Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Another Flight III DDG Arliegh Burke Proposal
westwords2020    6/30/2006 10:35:20 AM
I have in mind less drastic changes but changes nonetheless. I would slightly lengthen the forward section to accomodate OTO-Melara 5 inch Compact mount with 62 calibre barrel in a redesigned and more stealthy gun house and place a RAM launcher on either side of the mount with independant elevation but training with the gun. I'd go further and have a twin 5/62 for an achievable burst rate of fire of 40+40=80 rds/min for better AA/antimissile role. The RAM launchers would also be able to fire the antitorpedo torpedo in developement and Nulka hovering decoys as well as RAM antimissile missiles with the upgrade enabling anti helo, aircraft and surface fire modes. Where Phlanx was, I would install the 57mm Mk 110 both in fore and aft Phlanx positions. The forward VLS would be increased to 64 cells for a total of 128 VLS cells. The stern would be lengthen and the ship made a flush decker to provide a stern hull depth able to take the aft VLS and a second OTO-Melara twin five incher with RAM launchers. Forward from the stern would be the helo hangar with space for a pair of V-22s or three helos or twin helos and VTUAVs depending on mission requirements. I'd install full size torpedo tubes for wire guided Mk48 in the transom in a pair. DDG1000 improvements that were practical to install would be fitted mainly in the dual band sonar, MFTAS array. Radars would remain SPY 1D series and GFCS provisions made supplemented by IR/EO systems. This should make a formidable ship and is inspired by the studies for SC-21 that included a maximum capability version of DDG-51 class.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4
WarNerd       2/16/2008 2:58:46 AM

That said, modern speedboats are practically unsinkable because the fiberglass hull is filled with flotable foam.  Could this not be used in warships?  Either foam in place, or foaming systems to force the water out of the ship or at least to seal the breach, not unlike self-sealing tires? 

Not a good idea.
Foam between the inner and outer hull means no access to the outer hull except from outside, so you have to lay up in good weather to make repairs, or even to inspect damage.
 
Foam to force water out has to exert pressure, so this will be rigid foam.  You just entombed, and rendered useless, everything in the compartment until the crew can get in and carve it out.  Electrical equipment is a special problem because the foam will block cooling vents, any that does not immediately shutdown will most likely be damaged, and may create a fire or fume hazard as well.
As for sealing a breach, most holes will too large and unsupported foam is too fragile.  Self-sealing tires use a viscous gum to fill puncture holes driven by the internal tire air pressure.  The viscous material will gradually be extruded through the hole until there is not enough left to seal it, so you still need to make a permanent patch.
If VLS cells go $625K apiece (WOW!!!) then you should be getting something for that money.  I don't see why you don't just design them frangible and disposable.  Let the missile blast its way out.  We've given up reloading at sea, reusability is pointless except perhaps in narrow lifecycle costs.
 
Much of the expense of a VLS cell comes from the requirements, which include:
>   Duct work to vent the gases away from the missile during launch.
>   Waterproof design for both before and after firing.
>   Protecting adjacent missiles from damage and possible fratricide or sympathetic ignition during a launch.
 Sure, they are overdesigned.  But consider what happens if something goes wrong.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       2/16/2008 3:55:23 AM



That said, modern speedboats are practically unsinkable because the fiberglass hull is filled with flotable foam.  Could this not be used in warships?  Either foam in place, or foaming systems to force the water out of the ship or at least to seal the breach, not unlike self-sealing tires? 


Not a good idea.

Foam between the inner and outer hull means no access to the outer hull except from outside, so you have to lay up in good weather to make repairs, or even to inspect damage.

 

In a speedboat gun-carrier perhaps this would not matter.  After all, current speedboats do use this system.

If this is important, I suppose it would have to be removable.  The foam could be laid in place in numbered blocks or foamed in place and cut into blocks.  Then removed and replaced for these inspections.

Meanwhile you have got the advantages of passive damage control with low manning. 

I also suppose the foam might be water-activated, as an alternative.



Foam to force water out has to exert pressure, so this will be rigid foam.  You just entombed, and rendered useless, everything in the compartment until the crew can get in and carve it out.  Electrical equipment is a special problem because the foam will block cooling vents, any that does not immediately shutdown will most likely be damaged, and may create a fire or fume hazard as well.


