Shipbucket

You'd cry and limp home, I think, possibly/hopefully supported by the TRS-16 above the hangar and maybe stuff like active-ESSM. Same as or better than a Burke, or a T45, or a Nansen, or a DZP, or pretty much anything built in the last few decades. I don't think anybody in the west currently has anything with a truly credible ~360deg casualty capability.

I examined the multi-island studies the Aussies appear to be doing with CEAFAR, but they weren't really compatible with arrays of this size, or of a big open empty volume aft.

the fun thing with Nansen is that they equipped it with an small short range backup 3D radar... but then someone was so smart to mount it on the same bloody mast the SPY-1 are mounted on....lol. But then Nansen is intended to work together with the Skjold class, and if Nansen get is radar destroyed or damaged... she would us Skjold class radars as her main radar and targeting systems...

But then most frigate aren't build to work alone in most cases... Norwegian frigates, tends to often be referred as an multi-role "escort" frigate in Norway.

A few things:

1. A slight improvement (I think) in the structural and aperture layout of the mainmast. I think it's now prettier AND lighter. Also, I'd forgotten a dedicated IFF antenna, which is fine on the DDH but problematic on the DDG. I envision both this and the TACAN antenna either as cheap-o printed antennas or blast-from-the-past FRESCAN. Either or both should be cheap enough for me to not really care. I know the middle drawing has Spanish aircraft. They're... visiting, I guess.



2. I experimented with a triangular/hexagonal arrangement like the Aussie thing I alluded to, so we could have better casualty capability via a larger undrawn rear triangle-mast. I decided it might have some virtue, but it was too ugly to be acceptable.



3. Here's sort of an electronics parts-sheet-in-progress, since some have asked for it by PM.

http://i.imgur.com/d4OHJtT.png

got a weird idea! again!

What about a small light weight 3D radar, that can be stored. but can be mounted in various location (that are prepared for it) by ease... by light weight: a couple of man could lift it. And by various location that prepared for but not mounted (even the weird ones... in the bow!)... where all connection for it are there, and those location are already programmed in to the systems, just need to be activated (plug and play)

It would give an limited backup when there are no other option available... except, network based communication between ships.

Hi Heuhen,

I'm not sure how small and light you could make such a thing? It's been my impression that there are fairly substantial signal generators and waveguides behind the more obvious components, unless you're looking at the modular AESA plates which consist of thousands of transceivers and are themselves probably very heavy?

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

Heuhen, I suspect if a useful man-portable 3D air defense radar were possible with today's technology, the USMC would have spent fifty billion dollars on it already.

As it is, the US Navy is stuck doing development on single-digit-kilowatt man-portable diesel gensets.

Refiguring of the electronics mast has improved the overall layout, and in particular has allowed the stump after mast to provide improved casualty capability without blocking aft arcs.


link to full size
interior structural cartoon

• Aft, we now have SPS-75 as well as a small trainable CEAMOUNT, good for ICWI for several ESSM across a relatively broad arc, the DDG only blocked about 15deg either side of the bow and the DDH more like 10deg. This is better than anything else afloat, and better than anything I've even seen proposed aside from some of the Australian Meko A-400 designs (page 17 (PDF warning)).
• The DDH retains the MEADS L-band phased arrays. I can't draw the blasted things at 45deg, so uh yay dielectric covers! Something about corrosion, I am sure
• 45deg electronics are hard in general. I think the current mast looks over-packed, but that's somewhat an artifact of pixelbashing. It looks saner if you look straight-on at one of the 45deg faces, which is shown on the internal cartoon. Note that the current mast is only slightly more voluminous than the old one, but pushes the volume down towards the major radar faces. Internal arrangement can only improve relative to the baseline drawing.
• It is likely less clear than it used to be, but there is a cruciform arrangement of yardarms on the forward mast. Note again the presence of some sort of nifty interferometric comms ESM to replace the likes of Classic Outboard. For clarity, the beam yardarms hold anemometry gear and HF whips as well as the ESM aerials, but possibly nothing else. I'm not sure what else might need to be loaded, but we have extra space if anybody has any ideas.
• It's certainly not intended as a serious ESM/ECM set, but Vigile LW makes an appearance just below the laser turret. SEWIP-III is much too large and heavy to take advantage of height of this mast, but I'd like a long horizon for missile warning.
• I've shifted all auxiliary power to notional packages of free-piston diesel generators, scaled from this Toyota prototype. These exhaust at the waterline. Nominal diesel power is 4.2MWe, distributed evenly between two AMRs and the forward MMR. Notably, the forward AMR has enough generation capability to fully power the 1500kW auxiliary propulsor, which means even a ship subjected to something like the Cole event would retain steerage and probably something like 5 knots worth of propulsive effort.
• I am frustratingly close to being able to accommodate a full AGS, if I can't already. I'm still working out those details and attempting to get a firm understanding of the magazine size (since it's a big automated mess, we can't just pack shells in whatever nook and cranny). I am willing to grow somewhat to ship the full mount, partially because this is some sort of threshold size for the railguns NAVSEA is working so hard on. The USN was once imagining replacing Burkes basically one-for-one with Zumwalts, and as long as I'm comfortably below the latter's displacement I feel like I can justify changes. The irony that this thread started with an oversized "frigate" is not lost on me, to be sure.
• Current magazine capacity, for the record, I believe is something in excess of 400 rounds. I'd really like that nearly-doubled ROF, though. This would match a single Mark 45 firing ERGM.
• Location of the mission bay loading hatch is improved. No matter the interior loadout in the mission bay, both hatch-adjacent containers (if loaded) can be immediately removed via the integral hoist, and the UNREP bays have direct access between helos or containers or whatever. I think the new arrangement is probably also structurally superior.
• I just noticed I have three bow anchors. This seems excessive, right? I think two is standard practice. Any experienced folks have any thoughts on whether I should remove the one from the stem or one of the ones from the cheeks of the bow?

Further source-gathering and nitpicking suggests I can fit a full AGS, so hurrah. I think it's a full 1/2 Zumwalt fit, for ~300 rounds in the automated ready-use magazines. It's definitely plausible I'd find more volume elsewhere aboard for a man-packed auxiliary storeroom, although even I am not pedantic enough to try to ascertain that.

I've rethought the role of the AAW variant of the design, in light of the fact that the general-purpose subtype is not exactly incapable. Rather, it is probably better to consider it a CGN version of the DDGN, trading hangar space for full flag facilities for a task group AAW command staff. It doesn't hurt that we gained sixteen (hypothetical) tactical-length Mk 57, for 88 cells on both subtypes. If the chatter is to be believed about multipacking SM(MR) (and plausibly also VL-ASROC and LRASM), and maybe nine-packing ESSM, that's more than enough cells to replace a Tico. CGN variant adds another 50 crew worth of liferafts, and replaces the forward half of the hangar with the second ship's boat (which was blocking the new flag bridge) and accommodation/offices. Obviously, the UHF MEADS search and track set is replaced with AMDR-S with better target discrimination at long range, as befits what would become the primary terminal ABM ship of a task force.

Perhaps you'd build DDGNs with both AMDR-S and MEADS. I dunno. UHF+X seems like it might be better in most scenarios.

One might imagine the task group CGN would never wish to approach shore during hostilities, and so the bluewater SQS-53 seems particularly appropriate. It's a little incongruous to keep AGS here, but I figure commonality might win the day over a 5/62 fit, or even no major gun at all. I'd love your thoughts on this. I've also thought about having a 7m RIB on both beams, and deleting the 11m facility in the stern in favor of some gutsy VDS installation. Again, share your thoughts.

All major arrays are now 16x16ft on both types, for 1.3x the aperture area of a Burke-III and 1.75 times the area of a regular Burke or Tico.

Other internal trivialities and mast re-re-re-relayout have happened, but nothing really worthy of note. Displacement holds steady at 11,500tFL.



link to full-size image

link to usual internal cartoon

Minor nitpick

The internal cartoon is JPEG'ed

_________________
Morten812

Morten Jensen
Randers
Denmark

Traffic Manager

Hate to say it, but goddamn, that design suddenly turned UGLY.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...