StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Vympel wrote:

Boba Fett wrote:
...and those advanced guns will fire GPS guided ammo!!!

The Extended Range Guided Munition is .... uncertain at this point.

Which doesn't matter, because AGS and ERGM are not the same project. ERGM is a 127mm shell for the 5/62, AGS is an all new 155mm gun with several shells in the works. Some are like ERGM while others are more conventional.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Sr.mal wrote:That ship is shaped that way because it is designed to be stealthy to radar.

Unfortunately, it bears a close resemblence to French pre-dreadnought battleships in design. The ones famous for rolling over and sinking after suffering from only a small amount of damage - due to their hull form. Wundar ship here is probably going to have the same problem, especially with that huge superstructure. *shudders* Welcome to the era of the colonial patrol boat with no actual naval combat survivability, USN!

For comparison, Bouvet

That was a side effect of the designs having such massive top weight, the tumble home was a requirement to allow that, and very narrow armored belts. A ship with proper weight distribution shouldn't have any problems.

[quote="Warspite"

Stealth in ships are stupid.[/quote]

And yet the navies of the world disagree. Indeed the US is behind the curve in naval stealth, though DDX and possibul LCS will change that.


The huge superstructure is an ugly but very necessary function, since the design with be carrying a nice big L band radar for volume search, something witch SPY-1 does poorly, especially near land.

Sea Skimmer wrote: That was a side effect of the designs having such massive top weight, the tumble home was a requirement to allow that, and very narrow armored belts. A ship with proper weight distribution shouldn't have any problems.

I'm well aware of the debate over the Franco-Russian design intentions (I participated in it), but anything vaguely resembling tumblehome still makes me queasy.

P.S. Malecoda, nobody's questioning the intended safety of the design. But intent and reality are two different things.

P.P.S. Appearence generally tends to betray reality unless there's a good reason it doesn't. You can look at a tumblehome hull and know the advantages and disadvantages, and the same thing with a normal one, or other bow designs, etc. There may be unusual variations done that won't be apparent at first glance - But categorization is hardly unfair.

Frank Hipper wrote:ALL HAIL THE RETURN OF THE RAM BOW!!!!!!

I'm positvely horny for this ship! My nipples are bursting with excitement!

As for seaworthiness, all ships take water over the bows, a smaller deck area up front means less area to absorb water, and the freeboard on this thing will keep it reasonably dry, anyway.

By slicing through the waves rather then riding somewhat over the ship doesn't stand out from the surrounding seas. Course as you mentioned, shes going to take a lot of water over the deck. The forward mounts and VLS cells are going to need good corrosion protection.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I'm well aware of the debate over the Franco-Russian design intentions (I participated in it), but anything vaguely resembling tumblehome still makes me queasy.

When and where was this? I'm dejected that I would miss out on this brand of fun.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:I miss the battleships. Especially the Iowas, now those were good looking ships.

I like French predreadnoughts and armored cruisers my self. They look so cool yet sucked so badly...

Jaureguiberry didn't suck. The Charles Martel types were all underrated to a certain extent.

Frank Hipper wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I'm well aware of the debate over the Franco-Russian design intentions (I participated in it), but anything vaguely resembling tumblehome still makes me queasy.

When and where was this? I'm dejected that I would miss out on this brand of fun.

A big thread on the warships1 discussion boards a long while back. I think it got started over some diagrams that were posted of the Borodino-class armour scheme, or possibly Tsesarevitch. It covered the nature of the damage at Tsushima and if it was inherent in the tumblehome design, caused by how the Russians built the ships/loaded them, or the shells the Japanese were using (and how they malfunctioned).

Oh, as a plug for a greatly enjoyed book here, I'd recommend reading The Tsar's Last Armada: The Epic Voyage to the Battle of Tsushima, by Constantine Pleshakov, to anyone, even if they normally don't care about naval stuff. It's a gripping sea tale of the incredible journey of the Russian Second Pacific Squadron as it sailed from St. Petersburg to the Tsushima Straits and annihilation - A journey completed only at the supreme edge of endurance and fortitude.

Frank Hipper wrote:ALL HAIL THE RETURN OF THE RAM BOW!!!!!!

I'm positvely horny for this ship! My nipples are bursting with excitement!

As for seaworthiness, all ships take water over the bows, a smaller deck area up front means less area to absorb water, and the freeboard on this thing will keep it reasonably dry, anyway.

As to the loss of the Bouvet, at the time of her loss, her bulkheads were corroded THROUGH. Her hull form played very little in her loss, having her hull shattered did.

That's a rather odd reaction! "Nipples Bursting with Excitement?" Ahh what the hell, it works!

I love the tumblehome/ram bow design anyway myself. Looks good when paired with a catamaran hull and RAILGUNS!!!

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:I love the tumblehome/ram bow design anyway myself. Looks good when paired with a catamaran hull and RAILGUNS!!!

Neither of which is likely to happen anytime soon.

Stormbringer wrote:

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:I love the tumblehome/ram bow design anyway myself. Looks good when paired with a catamaran hull and RAILGUNS!!!

Neither of which is likely to happen anytime soon.

Actually the USN does have a railgun project. However it has little interest in anything but a monohull.

It seems like the Navy is going in the direction that the Air Force used to go-- the idea that ubertech is the future and all fighting will be done by electronics; icky old guns and other greasy noisy things are no longer needed in tomorrow's high-tech war.

The USAF found that to be a fallacy when they deploye dthe F-4 Phantom with no guns at all but it could carry missiles for a nice clean far-away fight. But when there were actual dogfights, good old fashioned airborne fisticuffs, old-fashioned things lke guns and seat-of-the-pants flying were needed. Air action by the Israelis underscored this.

In case people hadn't noticed, we're not fighting other technogods. We're fighting guys in rubber rafts with C-4. There is almost no armor on Navy ships anymore.

I think it is a cool design, even though I like the classic designs better (and the sailors will want, no, need to go out on deck from time to time). But that hull...

What about the stealthy catamarans? If we must go in this direction, why not something with real deck space?

Coyote wrote:
In case people hadn't noticed, we're not fighting other technogods. We're fighting guys in rubber rafts with C-4. There is almost no armor on Navy ships anymore.

So what? Armor beyond fragment protection serves little purpose, the deck armor on carriers is meant more to protect them from deck fires setting off the air groups bombs then from hostile fire. Beyond them, the only major naval vessels to be built with significant armoring since the 50's are the Kirov's, which have around five inches of plating to protect there massive forward magazines. Heavy armor doesn't offer protection from modern weapons, thus its not used.

As for guys in rafts, check out the Bushmaster turrets the USN has on LPD-17, and the lesser mounts on other warships, not to mention the anti surface mode for Phalanx and RAM.

what exactly is a tumblehome?? o_O

kojikun wrote:what exactly is a tumblehome?? o_O

It's a type of hull where the hull comes in as it goes up instead of going out as it goes up, if that makes any sense...

Coyote wrote:It seems like the Navy is going in the direction that the Air Force used to go-- the idea that ubertech is the future and all fighting will be done by electronics; icky old guns and other greasy noisy things are no longer needed in tomorrow's high-tech war.

The USAF found that to be a fallacy when they deploye dthe F-4 Phantom with no guns at all but it could carry missiles for a nice clean far-away fight. But when there were actual dogfights, good old fashioned airborne fisticuffs, old-fashioned things lke guns and seat-of-the-pants flying were needed. Air action by the Israelis underscored this.

OTOH, the weapons employed on the F-4 of Vietnam were very unreliable as compared to modern weapons. AIM-120 is reliable, AIM-7 was not. (RIM-7 was, but it could not take a lot of shock, precluding it's deployment on the BBs).

In case people hadn't noticed, we're not fighting other technogods. We're fighting guys in rubber rafts with C-4. There is almost no armor on Navy ships anymore.

OTOH, there are the 25mm mounts on warships, the Phalanx and RAM anti-surface modes and the 30mm on LPD-17. Armor can't protect radars and such, without which a ship is effectively mission-killed.

Nathan F wrote:Whatever happened to the form of ship building...

Ships used to be the epiphany of power and had a unique beauty about them, but now we have this computer designed box on water. Whatever happened to the actual human design...

Look up HMS Capitan, and her capsizing and loss before the turn of the century.

kojikun wrote:what exactly is a tumblehome?? o_O

The hull narrowing above the water line. Generally on ships it gets wider or stays the same. The design of DDX is one example, this is another, the Bouvet.

http://www.warships1.com/FREpbb02d_Bouvet_strbrdfrt.jpg

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Nathan F wrote:Whatever happened to the form of ship building...

Ships used to be the epiphany of power and had a unique beauty about them, but now we have this computer designed box on water. Whatever happened to the actual human design...

Look up HMS Capitan, and her capsizing and loss before the turn of the century.

Cowper Coles must have been a hell of a guy, to get Captain built, when Monarch was already in service, and successful.

Alright, on another board one of the posters went to a detailed meeting on DDX. He stated that the image we see here is a rather simplified one and that the superstructure actually looks somwhat normal.

They are indeed using tumblehome as they feel it's disadvantages are ofset by the much lower RCS.