Grays Harbor Designs

[Thiel]

I already have a good class of strong AAW cruisers (Mars Class. Tico-clones), and need a new class which is dedicated to the surface combatant mission. Something smaller (and less expensive) than the BCGN class Erik-T did which I am using as my Simpson class BC's, and can fill that role as well, but on a smaller scale, I guess. I guess it would fall under the "You don't always need a sledgehammer to swat a fly" category?

Hopefully, I'm making my intentions clear. Sometimes my ability to translate my thought process into actual words is limited. LOL

Sounds a lot like what you want is a SSGN and a HALE type UAV. Loads and loads of missiles, credible ASW and no need to bother with air defence.

I have my doubts about that huge VLS block.
Such a big hole in the strength deck is not going to leave much in way of hull integrity.

What would you suggest then? Maybe break it up into 2 or 3 seperate blocks of VLS? Maybe one smaller block of 24 or 32 forward, with a block of 48-62 midships? That sound any better?

To be honest I think the only solution is to carry less. From what I can see you carry about as many tubes as the Arsenal ship was supposed to, but unlike the Arsenal ship you're also toting around a lot of heavy top-hamper.

[Zephyr]

I already have a good class of strong AAW cruisers (Mars Class. Tico-clones), and need a new class which is dedicated to the surface combatant mission. Something smaller (and less expensive) than the BCGN class Erik-T did which I am using as my Simpson class BC's, and can fill that role as well, but on a smaller scale, I guess. I guess it would fall under the "You don't always need a sledgehammer to swat a fly" category?

Hopefully, I'm making my intentions clear. Sometimes my ability to translate my thought process into actual words is limited. LOL

Sounds a lot like what you want is a SSGN and a HALE type UAV. Loads and loads of missiles, credible ASW and no need to bother with air defence.

I have my doubts about that huge VLS block.
Such a big hole in the strength deck is not going to leave much in way of hull integrity.

What would you suggest then? Maybe break it up into 2 or 3 seperate blocks of VLS? Maybe one smaller block of 24 or 32 forward, with a block of 48-62 midships? That sound any better?

To be honest I think the only solution is to carry less. From what I can see you carry about as many tubes as the Arsenal ship was supposed to, but unlike the Arsenal ship you're also toting around a lot of heavy top-hamper.

The top-heavy part is changing with my next update, as in "going bye-bye" Its starting to turn into a "Pocket BC" instead of the small surface combatant I wanted, so I'm going to do a reboot on this. Like I said from the start, I want small, sleek, fast, good SSM armament, AAW purely defensive and not designed for fleet coverage. Back to square 1 I guess.

[acelanceloet]

you might.... as I say might.... take a look at some sort of arsenal ship. cheap, loads of missiles and other then that, only some self defence and/or CIWS.....

[Thiel]

The Arsenal ship was essentially a less capable SSGN without the long range, high sustained speeds or the ability to dive.

[Zephyr]

The latest, and hopefully last, update to the St Edward Class. I'm fair well satisfied with what I have now.



The aft GK is offset to starboard so as not to interfere too much with the hanger, and to clear any potential blockage in the arc of fire by the aft funnel.

[acelanceloet]

interesting to see the british guns and dutch CIWS on the otherwise fully USN weapon and sensor suite. few comments remain, but it is getting near...
- the aft SPY-1 faces are partially blocked by the funnels. this is the reason for the tico's uncommon setup of the SPY-1 facets.
- the mast looks somewhat outdated. a quick glance learns that this is the mast of the Kidd class, which is an spruance mast on the bottom.... so at least part of your mast is from an 1970's design..... hmmm
- on top of the above, I am not certain on this, but shouldn't that mast require crediting?
- hull design looks good now
- the directors. you are going to want an 360 degrees cover from the SPG-62, so that means one at each side at least. the SPG 60 is good for gun guidance, so an additional one on the bow makes some sense.... but I'd rather have an setup with 3-4 SPG-62, as those can do gun AND missile guidance and by that will be far more effective. also, the large dome on the mast is an SPQ-9 IIRC, and is an gun director as well....
- I might be wrong, but I think I spot an missing corner somewhere next to the aft SPY-1 radar. right now your aft bridge is OR curved OR very wide.... and I mean VERY VERY wide.
-supposing you have 25person liferafts, you have now an maximum amount of 100 people on board. when having an helicrew and some evac or prisoner possibilities, that will leave you with an crew of about 60-70.... seeing that the dutch navy operates frigates with an crew of over 200, I would add some liferafts.... in addition to the fact that you'd better spread the liferafts, I suggest you do so on the hangar and near the RHIB.
- an question: why is the amidships VLS area raised an half deck?
- I do not recognise the rightmost missile.... what is it?
- considering this ship will have the displacement of about an spruance or an burke, I suggest an slightly bigger prop.
- I might be wrong, but IIRC that isn't the latest westland lynx. if it isn't, the newest one is on this drawing (don't know if it is anywhere else with top view and all, and no time to search for it) http://i830.photobucket.com/albums/zz22 ... lotv33.png
you should repaint it though, as it is in my AU colours there.

don't be fooled by the long list of comments: most are minor and can easily be fixed, we are getting near an working ship now.

[Zephyr]

on top of the above, I am not certain on this, but shouldn't that mast require crediting?

crap. uploaded the wrong drawing. same ship, different credits. The mast came from one of the Kidd drawings.

I do not recognise the rightmost missile.... what is it?

RIM-174 ERAM. I couldn't find where anybody had done one yet, so I cobbled one together. It is nearly identical in size and layout to the RIM-156, except for the fins are being bit further forward.

you should repaint it though, as it is in my AU colours there.

Really? I got it off the parts sheet, and it was French on there.

[Zephyr]

an question: why is the amidships VLS area raised an half deck?

personal aesthetics, really. Didn't want them obscured by railings. No actual "naval" reason for it. I explain it away as "giving more room below decks" or somesuch techno-babble.

I might be wrong, but I think I spot an missing corner somewhere next to the aft SPY-1 radar. right now your aft bridge is OR curved OR very wide.... and I mean VERY VERY wide.

umm... not quite sure what you mean.

[heuhen]

some info for you "acelanceloet" on the RIM-174 ERAM:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-174.html

[acelanceloet]

about lynx: the new one on the camelot drawing is in my AU colours not the one you have now. the parts sheets are often outdated the lynx is still relatively new, and is not updated in all liveries.... of the top view and folded one, only my AU versions exist xD
the vls: now you have made an dangerous drop-off point, of about as high as an human.... which makes that you should add railings on top of that at the same time it is empty space, as you don't have an full deck underneath it....
SM-6: IIRC, there is no drawing of that missile because it is externally the same as the SM-2 MR.
bridge:

the SPY-1 face is shown at an 45 degrees angle. that means the bridge his either very wide (red line) or curved (green line) while one would expect an additional corner (black line)
for this last thing: shading the aft and forward angled parts helps to find small mistakes like these, and it looks better as well