Shipbucket

I do agree with Erik on this one. There's also the fact that the Tromps were equipped with the Mk 13 launcher and these ships were substantially larger than the OHP! As for the harpoons being launched from the Standard arm, we know that the Dutch preferred to fit separate canisters for them on the Tromps, which probably would've been the case here too.

The Goalkeeper could be lifted up on a small housing or platform.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

the goalkeeper needs 1.5 deck penetration, so an platform wouldn't help here. no, I fitted it there by changing the hangar arrangement. the hangars are slightly smaller (because... well, an lynx is smaller then the seahawk)
not the best solution, I admit. an alternative is keeping the phalanx, which would most likely result in not adopting the goalkeeper at all, or putting an mk 29 over there. both are not really an option for me. leaving the space empty is of course no option, because all the rest of the ship is upgrading the basic perry's abilities. so this was the best solution, and one that fits the specs.

for the mk 26.... well, now I look at the dimensions I agree. I will put the mk13 back, and loose the asroc capability. as I said (and as you point out, bezo) it is more logical to fit an mk 13 anyway
for the harpoons I disagree though, but we can never be certain. but because this is not primarely an air defence ship, there are more then enough SM-1 on board, even if 8 to 10 harpoons are carried. also look at this ship as an real frigate, while the tromps were closer to ddg's IMO.

EDIT: so, here's the fixed version, with mk 13 again.

any other comments?

_________________
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

Does this mean this is an 'own design'? Or, was this a real proposal? Its simply that we need to keep the two seperated.

well, it is a bit complicated.
as said in the first post of this thread, there have been a number of proposals for the ships that became the S-frigates. I know on which ships they were based, I know what systems (rougly) were placed and what requirements there were. so, all the refs I have for these ships is text, and the ships they were based on/ were build by other nations following the same project. so although I do not know for certain if these ships would look like this, they most likely would have looked close to this. although that is the case on every never build to some extend, I admit that at least some of these are close to the border of own designs.

if you say they should be in own designs, I will keep them out of the upload session, but please let me keep the thread in this position, so it is clear I did not make these up entirely.

_________________
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

Ace, you mean 1.5m, right? You forgot the unit. Anyways, for the Harps I offered a deductive reasoning based on the RNlN:s actual practice, but you're quite right about the fact that, since these ships were never built we'll never know for certain what the preferred practice would've been. It would, however, be interesting to see how a solution with separate Harpoon canisters might've looked like.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

1.5 decks, bezo. and I have never seen any idea to fit harpoons on an perry that looked good to me, so........ you can try if you want, but the only position I see is between the radar deckhouse and the mast.

_________________
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

You add capability because it's required by mission needs or wants, not because it is an upgrade on paper compared to some other navy's ship.

Sigh.

and of course that was what I meant sorry Erik, for not expressing that correctly.... but look at the S frigate, which had:
role: multirole, primary ASW and ASuW
- harpoon canister
- mk 29
- 2*2 torpedo tubes
- 1/2 helicopter
- 76mm gun
- goalkeeper

the L frigate, which had:
role: air defence
- mk 13 for SM-1
- mk 29
- harpoon canister
- goalkeeper
- 2*2 torpedo tubes

against the perry:
role: escort, primary air defence
- harpoon/sm 1 MK 13 GMLS
- 1*3 torpedo tubes
- 2 helicopters
- 76 mm gun
- phalanx

and the dutch perry:
role: multirole escort
- mk 13 for harpoons and SM-1
- 76 mm gun
- goalkeeper
- 2*2 torpedo tubes
- 2 helicopters
and the radar fit to use this all to it's fullest...
as you can see, I fitted the S and L frigates a bit together, and you can by this list also see why I can't affort to loose any weapon position to fit in the requirement the S frigates (or the L) fitted in.

_________________
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

Ace, I understand your viewpoint. However, what I had in mind is the fact that, as far as I have been able to find out, Harpoons were not fitted for SM-1 launchers till about 1985; 1983 the very earliest. Just look at the Bundesmarine, JMSDF and RAN for example, so it'd depend on when the Dutch OHPs would've been commissioned. I totally agree with you about the difficulty of fittings separate launchers anywhere on the hull - thus maybe for a while the Dutch ships would've sailed w/o them?

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

The Dutch and the Italians did it in real life several times.