Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 3  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 »
Author Message
CATZ
Post subject: FFN(X)Posted: May 9th, 2016, 10:02 pm
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
[ img ]

So this is in the very-rough draft phase of being drawn. It is not clean yet. It's all my own except for the helos and the missiles and a few of the radars and things. Which I believe are all "Thing that Help" under the rules. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The purpose of this ship is to provide an alternative to the LCS, while also fully replacing the now retired Oliver-Hazard Perry class frigates. It uses the Spy-6 radars intended for the Flight-3 Arleigh Burke ballistic missile defense ships however only carries the tactical length Mk 57 PVLS. As it cannot fire the SM-3, it's ability to interdict ballistic missiles is nil. However, as in line with existing C4i systems and future C5i, I designed it under the idea that if this ship can see the threat, another ship elsewhere (carrying ABM missiles) can shoot it down. In that sense this ship offers a fast escort ship that can also keep it's eyes peeled for ballistic missile threats. It can provide illumination for ABM missiles, which is also a plus. So if a flight 3 burke cannot see them due to range or azimuth, this guy can. In the sense that if the Burke was three hundred miles further out than this ship, it would still offer the same type of spotting and illuminating capabilities as the Burke itself, and using a co-fire capability the FFX could even fire the Burke's missiles for it, and guide them. The downside to this is that the frigate has to be nuclear powered to power all systems nominally. Could it be done otherwise as a conventional powerplant? Probably.

The ship uses a lot of IRST setups for differing purposes. It even uses the same IRST system that the F-35 uses, modified for naval/surface use. The Lockheed AN/AAQ-37 is an impressive and compact IRST system that Lockheed claims can spot a ballistic missile from over 800 miles (1300 km) away. This is an example of how I try to layer technologies together that fit a similar purpose and will work together in that capacity. The AAQ-37 can see the ballistic missile visually, while the SPY-6 can better identify it and illuminate it. The AAQ-37 systems are mounted to the tops of all the turrets on the ship in addition to SAGEM EOMS units. I also envision that the AAQ-37 in addition to the EOMS as you may have guessed operates the turrets IRST, and the turret systems use it to target and aim. Though obviously the system would also provide generalized spotting as I mentioned with the ballistic missile scenario. I would still imagine that the gun systems use the ships radar to target and fire as well. IRST+Radar is my universal approach.

The ship uses SAGEM IRST technology, which are mounted at various points on the ship. They are all-weather IRST search and tracking systems and also provide navigation and IFF capabilities; and unlike active based radars, they are able to do all of this passively.

It has a lot of guns. Mostly for layered defenses in a 360 degree protection envelope, but also just because I like them. So sue me! It's intended to use the 76mm DART round and 76mm Vulcano round. Both are guided but with differing purposes. And with a range of 40 km, the 76mm Vulcano can also target ships which gives these guns surprising AShW capabilities in addition to their SM-2, ESSM and LRASM.

As you can imagine, this ship is not as cheap as the LCS. But the LCS does absolutely nothing of value while this ship is truly multi-purpose and provides partial ABM capability. SEWEIP provides abundant ECM / EW capabilities and the sonar mounted on the ship is the same that the DDG-1000 carries.

Considerations:
I would restart and redevelop Sea-Lance for added ASW capability.
I would navalize the Aim-9X for use on the ship, either to be used in the Mk 57 PVLS or launched from the turrets to supplement RAM & ESSM capabilities.


FFN(X) / FF(X)

Tonnage:
Light: 3,900 (target)
Standard: 4,400 (target)
Full: 4,900 (not to exceed)

Length: 495 ft
Beam: 60 ft / 89 ft (trimaran parallel hulls) *Ace and I are currently discussing this for revision.
Draft: 12 ft

Type: Frigate
Mission: Multi-Mission / Multi-Role
Primary Roles: Radar Picket & Signal Interdiction
Secondary Roles: Anti-Air Warfare / Anti-Sub Warfare / Anti-Ship Warfare / Anti-Ballistic Missile Warfare

Hull Composition:
Titanium Aluminum Vanadium Alloy / Ti- Al - 30% V- 2.5%
Wield method: Us Navy Tested Friction Stir Wielding

*The USN has been showing a interest in titanium based super-structures and/or hulls as of late. This is why I chose to use a titanium hull. Yes, I am aware that the USN does not currently build titanium ships. However, they are looking into doing so in the future. And, I much prefer titanium to aluminum because aluminum has so many issues concerning it's use at sea and for warfare.

