==========
Okay, it's later. Pass a beverage and let's argue gun calibers.
The 8" Mk71 turret weighs 85 tons, counting 75rds ready ammunition. Based on the difference from 5"/54 Mk42 (~60 tons) to Mk45 (~22 tons), it's likely possible to reduce that weight down to something closer to 50-60 tons not counting ammunition. More automation, smaller volumes used. That said, the 8"/55 barrel alone is about 20 tons. But some saboted long range rounds would be an option, instead of the standard 260lb HE rounds.
155mm AGS is a ~105ton turret. Yes, the LRLAP rounds are expensive, ~150k each at volume. Now, however, we can get away with shaped trajectories and use vertical guns. The Mk41-replacement installation actually splits into a pair of 10ft wide guns and automatic-loading magazines, which are just slightly wider than the Mk57 PVLS, and as long as 2x Mk57s. 10x27x29ft. Yes, it does mean you need some actual armor to keep any impact from going deeper into the hull. Probably 3" STS plate, AKA HY80. With perimeter-mounted vertical guns, it would be possible to have up to 10 vertical guns up forward in the space that 40x Mk57 cells would occupy. This would allow a ship that looks more like a post-refit Zumwalt, with a 64-cell Mk41 and then 4x APM for 12x CPS tubes in the bow, with an incredible blast of 155mm gunfire in any direction.
5" Mk45 is the "we can't be bothered to make a better gun" option.
I'm thinking we should go big or go home, honestly.
Bigger guns are more capable, by and large, unless you're optimizing for rate of fire or AA. I like the Mk71 and I wish we'd gotten that mounted on a few warships--the Burke sure is big enough. But it's basically a general purpose gun, if the USN would make like the Army and accept that the new standard is a bigger caliber. That should be mounted on our cruisers (and we should quit playing coy and call the 10,000 ton Burke a cruiser). But if we're designing a very heavy warship from the ground (sea?) up, it should have specialized guns. Guns so big, you wouldn't stick it on any other boat, or else why are you building a new warship?
So I'm going to stick my neck out a bit and suggest 18" smoothbore guns, heaviest shell is a saboted and fin-stabilized 16" shell. Smoothbore because they seem to have a bit more barrel life than rifles, and because subcaliber shells are going to be tremendously useful--it would be wasteful to build a rifled barrel, then spend a bunch of money and effort on sabots that counteract the spin so they can be fin-stabilized. Just use sabots and fins for all fired shells. The ammunition load will, of course, be mission-specific, but the national inventory should include very large numbers of saboted and finned 16", 14", and 12" shells, with a mix of unitary and cluster warheads.
The value I see in the gun is cost of ammunition. Its an obvious one, but it really bears repeating. The entire TLAM procurement run for the US is about 4k missiles, and each one has a similar effect on target as a 16" HC shell--but the four Iowas, fully loaded, carried more than 4k shells. It isn't just fiscal responsibility to try and cut costs, expensive munitions are seriously degrading warfighting capability. People are realizing that inventory isn't deep enough and are making big orders, but there's only so much you can do--a missile is always expensive. A dumb shell just can't be outcompeted on cost.
Now, the counterargument is always precision. 10x the cost but 1 missile rather than 100, they say. That is true against non-peer threats, but against a real enemy, sensor denial is going to be serious. You can't guide in a missile on a target you can't see, and if you radiate, they'll see YOU and feed you a missile from very long range. There are also large targets where imprecise area bombardment is perfectly fine, and you would need hundreds of Tomahawks to have a serious effect. Plus EW, and plus Tomahawk just isn't that hard to intercept. A 16" HC shell CAN be shot down by modern gun and missile systems, but it won't be targeted mid-flight by enemy superiority fighters, and it's going to be faster in that terminal phase anyway. It'll also be a physically tougher target, likely requiring direct hits to destroy, unlike much more delicate missiles.
The sensor argument also plays into why I think range is less of a crushing advantage for missiles than it might seem. Situational, at least. The fact of the matter is, if you are radiating hard to pick out targets, the enemy can see you from even further than you can see them, and will take countermeasures. The US and China both have 200km+ VLRAAMs, perfect for AWACS-hunting. If your radiation shows up, the enemy need only have a handful of supersonic fighters to cover the whole air front and suppress you, if not kill you. So spotting distance goes down, as we are reduced to passive detection and occasional active sweeps, plus whatever satellites are still alive. There will absolutely be enough high-end recon assets to occasionally lance out and cue very long range fires on non-static targets, but the meat and potatoes engagement will be cued off LOS electro-optical detection by either the warship or an attritable drone loitering nearby. In other words, a gun-armed warship doesn't have to sail through 1000 miles of missile fire, but more like a hundred or hundred and fifty.
