Shipbucket :: Canadian Common Hull combatant Concept

Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Canadian Common Hull combatant Concept http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=365	Page 1 of 10

Author:	prairie canuck [ November 6th, 2010, 9:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Canadian Common Hull combatant Concept
G'day all, My first post. I've been a frequent visitor to this site and have decided to take the plunge. For someone who is usually surrounded by a sea of wheat I've developed a great interest of Canada's Navy and more directly the future vessels which will replace the ones in the present inventory. Here's my first attempt. (You may fire when ready) Attachment: IROQUOIS NEW BUILD 2 narrow 3d.GIF

Author:	Mitchell van Os [ November 6th, 2010, 9:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant Concept
1. The hull is to undeep for vls. 2. The phalanx above the SRBOC is not going to work. 3. You dont need missile directors with APAR+Smart-L. Great start for a ''beginner?''

Author:	radagast477 [ November 6th, 2010, 10:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant Concept
Is this vessel supposed be the planned Province Class?

Author:	prairie canuck [ November 6th, 2010, 10:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant Concept
The Province class was supposed to be based on the "Halifax" Hull but stretched to accomodate the VLS cells. This is just my stab at something new. How much more hull would it need?

Author:	acelanceloet [ November 6th, 2010, 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant Concept
the apar and smart-l are the old ones, look at the dutch parts sheet for the latest ones : http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/ ... 317qb2.png also, I doubt this ship will be really stealthy... the bow looks stealth, the stern looks more like the previous generation of ships. funnel looks weird.... look at the hull of real ships how it should be done...... otherwise: good start, but needs improvements

Author:	prairie canuck [ November 6th, 2010, 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant Concept
otherwise: good start, but needs improvements That's what its all about right

Author:	Chris Roach [ November 7th, 2010, 3:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant Concept
Okay, good first shot at the style but a few minor niggles about the ship. For a start the draught appears somewhat on the shallow side. Secondly, 64 self-defense length VLS? I'm not sure if you could fit that many given the hull form shown in the bow on view (I think lack of space would preclude fitting the outer most 2x8 cell blocks on each side reducing the number of cells to 32 instead) and given ESSM is quadpacked you'll be carrying a utter heap of point-defense missiles per ship (but no area defense missiles)... Anyway, either cut down the number of VLS cells or redesign the hull in order to take longer VLS cells, thus allowing carrige of SM-2s (giving you an effective layered AAW system rather just an insane level of point defense and making full use of the radar fit you've got).

Author:	MC Spoilt B'stard [ November 7th, 2010, 4:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant Concept
indeed a good start , specialy the topvieuw and the front/stern vieuw.

Author:	TimothyC [ November 7th, 2010, 8:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant Concept
A few improvements. Reduce by half your forward VLS. Right now the 64 cells make a very very big hole in the deck, and you're mounting up to 256 ESSMs/RAMs/NULKAs Remove the missile guidance radars APAR can cover this roll. Raise the Bridge up one level You need the internal volume It brings the Phalanx mount down so it isn't sitting on a platform like you have. What you have now works, but I would think it's sub-optimal. Modern Sonars that have rubber covers get a dark-gray coloration, not brown.

Author:	Portsmouth Bill [ November 8th, 2010, 8:41 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant Concept
Sure, a good beginning, and you've gone to a lot of trouble to show the various views. Most of the points for correction have already been made, so nothing to add there. Generally, around the bridge area there are too many odd angles and platforms (as in the Phallanx mount). You could also remove the black line beneath the bridge windows as (on the other views) this is not a deck edge. You don't need to label the various systems, but if you do you'll need to place the legend next to whatever your describing; and not as you've done, where you've sort of mixed them up. That said, a most impressive first post; and on this basis you should find a welcome berth on board

Page 1 of 10	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/