Shipbucket

Forgot about goalkeepers hull penetration may swap to phalanx. My funnels would be set to one side with the hangars the other, intakes and vent stacks ducted to meet. Still to a lot of tinkering to do. I have made a major gaff that I will fix tonight my forward superstructure is how I intended, my rear superstructure should have the intakes and funnel on the other side so my funnels are staggered and my hangars.

I did increase the length of my forward superstructure to allow the greater room for the VLS, don't want to make her to big I've broke 200 meters now....

fact is, IIRC, type 43 was considered small for what she could do. even too small by some. so if you put more stuff on board..... I have doubts about it working without an larger hull.
and I don't think that harpoondart missile will work, the diameters don't match and of course you cut of the seadarts air intake in the nose
also, comparing with USN designs, the amount of missiles in the sea darts magazines is relatively small so I would not cut these amounts for ASM's, for which easier solutions are around (as the standard missile is still usable as ASM as backup, and of course harpoons are in canisters on most if not all USN or even NATO combatants....

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

I didn't intend it to be like Harpoon except in name, I invisaged a new weapon the intakes that are on the nose on Sea Dart would be routed to the sides like on the Meatoer missile the missile drawing is to small to alter without it looking a mess I did try. Same with my ASW version. Failing that replace the whole ram jet design with a solid fuel rocket...

How much more length would you be thinking........?

Type 43 was actually large enough that according to DK Brown, lead designer, they could have equipped the ship with Aegis. They checked.

It's just that British equipment of the time was rather inefficient for the amount of deck space it took up. You have to have a certain amount of spacing between the various guidance radars, and british equipment was large.
Also, rather small magazines. In simulated testing the T43 showed as being very capable.... Until someone (later) realized that they'd fired more missiles than there would have been available.

But really, T43 with Seadart MKII was about the best the British could have build at the time. Without going to all US weaponry anyway.

Also, wrong base T43. The Actual submitted design was this:



With one of the few ways to actually put CIWS (Not Goalkeeper, there's just no space) on there is this:

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

well, as miho says, not hull space but deck space seems to be the key. so if you keep arnament weights within proportion, you can fit what you want as long as it fits on the deck...... but the arrangement as it is now could be better.
going for phalanx would make a bit more possible (as much as I like GK more) with the same space, as it has no deck penetration. you might even get away with no additional length but the sea wolf to the sides of an ship with increased beam

and I agree miho, she would be an quite capable ship, although I will always frown when seeing the helipad between the 2 funnels, with all the windbreak and heat problems available. I would have respected the pilots who could land an seaking, or even worse, merlin, on this deck.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

It's an impressive design.

I'd be tempted to ditch the helicopters altogether, if you can afford enough frigates then they would be best operating the ASW choppers with their sonars and VDS and offering an anti-missile screen (I'm imagining a slightly bigger T23 with more VLS). That way the Shires could give more space to electronics and habitability and reduce the topweight. I see them more as AA escorts and offering the platform to launch their own anti-surface strikes. Space is the critical issue. Phalanx might be cheaper and easier to use, Goalkeeper might be more effective against Soviet sea-skimmers though. Tough choice but it might be worth finding some room for the Goalkeeper.

On the Dart series, I did make an AU Sub-Dart based on a Sea Dart with a bigger booster rocket to increase range so I think its possible to do so here but I would say that a bigger booster might be needed and a bigger booster on the Sea Dart Mk.2 might offer more AA range and ceiling and/or interception response time. I don't think the SSM Dart would work, as far as I know no British ramjet (possibly also in the world) was capable of operating with side-intakes. I know a Ship-Eagle has been mooted in the past for AUs but I'm not sure it has the range needed. If your worried about Soviet surface units they have massive supersonic sea-skimmers that can outrange any NATO SSM. If your carrier group has gotten that close then your in trouble and the carrier aircraft should be the main ship-killer. That said for operations in independent operations without carrier support the Shires would probably suffice with Ship-Eagle or Harpoon or Exocet (preferably the MM.40 for easier packaging).

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

Actually, since it was amidshps, it would have been a MORE stable platform than the usual "at the end of a fulcrum" spot at the stern. The plan was that a pilot would approach from port, and then slide the helo onto the pad sideways.
But yeah, for a Seaking or a Merlin space is getting tight. She could have carried two Lynx though.

Which answers the ASM question too: Why the hell bother when you've got helicopters to dump those torpedoes into the water?

And Shippy: The intakes nor the uptakes on the DK brown design were duckted sideways: The engine rooms were simply offset, soo the in/uptakes actually came straight up. They HAD to be offset, because the shaft from the forward engine room had to bypass the aft engine room. Yes, that's long shaft, no, apparently there was no real extra danger from explosion shock damage. Long or short shaft, above a certain amount of stress damage occurred, with very little additional risk due to the longer shaft.

Honestly, why are you trying to reinvent the wheel? The only thing the T43 could have used was bigger magazines.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

Not trying to reinvent anything was just sumizing what the RN may have built had there been a rethink in policy in the 1980's. Just added a few touches myself rather than just be lazy and take an off the shelf drawing.

I will however forget about the ASW weapon as said ive got helecopters for that.

as for ASM I still think a SRB or turbo fan powered missile based on the shape and size of Sea Dart that can use the GWS 30 launcher

I hate to say it, but... If there had been a rethink in policy in the early eighties, the T43 is what would have been build... Seeing as how it got cancelled due to a new white paper...

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

As we are all aware what gets drawn on paper aint necessarily what the RN ends up with. Look at the type 22 3 differnt versions till the navy got a capable ship. The type 23 grew and grew. The type 42 even had to grow to improve seakeeping. The type 45 started off as an all singing all dancing air deffence/land attack ship but what has entered service although with plenty of scope for future additions is far from promised.

I was simply adding my touch to a well designed in my opinion ship.