Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 16  [ 153 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 516 »
Author Message
Kilomuse
Post subject: Re: Project DXPosted: September 8th, 2013, 6:52 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 487
Joined: August 6th, 2010, 4:07 am
Location: California
Great drawings ace! The Bethlehem Steel model looks very much like an American MEKO.

_________________
Republic of Lisenia AU - In progress
Republic of Lisenia in FD Scale - In progress


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Project DXPosted: September 8th, 2013, 8:39 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7497
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
an overpowered near 40 knots british meko then :P
the CODAG scheme is much heavier then the COGAG scheme, due to the fact that the diesel powerplant takes a lot more weight and possibly volume. in the excel file found in the first post you guys can see a few parameters for that :P
that said, it is clear how much space and weight the powerplant eats up: on both ships, from the sea mauler to the mainmast is purely propulsion and generators. nothing else. the larger volume of the diesels pushes the bridge forward on the CODAG model, which results in that british looking 'forward fitted' bridge and build up midship.
if we look at the sheer size of the volume of the hull and superstructure taken up by the powerplant, it is not amazing why these ships were never build, the arnament looks like it is almost pushed overboard :P the COGAG one seems more balanced, but even there you see the results of the huge engines (compare her with an knox and you see what I mean)

btw, the background story is up in the first post, for the ones interested.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Project DXPosted: September 9th, 2013, 3:01 am
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Great stuff, but that Sea Mauler drawing is horrid (I can say that because it's mine).

I've got a new one at proper scale; I'll post it tomorrow.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Project DXPosted: September 9th, 2013, 7:15 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7497
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
cool, thanks Erik. by chance, do you have ever seen anything like an sea mauler with an rotary magazine ever? it looks like something like that is on the ship(s), but that might be the 'back-up' Tartar space.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Project DXPosted: September 11th, 2013, 2:33 am
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Shading could use some work, but at least it's the right size.

[ img ]

I've never heard of a Mauler installation with any sort of power-loading magazine, so it was probably Mk 22.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Scifibug
Post subject: Re: Project DXPosted: September 21st, 2013, 6:36 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 250
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 6:35 pm
Location: Titusville, Florida
Great work!

I encourge and look forward to you to continue.

I also wish I had time to draw more.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Project DXPosted: September 24th, 2013, 11:03 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7497
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
DXN LWNP - the Nuclear powered spruance class

In the LWNP paper which has floated quite a lot around here on the forums, there is an section named 'Application to a High Performance Displacement Ship.' After some research I found out that this ship was an Spruance class.
I came to this conclusion because the hull shape, powerplant, GM value and tonnages matched perfectly, and because this was the main surface combatant then (1977) under production in the US. The paper only gives the internal arrangement of the forward engine room and some numbers, but I have tried to offer an topside design matching these engines.

I have chosen the USS thorn as the ship that would take these, as she was laid down shortly after the paper was released. Logically, it might also have been the Hayler, as that was an modified design anyways and thus made more sense for an changed powerplant vessel, but as I wanted to look into all differences from the main Spruance before going from Hayler, the thorn was another logical choice.

the ship would have the current sizes (only those changed from the Spruance and known are given, with the Spruance sizes in brackets behind them) all measurements are in meters or SI units unless stated otherwise
commissioning year: 1980 (1975)
draft: 6,41 (6,30)
displacement: 9077 (8881)
hull steel weight: 3320 (3192)
Propulsion plant weight: 1712 (773)
GM: 1,29 (1,43)
installed power: 73,6MW (63,2MW)
powerplant: 4 Westinghouse LWNP, 18,4MW each (4 GE LM2500, 15,8MW each)
range @ 20 knots: unlimited (6000 NM)
range @ top speed: unlimited (3300 NM)
top speed: 32,3 knots (32,5 knots)

from these specifications, I have drawn this series of drawings. (note, these will not be in the first post, but only in the thread, as they will be treated separately from project DX.)
there are 2 basic frames: the 'refit' in which the basic spruance is kept as much as possible, and the 'redesign' in which everything on top of the main deck is reconfigured to provide easier removal of the LWNP and optimal usage of the available space in the superstructure that remains.

basic spruance refit:
[ img ]
The topside arrangement is changed only by removing funnels and intakes, apart from the ones for the gas turbine generators still on board
Note that the 'unlimited' above is operational unlimited, the reactor and the gas turbine generators still need fuel.
The superstructure shape is slightly modified as well: in the front structure the space previously taken by the uptakes and intakes is mostly incorporated in the superstructure, keeping intact an shaft for removal (for maintenance and/or refuelling) of the reactor. For the front engine room, this shaft runs until one deck above the main deck, after which the LWNP is moved sideways until it can be craned out. This arrangement makes it possible for the superstructure to be one deck lower.

The aft engine room has the shaft running directly trough the main deck. In rebuild, the shaft would most likely be taken one deck higher into the full beam hangar, but as build I have just removed the part of the superstructure that had the in- and uptakes in it.

design with optimised superstructure arrangement for the LWNP shafts, as build
[ img ]
the superstructure and hangar are put more amidships, moving the helideck with it. to preserve strength, the lower level of the superstructure is partially kept in place, but the deck on top of this is available for weapons and systems.
the LWNP removal shafts are aft of the hangar and forward of the bridge. the midship gas turbine generators are moved towards the superstructure, as uptakes from the hull down would actually take more space then just putting it on top of the hangar. because of this, the hangar is of different shape too, and is actually symmetrical
the rest of the auxilary power unit is the same as on the regular spruance, as is the weapons fit and the modernisation plans shown below. all weapon positions but the phalanx and harpoon are as in the real world, as the phalanx and harpoons were placed on the superstructure in real life. thus, in the hull, nothing has changed but the removal of the generator sets now in the superstructure. this would keep the costs of this ship, if the powerplants are comparable in price, much lower then that of the real world DXGN, the virginia class. the growth space in the design would have been less though, and CGN-42 (aegis virginia) would be impossible.
the current superstructure is more compact in planform but has one additional deck compared to the spruance.

the only real drawback of this design in my opinion would be the lack of growth space (in the direction of tico) but that counts for all LWNP spruance designs, due to the lower GM, and the relatively compact mast, which would have interference problems faster then the original 2 mast setup.

design with optimised superstructure arrangement, with Mk 71
[ img ]

design with optimised superstructure arrangement, with ABL
[ img ]

design with optimised superstructure arrangement, modernised along the plans for the regular DX
[ img ]

design with optimised superstructure arrangement, AAW converted along the plans for the regular DX
[ img ]

the drawback of this design would be the powerplant itself. as was found out in my earlier studies on it, the safety limit on the reactor makes it impossible to run the unit at full speed for most of it's service life. due to this, the behaviour of the spruance class itself would actually not be that different with an LWNP ship, still operating at the same cruising and burst speeds for the same operational time. you would no longer have to refuel, indeed, so stratigical the ship has an advantage on the regular spruance, but an virginia DXGN would have a lot more use then an spruance DXGN on the battlefield. of course, the cost of an virginia is a lot more then that of an spruance for example. On value for money, the ships might thus end on about the same level. if this would be the case for regular DX vs DXN, that is something I cannot say for certain, and something we might never know for certain.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: Project DXPosted: September 24th, 2013, 4:12 pm
Offline
Posts: 10648
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Very interesting work!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Project DXPosted: September 24th, 2013, 4:49 pm
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Very interesting design study. Could you indicate on another drawing where exactly the removal trunks are located?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Project DXPosted: September 24th, 2013, 5:52 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9060
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
I just love this. We get some History behind the curtain. And the bonus, we don't need to read 1000 page about it..


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 16  [ 153 posts ]  Return to “Never-Built Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 516 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]