Grays Harbor Designs

As a heli carrier it could work. I'd remove the ski-jump and move the forward Goalkeeper down to just aft of the VLS. It'll give you a much better field of fire and make it much more accessible for maintenance.
I'd also try and install active stabilizer fins to help deal with any top weight issues

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

I'm thinking that this pair of Heli Carrriers each could form the core of an ASuW Hunter/Killer group along with maybe 3-4 frigates, perhaps a destroyer?

anybody know of a decent top view of the GK? I can't seem to find one.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

let me look that GK up. could take some time though, have to search. anyways, if I can't find any separate one, there is one on the camelot drawing I send you with the lynx on, IIRC

I suppose you want to make this ship as build in 1990 somewhere?

problems with the design as of now:
goalkeeper location aft: problematic due to belowdeck spacing. might not fit
bow GK: right now you just cut off part of your helideck, and by that removed the ability to have another helispot over there. maybe shorten the deck a bit and keep the width instead.
the stabilisers could be fitted midships, 1 set, in an break of the bilge keel. like this they are very much in the way for docking and internal space.
I cannot understand your director setup.
I do miss some ECM
why heightened the VLS?
make the elevator only slightly bigger then the largest vehicle you want on it. on this ship, you never want to take 2 at the same time, and you always want the holes in your deck to be as small as possible
the hull looks like an tico hull, maybe even an lengthened tico hull.......

also, the aft GK is still in dutch navy colours
quite a few parts need updates (SPQ-9, TACAN, mk 45)
and keep in mind that this would be an helicopter destroyer, not an helicarrier. primary role would be ASW..... of which I have doubts about usefulness.
I would want some harpoons somewhere
I would want ESSM or NSSM instead of the SM-2 on this ship. maybe even in an mk 48 launcher instead of an mk 41, depending on the time era. I am not that happy that you slammed VLS on it anyways.... the hull is overloaden with top weight as it is.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

RGM-84s flanking the VLS perhaps canted inwards and maybe also raise the 5" slightly. That said perhaps a proper through deck with an enhanced punch would be more suitable than what would in essence be a conversion?

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

acelanceloet wrote:

I guess to answer most of your questions, I could say "I don't know, I just left the original drawing as is". I figured the Mk 41 had a raised shield around it or something, like on the Type 45 destroyers, thats the only thing I could think of.

Pretty much the only thing I changed was moving the forward GK from the original mid supersteructure area to forward of the superstructure, flattened the forward flight deck (removed the ski jump), and took the Harriers off and added helicopters. As for the radars, the only changes I made was to replace older drawings with updated ones. The aft GK is in the same location as the Phalanx that was there.

I'll have to consider the suggested changes to Shiplover's never-build design.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

uhm.....
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... ruance.gif
THIS is the never build design. no VLS, no directors aft, no SPS-49 but an SPS-48, an heli position up front, an smaller elevator.... where does that other stuff come from? IIRC, the original design never was an harrier carrier......

also, the GK has A LOT of deck penetration. it needs an reload room and magazine, while the phalanx has all that on-mount (although some of it is sometimes recessed, as was done here). this is why you cannot just swap an GK and an Phalanx.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Depending on how modern it's actually meant to be I'd of thought that Millennium would be a good alternative to GK namely because of AHEAD even if GK fires substantially faster.

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

I think there are one goalkeeper on this one: http://i1106.photobucket.com/albums/h37 ... G150-6.png

Ok, here is the original drawing as it was shown in Hybrid Carriers (well the original was in Processdings, but this is an even higher res rendering:

What Shiplover had done was he taken this, and modified it considerably.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Is that some sort of ASW mortar on that recessed platform next to the fore-end of flight deck?
Presumably the smaller guns are the same type as the OHP were supposed to have been armed with before they chose the 76mm.

Shipbucket

Who is online