Shipbucket

I know.

_________________
The Chinese people are not to be cowed by U.S. atomic blackmail. Our country has a population of 600 million and an area of 9.6 [million sq. km]. The United States cannot annihilate the Chinese nation with its small stack of atom bombs. Even if the U.S. atom bombs were so powerful that, when dropped on China, they would make a hole right through the earth, or even blow it up, that would hardly mean anything to the universe as a whole, though it might be a major event for the solar system.

then, why not swap it? the SPG-60 (in the STIR variation on the perry) is known to work fine with SM-1MR and most likely, with electronics updates, with SM-2MR too. it is though not known if the SPG-51 works well with the WM egg of the Mk 87/92 FCS. it might even be required to put 2 fully separate fire control systems on this hull (which was done on the brooke, but if it can avoided.....) which would be tartar and an WM series system.

-sidekick was IIRC never fitted together with SLQ-32V3, it was designed to give SLQ-32V2 V3 capabilities.

-turning the Mk 13 around will give it an slightly bigger field of fire and I see no reason why not to

- the liferafts near the Mk 13 are again trapped behind railing, just let the black lines go over the railing to show they drop them over it

- no UNREP position on board?

- what is the ship exactly, an ASW escort or an AAW escort? I cannot really grasp it from your wall of text the ship is certainly too small to be an jack of all trades, I would think it would be an AAW escort due to the 3D radar and the 'full' Mk 13, but the fact that the gun is not really an AAW type makes me think otherwise. a single helicopter would also not be ideal for an ASW ship, so it looks a bit like it is trying to be an do-all, but is good in nothing. (best would fit AAW, in which case I would go for an Mk 75 or something) if you want to go for ASW, you would need an dual hangar I think and that would bring this ship very close to the actual perry.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

The gun fit doesn't matter worth a tiny shit with regards to its suitability as an AAW combatant.

well, I'd want full 360 degrees CIWS coverage.... you are right it is not an requirement though, thinking again.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Then I suppose this will have two fire control systems for the gun and the missiles. The gun is just meant for very minor shore bombardment and forward arc missile defence, since SeaRAM/Phalanx cannot cover the entire vessel.

1) Fair enough.

2) It can swivel.

3) I imagine they extend slightly, thus the overhang shading.

4) Nope.

5) It's neither. It's a general purpose escort. I would prefer a dual hangar, but erik_t has pointed out that this is unlikely without a full beam hangar, which I'm not willing to draw, although I suppose the helicopters could be stored in a sort of staggered fashion as opposed to side-by-side or front-back. I'm sure a ten meter width is good enough for this.

_________________
The Chinese people are not to be cowed by U.S. atomic blackmail. Our country has a population of 600 million and an area of 9.6 [million sq. km]. The United States cannot annihilate the Chinese nation with its small stack of atom bombs. Even if the U.S. atom bombs were so powerful that, when dropped on China, they would make a hole right through the earth, or even blow it up, that would hardly mean anything to the universe as a whole, though it might be a major event for the solar system.

1. if your gun is not in use when the missiles are in use, the purpose of 2 completely separate FCS's is not clear to me. also, I don't think that gun is very good in forward missile defence. even worse, IIRC it is developed in the era that supersonic aircrafts were an novelty, let alone the much smaller missiles.
2. it cannot. the arm can rotate, but will be at the same side of the launcher.
3. there is no way shading can show the shape of your guidance rail for the liferafts.
4. why not? it shortens your range severely, both by fuel, food and weapons.
5. so it is bad in both roles.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

The Perry class frigates had two illuminators placed in different locations for survivability - it was unlikely that a missile hit would knock out both channels. This comes directly from Friedman's Destroyers and so can't be wrong.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

yep, 2 illuminators, but both part of the same FCS: the Mk 92. the directors were the egg and the STIR (SPG-60)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

1) Yes, I'm sure it matters completely when the gun itself was developed, not the ammunition. Why, not look at how pitiful the Oto Melara 76mm is, being developed in 1964, so old, so useless. Oh wait, 120mm is better because I can cram more fusing and more powder into the gun firing subcaliber shells, or use full caliber proximity fused ones like DART, but bigger and meaner.

2) Oh well, I'm sure this Mk 13 is different and can do that, since it probably has 360' rotation as opposed to 180' like the real Mk 13.

3) I'm not sure how, since this clearly does.

4) Don't worry it has a helicopter deck. VERTREP is still an option, and I'm sure it can refuel astern or something like normal ships.

5) Guess so. Just like Perry. What a shame and all.
There's no significant technical obstacles to keeping SPG-51 and WM-25 from cooperating.

I will call it the Mark 9292 FCS.

_________________
The Chinese people are not to be cowed by U.S. atomic blackmail. Our country has a population of 600 million and an area of 9.6 [million sq. km]. The United States cannot annihilate the Chinese nation with its small stack of atom bombs. Even if the U.S. atom bombs were so powerful that, when dropped on China, they would make a hole right through the earth, or even blow it up, that would hardly mean anything to the universe as a whole, though it might be a major event for the solar system.

1. the oto 76 is constantly updated, to the SR and STRALES models. rate of fire, ammunition and other developments are all related. none of these exist for the 120mm turret though.
also, large caliber shells have more trouble with higher ROF and are because of that harder to adapt to AA fire, even with new technology.
prime example: the closely related bofors 120mm twin M50. developed as primary long range AA gun in the 1950's, considered good enough as back up for the missiles in 1975, but only considered for land attack in 2000 for the LCF frigates. surely, if it was possible to fix this only by putting in new ammunition, they would have considered her worthy for AA fire on these ships as well, right?
2. 180 degrees? read again what I wrote, I think you misunderstood. only the launcher arm of the Mk 13 rotates, 360 degrees, but I suggest putting the launcher arm on the other side of the Mk 13 launcher so you have an larger field of fire, because it is then further from your superstructure
3. it does not. but we can argue about this eternally, but to me it looks like they will roll onto the deck.
4. astern? no ships refuel astern, from the bow or side is possible, if you have the required UNREP mast. this can be foldable, but I suggest putting a small one against the superstructure amidships
5. perry has 2 helicopters and an dual director for the Mk 13. so, it is, for it's size, pretty good at both things. this ship is smaller and cannot do both, so you chose to do both badly.

sigh.... 9292 -.-
yeah, just develop your own stuff to get something working better. and give it silly names.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin