Shipbucket

I have no idea what you mean about the submarines. I never said anything about submarines in conjunction with sonar nor did I ever remark why they are "round." Though I did remark earlier in the thread that the USN had considered curved or alternatively angled decks for surface ships to help mitigate RCS of the decks.

Oh, yes the patches, it actually does haves Satcoms on the deckhouse, it's one of those patches you mention. It also has IFF on the deckhouse (another patch). And actually yes, it also has military surface search. CEFAR is ontop the deckhouse and provides volume search, surface search and navigational radar functions. The satcoms and IFF are from the DDG-1000 parts releated to the SPY-3 set. It also has TX and RX panels on the deckhouse for communications.

I do totally agree with you about the deckhouse though. I need to angle it slightly in the front. Thank you for pointing it out, I'd totally forgotten about it.
Those aren't a bunch of different radars Mr. Heuhen. Those are Satcoms, IFF, TX, RX panels. They are all from the DDG-1000 parts set, repurposed for this ship. So that just goes to show what your "expertise" on the matter is. I guess if it isn't Norwegian...

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

Well you have CEFAR, SPY-1 and SPY-3.

It's dubious that a ship would have CEFAR together with SPY-1 or SPY-3. Since it basicly do the same thing, but okay it can work for other reasons as you said.

But SPY-1 and SPY-3 is two radar systems that arent mounted on the same ship, since they do the same thing and that is what I am talking about.

You'r ship can work but there is of course tons of things that need fixing. I am not going to argue about the turret, all I know, is that round things are a big no no on a warship. All stealth ships build today are very rarely designed to be totally invisible on the radar, most of them are focusing on reducing it's radar signature for example Skjold class (the closest ship in miniature. To the DDX-1000), looks like an small boat on radar (reason for that, they think that any warships with advance radar will detect something, so it's better to give them some fals info, basically playing poker with the radar operator)

I'm not against you, I just work around that is better that one member is an "ass" asking all the stupid question and so on. So that is what I do. I rarely comment on high quality drawings, unless it's is of an extream high quality. I very rarely comment on new members drawing, but after that person have posted a couple drawings, I will start coming with either suggestions or just be an "ass" with stupid question.


When it come down to technology, radar, etc. I know a little here and there but in the most cases I don't care about more than that, I know what I need to know and that's it.



Since you are at it and against anything that aren't American, explain to me what is bad with the Skjold class. (You are aware that US Navy borrowed the prototype for an period, testing it's radar signature... Might be what it looks similar to the ddx-1000 But on a wery small scale.)

Incorrect again. It does not have SPY-3. NOR does it have SPY-1. It has SPY-6. I list all of this in the OP very clearly.

It has some of the associated communication systems of the SPY-3 system, such as Satcom, IFF & the TX/RX. And CEAFAR is a multi-purpose radar that covers the things the SPY-6 does not, and as such CEAFAR is intended to be a stand-alone system or to work in tandem with more advanced specialty sets, like the SPY-6 ABM radar.
In relation to what?

In the OP I say the turrets are a reduced RCS design gimmick. Later Ace asked about how its possible that dome turrets could be reduced RCS, so we talked about that.

It does not eliminate RCS. It reduces it. This is not the Philadelphia Experiment.

RADAR waves are composed of photons. The same thing that comes out of a light bulb and dazzles your eye balls. They are just at a wave-length higher than the visible spectrum. Photons bounce off of things, Mr Heuhen. You cannot stop them or trap them. It is nearly impossible using conventional stealth to eliminate a radar return (RCS). Photons move at the speed of light (since they are light) and hence the time of travel is generally how long it takes them to bounce between objects going to and from the target at the speed of light. That's how RADAR works.
Mr heuhen,

I'm not even going to talk about this sir. It's irrelevant and off topic. If you want to discuss Norwegian boats then make a thread for them on the off-topic or general discussion board?

And for the record, I prefer Russian technology! Not American.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

Is your ship supposed to be a trimaran? Or have you canned that idea and gone to a single hull?

From the looks of the drawing it is still a trimaran, from the marks on the lower hull that seem to delineate the starboard outrigger. However those same lines should extend up the main part of the hull to show the shape of the outrigger against the main hull.

Yes,

I'm currently on my Macbook Pro, and have been drawing solely with my touchpad. lol.

I agree with you. I've actually been meaning to do that but with rl work and all haven't had time. I'll probably touch it up in about 5 days when I have a day off and can use my desktop at home (I travel for work).

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

If I am not wrong, isn't SPY-6, just and Upgraded version of SPY-1 with MFR/VSR or whatever that radar was called... it's year's since I read about it.

Hi Catz,

From what I understand from the more knowledgeable members here, placement of the outer hull sections on a trimaran has a significant effect on ship stability. With the outer hull sections as shown, at or even extending past the centre hull's stern, I'd be worried about handling in poor seas. I believe that this was something discussed by Dr. Pawling (RP1) - it's quite late now, but if you'd like I'll try and find the discussion and advise...

Ad

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

Without digging into the hows and whys of the design, I would like to highlight two big drawing-related points already mentioned in passing by Heuhen:
1) The SPY1 arrays are canted front and back, but the superstructure looks flat from end to end, where it should be bent somewhere.
2) The trimaran aspect of the design does not show in the side view. At least the bow line of the side sponsons should be visible somewhere.

_________________
Soviet Century/Cold War 2020 Alternate Universe: Soviet and other Cold War designs 1990-2020.
My Worklist

just joined the forum after reading the discussion/exchange regarding rcs reduction wrt spherical vs inclined faceted shapes, and thought I'ld provide some info...

(TL;DR version)

an idealized metal sphere does not inherently provide a lower rcs value... rather it provides a constant rcs value independent of aspect angle and frequency...

an idealized flat metal plate of comparable size to the sphere will provide a lower rcs value than the sphere over ~61% of aspect angles...

hence if lowest rcs over a larger range of aspect angles w/in a limited frequency range is the goal, angled flat plates are superior to spherical shapes...

if however a constant rcs value over all aspect angles and all frequencies is the goal, a spherical shape will be the superior choice...

(full version)

a perfectly conducting sphere does not inherently provide a low rcs value, rather what it provides is a constant rcs value independent of the incidence angle (ie. aspect angle) and frequency of the RF wave irradiating the sphere... this is under the assumption that the diameter of the sphere is sufficiently large in comparison to the wavelength such that the EM interaction is w/in the optical (ie. specular) region... under these conditions, an idealized sphere would have a constant rcs equal to pi*radius^2...

otoh, a perfectly conducting flat plate w/ a surface area equal to the 2D circular projection of the sphere used above, will have an rcs much larger than that of the sphere... again, this is under the assumption that the length of the sides of the plate is sufficiently larger than the wavelength such that the EM interaction is in the optical region... under these conditions an idealized flat plate would have an rcs equal to 4*pi*area^2/wavelength^2...

note that the above rcs value for a flat plate only applies when the incident RF wave is parallel to the normal of the surface of the plate (ie. the plate surface is perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the RF wave)...

in cases where the plate is angled wrt the incident RF wave then the rcs reduces in a manner as exemplified by the case study given in fig.14-7, ch.14 "Radar Cross Section" E.Knott, "Radar Handbook, 3rd Edition"...

in the example used in that book, a flat metal plate 64-feet in area (ie. 8-feet on each side), measured w/ a 790 MHz RF source, exhibited a max rcs value of ~35 dBsm (~3162 sqm) when the incident RF wave was at a headon aspect angle wrt the plate's surface...

once the plate was angled to approx 35 degrees wrt the incident RF wave, the measured rcs value dropped to ~7.7 dBsm (~5.9 sqm)...

this rcs value of ~5.9 sqm, approx equals the rcs value of a metal sphere w/ a projected 2D surface area equaling the flat plate's area, ie. a metal sphere ~2.7 m in diameter would have a projected 2D surface area of ~5.9 sqm, as well as an rcs value of ~5.9 sqm...

as the flat plate is angled beyond 35 degrees the measured rcs value drops further, reaching a low of ~1 dBsm (~1.26 sqm)...

thus over a 180 degree sighting arc (ie. +/- 90 degrees of broadside), the flat plate exhibits a lower rcs than the sphere through ~110 degrees... only w/in a ~70 degree arc (+/- 35 degrees of broadside) does the flat plate have a higher rcs than the sphere...

hence this corresponds to a ~61% aspect range over w/c the flat plate exhibits lower rcs than the metal sphere...

note that this is for angling wrt to only one plane, further rcs reduction can be achieved by angling the plate wrt another, orthogonal plane... hence this is why you see plates angled inwards towards the top, as well as slanted to the front or back (eg. see the ddg-1000 turret housings, etc)...

Im a big fan of "outside the box" ideas, but there is no way you get an SQS-60 in there. I think you would need a COTS build similar to SQQ-89A (V)15 but with a SQS-56 transducer set