Shipbucket

really well done future ship.

Q, Why is the ATHENA placed so that is blocked by the 57mm ? would it not be the most important defensive system and therefore get best arcs?

Q, If you have 'free' power would the USN not go for LCS speeds ?

It makes all the big exciting tech news when a navalizable SSL burns through a truck hood. I invite a comparison to any number of Youtube videos of 30-40mm VT fire, never mind the Bofors.

Not only does the 100kW-class laser not deserve the best command, I would happily remove it if I had to lose one of the three mounts.

good looking and well executed drawing, this is indeed what this forum section is supposed to be. Nice to see you back

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

This is so awesome that I have no words for it.

I have no problem with those parts you used from the Nansen. I believe the Nansen is perhaps one of the best designed frigates out there, it could take more weapons, It could perhaps have a better flexibility in the weapons area... but then we haven't seen the Nansen fully armed yet.

Extremely interesting design, and of course, as is typically the case with Erik_T's works, a great drawing.

Also, I'd been considering a shift to a vertical-motor propulsor for a few reasons. The only reference I'm personally able to access is a 4/99 paper from NSWC Carderock, VMP Waterjet Test Results, McMahon et al. It calls out a more design-focused document from the 1997 SNAME props and shafting symposium, entitled Development of a Vertical Motor Propulsor, from Charles Dai and others.

Are any of you more professionally-grounded folks able to access this document and give me any guidance? It's advantageous to completely avoid perforation of watertight bulkheads for shafting, but beyond that my glorious grand imagined fleet could use some four-"screw" designs, and a design like this is stupendously attractive in that context.

This quality work mate. Love the design.

_________________
There is no "I" in TEAM but there is a ME


______________________
Current Worklist:
Redrawing my entire AU after a long absence from Shipbucket

Great job! A milestone in many ways.

This is very well thought out and its good to see you back creating novel concepts like these.

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

Upon discussion with one of my more trusted colleagues, a revision is presented.



The shift to 76mm+30mm appears superior in almost every way to the twin 57mm... except having an additional type of system to support. Oh well. I have seen it argued by many that 30mm is a better boat-killer than 57mm (its use in the LCS surface warfare module would seem to support this), and 76mm is definitely going to be able to leverage many more users supporting the development of advanced rounds. You might actually be able to pester a merchant with it, too.

With any serious after AA fire sort of dead on the vine, I'm now considering deleting the big awesome rotating X-band AESA aft in favor of a very much more modest unit like Variant, Sea Giraffe, TRS-16... Right now I'm keeping the larger unit so that you could handle ESSM illumination, but it's a frigate. I'm willing to lose that backup capability if I have to. It's a question of using a cheaper additional type of system versus having as few things in the supply chain as possible. Thoughts?

Relocation of some VLS brings displacement down to about 7500 tons, which is a more pleasing number. No real capability was lost, which suggests I perhaps had an inflated design previously. A key reconfiguration (made possible by the deletion of the aft 57mm) allowed a substantial reduction in beam while maintaining a 12.5m wide hangar, necessary for twin AW101/CH-148 operation.

I have changed to the vertical-motor propulsor, which allows for zero nonrigid penetration of watertight bulkheads below the DC deck, which is certainly nice.

I nixed the Voith units just in time to discover the pretty cool-looking Schottel pump-jet propulsor, which I'd dearly love to use for auxiliary propulsion in favor of the usual deployable unit. I don't see why it would be particularly unreliable, although I have concerns about flow noise. Perhaps you could have some sort of cover for the intake grill. The fact that these units don't seem to be in naval use suggests to me they haven't undergone much shock testing, although they don't seem to me like they should be particularly vulnerable. Anyway, I'm considering this change. Discussion and advice are appreciated.

We've lost some SHF satcom bandwidth, which is sort of sad. I could keep large paired units abeam the mast like on on the DZP's, but the fact that this isn't envisioned as having any real command role means I stayed with the smaller units. Again, thoughts?

PARCA arrays, or similar phased arrays like on the B-2, now serve the critical need for EHF satcom, and are also presumably used for TCDL and CEC. Comms is hard, but I think this should work.

The laser obviously has taken a much more commanding position, again on advice from colleague. Deep magazines are just so damn nice, even if I don't think you could ever realistically cause substantial mechanical damage to a high-end target. With the bitchin' optics available for non-'splodey uses (this is apparently very popular with LaWS on Ponce), the minor optical turrets are deleted.