CG(X) option two 23,000 ton BMD CGN(X)

[sabotage181]

I have a few comments....
- if you go for shading for the angled surfaces, I would go for lighter grey forward and darker aft, instead of both dark.

I was looking at the rules again, and it mentions only two shades of grey. The Hull and the super structure, as well the example drawing is using that rule. I like the way you say to do it, and I have changed it to that standard. my only question would be is it "legal"?

also, take a look where to use grey and where black lines, less then 90 degrees turns are represented by grey lines in shipbucket style.

This sounds like it should be elementary, and I hate to sound confused....but...are you saying any line that is straight vertical or horizontal should be black, and any line with angle should be grey? Again, I like the way you stated and I'm changing mine because that looks better. But it's left me wondering if it's "legal" and it's not that way on the example drawing. As an after thought, the rules say that all outer edges must be black. So if I'm coloring an angle line grey and it becomes an outer line, do I go to black again? I have done that to my drawing now and I'm not quite sure its right.

- you might want to take parts from this slightly updated drawing of the burke instead of the older ones (notably bridge, phalanx positions and the mast have been much improved)

you didn't post a link, and all the Burkes I've looked at have the same mast

- I would suggest looking for another RAM position, the current one is very limited in firing angle.

I haven't drawn it yet, but that sits on an overhanging platform that gets it out there farther. I still don't know if it's far enough, but it looks right in my photo-real pictures

- SPS-49 was not really an back up, but the SPY-1 was at first not used as search radar. only from the burke version onward this was the case, IIRC.

I have a buddy that is a SPY-1 instructor at Dahlgren. He and I (we were both FC's in the Navy) are wondering what you mean by the SPY-1 was not used as a search radar. We can get into that later, but I will have the SPS-49 on mine. I have plenty of room, it just make sense in a battle damage way of thinking, and I like the 440 mile early warning capability.

- the propellers seem a bit on the small side.

I used the screws from the Long Beach, and I thought they would be big enough. But for now I am looking into a whole different set-up in this area

- the hangar height might be a tad low, I suggest lowering the helideck to VLS deck level.

In my latest version, I have raised the helo hanger a bit, moved the (don't know what to call this, the place where the guys sits and directs the helos in) to the starboard side so I could get bushmasters on both sides aft

- the bow seems a tad long, you might be able to loose some length by cutting that by about 10-20 meters without loosing any capabilities

ooh NO! Call it the Virginian in me (I served aboard the Virginia) but I find that long bow absolutely gorgeous it also leaves me room for expansion.

I am wondering why you would go nuclear electric, it might be a tad better for the turbines but your power efficiency is lower..... care to explain the reason for this?

Electric is more efficient and costs less than steam turbine. And it's a lot quieter than turbines and reduction gears. Here's a good read on the subject http://www05.abb.com/global/scot/scot21 ... f%2004.pdf

and this, very interesting stuff
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/675 ... 0Jul31.pdf

- it might just be me, but have you shortened the height of the phalanxes or something? they look off.

fixed

- I also think this ship is a tad oversized, the CSGN's were all between 12000 and 18000 (except for one note of the Mk 2, but that is flight deck version, this would have been 25000 tons) where yours would be 18000...... I see no reason why this ship would go over the long beach's displacement, as her arnament would actually be lighter, her specifications similar and her requirements similar as well.....

I'm sorry now that I posted the 23,000 ton number. I was just using the second option in the CG(X) study. Not sure on displacement as of now, but I'll figure it out eventually

Thank you for your suggestions Mr. acelanceloet and please keep them coming. I find it very helpful

Fair Seas shipmate

Joe

[sabotage181]

Certainly making good progress. I'd encourage you to think about more illuminators and bigger phased arrays. You've not bought yourself a ton (wah wah) with a ship this size; two Burkes would be a lot more effective. What a larger ship can buy you is absurdly colossal radar sets. Moving forward with some of the current BMD systems, it's looking like the 12ft-class X-band array just doesn't offer enough discrimination to fully leverage, eg, full-bore SM-3.

You'll also want to split up your lifeboat complement into more small groups; regulations-wise, I think you need to be able to lose an entire block (to fire or fragmentation or whatever) and still fit the full crew. I have the relevant open-source NAVSEA document somewhere, if you're curious.

Thank you Erik. I've never seen a ship with more than four illuminators. Thing is, for normal air targets, you don't even really need the illuminators with SPY. They are more of a "just to make sure measure" anymore. I'm not sure on the BMD aspect however, but I'm pretty sure four will be plenty. I have left plenty of room on this ship for upgrading to AMDR and SPY-3. It would be built in a modular fashion so systems could be removed and replaced with the latest and greatest fairly easily. That was the downfall of the Virginia (CGN-38) class. It's systems were so built into the ship that it wouldn't have been cost effective to remove the MK-26 launchers and replace them with MK-41VLS, hence when the bean counters came calling, there were no good reasons to not decommission her. Very sad, she was only 14 years old

Anyway the version you're seeing now is the first run. I will be happy to draw the second version (flight II ??) when I finish this.

I would love to see the NAVSEA document if you can find it

Again, thank you for your comments

Joe

[sabotage181]

latest update. Got my electric drive figured out. I hope I drew it to scale. VLS in fore and aft. still cleaning stuff. Moved the RAM launcher to a better spot. This is fun

Hope you all like

[acelanceloet]

sorry for messing up, this is the burke drawing I wanted you to see http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... 0Burke.png

that drawing is also an good example of fore lighter aft darker shading and the use of grey lines. right now you have some which puzzle me a bit (mostly, the use of grey lines on the aft SPY-1 facet and one of the doors)

a few points remain on the latest talk/updates
- for the swap between AEGIS and an entirely different setup, like AMDR or SPY-3, you'd have to rebuild your entire superstructure most likely. I cannot guarantee that that would be an good idea xD
- those azipods (or azimuths, depending on how they are attached to the drives) are certainly less silent then an regular, geared setup, and less efficient most likely as well. if they are not perfectly aligned the forces on them will become unbearable btw, to the point that you'll most likely will loose it somewhere in her service life.
also:

Integration of pods into low Cb warship hulls can be a bit of a pain - broad, flat sections aft can increase the likelihood of slamming and broaching, large weights can be collected in the overhanging aft hull and the directional stability can be excessive due to the combination of the skeg - needed to support the stern when docking - and the struts. To gain any efficiency benefit from pods, they really need to be fixed, and oriented to the flow - hence the separate rudders (they might be better off integrated into the struts, but the baseline assumption was that they were separate). It's different for a high Cb merchant ship, however, as they don't have the long after runs of a warship so the flow is different.

RP1

from here: viewtopic.php?p=59511#p59511

as for SPY-1: in my time here, it was told me that SPY-1 is first of all an targeting radar. SPS-49 search, SPY-1 targeting, Mk 99/SPG-62 director. SPY-1 has, from the burke onward, taken the role of search radar as well, and has become very good of it, but this was originally only an secondary concern for it, hence the SPS-49 on tico, the CSGN's and DG/AEGIS.

the hangar, as you have it now, might get cramped sideways, and seems still very low below the phalanx. my suggestion for the helideck still stands.

I like long bows too, but this is just wasted space right now. you cannot use this space for equipment or anything, so......

geared steam turbines are just as efficient. the loss from converting shaft rotation to electric to shaft rotation is about the same as that of an mechanical connection. the only additional efficiency is the ability to move your engines and your actual propulsion apart from each other. in silence, that makes sense yes, although I would not think the gearbox to have as much an addition to the noise compared to the turbines, which you still need. you could loose some vibration (and thus noise) though as your engine plant can be disconnected from the propeller itself and thus can be placed on springs.

could you give me the dimensions on the waterline of your hull? (length, beam, depth, draft, draft OA, if possible) then I can do some estimations on your displacements and standard weights

btw, 2 little things:
- you now have 21'' diameter torpedo tubes under your helideck, I think you would want Mk 32 SVTT?
- why no AGS or AGS lite instead of the Mk 71? I think the answer is 'looks' but still, I want to hear an better reason

[Navybrat85]

Hitting power. That'd be the reason I would choose an 8" over a 155mm smart gun. AGS offers range and accuracy, but when it comes down to demoralizing an opponent, a bigger boom makes a better impression than "Damn that was a great shot!" <<sorry for the language>>

But that's just me...

[heuhen]

Hitting power. That'd be the reason I would choose an 8" over a 155mm smart gun. AGS offers range and accuracy, but when it comes down to demoralizing an opponent, a bigger boom makes a better impression than "Damn that was a great shot!" <<sorry for the language>>

But that's just me...

A 155mm with it's more modern explosive have greater boom than the 8"

[Navybrat85]

Yeah I just researched my thoughts, and the AGS round has 3 pounds more explosives than a standard 8" round, too.

[erik_t]

Thank you Erik. I've never seen a ship with more than four illuminators. Thing is, for normal air targets, you don't even really need the illuminators with SPY. They are more of a "just to make sure measure" anymore. I'm not sure on the BMD aspect however, but I'm pretty sure four will be plenty.

That statement is true. The following statement is also true: without exception, USN ships have been built with two guidance channels or illuminators per major GMLS, with 61/64-cell Mk 41 counting as such. An argument can be made that ever-deeper magazines should call for ever-more illuminators. Regarding their modern necessity, I think we could go down a technical rabbit-hole. The era of this drawing is unclear to me; that will drive the discussion to a considerable degree. I would note that something X-band sure seems hugely desirable, else DDG-1000 wouldn't have the X-band arrays.

I would love to see the NAVSEA document if you can find it

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/teamships/PE ... 0_REV5.pdf

[sabotage181]

OK OK OK OK, I've heard the cry for AGS AMDR and VSR. I am currently working on flight two. It'll have spy2 spy3 and AGS lite. I'll post when it looks somewhat decent.

Again I want to thank everybody for the comments. Please keep them coming

Fair Seas

Joe

[sabotage181]

ok, this is what I have so far. Details are a bit sketchy on Spy-3 panel sizes so I went with 21 feet. I find it hard in this format to represent the angle of the rear spy-3 panel. I have also added mk-57 cells in different places on the shit. Is this a realistic representation of the used systems?



Any comments, suggestions greatly appreciated

Joe