Shipbucket

Progress on all of my drawings has been painfully slow for a number of reasons. This said I've been knocking about with things, original and "kitbashed". This really falls into the latter category, again that said I'm quite fond of how it has turned out. I'm not entirely sure on my director set-up. Any suggestions to improve it would be appreciated.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/1rJVR.png[img]

One with my set of AU weapons may follow at some point, also kudos if you get the Doctor Who reference.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

for the director sets: the forwardmost one might be good to be replaced with an STIR 240 or 180 (or, if nothing else, an 120) instead of the japanese director type you have on now.

other comments:
- for an euro eagis she kinda looks a lot like an burke
- I suppose those thrusters are retractable? expensive system, but good as auxiliary system..... keep in mind your machinery placement though, and the fact that they are placed near weapon space..... maybe even interfering with them.
- are those bars an prearie masker system? if so, they have to continue more underneath the waterline. if they are not, I suppose they are strengthening girders or something like that.... why?
- the SLQ has an really limited field of vision
- maybe play a bit with the directors an GK on the stern, as right now the top one might be a bit in the smoke..... it is on tolerable levels though.

_________________
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

Amended and hopefully suitably fixed.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

old Burke!

Nothing is off the sodding Burke other than the underwater hull of the existing archived ones.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

5 things left:
- prearie masker: take a look at the newest perry, burke and DG/AEGIS drawings for how this looks under the waterline
- the forward aux drive: why not put it under the GK? also, keep an eye on the hatches in the hull, due to the hull shape these should not have the same size seen from the side. also, note that these are huge (take a look how small they can be on the perry )
- why not switch the SLQ and the mk 38 gun mount?
- the gatekeeper. you have put an 'all mast' setup on board, while you would need the 'small' variant. in other words: you just put 2 masts in your mast
- the TDS. it has an very bad field of vision over there, it should have (more or less) the same coverage as your weapons. also, it is an manned system, so place it somewher your crew can come, most of the time near the bridge IIRC, mitch's new S frigates have them on board, look in the upload session thread

_________________
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's a Euro-Burke (sorry, couldn't resist)! Also, why are you using a Mk38, wouldn't an MLG-27 or something european be more appropriate? Also, why Mk46 and 48 as well?

_________________
Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid. - Albert Einstein
The only stupid questions are the ones that go unasked.
Korean AU

I'll have a look at aforementioned drawings and set to rectifying the issues at some point this week.
Ever tried attacking surface combatants with lightweight torpedoes?

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Is the Mk 48 even capable of being surface launched?
Anyway, since you're making a Euro-Burke you might as well use European systems where possible, so going from what's available from the parts sheets that could be Stingray for the LW torpedo and FV613 for the ship killer.


Of course that still leaves the question of why you're carrying heavy weight torpedoes in the first place.
Surface launched HW ASW torpedoes haven't really been a thing since the sixties AFAIR, so that leaves ASuW, however since torpedoes like the FV613 had a range of about 20,000m you'll be in gun range by the time you can launch them.
I'm aware that some navies, including the RDN retained surface launched anti ship torpedoes all the way up to the nineties, but they were intended to be used against weakly armed amphibs.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

The Russians are still pretty big on putting heavyweight torpedoes on their bigger surface combatants. Just about all their destroyers and cruisers have 21" torpedo tubes. I kind of like the idea of using heavyweight surface torpedoes as a long-range ASW weapon. The Mk 48s range is actually more than that of the ASROC, albeit much slower, of course. I've always envisioned using a long-range heavy torpedoes and ASROCs in conjunction with one another to attack a target from two different directions from one firing platform. In other words, fire the heavy surface torpedo directly at the enemy sub from long range, then land an ASROC behind the sub so it has a hard time figuring out which way to run. That being said, I'm not sure you need two different torpedo systems on one ship.