Beyond The Sprues

Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Sea => Topic started by: dy031101 on February 25, 2012, 12:14:30 PM

Title: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on February 25, 2012, 12:14:30 PM
Recall that I've been thinking of an AAW ship armed with an adopted MIM-23 HAWK launcher to go with an Iran-like F-14 what-if.

Almost a week after trying with a Shipbucket drawing of the Iroquois class destroyer, I'm still not sure if I'm happy with that choice......

The idea behind using the Iroquois class is that I want to share the aspect of being re-purposed after having served a different role, but can anyone suggest a more-widely-exported or export-oriented design that has enough potential to do the same?

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: finsrin on February 29, 2012, 01:47:45 PM
Reading about success with rail gun tests.  A nuclear powered 21st century battle ship with main and secondary size rail guns, modern 5in 54cal, 25mm mounts, CIWS.  For missiles, all or some of these: Harpoon, Tomahawk, Standard SAM, Sea Sparrow.  Could have rear flight deck for F-35 and helicopters.  At least a helipad.  Thinking 108ft width of Iowa class (for Panama canal) only longer by 100-200ft.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on August 04, 2012, 09:45:44 AM
Does anyone know, however roughly, the internal layout of the Georges Leygues class frigate?

In particular, what's below the spot where I put the 4 in. Vickers gun (I'd like to know if I can put the gun there the way I did; if that part has something to do with the Crotale launcher that I took away, then maybe that's something I can spin)?
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: RP1 on September 10, 2012, 01:11:04 AM
Hi,

Not sure of the exact internal layout, but that area would probably have; aviation workshops and stores, air conditioning intake spaces (I think I can see intakes in some pictures). The Crotale reloader is in the superstructure, but I don't know where the magazine is. The mag. would either be in the superstructure beneath the launcher, or in the hull beneath it. Either way, you could do a swap . I suspect, however, that the gun has a carousel or other autoloader beneath it, so you probably can't remove the little bit of superstructure that the Crotale launcher is sat on, as you have done in that image, without loosing space somewhere.

- RP1

 
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Weaver on September 10, 2012, 06:55:00 AM
The Crotale reloading mechanism and magazine is in the deckhouse forward of the launcher, which I've coloured red in this profile:

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/profiles/GeorgesLeygues.jpg)

You can see it in this picture. The 18 x circular hatches in the front of the deckhouse are the tubes that the individual missiles sit in:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Crotale_Naval_SAM_on_Jean_de_Vienne_%28D643%29.JPEG/800px-Crotale_Naval_SAM_on_Jean_de_Vienne_%28D643%29.JPEG)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on October 14, 2012, 12:37:01 PM
I suspect, however, that the gun has a carousel or other autoloader beneath it, so you probably can't remove the little bit of superstructure that the Crotale launcher is sat on, as you have done in that image, without loosing space somewhere.
The Crotale reloading mechanism and magazine is in the deckhouse forward of the launcher...

Hum...... would this one make more sense then?

(The rear section adopted from that of a Cassard class.)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Thiel on October 24, 2012, 02:24:42 AM
I suspect carrying the gun that high is going to do funky things with your topweight.
Title: Planar-array SPS-49?
Post by: dy031101 on March 05, 2013, 01:49:16 AM
Recently I've been making slight renovations on Shipbucket graph-bashes that I did in the past.

SPS-49 features rather prominently, and there are certain ships that I would like equipped with something demonstratably more-advanced.  I've heard that there is a planar-array version of SPS-49 that might be the ticket but couldn't find out if that version is successful or not.  Can anyone shed any light on whether it is indeed an advanced version of SPS-49, when it came into being, and if it is a successful development?

Also, is there an European alternative to any advanced version of SPS-49?

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Thiel on March 19, 2013, 09:01:33 PM
Depending on the timeframe there's the Dutch Smart+L or the British Type 967/968.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 11, 2015, 04:33:38 AM
Real world proposal: 

(http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/missiles-and-rockets-feb-61-polaris-long-beach.jpg)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on January 11, 2015, 05:07:55 AM
Giuseppe Garibaldi, a WWII Italian cruiser was extensively upgraded post war with Terrier SAM, new rapid fire 5.3" (I think) guns and Polaris launch tubes, with the missile to be provided by the US in time of war.  I believe the rebuilt Albany Class CGs, in addition to their Talos and Tartar SAMs were also originally intended to have Polaris, while several of the remaining gun cruisers were fitted for / with Regulus.
Title: Blue-water mothership for FACs and Subchasers?
Post by: dy031101 on January 11, 2015, 02:46:57 PM
I remember reading the background information of the Type 23 frigates.

Apparently it originally called for a low-cost variable depth sonar hauler with ASW torpedoes and helicopter landing spot, supported by a new class of replenishment oilers armed with Sea Wolf missiles for fleet air defense (over both the austere Type 23s and the replenishment oilers themselves).

Falkland War led to change of plan that ultimately produced the Type 23 as we know it.  But let's say...

... a navy like that of Israel, Iran, North Korea, or even Cold-War-era Canada, with the majority of existing surface combatants already being fast attack crafts, corvettes, and/or even austere frigates.  Would a "replenishment oiler" equipped with flag facility and armed with real area air defense missile system(s) (like SM-2 or Rif-M), or an area-defense missile cruiser equipped with underway replenishment and helicopter maintenance capabilities be able to allow the existing missile boats and corvettes to become useful in blue-water maneuvers?
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on January 11, 2015, 03:40:35 PM
And/or, instead of having high end warships escort amphibious ships, why not install AEGIS and a large VLS on big amphibious ships such as the San Antonio class LPDs?  It is quite usual for an amphibious group consisting of an LHD, LPD and LSD, to be escorted by an AEGIS cruiser and a frigate, why not instead fit AEGIS, the VLS and possibly a medium calibre gun to the LPD, which is integral with the group anyway, and beef up the escort with a couple of LCS to handle ASW, MCM and surface warfare?
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on January 15, 2015, 05:40:09 AM
And/or, instead of having high end warships escort amphibious ships, why not install AEGIS and a large VLS on big amphibious ships such as the San Antonio class LPDs?  It is quite usual for an amphibious group consisting of an LHD, LPD and LSD, to be escorted by an AEGIS cruiser and a frigate, why not instead fit AEGIS, the VLS and possibly a medium calibre gun to the LPD, which is integral with the group anyway, and beef up the escort with a couple of LCS to handle ASW, MCM and surface warfare?

Maximizing the number of high-end warships might be more versatile.

Maybe put a cheaper FCS on the amphibious ships but include CEC as part of that suite?

====================================================================

Does anyone know if EL/M-2248 MF-STAR can illuminate for SM-2MR and ER missiles?
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Weaver on January 15, 2015, 10:37:59 AM
And/or, instead of having high end warships escort amphibious ships, why not install AEGIS and a large VLS on big amphibious ships such as the San Antonio class LPDs?  It is quite usual for an amphibious group consisting of an LHD, LPD and LSD, to be escorted by an AEGIS cruiser and a frigate, why not instead fit AEGIS, the VLS and possibly a medium calibre gun to the LPD, which is integral with the group anyway, and beef up the escort with a couple of LCS to handle ASW, MCM and surface warfare?

The French Jeanne d'Arc was originally going to be along those lines, with a twin Masurca SAM system forwards. The idea was that she'd be a self-escorting helicopter cruiser that, by swapping helicopters, could do either ASW or helo assault. In the end, they decided that the assault function needed maximum volume and deleted the Masurca system in favour of putting it on dedicated DDGs.
Title: Re: Blue-water mothership for FACs and Subchasers?
Post by: Weaver on January 15, 2015, 10:45:21 AM
I remember reading the background information of the Type 23 frigates.

Apparently it originally called for a low-cost variable depth sonar hauler with ASW torpedoes and helicopter landing spot, supported by a new class of replenishment oilers armed with Sea Wolf missiles for fleet air defense (over both the austere Type 23s and the replenishment oilers themselves).

Falkland War led to change of plan that ultimately produced the Type 23 as we know it.  But let's say...



The RFAs Fort Victoria and Fort George were actually fitted for-but-not-with a 32-round Seawolf system. The missiles would have gone in the top of the midships deckhouse, with FCS on the superstructure at either end. The FCS positions were later used for Phalanx guns, but if you look at an aerial picture of them, you can still see the missile tube hatches in the roof amidships.

(http://cmf24.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/20131005-ras-jwit-pvic-fnan-stephan-de-bruijn-35.jpg)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Weaver on January 15, 2015, 10:51:46 AM
Real world proposal: 

([url]http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/missiles-and-rockets-feb-61-polaris-long-beach.jpg[/url])


I'd read about it, but not seen an artist's impression, when I did this profile of a cheaper version for a NATO joint force (which was a real proposal):

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/profiles/NATOPolariscruiser.png) (http://s35.photobucket.com/user/hws5mp/media/The%20Whiffery/profiles/NATOPolariscruiser.png.html)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on January 15, 2015, 03:43:56 PM
It would appear that a couple of British firms in the '90s did some studies on FAC mothership designs that look like the kind of stuff I want to base my "Expeditionary Cruiser for a Green-water Navy" on...... the design is supposed to be capable of 25 knots, however, and some people are with the opinion that this is where a lot of expense would have gone into...... I wonder if 20 knots would still have been serviceable......

All I need would be to put an area air defence missile battery forward and air surveillance radars on the superstructures (maybe two panels forward and two aft la Ticonderoga)...... and it looks like I would need separate illuminators for SM-2 with EL/M-2248 MF-STAR......
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: RP1 on February 26, 2015, 12:56:02 AM
Quote
It would appear that a couple of British firms in the '90s did some studies on FAC mothership designs that look like the kind of stuff I want to base my "Expeditionary Cruiser for a Green-water Navy" on

It was the early 2000's - I'm not that old  ;)  Would you like to know more?

RP1
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on March 02, 2015, 01:04:47 PM
Quote
It would appear that a couple of British firms in the '90s did some studies on FAC mothership designs that look like the kind of stuff I want to base my "Expeditionary Cruiser for a Green-water Navy" on

It was the early 2000's - I'm not that old  ;)

Just goes to show that one should double-check what they see on the internet harder than previously done......  ;D

Would you like to know more?

Hum...... would you also be of the opinion that the specified 25-knot speed is where a lot of expenses would be spent?  If so, how much slower can it get and still remain useful as a blue-water vessel?
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on March 06, 2015, 11:19:22 AM
Quote
It would appear that a couple of British firms in the '90s did some studies on FAC mothership designs that look like the kind of stuff I want to base my "Expeditionary Cruiser for a Green-water Navy" on


It was the early 2000's - I'm not that old  ;)  Would you like to know more?


I read an outside entry here (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=5252.0).  Apparently there is a variant supposed to be capable of 40kts!

Is that 40kt-capable version the so-called "significantly expensive" one?  I'm more than willing to settle with 25kt if this is the case.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: RP1 on March 09, 2015, 08:00:24 AM
Hiya!

Apologies for not responding sooner - every project needs a deliverable right now, it seems!

Below is the relative cost comparison, baselined against the basic dock ship design we developed.

This shows the number of each of two sizes of asset that can be carried and the UPC of the mothership per asset.
So we can see that the 40 knot version of the crane ships is almost twice the price, with just under twice the displacement and more than five times the propulsion power (250MW!)

RP1

      UPC Per Asset
Study   Relative UPC   Medium   Relative   Small   Relative
Dock   1.00         4      1.0         6   1.0
Lift      1.13         4      1.13         6   1.13
Crane   0.91         2      1.82         4   1.36
Fast      1.72         2      3.43         4   2.58
Gantry   0.90         -      -         4   1.35
Deep   0.97         -      -         4   1.45
SSK      0.74         1      2.97         -   -
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: RP1 on March 09, 2015, 08:08:33 AM
Regarding speed; ISTR we found 25 knots was a sensible maximum speed because above that power requirements would start to get silly. Personally I'd be inclined to limit the power to an MT30 and two diesels, so about 45MW, which would drop the maximum speed of the larger ships a little.

We were, however, limited in the minimum speed allowed by the CONOPS of these ships. I cannot go into this in detail but for the roles for which they were considered, a speed of 25 knots was sensible.

RP1
Title: CEAMOUNT illuminator
Post by: dy031101 on March 21, 2015, 02:16:59 AM
I never realized that there is a trainable version (http://www.defence.gov.au/teamaustralia/radar_(CEAMOUNT_continuous_wave_illuminator).htm) in the lineup......

Sounds potentially impressive as a replacement for, say, SPG-62 illuminator......

Does anyone know, however, if there would be any special consideration at all if we talk about putting CEAMOUNT illuminators on a BMD-capable ship?  Or is the ability to guide SM-3 really not that dependent on what illuminators the warship has?

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: RP1 on March 21, 2015, 07:28:30 AM
Hi,

I'm pretty certain that the standard CEAMOUNT illuminators don't have the range for BMD. I did estimate their performance once and IIRC they seemed to be scaled for ESSM.

SM-3 has a separating kinetic warhead with IR guidance so the illuminators wouldn't be needed, as long as there is a surveillance / tracking array powerful enough to follow the target - which SPY-1 is more than capable of doing.

RP1
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on March 21, 2015, 08:22:58 AM
I'm pretty certain that the standard CEAMOUNT illuminators don't have the range for BMD. I did estimate their performance once and IIRC they seemed to be scaled for ESSM.

Hum...... how large do you think the panel (one panel because I'm trying to mess around with the trainable version) should be in order to handle the SM-2?

SM-3 has a separating kinetic warhead with IR guidance so the illuminators wouldn't be needed, as long as there is a surveillance / tracking array powerful enough to follow the target - which SPY-1 is more than capable of doing.

Oh okay.

(I was under the impression that the SM-3's IR seeker is an addition rather than replacement to SM-2's semi-active homing.  If it is indeed a replacement then I stand corrected.)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: RP1 on March 21, 2015, 08:52:09 AM
Confusingly:

SM-2 block III has the secondary IR seeker stuck on the side of the missile for improved ECCM, but is otherwise conventional.
SM-3 block "n" has a non-explosive "warhead" upper stage that is really an IR telescope with thrusters and an attitude problem.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: RP1 on March 21, 2015, 09:04:12 AM
Quote
Hum...... how large do you think the panel should be in order to handle the SM-2?