If we're really talking battleships, we're talking over 35,000 tons.
Cruisers are up to 22ktons (ignoring Alaska-class).
- I think I'm only going to go with 1 heavy gun for the Cruiser, 2 for the battleship (exception for both big guns forward like the Zumwalts). We can argue between 8", 155mm, and 5" later.
- fore and aft Mk110s because the arcs are better than amidships like the Zumwalts
Same theme as advocating a big gun, I think it should have a lot of big guns. Specialize the warships, don't try to make it good at everything. I think a main battery of 9-12 guns is reasonable, but I could be convinced that 6 is sufficient, so long as it doesn't suffer a loss of mission.
- 128x Mk41
- ~40x Mk57 PVLS cells around the helo deck (using the mix of Mk41 and Mk57 for packaging, Gunner's Mates will hate me)
- 4+ APMs for CPS.
This is the part I really do disagree with. Don't try and be good at everything, you'll just be worse at it than 3x ships that each do one thing
really well. I think this boat should have big guns, because I see a role for big guns in global navies; but if you disagree, at least pick one size of missile. CPS is a very long ranged missile, if you want it on a boat, you will probably be VERY far from the action; therefore, minimal Mk41 for self-defense only, and a larger payload of CPS or a smaller, cheaper, more numerous ship. Mk57 mix is fine, whatever it shoots will be in the same mission profile as Mk41.
I think it should have a main battery of big guns and either ESSM on arm launchers or in a very minimal VLS (8 cell, 16 cell at most), whichever is more space efficient to store.
- ~16x NSMs, or however many there is deck space for in the superstructure.
- 69 RMA SPY6 antennas (IIRC that's 28ft diameter)
No need for a billion dollar radar system on a non-AAW warship. Burkes do AAW. If you need high-end AAW, bring a Burke. It should have a radar for self defense, but it doesn't need to be a SPY-6.
- SEWIP v/current, the one giving Burkes that horrible muffin top
- Super RBOC, Flares, Nulka, etc
- Bow Sonar, towed VDS
- Hangar for 2x Osprey or maybe King Stallions, plus 2-4x VTOL UAVs. The extra hangar space is to allow for the Admiral to have his own helo if we're working with H60s.
Why does an admiral need a personal helo, and what can an Osprey do that a Seahawk can't? It's just big for the sake of big. I think it should have a helo landing pad for sake of contingency, but otherwise hangarless. Other, cheaper warships can carry helos.
- P/S RAM or SeaRAM, 200kw lasers to replace Phalanx as soon as available
Phalanx and lasers occupy different niches, to my knowledge. A laser has a short range compared to a missile, but much longer than Phalanx, and a much longer time to kill than Phalanx. Lasers are for the low-end threat that you can't afford to shoot down with the expensive missiles, but while they're still a good distance away--once they're in the Phalanx range envelope, the risk of losing a ship is so high that you're going to fire everything you've got, fuck the price.
I think it should be drenched in Phalanx and SeaRAM, and I think every other ship in the Navy should have at least twice as many as they currently do. Phalanx and SeaRAM are cheap, small, and light, there is little reason NOT to mount them on every available surface to increase survivability.
With Phalanx in particular I think there is very good justification for heavy armor. It is true that a shaped charge can punch through any amount of armor very easily, but that's true of tanks and THEY still use armor. It's for the lower end contingencies. If Phalanx intercepts a missile at 50 yards, you will be very happy to have a layer of armor to catch some of the effects.
- at least 2x Mk38Mod4 guns per side, if not 3x (4-6 total): lead pair just forward of the superstructure, aft pair at the corners of the helo deck, midships pair on the boat deck
- dual CICs: one for the ship, one for the Admiral/Commodore. Displays can be different between whether you need AAW flag to plan out air defense or a giant fleet position board.
- Admiral's Cabin plus berthing for all the hangers-on, plus the extra crew needed to run the second CIC. If normal crew not counting the second CIC is 300, berthing space for 500+. Takes roughly 75 people to run CIC for 5 watches, then the extra dudes feeding everyone etc. Crew adds up in a stupid hurry!
Absolutely agree on the need for multiple CICs, buried in armor. Resilience is the word of the day, you should expect to take serious hits and maintain critical capabilities.
