Battleships... do we still build them? - Page 6

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Battleships... do we still build them? (Page 6 of 7)

Posted: 7/28/2011 4:22:22 PM EST

[#1]

Quoted:
Bring back the battlesh..... err... what?

http://www.shipbucket.com/Never%20Built%20Designs/United%20States%20of%20America/BB-61%20Iowa%201982.gif

Picture taken from Shipbucket

Can't keepp typin;alkjfpoina;dlkfa;d;alkdjf;lkj;

Posted: 7/28/2011 4:22:46 PM EST

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Not being an engineer or anything, is there an issue with droop or anythign else like that when you store a big hunk of metal that long without moving it? Let's say corrosion isn't a factor. Could it's own weight bend it enough to make the barrel unserviceable? I know some droop is normal, but does long term storage (especially if not properly supported) make the droop more prnounced?

I hope this doesn't sound like a dumb question, I'm pretty uneducated when it comes to stuff like that.

That's exactly my understanding. As I recall, the gun barrels they plan on using again, they rotate. We have to do the same thing with our shafts.

I knew we did that with shafts. That just put 2 and 2 together for me about the gun barrels. Thanks!

Posted: 7/28/2011 4:24:36 PM EST

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Not being an engineer or anything, is there an issue with droop or anythign else like that when you store a big hunk of metal that long without moving it? Let's say corrosion isn't a factor. Could it's own weight bend it enough to make the barrel unserviceable? I know some droop is normal, but does long term storage (especially if not properly supported) make the droop more prnounced?

I hope this doesn't sound like a dumb question, I'm pretty uneducated when it comes to stuff like that.

That's exactly my understanding. As I recall, the gun barrels they plan on using again, they rotate. We have to do the same thing with our shafts.

I knew we did that with shafts. That just put 2 and 2 together for me about the gun barrels. Thanks!

I thought you guys just tilted the outboard up?

Posted: 7/28/2011 4:32:56 PM EST

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Not being an engineer or anything, is there an issue with droop or anythign else like that when you store a big hunk of metal that long without moving it? Let's say corrosion isn't a factor. Could it's own weight bend it enough to make the barrel unserviceable? I know some droop is normal, but does long term storage (especially if not properly supported) make the droop more prnounced?

I hope this doesn't sound like a dumb question, I'm pretty uneducated when it comes to stuff like that.

That's exactly my understanding. As I recall, the gun barrels they plan on using again, they rotate. We have to do the same thing with our shafts.

I knew we did that with shafts. That just put 2 and 2 together for me about the gun barrels. Thanks!

I thought you guys just tilted the outboard up?

Why would we tilt the outboard up? All those water map thingies I color on during watch say it's like 300ft deep where I think we are supposed to be.

Another off the wall question while you are here: When did you guys stop using the 5"/38 and did the Mk45 come right after it or was there something in between? All this talk of guns reminds me that I think the 5"/38 dual purpose mount is probably one of the best designs ever made.

Posted: 7/28/2011 4:40:30 PM EST

[#5]

Quoted:

Another off the wall question while you are here: When did you guys stop using the 5"/38 and did the Mk45 come right after it or was there something in between?

The Mk42 5"/54 was on several classes of ship. I think they came into favor in the 60s.

Posted: 7/28/2011 4:45:56 PM EST

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What leads you to believe Uncle Sam would ever store such a valuable item without protecting it from corrosion in the first place?

You're new to the feds, aren't you?

Anyway, the barrels were stored in the open air.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_kIWY2DV0KnE/TbJNnjLupHI/AAAAAAAAJKU/AG7ScJ1NPWA/16-inch%20guns%204.jpg

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2011/04/its-enought-to-make-navy-veteran-cry.html

Is it me, or are those tubes visibly drooping? I know arty tubes like our main gun on the Abrams do to some degree, but I can't imagine a long steel tube like those of a 16" gun didn't to a much greater degree.

Another thing that's interesting is how much longer the tube is as opposed to what we see projecting from the turret.

ETA: Weren't gun tubes of that size lined, and the lining could be replaced?

Yeah, they droop. Saw some near the gun line on the Potomac. They droop.

Not being an engineer or anything, is there an issue with droop or anythign else like that when you store a big hunk of metal that long without moving it? Let's say corrosion isn't a factor. Could it's own weight bend it enough to make the barrel unserviceable? I know some droop is normal, but does long term storage (especially if not properly supported) make the droop more prnounced?

I hope this doesn't sound like a dumb question, I'm pretty uneducated when it comes to stuff like that.

What you're asking is if they tubes "set" over time. That's a good question, and being that I'm not a metallurgist, I'd like to know too. When we retube the main gun on an Abrams, the tube is packed in a long wooden box for shipment (for all I know, that's how they're stored). Obviously, the amount of bending due to the weight isn't anywhere near as pronounced as it is with something that's 16" vice 4.7 in due to shear mass, length, and the associated weight. The box is built to support the tube in such a manner as to preclude "bending" while in transit. Of course, it's no where near as long as a naval gun.

I'm going to take an uneducated guess, based on what little I know about hardness, tensile strength, metal fabrication, machining operations, and say "no" they do not "set" over time, with the caveat that other factors such as manufacturing methods-to include heat treat, alloy content, service life, and finally the fact that barrel "droop" IS taken into consideration when fabricating the things.

Or maybe not.

Posted: 7/28/2011 4:46:39 PM EST

[#7]

Quoted:

Ahhh... edjamacate me here... so Destroyers then... are we still building those?

I've never taken any interest in naval vessels before last night's show.

battleship threads are the GD equivalent of kate upton's tits. as a member here, how have you managed to miss them for 10+ years?

Posted: 7/28/2011 4:49:24 PM EST

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What leads you to believe Uncle Sam would ever store such a valuable item without protecting it from corrosion in the first place?

You're new to the feds, aren't you?

