Shipbucket

The fact of the matter is that three or four NATO nations built FAC-Ms in this sort of era, and I think all of them shipped the Oto76.

Heuhen, if you're telling me I should call is a corvette, then I'll call it a corvette. Ship nomenclature varies depending on the country. The US would call this a missile patrol boat of some kind. Other navies would call this a FAC, missile boat, or corvette. I may be able to low the center of mass more; I won't know until I work on the exact fit for the internals.

_________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat.
Fortune favours the bold.

nah. I am just worried on the top-weight and that it would be over-armed.


While other praise, and give some small advises here and there... someone need to be an dick and ask all those irritating questions, this time, it was my time to do so. so keep going, just make sure she doesn't look to modern, compared to the era she is build in.

and for FAC, corvette to go up against Soviet... Scandinavia have high experience in that area, we was basically the first line of defense between Soviet Northern fleet and the Atlantic ocean. Norway had for example small submarines, build for one task only, take out as many Soviet vessel in a short time and have the capability to hold a Soviet fleet... occupied. Coastlines defended by small fast attack crafts with guns, torpedoes and missiles.

example of vessel Norway build to go up against Soviet fleet's:
http://shipbucket.com/Real%20Designs/No ... 0Storm.png
(Armed with: 76mm Bofors TAK 76 and Penguin missiles)
and:
http://shipbucket.com/Real%20Designs/No ... 0Snogg.png

The USN were working with stealth designs in the early 1980s for a FAC. It was called the Sea Knife, I believe. Remember that compared to most other FAC, I have an extra 20m in length.

_________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat.
Fortune favours the bold.

do note that for planing ships (and you want a fast attack craft to be planing) a larger size might actually become a drawback. a 20m longer length on a 60m vessel means 150% of the length of most FAC this will mean you have 150% of the beam and draft too. your displacement will thus grow a lot, and with that the forces on your vessel, the required crew, etc. all in all, this might mean that an larger vessel actually has less space for weapons on board, if you are not careful with your design. I am not familiar enough with your design to really say a lot about it right now, but just be careful that it might be a lot more complex then you think.

btw, it might be me, but designed and build is not the same thing the difference between an gepard class (1980's, 1970's design) and hamina class (1990's, both construction and design) is clear, but if your ship is of 1980's design and construction yours should look a lot more like an gepard then an hamina, IMO.

_________________
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

History doesn't agree with you Ace. Basically all successful western FACs built from the 60ies and on were based on Lürssen style displacement hulls. And it was successfully developed into the Visby class which is the closest design there is to what OP is trying for.

_________________
“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've been really busy so I finally had a small amount of time to work on it. This is where I'm at now. The top hull would be the originally built design; the bottom hull would be a later modernization/rebuild. Still don't have the time to dedicate on internal space, specific electronic hardware, and underwater hull. I still want this boat to have a dual purpose in also being a patrol boat. I might still install a crane for the RHIB, although I still like the stern ramp idea. This will probably all depend on underwater hull shape and propulsion. Heuhen was worried about top weight so I shaved some of the superstructure off amidships and tapered the rest.

_________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat.
Fortune favours the bold.

It's too early for a stern ramp. You don't start to see them on high speed vessels until the late 1990ies.

_________________
“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.

Thanks. Guess I'll have to change things.

_________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat.
Fortune favours the bold.

You can probably add a little folding crane between the stern and the Phalanx if needed for the RHIB, depending on your beam.
Regarding your new superstructure, a few questions/remarks in no particular order:
- The top deck level behind the bridge (with the MGs) seems to have lost its sideboard/railing between versions. Maybe the railing is just omitted so far? Otherwise you have to raise the new sidewall to waist level in the modern version.
- If you raise the main sideboard to the top deck, does this means you also widen that deck level?
- What is the dark opening in the sidewall of the modern version?
- Isn't the opening on the side of the bridge too far back,where the sidewall merges with the front of the bridge? Also, shouldn't the background be grey instead of white, as we're seeing the bridge behind?
- If you are looking for a late-80s design, you might want to de-stealthen the bridge and the anchor well in the initial version, but that's your call.

Otherwise still looking good thanks for rekindling my interest in western FACMs, I will have to come up with a German cousin for your design in the near future.