BBG(X) - DISCUSSION ONLY

[Ainen]

Given the still highly experimental nature of the Railgun, and the odds of it getting cancelled, they should just drop the Railgun for now, and redesignate it as CGN-74, BCGN if they REALLY want that Battle bit in the name.

Why? It isn't a cruiser by role.

The problem is not that Burkes cannot “break through”, the problem is that civilian ships will not.

Civilian ships do in fact break through, despite being effectively unescorted(helicopter escort is an insult). So no, it's Burkes which actually can't do it at a manageable risk.

If I got full carte-blanche to design the defenses of the BBGX, I'd give it 4x RAM launchers, 6x 76mm, 4x 30mm CIWS, and 4x-6x 30mm Mk38. Plus at least 2x Lasers and 2x HPMW zappers.

6 different types of systems doing same thing is 1890s France level.
Since we're at it,
2 Lasers, 2 RAM, ~6 mk110 (with guided rounds).
Also, choose one between 5" and rail, and get more of either guns or rails.

 

[Mk38]

Why? It isn't a cruiser by role.


Civilian ships do in fact break through, despite being effectively unescorted(helicopter escort is an insult). So no, it's Burkes which actually can't do it at a manageable risk.

6 different types of systems doing same thing is 1890s France level.
Since we're at it,
2 Lasers, 2 RAM, ~6 mk110 (with guided rounds).
Also, choose one between 5" and rail, and get more of either guns or rails.

Most of the ships that have made it through paid Iran, or did so only when Iran said the strait was open.

 

[Ainen]

Most of the ships that have made it through paid Iran, or did so only when Iran said the strait was open.

Yeah, but some also braved through; Iran had targets after all, and more than a few ships weren't hit(or even detected properly). I.e. there was no lack of demand for the crossing, modern navy just couldn't do it at an affordable political (and strategic) risk point.
Ultimately, destroyer is a tincan, packed with sensors, explosives, fuel and lots of souls.

Basic problem is the same, you need a physical ship in presence, moving either together with convoy, or physically placed between the threat and target. Or, better, both.
First is an escort role, nothing special here.
But second, more decisive, is a battleship one - it's exactly what (old) US battleships did in 1943-45.

Ideally, both should be able to effectively and promptly engage threat sources within range. Which is doable through drones, but best way is drones+prompt strike(rail).
And certainly it should be able to take a hit. Continue the mission through a few weak ones(without exposing crew to risks), survive and be able to limp away on internal power after a few big ones.

 

[Josh_TN]

Civilian ships do in fact break through, despite being effectively unescorted(helicopter escort is an insult). So no, it's Burkes which actually can't do it at a manageable risk.

Ok, but a battleship brings nothing to the game.

 

[Ainen]

Ok, but a battleship brings nothing to the game.

I do think that designing 35'000 ship to be passively resistant against typical modern non-nuclear threats is potentially feasible, though...
Plus, a fast ship so large will by default be an energy power hub.

 

[joshjosh]

I do think that designing 35'000 ship to be passively resistant against typical modern non-nuclear threats is potentially feasible, though...

Really?

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1978/december/professional-notes

The ultracarrier design illustrated here displaces 500,000 tons fully loaded. (The Nimitz's combat load displacement is 93,400 tons.) Almost half of its light ship weight of 400,000 tons consists of active protection equipment and passive protection.

The remaining 185,000 tons allowed for passive protection includes compartments and armor

The passive protection of 185,000 tons is in addition to the protection provided by the 160,000 tons of the ship’s basic structure.

The total weight of passive protection material amounts to about 400 pounds per square foot of exterior surface or about 12 pounds per cubic foot of interior volume.

This was proposed in 1978, by the way. Anti-ship weapons have progressed a bit since then.

Additionally, it's difficult to armor radars and other sensors while retaining the ability to use them.

The inner layers of a surface combatant's survivability onion is not where you want to be.

 

[Ainen]

This was proposed in 1978, by the way. Anti-ship weapons have progressed a bit since then.

Additionally, it's difficult to armor radars and other sensors while retaining the ability to use them.

The inner layers of a surface combatant's survivability onion is not where you want to be.

