Shipbucket

Hmmm. I felt a tad curious if this last one will work. It looked good, but something felt off. So I decided to do some comparisions and the results troubled me.

• First, you have a similar displacement as the Farragut/Coontz class, which was IIRC the smallest hull with the Mk 10 GMLS on board. Your ship has less beam and length (= a significantly lower stability), the Mk 10 is quite a lot higher up, the main gun turret is quite a bit heavier, you added a helicopter pad and hangar for 2 helicopters. Note, the Farraguts were already considered somewhat too top heavy. so I have doubts about the displacement available for all this, the stability reserve required and the deckspace to fit all that would be needed.
• Second, Diesel power of this hull to 30 knots. I estimate, based on some quick looks at diesel powered reference ships of the time, that would require between 50000 and 60000 shp. I don't see that coming from that small single funnel, and it is definitely not going to all fit that far forwards. For example, look at the DS 381 proposal, fitted with 4 10000shp diesels here: http://shipbucket.com/drawings/5722. That's 4400 tons and went 28,5 knots, on a destroyer shaped hull.
• Third, the arrangement. The highest SPG-55 will be permanently blasted by any heat and dirt from the funnels. Not something I would recommend. Placing them further aft would mean raising them even higher as they would otherwise intrude into the magazine of the Mk 10 launcher.
• Fourth, the update. If the hull is capable of taking all this weight and systems, you are replacing the LW-02 with an much heavier SPS-48, you are fitting RBS-10 missiles without removing anything else.

What I would recommend, is fitting the Mk 10 mod 5 GMLS, which drops the magazine one deck level and raises the launcher arms by a few feet, which gives you both lower topweight and a better firing arc over your hangar. This allows you to move the SPG-55's further aft, giving you more space for funnels and the like. On the refit, I would remove 57mm guns or even the main gun turret to gain stability reserve for the new radar and the new missiles. Those modifications might make this somewhat workable....

That said, this doesn't fix everything. Engines/uptakes would still be very cramped, and it would still be a lot on this hull. An bigger waterline area for the same (or even better an slightly bigger) displacement (you are now at an 0.6 block coefficient, I would try getting it to 0,52 or 0,55) would give you a lot more space to work with for better radar arcs, missile arcs, no smoke over complex systems and at the same time would give the possibility for an better L/B ratio, making it easier to reach those 30 knots.
The other option would be forgetting the Terrier and fitting maybe an Mk 13, 22 or 25 launcher. Then the ship works almost as-is.

Btw, I think you would have the only ship in the world to equip Terrier and no 3D radar. Every ship I can think of fields at least some kind of heightfinder in addition to the 2D radar, if not an full 3D radar. So the 1963 version would not use the full potential of the Terrier missile by far!
Last small sidenote, you might like the new SPG-55 parts on the shipbucket wiki

_________________
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

In addition to everything acelanceloet mentioned, I’m sure that by the 1980s a helicopter-carrying cruiser would be fitted with TACAN for helicopter navigation which I don’t believe I see here.

Well...
- Is it possible to move the missile directors on top of the ridge superstructure with missiles in the aft?

I have made a Springsharp calculation of the ship, note the misc weight. She beace a much better seaboat with the tripple turret up front

Erz-Gotland, Sweden Cruiser laid down 1965

Displacement:
4 311 t light; 4 496 t standard; 5 500 t normal; 6 303 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(460,07 ft / 442,91 ft) x 50,52 ft x (14,76 / 16,44 ft)
(140,23 m / 135,00 m) x 15,40 m x (4,50 / 5,01 m)

Armament:
3 - 5,98" / 152 mm 50,0 cal guns - 113,44lbs / 51,45kg shells, 400 per gun
Auto rapid fire guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1950 Model
4 x Triple mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 2,24" / 57,0 mm 60,0 cal guns - 0,00lbs / 0,00kg shells, 300 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1965 Model
4 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 340 lbs / 154 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 0,79" / 20 mm 265,75 ft / 81,00 m 8,53 ft / 2,60 m
Ends: 0,39" / 10 mm 177,13 ft / 53,99 m 8,53 ft / 2,60 m
Upper: 0,20" / 5 mm 265,75 ft / 81,00 m 8,01 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1,97" / 50 mm 0,39" / 10 mm 0,39" / 10 mm
2nd: 0,20" / 5 mm 0,20" / 5 mm 0,20" / 5 mm

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 0,39" / 10 mm
Forecastle: 0,20" / 5 mm Quarter deck: 0,20" / 5 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 0,79" / 20 mm, Aft 0,39" / 10 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 35 127 shp / 26 205 Kw = 28,00 kts
Range 8 000nm at 18,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1 806 tons

Complement:
319 - 415

Cost:
£3,209 million / $12,834 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 114 tons, 2,1 %
- Guns: 114 tons, 2,1 %
Armour: 264 tons, 4,8 %
- Belts: 116 tons, 2,1 %
- Armament: 32 tons, 0,6 %
- Armour Deck: 109 tons, 2,0 %
- Conning Towers: 8 tons, 0,1 %
Machinery: 840 tons, 15,3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1 942 tons, 35,3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1 189 tons, 21,6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 1 150 tons, 20,9 %
- Hull below water: 350 tons
- Hull above water: 300 tons
- On freeboard deck: 300 tons
- Above deck: 200 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
0 lbs / 0 Kg = NaN x 6,0 " / 152 mm shells or 0,6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,20
Metacentric height 2,5 ft / 0,8 m
Roll period: 13,4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,17
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,32

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck ,
a normal bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,583 / 0,600
Length to Beam Ratio: 8,77 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24,05 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 4,92 ft / 1,50 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,00 %, 26,25 ft / 8,00 m, 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Forward deck: 30,00 %, 22,97 ft / 7,00 m, 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Aft deck: 30,00 %, 19,69 ft / 6,00 m, 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Quarter deck: 20,00 %, 11,48 ft / 3,50 m, 11,48 ft / 3,50 m
- Average freeboard: 19,46 ft / 5,93 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 70,2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 205,4 %
Waterplane Area: 16 777 Square feet or 1 559 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 160 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 74 lbs/sq ft or 362 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,92
- Longitudinal: 2,13
- Overall: 1,00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

_________________
Dieu et mon droit
Solus dux nullus ductus

Worklist
All Royal Swedish Navy units from 1522 to present

almost never use Springsharp! it's usless, just use common sense (I don't have that)

Springsharp work only for gun-ships like WW1-WW2 era ships and even then it's not perfect. it base it's numbers from multible other ships in table.

as sone you start to work with missiles, some are not an factor in Springsharp everything goes wrong.

firstly due to a missile system is more than just the missile-launcher and magazine, but also all the electronics. And secondly due to it's not take into account fro more modern hull shape and the equipment a ship need today. I can guaranty that those 1150 tons goes away to all the various equipment a warship need and that before you start thinking about missile systems. you can double or triple that Miscellaneous weights and first then start to get close, but it still doesn't calculate for position of systems, etc.

if other Navy's that have build ships with these systems, says that it can't be smaller.... Springsharp is like politicians, they say they want this, then later ask, why it didn't work, in the mean time, engineers are facepalming and say, we wrote you an report!

I am no expert on springsharp... however.
- Your speed is only listed as 28 knots. Even with that, you would need power close to that of the 40k shp of the DS 381, which would need at least 2 funnels, both larger then the one you have now, and some distance between them.
- I would have to look up the weight of the SPG-55, but I think quite a large percentage of your misc weight is going to be higher up then you are stating here. The missile magazine is all on the freeboard deck level, the SPG-55's and radars are high above the freeboard deck, the helicopter and it's hangar is at the freeboard deck level.... and the boats and crane are counted under the misc weight too right? What is under the waterline of these weights?
- Personally, I would consider a metacentric height of 0,8 meters on the low side for a ship this size. I would want to stay above the 1 meter even in refit conditions.

As for putting the SPG 55's forwards: not impossible (especially with your firing arcs) and putting one forwards and one aft would make some sense although I cannot remember it ever being done (It was done with SPG-51's though IIRC).

_________________
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

remake Ersatz Gotland

_________________
Dieu et mon droit
Solus dux nullus ductus

Worklist
All Royal Swedish Navy units from 1522 to present

Replacement for destroyers Uppland/ Öland from 1947

_________________
Dieu et mon droit
Solus dux nullus ductus

Worklist
All Royal Swedish Navy units from 1522 to present

Its a sleek looking design for sure. My gut feeling is that the superstructure is too small, feels a little cramped to fit in all the command spaces etc., but the armament options look ok.

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

Sleek looking ships, but in addition to what Hood said (That superstructure really needs at least one more level), those long range search radars really need a more substantial mast to stand on, because what you have now looks like it will snap right in half with a bit of wind.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

Updated picture

_________________
Dieu et mon droit
Solus dux nullus ductus

Worklist
All Royal Swedish Navy units from 1522 to present