This is a discussion on Return of the battleship. within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Belesari
About what i thought then i can see something about like the soviet BC then. You ...
About what i thought then i can see something about like the soviet BC then. You should be able to get alot of speed out of it if designed right with a reactor and such.
What do you want speed for? The only reason to carry a big gun is shore bombardment and other fire support missions, and you only need to be able to keep up with the anfibs to do those. People may not agree with me when I say that the age of the BB is over, but they can't argue with me when I say the age of the fast BB ended with the introduction of effective SAMs.
Quote:
Hmm I wonder if you could do it on a trimaran hull form.
Not if you're going to fit a big-ass gun on it. One of the selling points of trimaran designs is a shallow draft. A shallow draft combined with a narrow hull means that there simply isn't enough room in the hull, unless you make the hull very large.
Quote:
What would be the best hull form for a ship like that? Tumble down like on the DDG1000(hopefully not costing anywhere near as much)?
I doubt it. Tumblehome is an inherently unstable hull design. It became popular around 1900, but the British did a series of very thorough experiments that pretty much killed the design. The proposed hull for the Zumwalt is even worse than the ones from back then, because the hull leans inward even more and the only way to retain stability is to install a complex active stabilization system. And if it's all the same to you, I'd rather not have to rely on such a system when the bullets starts flying.
And yes, I'm well aware that most modern warships use stabilizers, but unlike the Zumwalt they don't rely on them to keep them from capsizing.
There've been various attempts to replace the battleships in a fire support role. first there's Strike Cruiser, then there's an arsenal ships and then there's Ohios carrying tomahawk. only the Ohios made it through. The rest never made it beyond testing. Russian are still struggling to keep 2 Kirov seaworthy and for such a cost, the ship is still highly vulnerable to a carrier aircrafts armed with AShM and a submarines.
________________ Here's how you make a good soldiers. First you train them, then you trust them.
What do you want speed for? The only reason to carry a big gun is shore bombardment and other fire support missions, and you only need to be able to keep up with the anfibs to do those. People may not agree with me when I say that the age of the BB is over, but they can't argue with me when I say the age of the fast BB ended with the introduction of effective SAMs.
Not if you're going to fit a big-ass gun on it. One of the selling points of trimaran designs is a shallow draft. A shallow draft combined with a narrow hull means that there simply isn't enough room in the hull, unless you make the hull very large.
I doubt it. Tumblehome is an inherently unstable hull design. It became popular around 1900, but the British did a series of very thorough experiments that pretty much killed the design. The proposed hull for the Zumwalt is even worse than the ones from back then, because the hull leans inward even more and the only way to retain stability is to install a complex active stabilization system. And if it's all the same to you, I'd rather not have to rely on such a system when the bullets starts flying.
And yes, I'm well aware that most modern warships use stabilizers, but unlike the Zumwalt they don't rely on them to keep them from capsizing.
Dear god i didnt know it was that bad. What brain dead retard thought using that hull design on a ship that would be so close to shore was a good idea?
I always figured stability was you know one of the Big frst thing a ocean going ship needs issues.
Let me be clearer. I wasnt suggesting a big gun on it. If the vessel were talking about is a Battlecruiser, armed with a large amount of Land attack missiles, with maybe some good air to air missiles (SM3s) and such then then it would be a better idea for it to be faster. That way it can escort the marine expeditionary units. Heck i figure you could combine the shore bombardment role with that of the existing Ticonderoga class if you wanted and it wouldnt signifigantly impact either role.
And from what ive read the railguns planned wouldnt have anymore shock than a 155mm. Just a little bit more than the existing 5in.
Dear god i didnt know it was that bad. What brain dead retard thought using that hull design on a ship that would be so close to shore was a good idea?
I always figured stability was you know one of the Big frst thing a ocean going ship needs issues.
It normally is, but the tumblehome offers significant stealth advantages. Whether it's worth it is another matter entirely.
