military Shipbuilding in general and the question: carrier or not a carrier?


Tam

Major
Registered Member
So, I suggest the next : get a set of LEGO, and try to construct the ship with the method suggested by you ,
IT will be quite obvious it is not possible to do with cranes attached to the ship structure, due to the reasons I described before.

Don't take it as offence, I kept training in the past with LEGO to engineering managers, to explain things like this . (It is not so effective, the best training is the "go down to the shoplfoor and do it" : ) ) .

The shed visibly has a crane , check this :
View attachment 55434
The grey protrusion is the support of the crane rail on both side.
The white dot on the left, and the white line parallel with the shed movement axis is the rail of the crane.
The two strip hanging down is from the crane.


The workflow should be for small parts :
-move the shed beyond the edge of the structure,
-move the parts under the shed
-pick them up and move them to the assembly position
Does not explain how you can move things into the shed or the crane is able to move items with all the braces over on top. This means the items that can be lowered will have to be smaller and shorter than the spaces between the braces.

The big crane require do move into position the really big things, like the bulkheads.


And generally, if you check the corners of the modules they are weak, not capable to withstand the torque generated by the very far centre of gravity and relatively central support.
View attachment 55435

Means the modules missing the perpendicular bulkheads (that should make the module rigid and strong enough to carry its own weight ) , means the construction is in the early phases.
That is not how warship bulkheads look like. The way the modules look, they are finished from the sides and the bottom, and the next will be to fill what is in between.

proteccion6.gif

The next is from a battleship's by the way.

Tpkvtep.png


It matches it to a tee. There wont be "perpendicular bulkheads" but the turbines are going into that space.

aaa_a.jpg
 
Last edited:

asif iqbal

Brigadier
Why does the module have a wall in the middle ?

I take it that’s not for the hanger ?

hanger modules will sit on top of that ?
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #36
The gas turbine doesn't justify this big space .
RR_turbine.jpg

This is Rolls Royce MT30 25MW gas turbine, the QE has 4 of these.

Each turbine is 8.7 meters long and 3.5 meters wide, and 3m tall.

150 MW of propulsion power can fit into one 10 m long module , with bulkheads included in the module, and the transmission can be in the next airtight section.

The single bottom module can accommodate shaft power, so the other long sections can not be engine space.

The rectangle is 10m*26 meters, by the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.It could accommodate 6 MT30.
And the vertical clearance of the space is too big as well.

And finally ,there should be 4 shaft , means the expectation is to see 4 separated, watertight section, and preferably each pair shifted bow /stern, to increase the survivability.



mod.jpg 100 MW
 

Intrepid

Captain
We see a ship's hull with engine rooms so big that even 8 boilers and 4 steam turbines would fit into it. What can we think now?
 

Tam

Major
Registered Member
We see a ship's hull with engine rooms so big that even 8 boilers and 4 steam turbines would fit into it. What can we think now?
Don't underestimate some of the sizes and output steam turbines can aspire to. There are those over 1000 MW.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Creating a 50MW steam turbine would be peanuts. Having said that, warships like redundancy, so lets say they would go with 4 x 25MW units over 2 x 50MW units.
 

Richard Santos

Junior Member
Registered Member
There can be no doubt this hull is a warship. The clinching factor isn’t the size of the supposed engineering space or how it is being assembled. There can be a number of reasons why the Chinese choose to build the engineering space the way they’ve done. The clinching factor is the side wall of the hull is so thick (around 7 meters) it must contain a fairly deep underwater protection system. No merchant double hull is going to consume 7 meters of otherwise revenue making Space. No merchant ship would need such deep compartments on either side of the central hull cavity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tam

Top