Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 2  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 »
Author Message
Novice
Post subject: Design Study 381 & 382Posted: December 30th, 2010, 11:05 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4126
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
During 1964 the RN was working on its second generation missile destroyers, and as part of the studies came DS381 and DS 382.
The first was for an ASW ship carrying Ikara and the NST 6522 missile (to become Sea Wolf), and was called DS381. The ships was powered by 4 Rushton AO16 diesels, was 440 ft long on the waterline. Armament was one 4.5" Mk.8 gun foreward with the Ikara behind, and Sea Wolf aft with two directors, which could also control the gun. Hangar and space were provided for MATCH (later to become Wasp)
[ img ]
The ASW was to be known as Type 17 frigate.

_________________
[ img ] Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Gollevainen
Post subject: Re: Design Study 381 & 382Posted: December 31st, 2010, 9:40 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4714
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:10 am
Location: Finland
Contact: Website
How fast this would have been with just diesels as a propulsion?

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Novice
Post subject: Re: Design Study 381 & 382Posted: January 1st, 2011, 10:17 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4126
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
Gollevainen wrote:
How fast this would have been with just diesels as a propulsion?
These were very high speed diesels and a speed of 28 knots when six months out of dock was specified.

_________________
[ img ] Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Design Study 381 & 382Posted: January 2nd, 2011, 5:17 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
You can get quite a bit of power out of highspeed diesels. You have to be ready to pop pistons at any and all opportunities, but it's certainly doable.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Design Study 381 & 382Posted: January 3rd, 2011, 2:35 am
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Now THAT is a director with field of view! Certainly a heck of an ASW outfit too.

Generally a fine drawing, although I think the stabilization fin could use a redraw. The boat cranes are a weird shade of gray, too.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: Design Study 381 & 382Posted: January 3rd, 2011, 4:13 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Apart from the ships boats I'm getting to like this more (as with Hood's recent DS363). Its maybe taking the large hull as a positive feature, rather than wondering why not more is put into it - the 'less is more' approach. It certainly offers a lot of asw and acceptable air defence. But one or two questions: With Seawolf I would have expected Lynx, though this is not actually Seawolf right? So we are looking at a much earlier introduction of that type of missile. And looking at the Ikara launcher it appears to be feeding from a magazine under the bridge - why not move it further forward to avoid that?

And another deisel powered ship, which is interesting as it indicates a lost line of development in naval design (gas turbines becoming the prefered choice?). Anyway, very interesting :)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: Design Study 381 & 382Posted: January 3rd, 2011, 4:50 pm
Offline
Posts: 7233
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Study 381 was meant to carry Sea Wold from the outset, when it was designed no-one knew what Sea Wolf would look like for sure. THe drawing in Friedman has a pretty notional launcher and radar. I doubt the 910 is really feasible in the position shown orginally atop the mack. Had these ships been built Sea cat would have been the only option open due to the late appearnace of Sea Wolf and given its increased size and weight probably wouldnt have been retrofitable.

Likewise Lynx was a twinkle in a Westland designers eyes when this ship was penned. Hanagr might have been large enough for Lynx but it may have needed an extension.

The 382 looks more cramped when you try and load it with Sea Dart and missiles etc.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Novice
Post subject: Re: Design Study 381 & 382Posted: January 3rd, 2011, 9:31 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4126
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
Portsmouth Bill wrote:
Apart from the ships boats I'm getting to like this more (as with Hood's recent DS363). Its maybe taking the large hull as a positive feature, rather than wondering why not more is put into it - the 'less is more' approach. It certainly offers a lot of asw and acceptable air defence. But one or two questions: With Seawolf I would have expected Lynx, though this is not actually Seawolf right? So we are looking at a much earlier introduction of that type of missile. And looking at the Ikara launcher it appears to be feeding from a magazine under the bridge - why not move it further forward to avoid that?

And another deisel powered ship, which is interesting as it indicates a lost line of development in naval design (gas turbines becoming the prefered choice?). Anyway, very interesting :)
As for Sea Wolf- the system was not yet finalised at the time of the design, it was just named NST 6522, a notional system at best. Ikara was fed from the structure in front of the launcher.
The gas-turbine was not considered as a main propulsion unit at the time of the design (1964), and even it was they were considered too fuel hungry to give the required range.

_________________
[ img ] Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: Design Study 381 & 382Posted: January 4th, 2011, 12:20 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Thanks both; and still a very interesting design. :)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Novice
Post subject: Re: Design Study 381 & 382Posted: January 8th, 2011, 8:36 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4126
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
Made some changes to the DS 381 drawing
[ img ]

As part of the common hull designs the DS382 shared the same hull with DS381 (also Diesel engined), but was intended as an AAW ship with Sea Dart.

[ img ]

_________________
[ img ] Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 2  [ 17 posts ]  Return to “Never-Built Designs” | Go to page 1 2 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]