Shipbucket

OK. Just a couple requests.

a.) In this case, I prefer the older drawing of the Mk.13 to the newer one.
b.) I want the SeaCat to stay on the group 1 ships as they serve as the transition from the older SeaCat system to the newer Mk.29 system. They can be changed out with later upgrades in the late 70's-early 80's.
c.) Fore and aft masts ... knock yourself out. I'm out of ideas on those.
d.) I prefer the 4.5"/55 over the 5"/54.
e.) Stick with the SSM's I have on there, please. Not necessarily the location, but the missiles themselves. I don't use the Harpoon or Exocet.
f.) I would prefer not to lengthen them much more than they already are. I'm also working on a mid-70's cruiser class and I'd prefer the lines between this class and that one not be blurred too much.

Other than those few small requests, feel free to go wild.

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

Well, I've just knocked this out to show the layout I had imagined for Group/Flight 1 ships:



Your newer masts are better.

This has the old drawing of the Mk 22 forward. The Mk 22 only has 40% of the magazine space of the Mk 13, but it is smaller and can fit further forward. The ASROC launcher position gives you the 8 in the launcher, and an additional 8 that get reloaded from below (the launcher goes to vertical, swings around to face aft, and is reloaded from below).

This design is decidedly sub-optimal relative to the later Mk 26 layout (which I do like, and think you should keep if possible), but it is available sooner and does work.

One thing with your engineering spaces, gas turbine uptakes work best when they are above the gas turbines and provide a strait shot for turbine removal (that's how they get repaired - they get removed and replaced with a new one while the old ones go to the depot for rebuilds). By placing your uptakes side by side, that's a lot of space you'd take up in the ship. By staggering them fore-aft, you only take up half of the hull width at any one point, and this is easier to design around. If you do stagger the engine rooms, then you lose a fair amount of space to the trunking of the uptakes if you have them side-by-side.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

this is SLQ-32, sidekick is on the sheet. (and you should know about those systems if you draw with USN systems )

for the funnels: it is mainly about the size of the uptakes and intakes themselves if you change propulsion. diesels or steam use different intakes and exhaust pipes then gas turbines. you could keep the same funnels, but with different details on the sides and top

also, timothy's setup for the g1 is great

mk 29: as described above, the mk 29 was (first?) used on the spruances between 1975 and 1980. before that, they simply didn't have anything. this might have been because there was no alternative though, and in your navy seacat might have been fitted initially, but I suppose this would be changed in the first refit.

for the mast: it looks too heavy for what it does also, I believe the mk 95 does need some 'pole' underneath it instead of an mast like this
the foremast... a tripod would look good. but I am still wondering why it looks so..... modern to me. an idea would be to look at these:
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... 0Adams.gif
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... 0Gyatt.gif

the funnel setup though. could you tell me what engines you used (number/power of diesels and turbines) and in what arrangement? (1 engine room, 2 engine rooms, centerline, staggered...(engine room as in completely separated, I don't have to know if you split them in 2 watertight sections) as with most of the arrangement I would think of, your funnel setup could be simpler or would even be completely stupid. with the weapons you have over there, I think you'd be better off with one central one if the engines allow you to do so

the hangar seems a bit on the small side, but it is doable.... keep in mind that the main power of my DG/Perry and all perry or spruance based ships of mine have an double hangar.

also, no offense, but GOD I hate the fact that you have used the old mk 22 -.- can't you design some new system or something like that? I really dislike to see someone use this one, as you can understand after all the work I did on it xD

_________________
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, funnels. umm, what if I staggered them and had the boats and funnel reversed from where they are starboard over on the port side? Would that be workable? As for powerplants and engines, honestly, I am open to ideas on that. I would prefer a CODOG or COGAG system, but could use suggestions as to arrangement.

As for the ASROC/Mk.13 or 22/Gun turret layout. .. Why not have the ASROC aft where I had it, and the turret forward? That would allow the Mk.13 instead of the 22 which would give me significantly more magazine space and missiles. These ships are designed as the main screening element for Task Force/Group/Fleet protection so I would think having more AA capability would be something to strive for. ASW is secondary, the frigates in the outer screen are tasked with that as a primary function.

And I have to ask... what is that milk bottle frame looking thing where the aft radar/directors used to be?

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

Oh, I basically know what the SLQ-32 does, I was wanting to know where it was on my drawing? Because I know I didn't put it on there, hell, I can't even find the SLQ-32 on the parts sheets or in the parts threads. The only way it could have gotten on there is as a leftover from the superstructure I, ummm, "borrowed" from your DG/Perry drawing.

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

haha ok.... the place I had it would be much better though.... and I know see you actually have part of the funnel placed on top of the SLQ xD

that arrangement with boats and funnels is what I used on DG/Perry. so yeah, IMO, that works
on the DG/Perry I used an arrangement similar to spruance, with staggered engine rooms or at least asymmetric ones, with the exhaust at one side and the cooling and control at the other. but, as I do not know on which hull you based your ship.... best look at that first. it really depends on the hull shape, beam and the engine power what setup is best.
one thing I like to mention, is that you best decide this before setting up structure or even weapons on your next ship, as that is an major design factor for the space available for uptakes, intakes and likewise.

_________________
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

The hull itself is nearly identical to the Type 42 batch III's, so I would imagine that a similar engine room arrangement to those would be what I have.

As far as the forward weapons arrangement, I would very nearly be willing to sacrifice the ASROC capability and just go with a combo of Mk.32 SVTT and ASW Heli for ASW work, intrade for the vastly increased magazine capability of the Mk.13 GMLS over the Mk.22 GMLS. Thats why I had put the ASROC aft, the Mk.13 in front of the con, and the 4.5"/55 forward, so I could have that larger magazine capacity.

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

I apprecite the work you did on the newer drawing, and it really does look good .. for US ships. But for my own, I prefer a, not sure how to put this, more substantial look to the launchers. The Mk.13 new drawing looks almost spindly, even though I know thats what they really look like. I was almost considering using the short SeaDart launcher, but with the standard missiles on it. As far as designing my own launcher, I had thought of that as well, and even made a couple tries at it, and they looked, well, not good. I just like the "fat" look of the old drawing, so don't think of it as a reflection on you or the increased accuracy of your new drawing. If that makes any sense.

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

better funnel arrangement?

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

Better. One thing to remember is that your ECM gear is going to be outside of the railing, as will the radars.

The major downside to your current set up is going to be no reloads for your ASROC launcher.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