Shipbucket

Thank you Timothy. I have legitimacy now Now I'm hopping Colosseum is ok with the liberties I am taking with his drawing.

One question for everybody... Does anybody know what the boxes (under the bridge wing and forward of the SLQ-32 deck) are for?

the WM egg is an targeting radar and an small STIR antenna, basically. it is designed for gun guidance, and can do NSSM guidance as well in later versions.

btw....
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... nchers.png
look here and see why you cannot swap the Mk 112 with the Mk 13. this would involve space issues and rebuilding the bow. you have an launcher at the rear with most parts in common with the Mk 13, the Mk 22. I see no reason why you would put an Mk 13 there.

_________________
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, this should do it

comments and suggestions welcome

your standard missile is now on egg guidance, as quite a few of it's trajectory's are not covered by the STIR. the phalanx at the rear is impossible to reload. both the egg and the Mk 13 seem to be outdated parts, especially the Mk 13 NEEDS to be updated, as that one is way out of scale. also, if you have fitted an Mk 13, you have just rebuild 80% of the stern area.

_________________
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

Keep in mind that the original Brooke class drawing is five years old and could probably use some thorough checking.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

ok, I was going to replace the pepper box with the with the MK-13 but you said it would require major rebuilding, then said : So I decided this was a good call on your part for the reason you stated AND I would lose my ASROC capability, which BTW I never had a clue that the OHP's didn't have. But now you say this : its like I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't so now I'm thinking that if its a major rebuild either way I would replace the pepper box with Mk-13 so that I can ad larger helo accommodations aft for the LAMP SH-60....since, theoretically, this is a pre OHP test bed for the systems planned for the OHP class

I do note, using the incorrect MK-13 drawing and have fixed that. I can not find any newer version of it...help

As far as reloading the CIWS I could tell you personally of the many creative ways used get the reloads to the CIWS deck on CGN-38. I will need to put a removable crane on the deck just below and aft the captain's gig, and I do need a ladder leading to the little deck surrounding the CIWS.

the stir has about the same coverage as it does on the OHP with the exception that on the ship its arc coverage would be forward of the mack. that little pole holding up the navigation radar would not be an impedance at all, and besides a lot of the older ship had to orientate toward the incoming threat the best way to bring their systems to bear

As always, I really value your input. Thank you.

Thank you Colosseum, I have noted Differences in the Talbot compared to the Brooke. most notably the space between the forward part of the SLQ-32 deck and the back of the director. As of yet I still not found any technical type drawings. I wish I could. but I have noticed that the FFG-1098 appears to use the same hull so I will investigate that.

I think are a bit of misunderstandings here.
the Mk 22 has 90% the same parts as the Mk 13. it is thus an very good unit to test capability with the Mk 13 and it's missiles, and needs no replacement.
it is also near impossible to replace it with an Mk 13, because it is much bigger. it is easier then replacing the Mk 112 with it, as that one has next to no deck pen and the Mk 13 has a lot, but still it is easier to just build an new perry hull for testing only then what you have drawn now.
the OHP has no ASROC capability as it's launcher does not support that. it is still a better ASW platform then many of it's predecessors due to the fact that the ship carries 2 LAMPS helicopters.
testing the LAMPS arrangement would only really be possible on this ship if you literally rebuild the stern to that of an perry. but, this can be tested on land based facilities better, as the most important influences; the helicopter, the wind around the ship and the movement of the ship, will be independ or different from the perry itself anyways.

for the director arrangement.....
the perry's it less then ideal. the WM egg is placed forward, while it does mainly gun guidance, while the SPG-60 STIR is placed at the rear while it guides the standard missile.
the reason for this is most likely the fact that the egg is more or less a core system which you want close to your CIC, it has the targeting radar for both systems and thus needs coverage for both. this keeps the cables and support systems short and less vulnerable, and thus speeds up processing.
the SPG seems to have sacrificed some end on performance, especially on the lower ranges, for that. most likely the WM does a bit of the work for that field of fire. not also that the earlier versions of the perry, shown here: http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =13&t=4209 have an entirely different arrangement, and the current one might have been dictated by the lack of electronics space in some parts of the ship

on your ship though, the field of fire for the SPG is worse. the mack leaves a lot less clearance around it free then the mast does on the perry, and the SPS-49 interferes as well. and why would you, when you have an perfectly capable position at the rear, with the cables and cooling in place? the forward position should be suitable for an WM, which might need to be a bit heigtened for the WM to have enough coverage to be part of the FCS.
also, keep this in mind. you have a test ship, which will test the abilities of your FCS. why would you create difficulties like in the ship that would have been really build, if you still need to test if those difficulties arise? depending on the exact year of your design, the exact perry design might not even been entirely completed. it is also always an bad idea to have the perfect angle of the FCS and the perfect angle for the weapons differ. while it might be partially the case on the perry's, you can understand it is normally something you try to avoid

a note is also that I think that the test ship had the systems as it had so the electronics could be placed temporarely in the hangar. in your case, 50% of the ship would need to be rewired. you might also need to expand the internal space a bit for the upgraded (often larger) electronics.

and while the phalanx has been placed in worse positions over the years, it seems a bad thing to do when it is brand new (note that the first line of perry's did not even have it fitted as build) it even seems a stretch to put it on board!

EDIT:
and the latest parts.......
belowdeck parts
USN missile launchers
parts sheets section of the main site
parts sheets section of the forum

and I believe I linked you to the Mk 22/Mk 13 renewed drawings a few posts back, 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

ok, Ill give up on the kit bashing for now and just concentrate on drawing. so, how is this?

Railings are not the standard SB style, the correct railing are those that can be found near the Mk.22 SAM launcher. I also think you have used the wrong gun mounting (but I could be wrong, I'm not an expert).

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"