Missile Battleship

[ysi_maniac]

I mean a modern equivalent of WWII Battleships. Of course equiped with SSN missiles but some guns can be retained imo. Armour can be reduced but I think WWII kind of armour is inmune to modern missiles. Same can be said about modern torpedoes.

What do you think?

[Cliffy B]

Its a neat idea.  Give it two 64-cell VLS launchers and fill them full of TLAMs and some ESSMs for self defense, minimum of 2 triple 16" turrets and 4 Mk-62 5"/62 autos, 4 Phalanx and 2-4 RAM/Sea RAM and you have a potent land attack platform.  Add some Harpoons, a sonar, and some ASROCs and you have a well rounded ship.  Trying to cram AEGIS and SM-3/4/etc... on board would take up too much space and would really not be necessary.  The ship would used for shore bombardment/land attack/surface attack.  Aerial defense is best suited to the escorts.

When you say SSN missile are you referring to TLAMs or ICBMs?  ICBMs are best suited on the boomers for protection reasons.


As far as armor goes, they did a study on the Iowas in the 1980s and determined that it would take around 8 Mk-48 ADCAPs to break the keel and around 8-10 TASMs (Anti-ship version of the Tomahawk) to defeat the side belt.  Suffice it to say, you'd have to have to knock off a good portion of a BBs escorts before that kind of volume of weapons fire would even have a chance at getting through.  Money and manning are the reasons they aren't around today and why armor went by the wayside...bad moves on both accounts IMO but I digress (not trying to start a big argument here, we have enough of those over on the Modelwarships board).

[Jschmus]

During the 1950s there BuShips did a number of studies that involved converting some or all of the Iowa Class battleships into missile ships of various types.  It started with a proposal to build the unfinished USS Kentucky as an antiaircraft ship armed with 8-inch guns firing a guided shell called "Zeus".  That proposal came to nothing because the tech wasn't evolved enough.  Later proposals developed that incorporated various load-outs of all the different missiles developed by the Navy during that period: the Tartar, Terrier and Talos SAMs, the Regulus cruise missile and even the Polaris ballistic missile.  Some of these proposals included six 16-inch guns, while some of them reduced the gun armament to 5"/38s or 3"/50s.  In the end, it was cheaper to convert various heavy cruisers into missile ships, and none of the conversions was adopted.

[puddingwrestler]

I guess the soviet Kirov class is close - I think they were classified as battle cruisers (or bloody awesome for the less technical minded)
No guns of course, but a stonking great missile load and bloody huge.

[Silver Fox]

Hmmm... interesting thoughts occur!

Use a CVN hull to produce a new BBN design. Not a conversion, new build up to hangar deck level. That becomes the new weather deck. The CVN design is one of the best protected designs available already, it could be upgraded to near-BB armour levels quite easily.

The tools to build 16" guns don't exist anymore, costly to rebuild that capability. How about two triple 8" turrets? The tooling for 8" guns exists for artillery pieces. You might even be able to get 12" guns from the same tools.

You don't need the 5" guns anymore or the Harpoon and Tomahawk launchers, so those can be replaced by a 32 cell VLS port and starboard. Those are for self defence. Aft deck gets 4 32 cell VLS strike-length arrays, that's all offensive missiles. You also fit launchers for Trident D-5... yep ICBMs. New development for the Trident give it conventional global rapid strike capability. You don't hide your conventional ICBM launchers, but you can hit any point on Earth within minutes.

It wouldn't need Aegis, cooperative engagement means an Aegis escort can use the BBN AAW missiles for fleet protection anyway.   

[Weaver]

You also fit launchers for Trident D-5... yep ICBMs. New development for the Trident give it conventional global rapid strike capability. You don't hide your conventional ICBM launchers, but you can hit any point on Earth within minutes.

The trouble with that is that if you fire one near anybody who's got their own nukes, then you're asking them to trust you that it's got a conventional warhead rather than a nuclear one.....

[NARSES2]

The tools to build 16" guns don't exist anymore, costly to rebuild that capability.

Interesting. When I was working there was a rumour that one of the UK's larger forging companies had "found" the old machinery used to produce heavy naval guns prior to WWI. They were looking at some very large complex forgings for the petrochemical industry (at the same time as the Iraqi super gun forore) and one of the older hands mention these old machines that were in a disused building on the site. Like most steelworks the site was massive and there were probably places not seen in eon's. I'll have to ask an old work colleague at the next reunion as to how true this story was. Problem would have been finding the trained staff to use it !

[Silver Fox]

Trust is precisely why you use an obvious platform like a BBN as the conventional Trident launch platform. The missile is going to be detected shortly after launch, you've got a much better chance of being trusted if it comes from a known conventional platform rather than jumping out of the water after launch from an Ohio-class SSGN!

IIRC, the issue concerning new build BB guns wasn't casting the barrels, it was precision milling barrel liners. A 16"/50 means milling a tube 900" long to precision tolerances.

Some fascinating possibilities here, gonna need to sketch something up.

[anthonyp]

I've got this BBGN (BBGN-72) under construction:



She's built to be slightly smaller than a Nimitz (1/350 Spurcan scale-o-ramaed into a 1/700 ship), armed with six 64 cell Mk 41's, and something I call a Mk. 82 VLS with 42" cells.  I figure large size ABM's or ASAT's could be kept in that one.  She's also armed with an 8" gun forward, and a new Railgun type thingy on the B-mount (BBGN-68 to 71 had two 8" guns), with 4 Mk. 54 5" guns as backups.  Hangar space for a butt-load of H-60's or V-22's.  It's still incomplete, as I still have to redo some of the superstructure to take an AEGIS array of some sort.

Thought about putting Iowa turrets forward, but they were a bit dated compared to newer guns which had increased rate of fire and accuracy.

I am a firm opponent to conventional SLBM's (Surface Launched Ballistic Missiles) of any sort, especially modified Tridents.  The idea is just mad to me.  I understand the thinking, logically it would work, but people aren't logical.  They're scared, especially when a missile goes ABOVE the atmosphere and releases MIRV's on a target.  Therefore, I stay away from that silliness on my ship builds.

[NARSES2]

IIRC, the issue concerning new build BB guns wasn't casting the barrels, it was precision milling barrel liners. A 16"/50 means milling a tube 900" long to precision tolerances.

Some fascinating possibilities here, gonna need to sketch something up.

The rumour had it that it was indeed a rather large machine they had found. I assumed it was a lathe or something similar but that's just my assumption. I'll try and find out and post the answer.

[ysi_maniac]

I've got this BBGN (BBGN-72) under construction:

I like your concept and would like to see her finished
Currently thinking in something similar ... but soviet

[GTX]

If you think about it, Destroyers are essentially the battleships of most navies today.  The only other platforms that steel the role of Capital ship for a few navies are carriers.

Regards,

Greg