Reply With QuoteICBM's vs Carrier groups.... Laughs loudly. This guy lost his credibility in about 3 seconds.
The BBG-21's - 21st Century Battle ships
PART 1: The Prelude
On November 12, 2006 the unthinkable happened.
A third world country launched a nuclear-tipped missile at its neighbor; Pakistan's supposedly "moderate" Islamic ruling council without warning, struck at Indian troop concentrations to stop what was thought to be an impending invasion. India then retaliated with its own nuclear weapons, killing millions of Muslims and creating a call to arms throughout the world to exterminate India.
The U.S. rushed an aircraft carrier battle group to the scene. However, thousands of miles away, Communist China began massing troops adjacent to the straits of Taiwan after that country declared their independence. Another CBG was sent towards Taiwan but with strict orders not to enter the confined waters of the straits. Satellite imagery flashed into the targeting screens of the Chinese Strategic Missile force headquarters and buttons were pushed. Back at Washington D.C. phones rang of the reported ballistic missiles being launched. "Would China start nuclear war over Taiwan? All we did was move a carrier group towards it. The radar screens answered our questions. The Chinese missile arcs were coming down far closer than the continental U.S. (CONUS). Everyone drew a sigh of relief. A computer screen operator burst our euphoria bubble; "Sir the Chinese missiles are coming down on our aircraft carriers." The senior watch commander said to alert them. "Its too late sir, they have already struck, there were too many for our missiles to stop them. The Nimitz vanished from our screens 3 minutes ago, the Carl Vinson is on fire and abandoning ship."
The President called in on the red phone asking for details of the national tragedy. The senior naval commander picked up the phone. "No, Sir. We cannot get any more carriers there. No, Sir we cannot go through the Panama Canal with a carrier. The Army and Air Force will have to go to bat for us. Yes, Sir, thank-you, Sir".
Then the light came on.
The war game simulation was over. Participants at the Naval War College were stunned. It had happened so fast as they were fixated on their hunt for terror leaders in Afghanistan, they didn't see it coming, either the Pakistani nuclear strike or that the Red Chinese had aircraft carrier-killing ballistic missiles. "Where did they get such accuracy?"
As Admiral Jeremiah Simpson walked away he remarked to marine General Scott; "From us of course. Not only are they putting men in space to do ocean surveillance, they buy imagery from anyone who has satellites and in need of some quick cash. Jeff, we have 4 countries right now developing weapons of mass destruction deep underground and we can't get at them, the Indians are putting their missiles into hardened silos for a 'second-strike' capability even if Pakistan should launch a surprise attack". Scott was stunned. "We can't get them with air strikes?". Simpson shook his head. "We cannot get them for sure. The planet earth is still a very big place to hide things in. Its the Cuban missile crisis all over again, except this time its not Cuba with the missiles its Pakistan, India, Iran, North Korea, the genies are out and we can't get them...if we send in swarms of attack planes with men and they get shot down, we have a hostage crisis...or worse public trials like Gary Powers and the U2....". Scott scratched his head. "What about those cruise missiles you guys shoot off at a million dollars a pop?". Simpson stopped and faced Scott squarely. "We cannot shoot enough of them at one time to get them all. The Tomahawk only carries a tiny warhead and can't go deep. The only sure answer is to send in ground troops."
Scott was really alert now.