I assumed this would be dead space.  I know naval vessels are usually crammed full of systems, stores, etc.  You would indeed have to design the hull bigger for the extra bulk.  As explained in VLST/F, the vessel chosen is indeed oversized with lots of empty space.

Naturally you would have to pick a proper foam that is not flammable, and engineered around the vents.  Conceivably air-permeable.  Aerogel might be an option.


As for sealing a breach, most holes will too large and unsupported foam is too fragile.  Self-sealing tires use a viscous gum to fill puncture holes driven by the internal tire air pressure.  The viscous material will gradually be extruded through the hole until there is not enough left to seal it, so you still need to make a permanent patch.


Okay, how about an airbag concept with the bag being filled with foam (if necessary) to fill the compartment and displace water and oxygen.  The bag could be deflated afterwards.  Yes, I suppose it would be hard on anyone in the compartment.  Since the ship is lightly manned, perhaps this will not happen. 

Also - you could have a system to force foam balls into the compartment, like those kid's playpens at Mcdonalds.
As for a permanent patch, I see this as buying time.  It is not three feet of armor plate, it is three feet (say) of, perhaps:

http://www.fluidzone.com/pages/?pageID=558&wordsID=812
h*tp://www.fluidzone.com/pages/?pageID=558&wordsID=812
Dow
Generic Name: Polyethylene
Density: PCF 2.2, Specific Gravity 0.0352 
Despite having been used to make bodyboards for 20 years, polyethylene remains the staple core for most low to mid-range bodyboards thanks to its a reliable mix of projection, water-resistance and weight. It is compact, comes in different densities, and has good projection and overall performance. As well as being used as the core it is also used on the deck and rails of most bodyboards. Warm water can sometimes cause polyethylene get too flexible and to develop a rocker and warp over time. Cold water is better since it tends to stiffen it up somewhat. Although not as stiff as other cores, polyethylene is still a major player when combined with strengthening agents like mesh or stringers.

This buys you time to assemble a party to fother the leak with a sheet of Kevlar, a sail, whatever ;>.  Assuming three feet of foam does not contain the breach.  Meanwhile of course there are other foams.

If VLS cells go $625K apiece (WOW!!!) then you should be getting something for that money.  I don't see why you don't just design them frangible and disposable.&nbs
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       2/17/2008 5:59:08 AM

But a 100K dwt (say) tanker dims out to:  about 250m L x 30-40m beam x 25m draft.  A 250m x 40m deck yields about 10000m^2 area.  Even the comical extreme of 1000 VLS/AUR gives 10 m^2 space for each missile, that's a 3ft diam tube in the middle of a 33x33 ft area.  Plenty of room for rebar, sandbags, Kevlar, whatever.You could even lay them flat and TEL them if that is desirable; presumably easier to protect.)
 
No, it gives you a 3 ft diameter tube in the middle of a 10'x10' area.  And they are 7 meters long so that if you lay them flat you will have just enough room to walk between the rows, and no room for protecting them.

 
And piling "rebar, sandbags, Kevlar, whatever" up 7 meters to protect them can make you awfully top heavy

Okay, but apparently other systems use an all-up round.  In my VLSF/T concept, the ship is again oversized, so you can separate single cells by a reasonable amount of space.  Such capsules would also be easier to reload (replace) if desired,  I also do not see waterproofing (after) as important, you ditch the thing.   Separation deals with the venting and anti-fratricide.  Or you just lay down rebarred concrete between cells if you feel strongly about it.  Somehow the various  AURs in use seem to manage these issues.  Of course things are different at sea.


For an "all-up round" that you seem to want the missile has to exhaust from the rear of the cell, and it needs some place to go.  This is not a VLS system but something more like the Harpoon missile pods.  Take a look at Harpoon installations and you will see that they are mounted at around a 45 degree angle and located so the exhaust goes over the tail or over the side.  You should also note that the capsules that missiles 'burst' out of have a cover or plug on both ends that must be removed prior to firing, the cover they burst through is just a moisture seal.
 
Since you are going to be surface mounting these missiles the solution may be to erect a false deck 3-4 meters above the existing deck to mount them on and allow the exhaust to vent between the hull and the false deck.  The added height and weight will compound any stability problems of course.
 