Quote:
Let me be clearer. I wasnt suggesting a big gun on it. If the vessel were talking about is a Battlecruiser, armed with a large amount of Land attack missiles, with maybe some good air to air missiles (SM3s) and such then then it would be a better idea for it to be faster. That way it can escort the marine expeditionary units.
The San Antonio Class LPD clocks in at ~22 knots, so current escorts are more than fast enough to keep up. (Ticonderoga can do 32.5 knots, Perry can do >29 knots and Arleigh Burke can do >30 knots)
Quote:
Heck i figure you could combine the shore bombardment role with that of the existing Ticonderoga class if you wanted and it wouldnt signifigantly impact either role.
Indeed not. After all, this is how Ticonderoga class cruisers and Arleigh Burke Class destroyers are used today.
Building a larger VLS scooter doesn't make sense from an economic sense or a strategic sense, since you won't be able to build as many hulls, thus you loose flexibility and you probably won't get the same capability as two Ticos would have given you.
Quote:
And from what ive read the railguns planned wouldnt have anymore shock than a 155mm. Just a little bit more than the existing 5in.
Yes and no. Since the acceleration is going to be constant along the entire length of the barrel, the peak load on the hull is going to be lower than a traditional gun with the same output. Whether the peak load is going to be lower than that of a 5'' gun I can't say.
What I can say, though, is that the muzzle blast is going to be far worse. The projectile carries more than five times the energy of a 5"/62 Mark 45 Mod 4 and almost twice the energy of the AGS. It'll drag a considerable shockwave with it. And then of course, there's the little matter of the cloud of superheated metal gas billowing out of the barrel.
Yes and no. Since the acceleration is going to be constant along the entire length of the barrel, the peak load on the hull is going to be lower than a traditional gun with the same output. Whether the peak load is going to be lower than that of a 5'' gun I can't say.
What I can say, though, is that the muzzle blast is going to be far worse. The projectile carries more than five times the energy of a 5"/62 Mark 45 Mod 4 and almost twice the energy of the AGS. It'll drag a considerable shockwave with it. And then of course, there's the little matter of the cloud of superheated metal gas billowing out of the barrel.
Five times the energy means five times the recoil, unless the mount is fitted with very good shock absorbers....
You can apply a huge amount of force in an instant or a small amount of force over a long period of time to provide the same amount of energy. Small space craft (ion) thrusters produce tiny amounts of force, but over long periods (days), rockets can provide the same amount of energy in a few seconds.
These rail guns should have (very slightly) lower peak forces as they are accelerating the projectile the whole length of the barrel and not just in an explosion. However most likely designers will simply upgrade the gun to provide more energy simular peak force.
You can apply a huge amount of force in an instant or a small amount of force over a long period of time to provide the same amount of energy. Small space craft (ion) thrusters produce tiny amounts of force, but over long periods (days), rockets can provide the same amount of energy in a few seconds.
These rail guns should have (very slightly) lower peak forces as they are accelerating the projectile the whole length of the barrel and not just in an explosion. However most likely designers will simply upgrade the gun to provide more energy simular peak force.
You can apply a huge amount of force in an instant or a small amount of force over a long period of time to provide the same amount of energy. Small space craft (ion) thrusters produce tiny amounts of force, but over long periods (days), rockets can provide the same amount of energy in a few seconds.
These rail guns should have (very slightly) lower peak forces as they are accelerating the projectile the whole length of the barrel and not just in an explosion. However most likely designers will simply upgrade the gun to provide more energy simular peak force.
Just wanted to point out that the example used of spacecraft with an ion thrust or rocket engine does not apply particularly well in explaining applied forces for projectile motion within Earth's atmosphere.
In the case of a gun (conventional or rail/magnetic) there is a (short) finite period in which energy can be applied to move the projectile, which will then travel through air until reaching the target, contending with friction while en route. The gun itself, along with anything attached to the gun (like the mounting and/or ship) will have the same amount of energy applied to it to move it in the opposite direction (Newton's 3rd Law of Motion).
