Shipbucket

I wasn't really keen about kitbashing this one but the archived drawing was spot on for what I needed. This rendition is what I imagined would be a good replacement for the Perth Class (Adams) DDG if the Air Warfare Destroyer Project became a non-option. I have done two options. This one below has a Mk13 single armed launcher mounted forward and aft (the aft has Harpoon capability). The second (currently in progress) will have VLS forward and aft/Harpoon Quad Lancher aft on the transom. I have classified them as Destroyers although they could quite easily be Cruisers.

They are a mixture of the updated Kidd Class and early Ticonderoga Class with some of my own little design additions included to Australianise them. The designs are intended to be circa 2004 when the first of the Perth Class were earmarked for decommissioning. Interestingly, I have opted for Sea Kings to be the embarked aircraft for these vessels (circa 2004) as the intent is to have the MRH-90 as the embarked rotary wing aircraft for this class when the MRH-90 gains its maritime qualification with the RAN. The Seahawk fleet were not considered as they were already tasked with duties in the ANZAC and Adelaide Class frigates. Besides, I love Sea Kings - especially considering I was posted to HS817 Squadron for 3 years.

I hope my decision to use the name HMAS Australia for the submitted vessel is not deemed too controversial. I am sure Rowdy and Portsmouth Bill might comment on my choice of name. For the second of class, I am considering using the name HMAS Tasmania.

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


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

The Mk 13 seems a very odd choice for such a big ship.

_________________
“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.

My logic was that the Adelaide Class FFG uses the same launcher so they could be interchanged (cost saving).

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


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

uhm.... looks good, apart from some aspects:
- the tico's funnels are useless here. why? because those were there to clear the SPY-1 arrays, which you don't have
- the mk 13. why the mk 13? in my mini AU with dutch spruances, I still used the mk 26 for the simple reason that it would prove just as costly to rebuild the hull for mk 13's as it would be to use mk 26's. also, it is an certain capability drop
- the aft directors are blocked by the new funnel
- you have some parts coloured in which should not be in the foremast
- your modification just in front of the hangar, aft of the RHIB, gives an structural weakness compared to the original shape (the angled part)
- the SPS-48 has no detailing on it, take the one from my kidd class

so overall, stay a bit closer to kidd instead of tico, as many of the tico's modifications are there because of AEGIS

_________________
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 Mk 13 doesn't seem that far out of the realm of possibility, after all the California and South Carolina, both large CGN's, had the Mk 13 launcher.

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

Updated.

Mods speak for themselves. Hopefully she is now a more balanced and capable weapons platform. Thanks for the comments so far chaps.

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


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

Indeed they had, and lasted longer in service than the Mk26 equipped Virginia-class! in fact, it was only the, as prohibitively expensive regarded refuelling cost, that doomed the Californias, together with the fact that they were considered manpower intense. As far as I'm aware of, the two Californias were more highly regarded in service, than the four Virginias.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

I think that has more to do that they had the NTU earlier, didn't need to be refueled at that moment, still had the LAMPS capability, and could be cheapened much easier (by removal of all ASW equipment). the reason the california had the mk 13 and the mk 112 was simply because the mk 26 did not exist at that moment!

my only remarks for this ship that remain are the fact that the harpoon is kind of vulnerable at that position, and the fact that you must keep in mind that you build this ship at an later date then the original spruances, I assume? (with VLS, 1985 or later)

_________________
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

Very nice

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

Very interesting I can see the argument for the Mk.26, in fact the Kidd class bought cheap while still contemporary would tick all the boxes. That said a good take on the Spruance hull.