Ship Design

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by grizwald, Mar 16, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Please don't knock this down without solid reasoning... i have no background in ship design, and im curious.

    1. What is the benefit of having destroyers and frigates as different classes of ship?

    Is it not possible to have the weapons and sensor systems integrated on the one (possibly slightly larger) hull, saving significantly on cost and manpower? Destroyer with towed array and harpoons: ASW helo and seafox

    2. What dictates the hull size of a destroyer or other non-capital ship?

    Could modern weapons systems (say PAAMS consisting of the silos, sampson radar, chilled water and Command and control computing racks) not be packed onto a hull the size of a minesweeper?

    3. Further to two - if a platform could operate with no manpower (think UAV on the sea) could the idea of no.2 be achieved, since there would be no "life support" need.
  2. Not entirely CA so moving to Fleet.

    there are a couple of well informed about the topic, but you will get abuse from the old and bold...
  3. It's cheaper to build one ASW ship and one SAM ship than it is to build two ASW and SAM ships. Given a fixed budget, we can produce more ships. One example of where this become useful is in things like Op ATALANTA, where we need as many possible assets that are neither ASW or SAMs.

    Other reasons include - size. You generally want your escorts to be small(ish) so that they do not become prize targets for the enemy. But then again, not too small so that they sink on first contact.

    Yes it's possible, but you end up with fewer individual ships.

    Generally it's sea keeping. For example, due to the enormous size of Sampson, the 45 would be quite unstable if it was much smaller. The lessons learned in the Falklands also showed that small vessels generally sink quite readilly and that larger warships might help with damage control.

    No. PAAMS goes through a lot of decks and sampson would make a minesweeper size vessel tip over.

    I don't really think it's worth speculating on this since we have no idea what capabilities such a system would have. For example, what would be it's damage control capability?
  4. Yep, agree pretty much- esp with the unmanned bit.

    Where there is potential for that is possibly in the submarine space- but only as a pathfinder for manned units. When you see how "agricultural" damage control actually is- lots of people banging soft wood wedges into holes and fiddling about with acroprops, you realise that the machines haven't been built yet that would take the job on- too many variables. In short, you could easily (well, I say "easily") build an unmanned warship that could float move and fight. However, it would struggle do do anything about damage limitation and thus be in very short service in a shooting war.
  5. Cheers Guys,

    The idea of unmanned ships is very far off i agree. Damage control is a huge issue for manned ships due to saving life and the fact that a ship with a penetrated hull will sink under its (+water) weight.

    The design of a unmanned ship would not have these two issues, if a fire proof, buoyant, foam filled the ship (or similar material). Taking a hit may therefore be survivable without immediate repair, leaving the ship to limp back for repair.

    As an aside, how effective are escorts at attracting hits (once all else fails) against modern missiles, that can maneuver and essentially pick their targets, ie the carrier? (assuming i am correct in thinking a modern missile can track a perticular target and navigate around other obstacles (around or above))?
  6. They are quite good at it - but the reasons why are not for a public forum ;)

    Re: foam filled ships - how would you go about refitting them when they returned to dock?
  7. fair enough.. i can wait for that answer.

    Erm, im sure that the foam is tongue and groove for easy removal... what do you think i am, some sort of ship designer or summit?? ;-)
  8. Incidentally - what specialisation are you joining as?
  9. Bridge monkey apparently...
  10. Not so sure that I agree with that, it's more down to how well the ships were built in the first place.
    The type 21's went down because they were made out of tissue paper and lolly sticks.
    Some of the Leander Class ships took hits and survived and the Plymouth (rothsay class?) looked like a pepper pot.
    All the older ships came back, it was the newer destroyers and frigates that suffered.

Share This Page