I'm surprised how well I did. This challenge does leave me somewhat skeptical of people's definitions of realism as my entry scored well above what I thought were much more plausible designs.
My favorite entries were minepagan's and Kat's for, (in my view) stepping farther outside the box than I did. (Nuclear SES aren't exactly in the box but I think they stretched the definition of "Surface Combatant" far more than I did.
|erik_t wrote: *||May 13th, 2020, 5:50 pm|
The drawing is of high quality. Bonus points for the top view, although it does not seem nearly so detailed as the side view. The concept is obviously quite wild, and it scores high on originality, but it is difficult to evaluate its realisticness, although nuclear power in general does not seem to me like a great fit for a weight-sensitive surface-effect ship (100MW seems highly optimistic for anything like a LWNP). The total lack of boats is conspicuous.
1) Top views aren't my strong point and ordinarily I would have skipped it but I felt it was important to show the overall box shape as you don't really get a full perspective from just a side view. I think the big killer for me though was trying to fill in the sheer amount of deckspace.
2) My power plant as based on a handful of various pdfs I have which I hodgepodged information from together in a way god never intended with a side of shoddy back of the napkin math. The main basis for the propulsion scheme was the plant setup of my starting point, LSES. LSES would have been a 12,000 ton flat top amphibious assault ship powered by 4 LM5000 Engines and 8 diesel engines. From there I hopped over to a pdf I have on SEC/SECN a 22-26,000 ton Aircraft Carrier. The nuclear version of which used electric motors for propulsion powered by two vaguely described LWNPs. I then went to a Westinghouse study on LWNP. The study I have focus on replacing the LM2500 and is vague on details for the mentioned LM5000 replacement but it has enough figures for me to do some awful awful math. The LM5000 is stated to give out 60k SHP which equates to 44 MW of power per reactor. I need two of them to replace 4 LM5000 which comes out to 88 MW. Factoring in the extra power requirements of the fan motors requires another few MW for which I did more awful math before just I rounding up to 100MW to get a nice even number. I know this is math is all wrong but I'm a Software Engineer not a mechanical one. I just throw numbers in wolfram alpha until I get something that vaguely looks plausible enough.
And right as I finish writing this I took a second look at my drawing and I realized that I made a typo and the spec sheet is wrong. It should be 2 x 50 MW reactors for a total of 100MWs not 2 100MW plants.
3) I meant for a boat or two to be carried at the stern internally. I figure there's enough space for two small ones there.
Corp's Leahy class:
It's amazing. And mad. But still amazing.
I do wonder about the placement and the amounts of the VLS batteries though, and about the weight distribution over the hull. A lot seems to be forwards. Also, are you certain you are getting an entire Burke worth of systems on basically the displacement of a Burke but this time nuclear powered SES? I suspect you are either going to loose some of the systems or going to have to go bigger. Btw, I am not certain those air intakes opening to the top is a good idea, that will get rained into.... but you might not be able to avoid that on a ship like this. I would avoid the liferafts hanging over the side though, hard to get to and maintain and vulnerable (especially since they even extend out of the oa beam in this case)
1) VLS is mounted on the sides as originally I was concerned about not having enough height for them in the center. It was less of an issue after I raised the main deck more but I kept them there as I liked the free space the peripheral placement gave. Ship is definitely bow heavy which I realized while cutting down the number of VLS (originally I had more on the side amidships). In hind-sight I think it would have been better to have kept the Amidships VLS and scrap the forwards VLS.
2) Looking back I think I've underestimated weight. I did some back of the envelope math on what propulsion/weapons system would weigh but I suspect my estimates for the mass of the ship's structure and other fittings was an underestimate. I can't find my scrap paper I did the math on but iirc I started with something like 1000 tons for the propulsion plant, another 500-1000 tons combat systems and then 7000 tons for everything else which I suspect is Not Enough™.
3) Rain in the fan intakes is something I thought about briefly but figured was something I'd have to live with due to the high volume of air required to maintain the cushion.
EDIT: I realized this may have come off as a little defensive but that's not really my intent. I crave feedback and typically respond to feedback in search of further feedback.