ok, I've been wanting to do a frigate for a while now. this is my submission. I see there is a new "American frigate" thread here and I hope I'm not stepping on any toes with mine



this is what I've got so far, and I am looking for the help you guys give so freely before I go any further. As always comments, suggestions and even criticism are welcome

ok, I've been wanting to do a frigate for a while now. this is my submission. I see there is a new "American frigate" thread here and I hope I'm not stepping on any toes with mine
-SNIP-
this is what I've got so far, and I am looking for the help you guys give so freely before I go any further. As always comments, suggestions and even criticism are welcome

- bulbous bows are not often fitted on warships, and I cannot think of any of this size and year that has one.

1998 ?
mix the following design
1995

late 1990's/early 2000's

- the hangar seems a bit low

- I am doubtful about those 30mm guns, or at least about the mounting used

- may I suggest using the newer oto melara 76mm drawing, that one is quite a bit out of scale

- I am not certain about that midships VLS

- bulbous bows are not often fitted on warships, and I cannot think of any of this size and year that has one.

- the uptake for the turbine generator just aft of the funnel might best be pulled into the funnel, or the generator moved further away from the engine room

- I am not that content with that midship director, and maybe 2 directors for an ship like this might be enough

- there is something weird going on with the forward hull shading

- that deck height change just aft of the gun looks weird to me

all in all, interesting to see how you took the 'mini-burke' approach to the frigate, but I am not certain all scales that well (deck heights etc)

I'll be honest, and say that Ace captured most of my comments.

One thing I would like to add is that due to the extreme angles of the bow and stern and the low freeboard, this ship gives the illusion of having been squashed down, as if it should be taller.

US warships in the 1910s had a form of bulbous bow called the Taylor bow. They fell out of favor at some point, but newer versions started showing up on ships in the 50s and 60s. The US really started looking into ways to save fuel in the 70s and 80s. There was a study done by the David Taylor Model Basin in 1994 showing that bulb bows could be effective in reducing fuel usage by warships. There was a second study by the same group that ended in 2000 specifically looking at bulb bows and stern flaps on DDG-51s. That study got far enough to design a bulb bow for the DDG-51 that would work with the existing sonar dome, but it was not funded. (Link)


Given the time frame of this design, it makes sense to include a bulb bow because that was a contemporary topic of study.


Having two VLSs is nice, but it adds unneeded cost and complexity to an FFG. One should be sufficient, as should two missile directors vice three. 16 missile cells would be enough. That provides a decent offensive punch for ASW and limited strike missions. It also gives the FFG enough cells for area defense AAW, especially with ESSM already in production and entering the fleet within a few years. If the FFG would load all 16 cells with quadpacked ESSMs, it would have 64 missiles for AAW, which is more than twice the number an FFG-7 carried.

I'd consider scrapping the 76mm and 30mm gun and replace them with a 127mm gun instead. Either the US Mk 45 or the OTO lightweight would work.

An axillary, steerable propulsion pod (like the FFG-7) or bow and stern thrusters would be nice.

I'm not sold on the need for AEGIS on an FFG. Ultimately, it comes down to cost. An updated version of the NTU suite might be good enough, especially if that translates into more ships being built.