Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 2  [ 13 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 »
Author Message
josephw71
Post subject: Trimaran DDGPosted: December 28th, 2011, 6:51 am
Offline
Posts: 62
Joined: August 21st, 2010, 5:28 pm
Just playing around with another design. When looking at the original drawing and other new modern trimarans, thought about the possibility of the outriggers as great places for weapon launchers, then wasn't so sure. So I mounted some Mk.48 ESSM launchers on them just to try it out. As always looking for thoughts and suggestions.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Trimaran DDGPosted: December 28th, 2011, 7:46 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
Interesting, and clearly inspired by BAE concepts. Though it doesn't look like the hull has enough draft to accommodate a strike-length Mk 41 (which is the size needed for SM-6 and Tomahawk) and the Mk 48 bays don't strike me as particularly well-integrated.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Clonecommander6454
Post subject: Re: Trimaran DDGPosted: December 28th, 2011, 7:49 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 760
Joined: August 8th, 2011, 2:35 pm
When you have a Mk.48 Launcher, you don't necessarily need to load ESSM in Mk.41. You can use that space for Tomahawk instead.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Blackbuck
Post subject: Re: Trimaran DDGPosted: December 28th, 2011, 12:22 pm
Offline
Posts: 2743
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 9:15 am
Location: Birmingham, United Kingdom
If you slightly scaled the design up in terms of actual size I think you'd have quite a workable design. Perhaps swap the 76mm and the VLS around too.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Trimaran DDGPosted: December 28th, 2011, 3:59 pm
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
I've been kicking around some similar concepts for some weeks now. Multihull ships are quite attractive in many respects (for example, you easily have the stability reserve to raise the APAR somewhat and get a slightly better field of view over the SMART-L).

I confess I don't well understand their seakeeping performance, though. For example, it looks here as though waves beyond about 10-15 feet high would crash into the structure over the outrigger sections, which would have obvious repercussions for general comfort and operability, yet hulls like this (and SWATH hulls in particular) are often credited with superior overall seakeeping in heavy seas.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Trimaran DDGPosted: December 28th, 2011, 7:08 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
right now your ship will be on fire when you fire an ESSM, because you covered the MK48 exhausts!

_________________
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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Trimaran DDGPosted: December 28th, 2011, 7:26 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
acelanceloet wrote:
right now your ship will be on fire when you fire an ESSM, because you covered the MK48 exhausts!
He could channel it inwards.

_________________
“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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Trimaran DDGPosted: December 28th, 2011, 7:38 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
he could..... but in that case, an mod 0 mk 48 would be the simpler thing to do.

_________________
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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
josephw71
Post subject: Re: Trimaran DDGPosted: December 28th, 2011, 9:18 pm
Offline
Posts: 62
Joined: August 21st, 2010, 5:28 pm
O.K. Could add vents at bottom like the Mk.1, but this seems too close to the water line, or, could the blast be vented up like other VLS, may have to make vent in between launch tube bigger, but just looking at what's plausible right now.

[ img ]

_________________
Eschew obfuscation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Trimaran DDGPosted: December 28th, 2011, 9:37 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
well, if you vent it up you could better use an mod 0 and move them a bit inboard or even an mod 3/mk 56 or mk 41 self defence length instead. the fact is that the mod 1 mk 48 is not build to be fitted 'inside' an ships hull like you have done here. I can never be certain of what is possible because the system is not fitted on very much ships (in fact, only 1 class of ships has the mod 1) but of what I know of the system, no of the solutions shown here would work very 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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 2  [ 13 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page 1 2 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]