It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

20 1'st century battle ship. Fiction or Fact?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I have heard alot about how battle ships can be outfitted with todays tech would be a formidable opponent. Scram jet shells with some other goodies to go with it, alot of articles on it yet I can't seem too find if there will be any action into it? Mind you I would like too see a fully decked out battle ship with the tech they have today. I would think it would be a good idea.




posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
www.guardian.co.uk...

This was printed in mid 2004 does this answer or help you in anyway?

Remember the Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies.

The article doesn't go into depth on weapons but briefly mentions about cannons and missiles.

From this link you should be able to find others that are related



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   
This is the British Royal Navey's Type 45 Destroyer, this is the newest most powerfull distroyer in the world at the minute. The ship is amazing and the first one was launched last week.

Here are some links for you.

www.naval-technology.com...

www.type45.com...

www.baesystems.com...




posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Salsa,

The big thing with modern weapons systems is reach vs. rate at cost.

An F/A-18E will burn as much as 30-35,000lbs of fuel (at roughly $1.74 and 6.8lbs per gallon for JP-8 I believe comes out to about ) in getting to say 700nm distance and then coming back. A cruise missile will only burn about 1,500lbs to go the same distance but is a throwaway of around 730,000 dollars compared to the 40 grande it takes to buy a pair of GBU-31 JDAM (to stick under the wings of a Hornet).

'Somewhere inbetween' (7,700 dollars for jet fuel and 38,000 dollars for JDAM= 45,700 dollars vs, 730,000 dollars for the Tomahawk Blk.IVa = 387,850 dollars) is a break even point where, provided you have continuing targeting as a standard for all three options, a battleship with a Bull Gun could really make some headway as a weapons system.

Mind you, it would not be pretty or 'majestic' like you think of it. Rather it would look like a rather large tanker or container ship with twin derricks supporting a 1,000ft barrel like so-

www.maritimereplicas.com...
www.fas.org...

With a primary range of at least 1,200km, there being next to no need for 'secondary armament' like the 5" weapons and 40/20mm selfdefense systems on the Iowa class.

It would be designed strictly to replace the carrier as a long range interdiction tool. Leaving the pissant guns of the 5 and 6" class, with GPS guidance (like Excaliber) to pretend they were doing some good in the 60-90nm range category.

_If you cannot reach inland_ your navy is never going to be more than an overpriced armored car service for the systems that do.

Which brings us to propulsion efficiencies and ratest of fire.

Despite the hype, EMLs have proven far more able to launch grapefruit at 10km/sec than a volkswagon (equivalent mass) at 2. A large part of this is the destructive interaction effects of rail type systems with the anode on which the round rides. There being /severe/ oxidation effects which more or less ruin the gun after a single firing.

Superconducting materials and Coil system design approaches can help save the 'barrel' but generally lose propulsive efficiencies.

Right now, the best options are likely inert 'light gas' gun systems which essentially treat the tube as a hypersonic windtunnel using nothing less than pressurized helium or hydrogen injected in sections to maintain constant pressure acceleration.

The other alternative being to go with a system that makes the projectile itself a ramjet, feeding off a premixed fuel-air combination within the barrel.

Either way, your driving factors are going to be warhead vs. ablative costs (a true space gun loses 20% of it's muzzle velocity and 90% of it's ablative protection within the first 50 FEET of barrel exit, a weapon designed to fire much slower projectiles might do better) and reload rates.

Particularly once DEWS come online, a system which fired once per hour might not be able to do much simply because a Mach 4 transit and Mach 6+ splash speed is well within the ability of a laser to track (HV submunition clusters become a viable option however).

Similarly, most conventional strike packages are easily able to generate a 10 munition per raid (5hrs out and back) pylon count of aimpoints, often with flexible targeting 'on the fly' as a function of overlapped munition redundancies.

Now, if you have two barrels firing, every thirty minutes, you can theoretically put 20 munitions downrange in the same 10hrs it would take a strike package to fly 700nm and back. And that becomes a real war winner on both price and mission regeneration interval (time spent not bombing) alone.

Can you generate that kind of capability? Well, you've got ocean all around you for your propellant but electrolysis and cold storage capabilities would still have to be rather large.

The ship could easily be engineered to 'rock the cradle' with the tubes in roll stabilized mounts and most of any recoil energy absorbed through the hull and into the water (a traditional hydrostatic advantage of naval weapons) but it would have a very high center of gravity and quite possibly poor seakeeping.

Each round would have to be certified to perhaps twice the current 30,000G of a typical artillery fuze or guidance electronics.

And /some/ entity would likely still have to supply an air asset to gap-fill on satellite targeting/BIA coverage, even assuming most engagements were 'prebriefed' on a set of GPS surveyed coordinates.

Meanwhile, somewhere around 200-300nm, the combination of small diameter weapons and loitering presence would probably return tactical advantage to fixed wing asset in conditions where flex-targeting meant the ability to react in under a minute.

>>
I have heard alot about how battle ships can be outfitted with todays tech would be a formidable opponent.
>>

And an oil tanker outfitted with perhaps 300-500 VLS cells becomes an 'arsenal ship' which is even more capable. Can you afford to fill it with 365 million dollars worth of cruise? If not, so what.

Very few nations can come out, even into littoral conditions (200nm either side of the surfline), to fight us. But the 16" gun can only reach about 50nm, even with the best munitions now available. If you cannot defeat a given contemporary target set which includes max range and collateral damage restrictor variables completely beyond the BB's original mission set of shore bombardment and engagement of like naval assets, it's not worth the men and oil you need to keep it running.

The reality then remains CAN YOU employ a modern day dreadnaught, presumably with guided rounds and dedicated '5X5' shot-lane stationkeeping, to /replace/ conventional airpower in dedicated building-killer missions. So that it becomes possible to apply that airpower elsewhere, more efficiently.

IMO, the answer is yes. And that very fact alone assures it will never be done. Because the world is ruled by airpower idiots that believe only knighted officers can blast helpless 'insurgents' by destroying the telecomms, power and water that they and the rest of their society lives off of.

Take that away, and they become little more than CAS (a /support mission/) for the Army which is something no independent service branch will willingly second best boot licker do.


KPl.


LINKS-
Iraq's Supergun
www.fas.org...

Arsenal Ship
www.fas.org...
www.fas.org...

Space Guns
www.globalsecurity.org...

Death Of The Yamato 'They couldn't fire half as many but they could reach four times as far...'
www.specwarnet.com...



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrDog
www.guardian.co.uk...

This was printed in mid 2004 does this answer or help you in anyway?

Remember the Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies.

The article doesn't go into depth on weapons but briefly mentions about cannons and missiles.

From this link you should be able to find others that are related



The article was doing quite well till it said "The ship includes a command and control centre that uses a Windows NT operating system. The Swedes insist that this will not make the vessel vulnerable to hacker attacks"!!

On a more serious note, any future use of battleships would mostly be for sentimental reasons as they are manpower intensive, extremely costly to build and maintain and their job can be done by other ships in the fleet.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrDog
www.guardian.co.uk...

This was printed in mid 2004 does this answer or help you in anyway?

Remember the Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies.

The article doesn't go into depth on weapons but briefly mentions about cannons and missiles.

From this link you should be able to find others that are related



the ship in bond was probably a model. but the us navy did have one like it built as a prototype. check back issues of popular mechanics for it



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 04:01 AM
link   
The one you are thinking of is sea shadow (the bond one was based on it). It was a technology demonstrator and not a combat vessel.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by paperplane_uk]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
The problem still remains that in order to keep one ship on station, you need about three. Keeping one ship in readiness for emergency deploymemt will take 2 most of the time, and occassionally, still needs three. (overhaul periods and maintenance availibilities)

[quote=CH1466]And an oil tanker outfitted with perhaps 300-500 VLS cells becomes an 'arsenal ship' which is even more capable. Can you afford to fill it with 365 million dollars worth of cruise? If not, so what.
CH1466 does a good job hinting at how cost-ineffective such a ship could be, but you'll have to multiply his worst case scenario by about two and a half. (and that's 2.5 times the ship cost, not the ammo)

The alternitive is a Carrier/Destroyer dominated navy, where you can get ahold of a lot more destroyers, and your carriers are more flexible in mission tasking. (although there are certain specific missions they are less efficient at) Given the capability of an Arleigh Burke class Destroyer, and the general lack of foriegn navy ships able to outmatch it, we don't really have much need for bigger, more powerful surface combatants.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
The one you are thinking of is sea shadow (the bond one was based on it). It was a technology demonstrator and not a combat vessel.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by paperplane_uk]


Remember seeing that in the movies, It was an overgrown sea shadow with missiles and was huge inside, Will anything like it be built in the next 10-20 years?



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:44 AM
link   
simple answer is no, Sea shadow was a technology demonstator, built to show what could be done. The devopment of stealth ships has moved on a lot since that was built. Add that to the fact that most western navies are very conservative in their design choices (DDX excluded, but that remains to be built), and having a fleet of sea shadow based ships is extremely unlikely.

