[Post Reply] [*]  Page 5 of 9  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page « 13 4 5 6 79 »
Author Message
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Battleship Yamato Aegis Modernization and RebuildPosted: August 19th, 2016, 7:18 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7179
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
as far as I know, talking about stuff like this is always allowed, it is just forcing it upon people which is frowned upon :P

said simply, the ideal shape of an ship is actually an wedge on the waterline (for the waves) an drop shape underneath it (look at submarines) and when blending those shape together, an as low as possible surface area (friction of the water around the ship). depending on the speed and size, the balance between the 3 may shuffle around, hence why the Sears-Haack body is not usable in many, or even most, circumstances. smooth variation of derivatives is what is important in all 3 parts of the balance though ;) so I think we agree.

your 'question' about speed is an good one, and your last remark is amazing, as in this might be an weird aegis superbattleship which I actually think might be ready to be moved out of beginners forum :O

_________________
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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
KWAM
Post subject: Re: Battleship Yamato Aegis Modernization and RebuildPosted: August 19th, 2016, 8:33 pm
Offline
Posts: 29
Joined: August 8th, 2016, 2:23 am
The lengthening of the forward section was due to a series of choices starting with an extremely basic, almost silly, starting point. On the reference image, there are three semi-vertical lines on the hull just forward of the bulge, and I had no clue why they were there. So I came up with a reason, a pretty basic AU scenario full of contrived crap, but really no more full of contrived crap than the rest of the concept as a whole.

Pretty much something along the lines of Yamato receiving heavy damage to her bow from torpedo hits during the 19 March 1945 attack on Kure by USN aircraft, with most of the forward section damaged beyond repair. Because of this she did not participate in Operation Ten-Go, and thus survived the war and was not destroyed after. During her rebuild, a new forward section of similar design was built, and the lines show partially where the original hull ends and the new sections begin.

That was the original scenario I was playing around with in my head. There wasn't supposed to be any lengthening of the hull at first (the ref image still uses her initial length of 263m after all). Then after thinking about it I figured I might as well lengthen and reshape the forward section since I was already completely rebuilding the damn thing. This was probably the biggest departure from the reference I decided on. Yamato's historical turning was excellent from the perspective of being able to dodge torpedoes and WWII-era air attack, but it's a little harder to dodge a pair of Moskits fired at you. Thus, being fast enough to move with the fleet at combat speeds and enjoying the mutual support that provides would be more important. And then there was the extra room freed up for more VLS cells, which eventually became one of the main reasons.

That was the thought process for the lengthened forward section anyhow. It does actually involve reshaping the thing to take advantage of the length. For better or worse, it may just end up a permanent feature of this design no matter how expensive such a rebuild would be in real life.

The purpose then would be similar to that of an arsenal ship, moving with the fleet and supporting it with missile fire. Since her payload is so much greater than the other ships in the fleet, she would even be able to afford to ripple fire multiple missiles at once, either at multiple targets or at one. Main guns may be equipped for shore support or anti-ship duty if the enemy is close enough.

This should also answer the question of what a 30kt BBG can do that a 20kt BBG cannot, in that I seriously doubt that a 20kt BBG would be able to keep up with a fleet in a combat situation, and any such isolated ship would be a prime target for submarines or cruise missile equipped aircraft.

As for the blast from the guns affecting the VLS, there's some basic shielding between guns and the VLS to help direct the blast off to the sides away and away from the launchers.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: Battleship Yamato Aegis Modernization and RebuildPosted: August 19th, 2016, 10:38 pm
Offline
Posts: 4973
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
Quote:
In any case this takes us far afield of what is in a beginner's drawing section, and we are probably giving Colo subliminal fits talking about this crap ;)
No not at all... I've been following this thread with great interest. The discussion here is the discussion I wish we could always have on this board...

I can't offer much except to applaud you for not giving into pressure and removing the no.3 turret. A battleship simply isn't a battleship without all of its main guns!

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
citizen lambda
Post subject: Re: Battleship Yamato Aegis Modernization and RebuildPosted: August 20th, 2016, 11:29 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 467
Joined: March 2nd, 2016, 8:30 pm
Just sounding off quickly on the VLS installation:
- I see how your fit makes sense based on the waterline hull. My three-row aft array would probably clash with the hull somewhere
- That being said, the purpose of my fit check was mostly to see how many cells you could cram in the allocated surfaces. Kudos for resisting the temptation of VLS overgrowth ;)
- Regarding damage control and the armored citadel: keep in mind that the hatches on the VLS are not armored (not to a Yamato level at any rate). So any VLS cell placed inside the citadel will only add vulnerability to top-down attacks.
- You can only work around that with some kind of sliding armored covers over the Mk.41 cells (think the S-300F Fort layout on the Kirov), which would be an utter pain to maintain and would severely reduce cell density. Also, none of your other new systems are that much armored, so the point is kinda moot.
- Seeing how this interacts with the mission(s) of your Yamato and what has been discussed above about the lengthened bow, I have to ask: how many strike-length VLS cells do you need, and for which missiles? The SM-2MRs and SM-3s would be required for long-range area defense (consistent with the Aegis array), but shorter-range self-defense can be handled with ESSMs from Mk.41 SD, Mk.48 or Mk.56, al of which can be wedged into smaller corners of the hull in piecemeal blocks of 8 or 16 cells, or even grafted on the superstructure. What I'm getting at is, you could probably concentrate your strike-length tubes in the aft array, spread out ESSM blocks elsewhere and remove the requirement for the lengthened bow.
- This, of course, supposes that you question the utility of the bow rework, and that's your decision to take. :)

