Shipbucket
https://111903.jhzobq.asia/forums/

RE NATO ASW Design Challenge
https://111903.jhzobq.asia/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5737		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  JSB [ December 5th, 2014, 2:49 pm ]
Post subject:  RE NATO ASW Design Challenge
Hi since there are no design challenges running at the moment (Does somebody want to start one ;)) I started to read through the forum and found a few from the past.

I decided to try and enter one that closed well before I joined SB :P

NATO ASW Design Challenge re http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... to+frigate

I have not completed my entry yet but through I would post a WIP for anybody to pull apart

[ img ]

[ img ]

Thanks to acelanceloet/ TimothyC for competition

Heuhen for some underwater parts (and cut out design colouring scheme)
Bombhead for his mast
MConrads for his Sonar/front of the Bridge and NATO flag
Do these count as parts or should I credit ?

JSB
Author:  acelanceloet [ December 5th, 2014, 4:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE NATO ASW Design Challenge
interesting. please explain what we are seeing (for example the meaning of colour codes, propulsion setup type, number of shafts, task, speed, range etc. it is too early to say if it is perfect, but it looks doable and I want to see more :P

btw, check the parts sheets for the 'new' Mk 29 launcher.

EDIT: oh I always look back with pleasure on that challenge, agreed, a new one should start.
Author:  JSB [ December 5th, 2014, 5:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE NATO ASW Design Challenge
So for the NATO ASW challenge
Quote:
Country: NATO member
In commision: 1975-1985
Displacement: 3000-5500 metric tons full load
Speed: Sustained: 20, Sprint 30kts
Range: Designers choice
Primary mission: Anti Submarine Warfare
Secondary missions: Self defence AAW, ASuW
Aviation facilities: Designers choice
Armament: Designers Choice
After a bit of a read I thought about this and decided,

- NATO challenge - I decided to exclude the USN/RN/MN as they are to big and would design there own anyway, this lead me to think that it would be build for a minor member (or a consortium of them, this leads us to think the main point will be cheapness).

- As minor members don't have CV to run about with do they need 30KN ? cant we save loads of cash by making it slower ?

- ASW Weapons, so what In 1980 was the best for ASW ? I would suggest helicopters ? and why not large ones and more than one,
So I want 2 x Sea Kings. after that you will defiantly fit Torpedoes (as they are carried for Helicopter reloads anyway).

My preliminary thoughts,
Country: NATO smaller members (western ones in Atlantic more likely)
In commission: 1975-1985
Speed: Sustained: 20/25kts why got fast when the sea kings can
Range: sufficient to cross the Atlantic with Reforger convoy (maybe with help)
Armament - 2 x Sea Kings, Sea Sparrow SAM (actually Italian Aspide ;) ), 3' gun, ASW Torpedoes, small machine guns on side of bridge
Sensors I have no clue really
Air search - LW 08
Surface search - ZW 03
targeting/directors SAM - WM 20 series
SAT com = Uk (what should I fit) + radios
SONOAR - hull or towed ? (or both)
Main point - CHEAPNESS

The pic shows,
Hangar = D green
engine (DE, generators / motors) = green
Command & weaponing = brown
Sonar = Blue
Storage/tanks = grey
Accommodation = Blue Green

JSB
Author:  Hood [ December 6th, 2014, 9:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RE NATO ASW Design Challenge
That was some challenge and looking back at the entries, that was probably the finest results we've ever had from a challenge.

JSB,
Your design looks a bit cramped to me, the forecastle is very short (=wet), the bridge probably too far forward (too much vertical movement in rough weather = seasickness), the hull might be too small and lively to really operate Sea Kings successfully, also any sonar dome is going to be too close to the bows unless your planning a bow dome?
Author:  JSB [ December 7th, 2014, 6:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE NATO ASW Design Challenge
Updated my WIP

What do you think ? And does my radar fit work (and not cost to much ?) (do I need the STR 180 director as well ?)

What should I fit, Bow/Hull/Towed Sonar ?

Will the Hull work ? I did some spring sharps and it looked ok.

JSB
Author:  heuhen [ December 7th, 2014, 7:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE NATO ASW Design Challenge
JSB wrote:
I did some spring sharps and it looked ok.
JSB
SS will not work on a modern design like this.


a few thing.

a hull sonar is always nice and a must for an ASW ship.
towed sonar is an big bonus for an ASW ship.
ASW helicopters are also an BIG bonus for an ASW ship specially if the helicopter can drop sonar buoys and have it's own ASW torpedoes.
Ship have it's own ASW torpedoes is also an bonuse
having some sort of ASW weaponry is also an bonus (weapons like Terne III and ASROC or similar)

on other note the 76mm gun is a little obscured.
Author:  JSB [ December 8th, 2014, 1:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RE NATO ASW Design Challenge
Updated with WIP top view.

Heuhen,
- Just gone with bow sonar due to cost with 2xSea Kings and fixed ASW TTs
- Re 3 inch gun does it need great arcs ? will it shoot at anything I'm almost thinking of swapping for a 40mm to save cost (how good is the 3' v AA ?) (and how good is Sea Sparrow v surface targets)

Hood,
I have made it a bit longer what do you think ?

Anybody will the radar set up work ? can the egg direct the Sea Sparrows and 3' gun ?

JSB
Author:  TimothyC [ December 8th, 2014, 6:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RE NATO ASW Design Challenge
JSB wrote:
Just gone with bow sonar due to cost with 2xSea Kings and fixed ASW TTs
I'd personally give this ship a much smaller bow unit (something medium to high frequency - cheep and cheerful) and the towed array for deep water work.
JSB wrote:
- Re 3 inch gun does it need great arcs ? will it shoot at anything I'm almost thinking of swapping for a 40mm to save cost (how good is the 3' v AA ?) (and how good is Sea Sparrow v surface targets)
The needed arcs are dependent on how important the gun is to your mission - note the poor arcs on the Perry class. Part of that is because the Perry's gun mount was made a 3" very late in the design process, and because the Perry's main weapons were the Mk 13 on the bow and the two helos aft. Here, you have to decide if better placement is warranted. That said, the 3" was very popular because it offered a lot more reach than a 40mm mount while (and this is my understanding and could be wrong) not costing massively more than a modern 40mm mount.

As for using the 3" in AAA or the Sea Sparrow in anti-surface, the later is going to be better with the main limit being radar horizon - not that a 3" gun can reach out that far in the first place.
JSB wrote:
Anybody will the radar set up work ? can the egg direct the Sea Sparrows and 3' gun ?
It certainly can direct the gun, however every installation I've seen had a dedicated Sea Sparrow guidance unit.
Author:  acelanceloet [ December 8th, 2014, 8:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RE NATO ASW Design Challenge
TimothyC wrote:
JSB wrote:
Anybody will the radar set up work ? can the egg direct the Sea Sparrows and 3' gun ?
It certainly can direct the gun, however every installation I've seen had a dedicated Sea Sparrow guidance unit.
at least the wielingen and the tromp class disagree with you, IIRC. on these ships both the gun and the sea sparrow are guided by one 'egg'
Author:  Thiel [ December 8th, 2014, 10:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RE NATO ASW Design Challenge
Another thing in the 3" favour is tjat basic ammunition is dirt cheap since it's designed to fire the same ammunition as the American 3"/50
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/