Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 4  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 »

FFG-500 is the right formula for an O H Perry replacement for the US Navy
Yes  32%  [ 11 ]
No  68%  [ 23 ]
Total votes: 34
Author Message
heuhen
Post subject: Re: FFG-500 -- USS Fletcher -- Frigate Design for the US NavPosted: April 11th, 2014, 7:53 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8437
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
dwightlooi wrote:
[*] The US Navy in the current budget situation is probably looking for a less heavily armed Frigate with less missile load.
I bet more on that US would go for an solution like Norway did with they frigate when it come to missiles. to save cost they installed only one missile block with 8 cell. but with space for 1-2 more 8 cell VLS bringing the Norwegian ESSM armament up to 64-96 ESSM. and what Norway do to day is arm the ship for what mission they are working on. for example, that one that was sent on pirate hunting got extra remote controlled 12.7 mm, and better RHIB.


What I think USA will do is build a ship with from a minimum armament to capable t protect it self armament. and then just add on what they need after what mission they are going to do. some more missile than other. etc.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
apdsmith
Post subject: Re: FFG-500 -- USS Fletcher -- Frigate Design for the US NavPosted: April 11th, 2014, 8:47 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 855
Joined: August 29th, 2013, 5:58 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Hi Heuhen,

Wasn't that kind of the concept behind the LCS, too, with the modular armament thing they had going on?

Ad

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.
[ img ]
NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: FFG-500 -- USS Fletcher -- Frigate Design for the US NavPosted: April 11th, 2014, 9:53 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8437
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
apdsmith wrote:
Hi Heuhen,

Wasn't that kind of the concept behind the LCS, too, with the modular armament thing they had going on?

Ad
yes¨

on frigate... in Norway no, we build them as cheep as possibly, for latter just add on the rest. the Norwegian one have only 76mm, 1-2x 8 cell VLS, torpedoes and NSM. but fully armed would have 127mm, +-40mm, 2-3 8 cell VLS, torpedoes, NSM, etc.

(cheaper to build with less armament, for later up-arm the vessel. and I don't think an US frigate would have less than 32 cell since they would take over the aircraft carrier escort role from the destroyers.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
apdsmith
Post subject: Re: FFG-500 -- USS Fletcher -- Frigate Design for the US NavPosted: April 11th, 2014, 9:58 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 855
Joined: August 29th, 2013, 5:58 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
I wonder why Norway have managed to get it to work but the USN just hasn't - at least, I assume Norway are happier with their frigates than the USN are with the LCS? Probably an apples-to-oranges comparison on many levels, though...

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.
[ img ]
NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Lebroba
Post subject: Re: FFG-500 -- USS Fletcher -- Frigate Design for the US NavPosted: April 12th, 2014, 4:28 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 255
Joined: May 20th, 2012, 11:20 am
Location: Yokosuka, Japan
First let me say, As someone who does 3D its good to see more 3D stuff :-)

Some of the features that will make Zumwalt successful as a Land Attack Destroyer won't translate well to the frigate mission set. The design looks cool, but it's mostly cosmetic and I dont think it adds anything to the combat effectiveness of a frigate. Although I do like some of your design features, especially the recessed RGM-84 missiles.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: FFG-500 -- USS Fletcher -- Frigate Design for the US NavPosted: April 12th, 2014, 9:55 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8437
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
apdsmith wrote:
I wonder why Norway have managed to get it to work but the USN just hasn't - at least, I assume Norway are happier with their frigates than the USN are with the LCS? Probably an apples-to-oranges comparison on many levels, though...
one of the thing is that the Norwegian frigates is pure frigate, and not an LCS. You can build in read for, but not equipped area/space on a ship.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
RP1
Post subject: Re: FFG-500 -- USS Fletcher -- Frigate Design for the US NavPosted: April 12th, 2014, 4:47 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 208
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 8:48 pm
Location: Engerlands
Contact: Website
Quote:
Wasn't that kind of the concept behind the LCS, too, with the modular armament thing they had going on?
No. The modularity in LCS is closer to the Danish StanFlex and is similar to a fighter aircraft (even down to the use of the term "seaframe". The basic vessel has certain inbuilt capabilities (radar, defensive weapons), all other capabilities are loaded in modules as required for the mission.

The Norwegian frigates use what is known as "Fitted For But Not With" (FFBNW), where the ship is designed for a specific and complete combat system, but some components just aren't installed initially to ease cashflow.

RP1

_________________
"Yes siree, the excitement never stops." Togusa, Ghost in the Shell


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
dwightlooi
Post subject: Re: FFG-500 -- USS Fletcher -- Frigate Design for the US NavPosted: April 13th, 2014, 10:06 pm
Offline
Posts: 26
Joined: April 10th, 2014, 4:30 am
acelanceloet wrote:
any reply on my comments, dwightlooi? (not pushing or something, but you replied to everybody else so it might you missed them)
Sorry, I haven't been looking for a while. Anyway, a few things...

(1) The funnel stack is supposed to go in the middle of the top of the superstructure, then branch off to both sides going down to the engine room along the port and starboard sides of the superstructure.

(2) The hull for is intended to be a blend of semi-planning and displacement designs. As mentioned earlier, the chins are very round. But the keel and the aft bottoms are flatten, and the bow is an extreme knife profile. The idea is that the ship won't pan like the Freedom class, but the bow will rise slightly. We are not shooting for a 2.5 speed-to-length ratio. We are shooting to bring it from 1.35 to 1.6 or thereabouts. The only objective is to get a 450 ft ship to top 30 knots without prodigious amounts of power.

(3) I thought about reconfiguring the rudders, but haven't got around to it yet.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
dwightlooi
Post subject: Re: FFG-500 -- USS Fletcher -- Frigate Design for the US NavPosted: April 13th, 2014, 11:06 pm
Offline
Posts: 26
Joined: April 10th, 2014, 4:30 am
heuhen wrote:
dwightlooi wrote:
[*] The US Navy in the current budget situation is probably looking for a less heavily armed Frigate with less missile load.
I bet more on that US would go for an solution like Norway did with they frigate when it come to missiles. to save cost they installed only one missile block with 8 cell. but with space for 1-2 more 8 cell VLS bringing the Norwegian ESSM armament up to 64-96 ESSM. and what Norway do to day is arm the ship for what mission they are working on. for example, that one that was sent on pirate hunting got extra remote controlled 12.7 mm, and better RHIB.


What I think USA will do is build a ship with from a minimum armament to capable t protect it self armament. and then just add on what they need after what mission they are going to do. some more missile than other. etc.
There is a big difference between the LCS approach of having a very big ship with a lot of empty spaces, and what we are proposing here. The idea here is that there are specifically wells for 8 Mk57 VLS modules (4-cells each). However, only 6 are actually fitted. There is no mission systems, no modules, nothing to develop and become "vaporware".

In fact, if it comes down to it, fitting just 4 would make a decent enough frigate. 8 cells = 32 ESSMs which is enough for local air defense. The other 16 25" tubes is plenty for LRASM and ASROC embarkations. With 16 cells, you'll probably do 32 ESSMs with 4 each of LRASM and ASROCs. Any of the above is enough for current USN requirements.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
hudavendigar
Post subject: Re: FFG-500 -- USS Fletcher -- Frigate Design for the US NavPosted: April 18th, 2014, 8:38 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 111
Joined: April 25th, 2011, 3:30 pm
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
TimothyC wrote:
It's been done. I tweaked Martin's work for an exercise in underwater hull shading.

[ img ]

I don't like Tumblehome.

Although, I give you credit, that the version above is less bad than the prior version.
dwightlooi wrote:
Note: Thanks to advice from forum members, I have revised the post with a "Shipbucket Style" Drawing!
You've got one that is the right size, now you need to draw it in Shipbucket style (which is a pixel art style). Take a look at other drawings on the site to get a feel for it, and don't be afraid to ask questions.
Given the size of the missiles and the placement of the VLS close to the periphery of the hull, the moulded depth seems insufficient. The hull needs one or more additional decks.

Regards,

Hudavendigar

_________________
"Speak softly and carry a big stick."
Theodore Roosvelt (1858-1919)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 4  [ 33 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]