| Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
| Romanina Type 22 alternate http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=802 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | rifleman [ February 19th, 2011, 1:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Romanina Type 22 alternate |
Alternate for more capable Type 22/II |
|
| Author: | Obsydian Shade [ February 19th, 2011, 2:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Romanina Type 22 alternate |
Interesting design, but what are you actually getting out of that extra length/displacement? At the very least, you might want to move that Goalkeeper somewhere it might be more useful, somewhere that isn't sitting behind one of your illuminators. (What happens if it needs to engage a missile off the bow--does the iluminator become a casualty, or does it simply not engage?) Since you are dealing with limited firing arcs anyway, I'd move it to on top of that deckhouse behind the foremast. |
|
| Author: | rifleman [ February 19th, 2011, 2:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Romanina Type 22 alternate |
spambot its in the same position as on the Type22/III and it appears to work OK. Would say it is restricted and the 76mm as he 4.5 would provide the forward defence. Essentially its a "Poor mans" batch 3 |
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ February 19th, 2011, 2:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Romanina Type 22 alternate |
if it is an 'poor man's batch', then you better swap the goalkeeper for another CIWS. the goalkeeper is the most expensive of all CIWS systems currently in use, and although it is (IMO) wort the money, for a cheap ship it is not that suitable. |
|
| Author: | rifleman [ February 19th, 2011, 2:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Romanina Type 22 alternate |
Yes and its also integrated into the type 22/III systems so how man lines of software would have to be modified at what cost to integrate Phalanx. as opposed to using existing software? |
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ February 19th, 2011, 2:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Romanina Type 22 alternate |
sorry to say, but as far as I know that makes no sense. these ships were originally not equipped with the goalkeeper, so the software and hardware would need to be installed anew anyway. also, the goalkeeper is standalone, and can operate independently from the ships sensors, so the integration should not be as complicated. to show the comparison: the goalkeeper costs 15 000 000, the phalanx 30 000 (dollars, I thought it was...) the goalkeeper is slightly more capable, but for an 'cheap' upgrade I suppose you'd not waste, about 10 million. if Romania uses the goalkeeper (as far as I know, it does not) it is something else, but for this ship I would say an similar or the same system as the other ships would be the best. |
|
| Author: | rifleman [ February 19th, 2011, 3:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Romanina Type 22 alternate |
nope the batch 2 wasn't, it wasn't equipped with harpoon either or the 76mm either. When we do these AU's/Personal designs we just c&p systems on not thinking about their integration. the Batch III has the Sea Wolf and Goalkeeper. so could the software for the Type22/IIm be used to save on cost? And deconflict emissions another thing we don't think about either. But would be needed to be done in real world and that costs money so by using systems/software known to be compatible and existant could make savings? |
|
| Author: | bezobrazov [ February 19th, 2011, 3:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Romanina Type 22 alternate |
If you guys allow me, I made an alternate version of the Reg. Ferdinand as well s modernization of the Sheffield if she'd have been retained by theRN. I cannot post them till tomorrow though, if that's ok. I also have made an upgrade on the Batch 3. |
|
| Author: | rifleman [ February 19th, 2011, 3:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Romanina Type 22 alternate |
those should be interesting. Pity the RN sold them of and didn't rebuild them |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|