Shipbucket

Zephyr wrote:As for the ASROC/Mk.13 or 22/Gun turret layout. .. Why not have the ASROC aft where I had it, and the turret forward? That would allow the Mk.13 instead of the 22 which would give me significantly more magazine space and missiles. These ships are designed as the main screening element for Task Force/Group/Fleet protection so I would think having more AA capability would be something to strive for. ASW is secondary, the frigates in the outer screen are tasked with that as a primary function.

And I have to ask... what is that milk bottle frame looking thing where the aft radar/directors used to be?

let me tell you why timothy used this setup.
you want to use mk 26 later on. an mk 26 does not fit in the space an mk 13 leaves, which means an redesign of the hull on it's weakest point. basically, this doubles your development cost for the 2nd batch.

here we start looking at the smallest real build mk 26 design: spruance/kidd. the spruance class has in the forward hull an reload system for the ASROC. this space is build that way (or mk 26 is build that way) that the mk 26 mod 0 could be placed in that very same space. it was that much of an fit, that the spruance could even be converted to mk 26 use later on, as was planned originally.

back to your ship. an mk 22 has roughly the same footprint as an 5 inch gun of that era, and the asroc with reload has roughly the same belowdeck arrangements as an mk 26. said simply: your construction could have stayed exactly the same, cutting development costs.... what is exactly the reason for different batches of the same class.
also, the mk 22 could take 16 missiles, which could all be SM-1. the harpoons and asroc (and, as I read somewhere, might even be SM-1) add another 16 weapons in the matchbox and reloader. an total of 32. the mk 26 you later use, takes 24 in mod 0 or 44 in mod 1 configuration. the mk 13 takes 40 but cannot take asroc, and as you don't seem to use harpoon.....

the aft mast is just an 'there is an mast here' thingie, btw

the propulsion. type 42... that gives you 50000 SHP. the large weight might mean even more (this thing is gonna be way bulkier then type 42) so we go for 60000 for now. 2 rolce royce olympus or 3 LM 2500 give you just that..... and the arrangement with 4 gas turbines timothy described somewhere in his previous posts would work too. the type 42 has them all (2 olympus + 2 tyne) centralised in one funnel so one major engine space seems likely. well, if you want to follow that, you'd better throw my funnels overboard and go for one central one (or a large one and an small one, if you want 2) if you want to go with this arrangement, better move the forward one more forward, as right now one large single one still makes a lot more sense, as the engine rooms are so close together or your exhaust pipes take a lot of space. (take an look at the size of the LM 2500 in the belowdeck parts thread, you get what I mean then )

the sidekick was not used until SLQ-32 v3, IIRC. I only mentioned it with the B3 in mind, remember

btw, for an AAW ship you are lacking 3d radars and director range.... for that, look at the brooke class. an better idea IMO would be to focus B1 on ASW instead, as the mk 26 gives you much better AAW cap anyways.

TimothyC wrote:Better. One thing to remember is that your ECM gear is going to be outside of the railing, as will the radars.

The major downside to your current set up is going to be no reloads for your ASROC launcher.

I can live with that. Like I say, I think I'd rather have the increased AA capacity.

Of course, I could always have 4 groups instead of 3
Group 1 (1973-75) AA primary group with my initial arrangement with the Mk.22
Group 2 (1973-76) Balanced AA/ASW group with your arrangement
Group 3 (1976-80) same as previous group 2
Group 4 (1984-80something) same as previous group 3

Focus on what Ace said, as he's said it better than I have.

acelanceloet wrote: the propulsion. type 42... that gives you 50000 SHP. the large weight might mean even more (this thing is gonna be way bulkier then type 42) so we go for 60000 for now. 2 rolce royce olympus or 3 LM 2500 give you just that..... and the arrangement with 4 gas turbines timothy described somewhere in his previous posts would work too. the type 42 has them all (2 olympus + 2 tyne) centralised in one funnel so one major engine space seems likely. well, if you want to follow that, you'd better throw my funnels overboard and go for one central one (or a large one and an small one, if you want 2) if you want to go with this arrangement, better move the forward one more forward, as right now one large single one still makes a lot more sense, as the engine rooms are so close together or your exhaust pipes take a lot of space. (take an look at the size of the LM 2500 in the belowdeck parts thread, you get what I mean then.

