Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

NATO Asp-class FAC
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=6498		 Page 2 of 6
Author:  erik_t [ February 24th, 2016, 8:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
I have no idea what purpose such a capable (and expensive) air search set as SMART-S would serve. Hell, that's better than what LCS has! There's very limited utility in a major air search radar when all you have is RAM and a 76mm.

YMMV, but I think the most substantial radar that would reasonably accommodated is something like Variant or TRS-16.
Author:  acelanceloet [ February 24th, 2016, 8:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
oh yeah, the ESSM of the original was scrapped, I was still thinking of that. SMART-S would make a lot more sense then SEAPAR, but it would still be overkill indeed.
I agree, variant (although, does RAM require 3D guidance?) would make a lot more sense.
Author:  CorranHorn [ February 24th, 2016, 8:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
So I need to swap out the radar and rethink going with a SeaRAM. I'll look at the hull shape some more.
Author:  Thiel [ February 25th, 2016, 8:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
Aside from a different electronic setup, you really need a different underwater hull, preferably something not derived from a relatively slow high endurance hull. Personally I'd go for either a Lürssen derrived hull like the HSwMS Visby or a semi planing one ala LCS 1.
The RHIB is problematic. It basically takes up half your beam and it deploys right into the most turbulent water there is around the ship. CHances are the boat will slip behind the ships stern and likely capsize in the wake if you try to deploy or recover at any kind of speed.
Lastly, I would move the main gun further aft. It's hard to tell without a three-view, but I doubt you have the hull volume that far forward to fit the magazine effectively
Author:  sebu [ February 28th, 2016, 11:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
Welcome CorranHorn! This is a good start, though you'll have still some work to do with this ;) Just go on; You'll improve as you'll draw, listen (=read) and explore...
Author:  CorranHorn [ March 9th, 2016, 4:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
[ img ]

Since I wanted this to be a NATO FAC to combat the Soviets, I wanted to narrow the specific era for this ship to 1985-1990. This necessitated a lot of changes.

So I changed the ship structure around since last time. The mast and sensors are place holders, and I'm still working on the underwater hull. I swapped the Mk49 with a Phalanx. I halved the number of Harpoon missiles. I added a stern speedboat ramp. I added self-defense torpedoes even though it won't have sonar. (I'd really like thoughts on this.) I lowered the mass of the ship closer to the waterline as well as shortening the hull.

I still can't decide on an underwater hull shape, although I'm sure it will have to be planing to achieve a high max speed. Thoughts now other than doubts on its designed mission?

Also, if any of my parts are from outdated source files, could you please link here where to find the updated ones at?
Author:  citizen lambda [ March 10th, 2016, 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
Re. self-defense torpedoes, you mentioned a planing hull and high max speed. For a light FAC with a mostly AShM-based weapon fit as you have designed, the traditional anti-sub defense is a good turn of speed, good eyes, and full flank ahead to outrun the torpedoes. :)
Consider that such a small boat would likely be considered a low-priority target for a submarine on the prowl, and is no threat in and of itself, it would rarely warrant a torpedo.

I also have doubts on the stern boat ramp, not functionally, but from a mission POV. In a Soviet-oriented context, do you really need your missile boat to be fitted out for search-and-seizure? Or do you have other specific tasks in mind?
If you get rid of the RHIB well, you could move some of the heavier weaponry from amidships to the stern, move the stack back a bit to balance the design. Just my 2c. since others here are certainly much more versed than I in the fine art of ship design.

Don't take this bad because I find your concept really interesting, but it looks like you started from a much bigger ship and trimmed down to get where you are (the original version with VLS just removed and 3D radar array is a clue).
IMO you're nearly there in terms of weapons fit, but you might want to rearrange and lighten the structure to reach the kind of speeds you have in mind.
I would have suggested taking a look at IRL designs with a similar mission profile, but I can't find comparable contemporary (late 80s) western designs.
The French Combattante-III and German Type-143 Albatros are on the old side (derivative 70s designs), the more modern Danish Flyvefisken and Malaysian Lakmanasa are much slower. Maybe the Finnish Rauma design?
Author:  erik_t [ March 10th, 2016, 6:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
I think the torpedoes are very hard to justify, because there's just no way you're going to be able to cram a worthwhile sonar set on a hull like this. With that change in mind, the Phalanx and Harpoon installations can flip, which would be better in every way.
Author:  CorranHorn [ March 10th, 2016, 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
I took out the torpedoes. I was hoping to keep a RHIB. I wanted it to serve a dual purpose as a patrol boat instead of having just one job. Are you telling me to move the Phalanx behind the Harpoons to move it farther from the central superstructure?
Author:  erik_t [ March 10th, 2016, 10:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
Yes.

I'd keep the boat -- if you've got the deck space for it, you might as well have one. They're cheap and useful.
Page 2 of 6 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/