Shipbucket

Kitbashing is all well and good, but eventually one must take the plunge and try drawing a ship from scratch! Strictly speaking, this isn't my first attempt at a modern-day design, but it is the first I've felt content to post here; I've tried to incorporate all the things I learned in the course of my recent Burkebash project, so I hope it works.





I do have a few questions/concerns though, and would appreciate some feedback:

• Is the 5' gun suitable for that design, or would it be too large and heavy for that location?
• Does the Millenium Gun have significant deck penetration that would prevent its positioning atop the hangar?
• The turret mast seems a little crowded. Is it possible to squeeze in all those electronics and sensors like that? And if not, what might be a better solution?
• In terms of electronics and sensors, have I missed out anything important?

As always, constructive criticism is most welcome!

- The bigger Oto Melara 127mm has been mounted on smaller vessels so I doubt the Mk.45 will be a problem.
- Millennium has NO penetration to speak of though it could probably do with an EO director somewhere like an EOS-500 or something similar
- Frankly I'd go with APAR over SPY-1 or maybe make your own integrated mast using APAR?
- A second nav-set aft for helicopter ops might not be a bad idea as would a surface-set forward.

_________________
AU Projects: | Federal Monarchy of Tír Glas| Other Ivernic Nations | Artemis Group |
Blood and Fire

Nansen have The nav.helicopter radar, on the main mast, at the top!!

OK, a good start, a few points:

127mm is fine for this size ship and that location.
APAR is a gap-filling (horizon search) and fire control radar, not a volume search radar. If you used APAR you would not need separate illuminators but would loose a lot of surveillance capability - this is why APAR based systems use a separate search radar.

Implementations of IMO regulations mean that two separate navigation radars are required. Only a small handful of air search radars are qualified as such (it's actually a lot of effort to demonstrate the capability)

If the second navigation set can see into the helicopter approach path, then it can be used for aircraft direction, if not then a small set would be desirable over the hangar.

The intakes and exhausts for the forward GTA are very close together and re-ingestion of exhaust gasses is likely.

Are both electromotors in the same space?

I don't understand how the lifeboats are arranged.

If that is a door for torpedo tubes in the hull under the hangar then it is very low and will flood very easily, even without damage (rough weather)

RP1

_________________
"Yes siree, the excitement never stops." Togusa, Ghost in the Shell

I for some unknown reason completely forgot about APAR and its operational profile

_________________
AU Projects: | Federal Monarchy of Tír Glas| Other Ivernic Nations | Artemis Group |
Blood and Fire

There is already an integrated mast design for APAR:

And yes, this goes with a search radar (Seamaster 400).

I didn't necessarily mean i-mast as in the trademark but that works too. (although maybe not that well with SM-2ER)

_________________
AU Projects: | Federal Monarchy of Tír Glas| Other Ivernic Nations | Artemis Group |
Blood and Fire

A revised design, using APAR:



I've added a second radar over the hangar (along with a control window), replaced the directors with CEROS 200 (as a back-up fire control for the guns) and fitted SMART-L as surveillance capability is rather important in an AAW capable vessel! This has necessitated a rearrangement of the turbine exhausts/intakes so instead of a single funnel, the new design has one on each side.
What if the intakes were located on the sides, as shown, and the exhausts facing aft from the break of the forward superstructure?
They are mounted symmetrically, yes. If that is likely to be a problem, I could always bring one forward to the compartment between the Gas turbines (also mounted symmetrically) and the GTGs...but I wanted to avoid the complications of long prop shafts.
They are mounted on the sides of the superstructure, just below the deck walk (as on the Burke class).
Fair point, so I've moved the tubes to the superstructure below the harpoon cannisters.
The main reason I went with SPY-1 was to avoid the need for a separate search radar clogging up my topsides! The new arrangement with APAR/SMART-L fits (just about) but in some ways I do still prefer the less cluttered lines of the first draft.

I'm not confident in the extent of my knowledge to attempt the design of an integrated mast, not least because I'd run into the issues of a dedicated volume search radar again.
I think I'd want something a little meatier than Seamaster!

looks similar to Fridtjof Nansen class prototype!
Fair point, so I've moved the tubes to the superstructure below the harpoon cannisters.

not a good place at all. the best place for Torpedo tubes is next to/in front/behind the hangar, so it can share the torpedo magazine with the helicopter, thus save up space.


This one might help you a bit, it a Norwegian Frigate. here you can see it using solid railings, SPY-1F. Note the frigate is armed with only the 76mm (it's big enough) it is designed for the 127mm, and oh she dosn't have an CIWS mounted aft yet (35 mm or 40 mm will come in that roll in the future).

OK, propulsion first:

Having both motors in one space is a vulnerability issue. Even if they are in two separate space spaces right next to each other, the chance of loosing both is halved, in simple terms (although the chance of loosing half is doubled).

The GTA exhaust could be ducted out the back of the superstructure. If the GTA is on or close to the centerline it could be arranged in a similar fashion to the forward DG exhausts on a Type 23 (they are in the black thing on the aft side of the foremast)

Combat systems:

APAR+LRR, SPY-1xyz+ Illuminators or APAR+Seamaster 400 are all valid options for a system based on SM-2 & ESSM. The choice would come down to the precise details of strategic partnerships with the suppliers, industrial support, ship impact, cost and the design engagement scenarios.

For instance, if you are concerned about defence against multiple, simultaneous, high performance SSMs then the APAR systems will have the edge. For absolute long range surveillance, one would expect the SMART-L to edge out SPY-1F or Seamaster 400, but both those will have better performance at the ranges they do cover.

The APAR+SeaMaster 400 makes upperdeck integration much simpler, but it will not be cheap. Offhand I suspect the US system would be the cheapest, (unless you cut a deal with the Dutch ) But it's difficult to tell as the price of weapons sold internationally is "variable" to say the least, as so much politics and offsetting is included.

RP1

_________________
"Yes siree, the excitement never stops." Togusa, Ghost in the Shell