Shipbucket

I've been fighting this design for a couple of weeks now, and while I think I'm on to something, deep down, I'm convinced it has more bugs than a termite mound, that I just can't see, so I thought I'd let the exterminators at SB have a whack at it. The design is an AU, not intended for any specific nation, so some of the choices, like that of the STIR-240 are aesthetic ones, as it likely does the same thing, while looking better than the SPG-52.

The GMLS is my attempt at something like a twin armed Mk 13. The USN did have an earlier, compact twin arm launcher, but, by all accounts, it was far more interested in launching hydraulic fluid all over the deck than missiles, so we went to the -13. What I have is likely too big, but I do want a twin launcher, and rather more importantly, I *hate* the looks of the Mk 13. My understanding is the Mk 29 won't fit on this design, or anything smaller than a Spru-Can. I still likely need to tweak its appearance. When I first did this thing, I had hopes of adding ASROC, but that's likely not going to happen. I presume I'll have plenty of older DDs with heavy guns and ASROC launchers, so neither were a real priority here.

The STIR/egg combination should give 4 guidance channels, which is probably somewhat gold plated, but the stern egg is guiding both the Fast-40, and the NSSM, while the second STIR is on the mack so that not everything is on the same mast in case of damage. I guess you can say I didn't want to put all my eggs in one basket.

One question I have, is besides cost, does SPS-52 have any advantages over SPS-48? It seems I almost never see 48 without 52, making me wonder if it needs the other radar to be fully effective?

_________________
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."

Unfortunately my cell does not upload the image, but Ι think can help.

Μk11 was indeed a dog, but since the ship is ΑU you can have a Μk11-look like GΜLS which work proberly. Αnother GΜLS to look is the Soviet SΑ-Ν-1 Goa (or M-1 Volna). Soviets use this system in relatively small Κotlin SΑM destroyer.

I'm still working an aesthetic launcher, though using a boxy creation like the Mk 11 might be a better approach, instead of what I'm using right now. An (immensely) improved MK 4 grabby thing might be the way to go, presuming it could be persuaded to accept missiles from a Mk 11/13 type magazine. Otherwise I'll look at the Sov installation for inspiration.

_________________
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."

What about Μk26?

This is sort of what I'm talking about:

_________________
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."

Too heavy, I'm guessing. In the early days of SB, newbies tried to stick it on all sorts of designs, and the consensus was it needs something pretty large to accomodate the below decks parts and the weight of the system. The smallest installation we had was a Kidd class DDG.

_________________
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."

In the above drawing, if I can trust the below decks GMLs sheet, the Mk 4 grabby has about the same top profile as the old Mk 11, but I'm enlarging the magazine for extra margin, just in case.

_________________
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."

The design is really interesting, looks kind of like a Knox disguised as a mini-Spruance carrying a nearly Italian air-defense kit.

Regarding the FC channels, it looks like you could afford to lose one of the stern directors. That would mean reducing the air defense capability aft, which raises the question of how many targets you want to engage in parallel. The question of top weight might crop up too, seeing the size of the mast and mack on such a hull. If you have one single helo hangar, you might be able to move the Twin Fast 40s down one deck, move the NSSM further aft atop the hangar, and one of the directors on its superstructure behind the mack. The hangar area would end up looking similar to that of a Lupo FFG.
What you do with the second aft director and the stack is then up to you.

Regarding your proposed SAM installation, how does a twin launcher mates with a single drum? With the twin-arm, you will definitely need two side-by-side reload drums, which will probably be too wide for your hull. Ad-hoc solution: odysseus1980 mentioned the Soviet M-1 Volna. Drawings show that this system worked with two drums stacked behind one another, with the launcher rotating 90° to the side for reloading. Would you consider a jury-rigged twin-arm built out of, say, two Mk.22 drums?
Note that this ties back into the question of the FC channels. The more missiles you can put in the air at the same time the more FC radars you need to cover the same arc. The way I see it, you should have room for two STIRs above the bridge.

Lastly, regarding the air-search radar fit, though it lacks 3D data from the get-go, this is no worse than on a Perry frigate. Again, you might want to browse the other Italian 70s FFGs/DDGs, which are similarly heavy on air defense.

Oh and by the way, excellent drawing quality so far!

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

Like this:

I don't think there is any particular black magic involved in mating a twin armed launcher to a single drum magazine. The problem with the Mk 11 was it was a badly designed POS, but surely, by the 70s, engineers could make the idea work.

I'll look into other possibilities for the Fast 40; I'm hoping if the design allows it, I can find some bit of extra space for more Fast-40s, as one can never have too many. The hangar is a two helo one, and I presume the magazine that extends down into the hangar deck, nestles between the two birds.

For me, 4 guidance channels should be about right. That allows 2 SM-1s and two NSSMs in the air at once. Remember, that half of those eggs act as missile directors. The other halves guide the 76mm OTO and the Fast-40. I'm sure the eggs aren't as good as the STIRs at missile guidance, so I moved the other STIR to the mack, so that one hit that took out the bridge/mast area wouldn't knock out every director. I suppose, I could just use more STIRS instead of the eggs, but do those things direct guns too? It seemed like a cheap solution.

My original design of this did include an SPS-48, but I got worried about expense and topweight, and went to the present configuration. This is supposed to be an improvement on the OHP, not a DDG, which my original example tried to morph into, before I took the sheers to it.

Thanks for the complement on the design, but it's really the kitbash of a lot of other designs here. I'll credit and template the thing when I get the kinks worked out.

_________________
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."

a bit of an fast, unstructured reply, but I wanted to give some comments

the smallest installation of an Mk 26 was in DG/AEGIS. a lot smaller then kidds and spruances, but not as small as an perry. the main requirement what you need is hull depth, but that goes for the Mk 13 size weapons as well. you just need an careful design, as the Mk 26 is quite blocky and wide, so you cannot put it too far forward or aft.

btw, check your numbers in the first post. I had to read trough 3 times before I got what you meant with Mk 29, SPG-52, SPS 48 and SPS 52 (I still don't know the last 2, as you have none of those radars on your drawing, you have an SPS-49 on board)

without an 3D radar, your missiles will just have self defence capability. in that essence, Tartar/SM-1 is not that much more capable then NSSM (which is the reason no USN ships ever carried that combination) on the other hand, you have a lot of duplicate systems (2 shafts AND auxilary thrusters, fixed and rotating Mk 32 tubes, 2 eggs etc.)
I would really seek rearrangement of your funnel, masts and radars, because right now you really have the disadvantages of the current setup.

your cooling water inlets are not close to your funnel (which is most likely your engine room) if your engine room is near those inlets, the stabiliser penetrates it.

I really doubt about the workability of the new GMLS. note that the Mk 13 fired the same speed as the Mk 11 on 2 arms with her single arm, because the loading was a lot less complex and for that faster. making an reliable, fast launcher would get you near Mk 26 (you could go a bit smaller in length of the arms and the magazine if you do not fit ASROC) but without separate magazines for both arms you are not going to get it working as you would like.

_________________
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