Anyway, the barrels were stored in the open air.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_kIWY2DV0KnE/TbJNnjLupHI/AAAAAAAAJKU/AG7ScJ1NPWA/16-inch%20guns%204.jpg

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2011/04/its-enought-to-make-navy-veteran-cry.html

Is it me, or are those tubes visibly drooping? I know arty tubes like our main gun on the Abrams do to some degree, but I can't imagine a long steel tube like those of a 16" gun didn't to a much greater degree.

Another thing that's interesting is how much longer the tube is as opposed to what we see projecting from the turret.

ETA: Weren't gun tubes of that size lined, and the lining could be replaced?

Yeah, they droop. Saw some near the gun line on the Potomac. They droop.

Not being an engineer or anything, is there an issue with droop or anythign else like that when you store a big hunk of metal that long without moving it? Let's say corrosion isn't a factor. Could it's own weight bend it enough to make the barrel unserviceable? I know some droop is normal, but does long term storage (especially if not properly supported) make the droop more prnounced?

I hope this doesn't sound like a dumb question, I'm pretty uneducated when it comes to stuff like that.

That's exactly my understanding. As I recall, the gun barrels they plan on using again, they rotate. We have to do the same thing with our shafts.

Ok, that's interesting. So they DO set with time.

Posted: 7/28/2011 4:52:24 PM EST

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Another off the wall question while you are here: When did you guys stop using the 5"/38 and did the Mk45 come right after it or was there something in between?

The Mk42 5"/54 was on several classes of ship. I think they came into favor in the 60s.

Huh. I saw one of those mounts (minus the gun) rotting away in a back corner of a company's yard. I figured it was some mod of a 5"/38 with a funky weather shield. It's interesting to see all sorts of neat stuff tucked away in different parts of the country.

Posted: 7/28/2011 4:53:15 PM EST

[#10]

Quoted:

Ok, that's interesting. So they DO set with time.

When I lived onbase in Dahlgren, I used to walk and run past the gun line. The old gun barrels there definitely were sagging in the middle. I asked someone about it, and was told they rotate the ones they plan to use and don't rotate the ones they will eventually scrap.

The barrels I saw were set on supports on either end, and in the middle the barrel sagged. I always wondered if you could rotate them 180 degrees and let them sag back into shape.

Posted: 7/28/2011 5:04:53 PM EST

[#11]

I think a lot of people misunderstand something about battleships, they are not tactically obsolete by any means. But they became strategically obsolete sometime back in the 40s.

The idea behind a battleship is a very large and heavily armored warship. Just as destroyers used to fight with guns and now fight with missiles, a modern battleship would probably also use missiles. The heavy armor would make it a very difficult target to sink and it could mount incredibly tough air defenses so it would also be rather difficult to hit. If the USN had such a ship they would certainly use it. And even a modern gun armed battleship would be an asset to the modern Navy.

When you look at things strategically they change drastically. Battleships were hideously expensive to build. All that heavy armor comes at a price and their construction could bankrupt a nation. For example, one estimate I’ve seen claimed that the Japanese could have probably built and equipped three or four carriers for the cost of one Yamato class battleship…

Yes, the Yamato class was impressive but having six or eight full sized carriers in the Pacific would have helped them far more than having two big battleships.

And then there’s the price in manpower and the whole “all your eggs in one basket” thing. Lose a battleship and you’ve lost a fortune and killed a couple thousand men or so. That’s not a risk an admiral can take lightly.

Too expensive to build, to expensive to crew, and too expensive to risk in battle. But damned effective when they were in the fight.

Posted: 7/28/2011 5:05:52 PM EST

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ok, that's interesting. So they DO set with time.

When I lived onbase in Dahlgren, I used to walk and run past the gun line. The old gun barrels there definitely were sagging in the middle. I asked someone about it, and was told they rotate the ones they plan to use and don't rotate the ones they will eventually scrap.

The barrels I saw were set on supports on either end, and in the middle the barrel sagged. I always wondered if you could rotate them 180 degrees and let them sag back into shape.

That makes sense. I wonder if that could be corrected in USMCTanker's new generation of commissioned BBN's with the improvements in metallurgy that we have now, or have we really advanced that much in the science of metals since the early '40s?

Posted: 7/28/2011 5:08:37 PM EST

[#13]

Quoted:

Bring back the battlesh..... err... what?

http://www.shipbucket.com/Never%20Built%20Designs/United%20States%20of%20America/BB-61%20Iowa%201982.gif

Picture taken from Shipbucket

No dude-you need two Iowa class built into a catamaran with a flight deck in the middle so that you can launch A-1 Skyraiders.

Posted: 7/28/2011 5:17:15 PM EST

[#14]

Quoted:
The battleship of the future - the Arsenal Ship.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/arsenalship.jpg

http://i972.photobucket.com/albums/ae208/navybrat85/arsenal_72.jpg

There are DDG's being built now that look like that

Posted: 7/28/2011 5:18:55 PM EST

[#15]

Quoted:
I think a lot of people misunderstand something about battleships, they are not tactically obsolete by any means. But they became strategically obsolete sometime back in the 40s.

The idea behind a battleship is a very large and heavily armored warship. Just as destroyers used to fight with guns and now fight with missiles, a modern battleship would probably also use missiles. The heavy armor would make it a very difficult target to sink and it could mount incredibly tough air defenses so it would also be rather difficult to hit. If the USN had such a ship they would certainly use it. And even a modern gun armed battleship would be an asset to the modern Navy.

When you look at things strategically they change drastically. Battleships were hideously expensive to build. All that heavy armor comes at a price and their construction could bankrupt a nation. For example, one estimate I’ve seen claimed that the Japanese could have probably built and equipped three or four carriers for the cost of one Yamato class battleship…

Yes, the Yamato class was impressive but having six or eight full sized carriers in the Pacific would have helped them far more than having two big battleships.

And then there’s the price in manpower and the whole “all your eggs in one basket” thing. Lose a battleship and you’ve lost a fortune and killed a couple thousand men or so. That’s not a risk an admiral can take lightly.

Too expensive to build, to expensive to crew, and too expensive to risk in battle. But damned effective when they were in the fight.

Battleships are completely obsolete, tactically and strategically. Sorry.

The BB's armor is not effective against current threats, and it's armament is not effective either. A "modern gun armed battleship" would be of essentially no use.

Posted: 7/28/2011 5:24:18 PM EST

[#16]

Quoted:
I think a lot of people misunderstand something about battleships, they are not tactically obsolete by any means. But they became strategically obsolete sometime back in the 40s.

The idea behind a battleship is a very large and heavily armored warship. Just as destroyers used to fight with guns and now fight with missiles, a modern battleship would probably also use missiles. The heavy armor would make it a very difficult target to sink and it could mount incredibly tough air defenses so it would also be rather difficult to hit. If the USN had such a ship they would certainly use it. And even a modern gun armed battleship would be an asset to the modern Navy.

When you look at things strategically they change drastically. Battleships were hideously expensive to build. All that heavy armor comes at a price and their construction could bankrupt a nation. For example, one estimate I’ve seen claimed that the Japanese could have probably built and equipped three or four carriers for the cost of one Yamato class battleship…

Yes, the Yamato class was impressive but having six or eight full sized carriers in the Pacific would have helped them far more than having two big battleships.

And then there’s the price in manpower and the whole “all your eggs in one basket” thing. Lose a battleship and you’ve lost a fortune and killed a couple thousand men or so. That’s not a risk an admiral can take lightly.

Too expensive to build, to expensive to crew, and too expensive to risk in battle. But damned effective when they were in the fight

They are expensive in terms of construction and life cycle costs, but do they provide a return on that cost in practical terms? I say "yes" they could. With the technology we have today, those 16 in. projectiles could sink other ships at ranges beyond the 25 or so miles that they were capable of "back in the day", because we now have technology that has been incorporated in JDAMs, AT munitions, and other guided projectiles with terminal homing capability the likes of which weren't even imaginable in the inter-war years when the Iowa class and it's predecessors were being designed back in the late '30s.

What about a salvo of a minimum of 9 ea sub-caliber 16 in. RAP rounds with enough energy to maneuver onto the deck of an enemy surface vessel fired from ranges that exceed 22-25 miles impacting at almost a 90 degree angle of attack? Gunnery skills for the crew would be much less critical. ASMs can be defeated by CIWS-type systems (to say nothing of AASMs), but something coming from that high an angle?

As was done during the Reagan Admin, why not equip such a ship with cruise missiles? Instead of risking a couple of F35Bs on the fantail of a BBN, cruise missiles can strike deep into enemy territory without risk to pilots and airframes. Just a thought.

The most expensive defense budget in peacetime is still cheaper than the least expensive war that kills people.

Posted: 7/28/2011 5:43:37 PM EST

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What leads you to believe Uncle Sam would ever store such a valuable item without protecting it from corrosion in the first place?

You're new to the feds, aren't you?

Anyway, the barrels were stored in the open air.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_kIWY2DV0KnE/TbJNnjLupHI/AAAAAAAAJKU/AG7ScJ1NPWA/16-inch%20guns%204.jpg

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2011/04/its-enought-to-make-navy-veteran-cry.html

Are you saying they've been there, unprotected, for 67 years? If not, then how long has it been there? Since before or after the last Iowa was decommissioned?

And it doesn't appear that rust has been much of problem. Raw steel does not stand up to decades of exposure in a humid environment. Clearly, something has been done in the past 67 years to protect them from corrosion. And this is just surface rust, not serious detrimental rust that compromises the integrity of the barrel.

Posted: 7/28/2011 6:22:17 PM EST

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What leads you to believe Uncle Sam would ever store such a valuable item without protecting it from corrosion in the first place?

You're new to the feds, aren't you?

Anyway, the barrels were stored in the open air.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_kIWY2DV0KnE/TbJNnjLupHI/AAAAAAAAJKU/AG7ScJ1NPWA/16-inch%20guns%204.jpg

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2011/04/its-enought-to-make-navy-veteran-cry.html

Are you saying they've been there, unprotected, for 67 years? If not, then how long has it been there? Since before or after the last Iowa was decommissioned?

And it doesn't appear that rust has been much of problem. Raw steel does not stand up to decades of exposure in a humid environment. Clearly, something has been done in the past 67 years to protect them from corrosion. And this is just surface rust, not serious detrimental rust that compromises the integrity of the barrel.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_kIWY2DV0KnE/TbJNszPhzvI/AAAAAAAAJKc/pI1jMug__s8/16-inch%20guns%203.jpg

You're qualified to determine whether a rifle barrel is compromised by exposure to the elements or not? You've had multiple people post here who have actually seen them, you've seen pictures of them, you've been educated on the fact that they're not maintained (as they must be in order to be usable), and you're still spouting. Amazing.

Posted: 7/28/2011 8:21:26 PM EST

[#19]

Quoted:
You're qualified to determine whether a rifle barrel is compromised by exposure to the elements or not? You've had multiple people post here who have actually seen them, you've seen pictures of them, you've been educated on the fact that they're not maintained (as they must be in order to be usable), and you're still spouting. Amazing.

I'm qualified to tell if there's a lot of rust, or just a little. It would seem you've spent very little time around ferrous materials that exposed to water, or if you did, you learned very little.

I acknowledged that I was wrong that they were no longer maintained in our inventory at the present time. Showing proof that a handful of barrels were poorly maintained a few years ago is not proof that the entire 16" barrel inventory was poorly maintained since battleship production had ceased. Other posters are moving the goal line by implying that Uncle Sam never did anything to them but lay them out side with no protection, which clearly isn't true. That may have been done to a few barrels, but it was not done to them all.

Posted: 7/28/2011 8:29:56 PM EST

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ok, that's interesting. So they DO set with time.

When I lived onbase in Dahlgren, I used to walk and run past the gun line. The old gun barrels there definitely were sagging in the middle. I asked someone about it, and was told they rotate the ones they plan to use and don't rotate the ones they will eventually scrap.

The barrels I saw were set on supports on either end, and in the middle the barrel sagged. I always wondered if you could rotate them 180 degrees and let them sag back into shape.

Dahlgren was a neat place. I was probably the only SWO who thought that.

Posted: 7/28/2011 8:52:46 PM EST

[#21]

I've done my part, have you?
http://www.savetheiowa.com/

Posted: 7/28/2011 9:10:27 PM EST

[#22]

Barrels shouldn't "set". The steel stress-strain diagram has an elastic deformation region and, past that, a plastic deformation region. As long as you're in the elastic deformation region the strain will disappear with the load.

The existing barrels have been in the BBs for decades. They all droop, since they're supported on only one end. But they don't set, or get progressively worse with time.

Posted: 7/29/2011 12:19:34 AM EST

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ok, that's interesting. So they DO set with time.

When I lived onbase in Dahlgren, I used to walk and run past the gun line. The old gun barrels there definitely were sagging in the middle. I asked someone about it, and was told they rotate the ones they plan to use and don't rotate the ones they will eventually scrap.

The barrels I saw were set on supports on either end, and in the middle the barrel sagged. I always wondered if you could rotate them 180 degrees and let them sag back into shape.

Dahlgren was a neat place. I was probably the only SWO who thought that.

Did you spend three years there? It's quaint at first, but mind-numbingly boring after while.

Posted: 7/29/2011 1:12:36 AM EST

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You're qualified to determine whether a rifle barrel is compromised by exposure to the elements or not? You've had multiple people post here who have actually seen them, you've seen pictures of them, you've been educated on the fact that they're not maintained (as they must be in order to be usable), and you're still spouting. Amazing.

I'm qualified to tell if there's a lot of rust, or just a little. It would seem you've spent very little time around ferrous materials that exposed to water, or if you did, you learned very little.

I acknowledged that I was wrong that they were no longer maintained in our inventory at the present time. Showing proof that a handful of barrels were poorly maintained a few years ago is not proof that the entire 16" barrel inventory was poorly maintained since battleship production had ceased. Other posters are moving the goal line by implying that Uncle Sam never did anything to them but lay them out side with no protection, which clearly isn't true. That may have been done to a few barrels, but it was not done to them all.

You're just spouting nonsense now. I'm done with you.

Posted: 7/29/2011 4:38:28 AM EST

[#25]

Quoted:That 490lb warhead also has a copper shaped charge perpetrator that can punch through several FEET of hardened armor. I actually attended a lecture about the software used to model the dispersion of the copper jet that punched through the armor while in college. I spoke with one of the lead researchers that helped design those weapon systems.

Funny thing about shapped charges - turns out SPACE is just as good as steel armor - this is why the PT-76 light tanks the North Vietnamese used against us proved invulnerable to the LAW rocket - the flotation chambers that gave them the ability to swim also acted as spaced armor.

Noe take a look, if you will, at the armor scheme on an Iowa class - you will note the deck armor is not "all stacked up" in one layer, but is rather distributed between the bomb deck, the armor deck, and the splinter deck, all with signifigant space between them. Space where that jet is going to do nothing but dissipate.

Posted: 7/29/2011 4:46:21 AM EST

[#26]

Quoted:
What you're asking is if they tubes "set" over time. That's a good question, and being that I'm not a metallurgist, I'd like to know too. When we retube the main gun on an Abrams, the tube is packed in a long wooden box for shipment (for all I know, that's how they're stored). Obviously, the amount of bending due to the weight isn't anywhere near as pronounced as it is with something that's 16" vice 4.7 in due to shear mass, length, and the associated weight. The box is built to support the tube in such a manner as to preclude "bending" while in transit. Of course, it's no where near as long as a naval gun.

I'm going to take an uneducated guess, based on what little I know about hardness, tensile strength, metal fabrication, machining operations, and say "no" they do not "set" over time, with the caveat that other factors such as manufacturing methods-to include heat treat, alloy content, service life, and finally the fact that barrel "droop" IS taken into consideration when fabricating the things.

Or maybe not.

My understanding is that when battleship gun barrels are made, one of the things the do is rotate it though 360 degrees and measure at what orientation it droops the least, (this is due to the methods of construction - wire wound, etc....), at which point the top is marked, and the breach block is fitted so that it fires in this orientation for the life of the weapon - this is to reduce both the amount and the variation in "muzzle jump" when the piece is fired.

Now as to storage and such, the metal would have to be deformed past its plastic limit to be permanently bent, and I can't see storage inducing a permanent change in the barrel, unless some really big forces were applied to the middle of a barrel unsupported there.

Posted: 7/29/2011 11:31:38 AM EST

[#27]

SPACE is just as good as steel armor

Even at best, this turns into a technology race between armor and warheads. It's easy to upgrade warheads and missiles. Ship armor schemes have multi-decade design lifetimes.

Modern technology can put a payload onto a target with a high probability. Trying to defend against it after it's hit is a mug's game.

Posted: 7/29/2011 2:45:25 PM EST

[#28]

Quoted:

SPACE is just as good as steel armor

Even at best, this turns into a technology race between armor and warheads. It's easy to upgrade warheads and missiles.

Actually, its very hard to upgrade warheads and missiles, especially to defeat a target that has BOTH face hardened armor AND space between layers of armor AND compartmentalization. You run into some fundamental laws of physics - for one thing, a shaped charge's penetration is directly proportional to its cone diameter - for copper liners, you get roughly 5 times the cone diameter, which is always slightly smaller than the warhead diameter. You can bump that up to around 7 times, but only by using gold or platinum liners, which significantly increases the cost - so you can afford far fewer of them, and have to put less money into the guidance and propulsion systems. So the only way to dramatically increase penetration is to increase cone diameter - which increases weight, aerodynamic drag, and requires a bigger, more expensive propulsion system AND a bigger vehicle to launch it from, or fewer missiles per system.

Now we get to fusing. Take a trip down memory lane, and see what the various countries that fielded battleships went through trying to get naval gun AP rounds to successfully detonate. Nose fuses, base fuses, inertial fuses, MULTIPLE base fuses, aluminum decelerator plates - all were used and added just to try to REDUCE the number of rounds that didn't explode - and this in munitions DESIGNED to slap into 18 inches of face-hardened cemented armor.

No modern ASM warhead is fused to hit such a target - there ARE no such targets to hit. Probably the closest you would get right now is a Nimitz class deck - I'm sure the Navy isn't going to release exactly how it compares to Iowa class deck armor, but I would be shocked if it was anywhere close.

When you start adding fuses, and hardening fuses to function under such a deceleration, you are adding weight, expense, and complexity that either has to paid for with more money, or reduced weapon payload, or both.

Ship armor schemes have multi-decade design lifetimes.

Modern technology can put a payload onto a target with a high probability. Trying to defend against it after it's hit is a mug's game.

And yet, what's on the front of an Abrams tank?

Posted: 7/29/2011 6:23:36 PM EST

[#29]

Quoted:
Actually, its very hard to upgrade warheads and missiles, especially to defeat a target that has BOTH face hardened armor AND space between layers of armor AND compartmentalization.

A 250 lb weapon, costs less than $50K, penetrating 5 ft of reinforced concrete. The problem becomes "can you design a missile that can carry a 250 lb payload that impacts at supersonic speed." Or, for that matter, get the 250 lb payload within 50nm at altitude. The answer is yes. Even at the outbreak of WWII primitive repurposed 16" shells dropped from only 10,000 ft with insignificant initial velocity easily penetrated the deck and turret roof armor of the battleships at Pearl Harbor. Anything modern would slice through it. And this is without anything vaguely exotic for the warhead.

A wealthy nation could buy, with extreme effort, perhaps half a dozen battleships. They'd be completely negated with a few billion dollars in munitions, without even considering torpedos or mines. You could develop the munitions from scratch in a few years (absent peacetime procurement procedures). The ship hulls would have to have a design lifetime of decades.

Yes, you can have various defensive systems attempt to intercept the weapons. You can put the same defensive systems on a non-battleship. Actually, probably more on a non-battleship, such as phased array radars.

If plan A is to defeat the munition at time of impact, you need a plan B, to quote Gecko45.

And yet, what's on the front of an Abrams tank?

A major nation has thousands of tanks, and they're out hiding behind hills and in gullies and in forests. Ships are out there on the ocean showing up on radar returns, and there's only a few of them.

Posted: 7/29/2011 8:04:34 PM EST

[#30]

Quoted:A 250 lb weapon, costs less than $50K, penetrating 5 ft of reinforced concrete.

Reinforced concrete is not face hardened, cemeted armor. It is especially not 3 layers of such armor, supported by high strength steel, with very signicant distances between them.

Even at the outbreak of WWII primitive repurposed 16" shells dropped from only 10,000 ft with insignificant initial velocity...

"...insignificant initial velocity...."

Guess what happens when you drop nearly a ton or weight with a high sectional density and a good ballistic coefficient from two miles high? Its rather the IMPACT VELOCITY that matters, right?

....easily penetrated the deck and turret roof armor of the battleships at Pearl Harbor.

Yes it did. Battleships that were designed in the WWI era, and thus had no substanial planning for attack from the air. We do things different now.

Anything modern would slice through it. And this is without anything vaguely exotic for the warhead.

Anything modern would be set off by the bomb deck, expend most of its energy in the space between the bomb deck and the armor deck, (and penetrating the same), to be stopped by the splinter deck.

A major nation has thousands of tanks, and they're out hiding behind hills and in gullies and in forests.

There really isn't any hiding from UAVs. Not to mention its hard to conduct a deliberate attack on a defended position while hiding. At some times, one must go in harms way - on land, or at sea.

Posted: 7/30/2011 8:20:32 AM EST

[#31]

Regarding the sagging of barrels - aren't the barrels mounted to the gun turrets nearly horizontal most of the time? For decades? All while being supported only at the breech end? One would think if sagging were an issue, it would occur in this situation, especially since the ship moves in all three directions, inducing dynamic as well as static loads.

Posted: 7/30/2011 8:59:13 AM EST

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Further, DARPA was working on SCRAMJET rounds that were gun launched, in part for further upgrades to the Iowa class before their final decommissioning. Some laboratory test firings in furtherance of this took place at the Air Force’s Arnold Engineering Development Center, Arnold Air Force Base, Tenn. Ranges, if actually built as a 16" shell, are speculative since the program was cancelled, but they WERE working on it.

Keyword: "were."

They "were" working on lasers in the 60s and again in the 80s. We are working on them again now. Progress is being made, but after 50 years, we're not there yet.

They "were" working on rail guns in the 70s, and again in the 80s. We are working on them again now. Progress is being made, but after 50 years, were' not there yet.

Anyone see problems with a gun-launched scramjet? I can see several. Expense. Modification of the gun barrel. Modification of the gun itself. Throw in a guidance system, an exotic propulsion system and modifications to the gun, which has to be manned, what do you get? A more expensive alternative to a missile system. Only you get more maintenance out of the deal.

Sometimes ideas die because they aren't good ideas.

Except this idea isn't dead, there is a 155mm SCRAMJET program - read all about it....

