Replies

And a 155mm shell compared to a 16" shell is again, nothing.

I don't know if you caught the part about the 155 gun having the ability to have multiple rounds impact on target simultaneously. With this capability, the 155 would have more destructive power than a single 16" gun. I would exclude certain 'hardened' bunkers from that statement, but you'll probably need an aircraft for that anyway...

Is it talking about firing both guns simultaneously or holding some rounds in altitude or with a higher angle or what? I stll think we need fire and movement, and in this case, 40 knots is not fast enough for me, not when a missile coming to hit that ship is moving at 10 times faster speeds or more.

I think we need Howard Hughes' vision back. Shoot, you could probably mount a couple of those guns on the Spruce Goose. hehehe Semper Fi

155 gun having the ability to have multiple rounds impact on target simultaneously. With this capability, the 155 would have more destructive power than a single 16" gun.

Actually, no. It would take 10 155mm rounds (about 260 lbs each) to match 1 16-in round (2700 lbs each). More than that, for penetration, you can never match the 16-in shell because you'd end up with solid steel (or tungsten, DU, whatever) before you can match the case thickness of the 16-in shell). I know you (wisely) excluded hardened bunkers in your comment, but as soon as you exclude a class of targerts, potential adversaries start making lots of that class of target.

The RAdm who posted the opinion article in the Washington Times wants a new ship - and the DDG(x) would be a great ship to have. But the technology to boost the range, and to make guided projectiles, applies to larger shells at least as well as to smaller ones. The RAdm doesn't want any competition for his new baby.

We lost over 100 planes trying to take down and keep down the 'Dragon's Jaw' (Thanh Hoa) bridge in Viet Nam, and it was well within the range of a battleship firing from off the shoreline. IF the target is within range, the safest, most cost-effective, and most lethal way to take it out is with guns. That might seem like a harsh limitation, but when you realize that something like 70% of the world's population is within 200 miles of sea water, there's a very worthwhile array of targets to consider.

And one thing DDG(x) has to worry about that would not threaten the battleships is counter-battery fire. That's not a trivial problem - especially when you include things like Silkworms in the counterbattery threat.

They won't bring back the battleships because of staffing (as another poster has noted), but if people were no object, and you sat down to design the most effective new ship for a whole host of littoral missions, you'd end up with something very like a battleship, not a destroyer with a new ammunition technology on a slightly oversized (6.1-in vs traditional 5-in) gun.