Battleships BB(x)

[Waylander]

@abramsteve
No problem.

I would really like to see a funded price calculation if somebody wants to build those monsters again.

 

[abramsteve]

I hate all of you for bringing up a BB thread... let em R.I.P.! The day of the BB was over in 1941. They were only left in service so long b/c of the expense it took to build them and their practicallity of naval bombardment. Reagans decision to rearm in response to Kirov BCs was a waste IMO of funds. The cost to maintain these huge ships is ridiculous. In these times of reduced manpower the BB eats up this to the max, accept a Nimitz but thats outta the ballpark in firepower. There is no way your going to get a 16' shell to go 80-100nm. Putting rocket assistance on these shells would make them ICBMs :lol3. I noticed the armor argument... do you think she can stop the penetration of torpedoes exploding under the keel? Do you think she can withstand many hits of 750kg shipwreck missiles? If we put these monsters to sea the enemy will just make bigger warheads to get whatever armor we put on them. The future of surface warfare is not bigger guns, heavier missiles and thicker armor... It's EM-Railguns,(which will never be strong enough for BB reqs) ABM lasers and stealth... all of which big gun ships cannot fill.

Fair enough mate! Look I dont think anyones actually talking for real about bringing back the Iowa's, or even building a vessel of a simillar size.

Im not sure, but I pretty much agree with your last statement about the future of surface warfare, but I still see the value of naval artillery. Can you see the value of a 2-3000tonn litoral combat ship armed with even a single 6-8inch gun?

I dont want to recomission the Iowa's frown) nor do I want another vessel of the same size, armor and armorment!

I do think that what we should disscuss here is what we would class as a modern BB.

 

[Big-E]

What we need to be doing is getting all future ships the IPS for DEWs. This is all the pre-req we really need to do until the EM-Railguns get the rails strong enough for re-use. This is all the guns we'll need.

 

[boldeagle]

I think that was my point...

@abramsteve
No problem.

I would really like to see a funded price calculation if somebody wants to build those monsters again.

While I don't have the expertise to do a really complete "funded price calculation" for building a "new" version of the Iowa class BB (the original cost of which was, as I recall, in the hundreds of millions, or more, in 1940s money), I would be willing to take a SWAG ("Scientifically-based Wild A__ Guess") that the hull alone (should we even have the technological capability of building one!) would cost somewhere near a trillion dollars. No, the point is that I agree: the days of the Iowa class BB are, quite effectively, over.

The only way you could ever build one of those monsters again, and get an effectively and massively armored battlewagon, without busting the bank, would be if you built the hull out of Pykrete!

 

[Sea Toby]

The US Navy has plans to build several DDG-1000 destroyers of the Elmo Zumwalt class, some 12,000 tons in displacement with two 6-inch guns. The 6-inch guns have recently passed their third tests, shooting a round some 60 miles. The first ship isn't expected to be delivered until 2011-12. These destroyers will eventually replace the gun fire need of the Marines, their costs are expected to be around $1.2-1.6 billion each, less than the last of the Arleigh Burke destroyers.

 

[RubiconNZ]

??

Hold on last I heard they were going to be much more than that at around 3 billion each, not to mention I they are fitting the 155mm guns on it ala the AGS. The close in guns are to be the 57mms Mk110. And tonnage will be around 14500.
So essentially a 21st century battlewagon in my mind similar capability espscially if they design a true penetrating capability for cruise missile warheads any ideas?.
Here a source:

The Navy’s current estimate is $3.3 billion for each lead ship while follow ship costs are projected to be significantly less. Based on the current build profile, the cost estimate for the fifth ship is $2.3 billion (FY11 dollars). Congress, in the FY06 Authorization Act, set a cost cap of $2.3 billion on the fifth ship in the DDG 1000 class.
Program Executive Office
http://peos.crane.navy.mil/DDG1000/Cost_reduction.htm
On side note stingy bas**rds messing with the size gun firing specs if youre gonna do it do it right. Relying on supply ship right of access The Jarheads have a saying about that.

 

[Sea Toby]

I must have been reading old stuff. I stand corrected. The cost of the program has gone up significantly. With only seven to eight ships planned, instead of 24 or 30, obviously the development costs don't spread out. However, the Senate and the House did pass in the 07 budget the lead ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDG-1000

The gun did fire its third test shell 60 miles. The gun is fast, 10 rounds per minute, similar to a battery of 6 field 155mm guns, which is a 6.1 inch gun.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm

While it may not have the same explosive impact of the old battleship guns, it definitely has the old battleship guns beat in range.

So, unless the wikipedia is wrong, the lead ship is in the FY 07 budget.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Fingers Crossed

#However, the Senate did pass in the 07 budget the lead ship. We won't know until later this fall whether the House agrees.

True wouldn't discount further cuts or well I hope its past the program cancellation stage ie continued production of AB's until the CGX program is revealed.

I do think that what we should disscuss here is what we would class as a modern BB.

Does anyone disagree the DDG 1000 will have similar capabilities to the BB?, in weaponry? Obiviously the shock and awe of a 1 tonne shell x9 could be hard to replace, however surely a salvo of TACTom's would have a rather similar effect?

 

[alexsa]

Im not sure, but I pretty much agree with your last statement about the future of surface warfare, but I still see the value of naval artillery. Can you see the value of a 2-3000tonn litoral combat ship armed with even a single 6-8inch gun?

A cautionary note here. The LCS are light alloy hulls in order to get the speed. They have a payload capacity (mission modules) measured in the hundreds of tonnes (about 300 max I understand). Stick a 155mm system, ammunition and the supporting structure on ths ship you are going to eat that payload capacity up removing much of the reaons for having such a design in the first plce.

It should also be noted that this is based on the assumption that it is feasible that the structure could withstand the forces without very signifiant modification noting they are built for a 57mm system.

 

[Big-E]

The US Navy has plans to build several DDG-1000 destroyers of the Elmo Zumwalt class, some 12,000 tons in displacement with two 6-inch guns. The 6-inch guns have recently passed their third tests, shooting a round some 60 miles.

I thought it was 5 inch.

 

[Sea Toby]

Specifications for the DDG-1000 Elmo Zumwalt class
Length: 600 ft (183 m)
Beam: 79.1 ft (24.1 m)
Draft: 27.6 ft (8.4 m)
Speed: 30.3 kt (56 km/h)
Displacement: 14,064 LT
Power: 78 MW, from 2 Rolls-Royce MT-30 gas turbines and emergency diesel generators.
Crew Size: 140
2007 Cost per Unit: $3.291 Billion
2 SH-60 LAMPS helicopters or 1 MH-60R helicopter
3 RQ-8A Fire Scout VTUAV
2 × 155 mm Advanced Gun System (6.1-inch)
920 × 155 mm LRLAP rounds (6.1-inch)
2 × 57 mm Mk110 Close-In Gun System
80 × VLS cells, comprising twenty four-cell MK57 launcher modules
Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM)
Tactical Tomahawk Block IV
Standard Missile 2 Block III (SM-2)
Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket (ASROC)
SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) [X-band, scanned array]
Volume Search Radar (VSR) [L-band, scanned array]

Lead ship acquired FY 2007 budget
Delivery expected 2011-2012

 

[fylr71]

Perhaps CGX could be the long sought after 21st century battleship. Also I've heard of something called "Arsenal Ship" which looks like it would've been a seabased platform carrying huge amounts of missiles, I believe it was cancelled. I don't know if there was a prototype built or anything gained from the project. It seems like a pretty good idea. Does anyone have any more info on it?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Perhaps CGX could be the long sought after 21st century battleship. Also I've heard of something called "Arsenal Ship" which looks like it would've been a seabased platform carrying huge amounts of missiles, I believe it was cancelled. I don't know if there was a prototype built or anything gained from the project. It seems like a pretty good idea. Does anyone have any more info on it?

RickUSN can probably give more specific detail. As I understand it the Arsenal Ships even had follow on penant numbers from the Missouris. So, in a literal sense they were a continuation of the BB's

 

[harryriedl]

im sorry to say that the CG[X] is no more its dead acroding to wikapidia
in 2006 Congress massively cut the DD(X) program, with only two ships of the Zumwalt class still planned.
it means only two have congress funding but it still many be revied.

but ording to wikapidea it has been cancesseled [sorry about the spelling ]

 

[RubiconNZ]

To be or not to be

There will be a CGX as there must be a replacement of the Ticonderoga Class Cruisers, what shape and form this takes will be interesting as a result of the change from DD21 to DDG1000, If you go by the Wikipedia quote alone it RUMOURED to be cancelled. If you go by USN shipbuilding plans and numbers there will be a replacement as it is likely there will only be 12 DDG 1000 at this time and there would be a large divergence from planned numbers to actuals, not that is anything new. What was cut was funding to a multi hull buy of the Zumwalts to my understanding, they are procuring them hull by hull at the moment just as all programs, LPDs, NSSN's etc.

 

[Sea Toby]

After reading the appropriations bills from the House and the Senate, it appears the Senate and the Navy still wishes to have 7-8 DDXs whereas the House doesn't want any, but did bow to the Senate for one DDX this year. Usually the Senate wins on what's to be built, but the House has in the past been able cut the numbers. The situation is still fluent and changes every year. Frankly, one has to be able to read a crystal ball whether more will be ordered and how many, especially at the start of a new warship class construction program.

With the CGX, plans have not been finished. The Senate wishes to move forward with this program, and as can be judged from the DDX program, the House doesn't.The House is interested in a smaller ship to follow on the DDX program, similar in size to the Arleigh Burkes. Anyone who can read a crystal ball may know what the follow on program will be, but it's safe to assume a follow on program is in the works.

I think it is safe to say that the new CGX, DDX, and LCS naval warship construction programs do introduce new sensors and weapons systems along with interesting hull and engineering designs for the 21st century. Any change in government at the executivie and legislative branches can change the future of the naval shipbuilding programs similar to any other nation.

One thing is for certain, the DDX(DDG-1000) class has gone through several design changes, with the current design addressing the Marine shore bombardment needs.