RP1's Naval Project Artwork
- Thread starter RP1
- Start date
A Tentative Fleet Plan
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 9 April 2018
- Messages
- 1,169
- Reaction score
- 2,612
3000t, 39 knots. 74.6MW advanced GT plant driving superconducting motors. Aluminium construction. 12 x large ASW/Antiship Missiles and space for 24 TEU sized combat system modules. 2 SH-60. Reference: "Miller, R T., Long, C. L., and Reitz, S., "ASW Surface Ship of the 80's Study," Naval Engineers Journal, Dec. 1972."
Attachments
I love your image of the Type24. It is such a pity that this design wasn't proceeded with. I can see the potential for a batch two with the Sea Wolf launchers replaced by a vertical launched version. Has there been any indication of the missile load for each Sea Wolf launcher.
Regards
Regards
Last edited:
Possible Australian variant; 2x Mk41 for Sea Sparrow, CIWS, Harpooon, 127mm. The Mk41s really eat up the topweight allowance.
And here we have the most heckin chonker, the Type 43:
The hangar was designed to take 2 Lynx or one Merlin ("Sea King Replacement"). Given the numbers of available a/c I figured a Lynx would be more likely in practice.
The UAV is a Westland Sharpeye, the final iteration of the WG-25 RPV project. An odd-looking thing with reduced RCS and IR signatures. Friedman mentions them being of interest for T43.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,166
- Reaction score
- 13,104
Thanks so much. Probably true about Lynx; Merlin has always been thin on the ground (so to speak)
I had not heard of Sharpeye, and I don't see it mentioned in Friedman's British Destroyers & Frigates. I'm interested in the use of VTOL RPVs on combatants and this seems like a fairly early concept for that (aside from DASH of course). Off to do some more reading...
Last edited:
- Joined
- 22 April 2012
- Messages
- 2,268
- Reaction score
- 2,065
Wonderful piece of art, thanks for posting it here. I have mused in the past about an alternative history in which the Type 43 hull and propulsion plant remain in development through the 1980s and are eventually used to carry PAAMs with the following changes in the late 1980s/early 1990s:
- 64 cell VLS between the 4.5" and the bridge
- 64 cell VLS amidships instead of the flight deck
- A hangar for two Merlins in place of the aft superstructure and Type 909s leading to;
- A fantail flight deck
- MESAR/SAMPSON on the forward superstructure
- Volume search radar integrated with the aft funnel (Type 45 style) on the aft superstructure
- Fore and aft Seastreak as on the various Horizon concepts
Last edited:
Looking at your earlier excellent Type 24 rendering, I've wondered about replacing the standard six tube Sea Wolf launchers on the Type 43 with the twin .of the Type 24? It's just I recall a comment in either Browns Rebuilding the Royal Navy of Friedmans British Destroyers about the amount of stray radiation being produced by all the fire control radars so it seems sensible to keep all the crew 'inside'.
Ah, I meant the general comment of RPVs rather than Sharpeye in particular. There's a bit about Westland RPVs here, although it uses the requirement name PHOENIX: Westland and the attack helicopters paper
I'm planning to do something similar. The long range radar would only be needed for the fighter direction task, so I'm planning to use the early design for MESAR with the squarial. Keeping VLS within what would fit in the Sea Dart magazine dimensions, and possibly replacing GWS-25 with GWS-27 just to have an excuse to model the AESA director. The flight deck would stay where it was becuase re-arranging that would be incredibly expensive...
Friedman notes the focus on saturation attacks and untill VLS with GWS-26, the six round Vickers launcher could in theory fire faster. Of course the real problem was always the directors.
- Joined
- 5 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,294
- Reaction score
- 2,430
I'm probably in a minority, but I've always liked the Type 43's aesthetics - it's got Presence in a way that many other ships don't. Part of me wishes that the ship had been built just so the feasibility of the midships flight deck could have been finally settled....
The 3D model is also the first representation of the ship I've seen that's convinced me that the wing Sea Wolf installations are actually workable. There are somethings that a 2D drawing just doesn't communicate well.