In another point it was only painted black 'cos thats the colour of stealthy things' and is what people wanted. RAM coatings can be any colour.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 04:19 AM
link   
preferably in a medium grey. black is rarely the best choice, even on a really dark night. (works out for dark knights though)



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Here's a Civillian variant of the lockheed sea shadow

imageofholland.filternet.nl...

Wonder if this design would come to military ship projects in the future

www.sunderlandmaritimeheritage.org.uk...



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Browno
Here's a Civillian variant of the lockheed sea shadow

imageofholland.filternet.nl...


This is not a variant of the Lockhead sea Shadow this is a stena carisma built by Westamarin West Bygg, in Norway, completed in 1997 and in use by stenna line scandanavia on the route beetween Göteborg and Frederikshavn. it has nothing to do with the sea shadow at all, in my opinion it doesnt even look like sea shadow in the slightest.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by picklewalsh
This is the British Royal Navey's Type 45 Destroyer, this is the newest most powerfull distroyer in the world at the minute. The ship is amazing and the first one was launched last week.

Here are some links for you.

www.naval-technology.com...

www.type45.com...

www.baesystems.com...



The Type 45 is not the most powerful destroyer in the world. The Burke class destroyer is larger and has more VLS tubes that can launch more types of weapons that the Type 45.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   



imageofholland.filternet.nl...


This is not a variant of the Lockhead sea Shadow this is a stena carisma built by Westamarin West Bygg, in Norway, completed in 1997 and in use by stenna line scandanavia on the route beetween Göteborg and Frederikshavn. it has nothing to do with the sea shadow at all, in my opinion it doesnt even look like sea shadow in the slightest.


In fact my mistake it is more likely to be one of the other stenna hss 1500 class either the stenna explorer,stenna voyager or stenna discovery I cant make out the name or I could tell you which one it was but seeing as though the link you posted mention images of Holland I would guess it is likely to be the stenna Discovery which serves the Harwich in England to the Hook of Holland route. here is a link on the concept and design of this class of vessel if your interested.

www.dlharbour.ie...



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Ok im just joking about the Stena HSS but i just think it would resemble a 'Stealth Boat' if it was painted black or gray.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Browno
Ok im just joking about the Stena HSS but i just think it would resemble a 'Stealth Boat' if it was painted black or gray.


I thought you might have been
its just you said heres a civilian variant of the sea shadow and I was like wow hadn't heard of that before, and was a little dissapointed
maybe it could make for a good military transport it has a decent payload capacity and is very fast (36kts) only thing is at the end of the day its a ferry and range might be an issue as well as sea keeping, im no expert but i would imagine its not that stealthy either, even if it was painted black or gray



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Salsa – If your wondering what the future Battleship will look like and have on it…then I would suggest you learn about the DD(X).

Picklewalsh - Any (real) pictures of it…all I found was CGI.


Originally posted by paperplane_uk
Add that to the fact that most western navies are very conservative in their design choices (DDX excluded, but that remains to be built).

There slowly getting out of that rut...and realizing that multi-hulled had many more advantages then a old-fashioned style single hulled vessel.

Like the General Dynamics LCS...But its going up against Lockheeds LCS...there each building 2 ships...So if Lockheed wins...then I guess your right...I'm rooting for GD.
Catamarans are gaining in popularity because of there quicker speeds.


Originally posted by Browno
Here's a Civilian variant of the lockheed sea shadow
imageofholland.filternet.nl...

Wonder if this design would come to military ship projects in the future
www.sunderlandmaritimeheritage.org.uk...

Those have virtually zero relation to the Sea Shadow.

And there already is a military version of it.
Called the Sea Fighter (FSF-1)


And the USS Swift (HSV-2), and the HSV-X1
HSV-2 & HSV-1X

The newest multi hulled craft is the M80 Stiletto.


[edit on 13-2-2006 by Murcielago]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Murcielago,
nice pic on the m-80 stiletto
the speed this thing can reach even when fully loaded is amazing 50 knots+! thats about all I know about it im afraid, I wonder what it is made of , composite carbon fibre? and that hull lay out is a new one on me, how would you classify that? ill have to get finding out wont I!


[edit on 13-2-2006 by buckaroo]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

Picklewalsh - Any (real) pictures of it…all I found was CGI.


Strangly i cant seem to find any at the moment, there was some on the day of launch, but they seem to have disapeard.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join