| Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
| BCG-1 "Alaska"-class extra-long-range air-defense cruiser http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2304 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | Dilandu [ December 11th, 2011, 11:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | BCG-1 "Alaska"-class extra-long-range air-defense cruiser |
Well... It may be outrageous crasy, but here is it: "Bomarc"-carried missile battlecruiser! Modernised "Alaska"-class, that carry CIM-10ะก "Bomarc"-N (naval) surface-to-air missiles with effective range around 700 km. Ship were equipped with enormous NORAD-based radar set, comunnication system, that provide datalink with the AEW planes, and AN/FSQ-7 SAGE computers! P.S. I can't be shure, that you can really use the SPG-49 radar set to track the "Bomarc" missile... |
|
| Author: | Thiel [ December 11th, 2011, 11:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: BCG-1 "Alaska"-class extra-long-range air-defense cruise |
Not gonna work. All that weight aft is going to ruin her trim and all the extra topweight is going to make her dangerously unstable. And let's not even talk about the strain on her keel. |
|
| Author: | Dilandu [ December 11th, 2011, 1:11 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Re: BCG-1 "Alaska"-class extra-long-range air-defense cruise | ||
Not gonna work. All that weight aft is going to ruin her trim and all the extra topweight is going to make her dangerously unstable.
And if we remove the belt and add the ballast?
And let's not even talk about the strain on her keel.
By removing the turrets we could have about 3*934=2802 tonnes, and by removing the belt - additional 1500 tonnes.As i knew, the most heavy part is the 275 tonn AN/FSQ. The mass of fully loaded CIM-10 is about 7 tonnes. Let's place about 32 missiles - it will be about 224 tonnes. The mass of over-the-horizont radar (i'm not shure about that) is lower than 50 tonnes. Well? About 275+224+100 tonnes of additional equipment = 599 tonnes. And we have about 3700 tonns for structure, ballast, ect... What I'm really worried - it's about power supply. |
|||
| Author: | Thiel [ December 11th, 2011, 1:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: BCG-1 "Alaska"-class extra-long-range air-defense cruise |
Removing the belt will just make her more unstable since you're removing weight from the bottom and adding it to the top. As for the strain on the keel, the keel is designed to take the weight of three massive turrets. Remove those and it'll bend upwards and wreck havoc on the structure. Of course, hanging all that garbage aft won't help either. |
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ December 11th, 2011, 1:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: BCG-1 "Alaska"-class extra-long-range air-defense cruise |
if you remove ballast and armour you make it worse. not only the total weight, also the top weight is going to be way over it's limits then. also, you put a lot of weight on positions not designed for that, thus requiring rebuilding the structure of the hull. all in all, it's gonna be cheaper and simpler to build an new ship, if any ship can take these loads. EDIT- ah, sniped by Thiel 
|
|
| Author: | Dilandu [ December 11th, 2011, 1:26 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: BCG-1 "Alaska"-class extra-long-range air-defense cruise | |
Removing the belt will just make her more unstable since you're removing weight from the bottom and adding it to the top.
Colleague! We have a reserve of 3,700 tons on ballast function! All three turrets weight about 2802 tonnes. Together.As for the strain on the keel, the keel is designed to take the weight of three massive turrets. Remove those and it'll bend upwards and wreck havoc on the structure. Of course, hanging all that garbage aft won't help either. But I think you're right: the upper radar is too high (and, indeed, do we need two over-the-horizont radar?) |
||
| Author: | Dilandu [ December 11th, 2011, 1:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: BCG-1 "Alaska"-class extra-long-range air-defense cruise |
I think I can do: 1) Swap the places of missiles hangar and launchers. Move launchers to the stern, a hangar - closer to the center (wait a second ... heavy hangar aft offset is on the long arm of the lever, and should put pressure on the keel stronger than turret, placed closer to center!) 2) Lower the radar position and rebuild the position |
|
| Author: | Thiel [ December 11th, 2011, 1:35 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: BCG-1 "Alaska"-class extra-long-range air-defense cruise | |
Colleague! We have a reserve of 3,700 tons on ballast function! All three turrets weight about 2802 tonnes. Together.
Yes, but it's in the wrong place.The keel is designed to take the load roughly in the center. In order to counter all the weight you've added aft and restore its trim you'll need to ad ballast in the bow. This will result in a lot of strain on the keel and without some serious strengthening it might just snap in the middle. |
||
| Author: | klagldsf [ December 11th, 2011, 7:12 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: BCG-1 "Alaska"-class extra-long-range air-defense cruise | |
Not gonna work. All that weight aft is going to ruin her trim and all the extra topweight is going to make her dangerously unstable.
Still it's an interesting idea, and there's a lot of thought shown in it (though I'm confused as to why a sonar-less air defense ship needs ASROC). It reminds me of my own project when I tried to design Cold War battleships as they'd be like if we built battleship-scale air defense ships during the Cold War. That was probably the greatest naval engineering endeavor I've ever done just to get them to that point, keeping in mind I'm just an amateur who draws things - when you factor in all the magazines, the handling equipment, directors and the size of the missile itself the Talos launcher isn't too far off from being the equivalent of a 20-inch gun turret. And that's a tactical, not a strategic system like BOMARC.And let's not even talk about the strain on her keel. BTW, feel free to use one of my hull designs for this - it'd give you the space you need without any ballast/trim problems. |
||
| Author: | Thiel [ December 11th, 2011, 8:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: BCG-1 "Alaska"-class extra-long-range air-defense cruise |
Have you considered storing them in vertical siloes? That would give you much shorter reaction time and solve many of the weight problems. |
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|