March 31, 2016
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...
Okay, I found a theoretical "New Haven" class of heavy cruiser and the address is...
...as posted on the Deviant Art 'web site.
So, now, the the ship is the same overall length as the Baltimore class heavy cruiser; has about 4'-4.5' wider beam (74.66' vs. 70.875' compared to the Baltimore); and slightly greater draft (27.5' compared to 26.875' for the Baltimore). Displacement is greater for the extra aft turret and greater beam(19,155 t compared to 17273 t). Engine HP is the same (120,000 for both ships). Cruising range is probably less (the New Haven carries about 2,622 t., compared 2,290 t. for the Baltimore). So that the New Haven has 9,027 nm range, while the Baltimore had 10,000 nm(both ships traveled at 15 knts.). The extra turret, aft, will have possibly had something to reduce the New Haven's range.
One of the first comments posted to the original thread mentioned that the Des Moines class cruiser would have been a better starting point to base the new ship on, but that with 3 turrets, the rapid firing 8" with actual shell casings to increase the turret's shell firing rate would have equalled or 'outclassed' battleships. New Haven's broadside weight was about 1/3 to 1/4 that of a battleship's for each salvo, but the rate of salvos would have been faster than, say, 3-4 per minute. The claim may have had merit. Another participant indicated the foc'sile (forepeak on the bow) was 'waaaay' too high and would limit firing at targets directly forward of the ship. I would agree with that. The designer wasn't an American and may not have known that American cruisers would not have had a high forepeak like his ship.
As I look at a line drawing printout of the ship, I would do these things as design improvements:
1) Remove the two seaplane launch rails on the stern. At the most, replace them with a smaller, faster recon aircraft that requires less room on the stern and less fuel to fly it. Also, remove the 40mm gun tub from the stern as well. Replace it with two emplacements have the same caliber further forward on either side of the ship. (There are modern replacements like satellites and aircraft carrier recon jets to replace slow piston engine seaplanes.)
2) Increase the overall dimensions by 10% in length, beam, and draft. Displacement then increases by about 1/3 over the original design. While this is done, center the maximum beam of the ship about 70-80 feet further aft than it is now. That done, move the superstructure, with main deck guns, further aft by 80-100 feet.
3) Because the boilers and engine rooms were amidships, originally, more room for machinery should now be available forward, since gun turrets and associated gun powder and shells are further aft as well. The hull is deeper, now, as well, so the entire engine room can be extended forward to the point that the hull narrows at the bow and additional power generators won't fit.
4) Replace water boilers with as many diesel generators as will fit on the lowest deck, just above the keel and the bilges above that. Using diesels can reduce weight of the power generators by up to 1/3 in tonnage. Fuel burn will also be reduced by 15% to 50%. (I've done the HP-to-HP comparisons between boilers and diesel, already.)
Screws will be turned by separate electric motors instead of direct steam drive or steam-electric generator. This allows for greater operational flexibility. Gas turbo-generators offer the best power-to-weight ratio to drive screws. However they should only be used for flank speed sprints to station in emergencies because fuel burn rates are excessive at the most efficient throttle setting for flank speed running.
I'll look at this drawing for more modifications that can be made to improve performance.
March 31, 2016
I'll shift gears a little bit and only discuss the main 8" guns of heavy cruisers like the USS Newport News and USS Des Moines. These ship carry 3 turrets of 8"55 caliber mounts weighing 450 tons each. The Mark 16 they used was capable of loading 78lbs of smokeless powder and threw a 335 lb shell at 2500 ft/seb. Maximum range was about 17-20 miles. Firing rate was 10 rounds/minute. This was possible because the whole round was loaded into the gun at once, the same as the 5" gun. The battleship (USS Iowa, etc), had an AP shell weighing 2,700 lbs and had the powder loaded after the shell was loaded into the end of the gun. Firing rate was slower as a result. The machinery to manage the loaded process for the 8" was simpler, as a result. Only one object to load at a time, with stored rounds belowdecks in one place, thus less susceptible to outside fire, impact, or other hazardous events.
If the regular shell was reduced in diameter as a sabot, a common diameter might have be selected in the 155mm round. This size of round is available worldwide and in a variety of types, depending upon application. Here's a 'Web article describing the concept I'm relating...
It's an 8" naval gun firing a sabot with GPS and fins on the end to extend range. A significantly larger ship would be needed to mount the 8", particularly in a triple mont. Fortunately, the Des Moines and Baltimore would have been larger than more modern ships in use today. Additionally, the barrel caliber can be increased to, say, 75-85 times the diameter. This'll add at least 1000-1500 lbs to the weight of each barrel, but it could extent range of an ordinary AP round to 25 miles or more. A 155mm guided sabot might have a range of 140-150 miles.
Finally, there was an article in "Popular Mechanics" magazine about 40 years ago that I never forgot. The Navy had perfected a RATO (Rocket Assisted Take-Off) naval 8" cruiser round during the VietNam War that had an integral rocket engine in the rear end of the shell that had a fuse that lit the charge inside it and therefore extended the range of the round to 24 miles. Viet Cong military camps were bombarded from offshore when they thought they were completely safe. The only thing extra required was to employ a spotter plane to redirect missed shots more accurately onto the target by radio to the CIC of the ship. If the barrel had been lengthened, as I suggest above, the range would have been correspondingly greater.
March 31, 2016
I was looking at modern cruiser, like the guided missile Ticonderoga-class ship, compared to an older, Korean/WWII Era cruiser, like the Fargo-class cruisers. The Ticonderoga is about the same size as the Fargo, but the Fargo is better armored. Ticonderoga only has/had Kelvar protection around critical areas. The Fargo(an improved Cleveland-class design) had a rather more compact superstructure and still used boilers and steam turbines. These weigh a lot more than jet-engine-style LM2500's, but they burn about half the fuel per hour and this gives the Fargo about twice the range at slightly less speed. Steel belt armor, weather deck armor and turret armor are much more capable to defend the ship against incoming overboard attacking foreign weaponry.
Even if kerosene is being burned, for propulsion, by both ships, a better compromise in performance would be for diesel generators to be used for cruising and have either LM2500 or LM6000 generators to be used for sprint speeds. Diesels take up about 1/2 the volume of boilers/steam turbines and weigh about 1/3 less than boilers/geared turbines. Gas turbines are even power powerful by the same general physical factors, but they burn a lot more fuel at high speeds. Gas turbines are okay if one doesn't need to go far.
There is no advantage to rebuilding a new class of Ticonderoga ships. Guided missiles are long-ranged, but can have their guidance systems radar-jammed or confused by heat flares or aluminum metal chaff. Steel cannon shells are limited in range, but if enough land in one place, the target will be damaged. They can't be stopped by anti-aircraft means that I know of.
I'll return with more info later.
March 31, 2016
For the sake of simplicity, comparing the Cleveland Class and Des Moines Class ships, the Des Moines is about 5% longer, and 20-25% wider. Multiplying the two together will get the average displacement difference between the Cleveland and Baltimore. The difference is about 1/3 greater. If the Cleveland is 'maxed out' in displacement at 14,300 short tons, multiplying by 1/3 would equals some 19,000 tons. I'll 'chalk that up' to the Des Moines having thicker, longer, and wider armor, by proportion to relative displacement. Otherwise the actual displacement of the Des Moines is about 21,300 short tons.
It's a more capable ship than the Cleveland, but it's also more expensive to build and run. Clevelands were built in greater numbers for that reason. Sailors on the Clevelands knew this. They would have rather sailed on the Des Moines, for sure.
March 31, 2016
I came across this reference on the Internet for a new class of Russian Destroyer:
And, from India:
The low-down word is that the Russian version is to be nuclear powered. Really? Did the Russians learn anything from the Kirov battlecruisers?! Here's a 'Web blog page site describing the ship(s) to some extent:
That was my input on the subject. I may or may not expound upon this later, but you have this, now.
July 2, 2016
You write so eloquently! It's a pleasure reading your posts.
As for R&D, I tend to er...glance at the nuts-n-bolts while looking for the stuff we do not see. My interests are in VTOL, LTA's, hybrid technologies, psychologies, CC&D and perception manipulation. Anything like that ever come across your desk?
March 18, 2015
Interesting posts. Do you work at Bath or at Pascagoula??? Or have you ever worked there at one time.
I've been on FFG.s in this shipyard and seen them ..engine room to to galleys to upper decks to the cruise missile packages. Very interesting.
I always thought FFGs or "Small Boys" as they are sometimes referred were roomier inside than they are in the living spaces. Not so. Not much roomier than a submarine.
I am curious why you reference surface ships mostly. This is a telltale or index to me.
You do know that most of these surface vessels are today ...very vulnerable to submarine warfare...Yes...Modern type submarines..not the WW2 stuff???
Air Craft carriers too.
Most Users Ever Online: 288
Currently Browsing this Page:
Guest Posters: 2
Administrators: John Greenewald, blackvault