Shipbucket

''BUT HEY'' some are already done beter, hey.

Am posting again. Am still playing around with the idea of having an area air-defence destroyer that could serve as a flagship for the ISN fleet. On another page I posted a desig based on the Iroquois class but frankly (having toured these ships extensively) these ships are really showing their age, and the lack of surface-to-surface capabilities made me think that perhaps another design would be needed. Wanted to find something that was capable but not too modern. Was tempted to go with a JMSDF design, but I figured a ship designed for the Sea of Japan and the middle-Pacific might not be well suited to a North Atlantic winter. So I give you the two designs I've come up with so far:

This ship I'm calling the Terra Nova and is based on the late-Charles F. Adams class destroyers used by the USN. Of course a few changes had to be made to the design as I consider the late Adams class to be a very busy ship. For this design I deleted the aft 5-inch gun and replaced it with a octuple Harpoon launcher to provide a more modern surface-to-surface capability. (Technically the aft launcher on the late-Adams can fire both Standards and Harpoons, but I always considered that to be a bit dangerous as I would not want my ship to be stuck with a Harpoon ready to fire when an enemy missle or jet is bearing down on us.) I also deleted the two forward triple torpedo launchers as the Cabot class is meant to be the main ASW warship of the navy, and the 8-cell ASROC launcher should provide suitable enough ASW capabilities, although the lack of anti-submarine helicopter would be a hinderance. While I like this design, the lack of CIWS and the general aage and amount of upkeep that this class required makes me think that this ship would only be slightly more suitable than the Iroquois-based design.


This ship I'm calling the Vinland, or perhaps, Vinland deux and is based on the French Cassard Class AAW destroyers (or frigates). They've proved a reliable class to the French, and are well suited to patrol work and fleet work. Again a few changes had to be made to make the ship more suitable for the Newfoundlander's. First the 100 mm main gun was replaced with a 76 mm Otobreda. This is more to do with the fact that the 76 shells would be more readily available, both in supply and on the open market as aside from the French, not many use the 100 mm. I deleted the Exocet launcher amidships and replaced it with Harpoons. Finally I deleted the two aft Mistral launchers, added a platform to port and starboard of the hangar to allow for the installation of two Thales Goalkeeper CIWS. I'm not a fan of the French penchant for using missles for point-defence (although I do like the RAM) so I added additional space to make room for the new systems. Also forgot the chopper, but if I keep this design I will fix that later.

Again, works in progress. Trying to find the right fit for the navy. I may just take another Meko design and add a Standard launcher, but in the meantine, you get this .

I doubt the goalkeeper will fit over there. the gun itself could be placed over there easily, but I don't know these ships well enough to say if there is space for the ammo.

_________________
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

I was wondering about that myself (alas my knowledge of French is limited to what was mandatory back in high school so I'm limited to studying pictures and English technical specs), but I assumed that the space that would be saved by having smaller main gun rounds and not having to carry additional Mistrals for reloading would allow enough storage space for at least one full load each. I'm playing around with other CIWS systems but so far nothing is sticking out. And I don't see the point in readding the Mistrals as that would mean purchasing a whole whack of missles that would only be used by one ship, laws of economics call this a 'no-no'. That being said, I may be left with little recourse.

If you just wanted a defensive ASW capabilities, it might be better to go the opposite way, keep the SVTTs and delete ASROC, or load the ASROC launcher with Harpoon only. That way you could keep the second 5 inch gun. The SVTTs are suitable for close-in ASW engagements, while ASROC and helicopters serve for longer ranges.

Interesting point. Of the two the ASROC has a slightly longer range (by slightly I mean a nautical mile at best) but really both systems are inadequate compared to an embarked helicopter. Now it might be prudent to move Harpoons into the ASROC launcher and add a light helicopter pad to the aft deck, but that would seem like too much work for such a dated design. The idea of having two main guns would be kinda pointless for a defensive navy, at least in my incredibly humble opinion.

Below are two AAW destroyer designs that will supplant the two I posted above. And they are:

This is the Cassard based design that was seen earlier. A couple slight changes were made. The addition of the Eurocopter Panther is the most obvious change, but I also added two triple torpedo launchers port and starboard amidships just before the Harpoons and boat launch where it appeared to be enough deck space to allow for it's installation. While I do think the embarked helo would be adequate for ASW work, I figured having a back-up was always nice, espescially in the choppy North Atlantic. However I'm not sure I'll keep it, as there may not be enough storage space for any additional torpedoes.


This design is based on the JMSDF Hatakaze Class guided missle destroyers that entered service in the mid-80's. A rather good design with a good balance of weapons, and was noteworthy as being the first Japanese destroyers not classified as DDH's to be able to land helo's as well as being capable of commanding a fleet (again, the first that wasn't a DDH). However it still required a few changes to make it more inline with that I wanted for the ISN. The most noteable change was to the aft deck. Originally it had a five inch gun similar to the bow just aft of the superstructure and just before the helicopter landing pad. I removed this, and added a helicopter hangar that would be capable of holding a light ASW helicopter, in the form of a Panther (would also add a Canuck-designed Bear trap, but that's not visible). To provide short-range air-defence I added an eight-cell Sea Sparrow/ESSM launcher to the roof of the hangar. Finally I deleted the two Phalanx systems, increased their platform space, and replaced them with two Thales Goalkeeper systems to keep them in line with other ships of the navy and to provide better clearance and visibility for the systems.

I like both of these designs a lot, and am trying to pick which one I will pick as the definitive design. (Although I am toying with merging the two designs into one and whether one would be in service or two.) Also looking at whether I should replace the forward 5" gun with a 76 mm like with the other designs.

About Vinland Class :
-Put the MK42 in place of MK13 SAM, but mounted it down on deck.
-behind it (where now is the MK42), a MK26 SAM should be placed (as in Kidd Class DDGs)
As I know MK26 can fire 1 missile every 7-8 sec, while MK13 has about half fire rate (1 missile/12-13sec).
-Why not use a more capable helicorter?

Their both called Vinland so please specify by base design, but still not entirely sure what you're suggesting. With regards to the helo, I'm open to any suggestions you have as to what would be a more capable helicopter, but I selected the Panther as it was small enough and light enough to fit into the Cabot class' hangar, it would be at home on the Cassard design as it's the one the French use anyway and I wanted to use similar helo's for both the frigates and destroyers for the sake of consistency and economics. But as I said, I'm open to suggestions.

You can't just swap the two. The even the self defence length mk 41 (To my knowledge there's no mk 42) needs a bigger hole in the deck than the incredibly compact mk 13.
The Kid class only has one mk 26 one the bow. Plus having both an arm launcher and a vls is just stupid.
It also takes up far more space under the deck
Space/weight restrictions. Space is going to be tight in that hangar.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Since the ship is not an ASW escort (i.e. not meant to defend other ships against submarines), then it would be prudent to go with a fairly minimal ASW capability. The SVTTs are good enough as a last ditch defence against a submarine. A helicopter pad wouldn't be worthwhile for ASW, you'd need a hangar.

With regard to the second gun, a second main gun may not add much to it, on the other hand removing it and replacing it with Mk. 141 launchers moves the ship's centre of gravity upwards.