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

[sabotage181]

I love the superstructure, but the hull looks way to shallow in draft (although I am no engineer). My peers might prove me wrong but that's the feeling I get. All the same, great work and worthy of a thumbs up

Thank you Lt East. In the latest update I've removed SPY-1f and added SPY-5, don't know if this will cure the hull problem but I have lowered the super structures.

Freeboard still looks quite low. Also, crediting needs to be fixed.

thank you jabba, I've raised the freeboard a little bit and I've reduced top weight. forgot about the credits...next update

yeah, I would increase hull depth with one deck.

Thank you ace, I increase the hull buy one deck and it just did not look right. I've done a complete (almost) makeover in the latest update. Please tell me if I still need a bigger hull

I know I'm coming in late but I'm having a hard time trying to justify this over just another DDG-51. In fact the fact that it's double-bay actually hurts its case. I'm thumbing that the hull speed is probably better than a DDG-51 but that's about it. The DDG-51 Flight III has:

- a bigger gun
- a bigger helicopter hangar that can stow two choppers, no-sweat (yours can only hold one)
- more space for crew comfort and workability
- a high-end version of SPY-1
- Plus I'm wondering about stability issues given that it looks like you're trying to pack in practically DDG-51 capability onto a hull barely bigger than an OHP.

Thank you Klag, better late than never I agree that the Burke class is more capable, this is a frigate and should be smaller...right? Also, This is SPY-1f on here, but I've changed that in the latest update. would love to hear you thoughts on the new design

Being a frigate which IMO in this context should be cheap(ish) and spammable I've gotta agree with klag.

If it were me I'd do the following:

• Ditch SPY-1 for something proven and maybe handed down from prior classes to be updated at a later date
• Remove the rear VLS (two blocks on a frigate is ludicrous in my eyes)
• Improve aviation facilities to take two helos
• Improve freeboard and hull depth having removed SPY-1 and its necessarily large structure

Thank you Buck, is this new design more in line with your thought?

There's a version of SPY-1 (SPY-1F I believe) that's designed for smaller vessels (has smaller faces, fitted to Fritof Nordsen), likewise SPY-5.

This is SPY-1f changed in on the update


OK, so here is the newest. I know you guys wont like my crane, I THINK IT LOOKS UGLY MYSELF The Idea behind it is that its mounted center-line so it can be used for both boats. I was thinking about making it retractable into the that deckhouse its sitting on. Does this arrangement fit the hull better or do I still need more hull?

All comments and suggestions welcome, and again, thanks to all of you for the help

[heuhen]

you have to many SPY-1F and it's wrong size.

here is the correct one:

[Hood]

The freeboard just looks way to low in my eyes. You want good seakeeping and at the moment this looks like a wet ship in Atlantic weather. Probably too much angle on the bows too. Generally though I like the layout.

[heuhen]

oh btw, you use a lot of old parts.

the reason I say that is:

- they look wrong, something that have been fixed when we updated all part-sheets.
- they are to big compared to what they really are. for example. that 76 mm you have is way wrong. that 76 mm on that drawing I posted, is the correct one.

[sabotage181]

you have to many SPY-1F and it's wrong size.

Thank you again Heuhen. My last post was a little confusing. The Version before the latest version had SPY-1F. I have removed SPY-1F and replaced it with the SPY-5, which is why it has smaller and multiple faces. I got these from an old drawing I found on-line while looking for SPY-5 info. This is the link, http://z11.invisionfree.com/shipbucket/ar/t2770.htm

I added the shading around the antennas to make the pop out of the superstructure

oh btw, you use a lot of old parts.

the reason I say that is:

- they look wrong, something that have been fixed when we updated all part-sheets.
- they are to big compared to what they really are. for example. that 76 mm you have is way wrong. that 76 mm on that drawing I posted, is the correct one.

I had asked for the part sheet that contained the new drawing of this gun earlier in the thread, and got no reply. I will use it off your picture. You said a lot of old parts. what other parts are outdated? is it just the gun?

BTW I love your top-down..very awesome

The freeboard just looks way to low in my eyes. You want good seakeeping and at the moment this looks like a wet ship in Atlantic weather. Probably too much angle on the bows too. Generally though I like the layout.

Thank you hood, I am going to work on the hull problem for the next update

[acelanceloet]

I think I have linked you here before, but this is currently the most up to date part list http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =16&t=2755
not everything is on there, but everything that is on there is accurate.
in addition, the harpoon looks a bit cut off and I don't think SPY-5 arrays would look like smaller SPY-1 arrays, they look like this as far as we know http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/usanavy/spy-5.jpg

also, you have some fixed torpedo tubes fitted on the middle of your hangar and under the forward RAM, I think that is an misplaced part

[heuhen]

and if that is spy-5 then you have added unnecessary details on it.

for finding new and updated parts:

- Shipbucket main page. under the name: "Part-sheet"

- or if you want the latest in updated part then you just go to: "Parts Sheets Discussion"-topic in this forum, in there you will find an sub-topic: "Official Parts Sheet Threads" go in there and you will find some topic on national parts like the topic: "USN Systems (02/26/2013)"

sometime it help to read some of the text.... yeah I know, I have to use glasses to be able to read anything in here....! (-9.7 on the ayes is not fun!)

[Lebroba]

I just had a question. If the Spy arrays are built into the aft stack, I think the exhaust heat would be too much for that kind of delicate electronics. I like the concept though. Kinda reminds me of that little australian frigate.

[sabotage181]

I think I have linked you here before, but this is currently the most up to date part list http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =16&t=2755
not everything is on there, but everything that is on there is accurate.
in addition, the harpoon looks a bit cut off and I don't think SPY-5 arrays would look like smaller SPY-1 arrays, they look like this as far as we know http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/usanavy/spy-5.jpg

also, you have some fixed torpedo tubes fitted on the middle of your hangar and under the forward RAM, I think that is an misplaced part

Those torpedo tubes are right where I put them. Thank you for the link

and if that is spy-5 then you have added unnecessary details on it.

for finding new and updated parts:

- Shipbucket main page. under the name: "Part-sheet"

- or if you want the latest in updated part then you just go to: "Parts Sheets Discussion"-topic in this forum, in there you will find an sub-topic: "Official Parts Sheet Threads" go in there and you will find some topic on national parts like the topic: "USN Systems (02/26/2013)"

sometime it help to read some of the text.... yeah I know, I have to use glasses to be able to read anything in here....! (-9.7 on the ayes is not fun!)

I went through those forums a couple of times. there is so much there that its a little hard to find what you're looking for, but I appreciate your help

I just had a question. If the Spy arrays are built into the aft stack, I think the exhaust heat would be too much for that kind of delicate electronics. I like the concept though. Kinda reminds me of that little australian frigate.

Thank you for the complement Lebroba. The arrays aren't actually mounted "inside" the stacks, more like built on the stacks. they are separated from the actual exhaust

OK, how is this looking. the hull looks way to big to me now, but you guys seem to be more knowledgeable in this area than me, so I'll take your words.


Comments suggestions welcome

[Philbob]

I would recommend looking at the sensors on the KDX-2 as they are derived from the USN's NTU plans.