I definitely meant 1.5m. And I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that "every inches count" in ship design, unless you mean the tolerances of the ship design and construction, in which case I would say every millimeters count. You should look at how vastly different warships like the FREMM can be, and then come back and tell me every inch counts. As I already mentioned, the French version of the FREMM has enough hangar capacity for only 1 NH-90 helo, while the Italian version of the FREMM will carry 2 NH-90's or 1 NH-90 and 1 Merlin. That's a lot of inches counted right there.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
I definitely meant 1.5m. And I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that "every inches count" in ship design, unless you mean the tolerances of the ship design and construction, in which case I would say every millimeters count. You should look at how vastly different warships like the FREMM can be, and then come back and tell me every inch counts. As I already mentioned, the French version of the FREMM has enough hangar capacity for only 1 NH-90 helo, while the Italian version of the FREMM will carry 2 NH-90's or 1 NH-90 and 1 Merlin. That's a lot of inches counted right there.
I have looked, and the reason is simple...and does not mean at all that every inch does not matter. In fact, kwaig is correct (which as a long time sailor on naval ships at sea, he has first hand experience at), and every inch does count Solaris.
The French and the Italians had the same hull from to work with, with a lot of common systems. But they also had different requirements.
The Italians chose to make use of that space to meet their requirements for two helos, including a Merlin. And so they made those accommodations when their yards build the ships, and used every bit of that space.
The French had different requirements, so they designed the hanger to meet those requirements, and used the additional space to their own ends...every inch of it.
As you can see from the following two picture, the Italian FREMM and then the FRENCH FREMM, the hanger area deck house is the same size and shape, though the Italians have added a lot more on top. But they chose to design and use those spaces differently. The Italians have two doors for helos, one for the medium and one for the larger. The French have a single door for the helicopters they use and have arranged the internal space to meet that requirement and used the rest of the space for other needs. There was room in the basic design to go either way, and so the two nations did.
The Italian FREMM hanger design
The French FREMM hanger design
I believe what kwaig is saying is that 5 feet of vertical hanger space can make a big difference and if a hanger has not been designed to accommodate that height...it would be a big deal, and difficult to come in after the fact and increase the size of the hanger.
In this case, the physical space was designed so it could accommodate it, and the Italians chose to use that space accordingly, and the French are using it in a different way.
This does not mean that every inch does not matter...because it does. It just means that they chose to use the space differently.
To be fair, Solaris was saying that a 1.5m increase in aft hangar height is not a big increase (in terms of impracticality and additional cost) during the design/pre construction phase of the ship.
Of course a 1.5m higher hangar is significant once the ship has been built, but if we are given a fixed hull size to work with, to design topside structrues, a 1.5meter + Xmeter hangar height may not be as big of an impracticality compared to an X meter high hangar.
Of course a 1.5m higher hangar is significant once the ship has been built, but if we are given a fixed hull size to work with, to design topside structrues, a 1.5meter + Xmeter hangar height may not be as big of an impracticality compared to an X meter high hangar.
When I say that every inch does not matter, I do NOT mean that every inch of the ship isn't used or hasn't been designed to be at a specific location for a specific reason. Obviously no one is going to make this idle claim. What I'm saying is that a given ship has a lot of potential variability in regards to the types of superstructures that can be built upon it. My use of the FREMM is a perfect case of the variety of things that can be done with a given hull. The 052B vs 052C vs 052D is another perfect example of what I'm talking about. In the latter's case the differences are FAR far greater than designing a ship with a potential hangar height variability of 1.5m or a length variability of 2.55m. I'm frankly amazed you two would go to such lengths to disagree with me on this point when there are such obvious examples of variability.
This is simply not the case, unless we have different definitions of "big deal" and "difficult". It's about as difficult as going from the 052B to the 052C. Actually far less difficult. And hangars aren't designed to accommodate different heights to begin with. You redesign the relevant part(s) of the ship to accommodate a new hangar. You can say this is "difficult". But to me this is about as difficult as contracting some people to go ahead and get it done. Flight I vs Flight IIA Burkes are another perfect example, in this case of both lengthening the ship AND increasing the height of the aft section.
Nothing to be amazed at. Every inch does count
Look at the costs incurred to do that and you will see that is it a big deal.
Not every navy can afford to do what the US Navy does.
As I said, when the design takes it into consideration from the get go, it is not as big an issue in terms of impact...but it still has its costs and all of that is worked out by the requirements, the planners, and then the builders. Which in itself makes it a fairly significant deal.
My bottom line is simple...and that is that aboard a combat vessel every inch does counts.
That's my only point. And Kwaig, who served many years on US Naval vessels understand this. That's all.
Whether a nation can decide to redesign a ship or not, at least for me was not the issue. Of course they can and I agree with you that they can. Whether a vertical 5 feet of hanger space counts for something was the issue...and it does count for something, and is not used lightly. It is used to address a need. I believe we would all agree with that too..
My guess is that we are contesting over semantics and probably pretty much agree on those salient points.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Lol.. Calm down padawan
we're not going through 'great lengths' to disagree... I think you are reading too much into what was said. All I said was ask anyone who has ever worked in a cramped space before and I guarantee you they will say 5ft higher is significant.If you recall you're initial post was in response to btlzo's contention over 10 vs 13 ton helos on board.
We aren't talking about affordability so much as "can it be done", and I think the answer is an obvious yes. If you can add a massive deckhouse complete with 4 AESA panels (ala 052C/D) to the back of the same hull that you previously used to build a 052B, you can add 1.5m to the height of a hangar.
We must be because I'm not even sure what you guys mean by "every inch counts" at this point. lol
Right, and whether a ship could endure a larger hangar. I think it can, without much ado.Lol.. Calm down padawan
If you recall you're initial post was in response to btlzo's contention over 10 vs 13 ton helos on board.
Now I have more time so let's amplify. First look at momentum theory. The wiki page is just a stub, but it shows the picture I need: . First we simplify the propeller or rotor to the actuator disc. The picture shows the "flow tube" of air flowing through the actuator disc contracting from far in front of that disc to far behind the disc. Real propellers have two or more blades and are less efficient than that idealized actuator disc. The tip vortices from the propeller blades follow the surface of the "flow tube".
Look at a old fashioned contra-rotating propeller as used by the Tupolev Bear bomber. The vortices from the tips of the front component are cut by the tips of the blades of the aft component. This contributes to the drag and vibration felt by these blades and subtracts from the lift generated by the tips. That's why the aft component of the propellers of the AN-70 has a smaller diameter. ( I saw this first in the description of the design of a fast container vessel in the Proceedings of the 9th ( ? ) USN Naval Architecture Conference some forty five years ago where the purpose was to prevent the tips of the aft component being destroyed by cavitation. )
A main design consideration of a helicopter is take off at zero forward wind speed. The flow below the top component of a contra-rotating rotor system resembles that behind the actuator disc. In the Kamov helicopters too the cutting of the vortices flowing from the tips of the top rotor by the blades of the lower rotor increases noise, increases vibration of the blades and the whole aircraft, increases power consumption and reduces lift. So you want to reduce the diameter of the lower rotor but you need to maintain the balance of moments of the two rotors. So you increase the number of blades in the lower rotor while probably keeping the tip speed of the rotors equal.
I hope this adequately shows my way of thinking.
Is it just me or is the aspect ratio of the video and pictures wrong? Everything seems a little bit squeezed/too tall
But good picture of the smaller integrated mast. I expect to see it on the next gen frigate. Looks like it isn't meant for 055.
But good picture of the smaller integrated mast. I expect to see it on the next gen frigate. Looks like it isn't meant for 055.
- Status