Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 5 of 13  [ 126 posts ]  Go to page « 13 4 5 6 713 »
Author Message
heuhen
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 13th, 2014, 1:13 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
And some modification to the funnel could help the looks. For example the air vents.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
sabotage181
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 14th, 2014, 11:02 pm
Offline
Posts: 181
Joined: May 16th, 2013, 9:23 pm
Lebroba wrote:
I'm really liking this ship!
Thank you Lebora, I'm always happy for complements :)
Blackbuck wrote:
I honestly don't get why you need so many 30mm mounts. Most destroyers in the world only carry 2 20-30mm mounts...
Thank you Balckbuck.(the following statement is pure alternate historical fiction) To answer your question, this ship came up for funding in congress right about the time Iran was yacking about its swarm tactics and a couple of senators wanted to make sure this ship would have the capability to defend (as much as possible anyway) against this threat. One certain (very liberal) senator mention the same fact that you did, stating that it only needed two like all the other navies in the world. The chairman of the subcommittee (a certain very pro-defense senator) said "OK, if the rest of the worlds navies have two this ship will have 4 to 6". The liberal senator looked very agitated :x and stormed out of the room without voting...... 8-)
Lebroba wrote:
Maybe this hull will be stationed in an area that requires alot of transits through straits. You could probably drop down to 2, that would save you having to berth and feed another 5 or 6 Gunner's Mates.

EXACTLY correct Lebroba!!! AND you are correct about gunners mates. they are hard headed knuckle draggers, and they smell kind of funny...so I'm going to decrease the amount of mounts from 6 to 4 :) Thank you sir for your comments
heuhen wrote:
And some modification to the funnel could help the looks. For example the air vents.
Done and done. please let me know if the new ones are better, and thank you for all your help on my little frigate sir

ok, here's the latest. Silly me!! All this time I thought those 30mm mounts were millennium guns, so imagine how surprised when I seen actual millennium guns on another drawing :) Anyway, as you can see, I corrected that AND dropped 2 of the mounts. Also changed the intakes as per Heuhen's suggestion.

[ img ]

I'm getting to the detailing part of the process, which is my favorite part :), so please let me know if there is anything that needs changing.

Thank you all again for your continued interest in my threads. I really enjoy this website :)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Lebroba
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 15th, 2014, 6:37 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 255
Joined: May 20th, 2012, 11:20 am
Location: Yokosuka, Japan
Looking pretty slick!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 15th, 2014, 10:21 am
Offline
Posts: 7233
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Now this looks 110% better than the original. You've retained the smart lines but now it looks like a real warship with presence. Perhaps not cheap and mass-producible but certainly a decent FFG.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 15th, 2014, 10:30 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
I agree with hood, it doesn't look too bad.
the SPY-5 is not ideally set up from an view around point of view, but from an technical perspective this might be better. just a few comments left:
- the VLS forward has no cover around it, as I see the grey of the belowdeck part. the system is mostly flush with the deck or has an angled cover around it.
- the RAM launchers are turned around the wrong way.
- why the helideck lowered half a deck? this is not that good from a space and strength perspective, but it can be done if it has advantages in other fields, I think.
- there might be some problem with the position of the harpoons and the space the air intakes take of it inside that structure.
- why not use the actual block that was underneath the ram launchers, https://dl.dropbox.com/u/63276563/Mk%20 ... uncher.png ?
- the bow looks a bit weird, especially when compared with for example the perry
- the engines coolwater inlets seem to be a bit forward of the actual engines, is that intentional?
- the SLQ-32 looks blocked in by that hole behind it. is it outside of it? if so, the hole can be removed. if it is inside of it, the field of vision of the system is horrible.
- I am not certain about the decoys on the funnel platform. reloading them seems hell that way.
- I might switch the RAM and the millenium gun on both positions, and give you 2 of each instead of 3 guns.

all in all, just small tidbits :P

_________________
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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colombamike
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 15th, 2014, 5:09 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1359
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 6:18 am
Location: France, Marseille
waiting a much improved drawing


Last edited by Colombamike on February 21st, 2014, 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ghost792
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 16th, 2014, 1:47 am
Offline
Posts: 34
Joined: September 8th, 2010, 12:09 am
I don't know if the Millennium gun is appropriate for the 1998 era. Design work started in 1995, but it didn't enter service until 2003. I guess it depends on when the ship is planned to actually enter service. That said, LockMart was the US partner for the gun and they demonstrated it for the USN on Sea Slice in 2005, so it's not fair to exclude it from consideration because it's "European". Heck, the 76mm used by the Perrys was "European", too.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Karle94
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 16th, 2014, 2:56 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2129
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 3:07 pm
Location: Norseland
The Penguin anti-ship missile is also European, didn`t stop the USN from using that one.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Philbob
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 16th, 2014, 5:19 am
Offline
Posts: 586
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 3:45 am
In US use it was a helicopter weapon not ship based.

_________________
Supreme Commander of the Astrofleets


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colombamike
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 16th, 2014, 9:03 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1359
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 6:18 am
Location: France, Marseille
sabotage181 wrote:
I want to make this ship look like it was designed by the same group of people who did The Burke. Maybe I should have choose 90 instead of 98 :?
US Frigate designs style/philosophy 1977-mid 1990s

Maybe the 1st US FFG design with VLS, 1977
[ img ]

DDX2, a super-frigate design, 1978 studies
[ img ]

1984-1987 US large corvette studies
[ img ]

1984-1986 US FFG design
[ img ]
(the monohull design look very interesting !)

1989 Nato frigate (US shipyards design)
[ img ]
Another US version of the late 1980s/early 1990s nato frigate
[ img ]

Two US FFG design, maybe from 1988-1996 ?, with Burke style tripod mast
[ img ]
[ img ]
(these boths designs look very interesting for a early 1990s US FFG design)

A very interesting US design (for export), designed by 1990/1996 ?
[ img ]

Improved SAAR V with aegis
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 5 of 13  [ 126 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 13 4 5 6 713 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]