The requirement for a VLS cell to waterproofing after firing is to prevent the empty cell and the exhaust ductwork from filling with water and damaging other missiles.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       2/17/2008 6:32:05 AM


If VLS cells go $625K apiece (WOW!!!) then you should be getting something for that money.  I don't see why you don't just design them frangible and disposable.  Let the missile blast its way out.  We've given up reloading at sea, reusability is pointless except perhaps in narrow lifecycle costs.
Much of the expense of a VLS cell comes from the requirements, which include:
>   Duct work to vent the gases away from the missile during launch.
>   Waterproof design for both before and after firing.
>   Protecting adjacent missiles from damage and possible fratricide or sympathetic ignition during a launch.
Sure, they are overdesigned.  But consider what happens if something goes wrong.

The soviets learnt that the hard way.  VLS hot/cold launches aren't cheap designs
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/17/2008 9:48:00 AM





On the damage control issue, it is worth noting some of the safety measures that have been developed over the last 30 or so years. When it comes to simply putting fires out, by far the easiest and safest way to do it is to simply release halon, carbon dioxide, argon, or one of a dozen or so gaseous fire suppression agents.



Is halon still acceptable?  we banned it from secure lock downs a few years ago due to its lethality to anything organic that breathed oxygen and had blood coursing through its body.  (and not everyone may get to an ox mask in time)


 


Halon is going away because of the environmental concerns. It's toxicity is oversold. I know several people that have been in Gas Turbine Modules when Halon was released in the module. They suffered no ill-effects, except they did require a change of underwear.  Like CO2 it can displace oxygen; although, Halon doesn't need to diplace O2 to be effective. The big deal about Halon in manned spaces is if the personnel leave after Halon is released. The introduction of more air can disturb the Halon and cause a reflash.
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/17/2008 9:51:51 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Reply to various.    2/17/2008 12:52:49 PM
Cell frame and compartmentlization is the accepted way to protyect a ship from a damaging conventional hit. It works better than armor in that it emphasizes flotation after perforation. If WWII taught ship designers anything, it was that redundancy and compartmentalization was a better ship saver than tonnes of armor.

Jeep carriers took dozens of shell hits and kamikazi strikes and stubbornly refused to sink [Samar]. Those tubs didn't exactly qualify as battleships [Henry Kaiser Shipbuilding Lesson].  Something soaked into naval architects postwar.

If you design a ship to maintain its bub;e after its been shot up and train a crew to learn its ship so well that they can put out fires and partition off those sections of the ship that will be perforated, then their chance of avoiding Bruce the Shark is  a logarithmic function.

Does that mean sailors die as you seal compartments after them? Yes.In real life, super heroics to save trapped men stop as officers have to weigh the ship against some trapped crew. How many Navy Crosses, Silver stars and medals of Honor do we have to attest to this brutal fact?  Too many.

Automated damage control will not plug holes or halt flooding. [Cole Lesson]. That took MEN. At some point the machines fail and you need brute muscle and fierce will to save the ship. Nothing else works. Nothing.

Some things to remember:

1. Solid fueled rockets are blow torches that will melt metal if the exhaust hits it long enough.  If the exhaust has no venting and the rocket ignites then you have a BOMB. that will blow itself and everything nearby to bits.

2. You better have a way to dump duds over the side if you have an FTI event [one of the reasons  for the PVLS].
 
3. Foreget airbags, sealing foam , or floatation pellets. Its cellular compartmentalization or nothing. The inept naval designers or the cheapskates decided on nothing. that is why the Krestas, Sovremenys , Laugh it  ups et al are death traps. NO compartmentalization or proper damage control layout.

4. Benellin suggested a double access damage control system "spine" to a ship.A sectioned parallel split loop circuit of electrical power conduits and fire fighting gas/slurry lines and communications trunks makes a lot of sense. REDUNDANCY and survivability: if a section of the loop is knocked out, you jump one section out and operate from it. that allows you smaller crew, butr it means a MUCH bigger ship. Men still have to get at the damage. More plumbing nd feed means more access way=more DC volume. That is not a bad thing. AS nigger ship gives you more cells and a bettger compartmentalized bubble. The tradeoff is COST. But then steel is CHEAP.

Herald
 

 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/17/2008 2:57:53 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I can't type!   2/17/2008 4:38:02 PM
Apologies to all about my last post. Those are typographical errors!  I will try to better proofread!

Herald
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics