RP1's Naval Project Artwork

[Hood]

Damn that refit looks good, turns a destroyer into a cruiser, I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say this would have been among the world's most potent air-defence assets if not the best of the 2000s.

I am surprised there are no Phalanx on her, if nothing else for last ditch defence.

I am still no fan of the midships helicopter deck, the ship designer's might have been smart but it does look small even with a Lynx on it, trying to land a Merlin in high winds and swell would get the pilot in a sweat.
I wonder in those conditions if electrostatic discharge might have been a problem given the proximity of so much structure around the landing area?

 

[Grey Havoc]

I am surprised there are no Phalanx on her, if nothing else for last ditch defence.

Nay sir, nothing but Seastreak will do!

 

[RP1]

I am surprised there are no Phalanx on her, if nothing else for last ditch defence.

Nay sir, nothing but Seastreak will do!

Seastreak will appear on some future artwork projects. I had a sudden realisation that the funny-looking base may well have been a stabilised platform so I have to figure out the mechanics for that.

 

[starviking]

I am surprised there are no Phalanx on her, if nothing else for last ditch defence.

Nay sir, nothing but Seastreak will do!

I worked at Thales AD (not Shorts Missile Systems) so Seastreak is a bit before my time.

I can’t see the ’hittile’ having the accuracy to take out an incoming ASM, though I am aware that the targeting should be significantly easier - no or few crossing targets, for example.

Was a more traditional explosive warhead planned, or would the plethora of sensors try to ensure some kind of impact with the target (difficult), or trigger the normal impact warhead early?

 

[TomS]

Gorgeous work. My only thought (like Hood) is that even with improved Sea Wolf, wouldn't they try to shoehorn in some Phalanx somewhere? Not seeing a good spot for it, though.

 

[TomS]

I am surprised there are no Phalanx on her, if nothing else for last ditch defence.

Nay sir, nothing but Seastreak will do!

Seastreak will appear on some future artwork projects. I had a sudden realisation that the funny-looking base may well have been a stabilised platform so I have to figure out the mechanics for that.

Friedman's World Naval Weapons Systems (1997-98 edition) has a nice photo of the model. It looks like the angled parts of the base were fixed to the deck and the rest of the launcher was pivoted on an axis between the two sides of the base. So it would sway front to back to remain vertical. The radar ball on top was pivoted on a cradle on the other axis, so it would in theory remain parallel to the sea surface regardless of the movement of the base.

 

[Hood]

In my AU work over at Shipbucket I have tended to put Seastreak as a CIWS backed up by 30mm cannon, but I agree that with an incoming supersonic ASM do you chance the hittle hitting or put up a wall of lead (tungsten).
Starstreak had three inert darts, I assume the naval Seastreak was the same?

 

[TomS]

In my AU work over at Shipbucket I have tended to put Seastreak as a CIWS backed up by 30mm cannon, but I agree that with an incoming supersonic ASM do you chance the hittle hitting or put up a wall of lead (tungsten).
Starstreak had three inert darts, I assume the naval Seastreak was the same?

Not inert, just unpowered. Each dart has a small lethality-enhancing bursting charge with an impact fuze (and of course a rearward-looking sensor and steering system).

But based on this thread, it seems Seastreak wasn't considered effective in the Inner-Layer Defense System role.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/naval-shorads.6477/#post-300101

 

[JFC Fuller]

I may have misremembered but I recall the bursting charge within the darts not being implemented until Starstreak 2 in the 2000s, long after Seastreak stopped potentially being a thing. A more conventional blast-fragmentation warhead with appropriate fuzing would appear to be a more logical solution.

Equally, the description the second radar as being for "track/guidance" suggests some sort of RF guidance was added to the missile....or its just some poorly produced marketing material....???

The key piece is probably that ARE were conceiving of a system to engage a late 1980s vision of what a 2000s AShM threat would be like. I would speculate that the VSRAD requirement was written against an extremely demanding, to the point of possibly even being hypothetical, target set.

 

[TomS]

I recall the bursting charge within the darts not being implemented until Starstreak 2 in the 2000s, long after Seastreak stopped potentially being a thing.

The darts were being described as high-KE p projectiles with an HE filling as early as 1988.

Equally, the description the second radar as being for "track/guidance" suggests some sort of RF guidance was added to the missile....or its just some poorly produced marketing material....???

RP1 gave a bit if a description in that linked thread -- radar for target acquisition (presumably in the ball on top) and then tracking by either EO (for sea-skimmers, via the FLIR on the right side of the mount) or radar (for high-divers, via the antenna on the left side). My guess would be that they were not happy with surface ducting effects from the radar against low-level targets. I think actual guidance remained laser beam-riding throughout.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

One illuminator for each launch rail is the sensible minimum for any rail-launched semi-active homing missile. Less than that and you can't guide a full salvo against separate targets. Offhand, the only guided missile ship I can think of that didn't have at least that was the County class, which was largely because the Sea Slug system was a hoofing great monster of a thing designed to go on a cruiser.

If you have more fire channels, you can guide more missiles. Since directors take up lots of room, this isn't generally achieveable, though AESAs can do interesting things in this field. The genius of systems like Aegis is that you don't need to provide continuous target illumination for each missile. The missile flies out under command guidance, only requiring illumination for terminal guidance.

This means your illuminators can be used more efficiently, switching from one target to another as the missiles get into terminal range. It also means you can have smaller, less powerful illuminators that have less of an impact on the ship. The Type 909 is huge compared to the analogous SPG-62.

The first version (Mod0) of Sea Dart was target referenced proportional navigation, in that it required illumination by the 909 throughout its entire flight.

Although Sea Dart 2 (GWS-31) was cancelled bits of its technology were embodied as a system mid life upgrade. In the late eighties the system and missiles where upgraded to Mod2 standard. The missiles were retrofitted with an INS/autopilot which allowed them to fly to a point in space with mid course updates provided by an additional aerial in the 909 enclosure. Thus the 909 would then only be required for terminal illumination. The fire control software was also upgraded with a result that the system could have up to eight missiles in the air simultaneously. The main advantage of the upgrade was the increase in the missile engagement zone, close to doubling the range, due to the use of an optimal trajectory (ballistic trajectory). However the radars were still slow mechanically scanned, for a T42 there was zone aft of the ship which was difficult to get a missile into at short notice and the missile handling system could only manage one salvo every 30sec.

The Sea Dart 2 thrust vectoring Chow booster was intended to cover off the rear aspect problem. The booster was built and statically tested;- I remember seeing a film of its firing. Normal Chow burned for 2.2sec and TV Chow for about 3sec but I never saw it up close, but my guess would be no more a foot longer probably less. I was told VL Sea Dart was studied several times leading up to Sea Dart 2 and certainly the engineers I met where very keen. There were a number of problems;- the efflux is lethal/destructive so where does it go? what happens if it misfires ie what happens to the half ton of primed and ready to go pyrotechnics potentially hanging about 100ft over the ship? I was told these were ship design integration problem which needed to be addressed with a new ship architecture.... the Mod having just got the first T42 going, were dismayed.

 

[DWG]

what happens if it misfires ie what happens to the half ton of primed and ready to go pyrotechnics potentially hanging about 100ft over the ship?

Incline your launchers slightly outboard and it's hanging about over the water instead. Does mean a slightly larger enclosure, but not necessarily unworkably so.

 

[zen]

what happens if it misfires ie what happens to the half ton of primed and ready to go pyrotechnics potentially hanging about 100ft over the ship?

Incline your launchers slightly outboard and it's hanging about over the water instead. Does mean a slightly larger enclosure, but not necessarily unworkably so.

When I look and land Ceptor I think that's what has been done.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

That’s the general principle but remember ships roll, are subjected to cross winds etc so any angles are a bit more than might first appear. I was under the impression the silo solution goes deeply into the ships layout and structure.

Getting the Sea Dart’s ramjet fired up required a straight line acceleration, so it’s VLS was pop up, pitch over to bearing/elevation, then fire the booster.

Here’s what’s it’s like when it goes wrong, albeit on land with an S300;-

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QtuN8UuAWTg

 

[DWG]

That’s the general principle but remember ships roll, are subjected to cross winds etc so any angles are a bit more than might first appear. I was under the impression the silo solution goes deeply into the ships layout and structure.

Fair point, just need to resurrect an old naval command: "Fire on the down roll!" (In reality you can fairly easily incorporate this invisibly into the fire control system).

WRT the silo, the increased width narrows as you descend for an inclined launch tube - at the bottom the width should be very close to the width of a vertical silo of equal capacity.

Here’s what’s it’s like when it goes wrong, albeit on land with an S300

Whoops!

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

The best solution is to put the silo’s at the back, so anything you throw into the air, you’re alway sailing away from.

 

[Yellow Palace]

The issue seems to be overstated. Certainly, it doesn't seem to cause undue concern for anyone who actually builds ships with vertical launch missile systems.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

So how many of those are a ramjet VLS?

I’m only telling you what I was told 35+years ago by engineers that worked on this project. You can take it or leave it.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Anything that handles cruise missiles has to address the potential for the air breathing engine failing to start. That's not going to be significantly different between a ramjet and a turbine engine, and any difference is likely to favour the ramjet.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Gas turbines don’t need a precision aligned shock impinging on an annular intake lip in order to operate. The acceleration for a cruise missile is a fraction of that needed for a ramjet;- so much easier to arc over.

Please also remember this episode dates from the mid seventies, the dawn of VLS systems, they had successfully demo a VLS Sea wolf in 1969 (project sinner), but it was not adopted until 27 years later. They didn’t have the fifty years of hindsight that you have

 

[RP1]

Woosh! Probably not enough smoke for Sea Dart

 

[Yellow Palace]

They didn’t have the fifty years of hindsight that you have

That's the crucial bit – it may well have been seen as a significant risk at the time. Experience appears to suggest that the risk is lower than anticipated, but a degree of conservatism is always expected, and often preferable, in this kind of situation.

 

[DWG]

She really is a surprisingly good looking ship.

 

[RP1]

Modelling bits of equipment to use later. The 1991 General Electric proposal for a 35mm CTA CIWS. MOAR.

[EDIT: Updated model with 8 barrels as per reference material in the Naval Gun Projects thread]

 

[Foo Fighter]

Very sharp, great results.

 

[RP1]

US Navy Strike Cruiser, in the early configuration but after the 8-inch gun was added.

 

[RP1]

And a CSGN operating in the Gulf of Oman.

 

[RP1]

Where trimaran research started at UCL. After a conversation between Nigel Irens and the then-ProfNA, Doug Pattison, regarding powering of the yacht Ilan Voyager, the idea of a large ocean-going trimaran was seen as interesting enough to pursue. An MSc student team was assigned a Trimaran "Advanced Technology Frigate" for the 1989-1990 design exercise, which showed no major "show-stoppers" but raised a lot of questions. MoD subsequently funded research at UCL and then DERA (Later Qinetiq) leading to RV Triton and Austal picked up the published research as the starting point for their own developments.


Presented by then Kapitanleutnant Bastisch to RINA Warships 1992, the 4200 tonne, 155m design featured megawatt class lasers for point defence, Super Ikara ASW missiles (still in the UCL databook at that point) and all electric propulsion. I included the supersonic rotor helcopter for reasons of "Advanced Technology".

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Super Ikara ASW missiles (still in the UCL databook at that point)

What sort of weapons are currently in the UCL Databook?

 

[RP1]

Super Ikara ASW missiles (still in the UCL databook at that point)

What sort of weapons are currently in the UCL Databook?

Mostly stuff I find on some website called "Secret Projects"

 

[Hood]

What was the design reason behind the two propellers on the outrigger hulls?
Redundancy or a means to improve maneuverability or low speed creeping?

 

[RP1]

A mid-80's design for a SWATH frigate for the USN. Intended for the same role as the FFG-7, the studies just used the same combat systems. Was compared against conventional and "Deep-Vee" hullforms.