Modelling > Floaty GB: 1 Jun - 31 Aug

Patriot Missile Ship

(1/4) > >>

dy031101:
Well...... after I regained the use of Photoshop in April (Adobe...... you're a joke!), one day I browsed through my copy of Shipbucket parts sheets, stumbled across an old alternate universe entry containing a "Ship Launched Patriot Missile", and decided to make use of it.

Since the launcher is not a VLS and does not have an onboard loader that I know of, it's gonna require a good number of launchers to get where I thought would not be a complete waste of time (40 missiles), which in turn would lead to a lot of deck space being devoted to the launchers.  I'm gonna base the general arrangement of this ship on the Jeanne D'Arc (the helicopter cruiser) but with the hull extended to provide accommodations both fore and aft of the superstructure for the launchers.

Here is the drawing for the Jeanne D'Arc:



Here is a VERY rough idea on where I plan to distribute the Patriot missile launchers:

tankmodeler:
Might I ask why one might install Patriots on a ship when the SM3 and SM6 missiles serve the exact same purpose and are meant for shipboard service? I know this is the WHIF zone, but just curious what you think the reasoning might be? The same deck space carried over to Mk 41 VLS cells could carry a LOT more missiles than trainable Patriot TELs, 4 canisters to a TEL.

Also, not sure if you knew, but the PAC-3 missile is quad packed in the Patriot TEL canisters, so, for loadouts where ABM is important, you actually get 4 times the bang per TEL station. You could easily carry 32 PAC-2 missiles and 32 PAC-3s.

Paul

Old Wombat:
Firstly: Welcome aboard, dy031101! :smiley:

Secondly: The way I see it is that, although, probably, less versatile, the Patriot system could have been an effective stop-gap measure if the SM3/SM6 programs failed or were significantly delayed in development.

dy031101:

--- Quote from: tankmodeler on July 15, 2019, 11:06:21 PM ---Might I ask why one might install Patriots on a ship when the SM3 and SM6 missiles serve the exact same purpose and are meant for shipboard service? I know this is the WHIF zone, but just curious what you think the reasoning might be?
--- End quote ---

While this project indeed essentially runs on "Rule Of Cool According To Me", and there is no question that firing SM-3 or SM-6 out of the Strike-length Mk.41 would be the optimised, superior choice for BMD, in a real-world setting Uncle Sam doesn't export the SM-3 or SM-6 to every friendly country that has identified a need for it, either  ;)

Or it could come from an universe where SM-3 does not yet exist......

Part of the reason why I chose to base the ship on Jeanne D'Arc is due to my perception that her function as a missile cruiser would be obsolete as soon as SM-3-capable ships can be built.


--- Quote from: tankmodeler on July 15, 2019, 11:06:21 PM ---Also, not sure if you knew, but the PAC-3 missile is quad packed in the Patriot TEL canisters, so, for loadouts where ABM is important, you actually get 4 times the bang per TEL station. You could easily carry 32 PAC-2 missiles and 32 PAC-3s.
--- End quote ---

I do- I'm in fact eyeing the SkySceptor ordnance- it's just that there is no Shipbucket graphs for them, and I am too lazy to come up with a sufficiently-detailed one for either......


--- Quote from: Old Wombat on July 15, 2019, 11:44:19 PM ---Firstly: Welcome aboard, dy031101! :smiley:
--- End quote ---

Thanks.  It simultaneously feels like both an eternity and yesterday  ;D

tankmodeler:
Cool. Thanks!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page