It's a ship with larger and more volatile useful internal volume and deck. In our case, only the crew and powerplant seriously require protection.
WW2 warships quite handily reached 35-40% in protection, and that's with a huge % spent on artillery. Now, weapon systems account for single percentage points, and broadly don't need separate protection.

Powerful radars are unavoidable comrpomise; but ships spend most of their career not being shot at - as such, they are still worth having. The point is installing a distributed backup.

 

[NMaude]

but yes a "battleship" should probably have at least 2 main turrets.

Make them twin-gun turrets with each turret equipped with two 8" naval-rifles.

 

[Ainen]

They all do different targets, though.

I really think that 2" with ALAMO covers all of that list other than bombardment... and bombardment with subcaliber 3“ shells isn't enough to bite.

I'm barely convinced that 2x RAM launchers is enough for protecting a Destroyer, let alone a battleship!

Does increase the number of launchers meaningfully increase rof?
RAMs are expensive weapons, already serving an intermediate role between two backups (ESSM and Alamo). Their effectiveness is also tied to a large extent to ARH weapons.

I'd prefer to keep developing the rails, but yes a "battleship" should probably have at least 2 main turrets. FFS even the old Spruance class DDs had two 5" guns!

2 turrets of something(for reasonable redundancy) is probably sufficient.
It's the primary mission system, but it isn't critical for ship survival or even fulfilling its role.

Frankly speaking, I think a somewhat fancier Zumwalt would've been the way to go. But USN this time went for a rather inelegant weapon...exhibition.

 

[Josh_TN]

Civilian ships do in fact break through, despite being effectively unescorted(helicopter escort is an insult). So no, it's Burkes which actually can't do it at a manageable risk.

Ok, but a battleship brings nothing to the game.

I do think that designing 35'000 ship to be passively resistant against typical modern non-nuclear threats is potentially feasible, though...
Plus, a fast ship so large will by default be an energy power hub.

Building a nuclear battleship to defend an area 60km wide is the absolutely most stupid idea I can think of.

 

[SUPER=BUG]

But this ship sounds quite cool; anyone would be amazed by its firepower configuration. If it could really be built, it would become an unsurpassable pinnacle in the history of world warships.

 

[Ainen]

Ok, but a battleship brings nothing to the game.

You can put it into the middle of the strait, as a VLOS comand node (unmanned forces) and artillery position. Aka, claim local sea dominance even within opfor engagement zone.
This way, it's physically (spatially) shielding the chokepoint and engaging missile positions as soon as they're spotted. And you can do whatever you want with this dominance - place more air defense ships behind, or even conduct a landing if needed.

All of it was kinda pointless during the CW, but now it makes way more sense.

Building a nuclear battleship to defend an area 60km wide is the absolutely most stupid idea I can think of.

Well, that's more or less what battleships did in the past - and a task ships able to cover 800km just can't.
Like, you can compare with how US operated in the pacific: strike and air defense was done by carriers. But bite'n'hold - in face of all the same, - by battleships.
I frankly think that such a combination is perfectly viable with China as well. Just with lesser emphasis on landing, and more on survivable operations with USVs.

 

[Dilandu]

I'm barely convinced that 2x RAM launchers is enough for protecting a Destroyer, let alone a battleship!

Frankly, if there are enough missiles on the terminal approach to overwhelm two RAM's, I rather doubt four would save the day.

 

[Josh_TN]

You can put it into the middle of the strait, as a VLOS comand node (unmanned forces) and artillery position. Aka, claim local sea dominance even within opfor engagement zone.

What is the advantage over two Burkes?

 

[Ainen]

What is the advantage over two Burkes?

(1)Every single Burke is a tincan, packed with sensors and explosives.
(2)Full of evenly enough distributed Americans.
(3)Burkes don't have equal means of striking back. I.e. they can, with SM6, but this is a painful pill. Railgun slugs are way more affordable.

Basically, let Burkes do their missile defense job away from threats (cruising, protecting even more vulnerable CSGs).

And make a separate, hard/spongy ship to operate stand in, alongside USVs. That's what BBG is (in my opinion), with the caveat that I don't like the design.

 

[CordyB]

(1)Every single Burke is a tincan, packed with sensors and explosives.
(2)Full of evenly enough distributed Americans.
(3)Burkes don't have equal means of striking back. I.e. they can, with SM6, but this is a painful pill. Railgun slugs are way more affordable.

Basically, let Burkes do their missile defense job away from threats (cruising, protecting even more vulnerable CSGs).

And make a separate, hard/spongy ship to operate stand in, alongside USVs. That's what BBG is (in my opinion), with the caveat that I don't like the design.

Railguns are pipe dreams, USN tried before and failed dismally so what makes you think second time around they will have any more success without spending $billions.

 

[DJK]

Additionally, it's difficult to armor radars and other sensors while retaining the ability to use them.

The inner layers of a surface combatant's survivability onion is not where you want to be.

Yes, that. And having to also armour against torpedoes probably accounts for half the displacement.

This way, it's physically (spatially) shielding the chokepoint and engaging missile positions as soon as they're spotted. And you can do whatever you want with this dominance - place more air defense ships behind, or even conduct a landing if needed.

Give them time and any enemy will adjust tactics to find something that works. If a 1000kg USV payload isnt enough, someone will put 3000kg on a semi submersible.

 

[NMaude]

And having to also armour against torpedoes probably accounts for half the displacement.

Not armour, torpedo belts.

 

[DJK]

Not armour, torpedo belts.

Like no battleship has ever been vulnerable against mines or torpedoes...

 

[NMaude]

Like no battleship has ever been vulnerable against mines or torpedoes...

Just pointing out that such a modern battleship design wouldn't be using the massive armour-belts of old.

 

[DJK]

Just pointing out that such a modern battleship design wouldn't be using the massive armour-belts of old.

Im saying that offensive weapons evolve faster than armoured battleships. Even with active protection against USV wolfpacks, underwater threats are probably more challenging for the biggest ships.

 

[Ainen]

Give them time and any enemy will adjust tactics to find something that works. If a 1000kg USV payload isnt enough, someone will put 3000kg on a semi submersible.

I am rather sceptical about any USV in any number penetrating the defenses of this kind.
It's a threat to the unprepared.

Im saying that offensive weapons evolve faster than armoured battleships.

Do they though?

 

[DJK]

I am rather sceptical about any USV in any number penetrating the defenses of this kind.
It's a threat to the unprepared.

Thats my point, the threat evolves but somebody still wants to build a battleship. Next gen USV will probably be semi submersible with anti-radar lasers instead of a periscope.

Do they though?

The fact that battleships with massive main guns are still being proposed doesn't strike you as a bit back to the future?

 

[Josh_TN]

(1)Every single Burke is a tincan, packed with sensors and explosives.
(2)Full of evenly enough distributed Americans.
(3)Burkes don't have equal means of striking back. I.e. they can, with SM6, but this is a painful pill. Railgun slugs are way more affordable.

Basically, let Burkes do their missile defense job away from threats (cruising, protecting even more vulnerable CSGs).

And make a separate, hard/spongy ship to operate stand in, alongside USVs. That's what BBG is (in my opinion), with the caveat that I don't like the design.

The vaporware battleship is going to have the exact same weapons and Americans in roughly the same density, but add in a nuclear reactor. It will not be any more capable or more damage resistant. Operational railguns do not exist.

 

[Dilandu]

. It will not be any more capable or more damage resistant.

Well, due to her size, better sectioning, and likely a lot of kevlar over vital parts, she likely would be significantly more durable than destroyer.

 

[Josh_TN]

Well, due to her size, better sectioning, and likely a lot of kevlar over vital parts, she likely would be significantly more durable than destroyer.

Size perhaps; Burke’s are built to level 3 survivability standards. But if we are talking about $10+ billion ships taking hits then I think we are fighting at the wrong cost point.

 

[Dilandu]

Size perhaps; Burke’s are built to level 3 survivability standards. But if we are talking about $10+ billion ships taking hits then I think we are fighting at the wrong cost point.

Well, the fact is, that large warships seems to be very hard to hit in first place. During Red Sea crisis and then Iranian War, there were multiple cases of massed attacks on warships. Not one of them was hit. So it actually seems that size matters; large warship with more advanced radars, fire control systems, and big ammo capacity is much less vulnerable than small one.

