Shipbucket

Golly, as far as the threat environment any replacement of the FFG-7-class is supposed to tackle, that would chiefly concern being able to provide ocean-capable long-range escort to CBG:s, to operate within range of littoral warfare zones without unduly exposing far more expensive ships, such as the Burkes. Also we have constant, latent but nevertheless possible threat picture of rogue nations with ocean access gaining, say, advanced submarine technology. This applies to some extent to Iran, but could spread, with the rise of more disrupted political climate in the developing world (Tunisia, Egypt or Jordan and Morocco, for instance!). As for the various standing naval forces within the Nato-structure these new frigates would be a valuable component. So, the threat picture, according to the Pentagon does still exist, even if it may be presently of a low-grade character.

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

While talking with Erik, the only things that a Perry can do better than this ship are long range air search and active sonar. In short this ship can replace the perry in all of the roles that the Perrys filled at their peak (in the 1980's and 90's). I'd try to explain more, but then I get into LCS talk territory, ie where Erik said not to go.

Edit: and bezobrazov beat me to the punch. His analysis is spot on.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Deleted

So in short, the ship is intended to replace Perry's in the role they were assigned when the orginal role of them (perry's) died away along with the Soviet Maritime threath?
I wouldn't also go the LCS terretory, but In my (limited I agree) Opinion, wouldn't Non-LCS platform should be more concentrated on ASW? Or more likely be a ship intended to counter Chinese and other bourgerouing submarine fleets? Lack of spesific sonar/ASW armament appears odd.
(Perhaps we get explanation to this in Erik's own reply)

Overally I have slowly begun to take intress of the issue, how would western (opponent) navies been evolped in my own AU scenarios, in all together and expecially in modern day scenarios, But spending 15 years of looking to the other direction haven't come free

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

Mike, you're grasping at straws, and are becoming a bit of a parody of yourself:

• Mainmast area
  1. I see no reason why you draw objection to a bit of angled steel, just because it looks a bit like a Burke.
  2. As for the sensors (TACAN, ESM and the LAMPS comm unit, those are the ones currently in service.
  3. The Mast is exactly the correct size for the equipment it mounts. If it was any shorter the horizons for the kit that is on it would be reduced.
  4. The MG is fine. Did you miss the Mk-38 port and starboard of the air uptakes?
• Midship and Aft Structure (Starting aft of the mast and moving aft)
  1. The area there is blank because there is stuff in the hull under that area. You also circled the UNREP crane that is folded down against the deck.
  2. The doors that befuddled you (Did you even read Erik's description) are for UNREP.
  3. The aft VLS (SD length) is located between the hangers, a la Burke.
  4. The Ship can support UAVs, but for showing capacity, two SH-60s are better.
  5. The Ship has a stern door for RHIBs, the Towed array, and for UUVs. It also has the ability to carry the WLD-1 off of the port side (again, mentioned in the write up).
  6. The prop shaft is fine.
• Bow
  1. The bow is fine in length and height. How often do you shoot a flat shot with your 5" over the bow?
  2. Austerity is the name of the game with respect to Sonar. The current kit is enough to help you not blunder into things, which with the reduced threat from SSNs, is most of what you need.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Flawless dismemberment of arguments.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

Sorry, I was watching the pictures on my 5" Internet Tablet (not large enough to see both the messages and their authors) and thought it was the same person who did the two drawings (that's why my message was adressed to erik: for me it was logic as it was his topic). I totally agree that it's not polite to act that way so I hope erik accept my apologies.

I should have read what I quote better: it was indeed clear that it was not written by erik.

But what I wrote about Wiki Universe drawing was partly true for erik's design. I reformule this right here, even if now at least one point was mentionned by ColombaMike:

-I think that the front of the ship is too high too: it allowed a poor firing capability for the 127mm gun in the front sector.
-I'm still a little bit disturbed with the single RAM launcher (not that the ship need a second one, just that she looks a little bit empty). There is space on this ship to put more weapons or equipments. Not necessarily RAM by the way. As Colombamike said, the amidship area is empty. It's maybe better for stealth ablities, but an optionnal capacity for Harpoon launcher or containers etc. could be a good idea.

That's why I mentionned the FREMM and FM400 design initially: they are quite big ships with relatively light weapons, but a modular design that enable for further equipment.

But this second point is just a detail: having a ship with a lot of place not used (the famous "fitted for but not with") is probably VERY realistic nowaday! And she still is a good multi-role light vessel as far as I know.
But I keep thinking that the front part of the ship is too high (and maybe too long, but that's for Colombamike to say, idem for the aft VLS that could be placed forward to gain space for the helos)

But for the rest, the ship is simply beautiful!!

What's the small hatch under the helipad?

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Yes because it looks like a Burke
Build a mass built ship (commissioned from 2011+ = the entire class comissioned by 2011/2021 and retired around +/- 2045/2055+), is using the latest technologies (integrated mast, ect ...)
I have not spoken of the sensors themselves.
I talked about the overall size of the mast.
Look the I-Mast family and others newer Integrated Mast.
Entirely false for the forward MG on the bridge, the usual position were +/- around bridge wing.
I reassure you, I see the 25mm gun
Ops !, for this I missed the UNREP system, I admit...
Yet this problem "a la Burke, a la Burke"
Americans, forget the Burke's (designed by 1978-1984) and think beyond the Zumwalt's
When you design a ship to remain in service until around 2040/2050, you do not think Burke's
(but in real-life, when we see that Burke-III will be built and will last until 2060++, Burke's hull design will last 80+ years in US service ). This makes the Chinese happy, time to fill gap...
For beauty of drawing, I'm not so sure you
I did not forget this, but added the equipment near the stern, so they are visible
Not totally my opinion
Not my opinion, for me the bow appear very long/big.
Reduced threat from SSN, maybe , but not from SSK's
Suicidal to want to reduce the sonar capability against the threat of SSK's
Once again, I do not agree with you

I mast is completely different system. the sizes of the I mast are mainly dictated by the SMILE, the ECM and the satcom on top. this mast has different systems, so different dimensions (DUH! )

and IMO, the reason many stuff was taken from the burke is simple: because it works! look at the new for class. they don't look all that different from the enterprise, which it is going to replace! if something works, why change it?

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin