Shipbucket

And the catapult on the left of the hangar... is for small UAVs?

The position of the phalanx of stern is absurd...

Colombamike...is right...a newer large and unnecessary "fitted for but not with" warship.

To me it appears that the RAN's would have 8 new frigates and 20 OPV/OCV from 2000 tons...source: Defence white paper and defense capability plan force 2030....

BRgds

I agree the aft Phalanx needs to be on top of the hangar.

I believe it's a launcher for the Scan Eagle UAV, one of the cheaper UAVs on the market.
The consensus around the net seems to be that it'll be moved to the hangar roof once detailed design gets under way.
Yes, yes, very much no, probably.
And let's not put words in each others mouths. Colombamike never claimed that they were unnecessary.
And the fact that they are large aren't necessarily a bad thing. Just because something is big doesn't mean it's more expensive.
For example: Back in the mid-nineties, the the RDN began to look around for a potential replacement for the Niels Juel class corvettes.
Now, the Niels Juel class was build to replace the 60ies era Peder Skram class frigate of 2400 tons. When the initial design work for the the Niels Juel started, some admiral (The name escapes me) made the boast that with modern technology, they could make ship just as powerful as the frigates with half the displacement. The government, making the same mistake that you seem to make, thought that small=cheap and told the navy that they had 1200 tons to work with. They managed to do it, just about, but they had to use some rather expensive solutions to make it all fit.
Anyway, back to the replacement ship. The Peder Skram class had been retired in 1990 at the end of the Cold War, so the RDN considered it to be the benchmark for the new ship. A couple of options was looked at, including a 1000t version of the SF300 and a modernized Niels Juel. Further into the study, an enlarged Niels Juel of roughly 2000tons was considered. It were to have an equivalent weapons and sensor fit and manning would be roughly the same. What wasn't the same was the price. Accounting for inflation, it came in a whooping 7% cheaper and it would have been slightly faster and have longer range.

_________________
“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.

I'd think not, as it's too big (A Scan Eagle can be launched off of a Mk V SOC) The size fits more with the Fire Scout or similar sized UAV.

Edit: Can we get the images made into links please. I have a monitor that is 1920 wide, and they still broke the page formatting.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

I totally agree with Thiel here. Hull steel is cheap. What makes a ship expensive are the systems installed. If building a big frigate 'fitted for, but not with', you have aship with a growth margin which can be utilised at a later date for installing systems, or upgrading the ship, with newer systems when they become available. The idea was tried with the USN Spruance class (I'm well aware of all the criticism this class of warships evokes, but non the less the idea was a sound one)
Making the ship bigger enables her to have finer lines, hence more fuel economy, or higher speeds, and an added bonus of more space for bunkers as well as other systems. Most modern warships are more volume critical than anything else.
So to sum it up I believe that making the ships larger is a beter deal than trynig to save money(?) by making them smaller.

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"

I tell you that these vessels are unnecessary, not colombamike

I believe that this tendency to build a few large vessels rather than many medium-sized vessels, is wrong ...with a few large ships at sea provides poor coverage and the fleet is more vulnerable.
I do not large ship costs little, why you need more systems or larger systems (I'm not talking about weapons) for their operation.

And Spruance....I think a bad example....although large, were all sunk and are not updated ... maybe if they were smaller it would have a second life in the US Navy or other navy....

When all navy will be built by a few large vessels ... these ships will stay in port because they do not always expendable....

BRgds

It is definitely a Scan Eagle, I should known as I operate them! Its on its purpose designed Superwedge launcher, but graphicly modified! I dont see either the recovery system, the Skyhook, or the directional tracking antenna. At present the ScanEagle is operated of a variety of USN vessels, ranging from the Mk V, up to LHD's, as well as DDG's. They just use the generic landbased equipment and strap it down. Their has been some design work to add as a feature to the Aussie Armidale patrol boats, but nothing solid yet.
Pics in my photobucket:
http://s896.photobucket.com/albums/ac16 ... %20afloat/

_________________
cheers
Ben of Oz

The drawing clearly shows a Scan Eagle UAV on the catapult on the port side. The starboard side Phalanx would be for stability reasons. If they mounted it higher for a clear firing arc to aft then that would cause a weight problem. Which indicates this isn’t a particularly well thought out design. I very much doubt the RAN will ever buy these ships because we already have a 6,000 tonne frigate design under production in Australia: the Spanish-American F100.

Oh God. I wasn't paying enough attention, I was talking about the Hanger, not the launcher.

Yes that is the launcher for the Scan Eagle.

That's what I get for posting right after I get up.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Superb scans Philbob.Its about time one of the big game developers made a updated naval warfare sim some along the lines of fleet command using these sort of quality graphics As for the ship it's got classy looking lines and would be piss easy to draw.