Modern NSFS new-build

The crazy Yamato rebuild put my brain in a NSFS mindset. Consider the following, loosely based on a Lewis and Clark T-AKE.

Four AGS is the best postwar fire support ever, basically. We leave the DDG-1000 pure-combatant role and move towards more of a Navy-crewed support vessel framework. Note in particular that any effort for low-RCS is gone. This design will never seek to operate in contested waters.
We could fit more AGS if we wanted to develop a bespoke turret. I don't, and I'm happy with volume of fire over rate of fire here.
I'm utilizing several FUSION DESTROYER technologies other than the actual powerplant. Satcom, 50mm CIWS, etc.
We leverage an I-Mast 400 as an actual factual combatant; if this is cheap enough to go on a Dutch OPV, it should be fine here.
No ESM/ECM yet. I need to think about that further.
Strike-length Mk 41 (2x8) is shipped for two reasons: commonality, and ESSM. The USN has no Mk 41 other than strike-length, and adding new systems is bad if it can be avoided. As a point of comparison/precedent, I can't source this at the moment but IIRC several 1990s/2000s Royal Navy replenishment ship concepts envisioned shipping frigate-class combat systems.
We're hugely over-powered! I envision railguns happening eventually, and that means tons of electric power. For now we have three Cat 16M32C gneerators at about 8MW each (probably good for nearing 20 knots), and a pair of MT30 for high-power operations. As usual, there are appropriate emergency generators bow and stern. It's entirely possible to imagine a world where the MT30 never are fit (waiting for railguns), and this tools around on diesel power for the entire lifespan of the hull. And that's okay I guess!
Twin screws, to be drawn. I envision ~20MW-class motors, because there's frankly no reason for anything better. This should get us into the 22-knot sort of range. 15 knots on pure diesel sems likely, while powering the various electronic fits.
Twin V-22 for COD use. This vessel is not a cargo ship per se, but one might as well leverage hangars intelligently.
Boats not placed yet, but probably abeam/underneath the pilothouse.
There will be big awesome UNREP kingposts, I just haven't drawn them yet. We're NOT looking to be a first-tier support vessel, but we are likely to be cruising around with a buttload of fuel, and maybe a bunch of pallets of 155mm ammo or something. We should be able to transfer these if that would be useful.

As I look at this later, I recognize a lack of minor VLS for Nulka, anti-boat SSMs, etc. That'll be dealt with on the next revision.

will this be using essm blk-2 (ie. active/arh seekers) so it doesn't need illuminators? or will you replace the satcom in the radome at the top of the i-mast with a stir fcr (or just add stir fcr somewhere else)?

Very cool and the thought process behind it is extremely interesting, as usual. 10 out of 10!

erik_t wrote:

This design will never seek to operate in contested waters.

I don't see how you can avoid it. In order to employ your guns you have to put yourself within 100km and probably a lot less of active enemy forces which is well within anti ship missile ranges.
And unlike you they have a beautifully simple targeting environment, specifically fly off the coast and hit something. Even if the area hasn't been cleared of civilian traffic and a missile hits a merchant ship it's not like things can escalate a lot further once the Marines have gone into full assault mode.

This incidentally is where those containerized AShMs the Russians have been bandying about would shine. Not as mythical carrier killers launched from unsuspecting merchant ships.

_________________
“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.

That was stated badly on my part, and obviously there is a substantial defensive outfit. I'll try a longer, more nuanced thought: I didn't make even a cursory effort towards signature reduction because it almost feels pointless in the context of a major amphibious operation. You'll have tons of big blocky stuff operating in a somewhat restricted manner, so I'd rather go for inexpensive construction rather than pretend a 30-40kton artillery barge is going to somehow sneak under somebody's radar detection threshold.

Another novel concept that has much thought behind it. I wonder how the final version will eventually turn out given the lengthy and detailed progression of the Compact Fusion Destroyer?

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Interesting concept, once again.
The hardest will probably be reconciling the combat mission and a civilian/support base design.
On the general principle, do you think there is any hope of moving to a more modular design? Except if you go for a single ship as demonstrator, different missions and theaters will call for different mission packages. If feasible, I think you would gain from splitting the fore deck (say, along AGS length) and add tie-down points to add, if not standard shipping containers, but prefabricated modules for, variously: NGFS turrets, palletized VLS, boats, flag facilities, other storage/housing...
That would certainly demand a more elaborate C4I/FC backbone though.

