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.