*This ship uses my preferred titanium super alloy, which is one third aluminum. It does however have the same melting point as titanium, a great deal higher than aluminum. And it is still very light. It has the lightweight of aluminum, the strength and melting point of titanium. Vanadium is used for the purposes of alloying the two other metals together more efficiently. It is also easier to cut and wield than pure titanium. And as I mentioned, it's cheaper.

http://www.onr.navy.mil/Media-Center/Pr ... y-ONR.aspx

http://www.marinelink.com/news/business ... 43678.aspx

http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=12499

Hull Type:
Body: Tumblehome Trimaran
Bow: Wave-Piercing / Non-bulbous
Stern: Reverse Transom Stern

AC Plant:
4 x 300 ton HES-C AC plants
(Johnson Controls YVAA Air-Cooled Variable Speed Drive Screw Chiller)
(Smart, sustainable and silent)


Sensors & Electronics:

x2 SAGEM Vampir NG (or USN equivalent)
x4 SAGEM EOMS NG (or USN equivalent)
x4 Raytheon AN/SPY-6
x2 SATCOM arrays
x2 IFF Arrays
x2 CEC Arrays
x4 TX Arrays
x4 RX Arrays
x8 Lockheed AN/AAQ-37 (Naval/Surface MOD)
x2 Hughes AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder Weapon Locating System (Naval MOD)
x16 SAGEM Sigma 40 Laser Gyro System (or USN equivalent)

*Equipped with AEGIS ACB20 / TI-16

• Total Ship Computing Environment – a single, encrypted network that controls all shipboard computing applications, ranging from the ship’s lights and machinery control to its radars and weapon systems. The TSCE's sailor-centric interface and high degree of automation allow the ship to run more effectively and efficiently.
• Electronic Modular Enclosures – a shipbuilding innovation that packages more than 235 individual electronics cabinets into ready-to-install, “ruggedized” units for easy integration, maintenance and upgrades. Each ship carries 16 EMEs. ECM/EMP Hardened. Radiation Hardened via SEARAD.
• Integrated Undersea Warfare System – two sonar arrays (high and medium frequencies) in one automated, hull-mounted system designed to protect the ship from enemy mines, submarines and torpedoes. Using sophisticated algorithms, the sonar better enables frigates and destroyers to detect, engage and defeat an enemy threat.


Radar:

Raytheon’s AN/SPY-6

CEAFAR 3D AESA Volume Search Radar (VSR) (X,S-band, rotating scanned array)

Sonar:

Raytheon AN/SQQ-90 tactical sonar suite;

The Raytheon AN/SQQ-90 is composed of:
Raytheon AN/SQS-60 hull-mounted mid-frequency
Raytheon AN/SQS-61 hull-mounted high-frequency
Raytheon AN/SQR-20 multi-function towed array sonar and handling system

SONARBOUYS for aircraft & ship board bouy launcher

AN/SSQ-77C vertical line array directional frequency analysis and recording (VLAD) sonobuoy
The AN/SSQ-101 air deployed active receiver (ADAR)
AN/SSQ-125 pinging sonobuoy
AN/SSQ-53F sonobuoy
SUS MK-84 Mod 1 Signal Underwater Sound Device

Propulsion & Power:

Integrated full electric propulsion (IFEP)

100,000 SHP on two shafts
*Fully-Shrouded eleven blade contra-rotating propeller assemblies

Max Speed: 41 kts
Cruise Speed: 30 kts

2 x 110 MWt Lightweight Lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR)
Total: 220 MWt

Reactor Dimensions: Insulated Cowl Full Shielding
L: 2.9 m W: 2.0 m H: 3.5 m
Weight: 65 t

Reactor Compartment: Partial Shielding
L: 12 m W: 8 m H: 5.0 m
Weight: 395 t (compare to Ohio Class SSBN reactor compartment which weighs over 2,600 t!)

*Reactors housed in divided reactor compartments.
*Has bleed and dump tanks for the coolant, so that in the event of a shut down or failure the coolant can be dumped into a series of expansion tanks which allows the fuel to solidify without damaging system components.
*is equipped with an automatic reactor fill system that can flood the reactor with borated water in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident.
*This nuclear reactor utilizes natural circulation which is capable of operating at a significant fraction of full power without reactor coolant pumps. This is a considerable bonus to acoustic stealth.
*Graphite modulus and cores
*Heat-exchangers in reactor header for molten lead to water/steam process (or alternatively helium)
*Four steam circulation loops networked to steam turbines
*Cross-linked coolant systems enable one reactor to bleed start the other in the event that one reactor shuts down or fails, allowing the coolant to reheat.
* Instead of refueling, the whole core can be replaced after many years of operation. Such a reactor is suitable for countries that do not plan to build their own nuclear infrastructure.

Coolant: Lead

Fuel: Thorium-Uranium-Plutonium Alloy
(Th-4 w/0 U-Pu Alloys Annealed at 900°C, Water Quenched)
Cycle: Thorium Fuel Cycle, Semi-Closed Cycle

Reactor Coolant Inlet Temperature: 345 C
Reactor Coolant Outlet Temperature: 695 C nominal, 990 C max
Reactor Core Temperature: 800 C, 1,600 C max

Why Liquid Metal/Lead Cooled?

*As no electricity is required for the cooling after shutdown, this design has the potential to be safer than a water-cooled reactor.
*Liquid lead systems can't cause an explosion and quickly solidify in case of a leak, further improving safety.
*Lead is very dense, and therefore a good shield against gamma rays.
*Lead's nuclear properties allow it to prevent a positive void coefficient, which is difficult to prevent in large sodium fast reactor cores.
*The operating pressure is very low and lead has an extremely high boiling point of 1750 degrees Celsius, which is over 1100 degrees Celsius higher than the peak coolant operating temperature. This makes significant reactor pressurization by overheating virtually impossible.
*Lead does not react significantly with water or air, unlike sodium which burns readily in air and can explode in contact with water. This allows easier, cheaper and safer containment and heat exchanger/steam generator design.

1 x Siemens SST-300 @ 50 MW
*Condensing

SST-300 steam turbine series
Length (L): 12 m / Width (W): 4 m / Height (H): 5 m

Power output
up to 50 MW
Turbine speed 
up to 12,000 rpm
Inlet steam pressure
up to 120 bar
Inlet steam temperature
up to 520°C
Uncontrolled extractions (up to 6)
up to 60 bar
Controlled extraction 
 
Pressure
up to 45 bar
Temperature
up to 400°C
Exhaust steam 
 
Back pressure
up to 16 bar
Condensing pressure
up to 0.25 bar
District heating
up to 3.0 bar
Exhaust area
0.28 to 1.6 m²

4 x Siemens SST-200 @ 10 MW
*Back-pressure non-condensing

In the backpressure turbine configuration, the turbine does not consume steam. Instead, it
simply reduces the pressure and energy content of steam that is subsequently exhausted
into the process header. In essence, the turbogenerator serves the same steam function as
a pressure-reducing valve (PRV)—it reduces steam pressure—but uses the pressure drop
to produce highly valued electricity in addition to the low-pressure steam. Shaft power
is produced when a nozzle directs jets of high-pressure steam against the blades of the
turbine’s rotor. The rotor is attached to a shaft that is coupled to an electrical generator

Source:
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014 ... essure.pdf

SST-200 steam turbine series
Length (L): 4 m* / Width (W): 2 m* / Height (H): 2.5 m*

Power output
up to 10 MW
Inlet steam pressure
up to 110 bar
Inlet steam temperature
up to 520°C
Bleed
up to 60 bar
Exhaust steam 
 
Back pressure
up to 16 bar
Condensing pressure
up to 0.25 bar
Exhaust area
0.17 to 0.34 m²
Controlled extraction 
 
Pressure
up to 16 bar
Temperature
up to 350°C


Armament:


8 x OTO Melara 76mm/62 cal Super Rapid Guns (4x2) ;
Located 2 fore, 2 aft
Mounted in 4 twin-gunned dome shaped "Blister" turrets; Reduced RCS design
Retractable guns, stowed in hull beneath turret during non-use.
*Automated Loading
*Automated Aiming and Firing

Recommended munitions & Maximum Associated Ranges:

76mm DART: 8,000 m +
HE-PFF: 16,000 m
SAPOMER: 20,000 m
76 Vulcano: 40,000 m

It would be envisioned that the ship would use existing Oto Melara guns housed in dome shaped turrets that would be designed and built by US defense contractors. The turrets would be notable for being fully automated, offering remote controlled firing options when desired. The blister turrets would be designed to have reduced radar-cross section in comparison to conventional turret designs, and would have SeaRAM built into the turret with approximately 4 cells arranged to the sides of the guns in sets of 2.

There are several reasons to mount the Rolling-Airframe launchers in the gun turrets. Firstly it limits deck clutter. Secondly it allows the cells to be reloaded using a modification to the tubes themselves so that reloading can occur from a small magazine within the turret. And thirdly since the 76mm guns are also designed to function as CIWS & CIGS in their own role, it makes sense that the Rolling-Airframe missile would be utilized to assist in operation of such role. In this case the missiles would already be aimed at the target that the guns were attempting to engage.

Because the Oto Melara Super-Rapid system is designed with a high-fire rate it makes for a reasonable close in weapon system when engaging missiles and aircraft. It's 120 rpm rate of fire is high enough for this role, but not of proper saturation for dealing with super-sonic sea skimming type weapons which typically would only give five seconds or less of advanced warning, if any at all. Therefore a CIWS with a higher-rate of fire would be required to provide a higher saturation of fire, especially in attacks involving multiple incoming targets that are moving in excess of sub-sonic speeds. The 35mm Oerlikon Millennium Gun is the chosen weapon to provide saturation in such affairs, of which the FFN(X) is intended to carry four of these guns.

The Oto Melara 76mm gun already exists, and would only need to be modified to work with the customized turret setup of this design. Traditionally the system carries 80 to 89 rounds ready to fire (Compact Mount), however using a custom turret design this could be increased by modifying the feed system and stowed magazine cache. I would envision each turret carrying 600 rounds ready to fire and additional box or tray magazines below deck.

Blister turrets are envisioned to be a complex, in that they extend below the deck and have additional maintenance and machinery compartments below deck. While this requires more compromise in the design and construction of the ship, it also offers better maintenance access and increased reliability of such. Also, you have greater capacity to offer additional features than the original compact mount.

4 x Rheinmetall Oerlikon Millennium Gun / GDM-008
Located 4 amidships
Mounted in single-gun dome shaped "Blister" turrets; Reduced RCS design
Retractable guns, stowed in hull beneath turret during non-use.
*Automated Loading
*Automated Aiming and Firing


8 × MK 57 VLS / PVLS modules, with 4 vertical launch cells in each module, 32 cells total;
Located fore (edge of deck / sides)

4 x Mk 32 triple torpedo tube sets
*Internal reload system, 6 reloads per set
*Mounting altered so that the mounts are internal/above-deck & flush with the hull

Aircraft facility:

Can carry a SH-60 in a below deck hangar which can raise topside via an aircraft elevator. Hangar is located aft.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Last edited by CATZ on May 11th, 2016, 12:13 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hexelarity
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 10th, 2016, 1:06 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 145
Joined: January 17th, 2016, 8:14 am
Location: Washington state
Pardon my insulting manner of speaking but IN GODS NAME WHAT IS THAT

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 10th, 2016, 7:08 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7328
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
sorry to say, as (looking at the text) you spend a lot of time getting to this point, but there is still a lot to do. my comments, for now:
- why the pancake turrets? domed like that they are not stealthy, have a lot of deck penetration and have a hard time firing low arcs.
- there seems little space for that helicopter to land
- wave piercing, tumblehome hulls have relatively less space to fit stuff. for an regular ship the waterline length is what should be taken as relative size, however for an tumblehome, wave piercing ship the deck lenght is more or less the limiting factor (the reality is more complicated, but this works as an estimate). for that reason I think you might run into issues with space already.
- I think your displacements are a bit on the low side for the dimensions you gave.
- I think your displacements are somewhat low for the fitted equipment (as said above, an tumblehome, wave piercing ship tends to be bigger with the same amount of systems on board.
- CONAS? that suggests you have steam boilers on board as well?
- why four shafts? the only way that is sensible is when you have draft restrictions, to me it seems that would not be the case here.
- I estimate this vessel to be 3 or 4 times the cost of an F3 burke, it is worth that?
- why all those guns? (looking at comparable vessels, nothing comes even close)
- the belowdeck hangar has never been an succes in the USN IIRC

I have seen more (smaller) issues but these were the first that came to mind, and I have no time right now to go more in depth ;)

_________________
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, 9:22 am
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
acelanceloet wrote:
sorry to say, as (looking at the text) you spend a lot of time getting to this point, but there is still a lot to do. my comments, for now:
- why the pancake turrets? domed like that they are not stealthy, have a lot of deck penetration and have a hard time firing low arcs.
- there seems little space for that helicopter to land
- wave piercing, tumblehome hulls have relatively less space to fit stuff. for an regular ship the waterline length is what should be taken as relative size, however for an tumblehome, wave piercing ship the deck lenght is more or less the limiting factor (the reality is more complicated, but this works as an estimate). for that reason I think you might run into issues with space already.
- I think your displacements are a bit on the low side for the dimensions you gave.
- I think your displacements are somewhat low for the fitted equipment (as said above, an tumblehome, wave piercing ship tends to be bigger with the same amount of systems on board.
- CONAS? that suggests you have steam boilers on board as well?
- why four shafts? the only way that is sensible is when you have draft restrictions, to me it seems that would not be the case here.
- I estimate this vessel to be 3 or 4 times the cost of an F3 burke, it is worth that?
- why all those guns? (looking at comparable vessels, nothing comes even close)
- the belowdeck hangar has never been an succes in the USN IIRC

I have seen more (smaller) issues but these were the first that came to mind, and I have no time right now to go more in depth ;)
The pancake turret as you call it is really not a sphere. It's a dome. So the spherical portion doesn't extend below deck. But there is maintenance and machinery compartments below the turret. As for it's stealthiness, a sphere is inherently very stealthy by virtue of "continuous curvature" which is the same mechanism of stealth that the B-2 Spirit bomber uses. Admittedly it's not a sphere, but it does use constantly curving surfaces to lead the radar waves around and away (to the rear of the plane), reflecting fewer as a result. A sphere is the same concept.

[ img ]

Above picture: A stealthy airplane compared to a perfect sphere.
As you can see, the radar wave hits the object. A small portion reflects back immediately...this is called the "Specular return" and a smaller portion will reflect back very weakly in the form of creeping wave return & scattered specular signals that manage to make it back to the array (with stealth that is very little in number as well).

Creeping wave return is essentially the idea that some of the radar waves will actually follow around the sphere and end up going back towards the radars point of origin. However they are extremely weak. Much weaker even than a standard RCS of a stealthy airplane or object.

[ img ]

The above diagram demonstrates the backscatter and creeping wave phenomena that occurs when radar reflects off of a perfect sphere.

To give you a better idea of how a dome or a sphere compares to a flat plate, let's look at the diagram below.

[ img ]

As you can see, a 1 meter square plate reflects a RCS of roughly 140 m^2 at 1 GHz, under optimal conditions. A sphere, which in size is actually 1.13 meters (so it's even bigger than the plate is in this example) only reflects back a RCS of 1 meter square (1 m^2). So the sphere's RCS is much much smaller, regardless of the frequency of the radar signal. As you can see, the flat plate's radar cross section for a 10 GHz signal is 14,000 m^2, so the strength of the reflected signal increases exponentially with an increase in frequency. But this does not occur with a sphere (or a dome). What would you rather have? A RCS of 1 meter square? Or 14,000 meters square? :-)

As you can also see, high frequency radar is much more effective against flat surfaces than lower frequency waves. Though most radars said to defeat stealth tend to be a combination of low and high frequencies.

