Pimp My Warship

Phalanx at B position was trialed on one of the T42 B3’s, HMS Edinburgh and it was found to be unsatisfactory.

Interesting. Your explanation (and wiki’s) is not the one I heard but that don’t mean that I’m right and you’re wrong.

Also, do the T42’s have the weight margin to have both Exocet and Sea Wolf while not turning turtle.? Plus the space for the optical trackers and

computers.

Quite possibly not. And in retrospect (or in fact upon reading your post) this is blindingly obvious. Putting all of the extra weight on one section and a high up is a bit daft.

So:
Keep lightweight seawolf amidships and fir Exocet in ‘B’
Keep Exocet on hangar and fit Phalanx amidhsip
Keep Exocet on hangar and fit VLS seawold in ‘B’
Invent magic SeaDart launcher capable of handling Exocet and fir lightweight seawolf amidships
?

Decisions, decisions

The B1 and B2’s also had a narrower beam (14.3 versus 14.9) so they might not have the stability to have their length increased.

Now that one is easy. Weld a second hull around the first. More beam, more bouyancy and twin hull vs. icebergs and torpedos.

My starter
Type 42 Batch 3
Fitted with Phalanx in B position as intended
Fitted with 2x lightweight 4 round seawolf (and associated 911 radar) as intended
Fitted with MM38 on hangar roof a la Argentinian vessels

Why?
The T42s served as our workhorses for 30 years but (despte my earlier posts about gws30) never really had a warfighting SSM capability and the losses in Falklands showed the need for a proper point defence (especially against missiles)

If possible I’d have liked the missing hull length to have been put into Batch 1s and 2s as some kind of retrofitted plug

Phalanx at B position was trialed on one of the T42 B3’s, HMS Edinburgh and it was found to be unsatisfactory.

Edinburgh can readily be distinguished by her distinctively different forecastle. When it was decided to fit the Phalanx CIWS to this class of warships, it was intended that the Edinburgh should carry a single CIWS unit, mounted forward between her 4.5″ gun and the Sea Dart launcher. To this end, her breakwaters were enlarged and she was fitted with a raised bulwark, very like those carried on the Type 22 frigates.

This location proved to be an unsuitably wet one for the Phalanx system despite the modifications to this warship, and the Edinburgh was later fitted with a pair of wing-mounted CIWS as carried by the other ships of the class, but she retains her distinctive bulwark and enlarged breakwaters.

Also, do the T42’s have the weight margin to have both Exocet and Sea Wolf while not turning turtle.? Plus the space for the optical trackers and computers.

The B1 and B2’s also had a narrower beam (14.3 versus 14.9) so they might not have the stability to have their length increased.

I have no clue either way. I’m asking you guys 😉

PS: I’ll ask this again, but can anyone point me in the direction of a naval forum to discuss such matters? Thanks

You could do a lot worse than going here:

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/directory

Would love to read any info you have which suggests otherwise

I have no clue either way. I’m asking you guys 😉

PS: I’ll ask this again, but can anyone point me in the direction of a naval forum to discuss such matters? Thanks

Does Sea Shadow classify as a swath?

I’m pretty sure that it is. In fact up until I read that question I was convinced. Would love to read any info you have which suggests otherwise.

Could be an option, though I think ESSM gives far better range.

And so it should, being about three times the weight!

Does Sea Shadow classify as a swath?

I was thinking linking them while on transit to increase range…and during combat operations they could break off as unmanned or lightly-manned modules (except the control module)…in close proximity to each other (to provide defense)…or dedicated modules could go about their own mission (like amphibious or land attack ones, or special operations). A hit on one module would not disable the rest of the functions, while also making it harder to hit any one of the modules (since they would be smaller than a full ship and stealthier)

but with no financial viablity

Oh I know, I’m just thinking out loud. Navies tend to be very slow at adopting new designs or

SWATH for the win. Especially with all electric drive which removes SOME of the engineering issues propelling the beast.

Danish Stanflex and German MEKO both strike me as systems which others (esp RN) could do with adopting.

Why would you link all of your modules together like that? Wouldn’t it be groovier to have a flotilla of them connected in a network styly rather than a nice big blob to be easily seen from overhead?

