CGHRD-1065 II

This design is a supplemental and superseding design of my original CGLW-1065/CHRD-1065.

The CGHRD-1065 II came about to deprecate the CGHRD-1065. This (in the real world) is my attempt to rid myself of irritations with my designs taking far to long to stop seeming to copy-cat the USN design. Improvements can be made in the real world, but most of the few navies that use the SPY-D and related radars have a fixation on not breaking out with their own designs. I cannot persuade other nations to be more original and less underling-like (or beholden to contracts with riders and clauses and such stipulating their hulls must show deference to the DDG-51...), but outward vestiges in MY ships will incrementally shed the DDG-51 heritage, or dare to display superiority to that design without inching into trimaran hulls.

Before I continue, I must admit that I am in no way immune to information overload. The Internet is sometimes like an elusive, almost fiendishly elusive, resource. There are several URLs I found on 2006-10-29 that none of my previous searches found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDX-III_Destroyer

http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDX-3

http://icc.skku.ac.kr/~yeoupx/KDX-III.htm

These are NOT new sites. Despite all my previous searches, the biggest flaw was searching in English. I am going to have to become more resourceful and remember that English may be the lingua franca of business, but it is a major stinking fracas if uses solely as the search criterion. It should be contemptible that a person knows only ONE language. (I am trying to rectify that...) Had I seen some of these sites years ago, I would have had a better impression of Korean advancements or purchasing prowess. I too much relied upon FAS.org and Global Security.org for written information and up-to-date pictures.

Anyway, while I AM impressed (I like modern ships) that Taiwan and South Korea are building new ships and have escaped buying nation-embarrassing hand-me-down hulls (well, assuming Taiwan feels OK about buying the Kidd-class hulls, under a sweetheart pricing plan) I sorely wish they would adjust the upper works to have a more indigenous, self-honoring appearance. I am sure, thought, that someone will say those designs meet join-tactical/operational pre-arrangements so that the operators know what telemetry and imagery and micro-details to expect to authenticate the ships are friendlies, but the EU and particularly the Spanish ships that have Aegis tech have dramatically different appearances. Stuffing the ASROC canisters between the uptakes, however, means the JSDF/Navy and ROK Navy have something in common.

I long ago found the Kongou class to look a bit odd with no hangar bays, and then was ecstatic to see the Atago class to have hangars, but then found them to look a bit tacked-on and cramped appearing, but then realized they seem much more spacious (outwardly) than the DDG-51 hangar-equipped hulls. Then, to see the Ahn Yong-Bok (later designated as the King Sejong Dewang) class destroyer almost a clone of the DDG-51 was disheartening. While I DO find the DDG-51 to be aesthetically superior to the DD-963 and CG-47, seeing them repeatedly cloned is not a show if individuality, as if artistic license were surrendered or maybe forbidden. I am sure that Hyundai Heavy, Daewoo, Mitsubishi and others have very extremely talented ship designers, yet it seems they are all in lockstep fashion going out of their way to not be too different from the DDG-51. Something has to be done about that. Individuality should stand out. There should be some subtle yet unmistakable national identity to naval ships. Not from warfare reasons, but from artistic and naval ingenuity reasons. I do not quite want to say national pride reasons, for my own agenda is to destroy or diminish anything that gives excuses for powerful nations to individually show off too much militarily. Hence, UNAUN (another acronym for another fictional creation of mine (in 2001/2002).... anyway...

CGHRD-1065 II is an insertion-design to supplant my original CGHRD-1065. During the course of looking for ways to replace the CGHRD-1065 without making the CGHRD-1065 II seem more powerful than the CGHRD-1165 or the CGHID-1278, I realized I had some mechanical drawing flaws in the way the shaft stern tubes are depicted. I cringed at that. Moreover I wanted to spread out the berthing compartments better. More than that, I kept looking at pictures I shot at Funenokagakukan (Maritime Museum in Tokyo, at Daiba) in December 2004. I kept having a nagging, anxious, curious feeling that the JSDF was onto something with their plant and propeller arrangement. The DDG-51 screws turn outward, or counter-clockwise on the Port side, and clockwise on the Starboard side. I wanted to emulate that, but my plant layout would then have to be reversed. That meant dozens of changes internally. It is not a simple matter of just swapping the engine sides and adjusting the length of the shafts. I also would have to adjust the drawn angle of the shaft end all the way up to the reduction gear boxes, revers them spatially, and then also change the stacks/uptakes a bit. The Mess Deck, various offices, ships stores (Supply Department) and even Radio Central/Communications would be impacted. Paramount over all of that, I strongly wanted to fair the hull much better.

My working limitations were:

* Length: 159.41 meters (523 feet)

* Beam: 20.16 meters (66 feet)

* Flight Deck Length: 22.55 meters (74 feet)

* Full-sized (64 forward + 64 aft) VLM silos

* Radar mast to be more squat and slightly less observable than the CGHRD-1165

* Bridge to be an improvement upon the CGHRD-1065 but not be more advanced-looking than the CGHRD-1165

* Hangar bay capable of carrying at least one MV-22-sized aircraft on one side and multiple smaller on the other, AND, the MV-22 side has to accommodate a CH-53-sized helo; each size therefore can accommodate one SH-60 (or CH-47/CH-46 craft) and multiple OH-58D/MD-500 craft. (The flight deck was inspired by JSDF DDG-173 style, mainly because it looks less boring than typical flat flight decks.)

* After upper-deck area to borrow from Chinese PLAN ship features while amidships and forward sections to borrow from some French, UK, and other ships

* Topside, but enclosed, port and starboard boat bays, one side having large, medium-speed RHIB-type, and the other smaller high-speed (jet-ski) for rapid overtake/boarding, dispersed takedown of non-compliant vessels and for stealthy, multi-pronged assault on larger, hostile combatants of foreign navies trying to conduct unauthorized assaults from within or near sovereign waters of a nation asking for global interdiction from external power assault

* Cleaner arrangement of the Mess Deck so that more personnel can participate in watching movies or having training

* Distributed gaming/privacy rooms and classrooms with LCDs all using running hardened Linux (UNAUN ships will not fall victim politically or technologically to a particular monopolistic software giant; the ship systems are an amalgam of Han Office, Red-Flag Linux, and some other distributions; UNAUN will only exchange portable, W3C-standards compliant documents, will not allow closed proprietary code in its systems, and will contract only with suppliers not practicing vendor lock-in) as well as a dedicated hobby room for personnel needing space for music, model building or cultural enrichment activities

All the while as I spent about a week or so sketching on sheets of paper the various layouts and berthing compartment changes, I found more motivation to experiment in the design layout/general arrangements. In my renewed research on the Internet I stumbled upon French, UK, German, and Russian nuances, as well as came across Korean (ROK) and Japanese and particularly Chinese (PRC) ships that I had forgotten about or viewed in a new light relative to my urges to sink the CGHRD-1065. The most important information that had the greatest impact on my redesign was due to a unique and exciting prime mover and gearbox assembly that made me very excited. This design, inspired by a Soviet/Russian design, uses traditional propeller shafts (so as to not eclipse my own CGHRD-1278), but it has the reduction gear sets placed between the two engine rooms. The arrangement is such that any one engine can drive either or both shafts. This means that if the starboard shaft is bent, but the port engines are damaged (say, to an explosion by a mine, or running aground, or striking a submerged wreck, or whatever...), then the starboard engines can drive the port shaft. In 2002, the maturity of the electronics, ceramics, and other components was not where some navies needed it to be. But, later the UK RN moved ahead with the Daring Class of destroyers, using large, powerful motors instead of reduction gears (from what I could see in drawings published) to turn the propellers. It appears as if one WR-21 is associated with each shaft, indicating a high level of confidence. Later, the MT-30 displaced the choice of WR-21 since the WR-21 is so much heavier, costlier to acquire, and expensive to operate, even though the fuel consumption is reportedly superior. In my design for the -1065 II, the WR-21 is chosen, and honestly it was because it was different than the LM-2500, more powerful, and created a general arrangement challenge. The ability to use one, two, or three, engines on a single or on both shafts is intriguing. Today, it can be done electronically, if the corresponding plant configuration is specified. In my design, not only can one, 2, or 3 or 4 engines drive two shafts, they can drive a single shaft -- provided the power inputs can be managed so the reduction gear can safely deliver the power without over-cavitating, and provided a suitable propeller design can be matched to the presence of power ranging from 50,000 shp maxed out on one engine, to upwards of 225,000 shp from all four engines. I suspect that that raw power would be cut down to a far lower output if only one shaft is available in a dire situation, just to avoid bending the shaft or inducing damage to the propulsion plant.

The ship retains my trademark/signature triple, drop-down Auxiliary Propulsion Units/Stealth Maneuvering Units, but they are positioned farther from amidships relative to the CGHRD-1065.

The CHGRD-1065 of course retains two sets of twin (port and starboard) sets of fin stabilizers. And, the forward set is retractable, but not telescoping. Flag and Ship TEC/OEC (Tactical Engagement Center/Operational Engagement Center, terms I coined to dispense with the CIC of old) spaces are still cramped. I was inspired by the round information consoles the Chinese ships incorporated from French designs. CO and Flag berthing remain similar, and major spaces that the CGHRD-1065 has/had still exist aboard her successor. Forward, the -1065 II has a raised bulwark since these ships will operate in high sea states from pole to pole.

As for major electronics, these ships, since the -1165, as a class no longer have any SPY-1D/E, etc. lineage. As far back as January 2003, I made that clean break anticipating real-world fallout or complaints from the designer of those radar faces. Therefore, these ships have multiple, reduced-size, multi-ringed, axially-independent and rotating, alternate-band phased array radar panels mounted on a conical mast above the bridge, similar to my CGHRD-1165 design. As for electrics, the ship has 6 RO plants and 5 AC plants, and better distributed battery backup rooms.

As for creature comforts, the Crew (Enlisted) Berthing is MUCH better than before. It is so much improved that I feel an urge to file a patent and obtain filed copyright protections on this aspect. These will not appear online. However, the mess deck, fitness center, and recreation rooms will appear.

Two new additions: Segregated saunas for Officers, CPOs and Enlisted personnel. AND, there is a DEDICATED space for worship and solemn gathering. It was hard to figure out exactly how I wanted to incorporate a solemn place aboard a ship designed for combat (I will not describe these as warships, but rather warship deprecating police vessels). It could not be too close to gun mounts, engine exhaust and intake airborne noise, and had to be out of normal foot traffic, and be above the waterline. It could not be below noisy maintenance shops, nor too far from amidships. It also serendipitously fit right in with the installation of the Ship Shrine. I was inspired by the JSDF Kongou mini-shrine, but I greatly improved upon that which I saw in a magazine and on on-line pictures.