Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1621a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_1726a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0074a1.JPG

Miramar_14_FA-18C_0409a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Advanced Gun System

This is a discussion on Advanced Gun System within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; This is information regarding the Navy's current DD(X) destroyer, and specifically it's Advanced Gun System. http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm The Advanced Gun System ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old September 15th, 2005   #1
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 156
Threads:
Advanced Gun System

This is information regarding the Navy's current DD(X) destroyer, and specifically it's Advanced Gun System.

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm

The Advanced Gun System (AGS) was originally being developed as part of the DD-21 program, but is now intended for the replacement DD (X) program. This weapon was formerly known as the Vertical Gun for Advanced Ships (VGAS), but as of September 1999 the Navy decided to abandon the truly vertical mounting and instead utilize a conventional turret configuration. The mockup shown below represents that concept. As an unusual feature, the barrel will be triangular in shape and water-cooled. An AGS firing Long Range Land Attack Projectiles (LRLAP) at 12 rounds per minute is considered to be equivalent to one 155 mm artillery battery (6 guns) firing at 2 rounds per gun per minute. However, BAE has recently derated the ROF of the AGS to 10 rounds per minute.

As a vertical gun system, this weapon could have used only guided munitions. With the more traditional design, both conventional as well as guided munitions may now be used. The concept of this weapon is thus similar to that of the 5"/62 (12.7 cm) Mark 45 Mod 4 program.

The design of this weapon will include a fully automated ammunition magazine to reduce the crew size and to maximize the ammunition capacity. Ammunition for this weapon will use a separate propellant canister, which will be used for both conventional and guided munitions. Proposed projectiles include guided land and surface attack munitions as well as ballistic projectiles. Planned CEP accuracy for guided weapons is 20 to 50 m (22 to 55 yards).

In October 2001 the first prototype was successfully proof-tested, firing eleven test projectiles at pressures ranging from 50% below normal to 50% above normal. In April 2003 Lockheed-Martin was selected over Raytheon to continue development of the Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP). This phase includes the manufacturing of 15 rounds to conduct flight tests and support the AGS Critical Design Review (CDW).

A September 2004 GAO report stated: "While development of the advanced gun system is proceeding as planned and has even overcome early challenges in design and development, the current plans do not include fully demonstrating the maturity of the subsystem. Land based testing of the gun system, including the automated mount and magazine, is planned for the summer of 2005 and flight tests for the munition are set to complete in September of 2005. However, the two technologies will not be tested together until after ship installation. Program officials cited lack of adequate test facilities as the reason for the separate tests."

In June 2005, a Northrop Grumman press release stated that "The LRLAP Guided Flight-four (GF-04) gun test marked the longest successful guided-projectile test in history. The LRLAP, fired at the San Nicolas Island test facility at the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, Pt. Mugu, Calif., (NAWC-WD), flew a guided trajectory to an impact location more than 59 nautical miles down range." In July 2005, BAE Systems awarded Lockheed Martin a $120 million contract for for further development and testing of LRLAP. This cost-plus-award-fee contract covers additional development and tests during 2006-2008 and support to AGS qualification testing during 2009-2010. More than 100 projectiles will be delivered and tested under this contract. Full-rate production is expected to begin in 2011.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestly, this is quite amazing. A 5 inch gun firing 59 miles. And the AGS will have a final operational range of 100 miles, almost twice it's test firing. It's also rated to hit Surface targets at 22 miles. I've been saying that guns would be capable of doing this for quite some time now using guidance systems.
Defcon 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Us Threatens To Block Israeli Aid If Phalcon Sale, to india proceeds. Psychosaint Air Force & Aviation 21 May 25th, 2011 03:15 AM
India's MBT: Arjun and its standing among Tanks dabrownguy Army & Security Forces 563 January 9th, 2008 04:46 PM
Aegis for Aussie SW vessels gf0012-aust Navy & Maritime 50 December 21st, 2004 12:29 PM
Program Profile: Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System gf0012-aust Air Force & Aviation 0 July 23rd, 2004 09:38 AM
P25 Trunked IP Communication System, Providing Secure Base Communications and NetworkFirst Interoperability ullu Army & Security Forces 0 September 23rd, 2003 12:58 PM

Old September 16th, 2005   #2
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 27
Threads:
Re: Advanced Gun System

Seems to be a nice weapon but does it have the hitting power to be of any use. What is the projectile weight.To mount them on a destroyer platform seems silly. I think A completly zeroed Iowa hull keeping the 16 inchers, with 4-6 of these AGS as secondary weapons and with most of the belt armour removed to lighten the ship woul be a better power prjection tool. It would still have the size to carry a useful weapons load.
stephen weist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2005   #3
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 156
Threads:
Re: Advanced Gun System

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen weist
Seems to be a nice weapon but does it have the hitting power to be of any use. What is the projectile weight.To mount them on a destroyer platform seems silly. I think A completly zeroed Iowa hull keeping the 16 inchers, with 4-6 of these AGS as secondary weapons and with most of the belt armour removed to lighten the ship woul be a better power prjection tool. It would still have the size to carry a useful weapons load.

I have discussed this with people on this forum before, but I think thats the wrong way of going about it. A 155mm gun is the same size as most artillery shells, so it packs enough of a punch. Ontop of that using an Iowa just won't work. First of all, the 4 remaining Iowa battleships are probably all going to be turned into floating museums. And ontop of that, the Navy has talked about it before. If you were going to build a battleship, you would build it to modern day standard. You wouln't use an obsolete platform from WW2.

I have already designed ship specs for such a ship but this forum is for existing weapon systems so I won't post it.

The DD(X) multipurpose destroyer carries plenty of fire power in its 2 155mm cannons considering it is designed for littoral operations.
Defcon 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2005   #4
Defense Professional / Analyst
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 230
Threads:
Re: Advanced Gun System

In Korea 6" guns were found early on to be ineffective against any reinforced concrete structures or major road nets.

Ergo 8" gunned cruisers were recommissioned vice the 6" gunned cruisers.

Somehow this has been overlooked.

Or has it?

The USN IMHO does not forsee an opposed amphibious landing or even the use of major caliber gun power against targets less than 20 miles inland.

"Why" is quite controversial.

For info on Korean War fire support go to the naval historical website.
rickusn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2005   #5
Defense Professional / Analyst
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 230
Threads:
Re: Advanced Gun System

By all means post the specs.

Also the cost.

Maybe your on to something.

Hiding it wont help but only hinder any such discussion.
rickusn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2005   #6
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 156
Threads:
Re: Advanced Gun System

Hi Rick.


Finally! Someone who believes the same as I do.

I created a thread on this forum called Big Battleship Doctrine in which I discussed my ideas and concepts for building a modern day battleship and how it should be done. It was deleted after heated discussion.

Along with that I've researched using liquid propellents to power conventional guns including 16 inch cannons. However I don't want this thread to get closed, so unless I get permission from the Admin I don't know how to go about it.

I would suggest email or such.
Defcon 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2005   #7
Troll Hunter
General
WebMaster's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: GA, USA
Posts: 18,129
Threads:
Re: Advanced Gun System

If Rick is interested then there must be something to it. Lets see where this one leads us...

Your other thread was deleted by mistake.
________________
Wise man says...
DefenceTalk.com | SinoDefenceForum.com

Got a problem? Need help? Contact me!
WebMaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2005   #8
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 156
Threads:
Re: Advanced Gun System

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickusn
By all means post the specs.

Also the cost.

Maybe your on to something.

Hiding it wont help but only hinder any such discussion.
Alright, since the admin gave the green light I'll post some semi-detailed specs. I will go into further detail should you ask about a specific topic.

U.S.N ships usually have state names, especially BB's, however this one doesn't exist so I'm going to name it after the Army atillery gps shells called Exalibur. My ship design uses guided shells, which is my reason for doing so. But if you really want to give it a state name for the idea of using it in the U.S.N we can call it the Illinois Class.

First lets consider it's mission requirements:
1.) Capable of engaging Sea or Land targets with equal effectiveness.
2.) Capable of defending against Aerial targets as well as submerged force dislocators such as submarines. It is not invincible, but simply designed with the idea that defense is worthwhile.
3.)Must be capable of sustaining half a dozen or more direct hits and continue fighting.
4.) Must be able to fire with guided shells to allow accurate naval engagements and shore bombardment using its main battery.
5.)High speed
6.) Shock and Awe: Offensive and Deffensive with extreme prejudice.
7.) Main guns must be effective. The idea is to allow the ship to use 20,000 dollar guided 16 inch shells rather than 750,000 dollar tomahawks when possible.

