Grays Harbor Designs
Moderator: Community Manager
Re: Grays Harbor Designs
I could use some opinions please. I started on another class of destroyers the other day, commissioned between 1973-84. First, I tried going a bit smaller, along the lines of the Canadian Tribals or the UK Sheffields, and that wasn't working for me as I kept getting stuck for ideas. Next I tried going a bit larger, somehing along the lines of a Spruance, and that wasn't working either. I don't know if its just me and my standard fear of radar or what.
So, I could use some opinions pro and con to either a largeish hull (approx. 515-540') or smaller hull (approx. 430-460'). Primary mission would be fleet air defense with ASW secondary.
Now, I'm not looking for folks to draw this for me. Where's the fun in that? Just looking for some ideas and opinions as to which direction to go, or if there is a third or 4th option, I'd like to hear that too. Maybe getting some ideas tossed about will break my block on this.
So, I could use some opinions pro and con to either a largeish hull (approx. 515-540') or smaller hull (approx. 430-460'). Primary mission would be fleet air defense with ASW secondary.
Now, I'm not looking for folks to draw this for me. Where's the fun in that? Just looking for some ideas and opinions as to which direction to go, or if there is a third or 4th option, I'd like to hear that too. Maybe getting some ideas tossed about will break my block on this.
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor
Re: Grays Harbor Designs
They are significantly cheaper to build and they have better stealth performanceZephyr wrote:I'm not a big fan of angular funnels. I really prefer gently rounded ends. It just looks better to me. Is there a reason to go angular instead of rounded besides aesthetics?
The way you've drawn them they'll act as a gigantic radar reflector. Besides, like on the Kasten class there's several other places where you can put them and get about the same coverage.Zephyr wrote:Why no sponson? Just curious.
It doesn't. The part about the Mk. 29 launcher and ESSM does, but building a ship this big as a purely ASuW platform doesn't.Zephyr wrote:I don't really see the problem with having a Mk.29 on there. This ship, after all, was designed with a single purpose, to be a surface strike ship. AA is purely point defense. The ship as designed was literally built around the Viper NSM, to be nothing more than an efficient delivery system for SSM's. I chose the Mk.29 because it has a relatively small footprint, no deck penetration and an effective missile in the SeaSpike Mk IV (RIM-162 ESSM). Putting the ESSM in the regular VLS tubes would take space away from packing in more Vipers. Being quadpacked, admitedly not much, but some nonetheless. I also couldn't find a reasonable slot for a Mk.48 VLS except maybe the small Mod 0 or Mod 1. As it stands though, I remembered I also use the SeaDagger (RIM-116 RAM) so I replaced the Mk.29 with a Mk.49 with the bonus I guess you could say of having 21 missiles instead of only 8.
If any of that makes sense ...
I've mentioned this before, but to recap, in order to be a good ASuW platform you have to be able to defend against a reply in kind. For a FAC that means running and hiding, for you that means being able to shoot the missiles down. The only exceptions I'm aware of are conversions of older designs that didn't have the ability to mount both. You, however, are building a brand new ship from the bottom up, which means you have all the options in the world to incorporate a proper defensive system.
The fact that you have carriers and SSGNs also means that the design is redundant. You've already got all the ASuW weaponry you're ever going to need right there. Honestly I think you'd be better off building more Point Blanches since they can defend themselves and enhance the task force's defences. And nothing is stopping you from loading ASMs in the VLS tubes.
“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.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error
Worklist
Source Materiel is always welcome.
Re: Grays Harbor Designs
Oh, There will be more PB's. Perhaps the beginnings of a "Blancheswarm". Once I get a design nailed down, that is.
Sponson as radar reflector. See, when put like that, I understand the reasoning.
I may cut back the St Edwards from 12 to maybe 6 or 8 and increase the Kasten series and PB's some. I was initially planning on only having 12 of the PB's. Maybe increase that to 18-24.
Sponson as radar reflector. See, when put like that, I understand the reasoning.
I may cut back the St Edwards from 12 to maybe 6 or 8 and increase the Kasten series and PB's some. I was initially planning on only having 12 of the PB's. Maybe increase that to 18-24.
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor
Re: Grays Harbor Designs
Well DG/Perry is in the middle - the downside is that it would probably cost about ¾+ of a Kidd, while only being ½ to ⅔ of the ship.Zephyr wrote:I could use some opinions please. I started on another class of destroyers the other day, commissioned between 1973-84. First, I tried going a bit smaller, along the lines of the Canadian Tribals or the UK Sheffields, and that wasn't working for me as I kept getting stuck for ideas. Next I tried going a bit larger, somehing along the lines of a Spruance, and that wasn't working either. I don't know if its just me and my standard fear of radar or what.
So, I could use some opinions pro and con to either a largeish hull (approx. 515-540') or smaller hull (approx. 430-460'). Primary mission would be fleet air defense with ASW secondary.
Now, I'm not looking for folks to draw this for me. Where's the fun in that? Just looking for some ideas and opinions as to which direction to go, or if there is a third or 4th option, I'd like to hear that too. Maybe getting some ideas tossed about will break my block on this.
For the larger cruisers, I think I said this to you in a PM, but something like CGBL might be a good inspiration.
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆
Re: Grays Harbor Designs
Nice looking ship, but I'm kinda looking for early 70's. Of course, we could always just backdate all the electronics, put what was available on there in place of what is there now. I may have to look at that some.TimothyC wrote:
Well DG/Perry is in the middle - the downside is that it would probably cost about ¾+ of a Kidd, while only being ½ to ⅔ of the ship.
Umm ... I wasn't doing a cruiser this time, just trying to figure out whether I want a small DDG (Halifax/Manchester) or a large DDG (Spruance) for my early-mid 70's class that the Kastens and PB's eventually replace.TimothyC wrote:For the larger cruisers, I think I said this to you in a PM, but something like CGBL might be a good inspiration.
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor
Re: Grays Harbor Designs
Halifax entered service in the 90s
do you mean the Tribals as u mentioned before or are you gonna backdate the Halifax
do you mean the Tribals as u mentioned before or are you gonna backdate the Halifax
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!
Re: Grays Harbor Designs
Meant the tribal. Misstyped. Was looking at a page on the Halifaxes to get some ideas on frigates for later on and when I did the reply I meant "Tribal" and it came out "Halifax".Trojan wrote:Halifax entered service in the 90s
do you mean the Tribals as u mentioned before or are you gonna backdate the Halifax
I'm old, sue me.
and speaking of DDG's, something like this is kinda what I was thinking about. Yes, it is just a quick mash-up and not necessarily what it will look like finished. Just a quick idea of what the concept may look like when I get an idea of the concept.
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor
Re: Grays Harbor Designs
Zephyr the bow on your latest seem to me to be too short.
Thank you Kim for the crest
"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"
"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"
-
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
- Location: the netherlands
Re: Grays Harbor Designs
and I don't think that hull can take the mk26 GMLS. to be exact: the DG/perry was an design that was to be the smallest design that could take an mk 26 mod 1. for how long your hull should be in front of the GMLS to let it fit in the structure...... there you should look at DG/AEGIS viewtopic.php?f=13&t=456&view=unread#unread .
on what you have now, you might just fit an mk 13 in that position. mk 26 won't fit there, even if it fits on the ship at all!
on what you have now, you might just fit an mk 13 in that position. mk 26 won't fit there, even if it fits on the ship at all!
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
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
- Clonecommander6454
- Posts: 760
- Joined: August 8th, 2011, 2:35 pm
Re: Grays Harbor Designs
I think Mk 26 Mod 0 should be the max on this hull.