_________________
Soviet Century/Cold War 2020 Alternate Universe: Soviet and other Cold War designs 1990-2020.
My Worklist


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
KWAM
Post subject: Re: Battleship Yamato Aegis Modernization and RebuildPosted: August 20th, 2016, 7:14 pm
Offline
Posts: 29
Joined: August 8th, 2016, 2:23 am
After some internal debate and mental gymnastics I decided to keep the forward VLS configuration and forward section the way they are currently, but reduce the centerline cells to tactical length. Strike length cells are only needed to carry the SM-3, and having 192 strike cells at the back is more than enough. So, the SM-3 has been removed from above the forward VLS. After erik's pictures of the VLS blowing out I did somewhat want to edit the configuration, but I had no base for it and also had some concerns due to the angled shape of the Yamato's forward upper hull even with the lengthened forward section. The JMSDF only employs the Mk 41, not any of the other ones, and all of the cells on their destroyers are grouped on the ship's centerline. Despite the lengthened and reshaped forward section being stupid, impractical, and too expensive to be used in reality, I decided to keep it because I felt its benefits were too good to pass up. Plus, "stupid, impractical, and too expensive to be used in reality" pretty adequately describes the entire design, so it's not like you can blame me for being inconsistent.

Updated:

[ img ]

And the new B-Side:

[ img ]

Other changes include adding extra shading to the hull, bulges, and 5" guns. Hull and bulge shading are mostly below waterline. Hull shading was taken mostly from Erusia Force's Kure Yamato.

Changed the way the main battery looks to resemble the Iowa-class. Blast bags or whatever they're called changed to black, detailing on barrel added (from Paul 2012's New Jersey 1983 drawing), and life rafts removed from main battery turrets.

RAMs and ESSMs added above launchers and VL-ASROC added along with sonar in bulbous bow. Type 68 (license produced version of the Mk 32 SVTT) torpedo tubes added. Type 68s are located far to the aft of the boat hangar to not cause interference with boat operations. I was also a bit worried about spray and wave damage after apdsmith's comment about the SeaRAM which used to be mounted this low, so a bit of shielding has been added to the front and rear.

Changed the boat hangar edge to be more angular and more consistent with the rest of the ship, screws changed to the version in Erusia Force's Kure version, and other slight hull detailing edits added. Ship prefix also changed from JDS to JS because I never got the memo that they started using JS in 2008.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Battleship Yamato Aegis Modernization and RebuildPosted: August 20th, 2016, 8:59 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8257
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
you can build the torpedo into the hull, just like are done on modern warships.

Basicly torpedo tubes behind hatch.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
KWAM
Post subject: Re: Battleship Yamato Aegis Modernization and RebuildPosted: August 20th, 2016, 10:12 pm
Offline
Posts: 29
Joined: August 8th, 2016, 2:23 am
heuhen wrote:
you can build the torpedo into the hull, just like are done on modern warships.

Basicly torpedo tubes behind hatch.
Which ships?

Atago-class destroyers I used as reference carry their torpedo tubes on their deck.

EDIT: Nevermind, I know what you're talking about now.

Found a video of the internally mounted torpedo tubes on JS Akizuki.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Battleship Yamato Aegis Modernization and RebuildPosted: August 20th, 2016, 11:07 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8257
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
KWAM wrote:
heuhen wrote:
you can build the torpedo into the hull, just like are done on modern warships.

Basicly torpedo tubes behind hatch.
Which ships?

Atago-class destroyers I used as reference carry their torpedo tubes on their deck.
Atago class is based on the Arleigh Burke class.

(large picture)
M-32 Mod.9 twin torpedo tubes aboard a Royal Canadian Navy Halifax class Frigate:
http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE ... es-063.jpg

Mk-32 torpedo tubes aboard USS Leftwich (DD 984):
http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE ... es-060.jpg


Some British ships, Norwegian ships, French ships etc. or example:
(do you see the torpedo tubes:
http://shipbucket.com/Real%20Designs/Gr ... chmond.png
http://shipbucket.com/Real%20Designs/No ... erdahl.png
http://shipbucket.com/Real%20Designs/Fr ... 202007.png
http://shipbucket.com/Real%20Designs/Ge ... Bremen.gif
http://shipbucket.com/Real%20Designs/Ge ... rg%201.gif
http://shipbucket.com/Real%20Designs/It ... gamini.png

The main reason I suggest it is it would be much safer for the crew. or even with those small things you have done or you'r torpedo tubes aren't enough to withstand the sea wave. and any crew operating it can in worst cases be washed at see.

I often see torpedo tubes on deck, on vessel that are supposed to operate in warm weather condition, where the weather is nice, most of the time. The advantage of an torpedo room inside a ship, is safety for the crew.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
KWAM
Post subject: Re: Battleship Yamato Aegis Modernization and RebuildPosted: August 21st, 2016, 12:09 am
Offline
Posts: 29
Joined: August 8th, 2016, 2:23 am
I've replaced the torpedo tubes with the internal type, in pretty much the same position it was in before.

[ img ]

From what I can tell based on the pictures of the Akizuki-class I've seen, the tubes are not fixed in place like they are on some other ships. Instead, the tubes can freely rotate after the hatch has been opened.

[ img ]
Torpedo tubes are just above the stairs on the side of the hull

[ img ]
Torpedo tubes visible in front of the first funnel at deck level

[ img ]
Hatches closed

Should the torpedo itself be added above the tubes, like the missiles are above their launchers?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Battleship Yamato Aegis Modernization and RebuildPosted: August 21st, 2016, 1:26 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8257
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
I place the torpedo above, just like missile.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 5 of 9  [ 82 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page « 13 4 5 6 79 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]