NATO ASW Design Challenge

Post any drawings you have made that do not pertain to an Alternate Universe scenario and are not a never-built design.

Moderator: Community Manager

Message
Author
User avatar
Thiel
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

Re: NATO ASW Design Challenge

#191 Post by Thiel »

Image
The Type 20 was designed to protect Trans-Atlantic convoys from Soviet submarines. In order to free up carrier assets for strike missions they incorporated surprisingly large aviation facilities consisting of a double hangar capable of accommodating two Sea Kings or Lynxes. However, due to the small size of the ship maintenance was limited to routine jobs, any large projects would have to be carried out ashore or on another ship.
Since they'd spend all their time operating in the Atlantic out of range of most of the USSRs air assets AAW was reduced to a single Sea Wolf launcher and associated director. ASuW was similarly considered a non-issue and the armament reflected that, consisting of two 20mm MGs and a cache of helo launched ASMs.
“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.
User avatar
Trojan
Posts: 1216
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 4:29 am
Location: Big House

Re: NATO ASW Design Challenge

#192 Post by Trojan »

Any chance we will be seeing the decision any time soon?
not to be rood or anything sorry
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!
TimothyC
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: NATO ASW Design Challenge

#193 Post by TimothyC »

Trojan wrote:Any chance we will be seeing the decision any time soon?
not to be rood or anything sorry
The problem now is that I've lost two judges. I need a third.

I'm in a foul mood about it.

Edit:

There was a post above Trojan's where I announce that one of the judges had dropped out, and I had a replacement. Alas, that replacement didn't like the rubric I had, but was honest enough to tell me now, rather than later after people had been waiting for over a week.
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆
User avatar
Trojan
Posts: 1216
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 4:29 am
Location: Big House

Re: NATO ASW Design Challenge

#194 Post by Trojan »

oops sorry should have taken the hint didn't realize how long, detailed, and thorough the analysis is
this is a very good thing btw
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!
Hood
Posts: 7234
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am

Re: NATO ASW Design Challenge

#195 Post by Hood »

Type 25 or Chatham Class Frigate

Image

The Type 25 is roughly a replacement for the Leander Class, a cheaper alternative to the Type 22 class. In effect this design would either replace the Type 23 entirely, or reduce Type 23 to the original concept of a towed array tractor.
It is optimised for operations within the GIUK Gap. It has a Sea Wolf defence system to protect against Soviet aerial and submarine-launched anti-ship missiles but leaves area protection to the attending Type 42 destroyers. A battery of Harpoon ASMs allows the Type 25 to engage surface targets, while a gun is not fitted as it’s not thought necessary for its primary oceanic role. The ship is optimised for anti-submarine warfare being a very quiet platform. The Diesel-Electric cruise powerplant is very quiet, has no mechanical connection to propellers and the diesels are located above watelrine to further reduce noise, electric drive also increases endurance and the generators drive the propellers and the electrical system. Two RR Spey SM1A are fitted for fast running. The Type 25 can cruise on electric motors at 20 knots. The ships own torpedo tubes (for Stingray) and its helicopter are the primary anti-submarine weapons. Automation is widespread to reduce manning requirements, not only to save on costs, but also to improve the habitability aboard the ship.

Displacement: 3,500 tons standard, 4,100 tons fully loaded
Dimensions: 412 feet long, beam 48ft 6ins, draught 19 ft (over sonar dome)
Gun Armament: Two 20mm Oerlikon L/75AA in GAM-BO1 single mountings
Missile Armament: Three sextuple BAe Sea Wolf launchers (45 missiles) and two qaudruple Harpoon launchers (8 missiles)
Torpedo Armament: Two triple 12.75in A/S STWS-2 torpedo tube mountings (18 Stingray or Mk 46 A/S torpedoes)
Aircraft: One EH101 or Lynx HAS. Mk.2/3 in a hangar aft (Skua ASMs and Stingray A/S torpedoes)
Electronics: One Type 967/968 air/surface search radar, one Type 1006 navigation radar, two Type 911 fire-control radars used in conjuction with two GWS 25 Mod 3 SAM fire-control systems, one Sea Archer gun-fire control system, two chaff launchers, four Sea Gnat decoy launchers, one Type 2031 passive towed sonar array, one Type 2050 bow active/passive search and attack sonar, one Type 182 towed torpedo decoy system, one CACS 5 action information system, two Type 970 jammers, UAA-1 Abbbey Hill ESM, Link 11 and 14 datalinks and two SCOT satelite communication systems
Propulsion: COGAD arrangement. Diesel-Electric cruise powerplant which is very quiet, has no mechanical connection to propellers and diesels are above watelrine to further reduce noise, electric drive also increases endurance and the generators drive the propellers and the electrical system. Four Paxman Valenta 12 RPA 200 CZ diesels delivering 7,000hp and two RR Spey SM1A for fast running delovering 34,000hp to two shafts.
Performance: 28 kts clean fast, 20 knots electric cruise; range 8,500nm at 15 kts
Complement: 12 + 146 with a maximum of 17 + 188 possible

