The tonnage and caliber limits of washington treaty was meant to establish a degree of stability and predictability in battleship attributes and fighting power, so as to appear to tamp down risks associated with joining a quantitative and qualitative arms control regime.
But explicit binding constraints on tonnage and caliber invariably led to effort to maximize fighting power while nominally remaining in compliance with tonnage and caliber constraints. This in turn leads to very expensive designs that work in extensive weight reduction measures wherever possible.
My question is, if a country didn’t pretend to be compliant with washington treaty limitation. but wish to build the lowest cost battleships that could match the fighting power of washington treaty battleships, How heavy would such washington equivalent, but not washington compliant, battleships be?
On the one hand, weight reduction measures, such as higher strength alloys, clever weight reducing structural solutions such as wavy decklines and armor integrated into hull structure, are quite expensive. Eliminating these measures without reducing fighting power would mandate a bigger and heavier ship.
On the other hand bigger and heavier imposes its own cost. Bigger and heavier ship needs bigger engines, more armor to cover a bigger hull, etc, and potentially impose docking cobstraints as well.
Where is the sweet spot where minimum total cost is achieved?
My guess is such a battleship would be significantly larger and heavier than washington compliant battleships.
But explicit binding constraints on tonnage and caliber invariably led to effort to maximize fighting power while nominally remaining in compliance with tonnage and caliber constraints. This in turn leads to very expensive designs that work in extensive weight reduction measures wherever possible.
My question is, if a country didn’t pretend to be compliant with washington treaty limitation. but wish to build the lowest cost battleships that could match the fighting power of washington treaty battleships, How heavy would such washington equivalent, but not washington compliant, battleships be?
On the one hand, weight reduction measures, such as higher strength alloys, clever weight reducing structural solutions such as wavy decklines and armor integrated into hull structure, are quite expensive. Eliminating these measures without reducing fighting power would mandate a bigger and heavier ship.
On the other hand bigger and heavier imposes its own cost. Bigger and heavier ship needs bigger engines, more armor to cover a bigger hull, etc, and potentially impose docking cobstraints as well.
Where is the sweet spot where minimum total cost is achieved?
My guess is such a battleship would be significantly larger and heavier than washington compliant battleships.
statistics: Posted by Chuck731 — 6:53 PM - 1 day ago — Replies 2 — Views 97