Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

[Dilandu]

Grandiose thinking. The Iowa's are worthless as modern combat naval vessels. Their gun systems are obsolete. Their armor is nearly worthless. Their engineering plants are so badly outdated that it's nearly impossible to keep them running. They'd be the ONLY US naval vessels running on boilers using DFM or something like that. They're crew intensive. The hulls are worn out.

And the big problem - no one actually knew how to operate all this obsolete equipment. The last generation of sailors that manned Iowa's are at very least 50-60 years old. Most of this time, they didn't have anything to do with battleships. Their knowledge and skills are rusty. They themselves would need to be re-trained to train new personnel - and there are no one around who could train THEM.

P.S. I recall that in one of those "bring back the Iowa" discussion in web the actual sailor that served on Iowa's joined, and blatantly said, that he wouldn't like the idea of manning 80+ years old ship with 20 years old sailors trained by 60 years old relics like him.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

And the big problem - no one actually knew how to operate all this obsolete equipment. The last generation of sailors that manned Iowa's are at very least 50-60 years old. Most of this time, they didn't have anything to do with battleships. Their knowledge and skills are rusty. They themselves would need to be re-trained to train new personnel - and there are no one around who could train THEM.

P.S. I recall that in one of those "bring back the Iowa" discussion in web the actual sailor that served on Iowa's joined, and blatantly said, that he wouldn't like the idea of manning 80+ years old ship with 20 years old sailors trained by 60 years old relics like him.

That was mostly a problem with the main battery and its fire controls. The engine room machinery, etc., in the 70's and 80's was still in use elsewhere. For example, the same boiler arrangement and engines were in the Sacramento class AOE's that had gotten those from the cancelled Kentucky, an Iowa class battleship that wasn't finished. The secondary battery 5"/38's and the Mk 38 director were still in use also. The new crew were pretty derisive of the 'old hands' as well finding them less than useful in many cases.

In 2025, the 5"/38 is gone. The main battery is obsolete. The fire controls have all been retired as have virtually all of the electronics and radar. The BT (Boiler Tech) rating no longer exists and personnel that can operate boilers are no longer in naval service. The electrical system is ancient, with some systems still using mag amps, tubes, etc., which no sailor would have the least familiarity with. Even things like the berthing and ship's services for the crew would be obsolescent and substandard.

 

[Dilandu]

In 2025, the 5"/38 is gone. The main battery is obsolete. The fire controls have all been retired as have virtually all of the electronics and radar. The BT (Boiler Tech) rating no longer exists and personnel that can operate boilers are no longer in naval service. The electrical system is ancient, with some systems still using mag amps, tubes, etc., which no sailor would have the least familiarity with. Even things like the berthing and ship's services for the crew would be obsolescent and substandard.

Exactly. Most likely it would require industrial-archeological efforts to just figure out how some components works.

 

[TomS]

Grandiose thinking. The Iowa's are worthless as modern combat naval vessels. Their gun systems are obsolete. Their armor is nearly worthless. Their engineering plants are so badly outdated that it's nearly impossible to keep them running. They'd be the ONLY US naval vessels running on boilers using DFM or something like that. They're crew intensive. The hulls are worn out.

F76 (aka Marine Diesel) is the standard fuel for USN ships, despite occasional calls to switch everything to JP-5.

The BT (Boiler Tech) rating no longer exists and personnel that can operate boilers are no longer in naval service.

There are still six (diesel) oil-fired boiler-driven ships in the USN -- the remaining Wasp Class LHDs, less Makin Island, the only GT-powered ship of the class.

 

[skyblue]

Exactly. Most likely it would require industrial-archeological efforts to just figure out how some components works.

Trump also wanted to return Alcatraz prison to working order, even though doing so would be an archeological reconstructive effort. Seems to be a theme.

 

[Dilandu]

Trump also wanted to return Alcatraz prison to working order, even though doing so would be an archeological reconstructive effort. Seems to be a theme.

Typical "everything was better in old days" behavior.

(there is an old Russian anekdote about old man, who was asked when his life was better - nowadays, or during his youth in Stalin's times. The old men immediately answered that in Stalin times his life was much better - because he was young and got a perfect hard-on)

 

[T. A. Gardner]

F76 (aka Marine Diesel) is the standard fuel for USN ships, despite occasional calls to switch everything to JP-5.

