Cruisers and Destroyers

[pyro-manic]

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?

[Weaver]

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.

[Hobbes]

You mean Hr. Ms Rotterdam and Witte de With?
AFAIK, those are ordinary helicopter carrier/amphibious assault ships.

[Weaver]

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/

[RP1]

Does this include alternate starting points?



Somewhere on Shipbucket should be one with added detail.

Ah, here is is:



RP1

[Weaver]

RP1 - nice work! 

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?

[dy031101]

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...... 

Or would it really not have mattered too much since we're talking about VLS here?

[Weaver]

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...... 

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?

[MihoshiK]

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:

[GTX]

How about a Type 45 as a Hobart Class Destroyer for the RAN or alternatively, with multiple gun turrets ala Zumwalt class?

Regards,

Greg

[tigercat]

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.

[roughneck06]

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!

[RLBH]

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.

[Weaver]

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.

[RLBH]

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.