Shipbucket

"Oh. It's you. It's been a looong time."

Yes gents, I'm back, and hopefully this time I won't cause headaches and eyebleeds all over the place. In fact, I will work on this for as long as it takes to get it out of beginners and into AU. So forget all that happened here; viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1175
For I too see that was a mediocre effort at best. If thing I've learned it's that making an SB ship is piss easy; making an SB ship that works and looks and feels right is bloody difficult. So here is my new one. A bit unconventional (see it as a concept ship; this is NS after all ) though. I fap to unconventional hull shapes (except the Zumwalt. Because that one's just bloody ugly).


Yes, sorry for the template. The ship came close to the one smaller template but just didn't fit in its entirity.

A bit of background information. The intended role (before Ace asks me about this)? When push comes to shove, these things are designed to make enemy shipping (and especially; counter-shipping) difficult. It will face large numbers of surface combatants (from corvettes to cruisers), missile boats and aircraft. By emphasizing survivability above all else its goal is to gain that advantage and keep the enemy off for as long as possible. In order to archieve that, it must be able to maneuvre around fast, have a full countermeasure suite (from Aster-30 to 60mm EAP and a lot of stuff in between), and be difficult to observe on radar, IR, and with the good ole' eyeball mk1. (That last one is tricky, lol.)

All these additions do make such a ship large and expensive. Studies have shown however that in order to bring down costs, it would be better to organise multiple roles in a single platform. Pretty much the entire area aft of the mast is "mission area"; everything there can be reconfigured for the optimal mix between helo-ops, (6 max) RHIB's/UUV's (6 with 2 reserve in storage), storage space, troop\equipment transport, and anti-submarine warfare*; and any combination of the above. Of course, it's a bit juggling around; when 6 RHIB's are fitted the storage space will suffer, when 6 helos are fitted no more troops can be transported. On the other hand, if only one helo is fitted that reserves more storage space. This gives a lot of options.

*All of these are optional. For example, this ship would not be well suited as a troop transport; I realise that too. But should it be needed, it can be used as such.

I have not done the underwater hull yet. I found it difficult to draw correctly. But what is vital to know, is that under water there are six hydro jets and a retractable azipod (I might replace that one with a Voith-Schneider) for maneuvrebility. I know, hydrojets are unconventional for a ship of this size, but the ship is nuclear powered. Distances in Nationstates are huge so that does save a lot on fuel costs. Since it is nuclear powered fuel efficiency doesn't matter anymore, and that is good because fuel efficiency was the one great downside to hydrojets.

That mast in the middle? It's made by AU Thales and called the I-mast 900. Far more capable then the other I-masts, as you would guess; in this AU the interest in larger air-defense destroyers is large enough to justify such a large single mast system. I'll explain its functions from top to bottom; top is that very same radar\EO sensor as seen on the other I-masts. Below there is the non-rotating IFF from I-mast 500. Then a full ECM suite. Those very large panels are AESA panels meant to have SMART-L's capabilities; in other words, very long range early-warning\volume search. Aside of these panels are two (four in total since two of them can't be seen here) Gatekeepers. The radar below that really large panel is meant to do what Thales' Scout does; it's a flat-panel LPI radar that can be used under radar silence conditions. Below that, the ICAS comms, and below that is the Seastar. Finally we get four tiny Satcoms and at last everyone's favorite radar director; an APAR derived system. Phew. And before people start worrying how it will all fit; well, computers and such are not housed inside the mast but below it, so it's not a bolt-on option like the other I-masts since it has "deck penetration".

The reason this mast is centrally mounted is because the taller it stands, the more range it has; and in the middle of the ship is where the centre of gravity lies, so there a pretty large and heavy mast like this one can be placed without offsetting the balance.

The simbols on the side are ancient Dystopian numbers; nowadays the Arabic binary system (1 2 3 4 5) is in common use in Dystopianus, but in certain applications the older system is still used for decorative/tradition purposes, simillar to how the Roman system (I II III IV V) is still in use in the western world. I could attempt to explain what the numbers would represent but it'd be a bit difficult; what it comes down to is that there are five basic numbers that can be combined to make higher numbers. The signs on the N.N.O.D. Citadel mean 14.

