Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Futuristic Surface Carrier
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=449		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  EricJP65 [ December 2nd, 2010, 3:31 am ]
Post subject:  Futuristic Surface Carrier
I've been toying with and half-completing various things to make in Shipbucket style/scale, though I was inspired to create this for a campaign I run
for some friends upon recommendation from SpamBot454.

I present the Amazonian Surface Carrier, 5th Generation.

Despite being a space-based political entity, often times the presence of a orbital warship isn't sustainable or desired, necessitates a surface
presence. Built with the same level of technology and strategy of their space fleet, the Surface Carrier acts as the centerpiece of a deployed
planetside occupation force.

[ img ]

Some notes on the vessel.
~The hull is painted in traditional colors, original meant for obscuring and distracting visual identification but now comprises both radar absorbing
and radar reflecting materials. The thought process for this is that no defensive system is perfect, that a ship will get hit eventually; and by
using selective radar reflecting and absorbing materials, make less critical or heavily armored locations more likely to be struck by radar guided
weapons.
~The underwater hull is painted with an anti-fouling paint comprised of insoluble cobalt salts.
~Propulsion is provided by a set of pump jets, both on the bulges for main propulsion, and through hull tunnels for maneuverability.
~The Elevators are fully enclosed on the sides.

An alternate hull scheme for ships given battle honors or other top awards, the paint being removed and replaced with a
plated layer of an osmiridium alloy.

[ img ]
Author:  acelanceloet [ December 10th, 2010, 6:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Futuristic Surface Carrier
1: will sink, 2: is not stealth, 3: uhm... won't work 4: too less defence 5: I give up making something sane of this.
Author:  Colombamike [ December 10th, 2010, 7:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Futuristic Surface Carrier
6: Stop drug, alcohol, cannabis, wisky, wine & so :mrgreen:
Author:  EricJP65 [ December 10th, 2010, 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Futuristic Surface Carrier
I'd like to try to fix it...

1: Why will it sink? Too top heavy, not enough draft? it has the same draft and freeboard as the Gerald Ford.

2: Was never meant to be a stealth ship by design.

3: No specific reasoning?

4: 2 starboard side twin-arm launchers, probably 3 on the port, 3 point defense cannons on the starboard, another 3 on the port, and the shield systems, I believe that handles long, medium, and close range threats.
Author:  acelanceloet [ December 10th, 2010, 8:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Futuristic Surface Carrier
1.hmm let's see. you have additional armor on the elevators, but you should have an very light structure if you want to make it this high. that makes one of your vital areas the first thing to get destroyed in battle.
2. ok, then you could have build it a lot better.
3. that was my list of all that wouldn't work. propulsion, size, elevators, crane and a whole lot of other things that I have no time for to find out.
4: can't find the cannons? or they are those small things next to your rail launchers, which aren't able to hold an missilbe back becuase the lack of weight of the bullets. also, rail launchers are obsolete: use VLS or at least box launchers.
and well.... shield.......... -.- ok it's your AU ship, same counts for the engine system, but won't work in real life.
no I again say 5: you can better start over then improve this ship.
Author:  EricJP65 [ December 10th, 2010, 10:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Futuristic Surface Carrier
I'm going back through and redesigning the carrier from almost scratch, going through what exactly it needs and its roles.

The elevators aren't necessarily armored, simply enclosed/covered. Most combat ships today are built with what? 2 inch steel plate? Power plant could easily be a liquid fuel fission or sea-water fed fusion using the thermoelectric effect to draw power from the reactors. I was toying between the dreaded water-jets, but also looking at MHD drives. I looked at the existing designs/prototypes, the issues they had were lack of sufficient power generation (couldn't fit big enough generators), I'm was wondering if the scale was increased and given naval nuclear reactors could provide the needed power generating capacity to run the drives. The other option that just came to me was enclosed ducted propellers.
Author:  TimothyC [ December 10th, 2010, 11:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Futuristic Surface Carrier
EricJP65 wrote:
Most combat ships today are built with what? 2 inch steel plate?
Less. Much, much less.
Author:  EricJP65 [ December 11th, 2010, 2:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Futuristic Surface Carrier
Much less being 3/8" or 1/2" plate?
Author:  TimothyC [ December 11th, 2010, 2:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Futuristic Surface Carrier
Well it depends on who's ships you are talking about.

In the 60's and 70's it got thin on some military ships - as thin as 3/16ths on some ships (the catch was that the ribs were very closely spaced, and together this gave the ships the ability to ride out shockwaves better the disadvantages were issues with collisions and corrosion). Some modern military ships are built to Civilian Standards (which is a very complicated thing that I really don't totally understand) and have 13/16ths to 15/16ths inch steel is not uncommon.
Author:  klagldsf [ December 11th, 2010, 7:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Futuristic Surface Carrier
TimothyC wrote:
Some modern military ships are built to Civilian Standards (which is a very complicated thing that I really don't totally understand)
My understanding...well first of all my understanding comes from, say, 20% from disparate sources with the remainder from the essay Ryan posted, so....

Military standard can apparently mean a few things. Like you said, thin plating, closely-spaced frames to allow the ship to "flex" over a shockwave from say a near-miss torpedo or (more intended) a nuclear blast. This also apparently doesn't necessarily mean a longer or shorter service life (many ships built to this standard have been serving a long time, apparently). Military standard also apparently dictates things like watertight door placement and how many you have - for example, on a civilian ferry, you probably have whatever # of watertight doors you legally require and they may or may not be mechanically or hydraulically actuated. On a military vessel, every hatch inside the hull is a watertight door (hence all the hatches being dogged and stepped) and they're all typically manually actuated since otherwise would be impractical, the expectation being that the crew will latch them as they evacuate the room. This also means that every single room inside the hull is its own individual watertight compartment.

Civilian/military standard also has as much to do with things other than the physical construction of the hull. From what Ryan says, apparently civilian construction can in some cases be more collision and even battle-resistant than military standards, but at the price of losing that flexibility (that was a big concern in the Cold War). Also, your wiring standards can be different and let's say, less battle resistant. Also, shipbuilders and ship procurers, not being idiots, are well aware of all of these advantages and disadvantages and can mix-and-match different standards and requirements to better serve the ship's mission.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/