NationStates Jolt Archive

The Sharina Technocracy is seeking aid, advice, or purchase of material and/or armor schemes to use in construction of new naval vessels as a part of Sharina's ongoing Modernized Navy Project. Sharina is despersately attempting to upgrade from a World War II era navy to a modern one, with vessels capable of survivability aganist modern warships.

Please contact Sharina with offers or poropsals on navy hull material and/or armor schemes if possible. Thank you.

Live well.
~President Mina Veristek

=====================================
OOC:

I need to know good material to use in naval hulls.

Wood?
Steel?
Iron?
Lead?
Aluminum?
Titanium?
Chobham?
Kevlar?

Or what?

ooc: steel is the most common material used in ships its light, cheap and tough enough to take hits well

There are many ways to construct naal ship hulls, besides just what the outer layer is you also have to have a good armor scheme (alot of people don't actually design an armor scheme but its good to have an idea of what your ships can take) Mondoth uses a proprietary alloy that is virtually impervious to wear, inside of the outer hull is a small gap of spongy composites to absorb kinetic energy (from explosions and what not) and then additional layers of composite materiels to further absorb and redirect explosive damage. As we mentioned regarding hull design the Ship designers of Mondoth would be happy to engage in a joint project to design new vessels and develop new concepts.

OOC:

Sounds like a plan. Any ideas or recommendations where to start? Also, should we work it out here or in my other thread?


Right now I narrowed down the material to the following...

Steel
Aluminum
Titanium
Kevlar (I did some research on it 5 mins ago)

Are they a good start? :)

I'd avoid kevlar as it is fabric. It is also suseptable to pointy objects, while stopping blunt ones.

I'd avoid kevlar as it is fabric. It is also suseptable to pointy objects, while stopping blunt ones.

I read that Kevlar can reduce shrapnel and bomb explosion damage (fire part I think). So if shells or missiles "splinter" aganist my boat's hull, then the kevlar will catch the shrapnel pieces, sparing internal stuff from becoming shredded.

Correct me if I'm wrong. :)

Bump!

Bumpity bump!

We use CAVEX as packing and liners, which serves much the same purpose. While we would not use kevlar itself distinctly as armor in naval combat, we might use it as a liner in our walls and such to slow the motion of fragments; currently, though, our material is superior for that job, and does act as armor against ballistic weapons, such as missiles.

If you're going to use kevlar, using it in duty uniforms is also an idea.

OOC:

Sounds like a plan. Any ideas or recommendations where to start? Also, should we work it out here or in my other thread?


Right now I narrowed down the material to the following...

Steel
Aluminum
Titanium
Kevlar (I did some research on it 5 mins ago)

Are they a good start? :)

The best place to start is by first picking a class to start with, each class has a different purpose and must be designed individually, although some classes are very similiar and can be designed as a modular version of a single class (like an ASW destroyer and an ASuW destroyer)

[OOC: Here's some good threads I have bookmarked:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Miscarmr.htm
http://www.combinedfleet.com/metalprp2002.htm ]

Kevlar, from what I understand, is a network of tightly woven fibers. This would seem to make it a poor choice for waterproofing. It is easily penetrated by needle like objects, while it holds back larger, blunter objects with ease.

Kevlar, from what I understand, is a network of tightly woven fibers. This would seem to make it a poor choice for waterproofing. It is easily penetrated by needle like objects, while it holds back larger, blunter objects with ease.

Say it with me - "shrapnel"

OOC: I use Titanium Vanadium Aluminium, a lightweight but reasonably expensive Titanium alloy. Strong light and not too hard to work with.

This is excellent feedback, exactly what I have needed.

I have a few questions for you guys.

1. I read somewhere that some NS ships use liquid metal in their hulls. What exactly does this mean? Molten metal "filling" inside the hull? Wouldn't this actually be bad for the ship?

2. I have also noticed that several people have been using tungsten "rods" in their hulls. Isn't tungsten similiar to steel? I remember being taught way back in high school that steel is somehow connected to tungsten. I forgot whether steel is made from tungsten, or the other way around?

3. Should I try going for a composite hull, like a multi-layered sandwich? If so, what are good composites?

4. Are ceramics or Chobham Plating any good for ships? From what I hear, they work great on tanks and armored vehicles.

5. Finally.... I've been hearing about Trimarian ships. What is that all about? The way I understand it, it's using multiple hulls, correct? If so, wouldn't that be much more expensive than just making a 1 hull ship?


I'm trying to develop a basic understanding of navy design, as I really want to RP developing + upgrading my navy. Please keep up the feedback, as I appreciate it A LOT! :)

In regards to the trimarian design of ships, they are in effect, triple hulled vessels, typically a large main hull with two smaller ones attached to the side by means of deck to deck reinforced connectors. The design is usually highly stable and well armored.

The most prominent of Trimarian ships to have ever been designed was the Doujin class of Super Dreadnoughts. A battle carrier design that had the capacity of two full sized carriers with a much larger center battleship hull.

Trimaran ships are ships with three seperate hulls, each hull is in the water, it's slightly more expensive but it makes the ship more stable, increases the usable area, increases speed and increases survivabilty

Composites are good, I can't think of any off the top of my head though, and ceramics would work but they're very epensive and there's some other reason why it won't work specifically with naval units but I can't think what it is.

Tungsten is derived from steel somehow but is denser and stronger.

Molten metal probably refers to mercury or other metals that are liquid at very low (relatively) temperatures, its a good way to absorb kinetic energy but less dense liquids work better (I think)

Hmm... Wouldn't it be better to build 3 ships with 1 hull, instead of one trimarian ship?

In addition, would I need a trimarian design with the following hull I designed?

http://img153.echo.cx/img153/1791/finalhull26op.png

http://img216.echo.cx/img216/1382/finalhull0ol.png


In the 2nd picture, take note of the "point" end. I wonder... (gets a nasty thought)... I could employ ramming with this hull design as well. Then have my marines or whatever board enemy naval vessels, capturing them? :p

That hull design is better for shallow daft vessels (like corvettes and patrol craft) a large naval vessel needs a much more pronounce keel to maintain stability (like a cross between the flat and curved hull designs in the other thread), also, a trimaran hull design gives much more deck area for weaponry and equipment and provides less drag (the drag is distributed over three smaller hulls rather than concentrated on one big hull) that allows much faster speed. In addition, while a trimaran hull is slightly more expensive than a medium sized standar hull (like for a frigate or destroyer) but on bigger ships using trimaran hulls can be cheaper.

Trimarian hulls are basically double catamarans.

The center "main hull" has a lesser hull on either side. giving more surface area and greater stability, at the expense of being wider which allows more hits on the ship.

Okay, I'm seeing some materials misconceptions here. First, Chobham is an armouring system, not a material unto itself. Second, Tungsten is a naturally occuring, non-alloy (unlike steel) metal with a density of around 18,000kg/cubic meter. On the other hand, high-quality steel has a density of 4,000-5,000kg/cubic meter. However, Tungsten happens ot be very brittle and expensive in its naturally occurring form, so you'd want to alloy it with titanium for it to be useful. Also, because it is so dense it does not make good hull material, you're better off with a light exotic metal like Freethinkers uses.

EDIT: Um, Vast, have you ever seen a trimaran head-on? They aren't single-hull ships with outriggers welded on. First, while the deck at its widest point may be larger than that of a more conventional ship, none of the hulls are as wide as a monohull. Further, the hulls of trimarans aren't connected completely, so there's quite a bit of space between the three hulls.

The main problem with Trimaran designs, isn't "Drag", it's "Internal space". Most Naval systems require quite a bit of cubic footage to function. A trimary puts most of that increased space up above the waterline-which is fine, except that you end up a larger target that's easier to spot, you can't employ the same kind s of lifts and arrangement for moving ammunition from storage (belowdecks) to Turret. See, your 'Surface Area" expands out of proportion to your "Volume"-this also means you're actually mathematically a lot LESS well-armoured for the same tonnage and displacement.

You also need to look at heavier/stronger/stiffer structural elements in construction-wave diffferences on CALM seas can be as much as ten feet elevation difference within a twenty-foot span-this is going to throw heavy torqueing effects not only linearly (as on monohulls) but across the lateral angles of your connecting structure. Metal fatigue across those connecting structures are more significant the larger you go.
Heavy seas (like those encountered off Argentina's southern coast in the Antarctic) could concievably rip your Trimaran apart at the wrong angles if you're running something with the volume of, say, a Nimitz class carrier-through metal stress fatigue.

There's also the small problem of bilge ventilation. The Freighter Derbyshire sank in the mid-eighties in mild storms in the Sea of Japan-the culprit being a hatch-cover to vent bad air from the hull that was defective.
This can happen to any large vessel, though-and with three hulls, you triple your chances of losing the lotto (fill a hull 1/3 full, even a catamaran or trimaran, and you're going to break her and sink her in medium seas.)

This doesn't even touch on the other problems inherent in multihull designs-on a monohull, having tow or more rudders is good for redundancy's sake (It's good to have a spare...) on a Trimaran or Catamaran, it's essential for normal operation-things in water tend to want to go 'straight' in relation to the current. Ever seen those nifty little catamrans the day-sailors use? ever count the rudders on a boat you can fit on the roof of a stationwagon? Yah.
Since each 'hull' is thinner than a monohull vessel of the same displacement, but the rudders have to have just as much surface area, you're looking at a lot less room for control mechanisms to get the same redundancy in function, ammunition capacity, and buffering.

Your Trimaran designs are going to be "Tall", they'll be cramped belowdecks, they'll require more frequent maintenance (since you can't run the systems together in a single engineering space, you're using three small ones-you need a bigger crew per displacement ton), need exotic materials to survive 'standard' open-water conditions over time, and need exotic materials to achieve the same level of protection a mono-hull can derive from alloys like HY-80 or HY120. Your main hurdles to overcome, then, are:

MATERIAL SCIENCE: You need a steel or other alloy that has a fairly high elastic toughness and very high yeild point-at a price per ton you can afford to use.

CONTROL SYSTEMS: You have to control three sets of drive-screws, three sets of rudders, and the controls have to be precisely coordinated and adjustable to account for control loss at one or both outriggers, or the main hull.
(Unbalanced thrust from your drives will have you doing lazy circles on heavy rudder-trim, likewise uncoordinated rudders will do the same thing.)

MAINTENANCE CREW: Three sets of Engineers times three shifts to keep one ship running-that means three times the consumables, incidentally, since Sailors gotta eat, and food-duration is a factor in how long you can stay out at sea without resupply.

SPARE PARTS STOWAGE: You've got three times as many drive screws, three times as many rudders, significantly more mileage of wiring, plumbing, fuel-pumps, desalinators (If you don't, your crew's going to be mighty thirsty!), we haven't gotten anywhere near weapons yet. You also need significantly more hand-tools for all those maintainers (and those take up space on a ship!), hull-patches (because you can suffer damage even outside of combat), bilge-pumps and bilge-pump parts, then there's the components for your internal communications (Sound powered phones, computer network hubs, whatever you're using), Chow areas, living quarters (beds, hatches, showers...)
All of these and more require on-board stores. If you add in an onboard machine-shop (something that used to be quite common on U.S. Navy vessels) you need tools, plus spares for the tools, plus raw stock to manufacture components at sea.

Effectively, multihull designs may be simple in concept, but in execution, they're a Logistical Nightmare for the same capabilities. (oh, and there's also mission restrictions-trimarans don't handle ice-floes well, even with an icebreaker leading the way.)

Tungsten is derived from steel somehow but is denser and stronger.
Tungsten is an element, its chemical symbol being "W" for wolfram, its other name. Used in lightbulb filaments, it's a very strong material, but it's also fairly rare, like titanium. But then, this is NS.

Okay guys, more useful feedback!

I've been thinking about developing this following armor scheme...

Outer hull = Titanium - tungsten hybrid
Center hull = Liquid Metal
Inner hull = Steel

Would this schene be good? One of you guys said liquid metal helps aganist kinetic impact like missile or shell impacts? I decided on steel for superstructure as steel is easy to produce and is much more common than titanium and tungsten. I can employ titanium - tungsten as the "skin" of the whole ship.

Would this work? Or do I need to design something different?


Also, I'm leaning towards mono-hull because of my rounded hull design. Rounded hull = more internal space and much more resistant aganist projectile based damage (shell and missile impacts).

More feedback, please. :)

Hm, there seems to be some misconceptions about trimaran design as well.

1) Although trimarans will typically be thinner per hull than a monohull, although this is not necessarily always the case, they will still have more internal volume than a monohull.

2) A trimaran isn't a thin monohull with two outriggers slapped on, it's a three-hulled ship that is built using unitary construction. That basically means that if you crawl into the hull of a trimaran, you aren't going to be able to notice where one hull ends and the other begins, because no such place exists. Which in turn means the structural integrety of the ship is good enough that almost any trimaran can operate in even the roughest seas.

3) Sloppy designs IRL do not translate into general faults in hull types. Since we've already established that 3 hulls != three seperate general compartments, we can safely ignore the need for three seperate bilge pumps. Furthermore, I will note that particular class of frigate is the only one that's likely ever had such a problem to any great extent and I can't imagine what leap of logic went into concluding that trimarans are going to have that problem, especially when bilge pumps have absolutely nothing to do with hull type.

4) Rudders is a rather minor nitpick against trimarans and ignores alternatives to the vanilla propulsion solution, especially ones like what Freethinkers uses in ever one of his designs. I'm not going to bother going into the internal volume argument again, as it's already a dead horse.

5) Note Freethinkers' note on his alloy of preference. As for cost, it isn't uncommon for serious naval powers to have procurement budgets in the hudreds of billions, so I seriously doubt price is going to be an object.

6) You assume those three rudders aren't operating on the same system or that any such inbalance is unintentional.

7) You're making an awful lot of assumptions here. It makes me wonder if you've ever seen one of Freethinkers' designs or even talked to him about how trimarans are actually designed. If you go to Freethinkers' storefront and take a look at either his Revenge or Centaur class destroyers, you'll notice that he has a breakdown of yearly operating costs, you just might notice that those costs aren't as great as you seem to imply. You also seem to not be accounting for high levels of automation, which is present in all of Freethinkers' designs and in the Centaur-X class DDGN allows for the same exact crew level as an Arleigh Burke class DDG, despite being 35,000 tons heavier.


That's (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v195/The_Freethinkers/AnkaraCGN.png) the Ankara class CGN. Notice the fact that the secondary hulls are a part of the primary hull and (shocked gasp!) there are a distinct lack of rudders or screws?

Okay guys, more useful feedback!

I've been thinking about developing this following armor scheme...

Outer hull = Titanium - tungsten hybrid
Center hull = Liquid Metal
Inner hull = Steel

Would this schene be good? One of you guys said liquid metal helps aganist kinetic impact like missile or shell impacts? I decided on steel for superstructure as steel is easy to produce and is much more common than titanium and tungsten. I can employ titanium - tungsten as the "skin" of the whole ship.

Would this work? Or do I need to design something different?


Also, I'm leaning towards mono-hull because of my rounded hull design. Rounded hull = more internal space and much more resistant aganist projectile based damage (shell and missile impacts).

More feedback, please. :)


Nein, nyet, nonka, NO! You cannot use seperate materials for the primary hull and the secondary hulls because structurally, there is no seperation. And I would recommend against using liquid metal as a hull material, mainly because nobody has built anything of consequence out of it yet and nobody has any specifics on its properties.

The main problem with Trimaran designs, isn't "Drag", it's "Internal space". Most Naval systems require quite a bit of cubic footage to function. A trimary puts most of that increased space up above the waterline-which is fine, except that you end up a larger target that's easier to spot, you can't employ the same kind s of lifts and arrangement for moving ammunition from storage (belowdecks) to Turret. See, your 'Surface Area" expands out of proportion to your "Volume"-this also means you're actually mathematically a lot LESS well-armoured for the same tonnage and displacement.

You also need to look at heavier/stronger/stiffer structural elements in construction-wave diffferences on CALM seas can be as much as ten feet elevation difference within a twenty-foot span-this is going to throw heavy torqueing effects not only linearly (as on monohulls) but across the lateral angles of your connecting structure. Metal fatigue across those connecting structures are more significant the larger you go.
Heavy seas (like those encountered off Argentina's southern coast in the Antarctic) could concievably rip your Trimaran apart at the wrong angles if you're running something with the volume of, say, a Nimitz class carrier-through metal stress fatigue.

