OK, these capable and expensive new ships (Type 45 "Daring" class) are just coming into service with the Royal Navy, albeit several years late and in half the numbers originally planned. There are the global cruiser (stretched version with another VLS and cruise missiles) and UAV carrier (that silly V-shaped decked ship) variants that many will be familiar with, but what other variants/developments can you come up with?
An obvious one would be having PAAMS replaced by Aegis, as carried by the USN's (and others) destroyers and cruisers. This would mean the Darings' distinctive tall foremast (that carries the SAMPSON radar) would not be present, replaced by a larger mast or superstructure mounting the SPY-1 radar arrays.
Another would be a Type 23 frigate replacement, losing the long range AA capability, and carrying anti-submarine helicopters and unmanned vehicles instead.
What else can you come up with?
How about an "intervention ship" - a multi-role vessel like those two Dutch ones (whose name I can't remember - sorry)? Take the Type 45 systems and superstructure and put them on the front of a bigger hull, leaving a long helideck aft with a multi-role modular space underneath it, accessed through doors in the stern. An elevator up to the helideck would also be an advantage. You can fill the modular space with boats and marines for patrol/enforcement duties, hovercraft for coastal/brown water work, a containerised hospital for disaster relief, mine-countermeasures gear, ASW gear, land vehicles to go get the Brits out of some deteriorating situation, whatever you need, really.
You mean Hr. Ms Rotterdam and Witte de With?
AFAIK, those are ordinary helicopter carrier/amphibious assault ships.
Sorry, my mistake: I meant the Absalon class, and they're Danish, not Dutch (Don't tell B787!).
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/absalon/
Does this include alternate starting points?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frp-one.net%2Fshipbucket_profiles%2Fgraphics%2Fgbdd_type45_alt_ii.png&hash=98d2c65e4869b0088a46063c4ae820308f06f6a7)
Somewhere on Shipbucket should be one with added detail.
Ah, here is is:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shipbucket.com%2FAlternate%2520Universe%2FGB%2520DDG%2520Daring_%2520Type%252046%25201%2520AU.gif&hash=1dd2f787ca1acfb232ded826e5007275c371ecf2)
RP1
RP1 - nice work! :thumbsup:
I doubt many helicopter pilots were fans of the Type-43 layout.....
What's the system ahead of the bridge, navalised Starstreak? If so, has such a thing been seriously proposed?
I was going to ask if the Rotodyne hanger and landing spot can be relocated aft if so desired, but it seems like ships that have VLS amidship and aviation facilities aft seem to invariably concentrate all their radar antennae on the forward mast, an exercise impossible for a ship that carries both Sampson and SMART-L sets...... :banghead:
Or would it really not have mattered too much since we're talking about VLS here?
Quote from: dy031101 on September 23, 2009, 08:05:33 PM
I was going to ask if the Rotodyne hanger and landing spot can be relocated aft if so desired, but it seems like ships that have VLS amidship and aviation facilities aft seem to invariably concentrate all their radar antennae on the forward mast, an exercise impossible for a ship that carries both Sampson and SMART-L sets...... :banghead:
Or would it really not have mattered too much since we're talking about VLS here?
I wonder if the resulting amidships VLS could be split into two and located next to each offset funnel? Or would that create gas-ingestion problems?
How about a Cruiser variant, like I worked up for a story about WWIII (Jniemczyk's The Last War)? Based on the Global Cruiser, but with the complete PAAMS. The C&C facilities would be expanded, resulting in the area just ater the bridge being plated in completely.
The Smart-L would be moved aft to clear the second VLS, and to the left to clear exhaust gas from the stack which is moved to the right. Can't move the stack backwards too much, because it's simplest to have it as much above the engine room as possible.
Moving the hangar to the rear reduces the Global Cruisers immense flightdeck to something just above T45 size, but DOES allow for two Merlins to be carried side by side. The Goalkeeper is mounted between the two hangars. And like the Goalkeeper, the RAM mounts are because I could:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi36.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe42%2FMihoshiK%2FThe%2520Last%2520War%2FGBTigerCruiser.gif&hash=4712f7b09619d981d7c17b4df3f9746f63946718)
How about a Type 45 as a Hobart Class Destroyer for the RAN or alternatively, with multiple gun turrets ala Zumwalt class?
