Shipbucket

Major WIP but does this work?

The idea is for a double ended AAW crusier circa 1980 carrying two Sea Kings for ASW and Standard 4.5 inch gun

I would encourage you to consider the beam you're requiring. Four walkways (two either side) plus a ~40-45ft twin Sea King hangar means she is going to be very beamy.

You also likely have a single machinery space, which is very bad for survivability.

A lightweight Sea Wolf aft and a standard one forward means more spare parts chain. Standardize on one or the other.

How is this now then?



I've also changed the aft mast but something about her with regards to length is my worry. Would intergrating the exhausts into the two superstructures be a good way to alleviate this?

Nick

From a totaly none expert veiw, I would,

- Make the helicopter deck full width (cover over or remove the side walkway) and the hanger and extend it forward till the phalanx.

- Do you want the Phalanx on a 1980 ships (pre FW ?) would Sea wolf not be viewed as sufficient?

- make funnels much taller or use mack's with radar masts ?

- fit plenty of boats in centre gap ?

- could you move something (a radar or sea wolf or exocets ?) to fill the stern ?

Ok, my take: Consider using a 'Vee'-shaped intake configuration as in Tromp or Iroquois-classes; saves a lot of length (and therefore valuable displaement!) Right now your extremely low funnel uptakes will ensure that the aft hangar area and everything adjacent to it will be untenable due to hot fumes. Not an optimal solution. Also move the Corvus chaff launchers up to '01'-deck. Right now they've got a rather bad placement - also there's absolutely no need, whatsoever, for doubling that system. Again, think economy of space and weights! Right now your ship is actually quite a humdrum of careless weight (mis-)management, for instance, why on earh (really!) do you need a quadruple Type 909 system for your GWS30??? Again, I suspect you wanted to create something "impressive" but ended up with a rather wasteful, inefficient design.

Lastly, I'd check the deck heights in your forward superstructure. Right now it appears like there are three-and-a-half levels. I may be wrong. (I've only given it an eye measure) but if that's so, it's extremely wasteful as well.
As for the hangar and heliopad design, again, it's highly inefficient. Why not just use the main-deck as the heliopad area, instead of creating something as complex as you've done? In fact, you can lower the whole superstructure complex that way (improving seakeeping!) Your freeboard is generous enough. You can shorten both the hull - and the hangar, thereby creating a 'safe' zone for the aft GWS30 without it encroaching on the helicopter operations. - and please don't forget to add bridge wings!

Does this work better then? Would placing SSGWs either side of the forward Sea Wolf work or due to beam become an issue then? Does the placement and design of the funnel now work better?



Nick

After some months in hospital I have slowly been working on some new vessels

1. Battle Class

The Type 23 Program was made an Anglo-Malpusian program in 1986 and a Malpusian design broadly similar to the real proposal was purchased



2. Weapon Class

A Batch 2 of the Battle Class the Weapon class was designed to integrate LO design principles and as such was a lead in to a more modern Frigate Program



3. Duke Class (Serious WIP)

Type 42 type vessel built from 1985 (Batch 2 and SLEP to follow)



4. SERIOUS WIP CARRIER

A mid-80s CVN designed to replace the mixed fleet of older carriers.



Comments?

I wonder, how is using a ruder so big that it's deeper than the ship...