Great Fictional World War III book (China & allies VS US & allies)
- Thread starter utelore
- Start date
Re: Great China VS U.S war book
Such a design focuses much more heavily on more of a conventional aircraft carrier operations than mine does.
In doing so, it looks proportionally too wide (and I understand why you are making it that wide) for efficient and quiet underwater transit and operation at depth. I would have to see a cross section to be sure, but its ability to transit long distances at relative high speed with very little acoustic signature (either engine noise or flow wise-cavitation) while submersed are sacrosanct for subs.
That's why my desing looks the way it does. Basically a very wide conventional hull flattened on top and utilizing a hybrid, double hull interior structure. That limits the deck width and shape, but does allows it to be sufficiently wide for STO, EMAL ATO and VL operations. Such compromises, IMHO, are necessary to maximize the mosty essential faacets of both the aircraft carrier and submarine characteristics.
Anyhow, a 3-d cross section of that hull below the flight deck would be very interesting in this regard.
Also, there are a lot of openings for the various elevators, equipment access and weapons that seem fairly mechanically complicated. You would have to be sure that their water tight integrity at depth was adequate. I think useing RAM or ESSM from VLS would provide a way to address the CIWS in that regard...you would be using already proven underwater VLS technologyu. As to the elevators, IMHO, simple up and down elevator desing allows for a straight forwad watertight sealing solution.
As to the air ops control, yes, I believe you could locate them in the sail. I have mine designed into the sail, able to look both forwad and aft. I believe tat is where you would have top put it...and in my case, that sail is significantly larger than most sub sails, while maintaining a proportional ratio to allow for efficent existing design as far as underwater transit is concerned.
Without reading all the comments that your design appears to be already generating (way to go!), my initial comments are these.
Such a design focuses much more heavily on more of a conventional aircraft carrier operations than mine does.
In doing so, it looks proportionally too wide (and I understand why you are making it that wide) for efficient and quiet underwater transit and operation at depth. I would have to see a cross section to be sure, but its ability to transit long distances at relative high speed with very little acoustic signature (either engine noise or flow wise-cavitation) while submersed are sacrosanct for subs.
That's why my desing looks the way it does. Basically a very wide conventional hull flattened on top and utilizing a hybrid, double hull interior structure. That limits the deck width and shape, but does allows it to be sufficiently wide for STO, EMAL ATO and VL operations. Such compromises, IMHO, are necessary to maximize the mosty essential faacets of both the aircraft carrier and submarine characteristics.
Anyhow, a 3-d cross section of that hull below the flight deck would be very interesting in this regard.
Also, there are a lot of openings for the various elevators, equipment access and weapons that seem fairly mechanically complicated. You would have to be sure that their water tight integrity at depth was adequate. I think useing RAM or ESSM from VLS would provide a way to address the CIWS in that regard...you would be using already proven underwater VLS technologyu. As to the elevators, IMHO, simple up and down elevator desing allows for a straight forwad watertight sealing solution.
As to the air ops control, yes, I believe you could locate them in the sail. I have mine designed into the sail, able to look both forwad and aft. I believe tat is where you would have top put it...and in my case, that sail is significantly larger than most sub sails, while maintaining a proportional ratio to allow for efficent existing design as far as underwater transit is concerned.
Killa_Dilla
New Member
Re: Great China VS U.S war book
1) The helos are larger than the jets, so to have the helos in the same area as the jets would require me to make the elevators bigger, which would have used up more space than has already been used. It was much easier to put the helos on an entirely separate deck to save space.
2) I wanted the helos to be able to take off from the deck without having to fumble with the other elevators to get them up. In this way, flight ops for jets don't need to be stopped in order to put up a screen of ASW helos.
I can draw a very rough cross section in MS paint, and then I can make a more detailed drawing on paper but I can't load it until tomorrow. From the front, you would see the main body of the sub which is a cylynder of 120 feet in diameter. Roughly 2/3rds of the way to the very top of the cylinder are two thin protrusions on either side (this is the runway). From the bottom of the runway is another cylinder. This is the ballast tank. At the top of the main body of the sub, there is the sail, of course, and then the top is flattneed to allow for the helo storage. Again, I will make a very rough cross section on paint and I can have it uploaded tonight.
Like I said in a previous post, I wanted my design to be compatible with both the F-18 and the JSF. Compromises are necessary, but I tried to get as much of both worlds as I could.
I think I did a fine job at planning out the elevator system. As for the CIWS, I had the phalanx in mind, but the RAM is another fine CIWS. The reason that the helo storage areas are so mechanically complicated is because I wanted the helos to be separate from the rest of the air wing. I have two reasons for this:
1) The helos are larger than the jets, so to have the helos in the same area as the jets would require me to make the elevators bigger, which would have used up more space than has already been used. It was much easier to put the helos on an entirely separate deck to save space.
2) I wanted the helos to be able to take off from the deck without having to fumble with the other elevators to get them up. In this way, flight ops for jets don't need to be stopped in order to put up a screen of ASW helos.
I decided for my latest design to have the CATCC located inside the ship near the CIC and bridge with a photonics/radio package rising out of the sail to watch each side of the ship. If you look on my design's blueprint you will see two rectangular things near each side of the sail. The package comes out of there, and the information is fed to large monitors in the CATCC.
Killa_Dilla
New Member
Re: Great China VS U.S war book
Cross section
Cross section
Re: Great China VS U.S war book
Your first drawing, the top view, (and also the last?) is not really scaled, is it? A correct scaled one (if possible) would make it much easier (for me) to imagine how it shell look like.
