Shipbucket

If you want a rudimentary ASW weapon system the Swedes used a number of mortar and rocket based system on their FACs.
Oh and I'm pretty sure that the drawing of the 76mm is older than the forums. There's a better one in the parts sheet sub forum. I'm not sure the 76 can do the hidden barrel thing either.

_________________
“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.

I have a few Qs,

- If you have a 76mm can it be your CIWS rather than have a phalanx as well ? (and do you need full stelth retractable gun thing ? especially if you have the phalanx on top)

- Can you fit a small rib (sideways) and folding crane on a smaller back deck ? (limits you to slow launch and recovery but much lighter/cheaper)

- Can you move the light guns (20mm/.5" MGs) to the stern boat deck, maybe make the bridge full width and the same hight as the missile deck ?

- Do the hatches on the harpoons work ? ie should the exit exhaust hatch not be below the one facing away from us ?

I do believe I am about finished with the hull above the waterline. I added two 20mm cannons along the midships and two .50 cal machine guns aft. The mast is how I like it. Now I just have to work on the underwater hull. Do you think a bilge keel is necessary?

_________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat.
Fortune favours the bold.

- The 76mm gun would be an ineffective CIWS. This isn't a Bofors.

- I prefer the rear RHIB ramp, especially since the center of mass is close to the water.

- I lengthened the stern and added to MGs.

- Those hatches are for reloading purposes in port; they are not exhaust hatches. The exhaust from a Harpoon isn't a problem.

_________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat.
Fortune favours the bold.

This looks good, much more realistic IMO.
Re. the harpoon hatches, is there a roof and pop-up hatches over the launchers as in your previous drafts? If so, you'll probably still need some kind of vents behind the launchers to prevent overpressure.
One last minor nitpick: did the stealthy OTO Compact cupola even exist in the late 80s?

I would ditch the Phalanx or replace the 76mm with the phalanx. for now she is similar in armament to some light-corvettes.

You have to remember you need space for weapons inside the ship too. the 76 mm gun need space under deck. missiles in this solution need space under deck. ammo for the Phalanx need space. C&C need space under deck, crew area need space under deck, engine room need space under deck.

This is how we do FAC's and light corvettes in Scandinavia:







Israel:

I understand what you are saying, but this isn't a Scandinavian ship. This is a 1980s US tech missile boat/patrol boat. The 76mm is on there for a reason, same as the Phalanx and Harpoons. This is a fictional, personal design. I also believe I've left more than enough space for armament, tech, fuel, and crew, especially when comparing it to the ships you've listed.

_________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat.
Fortune favours the bold.

What I am saying, is that I am concerned with the stability of the ship. It's not impossible to do add two active stabilizer fins on both sides to help keeping the ship stable at speed, but to the sacrifice for the endurance of the crew... and unstable ship move around more, something that are very tiring on a crew, and shorten the crew endurance (have been there, done that. Is not fun to go trough... staying at 25-35 knots speed in a storm, half og the crew got injured, some received some scratches, other needed an operation at the hospital)

yes some of the ship is Scandinavian design... while some US patrol ship had there hull based on the Hauk class, US navy was also interested in a similar design of the skjold class in modern times.

it dosent matter if it is a 1980's ships or 2050's ships, physics are always the same. and you'r 1980's design looks more like an cheap equipped, late 1990's design.


The same is if it's a fictional design or a personal design... it have to be realistic. That's how Shipbucket works.


what I would do is quit simple.

- ditch the 76 mm (you don't need the 76 mm for this type of ship, you are not going to attack a surface target with those old 76 mm and when you have to fire at surface targets, it would be at close range and that is covered by the Phalanx. the 76 mm compact, weight 8'ish tons, and you going to have a planing hull, for the speed you want and those hulls tends to not have that much lift forward in the bow region.
- if absolutely need for an gun bigger than a 76 mm, a 40 mm or 56 mm is good enough. Guns that US Navy have from before.
- Phalanx on the forward deck.
- missiles moved more aft, replacing the position of the Phalanx. have them angled slightly forward, for safety reason when moving at high speed... or you have to slow down to enough to prevent an accident when firing.

The boat it self is not bad, the mast is small and simple, with light weight systems, just as you would except on a ship of this type. the superstructure design is a little to modern for 80's looks.


notice on these two pictures, these Fast attack craft consist of an hull, with weapons on and a small superstructure cramped in between... and that is just to keep these ships stable, more than that... well submarine:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... as_P21.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 983%29.jpg

But on the other hand, to go against my self (notice how much lower the equipment is mounted):
http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com ... 9d3f05.jpg

I would argue against removing the 76mm for mission reasons.
This is, as I understand, a missile patrol boat meant to go against Soviet forces in European theaters. These Soviet forces include a lot of similar FACMs, the most recent of which carry 76mm guns. Let's not forget the lessons of the Yom Kippur war, where even with all their missiles spent, Israeli Sa'ar boats were able , using their OTO 76s, to deal serious damage to Syrian Osas armed only with 30mm autocannons. That scenario must be considered plausible in context.
It ties into the secondary patrol mission as well, along with the 20s and the RIB.

Besides that, something important I forgot to mention earlier is that I don't see anything EW-related in your design so far. Maybe some of these bubbles on the mast are ESM modules, and chaff launchers are hidden on the main deck, if place allows?

_________________
Soviet Century/Cold War 2020 Alternate Universe: Soviet and other Cold War designs 1990-2020.
My Worklist

I'm still working on that. I'm doing light research into those era-specific systems.

_________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat.
Fortune favours the bold.