Article

2005-12-16 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-12-16 13:06|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I like this idea, but not necessarily the implementation.

A very large amount of the heavy lifting of shore bombardment during WW2 was done by light cruisers, such as the St. Louis. (Which had Fifteen six inch guns).

There's no reason you couldn't take the gun slated for the DD-X and put three or four of them on a Burke hull without the Aegis if you wanted to. Keep the hanger for use with drones and maybe a helicopter. It could provide a lot of the same ship-to-shore firepower as the DD-X without costing nearly as much.

(Say, put one six-inch gun where the forward 5" is, keep the forward missile battery for a dozen ESSM and assorted self-defense capability, and put two six inch guns where the aft missile battery goes.)

Also, another ship class that did a lot of the heavy lifting in WW2 were landing ships armed with rockets. You can read about them here:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/14idx.htm.

These were a hell of a lot cheaper than a battleship but still very effective.

It wouldn't have the same sort of rocket, but I think you could do something similar to this by coming up with a navalized version of the MLRS and sticking them on an LCS hull.

Let's see... an LCS hull costs about 100 million dollars, including some self-defensive systems.

The MLRS truck launcher costs the army about 2 million dollars. It won't need a truck, but you will need a turret system, so let's say it costs about the same to put it on the ship, and that you would have about eight on a ship. Launcher module cost then becomes about 16 million dollars.

Cost thus far: 116 million.

The unguided version of the rocket costs $ 32,000.00 and the guided version costs $ 40,000.00. Let's say that half the launchers are the unguided version and half the guided, and there's one set of reloads per launcher:

(32,000*8*12)+(40,000*8*12)=3,072,000+3,840,000
=6,912,000

Add this to the 116 million above, and you wind up with about 123 million.

Does anyone see any mistakes in my math?

Posted by Phil 2005-12-16 14:06|| 2005-12-16 14:06|| Front Page Top

#2 "Impending retirement of the battleship"? Battleships have been obsolete ever since Pearl Harbor. Give it up, boys.

Posted by gromky">gromky 2005-12-16 14:58|| http://communistposters.com/]">[http://communistposters.com/] 2005-12-16 14:58|| Front Page Top

#3 Phil: good in concept, impossible in the real world. The basic idea is to do an end-around the bloated, corrupt and inefficient Navy procurement system. No private individual could possibly create such a ship as you propose without massive interference from the powers that be, for the same reasons that battleships are being eliminated -- they stand in the way of the DD(X).

The trick is to make a warship that would *never* be a Navy warship. Incapable of doing anything other than act as a gun platform. Perhaps even looking more like a cargo ship than a warship. Externally, a rust bucket.

Of course, inside it would have to have a very strong skeleton and hull, a deep water capable engine and potent stabilizers. It might not even have a closed turret, but one open to the air, like the hangar of an aircraft carrier, to vent its smoke.

It would spend almost its entire life in drydock, unless a panicked US Marine Corps or Army was desperate for a gun platform that the Navy no longer had. A good possibility, considering how much territory a 24-mile range of such guns would include. Unless of course, you used slightly more modern guns with a greater range.

I might add that, assuming it worked, the Navy would be deeply humiliated, shown to be grossly unprepared for its mission. But I'm sure this would not factor in to the Marine Corps or the Army's decision to rent such a ship.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-12-16 15:43|| 2005-12-16 15:43|| Front Page Top

#4 Why a turret? The AGS will use a PGM, so why does it need a turret? It won't be getting into gun battles with other ships, just supplying high volume gun fire that F/A 18s can't. Set it up below decks with a fixed angle and let the projectile guidance system do the fine tuning. If it is really necessary, set it up just below decks so that it can be elevated. To turn it, turn the ship. That's the low cost solution. Make it up in volume.

Posted by Chinemp Floluth4331 2005-12-16 16:14|| 2005-12-16 16:14|| Front Page Top

#5 Buy a scrap hull that still floats - warship, cargo, passenger, doesn't matter. Mount whatever firepower you want - probably have to buy from North Korea since you won't get permits from US. Rig for propulsion by ocean-going tug.
Total cost - $20 MM plus contract fee for tug at time of use.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2005-12-16 17:59|| 2005-12-16 17:59|| Front Page Top

#6 Could you mount a gun on what is essentually a barge and tow it wherever you want? Have some small onboard engines to provide manuvering?

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-12-16 18:16|| 2005-12-16 18:16|| Front Page Top

#7 Gromky they are obsolete in terms of being the main naval force, but you're dead wrong when it comes to amphib ops and support inland, especially against hardened targets.

In the current (mostly unopposed) naval environment, the battlewagons can trhow more ordnance fruther and on harder targets tha any platform we have in support of the Marines ashore.

Posted by Oldspook 2005-12-16 22:34|| 2005-12-16 22:34|| Front Page Top

23:46 Red Dog
23:45 jules 2
23:43 Silentbrick
23:37 CrazyFool
23:20 SR-71
23:06 jules 2
23:05 jules 2
22:50 jules 2
22:44 AzCat
22:34 Oldspook
22:33 AzCat
22:26 Oldspook
22:21 DMFD
22:11 Penguin
22:11 Ebbinetle Sholumble1110
22:00 Captain America
21:54 Captain America
21:53 twobyfour
21:52 RG
21:47 Bomb-a-rama
21:44 Barbara Skolaut
21:03 trailing wife
20:56 Santa
20:53 Red Dog