There's also the small problem of bilge ventilation. The Freighter Derbyshire sank in the mid-eighties in mild storms in the Sea of Japan-the culprit being a hatch-cover to vent bad air from the hull that was defective.
This can happen to any large vessel, though-and with three hulls, you triple your chances of losing the lotto (fill a hull 1/3 full, even a catamaran or trimaran, and you're going to break her and sink her in medium seas.)

This doesn't even touch on the other problems inherent in multihull designs-on a monohull, having tow or more rudders is good for redundancy's sake (It's good to have a spare...) on a Trimaran or Catamaran, it's essential for normal operation-things in water tend to want to go 'straight' in relation to the current. Ever seen those nifty little catamrans the day-sailors use? ever count the rudders on a boat you can fit on the roof of a stationwagon? Yah.
Since each 'hull' is thinner than a monohull vessel of the same displacement, but the rudders have to have just as much surface area, you're looking at a lot less room for control mechanisms to get the same redundancy in function, ammunition capacity, and buffering.

Your Trimaran designs are going to be "Tall", they'll be cramped belowdecks, they'll require more frequent maintenance (since you can't run the systems together in a single engineering space, you're using three small ones-you need a bigger crew per displacement ton), need exotic materials to survive 'standard' open-water conditions over time, and need exotic materials to achieve the same level of protection a mono-hull can derive from alloys like HY-80 or HY120. Your main hurdles to overcome, then, are:

MATERIAL SCIENCE: You need a steel or other alloy that has a fairly high elastic toughness and very high yeild point-at a price per ton you can afford to use.

CONTROL SYSTEMS: You have to control three sets of drive-screws, three sets of rudders, and the controls have to be precisely coordinated and adjustable to account for control loss at one or both outriggers, or the main hull.
(Unbalanced thrust from your drives will have you doing lazy circles on heavy rudder-trim, likewise uncoordinated rudders will do the same thing.)

MAINTENANCE CREW: Three sets of Engineers times three shifts to keep one ship running-that means three times the consumables, incidentally, since Sailors gotta eat, and food-duration is a factor in how long you can stay out at sea without resupply.

SPARE PARTS STOWAGE: You've got three times as many drive screws, three times as many rudders, significantly more mileage of wiring, plumbing, fuel-pumps, desalinators (If you don't, your crew's going to be mighty thirsty!), we haven't gotten anywhere near weapons yet. You also need significantly more hand-tools for all those maintainers (and those take up space on a ship!), hull-patches (because you can suffer damage even outside of combat), bilge-pumps and bilge-pump parts, then there's the components for your internal communications (Sound powered phones, computer network hubs, whatever you're using), Chow areas, living quarters (beds, hatches, showers...)
All of these and more require on-board stores. If you add in an onboard machine-shop (something that used to be quite common on U.S. Navy vessels) you need tools, plus spares for the tools, plus raw stock to manufacture components at sea.

Effectively, multihull designs may be simple in concept, but in execution, they're a Logistical Nightmare for the same capabilities. (oh, and there's also mission restrictions-trimarans don't handle ice-floes well, even with an icebreaker leading the way.)

Trimarans actually take rough seas Exceptionally well, the thinner hulls and increased spread breaks even large waves very well and it takes minimal cross braicing to keep the three hulls together and intact.

Also, A trimaran is very similiar to a monohull with a pari of outrigers, the center hull is ofen larger than the other two hulls and contains the main engines and rudders whereas the ones on the outer hulls are primarily back up or used for emergency maneuvers..

My bad, I was thinking of Tungsten-steel, which is steel coated in tungsten which provides some structural advantages and prevents the steel from oxidizing (rusting).

Also, because the three hulls spread the displacement out, a of two ships displacing the same tonnage, a trimarian would actually have MORE belowdecks space, although it would have an exponentially greater targettable area, also, spare parts and control problems, a trimarian ship has no more parts than a mnohull, it takes the same number of screws t move and the same number of rudders to control, there's no more or less problem with controllign and repairing a trimarian hull than there is with a monohull design

Scandavian States, what armor / material scheme do you suggest I develop?