Because if the two aircrafts shown are Hornets, the metrics do not add up at all.
And a SH-60 with folded rotor blades won't take more space than a Hornet, rather less.
I could imagine the angled decks would hinder the sub in maneuvering, especially pitching movements and vertical depth changes.
Your first drawing, the top view, (and also the last?) is not really scaled, is it? A correct scaled one (if possible) would make it much easier (for me) to imagine how it shell look like.
Because if the two aircrafts shown are Hornets, the metrics do not add up at all.
And a SH-60 with folded rotor blades won't take more space than a Hornet, rather less.
I could imagine the angled decks would hinder the sub in maneuvering, especially pitching movements and vertical depth changes.
Killa_Dilla
New Member
Re: Great China VS U.S war book
The birdseye view is scaled such that 1 inch is proportionate to 60 feet but the cross section was not scaled (like I said, it was a rough sketch). I did not measure out the Hornets but I did look up what the actual measurements were so I could measure out the elevators. If I remember right (I don't have the picture out in front of me), I think I made the elevators 63.75 feet (1 and 1/16th inches) by 45 feet (3/4ths of an inch) so that an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet would fit on it (I used as my source for measurement).
As for the helo storage area, I made the circle that is the helo pad 67.5 feet (that's 1 and 1/8th inches) in diameter so that the helo could land on it without having to fold its rotors (source is )
I thought about the angled decks, and I do have a drawing somewhere of a sub with the decks running parallel to the rest of the sub. I also have a drawing where the entire sub's top is flat. This is the version I like the best because it looks like it could work.
Note that I am not an expert at all but I do know enough about subs to make a rough prediction of what an SSCVN would look like.
The birdseye view is scaled such that 1 inch is proportionate to 60 feet but the cross section was not scaled (like I said, it was a rough sketch). I did not measure out the Hornets but I did look up what the actual measurements were so I could measure out the elevators. If I remember right (I don't have the picture out in front of me), I think I made the elevators 63.75 feet (1 and 1/16th inches) by 45 feet (3/4ths of an inch) so that an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet would fit on it (I used as my source for measurement).
As for the helo storage area, I made the circle that is the helo pad 67.5 feet (that's 1 and 1/8th inches) in diameter so that the helo could land on it without having to fold its rotors (source is )
I thought about the angled decks, and I do have a drawing somewhere of a sub with the decks running parallel to the rest of the sub. I also have a drawing where the entire sub's top is flat. This is the version I like the best because it looks like it could work.
Note that I am not an expert at all but I do know enough about subs to make a rough prediction of what an SSCVN would look like.
Last edited:
eecsmaster
Junior Member
Re: Great China VS U.S war book
1) too much reserve buoyancy
2) decks susceptible to current drift
3) decks reflect too much energy from the verticle direction. Any SAG would put holes in your sub before you can surface.
1) too much reserve buoyancy
2) decks susceptible to current drift
3) decks reflect too much energy from the verticle direction. Any SAG would put holes in your sub before you can surface.
Killa_Dilla
New Member
Re: Great China VS U.S war book
Would it help any if I moved the decks so they were parallel and got rid of the 2 aft helo pads (replacing them with elevators for the aircraft)?
Would it help any if I moved the decks so they were parallel and got rid of the 2 aft helo pads (replacing them with elevators for the aircraft)?
Re: Great China VS U.S war book
Perhaps there are structural fairings or other considerations that could be designed into the vessel, particularly on the aft end, that could help control this. Get some engineers who are specialists in submarine design regarding the water flow around he vessel to take a look...but, basically, that is why the general shape of subs has developed into the smooth cylindrical vessels of today, to lessen the noise as it passes through the water.
IMHO, either some sort of structural dampening will have be added to the design, or the vessel will have to drastically slow down as it goes into any up or down plane condition.
Any experienced submariner engineers out there? Sea Dog, Obi Wan, Popeye, what is your take?
Hmmm, I fear that the big wide deck, particularly being relatively so thin, is going to act like a big wing in the water. Whenever there is any significant speed coupled with an up or down plane condition for the sub, it seems like aft of the vessel that there would be a large amount of cavitation, and therefore noise.
Perhaps there are structural fairings or other considerations that could be designed into the vessel, particularly on the aft end, that could help control this. Get some engineers who are specialists in submarine design regarding the water flow around he vessel to take a look...but, basically, that is why the general shape of subs has developed into the smooth cylindrical vessels of today, to lessen the noise as it passes through the water.
IMHO, either some sort of structural dampening will have be added to the design, or the vessel will have to drastically slow down as it goes into any up or down plane condition.
Any experienced submariner engineers out there? Sea Dog, Obi Wan, Popeye, what is your take?
Last edited:
Killa_Dilla
New Member
Re: Great China VS U.S war book
I know a LTJG stationed at King's Bay Submarine Base in Georgia. I could call him and ask if he knew anything. Do you have any ideas Mr. Head? I like your design but I feel that it restricts your options somewhat, whereas mine leaves my options open but is less technologically pheasable. I just want to see if I can keep the main idea of my sub but change some details to make it more pheasable.
I know a LTJG stationed at King's Bay Submarine Base in Georgia. I could call him and ask if he knew anything. Do you have any ideas Mr. Head? I like your design but I feel that it restricts your options somewhat, whereas mine leaves my options open but is less technologically pheasable. I just want to see if I can keep the main idea of my sub but change some details to make it more pheasable.