ATK Very Long Range Munition — Air Breather (VLRM-AB)
Artillery round

"ATK is developing the ramjet propulsion system for the Very Long Range Munition – Air Breather (VLRM-AB) ramjet-assisted artillery projectile. Assisting guided projectiles with ramjet propulsion will enhance platform survivability by increasing standoff range and improve call-for-fire responsiveness through shorter flight time.

VLRM-AB for 155mm artillery provides the U.S. Army with extended-range fire capability, precision, and lethality. For the Navy, VLRM-AB can facilitate the long-range naval surface fire support requirement using the five-inch gun. Ramjet assisted projectile technology is scaleable to other calibers, including 105mm projectiles for the Army and 155mm projectiles for the Navy’s Advanced Gun System."

So it would seem the Army, the Nay, and ATK do not agree with your assessment of the technology....South Africa was rumored to be working on this too, for the G5-G6 platforms.

Posted: 7/30/2011 9:01:32 AM EST

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:

Further, DARPA was working on SCRAMJET rounds that were gun launched, in part for further upgrades to the Iowa class before their final decommissioning. Some laboratory test firings in furtherance of this took place at the Air Force’s Arnold Engineering Development Center, Arnold Air Force Base, Tenn. Ranges, if actually built as a 16" shell, are speculative since the program was cancelled, but they WERE working on it.

Keyword: "were."

They "were" working on lasers in the 60s and again in the 80s. We are working on them again now. Progress is being made, but after 50 years, we're not there yet.

They "were" working on rail guns in the 70s, and again in the 80s. We are working on them again now. Progress is being made, but after 50 years, were' not there yet.

Anyone see problems with a gun-launched scramjet? I can see several. Expense. Modification of the gun barrel. Modification of the gun itself. Throw in a guidance system, an exotic propulsion system and modifications to the gun, which has to be manned, what do you get? A more expensive alternative to a missile system. Only you get more maintenance out of the deal.

Sometimes ideas die because they aren't good ideas.

Except this idea isn't dead, there is a 155mm SCRAMJET program - read all about it....

ATK Very Long Range Munition — Air Breather (VLRM-AB)
Artillery round

http://www.atk.com/images_pagephotos/photo278.jpg

"ATK is developing the ramjet propulsion system for the Very Long Range Munition – Air Breather (VLRM-AB) ramjet-assisted artillery projectile. Assisting guided projectiles with ramjet propulsion will enhance platform survivability by increasing standoff range and improve call-for-fire responsiveness through shorter flight time.

VLRM-AB for 155mm artillery provides the U.S. Army with extended-range fire capability, precision, and lethality. For the Navy, VLRM-AB can facilitate the long-range naval surface fire support requirement using the five-inch gun. Ramjet assisted projectile technology is scaleable to other calibers, including 105mm projectiles for the Army and 155mm projectiles for the Navy’s Advanced Gun System."

So it would seem the Army, the Nay, and ATK do not agree with your assessment of the technology....South Africa was rumored to be working on this too, for the G5-G6 platforms.

Here's an idea, show me the funding line.

ETA:How many rounds have they fired in testing? It's still vaporware. Nice computer generated pic, though. Industry, of course, tries to sell the .mil on concepts all the time. It doesn't mean they will reach fruition, any time soon at least.

The only funding for this I have seen, was a little less than 10 million dollars to examine the concept. In that examination, other concepts besides VLRM-AB are being examined as well. Ten mil is chump change. You can't even start a study to integrate into the Aegis Weapons System for that much.

Posted: 7/30/2011 9:22:08 AM EST

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:

Further, DARPA was working on SCRAMJET rounds that were gun launched, in part for further upgrades to the Iowa class before their final decommissioning. Some laboratory test firings in furtherance of this took place at the Air Force’s Arnold Engineering Development Center, Arnold Air Force Base, Tenn. Ranges, if actually built as a 16" shell, are speculative since the program was cancelled, but they WERE working on it.

Keyword: "were."

They "were" working on lasers in the 60s and again in the 80s. We are working on them again now. Progress is being made, but after 50 years, we're not there yet.

They "were" working on rail guns in the 70s, and again in the 80s. We are working on them again now. Progress is being made, but after 50 years, were' not there yet.

Anyone see problems with a gun-launched scramjet? I can see several. Expense. Modification of the gun barrel. Modification of the gun itself. Throw in a guidance system, an exotic propulsion system and modifications to the gun, which has to be manned, what do you get? A more expensive alternative to a missile system. Only you get more maintenance out of the deal.

Sometimes ideas die because they aren't good ideas.

Except this idea isn't dead, there is a 155mm SCRAMJET program - read all about it....

ATK Very Long Range Munition — Air Breather (VLRM-AB)
Artillery round

http://www.atk.com/images_pagephotos/photo278.jpg

"ATK is developing the ramjet propulsion system for the Very Long Range Munition – Air Breather (VLRM-AB) ramjet-assisted artillery projectile. Assisting guided projectiles with ramjet propulsion will enhance platform survivability by increasing standoff range and improve call-for-fire responsiveness through shorter flight time.

VLRM-AB for 155mm artillery provides the U.S. Army with extended-range fire capability, precision, and lethality. For the Navy, VLRM-AB can facilitate the long-range naval surface fire support requirement using the five-inch gun. Ramjet assisted projectile technology is scaleable to other calibers, including 105mm projectiles for the Army and 155mm projectiles for the Navy’s Advanced Gun System."

So it would seem the Army, the Nay, and ATK do not agree with your assessment of the technology....South Africa was rumored to be working on this too, for the G5-G6 platforms.

Here's an idea, show me the funding line.

ETA:How many rounds have they fired in testing? It's still vaporware. Nice computer generated pic, though. Industry, of course, tries to sell the .mil on concepts all the time. It doesn't mean they will reach fruition, any time soon at least.

