NationStates

United Earthlings wrote:Would the replacement of the turbo generators with more advanced types have been required or would it have been more cost effective at that point to just replace the entire turbo-electric drive with what the eventual North Carolina class would be equipped with (double helical reduction geared turbines)?

how do you re-engine a ship without replacing the engines

Dtn wrote:how do you re-engine a ship without replacing the engines

Just sweep the old engines under the carpet

United Earthlings wrote: Would the replacement of the turbo generators with more advanced types have been required or would it have been more cost effective at that point to just replace the entire turbo-electric drive with what the eventual North Carolina class would be equipped with (double helical reduction geared turbines)?

The decision to use turbo-electric in the first place was in large part a matter of limited gear-cutting capacity. So if the new contemporary builds still happened I suppose they might have kept the turbos. Otherwise I imagine they would have done gears like the post-Standards.

Getting a Standard battleship up to 25 knots would mean replacing everything and probably lengthening the ship considerably.

Any cost savings would be from using an identical plant to whatever contemporary battleship or carrier is under construction at the time if possible.

28 knots is pretty lol

Is the eukranoplan still a viable concept. If not in implementation but in purpose? The purpose being a fast moving anti-ship missle launcher.

Different note; got any low profile fast insertion boats to Reccomend for RP.

Miku the Based wrote:Is the eukranoplan still a viable concept. If not in implementation but in purpose? The purpose being a fast moving anti-ship missle launcher.

There is absolutely nothing stopping a conventional aircraft from flying at low altitude for an attack.

Miku the Based wrote:Different note; got any low profile fast insertion boats to Reccomend for RP.

Depending on the scope of the operation you're thinking of, RHIBs or simple civvie speedboats would work.

Cossack Peoples wrote:

Miku the Based wrote:Different note; got any low profile fast insertion boats to Reccomend for RP.

Depending on the scope of the operation you're thinking of, RHIBs or simple civvie speedboats would work.

Well, that didn't stop the US coast guard from intercepting them.
Needs more low profile and fast.

Miku the Based wrote:Is the eukranoplan still a viable concept. If not in implementation but in purpose? The purpose being a fast moving anti-ship missle launcher.

Different note; got any low profile fast insertion boats to Reccomend for RP.

We may see how the Navy of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will fare with theirs.

Downsides not listed being that they turn like a rocket propelled dump truck.

Useful for narco-runs "routine patrols" across the gulf, though.
-Since unlike most planes they kinda don't need much if any infrastructure and can sorta even rendezvous at sea for an illicit exchange and potentially cheaper than a fleet of hovercraft.

If you planned on doing something like a PBY Catalina shenanigans, you may want to double check their tactics, which involved flying quite a bit higher.

is there anything worse for smuggling than a flying jet-ski

Pretty sure a reverse-delta GEV can out-turn a light plane though.

Hinachi wrote:(Image)

France's Nexter unveils a 140mm gun and ammunition concept.

The ammunition is telescoped and has a maximum length of 1300mm while achieving 'rods of unparalleled length'. I think existing APFSDS rounds are already effectively telescoped and the round being proposed is just telescoped to a greater extent.

Interestingly the gun only has 'close to 10 MJ' of muzzle energy with potential to scale up to 13MJ, which is relatively low compared to existing 120mm guns (AFAIK Rheinmetall L/44 is about 11 MJ and L55 is about 13 MJ).

This shell is very strange.It's like something between APFSDS and CTA.I guess the 10 mJ here may refer to the effective kinetic energy, otherwise it's a technological setback.
It still has a huge turret.It seems that the west is not interested in the scheme of unmanned turret.

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:

Miku the Based wrote:Is the eukranoplan still a viable concept. If not in implementation but in purpose? The purpose being a fast moving anti-ship missle launcher.

Different note; got any low profile fast insertion boats to Reccomend for RP.

We may see how the Navy of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will fare with theirs.

Downsides not listed being that they turn like a rocket propelled dump truck.

Useful for narco-runs "routine patrols" across the gulf, though.
-Since unlike most planes they kinda don't need much if any infrastructure and can sorta even rendezvous at sea for an illicit exchange and potentially cheaper than a fleet of hovercraft.

If you planned on doing something like a PBY Catalina shenanigans, you may want to double check their tactics, which involved flying quite a bit higher.

When I was thinking low profile fast insertion vessel I was thinking this but a third of the height, and three times faster. The flying boats is okay but I don't know how not getting picked up by radar (and whatever the American coast guard uses) works.

On slightly unrelated note this video I think shows practical way to avoid radar, but it's on ground and not at sea, thermal or infrared imaging seems to be the go to see stuff radar can't see. Anybody knows methods to avoid such imaging systems in such a hot plane or boat?

Gallia- wrote:Why re-engine a shitty old battleship when you can just make new ones though? Which is what the US actually did.

Anyway real fast battleships are 30 knots.

In actual fact, to one degree or another the majority if not all the Dreadnoughts built by the major nations that remained in service post signing of the WNT had undergone propulsion modifications in the 1920s and 1930s. Sometimes that meant just replacing the coal-fired boilers for newer more powerful oil burning ones other times it meant a complete revamp of the propulsion system of the ship from the boilers to the propellers themselves.

As to why, as it concerns what I'm thinking doing historically for my nation, hence what prompted the question, an increase in speed would offer an increase in the overall battleline maneuver speed which in turn would in theory allow additional tactical options in battle.

Correction: I think you meant that real fast battleships are 33+ knots.

Dtn wrote:how do you re-engine a ship without replacing the engines

Joking aside, depending on how into semantics you wish to get one could reengine a vessel without replacing the engines. For example, if you just replace the propellers, a key part of a vessel's propulsion system, that could technically be considered reengining without you know replacing any part of the engines.

Dtn wrote:Getting a Standard battleship up to 25 knots would mean replacing everything and probably lengthening the ship considerably.

Any cost savings would be from using an identical plant to whatever contemporary battleship or carrier is under construction at the time if possible.

28 knots is pretty lol

Depending on the specific year, a lengthening of the vessel might not be required especially if one is willing to accept a slightly lower speed upgrade, say to 25 knots from 21 knots vs trying to achieve 27/28 knots.

If in this alternate timeline I have in mind multiple classes of Standard battleships will undergo this propulsion modification, even if some of the machinery is different from the contemporary battleship/carrier currently under construction, some cost savings should still be possible. I'm just not sure which would be more cost effective.

So for the Standards, besides identical replacement of the boilers, would it be better or more cost effective to replace the turbo-electric drive system with a newer more powerful turbo-electric drive able to handle the increase power output of the newer boilers or just completely replace the turbo-electric drive for a geared turbine system like that found on the North Carolina and Yorktown classes?

United Earthlings wrote:
Joking aside, depending on how into semantics you wish to get one could reengine a vessel without replacing the engines. For example, if you just replace the propellers, a key part of a vessel's propulsion system, that could technically be considered reengining without you know replacing any part of the engines.

Actually, technically it wouldn't, because this isn't how semantics works.

Anyway your question is essentially unanswerable. Everything would have to be replaced either way with associated changes to the internal layout. I doubt there were any radical advances in electric technology during the 20s, so in addition to superheated boilers and the new turbines to take advantage of them, a turbo-electric upgrade would need more or bigger generators, bigger motors, a completely new electrical system, and probably new propeller shafts and engines (by which of course I mean propellers since words have no meaning).

As to why you'd lengthen the ship I'd forgotten we're dealing with the vaunted naval architects of United Earthlings here.

United Earthlings wrote:In actual fact, to one degree or another the majority if not all the Dreadnoughts built by the major nations that remained in service post signing of the WNT had undergone propulsion modifications in the 1920s and 1930s. Sometimes that meant just replacing the coal-fired boilers for newer more powerful oil burning ones other times it meant a complete revamp of the propulsion system of the ship from the boilers to the propellers themselves.

Kind of weird they were still chugging along at around the same speed after all this with a few notable exceptions. (Obviously something like the Caio Duilio refit isn't possible for a US standard type.)

United Earthlings wrote:

Dtn wrote:how do you re-engine a ship without replacing the engines

Joking aside, depending on how into semantics you wish to get one could reengine a vessel without replacing the engines. For example, if you just replace the propellers, a key part of a vessel's propulsion system, that could technically be considered reengining without you know replacing any part of the engines.

Brb, replacing my car's engine with a tire change.

I actually chortled.

Dtn wrote:is there anything worse for smuggling than a flying jet-ski

Pretty sure a reverse-delta GEV can out-turn a light plane though.

It's the problem of a wide-span plane making a wave-strike during a bank-turn.

Something planes usually don't gotta worry about. They can fall a few hundred feet pulling a Split-S/reverse-immelmann turn, a GEV can't.

Miku the Based wrote:

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:We may see how the Navy of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will fare with theirs.

Downsides not listed being that they turn like a rocket propelled dump truck.

Useful for narco-runs "routine patrols" across the gulf, though.
-Since unlike most planes they kinda don't need much if any infrastructure and can sorta even rendezvous at sea for an illicit exchange and potentially cheaper than a fleet of hovercraft.

If you planned on doing something like a PBY Catalina shenanigans, you may want to double check their tactics, which involved flying quite a bit higher.

When I was thinking low profile fast insertion vessel I was thinking this but a third of the height, and three times faster. The flying boats is okay but I don't know how not getting picked up by radar (and whatever the American coast guard uses) works.

On slightly unrelated note this video I think shows practical way to avoid radar, but it's on ground and not at sea, thermal or infrared imaging seems to be the go to see stuff radar can't see. Anybody knows methods to avoid such imaging systems in such a hot plane or boat?

Heat baffles and turboporps would do quite a bit to reduce IR/thermal signature. Night-vision/IR and IIR involves using paint to compensate for any thermal differences by changing the emissivity of the structure, at least in the direction the enemy is likely to see you from. (side; since head-on means limited time to acquire/engage and retreating is a bit late.)

Pretty sure the plane part of "ekranoplan" means it can fly above waves lol.

Yeah any Type B WIG like the Lun or Bavar can fly out of ground effect. The low turn rate of the Lun was mainly due to it's extremely high wing-loading.

A Lippisch-type WIG is the opposite of "wide span." They tend to have a chord about equal to or greater than half their wingspan, and since a reverse-delta remains in ground effect at a height equal to its chord even a Type A can bank as hard as any aircraft.

The fairly hefty 100-knot Airfish 8 has a listed turn radius of 160 meters, which is a bank angle of 60 degrees - anything higher than that isn't going to be in the official specifications for a utility type.

Bazar most likely has a tighter radius than that due to a presumably lower stall speed.

Of course most WIGs probably couldn't perform an Immelmann but they have their own weird maneuvers.

Miku the Based wrote:Is the eukranoplan still a viable concept

It lives on in my heart

Gallia- wrote:Pretty sure the plane part of "ekranoplan" means it can fly above waves lol.

If you payed attention I asked two separate statements. One a fast low profile craft that avoids detection (doesn't have to be plane or boat but has to drop things and living things near shore) and the other as the practicality and usefulness of a low ground effect anti ship, aircraft carrier, sub craft in todays day and age.

United Earthlings wrote:

Gallia- wrote:Why re-engine a shitty old battleship when you can just make new ones though? Which is what the US actually did.

Anyway real fast battleships are 30 knots.

In actual fact, to one degree or another the majority if not all the Dreadnoughts built by the major nations that remained in service post signing of the WNT had undergone propulsion modifications in the 1920s and 1930s. Sometimes that meant just replacing the coal-fired boilers for newer more powerful oil burning ones other times it meant a complete revamp of the propulsion system of the ship from the boilers to the propellers themselves.

As to why, as it concerns what I'm thinking doing historically for my nation, hence what prompted the question, an increase in speed would offer an increase in the overall battleline maneuver speed which in turn would in theory allow additional tactical options in battle.

Correction: I think you meant that real fast battleships are 33+ knots.

Dtn wrote:how do you re-engine a ship without replacing the engines

Joking aside, depending on how into semantics you wish to get one could reengine a vessel without replacing the engines. For example, if you just replace the propellers, a key part of a vessel's propulsion system, that could technically be considered reengining without you know replacing any part of the engines.

Dtn wrote:Getting a Standard battleship up to 25 knots would mean replacing everything and probably lengthening the ship considerably.

Any cost savings would be from using an identical plant to whatever contemporary battleship or carrier is under construction at the time if possible.

28 knots is pretty lol

Depending on the specific year, a lengthening of the vessel might not be required especially if one is willing to accept a slightly lower speed upgrade, say to 25 knots from 21 knots vs trying to achieve 27/28 knots.

If in this alternate timeline I have in mind multiple classes of Standard battleships will undergo this propulsion modification, even if some of the machinery is different from the contemporary battleship/carrier currently under construction, some cost savings should still be possible. I'm just not sure which would be more cost effective.

So for the Standards, besides identical replacement of the boilers, would it be better or more cost effective to replace the turbo-electric drive system with a newer more powerful turbo-electric drive able to handle the increase power output of the newer boilers or just completely replace the turbo-electric drive for a geared turbine system like that found on the North Carolina and Yorktown classes?

An upgraded turbo electric would be better. Shifting to a direct drive geared turbine would require significant rework of the engineering spaces, not only for the physical placement of the equipment (if memory serves, the standards couldn’t even have fit a direct drive arrangement without rearranging the propulsion turbines) but also in the hull’s structural elements and support systems to enable the use of large reduction gear assemblies.

With the amount of space you'd gain by lengthening the hull an extra hundred or so feet, you can fit whatever drive you want in a Colorado I'd imagine.

Dtn wrote:Yeah any Type B WIG like the Lun or Bavar can fly out of ground effect. The low turn rate of the Lun was mainly due to it's extremely high wing-loading.

A Lippisch-type WIG is the opposite of "wide span." They tend to have a chord about equal to or greater than half their wingspan, and since a reverse-delta remains in ground effect at a height equal to its chord even a Type A can bank as hard as any aircraft.

The fairly hefty 100-knot Airfish 8 has a listed turn radius of 160 meters, which is a bank angle of 60 degrees - anything higher than that isn't going to be in the official specifications for a utility type.

Bazar most likely has a tighter radius than that due to a presumably lower stall speed.

Of course most WIGs probably couldn't perform an Immelmann but they have their own weird maneuvers.

Well, mentioning a split-S implies bank angles in excess of 90 to 180 degrees (inverted flight)...

Airfish 8, if I'm not mistaken, is a 17 meter wide WiG... that takes 170 meter minimum safe turn radius at 100 kts.

Meanwhile a Cessna 208 pulling a 3g overloaded 75 degree hard-pull will manage 75 meters and 70% faster (time, 4.5 seconds for 180 degrees).

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:
Well, mentioning a split-S implies bank angles in excess of 90 to 180 degrees (inverted flight)...

A maneuver commonly used by biplane pilots in Korea to dodge Sparrow missiles.

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:Airfish 8, if I'm not mistaken, is a 17 meter wide WiG... that takes 170 meter minimum safe turn radius at 100 kts.

You're mistaken.

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:Meanwhile a Cessna 208 pulling a 3g overloaded 75 degree hard-pull will manage 75 meters and 70% faster (time, 4.5 seconds for 180 degrees).

Yes, just like any other aircraft capable of sustaining a 75 degree bank at 100 knots - if it actually could. The problem is a Cessna 208 has a clean stall speed of ~75 knots so this is a good way to end up in an FAA report.

We've gone from "rocket-propelled dumptruck" to "normal published turning radius more than turns that either kill you or get your pilot's license revoked."