Class
HMS Chatham (F90), Yarrow, commissioned April 1987
HMS Coventry (F91), Yarrow, commissioned June 1988
HMS Cornwall (F92), Cammell Laird, May 1988
HMS Campbelton (F93), Swan Hunter, Jan 1989
HMS Crystal, Yarrow (F94), Nov 1989
HMS Consort, Yarrow (F95), June 1990
HMS Chieftan (F96), Swan Hunter, Aug 1989
HMS Comet (F97), Cammell Laird, Nov 1989
HMS Contest (F98), Yarrow, Aug 1990
HMS Crusader (F99), Yarrow, May 1991
HMS Crown (F100), Swan Hunter, Oct 1990
HMS Cumberland (F101), Cammell Laird, Dec 1991
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft
User avatar
bezobrazov
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm

Re: NATO ASW Design Challenge

#196 Post by bezobrazov »

The Harps are fine, but I'd angle them inboards, to lead the blast smoke out over the ship's sides. Otherwise I very much like your design, Hood. Neat, compact and economical! Looking at it some more, I wonder if I wouldn't have experimented with a version utilizing any leftover Exocet MM38 SSMs. Afterall, the RN had a shrinking budget...
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen
TimothyC
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: NATO ASW Design Challenge

#197 Post by TimothyC »

Alright everyone, after not hearing back from the people I had asked to be a judge, and the approval for both Ace and Thiel, The final scores have been made by Erik and I, and here we go.

The designs were graded on a scale of 0-3 (Zero being the lowest) on the following categories:
  • Feasibility
  • Cost
  • Sea Keeping & etc..
  • Stand-off ASW
  • Short Range ASW
  • Survivability
  • Drawing Quality
These scores were then tallied up for both Erik and I, meaning there is a maximum of 42 points up for grabs.

As you can see here (on this google Doc - I tried several times to copy-paste this over, but it didn't want to work), We ended up with a tie between Rowdy's "Vampire Class" and Ace's "Vandalia Class". To this end Rowdy36 wins the "Best Practical" award while Ace wins the "Best Totally Awesome" Award.

The following are the final rankings:
  1. Rowdy36 & Acelanceloet (33)
  2. Novice (32)
  3. Heuhen #3 [With ASROC] (31)
  4. Heuhen #1 [With Mk 141] & Hood & Jabba #2 [Flight 2] & Thiel (30)
  5. Heuhen #1 [With Terne III] (29)
  6. LEUT_East (27)
  7. MC Spoilt B'stard (26)
  8. Jabba #1 [Dortmund] (25)
  9. Clone Commander & Jabba #3 [Dortmund, Goalkeeper Mod] (23)
  10. Rifleman (22)
I think it is important to note that there was only an 11 point spread and that everyone got over half of the possible points!

Both Erik and I have posted the reasoning behind the scores in the spreadsheet I linked to above.

Thank you all for participating and making this an amazing contest!
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆
MC Spoilt B'stard
Posts: 498
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:52 pm
Location: Willemstad, Curacao

Re: NATO ASW Design Challenge

#198 Post by MC Spoilt B'stard »

Congratulations to the winners! and offcourse to the rest aswell.
Im very happy with my 7th place , just joined the challenge for fun not to be #1.

a special thanks to the judges having the hard task to do this all.
Vi coactus
Door geweld gedwongen
Forced by violence
------
Caption signing treaty with England by Johan de Witt

[Working List]
None
Rodondo
Posts: 2493
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 5:10 am
Location: NE Tasmania

Re: NATO ASW Design Challenge

#199 Post by Rodondo »

Congreatulations to all! I can't wait for the next competition (Though I hope it will be set a little earlier ;) )
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)

There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards
User avatar
WhyMe
Posts: 1616
Joined: November 12th, 2010, 4:27 pm
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Re: NATO ASW Design Challenge

#200 Post by WhyMe »

Congrats to all the participants and huge thanks to the judges! Very well organized competition and extreamly pleasing results.
Post Reply