Shipbucket

the intake housings are too small for 2, let alone 3 gas turbines. I'll pm my WIP of the spruance 1975 in a minute.
I stand corrected on the SLQ platform, although it looks like this ship, with a lot more superstructure, could do better then that

but, I found out something else. your hull depth is less then a spruance, and so, almost per definition, this ship has less hull strength build in. she is longer though........... which means this ship can take less external forces then an spruance. this includes waves, weapon impacts, etc. it also means you can take less weight on the deck.
right now you have something like an conventional virginia with Mk 71 guns. in other words, an kidd with Mk 71 guns. (and ABL) in other words, you have no additional firepower over a kidd, (and the spruance could take the ABL and Mk 71) so why would this ship be build?

you do certainly not need that additional turbine in each engine room. it would increase fuel consumption at full speed with 50% for a gain of 1 knot or so. I cannot make better estimates without beam and displacemen numbers, but it seems that (looking at for example CGBL) the spruance powerplant would be enough. I would be good for an slightly bigger one, as for example 4 FT4 or british Olympus engines.

about the tico, you would be surprised. because it had to fit on the spruance hull, nothing on board is really that much heavier then on the spruance. the hull is, slightly, and the weapons fit is almost twice that of the spruance (Mk 26 vs the ASW load.... makes sense) so the ship is heavier over all. the topweight of the SPY-1 is corrected by the Mk 26/MK 41, the ship is somewhat deeper in the water, which adds to stability......
so while she looks top heavy, she is not really. well, in a way she is, but, so is the basic spruance and about any destroyer of the time.

but this vessel is uncomparable with the tico, or the spruance. the hull is a bit like the virginia, and my earlier conclusion was that she could take less topweight then an virginia, due to the completely different powerplant and margin for fuel. ballasting the thing for the sake of keeping it afloat limits the amount of fuel you can take and is about the worst thing a ship designer can do. the tico might do so a bit (but not much, as the fuel load for example is not affected) because it is an new design on an existing hull. this ship, all new designed, would never do so.

I am not certain why you are redrawing the existing parts, but ok, do what you want.



everything you have on board is already on the kidd, except for the 2 Mk 71. so what exactly is it what is going wrong? why is this called an cruiser, and why is it worthwile to open up an construction line for an ship like this?
I think you should take the line different. start with long beach, or CGN-42, and look what changes if you would go for conventional. because this is an destroyer leader at best, which has some additional margin when build. nothing like the strike cruisers, but very close to the actual build virginia's.

_________________
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

Thank you Timothy. Right after I signed out I started checking info on typhon. Then I felt dumb for saying what I said haha.


Thank you both for your comments. I stated when I posted the last up-date that the draft was to shallow and I was going to fix it, and I have

Ace, you're exactly right. This is CLOSE to the Kidd and Virginia builds, except my ship has 2 MK-71, room for two LAMPS helo's, 4 ABL's, 4 MK-141's and tons of room for expansion. I'd like to remind you again that this is alternate history. I'm just having fun with this "what if " exercise, and I really appreciate all the short comings so I can fix them.

Here is the latest up-date



She has grown in length, width and draft. Length is 674 feet, width 67.5 feet and draft 20 feet main hull, 32 feet sonar dome and 25 feet rudder. If Ace can figure out a displacement for me, I'd be really happy

Now, before anybody freaks out about the hull number...this is MY alternate history and as its laid out, the Tico's as we now know them would never exist, as this hull is built to accommodate Aegis when it becomes operational.

As usual, any and all comments are welcome.

Joe

So, will the AEGIS version have similar superstructure changes as was done to the Spruance superstructure modified for the Ticonderoga class?

note the difference between draft and depth, depth is the distance between keel and strength deck (in this case, main deck) on midship. draft is depth minus freeboard, so the distance from the waterline to the keel.
check your inbox, you have not yet opened the drawing of the spruance I send you

Kidd had 2 Lamps helo's, and the previous version had no growth space at all, I highly doubt you could get much more on board then you had now.
the newest version has some though, so I will look at that now....

the displacement of this ship would be between 12500 and 13000 tons. this is between CGN-42 and the lightest of the CSGN, so for an CSGN series ship she is kind of light, while her arnament is on the heavy side. btw, next time you ask me to calculate something, give the sizes in metric, please? al my formula's are in metric, so I first have to convert the measurements to that.
if we look at CGN-42, we see that your ship is most likely overweaponed. http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... 42%202.gif CGN-42 took the same as you have on board, but with smaller guns, 2 (4) less harpoon canisters, 2 less ABL's..... but had aegis. aegis and an bigger hangar seems to have added 2000 tons to the vessel. that said, the data I have does not match the drawing, so there might be something else the matter, and the CGN-42 that is drawn might fit the virginia displacement closer.
the arnament of the data ,with 12312 metric tons, I have shows 2 Mk 45, 2 Mk 26 (44 missiles each) and an unknown number of harpoons and tomahawks. this is quite comparable to what you have now, although I think that the harpoons would be 4 canisters and 2 tomahawk ABL, not the 6 and 4 you have on your drawing now, and of course much lighter guns.

I think your depth is still a bit low for the ships length, I would add additional draft and/or maybe an additional deck (or half a deck) above the waterline. an depth of 15 meters should do it, right now you have about 12.

an additional deck in the hull would also solve the problem with the superstructure, that it has too less volume to hold all that should be in it + in and uptakes. even if it would be big enough, it is not boxy enough for that last one.

with that additional draft, the displacement will come close to that of the long beach. but, note that the CSGN of december 1975 of 17448 tons still has only 2 harpoon, 2 ABL, 1 Mk 71 and 1 Mk 45. even with the lighter powerplant, you have to watch out for not overstressing the hull, and of course for the ships stability.

about CGN 47: you know you have given your strike cruiser an destroyer hull number, right? the ticonderoga's were authorised as DDG-47 class, this is where that number comes from. if they were commissioned as cruisers, they would be the follow on for the virginia I suppose, and that way carry the hull number CG-42. if the strike cruisers were build, I suppose there would be a set of DDG-47 still, but that aside

your SPS-49 is hanging in the smoke btw. the aft mast looks also not entirely healthy with the amount of knuckles it has and the way that cross ends up serving as support.

_________________
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

ok, many changes. Most notably, the launcher on the deck right below the bridge. I'm calling it the MK-1 SSMLS. I realize it's not real, but the concept is vary viable. In fact I'd be very surprised if something like this wasn't on the drawing board somewhere. What I'd like is input about if it were real, have I drawn something realistic? This system, as the name implies, is for launching SSM's. I think this is a much better idea (on a ship with the room for it anyway) than the MK-141 and the ABL. Obviously its similar to the MK-22 but a lot bigger. Seems like a good concept, and since this is an alternate universe ship why not If there is consensus that it is totally unrealistic, Ill dump it.



As you can see I'm trying to represent this ship as it would have come off the line in 1975 or so. I will trade the SH-60 for a SeaKing in the next update.

Thank you Judah, and yes. I'll be drawing the various flights of this ship as I finish this original flight.

Ace, thank you for sharing your knowledge. It is invaluable and I will use it to fix things that I haven't already fixed

Not only is it realistic, it was a real thing. The mk 13 could launch harpoons. I want to say the mk 26 could as well, but I'm not sure if that's the case.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

for tomahawks, you'd be better of with an early VLS, as fitted here http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... oposal.png
the harpoon and ASROC might have an Mk 26 mod 2 instead, then. (to answer your question thiel: the Mk 26 could fire harpoon, Standard and ASROC, the Mk 13 could fire harpoon, Standard and Tartar. the Mk 26 was considered the replacement for the Mk 112 Matchbox launcher which could fire harpoon, ASROC and tartar.)

this because tomahawk is not build for rail launches, but could be launched by submarines with an VLS (possibly cold launch) so an relatively simple 'tube' installation is the only thing pre-Mk-41 that is not an ABL and could launch tomahawks.

this new launcher would be huge and offer very little what ABL's and Mk 141's offered not. the drawback would be reliability (if you have one launcher, or you have 'every missile has his own launcher' makes an difference ) and the fact that at least some of the missiles would require redesign (especially tomahawk, and ASROC maybe, depending on how exactly this new launcher was laid out, as it did not fit in the Mk 13)

on the other points, I await your later fixes

_________________
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

ok, MK-1 SSMLS is axed.



Ace, are my intakes big enough now? How are the other aspects of this ship? are the screws and rudder to small? Any other defects I should know about?

Thanks for all your help

Joe

PS just realized I forgot to remove my harpoon and ASROC sorry..next up-date

the intakes are big enough now, but I would prefer you using the intake housings from my spruance drawing, those are far more accurate then what you have now. the same goes for the funnels, while less needed. the rudder could do with a slight update but is acceptable. the propeller you have now is an 10 bladed one, the spruance had an 5 bladed which I have drawn in the WIP I send you, that might be better?

what is the powerplant now? spruance/tico or more gas turbines?
btw, that place on the stern with the ABL's is horrible IMO.

SPS-49 might be more logical then SPS-40.

and I still cannot grasp what this ship can do better then a kidd or an virginia, especially considering it has an DDG hull number

_________________
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

good on the intakes. They might be a bit different than your spruance because they are on centerline on this ship. I will try out your screw on the next update
Yes the plant is the same as the Spruance. In my back story I explained that there was room to upgrade to three main turbines in each engine room if needed for future weapons (more electrical power not a speed thing)

Thanks, how do you really feel? Why dont you like it? Is it purley aesthetics, or is there and engineering reason behind this dislike?
Again with my alternate history back story. This ship is comming off the line in about 1975 so I dont think the SPS-49 was ready yet. It was developed in the late 60's and came on line in 75 but didnt show up on a cruiser (for some reason) until the Ticonderoga (real history, not mine) in 81. So I will keep the SPS-49 time line about the same on future ships in my alternate history
I'll address the hull number again. This is alternate history or alternate universe or what ever you call it. I think I expalined in the back story about why this ship came about. Being that this ship is big enough to be a real cruiser (FOR THE TIMES ((1975))) it would not have been originally designated as a DDG.

As for as what can this ship do that Virginia and Kidd (Which doesnt even exist yet ((in my Alternate History or real history))) cant do, well....

1. lob 8" shells
2. deploy 16 tomahawks
3. deploy 16 harpoons
4. deploy and house two Sea Sprites (upgradable to Sea Hawks in the future)*
5. hide from a sub a little better*
6. store more food
7. have expansion room for engineering, sensor and weapons systems
*denotes better than only Virginia

ok, I think that covers the major differences anyway

Again thank you for your input