Shipbucket

Sorry for my (usual) very bad english
For this "auxiliary warship design", I think there is confusion between the "stealth" and "modern-clean/streamlined/straightforward" words

The Pegasus206 ship drawing seem to date from 1980s/1990s (supertructures/bridge/mast style of this era).

The superstructures/bridge/hull of the Almak "seems more modern/cleaner/"angular-shaped hull""...

Like Mike pointed out, those aren't stealth features, though the share a common aesthetics.
When building with steel, or just about any material really, curves are expensive, compound curves even more so. That's why so many designs have moved to angular structures. By eliminating curves and using flat planes instead you can reduce the construction costs significantly.

_________________
“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.

Further to the production issues outlined by Thiel, on this particular ship that chine may help with seakeeping - it will act like a bilge keel to some extent. The bulbous bow may actually be more useful for motions than resistance, too.

RP1

_________________
"Yes siree, the excitement never stops." Togusa, Ghost in the Shell

Ahh, I see

So, to slot the answers into the original question, yes, there is a cost difference - in favour of the "stealth" design, which is why everybody's going that way.

I do like it when the question I asked wasn't the one I should have been asking but I get the right answer anyway

Ad

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

There was a study on this many moons ago - I only heard about it second hand but the upshot was that a basic level of stealth will reduce both the unit purchase / production cost, through increased use of flat plates, and the through-life cost, due to the reduction in corrosion traps and the relocation or removal of upperdeck equipment that would need maintaining. The issue is if you try to push for very high levels of stealth, when you end up with unusual materials and hull shapes, with the attendant cost and risk increases.

RP1

_________________
"Yes siree, the excitement never stops." Togusa, Ghost in the Shell

Thanks for that information guys i keep the design like it is and let it be a 1980/1990 design. So that i can bild a new type with this information.

_________________
___________________________________________

Best Regards,
Aart.

Projects:

The Kingdom of Rochfort in FD

I was thinking mostly of the superstructure, but as RP1 pointed out it's also true for the hull.

_________________
“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.

Here is a new type it wold be bild between 1980 and 2000

_________________
___________________________________________

Best Regards,
Aart.

Projects:

The Kingdom of Rochfort in FD

Here is the first off my new work afther my laptop crash and the trouble with Majhost. As i have lost most of the things for my AU The Kingdom of Rochfort i will start a new one . This AU will start at the begin off ww2.

_________________
___________________________________________

Best Regards,
Aart.

Projects:

The Kingdom of Rochfort in FD

according to your shading this ship has a cavity midships, a round bow and a diagonal skeg....... I don't think that was your purpose, was it?
other then that, the ship looks big for it's arnament and the machinery arrangement.... is it BR-ER-BR? also, the rudder looks somewhat small.

I do like her looks, but I think some refining is to be done to perfect her

_________________
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