If I was to go with a single funnel concept, I believe I might be inclined to go with a small pair of angled funnels such as the Canadian Tribal's used. No logical reason other than I have just always liked that look.

acelanceloet wrote:btw, for an AAW ship you are lacking 3d radars and director range.... for that, look at the brooke class. an better idea IMO would be to focus B1 on ASW instead, as the mk 26 gives you much better AAW cap anyways.

I can add more radar to the group 1, thats not a problem.

I figure that in my "timeline" those group 1 ships will have a relatively short life anyhow, being sold off to smaller foreign navies once the Kasten class starts coming into the fleet. The Mk.26's, probably transfered to Dominion navies once the Port Lucies are commissioned. The VLS, they probably stay around until the last few of the Port Blanche class is commissioned in the mid teens.

TimothyC wrote:Focus on what Ace said, as he's said it better than I have.

Yeah, stubborn as I may seem sometimes, I'm not immune to logical arguments.

Zephyr wrote:I figure that in my "timeline" those group 1 ships will have a relatively short life anyhow, being sold off to smaller foreign navies once the Kasten class starts coming into the fleet. The Mk.26's, probably transfered to Dominion navies once the Port Lucies are commissioned. The VLS, they probably stay around until the last few of the Port Blanche class is commissioned in the mid teens.

and if you use the setup timothy proposed, you simply update your ship to mk 26 variant on the first refit instead of selling them cheap as outdated ships.
keep in mind that, as long as you have enough of them, the only drawbacks of mk 26 ships compared with mk 41 ships is maintenance and tomahawks. there is no real reason to shuffle them out earlier then needed unless you do budget cuts or have an very large improvement on the next series of ships.

Zephyr wrote:Yeah, stubborn as I may seem sometimes, I'm not immune to logical arguments.

as long that's the case, we can do business here sounds just like me

acelanceloet wrote:

Zephyr wrote:I figure that in my "timeline" those group 1 ships will have a relatively short life anyhow, being sold off to smaller foreign navies once the Kasten class starts coming into the fleet. The Mk.26's, probably transfered to Dominion navies once the Port Lucies are commissioned. The VLS, they probably stay around until the last few of the Port Blanche class is commissioned in the mid teens.

and if you use the setup timothy proposed, you simply update your ship to mk 26 variant on the first refit instead of selling them cheap as outdated ships.
keep in mind that, as long as you have enough of them, the only drawbacks of mk 26 ships compared with mk 41 ships is maintenance and tomahawks. there is no real reason to shuffle them out earlier then needed unless you do budget cuts or have an very large improvement on the next series of ships.

I suppose it would be reasonable to assume that the Mk.26 is already under development during the Group 1 timeframe, just not ready for deployment yet. So, building the Group 1 ships with an eye to upgrade at the earliest opportunity would not be out of the question. And also, even though GH is a pretty large country (figure about 2/3rds the size of the US in size and population, plus colonies, and with a heavy emphasis on the navy over the army for military budgets) we don't have one of the standard NS godmodder "endless money spigots", so I do try to keep things reasonable as far as size of the fleet and budget concerns.

Also, I figure the Kasten/Port Lucie/Olympia class could be considered a significant improvement over the Carsdens.

acelanceloet wrote:

Zephyr wrote:Yeah, stubborn as I may seem sometimes, I'm not immune to logical arguments.

as long that's the case, we can do business here sounds just like me

Works for me

Alrighty then. Lets try this one more time. Group 1, Carsden Class, 1973 commissioning. I believe this may well be the "finalized" design. Which most likely means it ain't.

OK, Lets get this shindig started!

Is there a reason for the Mk 115 tracking radar on the aft mast? It's a manual tracking radar (IE there is a guy standing behind it moving the radar to track targets with the Mk 1 eyeball) and you've got a much much better set right down below it.

TimothyC wrote:Is there a reason for the Mk 115 tracking radar on the aft mast? It's a manual tracking radar (IE there is a guy standing behind it moving the radar to track targets with the Mk 1 eyeball) and you've got a much much better set right down below it.

Because I was told

acelanceloet wrote: while you lack an director for the seacat. (unless you link her to the FCS)

there wasn't any tracking for the seacat, so I assumed that the SPG-60 wasn't sufficient, so I added the 115 on there. I used the 95 for later versions. And yup, I know it is manually operated.

I believe I may just remove that aft mast completely. It has become more of a headache than its worth.