"Depends". A smaller array would be expected to have less power and a wider beam for a given frequency. This puts a limit on range, discrimination between close or low flying targets, greater vulnerability to countermeasures etc. Of course this is range dependent also, so an array sized to support self defence with ESSM may well be able to support SM-2 out to the same range, but could not exploit all SM-2's range envelope.

One would expect the SPY-3 radar fitted to DDG-1000 (well, the x-band bit that actually got fitted) to be able to exploit most or all of SM-2's envelope. In practice the deletion of the S-band search radar component means the remaining arrays have to do more tasks, so the overall capability will be reduced to something closer to ESSM / local area air defence.

RP1
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on March 21, 2015, 09:44:47 AM
CEAMOUNT is scaleable and has been designed to be to be increased in size and power.  The AUSPAR system is an evolution of CEAFAR designed with BMD in mind and has been mentioned in relation to the RANs next generation of frigate.

Something interesting I found when I was looking for the Shapeways listing for the CEAFAR mast I found there the other day (I'm panning to order several for some project I have in mind):

An Orange Hobby Batch III Type 22 with CEAFAR
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/ff/hms/Type22-700-nk/index.htm (http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/ff/hms/Type22-700-nk/index.htm)

A Pit Road Murasame with CEAFAR
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/dd/jmsdf/Murasame-700-nk/ (http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/dd/jmsdf/Murasame-700-nk/)

I have been beaten too it but it is one of the neatest upgrade solutions for frigates (or anything to be honest) out there at the moment.

Here's the Shapeways listing

http://www.shapeways.com/product/CU8YYHBJ4/anzac-asmd-mast-1-700?li=search-results-1&optionId=42155647 (http://www.shapeways.com/product/CU8YYHBJ4/anzac-asmd-mast-1-700?li=search-results-1&optionId=42155647)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on March 21, 2015, 10:22:56 AM
CEAMOUNT is scaleable and has been designed to be to be increased in size and power.

My awful sense of scale suggests that I might imagine a trainable array twice the width of one of the fixed arrays on the upgraded Australian ANZAC.  What else do I have to do on illustrations to denote increased power?
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on June 28, 2015, 12:27:02 PM
How about a slightly different USN of the 80s?  Previously the US had conventional and nuclear powered versions of their major combatants, usually frigates (as in DLGs), but in the case of the Californias and Virginias, destroyers.  The Californias were nuclear powered derivatives of the cancelled 1967 DDG, the Virginias were nuclear powered equivalents of the Spruance / Kidd classes and the cancelled CGN-42 class corresponded to the Ticonderoga class CG (initially DDG).  What if they had continued this in the 80s, 90s and through to current times?

The original real world idea was to provide one DLGN / CGN escort per CVN but this was abandoned primarily for cost reasons with the USN concentrating on constructing larger numbers of conventionally powered Ticonderogas and later Arleigh Burkes.  It was a case of priorities where not only numbers were seen as more important than individual capability but other projects were also more important, common sense really, AEGIS is AEGIS, whether its on a Spruance hull or a Virginia.  One way this could have occurred is if Admiral Rickover won his battle against the military industrial complex corruption prevalent in the 70s and 80s instead of being sacked by President Reagan at Navy Secretary John Lehman's instigation.  Quite a dirty affair and worth reading if you're into such things, Electric Boat's general manager P. Takis Veliotis (indicted for fraud and racketeering in 1983) covered up defects with SSN construction then sued the government for the cost of fixing the problems to the tune of almost $700 million in 1981.  Defence contractors, supported by the Secretary of the Navy, were able to continue their corrupt and incompetent practices for years longer than had the Executive backed Rickover in his battle against them.  Assuming common sense and good governance uncharacteristically won out and Rickover was able to hand over the reins to a suitable successor as well as the excesses of industry being reined in a decade or more earlier (I don't know the full history of what happened but I do know things were particularly bad in the 70's and 80's) it is conceivable that a new generation of DLGN / CGNs and perhaps even CAGNs (for the sake of cool whiffs) could have been developed and built.

Anyway back to the platforms, USN build CGN-42 and possibly CSGN (Strike Cruiser) and then go on the develop a nuclear powered version of the DDG-51 and a new CAGN to replace the modernised BBs perhaps using refurbished and updated 8" guns, or even complete turrets from surplus heavy cruisers.  Maybe a nuclear powered equivalent to the Invincible or the RNs Escort cruiser concept to replace the CVS type carriers.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: elmayerle on June 28, 2015, 11:48:27 PM
That sounds plausible.  Your comments about rampant corruption at that time does explain one thing to me, how P&W got a second-source contract for the F404.  They ended up producing the first F404 to ever have a compressor stall and the contract was eventually cancelled as part of the demise of the A-6F (I'm told that P&W's problems with the F404 were one major factor in the A-6F's demise).
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on June 29, 2015, 10:58:00 AM
Basically once a contract was awarded anyone who complained about performance was seen as a problem, or a dinosaur who didn't understand how modern projects were run.  Apparently insisting welds were completed to standard on submarines was unreasonable.  A compounding issue was the government was also the contractors insurer so even when the contractor was found to be at fault the government had to pay anyway.  ???

Same old story, if it was done properly the first time the cost savings would have resulted in more orders and greater profits.  The Los Angeles class not only had the weld issues but early boats had unknowingly been constructed from the wrong grade steel, greatly restricting their deep dive depth.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on August 19, 2015, 08:56:01 PM
This site (http://db8851.pixnet.net/blog/post/232610951-%E5%8C%97%E6%B4%8B%E6%B0%B4%E5%B8%AB%E5%B7%A1%E6%B4%8B%E8%89%A6-%E8%B6%85%E5%8B%87,%E6%8F%9A%E5%A8%81) is in Chinese...... not that it matters compared to the pictures.

I wonder what I need to do to cook up a WWII-era evolution of that main gun emplacement concept......
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on November 02, 2015, 09:51:12 PM
Just had an idea on the WWII RN, RCN, RAN Tribal class destroyer.

Previously I suggested a version armed with five twin 4" instead of four twin 4.7" or three twin 4.7" and one twin 4", basically a Tribal AA, similar in concept to the HMS Lance, an L&M class destroyer completed with four twin 4" instead of the designed three twin 4.7". 

At the same time a number of nations already had larger calibres while others were increasing calibre of destroyer guns further, for example the German 5.9".  How about, in addition to the AA Tribal, there was also a scout cruiser Tribal with three or four 5.25", 5.5", or even 6" singles and possibly a 4" twin for AA, i.e. the medium singles in A, B and Y, with either a fourth in X or a 4" twin.  Could be each squadron or flotilla has a mix of Scout and AA Tribals.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on December 01, 2015, 10:27:08 PM
Flyhawk's resent release of HMS Naiad and HMS Aurora in 1/700 have inspired some more cruiser ideas. 

Aurora was an Arethusa class light cruiser, what the RN considered to be the smallest cruisers worthwhile building which actually proved to be quite versatile and capable as well as providing the hull and machinery for the Dido Class AA cruisers of which Naiad is an example.

My thinking is these could be used for a purpose designed 4.5" AA cruiser with six (as opposed to four as fitted to two Didos) twin mounts, a batch three fitted with the improved 5.25" mounts developed for the Vanguard, post war upgrades, missile conversions, i.e. Tartar.  Export versions, licence production versions, i.e. an RAN version perhaps acquired instead of the Modified Leanders and maybe in larger numbers (smaller lighter so more were allowed under treaty).

Flyhawk also has the battle cruiser SMS Derfflinger.  My idea, it is saved from being scuttled and then granted to Australia as a war reparations, upgraded and anglicized through the 20s and 30s, going on to serve in WWII.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 30, 2015, 05:17:30 AM
Random idea:  Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate (see below):

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/USS_Rodney_M._Davis_%28FFG_60%29_Full.jpg/800px-USS_Rodney_M._Davis_%28FFG_60%29_Full.jpg)

Converted into something akin to the proposed Spruance class Air Capable Destroyer:

(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/SpruanceCarrier2.jpg)
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/AirCapableSpruanceDestroyer.jpg)

I would probably use the long hulled version.

It would be tight to say the least...but still it might be fun to try. ;)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Weaver on December 30, 2015, 05:56:54 AM
What would it be operating though?

The Spruance was much larger and had four weapon stations fore and aft of the superstructure plus a helo deck , so there was a lot of scope for rearranging the latter. The Perry only has one weapon station plus a helo deck and I'll bet that just about everything in it's superstructure is the minimum neccessary for a functioning ship, so can't be easily dumped or rearranged.

Harriers are out of the question. Maybe if you dumped the Mk.13 and 76mm and pushed the superstructure all the way forwards you might get four SH-70s on board, but to what purpose?
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 30, 2015, 06:00:08 AM
What would it be operating though?


Bah!  Practicality!! :icon_punal:

Maybe some Huey Cobras?
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Dr. YoKai on December 30, 2015, 09:15:50 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/QH-50_DD-692_1967.jpg)

 Suppose the QH-50 had really caught on...by the time the Perry's are available for conversion, you'd
 probably have a dash 60 or 70...
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 25, 2016, 06:07:06 AM
Not sure exactly what this would be classified as - possibly a guided missile cruiser:

(http://i.imgur.com/r6sThkV.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/O3BE3Ot.jpg)

It is a Swedish design from 1947 for a warship that launches guided rockets instead of using normal guns.  I have seen it theorised that the plan was to use what eventually became the Rb04:

(http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/img/satenas75-2/rb04e.jpg)

Could be an interesting idea to model.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on May 15, 2016, 11:20:31 PM
Decided to re-post it here because, despite being called a corvette, it is essentially a bigger and badder missile boat and not primarily a convoy escort (it can do convoy jobs, in fact meant to do so more cheaply than frigates and destroyers).

Model of Republic of China Navy's planned mass-production Tuo Chiang class corvette:
Title: Spruance Class What-ifs?
Post by: dy031101 on June 01, 2016, 07:21:01 AM
Browsing through Shipbucket, I found this catching my eyes:

Click HERE (http://www.shipbucket.com/drawings/4368)!

Reminds me of what Wikipedia says of the Spruance class destroyers...... it is claimed that they could have served into 2019 if updated again and maintained, and that USS Cushing was listed for grant transfer to Turkey before ultimately being allocated to be a target hulk.

If the transfer took place, however, would Turkey have accepted the ship as is?  Or would at least some modifications be carried out to, for example, expand the AAW utility of that Mk.41 launcher?
Title: Re: Spruance Class What-ifs?
Post by: Volkodav on June 01, 2016, 01:30:30 PM
Browsing through Shipbucket, I found this catching my eyes:

Click HERE ([url]http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Never%20Built%20Designs/United%20States%20of%20America/DD-963%20SPRUANCE%20AAW%20Conversion.png[/url])!

Reminds me of what Wikipedia says of the Spruance class destroyers...... it is claimed that they could have served into 2019 if updated again and maintained, and that USS Cushing was listed for grant transfer to Turkey before ultimately being allocated to be a target hulk.

If the transfer took place, however, would Turkey have accepted the ship as is?  Or would at least some modifications be carried out to, for example, expand the AAW utility of that Mk.41 launcher?


When the four Kidd class DDGs were proposed for transfer to the RAN in the late 90s (there were offered to Australia first, then Greece, before Taiwan bought them)the assumption was at least three of the four would be progressively upgraded to permit them to serve well into the 2010s if not the 2020s as replacements for the retiring Perth (CFA)Class DDGs.  All had already received extensive NTU (New Threat Upgrades) while with the USN making them the most capable non AEGIS combatants in service at the time, improving and refurbishing all ships systems, including accommodation and auxiliaries, as well as significantly more powerful and useful than the very best that could be hoped to be achieved with the ultimately very troubles RAN FFGUP (FFG Upgrade) program.  The ships, as is could have replaced both the both the DDGs and FFGs, not received any additional upgrades or modernisations and still resulted in a significantly more powerful, flexible and capable RAN, at substantially lower cost, through until the ships could be replaced with AWD in the late 2010s early 2020s, so poorly executed was the FFGUP. 

In fact what was being discussed was a rolling upgrade of the ships if acquired.  Initially three would enter service as a direct replacement for the three existing DDGs while the fourth would begin an extensive upgrade instead of the, now unnecessary FFGUP.  Mk-26 GMLSs would be replaced with strike length Mk-41 VLS, ESSM would likely be integrated along with the SM-2 the ships already used and VLASROC and Tomahawk would have been possibilities.  Automation would also have been increased to reduce crewing, i.e. pneumatic starters on GT Generators replaced with electric, improving reliability and reducing maintenance.  The ships were large enough, with sufficient modularity to permit multiple successive upgrades, for instance the ships could easily have received a scaled up area air defence version of the ANZAC ASMD upgrade, i.e. larger longer range CEASCAN radars and CEAMOUNT directors (Dragon kit with Shapeways CEAFAR mast and Mk-41 VLS).

Unfortunately the Australian government was wary of ex USN equipment following the poor standard of a pair of Newport LSTs bought in the 90s, completely missing the fact that the initially surveyed and selected ships had been fine but because of delays in processing the acquisition they went to other navies and the pair the, considerable less experienced, follow up team selected were in nowhere near as good a condition and required very substantial rectification work before they were even considered seaworthy post delivery.  The government was also concerned that manning issues would force the retirement of the eldest pair of the RANs six FFGs to free up sufficient crew for the much larger Kidds, resulting in the RAN reducing major surface combatant numbers even further below the still officially planned 17.  The other major issue was the fear in some quarters that four such capable ships would see a down grading of plans to acquire three new AEGIS destroyers (assumed at that point to be US or locally licence built Flight IIA Arleigh Burke class destroyers) as well as to upgrade the ANZAC class patrol frigates with AEGIS and SPY-1F through the ANZAC WIP (Warfighting Improvement Program).  There was also the industrial side of things where people were becoming increasingly concerned that buying ex USN ships would result in a local shipbuilding blackhole and loss of the skills so expensively (and successfully) built up through the 80s and 90s.

The irony is all of these legitimate concerns ended up occurring without the acquisition of the Kidds for various reasons relating to government policy, economics (an extended boom unbalancing the economy and the labour market), poor planning, lack of vision, faulty and failed procurement, illogical cuts followed by strange procurement choices, cancellation and replacement of projects with inappropriate (cheap but incapable) alternatives.  Failure to promptly replace the Perths with anything at all saw a reduction in the number of hulls and hence sea going billets, further compounding a cost cutting inspired gutting of the RANs engineering capability.  Technical issues saw a cost and schedule blowout on the FFGUP which was reduced from all six ships to only four, further cutting hull numbers and compounded by the fact that the ships never achieved the intended level of capability and were unavailable for years longer than planned.  The procurement of a replacement for the AWDs became a convoluted politically inspired process to reshape defence procurement and project management that didn't even kick off until some years after the urgent need for the ships was demonstrated by operations in East Timor and stated in the delayed Defence White Paper.  So long was the project delayed that the new destroyers became the replacement for the FFGs, not the DDGs, meaning a reduction in actual fleet size from 14 to 12 major combatants and an eventual planned 11, instead of the long required (since the retirement of the carrier Melbourne) 17.  The convoluted process that should have seen three CFA/Perth class DDGs replaced with three Flight IIA Burke AEGIS destroyers (or three Kidd class DDGs as an interim) in the late 90s, early 2000s will see three DDGs and six FFGs replaced with three AEGIS FFGs two decades later.

Fitting AEGIS and SPY-1F to the ANZACs proved impractical and combined with the issues with FFGUP saw a massive reduction in both numbers and capability from the retirement of the Perths that continues today.  The decision to neither build Arleigh Burkes or stretch ANZACs (from my understanding would have been similar in size and capability to the South Korean KDXII) as well as to cancel the missile corvettes intended to replace the fleets in shore patrol boats as well as to convert a commercial tanker into a fleet oiler (that never met capability requirements) and to upgrade/double hull the existing AOR overseas, instead of building the long required two new ships ensured that there would be a ship building blackhole and the loss of strategic capability that would literally cost billions to rebuild.

In an ideal world Australia would have acquired and progressively upgraded all four Kidd Class DDGs in the late 90s.  Three would be hot transfers using the Perth Class crews and the fourth would have served as the prototype for an upgrade for the rest of the class.  Only the newest pair of FFGs would be upgraded, where possible using systems common the upgraded Kidds, while the older ships would continue in service as is until replaced post 2010.  Shipbuilding would be kept going through this time by local construction of patrol boat replacing helicopter equipped missile corvettes (the proposed Transfield OPC), two new AORs, two or three helicopter carriers or LHDs and possibly up to several small LPDs.  ANZAC WIP would not even start with the ship remaining as patrol frigates due to the Kidds and two upgraded and four standard FFGs being available.  As the corvette program winds up the first new AWD would be completed to begin replacing the FFGs with the Kidds finally being replaced around 2020 by something really interesting, possibly a DDG-1000 based AWD or cruiser, or a JMSDF helicopter escort (Hyuga/Izumo)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on June 03, 2016, 12:58:57 AM
From my perspective (since I was from Taiwan), I can see combat system upgrades and LAMPS Mk.III compatibility done to the Kidd class DDGs; Mk.41 launchers replacing Mk.26 GMLS, maybe; outright combat system replacement (for example, 3D AESA radar)...... likely not.  Since the ROCN plans to build up to four AAW frigates within the next 15 years, I expect them to do just enough to keep the Kidd class DDGs serviceable.
Title: ID the radar (?)
Post by: dy031101 on July 23, 2016, 01:49:46 PM
Attached is a Shipbucket graph of HMS Tiger (C20) by Bombhead.

I circled two points of interest that I have.  One at the forward mast and one at the rear.

Is the forward one a radar equipment?  What purpose does it serve?

I know that the rear one is a height finder.  If, say, the rest of this ship's radars were replaced with more-modern sets (for example, the forward Typoe 993 with Type 996 3D) in another refit, could I have dispensed with the height finder?  Or even replace it with another radar meant for monitoring helicopter takeoff and landing?

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on August 06, 2016, 10:35:45 PM
Just an idea an Australian Suffren Class Frigate instead of the Charles F Adams Class DDGs actually purchased.

My thinking is Australia initially wanted a version of the County Class DLG fitted with Tartar but the UK was unable to provide the resources to do the redesign before examining MOTS and modified MOTS (with helicopter etc.) versions of the CFA DDG.  How about, following the success of the ongoing Mirage program, the ADF approaches France about a Tartar, helicopter equipped version of the Suffren, or perhaps the French could even have approached the RAN of defence minister directly with an unsolicited offer.

Australia is receptive to the idea and an Australian version is developed with a large helicopter hanger sufficient for a single Sea King / Super Frelon, or a pair of smaller machines, Tartar with two fire control channels super firing over the hanger and Ikara instead of Malafon.  There was also a choice of guns, either the two single 100mms as on the French ships, or a single Mk-42 5", Mk-6 4.5" twin or even more modern and lighter Mk-45 5" or Mk8 4.5" with a super firing Sea Sparrow for follow vessels if required.

Australia initially decided on using refurbished Mk-6 4.5" removed from the Daring class during their Tartar conversions but deliberately left space and weight to permit the class to be upgrade with new turrets once available as it was known that a new calibre would be required from the 1970s, either US 5" or the new 4.5" round developed for the RN or possibly even the US 8" MCLWG.
Title: Re: ID the radar (?)
Post by: Weaver on August 07, 2016, 02:48:19 AM
Attached is a Shipbucket graph of HMS Tiger (C20) by Bombhead.

I circled two points of interest that I have.  One at the forward mast and one at the rear.

Is the forward one a radar equipment?  What purpose does it serve?

I know that the rear one is a height finder.  If, say, the rest of this ship's radars were replaced with more-modern sets (for example, the forward Typoe 993 with Type 996 3D) in another refit, could I have dispensed with the height finder?  Or even replace it with another radar meant for monitoring helicopter takeoff and landing?

Thanks in advance.


Sorry, only just seen this.

The item circled at the front is a navigation radar, probably Type 975, or maybe Type 1006.

As you say, the rear aerial is a Type 278 height-finder. This was usually fitted in conjunction with a Type 965 long-range air-search radar because the latter had a range far in excess of the fire control radars generally fitted in the same era which could otherwise have done the height-finding role. It wasn't fitted on Type 42 destroyers and the Invincibles because their Type 909 Sea Dart fire-control radars could do the job themselves, and it wasn't fitted on Leanders due to space/weight limitations.

It wouldn't be hard to replace the Type 278 with another radar for monitoring helicopter landings, however it isn't really neccessary, since if you look at photos of the ship, you'll see that the forward Type 975 nav radar is offset to port, giving it a field of view that extends rearwards on that side of the ship for helicopter approach control. This was a common Royal Navy solution since RN practice is for helos to approach low on the port quarter and offsetting the existing nav radar avoids having to have a separate one.

Putting all this together, I'd be inclined to leave the Type 278 in place, unless you intend to refit the ship with much more capable fire-control radars. The 'next generation' replacements for Tiger's radars would be as follows:

Type 965 -> Type 1022
Type 993 -> Type 992Q/994 -> Type 996
Type 278 -> keep or no replacement
Type 975 -> Type 1006/7


(http://daveb.cbfsim.org/public/Blake8.jpg)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Weaver on August 07, 2016, 03:25:53 AM
Just an idea an Australian Suffren Class Frigate instead of the Charles F Adams Class DDGs actually purchased.

My thinking is Australia initially wanted a version of the County Class DLG fitted with Tartar but the UK was unable to provide the resources to do the redesign before examining MOTS and modified MOTS (with helicopter etc.) versions of the CFA DDG.  How about, following the success of the ongoing Mirage program, the ADF approaches France about a Tartar, helicopter equipped version of the Suffren, or perhaps the French could even have approached the RAN of defence minister directly with an unsolicited offer.

Australia is receptive to the idea and an Australian version is developed with a large helicopter hanger sufficient for a single Sea King / Super Frelon, or a pair of smaller machines, Tartar with two fire control channels super firing over the hanger and Ikara instead of Malafon.  There was also a choice of guns, either the two single 100mms as on the French ships, or a single Mk-42 5", Mk-6 4.5" twin or even more modern and lighter Mk-45 5" or Mk8 4.5" with a super firing Sea Sparrow for follow vessels if required.

Australia initially decided on using refurbished Mk-6 4.5" removed from the Daring class during their Tartar conversions but deliberately left space and weight to permit the class to be upgrade with new turrets once available as it was known that a new calibre would be required from the 1970s, either US 5" or the new 4.5" round developed for the RN or possibly even the US 8" MCLWG.

A helicopter-carrying Suffren is pretty much a Tourville.

How about a Tourville with a Mk.13 in place of one of the gun turrets*, Ikara in place of Malafon, a taller hangar and a second Tartar FC radar in place of Crotale Navale on the hangar roof?

* Remove the Exocets and move the bridge structure further back to give more room for the Mk.13 in B position. Then re-fit the Exocets between the aft FC radar and the main mast.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on August 07, 2016, 10:52:00 AM
Way too late for the RAN requirement and lack the DRBI23 3D radar.  That said they were fine ships and apparently excellent sea boats that performed admirably in the North Atlantic through their careers.

Even the Suffrens would be pushing it for the RAN requirements as the first pair of Perths (CFAs) were commissioned in 1965 and Brisbane in 1968.  It would only work if for instance the decision had been made to upgrade the Darings and maybe even the Battles as Tartar ships as well, then depending when the ungraded ships entered service they could afford to wait a couple of years for their larger DLGs.  If you look at the French T47 AAW modernisations conducted between 1962 and 65 this should have been possible.

The idea of the Suffrens would be, in addition to their air defence and ASW roles, to provide flag facilities to replace those of the remaining cruisers Australia and Hobart (in real life Hobart was proposed for a missile conversion as well).

This is approaching scenario rather than Sea Ideas and Inspirations.  I found and flagged a stack of Heller ship kits on Amazon and was thinking what to do with them if I worked up the nerve to order them.  We have sold a car recently (Golf VI GTI) so have some cash so who knows ;)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on August 07, 2016, 11:07:54 AM
On the Tigers I recall reading that the RN never really wanted them, or Victorious (and possibly Hermes) for that matter but had them foisted upon them by Churchill after a late night cabinet meeting where they also scrapped plans for the 1952 carrier Mount Batten wanted so badly.  Government apparently thought carriers were obsolete as far back as then so weren't interested in new ones but needed to keep the shipyards busy for electoral reasons hence wasting money on obsolescent ships the RN didn't want. 

Not the only version of events I know but it does lead to an interesting possibility, the sale of all four (or five) ships to Australia before completion so as to free up cash and resources to build the desired and needed new carrier(s) instead of modernising further old ships.

Anyway, this squadron is sold to Australia during the panic over Indonesia's new "Russian" fleet of 1+1 Severdlov class cruisers, 8 Skory class DDs and 10 Whiskey class SS.  The Tigers are converted to Tartar ships, fitting a Mk-13 in A position in place of the Mk6 3" with radars appropriately updated.  They are supplemented by Suffrens and eventually replaced with Invincibles.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Weaver on August 07, 2016, 03:45:30 PM
Way too late for the RAN requirement and lack the DRBI23 3D radar.  That said they were fine ships and apparently excellent sea boats that performed admirably in the North Atlantic through their careers.


Okay, fair enough: if the DRBI-23 is the deciding factor, then that also provides a rationale for why you're buying French hulls and fitting them with US weapons instead of just buying US ships. Of course the other option would be to buy the ships with their Masurca MQ2 SAM systems in place, since it had a significantly greater range than Tartar (in the latter basic form).

I appreciate that you want some degree of logistic streamlining with guns, but buying the Perths meant introducing the US 5" round anyway, so you might as well keep the 100mm French guns on the Suffrens. The 100mm Mod.68 was a pretty decent gun: probably the best compromise if you wanted both a credible AA capability AND a credible (just) shore bombardment capability in one weapon.

Replacing the Malafon with Ikara is a natural choice (and an improvement too). Would you also want to replace the fixed 550mm ASW torpedo catapults with NATO-style lightweight triple tubes too? If so, that might free up a fair amount of internal volume.

Quote
Even the Suffrens would be pushing it for the RAN requirements as the first pair of Perths (CFAs) were commissioned in 1965 and Brisbane in 1968.  It would only work if for instance the decision had been made to upgrade the Darings and maybe even the Battles as Tartar ships as well, then depending when the ungraded ships entered service they could afford to wait a couple of years for their larger DLGs.  If you look at the French T47 AAW modernisations conducted between 1962 and 65 this should have been possible.


I did a Tartar Daring profile a while back based on exactly that thought process:

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/profiles/Daringre-fit2.png) (http://s35.photobucket.com/user/hws5mp/media/The%20Whiffery/profiles/Daringre-fit2.png.html)

Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Weaver on August 07, 2016, 03:58:57 PM
Anyway, this squadron is sold to Australia during the panic over Indonesia's new "Russian" fleet of 1+1 Severdlov class cruisers, 8 Skory class DDs and 10 Whiskey class SS.  The Tigers are converted to Tartar ships, fitting a Mk-13 in A position in place of the Mk6 3" with radars appropriately updated.  They are supplemented by Suffrens and eventually replaced with Invincibles.

You could probably get the Mk.13 in B position and keep the forward 6" turret. There's loads of deck space there and the 3" Mk.6 turret has a seriously large gun room underneath, so plenty of space for the Mk.13 magazine. The 6" Mk.6 allegedly made the Tigers capable of out-shooting a Severdlov due to it's higher fire rate, although it's dubious reliability might have hamstrung it in practice.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on August 07, 2016, 05:10:35 PM
Anyway, this squadron is sold to Australia during the panic over Indonesia's new "Russian" fleet of 1+1 Severdlov class cruisers, 8 Skory class DDs and 10 Whiskey class SS.  The Tigers are converted to Tartar ships, fitting a Mk-13 in A position in place of the Mk6 3" with radars appropriately updated.  They are supplemented by Suffrens and eventually replaced with Invincibles.