Regards,
Greg
http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_carriers.htm
Germany had more aircraft carrying ships than I previously thought
Would it have been worth converting one of the catapult ships into a V1 launcher maybe to attack the States. Although they would have been a shade on the obvious side although they could possibly have been camouflaged as some kind of tanker with the V1 launch rail disguised as the central catwalk on hydraulics.
I have a 1:700 model of the USS John Rogers w/ the Tomahawk ABLs. Would it be possible/ practical to delete the ASROC and BPMDS launchers and add twin armed SM-2 launchers fore and aft while retaining the ABLs????
I'm thinking of making this a WiF for a fictional navy.
Any info- ideas greatly appreciated!
Mark 26 will definitely fit - that's basically what a Kidd is. You probably won't be able to fit the ABLs in forward of the bridge, but if you're willing to lose the quarterdeck fantail, they should fit there. I think they'll physically fit in the same place as the Harpoons, but the Kidd design is a bit short on margins for topweight IIRC.
Don't forget about fire control: one limitation of the Kidd class was that they only had two SPG-51 fire control radars because of the layout of the ship.
How much of a limitation that is depends on how you plan to use it. For an AAW ship, you'd ideally want more directors, which would drive you towards upperworks similar to the Ticonderoga class. For an ASW ship, which is what the DXG would have been if built for the USN, the forward Mark 26 launcher would have functioned mostly as an ASROC launcher in any case (the launcher in that position had a capacity of 24 missiles, the same as a vanilla Spruance's ASROC capacity), so you've only really got a single-ended SM-2 ship anyway.
Quote from: RLBH on March 10, 2011, 09:06:44 AM
How much of a limitation that is depends on how you plan to use it. For an AAW ship, you'd ideally want more directors, which would drive you towards upperworks similar to the Ticonderoga class. For an ASW ship, which is what the DXG would have been if built for the USN, the forward Mark 26 launcher would have functioned mostly as an ASROC launcher in any case (the launcher in that position had a capacity of 24 missiles, the same as a vanilla Spruance's ASROC capacity), so you've only really got a single-ended SM-2 ship anyway.
True, although then again, the Tico's upperworks are also heavily dictated by the SPY-1 aerial arrays, and you wouldn't have those on a "cooking" AAW
Spruance. You could easily put twin, staggered SPG-51Cs on the top of the hanger, with the higher one on a lightweight pedestal rather than the Tico's solid block. The interesting question would be whether you could get two side-by side on top of the bridge: the forward location of the mast makes it impossible to have them "superfiring". IIRC, the
Kidd has a "balcony" just to get one in.
How about this Soviet design from X-Men: First Class?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi107.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm309%2FChernayaAkula%2FWhIf%2Fx-men_first_class_soviet-cruiser.png&hash=369bf18d81099244f8dd7a25e132c9ec804f9974)
Pic from the trailer
Looks like a whif to me, but I'm not that well-versed in Soviet warships of that era. I don't remember twin SS-N-14 Silex launchers per side on any ship, though. And, AFAIK, the Ak-130s wouldn't have been in service yet in 1962. And it looks like there might be some VLS between the AK-130 and the RBU-6000.
Might be something for the Ship GB. :wacko: Too bad the DVD won't be out in time (to obtain decent stills).
It's a Kara-class from the bridge and four-eyed radars, but definitely modified. Looks like they shortened the deck under the forward twin-arm, and replaced it with dual twin AK-130s and added the extra missile pack on the sides. Keeps the tail twin-arm launcher though. Not bad looking, hooray CGI!
Nice but looks like a mix and match of 70's & 80's soviet designs rather than the late 50's early 60's, they obviously didn't do enough research or felt the ships of the period were not menacing enough and jazzed them up as the missile systems were big clunky and basic.
Well, if you consider that that universe would have a Super-Intelligence mutant running around in Soviet Russia too, it only makes sense there'd be applications of the work to the military fields, and unexpected advancement. Even fits the political mindsets of the era, and puts a mean spin on the New Soviet Man. So I'll consider the anachronistic military hardware legitimately justified, in that.
Since it's got twin 57mm guns amidships, I'd say Kresta II based rather than Kara. As has been said, it's all a bit too late for 1962. My inclination would have been to mix up Kynda, Kashin and Kotlin elements. You could have a double-ended layout something like this:
A Pos: twin old-style 130mm gun as seen on Kotlins
B Pos: SA-N-1 launcher
C Pos: quad elevating SSN-3 launcher with four reloads under bridge
P&S amidships: twin 57mm guns and 533mm TTs
X,Y,Z-pos: as per A,B & C but reversed.
I heard that there is a third Moskva class helicopter cruiser that would have been built as an anti-surface warfare vessel...... does anyone have some idea on how would it have looked like?
Much smaller helicopter deck?
Quote from: rickshaw on July 11, 2011, 07:15:30 PM
Much smaller helicopter deck?
Well I kinda want to see if it'd still be a helicopter carrier...... :banghead:
Presuming this was pre-Kiev? After all, the Kiev TAKRs are more-or-less sea control ships anyway what with their fixed-wing capability and missile fit. Sure they're about twice the size of the Moskva PKRs but the capability is increased as well; IIRC the Kiev-class was already in the planning stages by the time the Moskvas were being built. And at that point the USSR was still planning on having a 50,000t conventional angle-deck carrier Real Soon Now.
A Moskva built for surface warfare would likely have beached the SUW-N-1 antisubmarine system in favor of some sort of SSM. Perhaps the 57mm guns would've been replaced with heavier guns. It would still have retained the helicopters.
It's quite easy to see it not a real design. No ship of that time could handle 4 13mm AK-130s on the front IMO. The design seems indeed to be based at Soviet cruiser classes like ''KARA'' and KRESTA''
Quote from: Jschmus on July 12, 2011, 11:28:26 AM
A Moskva built for surface warfare would likely have beached the SUW-N-1 antisubmarine system in favor of some sort of SSM. Perhaps the 57mm guns would've been replaced with heavier guns. It would still have retained the helicopters.
All of them? Why? Its role had changed from, as you note, ASW - which is a helicopter intensive role to ASuW - which is not helicopter intensive. Suddenly it would carting 'round all this empty hangar space and extensive flight deck. I could see it retaining a larger than normal helicopter pad, allowing simultaneous operations for perhaps two helicopters but most of that wasted space would have been rededicated to its primary mission I think. Something like HMS TIGER would have been the result.
Quote from: rickshaw on July 12, 2011, 04:20:14 PM
All of them? Why? Its role had changed from, as you note, ASW - which is a helicopter intensive role to ASuW - which is not helicopter intensive.
I don't suppose the Soviets had plans for a missile of Penguin or Sea Skua's calibre?
Quote from: dy031101 on July 12, 2011, 06:03:15 PM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 12, 2011, 04:20:14 PM
All of them? Why? Its role had changed from, as you note, ASW - which is a helicopter intensive role to ASuW - which is not helicopter intensive.
I don't suppose the Soviets had plans for a missile of Penguin or Sea Skua's calibre?
Not really. They tended to rely upon unguided rockets for tactical roles for a long time. The first tactical guided missiles didn't appear until the approximately the early 1980s.
They also intended their missiles for big targets - carriers usually so they tended to build big missiles. Too big for most helicopters to carry. That's an idea. Put Mi-6 helicopters on Moskva, carrying SS-N-3 Shaddocks!
Remember, the Soviet Navy's deterrence doctrine was based on "bastions" for their SLBM submarines and the surface fleet was intended to push the intruding Western submarines and surface task forces as far as possible away from those bastions. The US Navy's strategy was "go into harm's way" and attack the Soviet missile carrying submarines in their bastions. So, if a war broke out, you'd see battles in the North Atlantic and Pacific very quickly.
Has there ever been a destroyer design of European origin that is aesthetically-similar to the American Arleigh Burke class DDG?
Not as I know. The closest you can get is the Spanish Alvora da Bazan class and some pre-designs.
The AB is a good deal bigger than pretty much any European warship.
You also have the Fridtjof Nansen class which is a derivative of the Spanish F-100 class:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F5d%2FKNM_Fridtjof_Nansen-2009-04-10-Haakonsvern.jpg&hash=e4902accd9fb0e492cc1b351d9b5e6b5892b7672)
Say, a ship equipped with a Talos missile system was exported (let's leave the probability of this happening aside for now)- let's take an Albany class for the sake of this argument. That ship later in the '70s or '80s is to go through a mid-life update, but for some reasons, European radars are preferred.
What would you think to be the best 3D and long-range 2D air search radar combination Europe would have to offer in the '70s and what would that combo be in the '80s?
In the 1970s, I'd go with the Signaal SPS-01 3D long-range air search radar. If only because the huge dome looks cool.
In the 1980s, the favored combination seems to be a 2D long-range radar and a 3D medium range radar (see the fit on the Heemskerck class, for instance).
Quote from: Hobbes on March 01, 2012, 01:37:44 AM
In the 1970s, I'd go with the Signaal SPS-01 3D long-range air search radar. If only because the huge dome looks cool.
In the 1980s, the favored combination seems to be a 2D long-range radar and a 3D medium range radar (see the fit on the Heemskerck class, for instance).
I've seen some radars using antenna from other models for a variety of reasons.
I wonder what the idea of combining the processor unit of some newer radar from, say, Signaal with the antenna of the SPS-43 would end up producing......
Coupling a new processing unit to an existing antenna means you can profit from new developments in signals processing without having to rebuild the antenna support (which is big, heavy and complex for a long-range radar). This means improved image quality (better filtering of clutter), better resistance to jamming etc.
The only drawback is that you're limited to the capabilities of the old antenna. There's no way to make the SPS-43 antenna into a 3D radar, for instance.
The Talos system had some unique support equipment: the tracking radars for instance were extremely powerful (to provide beam riding at long range), I've no idea if Europe produced tracking radars that were capable of doing this.
Radar progressed in broadly these steps:
- up to 1970: 2D radar only. This meant that the tracking radar had to find the target's height before it could lock on.
- 1970: first forays into 3D radar (discounting the billboard systems on the USS Enterprise, which weren't successful), using multiple transmitters feeding into the same antenna to stack several radar signals on top of each other. Mostly done for short to medium range, but e.g. SPS-01 and DRBI-23 (French) were long range
- 1980: 3D search radar becomes commonplace (compare SPS-01 which was huge to the tiny SMART-S)
- 1990s: phased array radars start to replace rotating antennas.
Quote from: Hobbes on March 01, 2012, 12:28:06 PM
Coupling a new processing unit to an existing antenna means you can profit from new developments in signals processing without having to rebuild the antenna support (which is big, heavy and complex for a long-range radar). This means improved image quality (better filtering of clutter), better resistance to jamming etc.
The only drawback is that you're limited to the capabilities of the old antenna. There's no way to make the SPS-43 antenna into a 3D radar, for instance.
Which component is the decisive factor on how far a radar can effectively see: antenna, processing unit, or both (whether in different ways or otherwise)?
SPS-43 is said to be a "powerful" set with "a range of 300+ miles"...... would coupling a more-modern processing unit preserve that range after gaining the benefit you mentioned above?
(I am still thinking about a long-range 2D set in this scenario- maybe SPS-43 antenna with LW-08 processor or something; a 3D set will be sought separately.)
Quote from: Hobbes on March 01, 2012, 12:28:06 PM
The Talos system had some unique support equipment: the tracking radars for instance were extremely powerful (to provide beam riding at long range), I've no idea if Europe produced tracking radars that were capable of doing this.
I forgot that one and was only thinking about search radars...... :banghead:
Quote from: Hobbes on March 01, 2012, 12:28:06 PM
Radar progressed in broadly these steps......
I was under the impression that SMART is in the '90s (was trying to avoid late '80s items, too)......
Quote from: dy031101 on March 01, 2012, 03:34:52 PM
Which component is the decisive factor on how far a radar can effectively see: antenna, processing unit, or both (whether in different ways or otherwise)?
Combination of power output (how strong is the signal), Antenna design and processing power. The higher the signal power the longer the range because of the more reflected energy which can be detected. How much reflected energy is detected, depends upon the shape/size of the aerial. How that reflected energy is interpreted depends upon the amount of processing power is available. By the end of the 1980s, there is oodles of CPU available to radar systems. The rise of cheap, powerful computers ensured that.
Addenda: Another factor is location of the antenna. Obviously, the higher the better on the superstructure, particularly for air and surface search sets as it increases the distance to the radar horizon. However, there are other factors as well, such as interference from the superstructure and even the sensitivity of the radar system (it can sometimes pick up surface reflections, which is not something you want!).
You're right, SMART-S was first installed around 1995.
You can preserve the long range of the SPS-43 as Rickshaw described. The drawback of such a long range is that the antenna must rotate slowly (too fast, and it would rotate away before a radar echo from 300 miles away has returned). This is one of the reasons you want a medium-range radar to complement the SPS-43.
Quote from: Hobbes on March 02, 2012, 01:43:39 AM
You're right, SMART-S was first installed around 1995.
You can preserve the long range of the SPS-43 as Rickshaw described. The drawback of such a long range is that the antenna must rotate slowly (too fast, and it would rotate away before a radar echo from 300 miles away has returned). This is one of the reasons you want a medium-range radar to complement the SPS-43.
Which is why electronically steered arrays are great. Essentially the antenna "stares" at the same section of sky, all the time but the beam is steered electronically to scan it.
Quote from: rickshaw on July 13, 2011, 07:27:13 AM
Quote from: dy031101 on July 12, 2011, 06:03:15 PM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 12, 2011, 04:20:14 PM
All of them? Why? Its role had changed from, as you note, ASW - which is a helicopter intensive role to ASuW - which is not helicopter intensive.
I don't suppose the Soviets had plans for a missile of Penguin or Sea Skua's calibre?
Not really. They tended to rely upon unguided rockets for tactical roles for a long time. The first tactical guided missiles didn't appear until the approximately the early 1980s.
They also intended their missiles for big targets - carriers usually so they tended to build big missiles. Too big for most helicopters to carry.
Forgot this one- although I don't know when this combo came to pass.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi846.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab22%2Fdy031101%2FhelixAShM.jpg&hash=df97a2d62a6985ba5a0374055e65560f21138d76)
Quote from: Hobbes on March 01, 2012, 12:28:06 PM
The Talos system had some unique support equipment: the tracking radars for instance were extremely powerful (to provide beam riding at long range), I've no idea if Europe produced tracking radars that were capable of doing this.
Britain certainly did. See abaft the helo hangar on this vessel:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hmsbacchante.co.uk%2Fimages%2F36_HMS_Antrim_off_Portland_Sept_76.jpg&hash=fda6c34e9dc0db42d06ed25e7520f70938250f32)
In more general terms, such a cruiser export as discussed here was more or less realized by modernizing a Dutch cruiser of De Zeven Provincien-class.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hazegray.org%2Fnavhist%2Fcarriers%2Fimages%2Fnon-cv%2Fc802-2.jpg&hash=b58aa0ceb91d3cddc2b20ebac5fb56405efa3829)
Also an Italian WW2 cruiser was rebuilt, this time even including provisions and tubes for nuclear ballistic missiles (center below)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navweaps.com%2FWeapons%2FWNIT_53-45_m1938_Giuseppe_Garibaldi_pic.jpg&hash=7421f4174ab993f84dbd028f824244cbf36d0eae)
A couple of unusual Destroyers
Uss Hovey
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0520821.jpg
A us 4 stacker with twin gun mountings in place of the normal singles
Also the French le Fier class
Planned to be completed by the Germans with all large guns on the stern.
Germans tried to complete the ships, but no one ship was finished. Under German flag characteristic of ships should change a little. Displacement was supposed about 1087/1443t, and dimensions should be 90/93.2x9.22x3.91m; armament consisted of 3x1 105mm guns at aft end, 2 single 37mm and 9 single 20mm MGs and 2 triple 533mm TT. Almost ready TA2 was sunk by American aircraft, as well as TA4. Parts of TA3 were used for completion of sister ships. TA1, TA5 and TA6 were scuttled by Germans at departure from Nantes.
I never realized that there is a trainable version (http://www.defence.gov.au/teamaustralia/radar_(CEAMOUNT_continuous_wave_illuminator).htm) in the lineup......
Sounds potentially impressive as a replacement for, say, SPG-62 illuminator......
Does anyone know, however, if there would be any special consideration at all if we talk about putting CEAMOUNT illuminators on a BMD-capable ship? Or is the ability to guide SM-3 really not that dependent on what illuminators the warship has?
Thanks in advance.