InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.

Learn More · Register Now
Welcome to Shipbucket - Archive Forum!. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:

Shipbucket has a new forum! Please go and register there at once. The InvisionFree forum (the one you are looking at now) will no longer be updated. Posting has been disabled on this forum and it now serves only as an archive. Thanks!



Shipbucket Archive


Shipbucket has a new forum! Please go and register there at once. The InvisionFree forum (the one you are looking at now) will no longer be updated. Posting has been disabled on this forum and it now serves only as an archive. Thanks!



Pages: (2) 1 [2]  ( Go to first unread post )

 Northrop Grumman Enforcer FS Design
Eeo
Posted: Jun 29 2010, 11:12 PM


Junior Member


Group: Members
Posts: 167
Member No.: 415
Joined: 9-February 09



Since the Coast Guard doesn't necessarily have to sink anything bigger than a fishing vessel, if ever, and considering the use of the cannon on a coast guard cutter (warning shots, cold shots through engine compartments to stop running fishermen, et cetera), a 57mm would be more than sufficient for their use.
Top
klagldsf
Posted: Jun 30 2010, 06:16 AM


even Colo thinks I'm an asshole


Group: Members
Posts: 1,509
Member No.: 488
Joined: 16-April 09



The main reason why the ship even has a 57mm gun is because of the mission requirements as dictated by the Department of Homeland Security to take out possible dangerous "small vessels" (which the 57mm is very good at). But yes, it makes for useful warning shots when interdicting drug smugglers, too.
Top
Colosseum
Posted: Jun 30 2010, 01:29 PM


hey dudes


Group: Administrators
Posts: 3,684
Member No.: 1
Joined: 4-June 08



gotta keep that DEVIL WEED out of the hands of ARE CHILDREN!
Top
Eeo
Posted: Jul 3 2010, 07:56 PM


Junior Member


Group: Members
Posts: 167
Member No.: 415
Joined: 9-February 09



Or, more likely, stopping foreign fishing vessels from escaping from your territorial waters by firing a shot across their bow in order to get them to heave too.
Top
Wikipedia and Universe
Posted: Jul 9 2010, 01:11 AM


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Member No.: 892
Joined: 25-June 10



QUOTE (erik_t @ Nov 23 2008, 03:37 AM)
My understanding that the Oto 76mm is a bit too lightweight for its caliber, seeking to have absurd on-paper rate of fire in favor of reliability and durability. Furthermore, it's a lot lighter than the Mark 42 we all knew and loved, but it's not that much smaller and lighter than a proper Mark 45, but has much less capability. 76mm is a dhow-buster and possibly short-range (long for a gun) AA. It's not useful for shore bombardment, for example.


If I recall correctly the 76mm was used on the old Pegasus-class hydrofoil FACs.
Top
Wikipedia and Universe
Posted: Jul 9 2010, 01:59 AM


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Member No.: 892
Joined: 25-June 10



QUOTE (layarteb @ Nov 23 2008, 04:35 AM)
QUOTE (enrr @ Nov 22 2008, 12:28 PM)
Nice FAC, maybe with the stealth or dart shield of the 76 it's better

It's entirely fictional on my end and the reason I went with the 57mm over the 76mm was to open up some space for the VLS that I made for it. 57mm is fine for what I've got it doing :).

I did modify it a little bit for fun, I hope this was alright.

(Posted Image)

* replaced 76mm with 57mm stealth [seems bigger than the 76mm when I placed it]
* removed Phalanx
* constructed small VLS behind the 57mm
* added IRIS-T SL
* removed rapid-boom [I think they were] from behind gun
* renamed it up top

I think I will modify and use this for an AU of mine, I'll be sure to give you and Colo credit.

EDIT: Is that a MEADS missile in the VLS?
Top
Wikipedia and Universe
Posted: Jul 26 2010, 05:59 AM


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Member No.: 892
Joined: 25-June 10



This is the final product for my AU.

(Posted Image)

*Made windows trapezoidal
*Added Mk 38 25mm mount at stern
*The weapon just to the right of the 25mm is a minigun I made
*Added LRAD
*Added an AU self-designed anti-VLS cell missile in the VLS
*Applied camo scheme and low-visibility hull number

As for the "VLS-killer", it is designed to use precision guidance to perform top-attack on VLS-cells, and in theory if the missiles in the cells are not hardened against nearby explosions it could cause a chain explosion. For effectiveness these small, relatively cheap missiles would be employed in packs.

Any questions or comments about my modifications or about the VLS-killer would be greatly welcomed and appreciated.
Top
vossiej
Posted: Jul 26 2010, 08:41 AM


The Alternate Universe artist


Group: Premium Members
Posts: 1,686
Member No.: 273
Joined: 21-December 08



I like the idea of targeting the VLS on board enemy ships, it lets the ship destroy itself. But how does the missile know what a VLS is and wat isn't?

Just a minor error, you should place al missiles at the same line shown in the template.
Top
Wikipedia and Universe
Posted: Jul 26 2010, 05:59 PM


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Member No.: 892
Joined: 25-June 10



QUOTE (vossiej @ Jul 26 2010, 08:41 AM)
I like the idea of targeting the VLS on board enemy ships, it lets the ship destroy itself. But how does the missile know what a VLS is and wat isn't?

Just a minor error, you should place al missiles at the same line shown in the template.

Annoying missile alignment now fixed.

As for the anti-VLS, it actually doesn't. By that I mean that it does not independently "seek" VLS the way a Sidewinder seeks heat sources or a HARM seeks radar radiation. Its targeting comes down to location of VLS bank areas, course plotting, GPS course guidance, and humans making decisions at the right time. FOr one you need to identify the target vessel, and figure out for sure whether it has VLS cells and where the banks of VLS are on the ship. This could involve just knowing what the ship class is and looking at layout diagrams, or if this knowledge is not on hand, one could employ the use of and optical intelligence (OPTINT) spy satellite to track and look down at a ship, sending live feed of a good quality top view of the target back to the forces preparing to fire. This way you can confirm that the ship is actually VLS-equipped and where the VLS banks are. Next you would need to plot the course of the ship. If the ship is moving fast and the course erratic, then decision-making would opt out of using these missiles to target the vessel, unless you opt to move your vessel in direct sync with their course. However, if the ship is and has been moving straight and on a steady course and/or is moving at a low cruising speed, then the time would be right to deploy the VLS-killer. Using the velocity of both your vessel and the target vessel, coupled with distance and time, you should be able to plot a course for the missiles using GPS guidance. Better even, if the targets velocity is constant, one could enter in the speed and course of the target into the GPS in order to track where the target is, and if possible using the VLS banks as the tracking point. Next missiles would be launched in groups, to ensure saturation and targeting effectiveness. They would turn around 90 degrees onto a horizontal course, and then make another sharp turn down toward the ship. If he course plotting is sound, they should be on target. If the VLS missiles can cause a chain explosion, it would only take one of the missiles to plunge down vertically into the cell, possibly lodge in the nose of the parked missile, and detonate inside the cell. While the targeting sounds complicated, it may not be as much if the launch platform is a patrol corvette or FAC which can employ smokescreens and get up close to the target. If the situation would make it too difficult to effectively employ the anti-VLS missile (which I call the RGM-175 Bowstaff), the ship could also opt to use the Harpoon to target the area where the VLS banks are located.
Top
erik_t
Posted: Jul 26 2010, 06:25 PM


Heroic Member


Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,111
Member No.: 288
Joined: 21-December 08



I think "optimistic" is a bit kind. Possible in principle, and I would not be supremely confident that it would be effective. The warhead isn't vulnerable in the same sense as (say) a powder magazine, and Mk 41 is designed to withstand a full captive firing per 8-cell block without exterior damage.
Top
blackbuck
Posted: Jul 26 2010, 06:35 PM


Jaffa Cakes!


Group: Premium Members
Posts: 144
Member No.: 734
Joined: 13-February 10



Personally I think a better idea would be a seeker that goes for the Bridge of a vessel.

Methods of guidance (ideas):

WVR the parent ship's EO sensors takes an image of the target, goes through a known database of vessels, if the vessel is in there the missile gets launched goes on it's way to the target where at the terminal phase it attempts to match the image given it with it's own seeker et voila.

BVR much the same but you'd either have to rely on your radar and a SAR image from it or from a third party image of the vessel

If the vessel isn't in the database the sensor operators could manually mark where to aim then send the coordinates to the missile and fire, slower but the missile still gets sent on its way.

Means if I'm correct you'd have both a CCD seeker and GPS/INS guidance.
Top
Wikipedia and Universe
Posted: Jul 26 2010, 07:14 PM


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Member No.: 892
Joined: 25-June 10



QUOTE (erik_t @ Jul 26 2010, 06:25 PM)
I think "optimistic" is a bit kind. Possible in principle, and I would not be supremely confident that it would be effective. The warhead isn't vulnerable in the same sense as (say) a powder magazine, and Mk 41 is designed to withstand a full captive firing per 8-cell block without exterior damage.

Thanks for the input, I'll take all the feedback I can get so as to avoid touting impractical equipment. I don't want to join the list of "NSfags" as Colo calls them who know squat about naval warfare.

As for what you said, perhaps I would change the primary objective of the missile from causing chain explosions to disabling multiple VLS cells, and having incendiary variants of the missiles that can support the initial attack and cause fires aboard the target, which will hopefully cause confusion, distraction, and unrest, opening the target vessel to an RGM-84 attack. In a pinch it could also be used against CIWS mounts where CIWS-penetrating missiles are not readily available. I also consider that on NS, for which this is designed, many people use real-life CIWS mounts on their ships, though many choose mounts that unlike the Phalanx have large top area or at least cover more radial space than the Phalanx (such as a Kashtan, which is wider), so a top-attack would be more feasible if I aimed to take out a CIWS or at least render it inoperable as from a top perspective there would be a larger target. Even if you only took out one of them you would take away coverage and open up an attack envelope for an Antiship missile.
Top
klagldsf
Posted: Jul 26 2010, 07:49 PM


even Colo thinks I'm an asshole


Group: Members
Posts: 1,509
Member No.: 488
Joined: 16-April 09



QUOTE (erik_t @ Jul 26 2010, 06:25 PM)
I think "optimistic" is a bit kind. Possible in principle, and I would not be supremely confident that it would be effective. The warhead isn't vulnerable in the same sense as (say) a powder magazine, and Mk 41 is designed to withstand a full captive firing per 8-cell block without exterior damage.

I was also under the impression that in the event of a catastrophic failure within the block (i.e., the warhead exploding), the explosion would be vented upwards.
Top
blackbuck
Posted: Jul 26 2010, 08:11 PM


Jaffa Cakes!


Group: Premium Members
Posts: 144
Member No.: 734
Joined: 13-February 10



If you had a big enough warhead, a tandem one at that you could make a decent sized hole in the side of the ship/vls then the exploding cells in the VLS could vent out through the hole created too...
Top
Colosseum
Posted: Jul 26 2010, 08:18 PM


hey dudes


Group: Administrators
Posts: 3,684
Member No.: 1
Joined: 4-June 08



Shit, I'd be happy with the missile hitting the target in the first place.
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | Never Built Designs | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (2) 1 [2] 



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Archive