InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.

Learn More · Register Now
Welcome to Shipbucket - Archive Forum!. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:

Shipbucket has a new forum! Please go and register there at once. The InvisionFree forum (the one you are looking at now) will no longer be updated. Posting has been disabled on this forum and it now serves only as an archive. Thanks!



Shipbucket Archive


Shipbucket has a new forum! Please go and register there at once. The InvisionFree forum (the one you are looking at now) will no longer be updated. Posting has been disabled on this forum and it now serves only as an archive. Thanks!



Pages: (2) 1 [2]  ( Go to first unread post )

 DLGN / Typhon / 1965, own-design obviously
dreadnaught
Posted: Apr 3 2010, 06:10 PM


Junior Member


Group: Members
Posts: 233
Member No.: 279
Joined: 21-December 08



From what I have read about the SPG-59 radar is that it did work but required a ton of power to operate. Just backin up erik_t comment that a ship had to be nuclear powered to operate the system.
Top
erik_t
Posted: Apr 3 2010, 07:47 PM


Heroic Member


Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,111
Member No.: 288
Joined: 21-December 08



That's not quite fair; it simply required a hell of a lot of power. Strangely, only smaller ships really needed nuclear power in order to operate SPG-59 further from port; larger ships had enough bunkerage for the extra power requirements to not be a design-killer (although this mirrors early nuclear ideas; destroyers were actually the first surface ships to be envisioned as nuclear-powered).

In terms of working... SCANFAR worked, too. In practical service, SPG-59 would have been an epic failure, I think. Too far ahead of the state of the art.
Top
klagldsf
Posted: Apr 4 2010, 12:08 AM


even Colo thinks I'm an asshole


Group: Members
Posts: 1,509
Member No.: 488
Joined: 16-April 09



QUOTE (erik_t @ Apr 3 2010, 07:47 PM)
That's not quite fair; it simply required a hell of a lot of power. Strangely, only smaller ships really needed nuclear power in order to operate SPG-59 further from port; larger ships had enough bunkerage for the extra power requirements to not be a design-killer (although this mirrors early nuclear ideas; destroyers were actually the first surface ships to be envisioned as nuclear-powered).

What kind of ship was SPG-59 originally envisioned for? Something along the lines of an Albany replacement?
Top
Raven
Posted: Apr 4 2010, 05:53 AM


Junior Member


Group: Members
Posts: 146
Member No.: 336
Joined: 23-December 08



Although, it makes you wonder, if we sold Typhon and kept Aegis to ourselves, how would that evolve?
Top
MihoshiK
Posted: Apr 5 2010, 10:08 AM


Great Old One


Group: Moderators
Posts: 474
Member No.: 338
Joined: 23-December 08



QUOTE (Raven @ Apr 4 2010, 07:53 AM)
Although, it makes you wonder, if we sold Typhon and kept Aegis to ourselves, how would that evolve?

You wouldn't have. What would have happened is that Typhon would have been kept in service, and would have been refined over the years.
Aegis would NOT have been developed in it's current form, because Typhon was doing that job.

Aegis isn't just the radar, it's ALL the electronics surrounding it. To develop such a massively complex system when you've just decided to use another which does the same job would be pointless. You don't do something like that for fun.

The most probable thing would be that some kind of Active Phased Array would have been developed, and would have/be entering service by now, replacing a seriously aging Typhon.
Top
erik_t
Posted: Apr 5 2010, 01:28 PM


Heroic Member


Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,111
Member No.: 288
Joined: 21-December 08



Ehh... I think I have two problems with that line of thinking. First, SPG-59 would be a solid ten years older than SPY-1 (and a lifetime older in terms of electronics technology). Second, you're implicitly assuming that it could be made to work as well as SPY-1, which by every measure has been wildly successful. Frankly I think a SCANFAR-like career track is far more likely, although we'll never really know.
Top
klagldsf
Posted: Apr 5 2010, 05:09 PM


even Colo thinks I'm an asshole


Group: Members
Posts: 1,509
Member No.: 488
Joined: 16-April 09



QUOTE (erik_t @ Apr 5 2010, 01:28 PM)
Frankly I think a SCANFAR-like career track is far more likely,

Stupid question what do you mean by that?
Top
erik_t
Posted: Apr 5 2010, 05:33 PM


Heroic Member


Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,111
Member No.: 288
Joined: 21-December 08



SCANFAR, the massive phased-array billboards on Enterprise and Long Beach, was removed in the early 1980s in favor of inferior-on-paper rotating systems like SPS-48 and SPS-49. The thing never really worked worth a damn (just too many damned vacuum tubes), and was ferociously expensive and power-hungry to boot. Again, too far ahead of the state of the art.


It should be noted that many sources indicate SCANFAR came after SPG-59; this is incorrect. Designs of large CGNs at least as early as 1956 show prototype SPS-32/33 installations; SPG-59 development began in 1958.
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | Own Designs | Next Newest »
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register Now

Topic OptionsPages: (2) 1 [2] 



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Archive