Shipbucket

Not really. The closest thing you can come to a deciding factor is the fact that Copenhagen were encircled and didn't have the supplies to last until winter set in. The bombardment certainly helped speed things along, but it alone wouldn't have done the job.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Okay,

I took a couple points made from Thiel and some other users, and have made some revisions.

Mainly reducing the number of 1 MW radar arrays. I think half as many is still enough for surface search and gun laying functions. I removed the ALS cells in the bow, and will find a new place for them. Or perhaps will put them back after doing some additional research into the actual over-pressure of the guns.

In addition, the secondary turrets have been updated as well as the 57mm CIGS towards the bow.

In addition to that, I've written out a more detailed mission outline for the BBG.


Battleship Doctrine for the BBG concept-

The BBN is like the BB(X) in the fact that it's designed with many features to reduce it's RCS. This ultimately gives it an advantage when engaging enemy ships, or penetrating enemy waters. The later, means of course that it can proceed further into enemy waters, coming closer to shore while being relatively undetected. If the enemys radar installations are crippled by stealth aircraft ahead of time, this type of action will undoubedly be smoother and less risky overall.

A modern 21st century battleship is a multi-mission ship, and has several prominent missions under it's multi-mission umbrella, which is was specifically designed for.

Anti-Ship Warfare (AShW)

Seeking and destroying enemy surface ships, with reduced risk to self. A modern BB should be able to use guided gun rounds and/or AShM to engage enemy ships in this role.


Naval Fire Support/Naval Surface Fire Support (NFS/NSFS)

Delivering ordinance on target to land targets, both on shore and inland. A modern BB should be equipped with major caliber guns in addition to missiles, for fulfilling this mission profile.


Nuclear Deterrence-

Taking a note from the Nuclear Annie tests, and the Katie nuclear tipped 16" projectiles, designed and produced for the Iowa class battleship, a modern 21st century battleship should be designed to deliver nuclear weapons on target against enemy ships as well as land targets of interest. In this case, it's nuclear deterrence is only limited by the range of it's guns and missiles. However unlike a missile sub, it's guns can reload limited only by it's magazine stores. And like a submarine, it can carry a variety off missiles armed with nuclear warheads.


Nuclear Preemptive First Strike-

Such a ship could also has advantages over relying solely on SLBM's & ICBM's. I.e, as long as the BB21 is in range, it can deliver a nuclear response much quicker than a orbital missile. In this case, 59 nautical miles can be achieved in just under three-minutes, 100 nautical miles in five. And two-hundred to four-hundred nautical miles in eight to twelve minutes respectively, depending on the specific projectile used and it's trajectory/flight-path.

Unlike a missile, a BB does not need to rely on complex MIRV schemes, since it can fire multiple times to achieve the same effect. Nine guns with a rate-of-fire of ten-rounds per minute for instance, yields 90 rounds. Regardless whether against only one target, or ninety targets, a BB would provide unparallelled first strike options, assuming it is operating undetected.

While the main guns in addition to missiles provide the bulk of this nuclear capability, the sixteen 155mm guns also provide nuclear capability at varying ranges up to 100 nautical miles with yields in the vicinity of 0.07 kilotons of TNT (72 tons).

This ability gives it capabilities that would enable the preemptive strike to target existing missile sites, which depending on enemy detection capabilities, may not be detected right up until impact. When used in conjunction with missile submarines, a twenty first century battleship produces a threat unrivaled in nuclear warfare.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

And like you do know what your talking about? Sorry Tim. You aren't anymore privy to classified material than anyone else with mere civilian access.

And all sources suggest AEGIS can track upwards of a hundred targets, but only engage somewhere in the vicinity of 16.
And the Australian navy.
You haven't graduated yet. Thus you don't have any more credentials than me. And this is the internet, where anyone can claim to be anything. Not that I doubt you, just that I only judge the hard evidence in your posts on a basis of credibility, and not who or what you claim to be, since it has little relevancy on the world wide web (of liars and B.S artists). Sorry Tim.

Also, like I said, kudos points to you. However, you still have to prove your claims. Afterall, wasn't it you who made the big...debacle about plagiarism and citing ones sources? And now, you're trying to present yourself as the font of all knowledge on the subjects covered here on SB? If you have an opinion on something, prove it.

And also, quit taking me (and others) disagreeing with you so personally. Just because someone thinks you're wrong on a contested point of debate, doesn't mean they hate you or are deserving of personal snipes and attacks. Seriously.

It's still in excess of 9 billion dollars. That's the cost of a new carrier right there (excluding carrier R&D). I'd say that over-rules your opinions on the matter.

But rather than write off your experiences on the subject, I'll just say what I have said many times. I'll say that we'll know for once and for all when the DDG-1000 launches in 2013. Until then, I'm giving it the benefit of a doubt since nothing you've said or presented on the matter has gone anywhere beyond opinions and speculation.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

Yes one person, but one that is a bonafide military analyst.

And unlike many others, he backed up his paper with hard evidence and references. And unlike many others, he had access to the OMFTS scenario using classified data. And unlike anyone else of relevance, he wrote a 50 page thesis on the matter.

And to my knowledge, it isn't him vs many at all since there are no others with his level of experience or knowledge on the subject, who have bothered to write a publicly available detraction. Thus he would be IMO, the leading expert on the subject.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

The problem with the tumblehome is that even though it is possible, it has many disadvantages over the equivelent "normal" hull. As shown with the current generation of stealth ships, it's quite possible to have an outwards-sloping hull and still be quite hidden from the enemy. There's no real advantages that aren't outweighed by the disadvantages. You'll have high speed, but need an advanced expensive and potentially unreliable stabalization system to just keep it afloat. You'll be stealthy, but you could have a normal hull and be stealth too.

Also of note, your entire reason for tumblehome disintegrates with the fact that this ship would not stealth well due to size and due to things on deck. As I once heard, you could make a stealth bomber the size of a B-52, but it'd still have the radar cross section of a Cessna.

_________________
Probably posting from and iPhone and naval terms befuddle it. If I say a ships' hill, you know what I meant.

They really aren't any faster than conventional hulls.

Furthermore, a Cessna has a RCS of about 1.8 m2. A B-52 has a RCS of 125 m2. Also, a B-2 is almost as large as a B-52, and has a RCS much less than a Cessna, 0.1> m2, easy.

A navy cruiser such as the USS Long Beach has a RCS of around 14,000 m2. So when considering ships, yes, a ship can be stealth. It's all about how far away you have to be to detect the ship on a constant basis, and get a lock. Nothing is truly invisible to radar. Not even a F-22.

So, if you could get a 50,000 t ship, or even a 100,000 t ship down to the size of a destroyer on radar, or even a cruiser for that matter, you'd have made significant gains in the ships capabilities to penetrate enemy waters and operate undetected. Because a target on the surface, is much more difficult to detect than one in the air, due to range to the horizon issues. So it really is quite possible to be fairly stealthy when speaking in terms of BVR and OTH. That's why navies waste time and money making ships stealthy.

The turrets on this design, have about 1/4th the RCS of a conventional turret. And that doesn't not include any type of radar absorbent materials or other means of reducing RCS, since that's classified material and I couldn't give a solid guess as to what it might be able to accomplish. So we're talking about a RCS of around 14.5 m2, maximum (the maximum possible under ideal conditions) for the turrets. And unlike other stealthy box style turrets, this turrets alignment has little if any effect on radar, since it doesn't really matter which direction the turret is facing. Regardless of which direction the blister turret is facing, it'll still have a greatly reduced RCS. A more conventional turret will have a reduced RCS regardless of direction as well, but ultimately only maximized that when in a specific alignment to the radar's point or origin.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

catz, tim was right about the angled slope... but you were too.
an sphere always redirect some of the signal directly to the sender. this is only a small part, but it is there. while an flat plate hit on 90 degrees returns all, when it is hit at another angle, there is a huge chance (depending on that angle) that nothing will be send back.

proof of this: you like to look to real things, right: ok. I say Oto Melara 76. 2 turrets available. an 'dome' one, the compact, and the 'stealth'. if you were right, and spheres would be perfect, the compact would be stealthier then the stealth. you get what I mean? right, I have now put an hole in your 'sperical stealth turrets' concept.

ow and you can't use RAM materials on a ship. they don't go well with seawater

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

You're not going to be able to mount an effective nuclear deterrent with this thing. It's too easy to counter, hence why no-one has has relied on surface ships as the carrier since SLBMs became possible.
Additionally neither the W9, W19, W33 or W48 warheads had the yield to take out the any kind of hardened structure necessary for a effective deterrent.
You also don't have the range. You're unlikely to make it to within effective range of anything important without getting spotted.
Lastly, artillery shells are not that hard to intercept effectively with existing technology.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

You didn't put a hole in anything since they aren't really spheres at all, merely rounded off turrets.

Second reason why you didn't put a hole in anything except your own post, is that you don't know what the RCS is of either of those turrets.

Third reason why, is that your statements have no bearing to what you consider to be stealth. They have a RCS of 14.5 m2 roughly. Thus your statements have no bearing in reality since that could be stealth under different definitions. I'd say they are stealth simply because they considerably reduce the RCS over a conventional design. If it was a conventional turret, it'd be somewhere in the vicinity of 40 to 60 m2 for a modern turret, or upwards of 400 m2 for a WW2 style of turret of similar size.

But if your definition of stealth, is 0.1 to 0.001 m2 (like that of a F-22/F-117/B-2), there no, they aren't stealth under that definition.

And I hate to burst your bubble, but RAM are used on ships.

In addition to what I wrote above, as for the turrets thing and comparing the two you used in your post, the whole things is a bit silly, and your statement isn't even close to being true, since it has a totally different effect on back-scattering of specular and creeping waves. Just because it's slightly rounded doesn't mean anything.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

If it was the only nuclear asset that might be true. Notice I never made any claims about relying on such an asset as a nuclear deterrence. In fact, at the end of that posts, I stated that in conjunction with missile submarines.

Furthermore, whether they can take out hardened structures has little to do with their overall yield, since you could simply use multiple rounds. This is the inherent advantage of being able to reload.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"