Shipbucket

most of them are mentioned in the dutch parts sheet
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =16&t=1307
the tales web site has most likely more intel about it then wikipedia.

_________________
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

The I-Mast is missing from the main Thales website, so try this:
http://www.thales7seas.com/html5_beta/index.html

OK thanks for your promt replies. If I read it right there is no AAW fire controll in the i-Mast 400. Ok so I have to rethink some things of an other design.

OK back to Topic
To APAR I'm quite shure the number of missiles guided is per face. becaus you have to send a pencilbeam exactly to the target. Therefor an antenna directed directly to the target must be simulated by a number of the small antennas an APAR-face is build of. And I simply can't belive Computer Power is a limiting factor in a System of the 21st century.

To the mission issue. Ok I acept that this mission doesn't exist but I will keep the ability to launch SM3 or the TMS-Version of it. It's a Cruiser a generalis .
I will post an updated Version soon. But fist I'd like to ask you ace, do you have an Introduction Thread? I'd like to know more about your backround. I need this Informations to put your knowlege in the right light. Please don't get me wrong, but I have my own Informants outside this forum, and some of the Informations I have should not apear in the Internet anywere else as on an offical govermental or company website.

_________________
who am I

well, I can put the APAR guidance per face in separate light too. I am not certain of this, but all who know exactly what the APAR can cannot talk about it on the internet, so it is the question how certain any sources can be. anyways....
the dutch LCF has an 40 cell VLS, and the design allows for 48 cells. this means 5 Mk 41 blocks, or maybe 6. an VLS block can only launch one missile at the time, 1 missile per second. this means any ship can shoot itself dry in 8 seconds if required (not counting quadpacked missiles), as all VLS blocks can theoretically fire at the same time. I say theoretically, because this is just not done, no guidance system can keep track of so many missiles at once anyways, and the missiles might interfere with each other.
so let's say the APAR has 15 ESSM missiles in the air. and these are fired one second from each other, to stop interference. an ESSM goes roughly 2700 knots, and has an range of 27 nm. this means it is at it's most far away target in 1/100 hour, or 36 seconds.
so as maximum possible for the Mk 41, the system can have 32 missiles in the air of the ESSM type. or 16 if you work with 2 second intervals.
SM-2MR has an slightly lower speed but in general, more then twice the range. still, due to the midcourse autopilot of which the APAR can set an aditional 16, you can, with the 2 second intervals, still have the same number of guidance channels required.

so, here we have why it makes sense to me why the computer space would be the limiting factor for these 16 + 16: there is simply no need for more. yes, if you fire faster then 1 second intervals, and shoot the ship dry in minutes if not seconds, the APAR might come short. but APAR is not AEGIS, APAR is smaller and cheaper for an reason! it is an system that is just as capable as AEGIS, but it serves an slightly different role. so if it is never required to have more, why would they enable the systems to do so?
rumored is also that the APAR facet, which has it's square panel with round midsection, is not entirely filled with the panels, and only the round midsection is actually part of the current radar, the rest is growth space. I have not yet seen official refs for this, but it might just be......

as for who I am, I am an shipbuilding student who focusses on the naval shipbuilding. I do not claim to know about exact ship missions or systems. what I do know is what is being build, and how these vessels are build, and which is not used. an small library of books about naval architecture, design processes and other reference works, and an knowledge build up by listening to the people out here makes up the knowledge I give my comments from
doesn't mean I am always right, I'd hate it if I would be, but it makes that I always ask for proof when somebody thinks I am wrong, so I can learn more

(as the above post is mostly an thought experiment, unproven by any evidence, please shoot some holes in it if possible)

_________________
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

ok I think everything that can be said about APAR on the Internet has been said.
But what you say about the ammonition makes sense evan on on ship with a 192 cell VLS
Here is my newest Version of the Bismarck Class

_________________
who am I

starting to look good.
a short bit of remarks, which might be my last for this ship.....
- the RHIB bay under the helideck is not good for strength. every cutout below main deck level costs hull strength, and this one is between 2 heavy points (weapons and engines) so I myself would try to put that boat somewhere else (an stern bay, or carry it only when there is not carried an CB90, for example)
- the RAM launcher is an outdated part, there's an better looking one here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/632 ... %20RAM.png
- the 57mm gun you have now is an bofors 57mm Mk 2, I suppose you want to use the stealty Mk 3 shown here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/632 ... 2057mm.png
- I would try to keep height differences to full decks instead of the half and quarter deck heights you have now. for example, the forward 57mm can be dropped a bit, the aft VLS and 57mm can be lowered a bit or heightened a bit (if you heighten the 57mm, I would lower the VLS) and I might swap the VLS and the 57mm for helicopter clearance and for an full symmetrical setup fore and aft. (it also keeps your gun magazines together and eliminates space problems for the 8in aft with the VLS)
the RAM launchers may differ a bit in height, as as you can see they have some deck penetration which is often put directly on the deck (as was done with phalanx)
- the aft funnels still fume directly on the SMART-L, while they are not very stealthy. I would try split the radar and intake/uptake structures.
- the point where you fitted the stabiliser on is very much perpendicular with the waterline, while stabilisers are most of the time perpendicular with the hull. that means it would not look like it currently does. you can make it flatter or you can make it smaller, in the last case the bottom staying at the same level but putting the top at an rounder part of the hull.
- I still am much in doubt about the noise those trusters will make.

other then that above, the only comments I could possibly make would be to detail her more. mooring gear, windows of the captains cabin, antenna's, deck lines..... but it is up to you how far you drive that.

_________________
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

Here is a better-looking NSM launcher and missile: