[Fwd: Re: Naval Warfare (was Japanese names)]

January 2nd, 2009

Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 07:51:35 -0700
>From: Tracy Johnson
>Reply-To: tjohnson@adnetsol.com
>Organization: adnetsol.com
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
>To: mahan@microworks.net, mike.potter@artecon.com
>CC: tjohnson@adnetsol.com
>Subject: [Fwd: Re: Naval Warfare (was Japanese names)]
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Resent-From:
>Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 97 08:16:18 EST
>Resent-To: dave@openlines.com
>X-Status:
>
>An interesting conversation from the CONSIM-L list.
>–
>Tracy Johnson
>tjohnson@adnetsol.com
>”Semper Pollus”
> ADC-2239-5531
>Received: from listserv.uni-c.dk (listserv.uni-c.dk [130.228.3.7]) >by adnetsol.adnetsol.com (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id DAA11061 for >; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 03:26:11 -0700
>Received: from listserv (listserv.uni-c.dk [130.228.3.7]) by >listserv.uni-c.dk (8.7.1/8.6) with SMTP id MAA11378; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 >12:25:15 +0200
>Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-C.DK by LISTSERV.UNI-C.DK (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
> 1.8b) with spool id 5919 for CONSIM-L@LISTSERV.UNI-C.DK; Thu, 7 Aug
> 1997 12:25:14 +0200
>Received: from cap1.CapAccess.org (trooker@cap1.CapAccess.org [207.91.115.50])
> by listserv.uni-c.dk (8.7.1/8.6) with SMTP id MAA36964 for
> ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 12:25:12 +0200
>Received: (from trooker@localhost) by cap1.CapAccess.org (8.6.12/8.6.10) id
> GAA10271; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 06:30:46 -0400
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>Message-ID: >Newsgroups: bit.listserv.consim-l
>Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 06:30:46 -0400
>Reply-To: Conflict simulation Games
>Sender: Conflict simulation Games
>From: Terry Rooker >Subject: Re: Naval Warfare (was Japanese names)
>To: Multiple recipients of list CONSIM-L
>In-Reply-To: <33e9266a>
>
>On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, perrym wrote:
>
> > Most of that extra space we were talking about was in the hull. The
> > Navy was toying around with the MK 71 Lightweight 8″ gun. If you ever
> > saw it on the USS HULL (a FORREST SHERMAN DD) and then look at how much
> > room there is around the 5″ on a SPRUANCE, it doesn’t take much
> > imagination. If you’re going to have an 8″, you still need a magazine
> > with decent capacity. Anyway, at least one refit used that extra
> > space. As the vertical launch systems replaced the ASROC launchers, the
> > SPRU-cans became strike DDs with Tomahawk. Not part of the original
> > plan but it works.
> > >
>Sigh… The Spruance was designed to take advantage of several programs
>then under development. All of these where part of the original plan.
>the Spruance was designed to have 2 8″/72 mounts replacing the 5″/54s.
>Although some people claim that only one was intended. I had a friend
>who was a gunnery officer on a DD963 and he told me the figures comparing
>the magazine loadout of 5″ shells on his ship. Considering the
>difference in size of the 8″ and 5″ rounds I believed him when he said
>they were supposed to have 2 8″ guns. The ship was also designed for the
>VLS. It just wasn’t available when the original ships were built. That
>is also why the Shah got the Mk26 (?) luanchers for SAMs, it was the only
>thing ready at the time. The DD963 VLS was intended to carry more than
>THAWK though. The were vague intentions for a vertically launched ASROC,
>possibly a VL Harpoon, and some SAM. I think the intention for the
>latter was to have a multi-channel FCS that could be used to gunfire or
>to guide 1 or 2 missiles. Presumably this would have been some variation
>of the Standard missile. They only became Strike DDs when all the
>programs but THAWK lapsed.
>
>
> > You’re right about bigger hulls. That’s why the
> > ARLEIGH BURKE is so beamy.
>
>The beamy hull of the Burke class has little to do with future growth.
>The beamy hull was a deliberate design decision. There was an article in
>Proceddings as the program was just getting under way. Previous USN hull
>forms were optimized for efficient cruising, so they were long and
>narrow. The Soviets had consistently built ships that were much beamier,
>because there were some drag resistance benefits at high speeds.
>Ironically, if you look at some of the last Soviets designs they were
>moving towards the ‘cruising’ hull form, while the US with the Burke was
>moving towards the high speed hull form.
>
>Terry

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

Purpose
The Mahan Naval Discussion List hosted here at NavalStrategy.org is to foster discussion and debate on the relevance of Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan's ideas on the importance of sea power influenced navies around the world.
Links