Proposal: A Drone Carrier
- Thread starter ptc
- Start date
Kev-
Agreed that steel is the cheapest part of a ship. I'm not trying to stick to a smaller (10k-11k) hull for reasons of saving money on steel, but for a set of different reasons. Electronics, design, integration, and crew are the high-dollar items built into modern warships if I'm not mistaken.
What I'm trying to get with this design is a slightly-stretched Arleigh Burke class ship with a hangar and deck after the funnel. That would save the cost of engineering a new ship class from the ground (Or close to it) up. It would save the time and expense of testing, integrating, and possibly fixing a new fit on a new ship. Using an AB hull would save the shipyard the costs associated with retooling for a completely new design, thus lowering the delivery cost of our hypothetical drone/helo carrier. Being as there's about a billion AB's in service as it is, I'm sure Bath (Ingalls? NN?) can knock them out fast and as cheaply as possible, and I really think that using a modified AB design would streamline the transition from building AAW destroyers to multipurpose drone/UCAV/Helo carriers.
Again, I'm nowhere near close to being an expert of any kind, but to me the logic is sound on both issues of cost and order-to-delivery time.
Agreed that steel is the cheapest part of a ship. I'm not trying to stick to a smaller (10k-11k) hull for reasons of saving money on steel, but for a set of different reasons. Electronics, design, integration, and crew are the high-dollar items built into modern warships if I'm not mistaken.
What I'm trying to get with this design is a slightly-stretched Arleigh Burke class ship with a hangar and deck after the funnel. That would save the cost of engineering a new ship class from the ground (Or close to it) up. It would save the time and expense of testing, integrating, and possibly fixing a new fit on a new ship. Using an AB hull would save the shipyard the costs associated with retooling for a completely new design, thus lowering the delivery cost of our hypothetical drone/helo carrier. Being as there's about a billion AB's in service as it is, I'm sure Bath (Ingalls? NN?) can knock them out fast and as cheaply as possible, and I really think that using a modified AB design would streamline the transition from building AAW destroyers to multipurpose drone/UCAV/Helo carriers.
Again, I'm nowhere near close to being an expert of any kind, but to me the logic is sound on both issues of cost and order-to-delivery time.
kev 99
Member
The big problem with that is that most of the ship is going to be different including the hull form which is going to need stretching, I think you're going to lose a great deal of the commonality which would grant you economies of scale almost immediately. There's also the point that the USN seems to be interested new propulsion systems for the Zumwalt so they would probably want to probably want to move over to that.
Finally the type of ship that Moebius indicated hasn't really been made for quite some time, The Haruna/Shirane: classes are being replaced by Hyuga class ships and Vittorio Veneto is out of service, replaced by an aircraft carrier. As far as the capabilities you require most navies seem to be of the opinion that you get more 'bang for your buck' by using a small flattop.
Finally the type of ship that Moebius indicated hasn't really been made for quite some time, The Haruna/Shirane: classes are being replaced by Hyuga class ships and Vittorio Veneto is out of service, replaced by an aircraft carrier. As far as the capabilities you require most navies seem to be of the opinion that you get more 'bang for your buck' by using a small flattop.
Kev: agreed.
I don't think you'd get much more commonality from stretching an AB & decking over the aft half than by building a Hyuuga-style ship on an AB hull & machinery. Reducing the superstructure would regain much of the weight added by raising the deck. It could be big enough for a UAV carrier, though not necessarily for the big UCAVs proposed for the future.
Rotary-wing UAVs don't need special ships, but can be operated off aything with a helicopter deck.
I don't think you'd get much more commonality from stretching an AB & decking over the aft half than by building a Hyuuga-style ship on an AB hull & machinery. Reducing the superstructure would regain much of the weight added by raising the deck. It could be big enough for a UAV carrier, though not necessarily for the big UCAVs proposed for the future.
Rotary-wing UAVs don't need special ships, but can be operated off aything with a helicopter deck.
The USN's OHP's are being outfitted to carry Firescout in one of the hangars.