Now, if the projectile was fitted with some form of sustainer engine, the situation would be a bit different, because force could continue to be exerted upon the projectile which could be independent of any applied by the gun.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Yeh. Rarely are analogies perfect. Yes, and there are plenty of other issues. My post was specifically dealing only with impulse.
I would imagine that rail gun designs would fit in approximately where 5 and 6" guns are currently so that if the tech doesn't work out, too costly, slow to develop then regular guns can be installed. I don't know if every ship in a navy needs a rail gun either. Infact I can see several reasons why you wouldn't. Designing ships to take 155mm or rail gun would seem to be a wise move. The energy of a rail gun isnt huge
But barrel wear seems to be a huge issue with the things. Lots of issues, guidance, burning up before impact, etc. The whole advantage with a rail gun is low cost per round compared with things that can do simular damage. Until that happens they wont be popular.
Old guns are also learning new tricks ERA type shells seem to have a bright future. Regular guns also allow you to shoot very cheap unguided muntions as well.
I would imagine that rail gun designs would fit in approximately where 5 and 6" guns are currently so that if the tech doesn't work out, too costly, slow to develop then regular guns can be installed. I don't know if every ship in a navy needs a rail gun either. Infact I can see several reasons why you wouldn't. Designing ships to take 155mm or rail gun would seem to be a wise move. The energy of a rail gun isnt huge
While it may not be all that hard to design a ship capable of withstanding the recoil of a 155mm railgun, designing one cpable of supplying it with power is an entirely different matter.
According to NavWeaps.com, the 155mm railguns projectiles will have 125MJ worth of kinetic energy when they leave the barrel. Given the massive amount of cooling necessary, I guess that the gun will need about twice as much energy, meaning that it'll take 250MJ to launch. All that energy has to come from the ships powerplants.
While it may not be all that hard to design a ship capable of withstanding the recoil of a 155mm railgun, designing one cpable of supplying it with power is an entirely different matter.
According to NavWeaps.com, the 155mm railguns projectiles will have 125MJ worth of kinetic energy when they leave the barrel. Given the massive amount of cooling necessary, I guess that the gun will need about twice as much energy, meaning that it'll take 250MJ to launch. All that energy has to come from the ships powerplants.
Just FYI guys. A railgun produces zero recoil. Why? Because it creates a Lorentz force at one end of the conductive rails. If you place a free standing ( and preferably conductive) object at the other end of the rails, that object will be attracted to the Lorentz force. The rail gun works because by the time the object reaches the Lorrentz force it is traveling at an enormous velocity and "escapes" out the other side. You also at the same time turn off the switch (not unlike a linear track motor). There is no recoil.
cheers
w
ps: BTW. No one happened to notice the media blitz by Bloom Energy and their SOFC (Solid Oxide Fuel Cell) did they? And here I was told that it was a technology of tomorrow.
These rail guns should have (very slightly) lower peak forces as they are accelerating the projectile the whole length of the barrel and not just in an explosion.
IIRC, modern propellants don't explode in one sudden shock, but (deliberately) in a relatively slow, or staged, expansion, so that they continue to accelerate the projectile for the full length of the barrel.
But the rate of acceleration drops off, so I think you're right that the rail gun should have a lower peak force for the same total acceleration.
Just FYI guys. A railgun produces zero recoil. Why? Because it creates a Lorentz force at one end of the conductive rails. If you place a free standing ( and preferably conductive) object at the other end of the rails, that object will be attracted to the Lorentz force. The rail gun works because by the time the object reaches the Lorrentz force it is traveling at an enormous velocity and "escapes" out the other side. You also at the same time turn off the switch (not unlike a linear track motor). There is no recoil.
cheers
w
ps: BTW. No one happened to notice the media blitz by Bloom Energy and their SOFC (Solid Oxide Fuel Cell) did they? And here I was told that it was a technology of tomorrow.
Still nothing will beat my favorite news (or why the MSM should never touch military technology news) story of all time. Fox news started a story that israeli tanks had shields....not metal but like on star trek It was just a new missile defense weapon of theres that launched warheads into the path of the object.
But it was funny while it lasted.
But anyways the railguns are still in the development stage but right now there having problems with the guns shattering themselves when they fire so.....
Looking at all these new destroyers and frigates makes me weep I mean there is no armor on these ship's as shown in previous conflicts where warships are damaged or sunk due to ASM's. My main point is old, rusting hulks of the once powerful battleships sit in shallow water for tourists to gaze at while they could be sitting off shore of a hostile country acting as a deterrence. Heavy armor coupled with powerful weaponry makes these behemoths a living nightmare for the smaller pee-wee ships.
Before you all start saying these ships are slow, highly expensive and mentally frustrating to maintain look at the modern age, with new technology and new inexpensive materials you could probably build a 21st century battleship for just over the price of a Nimitz class carrier or more depending on what you want.
Weaponry; New auto-loading guns will decrease the number of personnel needed, Equip the ships with state of the art SAM systems such as PAAMS with a few Goalkeepers, fit the ships with ship launched ASM's and cruise missiles.
Armor; Military analysts state that most ASM's will not be able to penetrate the hull of a battleship even the old ships maybe the large Russian Kitchen missiles but no ones tested. Water armor though I've not read much on this type of armor but it has something to do with physics maybe I'll learn more on that someday, Chobbham or Dorchester armor will be perfect but it would seem the MOD wont give it away neither would it be cost effective in such large quantity's, maybe build the ship out of frozen wood pulp but no i think staying with steel and shaped hull will suffice.
Power plant; Although you may be thinking "Hmmm nuclear would be best" but no your wrong as there is a far more suitable source of power which is Hydrogen power, yes that's right hydrogen is the new nuclear being able to produce energy with no worry's of running out of resources. Obviously only wealthy country's can produce this type of fuel I know in the USA some states use Hydrogen powered cars, Back to battleships I know nuclear seems better because you don't have to refuel all the time but think the resources needed to power reactors will eventually run out.
Well I've probably bored you enough with my constant dribble but feel free to reply.
Cheers
Touché' I agree with you completely! The small, lighter ships may be good for some things, BUT, when it comes to survivability, FORGET ABOUT IT!!! A missile that would sink a smaller ship would not damage a Battle wagon!!!
Touché' I agree with you completely! The small, lighter ships may be good for some things, BUT, when it comes to survivability, FORGET ABOUT IT!!! A missile that would sink a smaller ship would not damage a Battle wagon!!!
Sailor Dale's agreement with TankCrewman 2008 with respect to the very significant role(s) still available for battlewagons and their ilk is.....well, refreshing. Yes, refits with upgraded weapons systems are probably somewhat more than possible...and hydrogen as a fuel source sounds good-ish.
Role definition may be another matter, but I sure would like to hear from others in this overall respect. What, for instance, are the downsides in all this? I'm sure some pretty good cogent arguments can be made on the "nay" side, but would they be strong enough to discount TankCrewman's general proposition?
During the earlier stages of WWII, air power pretty well proved that battleships weren't going to be able to cut it. After all, it was "string bags" that really took out the Bismark, and aircraft which bottled up the Tirpitz. And in the Far East, Britian's pride succumbed quickly to Japanese attacks from the air.
On the plus side, vessels like the "Big Mo" did yeoman work in delivering pre-invasion (just about everywhere) suppressive fire.
The whole business is a bit of a conundrum. Sure would like to see some un-conundrumating comments on it.
It was just a new missile defense weapon of theres that launched warheads into the path of the object.
Battlewagons! 