You could probably get the Mk.13 in B position and keep the forward 6" turret. There's loads of deck space there and the 3" Mk.6 turret has a seriously large gun room underneath, so plenty of space for the Mk.13 magazine. The 6" Mk.6 allegedly made the Tigers capable of out-shooting a Severdlov due to it's higher fire rate, although it's dubious reliability might have hamstrung it in practice.

Doh, I meant "B", thanks for that.  I have the Shapeways Lion Conversion for the Revel (Matchbox) Tiger, of which I have two.  Its been a long term plan to replaced the forward 3" twin with a Mk13 and fiddle with the radars a bit. 

Used to work with a bloke who was a Midshipman on one of the tigers in her last commission who told me the issue was aluminium shear pins in the hoist drive chains.  For the last shoot they replaced them with the "wartime" steel pins and the turrets ran faultlessly firing off the full magazine.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on August 07, 2016, 05:27:23 PM
Way too late for the RAN requirement and lack the DRBI23 3D radar.  That said they were fine ships and apparently excellent sea boats that performed admirably in the North Atlantic through their careers.


Okay, fair enough: if the DRBI-23 is the deciding factor, then that also provides a rationale for why you're buying French hulls and fitting them with US weapons instead of just buying US ships. Of course the other option would be to buy the ships with their Masurca MQ2 SAM systems in place, since it had a significantly greater range than Tartar (in the latter basic form).

I appreciate that you want some degree of logistic streamlining with guns, but buying the Perths meant introducing the US 5" round anyway, so you might as well keep the 100mm French guns on the Suffrens. The 100mm Mod.68 was a pretty decent gun: probably the best compromise if you wanted both a credible AA capability AND a credible (just) shore bombardment capability in one weapon.

Replacing the Malafon with Ikara is a natural choice (and an improvement too). Would you also want to replace the fixed 550mm ASW torpedo catapults with NATO-style lightweight triple tubes too? If so, that might free up a fair amount of internal volume.

Quote
Even the Suffrens would be pushing it for the RAN requirements as the first pair of Perths (CFAs) were commissioned in 1965 and Brisbane in 1968.  It would only work if for instance the decision had been made to upgrade the Darings and maybe even the Battles as Tartar ships as well, then depending when the ungraded ships entered service they could afford to wait a couple of years for their larger DLGs.  If you look at the French T47 AAW modernisations conducted between 1962 and 65 this should have been possible.


I did a Tartar Daring profile a while back based on exactly that thought process:

([url]http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/profiles/Daringre-fit2.png[/url]) ([url]http://s35.photobucket.com/user/hws5mp/media/The%20Whiffery/profiles/Daringre-fit2.png.html[/url])


The idea I am toying with for the Darings and Battles is replacing B turret due to it being deemed too difficult to fit the Mk-13 aft on the Battles, then once the work was done for them it was easier to adapt that design than to do a new one for the Darings.  They would lose their torpedos with deck houses filling the space, the bridges would be enclosed as per the Vampire / Vendetta MLU and the radars would be replaced with more modern types, including a 3D of some variety.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Weaver on August 07, 2016, 08:37:39 PM
The idea I am toying with for the Darings and Battles is replacing B turret due to it being deemed too difficult to fit the Mk-13 aft on the Battles, then once the work was done for them it was easier to adapt that design than to do a new one for the Darings.  They would lose their torpedos with deck houses filling the space, the bridges would be enclosed as per the Vampire / Vendetta MLU and the radars would be replaced with more modern types, including a 3D of some variety.

The SPS-39/52 would be a logical choice, and the timeframe's right too.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on August 07, 2016, 09:52:08 PM
Got an Ozmods 1/700 Vampire that I plant to do something with rather than OOB.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on August 08, 2016, 03:46:00 AM
The 'next generation' replacements for Tiger's radars would be as follows:

Type 965 -> Type 1022
Type 993 -> Type 992Q/994 -> Type 996
Type 278 -> keep or no replacement
Type 975 -> Type 1006/7


Thanks again  ;)

Would it be okay for me to assume MRS-3 to remain serviceable beyond mid-1980s? (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=116.msg111944#msg111944)  Would it remain so post-2000s?

(I'm doing an export-type modernisation, hence the AWS-9 instead of the Type 996......)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Weaver on August 08, 2016, 02:44:41 PM

Would it be okay for me to assume MRS-3 to remain serviceable beyond mid-1980s? ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=116.msg111944#msg111944[/url])  Would it remain so post-2000s?

(I'm doing an export-type modernisation, hence the AWS-9 instead of the Type 996......)


You can keep anything servicable forever if you're prepared to throw enough money at it: look at B-52s, or the main battery directors on the Iowas. However I'd have thought that if you're throwing a lot of money at keeping the ship in service for that long anyway, and you're not limited to RN in-service equipment, you might as well replace the MRS-3 with a COTS radar/EO director from one of the well known firms.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on August 24, 2016, 09:49:36 PM
Been thinking on the RAN as per usual, cruisers, destroyers, the Washington treaty limitations and post WWII plans and needs, as well as how large and capable destroyers and destroyer leaders became during and after WWII through to the DLGs  of the 60s and modern cruiser sized destroyers and frigates. Flyhawks 1/700 Naiad and Aurora have added some incentive for ideas.

What if somehow Australia ended WWII with a substantial number of small light cruisers based on the Arethusa, Dido and Bellona classes in service and building in addition to the frigates and corvettes and instead of the Tribal class destroyers, Hunt Class had been built instead.  Maybe 6" and 5.25" ships could be built at Codoc and 4.5" versions at Williamstown. 

Pre-war heavy and light cruisers plus destroyers were obsolescent and worn out, UK built J,K,N and war emergency destroyers  returned post war and the only modern ships the very cramped Hunts, with no Tribal, Battle or Daring Class built, building or planned, the obvious solution was to adapt the light cruisers.  The end result was the light cruisers were modernised, converted and completed in a variety of configurations including task force leader, carrier GP escort, ASW leader, and DL / large destroyer using the latest directed Bofors, US 3'/50, Limbo, new radars and directors and where applicable sonars (probably the incomplete ships).

Next step was complete the least progressed hulls as cruiser/destroyers (IAW the RN anti Sverdlov concept) and as they started entering service in the late 50s and early 60s the earlier post war completed vessels could begin being converted with Tartar etc. to replace the modernised war built ships.

Finally the design is evolved into a new build DLG during the 60s as an alternative to buying Counties.  Initially with Tartar, later ships were built with Standard and the final Batch with Sea Dart. 

Thirty years of evolution 6", 5.25", 4.5", 5"L54, 3'L50, 3"L70, maybe Mk26 6", Bofors 40mm, maybe Oto Melara 76mm Compato, or Bofors SAK.  Tartar, Standard, maybe Terrier, Mk10, 11, 13, 22, or even 26 GMLS, Sea Dart, Seacat, maybe Seawolf, Limbo, Ikara, Super Ikara, or even ASROC a variety of British and American radars, directors, other sensor and systems.  Sycamore, Whirlwind, Wessex, SeaKing, maybe Sea Sprite.  Lots and lots of possibilities, maybe even a life extension for 1970s built ships seeing them serve into the 90s with NTU and Seahawk.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Weaver on August 25, 2016, 12:36:28 AM
Funny you should post that: I've been contemplating ways of keeping more 9 x 6" cruisers in the RN post-war and one idea I had was for the Canadians to take a pair of Improved Didos in place of the Uganda/Quebec and Minotaur/Ontario, which they struggled to man and didn't keep in service for very long. The Imp.Didos had 200-300 fewer crew each, 900 miles MORE cruising range, and flag facilities: perfect for an ASW fleet flagship on each coast.

In real life two of the four surviving Imp. Didos (Black Prince and Bellona) went to NZ in 1946 and two went into reserve (Royalist and Diadem). Then in 1956 Bellona was replaced in RNZN service by the refitted Royalist and then scrapped, while Diadem was sold to Pakistan. Had the reserve ships gone to Canada instead, the consequences would have been easy to resolve: Bellona could have been refitted instead of being scrapped and both her and Royalist could have served the RNZN into the mid-late 1960s. The sale to Pakistan of Diadem just doesn't go through: she was converted into a training ship within two years of being sold anyway, which indicates she was a bit of a white elephant. Two or three destroyers would probably have been a better purchase for the Pakistani navy.

What this all achieves is to get the RN three relatively new large 6" cruisers (Minotaur, Swiftsure and Superb) available for radical refits later in the 1950s/early 1960s.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on August 25, 2016, 11:42:38 PM
Australia actually went the opposite way to what I am suggesting and instead of using small light cruisers to replace pre war heavy and light cruisers as well as destroyers they effectively used their large destroyers (Tribal/Battle/Daring classes) as cruisers and attempted to keep the pre war cruisers while converting war emergency destroyers into fast ASW frigates.  It took another three generations but after knocking back successive large designs they are finally settling on 6000t plus major combatants, i.e. the cruiser sized multi-role vessels that are capable of independent as well as fleet operations.

My thinking is the Arethusa hull, while not ideal, if available would have made the perfect alternative to ships that were just too old and manpower intensive (Australia and Hobart) to be worth keeping post war, let alone into the 50s, as well as several generations of destroyers that were just too small to do what was needed.  Once the RAN decided to have a high end air defence system, helicopter, medium calibre gun and satisfactory command and control systems in one hull they found the very smallest they could go was the Spanish F-100.

Down side, they would have required more manpower than the destroyers and frigates in service but would have been far more capable and flexible.  Other factors though would have been a reduced logistics and training burden through having common platform and platform systems, lower sustainment costs again due to platform commonalities, as well as plenty of space and weight for future upgrades and modernisations.

I imagine a viable fleet could have had two or three squadrons each existing of a carrier, a command configured 6" CL, a CLAA, a GP CL/DL and an ASW CL/DL plus a couple of Type 15s then Type 12s.  Two squadrons would have required eight CL/DLs and three squadrons twelve of them, plus four and six frigates / DEs respectively.  The idea would be these small cruisers could over whelm a surface raiding Sverdlov (I.e. Battle of the River Plate) while being cheaper than maintaining a number of heavy cruisers or even battleships and unlike the large combatants they could be useful for ASW (in particular once large ASW helicopters and longer range stand off weapons became available).

The original idea behind the smaller cruiser was to increase the number of useful cruisers the RN could acquire under the various naval treaty tonnage limits in place at the time.  The Arethusas were designed as the smallest capable trade protection cruiser with sufficient speed and sea keeping for fleet operations, and could be built at a ratio of six Arethusas to five Modified Leanders while remaining within treaty limits. 

Australia bought the three Modified Leanders from the RN but maybe instead Australia could have begun building Arethusas at Codoc, hoping to avoid the issues with the Town Class cruiser HMAS Adelaide where her completion was delayed several years by the loss of her British build machinery in transit during WWI, facilities to produce armour, turbines and armament were developed locally as part of the project.  This would make sense as there was the need to replace Adelaide coming up and also war clouds had begun to gather so the need for additional ships would have been foreseen.  A plan to build three plus one ships locally could then have led to a decision to build additional examples instead of the planned battleship the government desired to build locally in 1939, then instead of the planned eight Tribal class destroyers (or in addition to them if the increased shipbuilding was up to it) they could have built Didos in both 5.25" and 4.5" variations.

Codoc could have become a cruiser factory of sorts, completing some ships entirely themselves and sending other hulls to other locations for outfit.  The yard could have even been expanded and connected to the harbour shore (as was done with Garden island) with hard stands, building halls, dry docks and slipways.  With the war going badly in Europe and Japan an ever present danger it would only make sense that many more ships would be ordered, hence the large number of hulls under construction at the end of the war, as well as several near new cruisers in service.

I'm actually keen to try and build a wartime Arethusa and a post war CCL version, as well as a CLAA, CLG, DL and DLG using progressively more US equipment as time goes by.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on August 29, 2016, 09:00:52 PM
Another thought I just had is a cruiser mine layer version with three 4.5" BDs in A,B and X positions and a large fully covered mine deck.  This design would address the main issue with the Abdiel class, range at top speed.

During the war the success of the minelayer version as fast transports would lead to a cruiser APD (APC?) being developed.  This version would have the twin 6" of Arethusa forward in A and B, the mine deck converted to troop accommodation, davits for four LCVPs and multiple twin 4", Bofors/Pom Poms and Oerlikons.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Weaver on September 25, 2016, 11:57:43 AM
Hey Volkodav: LOTS of interesting pics of RAN ships and equipment on this Flickr account:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/page13 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/page13)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Old Wombat on September 25, 2016, 03:39:12 PM
Thanks for that, Weaver! :) :D
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on October 05, 2016, 09:29:15 PM
Yes thankyou
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on October 16, 2016, 09:24:51 PM
Just had a thought that my be worth buying an MT Minatures County to try out.

How about when the small ship, Leander based Seadart ship got out of hand and morphed in to the Bristol, a highly specialised carrier escort, the RN decided to cut their losses and cancelled it in favour of a Batch III County with Seadart in place of Sea Slug. 

As the Batch II Counties were still being built at the time this could have been a significantly cheaper option.  They could have had other improvements such a COGOG/COGAG/CODAG propulsion instead of COSAG, Seacat dropped in favour of Seawolf or even opted for a twin 30, 35, or 40mm instead (based on experience from the Confrontation).  With the lower impact of the Seadart a full wide hanger and large flight deck would have been a no brainer and there would have been sufficient space for both Ikara and Exocet, while retaining at least one Mk6 or Mk8 4.5" gun.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Weaver on October 16, 2016, 11:23:00 PM
Just had a thought that my be worth buying an MT Minatures County to try out.

How about when the small ship, Leander based Seadart ship got out of hand and morphed in to the Bristol, a highly specialised carrier escort, the RN decided to cut their losses and cancelled it in favour of a Batch III County with Seadart in place of Sea Slug. 