The only funding for this I have seen, was a little less than 10 million dollars to examine the concept. In that examination, other concepts besides VLRM-AB are being examined as well. Ten mil is chump change. You can't even start a study to integrate into the Aegis Weapons System for that much.

I should also point out that the vast majority of that funding is probably allocated to AARGM even though this particular system is also listed in the solicitation.

Posted: 7/30/2011 9:25:24 AM EST

[#35]

I'm bumping this because an IM exchange got me to thinking.

It's interesting how some ideas come, go and come back again.

Take, for instance, the rail gun. It is a great idea on paper, but in 30 or 40 years of fooling with the damn thing we can't seem to get it to work. The guys who worked on it in the 70s knew why it wouldn't work, but the guys now seemingly have to relearn the lessons.

Why is that?

I have two theories.
-Changing of the guard in the engineering shop. The engineers who found the problems the first or second go round leave and take the knowledge with them. Tribal knowledge can be a bitch. Or perhaps the new guys think they know better.
-New people in sales or in the government that don't remember the previous programs and have little or no engineering knowledge. They create the requirement and pay the engineers to rehash old ideas.

Posted: 7/30/2011 10:15:39 AM EST

[#36]

Quoted:

I'm bumping this because an IM exchange got me to thinking.

It's interesting how some ideas come, go and come back again.

Take, for instance, the rail gun. It is a great idea on paper, but in 30 or 40 years of fooling with the damn thing we can't seem to get it to work. The guys who worked on it in the 70s knew why it wouldn't work, but the guys now seemingly have to relearn the lessons.

Why is that?

I have two theories.

-Changing of the guard in the engineering shop. The engineers who found the problems the first or second go round leave and take the knowledge with them. Tribal knowledge can be a bitch. Or perhaps the new guys think they know better.

-New people in sales or in the government that don't remember the previous programs and have little or no engineering knowledge. They create the requirement and pay the engineers to rehash old ideas.

The people that stop working on solutions to problems will never find a solution to the problem.

How long did it take to go from "Oh this black stuff I made makes pretty
flames" to "Holy Hell, what just knocked down my castle wall!"?

Posted: 7/30/2011 10:24:24 AM EST

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm bumping this because an IM exchange got me to thinking.

It's interesting how some ideas come, go and come back again.

Take, for instance, the rail gun. It is a great idea on paper, but in 30 or 40 years of fooling with the damn thing we can't seem to get it to work. The guys who worked on it in the 70s knew why it wouldn't work, but the guys now seemingly have to relearn the lessons.

Why is that?

I have two theories.
-Changing of the guard in the engineering shop. The engineers who found the problems the first or second go round leave and take the knowledge with them. Tribal knowledge can be a bitch. Or perhaps the new guys think they know better.
-New people in sales or in the government that don't remember the previous programs and have little or no engineering knowledge. They create the requirement and pay the engineers to rehash old ideas.

The people that stop working on solutions to problems will never find a solution to the problem.

How long did it take to go from "Oh this black stuff I made makes pretty flames" to "Holy Hell, what just knocked down my castle wall!"?

The Chinese actually wasted little time from the actual invention of gunpowder, not just burning saltpeter, to applying it to warfare.

The point is, the engineering challenges were known years ago. There may be advancements in the interim, but unless you know what the problems were you don't know if the advancements have solved your problems.

Meanwhile, pouring money into a project in the hope you develop a solution isn't a smart way of going about business.

Posted: 7/30/2011 10:27:16 AM EST

[#38]

Quoted:
Here's an idea, show me the funding line.

Its being developed with ATK company money - at least up until 2008. Its using technology from somthing called the FASTT

ETA:How many rounds have they fired in testing?

I don't know - the Army has been testing a 120mm scramjet round to be fired by the Abrams tank - it was supposed to have been fired in April of 2005, but I can't confirm that. Test firings were done in a tunnel in 2001 as I posted earlier.

Posted: 7/30/2011 10:31:12 AM EST

[#39]

The battleship today is obsolete for the same reason it was obsolete in WWII. It's guns will never have the range of an F-18 with a pair of Harpoons/JDAMs slung under its wing.

Posted: 7/30/2011 10:31:58 AM EST

[#40]

Test firings in 2001. Yet ten years later, it's not in production yet. Nor have we heard of more testing or prototypes.

I'd call that "a clue."

Posted: 7/30/2011 11:22:34 AM EST

[#41]

Quoted:
I'm bumping this because an IM exchange got me to thinking.

It's interesting how some ideas come, go and come back again.

Take, for instance, the rail gun. It is a great idea on paper, but in 30 or 40 years of fooling with the damn thing we can't seem to get it to work. The guys who worked on it in the 70s knew why it wouldn't work, but the guys now seemingly have to relearn the lessons.

Why is that?

I have two theories.
-Changing of the guard in the engineering shop. The engineers who found the problems the first or second go round leave and take the knowledge with them. Tribal knowledge can be a bitch. Or perhaps the new guys think they know better.
-New people in sales or in the government that don't remember the previous programs and have little or no engineering knowledge. They create the requirement and pay the engineers to rehash old ideas.

Technology also advances in areas over time that allow previously impossible or impractical ideas to come to fruition.

Posted: 7/30/2011 4:48:15 PM EST

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:A 250 lb weapon, costs less than $50K, penetrating 5 ft of reinforced concrete.

Even at the outbreak of WWII primitive repurposed 16" shells dropped from only 10,000 ft with insignificant initial velocity...

"...insignificant initial velocity...."

Guess what happens when you drop nearly a ton or weight with a high sectional density and a good ballistic coefficient from two miles high? Its rather the IMPACT VELOCITY that matters, right?

Combat aircraft are typically dropping bombs from 20K+ ft today, at much faster initial speeds, with far better designed payloads, often rocket or jet boosted to target, and the aircraft are carrying more munitions and heavier payloads. You'll note the Tallboys penetrating completely through Tirpitz and detonating under the keel. Battleships were obsolete during daylight hours during WWII when aircraft were around. With better sensors, they're obsolete during night time now as well, and have been for decades in any sort of contested environment.

....easily penetrated the deck and turret roof armor of the battleships at Pearl Harbor.

Yes it did. Battleships that were designed in the WWI era, and thus had no substanial planning for attack from the air. We do things different now.

You can't make armor thick enough to stop a modern bomb if the attacker puts enough thought into the bombs.

Posted: 7/30/2011 5:22:24 PM EST

[#43]

Quoted:

The battleship today is obsolete for the same reason it was obsolete in WWII. It's guns will never have the range of an F-18 with a pair of Harpoons/JDAMs slung under its wing.

80% of the targets attacked by naval aviation in the Vietnam War were in 16" range. Think that might have saved some airframes and aircrews?

Posted: 7/30/2011 5:25:09 PM EST

[#44]

Quoted:
Test firings in 2001. Yet ten years later, it's not in production yet. Nor have we heard of more testing or prototypes.

I'd call that "a clue."

Actually, HARP fired SCRAMJET vehicles out of (guess what?) modified 16" barrels in the 60s - the program ran out of money before they perfected it. Ther Army was testing Abrams SCRAMJET rounds in 2005, and ATK has various scramjet munition in the works.

They were even proposed for the 15mm naval gun - so its just YOU that hasn't heard of them.

Posted: 7/30/2011 5:27:17 PM EST

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Test firings in 2001. Yet ten years later, it's not in production yet. Nor have we heard of more testing or prototypes.

I'd call that "a clue."

Actually, HARP fired SCRAMJET vehicles out of (guess what?) modified 16" barrels in the 60s - the program ran out of money before they perfected it. Ther Army was testing Abrams SCRAMJET rounds in 2005, and ATK has various scramjet munition in the works.

They were even proposed for the 15mm naval gun - so its just YOU that hasn't heard of them.

A 15mm naval gun huh?

How does a project from the 60s, which I referenced earlier in the thread, or a test project 6 years ago, negate what I said? It doesn't, but it does show just how desperate you are to make your opinions "work." Like I said, you're a joke.

ETA: I noticed how you went from unconfirmed firings in 2005 to confirmed firings in 2005 in just a couple of hours. You really are desperate. I can imagine you giving google a real workout today.

Posted: 7/30/2011 5:27:46 PM EST

[#46]

Quoted:
Combat aircraft are typically dropping bombs from 20K+ ft today, at much faster initial speeds, with far better designed payloads, often rocket or jet boosted to target, and the aircraft are carrying more munitions and heavier payloads. You'll note the Tallboys penetrating completely through Tirpitz and detonating under the keel. Battleships were obsolete during daylight hours during WWII when aircraft were around. With better sensors, they're obsolete during night time now as well, and have been for decades in any sort of contested environment.

Those sensors work both ways, and air defense is a LOT more effective nowadays.

You can't make armor thick enough to stop a modern bomb if the attacker puts enough thought into the bombs.

So? Making his job harder and more expensive has a benefit too.

Posted: 7/30/2011 5:35:46 PM EST

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ok, that's interesting. So they DO set with time.

When I lived onbase in Dahlgren, I used to walk and run past the gun line. The old gun barrels there definitely were sagging in the middle. I asked someone about it, and was told they rotate the ones they plan to use and don't rotate the ones they will eventually scrap.

The barrels I saw were set on supports on either end, and in the middle the barrel sagged. I always wondered if you could rotate them 180 degrees and let them sag back into shape.

Dahlgren was a neat place. I was probably the only SWO who thought that.

Did you spend three years there? It's quaint at first, but mind-numbingly boring after while.

Boring?! No way. They've got a Super Wal-mart and everything now.

Not sure if it could be called quaint though.

Posted: 7/30/2011 6:00:09 PM EST

[#48]

A bit on scramjets.

The latest and most promising program suffered a failure in June, and they don't know why:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4189/is_20030919/ai_n10167695/

Got to get them to lite reliably before you make them into a weapon.

The X-43 was fired from a cannon. A 130ft long cannon.

Tank sized scramjets were flown in the lab in 2000/2001 and again, perhaps, in 2005. In the lab. Unless you consider a 260 foot flight to be field testing. Football field testing, I guess. That was in 2001. The testing in 2005 went so well it went immediately into the prototype stage...oh wait, it didn't.

Neither did the idea of a scramjet fired from a 16" gun in the 60s. In fact, the first actual scramjet flight didn't occur until 1991, in Russia. And even then it was a captive-carry. But Rick here would like everyone to believe we've always been on the cusp of having the technology and weaponizing it.

But ATK is working on it! Except that they've only really flown scramjets launched from missiles, inserted at altitude, not fired at ground level at a target, at ground level, where the air is thick. But they have some cool computer generated pictures!

Posted: 7/31/2011 12:29:48 AM EST

[#49]

Quoted:
Those sensors work both ways, and air defense is a LOT more effective nowadays.

Sigh. the same sensors can be placed on a cheaper, more effective ship. And you might not be able to place some sensors on a battleship. How exactly are you going to armor your phased array radar?

For the same amount of money you'd likely be able to buy something like the Wasp and its aircraft, which would, buy itself, sink a battleship division and then land the marines and seize the base they sailed from. Without even considering a notional future competitor like a combat UAV carrier.

You can't make armor thick enough to stop a modern bomb if the attacker puts enough thought into the bombs.

So? Making his job harder and more expensive has a benefit too.

The thing is, it's not actually harder to any significant degree. You'll notice that the people afraid of US bomb strikes are not covering their underground bunkers with face hardened armor plate, despite the fact that they don't have to make it float.

Posted: 7/31/2011 12:30:28 AM EST

[#50]

aqua-bump.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Battleships... do we still build them? (Page 6 of 7)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us