And now my reply to ACE:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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.