Shop More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
February 24, 2011
Image Size
223 KB
Resolution
2470×680
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
19,011 (13 today)
Favourites
182 (who?)
Comments
26
Downloads
467
×
Fortknight-class Cruiser by Afterskies Fortknight-class Cruiser by Afterskies
Fortknight-class Guided Missile Cruiser
-----------------------------------------
Hull: Trimaran

Length: 607 ft

Beam: 119 ft

Draft: 18 ft

Propulsion:
x2 LCTR 210 MW (Thermocouple/Photovoltaic)
x2 Diesel Generator 100 MW
x2 Fixed Impellers
x4 Vari-Directional Jet Impellers
x1 Rudder

Speed: 32kts

Range: 15,000 EFPH Per Core

Crew:
23 Officers
275 Enlisted
Sensors/Electronic Equipment:
Maneuvering RADAR
Advanced Air Detection RADAR (UHF, VHF, Low Frequency)
Surface Search RADAR
Multi-Function RADAR
Gun/Missile Control Precision RADAR
Long Range SONAR
Precision Search SONAR
Advanced Passive SONAR Suite
CBR Detection Suite
AEW Suite
Counter EW Suite
Nixie Decoys
Flares/Chaff Pod-Rockets

Armament:
x1: 5in/56 cal Advanced Gun System
x68 Missile Pods (2 Cruise Missiles or 4 Anti-Air/Anti-ship missiles per pod)
x8 Mission Variable CIWS/SeaWIS Mounts
x8 50mm RACs (Remote Auto-Cannons)
x2 in 12.75in Torpedo Tubes
x2 Triple-Torpedo Mounts (internal bay)
x4 25mm Crew-Operated Machine Guns
x4 .50-caliber Crew-Operated Machine Guns (Not depicted)
x2 40mm Crew-Operated Grenade Launchers

Complement:
x2 Helicopter/VTOL (Internal, possible additional 2 External on Helipad)
x6 RHIBs (4 in BLAC, 2 in Sidebays)
x2 Marine/Special Forces Platoons

Features:
BLAC (Bay, Launch And Recovery)-
-To solve the issue of at-sea recovery of RHIBs via the fantail, the Fortknight solves this issue with a more advanced fantail design. A ramp is lowered below the waterline, which allows for safe recovery of RHIBs , along with a reduced wake due to a triangular-trimaran hull design.
For especially dangerous seas, the aft of the fantail can actually be raised to allow for increased vertical clearance.


Reactor: The Liquid Metal Cooled Thermal Reactor design, along with advanced thermocouples and photovoltaic cells, means that the entire engine-room and much of the machinery room of previous ships is rendered obsolete.

Flight Deck/Helipad: The helipads of the Fortknight are placed in front of the superstructure around them to reduce airflow disturbances to allow for recovery of aircraft in higher than usual sea-states.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconthanosdanellis:
thanosdanellis Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
amazing i really like it nice job mate 
Reply
:icondragnoxz:
Dragnoxz Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2013  Student Artist
1. How long would it take to build a facility to construct this type of ship, assuming a purely new facility were to be built ?

2. And how long would it take to build one from scratch from the new facility ?

I ask because I run a Virtual Military Force, and we want to construct a facility in an area there is no facility and begin constructing ships. The group is GPEO, from www.ittn.forumotion.com. It would be cool for great creative imaginations to work together.
Reply
:iconafterskies:
Afterskies Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2013  Hobbyist Interface Designer
1. No clue. Probably a fair amount of time. It partly depends on if the construction facility is more assembling and welding the ship parts together, or if you're including the many companies that make various parts for the ship. If you're building *everything*, I'd say quite a few years. If you're just looking at the drydock and cranes and shipping everything in, far less time. The problem is that a ship isn't just built at the site. American ships are made of parts from across the country. Little things like gauges and meters may be made in New York, electronics may be made in California, the engines may be made in Louisiana, and the ship may be put together in Virginia.
2. Anywhere from 1 to 2 years. It really depends on how much money you want to throw at it, worker experience, random setbacks (some can cost you months), and how good your facilities are.
In WWII, it wasn't uncommon to be able to make destroyers in days (granted, some, i.e. the Schenectady, cracked in half just sitting pier-side because the metal wasn't exactly well forged). That, and they were of considerably lower caliber and didn't have all of the systems we have today.
Reply
:icondragnoxz:
Dragnoxz Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2013  Student Artist
Now that I have internet, lol.

Ok, here is the scoop. I am a leader of a virtual military or conglomerate faction, and we operate in this virtual world. The VR-World is operated politically like the real world, including real intelligence groups, military's and industrial powers. It is highly complex, and we do things highly realistically, including building or construction times.

For an aircraft carrier, we gave about 3 years for a conversion of engines to be done in Singapore, then later the ships sailed to Norfolk for electronics and new weapons upgrades. We took into consideration the times it would take for parts and the locations they would be produced. Three years (maybe it was four), to take out props and other components of an aircraft carrier, and replace them with two large turbine like props that would run internally. This would add to the keel depth by about ten feet, but the speed would be upgraded to about 52+ Kt or 60 Mph. Picture two nuclear powered turbines running most of the length or the ship, with deflectors aft to turn the ship on a dime, and multiple intakes with nets (just in case a person or large animal or debris got sucked in). Sensors to detect if there is anything obstructing the mesh in front and a control stick for the Commander of the ship to use, as well as touch screen and real time CCTV virtual reality systems for that commander to use. The commander would have complete control over the ships position, weapons. Now, it the ship runs ground, it is not moving any time soon. But, that is a weakness of the ship. Sinking it from below might be difficult, since ten feet worth of hull being added would cushion any underwater blasts.

We are still not sure if we are correct on the math, but considering the resources available to the group, we concluded it could take a good year, but added another just because, and then at that time we went back to make sure, then added a few months, then kept on adding the times, just to be sure.
Reply
:iconafterskies:
Afterskies Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2013  Hobbyist Interface Designer
I really need to update my stats on dA. Few large ships will ever see greater than, say, 36 knots. The power requirements alone are absolutely absurd. I've done the math: Once you get to 33 knots, you can expect every 5 knot increase to require TWICE as much power as before. For instance, to get a Nimitz up to 38-40 knots on it's current screws you can expect to need reactors of over a Gigawatt of power and engines that can actually use that power.
The engine-room required to hit 52 knots would be immense and would pretty much kill your ability to do anything but be an oversized speed boat, unless you find good places to store your weapons.


As for overhauling the propulsion: I'd put it at longer unless you're doing it as a massive undertaking of epic proportions, far more than what we'd do today. I don't think Singapore, at the moment, has the facilities required for this.
Converting propulsion is a difficult job. It requires far more than simply pulling out the old and putting in the new, you will often have to add reinforcements to the keel and the entire structure of the ship. That means striping out far more than just the engines and the shafts, that requires repurposing your weapons mags, tanks, voids, shaft alleys, et cetera.

What you're talking about would be so expensive, I don't think I'd ever recommend it. You'd need new reactors entirely, and that alone would cost you billions - enough to just build a new carrier.

A better bet would be to live with your propulsion systems and instead up your anti-submarine capabilities. Perhaps refuel the reactor core and while you're at it upgrade your SSTGs and then rip out your catapults and upgrade them with EMALS, add some new Electrical Distribution Systems, and maybe even throw on speed-screws.

The biggest problem with trying to make a carrier go faster is that they simply aren't built to do it. If you do add the speed-screws, you're asking for trouble. There's a reason they took them OFF of the Enterprise, which was hitting more than 35 knots before, and dropped down to 32+ knots without them: Stress. A massive ship going that fast without being designed to take that level of stress on it's hull is going to break rather quickly.

The turbines, unless you're using an entirely new designed, are considered "nuclear powered," they're still steam-driven, it's just that the steam is produced from heat generated by a nuclear reactor.
Putting one person in charge of the ship, particularly such a large ship, is a bad idea. First off, the Bridge doesn't even have control over speed. That's the job of the Nuclear Operators, for reasons I won't get into right now, but we get rather pissy whenever you see Movies where the captain has control over the throttle. Nope; that's just them saying "Hey, I'd like to go this fast," and then we get Engine Order Telegraph dial/digits telling us down below how fast the bridge wants to go, and we go ahead and do that if we can.

Now, a sort of "Bridge Team," would be much more effective. Have two guys in charge of weapons, one Helmsman, one Boatswains Mate of the Watch, a couple of Radar Operators, the Tactical Action Officer, and whoever is in charge of the Bridge, all coordinating everything - that would be more practical and more effective. (Think Star Trek's bridge layout, or Mass Effect's SSV Normandy). That still leaves you with needing your Damage Control Central, which also coordinates all of your Electrical Distribution. For practical reasons, you can also control both of your Reactors from this location or adjacent rooms.
Fact is, that's just all too much for one man. There are far too many things to consider.
Reply
:icondragnoxz:
Dragnoxz Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2013  Student Artist
To ease up on time, we would build an external structure on the bottom. We would have had to put the carrier in a large dry dock, or something. Singapore might not have the proper facilities in the real world, but the VR-World that these groups operate on would be like an alternate reality. Different projects for a different scenario.

In Singapore, starting in 2007-2008 would have been a project to build new facilities to work with carrier size ships. The construction project would have been top priority, due to a US Civil War, and the need to repair damaged ships. Lets just say industrial capabilities were tested to maximum ability, using a Resource Based System. This means the scientific method was used to maximize efficiency, resources from areas under the spear of a major conglomerate community did away with the cost aspect, and used any resources available. The human manpower that undertook these projects had their housing paid for, their food and utilities, on top of their pay.

All resources were dumped into several projects, including the Scar Creak Project (A different project in Canada). There is also a space project that is taking place, a large construction site is set to be the location of a large space transport. It is hoped that it will be capable of transporting carrier size loads into space/orbit. The only problem is, the project needs to be rethought, because we know there is no way of getting a carrier into space any time soon. But, they said humans would never walk on the moon.

Several old carriers were taken out of mothball, as well as other ships. The Naval aspect was focused on allot, since an enemy had a very powerful fleet. Whatever it took to get these ships up and running half-ass was done. There were many accidents, but those are not noted in the mainstream.

Who's to say the carrier used in the VR-World that is reaching high speeds at sea won't have a major structural problem ? At what point would such ship encounter these issues ? Can such large underwater jet-like turbine propulsion system work properly ? These questions are what we need to know in order to make decisions on what the outcome will be.

We need to know if we max out on speed, the kind of accidents that might occur on such ship. Here is a picture I just made, sorry for the crappy quality. This is what I was talking about. i56.servimg.com/u/f56/13/92/15…
Reply
:iconafterskies:
Afterskies Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2013  Hobbyist Interface Designer
If you're building an external hull system, that's not going to help much. It'd be very complex, very heavy, and far too complicated. You're better off building an entirely new ship and scrapping an old one instead, for the parts you want. If you have the ability to do this, you have the ability to build a new one.

Biggest problem with your drawing is that if it's at all rigid - as a turbine would be - it's completely and totally screwed. It'll snap in half the second you high any sort of sea-state that isn't placid.
Having it external is only going to hurt your speed, and the only way to compensate for it is to completely and totally redo your power-source system. Which, like I've said in regards to other scenarios: If you can afford to revamp it the way you'd need to, just build a new ship.
That being said, I don't think it'd be possible at that point. You'd probably end up ripping up your turbine if you managed to reach those speeds, everything considered.

For getting large structures into orbit: Use as much inflatable stuff as you can. You'd be surprised how sturdy they can be. Entire cabins.
Don't try to get a large carrier structure into orbit. It's silly with our present rocket technology. For something like that, build it in pieces and them assemble in orbit. Such a large structure will cost far too much: It'll be going so slowly that you're wasting an excessive amount of fuel on just keeping it airborne instead of actually making useful progress with it.

Needless to say, don't expect to break 38 knots on any carrier, and that's if you're donating quite a bit just to power generation.

Problems with high-speed: Cavitation. You start spining your turbines too fast and you add so much energy to the water the blades are hitting that you cause them to go gaseous. As they're not actually hot, once they move away from the blades they collapse again; the rapid expansion and collapse of the bubbles causes so much stress on the blade you can destroy it rather rapidly. Propellers are generally a bit more sturdy, but a turbine wouldn't be. Far too many moving parts. It'd eat itself.

Water resistance. Your present design provides far too much of it. Anything sticking out of your ship when you break 33 knots is going to get ripped off. The Seawolf can actually break it's "top" speed when it's submerged, but the water resistance is so great it breaks any probes sticking out when it does. Larger structures will survive, of course, but you greatly risk damaging the ship from that alone.

Eventually, such high speeds, if your ship isn't built for it - as none are right now - you're going to end with massive cracks in your hull. I can't say when this will happen. It might even take a few years.
Reply
:icondragnoxz:
Dragnoxz Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2013  Student Artist
Ok, I need to know what the damage would be if the ship was moving at 45 Kts, and a turbine broke internally, and the hull cracked. Crew is 4,500 at this point, there are over 74 aircraft on board and the ship is in between Cyprus and Lebanon. Would it buckle in a turn our on a straightaway ? Could it sink completely or will the compartments be sealed in time. What would the casualties be and how long would it need to have support ships come before it possibly sunk ? The ship is the old CVNM-65 Enterprise. It was CVN, but changed to CVN, due to the turbines being operated by magnets charged by the reactor. Magnets placed at the proper locations would spin the turbine. What we didn't take into account was the turbine blades themselves breaking. So, we would like to do a scenario in which a blade breaks in one of the turbines, which might break more internally and possibly rupture the hull somewhere. We just need to know the locations where the hull might crack, if it would, and if you think it might sink, or list bad.
Reply
:iconafterskies:
Afterskies Featured By Owner Nov 30, 2013  Hobbyist Interface Designer
Pretty sure it'd still be CVN, since the engines don't change it's function, but whatever.

If your hull is cracked, you're not likely to be moving at 45 knots - especially in an Enterprise-class ship, which means you're probably going to have major damage to your waterline-area on the hull.
I'm not an engineer, but my best guess is you're going to have a bad day at anything more than 15 knots, which will still allow you to launch aircraft with semi-favorable winds or light aircraft.
Turbine blades, unless they are absolutely massive, aren't going to rupture the hull; they're unlikely to break their casing in the first place, just eat up the rest of the blades.

Any existing crack is where the rest of the cracks are going to propagate from - at such high-speeds, you're going to see most of your new damage below the waterline, since the Enterprise isn't designed to go at those speeds by any means.
Speed is not always your best friend, better to upgrade everything else.

At those speeds, you're going to see a significant amount of planing - as in, the bow of the ship actually rising up out of the water. Waves will again become significant despite the size of the ship. If you have a sonar-dome installed, forget about it because it's gone. Forget about any way to calculate ship-speed apart from GPS and simple math based on shaft-turns, which, if one of your turbines is shot, then forget about that to, as any method of determining ship-speed is going to rely on volumetric flow-rate of water past the hull, and those are going to get ripped off if you're going past 33 or so knots.

Hence why I really need to update my ships on dA for ship-speed.

Nevermind the fact that the Enterprise reactors aren't enough to get you to that speed. And they're old.
Heck, hitting a wave at 45 knots on the Prise is probably enough to cause one of your reactors to scram.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconjem62070:
jem62070 Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2013
Do you "HAVE" any other angles, that is.
Reply
Add a Comment: