The Federal Monarchy Of Tol Galen

I got some Chinese vibe from it.

_________________
[ img ]

Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!

That is one impressive looking flagship. The design is a little 'brasher' than some of your previous works, but it looks good and takes the Arleigh Burke design trend to the next level.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Oooh, interesting. Naturally, I have thoughts. In (mostly) no particular order...

First and foremost, I think this is extremely well-executed, even better than your usual standard. I really like the way the comms/EO/horizon search mast came together. And I'm glad somebody else is getting as picky/neurotic about comms and ESM as I am ; )

Note on the deck-edge antennas, IIRC Friedman specifies twenty four to a ship. I think these were in three groupings of eight, along the beams and on the stern. I welcome corrections on this point. In any case, I think they're performing skywave interferometry, and I can't envision any purpose in having more than a single interferometric array per axis. There's no way they'd be accurate enough in bearing to get meaningful range information with such a short baseline. I also don't think there's any purpose in having multiple bands of antennas for this use (at least the USN didn't think so). Notably, not all bands are subject to skywave transmission in the first place!
As a matter of practical execution, I can only judge the forward Centurion launcher. It would seem maddening to reload in this position. Were it all up to me, I'd probably put both launchers outboard of the Nulka boxes (where they can share ready-storage boxes), moving the RWS to abeam the aft Goalkeeper. You have the full ship beam available at the Nulka location, so I think this should work. As a bonus, SRBOC would bloom from closer to the center of the ship, which seems like it ought to make chaff a bit more effective.
My usual lifeboat complaint - if these were the typical 25-man USN Mk 7, you'd have enough lifeboats aboard for 700 crew... I don't remember the exact specifics of the overage requirement, but I think regulations would allow at least 600 crew with this many lifeboats configured in this way (it's 110% capacity over N, and all-but-the-largest-cluster less than N, but I don't remember what N is). It seems unlikely you envision a crew this large.
As an aesthetic matter, if it's worth enclosing the forward mini-mission-bays, I'd try to duplicate them exactly for the ship's boats (probably almost mirrored about the RAS kingpost and SSMs, abeam the aft funnel). Then you can play part commonality games and move things around in service as necessary.
The core capability of the WR-21 is more efficient operation at part load. I think a COGLAG arrangement like this would make sense only if the WR-21 were replaced with LM2500 (or similar), or if the WR-21 gearboxes had motor-alternators sufficient to pull ship-service load and/or run split-screw operation at low power. In the latter case, I'd probably only retain a single LM500 for emergency generating capacity (probably aft, as on a Burke).
This is the big one, but probably the most controversial, since the radars are not well-defined. But I think your air search capability is a little anemic. The L-band units are likely equivalent to the MEADS L-band surveillance radar, or the ELM-2090U. Both are ~3m square, more or less. It's difficult to say exactly what sort of range these systems can achieve vis-à-vis AMDR, but the latter certainly supports a longer-range missile than MEADS envisions. All told, it's my handwavey wild-ass-guess that you've got approximately EASR search capability in both L-band and S-band, so as good as a Flight II Burke (a little better, since it's multi-band), but rather inferior to Flight III. Although in some scenarios against LO targets, you might be plainly better. But...

The big CEAMOUNT installations definitely complicate this picture further. For a time, the USN envisioned an X-band High-Powered Discriminator radar for (go figure) ABM target discrimination, and at first glance I'd guess it was about as big as your 6' CEAMOUNT. Such a powerful unit allows you to cue off of (effectively) lower-confidence air search tracks (recalling all radar detection is a probabilistic question that requires specifying some detection threshold above background noise). So you might be able to use the CEAMOUNT sets to query possible targets that your EASR considers potentially interesting, but a USN EASR would consider to fall within background noise. Your final solution calls to mind the WW2-era Royal Navy search radar separate from a target indication radar, although of course it's much more complicated than that. Notably, for some time the USN envisioned the Zumwalts with L-band and X-band phased arrays, the former for search and the latter for most targeting data. Was this driven to some extent by the littoral question? I don't know... I know S-band is more vulnerable to ducting and some fun near-shore phenomena (although more advanced computers apparently mostly licked this question by the late 1980s or early 1990s).

All that said, your mast-top X-band installation is definitely rather feeble as far as shipboard radars go, probably worse than F-35 in air search. Maybe that's still good enough and/or better than a heavier installation lower down... I don't know, and those who do aren't really talking ; )
Damn, that is a sexy screw.

Firstly thanks for the kind words everyone.

---

Quote:

First and foremost, I think this is extremely well-executed, even better than your usual standard. I really like the way the comms/EO/horizon search mast came together. And I'm glad somebody else is getting as picky/neurotic about comms and ESM as I am ; )

Thanks, it's not all about the pew-pew dakka-dakka.

Quote:

Note on the deck-edge antennas, IIRC Friedman specifies twenty four to a ship. I think these were in three groupings of eight, along the beams and on the stern. I welcome corrections on this point. In any case, I think they're performing skywave interferometry, and I can't envision any purpose in having more than a single interferometric array per axis. There's no way they'd be accurate enough in bearing to get meaningful range information with such a short baseline. I also don't think there's any purpose in having multiple bands of antennas for this use (at least the USN didn't think so). Notably, not all bands are subject to skywave transmission in the first place!

If that is the case then it does simply things somewhat. Retaining the amidships arrays P&S then? (It was a derp on my half anyway that the superfluous ones were missing an antenna each anyway).

Quote:

As a matter of practical execution, I can only judge the forward Centurion launcher. It would seem maddening to reload in this position. Were it all up to me, I'd probably put both launchers outboard of the Nulka boxes (where they can share ready-storage boxes), moving the RWS to abeam the aft Goalkeeper. You have the full ship beam available at the Nulka location, so I think this should work. As a bonus, SRBOC would bloom from closer to the center of the ship, which seems like it ought to make chaff a bit more effective.

That's certainly something I can look into doing and it does raise a good point about having a combined ready-use magazine for the Centuriouns. The Bushmasters being moved aft would also be less restricted in their field-of-view by the giant deck-house immediately forward of them by being located well aft.

Quote:

My usual lifeboat complaint - if these were the typical 25-man USN Mk 7, you'd have enough lifeboats aboard for 700 crew... I don't remember the exact specifics of the overage requirement, but I think regulations would allow at least 600 crew with this many lifeboats configured in this way (it's 110% capacity over N, and all-but-the-largest-cluster less than N, but I don't remember what N is). It seems unlikely you envision a crew this large.

That would equate to around eight per-side then? (assuming 30-man rafts, which was my ballpark)

Quote:

As an aesthetic matter, if it's worth enclosing the forward mini-mission-bays, I'd try to duplicate them exactly for the ship's boats (probably almost mirrored about the RAS kingpost and SSMs, abeam the aft funnel). Then you can play part commonality games and move things around in service as necessary.

That's not a bad idea, it also gives rise to some alternative decisions. The Bushmasters for instance could be placed atop the rear bay structure rather than abeam the SAMOS mount which would allow them to keep their forward firing angles that would otherwise be blocked by the new bay structure. Another option is to keep the Centurions split but to concentrate them amidships atop the boat bays.

Quote:

The core capability of the WR-21 is more efficient operation at part load. I think a COGLAG arrangement like this would make sense only if the WR-21 were replaced with LM2500 (or similar), or if the WR-21 gearboxes had motor-alternators sufficient to pull ship-service load and/or run split-screw operation at low power. In the latter case, I'd probably only retain a single LM500 for emergency generating capacity (probably aft, as on a Burke).

Ideally I'd like to keep the WR-21s to maintain commonality with other platforms, so assuming an arrangement similar to Northrop's Hybrid Drive, the 4 + 1 arrangement you mention would most likely be the best way to go. That said, shifting the service generator aft would interfere with the placement of the rear SATCOM nest. The alternative would seem to be to keep it forward of the forward-engine room.

Quote:

This is the big one, but probably the most controversial, since the radars are not well-defined. But I think your air search capability is a little anemic. The L-band units are likely equivalent to the MEADS L-band surveillance radar, or the ELM-2090U. Both are ~3m square, more or less. It's difficult to say exactly what sort of range these systems can achieve vis-à-vis AMDR, but the latter certainly supports a longer-range missile than MEADS envisions. All told, it's my handwavey wild-ass-guess that you've got approximately EASR search capability in both L-band and S-band, so as good as a Flight II Burke (a little better, since it's multi-band), but rather inferior to Flight III. Although in some scenarios against LO targets, you might be plainly better. But...

The big CEAMOUNT installations definitely complicate this picture further. For a time, the USN envisioned an X-band High-Powered Discriminator radar for (go figure) ABM target discrimination, and at first glance I'd guess it was about as big as your 6' CEAMOUNT. Such a powerful unit allows you to cue off of (effectively) lower-confidence air search tracks (recalling all radar detection is a probabilistic question that requires specifying some detection threshold above background noise). So you might be able to use the CEAMOUNT sets to query possible targets that your EASR considers potentially interesting, but a USN EASR would consider to fall within background noise. Your final solution calls to mind the WW2-era Royal Navy search radar separate from a target indication radar, although of course it's much more complicated than that. Notably, for some time the USN envisioned the Zumwalts with L-band and X-band phased arrays, the former for search and the latter for most targeting data. Was this driven to some extent by the littoral question? I don't know... I know S-band is more vulnerable to ducting and some fun near-shore phenomena (although more advanced computers apparently mostly licked this question by the late 1980s or early 1990s).

I am fond of CEAFAR, not least because of the sheer modularity the system appears to have, though the brute force of AMDR is something to behold in itself. Ideally I'd like to maintain S and L-band coverage on the larger arrays which would seemingly rule out AMDR as a direct plant (unless Raytheon know something I don't). All I can really do to try and improve the situation is enlarge the existing arrays, which itself raises the issue of re-siting them without negatively impacting them...

As for using CEAMOUNT in that way, that's certainly something to think about, given that there's three of the full sets available at any one time assuming you've not been shot at yet, which I suppose is why you'd be looking at a spurious track anyway...

Quote:

All that said, your mast-top X-band installation is definitely rather feeble as far as shipboard radars go, probably worse than F-35 in air search. Maybe that's still good enough and/or better than a heavier installation lower down... I don't know, and those who do aren't really talking ; )

Having it as high as it is has to have advantages with extending its horizon I'd have thought, though if the set is too weak to really make use of it then there's little point in it being there... I suppose you could always move to four larger and / or higher-power faces than the six smaller ones (it's never going to be a fixed face SPQ-9B though).

Quote:

Damn, that is a sexy screw.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Thumbs up from me, I really like the new arrangement.

To be clear, I think L+S search is justifiable/defensible, as is the tiny X-band radar high on the mast, it's just probably not the set of choices I'd make. If anything, I think you could keep the current arrangement and downsize one of the CEAMOUNT installations. IIRC, even a 1m array is supposed to be good for Standard-MR.

WR-21 for commonality makes sense, and a single LM500 is probably fine. Locating it forward might be tricky - you need to be clever about where to pipe the exhaust.

Is anywhere top galen's systems, arms, antenna's ???

This is the current part sheet I have which I assume is what you're looking for?

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Thanks Do you draw a new ship or new project?

I'm currently working on various things as time permits, there will probably be a few drawings to come early in the new year.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Shipbucket

Who is online