Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 4  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 »
Author Message
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Australia Class DDG - Kidd/Ticonderoga Class kitbashPosted: May 5th, 2012, 3:53 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7496
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
I also like to add 2 things:
first, the spruances were build from the beginning to take the mk 26, there was even the never used option to rebuild them into kidd-style multipurpose destroyers later on.
second, the kidds were build for iran, which ordered perry's or mk 13 equipped kortenaers as well......... so we might say that in real life, both these systems were compatible enough to serve next to each other.

fact is also, that all designs except the kidds which had mk 26 were OR CGN's, OR AEGIS ships, both of which were not exported, especially not back then.

you have an ship with enough size to take the mk 26.... so why not? :P

_________________
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]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Australia Class DDG - Kidd/Ticonderoga Class kitbashPosted: May 5th, 2012, 10:57 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
acelanceloet wrote:
second, the kidds were build for iran, which ordered perry's or mk 13 equipped kortenaers as well......... so we might say that in real life, both these systems were compatible enough to serve next to each other.
Yeah I forgot about that.

There is a logistics consideration regarding the Mk 13 vs. Mk 26 though - you could probably find Mk 13 parts through multiple sources, probably even today, but the Mk 26 would tie you to the U.S. regardless. That's not a major problem for Australia though.

I did think the Mk 26 would be better - but I don't think it's entirely silly either. Sillier things have happened due to some bone-headed planning or budgeting, and not only is the RAN hardly an exception but they've probably lead the pack at times :P

But now I'd kinda want to wonder why the SpruCans weren't converted or built to Kidd-standard in the first place. As been pointed out Mk 26 can handle ASROC as a design goal.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
LEUT_East
Post subject: Re: Australia Class DDG - Kidd/Ticonderoga Class kitbashPosted: May 6th, 2012, 8:38 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 900
Joined: December 29th, 2011, 7:27 am
At the end of the day I suppose in reality a lot of the systems fitted to this theoretical ship would be fitted for but not with in real life RAN service...so why break the habit of a lifetime :? This is where personal and AU designs are more enjoyable to do....less fiscal restrictions.

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

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
rifleman
Post subject: Re: Australia Class DDG - Kidd/Ticonderoga Class kitbashPosted: May 6th, 2012, 1:57 pm
Offline
Posts: 501
Joined: September 4th, 2010, 8:44 am
They would have been good escorts for an Invincible class

_________________
"There was nothing wrong with Titanic when she left the Shipyard" Tim McGarry Belfast Comedian


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
seeker36340
Post subject: Re: Australia Class DDG - Kidd/Ticonderoga Class kitbashPosted: June 23rd, 2012, 2:18 am
Offline
Posts: 616
Joined: June 9th, 2012, 10:21 pm
Curious about why the Harpoons are not included in VLS?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Trojan
Post subject: Re: Australia Class DDG - Kidd/Ticonderoga Class kitbashPosted: June 23rd, 2012, 2:29 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1216
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 4:29 am
Location: Big House
VLS Harpoon isn't actually in service with anyone it was canceled before it did

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Australia Class DDG - Kidd/Ticonderoga Class kitbashPosted: June 23rd, 2012, 6:04 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
The specific reason being a lack of target-rich environments to justify continued development of Harpoon VLS. Hell I heard they were actually pulling some of the Mk 141 launch canisters off ships.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
travestytrav25
Post subject: Re: Australia Class DDG - Kidd/Ticonderoga Class kitbashPosted: June 23rd, 2012, 6:26 am
Offline
Posts: 270
Joined: June 2nd, 2012, 10:05 pm
Location: Texas, USA
Contact: Yahoo Messenger, AOL
Yeah, I've seen a lot of recent pics of destroyers and cruisers with either empty Mk 141 racks with no canisters or just 1 or 2 canisters per Mk 141. I guess with Navy budgets shrinking like they are it's just cheaper on maintenance to keep them stored ashore rather than on ships since they're not likely to be used anyway.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ghost792
Post subject: Re: Australia Class DDG - Kidd/Ticonderoga Class kitbashPosted: July 5th, 2012, 2:50 am
Offline
Posts: 34
Joined: September 8th, 2010, 12:09 am
I think there are also ROE issues with using Harpoon in a BVR role. There are concerns that a Harpoon that misses its target may target a civilian vessel (cruise liner or oil tanker in a worst case).


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
seeker36340
Post subject: Re: Australia Class DDG - Kidd/Ticonderoga Class kitbashPosted: July 8th, 2012, 10:37 pm
Offline
Posts: 616
Joined: June 9th, 2012, 10:21 pm
As a newspaperman I can tell you that would look bad in print, ghost792...mind you it would sell


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 4  [ 31 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


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


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