Shipbucket

OK, not like I was looking at just that drawing for reference while writing that...
I really had the Volna in mind, I don't know how the autoloader for the Mk.11 works, so the double-drum version seemed more elegant and potentially more reliable. Again, approved by the Soviet Navy
OK, plugging the Fast-40 between the hangars make sense if there is space. I had in mind the Italian configurations, and how the Fast-40s are always paired port and starboard with a common director. Certainly nothing mandatory in that.

Well, the secondary gun control mission is explicitly listed on Thales's website, so there's that. Dunno how well that would apply to a late-70s version though, as I can't seem to find other ships using STIRs without an NSSM or Aspide involved. On the other hand, the Dutch Karel Doorman and German F-123 frigates (among others) carry a 76mm and only STIRs as directors, so it might work.
So that's where the Spruance-like masts come from? Again, if this ship is explicitly in the OHP category, I see nothing wrong with having only an SPS49 for air search. On such a hull size, a more extensive radar fit would mean compromising on either the aviation (see DDG-2 Adams class) or the weapons.
Yeah, about that, are these really fixed twin Mk.32 Mod.9 just astern of the triple tubes? If so, what for?

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

Sorry about the fast typing, and errors as a result of it. Am trying to multitask, and not doing very well at any of the things I'm trying to accomplish. It seems I have a number of errors. The thrusters are entirely unintended. I was rooting around your Perry drawing trying to locate the underwater parts of Prairie Masker system, and thought the thruster thingy was part of it. I've been looking for the fixed tubes--is that what the circular hatch thing on the hangar is? I thought it was just some sort of ventilation hatch. I will work on moving those vents.

I've really gotten rusty it seems. The eggs are intended, though it may be that replacing them with more STIRS is the ticket. As for NSSM, and SM-1, I added the Sea Sparrow, because I didn't trust SM-1 against sea skimmers as much, and thought that Sea Sparrow might have a little bit of utility there, or just as a way of getting more missiles in the air without having to wait for the main launcher to cycle through the reloading process in a SHTF situation.

Do we have a belowdecks drawing of the Volna? I've been looking for it, without success so far.

One idea I explored and dismissed was that of using a box launcher, with some sort of palletized reloading system. The box launcher expends its missiles, and flips vertical, a hatch opens, and a loading device inserts a new pallet, and there are multiple pallets on a turntable waiting for their turn. It seemed like a good idea, but I figured since nobody had ever done it, it must not be that great after all. The pallet idea I got from land based missile launchers that use that quick reloading system.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

I didn't even know I had cooling inlets. I thought those things were more part of the Masker system, so I lifted them from your OHP, along with what turned out to be a thruster. I'll get rid of them tonight, as they weren't part of the original underwater hull, though at this point, I'd love to know what that thing does look like. I know it works by creating a layer of bubbles, so I copied anything from the underwater hull of the Perry, that I thought might do such a thing.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

the transverse strakes are the praerie masker system. so you copied everything but the actual system

_________________
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 didn't associate them with bubbles, I guess.

Tonight, I'll swap out the SPS-49 and replace it with the -48 for 3D targeting. For some reason, I thought the -48 wasn't to be used alone.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

When said "What about Mk26" I mean to use it as inspiration for an AU design. On the other hand, Soviet M-1 Volna holds 16 or 32 missiles, while the smallest Mk26 holds 24 (weighting about 78t without the missiles). There is available PDF file in internet with all Mk26 specs.

That mack seem to be copied from one of my older designs, which was inspired from JMSDF Takatsuki class destroyers. Usually macks were used on steam powerd ships.

Dunno about an SB version, but see below:

More information hereor there.
As you can see, there is a small 16-round loading drum under each loading hatch. This ties in with acelanceloet's comment about the reloading rate of the Mk.11, who explained much better than I did why I would have gone for a double-drum Mk.22 derivative.
Regarding your palettized loading system, take into account that it will be much less compact than a drum-based system, and probably harder to automatize given the longer courses and higher weights for moving parts. To an extent, it depends on the compacity of your missile: a Sea Sparrow without folding fins is more adapted to a box launcher than an SM1 with a thicker body and strakes.
Anyway, no one has made a box-launched trainable SM1 launcher, probably because of the added weight on the launcher.

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

Technically, the Mk 112 ASROC launcher could handle SM-1, at least I thought, and there was a reloading system for it, though I'm a bit sketchy on the exact details. My idea was the launcher would have two supports on the side, leaving the space directly underneath the box free, where the reloading hatch would be, and the reloading mechanism itself would be like a retractable forklift, though it would have to handle the weight of all those missile, probably 8 at a time, which would make the thing prone to wear.

I'll probably go with a 2x24 round drum arrangement below decks; I think the design will allow me to get away with that much. On the otherhand, I see no reason why the arrangement wouldn't let me add a Harpoon-type AShM and ASROC to the magazine, and I know the updated version of that of launcher can fit either weapon.

And, yes the Mack did come from your design, and you'll be in the credits, when I finally get the kinks out of this thing. Originally, I was going to use a regular stack, and there would have been a second Spruance mast aft, but that was the point the design was trying to turn into a DDG, and I realized that I was trying to add too many things, so I instead went to a Mack. I presume the propulsion is GT, that the intakes for it are hidden on the front of the Mack.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

ASROC fits only on the Mk 26, as that has an sligthly higher magazine and longer launch rails. keep in mind that you also need an separate loading mechanism for each magazine, or (the mk 26 does this) one that serves both magazines which also allows swapping missiles between the 2 magazine rails.

as for the ASROC magazine: while nobody did this in service IIRC, there is no reason tartar and SM-1 could not fit in the Mk 112 launcher (IIRC this was even tested)
do note that the cost, weight and ship impact of this launcher will be as much as that of 2 Mk 22, which is a lot more then a single Mk 13. I am not certain your proposed launcher really has advantages over a ship designed around Mk 26 (looking at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/632 ... 201972.png as minimal size)

for gas turbines, I would expect much larger in and uptakes then you currently have (look at the size of them on a perry, and you will need more then the 2 turbines on the perry I expect)

_________________
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

ASROC launcher could definetely launch early Harpoon and SM-1 (RGM-66, anti-ship SM-1). I do not think that it is suitable for a AAW frigate.