Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 3  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
CATZ
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 10th, 2016, 6:45 pm
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
TimothyC wrote:
I'm going to address the powerplant because that is something firmly in my wheelhouse and the problems with it push it into the "Not even wrong" category*.

First, no matter how cool, safety measures on small reactors would drive up displacement, if only to provide collision protection. Second, no western nuclear designs have ever done CONAS in any way shape or form. It's overly complex, and reverses the trend over the last 25 years away from steam in almost all forms. Third, you have explicitly used fixed installation steam turbines, not steam turbines designed for maritime use (I'd imagine that is partly because the data on a 'modern' nautical steam turbine is hard to come by as they are almost nonexistent). Fourth, you are once again lifting text from other sources without citing it example.


*"Not even Wrong" would be saying something to the effect of "2 + 2 = apple." "2 + 2 = 6" would be wrong, and "2 + 2 = 4" would be correct.
You know,

I agree. I think I'm going to remove the CONAS arrangement. It's not hugely beneficial to have it there. I also inserted the link to the back-pressure turbine faq.

As for the maritime turbines vs fixed installations, yes. There's very little data out there for maritime turbines. I'm OCD about statistics and numbers. I have to know all of the data before I stick something into my concept. I don't know why I'm so OCD like that but I am. Anyways, a lot of maritime gas turbines also work for fixed installations and vice versa. Any fixed installation can be modified to work at sea...it just costs more money to do it. Especially with ship silencing program requirements.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
CATZ
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 10th, 2016, 6:58 pm
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
TimothyC wrote:
CATZ wrote:
But the LCS does absolutely nothing of value
Eh, not really true. The LCSes strengths lie in their ability to defend themselves against basic threats (57mm gun and RAM offer about as good of protection as the SM-1MRs and 76mm Oto on the OHPs), and porn-star sized aviation facilities. It is the helos and UAVs on the LCS that give it reach and functionality. The LCS program has one other advantage over other options - it is already being built, and updates are planed for future hulls. They also serve another purpose - they open up command slots to officers earlier in their careers. This hopefully will allow the USN to catch issues before they turn into exploding command pips on destroyer and cruiser captains.
Well,

I'm not going to go into it because it's so...he said, she said at the moment with congress fighting with the CBO/GAO and the USN about the LCS and its effectiveness and survivability at sea.

Obviously the LCS is highly controversial for a lot of reasons. I personally do not like it. And recently it's ability to fight small boat swarms has even fallen into question. That project is a political and theoretical disaster. I think I'll leave it there.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... king-boats

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/01/lcs- ... navy-says/

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-li ... 1561859254

As you can see theres a lot of sources calling the LCS into doubt. And also just as many that do the opposite and refute those claims in favor of the LCS. It's like...one of those topics of debate...that are just best left alone. Plus I don't want to clog up my thread with that LCS debate and its messy diatribe. :-)

I agree about the aviation facilities being like the MGM grand though. I can appreciate them for that. But I still consider them coast guard vessels. Not USN warships. :P

If the coast guard was the one buying them then I would think it was a great ship for that purpose!

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Last edited by CATZ on May 10th, 2016, 7:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
CATZ
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 10th, 2016, 7:18 pm
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
And now my reply to ACE: :)
Quote:
Would you explain me, if pancake turrets are so great, why systems like the Mk 46 30mm guns (which could, by dimensions of their modules on LCS-1) could well fit such a turret, are not build in such a way? I am no radar expert, but as far as I know this system will only work if very well made. For an aircraft this is not an issue, but what if the radar beam gets projected against the superstructure by your turret and then gives a radar echo that is much larger than the real thing, for example? What about the point where it connects to the deck? Issues like these are most likely the reason they are not used.
Well Ace, stealth only works when it is done well. That's the problem with it. lol. I never intended to have a ship with 'poorly done stealth features.' :-)

It's also important to consider that the issue with the radar reflection at the point where the turret meets the deck is the same problem that stealthy faceted turrets also have. So that is a situation where neither side have a favorable advantage over the other. The best bet of course, is a tumblehome hull. That's why the DD(X) uses a tumblehome. It helps mitigate the RCS of the flat deck itself. The Navy has also considered a curved deck...which is crazy to me. But there you have it. Maybe in the future stealthy ships will look like submarines.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by superstructure of the turret. It's a dome, it's all curved. The guns and the IRST periscope are retractable. As for the structure of the turret on the inside, well, thats something that requires additional considerations. Its the reason why the DDG-1000 has a composite wood super structure. lol.

