magny7 wrote:Hmmm you wont fit a missile launcher behind a helicopter pad. It is dangerous. Either you made the H-Pad higher or the launcher lower.
why would it be dangerous? helicopters come flying in from the side on all ships except carriers......... so where are you basing this on?
You don't want a heli deck that's cluttered with equipment, full stop. Get a bad cross-wind of ship rolling at the wrong moment and your helicopter could go straight into high explosive missile launchers. Not good.
I would move the move the gun forward, to take advantage of that clear space on the bow, then slot the missile launchers in between the gun and the bridge superstructure.
magny7 wrote:Hmmm you wont fit a missile launcher behind a helicopter pad. It is dangerous. Either you made the H-Pad higher or the launcher lower.
Hmmmmm Then if that's the Case then explain about the Chilean Armadas 2 Modified Leander Class Frigates Condell n Lynch when they first entered service in late 1974. Both of them carried 4x MM38 Exocet missiles with box launchers fitted to the stern of the flight decks and that was well before their 1990's refit. which by that time saw them replaced with MM40 Exocet and relocated on the top sides of the newly reconstructed and enlarged Helicopter hanger
this is the only image i can find the proof but is both small n not the best of views but if Graham or Rickdog can dig up some pics of the early Condell or Lynch please post it up to show it more clearer please
"The British Air Farce have droopped their bums on the water works..They have scored a direct hot on the pimps"- British agent/gendarme Officer Crabtree, "Allo,Allo."
and although not always missile launchers, there are a lot of ships that have equipment at the back of the helideck....... if you follow his reasoning, even the flagpole would be an danger!
btw, where do these guys came from... this is the second or third time this week I see an newbe saying something about an ship without any reasoning or arguments...... I hope I wasn't like that when I came here
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
This is the best photo that i have Lynch 1974 leaving Portsmouth ( from the same sriers as the preivious photo I suspect that they could get away with the 4x MM38 Exocet fitted down aft was because they where using Wasps much easyer to fly in and off the flight deck rather that after 1990 when they when to Seakings
the dutch leanders also had some equipment on that position.... I think a anti-sub mortar or something. they just swapped it for exocets, by the look of it. but well... the dutch navy also operated wasps from these ships, so that might have been the reason.
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
All Leander class frigates had the Limbo ASW mortar in a well-deck behind the landing pad
and they used the Westland Wasp. When modernised, some ships had Ikara installed and the Limbo remained
others had Exocet and had the Limbo removed and for ASW had two triple Mk.32 torpedo-tubes. These ship used the Westland Lynx
The Chilean ships never had Limbo and from Graham's photo you can see they had torpedo tubes.
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"
Novice wrote:All Leander class frigates had the Limbo ASW mortar in a well-deck behind the landing pad
and they used the Westland Wasp. When modernised, some ships had Ikara installed and the Limbo remained
others had Exocet and had the Limbo removed and for ASW had two triple Mk.32 torpedo-tubes. These ship used the Westland Lynx
The Chilean ships never had Limbo and from Graham's photo you can see they had torpedo tubes.
Thank you Kim for the crest