Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 84

Thread: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

  1. #21
    Farnan's Avatar Saviors of the Japanese
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Right behind you starring over your shoulder.
    Posts
    31,638

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Maybe it was budget constraints which prevented the addition of CIWS. Since this is meant to be an intermediary ship it may have had a smaller budget than a permanent design.
    “The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”

    —Sir William Francis Butler

  2. #22
    Hotspur's Avatar I've got reach.
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Charlotte
    Posts
    11,982

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    But this isn't a case of removing Phalanx so much as replacing it.

    Look at modern fighter aircraft - all still carry a gun. If you told a fighter pilot that you could replace the gun with 11 Sidewinder missiles without altering the aircraft's performance envelop at all, what do you think they would say?

  3. #23

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    lol... the RAF was forced to introduce the Typhoon with no gun. The Chief of the Air Staff has now told the MOD that if they want the Typhoon to be able to adequately engage ground targets as well as air ones, it will need the gun back. Its the closest to public criticism the Air Chief Marshall has come, so far (as opposed to his more vocal colleagues in the Navy and Army)

    As far as i'm concerned, the fact that a ship is intermediatory is not a valid reason for creating a hole in its defences. The ship has still got to be deployed on the front line. There's not much pint having it if it turns out to be weaker than the ship its replacing.

    I'm constantly amazed that defence dept civil servants believe that budgets are a suitable excuse for putting the lives of seamen at risk. As far as britain goes, one would have hoped we'd have learnt from the past. Previous budget restraints resulted in the deaths of hundreds of british seamen on board the HMS Hood, and during the Falklands, to give but two examples. Repeating mistakes that should have been learned from is criminally negligent.

  4. #24

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by Farnan View Post
    Maybe it was budget constraints which prevented the addition of CIWS. Since this is meant to be an intermediary ship it may have had a smaller budget than a permanent design.
    I doubt, Budget constraints apply when building, not designing. This is obviously a preliminary design, I am sure they are taking into account further advancements in technology, and are less worried about Budget.

    As for the earlier discussion on it's Stealthiness, this looks like a stealthy vessel. It's based on the Arliegh Burke, which is a very stealthy class, and it also looks as if it incorporates the main guns seen on the Zumwalt class.

    Look at modern fighter aircraft - all still carry a gun. If you told a fighter pilot that you could replace the gun with 11 Sidewinder missiles without altering the aircraft's performance envelop at all, what do you think they would say?

    "Hell No!"

    They learned this lesson in Vietnam.

  5. #25

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan_Kikla View Post
    As for the earlier discussion on it's Stealthiness, this looks like a stealthy vessel. It's based on the Arliegh Burke, which is a very stealthy class, and it also looks as if it incorporates the main guns seen on the Zumwalt class.
    Eh...while they have some stealthy characteristics, Burkes still look like big green blobs on a radar screen (All that **** sticking up/out off the mast doesn't help matters). Not as much as something like a Tico or big deck ship, but it's definately there. The largest "stealth" ship currently in use by the USN is the San Antonio class:



    As far as I know, it's also the first real ship (ie. not a test ship) to incorporate a lot of this stuff in the USN. Oh...the SA class is also (again...AFAIK) the first class to be without the Phalanx (RAM only). It's not a budget thing, I don't think...it's just something they're doing...

    Edit: A bigass picture:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...io_1330453.jpg

    You can see the RAM launcher there (the thing sticking up that doesnt look right is a crane that folds away). I think it's a rather nice looking ship (for an amphib). Hopefully those RAMs don't miss (!!!), or it's completely screwed.
    Last edited by MadBurgerMaker; June 06, 2007 at 08:09 PM.
    (Patron of Lord Rahl)

  6. #26

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by MadBurgerMaker View Post
    Eh...while they have some stealthy characteristics, Burkes still look like big green blobs on a radar screen (All that **** sticking up/out off the mast doesn't help matters). Not as much as something like a Tico or big deck ship, but it's definately there. The largest "stealth" ship currently in use by the USN is the San Antonio class:

    Absolutely incorrect. The Burkes give off the Radar signature of a small fishing boat, it would be increadibly hard to spot on a Radar screen in costal areas. I've personally been on a Burke, there's more to it than meets the eye.
    It's built at stealthy angles that deflect radar, but it's also coated in radar absorbent materials.

