[Post Reply] [*]  Page 4 of 7  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
Author Message
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Arleigh Burke Flight III - 3D conceptPosted: October 17th, 2017, 9:14 pm
Offline
Posts: 2764
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Curious how neither Friedman's Destroyers nor Potter's Electronic Greyhounds make any mention of the Spruances needing "reframing" after being fit with VLS forward. Seems like something one or both of them might mention, as they devote pages upon pages to the subject of the DD-963s being designed specifically for future updates and refits.

This user could tell me the sky is blue and I'd go outside to check.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Mist
Post subject: Re: Arleigh Burke Flight III - 3D conceptPosted: October 17th, 2017, 9:50 pm
Offline
Posts: 71
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 11:29 pm
Well on the Spruances i imagine the VLS refit required slicing out sections of some of the transverse and longitudinal frames.

but i dunno how that qualifies as "reframing" any more then it does removing a section of the ship's fabric which was now simultaneously redundant and "in the way".


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Arleigh Burke Flight III - 3D conceptPosted: October 18th, 2017, 5:20 pm
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
Quote:
they welded a strengthening beam along the hull at main deck level and called it a day.
QED. "That" simple fix raised issues and showed a design flaw.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Arleigh Burke Flight III - 3D conceptPosted: October 18th, 2017, 6:12 pm
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
erik_t wrote: *
Curious how neither Friedman's Destroyers nor Potter's Electronic Greyhounds make any mention of the Spruances needing "reframing" after being fit with VLS forward. Seems like something one or both of them might mention, as they devote pages upon pages to the subject of the DD-963s being designed specifically for future updates and refits.

This user could tell me the sky is blue and I'd go outside to check.
I mention this problem about Friedman and the aircraft carriers. He doesn't know everything, tell everything or even understand what he writes in some particulars about the ships he covers.

Example.

Those are the Arleighs.

As for Spruance class destroyers... Page 370 in Friedman's book discusses the size/length escalation problem for the Spruance class, and Litton's unfamiliarity with the new COGAG plant's characteristics they planned to use to meet the Navy's silencing requirement with its unexpected power for that long hull they chose to fit it, and he never once mentions the Atlantic bow slam that results from it. This has been a US Navy problem for every hull derived from the Spruance class hull. Ticos and Arleighs have fuller hulls, but when you can trace the same problem to its root origin this way?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Arleigh Burke Flight III - 3D conceptPosted: October 18th, 2017, 6:38 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7217
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
apart from the fact that that fact (the hull damage to the DDG-51 class ships) happened years after the current version of US destroyers was released, so he could not have mentioned it?
The Tico also does not have a fuller hull as the Spruance? (it has exactly the same) and I also see no proof of this being an issue on the Spruance class? the forum you linked to actually has a quote from Stuart Slade mentioning exactly why the burke has this issue while earlier ships had not.

Nobody is perfect, and I accept that there might be errors in Friedman's works. I have however found nothing you mentioned of enough value that I ever doubted Friedman on those points. Also, as Erik stated, this is not just Friedman, but also Electronic Greyhounds which disagree with your statements.

Tobius, you do realise I am literally doing damage control? I do not want NepsterCZ, who is doing excellent and interesting work (or anybody else reading all this) to listen to your statements which are unproven at best but in my opinion even completely wrong in most cases. To stop filling this thread and my time with anymore of this, I will not reply to anything you say here from now on. I think the message is clear to all. Just my request for you:
PLEASE STOP SPREADING DISINFORMATION

_________________
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]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Arleigh Burke Flight III - 3D conceptPosted: October 18th, 2017, 6:58 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7217
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
NepsterCZ wrote: *
Well, the displacement difference from first Flight I, and First Flight III is about 1485 tons. From flight IIA to Flight III its 600 tons, so yeah, they for sure planned for some future upgrades.

Well, I truly have no idea about the miniaturization etc, so I'll have to take your word for it :D

I'm honestly not sure if I really wanna go *that* deep into the rabbit hole you know? Especially reading books :D Not exactly my favorite thing to do :)
erik_t wrote: *
I'd just insert a parallel-sided additional compartment amidships and slide everything to fit.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting extending the hull somewhere mid-ship, or just adding additional compartments to the sides? Possible above the deck? I'm bit confused, sorry.

