Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

NATO Asp-class FAC
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=6498		 Page 1 of 6
Author:  CorranHorn [ February 23rd, 2016, 1:24 am ]
Post subject:  NATO Asp-class FAC
Asp-class Fast Attack Craft

Length: 67 meters (219.8 feet)
Beam: 10 meters (32.8 feet)
Draft: 3.8 meters (12.5 feet)

Complement:
8 officers
28 crew

Armament:
16 x RGM-84 Boeing Harpoon SSM Block 1G in 4 quad canister launchers
1 x OTO Melara 76mm Super Rapid gun
1 x Mk 49 launcher with 21 x RIM-116 RAM SAMs
1 x 30mm Mk 44 Bushmaster II gun
2 x M2 Browning machine guns

Armor: Kevlar plating

I decided to design a NATO FAC mainly because the USA doesn't have any small missile boats. The Mk44 is offset from the motor boat launch bay on the port side of the ship. I took out the VLS due to it being overly armed. There is no hangar or torpedo armament in favor of the increased anti-ship missile armament. I'm still working on shading and coloring, but I think I have the basics down. I'm still working on which electronics to use.

Basic hull design was borrowed from acelanceloet Netherlands SIGMA 8413. Everything else came from the parts files. I hope I followed the rules correctly. Let me know what you think as this is my first post.

EDIT: I changed the the hull shape slightly, changing the anchor to a hidden bow anchor like that on the Visby. I also changed the propulsion shafts on the underbelly so that I'm no longer borrowing the underwater hull form anymore (despite mine being shorter.) VLS has been removed and the anti-ship missiles have been spaced out more.

[ img ]
Author:  erik_t [ February 23rd, 2016, 6:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
As a general rule, all of us non-professional Shipbucketers fall victim to heavily overloading their early drawings. Here I think you are no different. However, things physically appear to fit, the drawing is executed well, and (if nothing else) it's far, far better than my first effort!

Welcome aboard, as they say. I'm sure forthcoming comments will discuss at length what's wrong with the design, and that's okay, but I appreciate that it's well-drawn and for a newcomer not ill-considered.
Author:  JSB [ February 23rd, 2016, 8:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
Welcome :D
Yes a nice ship for a first go.

I would agree with Erik that, you have maybe 2 or 3 time to much stuff on her and will not have space for the crew and engines ;)

I think a full hull borrowing would normally be credited to the original under the name.

Anyway keep it up.
Author:  CorranHorn [ February 23rd, 2016, 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
JSB wrote:
Welcome :D
Yes a nice ship for a first go.

I would agree with Erik that, you have maybe 2 or 3 time to much stuff on her and will not have space for the crew and engines ;)

I think a full hull borrowing would normally be credited to the original under the name.

Anyway keep it up.
I'll try to find an example of that to see how it's done. I'm going to create my own lower hull for it in the future. I was also going to take the VLS out. Somehow, I forgot to in this picture. That would definitely leave it back-heavy.
Author:  Rhade [ February 23rd, 2016, 6:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
Try to look at real FAC's we have couple of them in archive. You can look at modern Ambassador class.
Author:  Thiel [ February 23rd, 2016, 8:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
It's a good first attempt, but what is its mission? FACs require some fairly specific circumstances if you're going to be using them offensively. A lot of it has to do with the terrain in the area, but the primary thing is that they pretty much has to be home ported in theatre. It simply takes too long and ties down too many resources to deploy them otherwise. For example, if we base them in Newport and a cruise speed of 15 kts it'll take about 10 days to get to the Mediterranean Sea if the weather cooperate, a good deal more if it doesn't. Since no FAC I've ever heard of has trans-Atlantic range we'll need to send a tanker along and since neither tanker or FAC has any ASW capabilities and only token air defences we'll have to send an escort or two as well. That's a tanker and escort that's not supporting the carrier groups fro ten days at least.
And that is essentially why the USN dropped the FAC like a hot potato pretty much immediately after they got some.
Author:  CorranHorn [ February 23rd, 2016, 8:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
Thiel wrote:
It's a good first attempt, but what is its mission? FACs require some fairly specific circumstances if you're going to be using them offensively. A lot of it has to do with the terrain in the area, but the primary thing is that they pretty much has to be home ported in theatre. It simply takes too long and ties down too many resources to deploy them otherwise. For example, if we base them in Newport and a cruise speed of 15 kts it'll take about 10 days to get to the Mediterranean Sea if the weather cooperate, a good deal more if it doesn't. Since no FAC I've ever heard of has trans-Atlantic range we'll need to send a tanker along and since neither tanker or FAC has any ASW capabilities and only token air defences we'll have to send an escort or two as well. That's a tanker and escort that's not supporting the carrier groups fro ten days at least.
And that is essentially why the USN dropped the FAC like a hot potato pretty much immediately after they got some.
As the name suggests, this is designed for NATO forces. These ships would be great for Baltic, Black Sea, and Mediterranean use. Turkey, Greece, Germany, Norway, non-members Sweden and Finland all have FACs. Poland and the Baltic states would also be great customers as well as export opportunities for countries in the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, South China Sea, and countries around the Malay peninsula. I never said this was for the USN, I just said it was an American-based design.
Author:  Thiel [ February 23rd, 2016, 9:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
The problem with common NATO designs is that, despite the theoretical advantages, they don't work out and I'll posit they never will. FOr both political and operational reasons. Politically speaking, everyone wants a piece of the pie. Look at the Pegasus class's procurement for an example of just how big a mess that was. Half the participants dropped the project entirely and the rest made their own individual designs.
From an operational standpoint there's simply no agreement on what a FAC does and what it needs to do it. Even when the ships operate in the same waters. Compare the last generation of Scandinavian FACs for an example. Denmark built the SF300, Sweden the Visby class and Norway built the Storm class. These has/had the same basic mission, but the operational emphasis couldn't be more different.
Author:  heuhen [ February 24th, 2016, 3:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
The only (Sort off) FAC vessel I can think on, that have crossed the Atlantic, was the Skjold class and even that one needed to be refuel before the last end of the trip (note, they travelt a little above cruise speed on that trip)

All FAC Norway tend to stay in home water, or have been transported on big RORO vessels to location as the Mediterranean. But then FAC is more an defensive tools, You'r enemy know you have them, they know that these FAC's can do heavy damage in short time periode, but after that they have no value, since they would have used up it's main weapon ammunition.
Author:  acelanceloet [ February 24th, 2016, 6:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NATO Asp-class FAC
I am just going to make the small comment here that there are better and more accurate drawings around for the 30mm gun, SEAPAR and oto 76mm.

on the ship design note, the bilge keel as it is now will just act as a big brake and slow your ship down :P I am also not certain SEAPAR works without an dedicated air search radar, it might be an good idea to swap it for SMART-S Mk 2.
the propeller shaft looks a bit on the long side for the length of the vessel (this suggests your engines are roughly underneath your radar mast, that is quite far forward if I may say so)

I don't think crediting is required (if you change the bilge keel, very little of my drawing remains) but I would like to see it on the full shipbucket template ;)
Page 1 of 6 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/