Replacing the screws with pumpjets

[shadow01]

A friend of mine who is an engineer brought up an interesting upgrade to a BB.

Replacing the screws with propulsors like used on some cruise ships.

Could something like this be posible, or more a efficient way to get more performance?

Also he stated that the addition of a bow like that used on the Yamato would give better performance.

[maximusslade]

Sure, you could do it, if you wanted to spend the money to rip our the engineering plant and put a new one in, but yes, it could be done.

[shadow01]

The age of the current system, (piping, valves,etc.) would more than likely need a major overhaul anyway.

Again, would it ever happen, even if was feasable? Doughtful.

But I wonder how much if any improvement would be acheived?

I guesse that was the real question, what improvement in performace would be.

[connaye]

FLuid dynamics....

As to the issue of the Yamato having a more energy efficient bow we may need to enlist the skills of an Fluid Dynamics man to answer that question... maybe there is an P.E. lurking on boards that could reply?

[Michigan_Guy]

I've always wondered if a modern prop design would improve the performance of these ships any. I kinda doubt you'd get one to go too much faster in reality but making them more fuel efficent is possible at slower speeds.

I wondered about the bow design too, they've come a long ways in ship design...

[Dreadnought]

*The whole idea of 4 props being 2 sets of different size and different number of blades and counter rotating is to reduce machine vibrations of these ships at high speed. Doubtfull water jets could do this and certainly not worth cutting through all that armor and reduce its effectivness to attempt. Build a new ship instead.;)

[omon]

Replacing the screws with propulsors like used on some cruise ships.

cruise ships use pods, not pumpjets, jetski use jets.

2 different things

[USSWisconsin]

Since this a a purely acedemic discussion (no one is actually building battleships), I have an idea, of course it would be fabulously expensive; a modern battleship based on two USS Jimmy Carter type hulls, joined and decked over on top with an armored deck, mounting VLM arrays amidships (about 200 cells) and three sumbersible AGS 6.1" guns forward (she would conduct bombardments with her bow facing the enemy). She would be a stealthy submersible battleship. The hull could be armored by increasing the thickness outboard, and adding additional layers. An extra large Zumwalt type sail could be used to house sensors, and it would have two pumpjet propulsions systems, each one independant, and she could carry torpedoes. Perhaps she would only be a shallow submersible or semi submersible design.

[Rumrunner]

Since this a a purely acedemic discussion (no one is actually building battleships), I have an idea, of course it would be fabulously expensive; a modern battleship based on two USS Jimmy Carter type hulls, joined and decked over on top with an armored deck, mounting VLM arrays amidships (about 200 cells) and three sumbersible AGS 6.1" guns forward (she would conduct bombardments with her bow facing the enemy). She would be a stealthy submersible battleship. The hull could be armored by increasing the thickness outboard, and adding additional layers. An extra large Zumwalt type sail could be used to house sensors, and it would have two pumpjet propulsions systems, each one independant, and she could carry torpedoes. Perhaps she would only be a shallow submersible or semi submersible design.

So in other words, a non-SSBN variant of the Typhoon with jet drive? :))

[USSWisconsin]

So in other words, a non-SSBN variant of the Typhoon with jet drive? :))

She would somewhat resemble a Typhoon, with a primarily non-nuclear mission (of course the weapons systems could deliever any payload required), being focused on NGFS, survivability, and most importantly she would have the most advanced American engineering and be built in the US. Though I don't beleive she would ever be built under existing circumstances.

[Rumrunner]

She would somewhat resemble a Typhoon, with a primarily non-nuclear mission (of course the weapons systems could deliever any payload required), being focused on NGFS, survivability, and most importantly she would have the most advanced American engineering and be built in the US. Though I don't beleive she would ever be built under existing circumstances.

Who are we all kidding...the trend in modern warship design isnt anything new. Let's all just save 50yrs of trial and error design and start building monitors again.

[Gun Grape]

She would somewhat resemble a Typhoon, with a primarily non-nuclear mission (of course the weapons systems could deliever any payload required), being focused on NGFS, survivability, and most importantly she would have the most advanced American engineering and be built in the US. Though I don't beleive she would ever be built under existing circumstances.

Why would you want to waste money on stealthy and submersible for a NGF ship? When she starts shooting everyone knows where she is.

[USSWisconsin]

"Let's all just save 50yrs of trial and error design and start building monitors again."

The hypothetical ship would indeed be very much like a monitor, in fact USS Monitor would be a good name for it.


"Why would you want to waste money on stealthy and submersible for a NGF ship? When she starts shooting everyone knows where she is."

She could surpise the enemy, but yes it would be a very expensive ship "looking for a mission" of interest to battleship enthusiasts for discussions but not to the Navy for procurement. It would make more sense to put AGS on a few Arleigh Burke's - possibly in place of the 5" mount