Shipbucket

Yep, that works. It also just hit me what you've got - a not-steam Belknap. This isn't a bad thing - the Belknaps were originally classes as DLGs, and were about the same size as the Spruance class destroyers.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Hnh. I hadn't thought in those terms. The Belknaps were a good design. I'll have to keep those in mind as well once I start drawing this thing "for real".

I'm figuring this class to have the first commissioned in '73, with further builds up to sometime between '81-'84. Probably a total of between 30-45 ships total, to replace DD's built during the 50's. Probably have two or three "groups" with modifications along the line as new tech becomes available. So size and cost would be a consideration as well.

Every sailor wants all the bells and whistle they can get. The exchequer, on the other hand, would be happy with a rifle in a rowboat to keep costs down.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

After a few abortive starts, I came to the realization that try as I might, I can't improve on the superstructure. Big shock there, huh? So, I figured, might as well go with it.

So, this is what I have for Group 1 of my 1973 class of DDG's.



What I have envisioned for this class is to have an initial group 1 as shown, followed by a group 2 in around 76ish with upgrades and a group 3 around 80ish with further upgrades. What exactly those upgrades will be I'm still working on, but I'm thinking newer radars and missile systems most likely. I'm also toying with the idea of having a small group 4 mid 80's with an extended bow and VLS installed, sort of a transition from this class to the Kastens of the 90's and early 2000's.

Thoughts?

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

The reason my name was on the DG/Perry drawing was the hull, and well there is nothing left of my work there any more, so go ahead and please pull my name off of the credits - anything else wouldn't be fair to those who's work was used.

I would also strongly consider a larger rudder.

Something else that occurred to me was that 1973 is a bit early for the Mk 26 GMLS. The first flight could conceivably be launched with a Mk 22 GMLS forward on the bow with a Mk 16 ASROC box launcher aft. If I remember my Friedman's Destroyers right, the Mk-42 gun + Mk 13 (of which the Mk 22 is a smaller*, lighter version) + Mk 16 was the preferred fit for the DDG designs of the late 60s - of which this ship is a contemporary design.

With the larger ship, and the gun aft, this is reduced to just the SAM mount and the ASROC mount. While this will take up more space than your current design, I think it offers an excellent opportunity to included a flawed/semi-flawed design in the naval history. These early ships would probably be regarded as "Tight" ships by their crews, and the change to the Mk 26 GMLS on the later ships would be welcomed. A refit wouldn't be easy to the first flight, but that might see them assigned secondary duties until VLS comes along. It is also possible that their missile systems don't get refit, and they have to solider on until replaced in the late 90s. Pull the systems off of the forward deck, and you could have the largest cutters your coast guard has ever had!‡

Looking at the superstructure, The first batch is designed in the late 60s. This means that you can go all gas turbine which is good because COSAG [Combined Steam and Gas] is a pain and a half. This also means that you are going to have four turbines (the output from two just wasn't available yet, and by having a cruise turbine and a speed turbine for each shaft you are able to get better range) giving you about 70k SHP, which is more than enough for this hull to make 30 knots. These engine spaces are going to be staggered in series fore-to-aft. DG/AEGIS is going to be a close size and power plant analog - even if it was a bit later. From what I can tell, it (DG/AEGIS) would have shipped with the same JT4 turbines as were used on the USCG Hamilton Class Cutters and the RCN Iroquois class†. The Iroquois and DG/AEGIS will both give you a feel for the uptake requirements.

They also give a good feel for the extent of the mast structure. Earlier ships had heavy boilers and steam turbines down low that helped with to-weight. Gas Turbines are comparatively light for their power output, and as such, top weight becomes an issue. The fastest way to remove top weight is to start removing mast structure - a thinner, lighter mast is going to be preferred (and the DG/Perry mast is abnormally heavy for a ship of this era). You are also going to want to replace the SPS-49 with an SPS-40 or other earlier radar; The SPS-49 just wouldn't have been around yet for export. Ace an also help by offering a Dutch radar of the time period in place of the US one if you wish. And no matter what you do, you'll need to replace that TACAN (Tactical Navigation radar - it's for Air traffic Control) atop the forward mast. The one you have now is the later one that is in use today. Earlier versions were domed and one such example can be seen on DG/AEGIS.

As for the shape of the superstructure - you're not bad at all, but I am perplexed by the presence of the SeaCat SAMs. By this point, they are going to be extra weight to mount two. I'd go with just one - and have it removed on later flights of this class.

