AHC: Nuclear powered Battleship

There really isn't a quibble.

Battleship: Designed to take heavy fire for the largest weapons the enemy deploys. Can survive enormous amounts of damage, especially above water line damage. Vulnerable to sub-surface weapons in large numbers (See Bismarck, Musashi, Yamashiro). Require a good deal of killing. Take a lickin' and keep on tickin'.

Battle Cruiser: Designed as scout, heavily armed, main armor is supposed to be speed. Can NOT survive serious damage from large caliber shell fire either above or below water line. One hit wonders. Excellent way to lose large numbers of expensively trained personnel for a single hit. (See HMS Hood (3 survivors of 1,418 man crew) , HMS Queen Mary (9 survivors of 1,275 man crew).

There really is no comparison between the types. The dreadnought battleship was a brilliant design meant to take on all comers, unfortunately the idea was, fairly rapidly, a victim of ever improving technology. The Battle Cruiser was designed to be able to bully the little kids and run away from the big kids. Unfortunately it looked WAY too much like a big kid itself and proved to be a design error of epic proportions. The fact that the same man, at virtually the same moment, came up with both ideas is a remarkable demonstration that it is possible to be a genius and a flipping idiot at the same time.

I call that condition "Brilliant Idiocy".
 
I have a vision of a Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb (that reportedly weighs approx 30,000 pounds..) being fitted with a guidance system suitable for use against moving targets (if it doesn't already have one.)

Edit to add, the fusing might conceivably need some changes as well.

Right now the MOAB can only be deployed by being dropped out the back of slow cargo planes like the C130. In a contested air environment such aircraft are dead limiting the utility of any ability to target against moving targets like say ships.

And for most things short of a very fast car, a boat, or a plane the MOABs blast radius is so large that by the time you can think to run you're already dead.
 
Right now the MOAB can only be deployed by being dropped out the back of slow cargo planes like the C130. In a contested air environment such aircraft are dead limiting the utility of any ability to target against moving targets like say ships.

And for most things short of a very fast car, a boat, or a plane the MOABs blast radius is so large that by the time you can think to run you're already dead.
I don't think MOAB and massive ordinance penetrator are the same weapon. I seem to recall the B2 and B52 being regarded as potential (or perhaps actual ?) delivery vehicles for the massive ordinance penetrator.
 
Possible...should be done..dunno navy is not my forte...still Hearts of Iron have those with emergency shutdown system for nuclear reactors
 

SsgtC

Banned
I don't think MOAB and massive ordinance penetrator are the same weapon. I seem to recall the B2 and B52 being regarded as potential (or perhaps actual ?) delivery vehicles for the massive ordinance penetrator.
They aren't. MOAB stands for Massive Ordinance Air Blast. While MOP is Massive Ordinance Penetrator. The MOAB is a fuel/air explosive (or thermobaric) bomb. Which makes a huge bang, and can level your house fairly effeciently, but isn't much good for underground or otherwise hardened targets. That's where MOP comes in. MOP weighs about 8,000 pounds more than MOAB. But unlike it's more famous cousin who's weight is almost entirely explosive filler (18,700 pounds of the total 21,600 is explosive), MOP's weight is almost entirely hardened steel with a realitively small bursting charge (5,300 pounds of the total 30,000 pounds is explosive).

The MOAB is designed to be deployed from several variants of the C-130. While the MOP was designed to be dropped from the B-2 bomber. So the MOP could be used against a ship. As long as that ship doesn't have any functioning AA left. Because it's still just a free fall bomb that has to be dropped by a level bomber within visual range of the target.
 
I seem to remember seeing proposals to give the Iowa class Nuclear power . Best chance for a Nuclear powered Battleship is that the USS Kentucky is accepted for conversion in 1950 to a guided missile battleship . As the Navy was keen to have a Nuclear powered Navy the existing powerplant was removed and replaced with the B1W a variation on the C1W and connected to the existing turbines . Installed power was 240,000 shp with an additional 30,000 shp generator provided to generate electricity . The rear turret and barbette where removed and replaced with a Twin Talo's launcher system an exact copy of the USS Long Beach setup . In addition a twin terrir SAM system was added . Surface firepower was provided by the Regulus II missile battery . 8 missiles carried with two launchers .
 
No, since our nuclear ship has no ability to engage other ships other than deploying the same active distance defence systems any large warship has, the better analog is a faster Erebus class monitor.

What we’re seeking it seems is a big gun ship in the era of missiles.

I've always thought that there might be a useful role for a modern/ semi modern monitor. Say take the turrets/ guns from scrapped heavy cruisers or BB's and put a small number on a smallish very shallow draft vessel with moderate armor from other scrapped armored vessels. It's role would be limited to providing fire support for amphibious landings and coastal ops. Designed to be fairly cheap and need a smallish crew. Eliminates the expense of the huge crew needed for a Iowa and possibility of losing 3K men from a single ship.
 

MatthewB

Banned
My favourite modern day shore bombardment ship would be something akin to a floating M270 MLRS.

m270_mlrs_l4.jpg


With an effective range of 45-70 km, if you want unguided heavy NGFS this is what you need.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System
 

MatthewB

Banned
Because fuck that grid square
We’d basically get a larger version of the USN’s rocket artillery ships.

Here's 4 USN rocket armed combatants, USS White River (LSM(R)-536), Clarion River (LSM(R)-409), St. Francis River (LSM(R)-525) and Carronade (IFS-1), sailing off Danang in 1967.

100640901.jpg


Though with the M270 MRLS we’d have a much larger and more sophisticated and capable NGFS vessel. This is what the modern day equivalent to a battleship would be, since we don’t need armour to withstand enemy gunnery, whilst we need long range heavy firepower.

So basically this...

5a94290b.jpg


With an auto loading version of this replacing the 15/L42 cannons.

71b0c77e33bc02fe37f054996a36c727.jpg
 
They aren't. MOAB stands for Massive Ordinance Air Blast. While MOP is Massive Ordinance Penetrator. The MOAB is a fuel/air explosive (or thermobaric) bomb. Which makes a huge bang, and can level your house fairly effeciently, but isn't much good for underground or otherwise hardened targets. That's where MOP comes in. MOP weighs about 8,000 pounds more than MOAB. But unlike it's more famous cousin who's weight is almost entirely explosive filler (18,700 pounds of the total 21,600 is explosive), MOP's weight is almost entirely hardened steel with a realitively small bursting charge (5,300 pounds of the total 30,000 pounds is explosive).

The MOAB is designed to be deployed from several variants of the C-130. While the MOP was designed to be dropped from the B-2 bomber. So the MOP could be used against a ship. As long as that ship doesn't have any functioning AA left. Because it's still just a free fall bomb that has to be dropped by a level bomber within visual range of the target.

{Joke and not intended to insult anyone or anything.) B2 talks to self, so is an obviously insane aeroplane. "Mister SAM is not my friend; Mister TORPEDO is; therefore I love Miz. SUBMARINE."

Because fuck that grid square

I see that GPS front end point and vane steer back end is not assumed for bombardment missiles, and ye old look down satellite constellation to aid guidance is a bit too early for 1950s Dishonest John equivalents to MLGRS rockets. How about an inertial navigation package instead? I mean Charles Stark Draper should not just be wasted on submarines. And there is Mister Robert Goddard.

As for the atomic battleship, it makes no sense given by 1950, as that the PoD that assume delayed aircraft development conditions no longer apply. BTW, the point of diminishing returns on a battleship is a function of the square versus cube metal density ratio. Once you slap 40,000 tonnes of steel armor on a float bubble you overstress the viable load limits on a steel hull frame. This is just a shad larger than a Yamato. (About 90,000 tonnes of whole ship.).

And if we are discussing rocket artillery in place of guns, here, we must posit jet propelled aircraft that goes with the baby, bathwater included right?

Now if you want an "atomic strategic weapon platform" for the 1980s, then how about a Kirov-sized hull with a honking big reactor and a honking big MASER? I could see the Russians building one or two if they ever figured how to refrigerate the MASER (Never has been figured out what to do with all that excess heat.) to serve as an anti-ballistic missile system. They might want to make it into an icebreaker and claim it was one and use it up near the Arctic to... ya' know, break ice?

And I can see Danial Oliver telling his submarine guys, "Navy cross for the first one to sink the Nikolai Basov by "accidentally shoving it into an iceberg sideways" with a manmade navigation hazard!"
 
Top