Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
A friend of mine who served on nuke attack subs was with a CVBG in the Med. I don't remember the time frame, but he said that the sub dove and took off as did the CV. I don't remember the class of the CV, but if memory serves the sub was a Sturgeon class boat. The carrier left all the ships in the dust, so to speak.
Todd
I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
-
- Posts: 1265
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:20 pm
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
ORIGINAL: MineSweeper
Was the Soryu the fastest capital ship ever built?
Nearly made 35 knots on trials in November 1937....CVN Enterprise could only manage 33.7 knots.
The Iowa's could possibly do 35.4 at max power and light weight but it was never attempted.
Pic from Soryu's trials.
You really need to know under what conditions/specs the "trials" were run. A lot of ships built before WW II racked up impressive trials speeds (the Italians were notorious for it), but then proved totally incapable of reaching them under wr service conditions.
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
ORIGINAL: tocaff
A friend of mine who served on nuke attack subs was with a CVBG in the Med. I don't remember the time frame, but he said that the sub dove and took off as did the CV. I don't remember the class of the CV, but if memory serves the sub was a Sturgeon class boat. The carrier left all the ships in the dust, so to speak.
I seem to recall the Sturgeons topped out at 28kts. That was one of Rickovers justifications in building the LA's. Even if the early ones were not as capable in many respects as the Sturgeons , they were faster. (But couldn't dive as deep, or come with a "ice-suite").
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
ORIGINAL: janh
Already near 34 knots is quite impressive. Something close to or in the low 40s I would still believe. Someone with a good knowledge of hydrodynamics could probably estimate it based on the power transfer of the propellers or power output of the engines/turbines, if that is known, and the hull shape and displacement of the object. I mean to have read about a civilian liner in the 50k BRT range, maybe one of these new modern Caribbean ships, which was said to make short sprints 40+ knots on steam boilers. So it probably is reasonable also for a CVN as well?
Out of pure curiosity, I'll give it a quick try. It's grown lengthier than I thought at the beginning, though. And not quite quick. QM, for example, is given with a top speed of ~30 knots using ~4x22 MW power, QE II with 34 knots on 2x44MW, the difference being due to the hulls, bows, propellers/engines specifics . I suspect it is mainly the 30% larger beam of QM that cost her those 4 knots since the propulsion details are probably less critical as long as the power transferred is effectively the same.
The beam enters one of the three friction parameters that can be used to estimate the ships "Cw" friction value, and that is proportional to the power requirement P to reach a given speed (ignoring a tiny few other factors...). More exactly what enters is the wetted area of the hull, but for simple forms that's still approximately right. Another thing to keep in mind, and every biker or speed-skater would know this too well, is that the friction Cw typically also goes up non-linearly with the speed v since one usually is in turbulent conditions, so it rises more like v^2 (so Cw ~ A * v^2, where a depends largely on the object yet also the medium it is in). So 1 knot more at 30 will require much much less power than 1 more at 35.
With P = Cw * v ~= A * v^3 where A(QM) = 1.3 A(QE) you actually get quite close to the relative P requirements for 30 and 34 knots. So that works roughly. Quite surprising, though, as frictional resistance is augmented by other contributions that become equally important at high speeds.
Both hulls, however, have significantly smaller drafts than those of a CVN, so their Cw value will be sizably lower. Assuming it is accurate that Enterprise has four steam turbines with an maximum output of 210 MW total, this power is probably fully covered by the reactors, and transferred with similar efficiacy as QM to the propellers, the question comes down how much the friction goes up with the much deeper draft and larger displacement? The beam is about the same as QM, 41m, the length along waterline also about the same ~317m, but the draft 20% deeper at 12m. There are some approximations for areas of typical hull shapes, some very simple like A = const * sqrt(V * L), but for a really simple estimate both hulls can be treated as the same. So with only a change of the draft, which enters A over the length and width, A is larger by less than 1.2, more like 1.1.
With P(QM) = 88 MW ~= A(QM) * v_max(QM)^3 and v_max(QM) = 30 knots, this gives: P(E) = 210 MW = 2.4 * P(QM) = 1.2 * A(QM) * v_max(E)^3
Putting both together: v_max(E) = (2.4/1.2)^(1/3) * v_max(QM) = 38 knots. Surely someone can do it more accurately, but it sounds reasonable so far. Since there is two other resistance components that grow very fast and important at speeds beyond 20 knots, this is probably an overestimate. Maybe Big E has a slightly better efficiacy, or advantages in hull shape, coating paints or other factors, but that is likely to be more than eaten up by the inreasing additional friction terms at speeds above 30 knots. If the hull area were only larger by "only" 1.1, it would be 39 knots, and 37 for 1.3. If the efficiacy lower or higher, say 180 MW or 250 MW effective output, it would be slightly below 37 or 41 knots. So going over 40 knots, even ignoring additional friciton, might take almost 20% power, that's quite a bit. I guess I will settle with a maximum speed of 38 then.
BTW: Searching for some info on this, I found this "old" (1952) but very interesting publication from the US Naval Institute. https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bit ... sequence=9
Check out how sizable the speed loss/increase of propulsion/shaft power need is depending on sea time since the last dock visit. Even after "only" 300 days, a DD would typically loose 5 knots on its top speed, and the capital ship Tennessee also some 20% after 12 months. Quite large these problems. Probably a reason why they spent so much time in yards. I never tried to keep a DD at sea long enough to accumulate enough SYS damage to loose 5 knots top. Any idea?
The Enterprise hull is longer and thinner than a Nimitz. That might slightly throw off the calculations.
- USSAmerica
- Posts: 19198
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:32 am
- Location: Graham, NC, USA
- Contact:
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
ORIGINAL: wdolson
I know someone who was a sailor on a Gearing class DD in Vietnam. He claims he saw the CVN Enterprise do 70 knots once, but those who know more about hydrodynamics and ship design say that's impossible. I would probably lean towards the impossible, however there have been many times "impossible" things have been done. Somewhere in the 40 knot range might be possible though.
The sailor on the DD said the carrier was putting up a rooster tail as high as the flight deck before it disappeared over the horizon.
Bill
USS America did a high speed run as part of a service inspection back in the early 90's. I can verify first hand the rooster tail as high as the flight deck, 65 feet above the waterline.
On the ship's closed circuit TV system, they blanked out the speed indicator after it hit 33 knots and we were not all the way up to flank speed yet. [:)]
BTW, the old girl burned oil to heat the tea kettle, not uranium. [;)]
Mike
"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett
"They need more rum punch" - Me
Artwork by The Amazing Dixie
"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett
"They need more rum punch" - Me
Artwork by The Amazing Dixie
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: jcjordan
Isn't there currently a class of Russian subs capable of 40+kts?
Alfa class, but the could not do much else than run. Was built in the 70´s IIRC.
Actually, they were also known for diving real deep.
They were too expensive, had teething problems, were too loud and hadn't the electronics to match the Los Angeles Class later, though.
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
They were very fast, very deep diving and INCREDIBLY noisey! There was a serious question if we could get them with airborne torpedos.ORIGINAL: JSG
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: jcjordan
Isn't there currently a class of Russian subs capable of 40+kts?
Alfa class, but the could not do much else than run. Was built in the 70´s IIRC.
Actually, they were also known for diving real deep.
They were too expensive, had teething problems, were too loud and hadn't the electronics to match the Los Angeles Class later, though.
The russians called them "Golden fish". Each one used a years titanium production (they would build 6, although one was completely rebuilt after it cooled off due to a "reactor accident" [X(]). The crew was comprised almost completely of officer. They were invisioned as "fighter submarines" that would close with and destroy our boats definding their SSBN "bastions".
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
ORIGINAL: MineSweeper
Was the Soryu the fastest capital ship ever built?
Nearly made 35 knots on trials in November 1937....CVN Enterprise could only manage 33.7 knots.
The Iowa's could possibly do 35.4 at max power and light weight but it was never attempted.
Pic from Soryu's trials.
You really need to know under what conditions/specs the "trials" were run. A lot of ships built before WW II racked up impressive trials speeds (the Italians were notorious for it), but then proved totally incapable of reaching them under wr service conditions.
They had a full load out, but usually didn't have their full airgroups aboard. The Nimtz photo shown above is in that condiditon. I wonder if they ever lost a mule or tilly that way? [&:][:D]
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
Was aboard Big E in mid '70's when we did 25+ in reverse. Bow wave from the stern soaked the whole flight deck.
"Life's a b***h, then you die."
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Hi all,
Leo "Apollo11"
Captain: WHAT!! What do you mean we forgot the coffee?? TURN AROUND!
Just when I get the hang of a game, I buy two more...
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
ORIGINAL: dr.hal
One factor in favor of the CVNs is the fact that they can go at top speed (even if that is slightly less than other conventional craft) for a LONG time without refueling. When I was on the Constellation (CV 64) at full power we calculated that it used enough oil in 24 hours to power a reasonable efficient car to the sun and back. This is the sort of thing you do when keeping the world safe from democracy while cruising in the Indian Ocean.... I was also on the Bainbridge (DLGN 25 later CGN 25) for a year and while in the IO (I spent a lot of time there!) we had a medical case in the squadron with no airlift assets at hand so we took the patient aboard and did a high speed run to Diago Garcia (2000 miles or so to the south) at over 25 knots the entire time.... no other surface vessel other than the Long Beach at the time could have done that. The sailor lived by the way, no small outcome! Hal
You must have missed my post. The Sea Land Galloway "cruised" on a regular run between New York to Bremerhaven (6,040.20240081 kilometres) at 28 knots. This was in 1978 and there were eight of this class ship in operation at the time. So, at least eight ships could have done this feat...[;)] They were also designed to sail at full cruising speed in the worst North Atlantic conditions. You would be amazed at the pounding they took. They were twin screw and the boilers were massive. I doubt there will ever be another ship like them ever built. Here is what they looked like before they were sold to the Navy.
- Attachments
-
- scan0004.jpg (368.06 KiB) Viewed 261 times
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
Sigismund of Luxemburg
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
ORIGINAL: wdolson
I know someone who was a sailor on a Gearing class DD in Vietnam. He claims he saw the CVN Enterprise do 70 knots once, but those who know more about hydrodynamics and ship design say that's impossible. I would probably lean towards the impossible, however there have been many times "impossible" things have been done. Somewhere in the 40 knot range might be possible though.
The sailor on the DD said the carrier was putting up a rooster tail as high as the flight deck before it disappeared over the horizon.
Bill
That sounds like a sea story to me. But, there was a RD2 on my ship who swore that they tracked her on radar at 42 kts.
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
ORIGINAL: Dili
No. Engineering impossibilities are ...impossible. 70kt would need an outrageous amount of power plus being able to apply it to the water, an in return be able to sustain all extra vibrations and shock. It is dangerous the almost like mythology about aircraft carriers for Americans. It is just a tool.
Propellers lose efficiency the faster they spin. You get separation of the fluid or air starting at the tips and working in as it spins faster. I know it's true for air propellers (which is why prop planes can't break the sound barrier), I believe it's true for water props too. I would suspect a ship could move faster if it had some kind of water jet propulsion.
Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
ORIGINAL: Justus2ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Hi all,
Leo "Apollo11"
Captain: WHAT!! What do you mean we forgot the coffee?? TURN AROUND!
Jeez, must have been stunning to be onboard on that run. Awesome picture. I imagine that's how it could have looked with a torpedo alert in the waters of iceland.
They probably bolted down every coffee cup for that run? I guess stores and such are planned for that, but how would planes in the hangers take that?
And how long could a CVN sustain such a speed? How many hours or days before an extended overhaul of the whole machinery would be due?
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
You really need to know under what conditions/specs the "trials" were run. A lot of ships built before WW II racked up impressive trials speeds (the Italians were notorious for it), but then proved totally incapable of reaching them under wr service conditions.
Are there any standard conditions for trials? Or are they "uncomparable"? I imagine the Italians used the currents in the Mediterranean to their advantages. That probably can get you a few knots more.
ORIGINAL: wdolson
Propellers lose efficiency the faster they spin. You get separation of the fluid or air starting at the tips and working in as it spins faster. I know it's true for air propellers (which is why prop planes can't break the sound barrier), I believe it's true for water props too. I would suspect a ship could move faster if it had some kind of water jet propulsion.
Bill
I think what you are talking off is cavitation at the propeller tips? I recall for the Seawolf's and the Virginia's the introduced special designs to reduce this issue. Propellers and propulsion on SS(B)N are probably among the best kept secrets. Didn't the Virginia's use something similar to pump-jets to reduce cavitation?
With such large vessels, a simple option aside from spinning faster might be spinning bigger, though?
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
Back during the Cold War a company from Scandanavia (Norway?) sold the Soviet Union milling machine to make propellers that wouldn't cavitate like the ones they were using. Toshiba sold them the computers and software to run the machines. NATO had fits over it and the US gov't wouldn't allow bids for contracts from these 2 companies for years.
Todd
I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
-
- Posts: 6948
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Cottesmore, Rutland
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Hi all,
Leo "Apollo11"
You think your a smart pilot, now land if you can[:D]
-
- Posts: 6948
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Cottesmore, Rutland
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
The fastest RN ships were the Abdiel class minelayers at 40 kts (actually 39.75 or something like that) but reportedly the Manxman once reach 42.5kts, possible with the right sea/wind conditions (and going down hill). Later in life I think she only operated with three boilers but even so could still shift.
I was on a County class destroyer (Hampshire) in 1965 doing speed trials and she was doing 30-32 kts, but shock so badly you could do virtually nothing. The Manxman, also on speed trials, passed us. Watched by many of the Hampshire's crew the site of a large ship at speed is an unforgetable site. She wasn't doing 40 kts but must have at least 5-6 kts faster than us.
I was on a County class destroyer (Hampshire) in 1965 doing speed trials and she was doing 30-32 kts, but shock so badly you could do virtually nothing. The Manxman, also on speed trials, passed us. Watched by many of the Hampshire's crew the site of a large ship at speed is an unforgetable site. She wasn't doing 40 kts but must have at least 5-6 kts faster than us.
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
Are there any standard conditions for trials? Or are they "uncomparable"? I imagine the Italians used the currents in the Mediterranean to their advantages. That probably can get you a few knots more.
Every navy had their standarts or lack of, the italians when there was a premium to shipyards about every knot in earlier 30's they put ship very light to achieve speed levels that never in service were achieved. In late 30's that rule changed and the issue wasn't a problem. The italian crusiers went for more armor in late 30's instead of speed. Produced in war the light Romani cruisers or large destroyers seems to have been able to do in service the 40kt they made in trials. They were able to outrun the British MTB in a fight in Messina strait .
-
- Posts: 1265
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:20 pm
RE: Soryu - fastest capital ship ever built?
ORIGINAL: janh
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
You really need to know under what conditions/specs the "trials" were run. A lot of ships built before WW II racked up impressive trials speeds (the Italians were notorious for it), but then proved totally incapable of reaching them under wr service conditions.
Are there any standard conditions for trials? Or are they "uncomparable"? I imagine the Italians used the currents in the Mediterranean to their advantages. That probably can get you a few knots more.
There were "standard conditions" set in the Washington Naval Treaty. Shipbuilders use to "cheat" on them during speed trials because thay got a bonus for higher speeds. The Italians were the worst at this, one set of "trials" being run without the main armament being installed. Needless to say, once all the left off equipment WAS installed, the ships never made those speeds again. British Captains were surprised several times in WW II to find themselves overhauling Italian ships that were SUPPOSED to be 4-5 knots faster than their own.