|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 17, 2021 18:40:39 GMT
Every battleship was named after a state, whilst every carrier was named after an early ship of the USN or a battle. The system made a great deal of sense and carried some gravitas with it. Should an Iowa be recommissioned, it would be both a throwback to those days as well as a further spanner in the works, given the nomenclature shift to SSNs via SSBNs.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,988 
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 17, 2021 18:57:17 GMT
Every battleship was named after a state, whilst every carrier was named after an early ship of the USN or a battle. The system made a great deal of sense and carried some gravitas with it. Should an Iowa be recommissioned, it would be both a throwback to those days as well as a further spanner in the works, given the nomenclature shift to SSNs via SSBNs. Also there would be two Iowas in service, there is a Virginia-class submarine that is going to be called USS Iowa (SSN-797) as well as there is already a USS New Jersey (SSN-796), USS Missouri (SSN-780) in service. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 18, 2021 4:12:59 GMT
As referred to in my first post on the thread, this would only be a major issue in 2016 for Missouri. Iowa and New Jersey's names had been announced, but neither boat had been laid down. As such, it wouldn't yet enter into the territory of bad naval luck or bad form to change the announced names. The following link provides some context to US naval renaming: defaeroreport.com/2020/06/14/renaming-us-navy-ships/ |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Apr 23, 2021 13:58:26 GMT
Must admit I was wondering who the hell was Doris Miller until I looked on wiki and saw it was a guy! Brave man bit does make a change from the CVNs being named largely after former Presidents.
Concur steve. Doris Miller is a fine name for a USN warship. Navy cross and KIA aboard USS Liscome Bay (ACV/CVE-56).
The USS Miller (FF-1091) was named after him. A CVN is a big step up from an FF.
IMO, FWIW, CVN-81 deserves the name of a "fighting sailor" who died for his country rather than a damn politician.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,988
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 23, 2021 14:05:05 GMT
Must admit I was wondering who the hell was Doris Miller until I looked on wiki and saw it was a guy! Brave man bit does make a change from the CVNs being named largely after former Presidents.
Concur steve. Doris Miller is a fine name for a USN warship. Navy cross and KIA aboard USS Liscome Bay (ACV/CVE-56).
The USS Miller (FF-1091) was named after him. A CVN is a big step up from an FF.
We some class back to the carriers, at this moment only the new Big E jumps to my mind. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Apr 23, 2021 15:13:47 GMT
OK Steve I'll play  IMO, the purpose of a battleship is to be capable absorbing vast amounts of punishment while also being able to dish it out, and then be able to return to port under its own power.
IMO, a modern CVN nuclear power plant would be more than enough to power a large number of rail guns while maneuvering at high speed.
To be a true BB it has to be unsurpassed in survivability. That means retention of heavy armor over all critical areas. That also means both passive and active anti-torpedo systems.
I'd look long and hard at ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems subsidiary Atlas Elektronik. WTD71 prototype. In 2018 there was a "Successful" full ‘sensor to shooter’ functional chain of a hardkill surface ship torpedo defense system with torpedo detection, classification and localisation (TDCL) and the SeaSpider anti-torpedo-torpedo (ATT) has successfully been demonstrated on a surface ship,” the company claimed.
Today the BB requires the best area anti-air weapon battery capable of both self defense and providing protection to nearby vessels. I'd say numerous RAM systems, laser AA systems, missiles SM6 and ESSM.
Offensively I'd install about 400 FPM (Flexible Payload Modules for hyper-sonic missiles) VLS cells with a loadout of whatever is the best missiles we have for ABM, AAW, strike, ASUW and drones.
I'd cut down most of the superstructure. Just leave enough to support the required electronics. Everything possible goes behind the armor.
I would also use the Nuclear power plant to ensure high speed, maybe faster than the actual speed of our CVNs. The Iowas could easily cruise at 32 knots, and even hit just over 35 knots when going all out. A modern BB would be capable of a variety of escort roles, responding quickly to a crises, and preforming high speed combat maneuvers.
Main armament composed of of 6-8 dual purpose rail guns able to target enemies on land and surface. With the main guns placed on the forward end, the entire back half of the ship can be used as a massive AA-secondary platform, landing pad, and place for missile batteries.
Automate the crap out of engineering plant, weapons, sensors and all the Hotel services. Got to get the crew down to about 300 or less.
Major uses would be the same as the Surface Action Group. Sea control, strike warfare and escort for Carriers, Amphibs and support ships.
Steve, personally I think this is a waste of money but you asked. I do think there is a great need for a large surface, survivable combatant but the IOWA's are not it. Hell if congress would provide the funding I'd even call it a BB.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Apr 23, 2021 16:17:17 GMT
OK Steve I'll play IMO, the purpose of a battleship is to be capable absorbing vast amounts of punishment while also being able to dish it out, and then be able to return to port under its own power.
IMO, a modern CVN nuclear power plant would be more than enough to power a large number of rail guns while maneuvering at high speed.
To be a true BB it has to be unsurpassed in survivability. That means retention of heavy armor over all critical areas. That also means both passive and active anti-torpedo systems.
I'd look long and hard at ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems subsidiary Atlas Elektronik. WTD71 prototype. In 2018 there was a "Successful" full ‘sensor to shooter’ functional chain of a hardkill surface ship torpedo defense system with torpedo detection, classification and localisation (TDCL) and the SeaSpider anti-torpedo-torpedo (ATT) has successfully been demonstrated on a surface ship,” the company claimed.
Today the BB requires the best area anti-air weapon battery capable of both self defense and providing protection to nearby vessels. I'd say numerous RAM systems, laser AA systems, missiles SM6 and ESSM.
Offensively I'd install about 400 FPM (Flexible Payload Modules for hyper-sonic missiles) VLS cells with a loadout of whatever is the best missiles we have for ABM, AAW, strike, ASUW and drones.
I'd cut down most of the superstructure. Just leave enough to support the required electronics. Everything possible goes behind the armor.
I would also use the Nuclear power plant to ensure high speed, maybe faster than the actual speed of our CVNs. The Iowas could easily cruise at 32 knots, and even hit just over 35 knots when going all out. A modern BB would be capable of a variety of escort roles, responding quickly to a crises, and preforming high speed combat maneuvers.
Main armament composed of of 6-8 dual purpose rail guns able to target enemies on land and surface. With the main guns placed on the forward end, the entire back half of the ship can be used as a massive AA-secondary platform, landing pad, and place for missile batteries.
Automate the crap out of engineering plant, weapons, sensors and all the Hotel services. Got to get the crew down to about 300 or less.
Major uses would be the same as the Surface Action Group. Sea control, strike warfare and escort for Carriers, Amphibs and support ships.
Steve, personally I think this is a waste of money but you asked. I do think there is a great need for a large surface, survivable combatant but the IOWA's are not it. Hell if congress would provide the funding I'd even call it a BB.
I'm not sure if you meant to quote me or Steve or mixed us up. Anyway, I agree with your points and Simon asked gave us a damn fine idea of what the whole mess would be too. Personally, I don't see the need for the ships apart from the rule of cool but I was interested in the hypothetical, as proposed at that time. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Apr 23, 2021 21:59:33 GMT
Would agree. Sounds like if you wanted something like that then it would be cheaper to build from new rather than seek to modernise a 70+ year old hull. Especially since by the sound of it its like the old trick the USN used to have to do in the late 19thC of basically building a new ship and putting the old nameplate on it.
Even if you built something like that it sounds like it would in large part be a fleet escort, which admittedly the BBs were in large part by the latter stages of WWII. Plus with the development of hypo velocity missiles I wonder if one or two of those would mission kill even a ship with WWII BB levels of armour?
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 24, 2021 10:11:52 GMT
A modern ship of the like described by the Senior Chief wouldn’t necessarily need the same armour scheme as a battleship, as the threat is very different from 15-18” naval gunfire. I’m not sure that a modern armoured ship would bear an armour belt. I do think that there would be use of an armoured deck, spacing between layers of modern armour and as much active defence as possible.
