Shipbucket

Curious how neither Friedman's Destroyers nor Potter's Electronic Greyhounds make any mention of the Spruances needing "reframing" after being fit with VLS forward. Seems like something one or both of them might mention, as they devote pages upon pages to the subject of the DD-963s being designed specifically for future updates and refits.

This user could tell me the sky is blue and I'd go outside to check.

Well on the Spruances i imagine the VLS refit required slicing out sections of some of the transverse and longitudinal frames.

but i dunno how that qualifies as "reframing" any more then it does removing a section of the ship's fabric which was now simultaneously redundant and "in the way".

QED. "That" simple fix raised issues and showed a design flaw.

I mention this problem about Friedman and the aircraft carriers. He doesn't know everything, tell everything or even understand what he writes in some particulars about the ships he covers.

Example.

Those are the Arleighs.

As for Spruance class destroyers... Page 370 in Friedman's book discusses the size/length escalation problem for the Spruance class, and Litton's unfamiliarity with the new COGAG plant's characteristics they planned to use to meet the Navy's silencing requirement with its unexpected power for that long hull they chose to fit it, and he never once mentions the Atlantic bow slam that results from it. This has been a US Navy problem for every hull derived from the Spruance class hull. Ticos and Arleighs have fuller hulls, but when you can trace the same problem to its root origin this way?

apart from the fact that that fact (the hull damage to the DDG-51 class ships) happened years after the current version of US destroyers was released, so he could not have mentioned it?
The Tico also does not have a fuller hull as the Spruance? (it has exactly the same) and I also see no proof of this being an issue on the Spruance class? the forum you linked to actually has a quote from Stuart Slade mentioning exactly why the burke has this issue while earlier ships had not.

Nobody is perfect, and I accept that there might be errors in Friedman's works. I have however found nothing you mentioned of enough value that I ever doubted Friedman on those points. Also, as Erik stated, this is not just Friedman, but also Electronic Greyhounds which disagree with your statements.

Tobius, you do realise I am literally doing damage control? I do not want NepsterCZ, who is doing excellent and interesting work (or anybody else reading all this) to listen to your statements which are unproven at best but in my opinion even completely wrong in most cases. To stop filling this thread and my time with anymore of this, I will not reply to anything you say here from now on. I think the message is clear to all. Just my request for you:
PLEASE STOP SPREADING DISINFORMATION

_________________
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

Hey NepsterCZ, I hope you are not scared away, but what all the discussion was about, yes, that definitely works. I am still not certain about the space requirements of the hangars, but this will certainly help.

The above text is an excerpt of friedmans US Destroyers describing the DDV, a study where they played with hull sizes and equipment of the burkes between the flight 2 ships and the flight 2A. I drew all of those in shipbucket scale, they can be found here http://www.shipbucket.com/drawings/sear ... =&drawing=
hope that helps and I am looking forward to more of your works!

_________________
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

but it didn't require a major rework or "reframing"

there was a much much easier fix

was it a 100% solution? no, but was it a 99% solution, yes

Oh no, still here. I'm actually reading everything, every day. I just don't have anything to say

Those are some interesting designs. I cant say I even understand why some of them were even projected. Especially the DDV1 variant seems just absurd to me, but hey ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Don't expect me to do anything soon tho. I have no idea what is a typical shipbucket image timeframe, but my "Burke Flight III project" was about 550-600 man-hours, so yeah, that's, that. I kinda also don't have anything I would like to do now, which is crucial for such a long-term project. I kinda had a "crush" on Afloat Forward Staging Base, or the "Future Surface Combatant" replacement for Burkes. Maybe something build on Burkes hull? Maybe a trimaran design? Appears to be nuclear powered, so I would have to check the feasibility and that. So yeah, feel free to insert your opinions

One thing tho, while I'm here, Do you happen to know why is the new Burkes shipped without the front CIWS? Even tho the "slot" is there? I read somewhere that its cost-saving measure, but a 20 million Phalanx on 1.8 billion warship, seems like a quite a drop in the ocean.

_________________
My projects:

Arleigh Burke Flight III
Independence-class hull

cost and weight

for a brief period the Burkes were built without any CIWS as it was believed that ESSM would fill the gap and free up valuable top weight for other systems, however they eventually came to the conclusion that there was a deadzone caused by the need to punt the missile up above the ship and slew onto the threat, so a single Phalanx was re installed aft.

the trimaran designs were all for the most part British studies from the late 90s that culminated in Triton and the decisions that Trimarans do not make good warships due to packaging issues.

I read that offhand remark and literally burst out laughing at my desk.

As you know I lack the capacity to comprehensively and completely refute every last arcane claim made by one of the posters in this thread, but when you screw up something that basic... why should anybody believe you about anything?