Shipbucket

Yes it is taken and enlarged from the F 125.

I talked again with my Ships Engeneer budy about this disign an he told me that i may have gone beyond the critical size from which on fossil fuel powerd warships are no longer efficent. Now we are figuring the engine Setting out. But the Funnel size is not the Problem.

_________________
who am I

Do you have two more CB90s on the port side? Given thatt his is an air defense ship based on loadout I would question the choice of have CB90s period and this is coming from someone who likes having robust small boat compliments for FFs and DDs for MIO and SPECOPS. The problem here is that this isn't a hull that you would expect to be participating in either on a regular basis.

The other thing is that if you only have CB90s thats a hell of a lot of work to do a personel transfer or any other number of mundane utility type stuff a ships small boats are called on to perform.

Thank you Karle94 for your input regarding the bulbous bows. the two sonar domes, on the other hand, are still in question, as well as the other points mentioned in my first post.

_________________
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"

Possibly not, but this poses other questions.
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... 0Beach.gif

_________________
My Worklist
Sources and documentations are the most welcome.

-Koko Kyouwakoku (Republic of Koko)
-Koko's carrier-based aircrafts of WWII
-Koko Kaiun Yuso Kaisha - KoKaYu Line (Koko AU spinoff)
-Koko - Civil Aviation

- nu bulb will ever extend in front of the bow, unless especially required (for example, an wave piercing bow)
- the SEAPAR facets will most likely interfere with the APAR facets. if you want more guidance channels, it might be an better idea to enlarge the APAR facets instead.
- let me note that this ship is NOT stealthy at all.
- 2 sonar domes is not bad, 2 identical sonar domes (thus with (about) identical sonars in them) is useless.
- the goalkeeper 2 CIWS is very fictional, very AU, and very impossible.
- you have 3 different calibers on board, of which 2 have only one turret. would it not be better to move one turret aft and go to only 2 projectile sizes?
- may I advise to take a look at the current part sheets (IIRC heuhen listed them already) for the missiles, guns, helicopters and radars?
- it seems like you lack air intakes for your gas turbines.

that on first glance.
now, reading in to the text and looking a bit more in depth.....
- the hull looks quite good. I would pick an a bit larger rudders, and put it somewhat closer to the propellers, but that is all except for the abovementioned.
- I don't think you need that propeller guard. the ship looks quite beamy, and with only 2 propellers I think they will be well within the hull.
- the modification karle94 did to the bridge looks much better then what you already had, to be honest
- I wonder, would this ship have an larger displacement then an zumwalt? because that is perfectly in the range that fossil fuel powered warships are efficient. if we start looking back at DLG's and CLG's I think I can say that this 'critical size' is not really well defined, if it exists.
- I agree with shipright about the CB-90's, hell, I am even wondering what they are doing on an ship that is clearly not an LCS or anything like it.
- note that the funnel design of the sachsen is coming from the brandenburg, and will be more then 20 years old when this ship seems to be build. it might be better to look at something else, such as F125. the dutch LCF might also be an good starting point, having the same radars but an completely different funnel setup.

_________________
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

SQQ-23 operated with two sonar domes of similar size and shape, but that system is dreadfully obsolete. We've pretty well solved the multiplexing problems that made that required.

I will change the Design according to Dome of your suggestions.
According to the APAR SEAPAR Problem I don't think they would interfer that much. More Power would not provide more FireControll capacity. Therefore you would need bigger or more faces. As this is a Faced Array Radar any Interference could ne avoyded by freqency managment or conpenced by software.
I added the CB90s because I want to give this Ship capacity to act as a kind of lithoral Combat Command Ship. The CB90 have a range of over 200 nm and the 2 8 inch guns could provide fire support.
Thinking about the Mission of this ship I decided to remove the SONAR domes at all. A Ship like this would be the Center of a task group and at least a HVU or evan the MEU so it would be a tarket for submarines. So it would not be smart telling all submarines within miles the position of this Ship by using aktive SONAR.
Somehow I forget altering the undwater lines of this design so the orginal design ist still noteable. So I apologise by Colosseum for not asking for permission And for not crediting. My Intention was to change the desing untill it has nothing in common with the original ship but the length. I just don't like starting from a white scratch.

_________________
who am I

I
changed the design a bit due to your suggestions. I hope I foud the right Partsheets for the Radars.
I removed the SONAR Domes and added a passive SONAR latheral array.
I added bow and stern trusters and stabilisation fins and enlarged the rudders
I also enlarged the funnel and put more air intakes.
I changed the weapons to AU Thales Missiles System which is basicly a minor modification of its US-counterparts.



