Shipbucket

Feel free.

Might be fun to see. :-p

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

I would like to point out that my response was strictly a critique of the ship design, and I recommend we get back to such.

A few thoughts. I'm not really sure where to start, so this is somewhat scattershot.

• 15ft draft on a 40-knot nuclear death cruiser. This seems unlikely.
• 180MW nuclear reactor on a 8000t destroyer. No. And absolutely not in 1970.
• Single main powerplant on such an expensive vessel is not a good idea.
• I haven't a clue where in this design you'd squeeze such a powerplant even if such could reasonably exist at the time.
• SA-2, SA-3 and SA-5 all in one hull. What in God's name for?
• All shown VLS, at that. SA-2 being something of a flying telephone pole, this might not be feasible no matter how much money were thrown at it. Never mind SA-5.
• I won't try to understand your missile guidance setup.
• 41 knots. No.
• On Voith-Schneider? This doesn't make any sense. V-S propulsors are good at some things, and driving a hot-rod destroyer at 40 knots isn't one of them.
• I'd invite you to consider a top view, with the width of the forward V-S taken into account. Such a hull is possible, I suppose, but it won't be going 40 knots.
• Even in WW2, torpedo tubes didn't need to be aimed directly at the target, and that's for unguided weapons. Why you'd put eight tubes in the bow, where they are most subject to damage and least subject to maintenance, is beyond me.
• So. Much. VLS. Look at how much below-decks missile volume can be supported on similar Soviet hulls and then delete about 2/3 of yours. The stern system in particular is entirely impossible; the rest are plausible only on an unpowered and uncrewed hulk.
• Styx? When you already have a far more capable system? Why? 8000 ton hulls are not full of space.
• RHIB is entirely era-inappropriate.
• The side sonar arrays are well-placed to both pick up machinery noise and be blinded by bubbles entrained by the bow.
• I won't hazard a guess as to why you ascribe a hundred kilowatts to a passive sonar set.
• Phased array AA gunlaying radars did not exist in 1970.

This is by no means meant to be a comprehensive list.

Quite honestly, I'd delete the whole thing, read some books, consider some real-life ships, rethink exactly the mission that is to be performed, and start again from scratch. I'm punting this to the Beginner forum.

In what way? I like these one line responses by the way.

That was calculated by Springsharp.
Alfa class: 155 MW (one reactor)

The Alfa class was a 2300 ton sub. So yes, absolutely in 1970, and yes, completely possible.

Papa class: 177 MW (on two reactors)

But those are pressurized water reactors, and have much less energy density values for the reactors.

Sierra class: 190 MW (on ONE reactor) Although it was laid down in 1982.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arktika_class_icebreaker

Arktika class icebreaker- 171 MW (per reactor)

No matter how you look at it, it's been done during that time period.

The main issue is the turbines. Whether it can fit the turbines for that much power on board. And that's a non-issue. We can get into steam-turbine design. In fact, lets. Steam turbines are more compact than they once were, but it's really a pretty minor issue overall since it's not drastic.

http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/pow ... escription

Good for 50 MW. Three of them could realistically fit pretty comfortably in the ship given the dimensions.

Dimensions-

Length (L): 12 m / 39 ft.
Width (W): 4 m / 13.4 ft.
Height (H): 5 m / 16.4 ft.

http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/pow ... escription

Good for 150 MW.

Typical Dimensions-

Length (L): 20 m / 66 ft.
Width (W): 8.5 m / 28 ft.
Height (H): 6 m / 20 ft.

So there you have it. You could have 3-4 of the SST-300's (a comparable version would be available in the 1960's, though a little larger perhaps) or 1 SST-800 and an SST-200 or 300 to make up the remaining 30 MW difference. Of course it wouldn't be those exact models, since they weren't around then. But comparable designs existed in the 60's.
It has gas fired boilers as auxiliary power (and hotel+emergency backup power), utilizing the turbines also used by the nuclear plant. I'm also considering placing a 5 MW gas turbine in it. But for the record, submarines tend to operate with one reactor, although there's quite a few which use 2, though that doesn't really have anything to do with survivability. And you said it yourself. There's not just tons of room on a 8000 ton ship. So one propulsion system will just have to do.
Well in all fairness, the Alfa class squeezed a 155 MW reactor onto a 2,300 ton ship. And a sub is far more constrained in terms of size and space than a surface vessel is.
Long, medium and short range. It's a design philosophy I almost always use for a layered defense approach.
Depends if you're hot launching or cold launching. But it's completely possible. The SA-5 is hot launched in my design, while the SA-3 is cold launched. The SA-5 is slanted, thus it wouldn't be a true vertical system. Rather, all the cells aim out from the centerline of the ship.

The SA-2 is easily capable of launching vertically via hot launch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djZGkQAw ... re=related
Uses modified existing systems. Since the SA-3 has been navalized, it's certainly possible. Not to mention, theres so many different radar systems available for the missiles, that it's not hard to envision a modified naval radar for the command guidance setup. The S-75 itself has 5 different radars that were developed for it over the years.
Yes. According to Springsharp it takes approximately 191,531 hp to reach that speed for this particular design. That's 142 MW, which is well within the design parameters.
There's nothing stopping it from doing so. The German minesweepers were 18 to 20 kts on 3000 or less HP.
The Alfa class had a speed of 40 kts. The Papa class had a speed of 44.7 kts. The USS Long Beach was capable of 32.5 kts. The USS Bainbridge could do 34 kts on 60,000 hp. Granted the submarines are submerged at those speeds, and have much lower speeds on the surface, but I'm mainly making the point in relation to the HP to tonnage ratios.

The bottom line is that it has more to do with hull design. That's why I opted for the tumblehome with wave piercing bow.

Lastly, I point to the Japanese Shimikaze class. 3,048 t at full load, and capable of 39 kts (hit 41 kts in it's trials). Granted it was a smaller ship, but it did this all on conventional fossil fuel fired steam.

Then there's the SS United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_United_States

50,000 tons, and capable of 38 kts, on conventional steam no less. It just goes to show, a ships speed has less to do with it's size and more to do with it's application.
Has nothing to do with aiming anything. I needed underwater tubes because they had to be re-loadable. Above water tubes are not re-loadable without serious deck-side machinery. I put them specifically in the bow because there was no room in the stern, and I didn't want to place them in the side. The ship will have to slow down to launch, like modern subs, but there should be no problems other than that.
lol. Most of the VLS for the larger missiles are raised above deck level. So that argument really has no basis in my design at all, because I already accounted for it. Only the SA-3's are at deck level, and that's because they are smaller.

The Styx is shorter, and didn't require a raised superstructure for placement. Rigid-hulled inflatable boat experiments were being conducted in the 60's, and thus yes, it is era-appropriate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid-hull ... table_boat
Submarines use side flank sonar. As for ships, it's a bit of a gamble by me because I wanted to use an early form of side-scan sonar and multi-beam sonar for use with the towed sonar arrays.

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/technolog ... sonar.html

http://www.abc.se/~pa/mar/sidescan.htm

It won't be nearly as advanced as those systems of course, but the basic concept of it can be implemented.
It's not just the sonar, but the computer systems and terminals inside the ship that operate them as well. Computers at the time were pretty bulky, not including all the additional equipment required for the sonar.
It doesn't use a phased array. If there is one in the image, it's a result of kitbashing, and wasn't intentional on my part. It does use radar though for the gun laying.
I've responded politely. I think this is a good example of mods who abuse their power, to be honest, and aren't as well informed as they think they are. To move a design to the beginners forum when it's a WIP/Rough draft, is a just an intentional insult on your part. But it looks like I'm not the one who needs to go read some books in this case, so why don't you go to the library and get crackin. Good luck with that btw.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

A couple of points. I meant what I said about the woith props. They make sense when you're going slow and need great control, but at speed they offer no advantages over a conventional prop. At the same time they don't scale well. Those minesweepers where maintenance monsters compared to conventionally powered ships, something this big is going to be a lot worse.
They are also very prone to being damaged during groundings. An no, saying it's designed for blue water ops isn't going to solve that, you still have to get to shore every now and then. And on that topic, you're going to find yourself very restricted when it comes to finding harbours due to your massive 37ft draft.
In heavy weather the forward one will come at least partially out of the water which will play merry hell on your engines and bearings.

The tumble home design does have some serious issues or unaddressed points as the advocates like to call them. They have been tried out historically by the French and pretty much all of them had severe stability issues. A tumblehome losses it righting moment at far lower angles of heel than a conventional hull. The Zumwalt compensates by having a complex stabilization system (and I suspect by being ballasted like there's no end) but what happens if the lights go out? This is a very real issue on modern warship, though at least they don't have to worry about capsizing. And with your maintenance heavy and damage prone propulsion system you're fairly likely to loose at least propulsion power.
And from where I'm standing you don't seem to have any reason to use a tumblehome. Its only advantage is stealth, but any advantage you might have gotten you promptly loose on your superstructure.

I agree with Tim when he says everything up to the gun and maybe even the gun itself will be gone after your first major storm.

I'm guessing those grey areas in the bow are underwater torpedo tubes. Underwater torpedo tubes were abandoned by the last users in the twenties for a reason. They were, and are, are massive maintenance hogs for no real gain and they are even worse from a damage control viewpoint (Loads of explosive right next to the ships skin in a compartment that will flood at the smallest provocation)

Inserting jpeg elements even as stand ins are frowned on around here.

I can't help but noticing that you have a door and a window leading into the forward VLS bay. (Those things are huge, so I doubt you'll have enough beam left over for any compartments.

You have no means of launching that RHIB.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

had a go at it ( for 15 minutes)


some points

1-Removed this VLS block to give more hull space, might put some missile defense or CIWS in here
2- Increased draft to 19ft(might increase it to 22 of 24 ft though)
3- Not sure what sonar to put in as I cannot find a era/size suitable sonar (also I cannot find the list of them)
4- More Kirov-style bow, ridding the torpedoes
5- Not sure about the bow bulb, not to my liking nor is the shading
6- this mast is confusing as hell so I am just going to strip it down then add more suitable radars etc for the new armaments
7-put a twin 130mm AK-130 in the A mount (not sure about this too, thoughts?)
8- make these VLS's smaller and more of a short range base
9- going to make this more spacious and maybe P700's or P800's in here?

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

I wouldn't go that far - but that's only because I've observed that this process is best learned through evolution. It's frustrating for the critiquers, and it's frustrating for the drawer too, but I do believe it yeilds the best results.

It doesn't actually have a 37 ft draft, it's just out of scale for the voith impellers. I sketched them, and then drew them in. They're still too large. Realistically they should be around 3.1 m for the entire impeller assembly and a little more for the strut platform. So realistically, it only adds 9.8 ft. I hadn't resized them yet because as I stated, it's a rough draft.

There's a few other issues. They actually cost less over the lifetime of the vessel than a azimuthal thrust based system.

The Voith also will most definitely be more efficient at maneuvering at high speed than a conventional setup, just because of the fact that's it using directional thrust to maneuver, and also still has a rudder. These types of designs don't actually need a rudder. Also, another advantage is that it can change it's direction of thrust almost instantly.

As for whether these can achieve high speed...it has more to do with cavitation. And the Voith-S system produce less than a propeller. There's also a number of high-speed ferries which use the V-S propulsion setup, so it's slow unless designed to be so.

http://www.marinepropulsors.com/proceed ... f%20th.pdf
Modern voith systems have a reduction gear, so if they come out of the water, they won't suddenly rapidly increase in rotation speed. Thus there is no problem there with bearings and engine fatigue due to this issue.

Also, I was thinking about using the Voith impellers in the front, and conventional screws in the rear, actually.

What I'd like more than anything though, is for someone to help me draw in the impellers. My sketched version just doesn't look right imo.

First off, damage prone? Grounding? Azimuthing propulsion systems have the same risks, and militaries have begun using them more and more in recent years. And since Voith systems cost less over the lifetime of the vessel, when compared to an azimuthal thrust system, the maintenance argument doesn't hold any water. Also, many military vessels today use active stabilization systems. And if the lights go out, the crew has far more to worry about than the stabilization system. It's really not even much of a threat, especially since almost all ships have backup diesels or some type of other auxiliary power. This ship is nuclear, so if it somehow loses power, the stabilization system is the least of their worries. The cooling system is much more of a concern. SSN's have far more to worry about with that issue, since they aren't as ballasted as they once were. Most nuclear subs use their propulsion systems to drive up to depth, and when diving as well. Though they do have ballasts, but compared to WW2 SSK's, it's not as much percentage wise.

As to the great tumblehome debate, I already responded to this issue. The Sea Jet is everything advocates as you call us need in terms of hard evidence. You're talking about vessels from 80 to 100 years ago, and those vessels have absolutely nothing to do with the current situation. Active control and computer assisted systems didn't exist back then. Ontop of that, there's a hell of a lot more advantages than radar cross section mitigation. Radar mitigation has nothing to do with it. I've stated that in previous posts.

Furthermore, the notion that the gun will be stripped off by a wave, is a very foolish notion at the very least.





A real naval architect, knows that the idea of waves tearing things off the ship is ridiculous. Unless it's some type of tidal wave of course. Remember, submarines in WW1 and WW2 had deck guns, and a similar profile, and I've never heard of waves tearing off the guns to be a r-occurring problem. Not to mention, all ships experience waves over deck. A conventional bow will rise more than a wave piercing bow, thus will place more strain on the hull of the ship in rough seas. A wave piercing bow reduces this problem. That's one of the big advantages of a WPB. Cutting through waves rather than over them also enables a higher speed and more efficient ride.

I've heard some of this stuff before, most of it from some overly opinionated moron on Tank.net, bad mouthing the Zumwalt's tumblehome design. Well, I've seen his arguments, and to be honest, he's pretty clueless.

The Sea Jet is a 1/4th scale model of the Zumwalt class except for certain considerations. It weighs 140 tons, and is designed to demonstrate the feasibility of the hull design, and put all the controversy surrounding it's stability to rest. Most people who consider themselves to be opposed to the Zumwalt design don't even know what the Sea Jet is. I think that says a lot right there about how well informed they are on the issues concerning the stability of the Zumwalt's hull.







It has experienced none of the problems that the pundits from all around have been talking about now for years.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

You now have massive pixel errors and artifacts. I suggest using the board's own upload feature in the meantime, and please refer to this thread.

That's a drive train that is over 79% thermally efficient . What exactly did you do to physics to get that?
Silly little kid

*Tussles CATZ hair around*
Those are the thermal values. Using those values to base anything off of other than the cooling loop is downright silly. No Soviet reactor generated more than 50k SHP, and no serious American design was set any higher than 60K SHP, and those designs get really, really big - bigger than you're going to get on an 8000 ton destroyer.
You don't understand the difference between land based and naval systems do you?
You are accusing Erik of abuse of mod powers because he took a crappy design from a person who doesn't take advice and moved it to the correct forum?

You'll go far here skippy.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