Now you are probably wondering, are there downsides? And also, why do stealth turrets most commonly in use have faceted sides, rather than curvy ones?

Well the answer is below.

[ img ]

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.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Last edited by CATZ on May 10th, 2016, 10:40 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
CATZ
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 10th, 2016, 10:00 am
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Make sure you read the post above this one...about the RCS issues.

Once you do that you can go through this post which addresses your other concerns in the order you originally listed them. I agree with you on some of your points, and ask for suggestions.
Quote:
- there seems little space for that helicopter to land
This is true. I'm going to fix that as I work towards my final drawing. :-)
This is still a rough draft. Since my design is a trimaran, I might make the rear wider to accomodate aircraft. Which is what the Independence Class LCS does as well. The LCS is 104' wide at the beam, in the rear. Which is very...wide.

If you have a suggestion for me, I'll take it into consideration when I make my revision.
Quote:
- wave piercing, tumblehome hulls have relatively less space to fit stuff. for an regular ship the waterline length is what should be taken as relative size, however for an tumblehome, wave piercing ship the deck lenght is more or less the limiting factor (the reality is more complicated, but this works as an estimate). for that reason I think you might run into issues with space already.
True, though mine is a trimaran. So I think deck-space depends more on the arrangement of the parallel hulls and the angle of the tumblehome. It flares out toward the waterline, but the angle at which it does so determines how much deck space the ship has. A steeper tumblehome gives more deckspace but also increases the center of gravity. That's why I went with a trimaran. It helps negate the higher center of gravity resulting from a steeper overall tumblehome.

Quote:
- I think your displacements are a bit on the low side for the dimensions you gave.
Well a long hull Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate is 453' long, 45 ft wide and 22 ft in it's draft. They are roughly 4,100 tons.

Mine is a good bit longer and slightly wider. 495' long, 60 ft wide. But only 12 ft (or 14 ft at full load) in draft. Due to the trimaran design. It tops out at 4,900 tons full-load (it's never to exceed weight).

Mine is also made of titanium/aluminum so it also had that difference over the perry class frigate.
Quote:
- I think your displacements are somewhat low for the fitted equipment (as said above, an tumblehome, wave piercing ship tends to be bigger with the same amount of systems on board.
That's true. I agree. ^^

Do you have any suggestions for me to take into consideration, Ace? In terms of displacement and dimensions? Please read what I wrote above though, and take that into consideration for your suggestion.

I'll take your suggestion into consideration when I revise my design and drawing. :-)

Quote:
- CONAS? that suggests you have steam boilers on board as well?
Nuclear powered ships have nuclear heated boilers essentially. Mine have these boilers at the heat exchangers. And these boilers also have conventional fuel elements. The weight isn't much more. Maybe 15% to the boiler's overall weight. It's basically a conventional fueled superheater.

Quote:
- why four shafts? the only way that is sensible is when you have draft restrictions, to me it seems that would not be the case here.
The two outside shafts are low power, and are intended to be used for silent running. Russian submarines sometimes use a similar concept...usually in the older ones. Though they tend to have one main shaft and the two silent running shafts on the sides. Three total.

I also prefer four, so that the electric motors driving them can be smaller and lighter.

Also, this ship is intended to operate in littorals as well as blue water. So it's possible that the ship could have draft restrictions when near the shore.

I could reduce it to two. Would you suggest this?

If so, I'll reduce it to 2 in the final revision.

Quote:
- I estimate this vessel to be 3 or 4 times the cost of an F3 burke, it is worth that?
Well it's lower in tonnage. I'd say this ship would cost between 1.5 and 2.5 billion dollars. I make that estimate based on the cost of the F3 burke, F2 burke, NSSN Virginia class nuclear attack sub, and the DDG-1000. I considered the price points and R&D values of the four of them to arrive at my number. The most expensive thing is actually the SPY-6 radars which cost almost 300 million dollars.

