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

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
heuhen
Posts: 9104
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!

Re: FFG(x) 98

#31 Post by heuhen »

sabotage181
Posts: 181
Joined: May 16th, 2013, 9:23 pm

Re: FFG(x) 98

#32 Post by sabotage181 »

ok, this is the latest update. still very much a work in progress still.

Image

I look forward to all comments and suggestions :)
kellyj
Posts: 24
Joined: November 28th, 2012, 5:22 am

Re: FFG(x) 98

#33 Post by kellyj »

I really like where this design is going. But...(theres always a butt)
The midships VLS is right where your engine room will be. Just not enough Real Estate in that area to have both. Better to set the VLS forward of the bridge structure. Also get rid of the "Strike Length" VLS ( the T-Hawk missile). Between Burkes, Tycos, and subs the USN has enough Strike platforms. Keep this guy as an escort/independent mission ship. I suspect on an FFG size hull about the biggest VLS your going to fit is a 32 cell, which can still hold a decent amount of missiles when you consider the Quad-pack Sparrow modules. Obviously your fwd RAM will have to go. Harpoons are not needed since your Helo can launch Hellfires, but if you still want them put them aft of the funnel.
Extend the superstructure from the helo hanger forward to the funnel, then have the 01 level extend aft around the funnel. Put the RHIB in an enclosed side hanger to hide its RCS. Then on this upper deck space you could either fit your Harpoons (2x2 configuration) or mount a pair of the new 30mm guns for small boat defense.
Put the EW system up 1 level where your 50 cal gun is and make the bridge structure flush. Remount the 50 cals with a set just aft of the main gun and another set on top of the helo hanger.
Still, an FFG design that could easily fit in todays fleet.
sabotage181
Posts: 181
Joined: May 16th, 2013, 9:23 pm

Re: FFG(x) 98

#34 Post by sabotage181 »

thank you Kelly, I was thinking a lot along the same lines.

more like this?

Image

I'm not sure if I'm happy with the forward 30's yet. maybe a little higher? I tried that but it looks awful
ghost792
Posts: 34
Joined: September 8th, 2010, 12:09 am

Re: FFG(x) 98

#35 Post by ghost792 »

sabotage181 wrote:thank you Kelly, I was thinking a lot along the same lines.

more like this?

Image

I'm not sure if I'm happy with the forward 30's yet. maybe a little higher? I tried that but it looks awful
I like this, but I think the previous version still has potential.

What if you swap the amidships VLS and the hanger and landing pad? The midships location is better for helo operations and having the VLS aft eliminates interference with the engine room. I think it would also help the aft freeboard.

I recommend keeping the strike length VLS. To my knowledge, the USN has never used any of the shorter lengths, except maybe the self defense cells on the Ford.
erik_t
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US

Re: FFG(x) 98

#36 Post by erik_t »

The USN has also never had a combatant which, if I may say so, is quite so schizophrenic in role and purpose.
sabotage181
Posts: 181
Joined: May 16th, 2013, 9:23 pm

Re: FFG(x) 98

#37 Post by sabotage181 »

ghost792 wrote:
I like this, but I think the previous version still has potential.

What if you swap the amidships VLS and the hanger and landing pad? The midships location is better for helo operations and having the VLS aft eliminates interference with the engine room. I think it would also help the aft freeboard.

I recommend keeping the strike length VLS. To my knowledge, the USN has never used any of the shorter lengths, except maybe the self defense cells on the Ford.
Thank you ghost, I'm not going to with the mid-ship helo pad for this ship. I tried it out and I like this look better. I have thought about the strike length VLS and decided there is no good reason not to have it. I can still load a non strike load out in it, but also ad strike if the mission calls for it.
erik_t wrote:The USN has also never had a combatant which, if I may say so, is quite so schizophrenic in role and purpose.
Thank you Erik, but my ship does NOT hear voices in its head....and I'll leave it at that until you explain that a little more ;)

here's the latest. Not sure I'm 100% happy yet but I'm getting there

Image

All comments and suggestions welcome
User avatar
Lebroba
Posts: 255
Joined: May 20th, 2012, 11:20 am
Location: Yokosuka, Japan

Re: FFG(x) 98

#38 Post by Lebroba »

I'm really liking this ship!
Blackbuck
Posts: 2743
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 9:15 am
Location: Birmingham, United Kingdom

Re: FFG(x) 98

#39 Post by Blackbuck »

I honestly don't get why you need so many 30mm mounts. Most destroyers in the world only carry 2 20-30mm mounts...
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire
User avatar
Lebroba
Posts: 255
Joined: May 20th, 2012, 11:20 am
Location: Yokosuka, Japan

Re: FFG(x) 98

#40 Post by Lebroba »

Maybe this hull will be stationed in an area that requires alot of transits through straits. You could probably drop down to 2, that would save you having to berth and feed another 5 or 6 Gunner's Mates.
Post Reply