Shipbucket

Yep. A Perry is just about the smallest hull that could take a Mk-13 GMLS, ASW gear, and two medium Helos. It's important to note that the smallest AEGIS ships - the Nansen Class - are about a thousand tons higher displacement than the Perrys. The Nansens are actually about the size of the early DG/AEGIS designs that only had a single Mk-22 GMLS (yep, that's right AEGIS with just 16 rounds; go figure).

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

The Nansen is a few meters longer and wider than the Perry. Ironicly the Australian Perrys has eight VLS tubes, just as many as the Nansen. Both have the OTO Malera 76 mm gun, witch means at the moment the two ships are equal in firepower. In wartime the Nansen will be fitted with another eight VLS tubes and the OTO Malera 127mm LW and a Phalanx CWIS. The Nansen with eight VLS tubes varries 32 missiles. Four reloads per tube.

As an OHP upgrade it seems rather ambitious but I do like the design if it where to be a brand new ship. Though could you satisfy my curiosity as to why there are 3 Phalanx CIWS?

_________________

Thor Heyerdahl has 16 VLS tubes. why others do not have them is that those VLS tubes was simply not finished in time. but I expect that they will be in place at the next overhaul.

We can only hope so. I have always felt that the Nansen is underarmed. She has the most advanced and capable combat system but not enough weapons to fully utilize it`s full potential.

Be careful with that line of thought - lest you end up with a fleet of CSGNs and DLGNs.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Well, none of them exists. I forgot to mention the NSMs that will be fittet to the Nansen frigates. It`s ironic that the Skjold, witch is so smaller has the same firepower as the Nansen. At least I, as a Norwegian can brag about the Skjold as it is the fastest warship in the world.

Except I've seen only one effective military use of Skjold, and that was in the context of a no-budget scenario where it was used as an embarked craft that did sprint-and-drift with a towed array sonar. Skjold really doesn't have a mission that couldn't be done cheaper by something else, mostly because once moving they're about as stealthy as, well, a giant flashing neon light.

(Just as a statement - I'm not really being all that serious in this thread because the initial post was just so bad in so many ways).

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

I was too lazy to remove the watermark that I placed on it from earlier, and it's my way of ensuring that my stuff doesn't get stolen. Back when I worked exclusively with MSPaint I had actually been told of an occasion where something that I worked hard on had been stolen (A Super Yamato lineart that had been a week's worth of effort to do the lines properly in), so once I transferred into the era of using GIMP I watermark pretty much every lineart that I work on. It's less intrusive than some of the other watermarks that I've seen, as you can still see the actual shape behind it. Once I start fixing it I might take the watermark off, but for a first post I figured it wouldn't really matter.

I've been looking for some input on the design, and thus far I got more than I'd originally projected, so thanks everybody. Like I said, the armament is being scaled back, still didn't hear much about whether or not the Mk-26 launcher would work, and regarding the whole "That's a new ship" post...



I did a comparison with an OHP from here (Solidified in red) and the hull matched up perfectly with the exception of the plug the original artist made to make the ship longer. The bow on mine was modified slightly as the stem was made slightly higher (I think it was only a pixel or so difference, can't remember as it was like a year ago that I'd modified the lineart..) So really, it's an example of what can be done with the OHP if you ripped everything from the deck up off, because even the exhaust vents on the side lined up with the original.

I think if the design were fleshed out, the hull would be a fuller version of the original ship (Thus it wouldn't really share much with the original ships outside of small areas like the propulsion and such).

EDIT-
Regarding the why, I'd wanted to make another ship for the USN that could perform on its own instead of being regarded as an escort ship that would be cheaper and smaller than the Arleigh Burke. Before saying that makes the ship redundant, aren't the Arleigh Burke's redundant in that we already get most of what they provide via the Ticonderogas?

I know that there's probably things that either could do better on their own, but I want to see this through. When I get around to redoing the ship I'll probably be adding the full hull so that I can be sure everything fits and to justify it all fits.. so really- once again- if the posts could be limited to constructive criticism on the design of the ship and less how I'm not following the style, that would be great.

Ok, the ship you're working off of was one of MConrads OHP replacement designs, not and OHP improvement design. This is an important distinction to make, and makes this effort a lot less silly. Such a ship would share very very little with an OHP, and the person who told you to use a Mk-26 was wrong. There is nothing that a Mk-26 can launch that a Strike Length Mk-41 VLS can't (well the VLS Harpoon wasn't deployed but it was tested). A hull of this size is only going to have 32-40 VLS cells so plan accordingly. When you update this you are also going to want to use the latest USN parts from the USN parts thread in the Parts Sheet Discussion subforum.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