There is more stuff, and I could continue talking about it forever; but meh. I've typed too much already. Don't be afraid to be picky because I want to improve.

-A&D

EDIT: Oops, forgot to erase that bit of red there.

_________________
You can call me Andy.

yay @ the portal 2 reference xD
also, this is interesting. very interesting. I wouldn't call it good yet, there is some work to do, but.... we are getting somewhere now. I can see you did research, that I-mast needs some work, (both drawing wise and spec wise, but I'll talk about that to you later) and that window colour is an no-no.

I am a bit wondering about the hull shape, and that weapons and systems setup will be complicated.... you are now looking at an very expensive ship, and on top of that one that should be strengthened. a lot. I have no time to go in depth on this right now, but I'll talk to you later about that

for now, just the point that APAR nor SMART-L are designed to work with ASTER.

anyways, just got back home, got some stuff do do and have to wake up early.... so no time to go in depth with this now.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

I'm failing to see any meaningful contribution by me in there. That said it is indeed very interesting.

Regarding window colours, if it's not going into the archive and the fact that those windows are by the look of it covered with an ITO coating I don't really see the issue. ITO coatings look different to plain glass and ergo should be differentiated between.

Looking forward to seeing what happens to this. ~Mark.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Ace:

Yay, Ace is back.

I can sort of see where you're going regarding the I-mast, but I'll wait for you to reply again before I jump to conclusions. The hull shape... Well, AFAIK there are no real life trimarans of this size so yeah, I think I got to adjust that.

Mark:
Thanks. I think I'll change the window colour to SB blue after all.

_________________
You can call me Andy.

A cocking handle for the main gun?

Lolwut?

_________________
You can call me Andy.

ok. first things first...
A. the basic shape and dimensions.
1.you have an 230m long trimaran, so I suppose the beam would be at least 60-70 meters. keep in mind that that is about the size of an aircraft carrier..... you will have to be able to dock that.
2. an weird thing I see is the fact that the ship has not wave piercing bow on the main hull, but it has some sort of on the outriggers. I myself would expect it the other way around..... and I would like most if both had an 'regular' bow
3. I'd like to hear the reason you chose an trimaran design. right now it looks like it is just so you can have an larger hangar and that large mast, as the internal space does not increase that much.
4. maybe consider an 'pentamaran'
5. why not put the bridge more aft and a bit higher, moving the VLS in front of it, and the mast just aft of the bridge? right now you have an horrible line of sight, waves crashing into the bridge in storms.
6. I am not an fan of hydrojets at all. nor the VSP, to be honest. and not the pod as well. I think conventional propulsion would be best here, azipod second, waterjets after that.... VSP just doesn't deliver you the speed you want.
7. I'd really like to know, even in words, what kind of underwater hull you want. other comments depend on that.
8. some things look really stealth, some really don't XD
9. that mission area deck gives only 1 problem: it is spread over several decks. you can store vehicles in helicopter space, but you cannot put an heli in the vehicle space. try to put the cargo deck all on 1 level, or separate the heli hangar from it.
10. an trimaran hull is not the most spacious hull possible,

B. power system
1. nuke..... keep in mind that you need an entire infrastructure for nuclear powerplants, which you want to use as much as possible..... I doubt this is an large class so do you have other nuclear ships?
2. you will be limited in the allied ports you can enter, especially with damage (when you want it the most)
3. you need an reload hatch for access to your reactor for refueling. you'll want the reactor around the center of gravity, not the mast.

C. weapons
1. I completely miss ASW weapons
2. you have at least 4 types of ammunition on board. 2 types of 12.7, 57mm, 127, and that huge honking gun on the bow (8'' or 155mm, I suppose?) possible, but logistical nightmare
3. I am really not an fan of the CIWS setup. it blocks the APAR, gives some deck pen problems and limits the space on the bridge. also, I doubt if you need them: if you move the 57's more to the sides you have an adequate CIWS coverage, with maybe one additional 57 near the bow....... but if you change the bridge arrangement that isn't even needed.
4. you have at least 3 different companies making your weapons. again, logistical nightmare!
5. I suppose your VLS is amidships. this gives an really weak point on an already weak point in the hull (the point were the bending moment is the largest) and possibly also gives you some trouble with the machinery space.
6. aster doesn't work with APAR. ASTER is an active missile, APAR is for semi-active missiles.

D. radars
1. you see that huge piramid underneath the mast? that, and an large part of what's underneath is gonna be filled with the cooling systems and processing systems for the radars.
2. normally you want to have your targeting radar (APAR) higher then the search radar.
3. the FC on top is unnecesary, as the APAR is far more powerful
4. you are not going to get the SMART-L's range out of this, while it will be 4 times as heavy (not counting the cooling systems, those will most likely 10 times as heavy) you won't need that range though, as the role of this ship is not ABM and you get the additional power of 360 degrees 1000km + range.....
5. the inside of that mast is gonna be cramped..... not good for maintenance.
6. you call this mast for AAW DDG's..... but it won't fit on any ship smaller then this!

that's all for now, there might be more but I think this is enough to think about for 1 day

ow and.... check your PM's.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Had a massive reply done here, then my computer crashed. FFFFUUUUU

Ty for the reply Ace, appreaciate it. Here is my massive reply: Whenever I'm going to check the interior to see if everything fits, I'll see by how much I can shorten it. It was not my intention to have it that wide, I was planning something more along the 40 meters. Will fix it. It wasn't my intention to have a wave piercer. I hate those things. I have considered multiple hull forms for this. To do so, I formed a list in my head with the advantages and disadvantages of all the options I had, and then I figured out what disadvantages I can live with. Here is that list (notice it may not be entirely accurate):

Monohull
+Proven concept
+Low cost
+Decent internal space
+Guys at SB won't hate it (JK)
-Really boring (JK too, but you can't argue with rule of cool)
-No real disadvantages, but no considerable advantages either.

Catamaran
+High speed
+Good stability
+Plenty of deck space
-Virtually no below deck space
-Requires an unconventional layout
-Needs to be very tall to fit strike-length VLS
-A couple more things but these two above really made catamaran useless for this application

SWATH
+Same as catamaran
+Very high speed
-All the bloody disadvantages of a catamaran
-And a very deep draught, which makes littoral situations a no-go

Trimaran
+High speed, just like catamaran
+Good stability, same
+Plenty of deck space
+Unlike catamaran has a bit of below deck space (not that much more, but good enough), can use a conventional layout
+Can operate in shallow waters
+Slightly better stealth performance? (Really a neglectable advantage)
-Large, especially in width
-Less below-deck space
-Less maneuvrebility (can be improved by retractable voith-schneider\azipod thrusters, as done on the LCS-2)
-Vunerable to structural damage (if one of the outriggers breaks off, bad news)

X-bow
Really a lot of advantages but it'd be difficult to plan out the gunnery and point defense on such a ship. Yet still I do sort of feel attracted to the X-bow, it came at a close second. Might make one of these later.

Tumblehome
+Better seaworthyness?
+Can go faster in high-sea states compared to others
+Can maneuvre through canals better (something trimarans absolutely can't, lol)
+Slightly better stealth performance
-Ugly hurr
-Supposedly unstable, especially in high sea states
-Can't make high-speed turns
All in all some say its supersuperstable, other say it's disastership Titanic II. It was definatly not something I want in my navy, not for small nor large vessels of any kind

Pentamaran
This was also an interesting option but because of the lack of information on advantages and disadvantages - and on possible military uses - (and what's more; me not even knowing how such a hull looks on a side view) I forgot about it for now. But maybe I'll redo this in pentamaran form, since the outriggers of such a pentamaran make excellent CIWS\gunnery positions and because the internal space would allow a nuclear reactor to fit with no hassle.

Axe bow
Nah, I didn't even consider this one seriously. For no real reason tbh.

In the end, the trimaran's stability (which allowed me to have a taller mast, just like you guessed) was what convinced me to go for a trimaran. I may switch to pentamaran if I can get more information on it. I thought that with the bridge further forward the line of sight would be better, but I didn't took waves into comparison so I'll move the bridge back and VLS in front. With this ship being nuclear powered, the prime disadvantage of hydrojet propulsion disappears. That disadvantage is efficiency\fuel consumption. Since a nuclear reactor can run for years, fuel consumption is not something to take into account.

The azipods\VSP (not sure which one to choose yet) are secondary propulsion systems to be mounted further astern, and they serve for maneuvering only. Not as primary propulsion. Speed doesn't matter in this application; the waterjets provide that kind of speed. I'll be fairly honest in that I have no idea myself; and for that reason I didn't draw the underwater hull just yet. Lol, I see. What is there to improve? Good idea, I'll work on it. True. I was sort of worried about this too. I tried compensating that with length, but soon I'll draw the inner spaces of this ship too. Yes. A guy on NS plans to release a nuclear powered AOR soon, which I might purchase, and aside from that I think I want my carriers and maybe my LPD\LHA to be nuclear powered. That is true. But in NS I think I can overcome this. Right now the reactor is exactly below the mast. So they're both at the gravity centre. How would such a hatch look like? Forgot to add the torpedoes, my bad. Also, there's MILAS in the VLS. I don't feel confident about that aft gun either so I'll probably remove it. Might replace it with a 57. (Btw, that's not the Bofors 57 there, it's a custom 60mm gun.) The gun on the bow is 8'' btw. Bigger is better, lol. I'll move around with it a bit (and attempt not to increase the height of the APAR, which was the first solution that popped up in my mind and probably the worst too). Anyways I do wish to keep the Goalkeeper II, I like it a lot. The FREMM uses equipment from Thales, OTO, and MBDA. That's also three companies, but it's not a logistical nightmare, is it? All the equipment I do use is NATO compatable so I guess it wouldn't matter too much. I'll move it to the foredeck. A shame, because I like the way it looks here. I see. So what equipment do I need to guide Aster? Indeed, that's the idea. I used to have one with the APAR above the search radar... but ehm, it looked really bad; the mast was stupidely huge at the base. But I'll fiddle around with it again. Will replace it with a SATCOM\EO camera This ship may not be for air defence, but other ships equipped with this mast are. I'll attempt to put a real Smart-L on this, no idea what it will become but it's worth giving a shot. Will make it larger. Will make it smaller.

...

Wait wut?

No really. I don't know exactly how to fix all this, but I will find out one way or another. Even if it means I'll have to design the entire ship around the mast.

_________________
You can call me Andy.

the quick points:
- the refueling hatch. that is, said simply, an shaft from the deck without anything in or on top of it what can't be easily removed. the mast isn't in that category
- I should do research into pentamarans myself....... but there are a few in the archive, made by RP1,
and: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentamaran
- with weapon manfacturers, I meant only the guns. thales GK, oto melara 127, 8 in which looks bofors, 60mm which looks bofors..... (but I suppose they are both build by an AU company)
- and I can shoot some holes in the + by tumblehome if I want....... but you won't use that, so I leave that out.
- fact is, make the ship a bit smaller (max 200m, easy to get to by making some stuff more compact) with an beam of 40-50..... main hull beam of 20....
- the main problem is.... the mast. make that one smaller and you gain a lot. btw, ABM = anti-balistic missile, not AAW in general, as I say you won't need the full power of the SMART-L if you don't want to do ABM.
- the best suggestion would be to... well, make the mast smaller. put the SMART-L on the hangar, an APAR on the bridge, with some additional coms and systems in the masts....

that's it for now, the other points you should take an look at how to do yourself

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Surprising. The English wiki page didn't really help me out. The Dutch wiki page on the other hand... It is a bit complicated though.

I quickly googled "shipbucket pentamaran" and I got a few results. From a side view they're hardly different from trimarans, which is a good thing. Underwater hulls may be vastly different, as some 3d drawings of pentamarans show; and that is what confuses me.

I hope to replace the 127 with a mid-size gun within the 100-130mm range. It will most likely be built by the same manafacturer at the autocannons, machine guns, and main gun; MATRI-X.
Yeah, they do suck, don't they?
I do have destroyers which will engage in ABM warfare, so I do want this mast to be ABM capable. I think.

Meh. I'm just gonna get working on it and see how it turns out.

_________________
You can call me Andy.