 

[Mk38]

Yeah, but some also braved through; Iran had targets after all, and more than a few ships weren't hit(or even detected properly). I.e. there was no lack of demand for the crossing, modern navy just couldn't do it at an affordable political (and strategic) risk point.
Ultimately, destroyer is a tincan, packed with sensors, explosives, fuel and lots of souls.

Basic problem is the same, you need a physical ship in presence, moving either together with convoy, or physically placed between the threat and target. Or, better, both.
First is an escort role, nothing special here.
But second, more decisive, is a battleship one - it's exactly what (old) US battleships did in 1943-45.

Ideally, both should be able to effectively and promptly engage threat sources within range. Which is doable through drones, but best way is drones+prompt strike(rail).
And certainly it should be able to take a hit. Continue the mission through a few weak ones(without exposing crew to risks), survive and be able to limp away on internal power after a few big ones.

Bro what?

So to you a few merchants sneaking through is merchants getting through despite hundreds of ships being stuck inside the gulf, but the multiple times the USN forced passage isn’t the USN transiting?

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/2-...it-of-hormuz-after-dodging-iranian-onslaught/

https://www.stripes.com/branches/na...lping-ships-hormuz-persian-gulf-21849668.html

There’s two issues going on here.

1. Ship companies overwhelmingly don’t want to risk their vessels, or the crews, so even if the USN offered full escorts, most of these ships still wouldn’t go anywhere.
2. We don’t have enough ships to run escorts through the strait, blockaded the strait to keep Iran’s vessels out, murder fishermen in the Caribbean, AND conduct all of the other normal missions that were still struggling to complete…

 

[Mk38]

Well, the fact is, that large warships seems to be very hard to hit in first place. During Red Sea crisis and then Iranian War, there were multiple cases of massed attacks on warships. Not one of them was hit. So it actually seems that size matters; large warship with more advanced radars, fire control systems, and big ammo capacity is much less vulnerable than small one.

I don’t think size matters too much…

Unguided ballistic missiles aren’t a huge threat, and 57mm and 76mm guns with decent radar are capable of defending against the drones and 20+ year old cruise missiles that were launched.

For the Red Sea I think I can recall any reports of attacks of more than 6 munitions of various types drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic.

I wouldn’t call 6 a ‘mass’ attack in the 21st century.
A dozen maybe.

 

[Dilandu]

Thin metal jets don't kill ships, ships are being killed by water, fire, being physically broken, or by catastrophic explosions.

Erm...

1) If the ship was just an empty hull, you would be correct. Problem is, that ship have insides. Machines, magazines, cables, command facilities, ect. Thin metal jet hitting turbine could very-very easily cripple the whole ship;

2) The anti-ship missiles usually carry shaped charges of self-forged penetrator type. I.e. instead of very narrow metal jet, they fire down a massive metal droplet - a ball of cold metal, dozens of kilograms in weight, moving at several kilometers per second. Not only it crash through anything on its path, but it also create a hailstorm of supersonic metal fragments from the decks and bulkheads it puch through;

 

[Ainen]

1) If the ship was just an empty hull, you would be correct. Problem is, that ship have insides. Machines, magazines, cables, command facilities, ect. Thin metal jet hitting turbine could very-very easily cripple the whole ship;

Not having battleship magazines inside (catastrophic explosions were broadly produced by magazines from 8" onwards) helps.
Rest is solvable, ship will take multiple full penetrations to critical points to disable. This is fully sufficient to ensure that ship (already troublesome to hit) will lose its combat capability gradually and predictably.
This predictability, rather than invulnerability, is the point of adding substantial passive protection.

2) The anti-ship missiles usually carry shaped charges of self-forged penetrator type. I.e. instead of very narrow metal jet, they fire down a massive metal droplet - a ball of cold metal, dozens of kilograms in weight, moving at several kilometers per second. Not only it crash through anything on its path, but it also create a hailstorm of supersonic metal fragments from the decks and bulkheads it puch through;

35'000 ship will have 10...15 m on the shortest direct path to vulnerable insides. There's more than enough spaced/composite solutions able to use ~45-50% displacement margin to effect there.
Ironically, for a big armored ship, I would be more concerned with diving warheads. But these are limited by drop parameters.