Exalibur Class Advanced Battleship-
Role: Multi-Mission Surface Warfare/ Blue Water Patrol
Fleet Characteristic: Carrier Group/ Surface Combat Group/ Tactical Battleship Group

Length: 611 ft.
Beam: 79 ft.
Tonnage: 33,000 Tons
Tumblehome Hull design
30 Water tight bulkheads of computerized control
90 Compartments with a bulkhead on either side (horizontal) arranged in rows of 3.

The armor contributes a great deal to a rather light platform as far as tonnage goes. If you want to attempt to understand my theory for using armor, go to this page:
http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_1.html

This page is less accurate but an alternative the above page:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Miscarmr.htm

What I discovered is that an exocet anti-ship missile can penetrate 2.75" of steel armor. A cruise missile much higher than that, but also ineffective against heavy armor. The idea was to design a system to allow the ship to survive several direct hits and continue fighting. Mission requirement states half a dozen direct hits.

Unit Price:
$5.26-5.8 billion dollars.
Price was taken into account under the following factors.
Recycled aluminum: $310 per ton.
Steel: $295 per ton. (overpriced to account for market changes)
Titanium: $0.58 cents per pound.
Labor and shipyard costs: +28%

Armor:
Double Hull: For Advanced Survivability (Armor accounts for both inner and outter hull total)
Outer Hull- Titanium/ Tungsten Alloy Sheeted Steel
Explosive Reactive Armor enhanced
Side: 722mm
Deck: 380mm
Turrent: 645mm
I've wondered about E.R protection, and right now I'm simply mentioning it as a concept for this armor plan.

The double hull is a double hull for a lot of reasons:

Increased armor capacity while maintaining stability.
The superstructure of the ship is composed mostly of aluminum and composites with steel reinforcing. The hull it laterally braced to prevent torpedo kills from kinetic forces. Without a double hull, the bracing would be more difficult to implement. The aluminum superstructure reduces weight by as much as 23% not counting armor. The role of the steel reinforced portions is to keep the ship solid, especially for the lateral bracing arguement.

Crew: 202-369
Possibly compadible with Aegis Combat System

Armament:
x9 Advanced Gun system 16" (406mm)/ .60 Deck guns in 3 triple gun turrents
-Will fire GPS guided 16" shells.

-x6 (3 twin tubes) carrying Mk. 48 533 mm torpedoes

Close-In Gun System (CIGS)-
x 10
BAE Systems Land and Armaments 57mm Mk 110 naval gun.

x16 155mm AGS Single Turrents
-Will fire GPS/IR guided 155mm shells

The CIGS is highly effective against incoming missiles and aircraft.

Peripheral Vertical Launch System-
The solution consists of 50 four-cell PVLS situated round the perimeter of the deck, rather than the usual centrally located VLS. This would reduce the ship's vulnerability to a single hit.
-Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (Raytheon RIM-162)
-SM-3 Standard Missile
-Tactical Tomahawk or Tomahawk TLAM
-Harpoon ASM
-SeaWolf Block 2

The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and SeaWolf Missile are both designed to intercept aircraft/ artillary shells and hostile missiles. Combined with the CIGS it makes an effective protective "sheild" although not perfect obviously, still very effective. Combined with the advanced armor survivability is very high. Ship was designed with the idea that defense is worthwhile to prevent loss of investment.

RADAR:
The radar suite will consist of a dual band radar for horizon and volume search, an L-band volume search radar (VSR) integrated with the AN/SPY-3 multi-function radar already being developed by Raytheon for the US Navy. The two radars are to be integrated at waveform level for enhanced surveillance and tracking capability. The AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) is an X-band active phased-array radar designed to detect low-observable anti-ship cruise missiles and support fire-control illumination for the ESSM and Standard Missiles.

I used this radar system because it's designed to be highly effective against pop-up style attacks and aerial threats. The biggest threat to a Battleship.

Propulsion:
I've equipped my vessel with MERMAID electrical pods, these give the vessel 360 degrees of movement without a rudder and can operate independantly. Direct hits can no longer disable a rudder or prop. shaft. Greatly increases survivability and fuel efficiency.

6 Alstor MERMAID electrical pods @30MW each Max
Cruise Speed: 31 kts
Top Speed: 41 kts

The new Exalibur Class Advanced Battleship is part of a modern naval fleet, including carrier groups.

The AGS 16" Gun System:
Housed in rounded blister turrets as I like to call them, totally my design. They are blister shaped sticking aobve deck, as low as possible to the hull.
Uses liquid propellant
320+ mile range when using liquid propellant.
Uses hydraulic automatic loading systems controlled electronically. Fire rate as high as 5-6 rds a minute.

