Shipbucket

Because it might work better. That's the whole point of development after all.
Anyway, I too think the bow is too high, both from an aesthetic point of view, and from a practical one.
If my math is right, you won't be able to see the water within 235m in front of you. That's going to make navigation in coastal waters rather tricky, not to mention stuff like mooring operations, or even anchoring.
Also, since you're not going to put a gun there, I'd go for enclosed bridgewings. Makes UNREP and such much easier since you can communicate with the helmsman directly even in foul weather, and the watchman doesn't have to get wet just because he has to look aft, something the current bridge layout doesn't allow for.
Lastly, is it going to carry Stingers as backup airdefence?

_________________
“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.

Thanks for that piece of advice, I will refrain from doing that any further.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!

Damn!! Thats a niceee frigate

_________________
Salide - Denton - The Interrealms

I am not very active on the forums anymore, but work is still being done on my AUs. Visit the Salidan Altiverse Page on the SB Wiki for more information. All current work is being done on Google Docs.
If anyone wishes for their nations to interact with the countries of the Salidan Altiverse, please send me a PM, after which we can further discuss through email.

Golly: Mission, as I envision it, are things that do not involve close escort of a carrier battlegroup. Basically, fly the flag and don't act as a target-sponge to anyone in the area. The USN would dearly love a surface warfare fleet entirely made of Flight IIA Burkes, but that's not in the cards financially. This does most of the missions of the former at a fraction of the cost, without literally asking to be attacked.

My acolyte TimothyC has generally argued my positions on this frigate. Thoughts, particularly with regard to Colombiamike:

• UUV: As originally posted, the portside helo hangar is convertible to a WLD-1 Remote Minehunting System hangar. There's just not enough volume on a hull this size for two helo hangars in addition to RMS.
• UAV capacity is implied.
• I am uninterested in quibbling over shaft thickness. This is reasonably between 0.38m and 0.53m, which is quite substantially thick for 25kshp. WIthin shipbucket standards, anyway.
• The after VLS is only a 2x4 module, oriented longitudinally. Total width is about 2.6m, well within reason for this hull. The VLS is present primarily for Nulka (in the interests of using as few launch systems as possible). ESSM is a bonus.
• Regarding mast issues. This is a USN combatant, and could not give a damn about Thales systems (good or bad though they may be). The height is determined by the desired horizon from the upper SPY-5, and the width is determined by the desired RCS spike direction (way above the horizon within reasonable range). The mast is, by surface area, quite underutilized. However, steel is the cheapest part of warship. For that matter, the whole setup is sized for an expected changeover to small-array AMDR in the medium-term future. Up top, well, TACAN, LAMPS uplink, IFF etc may well be replaced by 2020 or 2050 or whatever. However, these are the systems in use right now. As such, they're present now. Austerity is the plan of the day. That said, there's a reasonable amount of growth capacity.
• Regarding overall size... same deal. Steel is the cheapest part of a warship. Growth capacity is important, as is handling in a seaway. Perry was damned near shrink-wrapped around the required systems, and the USN ultimately paid for it. I went through some rather elaborate scaling arguments; I can give further information if anyone is curious. But the hull is sized for the weight and usage of the combat system, not for the deck area usage of such. The latter leads to madness, or a crappy MAKO. Either way...
• I couldn't care less about the theoretical ability of the 5"/62 to fire at zero elevation right forward. Such capability is exceedingly rarely used, and even if the bow were flat, it would be harmful to equipment aboard. I care more about handling in heavy seas. The 5" gun is more for use against large slow targets (pirate motherships, oil rigs, shore targets) anyway.
• As far as I'm aware, there's a tradeoff regarding hull vs. bow sonar. Larger sonar units are always in the bow, smaller units are always below the keel, medium-frequency units sometimes one or the other. I don't know of any compelling hydrodynamic reasons to put such a small (48" diameter as I recall!) sonar in the bows. I am open to discussion on this point. RP1, where are you...!?

Well argued, IMHO; and well-drawn.

As I said to Timothy on the IRC channel to which from what I understood he agreed with, the only thing that I believe Mike has a point(or rather came close to) is sonar. The USN is suffering from a lack of capable ASW assets, and since this is a successor to the OHPs which were ASW, logically your ship should have better sonar systems.

Also, on a separate note, if the lower SPY-5 radar set is up to 80% greater range, wouldn't it make sense to have an extended range ESSM to take advantage of that extra radar range? An ESSM-ER wouldn't be that hard to make, just take the Mk 143 MOD 0 motor and fit it as a booster, should fit within the Tac-Length Cell and still quadpackable.

Lastly, is that RAM launcher on a raised platform? If not, part of it should be behind the covered railing.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series

I too think the bow is too high, both from an aesthetic point of view, and from a practical one.
If my math is right, you won't be able to see the water within 235m in front of you. That's going to make navigation in coastal waters rather tricky, not to mention stuff like mooring operations, or even anchoring.
Also, since you're not going to put a gun there, I'd go for enclosed bridgewings. Makes UNREP and such much easier since you can communicate with the helmsman directly even in foul weather, and the watchman doesn't have to get wet just because he has to look aft, something the current bridge layout doesn't allow for.
Lastly, is it going to carry Stingers as backup airdefence?

_________________
“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.

Ok, I get the misscomunication. what was said was this: I got rapidly derailed into a discussion on Prairie Masker, and didn't explain myself: What I intended to say was that while ASW is atrophying (especially with the loss of carrier based fixed wing assets), the need for ASW missions has declined with the evaporation of the Red Banner Fleet.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Still, my point still stands, if an SSK can get right up next to one of our carrier, we've got an issue. And I doubt we'll get carriers whose mission is solely ASW, so using the OHP replacement to help fill that gap makes sense.

Also, one can deny it all they want, but China is our new rival, be it a rival of our own making. And unless the Taiwan issue is solved diplomatically, US & Chinese military interests will clash. And China obviously has good SSKs.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series

You couldn't pay me to get on Chinese SSKs, as the have an annoying tendency to kill the crews.

So I wouldn't got so far as to say that China has good SSKs.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