Shipbucket

You don't need the 6" guns. But this is slowly getting closer to semi-sane, if not feasible.

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

Exactly what Carnac said,

5 inch guns are good enough for bombardment anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Anzac_(FFH_150)

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

The issue with radar absorbent material isn't thatit can't stand up to seawater, but rather that once it gets wet the water will reflect tha radar waves instead.

_________________
“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.

The only easy and simple solution is to find a hydrophobic and radar absorbant material to coat the hull just above the water line.

Like Thiel was saying, the larger the ship, the larger the wet area, hence a larger radar signature, especially a wave piercing hull will have water reaching high up on the hull forwards

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

Well that's the thing. Radar absorbent materials covers quite a lot. Especially stuff that people aren't really aware of. Chemicals and metallurgy is a specialty of mine. The main RAM used in my design is silicon carbide.

EDIT: Rodondo beat me to the punch! Oh well, I'll mention it anyways since people might be interested.

Specifically, my design could use hydrophobic materials, which water would not readily stick to. In which case it would roll off quickly in little balls. The contact angles of a water droplet exceeds 150° and the roll-off angle is less than 10° for this type of substance. The ship would merely maintain 10 degrees or more on sloped surfaces to facilitate the removal of excess moisture.

Overall though it isn't really necessary. Moisture is a minor problem with a ship with it comes to RCS. The main issue with aircraft, is that they have to come into close proximity with AA assets on missions. So that even a layer of moisture can cause enough of an increase (less than 0.1 m2 to be exact) that it creates a certain amount danger with increased odds of detection. But in the case of that F-117 that was shot down that one time, it was within a couple miles of the SAM site when it was shot down. It's mainly an issue with distance. I would almost say that the hydrophobic technique isn't even necessary, though it could be an interesting approach for aircraft. A ship is almost always thought of as being BVR, thus this type of issue is much more minor than it would be for an aircraft.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

In regards to what?

The 155mm guns are based off the 155mm AGS. I mean sure, you can use 5" munitions, but you'll just have to use more. And a 155mm LRLAP has a range of 100 nm, while a 5" munition can't come close to that without something like ERGM or B-term, both of which have been cancelled. Vulcano could be used instead, although it only has a range of 64 nautical miles maximum for the 155mm version, and 43 nautical miles for the 127mm (5") version. So even then, it's apparent that 155mm rounds are much more range capable than a 127mm round. Aside from that you are limited by magazine capacities with the ships themselves.

The main guns can't come close to maintaining or supplying the required volume of fires while meeting collateral damage limitations. Thus there is most certainly a need for secondaries. The NCS study for instance can easily require 9,000 rounds over the course of a 24 hour span (with capabilities for a 18,000 rd surge over 17 hours). A lot of people don't understand what a forced entry scenario in North Korea or China would require. Knocking over a little hell-hole like Iraq or Afghanistan doesn't come close. That's why the USN estimated that 24 DD(X)'s would be required to fully mitigate the Joint-Fires gap.

DDG-51's for instance carry 244 5"/62 cal rounds onboard. You'd empty the magazines of 36.8 of your DDG-51's every single day. That's what it really comes down to. You'd need 73.7 DDG-51's to supply the 18,000 round surge over 17 hours. You can of course reload your DDG's at sea many times over and scrape by with far fewer than that amount, but in the end, why not just build a dedicated ship for dealing with this issue? Especially since the 5"/62 guns used on the Burke's only have an estimated barrel life of 7,000 rounds. 8,000 rounds for the 5"/54 version. The SCFLS study for instance gives a requirement for over 300,000 rounds over a 65 day span. With a barrel life of 7,000 or 8,000 rounds, you do the math.





This is the whole reason that little frigates with one gun aren't cutting it with the USN. Those are fine for self-defense, but if you need to open a hole on a hostile beach in a near-term competitor nation, it's going to take much much more.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

catz, you have still not shown any ship with:
A an stealth rounded turret
and B using RAM

also, you are just ignoring what I say that doesn't agree with you. I will conclude my replies here with the fact that you don't seem to make sense, and that, IF there really is an 'gunfire support gap' , why haven't they build the spruance class with the Mk-71? http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1394

_________________
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

Because the Mk71 didn't work.

_________________
“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.

proof of that? I researched the system a bit and never saw any problems apart from those caused by testing on a very small hull...... and maybe some small problems, that could have been solved.

_________________
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

The gun itself worked, but it turned out to be too inaccurate for 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.