|
|
|
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject:
RE:Question for Fitz re Type 23
Rule Britannia
1/3/2005 8:34:04 AM
|
?As for fitting a gun CIWS to the Type 23, two questions
where exactly are you going to put it??
There are indeed a number of possible locations on the superstructure or with some slight modifications that could accommodate a Phalanx/SeaRAM type mount which would give it ample height and firing arcs.
Off the top of my head:
1) The aft life raft stowage platform on the flanks of the Hangar.
2) The forward life raft stowage platform under the bridge wings.
3) Forward of the main mast section on top of the Bridge, though this would require repositioning of the forward Seawolf fire control radar.
4) Various locations on the Hangar roof though most likely opposite the aft Seawolf fire control radar, on the starboard side.
5) Forward of the exhaust outlet block, above the central GCM cannons sponson located forward on the rib platform.
6) A constructed platform on the stern, similar to the arrangement on the Invincible?s and Ocean, although positioned amidships.
7) A constructed platform forward of the Bridge (similar to the arrangement on the Arleigh Burke class of the USN and the early Phalanx arrangement on HMS Edinburgh), above and to the left of the aft Harpoon quadruple launcher.
8) Options to substitute existing gun platforms
You are correct about the Goalkeeper system, the internal arrangement of the Type 23 at present would prevent it from being fitted to the superstructure without a significant refit. This would not however necessitate the fitting of a hull plug. I am aware of the design evolution concepts that incorporated the Goalkeeper. There are a number of concepts for every platform that our design department produces which includes the present T45 project. The longer hull was simply a foundation, base incorporation of the system that borrowed heavily from the Type 22 B3 but it certainly could be retrofitted using for example, raised sections forward of the mainmast, on the hangar roof or forward of the smokestack, or the platform concept I stated previously as is the case on board the HMS Invincible which would not require extensive hull reconstruction.
?Why bother??
I agree with you, although the Phalanx systems from out going B1 Type 42?s may yet be retrofitted to the Dukes, I don?t see the point in going to such expense to fill an air defence gap that is already largely filled by the Seawolf which currently undergoing an extensive Block two upgrade. The nature of Sea Dart and the arrangement of Sea Wolf (no 360 azimuth coverage) made it justifiable for the T42?s & T22?s but as you say, VLS Sea Wolf largely fills any gap and does it more capably than any such system may offer at present, CIWS would be more of a value added appendage.
Iano, I only came on board the T22 project in the design stages of the Batch 3 so that is where I was most involved, during the initial design I was but a lowly apprentice draughtsman. HS is right, they were conceived as new generation ASW biased multi-purpose frigates to replace the Leander Class. I think the quality of the original design of the Leanders was that the hull form was continued on in this new class. The Type 22 also was the first class to share a similar type of propulsion fit with a sister class in COGAG with the Type 42 Destroyer which allowed cost savings in engineering training and components. The class that I was involved in the design of, the Cornwall or (B3) Type 22?s were essentially the same as the previous batch, except that major design revisions had been implemented as a result of the Falklands. One of the main lessons of the Falklands, fire damage and control meant hazardous materials such as Aluminium were replaced in the design and automation levels were increased. The command facilities of the ship were incorporated to allow the ship to lead a task force by providing extensive facilities for a Flag Officer, therefore diversifying this role from the carriers and improving fleet flexibility which was exampled in the first Gulf War. Other main lessons from the South Atlantic were the importance of NGS which necessitated the incorporation of the Vickers Mk.8 4.5-inch Gun as the Type 22?s were the first Royal Navy warships to be equipped without such a weapon. The lesson of the threat from sea skimming missiles was remedied by enhancing the existing Sea Wolf Air Defence fit with Goalkeeper CIWS and improving surface to surface capabilities by replacing the Exocet with Harpoon which has double the range. The other major improvement was the design of the flight deck to support EH101 Merlin operations which has vastly improved ASW capabilities over the Sea King Mk.6.
I come from a family of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. My father and Grandfather were both Head of the Naval Architecture and ship design department at John Brown Shipbuilding and Engineering and led the design of vessels like the RMS Lusitania, RMS Aquitania, HMS Tiger, HMS Repulse, HMS Hood, HMS Barham, RMS Empress of Britain, RMS Queen Mary, RMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Indefatigable, HMS Vanguard, HMS Intrepid and the QE2. I came from that sort of background and that is how I got into it. Naval Architecture is quite possibly one of the most demanding and complex professions there are, especially with naval warship design. These are amongst the largest and most complex and highly valued moveable structures produced by mankind. The scale is such that it can take a team of over 30 people 9 months to put a relatively simple concept design on paper (or computer now). This scale means that team work is essential and coming from the service would set you in good stead. The Naval Architect?s job is to integrate all the many disciplines of engineering into one product that fits the set list of demands set by the customer. This takes vital understanding of all aspects of engineering and it?s applications so the Marine Engineering department in the Royal Navy vessels would offer excellent foundations for that. Naval Architecture is an incredibly rewarding job, indeed the feeling of pride and satisfaction in surveying what is essentially the product of your mind and labour formed in one of the largest moving objects ever crafted is hard to beat. If you have never seen the launch of a ship then there is still a thrill in life for you. There is a lot of job opportunities for Naval Architects and Marine Engineers depending on what field you want to specialise in. It can range from consultancy work for defence organisations like QinetiQ or for civilian companies like Cunard. There is design work, either naval or commercial which is the field that I specialise in. I have worked for the same shipyard all my life but there is a number of other opportunities to take in the field. I am currently a research fellow at Glasgow Universities NA-ME department which keeps you in the forefront of high technology innovations in the industry, indeed their Centre for Marine Hydrodynamics is unrivalled anywhere in the world. I for instance now special in the design of stealthy marine structures using mainly dihedral and trihedral forms. In this country we are lucky to have the RINA which offers excellent conferences and training programmes to help you keep pace with what is a fast moving industry sector. There are classes of membership to suit all those who are professionally qualified in naval architecture, or who are involved or interested in the maritime industry. If you are thinking of getting into the industry then I would certainly recommend joining.
link
link
link
The best in the business if you are thinking of Naval Architecture as a career:
link
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
