Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Turrethead's USN monster
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=171		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  TurretHead [ August 29th, 2010, 11:22 am ]
Post subject:  Turrethead's USN monster
Split from 255m LWL Soviet C(B)GN -- erik_t


-- WARNING -- -- WARNING --

"Kirovitis" is a real disease and anyone can catch it. Make sure you wear protection when visiting Shipbucket.com!

After medical intervention I can finally stop working on a symptom of Kirovitis. Thankfully I stopped before taking it too far!

[ img ]

USS John Wayne

Armament: 2x 203mm guns (fore and aft), 2x 127mm guns (port and starb), 4x 20mm CIWS, 366x VLS, 32x Harpoon, 4x RAM
Aircraft: 4x Sea Apache strike helos, 4x Sea Hawk ASW helos
Sensors: 2x four face Aegis radars, 8x Aegis illuminators, 1x very long range radar, 2x horizon radars, 1x Los Angles class bow sonar

Edit: Can't pull myself away from this thing...
Author:  ezgo394 [ August 29th, 2010, 5:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Turrethead's USN monster
Why do you have 8 SPY-1s? You only need 4.

The helipad and hangar also seems pretty small, as well.
Author:  erik_t [ August 29th, 2010, 7:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Turrethead's USN monster
Pad could be bigger, hangar definitely needs to be for so many aircraft as that.

There's some virtue to the idea of two separate SPY-1 installations (on something so already-stupidly-big as this, at least), but the secondary arrays (the forward-facing aft pair and the aft-facing forward pair) probably ought to be SPY-1F or even -1K. They're for casualty-use only, so no reason to ship the full-weight full-cost arrays there.
Author:  Novice [ August 29th, 2010, 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Turrethead's USN monster
Nuclear powered is it? Otherwise that many systems would not function. The electrical need for this monster, and it's pure guesswork here, can be compared to a city, say like Salisbury?
Author:  TurretHead [ August 30th, 2010, 1:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turrethead's USN monster
ezgo394 wrote:
Why do you have 8 SPY-1s? You only need 4.
Ohh I need eight!
erik_t wrote:
There's some virtue to the idea of two separate SPY-1 installations (on something so already-stupidly-big as this, at least), but the secondary arrays (the forward-facing aft pair and the aft-facing forward pair) probably ought to be SPY-1F or even -1K. They're for casualty-use only, so no reason to ship the full-weight full-cost arrays there.
There can’t be smaller arrays unless it’s a third (or fourth) Aegis system. The eight faces and two Aegis radars are not for degradable capability but for better and quicker detection.

The faces (antennas) of Aegis are not independent units but just the output for a central radar wave generator connected by wave guides. In the case of the Ticos there are two Aegis units (fore and aft) each powering two antennas but in the Burkes only a single unit powering four faces. In the case of the Duke there are two units but each powering four arrays.

The inward facing antennas have a very good field of regard and are only blocked by the superstructure in the straight ahead and aft at level which means low altitude targets. For the rest of the hemisphere there are two Aegis radars covering the sky. Which means they can be used cooperatively providing two radar measurements for better accuracy and quicker air picture generation.
ezgo394 wrote:
The helipad and hangar also seems pretty small, as well.
erik_t wrote:
Pad could be bigger, hangar definitely needs to be for so many aircraft as that.
The donor hull for this ship is the Alaska class – just lengthened a bit – so its actually very wide. I tried to draw this by having those two helicopters side by side on the landing pad. There would be two landing pads (left and right) and the hangar can store four aircraft side by side in two rows. So it can fit the eight helos shown.
Novice wrote:
Nuclear powered is it? Otherwise that many systems would not function. The electrical need for this monster, and it's pure guesswork here, can be compared to a city, say like Salisbury?
Nuclear indeed. I redrew it for that central well where the deckhouses can be removed so you can get to the reactor to refuel them. This is something most US Navy nuclear ships has. As to how much power good question?

To drive the ship it would need at least 112 MW (like Alaska) but because of the extra length would be faster or could do with less power. Radars would need around 20 MW and a few more for the hotel load which would be very high for all the air conditioning (for the radars). So maybe 150 MW would be good. Which would be two 75 MW nuclear reactors and 40 knot speed.

Salisbury (now Harare) was powered by the hydro dam on the Zambezi but apparently the first rate Rhodesian electrical system has gone downhill a lot in recent years. The Zimbo side of the Kariba dam generates 750 MW. There is also a 50-100 MW coal burner at Harare.
Author:  erik_t [ August 30th, 2010, 2:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turrethead's USN monster
I'm well aware of SPY-1's design and requirements, thanks. If you're intending to blow marginal utility right out of the water, and play in the land of the implausible, I'd certainly rather have a very high SPY-1K (for horizon search) and a larger-antenna SPY-1A/B for better discrimination on higher altitude targets.

Anyway, you'll need a whole pile of good luck actually maneuvering the aircraft in such a hangar. CVNs have the luxury of exits (elevators) on many sides, and plenty of deck space for maneuvering. You don't. Perry hangars are very nearly 20x50ft; you certainly don't have space for 100x100ft (for the best-case maneuvering scenario).
Author:  Colosseum [ August 30th, 2010, 4:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turrethead's USN monster
Angled gun barrels are a major no-no. Even if you're just posting it on the forum and not expecting upload, I don't want our younger members taking cues that it's acceptable...

Also, all gun mounts are shown facing fore and aft, so that Phalanx shouldn't even be on the parts sheets to begin with.
Author:  TurretHead [ August 30th, 2010, 10:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turrethead's USN monster
Colosseum wrote:
Angled gun barrels are a major no-no. Even if you're just posting it on the forum and not expecting upload, I don't want our younger members taking cues that it's acceptable...

Also, all gun mounts are shown facing fore and aft, so that Phalanx shouldn't even be on the parts sheets to begin with.
Refresh the picture and all guns should be on the 'straight and level' and 'flying right'! ;)
Author:  TurretHead [ August 30th, 2010, 10:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turrethead's USN monster
erik_t wrote:
I'd certainly rather have a very high SPY-1K (for horizon search) and a larger-antenna SPY-1A/B for better discrimination on higher altitude targets.
The SPY-1 antennas are from Colosseum’s Long Beach CSGN and I assume they are the big ones. They are very high up so would have an excellent radar horizon anyway compared to most other ships. I don’t think having an additional smaller SPY-1 array higher up would help more compared to a one ship cooperative engagement capability. CEC is what Aegis is all about according to the experts so having it in one hull sounds like a good idea.
erik_t wrote:
Anyway, you'll need a whole pile of good luck actually maneuvering the aircraft in such a hangar. CVNs have the luxury of exits (elevators) on many sides, and plenty of deck space for maneuvering. You don't. Perry hangars are very nearly 20x50ft; you certainly don't have space for 100x100ft (for the best-case maneuvering scenario).
I must admit to not knowing how wide the Alaska is. I just assumed it would be wide enough for two landing pads because the big gun ships tend to be pretty wide. Wikipedia says the beam is 91 feet which is almost enough for two side by side spinning Seahawk rotors (50 foot diameter). Since the outer edge of the rotor can overhang the edge of the ship (above water) then it shouldn't be a problem.

[ img ]
I’ve drawn up a quick plan view of the hangar and flight deck and there is plenty of room. More than enough for eight Sea Hawk sized helicopters and the ability to move around in the hangar and to different landing pads.

This was just a quick kit bash but the basic design configuration is valid. Except that giant bow sonar which is going to make for the most amazing bow wave and probably wouldn’t be in enough water to work. But its worth it for that shark nose bow.
Author:  Novice [ August 30th, 2010, 1:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Turrethead's USN monster
Assuming your hangar sided are one pixel-wide, that it will work. Hangars tend to get clattered along the walls. If you look at a car's garage, you'll se what I mean.
Also consider the effect of the helocopters rotors spinning side-by-side, on each other. Altough you have more than enough width for the helicopters to stand along side each other, i'm not sure, that such is the case with the rotors spinnig.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/