User Panel
Battlestar is an aircraft carrier in space. (The Viper is not as good as the F-18 Super Hornet.Lol). Ron Moore(the producer of BSG) is an admitted Naval fan, especially WWII, that's why the "new" BSG" has corded phones, paper, etc. in a ship that's capable of FTL..to give it the feel of WWII. Plus I figured anything with the title Battlestar and an F-18 mention in it would get lots of looks. |
|
|
B2s? Those are X-45s. CIWS is actually "close in weapon system" and isn't really synonymous with the Mk15 Phalanx. It can be the RAM, the Goalkeeper, NSSMS, and in this case the ESSM. |
|
|
Looking closely at the pic it does show the Rolling Airframe Missile as well as ESSM. My guess is the CIWS will be replaced with SEAram. |
||
|
I'm more interested in this "electro magnetic" launch system they are using...
Does it adjust how much its drawing the plane towards the magnets as the jets engine spins up, then release the pressure? I'm curious... |
|
WADR Young Padawan, CIWS has been used exclusively to mean the Mk-15 Close In Weapon System since its IOC in 1978 aboard carrier America. The colloquial name given it by the design agent and builder, General Dynamics, was "Phalanx". NSSMS, RAM and now ESSM have always called by their individual names as well. I choose to exclude Goalkeeper because although we tested in in 1989, we never adopted it, preferring to proceed with development of the CIWS Block IB. Sorry... |
||
|
Its going to leave white stains in every port of call???? |
|
|
Those Vipers must really suck if they aren't better than the super bug..lol |
||
|
It works like a magnetic "rail" gun. A slug/bullet is drawn down a rail with a magnetic charge on both sides, accelerating the slug to high speeds with no chemical/thermal reaction. Now, imagine that the slug is the shuttle-cock (heh) that's attached to the launch gear in the aircraft's nosegear. All you need is electricity (generated by this new class of boat) and the rail, not a large and cumbersome steam piston system. |
|
|
The launch shuttle that attaches to the nose gear of the planes will run on track rails or in a "tube" under the deck. Like an electromagnet, these rails can be magnetised by passing an electric current through them. When this is done, the shuttle is accelerated forward by opposing magnetic fields. The speed and force are proportional to the current induced and the phase of the signal. No more steam catapults, with all of their attendant problems. The principle is the same for a "maglev" train or a "electromagnetic rail gun". The engineering requires massive amounts of power. This calls for using the new power system under development for the DD(X). |
|
|
WADR, Just because you call a Xerox a "copier" doesn't mean it isn't a Xerox. The Soviet Navy had systems that were classified as Close In Weapons Systems, as is the GoalKeeper. It's a class of weapon. That leads me to my point was the new carrier will not be devoid of close in protection. The ESSM and RAM are both preferable for taking down an ASCM, in my opinion. Although, I'm a big fan of the BLK IB. ETA: If you're talking about common usage, which upon reading your post again, I agree. CIWS and Mk15 are often used interchangably. However, I think it's time we start making the distinction given the newer systems that are coming on line.
|
||
|
Could be. I was referring to this: www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=378591 |
||
|
OHHHH.. wow I'm an idiot. Totally forgot about the steam powered catapult on carriers. |
||
|
No steam cats, huh? I don't know, a shame in a way. I was on Independence from 70 to 72. To be on the flight deck early in the morning when all the cats were firing, steam whisping up when the shuttle came back, jets turning up, running hard into the wind..... I hope my boys get to see it.
And there's just something about steam power that says, well, power. |
|
I'm interested in the deletion of one of the elevators, down to three.
Always wondered what the first part of a carrier to be made was. It's amazing to walk inside one of those things, to imagine that when they got started, it was just two pieces being welded together. Also, why the insistance of nuclear power for the carriers when all the nuclear escorts have been deleted? NTM |
|
mag cats need lots of electricity! |
|
|
There are several advantages. #1 Huge amounts of power for propulsion #2 Don't have to carry fuel for the main engines, so most of the fuel onboard can be used for flight operations. #3 While the powerplant is expensive for an escort over the life of the ship, for a carrier and the massive amounts of fuel required it makes more sense. |
|
|
The escorts need fuel roughly every 3 days. The carrier sprints back and forth up and down wind for flight ops. This would consume fuel much faster - the escorts don't always shadow the carrier during these runs. As dport said, all of the fuel can be used for flight ops. A thirsty carrier can be fueled during flight ops (BTDT) but it is a PITA, increases vulnerability since maneuverablility is restricted, and brings another (highly flammable) ship into the danger zone during flight ops. How many LM2500s would it take to power such a big ship? |
||
|
SWAG to follow: The KITTY HAWK generates 280,000SHP-I know she's conventional, but I couldn't find numbers for a nuke ship. A DDG generates 100,000SHP with four GTMs online. So at least 12 would be needed, probably more due to the size of the shafts and props. Let's stick with 12. That's 12 Gas Turbine Main engines doing nothing but generating propulsion. You still would need Gas Turbine Generators. The NIMITZ class is capable of generating 8,000kW on each of its 8 steam generators, powered by the same reactors that produce propulsion power mind you. To match that capability you would need 26 GTGs. Granted all of them wouldn't be online at the same time, but they each burn about 250 gallons per hour. I can't remember how much a GTM burns, but IIRC it's more than a GTG when operating at full power. |
|
|
It's definitely going to spill seamen all over the pier. |
||
|
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Arfcom is the most informative internet site on the planet. Imagine trying to find this out the hard way. Thanks, Merlin |
||
|
|
|||
|
www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/navy_products/jucas/jucas.html Type X-47B unmanned Strike, ISR, EA & SEAD aircraft Power Plant Pratt & Whitney F100-220 Maximum Altitude 40,000+ feet (12 km) Combat Radius 1,000 nautical miles Strike Payload 4,500 pounds (2,045 kg) Internal Ferry Range 3,500 nautical miles Speed High Subsonic Sensors EO/IR/SAR/GMTI/ESM Armament Two 2,000 lbs. GBU-31 (JDAMs Damn if it doesn't have some power. |
|||
|
EMALS is much more powerful yet kinder to the airframe and the pilots, smoooooooth accelleration instead of the kick in the pants. The Royal Navy will be fitting the same gear to its two new carriers. www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/emals.htm Andy |
|
|
Aw crap, that's all we need: A kinder, gentler $8B warship! |
||
|
Well the Royal Navy has to do a 'softer' launch as they will be carrying Royal Air force Squadrons on it's carriers as well as the Navy ones… and as we all know, Air Force pilots are not as rufty tufty as Navy pilots! ANdy |
|||
|
Yeah, I got dinged on that on the first page. Interesting capabilities. LWilde, do you know anything about the phased array radar on 78? From the pictures it looks to be 3 planes, which I find interesting. Will it have Aegis-like radar-weapons integration? Also, can you give us a history of planar arrays on carriers. I know it was tried before, but I forgot why it didn't work out. |
|||
|
Navalized mini B-2's with effectively zero radar signature… cute! ANdy |
||
|
Yes, very informative.
|
||
|
IIRC, planar arays were installed on Enterprise and Long Beach in their original configuration. Reading Normal Polmar`s Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet, it was reported that the systems were difflcult and expensive to maintain as they were basically experimental units. They were removed in the 80`s I believe to standardize the Enterprise with the rest of the cvns. IIRC, lessons learned from Enterprise and Long Beach were applied to the Aegis program. Again, I`m not a naval officer, but I like naval history. YMMV. |
|
|
Not Lwilde and I will defer to his extensive knowledege.. but I'll take a crack at it anyways. CVN-78 is going to get the same radar as DDX IIRC. SPY-3 is going to go on on CVN-77 GB if time tables allow it instead of the legacy systems...so my guess is it will have a good deal of AEGIS capability but geared more for open water and less littoral like DDX. It's essentially the Volume Search Radar and the Multi-Function Radar replacing all the other legacy stuff. SPY-3 is the MFR..I think? I believe it will handle ship self defense and will even assist in landing planes...Or I might be talking out of my ass! Hopefully LWilde will show up and set the record staight. |
||||
|
The USS Nimitz (and I presume most of the class) main engines generate 100K shp each. IIRC, the 8MW per SG is about right. BTW, the steam generators are not segmented between propulsion, electrical power generation, water distilling plants, and catapults. They all feed the main steam loop, and systems are brought on-line and off the main steam loop as required. Engineers also have the capability to shut off steam to the cats from below, but that is used only as a damage control measure. A large, uncontrolled main steam leak will affect the reactors, due to something called the negative temperature coefficient of reactivity. So engineers must have the ability to isolate ANY portion of the main steam loop at will, or the consequences can be catastrophic. Former USS Nimitz Propulsion Plant Watch Officer here. |
||
|
Former Abe Lincoln CMO here.
Steam generators generate steam. The **** kW generators referred to are steam driven electric generators. I don't remember if the main engines output is classified or not. I wouldn't be running my mouth so much though. With all due respect, Sir. |
|
I hate to bust your bubble, but...
This aint no Battlestar.. ( Battlestars aren't real yet..) 1) It doesn't go into space. If it did, the enemy would crap in their pants. 2) Its kind of small. Its only the size of the Galatica's launch bay(pod).. 3) Its quite a bit slower than a Battlestar. 4) It will be retired(20 years depending on the Dem in charged) alot faster than a Battlestar.( Original BSG series the Galactica was was over twohundred years old.) All kidding aside. Its the only military toy we have. |
|
My nitpick of the day, hehe. Railguns work on inductance, whereas a coilgun works using a magnetic pulse(or pulses) www.railgun.org -Storm |
||
|
Great so instead of 12 GTMs you would need 16, at the very least.
As I noted, you would need more gas turbines, GTGs, to pick up the slack, when the tea kettles on the CVNs do it all. And if you're going with a rail gun type catapult then you'd need even more GTGs at 250gph!
Thanks for your prospective. Open sources I've found don't go into too much detail. Personally, I try to stay away from the bird farms. |
|||
|
I don't know if you're talking to me or SWO_Daddy. However, I pulled all my information from www.fas.org. |
|
|
X-45/47's
Superbugs EM launch, ect. and still the old E-2 Hawkeye, maybe its an E or F model. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.