Shipbucket

a few comments:
* province class:
- sorry to say, but her structure looks horrible.
- the knuckle in the hull under the funnels gives an very weird hull shape , which I cannot think of how it works.
- the APAR and SMART-L are very high, and will cause stability issues unless your ship has an beam of more then 20 meters.
- 2 phalanxes seem a bit much for an canadian ship, IIRC all had just one + an AA capable gun.
- bridge structure looks a tad cramped.
- try to keep cutouts like doors and rhib bays above the main deck, so above the hull-structure line. below that the ship is more shaped (especially in the bow) and it cut through important strength parts.
- the only ship I can think of with an full length Mk 41 VLS amidships is the ivar huitfeldt, which has the VLS 1-2 decks higher then fore-aft VLS ships. this is to clear the engines and other important parts you want to have in your lower hull exactly there.
- she seems a bit bow heavy
- unless the ship is diesel powered, you lack air intakes.

*fraser class:
- the dutch navy considers 80 meters the minimum for helicopter operations on the north sea, and 90-100 for the atlantic. as the dutch and canadian design ideas match up a lot, I doubt this would work for them.
- if you really want an helideck, I suggest going for an eagleeye or camcopter
- are you trying to be an fast boat or are you trying to be an OPV with interceptor craft on board?
- in any case, your engines will be there where you have your VLS. if they are not, your ship is slower then 12 knots and would lay deeper in the stern.

_________________
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

Still on my phone mind, but I plan to have changes incorporate within 6-8 hours. So to point-for-point ace's comments...
I know, I pity the men who have to design good-looking bridges for a living, if such a man exists.
A good bit of the hull and bow will be reworked, don't worry.
Acknowledged, will try to move them down.
These are new build ships, it'd be a shame to lose one to a bootleg Iranian Shipwreck. But if you really think the forward Phalnax is Uncanadian I'll remove it.
Bridge is getting a total redux
Since everyone thinks that my engines would be cramped by the hill and VLS I'm stretching it between the rear mast and VLS.
Mentioned before, and I'll lengthen the bow as I said.
I'll ad more air intakes if you don't think that's enough for the two LM2500s.

Fraser class is getting a massive tone-down and redux. It's designed to replace our current Kingston class, which are essentially from my understanding OPVs on a minesweeper hull, armed with a second world war era Bofors and crewed by the naval reserve. So yes, a large tone- down is in order.

_________________
Probably posting from and iPhone and naval terms befuddle it. If I say a ships' hill, you know what I meant.

You can also do what Denmark does and have VLS on top of the engines, though this isn't ideal either.

lengthening her is not gonna solve the problem either, as the problem is that it is too low in the hull, piercing both strenght deck, limiting midships fuel, storage, manning and machinery space (all stuff you don't put in the bow and stern, or at least not all of it)
the fact is: heighten the VLS above the engineroom or moving it forward/aft.

_________________
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

I don't know of my hull is deep enough for that, but stretching the ship a few meters to make things less tight and confusing isn't a huge deal.
How much would I need to raise it? I'm not opposed to that idea.

I may even rename this thread Canadian Surface Combatants when I'm finished, and draw everything from the canceled LPDs to pipe dreams of nuclear powered Canadian aircraft carriers. I've never really tried LPDs or carriers, so it'll be good practice.

_________________
Probably posting from and iPhone and naval terms befuddle it. If I say a ships' hill, you know what I meant.

1-2 decks, such as on the danish frigates klagldsf suggests, would be enough. you would have them placed in the superstructure then, so no issues with hull depth, you only have to keep an eye on stability.

_________________
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

It would also help make the bridge look less stupid if I made a few tweaks, do I'll go that route.

_________________
Probably posting from and iPhone and naval terms befuddle it. If I say a ships' hill, you know what I meant.

It wouldn't be in the hull; the VLS itself would actually be a part of the superstructure. I don't know if it's ideal to have tac-length Mk 41 incorporated as superstructure though; on the Danish frigates it's about half-superstructure, half-hull structure. Plus their engines are a bit aft-mounted too.

http://shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Re ... tfeldt.PNG
http://shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Re ... BSALON.gif

It also depends on what exactly is the air defense mission nature Canada is looking at. A cheaper phased array set and ESSMs might suit Canada just fine, in which case having something akin to Mk48 lying on top of the engines would be less of a deal.

We're looking to replace the area defense abilities of the Iroquois we're retiring, and that means Standard 2 ER. However, once the replacements for the Iros are built it would be conceivable to have a second flight of cheaper ships of the same class.

_________________
Probably posting from and iPhone and naval terms befuddle it. If I say a ships' hill, you know what I meant.

Updates

_________________
Probably posting from and iPhone and naval terms befuddle it. If I say a ships' hill, you know what I meant.