Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 6 of 13  [ 126 posts ]  Go to page « 14 5 6 7 813 »
Author Message
heuhen
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 16th, 2014, 2:25 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Quote:
[ img ]
just to say it, this one look very similar to one of the proposed US design to Norway during the frigate project. I remember it, because I was in my step-dad office when he had all the drawings and pictures of these ships on the walls, with a lot of "post it" notes o with what is good with that ship and so on.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
MihoshiK
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 16th, 2014, 6:59 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1035
Joined: October 16th, 2010, 11:06 pm
Location: In orbit, watching you draw.
Contact: Website
heuhen wrote:
Quote:
[ img ]
just to say it, this one look very similar to one of the proposed US design to Norway during the frigate project. I remember it, because I was in my step-dad office when he had all the drawings and pictures of these ships on the walls, with a lot of "post it" notes o with what is good with that ship and so on.
It actually says that this IS the design offered to Norway :D

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 16th, 2014, 7:02 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Then I need to draw it. do we have any more info on it, ref's or anything else. length, depth, etc.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 16th, 2014, 7:24 pm
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
There are size specifications literally within that image. 130 meters in length (unknown if LOA or LWL, but it's not a highly-raked stem or anything). Deck heights can be safely assumed to be 3m/10ft, the Mk 45 is of known size, and the SPY-1 arrays are clearly the 8' sort.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 16th, 2014, 8:25 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
erik_t wrote:
There are size specifications literally within that image. 130 meters in length (unknown if LOA or LWL, but it's not a highly-raked stem or anything). Deck heights can be safely assumed to be 3m/10ft, the Mk 45 is of known size, and the SPY-1 arrays are clearly the 8' sort.
yeah and I with my -9.7 glasses. When shall I learn to read. I cheeked the text and as you say 130x16


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
sabotage181
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 16th, 2014, 10:03 pm
Offline
Posts: 181
Joined: May 16th, 2013, 9:23 pm
Lebroba wrote:
Looking pretty slick!
Thank you again lebroba :)
Hood wrote:
Now this looks 110% better than the original. You've retained the smart lines but now it looks like a real warship with presence. Perhaps not cheap and mass-producible but certainly a decent FFG.
Thank you hood, we will talk about inexpensive and mass producible shortly.
acelanceloet wrote:
I agree with hood, it doesn't look too bad.
the SPY-5 is not ideally set up from an view around point of view, but from an technical perspective this might be better. just a few comments left:
- the VLS forward has no cover around it, as I see the grey of the belowdeck part. the system is mostly flush with the deck or has an angled cover around it.
- the RAM launchers are turned around the wrong way.
- why the helideck lowered half a deck? this is not that good from a space and strength perspective, but it can be done if it has advantages in other fields, I think.
- there might be some problem with the position of the harpoons and the space the air intakes take of it inside that structure.
- why not use the actual block that was underneath the ram launchers, https://dl.dropbox.com/u/63276563/Mk%20 ... uncher.png ?
- the bow looks a bit weird, especially when compared with for example the perry
- the engines coolwater inlets seem to be a bit forward of the actual engines, is that intentional?
- the SLQ-32 looks blocked in by that hole behind it. is it outside of it? if so, the hole can be removed. if it is inside of it, the field of vision of the system is horrible.
- I am not certain about the decoys on the funnel platform. reloading them seems hell that way.
- I might switch the RAM and the millenium gun on both positions, and give you 2 of each instead of 3 guns.

all in all, just small tidbits :P
thank you ace, I always look forward to your comments as they are usually very constructive :)
1. VLS is now in a "box"
2. I'll fix that
3. Helo-deck is lowered because I wanted a "long and low" look to this ship and that necessitated the lowering of the helo hanger and flight deck.
4.I think I fixed that by moving them and the millennium guns aft more. Let me know what you think.
5. I needed then to be a bit higher that the drawn "stock" height. I will address the RAM issues next go-round
6. Removed the bow thing. I'm assuming that's the thing you all keep saying looks weird. If its something else please let me know specifically
7. I wasn't even sure what those were, but I did assume that's what they were. Then I kind of forgot about them in re-working all the other parts of the ship. Fixed now
8. The SLQ-32 is neither inside that "hole" or outside it, but somewhere right in the middle of those two. Of course the "sensor faces" are protruding outside the hole, and I tried to male sure the hole was big enough so the unit can still move. My question here has to be it there a new system of flush mounted ESM panel's to go along with all the other fixed arrays? I see no SLQ's on DDG-1000 so I'm assuming there must be. If not, I was thinking why not put a ray dome type thing over it to clean that up a bit??
9. Would they be ok on top of the helo-hanger?? I always just assumed they needed to be mounted high as possible
10. There ARE two millennium guns in the AFT mount. I'm assuming that you don't like the hatch underneath, and that's why you said there is only one? do I need to remove that hatch?

Thanks again ACE :)
Colombamike wrote:
Few idea's Sabotage181
Thank you Mike. lots of good Ideas there. I noticed that you went back and read more of this thread after you posted this, so you now realize that a "skeleton" Burke is exactly what I was shooting for. Also this has defiantly evolved from my original 98 number. I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer, it does cause confusion. I do LOVE all the notes and studies you've posted though, and one of those ships even kind of sort of looks like mine :)

OK, I've not fixed everything yet but this is the latest and greatest

[ img ]

OK, NOW I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ALL OF YOU :)

If I wanted to make a non SPY version of this, what radar suite would I use? SPS-49 and SPQ-9b?? from what I can determine SPQ-9 and EEADS are only good from horizon to horizon. This ship is WAY TO SMALL for 48e or g. from what I can find there isn't really any middle ground, although I'm sure I'm missing something. Should I put a (fictional) upgraded SPS-52 (39???) on. would love to hear thought on this, real meat and potato type thoughts not just "get rid of the SPY" type thoughts :)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 16th, 2014, 11:47 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... DV%207.png


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 17th, 2014, 12:44 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
sabotage181 wrote:
OK, NOW I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ALL OF YOU :)

If I wanted to make a non SPY version of this, what radar suite would I use? SPS-49 and SPQ-9b?? from what I can determine SPQ-9 and EEADS are only good from horizon to horizon. This ship is WAY TO SMALL for 48e or g. from what I can find there isn't really any middle ground, although I'm sure I'm missing something. Should I put a (fictional) upgraded SPS-52 (39???) on. would love to hear thought on this, real meat and potato type thoughts not just "get rid of the SPY" type thoughts :)
I honestly don't see what's wrong with having NTU as the combat system and then partnering it with an SPS-52 (instead of an SPS-48E). The other option is to go low-end with an upgraded TAS or buy the dutch SMART-S. It really depends on the year.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ghost792
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 17th, 2014, 2:29 am
Offline
Posts: 34
Joined: September 8th, 2010, 12:09 am
NTU was planned for the Charles F Adams DDGs, which had a similar displacement to the FFG-7s. That SPS-48 might not be out of question.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Judah14
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 17th, 2014, 7:27 am
Offline
Posts: 752
Joined: March 5th, 2013, 11:18 am
Since the US defense contractor Exelis has the production license to the SMART-S Mk. 2, them having the production license of the original SMART-S in this AU seems reasonable.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 6 of 13  [ 126 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 14 5 6 7 813 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]