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

[heuhen]

just to say it, this one look very similar to one of the proposed US design to Norway during the frigate project. I remember it, because I was in my step-dad office when he had all the drawings and pictures of these ships on the walls, with a lot of "post it" notes o with what is good with that ship and so on.

[MihoshiK]

just to say it, this one look very similar to one of the proposed US design to Norway during the frigate project. I remember it, because I was in my step-dad office when he had all the drawings and pictures of these ships on the walls, with a lot of "post it" notes o with what is good with that ship and so on.

It actually says that this IS the design offered to Norway

[heuhen]

Then I need to draw it. do we have any more info on it, ref's or anything else. length, depth, etc.

[erik_t]

There are size specifications literally within that image. 130 meters in length (unknown if LOA or LWL, but it's not a highly-raked stem or anything). Deck heights can be safely assumed to be 3m/10ft, the Mk 45 is of known size, and the SPY-1 arrays are clearly the 8' sort.

[heuhen]

There are size specifications literally within that image. 130 meters in length (unknown if LOA or LWL, but it's not a highly-raked stem or anything). Deck heights can be safely assumed to be 3m/10ft, the Mk 45 is of known size, and the SPY-1 arrays are clearly the 8' sort.

yeah and I with my -9.7 glasses. When shall I learn to read. I cheeked the text and as you say 130x16

[sabotage181]

Looking pretty slick!

Thank you again lebroba

Now this looks 110% better than the original. You've retained the smart lines but now it looks like a real warship with presence. Perhaps not cheap and mass-producible but certainly a decent FFG.

Thank you hood, we will talk about inexpensive and mass producible shortly.

I agree with hood, it doesn't look too bad.
the SPY-5 is not ideally set up from an view around point of view, but from an technical perspective this might be better. just a few comments left:
- the VLS forward has no cover around it, as I see the grey of the belowdeck part. the system is mostly flush with the deck or has an angled cover around it.
- the RAM launchers are turned around the wrong way.
- why the helideck lowered half a deck? this is not that good from a space and strength perspective, but it can be done if it has advantages in other fields, I think.
- there might be some problem with the position of the harpoons and the space the air intakes take of it inside that structure.
- why not use the actual block that was underneath the ram launchers, https://dl.dropbox.com/u/63276563/Mk%20 ... uncher.png ?
- the bow looks a bit weird, especially when compared with for example the perry
- the engines coolwater inlets seem to be a bit forward of the actual engines, is that intentional?
- the SLQ-32 looks blocked in by that hole behind it. is it outside of it? if so, the hole can be removed. if it is inside of it, the field of vision of the system is horrible.
- I am not certain about the decoys on the funnel platform. reloading them seems hell that way.
- I might switch the RAM and the millenium gun on both positions, and give you 2 of each instead of 3 guns.

all in all, just small tidbits

thank you ace, I always look forward to your comments as they are usually very constructive
1. VLS is now in a "box"
2. I'll fix that
3. Helo-deck is lowered because I wanted a "long and low" look to this ship and that necessitated the lowering of the helo hanger and flight deck.
4.I think I fixed that by moving them and the millennium guns aft more. Let me know what you think.
5. I needed then to be a bit higher that the drawn "stock" height. I will address the RAM issues next go-round
6. Removed the bow thing. I'm assuming that's the thing you all keep saying looks weird. If its something else please let me know specifically
7. I wasn't even sure what those were, but I did assume that's what they were. Then I kind of forgot about them in re-working all the other parts of the ship. Fixed now
8. The SLQ-32 is neither inside that "hole" or outside it, but somewhere right in the middle of those two. Of course the "sensor faces" are protruding outside the hole, and I tried to male sure the hole was big enough so the unit can still move. My question here has to be it there a new system of flush mounted ESM panel's to go along with all the other fixed arrays? I see no SLQ's on DDG-1000 so I'm assuming there must be. If not, I was thinking why not put a ray dome type thing over it to clean that up a bit??
9. Would they be ok on top of the helo-hanger?? I always just assumed they needed to be mounted high as possible
10. There ARE two millennium guns in the AFT mount. I'm assuming that you don't like the hatch underneath, and that's why you said there is only one? do I need to remove that hatch?

Thanks again ACE

Few idea's Sabotage181

Thank you Mike. lots of good Ideas there. I noticed that you went back and read more of this thread after you posted this, so you now realize that a "skeleton" Burke is exactly what I was shooting for. Also this has defiantly evolved from my original 98 number. I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer, it does cause confusion. I do LOVE all the notes and studies you've posted though, and one of those ships even kind of sort of looks like mine

OK, I've not fixed everything yet but this is the latest and greatest



OK, NOW I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ALL OF YOU

If I wanted to make a non SPY version of this, what radar suite would I use? SPS-49 and SPQ-9b?? from what I can determine SPQ-9 and EEADS are only good from horizon to horizon. This ship is WAY TO SMALL for 48e or g. from what I can find there isn't really any middle ground, although I'm sure I'm missing something. Should I put a (fictional) upgraded SPS-52 (39???) on. would love to hear thought on this, real meat and potato type thoughts not just "get rid of the SPY" type thoughts

[heuhen]

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... DV%207.png

[TimothyC]

OK, NOW I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ALL OF YOU

If I wanted to make a non SPY version of this, what radar suite would I use? SPS-49 and SPQ-9b?? from what I can determine SPQ-9 and EEADS are only good from horizon to horizon. This ship is WAY TO SMALL for 48e or g. from what I can find there isn't really any middle ground, although I'm sure I'm missing something. Should I put a (fictional) upgraded SPS-52 (39???) on. would love to hear thought on this, real meat and potato type thoughts not just "get rid of the SPY" type thoughts

I honestly don't see what's wrong with having NTU as the combat system and then partnering it with an SPS-52 (instead of an SPS-48E). The other option is to go low-end with an upgraded TAS or buy the dutch SMART-S. It really depends on the year.

[ghost792]

NTU was planned for the Charles F Adams DDGs, which had a similar displacement to the FFG-7s. That SPS-48 might not be out of question.

[Judah14]

Since the US defense contractor Exelis has the production license to the SMART-S Mk. 2, them having the production license of the original SMART-S in this AU seems reasonable.