Shipbucket

This is the updated version with as many of the changes from last night added as possible.


ASROC and harpoon would be luxuries, as the Harpoon could always go in canisters, and, I have in fact, saved some room for those near the rear the ship--I just need to root through my AU parts sheet to find the missile I want to use back there.

As for the intakes, any reason the mack couldn't be hiding them? There is a lot of area there, after all.

And yes, I do agree that the ASROC launcher would be a horrible fit for an AAW frigate.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

I do agree that Mk 26, would be better, but this is just too small. The Aegis DEG is still a good bit deeper than what I'm working with here.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

note that the hull depth of an Mk 22 and an Mk 26 are near the same, as the launchers normally end near the waterline or a deck above it. swapping from Mk 26 to Mk 13/22 size only saves half a deck of height, something easily fixed by designing around it. it is the tonnage of 5000-6000 tons that might be an problem for the application of Mk 26 on this design.

what kind of engine power are you looking for? twin shaft propulsion on gas turbines only means more then just the 2 turbines of the perry, so you will need an bigger exhaust funnel. in addition, the funnel of the perry has purely the exhaust cooling to reduce infrared signature IIRC, the intakes are mostly on the superstructure next to it.
btw, gas turbines are removed for maintenance, meaning you will have to remove your entire mack/mast if your gas turbines are underneath that. to avoid that issue, normally gas turbines are lifted out trough the intakes something that has issues with using your mack for the intakes as well. and last but not least, the required volume of your mack multiplies by 3 or more, as the air sucked in by gas turbines needs a lot of space, otherwise the turbine pulls a vacuum and stops.

I personally think it would be worth it moving the aft mast aft (you have the space) and go for an proper intake and funnel arrangement.

_________________
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

It sounds like I should probably just settle for a single shaft. In truth, the twin shaft arrangement was solely because I happened to like this particular underwater hull. I could probably get away with a single shaft just as easily, as that's what the Perry has. I'm wondering if a combined diesel and gas would be better for this design, and what compromises it would require, if I did just do a single shaft? I like the aesthetics of the present design, but did have earlier version that was closer to what you're suggesting. (That said, I'd have to reconstitute it, as it was overwritten about a week ago)

90% of my major decisions are based on aesthetics, then the real work is trying to make everything else match them....

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

Question for those in the know regarding the boxed launcher topic: What are the train rate of the ASROC pepperbox compared with, say, a Mk.26 or Mk.11 rail launcher?
The launcher can clearly take the static load of 8 boxes with ASROC/SM1MR missiles, but maybe the limit (that explains why no 8-box SM1MR launcher has been made) is more about the dynamic load.

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

all depends on what you want your ships to do. the perry was an austere design, being closer to an DE then what we in europe called frigates at the time. weapons, radars, propulsion, range, size and arrangement of all that are all based on the requirements for what the ship must do and in what way it must do that. for example: the perry has no 3D radar or SPG-51 because it is not primarely an AAW ship. if you decide what you want the ship to do, then we can say what is better most if not all systems and arrangements ever build are good, but only for the task(s) they were designed for. every ship and maybe even every technological thing is an compromise of different factors, creating something as ideal as possible.

_________________
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

This is a quick and dirty edit showing something closer to the original layout, though with the current electronics fit, not the one I was using then.

I probably need to scoot the funnel a few pixels forward. Incidentally, what are the finger-like things framing it?

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

SPS-48 is a very heavy system. I am skeptical about topweight.

You've also got two different types of Mk 32 SVTT for some reason. Really, I think you're overloaded on systems of pretty much all types.

I thought I got rid of those things.... I guess what I deleted on the hangar really *were* vent hatches... Should be fixed now.

The duplicate eggs are intentional, however, though I am considering replacing them with STIRs. The design is supposed to be somewhat gold plated.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

Would the later version of SPS-39 be a viable alternative as a lighter weight set?

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."