My ideas for a futuristic BB

[RustyBattleship]

Now we're getting into the "a friend told me that" mode, because while I inspected the four ships service diesel generators on a couple of PEB exams, I never served in the class. I will tell you what I know second hand though, and because their main function in life was to replace the tug that would always be needed for any single-screw ship to either make a landing at the pier or get underway from it, while I won't swear to it (Rusty can probably provide this info from his experience as a hull engineering expert at LBNSY), I seem to recall that one was located a bit forward of amidships in order to move the bow one direction or the other so that the conning officer could "spring off one"; IOW, keep the bow line (Number One in our nomenclature) singled up to keep the bow pointed slightly toward the pier, while swinging the stern out. Then you "take in one" and back out. You need the help of the thrusters just to back out in a more or less straight line, because unlike a steam ship, in that class, the stern will want to keep "walking" to port (in a steam ship, it will walk to starboard) which, if at a place like Naval Station San Diego where piers are relatively close to one another, runs the risk of hitting a ship on the next pier. So you back out slowly using the azimuth thrusters, and maybe a backing bell on the main too, before bringing the bow around, heading fair in the channel. The other thruster was located aft a bit so that the same sort of thing, if necessary, could be done with the stern line (line six). The offset nature also allowed for the ability to spin the ship as mentioned previously, without putting any head or stern way on, which might come in handy while maneuvering in a minefield. Just ask the former CO of USS Samuel B. Roberts.

The Perry class thrusters were located a little ways forward of amidships. They actually were quite close together, one on each side of the keel. The original reason for being forward of amidships was for docking purposes.

But the USS Roberts found a better use for them. When backing out of a minefield in the Gulf, she still hit a mine that blew the hell out of the Auxiliary machinery room and snapped the propeller shaft. Other ships radioed in that they would come in to help. The Captain said "NO. I will use my thrusters." Which he did and he backed that baby out without endangering any of our other ships.

As for the fin stabilizers, I can easily understand why the Captain hates them. They are the wrong kind, fixed (not retractable) and the cheapest model made. Vickers in Canada puts out very dependable RETRACTABLE fin stabilizers. But the Navy still wanted to stay with the fixed ones and somebody back on the hill decided that their problem was they had the wrong "air" foil cross section. So I was tasked to come up with a new design. Well, having flown (as well as studied) small aircraft I had an idea and came up with some drawings and calculations of waterflow depending upon if the "fin" was pointing "down" or "up". Crap, I don't know of any other way to say it but I hope you get the idea. I was trying to equalize the velocity of the water on the "down" side of one stabilizer to equal the velocity of the one on the other side of the ship in the "up" position. Increase in the "speed" of the water should be affected by the venturi effect thus allowing the other surface of the fin to gain more "lift" (or "dive"). If it would work, they would not have to rotate as much.

Or so my theory said. As it is, my efforts were lauded, they loved my drawings, they said I was on the right track ---- but they were never built. Personally, I'm glad they weren't built because if they turned out to be junk I would have to retire earlier.

[desertswo]

The Perry class thrusters were located a little ways forward of amidships. They actually were quite close together, one on each side of the keel. The original reason for being forward of amidships was for docking purposes.

But the USS Roberts found a better use for them. When backing out of a minefield in the Gulf, she still hit a mine that blew the hell out of the Auxiliary machinery room and snapped the propeller shaft. Other ships radioed in that they would come in to help. The Captain said "NO. I will use my thrusters." Which he did and he backed that baby out without endangering any of our other ships.

As for the fin stabilizers, I can easily understand why the Captain hates them. They are the wrong kind, fixed (not retractable) and the cheapest model made. Vickers in Canada puts out very dependable RETRACTABLE fin stabilizers. But the Navy still wanted to stay with the fixed ones and somebody back on the hill decided that their problem was they had the wrong "air" foil cross section. So I was tasked to come up with a new design. Well, having flown (as well as studied) small aircraft I had an idea and came up with some drawings and calculations of waterflow depending upon if the "fin" was pointing "down" or "up". Crap, I don't know of any other way to say it but I hope you get the idea. I was trying to equalize the velocity of the water on the "down" side of one stabilizer to equal the velocity of the one on the other side of the ship in the "up" position. Increase in the "speed" of the water should be affected by the venturi effect thus allowing the other surface of the fin to gain more "lift" (or "dive"). If it would work, they would not have to rotate as much.