he keeps a tecnomilitary story going. however he goes into the tecnicals about buiding this BBG 21
Diagonal view
Maximizing 16 Inch guns: Scramjet Projectiles, a Revolutionary Weapon System
Scramjet projectiles, using technology now being developed for Navy and Air Force missiles, would enormously increase Navy firepower and reach -- by several orders of magnitude. The great penetration capability of these extremely high velocity rounds would be especially effective in attacking caves and deep installations. The very high velocity also means they could eventually provide highly responsive tactical fire support out to 200 miles, that could support future very deep Army Airborne and marine expeditionary force lodgments. Unlike the scramjet missiles being developed for ship Vertical Launch System (VLS) launching from soft surface ships, the armored BBG-21's projectiles can be replenished at sea; moreover, the former's number of missiles deployed is limited by the number of available VLS cells. (The DDX will have 60 to 80 cells.) The BBG-21 could carry up to 1300 scramjet projectiles, if need be, as well as 96 VLS cells devoted to land attack missiles, but generally in normal practice would probably carry about 500 16-inch scramjet to leave carry over room for other 16-inch projectiles or the JSF VSM. In addition, the scramjet projectiles, using a much simpler system, can most probably be fielded sooner (in 5 to 8 years) and at lower cost than can the more complex missiles with their separate engines. (They would certainly be far cheaper than Tomahawk cruise missiles.) Development of scramjet projectiles could, however, substantially advance Navy development of scramjet missiles that could be used throughout the fleet in all ships with VLS cells. (Note: Our 500 mile plus range and near Mach 6 speeds are, we believe, reasonable estimates of ultimate performance. The most conservative performance estimates were in a January 3, 2003 letter from Pratt & Whitney's Manger for Hypersonic Programs to USNFSA Executive Director Dr. William L. Stearman which stated: "Pratt & Whitney's initial analysis of a scramjet-powered 16-inch gun-launched projectile (Hyper Shell) indicates that a range of approximately 400nm [460 miles], a time to target of 9 minutes [Mach 5.3], and an impact velocity of 2800 feet per second is feasible." (Emphasis added)
Together, compact projectile storage and sea-based replenishment impart an unprecedented firepower to the battleship, and thus to the Navy as a whole, that has revolutionary strategic implications.http://www.combatreform.com/battleships.htmBoth Halsey and Mitchell were right: it takes both aircraft and battleships
The Japanese understood during WWII what to do, but did not have the pilots and seaplanes: they made two of their battleships able to operate a small compliment of aircraft for self-defense. [5] We are not talking about an aircraft carrier which is basically a floating airfield that cannot fight packed with fuel and explosives that will go up if hit no matter how quasi-armored you make it. The fact that you have packed so many volatile contents together negates any armor protection you attempt; its too much high explosives and aviation fuel together in a large target. To FIGHT, you need as compact as possible armored platform that if hit does not sympathetically detonate. As WWII ended, the battleship U.S. Navy realized this, too. Why catapult launch impotent Kingfisher seaplanes from battleships and cruisers? Why not launch and recover SC-1 SeaHawk floatplane fighters that can air defend over your ship as well as spot for your guns, and land to rescue Americans in peril in the sea. The Japanese had the world's best seaplane fighters in WWII, they just didn't have enough pilots to fly them [6].
Not having aircraft overhead can also happen paradoxically to full-sized aircraft carriers--- the German battleships and pocket battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau surprised and sank the British aircraft carrier HMS Glorious in June 1940. The Russians understand that their surface ships must be able to first fight, aircraft or not. Their Kuznetsov class missile cruiser/aircraft carriers assist aircraft take-off by a bow ski-jump angled at 12°. For recovery, the flight deck has arrestor wires for STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) operations. Two starboard lifts carry the aircraft from the hangar to the flight deck. Each ship has the capacity to support sixteen Yakovlev Yak-41M (NATO code name Freestyle), twelve navalized MIG-29s or Sukhoi Su-27K (NATO codename Flanker) fixed-wing aircraft and a range of helicopters including four Kamov Ka-27-LD (NATO codename Helix), 18 Kamov Ka-27 PLO, and two Ka-27-Ss. The Russian's missile cruiser/aircraft carrier's up to 34 fighter jets compare favorably to our Nimitz class aircraft carrier's 56 fighters. Without aircraft in the air, our carriers are vulnerable floating airfields that cannot fight, just like the HMS Glorious which suffered an ignominious end. Our armored Iowa battleships can always fight---and they can do it even better with aircraft.
One complaint against our battleships is their alleged lack of "multi-role" capabilities. Did you know that the Iowa is the only combat vessel that has facilities for refueling other ships? Or that Iowas have significant supply storage because they are designed to accommodate nearly 1,000 more men than it currently does? If we practice the "out-of-box" thinking we praise so much, let's consider how we could use that unused space primarily at the rear of the ship, OK?
and so on.. its a long read... some ntresting ideas..
any thoughts?
ICBM's vs Carrier groups.... Laughs loudly. This guy lost his credibility in about 3 seconds.
Wow, from that pic; we might now see the development of Starships in the next 100 years.
And airplanes that can double as Submarines
Yeah...Surface vessels are rapidly becoming obsolete. Too vulnerable and easy to find. They have satellies now. Also, fragility of weapons systems and sensor systems make just about any hit a death blow. I figure the future will belong to the autonomous fighting machines...built in the millions of units, distributed with precison down to being able to target individual sand grains. I think we will see a time when nano tech reaches a point where entire human armies can be wiped out by rice grain sized pre-programmed, self replicating flying bots that are dropped by the tens of billions over an enemy country and render all military weapons useless in a matter of hours. More horribly, they could be programmed to invade human bodies and drill holes in eye tissue or lung tissue or build bridges over heart valves. Friendly troops would be protected by sond FOF devices that turn the little devils away or off. Future war is not going to be as fun as old fassioned nuclear war.
Actually I'm quite suprised nations that can not afford a CV haven't looked at resurrecting a BB style ship.
They would make a excellant anti air/anti-ship and cruise missile launching platform and be able to take considerable damage. Thus diverting a large number of enemy assets to take them out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamatohe U.S. Navy launched 386 aircraft to intercept the task force, and the planes engaged the ships starting at 12:30 that afternoon. Yamato took 8 bomb and 10 torpedo hits before, at about 14:23, she capsized to port and her aft magazines detonated
And that's the Yamato which despite the myth was of a poor design.
I on the other hand, am not surprised that no nation has tried to...
The guy at Combatreform.com, affectionately known throughout American military circles as "Sparky" and "Raving Lunatic" has a lot of ideas like this with no basis in reality. He's the one who wants to rename the M113 to the "Gavin", calls the Stryker a deathtrap even after it's near perfect record in comat, and wants to convert all UH60s to hybrid airplanes.
This guy is a kook with no grounding in reality. The cost to pull the Battleships out of mothballs, refit them and buy all of that armament is enormous. Probably far more than a brand new aircraft carrier when all is said and done.
plain cost-effectiveness. it cost japan far more to build and crew yamato than it did for the US to sink her (or do japanese refer to their ships as 'he'?). and the effectiveness of anti-ship weaponry has increased enough to make building a BBXXI a waste of effort better spent on aircraft.Originally Posted by Minardiau
Whats the penetration values of a modern anti-ship missile?
I'm not talking ww2 vintage ships. Far from it.
Most Soviet-era antiship missiles carried around a 2000lb warhead that would fly into their target with a terminal velocity several times the speed of sound. They were designed to kill carriers - a WW2 battleship is still impressive, but isn't that impressive.
No way. The next big playground for warfare is going to be space. A slug of lead weighing 10 pounds/kilos doing 80,000 mph from space will decide just about any conflict, a hydrogen bomb would be a childs toy. This thing is just a big target.
They played with the idea of putting a Harrier deck on the back of the New Jersey I believe, I dont think it ever came to fruition but I had a scale model of the conept, Maybe Ensign Forever ( who is our unnoficial naval expert ) can shed some light on what im talking about?
--- i retract my statment, its based off of nothing more then a model kit I had as a child, and was unable to find anything through google -----
was a really cool idea though, the BB and from midships to stern it was a flight deck with a ramp on the side and it could land and take off harrier's I cant find squat on it though.
I tried
waite i found something
Post-War Aviation Conversion Proposals
In late 1961 it was proposed to convert these ships by removing the aft 16-inch turret and adding a hanger for 30 helicopters (20 in the hanger and 10 on deck), 14 LCM-6 landing craft and accommodations for 1,800 marines. A study was conducted and it was determined to be a feasible conversion but the expense involved ended this proposal.
In 1979 the Navy proposed reactivating the Iowa Class under a two-phase program. Under Phase I the battleships would be brought back into service quickly with a minimum of new modifications. This was doen, and all four ships rejoined the fleet. The initial plan also envisioned a Phase II, under which the aft turrent was to be deleted and a hanger and flight deck added in its place. The hanger would accomodate 12 AV-8B Harrier STOVL jumpjets. The Martin Marietta version for Phase II had a V-shaped flight deck with two ski jumps on the forward edges, on either side of the main superstructure. The flight decks would measure 330 feet by 150 feet. However, by 1984 the plans for these "Battlecarriers" had been dropped.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...p/bb-61-av.htm
Last edited by Johnny_H02; 02-10-2006 at 01:46 AM.
And The Turbulence From The Superstructure Would Make Damn Near Impossible To Land Them
Any idea how expensive a battleship is to run? Those things drink oil like nothing else on earth. Conversion to nuke power would be very expensive as well. Given that you can buy a couple of smaller, very capable ships for the cost, that's usually a preferred solution; no "redundant systems" are as effective as a completely different ship.
the Russians tried it ... sold it to India which is converting it to a real carrier afaik
Posting Permissions
