• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Electronics for 280 replacement

aesop081 said:
The Ticonderoga were designed to carry LAMPS-III helos ( aka SH-60) which are considerable smaller than you CH-124.  Our 280 destroyers can carry 2 CH-124s can they not ?

Right, I was just pointing out how such a large ship has a relatively small flight deck. Our 280s can carry 2 helos, they haven't in recent memory other than Op Unison due to aircraft avail. SHOPs states that in order for another helo to use your deck, even if it's your second one, you must have a suitable spare deck or airfield ashore, be capable of HIFR with your ship as well as one in company or be capable of folding and putting the second helo in the hangar in order to recover your own helo in the event of an emergency.

Armymatters, I jumped the gun a little there, 2 helos would be fine, I was just pointing out that they couldn't both be on the flight deck at the same time.

As for Sea State, no where in SHOPs (Shipborne Helicopter Operating Procedures) does it say the limits on Sea State. The HHRSD/RAST system was designed with a pitch and roll limit, not a sea state limit. It's designed to securely hold the helo on deck up to 9 degrees of pitch and 31 degrees of roll. The ship can alter course to get a steadier deck no matter what the sea state is.
 
OFF topic but thanks Inch...i'm deep into studying MPA - HELO coop right now so your post is prety helpful  :salute:
 
Again armymatters why are you trying to reinvent the wheel? There are plenty of decent off the shelf designs we could get without making this unpalatable to the tax payer anymore then it has to be....
 
Right, so we are going to restore the second Cyclone for 2 CH-148's. In short, the ship will look like a copy of the Italian/French Horizon class frigates:
FS_Forbin_1.jpg

Adrea_Doria_1.jpg

Just remove the funnels, remove one of the 76mm guns and center the remaining gun, put in the MK41 VLS on the bow instead of the SYLVER launcher, install the RAM on the bridge, the Phalanx on the hangar, and replace the 8 Exocet launchers with 8 Harpoon in the middle, and we are done.
It will be a very clean and stealthy design, as seen, with covers on the side Zodiacs, etc to minimize radar signature.

Ex-Dragoon, I am not suggesting we should design the ship from sratch. All I am suggesting is that we take the basic hull form of an existing design that is being built that is of the same size, and then drop in what we want in terms of armament and equipment. The Horizon class frigate provides a good hull design that has plenty of space for what we wish to drop in. With some minor modifications (removal of the funnel, enlargement of hangar, installation of system to vent and cool the gas at the water line instead), we can get a futureproof design. Some of the existing design currently avaiable are not suitable in terms of armament or equipment loadout, but the hull form can be used as the basis for our own design.

In short, I am modifying the wheel, not reinventing it.
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
Hoe do you know its a good hull design? This fact or an opinion?

It meets the size requirements of the specification list we put out, while having some room to spare. Remember I specified a ship with a crew size of about 270 with some extra room for additional people, and displaces 6,500 tons. In short, this is purely opinion, but it meets the design criterias.
 
That does not mean it will succeed as a class.

You have a perfectly good class here, all you need is a hull extension for extra command staff and you have an excellent flagship and area air defence ship as the SCC seems to want. With the hull extension in the rest of the class you can optimize for other roles.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f124/

The F123 class is detailed below:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/brand/
 
I would rather have a ship that is from the start bigger than use a smaller design and stretching it. Stretching a design may pose more problems than just using a larger design and installing the weapon suites we want to have. Horizon is compared to Sachen 3 metres beamier, 10 metres longer, has 3000nm more range, and over twice the endurance at sea, while having the same top speed (29 knots) and the same cruise speed.

Edit: While the Horizon class frigates are newer, watch FS Forbin, as she was launched last year, and she is due for delievery sometime this year. The Italian ship Andrea Doria was also launched last year, but she is due sometime early next year.
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
Sachen and Brandenburg are already proven designs...Horizon is not.

According to DCN (from this PDF: http://www.dcn.fr/us/medias/docs/DP_mafForbin_100305_uk.pdf), FS Forbin is due for her first sea run this Spring, and she will be delievered this December.
 
Armymatters said:
According to DCN (from this PDF: http://www.dcn.fr/us/medias/docs/DP_mafForbin_100305_uk.pdf), FS Forbin is due for her first sea run this Spring, and she will be delievered this December.

That doesnt make it a proven design
 
Armymatters said:
True, but the design will be proven by the end of this year, according to her builders.

Well we'll just see what comes out of sea trials and acceptance trials..........takes more than a year to prove a design sound  ::)

Use your head a little
 
aesop081 said:
Well we'll just see what comes out of sea trials and acceptance trials..........takes more than a year to prove a design sound  ::)

Use your head a little

Alright (grabs a cup of coffee), let's wait.  ;)
 
Armymatters said:
Bruce, this is conjectural ship design is hereby named The Army.ca Iroquois Destroyer Replacement Design.

In short, we are all laying down the specs together, and I am trying to make them all fit together (with tons of help from you all).

We who?  Aren't you jumping the gun by presuming you have some form of concensus?  What makes you think "we" want an army.ca label on your pet ship design?


Armymatters said:
Just remove the funnels, remove one of the 76mm guns and center the remaining gun, put in the MK41 VLS on the bow instead of the SYLVER launcher, install the RAM on the bridge, the Phalanx on the hangar, and replace the 8 Exocet launchers with 8 Harpoon in the middle, and we are done.

In short, I am modifying the wheel, not reinventing it.

What is this? Pimp My Boat? or West Coast Frigates?


You've loaded your design ....

Tomahawk Land Attack Missile
Standard II surface-to-air missile
SEASPARROW missiles (vs. missiles and surface units)
Torpedoes
Anti-cruise missile missiles
76 mm "main" gun
Harpoon anti-ship missiles
25/27 mm "secondary" guns

Countermeasure suite


Canadian Towed Array Sonar (CANTASS)
UAV capability
etc.,etc.

Hel

"stealth" design


Quite the all applications shopping list. Perhaps you need to go back to basics and fill in the parts you haven't explained:

What role will this ship have? Specifically, why one vessel that tries to do everything? Where is the case study supporting that approach? Could some of these roles be better executed by different mission specific ships, perhaps on a common hull for compatibility? You're talking about a very expensive solution for various missions that may not be compatible. You have not yet demonstrated that this is the most efficient and economical solution.

Is this ASW?
Is this a ship to ship combat platform?
Is this an air defence platform?
Is this a long range attack platform?
Is this a C2 ship?
Is it a patrol vessel for picketing and boarding inspections?

Or will it do all of the above at a reduced capacity because in each case it's dragging extra baggage?

Ship design, like tank design, doesn't start with "I like that one, let's see what else we can strap on her" - it starts with "what do we need a ship to do?"  You haven't answered that question, yet you're creating a wish list for a "replacement" vessel that would be a very different beast from what you are suggesting it should replace.

Start by demonstrating the role supporting, and requirement for, the capabilities. Then move on to developing one, or more, vessel designs that meet the requirements most effectively.



 
Sorry, Staff College spent so much time and energy forcing that Operational Planning Process into my head, now I just can't get it out.
 
Michael O'Leary said:
Sorry, Staff College spent so much time and energy forcing that Operational Planning Process into my head, now I just can't get it out.

Micheal......for shame....for shame
 
Back
Top