I never understand the argument that HMS Bristol was 'over specialised' and didn't have a mission after the CVA-01 carriers were cancelled. The Type 82 was a platform for three new weapons, Sea Dart, Ikara and Mk.8 gun, together with Limbo that was already in widespread use. ALL of those weapons were subsequently introduced into RN service on smaller platforms: Ikara on the Batch I Leanders, Sea Dart on the Type 42s and Invincibles and Mk.8 guns on the Type 21s and Type 42s, so what were they doing that the Type 82 wasn't?

Just about the only feature of the Type 82 that was influenced by it's carrier escort mission was the lack of a helicopter, since those were supposed to be provided by the through-deck cruisers that would be the carriers' other escorts. However after CVA-01 was cancelled the through-deck cruiser survived to become the Invincible class, so a Type 82 escorting an Invincible would have been no more short of helicopters than if both of them were escorting a CVA-01. it's also worth pointing out that lack of a helicopter is by no means unusual in an air-defence-oriented ship where centreline space for radars and missile launchers is at a premium. The Charles F. Adams class didn't have one, nor did the Jacob Van Heemskerks and even the Flight I Arleigh Burkes (twice the size of the latter two and bigger than HMS Bristol) didn't have one either.


Quote
As the Batch II Counties were still being built at the time this could have been a significantly cheaper option.  They could have had other improvements such a COGOG/COGAG/CODAG propulsion instead of COSAG, Seacat dropped in favour of Seawolf or even opted for a twin 30, 35, or 40mm instead (based on experience from the Confrontation).  With the lower impact of the Seadart a full wide hanger and large flight deck would have been a no brainer and there would have been sufficient space for both Ikara and Exocet, while retaining at least one Mk6 or Mk8 4.5" gun.

The below-decks shape of Sea Dart is so radically different to Sea Slug that you'd have to change fundamental things about the design, like bulkhead spacing, in order to accomodate it, rather than just plugging different weapons into the holes in the deck. Likewise, the COSAG arrangement on the Counties had a rear engine room arrangement of (side-to-side) small gas turbine (GT), shaft, GT, GT, shaft, GT. There isn't enough room to put two Olympus in between the shafts, so you'd need to move them further apart, and probably design new gearboxes too, since the front inputs to them were for high and low pressure steam turbines.

Sea Dart only has a 'lower impact' in terms of the size of the launcher and it's magazine, however the radars are every bit as bulky. The Type 909 was supplied on a pre-fitted 'office' and you can't just elevate the aerial to put two of them close together because there's a rotating 'cage' full of un-weatherproofed electronics that hangs down into the office from the aerial. To fit a normal hanger on the County hull, you'd have to swap the positions of the radar and hangar, and elevate the radar to see over the hangar, thereby increasing topweight. You'd then have to find a space forwards for another 909 and it's 1.5 deck high office, wich would means a major reconstruction of the forward superstructure.

All of these factors would reduce the commonality with the County design and thus reduce any advantage from using it. A Batch III Country wouldn't have been significantly cheaper than HMS Bristol.

It's spooky that you should come up with the idea of Confrontasi getting the RN interested in guns again, because last week I had exactly the same idea! You know those twin 30mm BMARC Oerlikon GCM-A03 mountings that the RN adopted after the Falklands War? Well they were on the market as far back as 1967 so the RN could quite easily have decided to adopt them then if they'd been interested. You might imagine them adopting 30mm as a compromise between 40mm and 20mm, with twin guns replacing the Bofors mountings and single guns (similar to the later DS-30B which used the same gun) replacing the 20mm Oerlikons.

I also imagined a more ambitious scheme in which the RN commissions BMARC (which was the UK subsidiary of Hispano-Suiza and later Oerlikon, so British jobs) to develop a fully enclosed and unmanned twin 30mm turret for new builds, which would have a large capacity drum magazine below it. It would be rather like a 3/4 size version of the Breda-Bofors Fast Forty mount. In fact, Breda produced exactly such a 30mm "3/4-size" mount in the 1980s, the only difference being that theirs used Mauser cannon. Now when the post-Falklands CIWS boom got underway, Breda teamed up with Marconi to offer a system called Sea Cobra, which was the twin 30mm turret with a Marconi model 440 radar on top of it (this was the same radar used in the Marksman SPAAG). This got as far as prototypes being tested on UK ranges in 1988, but nobody bought it. If the RN had bought a BMARC twin 30mm turret in the 1970s, you might very well imagine this as an upgrade path for it.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on October 17, 2016, 08:38:14 PM
I love Bristol as a ship and design and believe its a shame that government policy stopped the class at one (actually that UK government policy wasted so much money by flipping between global expeditionary and Atlantic convoy war / ASW centric every couple of decades) but was trying to look at it more holistically, i.e. moving to an evolution of a destroyer rather than an evolution of a frigate.  Basically rip Sea Slug out of the Counties and you free up a phenomenal amount of space internally and topside.

Realistically the front 25-30% of the B III County could have remained identical to B I & II, or alternatively could have been altered to fit either Ikara, or Seadart, (even Tartar for my RAN DLG) in B position (which could be cut down as there is no need for super firing guns).  If she stays COSAG then the steam plant stays the same, if not, who cares, maybe the steam plant could be replaced with Olympus and the Metrovicks are retained, or maybe she could switch to a COGAG with three Olympus, two forward and one aft between the shafts, or my favourite option, four Olympus, each with their own funnel that they can be withdrawn through.  Yes its a lot of redesign work to some compartments but the County has a lot of space to play with, a lot more than a Leander, what's more is the County B III could also be factored as a DLGH with minimum or two or preferable three Seakings, that could have been built instead of converting the Tigers (the RN looked at DDH options based on Bristol but County could have been as good or better an option).

I know the 909 has the office underneath, it actually sort of makes it easier to install on large platforms with plenty of space and weight to spare plus fits well with some of the ideas I have.  What I am thinking requires the County hull but everything else is flexible, i.e. a Daring style after deck for a Mk6 and Limbo (or RAN style Ikara) and Seadart forward, or maybe flight deck aft and large full width hanger where the current flight deck is, the Seadart where the 901 is and the 909(s) in place of the original hanger (possibly Seadart forward too).

I have bitten the bullet and joined Shipbucket, no to publish my own designs but to access their data base and experiment with their bits and bobs like you do.  I want to do a range of designs, RN options and RAN options, single and double ended Tartar and Seadart and will work out the back story as I go. i.e. the Batch III County could have had its origins in a Tartar County redesign for the RAN.  According to a post on Secret Projects the RAN desired for and aft guns for 360deg coverage in littoral archipelag and riverine environments and specified such in their desired Tartar County, they also desired multiple Wessex helicopters and Ikara would have been a no brainer.  Their DDL concepts had many of these features too, also rapid fire auto cannons 30+mm, Seacat then Tartar, as such it is conceivable had the RN been keen to design what the RAN wanted they could have had all the building blocks they required for a Batch III county by the time a decision on Bristol was required.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Weaver on October 18, 2016, 02:43:32 AM
I don't really see the distinction between 'evolved from a destroyer' and 'evolved from a frigate' to be honest. They're both 'generic modern warships' using the same components and construction techniques and facing the same problems. The role names are pretty much arbitary and if they tell you anything, it's about the operating navy's tactics, organisation and traditions, rather than any distinctive physical characteristic of the ship. Look at the way the USN's Leahy, Belknap and Coontz classes started out as 'frigates' in the 1960s but then the two former classes were reclassified as 'cruisers' and the latter as 'destroyers' in the 1970s. The design and mission of the ships didn't change in the slightest: they were still 6000ish-ton Terrier+ASROC-armed carrier battle group escorts.

The Type 82 might have had a 'frigate-ish' type number, but that was just some administrative/political maneuver within the RN/MoD (possibly apeing the USN). It was a clean sheet of paper design in every way that mattered and was always intended to do the role of the Country class 'destroyers'.

The thing that strikes me about radical re-design proposals for County class hulls is that the 'Trigger's Broom' effect ("I've had this same broom for twenty years and in all that time it's only had five new heads and three new handles") kicks in fairly sharply. The ship is so specialised around Seaslug and the shape of a Seaslug installation is so different from almost anything else you might replace it with that the ship is going to require significant redesign of the basic structure. Once you get to that point, any advantage of a common hull goes away: you're going to need pretty much the same design time and first-of-class costs as an all-new design, yet you'll still be making compromises to retain some percentage of the old one.

That's not to say there isn't anything you can do with a County. The Chilean DDH conversion was sensible and useful. Alternatively you could keep the original quarterdeck and helo pad and fit RAN-style Ikara into the Seaslug space easily enough with room to spare. Sea Dart is always going to be a problem though: it really is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, or in this case, a three-deck deep 'vertical' installation into a one-deck high 'missile hangar'.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Weaver on October 18, 2016, 02:55:00 AM
Shipbucket has internal layouts for some weapons now, which is very helpful (assuming that they're accurate of course, but they're a pretty pedantic lot over there). A while back I did some overlays of alternative weapons onto County hull to illustrate the problems. I'm pretty sure you've seen them before, but I'll post them again for convenience:

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/profiles/DDG%20County%20UK%20SAMs.png) (http://s35.photobucket.com/user/hws5mp/media/The%20Whiffery/profiles/DDG%20County%20UK%20SAMs.png.html)

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/profiles/DDG%20County%20Terrier.png) (http://s35.photobucket.com/user/hws5mp/media/The%20Whiffery/profiles/DDG%20County%20Terrier.png.html)

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/profiles/DDG%20County%20Talos.png) (http://s35.photobucket.com/user/hws5mp/media/The%20Whiffery/profiles/DDG%20County%20Talos.png.html)

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/profiles/DDG%20County%20Tartar.png) (http://s35.photobucket.com/user/hws5mp/media/The%20Whiffery/profiles/DDG%20County%20Tartar.png.html)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on October 18, 2016, 08:08:00 AM
Thanks for posting those again.

They actually do illustrate what I was discussing quite well as all of the options I put forward do fit.  In ship building the long horizontal Seaslug magazine was more of a structural and survivability issue than any of the vertical mags or guns on other designs as most of the ships structural strength comes from longitudinal and transverse framing / bulkheads.  The County Class DLGs high freeboard actually gives her a potentially much stronger basic hull than many smaller, especially short forecastle designs.

The great advantage with the Counties design is once the Seaslug system is deleted additional framing and bulkheads can be added with ease, compartments taken up by vertical missile magazines or larger GTs diesels etc. can be relocated to space freed up by deletion of Seaslug.  One way weight and stability is calculated (and the disposition of equipment determined) is to carve the ship up into length ways sections, which is much easier to do with vertical magazines than horizontal.  From a naval architecture POV County (derived from Battle/Daring, through the unbuilt Super Daring sketches) would be a much easier proposition to redesign than the Type 12 starting point of the Type 82 (seriously the Bristol is a stretched Leander hull).

On the frigate vs destroyer thing, the USN frigates, that were reclassified as cruisers (except for the Farraguts that became DDGs), were actually DL/DLGs or Destroyer Leaders.  They were larger more capable fleet escorts than destroyers and effectively replaced light or AA cruisers in carrier groups, both the Counties and French Suffrens were considered DLGs, while the Italians called their Terrier armed Andrea Dorias and Vittorio Veneto cruisers.  The USN referred to their equivalents to the RNs frigates as DEs or Destroyer Escorts.  When the US developed a guided missile destroyer escort they ended up with the Brooke Class, which is what the Type 82 was initially meant to be equivalent to, while the DL(G)s evolved through the Norfork, Mitsher, Farragut, Leahy (Bainbridge), Belknap (Truxtun), California and Virginia, much larger more capable ships.

Looking at it holistically the RN looked at building new cruisers that would have been equivalent to the USN Boston and Cleveland class conversions, built the County Class equivalents to the DLGs, considered Tartar conversions of the Battles and Darings that would have been equivalent to the Forrest Sherman DDG conversions, considered new build Tartar Super Darings that would have been equivalent to the Charles F Adams Class, also Tartar was looked at for the Tribal Class Sloops and a version of the Leander that would have been equivalent to the Brookes.

What I am tempted to do, but I will need a new lap top to do it, is reactivate my old copy of Autodesk Inventor and convert the Shipbucket images into 3D models and really go to town on the ideas.  For instance I suspect that the double ended Seadat version

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/profiles/DDG%20County%20UK%20SAMs.png (http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/profiles/DDG%20County%20UK%20SAMs.png)

Could actually have the aft Seadart located further forward with the launcher where the 901 is, especially if she has port and starboard funnels, with a large hanger same height as the 901 deckhouse aft of it and a flight deck aft of that.  I am quite proficient with various CAD and 3D modelling packages but suck at Paint, I just don't know where to start but have studied and worked in engineering drafting.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on December 16, 2016, 04:57:16 AM
One of the 10 inch L/32 main guns onboard the Qing Chinese Beiyang Fleet cruiser Yangwei.

It is...... cute.  :-*
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on June 09, 2017, 10:50:17 PM
Interesting news from the US in relation to modernising and returning some FFG-07s to service to speed up progress to the hoped for 355 ship navy.  Mentioned was the successful upgrade of ships of the type by overseas navies (i.e. Australia) with new combat systems VLS etc.  As the USNs reserve FFGs have had their Mk-13s removed this makes the fitting of a larger VLS than on the RANs ships a possibility, at least two eight cell strike length modules would fit in the space formerly occupied by the Mk-13 GMLS and the RAN ships show an eight cell point defence (ESSM) unit can fit forward of that for an easy total of 24 cells without major structural work.  Canister launched anti ship missiles (what ever is selected for the LCS) could also be fitted between the superstructure and the VLS for a total of 32 ESSM, eight ASvMs and sixteen cells for SM-2/6, Tomahawk, VLASROC etc.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: exkiwiforces on July 21, 2017, 09:15:43 PM
I like some of the ideas here, but photobucket crap is giving the shits.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on November 26, 2017, 10:17:21 AM
Question: I am under the impression that European navies do not use TACAN to guide ship-borne helicopters during launch and recovery.  How is helicopter guidance achieved in those navies?

Thanks in advance.