  7. #27

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan_Kikla View Post
    Absolutely incorrect. The Burkes give off the Radar signature of a small fishing boat, it would be increadibly hard to spot on a Radar screen in costal areas. I've personally been on a Burke, there's more to it than meets the eye.
    It's built at stealthy angles that deflect radar, but it's also coated in radar absorbent materials.
    Thats the biggest damn fishing boat I've ever seen on my radar screen.

    The Burkes have stuff that reduces their cross section, but it is by no means invisible or tiny, unless the ones I dealt with are just the freaks of the class (McCampbell, Decatur, Lassen, and Curtis Wilbur IIRC...they might not be as huge on there as a nearly 400 foot USCG cutter built in the 60s, basically a big slab of steel...but a fishing boat?). I could sure as hell tell the difference between a Burke and a fishing boat.

    Edit: I forgot one:



    USS Russell..sorry guys.

    And here are the Puddle Pirates for comparison:

    Last edited by MadBurgerMaker; June 07, 2007 at 06:01 PM.
    (Patron of Lord Rahl)

  8. #28

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    remind me again Ev, how many years have you served in the US navy?

  9. #29
    Hotspur's Avatar I've got reach.
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Charlotte
    Posts
    11,982

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    We've been putting boats on the water for what, 4000 years? I wonder if we will ever have a ship that doesn't have a mast of some sort...

  10. #30
    Eric's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,149

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    First let me say that the Zumwalt class is beginning to reek of White Elephant. That is, a government project whose upkeep and cost far exceeds it's usefulness.

    When it comes to raw naval firepower, you just can't beat a salvo of 406mm shells. Both kinetic and explosive energy are superior to a missile. And numerous technological developments are being made that could be adopted to naval guns that would make them a good supplement to guided missiles. Take the XM982 Excalibur, a 155mm gun with a range of 57km, a CEP (Circular Error Probable) of just 10 metres, and this gun fires GPS guided shells. This guidance is accomplished through the use of folding glide fins which extend when the shell is in flight, and make tiny adjustments to the shell's trajectory so that it always finds it's target. Adopting the Excalibur technology to 406mm naval guns would make a modern battleship, armed with both Excalibur guns and cruise missiles, a very deadly force to be reckoned with. And since this a naval thread, allow me to put forth my idea for a modern battleship:

    Trafalgar-class Advanced Modern Battleship (AMBB)
    Length: 270 metres
    Draught: 10 metres
    Beam: 35 metres
    Crew: 650 officers and men, automation does every job it could reliably perform aboard the ship
    Propulsion: Electric engines for silent movement. Steam turbines just in case the electric engines malfunction.
    Cruise Speed: 33 knots
    Hull Design: The hull of the Trafalgar-class would be in the tumblehome form, i.e: the ship's sides slope inwards coming down towards the water. This reduces radar cross-section.
    Torpedo Countermeasures: Prairie-Masker noise reduction system, the bands mounted on both the propellor and the main hull, to mask the potential target of the ship. Very little sound will penetrate a curtain of air bubbles, making sonar identification rather difficult
    Missile Countermeasures: 6 x Phalanx CIWS positioned along the ship's sides with overlapping fields of fire for maximum effect against incoming missiles.
    Armour:
    Belt: 310mm
    Bulkheads: 295mm
    Barbettes: 305mm
    Turrets: 510mm
    Decks: 195mm
    All steel armour
    Armament:
    9 x 406mm Excalibur AGS (Advanced Gun System) in 3 x 3 turrets
    200 x VLS tubes scattered around the deck at intervals, in 50 groups of 4 tubes each. They carry Tomahawks, Sea Sparrows, Harpoons, etc
    18 x 155 mm Excalibur secondary AGS in 2 x 9 turrets
    2 x torpedo tubes, flush with hull (like on a submarine)
    Last edited by Eric; June 30, 2007 at 11:35 AM.
    Better to stand under the Crown than to kneel under a Flag