I also figured out some Datas for to get a better Imagination for the ship

Guided Missile heavy Cruiser Type 82 Bismarck Claas.
Displacement: 19.800 ts
Lengt: 223,0 m
Beam: 26,3 m
Draft (Hull): 7,1 m

Armament: 3 VLS 1 16 cell; 2 64 cell
Scalb Naval cruise Missle; TMS 27 ABM; TMS 22/TMS 22 ER SAM medium/extended range;
TMS 11 (quad packed) SAM short range.
2 RIM 116 RAM CIMS front; 2 Goalkeeper2 CIWS hangarroof
16 Navy Strike Missiles
2 OTO Melara 203 mm VLCG (very lage caliber gun) this is very AU I know it should be based on
the US MK 71
2 Bofors 57 mm

_________________
who am I

- your bow and stern thrusters will make so much noise that the sonars become useless.
- I have doubts about this exact design of sonar working, and I certainly would recommend the addition of an active one as well
- that stabiliser is massive and the ship will be impossible to dock
- even if you keep both APAR and SEAPAR faces, you still will have to expand the housing as the APAR housing is currently almost completely filled up with systems for the APAR, and thus does not fit 4 radars of that size to be added. I still recommend an simple enlarged APAR facet
- on all APAR + SMART-L fitted ships, the APAR is higher then the SMART-L to enable it to have a field of vision aft. especially on an double ender like this ship I suggest to heighten it up a bit.
- your intakes are miles away from your uptakes, requiring a mass of large diameter in or uptakes to go trough your ship, wasting space.
- check your deck levels, some of the hatches and the steps in the main deck level seem not to match the decks in the hull, or go trough it.
- those 203mm guns look bad. oversizing an oto 76 turret and putting an 203mm in seems not to be an good idea, why not an OTO 127/64, OTO 127/54LW or AGS-Lite?
- why the bofors guns only forward?
- the goalkeeper CIWS is the most expensive CIWS in the world. apart from being heavier and thus slower and less precise, it will also be near twice as expensive. you fitted 2. even if you did fit this system (that is IMO far over the top) I highly doubt they would fit them next to each other.
my suggestion for this is the following: bofors 57 aft, one or 2 forward, 1-2 RAM aft and 1 RAM forward. or, maybe even better, drop the bofors altogether (but you might want to fit an DP main gun then, like the oto 127)
- keep the roles clear. is this an LCS, or an AAW cruiser, or an ASW ship? right now it is trying to be all, but those 3 together don't really match very well.
- you can keep the layout clearer and simpler by just adding that small VLS block in front of the 57mm to one of the larger blocks. right now it interferes with the gun magazines and the passage through the bow.

_________________
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

but just when the bow trosters are running. Normaly you are operating those trusters when you are moneuvering int harbor, and in that Situations a passive Sonar is not necessary.
I also dont know if it would be working but as I understand how a passive latheral SONAR array works it is possibel.
you are right I have to fix this

May I ask you when exactly you have seen an ARPA-housing from the inside?
I just asked the 2nd DWE from the FGS Hessen an he things it will fit if the elektronik racks of SEAPAR the same or less size of APAR.
I think I will redo the Superstrugture, namely the masts and the funnel and do it more F 125 Style I think that will solv that Problem.
But I like the 8 inch big guns and without those Guns it would be just a CG but I want a ship with high land atack capacity and I am thinking of removing the SSMs because the gung could do AsuW as well. you say the enlaged design of the oto 76 locks bad so please tell me what desingof an 203mm gun would you have drawn.
because there are 2 goalkeepers aft
I put the goalkeeper aft because they dont need this much under Deck space like a Bofors and I put it on the hangar roof so I need the space beneath for the hangar. Putting aditional guns aft will interfere with the flightdeck or the existing weapons.
This a Cruiser by clasical definition which means its should be able to operate independently in operations of various intensity, showing force and if necessary projecting power. Of course this ship is oversized for embargo or survalience operations but however it should be able to operate so when its size is political necessary.
But to answer your question. It is an AAW cruiser with good ABM, surface- and land attack capacity. moderate ability to operate as an ofshore commandpost for lithoral operations , and very rudimental ASW capabilitys
I will see how it fits

_________________
who am I