===================================================================================

Interesting news from the US in relation to modernising and returning some FFG-07s to service to speed up progress to the hoped for 355 ship navy.  Mentioned was the successful upgrade of ships of the type by overseas navies (i.e. Australia) with new combat systems VLS etc.  As the USNs reserve FFGs have had their Mk-13s removed this makes the fitting of a larger VLS than on the RANs ships a possibility, at least two eight cell strike length modules would fit in the space formerly occupied by the Mk-13 GMLS and the RAN ships show an eight cell point defence (ESSM) unit can fit forward of that for an easy total of 24 cells without major structural work.  Canister launched anti ship missiles (what ever is selected for the LCS) could also be fitted between the superstructure and the VLS for a total of 32 ESSM, eight ASvMs and sixteen cells for SM-2/6, Tomahawk, VLASROC etc.

Every mention on the possibility of retrofitting Mk.41 into OH Perry class FFGs, IIRC, speaks of 4 x 8 cells although I reckon those to be Tactical Length.  I don't recall there being any Harpoon alternative that will fit into the Tactical Length Mk.41 though......

And then there is just restoring Harpoon capabilities.  Either way, I also reckon that there is always the option for another eight Self-Defense Length Mk.41 cells la Australian FFG Upgrade, accepting that those eight cells are stuck with quad-packed ESSMs.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on December 14, 2017, 02:05:37 PM
One thing I did not notice about the Allen M. Sumners destroyers transferred to the Shah Iran until recently- raised roof to accommodate a telescoping extension.

Come to think of it, I don't know if any other second-hand Gearings and Allen M. Sumners received this sort of modifications as well- AFAIK, Greece simply abolished their flight decks, and the ROC/Taiwan is the only such operator to whom the idea of LASH caught on (in the form of the 500MD ASW Defender).
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: finsrin on December 22, 2017, 02:49:30 PM
Certainly see sensors-weapons growth-modernization of Fletcher to Sumners series to what is likely most mature point in this photo.
Always was the definitive destroyer type to me.
Remember being around 1960's FRAM converted ships.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: exkiwiforces on June 13, 2018, 12:31:58 PM
I need some help as ive just purchased two Revel 1/700 kits of HMS Tiger C20 Im looking to do a WHIFF on Tiger and Blake based around a refit in the late 70s and 80s just prior to the Falklands War.

The plan is to retain the 6gun, but replace the 3 gun with Sea Dart/ Sea Eagle combo system,
Replace the two Sea Cat Systems with two Sea Wolf systems and add two IKARA launchers.
Close in guns twin 40mm radar assist guns and a gaggle of 20mm guns (single and twin mounts)
Reduce the Sea King Helicopters from four to two or replace with two Lynx Helicopters IOT save weight and space for the Sea Dart/ Sea Eagle radars and Sea Wolf radars.

Would the fitting of these wpns and associate mission systems will cause any top weight issues? Please note I have next to naval experience, but I have an interest in navel affairs which may seem strange for an ex-tankie and soon to be an ex RAAF rock ape.

Without having to buy complete kits, where can I get Sea Dart, Sea Wolf, IKARA Launchers and radars as I already have the rest
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: apophenia on June 14, 2018, 05:35:57 AM
Interesting. So, in your scenario, the late-'60s helicopter and command cruiser conversions never happened.

Good call on dropping the QF 3in Mark N1 guns. (Not sure about British experiences but feeds had a rep for jamming in Canadian service.) With each twin Mark 6 mount pulled, you're saving about 37 Imperial tons ... so over 200 tons total.

I've no clue about the weight of BAe's proposed 'Lightweight Sea Dart launcher' but the name suggest that you won't have any weight issues.

The Tiger class were finally paid off because of crewing issues (original complement was almost 700). The RW conversions exacerbated the crewing challenges. So ... what about some systems modernization to lower the complement?

Maybe replace the Admiralty three-drum boilers with three Olympus TM3B gas turbines? That'd give you engine commonality with the Type 21 and 42 frigates and Invincible class aircraft carrier? You'd end up with slightly less power but much lighter engines. Best of all, no actual styrene modifications required  ;)

https://www.whiteensignmodels.com/p/WEM+1700+Seadart+Missiles+PRO+7050/5797/#.WyGLP2sh270 (https://www.whiteensignmodels.com/p/WEM+1700+Seadart+Missiles+PRO+7050/5797/#.WyGLP2sh270)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Story on January 09, 2019, 06:06:54 AM
While this particular development would be unseen, it could have ramifications for other aspects of ship features, improvements and modifications.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a25804867/us-navy-hvp-heavy-gun-shells-rimpac/ (https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a25804867/us-navy-hvp-heavy-gun-shells-rimpac/)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on January 16, 2019, 08:10:54 PM
Very simple whiff using an available styrene kit, Flyhawk Aurora or Penelope as RAN instead of the Amphions. 

Australia bought the three Amphions because the existing WWI vintage Town Class cruisers were obsolescent and in need of replacement so as to not drag down the overall capability of the British Commonwealth under existing treaties.  The new Town Class were considered too expensive and (if I recall correctly) believed would take too long to build and deliver, but I do not recall any mention of the Arethusas being considered.

The Amphions were improved Leanders, the Arethusas were based on the Amphions, three 6" twins instead of four on less length.  The Arethusas were considered the minimum trade protection cruisers but also proved to be excellent fleet cruisers, while being cheaper to build and operate than the Leanders, let alone the much larger Towns that were designed as counters to the large light cruisers being introduced by the US and Japan.  Logically they would have been perfectly adequate for the RAN and being four of them they could maybe have replaced Adelaide as well.

Interestingly the Didos were in turn evoled from the Arethusa hull and machinery and were the more cruiser like design from the RNs Scout Cruiser studies, that also led to the large Tribal class destroyers at the lower / destroyer end of options.  Australia chose to build eight Tribals (only three constructed) and a battleship (never ordered).  During the war there was a plan to start building cruisers at cockatoo, with a modified Dido being the selected option, this plan continued sometime postwar.

Now for my whiff, how about Australia acquires or builds Arethusas aims to build Arethusas instead of the Tribals and the battleship, or more to the point, build Arethusas at Cockatoo and Tribals at Williamstown.  This could be preceded by local construction of the two Counties, instead of wasting resourses on a seaplane carrier, from the mid / late 20s, continuously, building and maintaining a shipbuilding skills base for no extra outlay and without acquiring a useless platform (Albatross) that the navy lacked the manning for.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Old Wombat on January 16, 2019, 09:02:35 PM
I have a York-class (Trumpeter 1/350 HMS Exeter) & a County-class (Trumpeter 1/350 HMS Cornwall) on back-order which will be RAN, to go with my Belfast.

Still deciding on what carrier(s?) & what destroyers from what's available in the 1/350 market place.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on January 16, 2019, 10:01:39 PM
I have a York-class (Trumpeter 1/350 HMS Exeter) & a County-class (Trumpeter 1/350 HMS Cornwall) on back-order which will be RAN, to go with my Belfast.

Still deciding on what carrier(s?) & what destroyers from what's available in the 1/350 market place.

Tribals are a good option, capable ships as is but I have also considered options such as an AA version with five twin 4"and two quad 2pdr Pom Poms and a scout cruiser version with four single 6" or 5.5" and two quad 2pdr Pom Poms.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on April 20, 2019, 07:36:24 AM
I didn't realize that PNS Alamgir (F260) was outfitted with what seems to be a telescoping hangar.  For VIP Sea Kings or even Z-18?

(The ship's Wikipedia entry gives me an impression of some sort of a command ship.)

ShipSpotting.com (http://www.shipspotting.com/)
(http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/small/8/9/6/2592698.jpg) (http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2592698)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on April 22, 2019, 10:33:07 AM
Illustration models for the next generation surface combatants for the ROCN.  There will probably be some changes being demonstrated this August......

Top 3: The frigate component of the programme.  Design was going to get finalized this year but then got stalled due to the excessive size of the originally-specified passive electronically-scanned radar and the unwillingness of the ROCN to allow any increase to the displacement of the frigate design to compensate.  Development of an alternative, active electronically-scanned radar has been hinted since last year, and construction is now expected to begin somewhere in early 2020s.  1 x 76mm Mark 75 or OTO Melara Super-Rapid, 4 x 8 Mk.41 VLS, 2 x Mk.32 SVTTs, 2 x 4 HF-2/3 AShMs, 1 x CIWS, and two manually- or remote-controlled 20mm or 30mm autocannons.

Bottom: The destroyer component of the programme.  Everything about it is still in concept stage.  I only pray that there will still be 12 x 8 Mk.41 by the time the design is anywhere near finalized (although even then I am not sure if that'd still be enough nowadays)......

The full album can be found HERE (https://www.facebook.com/pg/IDF.Chingkuo/photos/?tab=album&album_id=864458243706198)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on May 26, 2019, 07:04:07 PM
I need some help as ive just purchased two Revel 1/700 kits of HMS Tiger C20 Im looking to do a WHIFF on Tiger and Blake based around a refit in the late 70s and 80s just prior to the Falklands War.

The plan is to retain the 6gun, but replace the 3 gun with Sea Dart/ Sea Eagle combo system,
Replace the two Sea Cat Systems with two Sea Wolf systems and add two IKARA launchers.
Close in guns twin 40mm radar assist guns and a gaggle of 20mm guns (single and twin mounts)
Reduce the Sea King Helicopters from four to two or replace with two Lynx Helicopters IOT save weight and space for the Sea Dart/ Sea Eagle radars and Sea Wolf radars.

Would the fitting of these wpns and associate mission systems will cause any top weight issues? Please note I have next to naval experience, but I have an interest in navel affairs which may seem strange for an ex-tankie and soon to be an ex RAAF rock ape.

Without having to buy complete kits, where can I get Sea Dart, Sea Wolf, IKARA Launchers and radars as I already have the rest
Some how I missed this when originally posted.  Good ideas.

Shapeways has a variety of interesting bits available-
https://www.shapeways.com/product/BQ95LRLAQ/1-700-rn-sea-dart-launcher-set-x3?optionId=67145224 (https://www.shapeways.com/product/BQ95LRLAQ/1-700-rn-sea-dart-launcher-set-x3?optionId=67145224)
https://www.shapeways.com/product/V7DF6RWTM/hms-tiger-command-helicopter-cruiser-c20-1-700?optionId=43589914&li=marketplace (https://www.shapeways.com/product/V7DF6RWTM/hms-tiger-command-helicopter-cruiser-c20-1-700?optionId=43589914&li=marketplace)
https://www.shapeways.com/product/G38FQLGU5/hms-lion-aft-super-structure-inc-details-1-700-sc?optionId=43194579 (https://www.shapeways.com/product/G38FQLGU5/hms-lion-aft-super-structure-inc-details-1-700-sc?optionId=43194579)
https://www.shapeways.com/product/RTAQWQX3Z/hms-lion-detail-kit-1-700-scale-for-matchbox-rev?optionId=41854406 (https://www.shapeways.com/product/RTAQWQX3Z/hms-lion-detail-kit-1-700-scale-for-matchbox-rev?optionId=41854406)
https://www.shapeways.com/product/BVQ9LHKEU/1-700-hms-tiger-class-6-quot-50-15-2cm-qf-mkn5-gun-x2?optionId=81321138&li=marketplace (https://www.shapeways.com/product/BVQ9LHKEU/1-700-hms-tiger-class-6-quot-50-15-2cm-qf-mkn5-gun-x2?optionId=81321138&li=marketplace)

I too have toyed with the idea that the Tigers being converted into Sea Dart CGs but my project kick off rate is only slightly better than my project completion rate, i.e. not good at all.  Have two Revel (ex Matchbox) Tigers and the Lion conversion kits, lots of plans but no traction, also have armaments sprues from various dragon kits but the Shapeways options are looking better and better.

My thinking was the RN decides against the Command Cruiser conversion, opting instead for the Escort Cruiser option with the interim conversion of the Centaurs for the role.  The Tigers would then be fitted pretty much as out outlined, Sea Dart in B, Seawolf in place of the midriff 3" Mk-6.  Sea Dart should be easy structurally speaking as B was originally to have had a 6" triple so should have the volume able to accommodate the Sea Dart with its deep magazine.  The residual stability of the design should be sufficient for the extra radars, directors etc.  Volume for the various systems should not be an issue either.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on May 26, 2019, 11:09:43 PM
Packing ready for moving to our new house and, of course, pulling out kits and recalling projects as I go.  Dragon 1/700 USS Virginia had me jumping on line and pulling my copy of Friedman's US Destroyers to refresh my memory on one of my favourite ship classes the Virginia Class CGN.

The Virginia buy stopped when continued construction of nuclear powered escorts was declared not to the in the national interest in 1976, deciding on quantity over quality, or more to the point, a greater number of Ticonderoga class DDGs (later CGs) instead of individually more capable evolved Virginias with AEGIS.  The USN requirement was for 20 CGNs to provide four ship escorts for dual carrier battlegroups, the issue was this would leave no high end (specifically AEGIS) escorts for surface action or amphibious groups.

Now my what if is lets say the USN was able to keep their nuclear powered AEGIS escorts in the shipbuilding plan at the cost of the Ticoderogas.  To mitigate the numbers issue additional Kidd class DDGs were ordered, some Spruances were upgraded to a similar standard and the DDG 51 program was accelerated.  This could result in either the AEGIS equipped CGN 42 being ordered or continuation of the originally planned build of eleven standard Virginias with NTU features incorporated.

Either way the USN ends up with twenty larger more capable ships with far more potential for upgrades and improvements than the very tight Ticonderogas, even a potential AEGIS installation during MLU, large VLS would be a no brainer.

I have two Virginias and am thinking of doing one as an updated USN ship and the other I am still tempted to do as a Sea Dart armed RN version.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Wyrmshadow on June 14, 2019, 08:55:12 AM
old pictures of mine for inspiration, would be amazing to see this realized.