Nuclear reactors don't use any fossil fuel. So they produce fuel savings that way. Normally the USN doesn't see any real savings in the overall cost and operational expenses of the ship when using nuclear. Aka, putting a nuclear plant in them ends up costing the same amount overall as a conventional ship due to increased maintenance costs. So the nuke plant is more expensive to buy and install up front, but offers fuel savings over the long haul that roughly evens out the overall cost.
Quote:
- why all those guns? (looking at comparable vessels, nothing comes even close)
It's this theory I have. Vulcano munitions do something that has never been done before with a high degree of success. They use GPS and Inertial guidance to reach the target vicinity. Then they use a active seeker head which seems to be optical in nature, and guide themselves down with pinpoint accuracy on the target. They can even do this with moving targets, especially ships. Meaning they have a AShW capability.

The 76mm Vulcano isn't as impressive as the 127mm Vulcano. 40 km range vs 60/80 km range (AshW ranges) But 40 km is still more than twice the range of a conventional 155mm howtizer using the M107 round. That's impressive. Especially if it can hit a moving ship. Now consider the rate of fire. The 76mm super rapid gun can fire up to 120 rounds a minute. Imagine a ship's CIWS/VLS based assets trying to intercept 120 incoming targets over the course of a minute? Roughly two a second? Impressive, right? Now imagine that you have a turret with two super-rapid guns? That's 240 rounds. Now imagine you have more than one turret...you get the idea I'm sure.

Now...imagine that your 76mm gun can also fire the 76mm DART, which the Italian Navy has recently said it prefers over the 20mm Phalanx, 30mm Goalkeeper, 40mm DART and 57mm DART for the CIWS role. So our 76mm super-rapid gun is really a dual purpose weapon that is very effective against both land, sea and air targets.

Combine that with the idea that you have all these turrets arranged in the way WW2 guns were, which gives you a very effective 360 degree protection envelope.

Now you see why I did it? It's not necessary. It's probably overkill. But it's food for thought at least. Really I just like guns. I don't think it's much of a drawback when you consider the issues with Burke's and their field of survivability. Have you even read the papers on how AEGIS is limited in CIW (close in warfare)? It excels at intercepting targets at medium and long range, but VLS based assets aren't quick enough to respond at close ranges. That's why the Phalanx and RAM and SeaRAM assets were developed. But if you only have the Phalanx facing in one direction, it leaves other sides unguarded. Most modern warships that only have one CIWS emplacement suffer from this.

Also AEGIS is described as having an inherent bottleneck based limitation when dealing with multiple targets approaching from multiple vectors, and that attacks coming in from all different sides takes advantage of the weakness mentioned above. With limited fields of fire for CIWS emplacements, as well as the so called field of survivability.

My design eliminates this flaw. It has dual purpose guns and they are arranged so that they cover a roughly 360 degree envelope. There's other solutions of course. I just chose this one because it seems logical to me. I can use the gun assets for short & medium range AShW as well as a CIW.

Quote:
- the belowdeck hangar has never been an succes in the USN IIRC
Sure it has. That's why every CVN and LHA ship uses them. As for ships that aren't aircraft carriers...the Kirov uses them in the Russian Navy.

You are right though essentially. The USN doesn't or hasn't used them on other surface ships in their inventory thus so far. But I don't like above deck hangars. Even if the hangar is wet due to water seeping down from top deck, its better off than the Burke's which dont even have a hangar. lol.


Thank you for replying Ace. I appreciate the time you took. :-)

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 10th, 2016, 10:54 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7328
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
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.
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'

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.
Quote:
Mine is also made of titanium/aluminum so it also had that difference over the perry class frigate.
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

_________________
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]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 10th, 2016, 4:19 pm
Offline
Posts: 5164
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact: Website
Hexelarity wrote:
Pardon my insulting manner of speaking but IN GODS NAME WHAT IS THAT
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.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 10th, 2016, 5:30 pm
Offline
Posts: 2875
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 10th, 2016, 6:07 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3762
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
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.

_________________
Please don't call me Tim. If you don't want to use Timothy, use TJ.
MATHNET - To Cogitate and to Solve


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: FFN(X)Posted: May 10th, 2016, 6:32 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3762
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
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.

_________________
Please don't call me Tim. If you don't want to use Timothy, use TJ.
MATHNET - To Cogitate and to Solve


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 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 12 guests


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


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