Capitol County Class FFG(x) (deployed 1991) go to page 10

[Lebroba]

I think ideally whoever was launching the missile would want to place it to impact on the beam to have the greatest probablity of hitting and doing the most damage. So I would concentrate my coverage on the beams. Same as if I was tracking something. I'd want to keep the contact on the beam because it gives me the most maneuvering options even though I can launch missiles at any azimuth, except harpoons which are fired from the beam.

[Shipright]

The problem is that for that very reason the formation would attempt to align the threat axis off the bow or stern as that generally gives the smallest RCS (which aspect you choose here may depend on your illuminator and other sensor resources). What you will probably end up doing is steaming back and forth towards and away from the threat axis.

Even without stealth features presenting the least real estate might just have the missile miss you anyway, not to mention your chaff/flairs/repeaters defenses will be more effective this way.

[Lebroba]

Thats true. I'm more of a usw guy, Air defense and Anti-air are not really my forte. Even still the missiles are so smart now-a-days that its almost a moot point. With the crazy high-G maneuvers and advanced seekers on a modern missile like EXOCET it really doesnt matter. The best defense is to not be where the missile is at all.

Also this ship would want to have the missile approach on the beam to be able to concentrate the greatest amount of weapons on the incoming target, ESSM, CIWS and 5" in that order.

[heuhen]

Thats true. I'm more of a usw guy, Air defense and Anti-air are not really my forte. Even still the missiles are so smart now-a-days that its almost a moot point. With the crazy high-G maneuvers and advanced seekers on a modern missile like EXOCET it really doesnt matter. The best defense is to not be where the missile is at all.

Also this ship would want to have the missile approach on the beam to be able to concentrate the greatest amount of weapons on the incoming target, ESSM, CIWS and 5" in that order.

or if you are relay unlucky and get attacked by an NSM. I read an rapport from an simulator test done in the Navy for an year ago, where one of the NSM-missiles fly directly in the rear hatch to the rear towed sonar, while an another one had gone in an torpedo mode the last few meters.

So yeah, there are no guaranty out there on the marked, as all we can do is to try to make the best solution possible do defend an vessel. for sometimes you gona met an nasty missiles.

[sabotage181]

ok, so after listening to you all and doing a lot of research I've come up with what I think would have been a good replacement for the OHP for the time frame. The layout will still be the same, very "Burke-esk". the sensor suite is what I've been having a hard time with. There really wasn't a good "area-defense" option at that time. It was either Aegis/SPY-1 or NTU, which I don't feel a good option for a frigate. So I was researching the SPS-52, thinking I would theoretically keep it available just for this ship. I then discovered that ITT Gillfellon proposed an AN/SPS-48F which featured less power and a smaller antenna (roughly 14X14 feet or 3.96 X 3.65 meters) here's the link if anyone is interested

http://books.google.com/books?id=4S3h8j ... 8f&f=false

So, I figure since the Planer version of the SPS-49 has been drawn that the should be no reason I couldn't use this. I mean its all theoretical anyway. I figure these are the options that were out there had a replacement for OHP been designed and I feel this is a pretty good and realistic choice. I'm also going to go with SPQ-9A, as I feel it a good complement to the other systems for this platform. The Link above also mentions an upgrade designed off the AN/SPS-48F concept that came out in 2000, so I could look at this for a viable upgrade in the future. Along with the SPY-1F and SPY-5. The Spook 9 will be upgraded to the 9B when available. Also in future upgrades, I'm thinking along the lines of the Burke, with things such as the heat signature stacks and RCS'ed gun housing. As for as the MK-45, lets just concede that the USMC won the battle and it is really the best the best gun for the USN anyway. It will stay. I'm moving the harpoons to the front of the bridge USS Virginia style. Also, CIWS will stay aft, Its a good compromise there. I would like suggestions on generator locations, and how many are needed. I'm assuming I have two aboard (as pictured below). do I need three?? If so, should I put exhaust//intake on that deck below and aft the bridge? If not, can it be forward? if so, where abouts?

This is the drawing I will base the ship on, and am only displaying it for reference here.



I would love to hear constructive ideas before I start drawing if anyone would like to suggest anything. I will definitely consider all Ideas.

Thank you all for your suggestions, guidance and interest

Joe

[Lebroba]

She is looking pretty cool. It looks like you have 2 LM-2500 GTMs and 2 Allison 501 GTGs. Do you have 1 GTM geared to its own shaft? Or are they booth on 1 MRG that's geared to the individual shafts? I think the 1MRG option would give you the most bang for your buck. You can probably substitute the Allison's for Fairbanks-Morse diesels to save gas.