Shipbucket

The spacing in the Mk-13 is so tight that you can not increase the missile body size to that degree and still get the same number of missiles in the same volume.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

I have doubts about south africa designing alternate versions of existing weapons and directors. also, I doubt the amount of directors for the arnament.

I also have no idea why you made the radars and the funnel so high, and even on this position your 5'' magazine won't fit: the ship is very narrow over there, even if you have an really full hull shape (and you don't want that on these ships). and of course I join in with timothy: that missile launcher isn't gonna work, or at least not like you imagine.

_________________
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

Turrethead,

Do you know the Junior General site?(www.juniorgeneral.org),
If you are thinking of making miniature troops and military vehicles, as ships as well, maybe you could post the pictures there.

Each missile cell in the Mk 13 is sized to accommodate a Tartar/Standard missile. The major issue in this footprint is not the missile diameter or the main wingspan but the dimensions of the folded tail guidance fins. These require a box 73cm square which is why inside the Mk 13 there is actually quite a bit of free space around the missile and its main fins. The Sea Dart missile requires a footprint of a box 69cm square so comfortably fits into the Tartar/Standard box. The first Chow boosters used a higher span stabilizer fin but the South Africans can replace this with a folding fin or the shorter, higher chord stabilizer used on later Sea Darts. Fitting a Sea Dart into a box 73cm square and 4.8m long is easy.

I’ve also made the Sea Dart Mk 13 launcher a bit deeper than the Tartar Mk 13. This is not an increase in the magazine space because Sea Dart + Chow booster is actually shorter than a Tartar. But rather to represent a change to the Mk 13’s fire/explosion control systems. Mk 13 is designed to control an explosion of a solid propellant Tartar missile which releases huge amounts of gas quickly and violently. The Sea Dart has much more benign Kerosene fuel in addition to the solid propellant Chow booster. So it needs the plenum for gas release from exploding Chows and also improved fire fighting for longer burning Kerosene motors. The Sea Dart/Chow is likely to be a lot less dangerous to a ship than the Tartar/Standard missile but I thought it prudent to design in some additional fire fighting. Also made the length of the Mk 13 fit better into the deck heights of the DDL ship.

That’s the level of detail I’m going into when designing this ship. The Sea Dart fits. I’ve modeled it and its AOK.

And you would be wrong.

Weapon Data
Physical growth capability:
Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680 kg (1,500 lb)
Diameter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.3 cm (13.5 in.)
Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.73 m (186.0 in.)

Those are the numbers for the maximum growth for the Mk-13/22 GMLS As given by United Defense. Neither ASROC nor Sea Dart fit in a Mk-13. It's close, but it doesn't fit.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

There is quite a bit of history in my AU as to why South Africa has the Sea Dart. The main reason is in 1963 they signed up with the UK to help fund the development of the weapon. In the real world the South Africans tried to buy British SAMs a few years later and were rebuffed by the British Labour Government. So they funded 70-80% of the development of the French Crotale missile (Project Cactus). In the AU even the British Labour Government of 1964-1970 doesn’t place a complete ban on South African military cooperation. So the South Africans get the Bloodhound Mk 2 and acquire a local infrastructure to build Sea Darts for their ships and ground based air defence. A better deal than paying all of the costs of a development program and ending up with a handful of Crotale systems.
The only directors drawn so far are the two Type 909 illuminators for the Sea Dart. There will also be two much smaller gunfire controllers on each beam for the 5” and 3” guns.
The funnel is the exact height of similar funnels for twin Tyne, twin Olympus CODOG machinery on the Type 42, Type 22 and DDL ships. The SPS-01 Broomhead radar is the same exact height it is on the Dutch Tromp class ship. The Type 909s are as high as the required space for their rooms under the antenna are when placed on top of the bridge and hangar respectively. This height also gives them excellent fields of regard.


The bow is a lot finer than the stern and on bow gun mounted ships this is where the ammo is stored down on the bottom deck. On the DDL design the bow 5” gun has 200 cubic meters of volume for ammunition storage. On the Zambezi class the aft twin 5” gun has 500 cubic meters of volume for ammunition. If the DDL can store 400-600 rounds in this space then the Zambezi can store 1,000-1,500 rounds.

I’m not just imagining this ship I’m doing a detailed design of it.

They are the maximum dimensions for a missile to fit a standard Mk 13 GMLS as built and in service around the world. The Sea Dart Mk 13 onboard the South African Zambezi and Dutch Tromp class in my AU is different. The maximum diameter of the weapon is because that is the size of the holding arms that hold the weapon in place inside the magazine. It is customized for a 343mm caliber weapon (Tartar, Standard, Harpoon). The amount of space available within each missile cell can accommodate a bigger weapon as long as it doesn’t exceed the footprint provided for the Tartar which is a box 730mm by 730mm.

I’ve actually said all this before in a previous post in this thread. This is not a standard Mk 13 but one customized for the Sea Dart. Apart from the changes in the holding arms and launch rail there is also a different fire fighting system. But still the same basic launcher with the same surface area footprint on the ship. The Mk 13 design can accommodate 40 Sea Dart missiles with a few tweaks which is what I’ve done.

Thanks but I'm not really interested in that site. Those mirror image drawings hurt my brain and I'm interested in writing AUs not playing board games. I'll stick to FD scale for vehicles.

Looks like the start of an interesting AU, and looking forward to seeing more of it.

_________________
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."

that deck view is of the wrong deck, IIRC. it is at least one deck higher then the deck you think it is. and with changed weapons I didn't mean the seadart (well, a little bit ) but also the weird oto guns housing and the 'changed' 909 directors. why would they make such modifications?

also, for the height of the directors. the SPS-01 on the tromp is on the lowest position possible there. but you used an different setup, with 2 very heavy directors and an huge funnel. you should at least lower the directors or this ship is gonna have serious topweight issues.

for the funnel size: the tromp has, due to the fact it has to limit topweight, very small structures apart from the one with the radar on it. so did the type 82, and that ship was a lot bigger already (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c275/ ... ype988.png)
the heavy gun mount on the stern doesn't help as well.

_________________
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