Another 21st Century WHIF battleship idea.

[seadude]

Quoted from a post I made on Modelwarships:

I'm not sure how I'm going to fully design and build my 21st Century BB. I'm just in the very early planning stages right now.
Preliminary pic here:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/icyhusky/DSC03869.jpg
As I said, I want to make it "slightly" more futureistic. Not to the point where I want it stealthy or looking like an Arleigh Burke wannabe, but I do want parts of the superstructure, weapons, etc. to be more up-to-date, modern, or whatever you want to call it.
I'll be robbing parts from 2x Arleigh Burke kits, 1x La Fayette frigate kit, and a couple of Gundam robot kits in order to make my future BB. I'll be remaking new scratchbuilt 5" guns from Gundam robot kit parts that will look similar to the guns I did here:
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/cg/cgx/350-em/strike8.jpg

I am also undecided if I want to replace the 3  16" gun turrets with future looking railgun turrets. If I do make railgun turrets, I may make them similar to the attached pic further below in this post. If I do use railgun turrets, then that means I'll have to go nuclear power for power generation, etc. I'm undecided on this as well since it means ditching the smokestacks and refueling rig.

As far as armament goes, I'm going to load up like crazy! I want this BB ready for BATTLE! 
Preliminary armament is:
3x 16" turrets
4-6 5" guns
128 VLS cells
6-8 Phalanx CIWS
2-4 RAM
6x quad Harpoon launchers
2x Seasparrow launchers
4x Bushmaster chain guns
8x .50 cal guns
2-4 Mk.32 triple torpedo launchers

I might be overdoing it on armament or some of it might not make sense on a BB, but I am building this model for FUN, and not necessarily for "technical believeability".

Possible railgun turret design:
http://th04.deviantart.net/fs51/PRE/i/2009/323/a/f/Mk_XI_Small_Caliber_Railgun_by_fongsaunder.jpg

So........anybody got any ideas and suggestions?

[kerick]

To go really up to date I would make the superstructure with sloped sides like the USS New York class ships.

[pyro-manic]

Firstly, what's it for? Why is it to be built and what purpose will it serve? That will dictate your armament, layout, propulsion etc. Also need to consider if it is to fit through the Panama canal - that gives you a very firm restriction on beam and therefore hullform and overall tonnage, limiting size and fit.

Any warship built in the past 20 years has stealth features, so this will need them too. Enclosed masts, sloped superstructure, etc. How far you go is up to you (do you include ugly stealthy superstructure and gunhouses a la Zumwalt?) but it needs to be a feature. Unless you want to go for a complete rebuild of an Iowa (or maybe Montana?)-class hull.

Armament-wise, I think you have some overlapping systems - do you really want 6 Phalanx and 4 RAM launchers and Sea Sparrows? All those systems perform essentially the same function, so are somewhat redundant IMO. ESSMs can be quad-packed in your VLS tubes, so you don't need to clutter up the decks with old-fashioned launchers. Four Phalanx on the superstructure corners, and two SeaRAM (one each side) will give total layered coverage against anything that gets past the escorts and ESSMs. Maybe add on a couple of laser systems too (THEL or similar).

What is in your VLS cells? If you want Standards (of whatever flavour) you need Aegis. That in itself has a major impact on layout and superstructure design (and obviously cost). If it's all Tomahawks and ESSMs, you can avoid Aegis (the escorts will have it anyway) but the cost of (say) 100 Tomahawks is not insignificant, and your fully loaded ship (already hugely expensive) will have a missile load in the tens of millions.

I'm not convinced you need torpedoes at all - that's what the escorts (and lurking attack submarine) are for. Torpedo decoy systems, yes, and possibly a counter-torpedo weapon system, but your battleship should never need to be attempting a torpedo attack.

[PR19_Kit]

Not to mention the MOTHER of all guns......... 

[seadude]

Firstly, what's it for? Why is it to be built and what purpose will it serve? That will dictate your armament, layout, propulsion etc. Also need to consider if it is to fit through the Panama canal - that gives you a very firm restriction on beam and therefore hullform and overall tonnage, limiting size and fit.

Any warship built in the past 20 years has stealth features, so this will need them too. Enclosed masts, sloped superstructure, etc. How far you go is up to you (do you include ugly stealthy superstructure and gunhouses a la Zumwalt?) but it needs to be a feature. Unless you want to go for a complete rebuild of an Iowa (or maybe Montana?)-class hull.

Armament-wise, I think you have some overlapping systems - do you really want 6 Phalanx and 4 RAM launchers and Sea Sparrows? All those systems perform essentially the same function, so are somewhat redundant IMO. ESSMs can be quad-packed in your VLS tubes, so you don't need to clutter up the decks with old-fashioned launchers. Four Phalanx on the superstructure corners, and two SeaRAM (one each side) will give total layered coverage against anything that gets past the escorts and ESSMs. Maybe add on a couple of laser systems too (THEL or similar).

What is in your VLS cells? If you want Standards (of whatever flavour) you need Aegis. That in itself has a major impact on layout and superstructure design (and obviously cost). If it's all Tomahawks and ESSMs, you can avoid Aegis (the escorts will have it anyway) but the cost of (say) 100 Tomahawks is not insignificant, and your fully loaded ship (already hugely expensive) will have a missile load in the tens of millions.

I'm not convinced you need torpedoes at all - that's what the escorts (and lurking attack submarine) are for. Torpedo decoy systems, yes, and possibly a counter-torpedo weapon system, but your battleship should never need to be attempting a torpedo attack.

I guess you missed the part in my quote where I mentioned the following:

but I am building this model for FUN, and not necessarily for "technical believeability".

I built this.....FOR FUN......and nobody ever got on my case.
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,34405.0.html

[pyro-manic]

You said a "21st Century battleship", so I based my post on that, and what that could reasonably be. If you want to build something daft, then just go for it! Daft is good.

Go nuts! Bash a 1:400 hull to 1:700 scale, fusion reactors, 22" main battery, railguns, Trident missiles, photon torpedoes, Wave Motion Gun etc.

[kerick]

Unless the present rules of naval warfare change completely in the next 20 years or so there won't be a real world BB. So I say go for what makes you happy. Its all a whif no matter which direction you choose. I have pondered a modern interpretation of a BB and you thoughts are intriguing. I say lengthen the hull a bit, give it some sloped superstructure sides, slope the turret sides and go for it. Nuclear power would be a viable option to me.

[seadude]

Go nuts! Bash a 1:400 hull to 1:700 scale, fusion reactors, 22" main battery, railguns, Trident missiles, photon torpedoes, Wave Motion Gun etc.

Well, maybe not that nuts. But the BB will have some angular stealth type features. Not a lot, but some, hence why I'll be using some Arleigh Burke structure pieces, as well as scratchbuilding others.
Some things I can't decide on are if I want nuclear power or not?
And if I want rail gun turrets or not? If I build and add electromagnetic rail guns, then I'll have to have nuclear power for power generation. I doubt an Iowa BB has the power generation capability with current powerplants, etc. to power rail guns?

Nice design here I found on the Net:
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3238/bb001q.png

[philp]

Oh, I quit like that one.

[Thorvic]

Going with a new 21st century 'Battleship' design i think you should probably look at an enlarged Zumwalt class DD as a basis, long bows with the guns forward then maybe a silo farm followed by a stealth superstructure, although maybe go for a tiered ziggurat style due to the larger hull form, leaving the aft for a stepped hanger flight deck and under flight deck utility area with stern access for boats etc.

You could possibly even go as far as a scaled up LCS2 Trimaran conscept as possible hull form, which shares similar features to the DDX.

[kerick]

Going with a new 21st century 'Battleship' design i think you should probably look at an enlarged Zumwalt class DD as a basis, long bows with the guns forward then maybe a silo farm followed by a stealth superstructure, although maybe go for a tiered ziggurat style due to the larger hull form, leaving the aft for a stepped hanger flight deck and under flight deck utility area with stern access for boats etc.

You could possibly even go as far as a scaled up LCS2 Trimaran conscept as possible hull form, which shares similar features to the DDX.

More interesting ideas. I'm going to keep watching this thread.

[seadude]

Question:
How much power would be needed for an electromagnetic railgun to operate? Would a battleship need nuclear power?
Although railguns are nice as a future 21st Century weapon system, it doesn't seem to me like they have the same "Wow" or "shock and awe" factor the way the Iowa BB's current 16" guns do. As soon as an enemy sees that big red muzzle blast coming out of the 16" guns, you know he's going to turn tail and run.  With a railgun, you get super long range and probably awesome penetration by the round, but what else?

Thoughts?

[rickshaw]

I doubt an enemy would see that, "big red muzzle blast coming out of the 16" guns" 'cause you'd either be on or over the horizon.

What is not in doubt is the need for an effect on target.  16" guns may look spectacular and the effect on target is awesome, they are horrendous weapons to maintain and man.  The limited life on their gun tubes means they must frequently be replaced and that means a massive infrastructure to manufacture new tubes and barrels for the guns, while that required to manufacture the shells is just as bad.   What killed the Iowas was the manning costs though.  They required huge crews and even the USN couldn't in the end justify that.

If someone wants to build a 21st century BB, then they'll need as much automation as possible.  They will need weapon systems which can be built and maintained by the 21st century industrial base.

I would suggest cruise missiles for long range attack.
Large quantities of defensive systems - missiles and guns,  for defeating counter-attacks.
A large radar for detecting threats before they can attack.
Massive ECM
A large CIC for use as a task force command ship.
At least one if not two helicopters for under-way replenishment and utility.

[Mossie]

Railguns can produce a muzzle flash.  There's different ways of carrying the projectile, but one way is to use a Plasma armature.  A foil is wrapped around the projectile, which is ionised and turned into plasma.  The plasma is conducting  so the charge pushes this along, which in turn propels the projectile.  The results can be spectacluar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Railgun_usnavy_2008.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1q_rRicAwI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa_vuX5_oAk

[seadude]

Going with a new 21st century 'Battleship' design i think you should probably look at an enlarged Zumwalt class DD as a basis, long bows with the guns forward then maybe a silo farm followed by a stealth superstructure, although maybe go for a tiered ziggurat style due to the larger hull form, leaving the aft for a stepped hanger flight deck and under flight deck utility area with stern access for boats etc.

You could possibly even go as far as a scaled up LCS2 Trimaran conscept as possible hull form, which shares similar features to the DDX.

Making a BB look anything even remotely like a Zumwalt is what I hope to stay away from. The Zumwalt class destroyers are the ugliest ships IMO ever built. They are the black sheep of the US Navy. 

What killed the Iowas was the manning costs though.  They required huge crews and even the USN couldn't in the end justify that.

And how is this any different from a CVN carrier which requires 5000+ people to maintain/operate it?

What is not in doubt is the need for an effect on target.  16" guns may look spectacular and the effect on target is awesome, they are horrendous weapons to maintain and man.  The limited life on their gun tubes means they must frequently be replaced and that means a massive infrastructure to manufacture new tubes and barrels for the guns, while that required to manufacture the shells is just as bad.

And an electromagnetic rail gun is just as bad, if not worse. I've read where the "barrel" for a EMRG gets so hot that it needs special cooling. Also, a rail gun needs a lot of power to operate and fire. It gets the power from the ship's own propulsion/power systems. But if an enemy knocks out a ship's systems in any way, then your rail gun is without power to operate. What then? You're screwed.

If someone wants to build a 21st century BB, then they'll need as much automation as possible.  They will need weapon systems which can be built and maintained by the 21st century industrial base.

All this automation, electronics, computers, etc. is great, but only to a degree. At the rate we're going now, an enemy won't have to sink or blow up a ship to defeat it. All they'd have to do is explode a very powerful EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) bomb or missile over/near a ship to knock out all the computer/electronic/propulsion systems, and then you're effectively dead in the water.