Or so my theory said. As it is, my efforts were lauded, they loved my drawings, they said I was on the right track ---- but they were never built. Personally, I'm glad they weren't built because if they turned out to be junk I would have to retire earlier.

There's the ground truth. Like I said, never served in one, and had enough trouble learning about the gear I did own, which in the case of fin stabilizers was two classes of ship; the Brooke-class FFG and the Knox-class FF. We ran ours often enough, but we never much saw the point.

Anyway, I told you Rusty would have the 411 on the thrusters. Regardless, I don't think I would bother with either variety on a new battleship design. It's just one more thing to break. That may sound like a bad attitude but I would call it "realistic" and "pragmatic." The less one has on one's plate, the better care one can take of those things that REALLY matter.

[JA Boomer]

There's the ground truth. Like I said, never served in one, and had enough trouble learning about the gear I did own, which in the case of fin stabilizers was two classes of ship; the Brooke-class FFG and the Knox-class FF. We ran ours often enough, but we never much saw the point.

What was the purpose or supposed advantage of the fin stabilizers? Do they retract into the hull as well?

[desertswo]

What was the purpose or supposed advantage of the fin stabilizers? Do they retract into the hull as well?

Way back in the late-50s and early-60s when the ASW frigates (Garcia, Brooke, and Knox) and later Spruance-class destroyers were first conceived, it was claimed that the fin stabilizers would make for a more stable platform for the new line of bow mounted sonars of the SQS-26/53 family tree. They are the same system, but the 53 is digital and the 26 vacuum tube; otherwise they behave more or less exactly the same. In truth, the fins didn't make a damn bit of difference in sonar performance, other than dumping another source of self-made noise in the water that must be accounted for. The biggest problem for those sonars produced by sea forces is deformation of the bow rubber "window" through which the sonar transmits and listens. It's made by Firestone or B.F. Goodrich or one of those rubber tire giants (I cannot remember which), and is basically the same construction as a steel belted radial tire, only thicker. Anyway, it is subject to deforming, or simply "bending" caused by either sea state, speed through the water, or both. This affects both the transmission of sound from the sonar staves, as well as the listening for return signals, but primarily the former. This can be accounted and corrected for by the sonar's operating system computer, and is; but it would be nicer if it didn't happen at all.

And no, the fins are not retractable, but are angled downward away from the hull so that the longest run along their longitudinal axis does not extend very far from the hull if at all. In other words, you don't have to really worry about snagging and ripping off your pier side neighbor's fins, and vice versa.

[RustyBattleship]

Way back in the late-50s and early-60s when the ASW frigates (Garcia, Brooke, and Knox) and later Spruance-class destroyers were first conceived, it was claimed that the fin stabilizers would make for a more stable platform for the new line of bow mounted sonars of the SQS-26/53 family tree. They are the same system, but the 53 is digital and the 26 vacuum tube; otherwise they behave more or less exactly the same. In truth, the fins didn't make a damn bit of difference in sonar performance, other than dumping another source of self-made noise in the water that must be accounted for. The biggest problem for those sonars produced by sea forces is deformation of the bow rubber "window" through which the sonar transmits and listens. It's made by Firestone or B.F. Goodrich or one of those rubber tire giants (I cannot remember which), and is basically the same construction as a steel belted radial tire, only thicker. Anyway, it is subject to deforming, or simply "bending" caused by either sea state, speed through the water, or both. This affects both the transmission of sound from the sonar staves, as well as the listening for return signals, but primarily the former. This can be accounted and corrected for by the sonar's operating system computer, and is; but it would be nicer if it didn't happen at all.

And no, the fins are not retractable, but are angled downward away from the hull so that the longest run along their longitudinal axis does not extend very far from the hull if at all. In other words, you don't have to really worry about snagging and ripping off your pier side neighbor's fins, and vice versa.

It's true the fins on U.S. Navy warships are not retractable. Back around 1981 (just before the start of the Battleship Program), my wife and I took a "Love Boat" cruise on the Pacific Princess from Acapulco to Los Angeles. While on board and at sea, the crew sponsored tours of the bridge and could talk with the officers.

I was fortunate enough to meet with the ship's Engineering Officer and after introducing myself and telling him I work for the United States Navy he was willing to give me any answer I needed from any question I asked. For example, there was a console on the bridge that showed a small line drawing of the hull of the ship and the positions of her retracable fin stabilizers. I noted that only the Starboard fin was active with the Port fin pulled into its "slot". The officer said that sea conditions were mild enough to use only one fin so the craps table in the ship's gambling lounge remained reasonably level. HE is the one who told me that the problem with the stabilizers on American ships were so bad was because we did not use them enough and seals would dry up, rust built up on some mechanical parts, etc.

Well I thanked him very much for his explanation though I have no idea where he got his information from about our stabilizers. But in a way I sort of got even when we were going over the ship's last Dry Docking at Todd Shipyard. I noticed it had a bow thruster almost exactly the same as on our Tarawa class Assualt ships. On our assault ships, we use the bow thruster to keep the ship pointing in the same position throughout the landing operation for rapid helicopter exhanges. I personally witnessed one such "invasion" of a Marine Corps regiment landing by a rest stop on the I-5 freeway which is part of Camp Pendelton. The Pacific Princess engineer explained that the most use the get out of their bow thruster for docking the ship and not having to pay for tug boats.

Perfectly logical but I had to point out one big difference between "his" ship and "my" ships. I had recently designed a pattern of zinc anodes to be placed in the bow thruster tunnel to reduce corrosion. I pointed them out to the officer in their photo of the ship in drydock and then made his heart sink. It was a color photo and it showed that typical shipyard painters always paint EVERYTHING that is not painted. And in his case they also painted the zinc anodes and therefore their cathodic protection was now null and void. He was shocked and thanked me seriously for pointing that out and will have it taken care of as soon as they got back to San Pedro.

Oh, the bulbous bow rubber SONAR dome can be seen on a Knox class Frigate on page 143 (Chapter 20 "Ghosts and Sea Monsters") of my book. On page 280 is a photo of the first all steel dome before the rubber domes came out. The reason for the change is that the one-inch thick rubber (though reinforced with a steel mesh inside) is the same density as sea water and would not in dampen or reflect the "PING" from the transducers of the dome which is also flooded.


PS: I had my spinal procedure done yesterday morning and am feeling great right now. That is until I see my cardiologist to get a date for some more plastic tubing to be put in my blood pump.

[desertswo]

It's true the fins on U.S. Navy warships are not retractable. Back around 1981 (just before the start of the Battleship Program), my wife and I took a "Love Boat" cruise on the Pacific Princess from Acapulco to Los Angeles. While on board and at sea, the crew sponsored tours of the bridge and could talk with the officers.

I was fortunate enough to meet with the ship's Engineering Officer and after introducing myself and telling him I work for the United States Navy he was willing to give me any answer I needed from any question I asked. For example, there was a console on the bridge that showed a small line drawing of the hull of the ship and the positions of her retracable fin stabilizers. I noted that only the Starboard fin was active with the Port fin pulled into its "slot". The officer said that sea conditions were mild enough to use only one fin so the craps table in the ship's gambling lounge remained reasonably level. HE is the one who told me that the problem with the stabilizers on American ships were so bad was because we did not use them enough and seals would dry up, rust built up on some mechanical parts, etc.

Well I thanked him very much for his explanation though I have no idea where he got his information from about our stabilizers. But in a way I sort of got even when we were going over the ship's last Dry Docking at Todd Shipyard. I noticed it had a bow thruster almost exactly the same as on our Tarawa class Assualt ships. On our assault ships, we use the bow thruster to keep the ship pointing in the same position throughout the landing operation for rapid helicopter exhanges. I personally witnessed one such "invasion" of a Marine Corps regiment landing by a rest stop on the I-5 freeway which is part of Camp Pendelton. The Pacific Princess engineer explained that the most use the get out of their bow thruster for docking the ship and not having to pay for tug boats.

Perfectly logical but I had to point out one big difference between "his" ship and "my" ships. I had recently designed a pattern of zinc anodes to be placed in the bow thruster tunnel to reduce corrosion. I pointed them out to the officer in their photo of the ship in drydock and then made his heart sink. It was a color photo and it showed that typical shipyard painters always paint EVERYTHING that is not painted. And in his case they also painted the zinc anodes and therefore their cathodic protection was now null and void. He was shocked and thanked me seriously for pointing that out and will have it taken care of as soon as they got back to San Pedro.

Oh, the bulbous bow rubber SONAR dome can be seen on a Knox class Frigate on page 143 (Chapter 20 "Ghosts and Sea Monsters") of my book. On page 280 is a photo of the first all steel dome before the rubber domes came out. The reason for the change is that the one-inch thick rubber (though reinforced with a steel mesh inside) is the same density as sea water and would not in dampen or reflect the "PING" from the transducers of the dome which is also flooded.


PS: I had my spinal procedure done yesterday morning and am feeling great right now. That is until I see my cardiologist to get a date for some more plastic tubing to be put in my blood pump.

Take it easy Rusty, because I'm coming back to have another crack at that stern seal and I need you there to grease the skids.

[RustyBattleship]

Desertwo said: Take it easy Rusty, because I'm coming back to have another crack at that stern seal and I need you there to grease the skids.

No problem Captain. For the first time in months I have been able to walk normal WITHOUT a cane. But I'm not going to be over confident like I was the last time I fell and had to have seven staples put in the back of my head (scrapped it on a hardwood, carved toy box). I've been to Harbor Freight to take back a polishing grinder that doesn't run, picked up a Dremel type tool set, been polishing a 12-inch tall bronze eagle to pass the time, spent half an hour yesterday at Kohl's and found a perfect blouse for my wife to wear (very Hungarian looking design as she is a full-blooded Magyar from Kaposvar) and today we are just going to do what we darn well feel like doing.

After all it is our 46th wedding anniversary.

But like you, Captain, I do believe in having damage control equipment near by so I do take my cane with me even if I just leave it in the truck.

[desertswo]

Desertwo said: Take it easy Rusty, because I'm coming back to have another crack at that stern seal and I need you there to grease the skids.

No problem Captain. For the first time in months I have been able to walk normal WITHOUT a cane. But I'm not going to be over confident like I was the last time I fell and had to have seven staples put in the back of my head (scrapped it on a hardwood, carved toy box). I've been to Harbor Freight to take back a polishing grinder that doesn't run, picked up a Dremel type tool set, been polishing a 12-inch tall bronze eagle to pass the time, spent half an hour yesterday at Kohl's and found a perfect blouse for my wife to wear (very Hungarian looking design as she is a full-blooded Magyar from Kaposvar) and today we are just going to do what we darn well feel like doing.

After all it is our 46th wedding anniversary.

But like you, Captain, I do believe in having damage control equipment near by so I do take my cane with me even if I just leave it in the truck.

Well done to you and the Missus Rusty. Üdvözlettel!

[Covert_Shores]

Interesting thread. Putting aside any question of whether a BB is still relevant, I think that a contemporary one could have quite a different layout to previous ones. The main battery (and I'd go six 127mm, 155mm or 203mm, probably in single mounts with automatic loading etc) could be concentrated amidships with arcs of fire either side but no need for forward arcs as they are only used for fire support and long ranged shots. That leaves the forward positions open for DP guns (e.g. 76mm with smart rounds) and CIWS. Massive VLS of course. And tumbledown hull for purely aesthetic reasons.

[Covert_Shores]

Inspired by this thread, a five minute Friday doodle of a BBGN styled loosely on HMS Nelson.


Lots of VLS, a battery of 6 AGS and plenty of space for CIWS.