Would you guys agree tho, that lengthening the hull by two meters, like in the image below, would actually help the design? Or does it make it even worse?

[ img ]
Hey NepsterCZ, I hope you are not scared away, but what all the discussion was about, yes, that definitely works. I am still not certain about the space requirements of the hangars, but this will certainly help.
[ img ]
The above text is an excerpt of friedmans US Destroyers describing the DDV, a study where they played with hull sizes and equipment of the burkes between the flight 2 ships and the flight 2A. I drew all of those in shipbucket scale, they can be found here http://www.shipbucket.com/drawings/sear ... =&drawing=
hope that helps ;) and I am looking forward to more of your works!

_________________
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]
Mist
Post subject: Re: Arleigh Burke Flight III - 3D conceptPosted: October 18th, 2017, 7:10 pm
Offline
Posts: 71
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 11:29 pm
Tobius wrote: *
Quote:
they welded a strengthening beam along the hull at main deck level and called it a day.
QED. "That" simple fix raised issues and showed a design flaw.
but it didn't require a major rework or "reframing"

there was a much much easier fix

was it a 100% solution? no, but was it a 99% solution, yes


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
NepsterCZ
Post subject: Re: Arleigh Burke Flight III - 3D conceptPosted: October 18th, 2017, 7:22 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 18
Joined: October 7th, 2017, 9:24 am
Contact: Website
Oh no, still here. I'm actually reading everything, every day. I just don't have anything to say :D

Those are some interesting designs. I cant say I even understand why some of them were even projected. Especially the DDV1 variant seems just absurd to me, but hey ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Don't expect me to do anything soon tho. I have no idea what is a typical shipbucket image timeframe, but my "Burke Flight III project" was about 550-600 man-hours, so yeah, that's, that. I kinda also don't have anything I would like to do now, which is crucial for such a long-term project. I kinda had a "crush" on Afloat Forward Staging Base, or the "Future Surface Combatant" replacement for Burkes. Maybe something build on Burkes hull? Maybe a trimaran design? Appears to be nuclear powered, so I would have to check the feasibility and that. So yeah, feel free to insert your opinions :D

One thing tho, while I'm here, Do you happen to know why is the new Burkes shipped without the front CIWS? Even tho the "slot" is there? I read somewhere that its cost-saving measure, but a 20 million Phalanx on 1.8 billion warship, seems like a quite a drop in the ocean.

_________________
My projects:

Arleigh Burke Flight III

Independence-class hull


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Mist
Post subject: Re: Arleigh Burke Flight III - 3D conceptPosted: October 18th, 2017, 7:42 pm
Offline
Posts: 71
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 11:29 pm
NepsterCZ wrote: *
One thing tho, while I'm here, Do you happen to know why is the new Burkes shipped without the front CIWS? Even tho the "slot" is there? I read somewhere that its cost-saving measure, but a 20 million Phalanx on 1.8 billion warship, seems like a quite a drop in the ocean.
cost and weight

for a brief period the Burkes were built without any CIWS as it was believed that ESSM would fill the gap and free up valuable top weight for other systems, however they eventually came to the conclusion that there was a deadzone caused by the need to punt the missile up above the ship and slew onto the threat, so a single Phalanx was re installed aft.

the trimaran designs were all for the most part British studies from the late 90s that culminated in Triton and the decisions that Trimarans do not make good warships due to packaging issues.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Arleigh Burke Flight III - 3D conceptPosted: October 18th, 2017, 8:22 pm
Offline
Posts: 2764
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
acelanceloet wrote: *
The Tico also does not have a fuller hull as the Spruance? (it has exactly the same)
I read that offhand remark and literally burst out laughing at my desk.

As you know I lack the capacity to comprehensively and completely refute every last arcane claim made by one of the posters in this thread, but when you screw up something that basic... why should anybody believe you about anything?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 4 of 7  [ 62 posts ]  Return to “Non-Shipbucket Drawings” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


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


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