Last edited by Defcon 6; September 17th, 2005 at 02:01 AM.
Defcon 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2005   #9
Defense Aficionado
Major General
aaaditya's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: india
Posts: 2,362
Threads:
Re: Advanced Gun System

Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Alright, since the admin gave the green light I'll post some semi-detailed specs. I will go into further detail should you ask about a specific topic.

U.S.N ships usually have state names, especially BB's, however this one doesn't exist so I'm going to name it after the Army atillery gps shells called Exalibur. My ship design uses guided shells, which is my reason for doing so. But if you really want to give it a state name for the idea of using it in the U.S.N we can call it the Illinois Class.

First lets consider it's mission requirements:
1.) Capable of engaging Sea or Land targets with equal effectiveness.
2.) Capable of defending against Aerial targets as well as submerged force dislocators such as submarines. It is not invincible, but simply designed with the idea that defense is worthwhile.
3.)Must be capable of sustaining half a dozen or more direct hits and continue fighting.
4.) Must be able to fire with guided shells to allow accurate naval engagements and shore bombardment using its main battery.
5.)High speed
6.) Shock and Awe: Offensive and Deffensive with extreme prejudice.
7.) Main guns must be effective. The idea is to allow the ship to use 20,000 dollar guided 16 inch shells rather than 750,000 dollar tomahawks when possible.

Exalibur Class Advanced Battleship-
Role: Multi-Mission Surface Warfare/ Blue Water Patrol
Fleet Characteristic: Carrier Group/ Surface Combat Group/ Tactical Battleship Group

Length: 611 ft.
Beam: 79 ft.
Tonnage: 33,000 Tons
Tumblehome Hull design
30 Water tight bulkheads of computerized control
90 Compartments with a bulkhead on either side (horizontal) arranged in rows of 3.

The armor contributes a great deal to a rather light platform as far as tonnage goes. If you want to attempt to understand my theory for using armor, go to this page:
http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_1.html

This page is less accurate but an alternative the above page:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Miscarmr.htm

What I discovered is that an exocet anti-ship missile can penetrate 2.75" of steel armor. A cruise missile much higher than that, but also ineffective against heavy armor. The idea was to design a system to allow the ship to survive several direct hits and continue fighting. Mission requirement states half a dozen direct hits.

Unit Price:
$5.26-5.8 billion dollars.
Price was taken into account under the following factors.
Recycled aluminum: $310 per ton.
Steel: $295 per ton. (overpriced to account for market changes)
Titanium: $0.58 cents per pound.
Labor and shipyard costs: +28%

Armor:
Double Hull: For Advanced Survivability (Armor accounts for both inner and outter hull total)
Outer Hull- Titanium/ Tungsten Alloy Sheeted Steel
Explosive Reactive Armor enhanced
Side: 722mm
Deck: 380mm
Turrent: 645mm
I've wondered about E.R protection, and right now I'm simply mentioning it as a concept for this armor plan.

The double hull is a double hull for a lot of reasons:

Increased armor capacity while maintaining stability.
The superstructure of the ship is composed mostly of aluminum and composites with steel reinforcing. The hull it laterally braced to prevent torpedo kills from kinetic forces. Without a double hull, the bracing would be more difficult to implement. The aluminum superstructure reduces weight by as much as 23% not counting armor. The role of the steel reinforced portions is to keep the ship solid, especially for the lateral bracing arguement.

Crew: 202-369
Possibly compadible with Aegis Combat System

Armament:
x9 Advanced Gun system 16" (406mm)/ .60 Deck guns in 3 triple gun turrents
-Will fire GPS guided 16" shells.

-x6 (3 twin tubes) carrying Mk. 48 533 mm torpedoes

Close-In Gun System (CIGS)-
x 10
BAE Systems Land and Armaments 57mm Mk 110 naval gun.

x16 155mm AGS Single Turrents
-Will fire GPS/IR guided 155mm shells

The CIGS is highly effective against incoming missiles and aircraft.

Peripheral Vertical Launch System-
The solution consists of 50 four-cell PVLS situated round the perimeter of the deck, rather than the usual centrally located VLS. This would reduce the ship's vulnerability to a single hit.
-Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (Raytheon RIM-162)
-SM-3 Standard Missile
-Tactical Tomahawk or Tomahawk TLAM
-Harpoon ASM
-SeaWolf Block 2

The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and SeaWolf Missile are both designed to intercept aircraft/ artillary shells and hostile missiles. Combined with the CIGS it makes an effective protective "sheild" although not perfect obviously, still very effective. Combined with the advanced armor survivability is very high. Ship was designed with the idea that defense is worthwhile to prevent loss of investment.

RADAR:
The radar suite will consist of a dual band radar for horizon and volume search, an L-band volume search radar (VSR) integrated with the AN/SPY-3 multi-function radar already being developed by Raytheon for the US Navy. The two radars are to be integrated at waveform level for enhanced surveillance and tracking capability. The AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) is an X-band active phased-array radar designed to detect low-observable anti-ship cruise missiles and support fire-control illumination for the ESSM and Standard Missiles.

I used this radar system because it's designed to be highly effective against pop-up style attacks and aerial threats. The biggest threat to a Battleship.

Propulsion:
I've equipped my vessel with MERMAID electrical pods, these give the vessel 360 degrees of movement without a rudder and can operate independantly. Direct hits can no longer disable a rudder or prop. shaft. Greatly increases survivability and fuel efficiency.

6 Alstor MERMAID electrical pods @30MW each Max
Cruise Speed: 31 kts
Top Speed: 41 kts

The new Exalibur Class Advanced Battleship is part of a modern naval fleet, including carrier groups.

The AGS 16" Gun System:
Housed in rounded blister turrets as I like to call them, totally my design. They are blister shaped sticking aobve deck, as low as possible to the hull.
Uses liquid propellant
320+ mile range when using liquid propellant.
Uses hydraulic automatic loading systems controlled electronically. Fire rate as high as 5-6 rds a minute.
i would consider recycled metal as of being doubtfull value.also titanium is prohibitively expensive(reason why the russian dropped its use from their nuke submarines.),the armouring of the entire hull would make the vessel one of the safest but prohibitively expensive,tungsten carbide armour on the other hand will increase the weight considerably.aluminium superstructure will require frequent anti corrosive treatment which again would be expensive.overall this design will come in for a lot of criticism from the economists and the civilians and may be opposition from some elements of the user itself.
i have armour specification of yamato i will try to post(and other capital warships)and you will understand that with the existing technology equal levels of protection can be obtained from a thinner armour while at the same time reducing the cost.
second even thopugh yamato was the most heavily armoured warship of ww2 it was very easily put out of service with a torpedo attack to the steering mechanism,after which it was easily taken out.this proves that it is not the thickness of the armour alone that determines the survivability,but also the distribution of the armour and the redundancy of the systems.
________________
howdy guys
aaaditya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2005   #10
Defense Professional / Analyst
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 230
Threads:
Re: Advanced Gun System

All in all it looks alot like an enlarged DD(X).

Keep in mind the Iowas were nearly(all dimensions rounded off) 60,000 tons full-load, 900 ft long and 110 ft wide.

Is this ship big enough to handle nine 16" guns plus 16 AGS plus VLS plus advanced radars?

I think the cost would double considering recent cost overuns in all categories of warship building making the effort a non-starter.

But even at $6B a copy Congress would most likely balk.

Are the manning requirements realistic?

Compared to DD(X) they appear so. But Im not sure how you arrived at the #s.

I heard propulsion pods are very vulnerable to damage. Any more info on this technology?

Is the tumble-home hull form practical for a ship this size and armed with 16" guns?

No helo/UAV capability???????????
rickusn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2005   #11
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 156
Threads:
Re: Advanced Gun System

Quote:
All in all it looks alot like an enlarged DD(X).
No, I just designed it with the idea that the DD(X) is the future of Naval design.

Quote:
Keep in mind the Iowas were nearly(all dimensions rounded off) 60,000 tons full-load, 900 ft long and 110 ft wide.
The Iowa also carried over 2 thousand tons of fuel. It was 300 ft longer. A better comparison for my ship is BB-38 Penn. Class. It was 608 ft, 94 ft beam 31,400 tons.


Quote:
Is this ship big enough to handle nine 16" guns plus 16 AGS plus VLS plus advanced radars?
Yes, it's rather packed on. Although now you brought it up I think I actually have that as 10 155mm's. But yes, the ship is capable of handling the sixteen inch guns. The Advanced Radars don't take up that much room. The VLS is a modest figure considering the ship is 611 ft long. Really this becomes difficult to make estimates on, its really a question of what should we automate.

Quote:
I think the cost would double considering recent cost overuns in all categories of warship building making the effort a non-starter.
Yes but the DD(X) also includes research and development. And the over-runs are moreless having to do with the ship yards. I have some ideas to help bring those costs down. Research on the other hand, is the reason it looks like a big DD(X). The idea is to use as many technologies and parts from the CG(X) and DD(X) lines of future naval ships as possible. Something needs to be done about these costs increase. However, I've designated to use mostly recycled metal. So thats why I get the bonus of keeping a lot of things cheap. The steel isn't recycled, but it could be.

Quote:
But even at $6B a copy Congress would most likely balk.
Yes, but the DD(X) is 4.2 billion right now, Aircraft Carrier Nimitz 13 billion dollars. The DD(X) is overpriced at that.

Quote:
Are the manning requirements realistic?

Compared to DD(X) they appear so. But Im not sure how you arrived at the #s.
The Arsenal ship design from the 90's had about 68 crew designated.
So this is a hybrid between that and a DD(X).
My ship has the following-
42 non combat
36 Turret Crew
124 Combat Ship Crew and Ship Operations Crew



Quote:
I heard propulsion pods are very vulnerable to damage. Any more info on this technology?
http://www.ship-technology.com/contr...ulsion/alstom/

Or visit the companies website.

That is all a matter of philosophy. These pods are less vulnerable than having your props and rudder at one spot. Plus, as I have said they eliminate the need for a rudder alltogether. They are also low vibration and rather quiet because they are electric. As long as at least 2 remain the ship can operate at cruise spd.

Quote:
Is the tumble-home hull form practical for a ship this size and armed with 16" guns?
Yes, increasing the draft offers stability at the cost of littoral operation.

Quote:
No helo/UAV capability???????????
It could be added I suppose. But your looking at an increase in crew, and I would prefer the UAV over the helo.
Defcon 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2005   #12
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 156
Threads:
Re: Advanced Gun System

Quote:
i would consider recycled metal as of being doubtfull value.also titanium is prohibitively expensive(reason why the russian dropped its use from their nuke submarines.)
No. I already priced it at 0.58 cents a pound. That is $1,168 a ton. Of which it's used in a tungsten alloy. The ship is less than 3% titanium, so I've already taken into account how expensive it is.

Recycled metal either scrap or non scrap is of just as high a value as new metal. In fact the world will most likely be using recycled metal by the year 2020 simply because material need is getting higher.

Scrap metal is already being used by the ship building industry with great ease and practicality.

Quote:
,the armouring of the entire hull would make the vessel one of the safest but prohibitively expensive,tungsten carbide armour on the other hand will increase the weight considerably.
I have accounted for that.

Quote:
aluminium superstructure will require frequent anti corrosive treatment which again would be expensive.overall this design will come in for a lot of criticism from the economists and the civilians and may be opposition from some elements of the user itself.
Everything always does here in the states.

Aluminum is less prone to corrosion than steel. Aluminum won't rust due to water. And it would be treated to prevent oxidation.

Quote:
i have armour specification of yamato i will try to post(and other capital warships)and you will understand that with the existing technology equal levels of protection can be obtained from a thinner armour while at the same time reducing the cost.
What your looking at is a double hull. If you want to research Armor penetration then go here:
http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_1.html

Quote:
second even thopugh yamato was the most heavily armoured warship of ww2 it was very easily put out of service with a torpedo attack to the steering mechanism,
No, your thinking of the german Bismarck. But besides that, my ship doesn't have a rudder since it uses Mermaid pods.


Quote:
after which it was easily taken out.this proves that it is not the thickness of the armour alone that determines the survivability,but also the distribution of the armour and the redundancy of the systems.
But your assumption was incorrect. The armor is only 10 inches thick throughout most of the ship. However in certain places it is 29 inches thick. But I have also made other design alterations, please read over them
Defcon 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2005   #13
Defense Professional / Analyst
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 230
Threads:
Re: Advanced Gun System

Thanks for your answers.

However:

"x16 155mm AGS Single Turrents
-Will fire GPS/IR guided 155mm shells"
rickusn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2005   #14
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 156
Threads:
Re: Advanced Gun System

no problem. I hope they were reliable.
Defcon 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2005   #15
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 156
Threads:
Re: Advanced Gun System

Yes, it says 16 but it should be 10.

You see, I meant it's a typo. I copied all of this from a microsoft word document, and that 16 was brought down when I added other equipment.
Defcon 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:07 AM.