The reason protected ships (mostly) weren't tried till this point is not because armor is inefficient against conventional threats - it is. It's b/c cold war heavily assumed free use of nuclear weapons, and ships (in most cases) were too small to fit substantial passive protection; no one would build a larger ship just for the sake of armor.

BBG is an original 16k design, which, to avoid compromises, grew to 35k. Yes, the goal, more likely than not, was more hull length at full hull width just to fit everything (at an appropriate structural protection standard).
And still, you've got 20'000t of something. Where are they? Additional hull weights will explain only a small portion of it.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

2) The anti-ship missiles usually carry shaped charges of self-forged penetrator type. I.e. instead of very narrow metal jet, they fire down a massive metal droplet - a ball of cold metal, dozens of kilograms in weight, moving at several kilometers per second. Not only it crash through anything on its path, but it also create a hailstorm of supersonic metal fragments from the decks and bulkheads it puch through;

It requires a significantly large missile to create that effect, which is why many smaller AShMs just use blast-fragmentation warheads. Although it is more accurate to say they are semi-armor-piercing since usually the warhead is hardened and the detonation not on immediate impact.

 

[Dilandu]

Not having battleship magazines inside (catastrophic explosions were broadly produced by magazines from 8" onwards) helps.
Rest is solvable, ship will take multiple full penetrations to critical points to disable. This is fully sufficient to ensure that ship (already troublesome to hit) will lose its combat capability gradually and predictably.
This predictability, rather than invulnerability, is the point of adding substantial passive protection.

There I agree with you, but there is one point to consider also. Passive protection in WW2 terms - essentially a tight armored box, concentrating all the ships vital parts under heavy armor of citadel - is worse than useless, because it put every vital part of the ship together. Essentially ensuring that if citadel is penetrated, then A LOT of vital stuff would suffer.

 

[Dilandu]

It requires a significantly large missile to create that effect, which is why many smaller AShMs just use blast-fragmentation warheads. Although it is more accurate to say they are semi-armor-piercing since usually the warhead is hardened and the detonation not on immediate impact.

True, but you can't be sure your ship would only be engaged with small missiles?)

 

[Josh_TN]

Well, the fact is, that large warships seems to be very hard to hit in first place. During Red Sea crisis and then Iranian War, there were multiple cases of massed attacks on warships. Not one of them was hit. So it actually seems that size matters; large warship with more advanced radars, fire control systems, and big ammo capacity is much less vulnerable than small one.

No military ships were hit, so that seems like dubious logic.

 

[Mk38]

Not having battleship magazines inside (catastrophic explosions were broadly produced by magazines from 8" onwards) helps.
Rest is solvable, ship will take multiple full penetrations to critical points to disable. This is fully sufficient to ensure that ship (already troublesome to hit) will lose its combat capability gradually and predictably.
This predictability, rather than invulnerability, is the point of adding substantial passive protection.

35'000 ship will have 10...15 m on the shortest direct path to vulnerable insides. There's more than enough spaced/composite solutions able to use ~45-50% displacement margin to effect there.
Ironically, for a big armored ship, I would be more concerned with diving warheads. But these are limited by drop parameters.

The reason protected ships (mostly) weren't tried till this point is not because armor is inefficient against conventional threats - it is. It's b/c cold war heavily assumed free use of nuclear weapons, and ships (in most cases) were too small to fit substantial passive protection; no one would build a larger ship just for the sake of armor.

BBG is an original 16k design, which, to avoid compromises, grew to 35k. Yes, the goal, more likely than not, was more hull length at full hull width just to fit everything (at an appropriate structural protection standard).
And still, you've got 20'000t of something. Where are they? Additional hull weights will explain only a small portion of it.

…8” shell had a warhead of approximately 30lbs iirc, an SM6 has a warhead of 141lbs. A hit to a missile magazine would be catastrophic.

A hit that penetrates the 5” deep mag would be a mission kill.
A hit that penetrates the 5” mount and detonates the ready rack inside the mount would likely be a mission kill.

 

[kqcke for you]

The shaped charge we could put onto a missile like an NSM would great a large hole of compromised armor for an explosive charge to then blast open.

Hell I bet they could make a circle of smaller shaped charges to cut through a larger area over all.

Secondly a shape charge especially if it needs to create a hole that a blast fragmentation warhead can use wont be that small and a 100Ibs warhead is only really effective if you Hit mission critical targets for which atleast half of them (if not more) wouldn't even need these shape charges because you can't armor up a radar.

 

[Mk38]

First of no insults here we try to be civil.

Secondly a shape charge especially if it needs to create a hole that a blast fragmentation warhead can use wont be that small and a 100Ibs warhead is only really effective if you Hit mission critical targets for which atleast half of them (if not more) wouldn't even need these shape charges because you can't armor up a radar.

There’s a lot of critical things inside a ship, from missile magazines, to CIC, CSMC, DCC, engineering spaces, the bridge, deep mag, rocket mags, fuel tanks for both the ship and helicopters.

My whole point being if a shoulder fired missile can penetrate 30” of RHA, then it would be absolutely unfeasible to try to armor against full sized ASMs of the cruise or ballistic types, because they’d be able to mount shaped charges that could cut through double that easily, and to have to avoid mission kills you’d have to armor most of the superstructure as well as most of if not all of the hull. Thats 5ft of armor. Thats wholly unreasonable.

Maybe a double bottom or something to absorb mine strikes would be reasonable, but a fully armored warship in the modern era is just plain stupid and shows how little someone knows.
10 years ago, that was me.

Now as long as sailors aren’t being killed by HMG or autocannon fire, I’ll be happy with that level of armor.

 

[Ainen]

Shaped charge destroys the armor, and then the real warhead of 100lbs or larger, blasts the ship wide open, causing fires, destroying wiring/cabling, fire mains, etc.

Unknown concept, totally not counterable by spaced arrangements.
By the way, do you know what a spaced arrangement is? That's a protected ship, by default.
Shaped charge - SAP isn't a new concept in ASCMs, it has been in use for decades. Its advantages (use cases) and limitations are well understood.

The shaped charge we could put onto a missile like an NSM would great a large hole of compromised armor for an explosive charge to then blast open.

Full NSM warhead is ~120 kg. Add on a precursor(which will eat into the volume), and to keep any semblance of explosive charge, your main warhead is a ~6" shell in weight, give or take. Consequences on larger ASCMs won't be this bad, but this was your example - and in any case, most reasonable sizes can be stopped, and most unreasonable sizes have implications on the survivability of the attacking munition itself: 6-7t missiles are geometrically easier, comparatively sluggish targets.
For someone so rude, you're quite ignorant. Not that it is a surprise.

…8” shell had a warhead of approximately 30lbs iirc, an SM6 has a warhead of 141lbs. A hit to a missile magazine would be catastrophic.

8" shells - their charges - were stored together, in a tight space. In case of penetration, pressure and temperature build up to critical levels fast enough to force a detonation, even with a significant flood. Moreover, ship magazines tend to be underwater(or at least around), with obvious catastrophic consequences for ship integrity.
All of that together made 6" magazine a borderline level in ship design (Freedman). Note that modern ships don't have 8 6" magazines; 5" magazine and below is very dangerous, but it is not a ship killer by itself.

VLS stores munitions separately, in a relatively undense grid, right under the upper deck.
To the extent possible (not ideal, but this is a design point), they direct the energy upwards. Some were specifically designed like this, specifically to serve as a de facto means of protection (mk. 57).

 

[Scott Kenny]

The biggest advantage of the US all-or-nothing armoring design and citadel construction was that the citadel produced an armored raft that was hard to penetrate and that was physically large enough to prevent the ship from being sunk even if the entire rest of of the ship had flooded.

And IMO that still has quite a bit of value.

One major issue is that torpedo protection is bulky. It physically takes up large chunks of hull width and forces your various critical components closer together in a narrower citadel.

VLS stores munitions separately, in a relatively undense grid, right under the upper deck.

To the extent possible (not ideal, but this is a design point), they direct the energy upwards. Some were specifically designed like this, specifically to serve as a de facto means of protection (mk. 57).

Point of order:

The Mk57s used on the Zumwalts were designed less for "armor" and more for "preventing a catastrophic boom in one group of cells from extending to other cells, or to deeper into the ship"

Basically, they're Abrams blow-out panels. Or CASE, if you're a Battletech nerd.