What I put up earlier was a composite, a hull comprised of 3 materials. I'm trying to look for material that can be realistic, yet be easy to mass produce. I don't want to end up using some sort of exotic stuff that would be difficult to fabricate in MT times.

So far, I've heard positive feedback about titanium. I can use that, but what other materials would be good with titanium? I also heard about ceramics, carbides, etc.

I'm trying to learn this stuff so I can finally design my own stuff without needing to buy storefront stuff and such. That way I can produce my own warships as Sharina brand, so I can rebuild after wars and stuff.



Also I've heard about hydrofoils and electro-magnet propulsion for ships. How can I work these into my navy? Or is that too impractical for large ships?


Monohull or Trimarian? I figure monohulls can be built faster and mass quantity, and for cheaper. Trimarians will take more material, costs, and construction time, correct?

One more question... whats Catamaran? Is that like double-hull?

Sharina, if you want to learn how to design ships, you're best off going to a college with a good maritime engineering program. What you're covering here barely scratches the surface and even if you had the most extensive knowledge in those few areas you've asked about, you'd be ill-prepared to design ships, which is why I don't despite having decent knowledge of what goes into designs.

I see your point, Scandavian States. However, I just don't want to buy storefront stuff, and I want to develop a reasonable navy that I can be proud of. Storefronts usually don't give production rights, something I need to use to replace losses in war. Whats more, if I'm at odds at the nation who is doing storefront, I'm not getting any replacement ships and stuff from that storefront.

Freethinkers gives production rights to allies, and since Freethinkers is a NATO member he is your ally. I'd suggest telegramming him to see about what he's willing to allow you in terms of production rights. Alternately, go to http://s7.invisionfree.com/OMP and ask who there would be willing to help with your navy.

SS, I tried going onto the OMP forums, but it says I have to be registered to view anything in there. :(

EDIT: Um, Vast, have you ever seen a trimaran head-on? They aren't single-hull ships with outriggers welded on. First, while the deck at its widest point may be larger than that of a more conventional ship, none of the hulls are as wide as a monohull. Further, the hulls of trimarans aren't connected completely, so there's quite a bit of space between the three hulls.

Didn't say they were single hulls with outriggers. I gave a simplistic visual image which approximates the design.

Yeah, but that's what you made it sound like. As you said, simplistic.

SS, I tried going onto the OMP forums, but it says I have to be registered to view anything in there. :(

So register, it's no big deal.

You might want to consider secondary hulls (a ship inside a ship). You build a small ship with nothing more than the bare minimum, then build all nonessential things outside of it's hull and wrap it in another hull. This way if your primary hull (the outside one) is punctured, your ship still has everything it needs to survive.

the Nine Military storefront sells production rights for very reasonable prices if you're interested.

Chobham is a spongy composite material useful against kinetic weapons, it is NOT an armor scheme.

secondary hulls are ungodly in the masiveness of their expense, especially in a war ship, and it cuts down on internal capacity, the best construction schemes in terms of surviveablity is water tight compartments that can be sealed indivdually.

Mondoth, where the hell do you get your information?! Cause unless you can provide me with a reputable source with verifiable credentials, unlikely given the extremely classified nature of Chobham, I'm going to call BS. All sources indicate that it is a scheme, of what nature nobody outside the Pentagon or MoD knows, not a material.

Chobham isn't a material. It can best me described as a composite armored scheme, pretty similar to the French CERMAT, although reputably better. It's only known composites are ceramics, polymers and tungsten, and more highly classified materials.

Hmm... I've been thinking of changing my hull composition to the following...

Outer layer of hull = Titanium - Tuingsten hybrid
Middle layer of hull = Chobham (Middle layer should be dry, no seawater corrosion of Chobham)
Inner layer of hull = Steel


Would this revised hull composition be better and more workable than my previous one?

I might add a second outer layer, I'm researching one or two possible materials that I don't think anyone else has employed.



Once I get the hull composition down, I can start designing guns, defenses, etc. without much of a problem.

Don't use Tungsten, or even an alloy of Tungsten, as a hull material. Besides being as expensive as any base armour metal per kilo, it is (I think) the fourth densest naturally occurring metal, which means it's going to cost a lot per cubic meter. If you want suggestions on armouring schemes, talk to Freethinkers.