I don’t know if a large number of individual rail guns would be needed; the general USN design practice since WW2 that I’ve interpreted by Norman Friedman and the late Stuart Slade’s works has been for a smaller number of mounts with increased RoF/general capabilities. Perhaps 4 guns in total in some sort of arrangement of “twin mounts” would be sufficient for bombardment purposes. I’d also prefer to distribute the guns fore and aft so that a lucky missile hit does not take out the main raison d’être of the vessel in one go.
I’d definitely want some aviation capacity in the form of a hanger and landing platform, but would resist the temptation to try and cram too many missions into the hull.
I’d distribute missile capacity around the ship, but would avoid the Zumwalt type cells around the sides. One VLS fore, one aft, each with ~128 cells, positioned where we’d have B and X turrets of old, plus two 64 cell VLS amidships. Four laser systems evenly spaced amidships, backed up by four RIM-116 launchers. I’d still like to have some sort of close in gun systems for self defence, such as the 57mm and a new automated 25-30mm gun in a spherical mount that can maximise firing arcs against incoming missiles.
She would probably bear a resemblance to a pre-dreadnought in a certain fashion.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Apr 24, 2021 14:25:12 GMT
A modern ship of the like described by the Senior Chief wouldn’t necessarily need the same armour scheme as a battleship, as the threat is very different from 15-18” naval gunfire. I’m not sure that a modern armoured ship would bear an armour belt. I do think that there would be use of an armoured deck, spacing between layers of modern armour and as much active defence as possible. I don’t know if a large number of individual rail guns would be needed; the general USN design practice since WW2 that I’ve interpreted by Norman Friedman and the late Stuart Slade’s works has been for a smaller number of mounts with increased RoF/general capabilities. Perhaps 4 guns in total in some sort of arrangement of “twin mounts” would be sufficient for bombardment purposes. I’d also prefer to distribute the guns fore and aft so that a lucky missile hit does not take out the main raison d’être of the vessel in one go. I’d definitely want some aviation capacity in the form of a hanger and landing platform, but would resist the temptation to try and cram too many missions into the hull. I’d distribute missile capacity around the ship, but would avoid the Zumwalt type cells around the sides. One VLS fore, one aft, each with ~128 cells, positioned where we’d have B and X turrets of old, plus two 64 cell VLS amidships. Four laser systems evenly spaced amidships, backed up by four RIM-116 launchers. I’d still like to have some sort of close in gun systems for self defence, such as the 57mm and a new automated 25-30mm gun in a spherical mount that can maximise firing arcs against incoming missiles. She would probably bear a resemblance to a pre-dreadnought in a certain fashion. Makes sense as usual Simon..
I do have one nit to pick with you. Please don't let them look like French pre-dreadnoughts.  |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 24, 2021 15:22:40 GMT
Never fear, Senior. Although it would certainly frighten the enemy, I am not a monster!  |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Apr 24, 2021 17:40:52 GMT
Never fear, Senior. Although it would certainly frighten the enemy, I am not a monster!
If he's thinking the same thing as I am I think its less frighten the enemy than disable them by laughing fits. As a certain naval youtube poster puts it when hotels go to war. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,988
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 24, 2021 17:42:47 GMT
Never fear, Senior. Although it would certainly frighten the enemy, I am not a monster! If he's thinking the same thing as I am I think its less frighten the enemy than disable them by laughing fits. As a certain naval youtube poster puts it when hotels go to war. , i was thinking about the same YouTube clip but did not mention it for a reason here. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Apr 24, 2021 17:59:55 GMT
If he's thinking the same thing as I am I think its less frighten the enemy than disable them by laughing fits. As a certain naval youtube poster puts it when hotels go to war. , i was thinking about the same YouTube clip but did not mention it for a reason here.
Oh is there an issue with mentioning it? Hope I haven't caused the site a problem?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,988
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 24, 2021 18:02:43 GMT
stevep , i was thinking about the same YouTube clip but did not mention it for a reason here. Oh is there an issue with mentioning it? Hope I haven't caused the site a problem?
Only to the French by mentioning their ships are hotels. |
|
