Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
Trimaran DDG http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2394 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | josephw71 [ December 28th, 2011, 6:51 am ] |
Post subject: | Trimaran DDG |
Just playing around with another design. When looking at the original drawing and other new modern trimarans, thought about the possibility of the outriggers as great places for weapon launchers, then wasn't so sure. So I mounted some Mk.48 ESSM launchers on them just to try it out. As always looking for thoughts and suggestions. |
Author: | klagldsf [ December 28th, 2011, 7:46 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Trimaran DDG |
Interesting, and clearly inspired by BAE concepts. Though it doesn't look like the hull has enough draft to accommodate a strike-length Mk 41 (which is the size needed for SM-6 and Tomahawk) and the Mk 48 bays don't strike me as particularly well-integrated. |
Author: | Clonecommander6454 [ December 28th, 2011, 7:49 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Trimaran DDG |
When you have a Mk.48 Launcher, you don't necessarily need to load ESSM in Mk.41. You can use that space for Tomahawk instead. |
Author: | Blackbuck [ December 28th, 2011, 12:22 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Trimaran DDG |
If you slightly scaled the design up in terms of actual size I think you'd have quite a workable design. Perhaps swap the 76mm and the VLS around too. |
Author: | erik_t [ December 28th, 2011, 3:59 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Trimaran DDG |
I've been kicking around some similar concepts for some weeks now. Multihull ships are quite attractive in many respects (for example, you easily have the stability reserve to raise the APAR somewhat and get a slightly better field of view over the SMART-L). I confess I don't well understand their seakeeping performance, though. For example, it looks here as though waves beyond about 10-15 feet high would crash into the structure over the outrigger sections, which would have obvious repercussions for general comfort and operability, yet hulls like this (and SWATH hulls in particular) are often credited with superior overall seakeeping in heavy seas. |
Author: | acelanceloet [ December 28th, 2011, 7:08 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Trimaran DDG |
right now your ship will be on fire when you fire an ESSM, because you covered the MK48 exhausts! |
Author: | Thiel [ December 28th, 2011, 7:26 pm ] | |
Post subject: | Re: Trimaran DDG | |
right now your ship will be on fire when you fire an ESSM, because you covered the MK48 exhausts!
He could channel it inwards.
|
Author: | acelanceloet [ December 28th, 2011, 7:38 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Trimaran DDG |
he could..... but in that case, an mod 0 mk 48 would be the simpler thing to do. |
Author: | josephw71 [ December 28th, 2011, 9:18 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Trimaran DDG |
O.K. Could add vents at bottom like the Mk.1, but this seems too close to the water line, or, could the blast be vented up like other VLS, may have to make vent in between launch tube bigger, but just looking at what's plausible right now. |
Author: | acelanceloet [ December 28th, 2011, 9:37 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Trimaran DDG |
well, if you vent it up you could better use an mod 0 and move them a bit inboard or even an mod 3/mk 56 or mk 41 self defence length instead. the fact is that the mod 1 mk 48 is not build to be fitted 'inside' an ships hull like you have done here. I can never be certain of what is possible because the system is not fitted on very much ships (in fact, only 1 class of ships has the mod 1) but of what I know of the system, no of the solutions shown here would work very well. |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |