|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 12, 2014 10:58:52 GMT -6
The length on this ship is 163 meters or 534 feet, but the length of the DDG type 52D is 155 meters or 508.53. What is that, about 26 feet. The latter has a beam of about 59 feet. Length to beam then , is about 8.6 to 1. If we translate that to the new cruiser, we get about a 62 foot beam for her. So, we are looking at a power system that will provide about 100000 hp. They might use electric propulsion. My guess is that this new cruiser is just a scaled up Type 52D destroyer.
What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Apr 12, 2014 11:43:53 GMT -6
Hmm, good point there ... the article's text analysis only lists the length at 603 feet, while the original estimate is in meters. Not sure looking at the diagram whether it's showing an overall length of 163 meters, or a length of 163 + 21 = 184 meters. Methinks someone got confused with splitting up measurements and converting metric to imperial units.
Here's a question I have; are we sure this layout is definitively a CG or DDG? That seems to be a very large superstructure, which is something of an anomaly on modern surface combatants. You want one or two tall deckhouses, likely pyramidal in shape, to house air-defense radars, but aside from that you try to bury as much as you can in the hull to reduce the radar signature and give your point-defense systems and sensors clearer lines of sight. This by contrast appears to have a long, medium-height superstructure with one relatively small enclosed mast structure. The radar positions in the concept sketch really don't make a lot of sense to me. The first thing that came to my mind when I looked at the mockup, as opposed to the concept sketch of the completed vessel, was an LPD-17 amphib.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 12, 2014 12:00:56 GMT -6
Hmm, good point there ... the article's text analysis only lists the length at 603 feet, while the original estimate is in meters. Not sure looking at the diagram whether it's showing an overall length of 163 meters, or a length of 163 + 21 = 184 meters. Methinks someone got confused with splitting up measurements and converting metric to imperial units. Here's a question I have; are we sure this layout is definitively a CG or DDG? That seems to be a very large superstructure, which is something of an anomaly on modern surface combatants. You want one or two tall deckhouses, likely pyramidal in shape, to house air-defense radars, but aside from that you try to bury as much as you can in the hull to reduce the radar signature and give your point-defense systems and sensors clearer lines of sight. This by contrast appears to have a long, medium-height superstructure with one relatively small enclosed mast structure. The radar positions in the concept sketch really don't make a lot of sense to me. The first thing that came to my mind when I looked at the mockup, as opposed to the concept sketch of the completed vessel, was an LPD-17 amphib. I am guessing the displacement on this ship is about 15,000 tons with a superstructure height in the neighborhood of 100-105 feet. With the sloping angle, its radar reflection is going be comparable to a smaller ship structure. It's probably a cross-between a DDG and a CGX. Most likely its slower by a few knots using the same CODAG system as the DDG type 52's. BTW, here is a nice drawing breakdown of the type 52C which might give us some areas to explore.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 12, 2014 15:32:35 GMT -6
Just a note on calculating the speed. An empirical formula for this is Vhull is approximately equal to 1.34 x Square Root of Length at the waterline in feet. At a length of 534 feet, that gives us a rough 30.9 knots. I've captured the formula and explanation to help us. At the longer length, the speed would be approximately 32.9 knots. If we use the 534 figure, but use the higher constant of 1.51 we are looking at a speed of 34.8. So, the speed range is approximately 31 to 35 knots. I am betting on the lower figure.
Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 14, 2014 12:19:17 GMT -6
I thought a monograph on the OM&N funding for the LCS would be appropriate. OM&N meaning operations, maintenance Navy.
I don't remember if we've looked at this link - breakingdefense.com/2013/05/navy-cant-calculate-littoral-combat-ships-operating-costs-says-gao-draft
Does this statement bother you -"The Navy is 90 percent sure its current estimated cost to operate and maintain the controversial Littoral Combat Ship is off target, according to a draft Government Accountability Office report..." So, the Navy is still trying to figure out how to shoehorn this support ship into the current fleet doctrine and now is almost positive that its OM&N funding estimates are not correct.
Let's see: A. The ship leaks water into the fuel system, amongst other problems B. The Navy is almost positive their OM&N estimates are way off C. The Navy hasn't figured out how to shoehorn this "support ship" into the fleet and its doctrine.
Did I miss anything besides they haven't built enough mission modules yet, and that will take a while. I am depressed
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on May 10, 2014 9:06:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 10, 2014 10:38:26 GMT -6
One of the elements of the article needs clarification. The goats were tethered to the decks, not inside under protection. The ships were not underway and the second bomb, Baker was an underwater explosion with the A-bomb hanging below the LST. This is the test that did the most damage, sank the Arkansas and the Saratoga. I have the book Operations Crossroads, with signatures by the Admiral in charge, Admiral Blandy, and all the scientists. My dad was on board the Badoeng Strait which carried one of the bombs. He was also a boatswain that took the scientists into the lagoon after the explosions. The bombs used at Bikini were equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT, not H-Bombs which carry much more punch. What was tested at Bikini, is no longer representative of naval warfare in the nuclear age. The most dramatic change from WWII is the fact that we now realize that we don't have to sink a ship, but just mission kill it. This and the move to Littoral zones and enclosed seas has changed how navies will conduct operations. All ships, even during WWII were defensive in nature. The DE's, DD's, light cruisers and heavy cruisers were all designed and equipped to provide defensive armament to carrier battle groups. They were also used to provide naval gunfire, which they still do. However, it was the large fleet carriers along with light carriers that actually provided most of the interdiction and ground attack for landings. That as not changed except the large carriers cannot venture into those areas, traditional areas where navies have fought for control of coasts and waterways.
The article is partially correct about classifications. They can be deceptive as the term "survivability" means much more than it did in the past. Interesting article but should have been longer and provided much more information and data.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 10, 2014 11:38:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jan 29, 2015 22:40:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 29, 2015 23:56:31 GMT -6
SPACE, the final frontier. This is the continuing voyage of the starship Zumwalt. Its five year mission to explore the seas and go where no sailor has gone before.
Wow, this ship is an electronic technicians nightmare. I can just see it now: Stop, don't shoot, I have to reboot my ship.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jan 30, 2015 19:06:13 GMT -6
Yeah, I hope to heck they put those systems through a lot of reliability testing. This is one reason why I consider the three DDG-1000 hulls to be operational testbeds - they are something of ships in search of a mission nowadays, given that they were built to do close-in littoral work and with the current shifts in threats that's not the kind of environment you'd want to send a multibillion-dollar ship into, no matter how stealthy it is.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 2, 2015 19:39:04 GMT -6
Interesting how the tumblehome bow design has made its return, apparently it drives through the waves and keeps the ship stable.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Feb 2, 2015 23:21:53 GMT -6
Interesting how the tumblehome bow design has made its return, apparently it drives through the waves and keeps the ship stable. I think the tumblehome design was primarily to reduce the ship's radar signature. Stability-wise it's considered less stable, especially in high-speed turns. There's some concern it may be more prone to capsizing during pitching and rolling. Overall, while the features it introduces are useful and will inform the design of future warships, as an active surface combatant it's a bit of a white elephant. It has fewer VLS cells than a DDG-51 or CG-47, less self-defense capability, and costs much more than either. It's largely built around a pair of advanced guns that are outranged by shore-based AShM batteries. Can it be useful? Yes, but that's going to be very situational.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 2, 2015 23:28:40 GMT -6
Interesting how the tumblehome bow design has made its return, apparently it drives through the waves and keeps the ship stable. I think the tumblehome design was primarily to reduce the ship's radar signature. Stability-wise it's considered less stable, especially in high-speed turns. There's some concern it may be more prone to capsizing during pitching and rolling. Overall, while the features it introduces are useful and will inform the design of future warships, as an active surface combatant it's a bit of a white elephant. It has fewer VLS cells than a DDG-51 or CG-47, less self-defense capability, and costs much more than either. It's largely built around a pair of advanced guns that are outranged by shore-based AShM batteries. Can it be useful? Yes, but that's going to be very situational. I've read that its ok in calm seas but has some nasty pitches and rolls in rough seas. This video is interesting and illustrates some of the problems. www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R-s3S3F8Mao
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 3, 2015 8:46:29 GMT -6
|
|