Shipbucket

With your crediting, I recommend you cut it down to (Mihoshik, Vossiej, MitcheLL300, Crazyhorse, MConrads & Aster)

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

Thanks. Any comments on the ship itself?

Oh, also, how many CIWS would I need for her?

One or two.

I would lower the SMART-L/S1850. It already has a field-of-view obstruction from the forward mast, so you might as well drop it to the level of the stack or somewhat below. It's a very heavy rotating set - it should be as low as possible (since it's explicitly for long-range search, horizon is not so important).

Thanks very much! Does this mean that because of the SAMPSON mast, the SMART-L/S1850 can't examine the area around the bow?

True, the foremast does give the SMART a blind spot, but in many regards it doubles up on some of the role of the Sampson. T45s could have been almost as capable with out it. Sampson itself is a very weird set up- using 2 back to back active antennae reduces weight so allowing a higher mount, but then spinning them adds mechanical and signal processing complexity and risk of failure. Apparently the spin assists in the cooling of the high powered electronics too, but frankly, it's a pretty bonkers idea,and no surprise at all that every other system to put to sea has cone for four rather less hard pushed arrays on static mounts. Recent moves have been to concentrate all four fixed arrays together to pool support services (cooling, local processing) either in the superstructure (pace US designs) or in a large mast (Dutch, Norwegian designs) or extended superstructures (Spanish, Australian). The relative uniqueness of the Sampson system means that it is relatively expensive- the full development costs of the system are now spread among only six active installations. Still, at least the RN can shoot down cricket balls a hundred miles away, so we can sleep easy in our beds.

Sylver is the launch system for the Aster missile and though a Harponn fit for it has been proposed I don't believe it's been designed let alone built in the real world. The french SSM, SCALP, is I believe the usual ASuW munition for the Sylver fit. Notably the RN have not gone for SCALP and have instead put in some of the basic "plumbing" for harpoon on the T45s.

If you're going for long endurance you could look to replace part of the GT power plant with diesel engines. You'd still have more or less the same sprint speed, but a good long range too.

One point on your original, now abandoned drawing- the aft phalanx was placed on top of an exhaust stack!

You may as well look at more advanced CIWs set ups- phalanx, whilst still useful, has serious competition in the form of high rate of fire gun systems and compact trainable and VLS missiles these days. Depending on your anticipated threat mix, and theoretical budget, there may be more suitable and interesting systems to consider, many of which are already available on the parts sheets.

One final point on hull forms- the Type 45 is by no means the finest hydrodynamic vessel to put to sea. She's fairly cheap, and specifically designed to be modular in construction- ridiculous I know, but the UK now cannot do a simple air defence destroyer hull in a single yard (reasons may be as much political as technical). The upshot is that the hull form is compromised, and that vessels such as the Arliegh Burke are in may ways superior sea boats (as well as far more heavily armed, and arguably half a generation ahead in terms of systems development). The Japanese, Spanish, Australian and many other navies all have hull forms in their large escorts at least as good as the UK, and some are in some ways superior.

Very nice start!
... Only 1 question, what's with the crapy Hebrew on the emblem?
It doesn't say anything.

_________________
- - -> My Worklist! <- - -

Would it be possible to get phased arrays on the mast for the surface search capability instead of the SMART-L/S1850?

Thanks for the info on the engines - how would I depict a diesel engine stack instead of gas turbine?

My theoratical budget isn't really an option - we're one of the largest micronations on 'Micras' wih an incredibly large military budget (paranoid militarism and threats from autocratic theocratic empires ftw).

So what CIWS would you recommend? I was thinking...dennel?

It's Yiddish on the seal, not Hebrew, and translates as "AMK - Yabotinsky Fortress High Command". Our ships were going to be manufactured by nationalised military dockyards, but I'm thinking of manufacturing this ship from my in-sim private company instead.

Sorry for the double post, but I was also wondering if all the stuff on the SAMPSON mast is intrinsic to the Type 45. Does the mast just contain the stuff necessary to operate SAMPSON alone, or other stuff for the Type 45 as well?

That's a load of tosh. The AB may or may not be a superior sea boat, but it has nothing to do with modular construction. All modern warships are constructed in modules, including the AB herself.

_________________
“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.