The bottom line is the dome turrets are highly effective. But nothing is perfect.

The bottom line is that the real reason it hasn't been done before is because it's unorthodox and weird. Navies dislike weirdness though they sometimes indulge in it. It's the reason that stealthy aircraft weren't built from the get go. It takes time for someone to think of the idea, and then some more for them to work out the details and actually produce a working example. Overall, my concept is perfectly feasible and the elements and theory of it are described to you in my original RCS reply/post.
Quote:
In addition, a flat plate angled away from the radar source will give no echo back, while this dome will give some echo back. But all that is speculation (as the reality is a lot more complex) so I keep my dislike for them as 'there is a reason nobody used them'
Well I actually talked about that in my original reply Ace. I won't make you go back and search though.

Here:
Quote:
As you can see, an angled plate could theoretically return no signal at all to the emitting array if it is angled just right from the array. But the issue with this, especially with a moving target, is that this will almost never occur. Though as you may understand, it still will reflect less RCS. That's why the F-117 and F-22 are able to be stealthy despite not being a ball. However, a dome or spherical turret is definitely stealthy if done right, even despite how large the ones I use are, they would still return a smaller RCS than conventional turrets by a large or even extreme degree. I am planning to redraw the turrets to be smaller than they are currently. I over-estimated the size when I drew them.

The bottom line is that a dome shaped turret is highly stealthy. But as you can imagine, they are bigger and take up more deck space. So they have pro's and con's. Just like anything. I prefer them because they offer stealth from every angle, rather than just a few.
Quote:
Your hull is a trimaran? And the total beam is still only 60 feet, or is this the beam of the middle hull only? If the 60 feet includes the outer hulls, you will be closer to 2000 then to 5000 tons. If they are added to the given dimensions? Then it is not impossible.
That's a good point, Sir Ace. I think in this case we should consider adding them to the overall dimensions. Is that what you would suggest?
Quote:
This does not change anything about Archimedes’ law. Volume defines your displacement, how the volume is used it unrelated. If not all fits in the given volume, then you have to make the ship smaller or take on board less equipment.
Quote:
As for the boilers, note that the heating from the nuclear reactor is done inside the nuclear reactor compartment, which is shielded against radiation. You do not want your boilers in there too, but you do not have to: a nuclear power ship has multiple coolwater cycles. The one going through the turbine is often the third.
A boiler is however quite large, because you need surface area to get the heat into the water. Why would you have this on board, when your ship is already critically full and you have nuclear power! IIRC only the Kirov has a system like this, and I am not certain if it is really successful.
I agree. I eliminated the CONAS component of the arrangement as compensation. Nuke only. And really it's all we need for this design since it already has two reactors arranged for link-feed. (So one can run if the other fails, or even restart the reactor that failed once it's repaired by bleed starting).

Quote:
As for the 4 shafts: is the silent running done on electric (or auxiliary) power? Otherwise they make no sense at all to me. if it is done on electric you have 2 shafts and 2 auxiliary shafts, something not uncommon (although they are then not referred to as shafts in the main propulsion) note that shafts turning (powered or unpowered) Always make noise, so it might be better to run the 2 main shafts on auxiliary power instead of the setup you have now.
Well my design is already integrated-electric propulsion.

Alright, let's trim it down to two shafts. It'll be roughly 50,000 SHP per shaft.
Quote:
A ship of lower tonnage has NO relation to the cost. The materials used (aluminum-titanium composite should be quite expensive), systems on board (SPY-6, nuclear reactors, high power steam turbines and 2 all new types of gun systems drive up the cost), construction cost (the domed turrets will be expensive to make, as will be the high speed trimaran hull and the development costs (new hull, new systems, new almost everything) would IMO drive up the cost too at the very least the cost of an CG-21 (3-4B $), about what I estimated earlier in comparison with the F3 burke
Well Ace, that just isn't true. Tonnage absolutely does have a huge impact on cost. lol. Though I will agree, it's not the only issue impacting overall cost. But then again, I was never making that claim.
Quote:
Keep in mind that you can only keep up shooting like that for a few minutes, and even that a few times, before your magazines will be empty. (First the ready use, then the main magazines) your ship, your idea, but I would not use it myself.
Yes, I already took that into consideration in the original concept. The original super-rapid compact mount carries roughly 89 rounds ready to fire. Mine has 600 rounds ready to fire. Another reason for dome turrets...they have a lot more internal space for important things.

But in terms of my little hypothetical scenario, in which I detailed the guns overwhelming a ship through saturation based attacks...remember. If my gun fires 120 rounds a minute, and theres two per turret and thus they now fire 240 rounds a minute, thats a hypothetical. I'm not saying a ship would or should fire for a full minute. Or even that they are capable of doing so. What I'm explaining...is this idea of a saturation attack. If you fire 240 projectiles at a enemy DDG, it has to shoot them down or get hit, right? Now consider! How many missiles does it carry to do this? If it only has 64 VLS cells like the newest Chinese DDG, then it'll run out of missiles. Now consider...how many CIWS do they have to supplement the VLS? And, ultimately, who can saturate more...the Type 052C DDG or my FF(X)? My vote is on the FF(X) under certain circumstances. I.e, we are in gun range. Because otherwise it's strictly a VLS fight and the FF(X) only has 32 cells, giving the Chinese Type 052C an advantage. Of course, this scenario is unrealistic because any CIWS has a probability of intercept. I.e, a very good system can generally guarantee 0.86 to 0.98 intercept rates, with 1.0 being a perfect rate of interception of engaged targets. In which case it's just a case of when, not if...a attacking munition makes it through the defense screen. Also, the enemy DDG can shoot back as well and we have to assume that we are able to fire long enough to get 240 rounds on target before we ourselves get sunk. Though admittedly the FF(X) is much superior in terms of defensive armament and would have a statistical advantage there that is considerable.

Another thing you don't mention, but I'm sure you are aware of, is barrel heating. The barrel can only sustain so many rounds of fire before a mandatory cool down period. Water-cooled barrels alleviate some of this problem, but even they have limitations to duration of fire.
Quote:
CVN’s and LHA’s must use a belowdeck hangar because they are flush decked and have no choice. Hangars like you suggest have been trialed on the Virginia class cruisers, but proved unsatisfactory IIRC.
Yes, I'm aware of the Virginia. It's a messy concept because water can so easlily spill down into the hangar by washing over deck. I don't like above-deck designs though. I know Ace. You will wake up every day and shake your fist at me for going against traditional maritime naval architecture and say "You dirty heretic. How dare you!"

:P Just kidding.

Again, thank you very much for your suggestions and critiques. I enjoy replying, if nothing else. I also asked you for some suggestions as well, so make sure to read for that.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Last edited by CATZ on May 10th, 2016, 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 10th, 2016, 8:00 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7328
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
Not the superstructure of the turret, your ships superstructure. the signal will bounce off your turret but then hit your superstructure.

'weirdness' is not an good reason to not use your turrets, facetted turrets would actually be inferior to the rounded ones they replaced if your theory is correct. stealth aircraft were build from the moment computers could actually calculate how it would be needed to be done. I am still not really convinced about the superiority of your turrets (especially since they have only drawbacks except the RCS)
in addition, why is not your entire ship rounded then? it would work better (and be more sensible too) if your entire ship followed the same doctrine.

my suggestion on the trimaran hull is more that you make clear what you mean :P in my first post in this thread it was not even clear it was an trimaran. the dimensions of the 3 hulls and their distance from each other defines quite a lot of this vessels abilities and possibilities.

600 rounds would need an ready use caroussel of 7 times the diameter of the current one, and would still be empty quite fast. reloading it from the main magazine will be slow, and the amount of shells available there limited. while I can see where you come from, I really do not see the point of having 8 barrels of it on a ship this size. 3 or 4 would be a lot more sensible and have a lot less ship impact, leaving space for more equipment that is useful.

anyways, you asked for my ideas/advice: my personal take on a vessel like this would be to have at least 2 helicopters on an main deck hangar, some more VLS, a non-wavepiercing bow (tumblehome, for stealth reasons, is acceptable but IMO not preferable) and an more conventional propulsion setup. (2 shafts and an auxilary truster that retracts in the hull) and with some more low cost systems on board. trying to be more then an DDG on less displacement and with an lower budget is not really sensible in my opinion, even with an more conventional design.

note that I hardly have commented on anything on the drawing itself, which has it's own beginners mistakes. may I suggest drawing an real design or even an more conventional design to learn how the shipbucket style displays things?

_________________
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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
CATZ
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 10th, 2016, 8:29 pm
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Quote:
Not the superstructure of the turret, your ships superstructure. the signal will bounce off your turret but then hit your superstructure.
Well this is the same situation with any ship. Regardless of what turrets it uses. lol.

Like I mentioned in the previous posting, you have to take that into consideration. Maybe carbon-fiber panels? A lot of ships are using composite super-structures as well.

Ultimately, no system is perfect. The idea here, is that we are reducing RCS. Not eliminating it. This is not the Philadelphia Experiment.
Quote:
'weirdness' is not an good reason to not use your turrets, facetted turrets would actually be inferior to the rounded ones they replaced if your theory is correct. stealth aircraft were build from the moment computers could actually calculate how it would be needed to be done. I am still not really convinced about the superiority of your turrets (especially since they have only drawbacks except the RCS)
in addition, why is not your entire ship rounded then? it would work better (and be more sensible too) if your entire ship followed the same doctrine.
My theory is just that, a theory. It cannot be proven 'correct' until someone runs a detailed enough scenario on a serious (read that, super computer) computer or actually builds and tests a actual working model.

As for me, I've been thinking about this type of turret for well over 8 years. So for me it's a viable alternative to faceted turrets and I've considered a lot of different possibilities and scenarios concerning the use of such a turret.
Quote:
my suggestion on the trimaran hull is more that you make clear what you mean :P in my first post in this thread it was not even clear it was an trimaran. the dimensions of the 3 hulls and their distance from each other defines quite a lot of this vessels abilities and possibilities.
Oh, I do clearly list that it is a trimaran ace. It's under the section that lists the tonnage.
Quote:
Hull Type:
Body: Tumblehome Trimaran
Bow: Wave-Piercing / Non-bulbous
Stern: Reverse Transom Stern
Quote:
600 rounds would need an ready use caroussel of 7 times the diameter of the current one, and would still be empty quite fast. reloading it from the main magazine will be slow, and the amount of shells available there limited. while I can see where you come from, I really do not see the point of having 8 barrels of it on a ship this size. 3 or 4 would be a lot more sensible and have a lot less ship impact, leaving space for more equipment that is useful.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Quote:
anyways, you asked for my ideas/advice: my personal take on a vessel like this would be to have at least 2 helicopters on an main deck hangar, some more VLS, a non-wavepiercing bow (tumblehome, for stealth reasons, is acceptable but IMO not preferable) and an more conventional propulsion setup. (2 shafts and an auxilary truster that retracts in the hull) and with some more low cost systems on board. trying to be more then an DDG on less displacement and with an lower budget is not really sensible in my opinion, even with an more conventional design.
Well,

Multi-Mission vessels are all the rage in the USN these days, and have been for the past 15 to 30 years. Maybe more. Remember, even destroyers back in WW2 were multi-mission vessels. They performed AshW based functions in the sense that they fought other ships at sea...even sometimes battleships. They had AA armaments which they used to defend themselves as well as other vessels from aircraft. And they often times had depth charge racks and other things for performing ASW. So these type of escorts have been multi-mission ships for a very long time Ace. We aren't breaking the mold with this FF(X). We are just trimming some things back in favor of alternative concepts. I.e, eliminating the above deck hangar to free up room for additional CIWS/CIGS/AShW systems.

But here's the deal. This design is based on the competition. And by competition I'll be specific:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_052D_destroyer 7,200 to 7,500 t

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_054_frigate 3,900 t

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_G ... ss_frigate 4,500 t

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_G ... ss_frigate 4,035 t

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gremyashc ... s_corvette 2,200 t

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steregush ... s_corvette 2,200 t

These are the vessels we have to keep in mind when designing ships in the 2000 to 6000 t range for the NATO block navies. If you can't counter the vessels above, then you are already at a disadvantage. Especially when even the 2,200 t Steregushchy corvette carries:
Quote:
1 × 100mm A-190 Arsenal or 130mm A-192 naval gun
1 × Kashtan CIWS-M (Project 20380)
2 × 4 Uran Kh-35 (SS-N-25)
12 × Redut VLS cells (Project 20381)
2 × AK-630М CIWS
2 × 4 330mm torpedo tubes for Paket-NK (Paket-NK/E for export) anti-torpedo/anti-submarine torpedoes
2 × 14.5mm MTPU pedestal machine guns
And the frigates carry:
Quote:
1 × 130mm Amethyst/Arsenal A-192M naval gun with rate of fire of 45 rds per minute [7]
2 × 8 UKSK VLS cells fitted with P-800 Oniks (SS-N-26) and/or Kalibr missile system (SS-N-27)
32 (4 × 8) Redut VLS cells housing 9M96, 9M96M, 9M96D/9M96DM(M2) family of missiles and/or quad-packed 9M100 short range missiles
2 × Palash CIWS
2 × 4 330mm torpedo tubes for Paket-NK anti-torpedo/anti-submarine torpedoes
2 × 14.5mm MTPU pedestal machine guns
The 4,500 t frigate has a similar armament to the FF(X) (except for the guns).

Regardless, The KH-35 is considerable in an AShW role on the smaller corvette. And the 4,500 t frigates carry the super-sonic P-800 Oniks AShW, which are beyond impressive. I'm simply in favor of keeping up with them. Albeit, I prefer to do it with fancy guns and stealth.
Quote:
note that I hardly have commented on anything on the drawing itself, which has it's own beginners mistakes. may I suggest drawing an real design or even an more conventional design to learn how the shipbucket style displays things?
It's still a rough draft. I already know the shipbucket style. I.e, one pixel corners. I just have to clean it up...but I can't really do that until I finalize all the little details.

One other thing. I've noticed that the designs posted on this site are very well done artistically. But one thing I've always considered is that they don't address core issues of modern warships like the Burke. I.e, limited fields of fire and the ever looming 'field of survivability' issue that plagues any ship with only one CIWS. Even 2 probably isn't enough. You need overlapping 360 fields of fire to mitigate it, and thats something that no modern ships have attempted. I merely decided to make a concept that addresses it. With an unusual solution...maybe. But if you think you have a better idea, you should draw it. I'd like to see someone try to do so in a way that doesn't require them to put a bunch of CIWS all over the ship.

As always, thanks for the reply. I appreciate you taking the time!

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hexelarity
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 11th, 2016, 12:21 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 145
Joined: January 17th, 2016, 8:14 am
Location: Washington state
erik_t wrote:
Colosseum wrote:
I have to admit I'm not a huge fan of your constant shitposting. Please either contribute something useful or just don't post at all.
Certainly from somebody who posts their own works with disclaimers like:
Quote:
I AM NEW TO THIS PLEASE GIVE CONSTRUCTIVE CRITISICM AND TIPS AND ADVICE NO INSULTS
"No offense, but [offensive thing]" is something that only twelve-year-olds think exempts them from censure.
sorry

_________________
Kruger Corporation
Cruise ships, War ships, all kinds of ships.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
CATZ
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 11th, 2016, 12:15 pm
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
[ img ]

Version 2.0. Still not cleaned up. Working towards a final revision. WIP.

As you can see, a turret was eliminated, a bottom was added and the VLS was changed to a full length block and now supports SM-3. The hangar is larger, as well as the elevator/helo-pad.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
zagoreni010
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 11th, 2016, 1:52 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 51
Joined: March 15th, 2016, 10:01 pm
Location: Croatia
good lord that is one ugly ship with big panecake turrets,

but its definitly unique

_________________
“You are fighter pilots first, last, always. If I ever hear of any of you shooting at someone in a parachute, I'll shoot you myself." Gustav Rödel


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Fox
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 11th, 2016, 3:31 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 133
Joined: March 7th, 2013, 10:39 am
You want stealth yet you have a fully upright superstructure in the front.

Communications wise, i'm not sure what the patches on the side are.

but you have no SATCOM, which is a must these days.
I also see nothing indicating IFF, navigation radars or military surface radars.

Also submarines are round because of water pressure on the hull, not because of sonar.

PS.
AShW is ASuW (Anti Surface Warfare)
Then you have:
ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare)
AAW (Anti Air Warfare)

Good luck!

_________________
[ img ]

Corporal in the RNL Navy
Teamleader Tactical

"No comms, no glory!"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 11th, 2016, 4:37 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8527
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
when it come down to Stealth.... it is as stealthy as "Taj Mahal", and when it is talk about radar... there are so many different radar type there, that "Nationstate" would be proud. And that says something!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 3  [ 30 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


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


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