WW 2 era boilers required bunker fuel (aka Heavy oil), no longer available or even manufactured. The replacement is DFM or Distillate Fuel Marine. Marine diesel or JP-5 would be unsuitable as both are far too viscous to work in the steam heated boiler fuel spray tubes used on an Iowa class.

There are still six (diesel) oil-fired boiler-driven ships in the USN -- the remaining Wasp Class LHDs, less Makin Island, the only GT-powered ship of the class.

Okay. I figured they'd ended use of boilers all together. But the Iowa's would need DFM or heavy oil to operate unless you re-boilered them.

 

[Firefinder]

WW 2 era boilers required bunker fuel (aka Heavy oil), no longer available or even manufactured. The replacement is DFM or Distillate Fuel Marine. Marine diesel or JP-5 would be unsuitable as both are far too viscous to work in the steam heated boiler fuel spray tubes used on an Iowa class.

The Iowas, and most of that era ships like the Midways which survived in service past the 70s got refits and clean outs to burn DFM.

With that fuel type still use in the diesel ships and on Gas Turbine ones.

So thats not an issue.

The Actual boilers on the other hand....

 

[Desertfox]

It would be far more efficient and cheaper to build a clean sheet monitor for the mission.

 

[TomS]

It would be far more efficient and cheaper to build a clean sheet monitor for the mission.

For what mission? They aren't defining a mission they want these ships for, they're defining an image. Big ships with giant phallic guns.

 

[Scott Kenny]

For what mission? They aren't defining a mission they want these ships for, they're defining an image. Big ships with giant phallic guns.

It's halfway between Zumwalt and CG-21.

8" guns (revenge of the Mk71 MCLWG) instead of 5", and 50% more cells than a Tico (2x that of a Burke).

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

There are still six (diesel) oil-fired boiler-driven ships in the USN -- the remaining Wasp Class LHDs, less Makin Island, the only GT-powered ship of the class.

Don't forget Blue Ridge and Mount Whitney.

 

[TomS]

Don't forget Blue Ridge and Mount Whitney.

I had. Somehow thought they were both gone.

Mount Whitney has an interesting twist -- most of the ship's company are actually MSC civilian mariners. The Navy personnel on board seems to be mostly command staff.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I had. Somehow thought they were both gone.

They should be. Freaking dinosaurs welded to the pier.

 

[Firefinder]

For what mission? They aren't defining a mission they want these ships for, they're defining an image. Big ships with giant phallic guns.

Honestly we do need a BIG COMBAT HULL for all types of deals.

ABM for one, cause bigger the radar the better, to say nothing of being able to put heavy interceptors on it.


Another is high endurance sit there look mean duties that Burkes often do. Big cells allow for big missiles.

Which leads into the survivability deal since the enemy will want to take out the big assets that will stop their primary weapons against the USN.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Honestly we do need a BIG COMBAT HULL for all types of deals.

ABM for one, cause bigger the radar the better, to say nothing of being able to put heavy interceptors on it.


Another is high endurance sit there look mean duties that Burkes often do. Big cells allow for big missiles.

Which leads into the survivability deal since the enemy will want to take out the big assets that will stop their primary weapons against the USN.

You did miss an AAW Flag command ship.

So, something like one of the Asian Burkes, at the minimum. Bigger is better, because those ships are more or less out of growth space. So, 13,000 tons would not be unreasonable. 17,000 would likely give more space for future upgrades. Still pretty firmly in the historical Cruiser space, if on the upper end. We're not talking about 30-35,000ton monsters, yet.

Unless you're talking about GBI-at-sea, which means silos 70ft deep. Functionally, that's putting those missile tubes 5 or 6 decks up in the superstructure.

But we need IEP, massive electrical generation above what the size of ship would ordinarily imply. At least twice the generation capacity of a Burke, maybe 5x for future growth to allow for Megawatts of lasers or microwaves.

 

[TomS]

It's halfway between Zumwalt and CG-21.

8" guns (revenge of the Mk71 MCLWG) instead of 5", and 50% more cells than a Tico (2x that of a Burke).

What's the point of an 8-inch gun? It just puts us back in the same situation as the AGS -- a unique family of ammunition with no application other than a single (probably small) class of specialized warships.

 

[Josh_TN]

Guns are useless for shore bombardment now. Even a non government organization might well have cruise missiles or long range UAVs. I see no reason for anything bigger than 57mm, unless those hyper velocity 5” rounds become effective medium range air defense fire.

 

[Dilandu]

I see no reason for anything bigger than 57mm, unless those hyper velocity 5” rounds become effective medium range air defense fire.

I still think 75-mm to be optimal; 57-mm haven't got much of burster charge.

 

[Josh_TN]

I still think 75-mm to be optimal; 57-mm haven't got much of burster charge.

I think anything on the surface that needs to be sunk deserves a missile and 57mm more useful for point defense and very small surface targets like USVs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What's the point of an 8-inch gun? It just puts us back in the same situation as the AGS -- a unique family of ammunition with no application other than a single (probably small) class of specialized warships.

8" sabot firing a long ~155mm or 127mm projectile for range. Larger scale Vulcano.

And you replace all the 5" guns with it.

 

[Moose]

A case can be made for a switch to a 155 as long as it really does use ammo off the same production line as Army/USMC rounds this time. Especially as autoloaders for bagged ammunition have come a long way. But an 8" just isn't happening. Railgun has a better chance than that, and it's not looking great either.

 

[TomS]

8" sabot firing a long ~155mm or 127mm projectile for range. Larger scale Vulcano.

And you replace all the 5" guns with it

Even if it is actually possible to design an 8-inch gun as a direct replacement for the already very light Mk 45 (and it probably isn't) this is just a crazy idea.

The expense of developing an entirely new family of 8" ammunition, including saboted/guided rounds, and then tearing out and replacing every single 5-inch gun on the fleet would be massive, utterly unaffordable.

And again, it's not obvious what problem this is meant to solve. I tend to agree that NGFS is probably a dead mission. The number of scenarios where it could come into play is really quite small, especially as the USMC is starting to realize that massed amphibious landings are simply not feasible in the face of serious opposition.

 

[TomS]

A case can be made for a switch to a 155 as long as it really does use ammo off the same production line as Army/USMC rounds this time. Especially as autoloaders for bagged ammunition have come a long way.

And given that land-based 155mm is switching to rigid modular charges anyway. Recall the supercharge for ERCA -- a mechanical loader could handle that beast easily enough, and a naval mount would probably fire nothing but supercharge. (So water/spray cooling is likely a must)

 

[Ainen]

8" sabot firing a long ~155mm or 127mm projectile for range. Larger scale Vulcano.

And you replace all the 5" guns with it.

Iirc, 6" is threshold after which magazine propellant combustion is guaranteed to go violent and tear ship apart. Enough propellant close by.
Not exactly a great idea for stand-in plugin.

If you want a stand in attack ship - you have to design and build it on purpose. Otherwise you're getting into early french heavy cruisers territory.

especially as the USMC is starting to realize that massed amphibious landings are simply not feasible in the face of serious opposition.

Massed amphibious landing is ultimately but a form of frontal mechanized attack.

If it's unfeasible, land warfare will find a way to make it done in new conditions. It already is in a feverish search.

 

[bobbymike]

We need a very large surface combatant and logically it should be nuclear powered.

Unlimited range, at sea reload, massive power supply. Given the sector today and if we started we’d be in a 2040 deployment at the earliest and a $20 billion price tag.

It would have DEW, hypersonic strike and be able to shoot anything down except ICBMs (but by 2040 who knows)

It would have CCVs, collaborative combat vessels, and be capable of quarterbacking the entire battle-space. Lots more ideas on load outs and launching recovering vertically launch AAV/UAVs.

Just a unattainable dream sorry for taking up members time.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And given that land-based 155mm is switching to rigid modular charges anyway. Recall the supercharge for ERCA -- a mechanical loader could handle that beast easily enough, and a naval mount would probably fire nothing but supercharge. (So water/spray cooling is likely a must)

I'm not sure that Naval ERCA is enough range.

But a saboted 127 or 155 (whichever is closer to ~44" long, 5" would be the better L) you should be able to punt downrange at pretty close to 1200m/s if not more. Rocket boosted, which I think everyone expected. Two-piece loading. Brass case stub, composite upper, basically a giant shotgun shell in design.

 

[Josh_TN]

A case can be made for a switch to a 155 as long as it really does use ammo off the same production line as Army/USMC rounds this time. Especially as autoloaders for bagged ammunition have come a long way. But an 8" just isn't happening. Railgun has a better chance than that, and it's not looking great either.

There is no argument for 155mm outside shore bombardment, and that is a fools errand. If hyper velocity works for air intercept, then 5” has value. But 155mm is a dead end.

 

[Josh_TN]

And given that land-based 155mm is switching to rigid modular charges anyway. Recall the supercharge for ERCA -- a mechanical loader could handle that beast easily enough, and a naval mount would probably fire nothing but supercharge. (So water/spray cooling is likely a must)

ERCA is dead, and presumably supercharge with it.

 

[kqcke for you]

There is no argument for 155mm outside shore bombardment, and that is a fools errand. If hyper velocity works for air intercept, then 5” has value. But 155mm is a dead end.

They did develop the same round for the 155mm...

 

[TomS]

ERCA is dead, and presumably supercharge with it.

You don't think MDAC is going to be using something similar? That is probably the objective for commonality. A naval 155mm that can also shoot guided HVPs for air defense is a lot more versatile.

In any event, modular charge systems are going to be pretty much the norm going forward, and turning a stack of those into a single-piece top charge isn't difficult. Or even just designing an automatic ammo handler that can move stacks of six MACs at once.

 

[Josh_TN]

They did develop the same round for the 155mm...

I am aware; is there any reason to adopt a new caliber just for that role though?

 

[Josh_TN]

You don't think MDAC is going to be using something similar? That is probably the objective for commonality. A naval 155mm that can also shoot guided HVPs for air defense is a lot more versatile.

In any event, modular charge systems are going to be pretty much the norm going forward, and turning a stack of those into a single-piece top charge isn't difficult. Or even just designing an automatic ammo handler that can move stacks of six MACs at once.

What does this buy over existing 5”?

 

[TomS]

What does this buy over existing 5”?

Not a whole lot with HVP. Quite a bit more bang for conventional rounds, as well as things like SMaRT/Bonus and the option for extended range projectiles like the Army is tinkering with.

It's not something I'd consider much of a priority though. Just reflecting that 155mm is at elast a better idea than 8-inch.

 

[Josh_TN]

155mm makes vastly more sense than any other new caliber, provided the existing family of NATO shells can be used. The Zoomie installation was the worst of all worlds; I do not understand how that project ever got off the ground.

 

[TomS]

155mm makes vastly more sense than any other new caliber, provided the existing family of NATO shells can be used. The Zoomie installation was the worst of all worlds; I do not understand how that project ever got off the ground.

I was there and the switch from "we can totally fire US Army ammo" to "no, we absolutely can't shoot anything but LRLAP" was done very, very quietly.

 

[Josh_TN]

I was there and the switch from "we can totally fire US Army ammo" to "no, we absolutely can't shoot anything but LRLAP" was done very, very quietly.

IMO, the project should have been cancelled then and there.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

China appears to be testing something similar to AGS, that is if the description of it as a "guided missile gun" is in any way accurate (would be similar to AGS originally being described as a "trainable rocket launcher")

https://china-defense.blogspot.com/2025/08/a-closer-look-plans-155mm-naval-gun.html?m=1

 

[Firefinder]

Feel the need to point out that the Newest Brit ship has the Zumwalts autoloader and it works....

Reasonably well, got NEW SHIT TEETHING ISSUES at the moment but it can handle all standard and some extra shells that the RN uses.

So yeah it was really the USN Fucking it up.


As for the differences between 155 and 127MM?

About 10 to 25 kilometers of range depending on shell and barrel combo for land attack and similar to ADA in most likilhood for current in service deals. Throw in what the Army been screwing with like the Ramjet shell and you have nearly 100km of difference.

The Navy has not upgrade their Ammo since the damn 70s performance or fusing wise with every attempt dying.

Bringing the 5-inch shell up to modern army spec will close that performance a whole lot very cheaply to say nothing of a PGM type fuse that can do Air Attack.


Now going to 8 inch with the 155mm advances? You be looking at nearly 80km stock and pushing 200km for the advance stuff in range increase alone at the minimum. Favor that idea since you can do more with a 8 inch shell then a 6 inch as much as the 6 is over the 5.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Feel the need to point out that the Newest Brit ship has the Zumwalts autoloader and it works....

The Mk 45 Ammunition Handling System as adopted on the Type 26 might make some use of technology from the palletised magazine of the Zumwalts, but it operates very differently. It does appear to have some similarities to the AGS-Lite system proposed for the Burke Flight IIIs though.