Shipbucket

Really all countries should just build Alaska class cruisers and nothing else.

With lasers????

Shipright wrote:Except both your graphics show that the bow position is superior for firing arc. Funny that.

No. No. You're not even interpreting the graphics correctly even though I tried to make them as simple as possible which means you're likely not bothering to look at all.

So while yes I would like to be able to fire directly below the focsle if its a by product,

That is not a useful mission requirement under any scenario conceivable.

I also like that extra 15-20 degrees to ether side of the stern and 30 degrees aft of the mast.

Why? What little coverage you gain is less useful than mounting another weapon on the stern (so you get complete coverage) or turning the damn ship around. According to that logic the Burkes must be lousy ships because their bow guns can't fire astern.

That's stupid.

If that is so you won't have a problem explaining to us why.

They don't have any frame of reference in relation to the ship's superstructure so they don't reveal what's being blocked by what.

So your baffling objection to my graphics rightly placed aside, that is four graphics proving you absolutely wrong two of which are produced by you.

You just show the baisc firing arc, not the firing arc in relation to the superstructure so I have no idea what apparent "advantage" it has.

I have acknowledged that the rear of the ship can't be covered entirely due the limits of a vessel of this size. The question is why you continue to repeat this problem as if it is a new discovery instead of having been acknowledged by everyone including me multiple times, and why when you seem so concerned about it you are actively advocating an inferior mounting position to address this AS PER YOUR OWN DRAWINGS?

Wow, it's that much inferior? You barely lose any coverage at all - coverage that would be regained once you swing the ship around.

If it's that much of an issue, you build a mast (possibly even use your sensors mast) and you mount the laser turret on that, so now it has 360-degree unobstructed coverage and a longer sight-line to the horizon at that, even if the laser itself can't reach that far.

You understand that things take space but you don't understand the whole picture.

Says the guy arguing against his own sources.

*facepalm* it's clear you'd rather argue stupid details than see the bigger picture in order to claim "I'm right and you're wrong."

I don't even care if I'm right. Your design as it presently is looks stupid, that's what I care about.

Yes, in front of the mast exactly as I said. The problem is 1.) Are you McConrads

...what the fuck does that have anything to do with anything? I used that ship because it's a real vessel that's in service with a real, not-pretend Navy with real, not-pretend design requirements:

2.) that drawing is not using an integrated mast which is far more bulky than the legacy one in that drawing.

That doesn't have any bearing with being able to put things in front of a mast. Fine, here's another example, albeit a fictional example that has a CIWS emplacement in front of a large radar structure:

3.) You are also using a DDG that is 20 meters longer than my vessel so why you are using it as an example of space usage is beyond comprehension.

The length of the vessel has no bearing on the principle it's demonstrating. You seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding concepts and committing a number of fallacies in interpreting everything as literal and absolute.

4.) Where are the laser weapons? None?

Most laser weapon concepts that I'm familiar with (including the ones you posted) are roughly in the CIWS-size category. The fictional weapon you plan to use is in the CIWS category, and if there were a weapon to be placed at the extreme bow (like on the Illustrious class - which due to its size has no issue with wave action) it's typically a CIWS emplacement. Refer to what I just said about absolutes being used as a fallacy.

No, you are being dumb and trollish when you start to pull stuff like that.

Pull what? Not bow to your yet undefined qualifications concerning, well, nothing?

Maybe I was being unfair but you're being ridiculously frustrating. It's like talking to a goddamned wall.

Go look at the drawings above.

You mean the two that prove you completely wrong? So where is your ship drawing? Link please.

Wow. At this point I simply don't care how haphazard and stupid your drawings look, as they'll simply speak for themselves.

People pointed out a problem. I pointed it out further since you seemed disinterested in correcting it and offered a solution. You rejected the solution because you want to argue some pretty goddamn fucking retarded issues.

Shipright wrote:I am a 12 year naval officer with 7 years on board Flight I and II Burkes.

Proof?

...I'm sorry. You envision a laser on the bow?

I appreciate the thought and effort, and the gusto with which you defend your ideas, but this frankly hits me as somewhere between foolhardy and insane. I invite you to consider a number of points.

• While it is true that you do not need to accomodate a magazine per se, a moderately high power system will require substantial internal volume. Even the MLD-scale system envisions something like 8x8x12ft, which is very substantial. And the connections between the internal volume and the beam director are not trivial -- a little bit of flexing between one point in an optical chain and another means that mirrors won't line up properly. If you're lucky, this will only make your laser hopelessly misaimed, rather than a lump of glowing slag.
• Aha, I hear you say, but it is such a small system that everything is on-mount! I counter: then it is a rather feeble system, and will not be capable enough to be worth the headache of mounting it in a position with such apparent command. No such system believed possible, even in a laboratory environment, could be even as effective as RAM. Just carry two, if you care so much about 360deg laser coverage.
• Your command isn't so fantastic, even in a dead calm with dry air. Even a little bit of ship motion will mask bearings and elevations that, on paper, you can fire on. Observe how IIA Burkes have their after SPY-1 arrays elevated to clear the helo hangar that is, strictly speaking, already below the original array location. How much of that theoretical after coverage is going to be blocked by ship motion? Probably quite a lot.
• Nothing plays havoc with beam quality like various sorts of humidity. And you don't even need to be taking spray over the bow for this to be a problem. Water nearer the sea surface is more humid, especially in warm weather, and even relatively light sea states exhibit light windblown spray. And of course, sometimes the weather is bad, and you are taking spray. Elevating a laser, and moving it relatively further aft, mitigates these problems. This is why you see the notional Burke laser mounted where it is, and I suspect it is one reason why DDG-1000 has such a broad and flat deckhouse top.
• You don't need to crack a gunhouse in half in order to have taken damage. Even guns much further aft can be deranged by light or moderate green water contact. Gears slip, teeth jump, and suddenly the mount doesn't point exactly the same direction as the fire control system thinks it does. This is bad enough on a 5" gun with, say, a 50ft damage radius due to a VT fuse. It's much worse on a laser, which has a damage radius of exactly the beam radius.
• No set of actuators is perfect, and can accelerate to speed and slew to a precise angle in zero time. For a system that has to actually dwell on a target for several seconds, as a laser does, this is a very serious challenge. This is likely why, again, you see the notional Burke laser around the 3/4 point aft, the point of least ship motion. I am no naval engineer, but I would wager that the extreme tip of the bow is the point of greatest ship motion.
• If this bow position is so advantageous, why has it not been used for other systems that require no magazine? Fire control radars might be the best example of a system that could benefit from this allegedly superior position. Indeed, SPG-62 illuminators care relatively little about mist and spray, and would require only a tiny waveguide from some position further aft. They do not need to dwell so precisely, since their beam is much wider than a laser (more than a degree, I suspect). Yet I would bet a substantial sum of money that you would be unable to find any notional designs from the USN or any other navy that put a fire control radar in such a position.

klagldsf wrote: No. No. You're not even interpreting the graphics correctly even though I tried to make them as simple as possible which means you're likely not bothering to look at all.

Do yourself a favor take a look at your graphics again, and pay attention to which mount's arc is inside the other. When this sinks in get back to us.

That is not a useful mission requirement under any scenario conceivable.

Then you must have been living under a rock for the last decade because since the Cole the new thing is small boat defense and if you really want to attack a DDG or CG the bow is a good spot in a swarm as once you are inside the minumum 5" range off the bow (which is in the miles) there is only a singe M240G standing in your way.

But then again I said as a BYPRODUCT, not as a matter of conscious design. Who they hell wouldn't want more firing arc in any direction? Other than you of course.

I also like that extra 15-20 degrees to ether side of the stern and 30 degrees aft of the mast.

Why? What little coverage you gain is less useful than mounting another weapon on the stern (so you get complete coverage) or turning the damn ship around. According to that logic the Burkes must be lousy ships because their bow guns can't fire astern.

1.) 10s of degrees is only "less than useful" to someone with no idea what they are talking about. Given AAW is its primary mission and it has a known blind spot, reducing that to as small as possible reduces the chance it gets exploited (though ESSM and SeaRAM have redundant coverage).

2.) This is a frigate, and the number of major weapons systems are limited. Frigates generally compromises, you might get it perfect at one thing but if you expect it do do anything else you start to make hard choices. Given our current FFG7 and LCS has zero dedicated AAW capability your complaint is pretty hollow.

3.) You could turn sure, but what if they attack from multiple directions. You would have to be pretty dame lucky to coordinate a strike to utilize a 30 degree blind spot, any idiot could exploit a 100+ degree blind spot you are advocating.

4.) The Burkes have the luxury of a second weapon system in regards to VLS and CIWIS though VLS is obviously not an arc concern but rather redundancy and salvo generation. This is something the next smallest class, the FFG7s lacked. However you will note that it is only a DDG, and it has to make its own compromises because it is not a CG. And what does the bigger CG have to optimally use that space? You got it, deck guns fore and aft.

So to recap every class can't have everything, and you can clearly see the compromises made when comparing them to the next biggest class. Those compromises are not necessarily a bad thing because there are benefits to small ships that might outweigh less than optimal AAW arcs, or you only assign them to tasks where their compromises don't translate to handicaps.

Bit I guess in your Navy we will all be running around in dreadnaughts of doom. Who is paying for them.

They don't have any frame of reference in relation to the ship's superstructure so they don't reveal what's being blocked by what.

Despite your best efforts I refuse to believe you are this dense. The graphics are scaled to show the entire weapons envelopes, not just angles but also range. Consequently using any reasonable graphic size the actual ship is going to be very small.

I quite clearly stated it was scaled. What, do you think I just picked those angles out of thin air while simultaneously making the effort to scale range? As it is the ship icon itself is still too big as otherwise it would just be a single pixel.

Well, I posted a preliminary top down graphic with the bow and forward superstructure so you can confirm it, whats your excuse now?

You just show the baisc firing arc, not the firing arc in relation to the superstructure so I have no idea what apparent "advantage" it has.

Excuse me? What the hell does that even mean? There are clearly distinct cut outs represented for each weapon.

Wow, it's that much inferior? You barely lose any coverage at all - coverage that would be regained once you swing the ship around.

Wait! You just told us your graphics don't show any loss of arc, but rather more arc. Which is it? Everyone else looking at it knows its less, but I need you to at least be consistent yourself right or wrong.

One of the disadvantages of being an escort is that you are a missile sponge and have to stay on station, your ability to turn around is limited.

Also, its a good thing nobody invented cruise missiles with waypoints that let you have your salvo attack from multiple directions simultaneously. That would be a hell of a weapon to have. Don't you try and steal it now, I cam up with it first!

Oh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_%28missile%29

Well at least none of our enemies have it! Right?

Oh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Re ... _Iran_Navy

Whats that you were saying about firing arc increases being unimportant?

If it's that much of an issue, you build a mast (possibly even use your sensors mast) and you mount the laser turret on that, so now it has 360-degree unobstructed coverage and a longer sight-line to the horizon at that, even if the laser itself can't reach that far.

It is certainly a possibility. The same logic works for pretty much any direct fire gun or CIWIS system. I am sure you regail this board with how stupid it is that the Burks don't have a Phalanx on the top of their mast. Those idiots, I am sure your rants are quite the show!

A top mounted laser weapon is probably a good option, but I will note even the most modern ships like the DDG 1000 still have their weapons in the main deck or above the hanger. I am sure it is a center of mass issue, but I bet we will see it eventually. As for the FFLX its mast will be the size of other contemporary frigate designs which are packed solid with sensors, and whats even more important than maximum range and arcs for your AAW weapons is maximum range and arcs for your AAW sensors.

Get back to me when I get to the destroyer, maybe the mast will be big enough.

*facepalm* it's clear you'd rather argue stupid details than see the bigger picture in order to claim "I'm right and you're wrong."

The "stupid details" are what separate real functional designs than whatever you are producing that you are so loathe to link to.

As it is I am specifically concerned with the stupid details of hulls and engineering plants at the moment, something you have not bothered to help with probably because thats the boring stuff.

I don't even care if I'm right. Your design as it presently is looks stupid, that's what I care about.

Nice lines are great, and I am all about an elegant ship, but functionality and performance are the primary drivers of warship design.

Perhaps you will be so kind as to provide a link to your not stupid looking drawing? I would very much like to see the work of a master illustrator like yourself. Maybe I can learn from your stellar example?

...what the fuck does that have anything to do with anything? I used that ship because it's a real vessel that's in service with a real, not-pretend Navy with real, not-pretend design requirements:

So its not yours. I thought I remembered asking you for your own drawing, specifically a future ship drawing using lasers. Maybe I didn't. My fault. Perhaps you would provide one now?

I am just curious how you became such an expert on nonexistent weapons, especially when you are so close minded about any idea remotely outside the box of decades old legacy weapons doctrine. I assume you have spent many hours drawing similar future vessels. You probably have an extensive library in threads filled with praise. I just want to benefit from you experience and phenomenal work. Why reinvent the wheel, eh?

That is an excellent (not yours) picture of the KDX-II. It is, however, irrelevant to the energy weapons discussion.

That doesn't have any bearing with being able to put things in front of a mast. Fine, here's another example, albeit a fictional example that has a CIWS emplacement in front of a large radar structure:

Did someone tell you you can't put weapons in front of a mast? I am confused because you have spent a lot of time and effort demonstrating that this is possible despite nobody saying otherwise.

In any case as your (I mean someone else) picture shows such a location would be even more arc limiting than in front of a non integrated mast. I estimate you are looking at a 90 degree cut out aft. That might be acceptable to you for your (apparently expendable) sailors, but not for mine.

I will note again you are using a DDG sized vessel easily 4-5000 tons larger than the FFLX. No conclusions as to spacing and space from mounts can be drawn from this drawing. This thing is literally 50 meters longer.

The length of the vessel has no bearing on the principle it's demonstrating. You seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding concepts and committing a number of fallacies in interpreting everything as literal and absolute.

Since the length and overall increased size of the hulls you keep grasping at mean they can support significantly more massive superstructures with plenty of room without being top heavy, they are not helpful at all. The issue is space on the superstructure to not only host the weapon, but have it far enough from obstructions to increas arc.

But you can solve this issue by not posting destroyers that demonstrate what you want and using frigates instead.

Most laser weapon concepts that I'm familiar with (including the ones you posted) are roughly in the CIWS-size category. The fictional weapon you plan to use is in the CIWS category, and if there were a weapon to be placed at the extreme bow (like on the Illustrious class - which due to its size has no issue with wave action) it's typically a CIWS emplacement. Refer to what I just said about absolutes being used as a fallacy.

All true, though I recommend you read the document erik_t posted as it shows some significantly smaller weapons.

You are again, however, applying the rules of legacy weapons to these new ones. Thats fine, but you need to be open to where conventions based on those legacy weapons break down or do not apply here. If a CIWIS can be stabilized while also controlling for violent recoil while firing 20mm gatling guns at 3000 rounds a minute, the idea that it can't do the same for a laser weapon is absurd even if it is on the bow.

Wave action is a issue, but I have layed this to rest with the LCS-2. If it was the problem some would have us believe that 57mm would have been ripped off a dozen times by now. It hasn't.

Maybe I was being unfair but you're being ridiculously frustrating. It's like talking to a goddamned wall.

Again, not accepting every shred of advice you offer as the word of god is no fault on my part. I have taken the advice of some, not the advice of others, and we move on.

Wow. At this point I simply don't care how haphazard and stupid your drawings look, as they'll simply speak for themselves.

You seem to like speaking for them quite a bit. So now you are changing your story again and claiming your graphics show better arcs for the bridge position? Make up your mind!

People pointed out a problem. I pointed it out further since you seemed disinterested in correcting it and offered a solution. You rejected the solution because you want to argue some pretty goddamn fucking retarded issues.

A problem which I have mitigated or addressed via sources. And there is a difference between problems and opinions. You are just upset someone didn't take your word as the gospel...

Proof?

...though I think now you might be realizing you might not be as knowledgeable relative as you might have thought.

I think this discussion has proven it pretty conclusively, but what might I provide you with to knock you from your high horse.

Also, where are your drawing links, or are you just a perpetual peanut gallery critic?

Guys I would prefer it if we kept the personal attacks to a minimum (both sides).

I will offer the example of Alaska (the only ship that matters) as proof:



Though I do note that this is a manly 40mm Bofors installation and not some "laser" weapon.

In respect to Erik's post (the original version of this post did indeed contain personal attacks) and since I'm tired of putting in way too much time to argue this, I'm withdrawing from the thread.

I'm with Colosseum here, on both counts.