You're not alone
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,276
With regards as to the Westland Sharpeye:
www.facebook.com
The Helicopter Museum (Official)
Drone Week - The Westland Sharpeye was built around the mechanical components of the Wideye (see yesterday's post) but featured a redesigned and more 'stealthy' aerodynamic body... It would be...
www.facebook.com
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,166
- Reaction score
- 13,104
Yeah, I'd definitely agree. There's a bunch of stuff under that flight deck between the two engine rooms. Relocating it would be challenging. Plus, cutting a big hole in the main strength deck right at midships strikes me as a bad idea.
Realistically, you might end up with two 32-cell Sylver blocks in place of the two Sea Dart launchers, which still comes out ahead of the Type 45.
Rather than Seastreak, what about small (16-tube) VL Seawolf blocks in place of the lower Type 909s and their equipment rooms? Then you could fit Phalanx in place of the forward Seawolf launchers and DS30 in place of the aft ones.
- Joined
- 5 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,294
- Reaction score
- 2,430
I'd be tempted to stagger that fit - say Phalanx port forward and starboard aft - to get the best possible bow and stern arcs.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,166
- Reaction score
- 13,104
I would too, but the aft Seawolf are sitting on open platforms and Phalanx isn't usually mounted that way. Technically, I think it can be, but in practice, it seldom or never is. Not sure why, but I wonder if it has to do with a lack of rigidity in such platforms.
Edit: Plan B would be to put Phalanx fore and aft in place of the lower Type 909s and put VL Seawolf alongside the forward superstructure.
Last edited:
alejandrogrossi
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 20 September 2019
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 392
alejandrogrossi
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 20 September 2019
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 392
- Joined
- 5 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,294
- Reaction score
- 2,430
I suspect if the platform was to be rigid enough for Sea Wolf, it would also be rigid enough for Phalanx. If not, external steelwork is pretty cheap in comparison to the rest of the proposed refit. Both would probably be configurations discussed during the planning.
That's an interesting imaginary drawing, but probably not compliant with the requirement for Type 43. Immediate observation is that there's no Sea Wolf fit, and no way to accommodate one that gives 360-degree coverage, which was clearly part of the requirement.
alejandrogrossi
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 20 September 2019
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 392
Yes
It s true
No Sea Wolf. Only 2 sea dart launchers.
Maybe in the place of the most foward 909 radar.
One question.
How many 909 radar need the Sea Dart.?
Two for each launcher?
- Joined
- 5 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,294
- Reaction score
- 2,430
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.
alejandrogrossi
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 20 September 2019
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 392
Thanks for your complete ansewer
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,166
- Reaction score
- 13,104
New Threat Update was the USN's non-AEGIS take on this, and there was a proposed development of Sea Dart (GWS-31) that included a similar capability for mid-course guidance rather than all-the-way homing.
Post-refit. Sea Dart replaced with Sea Viper (64 missiles) - using the design of SAMPSON that appeared on later CNGF illustrations. Sea Wolf GWS-25 replaced with GWS-27 (32 missiles). Exocet replaced with Sea Eagle SL (8 missiles). Modernised communications fit (equipment rooms replacing the aft upper Type 909). Additional decoys and minor changes. This ship has no right to look this good.
- Joined
- 22 April 2012
- Messages
- 2,268
- Reaction score
- 2,065
Great work, she does look stunning.
Replacing Sea Dart magazines with a VLS would be incredibly complicated. Unlike the US Mk-26 GMLS the Sea Dart magazine and launcher were not a self contained system, they were much more like a traditional gun and magazine arrangement. On every configuration I am aware of there was at least one deck between the top of the magazine and the launcher, on the Type 42 this contained a mess through which the missile elevator passed. Replacing them with a VLS would require a complete reconstruction, virtually from the keel, of the entire hull section. That said, they were big spaces, based on ship plans the 20/22 round magazine space was approximately 26.5ft long 19ft wide (happy to be corrected with exact measurements).
For GWS.27, given the combination of the active seeker on the missile and SAMPSON's multifiunction capability, would the Marconi S1805SW Multifire radar director have been required on your configuration or could its role have been taken by SAMPSON?
Replacing Sea Dart magazines with a VLS would be incredibly complicated. Unlike the US Mk-26 GMLS the Sea Dart magazine and launcher were not a self contained system, they were much more like a traditional gun and magazine arrangement. On every configuration I am aware of there was at least one deck between the top of the magazine and the launcher, on the Type 42 this contained a mess through which the missile elevator passed. Replacing them with a VLS would require a complete reconstruction, virtually from the keel, of the entire hull section. That said, they were big spaces, based on ship plans the 20/22 round magazine space was approximately 26.5ft long 19ft wide (happy to be corrected with exact measurements).
For GWS.27, given the combination of the active seeker on the missile and SAMPSON's multifiunction capability, would the Marconi S1805SW Multifire radar director have been required on your configuration or could its role have been taken by SAMPSON?
I have outline schematics for a typical Sea Dart installation and the VLS was positioned to fit within the footprint of the existing magazine space to avoid cutting some longitudinal structural elements. On a ship this large, displacing the spaces on No 2 deck above the magazine shouldn't be too much of a problem. The primary concern would really be the loss of structure on Nos 1 and 2 deck, particularly as the only way I could get Slyver to fit into the existing magazine width was to orient it athwartships (Sylver cannot be packed closely like Mk41 so actually takes up much more volume in the ship). Careful structural design would be required for some additional longitudinals and castings in way of the VLS, but it wouldn't require a complete reconstruction.
Regarding GWS-27: In this case there are two of the phased array "trackers" in place of the Type 911 on the baseline design. This is partly because, as Sea Viper / PAAMS was an international development, adding a bespoke UK-only weapon into the mix would only complicate things. In this alt-history GWS-27 is developed for frigates, so the most straightforward thing to do is install the whole thing, with SAMPSON (or more specifically the command and control system) alerting the GWS-27 processor to threats. I also suspect the only way to make GWS-27 work would be to keep it ACLOS, which means the weapon would be designed for flatter trajectories than the "up-and-over" best suited to a masthead array like SAMPSON,
Another excellent piece!!
A question - why can't the Sylver be packed as tightly as Mk41, I have wondered about the arrangement on the Type 45? I understand that the VL launchers of the GWS 26 Sea Wolf had a glass insert in the tube to do a visual check on the missile, does the Sylver has some similar arrangement.
Regards
A question - why can't the Sylver be packed as tightly as Mk41, I have wondered about the arrangement on the Type 45? I understand that the VL launchers of the GWS 26 Sea Wolf had a glass insert in the tube to do a visual check on the missile, does the Sylver has some similar arrangement.
Regards
So the effort is impressive and I've a complex degree of jealousy for having the time and space to do this, coupled with admiration for it.
Great work!
On the concept of VLS Sea Dart.
I would imagine the booster would need extra length to gain not just the TVC mechanisms, but the increased fuel to offset the maneuvering from VL to orientation towards the desired direction. Coupled with length in the silo to manage the rocket efflux, this could well take all of the 8ft or so of the deck between launcher and magazine.
The more critical issue is the massive changes to the shipboard systems to deliver worthy capability for VLS Sea Dart.
Unless the SAM is gaining a ARH seeker, and datalink for mid ourselves guidance. Then Illuminating radar is needed for SARH.
On Sea Wolf GWS.27, this was supposed to include ARH, which if achieved offloads work from guidance from the ship.
As I've suggested previously, the potential commonality between GWS.27 and a notional GWS.32 is the datalink, and ARH seeker.
Arguably the use of fixed AESAs could deliver for both missiles.
All this could tie together but it strays far from FAMS and PAAMS as we know it.
Great work!
On the concept of VLS Sea Dart.
I would imagine the booster would need extra length to gain not just the TVC mechanisms, but the increased fuel to offset the maneuvering from VL to orientation towards the desired direction. Coupled with length in the silo to manage the rocket efflux, this could well take all of the 8ft or so of the deck between launcher and magazine.
The more critical issue is the massive changes to the shipboard systems to deliver worthy capability for VLS Sea Dart.
Unless the SAM is gaining a ARH seeker, and datalink for mid ourselves guidance. Then Illuminating radar is needed for SARH.
On Sea Wolf GWS.27, this was supposed to include ARH, which if achieved offloads work from guidance from the ship.
As I've suggested previously, the potential commonality between GWS.27 and a notional GWS.32 is the datalink, and ARH seeker.
Arguably the use of fixed AESAs could deliver for both missiles.
All this could tie together but it strays far from FAMS and PAAMS as we know it.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
Sikorsky S-30 Naval Bomber/Transport Seaplane Project- Started by hesham
- Replies: 4