Shipbucket

Hello all,

I'm writing a major article, "50 ships that will change the Navy and the way America projects influence"

I'll be asking for a number of different drawings over the next six to nine months. I can't pay, because I'm not allowed to be paid for this article, but I will give full credit to the best designs. So here are the first few requests:

1. Take the America class LHA, give it an angled deck, and jumboize it to about 50 to 55,000 tons. Change the hull design to facilitate a 25 - 30 knot speed. Also add deck overhangs. Also add 16 cell Vls on each quarter. Need side and overhead views.

2. Take a Gunderson 400x100ft flat deck barge and jumboize it to 500x200ft. Give it a self propelled capability for short range moves. Give it a radar capability, Vls for Sm-6, sonar, torpedo countermeasures, helipad and hanger, some light gun armament, and two triple torpedo tubes. Need side and overhead views.

3. Before and after conceptual drawings of what Mare Island Naval Shipyard and Roosevelt Roads would look like if transformed into new state of the art new shipbuilding activities. Show 1500 x 300 ft flood able main dry docks for large ships and ocean structures as well as vertical lifts for medium size ships and overhead structures. Need plentiful areas for fabrication and construction of large block sub assemblies as well as overhead traveling cranes that span the docks and lifts.

I'm fine with a post to the main website, please alert me. Also please ask if you have any questions. Would like to see these by end of Nov 2015.

Thanks

hi there, welcome on shipbucket.

I have to say I am a bit puzzled. not by your request itself, but by the designs you request.
.... you now arrive at the french carrier charles du gaulle.... this gets close to the CVV this definitely suggests an fast hull like the CVV, which could get to 27,8 knots this is required for angled decks IIRC, the US navy does not use VLS on angled deck ships because it would block aircraft parked overhanging the deck, hence why IIRC the ford has Mk 29.
the problem with this is that this ship would have literally nothing in common with LHA-6. she would be bigger, need an all new hull and propulsion train, need to have the uptakes positions modified, needs a different hangar, different bow..... the final ship will be much closer to a gas turbine powered CVV then to the LHA's. the powerplant would mean about 8 LM2500 (7 should be enough for propulsion but you'll need EMALS during full speed, as you cannot use steam catapults on a gas turbine powered ship)
so, I would recommend rethinking this one, as starting with the LHA makes this entire ship a bit mad. hell, you might even start with the CATOBAR queen elisabeth class instead.
huh what? what is the purpose of this vessel? I mean it will need tugs to go oversea, as giving it the power to do so independently will make this just as expensive as a ship. this means it will always be in shore based waters when operational, which are not hostile shores (as it cannot avoid enemy fire, that would be dangerous) so that would mean this thing is for homeland defence? it also means the sonar will see not that much (an bigger helicopter platform on it with helicopters with torpedos and dipping sonar will be able to do the job a lot better) while the SM-6 seems like a lot of expensive equipment on a reasonably cheap platform.

3. reworking that shipyard into a modern yard is an huge job, one I would personally not even think about doing unpaid. if anybody says he can do it simple and fast, he is not doing an very good job.

_________________
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

moved

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

Hello Acelancelot,

All good points on the America LHA jumboization. Yes the CVV was lurking in the back of my mind. I found a great NPG thesis from the http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a227420.pdf that was chock full of analysis. You may be right, a new hull design may be needed, but now that I think about it, maybe not. And I apologize, I should have been more clear. Ski ramp on the nose, no cats, but yes an arrested landing capability. So the new hull design may not be necessary if the 25 - 30 knots is only for dash speeds, not sustained. The airframes will be the F-35B, V-22 variants, and MH-60s. The Vls is doable, properly placed on sponsons.

The barge concept, I can't really talk about, it will be discussed in the article. But it really is intended for friendly littorals.

On the shipyard designs, the concept is a public private partnership effort, that in accordance with revised Jones Act legislation will allow for a reentry into the shipbuilding business.

I'm only writing an article (for free - I'm not allowed to be paid) not orchestrating the real effort (yet:-)

Thank you.

well, the problem with the hull design is this. the hull was designed for use with a dock, so the stern is not ideal for high speeds. seeing that ship resistance (apart from the wave resistance) is exponential, I can say that the increase from 22+ to 28+ speed would require about twice the engine power, if the wave making resistance can be estimated as scaling with the friction of the hull. I am not certain how close to reality this still is, as I am not certain about the percentage the wavemaking resistance is of the total resistance on the real life ship. I actually think the double power required might be a bit on the low side. making the bigger would land us at the 7 LM2500 gas turbines I estimated earlier (based on the power on carriers close to that tonnage, so with an modified hull shape to be more ideal for this speed)

even if this would be dash speed, all that power would need to be on board. so, let's assume you do not change the hull shape, just the propulsion train and the hull size. let's assume that leaves us 8 LM2500 gas turbines. getting all that power into the ships hull would need a new subdivision, I suppose, which requires a new hull construction. in addition you'll need an new superstructure for all those in and uptakes. you'd need new propellers, which might require a new stern shape to get enough water to them, and you'll need a way to get the power of 8 gas turbines into those propellers. electrical coupling seems ideal, but are there electrical motors which can get all that power into the propellers......... those will have to be a new type as well.
so yeah, not an LHA hull anymore

btw, with the F-35B, V-22 and MH-60, why even bother with an angled deck? setting up some kind of emergency arrestor wires should not be that hard, and be just as useful on a regular ship then on an angled deck. on the other hand, when using aircraft for stovl missions, the straight deck has advantages in deck parking space and flexibility and you don't have to be as worried about the superstructure.

I can really not see any friendly littorals where SM-6 and Mk 32 would be needed. putting helicopters and maybe RAM or ESSM on makes sense to me, but other then that it seems more sensible to me to have containerised weapon platforms fitted on ships like the MLP or even civilian pontoons which can be rented, bought or commandeered when needed.

not trying to shoot your ideas down, btw, just interested and thinking out loud to you if I'm a lucky bastard we will both have learned some stuff at the end of this conversation.

_________________
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

Excellent thoughts and comments.

The angled deck and arresting system is to allow fully loaded F-35s an efficient and safe way to land without dumping ordnance and fuel, it's very expensive to start dumping high value precision ordnance. The angled deck also creates more useable deckspace and no conflicting take offs and landings. Many of the worlds LHA/LHD designs were all about Panamax constraints and cost issues with overhangs and sponsons, so Im proposing to throw those constraints to the wind. A cost trade off may be sticking to the 20knot top speed, they're not meant to be fast attack carriers. They're meant to be regional force projection assets whereas the big CVNs (congressionally mandated at 11) are true strategic assets.

The barges are in some ways a modern coastal monitor, but with a focus on projecting anti air, anti missile, and anti submarine capabilities at relatively low coast off the littoral approaches. It helps project national sovereignty and greatly complicates the sovereignty tests that other nation states are beginning to re-enact on a regular basis.

Both of these designs may garner foreign sale interrests also

Great dialogue - thank you.

In Norway we used torpedo bunkers up to late cold war... mainly for take out ships. But something we do in Norway, is that we have soldiers on land manned with mobile manpads, we use Lockheed P-3 Orion (have sonars) for hunting and torpedo attack submarine (depending on version), we have small trailers with light weight AAW missiles (AMRAM, and similar). You also have land-based helicopters (Helicopters have sonars) that can hunt down submarines and attack them with torpedoes.

An barge will be an stationary platform, thus make it the world easiest target to take out. An barge will not give a single improvement to the defense over the littoral platform.


All you need to make an good defense in littoral waters is:
- Homeguard with manpads. (ASuW and AAW) (Cheap....)
- AMRAM with radar stationed in key areas. (AAW) (Cheap...ish)
- P-3 Orion ASW os similar. (ASW)
- Helicopter with torpedo and sonar. (ASW)
- Fighter jet (special an multirole fighter, like for example F35). (ASuW, AAW)
- under water mines. (ASuW, ASW) (Cheap...ish)

You can also use:
- Coast guard vessel, that are armed up. (For example the Norwegian coast guard vessel of the Nordkapp class, can be armed up with ASuW missile, AAW missile, ASW torpedoes and depth charges, etc.). You have an coast guard vessel that you just arm up for war. (Cheap...ish, you have an ship from before... you just give it some more equipment)
- Small, fast and cheap. Missile torpedo boats (MTB's). (cheap... for it's firepower)
- Small cheap corvette armed with AAW missile (like Standard family missiles, etc.) (cheap... ish)


Every thing today have to be fast and hard to find/detect. An Barge is non of this, and would be an waste off money.