Shipbucket

I'm still playing catch-up to de-modernizing this boat. Black space was a holdover for torpedoes as well as the stealth anchor. Here are two versions. Kinda looks like a Hamina or Hayabusa now. In the 1980s, navies were adding stealth features to their vessels; that's why it has some stealth features to it. I have rails or the hull extends up to just over 3.5ft to act as a rail and provide protection for the 20mm cannon.

To those that say stealth wasn't around in the 1980s ... These were 1980s stealth designs.

_________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat.
Fortune favours the bold.

non of them was build as stealth.

they was build to make sure water run off the ship effectively when they are at speed, it did also give them a little nicer aerodynamic. (some people say aerodynamic have nothing with ships, but I will say it is the difference between having a comfort ship or not... to many time I have been on top deck getting my glasses almost blown of due to how the ships are designed.)

For whatever reason, pretty much all FAC-Ms ship their SSMs facing either roughly forward or 45deg off the bow. I think I have read Harpoon could only make up to a 90deg course correction on launch, and a +-45deg design would improve flexibility on how you'd salvo all eight weapons.

Otherwise, this is an attractive drawing and I like how it's shaping up.

Hmm, interesting you mention that. Do you know more precisely about the constraints there could be behind that? Because nearly all major ships have sideways mountings for their SSMs, particularly the Harpoon. You mention post-launch course correction, which makes sense, but only if, say, a destroyer is not considered as requiring a full 8-tube salvo. Do you think that there could be some other factor, like maximum launch speed?
Sorry for the O/T here, but I'm honestly just curious about that, as I have a few designs on the back-burner that use this trick as well.

_________________
Soviet Century/Cold War 2020 Alternate Universe: Soviet and other Cold War designs 1990-2020.
My Worklist

I'm pretty sure that was a limitation of the guidance package. Most of the ships were built with the initial Block I missile in mind and they had a fairly limited Attitude Reference Assembly. Couple that with a 90 degree wide field of view for its radar and you end up with a fairly simple minded missile. Later versions would add better off-bore capability and a full on autopilot, but by then a fair few ships had been built

_________________
“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.

My suspicion is that larger Western ships saw Harpoon as more of a weapon of opportunity, rather than a raison d'etre as it is for a FAC-M. They were, after all, primarily seen as escort ships. Note that Soviet designs, notably something like Slava, offer full salvo capability. Slava didn't have any carriers to guard, it had carriers to kill.

Just a guess.

For Norwegian missile boat, they had there penguin angled forward mainly due to that they wan't the capability to fire at speed without the missile crash in to something, but at an angle to make sure it get out from the ship.

for small fast attacking boat missiles like Harpoon or Penguin would be considered as a main offensive weapon and are angled forward due to that they expect to move toward the target, but on a large surface ship... they most likely fire, while they are observing the target at maximum radar range, moving parallel to the target. (just what I am thinking)

firing all around would also be more important then the amount of missiles to the forward direction, I suppose. turning a large warship has considerably more impact on fleet manouevers then that of an FAC.

_________________
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

So I'm stuck now. I want to swap around the RHIB and the Harpoons because I believe the rear location for the Harpoons would just be a better launching location as there is nothing behind them and the crew won't have to walk past the missiles to get to the RHIB. Also, I'm afraid that the water will be choppier where the RHIB would launch right now than in the middle of the ship. However, if I make these changes it's just going to look like a different Hayabusa. I'm kinda upset that all the evolutionary changes I made got me to the basic design of another ship, yet possibly vindicated because the Japanese make some damn fine vessels. Below is a quick rearrangement of the changes I want to make, and how my ship compares to the Hayabusa. I can't stop laughing about it. I'm also going to leave the Harpoon angled as-is because I haven't been able to find anything about why they should face forward.

_________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat.
Fortune favours the bold.

Its normally a good sign when your own design looks like a real vessel, generally it means your on the right lines. Originality in design is rare.
To me it seems similar in layout but definitely not in details.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft