Shipbucket

Hello gentlemen.

Setting:

- This is being submitted to you (the members of the House/Senate Armed Forces Appropriations Committee) one year after I am elected President on 2016. Why or how I achieved this is unimportant...
- All remaining Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates decommissioned in 2016-2017 by executive order to save money.
- DDG Flight III cancelled without a single hull built in 2016 due to appropriation shenanigans.
- Both LCS programs are cancelled due to a combination of appropriation shenanigans and dismal performance. Eight already built units, four of each class, are kept.
- CGs are showing their age and experiencing severe maintenance issues, but are limping along at extreme cost due to operational requirements.
- The US Navy is now dire straits due to a complete lack of small frigate sized vessels, relying on overworked DDG Flight I/II/IIAs, barely working CGs and the remaining LCS to cover all surface combatant duties.
- There has been a steep escalation in hostile rhetoric between China and Japan after the collision of a Chinese fighter jet with a Japanese reconnaissance P-3 over the Senkaku islands in 2015 killing all onboard both, followed closely by the unintentional collision of a Chinese Type 041 submarine with the Japanese Submarine JDS Unryu in early 2016 sinking the Chinese vessel and killing 33 Chinese sailors and 2 Japanese sailors.
- North Korea conducted two more nuclear tests, one in 2014 and another in 2015. Both were smaller than previous tests and the US intelligence assessment is this will become a routine event to achieve an unknown diplomatic goal even though talks were suspended indefinitely after the 2014 test. More troublesome was the discovery of two midget submarines on the coast of Northern Japan in 2015 identified to be North Korean. Six unidentified dead bodies were found in the wreckage. North Korea denies any connection to the event and the purpose of the submarines and their mission is unknown.
- An uncontrollable Arab Spring like revolution took place in Yemen in 2015 but a new government failed to materialize and the country has become a failed state with the exception of a Saudi backed regime confined solely to the city of Sana'a. The government backed by Saudi and Omani forces is embroiled in a nasty urban insurgency to retake Aden, the rest of the country has reverted to tribal rule. The instability has caused modest increases in the price of oil.
- Severe famine in Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan, combined with the instability on both sides of the Gulf of Aden, have led to levels of piracy in the waters off the Horn of Africa and far into the Indian Ocean never seen before, exacerbated by arms dealers trading from Africa to Yemen to supply the demand of tribal insurgents in that countries active civil war.
- Syria's civil war is ongoing, both sides remaining relatively stalemated for three years. The north of the country and Aleppo operate as a de facto independent nation with the full backing of the international community. Turkey mounted limited bombing of several Syrian airfields in reaction to errant missiles landing in their territory causing civilian damage in 2015, but no other outside military intervention has taken place.
- Iran remains defiant in the face of accusations against its nuclear program. They continue to periodically increase tensions in the area via military exercises in the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman.

Design Philosphy:

- Due the USN failing to develop a dependable low cost frigate or corvette sized vessel since the debut of the Oliver Hazard Perry class FFG in 1977, they have found themselves woefully unequipped to combat the low intensity maritime threats that have typified operational requirements since the mid 1990s. Constantly relying on either under armed and overaged hulls (FFGs) or gold plated modern vessels over equipped for the missions at hand and thus enormously expensive to use for those missions (DDGs/CGs), the USN has met this challenge through non ideal means needlessly stressing the force and expending resources enormously out of proportion to the needs and results of these missions.

- The FFLX/FFGX program is a new procurement project designed to provide the USN with smaller more inexpensive platforms that are better suited to missions that do not require the full mission capabilities of a DDG, as well as provide platforms that can ably act as force multipliers when paired with DDGs to relieve the operational pressure on these platforms.

- The program provides for the dual development of two frigate sized combatants sharing a common hull. The first (Project Trident) is to be a highly modern AAW/ASW platform built to accept state of the art energy based weapons expected to be fielded in the next decade with its primary mission to defend high value units from peer or near peer foes. The second platform (Project Saber) will be a lower cost vessel using legacy/current proven weapon systems to provide a low impact and optimized asset for littoral and near littoral missions of an asymmetric nature, focused primarily on ASuW, ASW, and MIO operations.

- One of the primary goals is to achieve as much commonality between the hulls as possible to simplify acquisition and maintenance, especially in engineering spaces, with primary departures being limited to weapon systems and sensors. The common features are leveraging technology and lessons learned from the LCS and DDG 1000 programs.

- The proposed production timeline is for the first Trident hull to be delivered in 2018 for commissioning in 2020, with the first Saber hull being delivered in 2019 for commissioning in 2021. Two hulls will be delivered each year from 2020 through 2025 (one of each type per year) for a total of fourteen hulls. A decision to continue production of the current of updated designs will be required by 2023 to avoid production line shut down. The Trident hulls are to be built by Bath Iron Works in Bath Maine, the Saber hulls will be built by Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula Mississippi

ENGINEERING REVIEW FOR FFLX PROGRAM (PROJECT TRIDENT):

I intend to build this ship around its engineering, then its weapons systems instead of inserting all of these into a pretty hull. For this reason the underwater hull is very basic due to expected changes. I started with the Trident hull due to my intention of providing it with three MT30 generator turbines due to its future energy weapon requirements. I open to suggestrions as to whether this third generator is necessary as the DDG1000 only has two and is also designed to accomodate future energy weapons. I am simply not too versed on the required output for these types of weapons so let me know if you have any better idea of their needs.

Propulsion Specifications:
3 x Rolls-Royce MT30 Gas Turbine Generators
2 x Caterpillar Marine V16M32C Backup Diesel Generator Sets
2 x Converteam Advanced Induction Moters/Coverteam VDM 25000
2 x Shafts

Sensors:
Unkown S/X band array, still in devlopment (mast shown is a place holder)
Primary and secondary surface search/navigation radar (SPS 73/67 shown as place holder)
Bow mounted sonar
Towed sonar array
Optical CIWS control and search system

Weapons:
64 x cell Mk 41 VLS housing SM2/ESSM/ASROC
2 x SeaRAM
6 x SVTT (two 3 tube mounts)
1 x Mk 110 57mm Naval Gun

Embarked
2 x Light/Medium Helicopter
2 x 9m RHIB
1 x Scan Eagle UAV





Some notes:

- I am not sure if there is enough space for the third generator (the aft one).
- I have been thinking about changing engine alignments including going down to one shaft. The engine spaces look crowded and they are supposed to be cheap.
- Should I slower the hull in the water so that the water line is equal to the deck on the main deck? I feel like I don't have enough stability but again the underwater hull is just a place holder until the engineering configuration is set. Right now it already has a 26 foot draft without the viw sonar.
- The future weapons boxes will be a filled by new custom weapons I have not released yet. The bow mounted one will be a THEL/HELLADS inspired all purpose laser with a range of 50 nm. The internal box interal to the bow is the space required for related equipment to that weapon. The amidships box is to house a laser based CIWS system with the support equipment located on the deck immediately below. These weapons are not expected to be fielded until 2022 at the earliest, so the first hulls will be built without them which is one reason for the increased VLS load.
- I intend to use the back up diesel generators and AIMs from the Zumwalts for commonality purposes, but for the life of me I can't find pictures of them (or even what exact models are being used) so I am using the stand ins until I get better info.
- Pardon the amatuer SH-60 drawing, I couldn't find a good one and just needed something to show that the hanger is big enough.
- Pardon the template, or lack thereof, once I get closer to a finished product or at least finish with the internals I will paste it into one.
- The diesel engine is different from the one on the "below decks parts" part sheet, but I did use acelanceloet's 8M46DF8 to start from. I have about 8 Catipillar marine engines drawn now all starting from this project that I will release later.
- This is technically a start to my AU but since I am very much a beginner I put it here.

EDIT 05MAR12: REMOVED NONFUNCTIONAL SPOILER TAGS

right. not that bad an start, although I did not get that impression on first sight, to be honest.
so, yeah, I have a few comments.

first of all, maybe the harshest of all. start over with the hull. now, don't be mad, but this won't really work. the bow and stern have ridicolour angles, the beam will result in stability problems and the beam shown in your cross section will not be enough. that is the reason it looked really bad at first
but, I am impressed though by the work that is, to me, the most important. thinking about what you want it to be. there are some flaws, but hey, you are new, that is only natural.
a few comments then, to help you out.
* you mention the zumwalt has 2 FT30. this is true. these are the zumwalts propulsion engines..... and the zumwalt is huge. I think maybe tripple the displacement of this vessel. so, normally, you would need at most half that power for propulsion.
now let's list the power of the engines used:
- FT-30, 40MW
- Caterpillar Marine V16M32C, 7,680 MW

-an burke has, total power, 2,5 MW*3 generators and 20MW*4 on propulsion. this is 7,5 MW and 80 MW respectively.
-the zumwalt has 78MW in gas turbines and I guess about 10 MW from her auxilary generators. this all goes in the electrical network, as she uses IPS, but the gas turbine power shall mostly be used for propulsion, as otherwise she wouldn't get to 30 knots
-an perry has 31 MW propulsion power and I think about 5 MW in auxilary power.

*your vessel is closer to size to an perry. that means you would need about 40MW maximum for propulsion. a single FT30 would be enough for that.

*you have now on board: 2* 7,680 MW + 3*40MW= 135,36 MW. this means you have 135-40=95MW of power purely for weapons.
*based on some press articles about them, I have estimated the power of an railgun to be about 10MW per second. per second of constant firing, that is. but they don't fire constant.
'10 projectiles a minute, with an speed of let's say, 8000km/h, a barrel of 10 meters, that gives that the projectile is 'being fired' for 1/800000h or 0,0045 seconds, 6 times a minute. that is 1,62 second per hour, so you would need to generate 16MW/h roughly. I would not think lasers would use 5 times as much as that, but if they do, I suggest going nuclear, because you are going through your fuel real fast this way.

so, I think your power is a bit too much bringing this down would make your ship way easier to lay out too.

I am going to leave you with that now, as it is time to sleep at my side and I don't want to spill too much at your plate at once, but just a few pointers
- look at hull shapes of vessels in the bucket. ships look alike.... because they work.
- keep an eye on your fuel quantity. right now you seem to have just enough to get out of port and back in, if I see it correctly.
- battery power! you will need to charge, fire and recharge your energy with these future weapons
- get your engines and weapons sorted, and then dimension the ship around it. keep in mind that I for example see no room for crew currently, so most likely with the same weapons your ship will end up bigger
- try to replace systems like the VLS and the gun with the new weapons, instead of adding them on spaces kept empty. that will save you a lot of weight and space when the ship is build and will stop you running into problems when your new weapons are fitted
- you forgot to add the generators at the gas turbines

ow and, I really want that electrical engine, it's specifications and any references for it, if possible. my knowledge and resources of those are very limited but my interest in it is high.
I also would love to see those cat engines for the belowdeck part thread.

hope this helps

_________________
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 hoped so!
The underwater hull, stern and bow, are both just notational. If the angles need to be modified I can do so. The bow is intentionally extended out to give the eventual weapon placed there as much coverage abaft of beam as possible. This is just the frigate so the blind spot is just a reality of being a smaller ship (the follow on destroyer will have two weapons fore and aft for 360 coverage). I will play with it.

As for beam you have me curious because I intentionally used the Absolon and Perry to get comparable proportions.

Absalon = 137.6m long by 19.5 on the beam (7.05:1), draft 6.3
Perry = 136m long by 14m on the beam (9.7:1), draft of 6.7m
FFLX = 130.1m long by 18.75 on the beam, (6.93:1)draft 7.9

I am pretty spot on the Absalon, the Perry is just a skinny ship. The dimension I am off on is draft, is that what you see as the problem? Or perhaps the shape of the hull? Does it need to be wider below the water line?

This is definitely something I can alter.
Yeah, like I mentioned I have struggled with this decision. Some things:

1.) While the Zumwalt only has two FT30s (I am assuming this is the designation for the generator version of the MT30?) and is easily twice the size of the FFLX, the LCS-1 also rocks two MT30s and is much smaller. So that is where the third came from, because the LCS-1 uses its two MT30s solely for propulsion. Of course the difference is that the DDG1000 (and the FFLX) uses IPS and the LCS-1 doesn't.

2.) The diesels were envisioned as actual backups, not something to be used even under battle load. Only if the gas turbines are non functioning. If one FT30 at 40MW is whats needed to just run propulsion, that means that as backups both diesels together can only provide 15MVs (or less than half the needed power for full propulsion) in an emergency. Basically that would let you run minimal propulsion and still have 80MWs available for full weapons load with one FT30 down, or give you full power to engines for an escape with 15MW available to run non energy self defense weapons with two FT30s down.

Of course this is just a frigate so it makes sense that it was not rivaling a destroyer in power generation. It the end it looks like its the LCS-1 that is insanely over powered. Then again it has a top speed of 47knots and probably isn't using that efficiently due to lack of IPS.

I will delete the aft MT30 and move the forward two back to better align them under the stacks. This will change my philosophy about the FFGX because it was going to have only two MT30s (to provide redundancy, it doesn't have energy weapons). I wonder if that hull can get away with one?
Could you be a bit more specific about whats wrong with my hull? I got the dimensions right in the middle of real world frigates, is it the hull form that is the problem?
Is it really that bad? I got the tank locations from how they sit on a Arleigh Burke. I can fit another large tank under GEN RM #3 but that will interfere with the shafting potentially. You have to have fuel though!
The forward weapon will run directly off the generators so no insane amount of batteries needed (remember I was going to have 80MW, now 40MW, of extra power generation). The amidships CIWS weapon will need lots of bateries and they will be in the deck below. It uses the batteries to create a split second ionization laser that requires power beyond what even three FT30s could provide. But again, only for a split second. The destructive energy flows directly from the generators, to be managed by the WMS between the CWIS and bow laser.
Its there, the profile shot doesn't give you a good perspective of the space around the machinery. I'll do a seperate graphic to show this once the engineering is settled.
Yep, but this isn't a "best I can think of" design, but rather one that is designed to fit into the scenario which really isn't that far from the truth other than we will be saddled with the POS LCS. Which means that the FFLX needs to have legacy weapons at least until 2022 and once installed why take them off (perhaps the new builds will not include them).

What do you think about reducing the VLS from 64 to 32. Its still a more than the Perry's zero!

A valid point, though, I need to look at ballasting until the bow laser and gear are installed, it won't affect the FFGX.
Yeah, I am still looking for a good image. If anyone has one I will gladly draw it.
Not a problem, I'll post them in the below deck parts thread.
Your comments are great, I plan on spending a lot of time on this ship, both inside and out.

ok, I have just run a few quick calculations.
- your displacement will be about 6320 tons.
- waterline length about 100 m (that is the actual size you should look at for comparision)
- I have taken the block coefficient as 0,5

this gives you an displacement similar to the dutch LCF, and quite a bit more then the perry.

with your current dimensions, and the given fact that the GM value (stability calculation value) is about 1,5 for warships, I found out that your CoG can not lay higher then.... 5,3 meters from the keel. that would be well below the waterline, and would leave next to no space for radars or weapons.
and that is why you hull dimensions don't work

LCS-1 has so much power because it is soo bloody fast. when the speed goes up with 2, the resistance goes up with 2^2 = 4. so 2 times as fast means 4 times as much resistance, not to speak about resistance from waves (LCS-1 minimises this by using an semi-planing hull)

the batteries are required because you do not want to run your engines for only a few seconds, then fire, shut them down, and start them up again for the next shot. instead, you start the engines, build up power, and fire from the power you have build up. that way you need a lot less power as well.

the fact that I did not see space for the crew was not purely based on me not seeing it on your drawing.... it was based on a bit of experience with ships this size with far less systems still considered cramped for the crew.

that bow laser is a very bad idea btw, that is the most vulnerable position for...... well about anything.

_________________
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

Shipright.
You have an interesting design, certainly one You've put lots of thought into, but I would like to concur with Acelanceloet's remarks about hull shape. too much angle at bow and stern, and as for the draught - You've got a draught of a WW2 heavy cruiser on a frigate sized hull. These draughts of Perry or Absalon are with full weight and with sonar dome included - for this one I wouldn't expect more than ca. 5 meters to the keel (with around 1+ meter for sonar dome).

I'd suggest You compare the hull proportions with these.
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... f=5&t=3743

- Why spoiler tags? As you can see they clearly don't work, plus it implies (actually explicitly states) that you don't want us to actually read it, so why spend all that time writing it and posting it in the first place?

- quite a bit of it makes little sense in accordance to how the government and the USN work

- the backstory, especially with such little AU trappings, is the least important part about a Shipbucket drawing.

More lenght? More beam, more draft?

With near the same displacement as the Absalon and also near the same beam where it differs is water line lenght (she is at 124m and the FFLX am at 104m) and draft (the FFLX is 1.3m more).

I was thinking of extending the stern out to make a larger flight deck anyway as it appears to short to me for safe flight ops. I think between that and lessening the severe slope of the bow and stern I can add 10-15 more meters to the waterline length which if I understand your calcuations should help?

Also, at to CoG, I can raise all the engineering equipment up a deck which will also create more room for fuel. I wanted to keep all that below the water line but if it doesn't work it doesn't work.
Exactly, and it is probably not as efficient as an IPS system either. I will reduce the MT30s to two.
Good point, good thing I have that giant block reserved!
A valid concern. I think with the removal of the third MT30 and reduction in VLS this should free up room for all sorts of berthing and associated crew space.
I hear you, but I respectfully disagree. With a direct fire weapon its all about line of sight and with the ship only being able to support one system the bow seemed like a good spot in that regard. Granted, the drawback is that a direct fire weapon needs stability at range and the bow is not good for that. Stabilization will be an issue but it is not unheard of.

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_di ... rth_05.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _19%29.jpg

Larger ships granted, but the field of fire is preciesly why they were placed there. And if a Phalanx can survive it as finicky as it is its not beyond the realm of reason for another system to. I am going to run with it and I note the objection, we can take a look when I actually get around to drawing that, I suppose the next likely location is to replace the Mk 110 mount though I would be loathe to leave the ship without any main gun armament whatsoever besides small force protection mounts.

I appreciate the comments, I will start getting this hull redrawn based on what you said...
Like I said no thought was put into the under water hull other than to give me a rough idea of where the decks would be so I could play with the engineering configuration. I will draw the hull around the engines once placed based on the comments provided by you guys!
The DDG 51 is rocking a 9.4m draft, a Type 045 7.4 meters so smaller modern ships out drafting larger older vessels is not a new thing. By moving the main engine equipment up a half deck or more I should be able to shave some draft off of the hull. I would like to home in around a 7m draft including sonar again based on these comments.
Also with the Perry and Absolon you need to remember that it has a hull mounted sonar that usually adds far less to draft than a bow mounted sonar like say the SQS-53C. Maybe I should go this route?
When I made the original post I was unaware of that particular code being disabled on this board. When I update the artwork on the OP I will remove the nonfunctional tags.
I very much wanted you to read it, but this is the beginners forum for artwork not he AU forum that is dedicated to such stuff. So for your convenience and also to tidy up the post which is quite long I attempted to spoil them out. After you read it once, why have be forced to scroll through it again? I respectfully disagree, but it simply served to establish that I am in control of the development process, and that you are sort of the meet grinder of congress. A simple solution to coopting the ship bucket process into my AU Honorable Representative

Again respectfully, and strongly, disagree. Ships are not build in a vacuum and rather reflect the requirements their operators need tempered by what technology is available tempered by what they can convince the other organs of government to provide.

If this were a real ship drawing this would be less important in a ship bucket sense because all of these are known. Granted I think understanding the historical context a ship was born out of leads to better drawings but I am just a noon, what do I know!

In this case, however, given this is a fictional in progress future design literally being designed as a process the only way that can happen is to know the Who/What/Why/When/How of it. Why do I want this frigate instead of Flight III Burkes? Because the Flight III Burke program failed and the DDGs are ill suited to many missions? Why do I want two versions of this hull? Because building just gold plated frigates all capable of taking on peer threats invariably means wasted capability and dollars. Stuff like that.

My scenario is informed from my experiences as a DDG51 department head, a tour I just finished this January. It reflects some real problems I saw with how we were using our forces and how mismanaged appropriations is gutting our fleet, as well as capabilities I would like to see from a professional standpoint. The AU flare was just put in there to provide for some additional senario fun later on when the AU “goes live” so to speak, if I ever even get to that because I have a lot of hull drawing to do!

Thanks for the comments gents.

Shipright
At light configuration draught of DDG-51 divides at roughly 2/3 for hull, 1/3 for sonar. That 9,4 meters is heavy draught (difference of roughly 1 metre, and then it gets roughly 3/4 for hull, 1/4 for sonar). Draught of DDG-51 without sonar is roughly 6 meters, sonar adds about 2,5 more. And DDG-51 is much longer. For hull of that length, You'd rather cut one underwater deck level.

I know, I drove them

1/2 to one deck is coming out, the hull will be lengthened.

Wow, drawing hulls is more difficult than I thought! I am however learning a lot implementing your comments.

So before I go through the trouble of adding all the interior parts back in and polishing up, I would be curious how you feel about these changed dimensions.

Overall Length: 136m (increase of 6m)
Waterline Length: 119m ( increase of 15m)
Beam: 18.75m (same)
Draft: 5.5m (decrease of 2.5m)
Navigational Draft:7.1m

I extended the stern, reduced the angle of the bow and stern, and removed 1.1 decks from below the waterline.

EDIT: Well, I decided to finish up tonight so here is the update:



So all the changes I mentioned above plus:

- With the removal of the third MT30 I could delete the forward exhaust. There are still two exhausts, they are just side by side. This leaves open the possibility of adding a small aft mast to take some of the hardware off the main mast when I get to it.

- Added the location of some of the crew spaces. There are two ratings berthing spaces in the aft block housing 50 crew. The forward block holds another rating berthing housing 40 crew, a CPO berthing housing 15 crew, the galley, the mess decks and the CPO mess as well as other office spaces. The Officer berthing and wardroom will eventually go in the superstructure but I am still working that out.

- Reduced the VLS from 64 to 32 and moved it away from the Mk110 to provide more of a buffer. This will also allow room for an ammo hoist. just aft of the gun direcly to its magazine three decks below. (this can also serve as a general use hoist for other purposes)

- Extended the fuel tanks along most of the keel and increased their depth by a meter. Once I get another cross section done we can calculate how much this will hold and adjust.

- I added a forward and aft axillary machinery spaces that can will hold euipment like VCHT tanks and pumps, RODI equipment, potable water tanks, and other services systems. The shaft seals are in the AUX #2.

- The shafting is long but there is a reason for this. The converters and AIM are located in the PRP RM and can be supplied by either the MT30s or Diesels. Separating these two forward and aft of the PRP RM means that if one takes a hit the other still has all the equipment needed to provide propulsion (granted less than max if the diesels are providing power). Of course a hit in the PRP RM would probably leave you dead in the water.

Another option would be to put one MT30 with one AIM in the middle main space and another MT30 with one AIM in the aft space. This requires different lengths for each shaft introduces all sorts of engineering complications including the requirement for robust thrust bearings. Obviously a lot of ships do this including the Type 045s and the DDG51s, I was attempting to avoid it if possible based on personal experience with the setup. Thoughts?

- I used the prop from the the DDG-112 drawing by MihoshiK as a stand in.