Quantcast
Channel: NavWeaps Forums
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2020

The United States Navy • U.S.N. post W.W.2 hull design ?

$
0
0
The following was posted on TankNet by OlePaint (aka Doug) in their "Good Old Fashioned Warship Porn" today. For you nautical engineers is this correct what is written below?
The USN tended to prioritize calm water speed in destroyer hull design, which was a choice, but also something driven by model test capabilities.  In the '70s, there was a push in the USN for "better" seakeeping driven by observation of Soviet destroyers in the north Atlantic riding drier than the USN vessels.  The result was the Arleigh Burke hullform that had a V-shape hull.

Compared to the Spruance/Tico U-shaped hullform that's more wall-sided above the waterline:

The trade-off for drier decks is more pitch and heave, plus a loss of speed in calmer seas.  Burkes are wider and shorter than the Spruance-class, having a L/B ratio of about 7.9-8.0 (Flight I/IIA) vs the Spruance class at 9.6.  This wider hull required an extra 20,000hp compared to the older class for reportedly similar speeds, even though displacements are roughly comparable.
Another approach to seakeeping is to go with a more slender hull and bow, raise freeboard, and accept increased immersion against less pitch and heave motion, as exemplified by the Damen Axe Bow hullform or the Ulstein X-Bow.  Similar in concept, but much less extreme than SWATH.
Damen Sea Axe-bow

Vigor's X-bow OPC concept.

 

statistics: Posted by Rick12:18 AM - Today — Replies 0 — Views 33



Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2020

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>