Most modern "destroyers" are larger than what we once referred to as "heavy cruisers".

Currently, even large anti-ship cruise missiles are designed around blast-type warheads to destroy unarmored ship systems. It's the ship equivilent to the "mobility kill" on a tank. Armored ships would require newer warhead designs or the use of nukes.

Also, remember that CIWS have improved dramatically, and recent testing with lasers have been highly promising. In truth, in the near future a traditional fast, heavily-armored battleship design with a mix of large-caliber guns and missiles would be quite feasible from both a tactical and strategic standpoint. Only problem is, according to my dad who was once in the ship construction field, our industries simply are not up to the task of producing the required components and armor any more.


Have you ever heard of torpedoes?

Armor lost the race -- as it always will.  You can't armor something against an ADCAP.  

And tell me, what is it you think a BB would do that a DDG cannot do already?
Link Posted: 8/29/2015 11:12:27 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
If they could make small rail guns then sure.  No missiles would get close and you can't shoot down rail gun projectiles.
View Quote


That's why the Zumwalt class exists.  No need for a BB.
Link Posted: 8/29/2015 11:13:59 PM EDT
[#12]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Yes, but operated by the Air Force, and they'll only operate at night.



Just trying to give Sylvan an eye twitch.
View Quote
It already gave Josh one.. poor guy.  Was probably having a nice night until this thread popped up



 
Link Posted: 8/29/2015 11:15:58 PM EDT
[#13]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Good grief.  Fully read the linked article OP.



Can you imagine the costs involved in all that nonsense?  I suspect it might end up a respectable fraction of the total GDP.





But let's ignore that for a moment, in fact, let's ignore a whole bunch of stuff, and think on a little thought experiment, with numbers admittedly yanked out of my behind, because there's really no baseline in reality to get really good figures from.



Let's pretend that someone, somewhere, comes up with a revolutionary design for a modern battleship.  This thing's got armor, active and passive defense systems, a good new gun system for naval gunfire support, good missile capacity, and the tech and electronic warfare suites needed to employ those missiles for everything possible, BMD, ASW, AAD, ASuW, land attack, everything.  Let's figure this thing, which you know is going to have be pretty darn expensive, manages to do everything, and is equivalent to, oh, let's say 12 DDGs.  That's right, this thing can handle the job of a dozen DDGs, and somehow, through some magic of accounting, let's say it actually manages to only cost what 6 DDGs would.



So, there we go, we got us a battleship.



Now, how many do we need?  



Ya gotta figure we'll be needing one on each coast, right?  So there's 2.  And we're probably gonna need one in the Med or the Persian Gulf area, and there's the Indian Ocean, so there's another 2.  And we're probably gonna want at least one more for unknown contingencies, so let's make it 5 in total.  5 battleships in operation at any one time.  Now, since ships don't have warp drive, we gotta account for travel times to wherever each ship is to be deployed, and we also have to figure in the maintenance and refit schedules, along with periodic complete overhauls, so we're really gonna need 3 of these for each one we want deployed, so we're probably gonna need 15 of these battleships.  



So there we go, we've got 15 battleships, with 5 deployed at any given time.  Which is great until we need to address some emergency, or if we get into a fight with someone and lose one---because losing one wouldn't be like losing a DDG---remember, we've got far fewer of these things.



But for the cost of that, we could have 90 DDGs (which you might note is 28 more than we actually have,) which can be deployed and used in a much more flexible fashion.



So no, it is not time to bring back the battleships, even if all we look at is cost and flexibility, and ignore all the other stuff which has been hashed out here before by the actual naval personnel on this board with far more experience and knowledge than I, some of whom will probably poke some holes in what I just wrote as well.
View Quote
isnt the DDG-1000 only a few feet shorter than some of the BB's that were anchored at Pearl Harbor?



 
Link Posted: 8/29/2015 11:18:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Link Posted: 8/29/2015 11:18:31 PM EDT
[#15]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
That's why the Zumwalt class exists.  No need for a BB.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

If they could make small rail guns then sure.  No missiles would get close and you can't shoot down rail gun projectiles.




That's why the Zumwalt class exists.  No need for a BB.


Yeah but it'll only have one or two rail guns at most. A ship with a whole battery of the things would be far cooler. I mean the whole reason the Navy exists is to make cool things, right?



 
Link Posted: 8/29/2015 11:24:57 PM EDT
[#16]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
lol.  People don't even fact check their own facts.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:

Good grief.  Fully read the linked article OP.



Can you imagine the costs involved in all that nonsense?  I suspect it might end up a respectable fraction of the total GDP.





But let's ignore that for a moment, in fact, let's ignore a whole bunch of stuff, and think on a little thought experiment, with numbers admittedly yanked out of my behind, because there's really no baseline in reality to get really good figures from.



Let's pretend that someone, somewhere, comes up with a revolutionary design for a modern battleship.  This thing's got armor, active and passive defense systems, a good new gun system for naval gunfire support, good missile capacity, and the tech and electronic warfare suites needed to employ those missiles for everything possible, BMD, ASW, AAD, ASuW, land attack, everything.  Let's figure this thing, which you know is going to have be pretty darn expensive, manages to do everything, and is equivalent to, oh, let's say 12 DDGs.  That's right, this thing can handle the job of a dozen DDGs, and somehow, through some magic of accounting, let's say it actually manages to only cost what 6 DDGs would.



So, there we go, we got us a battleship.



Now, how many do we need?  



Ya gotta figure we'll be needing one on each coast, right?  So there's 2.  And we're probably gonna need one in the Med or the Persian Gulf area, and there's the Indian Ocean, so there's another 2.  And we're probably gonna want at least one more for unknown contingencies, so let's make it 5 in total.  5 battleships in operation at any one time.  Now, since ships don't have warp drive, we gotta account for travel times to wherever each ship is to be deployed, and we also have to figure in the maintenance and refit schedules, along with periodic complete overhauls, so we're really gonna need 3 of these for each one we want deployed, so we're probably gonna need 15 of these battleships.  



So there we go, we've got 15 battleships, with 5 deployed at any given time.  Which is great until we need to address some emergency, or if we get into a fight with someone and lose one---because losing one wouldn't be like losing a DDG---remember, we've got far fewer of these things.



But for the cost of that, we could have 90 DDGs (which you might note is 28 more than we actually have,) which can be deployed and used in a much more flexible fashion.



So no, it is not time to bring back the battleships, even if all we look at is cost and flexibility, and ignore all the other stuff which has been hashed out here before by the actual naval personnel on this board with far more experience and knowledge than I, some of whom will probably poke some holes in what I just wrote as well.
isnt the DDG-1000 only a few feet shorter than some of the BB's that were anchored at Pearl Harbor?

 




lol.  People don't even fact check their own facts.
DDG-1000 is actually 17 feet longer than the USS Oklahoma BB-37.  However, the Oklahoma displaced 13,000 tons more...because guns and armor are heavy.



 
Link Posted: 8/29/2015 11:39:49 PM EDT
[#17]
Rail guns used to be science fiction..
what about the  "Rods from God".
Link Posted: 8/29/2015 11:40:24 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
 Are the NORKS going to be impressed if we sail an LCS or a DDG-1000 along their coastline?  

Or is Kim Jong-un going to be more impressed by a battle line of nuclear powered battleships with 22" main guns and bristling with missiles?  And armored so that anything short of a nuke bounces off.
View Quote


My father spent a few years of his youth shelling the Norks.

Link Posted: 8/29/2015 11:44:21 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Yeah but it'll only have one or two rail guns at most. A ship with a whole battery of the things would be far cooler. I mean the whole reason the Navy exists is to make cool things, right?
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they could make small rail guns then sure.  No missiles would get close and you can't shoot down rail gun projectiles.


That's why the Zumwalt class exists.  No need for a BB.

Yeah but it'll only have one or two rail guns at most. A ship with a whole battery of the things would be far cooler. I mean the whole reason the Navy exists is to make cool things, right?
 


Where the fuck would you get the power to run a "whole battery" of railguns, and to what purpose would you put such a ship?  "far cooler" isn't a requirements statement that I know of.  Give me an effect -- what do you need to occur, and tell me why a DDG can't do it.
Link Posted: 8/29/2015 11:55:44 PM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
"far cooler" isn't a requirements statement that I know of.
View Quote



this is everything that's wrong with the navy.

Link Posted: 8/29/2015 11:57:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Where the fuck would you get the power to run a "whole battery" of railguns, and to what purpose would you put such a ship?  "far cooler" isn't a requirements statement that I know of.  Give me an effect -- what do you need to occur, and tell me why a DDG can't do it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they could make small rail guns then sure.  No missiles would get close and you can't shoot down rail gun projectiles.


That's why the Zumwalt class exists.  No need for a BB.

Yeah but it'll only have one or two rail guns at most. A ship with a whole battery of the things would be far cooler. I mean the whole reason the Navy exists is to make cool things, right?
 


Where the fuck would you get the power to run a "whole battery" of railguns, and to what purpose would you put such a ship?  "far cooler" isn't a requirements statement that I know of.  Give me an effect -- what do you need to occur, and tell me why a DDG can't do it.



Japan location makes your opinion irrelevant.  Japan navy is all submersible and they weren't submarines.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 12:04:28 AM EDT
[#22]
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 12:12:24 AM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


That's why the Zumwalt class exists.  No need for a BB.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they could make small rail guns then sure.  No missiles would get close and you can't shoot down rail gun projectiles.


That's why the Zumwalt class exists.  No need for a BB.


All three of them.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 12:38:12 AM EDT
[#24]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Where the fuck would you get the power to run a "whole battery" of railguns, and to what purpose would you put such a ship?  "far cooler" isn't a requirements statement that I know of.  Give me an effect -- what do you need to occur, and tell me why a DDG can't do it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:

If they could make small rail guns then sure.  No missiles would get close and you can't shoot down rail gun projectiles.




That's why the Zumwalt class exists.  No need for a BB.


Yeah but it'll only have one or two rail guns at most. A ship with a whole battery of the things would be far cooler. I mean the whole reason the Navy exists is to make cool things, right?

 




Where the fuck would you get the power to run a "whole battery" of railguns, and to what purpose would you put such a ship?  "far cooler" isn't a requirements statement that I know of.  Give me an effect -- what do you need to occur, and tell me why a DDG can't do it.




 
You took my post way too seriously.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 12:49:33 AM EDT
[#25]
In before Dport comes and educates us all.

But i say yes. Nuke batteships with rail guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 12:50:18 AM EDT
[#26]
I don't think they should bring back battleships, per se, but a much more robust zumwalt that included bigger guns, more automation, and a smaller crew would be sweet. We have limited sustained bombardment capabilities in the Navy these days. I'd like to see a 1000lb class warhead and some cool new range extending tech. Cruise missiles are great, but they are also very expensive one use only tech. Guns can pound away for days on end. Few things more demoralizing to an enemy than near-constant shelling.

Also, the super zum would be more able to take hits. It's all cool to say "it can do x, y, and z so it doesn't get hit!", but in war, shit happens and your shit will always get hit. It's inevitable. So yeah, give it great defenses, but also give it good old fashioned armor, and lots of it. Especially since we will soon be in an era in which swarms of drones will likely use smallish weapons. If you're going to be survivable, you gotta be able to take hits.

As far as subs go, they don't magically make surface ships obsolete. Not until they have working super cvitating torpedoes anyway...

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 12:54:52 AM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History

I beg to differ.  Someone starts popping off nine 16" guns in my direction, I might get lucky.

Someone plants an AGM-114 right where I am, I don't need luck, I need Jesus, Mohammed, the Ahura Mazda, Ishvara, Odin, and/or a healthy dose of enthusiastic ancestors, depending on my faith.
View Quote


Weapons that always hit what you aim at are good, but they have an Achilles heel: you aren't always aiming them to the right place and sometimes a miss is more effective than a hit. Yeah, blowing up the ball bearing factory helped the war effort, but ravaging large sections of major cities told the krauts that saw it, that they were defeated. Since the common use of smart weapons we've had a poor track record of convincing enemy populations that they've been beaten. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 1:05:29 AM EDT
[#28]
Seems like some would be perfectly fine with a Panamax sized freighter carrying those 7-round Tomahawk cylinders that the converted Ohio-class subs carry.

22 cylinders = 154 cruise missiles


A very rough calculation for a Panamax, based solely on a conservative estimate of deck area, produces a 7-round capability of 44,562 total missiles.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 1:11:05 AM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
No.

Modern warfare isn't done with naval cannon. It's done with cruise missiles that do pop-up maneuvers at terminal and drop down on the the thin 2-3" thick top decks with a few thousand pounds of high explosive in a missile 25 feet long weighing hundreds and sometimes thousands of pounds moving at hundreds of miles an hour. One modern missile would destroy a battleship stem to stern ... and throw the mechanical computers used to plot those guns out of calibration.
View Quote


1.  We are already shooting down mortar shells with rotary cannon and radar - a much smaller, faster moving target than a cruise missile.
2.  Battleships were fairly often hit by 1000 lb plus missiles moving hundreds of miles an hour.  They were called "armor piercing shells" "armor piercing aerial bombs", and "kamikazes", and one of them not only would not destroy a battleship from stem to stern - it usually didn't even take them out of the fight.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 1:12:35 AM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Japan location makes your opinion irrelevant.  Japan navy is all submersible and they weren't submarines.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they could make small rail guns then sure.  No missiles would get close and you can't shoot down rail gun projectiles.


That's why the Zumwalt class exists.  No need for a BB.

Yeah but it'll only have one or two rail guns at most. A ship with a whole battery of the things would be far cooler. I mean the whole reason the Navy exists is to make cool things, right?
 


Where the fuck would you get the power to run a "whole battery" of railguns, and to what purpose would you put such a ship?  "far cooler" isn't a requirements statement that I know of.  Give me an effect -- what do you need to occur, and tell me why a DDG can't do it.



Japan location makes your opinion irrelevant.  Japan navy is all submersible and they weren't submarines.


wow. You really don't know anything.

Link Posted: 8/30/2015 1:14:54 AM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Weapons that always hit what you aim at are good, but they have an Achilles heel: you aren't always aiming them to the right place and sometimes a miss is more effective than a hit. Yeah, blowing up the ball bearing factory helped the war effort, but ravaging large sections of major cities told the krauts that saw it, that they were defeated. Since the common use of smart weapons we've had a poor track record of convincing enemy populations that they've been beaten. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

I beg to differ.  Someone starts popping off nine 16" guns in my direction, I might get lucky.

Someone plants an AGM-114 right where I am, I don't need luck, I need Jesus, Mohammed, the Ahura Mazda, Ishvara, Odin, and/or a healthy dose of enthusiastic ancestors, depending on my faith.


Weapons that always hit what you aim at are good, but they have an Achilles heel: you aren't always aiming them to the right place and sometimes a miss is more effective than a hit. Yeah, blowing up the ball bearing factory helped the war effort, but ravaging large sections of major cities told the krauts that saw it, that they were defeated. Since the common use of smart weapons we've had a poor track record of convincing enemy populations that they've been beaten. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


You can argue all day long about whether purposeful killing of civilians is a good thing, but nobody cares, we don't make war like that.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 1:28:18 AM EDT
[#32]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Japan location makes your opinion irrelevant.  Japan navy is all submersible and they weren't submarines.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:





Where the fuck would you get the power to run a "whole battery" of railguns, and to what purpose would you put such a ship?  "far cooler" isn't a requirements statement that I know of.  Give me an effect -- what do you need to occur, and tell me why a DDG can't do it.






Japan location makes your opinion irrelevant.  Japan navy is all submersible and they weren't submarines.
welp you officially  know nothing. .

 
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 1:34:24 AM EDT
[#33]


Ignorant question time...have there ever been any studies on very large guns firing sabot rounds?

Because I think about 16" smoothbore guns firing great big DU darts and get the weirdest boner...
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 1:38:00 AM EDT
[#34]
Yes. This time put 16" rail guns on them. It can stay docked in Pearl Harbor and arc shells into Pyongyang.


Edit: Josh. I'm not serious here.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 1:42:40 AM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

In past threads on the issue of battleships its been mentioned that we no longer have the capability to produce the guns, the rounds and there's no remaining powder so they'd have to spin up production on all of those
I'm not a navy guy but maybe someone in the know could comment on that issue
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because very few things that aren't nuclear can say f*** you with the authority of 16 inch guns.

In past threads on the issue of battleships its been mentioned that we no longer have the capability to produce the guns, the rounds and there's no remaining powder so they'd have to spin up production on all of those
I'm not a navy guy but maybe someone in the know could comment on that issue




So.... it would be a jobs creation program to build one then!



Shovel ready  Battleship ready
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 1:45:18 AM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Yes. This time put 16" rail guns on them. It can stay docked in Pearl Harbor and arc shells into Pyongyang.


Edit: Josh. I'm not serious here.
View Quote


lulz
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 1:45:19 AM EDT
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Ignorant question time...have there ever been any studies on very large guns firing sabot rounds?

Because I think about 16" smoothbore guns firing great big DU darts and get the weirdest boner...
View Quote



There were two projects in the works for the 16" Mark VII on the Iowa's.  One involved firing the 11" rounds from the "Atomic Annie" cannons in a Delrin sabot to get more range.  The other involved using the cannon to fire a round that incorporated a solid fuel supersonic ramjet motor - IIRC that involved chunking a 200 pound payload out to 200 miles.

I think both were motivated by the horrendous loses we took in carrier aviation in Korea and Vietnam.  The thinking was that if we could service some of those targets without risking aircraft or crews, it would be more effective in the long run.


Edit to add - the atomic battleship rounds were the same warhead used in the atomic annie gun, so if the saboted 11" rounds included the nuclear one, then the BB could fire a nuke to a larger distance.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 1:48:48 AM EDT
[#38]
It's official:  I'm now completely convinced that these battleship threads are the product of some down-and-out battleship manufacturer that got hold of H&K's marketing handbook.  
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 1:50:39 AM EDT
[#39]





Link Posted: 8/30/2015 2:20:45 AM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



There were two projects in the works for the 16" Mark VII on the Iowa's.  One involved firing the 11" rounds from the "Atomic Annie" cannons in a Delrin sabot to get more range.  The other involved using the cannon to fire a round that incorporated a solid fuel supersonic ramjet motor - IIRC that involved chunking a 200 pound payload out to 200 miles.

I think both were motivated by the horrendous loses we took in carrier aviation in Korea and Vietnam.  The thinking was that if we could service some of those targets without risking aircraft or crews, it would be more effective in the long run.


Edit to add - the atomic battleship rounds were the same warhead used in the atomic annie gun, so if the saboted 11" rounds included the nuclear one, then the BB could fire a nuke to a larger distance.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


Ignorant question time...have there ever been any studies on very large guns firing sabot rounds?

Because I think about 16" smoothbore guns firing great big DU darts and get the weirdest boner...



There were two projects in the works for the 16" Mark VII on the Iowa's.  One involved firing the 11" rounds from the "Atomic Annie" cannons in a Delrin sabot to get more range.  The other involved using the cannon to fire a round that incorporated a solid fuel supersonic ramjet motor - IIRC that involved chunking a 200 pound payload out to 200 miles.

I think both were motivated by the horrendous loses we took in carrier aviation in Korea and Vietnam.  The thinking was that if we could service some of those targets without risking aircraft or crews, it would be more effective in the long run.


Edit to add - the atomic battleship rounds were the same warhead used in the atomic annie gun, so if the saboted 11" rounds included the nuclear one, then the BB could fire a nuke to a larger distance.



Interesting, thanks.

Of course, the railgun achieves higher velocities than any powder-based weapon can. But I still wonder about actual service life before major overhaul is needed...and what the max rate of fire is.

All classified, I'm sure.



Link Posted: 8/30/2015 2:23:22 AM EDT
[#41]
More 16 in NGF via BB.

More BBN per The Gunny.  

Link Posted: 8/30/2015 2:33:36 AM EDT
[#42]
Unfortunately no. But think of it this way, weapons are just armor....at long range
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 2:49:15 AM EDT
[#43]
Modern torps don't give a shit how armoured you are.  They just say, "Fuck your keel."
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 2:52:38 AM EDT
[#44]
We need battle cruisers
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 3:00:21 AM EDT
[#45]
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 3:02:54 AM EDT
[#46]
No! We too poor
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 4:16:05 AM EDT
[#47]
No

Unless you're talking a large fast ship with 16 rail guns and a particle laser array for defence.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 11:36:11 AM EDT
[#48]
A little off subject but would it be possible to use a small torpedo to defend against a ship killing torpedo?
\If so then why not develop them into an active torpedo defense?


If not then what would be the reason?
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 11:51:14 AM EDT
[#49]
If you're talking about true, traditional, 16" gunned battleships.... Probably not.

However, I could see the use in a heavy gun armed cruiser.  Say one, three-gun turret with 8" guns and a secondary 5" battery... Or even for sake of ammunition commonality make everything 5" guns.  That would leave you a bunch of room for vertical launch cells and a helo pad on the stern.  With all of the advancements in modern 5" ammunition, that would probably be pretty damn effective if you just needed to shell the piss out of something and you'd still have the room for a flexible, multi-role vessel.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 11:53:12 AM EDT
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



I beg to differ.  Someone starts popping off nine 16" guns in my direction, I might get lucky.

Someone plants an AGM-114 right where I am, I don't need luck, I need Jesus, Mohammed, the Ahura Mazda, Ishvara, Odin, and/or a healthy dose of enthusiastic ancestors, depending on my faith.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes. Nothing puts the fear of god in the enemy like 16" guns raining down giant projectiles on their heads.









I beg to differ.  Someone starts popping off nine 16" guns in my direction, I might get lucky.

Someone plants an AGM-114 right where I am, I don't need luck, I need Jesus, Mohammed, the Ahura Mazda, Ishvara, Odin, and/or a healthy dose of enthusiastic ancestors, depending on my faith.


[Ricky Bobby] Help me Allah! Help me Jewish God!!! [Ricky Bobby]
Page / 7
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top