    Life is fleeting, but glory lives forever! Conquer new lands, rule over the seas, build an empire! World Alliances

  11. #31

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Missile Countermeasures: 6 x Phalanx CIWS positioned along the ship's sides with overlapping fields of fire for maximum effect against incoming missiles.
    You don't need 6 Phalanx on a ship that size. Three or four, positioned properly, would do the job. Probably four. I'm assuming this thing will be relying heavily on escorts for anti air/anti missile defense (also anti submarine...P-M isn't always 100% effective) like a carrier, yes? If not, you need to include some sort of SM2 type of missile for that purpose.

    Anyway...you've basically described an upgraded Iowa class.

    Edit: I'm gonna see if I can run the "design" in SpringSharp...see what it says. It might be a little difficult, because certain things are left out, and the program is really designed for c.WW2 ships, but hey...whatever, right?

    Edit2: Hm..."Lacks seaworthiness, hull subject to strain in open sea." I'm having difficulty adjusting it to the "different" hull type. Also...I'm having to represent things like VLS systems (I sort of wonder where they're going on this ship anyway) as just "misc weight."

    Edit3: Screw this. Too difficult with this particular program.
    Last edited by MadBurgerMaker; June 29, 2007 at 04:53 PM.
    (Patron of Lord Rahl)

  12. #32
    Eric's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,149

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Well, my battleship is intended to be a scaled-up, modern version of the Iowa. On topic of the VLS cells, I'd have the VLS placed along the peripheral of the deck, in stead of in one central area like on most ships. This means that one hit wouldn't put the Trafalgar's cruise missile capacity out of order.

    There's also the AGS (Advanced Gun System) developed for the Zumwalt to think about. A scaled-up version would be quite an effective deliverer of HE in an NSFS role.
    Better to stand under the Crown than to kneel under a Flag

    Life is fleeting, but glory lives forever! Conquer new lands, rule over the seas, build an empire! World Alliances

  13. #33
    Hotspur's Avatar I've got reach.
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Charlotte
    Posts
    11,982

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    This one's for Eric:


  14. #34

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Well, my battleship is intended to be a scaled-up, modern version of the Iowa. On topic of the VLS cells, I'd have the VLS placed along the peripheral of the deck, in stead of in one central area like on most ships. This means that one hit wouldn't put the Trafalgar's cruise missile capacity out of order.

    There's also the AGS (Advanced Gun System) developed for the Zumwalt to think about. A scaled-up version would be quite an effective deliverer of HE in an NSFS role.
    Honestly, you don't need the huge 16" guns for NSFS anymore. The guns themselves, not to mention the ammunition, are heavy and take up quite a bit of very usable space. Why not simply use the "secondary" batteries in their place, freeing up more space for the PVLS system? A cruise missile is quite effective, and has a much larger range than those guns anyway (hell...you could also put some SAMs in the expanded system for air defense). Anything requiring a 16" shell would be just as dead with a cruise missile, and quite possibly from farther away (cost should not be an issue, since the price of a ship like this would be astronomical anyway). Things like infantry, etc, don't require something that large, when a 5" shell can kill them just as effectively, and can also probably put rounds on target much more quickly, just as accurately, and for a longer period of time (more ammunition can fit on board).

    Also...why is that much armor required? You don't want your ship to be in the position to absorb the amount of punishment that amount of armor would merit in the first place (besides, armor can't protect everything that is vital on a modern warship). Why not lighten the load, possibly making the ship faster and more maneuverable?

    Edit: And the torpedo mount is strange. If you want to use torpedoes, you're going to probably want to use an ASROC type of system (they make ASROCs for VLS systems) to get the weapon to the target very quickly...but then again, why would you want to use a huge battleship in an ASW role?
    Last edited by MadBurgerMaker; June 29, 2007 at 05:38 PM.
    (Patron of Lord Rahl)

  15. #35
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,977

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    The whole reason battleships maintained such massive firepower was to makeup for inaccuracy. As we gradually became more accurate the whole "blow the **** outta everything" went gradually out the window. It's all about hitting what you want to hit versus hitting in the vicinity and blowing the **** out of everything.
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

  16. #36
    Eric's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,149

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    How much does your typical cruise missile weigh anyways? Well, 16" guns can throw 2,700 lbs of HE at a target up to 30 miles away. New developments like the AGS and Excalibur technology increase both range and accuracy for those guns. So, 2,700 lbs (or 1,200 kg) of HE can be thrown at a target 57km (35 miles) away, and will land within in an area roughly 10m wide. Not to mention kinetic energy equivalent to throwing a Volkswagen at your enemy. I'm sorry, but cruise missiles, whilst longer ranged, just don't deliver that sort of firepower.

    Some other facts about naval gun technology:

    -In the 1960s, an 11" discarding sabot round was developed with a range of over 50 nautical miles (92km)

    -In the 1980s, DARPA made a similar round with a range of 200 nautical miles (370km)

    Source: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/bat...ttleships.html
    A large number of military and defense professionals discuss military topics on that forum. Most of their information is accurate.
    Last edited by Eric; June 29, 2007 at 05:49 PM.
    Better to stand under the Crown than to kneel under a Flag

    Life is fleeting, but glory lives forever! Conquer new lands, rule over the seas, build an empire! World Alliances

  17. #37

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    How much does your typical cruise missile weigh anyways?
    A Tomahawk weighs about 3,000 pounds, I believe. Each shell used by the Iowa class weighs at least 2,000 or so pounds (there are different kinds). Then you have to factor in the weight of the turrets themselves. ****...those probably weigh at least a couple hundred thousand pounds, and you're talking about three of them.

    Well, 16" guns can throw 2,700 lbs of HE at a target up to 30 miles away. New developments like the AGS and Excalibur technology increase both range and accuracy for those guns. So, 2,700 lbs (or 1,200 kg) of HE can be thrown at a target 57km (35 miles) away, and will land within in an area roughly 10m wide. Not to mention kinetic energy equivalent to throwing a Volkswagen at your enemy. I'm sorry, but cruise missiles, whilst longer ranged, just don't deliver that sort of firepower.
    When I need to throw a VW at something, I'll throw a VW at it with a trebuchet or something. Otherwise, I'll take a 1,000 pound warhead blowing it up 1,000 miles away. Honestly...there isn't a whole lot out there that even needs that much, in which case, the Tomahawk can be....adjusted. They can dispense submunitions, etc. Very useful, and very accurate. If all else fails...hell...why not just use a plane? We have a whole bunch of them, and they can drop all sorts of ****.

    For the close in shore bombardment stuff, 5" guns are quite effective at killing infantry, or keeping them inside. No matter what sort of artillery you use, you're not going to kill them all anyway, so suppressing them with volume fire is still important, yes? Again, the space saved by the removal of gigantic guns and their associated shells can be used by smaller guns and more of their shells, in addition to other stuff.

    As far as not delivering that sort of firepower...I mean...if you really want to go into the possibilities, please keep in mind that the Tomahawk can deliver a 150kt nuclear weapon. That's a pretty big *boom* right there.
    Last edited by MadBurgerMaker; June 29, 2007 at 06:44 PM.
    (Patron of Lord Rahl)

  18. #38
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,977

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    I'm just curious, what do the tact nukes weigh in at?
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

  19. #39

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by JP226 View Post
    I'm just curious, what do the tact nukes weigh in at?
    W80s? I don't know, but probably not very much.

    Edit: 290lbs.
    (Patron of Lord Rahl)

  20. #40
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,977

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    how many kilotons does a 300 pound nuke cause in damage?
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •