Naval Warship Prototypes, Potentially Classified with specifications and discussion... | Aviation and Aeronautical Technology | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
Guest

Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Naval Warship Prototypes, Potentially Classified with specifications and discussion...
Avatar
Lee
San francisco, CA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 18
Member Since:
March 31, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
April 2, 2016 - 6:12 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

Hi Guys,

       I'll start this thread as an expose' of legally unclassified 'Web information concerning warships in the classes of Aircraft Carriers, Battleships, Armored Cruiser class (Alaska and Guam) and heavy cruisers (Baltimore class).

       I have the opinion that anti-shipping missiles...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_missile

 ...are a growing concern for naval architects in the future with China trying to 'flex its military muscle' off its Eastern coast.   I believe it's possible the Pentagon upper echelon of Generals is becoming more concerned about what might result if China sinks an American ship with a Dong Feng-21.

 

       Okay, now:  One of the biggest and latest operational battleship in the American naval fleet was, and still, is the world-famous USS Iowa...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_(BB-61)

 

       A theoretical ship was drawn on drafting boards as the USS Montana...

http://www.militaryfactory.com.....ntana-BB67   http://navsource.org/archives/.....016720.jpg

 

...and this ship would have had about 1/3 more displacement and one more triple 16" turret aft of the superstructure.

 

       As for the Japanese, they had their own battleship...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Musashi

...and this ship was about the same size as the Montana, but it (fortunately?) had a few shortcomings:  A) it was slow.   Maximum flank speed was about 25knts, compared to Iowa's 32knts, with a very light fuel load.   B) Musashi's main deck battery was 18" for 9 ea. guns in 3 turrets---and as a result---had more potential range in a battle situation.   The Iowa's guns were smaller (16"), but more accurate by the advantage of a better ordinance ranging and direction system.   The Iowa had a radar ranging system and the Musashi had a optical ranging system, by my memory.   The Iowa's main battery was said to be about 1/3 lighter with at least the same range, thus allowing the Iowa to be smaller, cheaper, and easier/quicker to built in WWII.

 

       Okay, time is getting late here where I am.   I'll let this post go as an introduction to the thread.   You have a basic rundown of informative Wikipedia facts and personal statements from me, above.   I can try and return later with more information concerning ships like aircraft carriers and heavy cruisers when I have the time.

--Lee

Avatar
Lee
San francisco, CA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 18
Member Since:
March 31, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
April 4, 2016 - 7:20 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

To further illustrate a 'Montana'-style battleship design, several Internet-derived drawing can be shown:

http://www.operatorchan.org/v/.....455163.png        (L/B abt = to 9.4)

https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot/ships/battleships-us/uss-bb-67-montana-stillborn-battleship.png           (L/B abt. = to 7.75)

And one or more cross section view, with others from a dedicated 'Web site:                                     http://www.navsource.org/archi...../01/67.htm

       The topmost drawing above has a better L/B ratio, and as such, sails more efficiently at flank speed.   It's also long enough to provide enough displacement to allow for more armor to be built into the ship.             Why is this important?             American enemies know how big and destructive aircraft carriers can be to their military assets.   The idea in sinking an aircraft carrier is hitting it with an armor-piercing missile as many times as it takes to sink the ship.   One missile in the right place can 'mission kill' a ship without sinking it, so that it's required to return to a port in order to utilize adequate local facilities with which to repair it.

        Now, a battleship may seem outdated compared to guided missile cruisers, but a 155mm or 8" gun round (fairly easily available) should usually be cheaper than a missile, especially when several gun rounds can be ripple-fired by computer-controlling their trajectories to allow a messed bombardment of a ship when all the rounds fall on the ship at once, thus increasing the likely chance of a hit on the weather deck, a possible gun turret, a shell magazine below-decks  or the superstructure---especially the bridge.

I can try and find more information on this subject before making definite recommendations as to possible ship designs.   If you have question(s) or comment(s), by all means upload them in a post and I'll certainly consider it/them.

--Lee

Avatar
Lee
San francisco, CA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 18
Member Since:
March 31, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
April 5, 2016 - 11:47 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

       Further info. on American battleship, with 'Web references and asserted opinions:

Take a look at...

Image Enlarger

http://www.operatorchan.org/v/.....381219.png

http://vignette2.wikia.nocooki.....na_(BB-67).png/revision/latest?cb=20140804094538

       For my opinion, I'd take the heavy plate inboard on the Iowa (pictured above), and remove it toward the outboard side(s) at the waterline from the bottom edge of the armor plate. From there to the weather deck at the top.   Then thicken the main deck armor against bombs dropped from aircraft and descending missiles from a distance.             The biggest reason for my writing all this is that the Chinese anti-shipping Dong Feng-21D is a factor I believe should be taken seriously by more of the technically inclined 'Web posting public who frequent sites like this one.   Information on the Dong Feng:

http://nationalinterest.org/fe.....sile-11321                     Part of what I do as part-time employment is performing research concerning this kind of shipping threat to military and civilian interests in Northeast Asia, as the Chinese are capable of posing the threat.   This thread is an effort to being informal information to like-minded individuals for their information.

 

This is further informative:  This site describes the USS Illinois (BB-65), but gives fairly detailed specs...

http://forum.worldofwarships.c.....-pictures/

      The actual Montana, if it would have been built, would have been bigger, with more armor and---hopefully---bigger boilers/steam generators/propulsion plant gear than the original ship.

 

       Another thread dedicated to the Montana:

http://forum.worldofwarships.e.....ana-class/

 

       I'll be going now.   Allow me to reiterate that inasmuch as this thread is dedicated to naval engineering and taking source(s) from the 'Web, I have a part-time job with a security clearance doing original engineering, back-of-the-envelope-style research involving naval engineering, in part.   If the site operator(s) ever decide to dedicate a Forum to Naval Engineering, with security overtones, I'd be glad to participate on that Forum.

       Everything I've said here is within my rights to merely state my unofficial opinion, as I see fit.   I'll always be only informative as I need to be.   No worries on that part.   I believe some Veteran Members here at The Black Vault may have some experience of what it's like to be a Veteran like myself as well, and have a security clearance, past or even presently.

--Lee

Avatar
Lee
San francisco, CA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 18
Member Since:
March 31, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
April 6, 2016 - 7:13 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Okay guys,

       This is from the Naval Historical Center, as an extension of "Navsource", a  source of unclassified information on Navy weapon systems.   Here's a cross section diagram for the biggest, fastest version on the USS Montana:

http://www.navsource.org/archi.....016709.jpg

       From the site address:

http://www.navsource.org/archi...../01/68.htm    ...

       As depicted for the design version, Scheme #8.

Length:  1,050' (w.l.)     Beam:     120'     Draft:       35'

Standard Disp:  70,000 tons      Max:  82,000 tons

320,000 hp  powerplant/power-engine room capacity, that equals a max flank speed of 32-33 knots @  minimum amount of fuel (a few hundred tons, probably).

       Will return later.

--Lee 

Avatar
Lee
San francisco, CA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 18
Member Since:
March 31, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
April 13, 2016 - 9:47 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

So now,

       As for something a little smaller, simpler and cheaper, the USS Alaska and USS Guam battlecruiser design carried 12'' guns on the main deck in three triple turrets.   Below is a descriptive article:

http://www.navypedia.org/ships.....alaska.htm

       I believe a follow-on design for this battlecruiser was drawn up on paper that would have carried four turrets and would have been about 100' longer than the Alaska.   I would have increased the thickness of the armor protection or the horsepower rating of the engines while I was at it.   Displacement should have been about 30-40% greater than the Alaska with the same flank speed.

       The ''battlecruiser" was probably originally designed to protect oceanic shipping convoys against enemy surface ships, and would have done that with less cost and fewer manpower and/or materiel requirements than battleships, first, and aircraft carriers, second.

Avatar
Lee
San francisco, CA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 18
Member Since:
March 31, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
April 13, 2016 - 10:36 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

I was looking at sites which feature theoretical ship designs like:  Shipbucket and Blueprints.   However, I also came across this:

http://www.wolfsshipyard.com/M.....united.htm

        Now, the last 8-10 pgs or so had the latest, best designs.   Like an Alaska with 4 ea. 12" triple barrel turrets, as well as another drawing of one with 3 ea., triple barrel turrets having 15" guns---even if 15" main battery guns would have been an unusually rare design.

       A USS Montana with 16 ea. 16"main guns; w/4ea. in triple turrets.   The weather deck had 12" thickness over the payload and CIC, w/18" on both sides of the belts.  100,000+ tons.   ~300,000 engine HP.   33knts flank speed.   Equal to the Iowa with more armor and more on-target broadside weight at extreme distances.

       You can punch up that site and see for yourself.    .Also, to, this site and page: 

http://shipbucket.com/forums/v.....8;start=80

        Had an interesting design, IMHO, on page 9 of the thread at that page. (USS Justice; a theoretical battleship.)   More weight amidships with heavy barbettes, gun rounds, and powder cannisters forward of the superstructure might stabilize the ship better, to some extent.   That's my thinking, anyway.    

 

Anyone (a Member) who has questions or comments can make them.   Shortly, I can take the time to describe how I would modify the Alaska to make it almost equal to an Iowa-class ship.  (More guns, more armor and more engine power as gas turbo-generators and separate electric motors, aft in the engine room, for greater flexibility.

       The reason I'm doing all this, is because my employers have asked me to do the research, in Naval Engineering.   For their own reasons.   And they determined those reason(s) are classified at this time.   Large size for extended range on sizable fuel tanks (to quickly reach the Middle East/Southwest Asia at flank speed, if needed) and heavy armor thickness against large anti-shipping cruise missiles were two reasons.

       Other Members have complained that the expense of such big ships would be highly detrimental to Congress approving their design and construction.   I was later told, generally, that some of their opinions had ulterior motives.   My being personally gender-variant had something to do with it.   My supervisors took that "into consideration."   That's what I can tell you.   Possibly they would have liked to have classified the information I presented, for their personal reasons.   They didn't think of my idea(s) themselves and their less than equitable attitude toward me may have also been in evidence (to me).   My supervisors are happy with the work I do, and my critics have nothing to say about it.   I always work with unclassified Internet information.   Completely legal.

       Time's almost up on this computer.   It's okay with me if no one has comments.   I've had this kind of attitude applied to me in the past.   I know why it's happening.   My efforts are merely to keep my possibly interested associates peers and supervisors abreast of my work progress.   Informally, of course.

       This thread actually has subscriptions applied to it.   Sure, that's fine.   I'm writing this primarily for my job efforts, merely as research.   My business associates are please with what I've done, so far.

--Lee

Avatar
John Greenewald
North Hollywood, California
Admin
Forum Posts: 348
Member Since:
March 10, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
April 13, 2016 - 11:41 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

(Don't get discouraged on no comments/questions. You can see by the read statistics -- there are a lot of lurkers here, so the information is welcomed)

Sincerely,

 

John Greenewald, Jr.

The Black Vault
http://www.theblackvault.com 

 

Government Secrets
http://www.governmentsecrets.com

 

Phone: (805) 32-VAULT

Avatar
Lee
San francisco, CA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 18
Member Since:
March 31, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
April 14, 2016 - 1:54 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

John Greenewald said
(Don't get discouraged on no comments/questions. You can see by the read statistics -- there are a lot of lurkers here, so the information is welcomed)

       Thanks, John.

I've run into a fair amount of bad feelings toward me for a long time, seeing as my present gender expression is at odds with how I was born in natural gender.

       I've gotten used to it by now.   I like your "lurkers" reference to some members.   I believe some of them have hidden personal agendas and/or ulterior motives, as I mentioned before, I believe.   Some of them(?) subscribed to this thread because(?) they're interested(?) in what I'm presenting, or possibly---admittedly---they want see what I'll write next.       You, however, are a positive affirming difference by welcoming me to the site.   I don't often get that from site managers on the 'Web.   I really appreciate that.

       My Dad was an aerospace engineer for 30+ years in Southern CA and I took after his ability to do R&D engineering the same as he did.   I'm merely doing Naval Engineering right here.   So, now, I'll go back to doing what I was doing before.   I won't complain about how I'm treated if I get negative 'ink' on this site.       If you think someone is stepping out of line in my case, by possibly infringing against proper language usage, you might simply bring it to their attention.   As you wish.

Thanks again,

--Lee 

Avatar
Lee
San francisco, CA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 18
Member Since:
March 31, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
April 14, 2016 - 5:43 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

All right,

       I just found info. on the Alaska in her specifications...

http://forum.worldofwarships.c.....-pictures/

       As well as...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/.....p/cb-1.htm

And a photo of the the USS Guam, sister ship of the Alaska...

http://www.hazegray.org/navhis...../cb2-1.jpg

 

       Okay, with the first 'Web address above, the site is a game-fan-based source of information that seems reasonably accurate, given the apparent dedication of the person who uploaded the info.   If I was to upgrade the hull design of the Alaska/Guam combo, I would add about 80'-90' to the length, 10' to the beam, and 3' to the hull depth.   Thus making the new ship about 10% bigger in all three directions, by dimensions.   About 1/3 greater in displacement.   A new main deck turret can be added aft of the superstructure and the whole deck superstructure/main-gun-arrangement can be moved further aft an additional 80'-90', as well.

       Now, placing more beam to the new ship might also be centered further aft, since the greatest buoyancy of the hull is there.   There are drawings on the Internet that can show this sort of equipment and hull shape placement fairly well.   Generally, the forward end of the new ship will have a great deal more room forward of the superstructure.   Here's a couple of examples...

http://www.alternatehistory.co.....chment.php attachmentid=85362&stc=1&d=1257664276

...and this design from a Russian researcher...

http://en.academic.ru/pictures.....heme_A.jpg

       I'm trying to rebalance the ship and put more weight further aft on the ship and I might extend the bow a little more forward to keep the L/B ratio at 7.94:1, which is the most exact ratio for ship steaming efficiency.

 

       Will return later with more info. on how this might relate to the Alaska and/or other designed warship, either existing or theoretical.

--Lee

Avatar
Lee
San francisco, CA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 18
Member Since:
March 31, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
April 15, 2016 - 4:05 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

       I studied Internet sites with information pertaining to Heavy Cruisers, for a change, and found the number of unclassified records was large enough that I decided to do more in-depth research on my own and return later for a more thorough analysis of this class of ship.

       What I'll do now is give the reader a couple of sites I came across to look at at your leisure to familiarize yourselves with what's available and the data I'll present may be more easily understandable to those who may not be aware to a great extent about naval engineering.   To wit...

http://www.navsource.org/archi...../04idx.htm

http://www.navsource.org/archi...../04148.htm

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
28 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10051

bionic: 9877

at1with0: 9242

Lashmar: 5757

tigger: 4576

rath: 4332

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3283

Newest Members:

embackAlossyNN

Art

HarryChetaNH

alejandrans11

MarieJabNL

AyudfghViemyZB

Dan Scoggins

Reasor

NancyicomeFA

AndrewterathOM

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8197

Posts: 121579

 

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 20164

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Administrators: John Greenewald, blackvault