[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 3  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
adamm
Post subject: Re: my first postPosted: August 28th, 2010, 4:27 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 10
Joined: August 20th, 2010, 11:27 pm
Gotcha. My info is dated![embarrassed]

Here she is with hanger extended/closed. (also some minor edits)

[ img ]
TimothyC wrote:
Steel is cheep, and with small ships, the ability to have a hanger and a landing pad is good. If you want to keep your Tomahawks, you really do need to make the hull longer. Plus as I noted, your Harpoon launchers look big enough to mount Tomahawks which would let you go down to Tactical length VLS (where you can mount VLA, SM-2, ESSM, and if you do the R&D, maybe VLH(arpoon)).
I was shooting for 22 SM-2, 24 ESSM, 12 Tom, 8 VLA, and 8 Harpoons.

A stretch is not a bad idea.[working]

Question-- VL 'poons being not available, what other way could you render harpoon launchers low observable? The standard 'dropping them down a deck behind walls' setup seems unreasonably wasteful of space, much more so than my LO boxes.

On another point of controversy, the point defense weapons traverse and elevate together on a ring built into the mast, with a couple of degrees of independent traverse. Tracker mounted on ring facing forward in drawing, ammunition drums slung beneath each weapon. Thinking about GIAT 791's, single barrel(liq cooled for this app),30mm, 1000mps/3300fps, 2500rpm EACH(not a typo!, hence the liq coolant), for only approx. 200kg/440lbs. each. (weapons only; stats from memory, don't quote me on em') Not a orthodox solution by any means, but has the benefits of not taking cells from ESSM, which are the primary CIWS. Considered two 11rd RAMs instead of cannon, but estimated guns were a little lighter,even with ammo(1 rnd RAM=45kg/99lbs+). I also consider a well maintained revolver cannon a little more reliable.(gut feeling, no info to back that up)

_________________
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
didibii
Post subject: Re: my first postPosted: August 29th, 2010, 5:33 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 89
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 11:20 pm
adamm wrote:
my first upload on a computer ,actually
i thought these things were only good for porn---who knew!

edit- sorry, forgot to crop!
LOL

_________________
[ img ]
Work-list:
1.Candian JSS concept (needs more work on it)
2.Mary celeste (All most done 40% completed)
4.German CV europa (dont know if i should do it)

[ img ]
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: my first postPosted: August 29th, 2010, 4:05 pm
Offline
Posts: 2761
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
RAM was first tested out of Mk 41 only a few weeks ago, so you're not THAT dated. I still think you're going to have serious stability problems with such a large Mk 41 mounted that high above the waterline on a hull this small. 48 cells is a shitload anyway; this is as many cells as a freaking Type 45! I think 32 is the upper end of common sense. Certainly some of those cells should reasonably be Tactical or SDL size (even the latter being big enough for quadpacked ESSM, which is the only reasonable primary AAW weapon for this ship). What the hell does a frigate need with more than 8 or 16 Tomahawk, anyway?

The active stabilizer is so far aft that I believe it would do substantially more harm than good.

I appreciate that you think you've got a fun answer to the all-round CIWS problem, but it has every appearance of something that would only work on paper (and even then only barely). Holy vibration to the radar mast, Batman! Definitely a case of subordinating your most important system (the phased array set) for something that you damned well hope will never be used.

57mm is a hell of a fine CIWS anyway (the only effective AAW gun the Zumwalts will carry). Add in VLS RAM and you're far better off than 95% of Western ships afloat.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
adamm
Post subject: Re: my first postPosted: August 29th, 2010, 7:27 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 10
Joined: August 20th, 2010, 11:27 pm
Quote:
The active stabilizer is so far aft that I believe it would do substantially more harm than good.

I appreciate that you think you've got a fun answer to the all-round CIWS problem, but it has every appearance of something that would only work on paper (and even then only barely). Holy vibration to the radar mast, Batman! Definitely a case of subordinating your most important system (the phased array set) for something that you damned well hope will never be used.

57mm is a hell of a fine CIWS anyway (the only effective AAW gun the Zumwalts will carry). Add in VLS RAM and you're far better off than 95% of Western ships afloat.
Hmm. Good points, eric.

_________________
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: my first postPosted: August 29th, 2010, 7:53 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5375
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
erik_t wrote:
RAM was first tested out of Mk 41 only a few weeks ago, so you're not THAT dated.
Interesting, didn't know that. The question is, of course, is sacrificing Standards and ESSMs worth it?
Unless you can cram a shitload of them into a single cell, I'm not sure it is.

_________________
“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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: my first postPosted: August 29th, 2010, 8:41 pm
Offline
Posts: 2761
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Only four. I kind of agree, except that I bet RAM is a lot cheaper than ESSM. I understand that there is a big pile of USN Mk 41 cells that sit empty in the fleet.

I'd also feel a little differently about it if they were wasting space in a Mk 41 SDL instead of Strike-length (which, as I understand, is the only type in USN service). Even though the latter can still quad-pack ESSM. At that point, you start throwing some extra Mk 41 aboard every combatant and use some of them for RAM and Nulka, avoiding the supply chain and training issues associated with extra box launcher crap.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: my first postPosted: August 29th, 2010, 9:12 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5375
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
erik_t wrote:
Only four. I kind of agree, except that I bet RAM is a lot cheaper than ESSM. I understand that there is a big pile of USN Mk 41 cells that sit empty in the fleet.

I'd also feel a little differently about it if they were wasting space in a Mk 41 SDL instead of Strike-length (which, as I understand, is the only type in USN service). Even though the latter can still quad-pack ESSM. At that point, you start throwing some extra Mk 41 aboard every combatant and use some of them for RAM and Nulka, avoiding the supply chain and training issues associated with extra box launcher crap.
Only four? I'd have thought they'd be able to cram in at least five.
Anyway, I can see the logic if they're sailing with empty cells, but from a capability point of view, it just doesn't seems like a good trade-off when you could have ESSM in stead.

I'm getting an idea. If I'm not mistaken, the RAM is short enough that you should be able to stack two end on end in a Strike length Mk 41, and since it has half the diameter of the ESSM, it shouldn't be outside reason to say that you could fit at least five side-by-side. Obviously, you'll need a new cannister for them, but it should give you a whooping 10 missiles per cell. There's a trade-off that's worth it.

_________________
“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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: my first postPosted: August 29th, 2010, 10:37 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3741
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
Thiel wrote:
erik_t wrote:
Only four. I kind of agree, except that I bet RAM is a lot cheaper than ESSM. I understand that there is a big pile of USN Mk 41 cells that sit empty in the fleet.

I'd also feel a little differently about it if they were wasting space in a Mk 41 SDL instead of Strike-length (which, as I understand, is the only type in USN service). Even though the latter can still quad-pack ESSM. At that point, you start throwing some extra Mk 41 aboard every combatant and use some of them for RAM and Nulka, avoiding the supply chain and training issues associated with extra box launcher crap.
Only four? I'd have thought they'd be able to cram in at least five.
Anyway, I can see the logic if they're sailing with empty cells, but from a capability point of view, it just doesn't seems like a good trade-off when you could have ESSM in stead.

I'm getting an idea. If I'm not mistaken, the RAM is short enough that you should be able to stack two end on end in a Strike length Mk 41, and since it has half the diameter of the ESSM, it shouldn't be outside reason to say that you could fit at least five side-by-side. Obviously, you'll need a new cannister for them, but it should give you a whooping 10 missiles per cell. There's a trade-off that's worth it.
ExLS only mounts 4 rounds per cell, but has the virtue of having been tested, and working.

_________________
Please don't call me Tim. If you don't want to use Timothy, use TJ.
MATHNET - To Cogitate and to Solve


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: my first postPosted: August 29th, 2010, 11:19 pm
Offline
Posts: 2761
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
I wouldn't be extremely surprised if RAM eventually went to a 3x3 arrangement (5" missiles, compared to 21" Tomahawk eg), but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't. When you have empty cells sitting around, there's no reason to push the envelope (which costs time, money and probably early-design-cycle reliability).


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
adamm
Post subject: Re: my first postPosted: August 31st, 2010, 1:54 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 10
Joined: August 20th, 2010, 11:27 pm
I took some of you guys suggestions into account. I give you--MKII!

[ img ]

damn kids today, with your rock and roll music and your sensible ship design


In my day, our ships sank, and we blamed Neptune--King Of The Sea!!!


and we liked it --we loved it!

_________________
[ img ]


Last edited by adamm on August 31st, 2010, 11:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 3  [ 23 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page « 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


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


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