Warships Should Look Warlike

This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected.  Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies.  Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue.  The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.

Bv T *

y ^leutenant John Charles Roach, U. S. Naval Reserve, and Herbert A. Meier

the history of maritime nations there has been „ /   . ,

_r ^{a Lon}g and deeply rooted tradition

f_r ^arcitng aesthetics in warship design. Aside

^m *he role of being able to wage war, the

^^as served as a political tool of

^ suasion intended to effectively project a

°^{n s} naval power, prestige, and influence.

^{er t}^^)e past feiv years, hoivever, there has

^a noticeable trend away from considering

Pearance as an important aspect in U. S. rsh ships

0

^lP design. The Navy no longer builds ^as imposing as the heavy cruiser

x»         ~

^evvPort News.

slab °^{day S J}^^merican warships look large, top-heavy, _See^^Sl<^^ed, static, and underarmed, and in general less fearsome than they could be or ought to be. _as ^c°mpared with warships of other nations, such _v:            ^e Wore recent additions to the Soviet Navy, the

th ^{3 COntrast} '^s striking, leaving the impression ^a^h°^V*^et      are more menacing and ominous.

^s,ons?

^iat are some of the reasons for such impres-

<n > j ^hy do some warships seem more threaten- ty, .' ^by do some appear faster and more powerful to * ^{e ot}bers fail to fulfill aether? What looks good

^lttedly subjective. However, effective looking are not designed tastelessly; therefore, it is cak^{eSSary t0 cons}*d^{er an} artistic opinion and a vo- ^ ^su'^table terms in order to understand ^at does make a better looking warship.

our expectations al­in a warship design is

In addition to being a platform for weapons and sensors, the ship must meet the requirements of mo­bility, seaworthiness, operability under a wide vari­ety of sea states, survivability in battle, and habita­bility for the crew. To design and build such a vessel utilizes nearly the full spectrum of a nation’s techni­cal ability. Therefore, the warship is a form of ar­chitectural sculpture of equal significance to that of great buildings, bridges, automobiles, and aircraft.

In the past, the shape of each of these objects has generally been the result of the total mechanical and aesthetic vision of a principal designer. These de­signers succeeded because they shared an appreciation of the basic nature of materials and mechanisms and knew how they could be artistically synthesized into new and useful objects. Although the architects of land structures have maintained an intense interest in aesthetics, this has not always been the case in naval engineering. Because of the “design by committee” concept employed today, the type of aesthetic impact Donald McKay had on clipper ships, John Roebling had on bridges, and Eturio Bugatti had on au­tomobiles has been lost in warships. To compensate for the effects of design by committee, other modern industry uses industrial designers to improve product appeal, particularly when appearance affects sales. This same design concept has been successfully used for yachts and merchant ships but is not always pres­ent in the warship design process, despite the ship’s requirement to show the flag.

Discussion of Terms: Visual clues help us determine our relationship with an object and also shape our opinion as to whether the object is benign or threatening. The industrial designer makes full use of visual clues to enhance a product’s appeal, know­ing that human beings have a predisposition and preference for certain forms to perform certain func­tions. Just as we naturally have a preference for a

She looks almost as big as her island name­sake, bloody Peleliu. She is big and there are four more just as big. But five of them can t cover the world. After LHA-5 is completed, no more are scheduled. If we don't build at least four more, and plan for replacements of our aging amphibious fleet, our inaction may be widely interpreted—and may indeed be true—that we are ceding Eurafrica to Soviet imperialism.

USS Newport News (CA-148)

pretty face over one which is plain, we also see sharp, spear-shaped objects as threatening and a stereo with more lights and knobs as more effective than one with fewer. Visual clues as to what function a form serves are an essential part of an evaluation.

Five basic visual clues seem to be common to bet­ter looking ships: (1) lines of force, (2) the Dunn curve and forward and aft slope, (3) profile envelope and silhouette, (4) tumblehome and flare, and (5) interval.

Lines of force unite the composition as a whole. Additionally, they can appear to spring out into sur­rounding space beyond the object, implying a ges­

ture or pressure in that space. This visual interruP tion tends to give an object greater significance cause of its eye-catching quality and visual ^eX^^,tC ment. The sheerline of a ship (joining the sides o ^ hull with the main deck) is the most obvious ample of a strong line of force as well as the si F most important expression of her character. D ^ lesser lines of force are found in the bow, stern, edges, and knuckles, as well as those of even g^re ^ number and variety in the weapon and electronic s> terns, masts, and funnels.                                                                                                 .

Vertical lines tend to appear relatively ^sta

Lines of Force

These lines most often lie on the surface of a form such as a sheerline or a rake in the bow, but may be internal such as the thrust of a mast or the projection of a weapon.

Dunn Curve

The Dunn Curve represents the general distribution of superstructure along the ship's length. The forward and aftward slopes represent the rate at which the superstructure is stacked.

Profile Envelope and Silhouette

Note active form changes

^{1 e} lines set at an angle and thrust outward convey in t^{Se rnot}i°ⁿ- Uncoordinated lines which thrust ^snb ' *^erent directions work against each other and ^{Vert a} strong visual theme. There are two more _Ser^^s line to be considered. The Dunn curve repre- ^{s r}he preferred distribution of superstructure

^a_S!

^Centi

along the ship’s length with the visual focus at about the first third of that length. In g ’ ^-^awrence Dunn put forth the idea that the b_et^^ra^ distribution of a ship’s tophamper makes a p ^tr appearance when it follows this curve.^{1 s}hin ^the origin of the curve is in early sailing f₀ ^^S’ when the mainmast was taller than the 'fiast and the mizzen shorter than the other the ^{But the} curve became more apparent during Ration of passenger liners, for their appearance ^a Prime concern. This curve is amply apparent in

>r_Ce ^rence Dunn, “The Shaping of Passenger Liners,” Journal of Com- nual. 1958.

such ships as the Mauretania, the Normandie, and the United States. Because of the importance of this curve, it would seem equally applicable to warships as well. The forward and aft slope is nearly as impor­tant as the Dunn curve, because it represents the rate at which the superstructure is stepped upward.

Interval, tumblehome and flare are related to lines of force but convey different messages about the ship. The interval is the distance between decks or other major horizontals and, as such, is related to the ship’s length and freeboard. The greater the interval, the more bloated and chunky one ship will appear, while the same interval in a longer ship will produce a feeling of sleekness. Additionally, a ship will ap­pear to have a higher or lower profile because of a discrete balance between the horizontal and' vertical distribution of the superstructure mass.

Tumblehome, whether found in the superstructure or hull, conveys a sense of the dynamic, unlike the static quality of straight perpendiculars. Flare can be thought of as a curve in the hull form which contrib-

the there

a 1^^ ^t^^{lat ten}d ^t0 relegate aesthetic considerations to j^Sser role than they have occupied in the past.”

. t has already been pointed out that warship de- ₀^. ’ ^as is the case with the design of most other of'^ts today, is now less the product of the talents °^ne man. In place of the single senior naval ar-

_ari^^r *^nated whole give the ship a bloated appear- _t^^C*' Bines of force are predominantly vertical, and ^etween-deck interval is monumental. The lack ^a clear delineation of decks results in a loss of the ^sc °f scale and makes it difficult to determine the ^Slze of the ship. The frigate suffers not only _aj^^{rn a}btupt level changes in the superstructure, but from the impression of having two Texas oil rigs r ^masts and a gun mounted on top of a barn. These ^ct°rs contribute to the belief that neither creative tiv ^{0 Utl}^^Zat‘^{on nor} appearance was a primary objec- 1 ^{C w}^^en designing this ship. If, however, such a _t> ^v°lume is necessary, a more horizontal distribu- shjH ^suP^erstmcture mass might have resulted in a P substantially different and more attractive and

^U\x/°^se^ ^{ln a}PP^earance­, . the Spruance has organizational qualities

t ^ctl enhance the ship’s appearance, she still suffers ¹¹¹ large empty spaces, high volume, and a small oer of visible weapons. The abrupt break in the _s ^{r lne} at the forward end of the massive ttia ^rstructure has the appearance of a concentrated ⁰ⁿ an inadequate supporting structure. This ... to a most unfortunate psychological effect at ^’^{ves r}he ^sh'P the appearance of being broken ,. ^Is point. The Spruance might have been a visu- ^sttonger ship if the volume of superstructure had _r ?ⁿ horizontally distributed. Note the drawings of a $tr ^{Ca recon}f'8^urat*^on of the Spruance. Notice the forward slope and distinctive placement of ^aP°ns in the example.

_ers Belknap (CG-26)- and Leahy (CG-16)-class cruis-

^{s an}d the Charles F. Adams (DDG-2)-class guided-

-■ _^e destroyer of the early 1960s period have dis-

I ^IVe "American” appearances and are about the

of               ^sh>ps to effectively marry the requirements

an ^v°hime with impressive styling. The appear-

^ ^e of American warships has not been an important

sor^^{11 COns}*^^eration for a long time. But from a cur-

_$h. ^examination of pictures of most of our older

_a 'l^{35, a}Ppearance was a definite design consideration

ⁿp* the end of World War II.

₀r ^0r engineers who are now engaged in the design

^new U. S. warships, who in many cases were also

_sh^V°^,Ved in the design of early post-World War II

'P^s> the answer is, “Yes, of course, we appreciate

‘mportance of producing good-looking ships. But

, ^{e a}te many factors in the current design atmos- Pne

Principal lines of force in the California (cgn-36) class

Superstructure falls outside the Dunn curve and splits focus forward and aft. There are large voids and highsided planes.

chitect, who used to sign his name on all plans over such a title as “In Charge of Work,” we now have project managers who coordinate the efforts of many specialists. Not since the ships designed under the practiced eye of John C. Niedemair (principal ar­chitect in the U. S. Navy during the 19d0s and 1950s) have American warships had a strong advo­cate for appearance.

The computer is now used extensively, not only to perform most of the tedious individual calculations previously done by hand, but also to produce early- stage conceptual designs. Thus, the extent of human involvement in the design process has been greatly lessened. The project manager is in the unenviable

of the

the

eration, it has instead resulted in the escalation

number of early-stage studies from the tens into

hundreds. Also, in the present inflationary and tig

budget climate, the project manager is extren

conscious of design as well as construction costs < ^

may therefore be loath to devote much of his ^

sources to promoting aesthetic considerations l^eSt ’

be thought lacking in hard-nosed fiscal resp°^nS1

ity. For example, in the absence of demonstra

cost-effectiveness, it has taken many years to ma

case for roll-stabilizing fins for U. S. ships. This

occurred in spite of the fact that virtually ah f°^r

navies prescribe them as a matter of course. It ^W°^{U r}    • hie H¹

appear that their advantages, while as intangm

some respects as aesthetics, are nevertheless £^en£jj_esS

agreed to be very great by others, yet require en

justification by our own design community

The Soviet Navy, on the other hand, has est

elec-

d an° dra"^ Kara’ ima^rf

outward thrust. As a result, the forward slope from the bow to the highest point of the

• r                                                  • »                                   pr 0&

opaque outline of the ship’s superstructure.

nearly every viewing angle the ship appears ^r°

covered with thorns.                                                             _Q(

doe^s

The “Kara’s” superstructure shows sig^nS

position of having to provide answers to the seer⁰ ingly endless “What if?” questions that must b^e^ swered during the early design stages. Thus, " the computer should have saved time and permit^ such things as aesthetics to be given greater cons*

sh-

Hshed a strong tradition of design preferences " hit

is reflected in all of the recent additions to the

^                                                                                     .        'Tn¹⁵

Many are exhibited in the “Kara”-class cruiser, ship appears to be in the crouched, low-profile st ^ ^ of a fighter. Her superstructure and hull show H^neS^ force which are coordinated and purposefully directs There are diagonals projecting outward, parallel reinforcing the sheerline, and a sense of internal m tion in the design. Large masses were kept l°^w the high points surrounded by an aura of ^SP^ stinger-like projections. Her weapon and electr ^ systems appear larger than life as they stand out tive to the ship’s size.

Rather than aligning the axis of a weapon or ^ tronic system over a platform or with the ship ^s terline, these objects were often centered to the ^ treme sides and dressed to the forward edge o , platform. This practice accentuates an upwan passes smoothly through all of the ship’s p^rl war-making equipment and never once touches tumblehome and very few vertical surfaces. There

³                                                                                  • u chip*

not seem to be a straight line anywhere in the

Flare in the hull and numerous bevels and turns

the funnel, deck edges, bridge, radar mast, ^

throughout, make a highly articulated and stirn

^slleerline.

These lines give the ship a sense of scale

-^C^ by the cobra-like, ready-to-strike appearance ^e pilothouse and visions of pincer-like missile ant¹¹⁰*¹⁶^ ^tentac^^{e e}y^cs °f ^cb^e fi^re control radar ^nna ( Headlight” illuminators) are strongly sug- ‘R ^{a men}acing insect. From all directions, the

Hot

_a ^net,cs’ ^{as a source} f°r coordinating the appear-

ⁿ8^ed to the Ministry of the Shipbuilding Indus- Which is responsible for designing and building k ‘ as well as merchant ships. The head of this _a        O- Arnal’d, has written at length about how

_tj *P s silhouette is formed and has stressed, in par- ₀p ^ar> the importance of the angular characteristics ^a ship’s extremities.³

_sⁿ_uV^Urfa^ce- The roll of the deck edge catches the *8ht and the strong repetitious parallels to the

_tL ' ^{e acce}ntuating a horizontal appearance that gives illusion of holding down the profile. There is a Ua^^Vf ^Concentrati°ⁿ of lines of force, centering a vis- th °^{CUS aroun<}^ ^tf*^e ship’s bridge and radar mast, ^tf^{,e s}hip ^a strong compositional theme j area of high visual interest. Though the ship _w ^es not conform strictly to the Dunn curve and d_ef^U ^ ^^ose points here, there is nonetheless a well _u ‘”^e<f forward and aft slope which more than makes °^{r t}h*rs one defect.

t ^e ship’s strong dominant sheerline, supported <7 *^are in the hull, is a fast-moving, thematic, ease ■                ^c*^roP^s back quickly from the bow,

j ^{s lt;}self under the superstructure and runs the the^^ ^r^^{e S}^‘P ^^e^^ore briefly popping up again at _Ca^/^antail. Considerable flare in the projecting bow el]-^{S a stron}g shadow and sense of solidity, while the ^ P^tlCal k°^w bas a shark-nosed appearance reaching the°^Ut °^{Ver t}^^{le water a}head of the ship. This makes so_u ^Waterbne run seem finer than it is and provides a ^Ce °f color variation along the length of the hull, fo ? appearance of a strong projection is again rein-

of

represents a formidable appearance which did _tior₎^C°^rne together by accident. Far too many associa- s_etl ^{S seer}n deliberately intended to give the ship a h_e ^e °f speed, stability, and stinger-like quality in

[silhouette.

_Cor> ^{e a}ppearance of Soviet warships seems to be a _Vai^^tl0us attempt to take maximum propaganda d_ts-^t ^^r°^{m c}be fleet through the artistic medium of R styling. Ships such as the Kiev, Moskva, and ^r,Vak are indicative of the concern for overall ap- f_u ^r.^ance and seem to have been designed with some . ^c ‘'mental ideas of what looks effective. It is h₍₎ ,'^Vn that the Soviet Union uses a national design , ^cy. the All-Union Research Institute for Technical

^Aesth_e

d_ts ^of ‘ndustrial products. Among the six artistic

i Rt> bureaus in existence in December 1970, one °^elon ^try,

The last example to be considered here is the British County-class cruiser introduced in the early 1960s. This class illustrates how a successful design solution can be achieved with a minimum com­promise between maintaining high volume for weapon systems while achieving a well-balanced and good-looking ship. Though the County has a small number of weapons and electronic gear, the ship does avoid the slab-sided, static appearance of U. S. war­ships because she follows the principle of the Dunn curve and uses balanced lines of force, tumblehome, flare and knuckle, and a minimum of perpendicular lines. The County class is obviously less theatrical than the "Kara” and seems to represent the restrained style of a refined British attitude toward shipbuilding. The balance was carried out so well that this ship seems deceptively larger than she is and very purposeful in appearance.

The Cost of Aesthetics: Appearance cannot be ³See Raymond Hutchings, “Soviet Design Practices and Their Influence on the Design of Soviet Warships” (London: unpublished, 1977).

Principal lines of force in a County-class cruiser

ear

ral

not

to fall short of these ideals? There are perhaps sevei reasons which contribute to the problem. One is ⁿ having appearance as a goal. Naval architects of

lament, “If we could only put some more,

to

____________________ _______ ______ if *^c

isn’t. Form does have its roots in the functional, b¹* more is demanded if the form is to have apP^e‘ ’ What is lacking in the equation “form follows f^unC tion” is that only some forms follow certain fⁿ°^c tions. To be appropriate, an object must have ¹ emotional relevance to the viewer.

An illustration which may make this point clea*^ as to what seems appropriate is the new Mark 8-inch gun now under development for the Na^vl Here is a design which is meant to function as a £ but which looks more like an overturned Dixie ^clIP with a soda straw stuck through it. The lines of f^0>l^ work against each other and a strong composit*^(,n‘ theme. Had the shape of the gun been designed ‘T convey a visual message that the gun is capable ¹ doing great harm, the shape would be more like a*¹ Army M60 tank turret instead of a Dixie cup- * j lines of force of the Mark 71 gun could be redirect by developing a new shroud which better conveys t

/

plugged in like so many nuts and bolts. It must be engineered into the design from the very beginning and not as an added-on feature or afterthought. For this reason, employing stylists who can deal with only the superficial and not the engineering concepts as the design evolves should be avoided. Within nar­row constraints, improved appearance—including major changes to the inboard profile—can be ob­tained at little cost. There is an impact, but it is small, relative to the total ship cost. Appearance can be bought relatively cheaply, but it will be bought only if it is a stipulated customer requirement.

In 1966, the Shipbuilding Inquiry Committee Report to the British Government made several points regarding the design of their merchant ships. One of the four points was that ships should be good-looking; also, since the British ships were held to be of high quality, the additional cost associated

with ensuring the desired appearance was consider an insignificant part of the whole purchase

Why, then, is it that recent U. S. warships apP'

visible weapons on the ship, it would look so much ^m°^ impressive.” The frustration expressed may really caused by not having a clear idea as to what a mo ern warship should look like, because there is y^et be established a firm lexicon of design soluti°ⁿ which lead to an effective appearance in U. S. ship design. But the biggest impediment seems to the idea which some engineers use as a common j^uS tification for appearance, “form follows function.

In the United States, where the sophisticate⁰ level of technology is very high, there is a stronf cultural bias for such a myth. For example, ‘ there beauty in that which is functional.” Unfortunate r should we fail to grasp the significance of a P^ure functional form, our opinions are dismissed as beinf ignorant of what constitutes good design. This ‘^lt^ titude tends to ignore the facts that not everyth*¹¹!’ that is functional is beautiful, or that people do ha' ‘ preferences and expectations of forms to perform ^cef tain functions.                                                                                 ^

The idea that form follows function is the result o an overly simplistic, self-serving attitude that if ¹¹ “right” in functional engineering terms then *t necessarily aesthetically right in form. This point ¹ comes further clouded by any coincidental beat* which we may discover after the fact in some obj^eCt* or more often may stem from our natural desire^ see something beautiful in every object, even

^m«^sage that it is Th<

a gun.

_an ^ere is one last point to be made about achieving

i_tin^a^^r°*^5r*^{ate a}PP^{earance t0} project an image. The g . ^{r c}°hesiveness of a composition, whether it is an ^‘nch g_{un or a s}j₁jp design _wj_tj₁ many parts, is a see^Ct'°^{n 0}^^t^^lese parts. Large or small, a design must

ro work together if a successful result is ex­pected.

Th

flu ^{Cre are severa}l orher factors which appear to in- ence _a ship’s appearance in the U.S. Navy. One _e ^{Sl erat}ion is the apparent bulk of our ships. An _c ^lnation of the relationship between total _()Ur °^se<a volume and displacement—the density of _UrnJ^lewer ships—indicates a definite increase in vol- Per ton of displacement. This increase is fre- ^ards ¹ ^ ^attr'huted to improved habitability stand­^s- However, while the number of cubic feet re- y_e^ ^{d t0} support crew members has risen in recent p „^S’ ^the total number of crew members in newer

i Here; ele,

warships has been reduced. The real volume ^ase has come about because of missiles, increased

‘■Tronic spaces, increased auxiliary machinery (for

^SUch thi 'ty for

ngs as air conditioning), increased accessibil- repair and maintenance of machinery, and the quj ^auction of helicopter stowage and support re­. ^ements, and can only be minimally attributed to ^c^^eased habitability.

_a ⁿgrhening a stocky appearing ship may improve Poo_r appearance, but length is the most expensive Pos ^{nS10n to} increase and hence is avoided whenever sh' ' ^e' ‘^{s c}^^us h^tt:i^e wonder that some U. S. gnf^S ^*^aVe £^{rown muc}h higher, faster than they have _s ⁰ ^^ong^er> especially since the use of aluminum in ^rStruct“res has permitted this growth without an ity ^lnate weight increase or beam growth for stabil- _Sta^ ^ should be noted, however, that in a few in­av '^^eS *^{n w}i¹'^ch ^a fixed power plant is the only one a _rf.i ^^e’ ^such as a nuclear or gas turbine plant, and

shi^ ^exampi^e °f this for gas turbine-propelled

datively high speed is required, the hulls of these P^s have, of necessity, retained the longer propor-

^t!0n_s

)ips

_Ca ^ls the Oliver Hazard Perry class. However, be­^e °f the way the superstructure mass and ^bUlk°^{nry were} distributed, the ship still appears

Nuclear-powered ships, such as those of the

]_Q l°^rr,ia class, which might have benefited through ^Portions, present another unique styling ^lem because of the need to have a clear core re- hi k^{& area} ^^{or t}*^{ie nuc}i^ear reactors. This resulted in a ^and discontinuous superstructure profile and a I, ^ ^ge clear deck area for the forward missile

‘^cher

^ternal

and gun mount. Judicious placing of in-

0y_e ^ecl^uipment within the ship’s superstructure ^{r c}he reactors, which would have allowed removal

during infrequent recoring, might have significantly improved the visual continuity of the superstructure.

Another factor is the constant fight for centerline placement of weapon systems, whereby each weapon system is stacked one higher than the other to secure the widest field of fire. The navigation bridge is then placed in the highest position. All of this contributes to the static verticality seen in American ships. An area of investigation aimed at driving down current volume requirements, which might reap even greater dividends, would be to reconsider the use of one- of-a-kind, high-cost, hard-to-maintain, multipurpose weapon systems. It may be possible to develop smaller single-purpose systems with lower power re­quirements, less maintenance, less volume, higher reliability, and lower cost which could be integrated in such a way that a failure of one of the components does not lead to massive failure of a complementary system. Use of systems which perform single­purpose, primary functions would ensure that a ship has a thorny, filled appearance rather than one of open, empty spaces.

The enhanced producibility and cost-effectiveness that is assumed to be maintained by keeping all weld points at 90° and all surfaces flat cannot be entirely substantiated. Immediate improvement in appear­ance could be initiated with more tumblehome, flare, knuckles, and rounded deck edges to alleviate the stocky appearance of current superstructures. It may also be possible to draw up an appearance standard

Hoc