*The Mk 13 has two missile rings in side it - an inner 16 round ring, and an outer 24 round ring. The Mk 22 removes the outer ring, and was only used on a handful of ships - The US Brooke class DEGs, and the Spanish Baleares class FFGs.

†Well, sort of. DG/AEGIS, and the higher speed requirements would have had four turbines, while the Iroquois and Hamiltons only had two each - The Iroquois class had two smaller cruise turbines and the Hamiltons used Diesel engines for cruising power. There is something to be said for range, and there is something to be said for having four engines of the same type.

‡I've been reading the OPC requirements and I'm being reminded of the deck space requirements the USCG cutters have.

Pre-post-edit: You've got a pixel glitch with that ASROC that is driving me crazy as I type this.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

All good points. I'll have to get to them tomorrow though as I was just about to head off to bed. I'll reread this when I am a bit more awake and see about making some alterations.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

That doesn't really matter as the US does not exist in this AU, and any systems I use are considered GH designs, not purchased from somebody else. I'd design my own, but I ain't that good.

------------------------

Anyhow, Groups 1,2 and 3. I believe all issues have been addressed. Which means I most certainly missed something obvious.

Group 1 (1973-75)
10 ships

CODOG propulsion system. 1x 4.5/55 gun; 1 x Mk.13 GMLS with 40 missile magazine. 4 x 20mm (2 x 2); 1 x SeaCat PDMS; 1 x 8-cell ASROC; 2 x triple Mk.32 SVTT

Group 2 (1976-80)
18 ships

SPS-40 replaced with SPS-49. One SPQ-9 removed and replaced with Mk.95 director. SeaCat removed and replaced with RIM-7/Mk.29. Seperate ASROC removed and replaced with Tarantula SSM (RBS-08). Mk.13 single arm GMLS replaced with Mk.26 twin arm GMLS. CODOG replaced with COGAG

Group 3 (1984-87)
12 ships

Tarantula SSM replaced with Scorpion SSM (RBS-15). Mk.29 GMLS replaced with Mk.41 61-cell VLS.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

let's see...... you might not be finished yet
all versions: I don't really like those masts. if anything, the front one feels way to modern, while the aft one looks way too heavy. I wonder if that funnel setup alows for the engine systems timothy suggested, and do you have 2 funnels? it looks like it now...... don't forget some ASM's. also, could you please spell my username correctly? I don't care on the forums, but on drawings it is something else
b1:please use the latest mk 13. SLQ-32 V2 was not around yet IIRC (first used on the spruance, and then not even from the beginning?) I have not yet seen any ships with 2 SPQ-9A's, while you lack an director for the seacat. (unless you link her to the FCS) speaking of seacat, why not swap her for an mk 29 that is fitted only 1976+, ala spruance?
b2:with the difference in engines, you certainly should change the funnel and intake setup.
b3:you might want to update to SLQ-32 V3, possibly with sidekick. same for the TACAN. also, newer ships use more and more satcoms. also, rhibs.

time to sleep now, these were my general points and there might be more..... sorry if I am not clear in all points, as I am kinda tired.

_________________
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

ok, which one is the SLQ-32? and what is a "sidekick"? (Should I put Robin on there? He's worthless without Batman though.)

There are 2 funnels. Tandem. Either side of the superstructure. Honestly, I don't want to change them. I would rather change the writing from COGAG to CODOG for all of them. Funnels ain't changing.

I use the seacat on the early group because I like the seacat, and I didn't think the Mk.29 was available until the mid-70's. But, I like the seacat, and this is the last ship it is used on. That stays.

How can the aft mast be too heavy? Its an open frame, a platform. As for the foremast, do you have a suggestion? I had the other type on there at first, was recommended to change it, now I have the type I normally use on a good many of my ships, and am recommended to change it back, or again, or to something different. I like tripods, how they look. I would prefer to keep a tripod.

EDIT: I actually better like, for my purposes, the way the older drawing of the Mk.13 looks. I won't call it a Mk.13, it has now been rechristened the Mk.12½ ... or something. Its hard to think of flashy names for things off the top of my head.

EDIT 2: The spelling has been corrected. I have a few keys that stick on my keyboard. The "e" is one of them. I must have missed that when I did it before.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

further edits made, to the masts.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

That's not what I was thinking. If you give me a day or so I can knock something together.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