A handful of specific points regarding the design as it stands now:
- Is the I-mast really necessary? Land-attack missiles are OTH anyway, and any long-range SAMs from the Mk41 would be handed over to better-equipped ships, right? If you want a short-range air-defense bubble based on the ESSM, you might be better off with either 1) a smaller array like the SPY-1F, or 2) a Sea Giraffe/TRS-4D FRESCAN radar backed up by 2-4 illuminators/trackers.
- If the ESSM is your only self-defense SAM, you only need the full-depth Mk.41 for mission weapons (chiefly TLAM, I guess). In that case, consider what I mentioned above re. modular deck and palettized VLS. If the Mk.41 is part of your mission loadout and can be swapped around, you can downsize the built-in VLS to a couple of on-deck Mk.56 or Mk.48.
- Along the same "modular" line, how open are you to using Army equipment for fire support? There's no better US 155mm than the AGS right now (there's still the MONARC though), but how about MLRS pods? Somehow this always comes up with this topic.

- Regarding built-in systems, does the basic design allow for a stern boat hangar and transom hatch? I'm thinking at least an LCS-style stern crane, ideally a fixed ramp and dry deck for offloading RHIBs and light LCACs, maybe even a small autonomous flood well to dunk LCMs and AAVs? This would add a much welcome logistical support capability for unprepared locations. If beachheads under fire are not within your scope, consider that a lot of locations where your ship will be required lack proper harbor facilities for off-loading supplies.
- If your uncontested waters turn out to be slightly contested, you might want to buff up on Typhoon RWCS (Mk.38mod2 IIRC) and maybe manual Miniguns or the like.
- You have mentioned UNREP and abeam boat launch, in littoral waters so at low speed... Is the hull compatible with azipods or something like that? The ability to hover in place might be useful for a lot of your missions.
- There is already a big helo deck and a big hangar, how about adding built-in RPV support to use as gun spotters if ashore AOPs are scarce. This seemed to work pretty well on the Iowas.
- Talking about Iowas just reminded me: you mentioned adding Nulkas, don't forget some sort of ESM/ECM outfit, if only a pair of surplus AN/SLQ-32(V)3s.

That's all I have for now, but I'm really looking forward to seeing this concept (and drawgin) develop!

_________________
Soviet Century/Cold War 2020 Alternate Universe: Soviet and other Cold War designs 1990-2020.
My Worklist

I think it's already heavily over-spec'd as it is, and I'm a little leery of making it the most Joint Everything Ever. I wanted a vaguely reasonable NGFS gunboat.

Imast isn't really necessary, no. I went with it over a custom solution (outside of the satcom dome, anyway) because the Dutch seem to think it's cheap enough to put on OPVs. And because phased arrays are nice.
As I understand it, not only has the USN only ever bought strike-length Mk 41, but nobody has bought the self-defense length at all. In any case, I doubt the strike-length are all that much more expensive per dollar, and topweight simply isn't an issue on this hull. Might as well have the opportunity to carry something like N-ATACMS if that ever is deemed necessary.
I think something MLRS-based might be the best solution, but my own RFP said to build off of AGS, so there.
I envision a mission bay aft, yes. Probably not a baby well deck or anything, but a stern door that could be served by a LCU or equivalent. I want to avoid mission creep in this sense particularly: this is an amphibious support ship, not a landing platform of any kind.
We do have 3x2 50mm super-Bushmasters with guided multi-EFP, as with DDGF. I suppose there's plenty of space to fit miniguns or whatever, but I think the low-mid caliber space is more than full.
To my knowledge, there are not any large azipods that have yet been shock-tested to the degree the USN requires. I'd be happy to move to (ideally) a single-azipod behind single-shaft arrangement, if you have knowledge to the contrary.
Not a bad idea on RPVs, although AGS hugely outranges a 16" shell, and our long-range long-endurance UAV fleet is insanely more mature than it was a few decades ago.
So noted in OP, there's ECM to be done but I haven't decided where and how to fit it yet.

It's more mature, but it's also being used a lot more. If you have your own UAVs you don't have to share them and you're less likely to have them yanked away because someone somewhere else thinks he needs them.

Shipbucket

Modern NSFS new-build

Who is online