That could wor but I deem this idea a good one but with no financial viablity

Many Thanks

What about a hull design similar to the Sea Shadow:

Platforms can be attached laterally or longitudinally.

Anyway, is there a more appropriate forum for naval matters where I can ask my (perhaps silly) questions?

Thanks

Well, I was thinking the same. Stability could be an issue. How would the thing behave on the rough sea?

Would all the barges be self propelled or some would have to be “dragged”?

Making them as catamarans and flat (if you want this thing to be stealthy) would not leave much space to fit various systems on them.

Stability due to the fact that they don’t have enough draft!!!

It may work though if you increased the draft but then will you still have a problem with speed.

Many Thanks

I know nothing about naval architecture, but I’ve been intrigued why modularity and a platform approach has not penetrated as much into the naval field…as it probably should. LCS has some elements of modularity, but I was thinking of a a much more radical approach. Primarily…why have sensors, weapons, engines etc all in one hull…increasing the likelihood that battle damage will take out all the ships function.

Imagine this…an approach similar to barges. Using advanced designs to reduce drag through water (a catamaran design or something similar…i have no idea)…you can create modules which contain different functions. One independent module can have 100 vls. Another can be an air control “barge”. Another can have ground-attack artillery or amphibious compartment…or helicopter carrying “barge”. Each can have independent propulsion, or can be linked to a propulsion pusher or puller unit. You can switch them around and combine them in any way depending on the mission… Modernizing any part of the system will be much easier than doing it in a single hull. Battle damage can be contained to individual “barges”.

Just thinking out loud…but if anyone here has some knowledge of naval architecture…what would be the draw-backs of such an approach? What sort of hul designs would be needed to maintain sea-worthiness of such a design?

Thanks

Or use CAAMM rather than ESSM and so avoid any need for illumination?

Could be an option, though I think ESSM gives far better range.

I-mast doesn’t contain an illumination element, just air and surface search/track. You’ld have to add something like a lightweight version of APAR (Seapar) or a STIR for ESSM.
http://www.thalesgroup.com/integratedmast/
http://www.thalesgroup.com/Workarea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=14287&LangType=2057

Or use CAAMM rather than ESSM and so avoid any need for illumination?

AI

Its an L not an I. But admittedly not terribly clear in this font.

Your Type 45 AAW destroyer seems rather unaffordable,

Possibly. Quite possibly. Which aspect in particular do you see as being unecessary expense?

The thing I disagree with is the big gun for naval gunfire support. AAW destroyers should be the last ships in any fleet to carry out this mission

I thought I’d covered that (apologies if not) in wanting to keep my high-end AAW as far as possible from shore. I don’t disagree for one second with your desire to keep them out of littoral harm’s way though! I would guess that T45s got Mk8s in the first place as a combination of historical accidents.

Yes but you have built the ship to SB standards and are there for required to stick to them

IFF he posts it to shipbucket. Their standards are a quality control for the images on their site. Regardless of where posted it’s only common decency to acknowledge anyone who did previous drafting/design work and he(?) seems to have done that.

I actually intentionally left the mast and weapons in light gray since that makes the mods pop out a bit more. As for the mast shape, not sure what alternative one has? It probably just looks strange because I drew it too smooth – in real life there would be a bunch of small antennas.

Yes but you have built the ship to SB standards and are there for required to stick to them

I actually intentionally left the mast and weapons in light gray since that makes the mods pop out a bit more. As for the mast shape, not sure what alternative one has? It probably just looks strange because I drew it too smooth – in real life there would be a bunch of small antennas.

Here you go: OHP Littoral Combat mod

Land/Surface Attack:
1x 127mm Oto-Melara with Vulcano guided ammo
8x Harpoon

AA defense:
32x ESSM radar-guided
11x RAM IR-guided
1x 76mm OTO-Melara gun with Davide guided ammo

ASW: 6x Torpedoes

Electronics:
CEAFAR X-band radar for medium range 3D search & tracking
CEAMOUNT IWI guidance antennas
Sea Giraffe radar for close-in 3D search & tracking

P.S. Apologies for the RAN Kangaroo markings. I was a bit lazy to change some of the details!

You need to colour the masts and weapons to the same colour as the hull, but I don’t like that mast it seems totally wrong.