(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/b5c10399-e499-461b-9811-0284cbb10651/d3gp1c9-2ea63885-978e-4ab8-922a-02622a5ebf0a.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2I1YzEwMzk5LWU0OTktNDYxYi05ODExLTAyODRjYmIxMDY1MVwvZDNncDFjOS0yZWE2Mzg4NS05NzhlLTRhYjgtOTIyYS0wMjYyMmE1ZWJmMGEucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.L_Q6u6SvY3b15pWA2Sm2wGnKGT6e5LxrEgzDJBbCFMQ)

(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/b5c10399-e499-461b-9811-0284cbb10651/d2d7u86-850ccece-48e4-4fc4-8326-da6c0420014b.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2I1YzEwMzk5LWU0OTktNDYxYi05ODExLTAyODRjYmIxMDY1MVwvZDJkN3U4Ni04NTBjY2VjZS00OGU0LTRmYzQtODMyNi1kYTZjMDQyMDAxNGIucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.u3cOvDNWJcTnB38wJyasgjKloOujtY6z2OGUyaMUDyI)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: finsrin on June 14, 2019, 10:41:02 AM
Rear turrets on modernized Long Beach probably 3".   What are forward turrets ?

With nuclear power; rail gun or laser turrets are possible.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on June 14, 2019, 10:45:17 AM
8"/55 caliber Mark 71 gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8%22/55_caliber_Mark_71_gun)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 15, 2019, 03:55:37 AM
I wonder about something like those shown above but with the centre section fitted with UGM-27 Polaris missiles.  The Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi was fitted with four Polaris missile launchers located in the aft part of the ship (see below photos)

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Hs9F35jT1y8/VU_CMo1gkPI/AAAAAAAAEEM/eLo8eWXAxO4/s1600/garibaldii.jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PzDDyt7N4oI/VwF96uflkzI/AAAAAAAAGy4/PpaDXF8cacwYwZ_qj_qQT1QXP7w5Y41AA/s1600/Garibaldi+cruiser2.jpg)
(http://www.steelnavy.com/images/RM%20Garibaldi/Gari901silosphoto.JPG)
(https://www.usni.org/sites/default/files/C%26D-PRO-10-17-2.jpg)

A nuclear powered cruiser such as a Long Beach-class with a dedicated Polaris missile fit out and acting as a surface equivalent to the SSBNs (would this make it a CBN?) would be an interesting build.  In fact, one proposal with 8 Polaris was considered:

(https://the-drive-3.imgix.net/https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1539896880490-adadacccc.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&ixlib=js-1.2.1&s=6febed67592c3aab94275fb7bcac01a9)

Now make it even more dedicated with 16 missiles (equivalent to the George Washington-class and Ethan Allen-class SSBNs) would be an interesting whiff.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 15, 2019, 05:42:09 AM
Strike Cruiser Mk 2.:

(https://s8.postimg.cc/756w3bq05/imageproxy.php.jpg)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on June 26, 2019, 08:30:27 PM
During the 70s the Iran had a very ambitious naval program that (if my memory serves me correctly) at one point had a notional order book of three Invincible Class carriers, six Kidd class destroyers and twelve S class frigates.  Of these only the Kidds were ordered and then the last pair were cancelled before the Iranian revolution saw them acquired by the USN instead.


The S Class were interesting in that they were FFGs (as seen on https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/complete-information-analysis-on-elli-class-frigates-of-hellenic-navy.368266/page-2) with SM-1 and 5" guns.  I assume they were the Dutch Olympus / Tyne version, not the German LM2500 MTU one, which would have fit well with the Olymus powered Invincibles.


This got me thinking, what if they decided to go Dutch and UK only and not order the Kidds, maybe going for an improved, double ended Bristol instead.  Four Olypus in a COGAG arrangment, the Ikara replaced by a second Seadart, a helo hangar and flight deck aftof the existing Seadart.  This fleet is under construction when the Iranian revolution occurs meaning three Invincibles and six improved Bristols on the stocks in 1979......... ;)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: tankmodeler on June 27, 2019, 01:56:24 AM
I wonder about something like those shown above but with the centre section fitted with UGM-27 Polaris missiles.  The Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi was fitted with four Polaris missile launchers located in the aft part of the ship (see below photos)


Now make it even more dedicated with 16 missiles (equivalent to the George Washington-class and Ethan Allen-class SSBNs) would be an interesting whiff.
Shipboard ICBMs have been considered before and I do believe the considered opinion is that they wouldn't last long enough in any war to be a serious deterrent. The problem is they are too easy to find and too important not to take out in the very first instance of a war. Surface ships are simply too vulnerable to subs and ASW is just too difficult, especially nowadays, to invest in a nuclear deterrent that will be sunk in seconds after a war starts.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 27, 2019, 04:17:27 AM
Bah!!  Reality sucks!
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: tankmodeler on June 27, 2019, 10:43:50 PM
Bah!!  Reality sucks!
Such has always been the case, of course...  ;D
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 29, 2019, 02:36:09 AM
I always thought ships did not have enough markings then I saw HMS Dragon:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/The_Launch_of_Type_45_Destroyer_HMS_Dragon_MOD_45149875.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/6184/6123870457_b18f856de1_b.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Royal_Navy_Type_45_Destroyer_HMS_Dragon_MOD_45153124.jpg)

Looks good - we should see more similar.

And what's best, you can get a kit in both 1/700 and 1/350:

(http://63.135.101.110/d-m-propics/DIR_CHC/CHC7109/C_CHC7109_00.jpg)
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0039/2039/6406/products/7109poster_1024x1024.jpg?v=1541781763)

(http://www.findmodelkit.com/sites/default/files/p2030255_2.jpg)
(http://www.findmodelkit.com/sites/default/files/p2030259_2.jpg)
Title: Minor question about Type 23
Post by: dy031101 on July 29, 2019, 08:27:06 AM
Question: What is this circled item on the Type 23 class frigate?

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 30, 2019, 01:26:33 AM
Not sure but I believe it is the exhaust for the two diesel generators - here is a better view:

(https://www.hazegray.org/navhist/rn/frigates/t23/richmond5.jpg)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on August 18, 2019, 06:32:44 AM
I'm not sure if it's actual R&D or just intellectual exercise in Iran.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on August 20, 2019, 05:58:20 PM
A thought on Naval Gunfire Support (NGS).  The US initially developed the 8" MCLWG, the Mk65 and Mk66 single and twin high rate of fire 5" to replace the NGS capability provided by the WWII vintage 6" and 8" cruisers but these projects were cancelled in the late 60s early 70s.  My thinking is to fill the gap the USN selected their best remaining all gun heavy cruisers and gave them an intermediate rebuild and modernisation to serve into the 80s and possibly 90s.


This rebuilt would be aimed at economically retaining their 9 x 8" guns, while improving their self defence capability, reducing manning requirements and reducing obsolescence.  The Mk38 5" twins would be replaced with Mk13 fore and aft, and with Mk45 port and starboard, four missile fire control channels, 3D radar, additional power generation and upgraded 8" mounts.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: tankmodeler on August 21, 2019, 02:00:28 AM
A thought on Naval Gunfire Support (NGS).  The US initially developed the 8" MCLWG, the Mk65 and Mk66 single and twin high rate of fire 5" to replace the NGS capability provided by the WWII vintage 6" and 8" cruisers but these projects were cancelled in the late 60s early 70s.  My thinking is to fill the gap the USN selected their best remaining all gun heavy cruisers and gave them an intermediate rebuild and modernisation to serve into the 80s and possibly 90s.

This rebuilt would be aimed at economically retaining their 9 x 8" guns, while improving their self defence capability, reducing manning requirements and reducing obsolescence.  The Mk38 5" twins would be replaced with Mk13 fore and aft, and with Mk45 port and starboard, four missile fire control channels, 3D radar, additional power generation and upgraded 8" mounts.
So, you're really looking at a more modern version of the Boston-class CAGs?

The Mk 13 was a single arm system and the cruiser conversions all used the twin armed launchers to provide a better PK. The Mk 45 is a submarine based launcher for Tomahawks. Did you mean the Mk 25 BDMS Sea Sparrow box launcher, the Mk 26 twin-armed launcher for Standard Missiles, or the Mk 41 VLS, perhaps?

One of the biggest concerns with the conversions of the old cruisers were the high crew counts translating into brutally high operating costs, even by 1970s standards.

For a nominal 1975 major refit conversion of an American heavy cruiser hull that was meant to retain significant shore bombardment capability (and disregarding cost entirely) might I suggest the following?

A Baltimore hull.
Re-engined to gas turbines - 3 x P&W FT4s would provide the equivalent 120,000 HP needed to retain a 33 kt top speed and greatly reduce the engineering crew required to run the ship
Deletion of all twin 5" mounts
Deletion of the aft and B-turret triple 8" mounts - Modern gunfire support really doesn't need nine 8" guns. Three is more than enough.
Retention of the A turret but modified to use the autoloader of the 8" Mk 71 system for each gun in the old turret.
Addition of two Mk 26 twin-arm launchers aft in X and Y positions with 80 rd magazines for each launcher along with target designation radars on the main mast.
Addition of two Mk 25 Sea Sparrow box launchers amidships firing to each beam and being rearmed from magazines aft in the rear deck house.
Addition of two 5"-54 cal Mk 45 turrets forwards abeam of the bridge in the old forward twin 5" mount spots.
Addition of four Mk 143 quad armoured Tomahawk box launchers right aft
Addition of two Mk 141 Harpoon launchers on the old 8" B-turret mount.

By the late 1980s they would have undoubtedly picked up a CIWS or two, one right aft and one on top of the bridge.

By the early 1990s they would have had the Mk 25 and magazines replaced by a reduced superstructure amidships and probably 32 Mk 41 VLS cells holding VL-Sea Sparrows. The rear Mk 26s would probably be retained as they would already be firing SM-1s and probably SM-2s by the 90s. But any refits in the 90s would possibly change out the Mk 26s for a much simpler 48 cell Mk 41 farm with a selection of SM-2ERs and Tomahawks, replacing the Tomahawk deck box launchers.

Replacement of the engines, gun turrets and crews and other WW2 era manual systems with the more automatic systems of the mid 70s through 80s would have undoubtedly reduced the crew from the unsupportable 1150 of a wartime heavy cruiser to a much more reasonable 300-400 of the then-new Tico-class cruisers.

These would have been very heavily armed for cruisers in the 70s and 80s and you could save a ton of money if you were to designate them purely as gunfire support vessels. In which case you could get rid of the aft Mk 26 mounts and magazines and radars and electronics as well as the 8" turrets and possibly added another four Mk 143 Tomahawk launchers right aft, possibly freeing up enough space for a helo pad and hangar for a Blackhawk or the like in the aft superstructure/Y-turret space.

You'd keep the two Mk 25 box launchers and their designators as self defense. A 1990s refit could still replace them with a VLS farm, but possibly bigger, say 60 cells adding back the SM-2 missiles and adding area air defence capability for the 90s and beyond.

Big ships provide a big canvas upon which to WHIF...

Paul
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Old Wombat on August 21, 2019, 08:22:19 AM
Just a note on NGS:

During the Gulf War(s) I remember hearing that US & British soldiers were requesting RAN NGS in preference to either of their own navies because, even with their smaller guns (I think we're talking OHP's with their 76mm guns vs 4.5" & 5" of the RN & USN), they were getting more metal on target faster when required.

This was because the RAN trained for the NGS role as one of their primary functions.

Immediately after the Gulf War(s) the RAN announced that they were reducing the focus on guns & their Weapons Operators were now focusing on missile-based systems training (almost to the exclusion of anything else) in line with their RN & USN counterparts.

With modern gun systems being highly automated (yes, I know the old WW2 systems aren't - but they could be) the crews supporting the guns can be, & are, greatly reduced. With naval gun shells being extremely cheap in comparison to a single missile, NGS is, still, a much more cost-efficient means of effectively supporting ground forces than precision-guided munitions when carried out by properly trained crews.

Gunfire is not only highly effective at breaking things, it also has a much better psychological effect. The scream of salvo after salvo of time-on-target naval gunfire vs one or two guided missiles which are only ever going to be aimed at HVT's? As a troop, gimme the enemy firing missiles any day!
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on August 21, 2019, 09:24:42 PM
A thought on Naval Gunfire Support (NGS).  The US initially developed the 8" MCLWG, the Mk65 and Mk66 single and twin high rate of fire 5" to replace the NGS capability provided by the WWII vintage 6" and 8" cruisers but these projects were cancelled in the late 60s early 70s.  My thinking is to fill the gap the USN selected their best remaining all gun heavy cruisers and gave them an intermediate rebuild and modernisation to serve into the 80s and possibly 90s.

This rebuilt would be aimed at economically retaining their 9 x 8" guns, while improving their self defence capability, reducing manning requirements and reducing obsolescence.  The Mk38 5" twins would be replaced with Mk13 fore and aft, and with Mk45 port and starboard, four missile fire control channels, 3D radar, additional power generation and upgraded 8" mounts.
So, you're really looking at a more modern version of the Boston-class CAGs?

The Mk 13 was a single arm system and the cruiser conversions all used the twin armed launchers to provide a better PK. The Mk 45 is a submarine based launcher for Tomahawks. Did you mean the Mk 25 BDMS Sea Sparrow box launcher, the Mk 26 twin-armed launcher for Standard Missiles, or the Mk 41 VLS, perhaps?

One of the biggest concerns with the conversions of the old cruisers were the high crew counts translating into brutally high operating costs, even by 1970s standards.

For a nominal 1975 major refit conversion of an American heavy cruiser hull that was meant to retain significant shore bombardment capability (and disregarding cost entirely) might I suggest the following?

A Baltimore hull.
Re-engined to gas turbines - 3 x P&W FT4s would provide the equivalent 120,000 HP needed to retain a 33 kt top speed and greatly reduce the engineering crew required to run the ship
Deletion of all twin 5" mounts
Deletion of the aft and B-turret triple 8" mounts - Modern gunfire support really doesn't need nine 8" guns. Three is more than enough.
Retention of the A turret but modified to use the autoloader of the 8" Mk 71 system for each gun in the old turret.
Addition of two Mk 26 twin-arm launchers aft in X and Y positions with 80 rd magazines for each launcher along with target designation radars on the main mast.
Addition of two Mk 25 Sea Sparrow box launchers amidships firing to each beam and being rearmed from magazines aft in the rear deck house.
Addition of two 5"-54 cal Mk 45 turrets forwards abeam of the bridge in the old forward twin 5" mount spots.
Addition of four Mk 143 quad armoured Tomahawk box launchers right aft
Addition of two Mk 141 Harpoon launchers on the old 8" B-turret mount.

By the late 1980s they would have undoubtedly picked up a CIWS or two, one right aft and one on top of the bridge.

By the early 1990s they would have had the Mk 25 and magazines replaced by a reduced superstructure amidships and probably 32 Mk 41 VLS cells holding VL-Sea Sparrows. The rear Mk 26s would probably be retained as they would already be firing SM-1s and probably SM-2s by the 90s. But any refits in the 90s would possibly change out the Mk 26s for a much simpler 48 cell Mk 41 farm with a selection of SM-2ERs and Tomahawks, replacing the Tomahawk deck box launchers.

Replacement of the engines, gun turrets and crews and other WW2 era manual systems with the more automatic systems of the mid 70s through 80s would have undoubtedly reduced the crew from the unsupportable 1150 of a wartime heavy cruiser to a much more reasonable 300-400 of the then-new Tico-class cruisers.

These would have been very heavily armed for cruisers in the 70s and 80s and you could save a ton of money if you were to designate them purely as gunfire support vessels. In which case you could get rid of the aft Mk 26 mounts and magazines and radars and electronics as well as the 8" turrets and possibly added another four Mk 143 Tomahawk launchers right aft, possibly freeing up enough space for a helo pad and hangar for a Blackhawk or the like in the aft superstructure/Y-turret space.

You'd keep the two Mk 25 box launchers and their designators as self defense. A 1990s refit could still replace them with a VLS farm, but possibly bigger, say 60 cells adding back the SM-2 missiles and adding area air defence capability for the 90s and beyond.

Big ships provide a big canvas upon which to WHIF...

Paul

Umm no, not really what I was thinking.
 
Mk13 40 round launcher as it (and the Mk11 that preceded it) were designed to fit in the same footprint as the Mk38 5" twin, this make it ideal for for replacing the centreline Mk38s on a USN standard cruiser type.

The Mk45 I refered to is the 5" naval gun.

The thinking behind keeping all three 8" gun houses is to permit two to be used for NGS with the third in reserve / maintenance.  This is how HMAS Vendetta conducted NGS off Vietnam, providing greater avaialbility and redundancy than the Charles F Adams DDGs.

My selection of the Mk 13 and Mk 45 (or possibly one 5" and a Mk75 3" on each beam) was for their reliability, supportability, commonality and lower manning.  Increased power generation is a no brainer, but the large hulls of the USN standard cruisers would mean volume for the new sytems wouldn't be an issue.  In addition the Mk13 permits the deployment of Harpoon and SM-2MR at a later date without any major structural canges being required.  The systems I could see being used would be those in production for the Oliver Hazard Perrys and Spruances during the 70s and 80s.


Modern (well 70s current) secondary and teritary weapons, sensors, generators, switchboards etc. would reduce manning requirements, improve reliability etc. The object would be to upgrade several cruisers for the same capital outlay as a dozen FFGs, the hit would be in manning as the steam plants and 8" armament would still require more than modern ships.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: tankmodeler on August 21, 2019, 09:54:22 PM
Mk13 40 round launcher as it (and the Mk11 that preceded it) were designed to fit in the same footprint as the Mk38 5" twin, this make it ideal for for replacing the centreline Mk38s on a USN standard cruiser type.
Very true, but the PK on the early missiles was pretty dismal. The Yank cruiser conversions went for the twin mounting in the M k 38 positions for that reason. The Mk 26s were upgraded to handle the SM-1s and -2s but it then left the ships with no short range SAMs, which is why I suggested the BDSM box launchers for Sea Sparrows with the Tartar, then SM-2 launchers to the rear for greater range.

Quote
The Mk45 I refered to is the 5" naval gun.
I actually wondered that after I posted... Oops...  ;)

Quote
The thinking behind keeping all three 8" gun houses is to permit two to be used for NGS with the third in reserve / maintenance.  This is how HMAS Vendetta conducted NGS off Vietnam, providing greater availability and redundancy than the Charles F Adams DDGs.
Three gun houses is a LOT of crew both in the turret and in the magazines and provides a huge amount of gunfire. More, in my opinion, to be sure, than would ever be necessary. Switching the systems in one remaining gun-house to the autoloader from the 8" Mk 71 still allows one turret to put as many as 36 rounds a minute down range. for several minutes until the magazines are exhausted. That's waaaay ore firepower than pretty much any post Vietnam deployment has ever called for. And the situations you can use it are pretty limited. Range is only 27 klicks, so you're looking at providing that sort of support for only those limited engagements that are near the sea and where your forces are faced by a truly numerous enemy. 2 gun houses, manned by fresh crews would double that for at least the first minute, but then would fall off that 10-12/minute rate as crews tired,. The autoloaders don't tire so, after the first minute or so, the max output from one autoloader turret would actually exceed the sustained rate from a manned turret. And, if there's no real reason to ever push the manned turrets so hard that they tire, then the need for multiple turrets is even less.


Quote
My selection of the Mk 13 and Mk 45 (or possibly one 5" and a Mk75 3" on each beam) was for their reliability, supportability, commonality and lower manning.  Increased power generation is a no brainer, but the large hulls of the USN standard cruisers would mean volume for the new sytems wouldn't be an issue.  In addition the Mk13 permits the deployment of Harpoon and SM-2MR at a later date without any major structural canges being required.  The systems I could see being used would be those in production for the Oliver Hazard Perrys and Spruances during the 70s and 80s.
The Mk 26s switched over to the SM-1 and 2 as well, so that part is roughly equal, but it leaves you without short ranged AAD. The Sea Sparrows provide that inner layer until the early 90s at least.

Quote
Modern (well 70s current) secondary and tertiary weapons, sensors, generators, switchboards etc. would reduce manning requirements, improve reliability etc. The object would be to upgrade several cruisers for the same capital outlay as a dozen FFGs, the hit would be in manning as the steam plants and 8" armament would still require more than modern ships.
But, for modern navies, it's the manning costs that are absolutely key to reduce.  Barring conscription, where you can pay the troops peanuts and provide minimal benefits, a volunteer navy is super expensive in personnel costs. Maintaining a ship with even 600-700 crew versus the 1150 of the WW2 versions, would be prohibitive and likely to cause the idea to never see the light of day. By the Mid 1970s, crew costs were the key expense to reduce in all volunteer navies. Notwithstanding how useful the Yanks found their BBs, it was crew costs that finally caused them to decommission them. They never got the crew numbers down low enough to make them viable.

But, of course, these are just my reasons for my WHIF on your idea. It's certainly your idea, I'm just watching and kibitzing.  ;D

Paul
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on September 03, 2019, 09:40:27 PM
The Mk 13 had the same rate of fire as the Mk11 twin arm but required lower manning (fewer maintainers) and was much more reliable. 

Tartar was designed as a point defence weapon, the advent of Standard MR made the Tartar launchers compatible with the area defence role.

Raytheon developed an adaptor permitting the Sea Sparrow to be handled and fired by the Mk-13, though no navy adopted the arrangement (probably because the Mk-41 VLS was just around the corner).

The role of the modernised cruisers would be NGS, Flagships and cooperative defence, i.e. contributing sensors and missiles to a larger force through NTDS.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: tankmodeler on September 04, 2019, 09:55:28 PM
The Mk 13 had the same rate of fire as the Mk11 twin arm but required lower manning (fewer maintainers) and was much more reliable. 
Did not know that. Thanks! Mk 13 it is, then. :)

Paul
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: perttime on September 04, 2019, 11:06:01 PM
Finland is getting some corvettes built. Some say you might as well call them frigates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pohjanmaa-class_corvette

"The class incorporates some major features including an ice class 1A-design. The flight deck, with its telescopic hangar can house either helicopters or UAVs.

The overall length of the Pohjanmaa-class corvettes is 105 m (344 ft), and the beam spans 15 m (49 ft). The ships displace about 3,000 tonnes (3,000 long tons; 3,300 short tons) at standard load and 3,300 tonnes (3,200 long tons; 3,600 short tons) when fully loaded. Each ship compliments a crew of 66120.]

The corvettes are going to be armed with Bofors 57 mm guns, ESSM surface-to-air missiles, Gabriel surface-to-surface missiles, Torped 47 anti-submarine torpedoes, as well as sea mines.

The combat management system is going to be provided by either by Saab Electronic Defence Systems (9LV CMS), Atlas Elektronik (ANCS) or Lockheed Martin (CMS 330). Saab's system was shortlisted in April 2019.
"

Ministry of Defence rendering:

(https://images.cdn.yle.fi/image/upload//w_1199,h_671,f_auto,fl_lossy,q_auto:eco/13-3-10695394.jpg)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on October 12, 2019, 06:56:22 AM
An imagination of the fictional JS Isokaze from Japanese novel "Aimless Aegis" (https://twitter.com/birthhopemetor/status/1080431387302232064).

The live-action movie adaptation uses the Kongo class destroyer Myoko, but the original is based on the Hatakaze class destroyer with a fictional impression of the FCS-3 system and Mk.41 VLS (in place of the ASROC launcher and ostensibly for RIM-156B capability; the novel was published in 1999) for theater ballistic missile defense role.

Questions:

The Isokaze's fictional FCS-3 is centered around the SPY-1D set, but I don't think the SPY-1D can be accommodated in that tower...... or can it?

And if not, what are the alternative for a BMD-mission-capable main radar?

(I was thinking of the combination of the SPY-1F and SMART-L, but the SPY-1F tower is probably large enough to get in the way of the SMART-L's forward search arc, too......)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: apophenia on October 13, 2019, 02:50:19 AM
The weight and mechanical complexity of a rotating base seems an odd choice for mounting a phased-array radar. Why bother when that array can be electronically steered?

You're also asking that one phased-array panel to do the work of the four antennae of an Arleigh Burke class DDG. On the other hand, if that mount also 'wobbles', you could slightly increase the radar horizon of the AN/SPY-1.

Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on October 13, 2019, 03:16:27 AM
The weight and mechanical complexity of a rotating base seems an odd choice for mounting a phased-array radar. Why bother when that array can be electronically steered?

You're also asking that one phased-array panel to do the work of the four antennae of an Arleigh Burke class DDG. On the other hand, if that mount also 'wobbles', you could slightly increase the radar horizon of the AN/SPY-1.

I think the the picture was warped due to being on different pages of a book.

The rotating radar is actually the OPS-24.

The four SPY-1D panels are on the tower structure below the lattice mast...... with the forward-facing panel directly behind the second SPG-51......
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: apophenia on October 14, 2019, 03:48:12 AM
The four SPY-1D panels are on the tower structure below the lattice mast...... with the forward-facing panel directly behind the second SPG-51......

Doh! Of course they are  :-[
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Old Wombat on October 14, 2019, 10:15:39 AM
Wouldn't having the AN/SPG-51 in front of the forward-facing SPY-1D panel interfere with the performance of either or both?
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on October 14, 2019, 10:48:37 AM
Wouldn't having the AN/SPG-51 in front of the forward-facing SPY-1D panel interfere with the performance of either or both?

That is another reason why I am not particularly convinced of the idea that the CG being in a workable state, in addition to me having doubts if the whole thing can be accommodated within that tower.  I'm not an expert on this, but even the installation used on the Spanish F100 class seems bigger.

There appears to be an AESA version of the SPY-1 called the SPY-1E that, according to Wikipedia, has the weight of antennae remaining the same (with, I think, the SPY-1D?) but weight below deck greatly reduced.  I think the attachment shows a single-faced demonstration unit.  I have no idea how it translates into size on an operational setup, however.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on October 14, 2019, 11:53:17 AM
The weight and mechanical complexity of a rotating base seems an odd choice for mounting a phased-array radar. Why bother when that array can be electronically steered?

You're also asking that one phased-array panel to do the work of the four antennae of an Arleigh Burke class DDG. On the other hand, if that mount also 'wobbles', you could slightly increase the radar horizon of the AN/SPY-1.

Actually a few ships do have rotating phased arrays, usually either single arrays, or paired back to back arrays.  An example is Raytheon's SPY-6 which will be deployed in fixed arrays on Flight III Burkes, Ford Class CVNs, the New FFGs and retrofitted earlier Burkes but in a rotating version for the Flight II San Antonios.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on October 14, 2019, 11:55:42 AM
SPY-1F is significantly smaller and lighter than SPY-1D.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on October 14, 2019, 12:34:57 PM
SPY-1F is significantly smaller and lighter than SPY-1D.

Well...... but the SPY-1F can't do BMD.  ;)

(I reckon that it might still be able to provide uplink/downlink to the SM-2ER but would need a volume search radar capable of detecting and tracking the TBM, like the SMART-L.  While the SPY-1F installation aboard the Fridtjof Nansen class seems a bit on the big side, the planned configuration intended for MEKO 200 might lend itself a bit better for the combo on a larger ship.)
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: Volkodav on October 14, 2019, 12:44:56 PM
BDM is where a rotating Phased Array would be good, for a given weight you can have a much larger single array.
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on October 14, 2019, 01:01:55 PM
BDM is where a rotating Phased Array would be good, for a given weight you can have a much larger single array.

Speaking of rotating phased array, I'm currently having an intellectual exercise involving the SAMPSON radar: pre-Aegis missile illumination sets have a limited search capability to make up for the lower resolution and target refresh rate of ship-borne primary search radars whereas the SPG-62 illumination sets for the Aegis system are purely devoted to terminal illumination due to the capability and the constant 360-degree coverage of the SPY-1.

Outside of the SPY-1, the SAMPSON is the only multi-function radar I can think of with some degree of demonstrated BMD capability, and the SAMPSON also does midcourse data uplink and operates on S-band.  But back to anti-aircraft role- if the Aegis combat system is to have a variant using the SAMPSON radar, would an illuminator with limited search capability be desirable?  Or would having no part of the sky lacking coverage for "more than one half second on average" (according to Wikipedia) be good enough for still using the SPG-62 illuminator?
Title: Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
Post by: dy031101 on October 17, 2019, 05:00:08 AM
GQM-163 Coyote supersonic sea-skimming target drone.

Posted here because the launcher...... looks like a Talos launcher.

So- a warhead, a guidance package, on a Talos ship.