Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 8 of 13  [ 126 posts ]  Go to page « 16 7 8 9 1013 »
Author Message
Syzmo
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 20th, 2014, 2:32 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 285
Joined: August 13th, 2011, 4:03 am
Location: Baltimore MD
I really like the look of this ship.

_________________
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." Thomas Edward Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
sabotage181
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 21st, 2014, 3:11 am
Offline
Posts: 181
Joined: May 16th, 2013, 9:23 pm
Syzmo wrote:
I really like the look of this ship.
Thank you sir :) I really appreciate it

So I hit a artistic wall with my ship so I had a little fun....

[ img ]

I'll keep working on this until it looks like a real picture of a real ship. This is the kind of thing I was doing before I came to the bucket :)

Anyway, I'll post a real update soon. any comments/suggestions/insults welcome haha


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Philbob
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 22nd, 2014, 5:07 am
Offline
Posts: 586
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 3:45 am
Judah14 wrote:
Philbob wrote:
I dont feel a US ship would be fitted with a millennium gun at the forward B postion. maybe a CIWS or Mk38
Millennium gun is also a CIWS. And Lockheed Martin is the US licensee for its sale and manufacture.
maybe so but its not in the US naval supply chain right now

_________________
Supreme Commander of the Astrofleets


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 22nd, 2014, 10:59 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
Philbob wrote:
Judah14 wrote:
Philbob wrote:
I dont feel a US ship would be fitted with a millennium gun at the forward B postion. maybe a CIWS or Mk38
Millennium gun is also a CIWS. And Lockheed Martin is the US licensee for its sale and manufacture.
maybe so but its not in the US naval supply chain right now
neither is the SPY-5, SPS-49 planar array and the oto melara stealth turret.

also, on a sidenote, the one remaining RAM launcher is still the wrong way around :P

_________________
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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colombamike
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 23rd, 2014, 1:38 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1359
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 6:18 am
Location: France, Marseille
sabotage181 wrote:
Anyway, I'll post a real update soon. any comments/suggestions/insults welcome haha
Few thinkings guys :mrgreen:
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 23rd, 2014, 2:49 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
Mike, TLAMs were to be included on most of the USN FFG designs in the 1990s because it adds a lot of operational flexibility (when every little frigate that you have out there showing the flag is a potential cruise missile shooter, you can cover a lot more area). It costs very little to add TLAM capabilities if you already have the strike length cells, and there was a broad-based opinion that the USN was going to have open cells in which to add TLAMs without seriously reducing the other capabilities.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 28th, 2014, 3:48 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
Philbob wrote:
I dont feel a US ship would be fitted with a millennium gun at the forward B postion. maybe a CIWS or Mk38
Philbob wrote:
maybe so but its not in the US naval supply chain right now
True but he can still use the very similar Bushmaster:

[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Blackbuck
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 28th, 2014, 11:59 am
Offline
Posts: 2743
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 9:15 am
Location: Birmingham, United Kingdom
Very similar might be a bit of an over statement. The Millennium has the ability to fire at a much higher rate when needed than any Bushmaster can. The bushmaster also has deck penetration to worry about.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
RP1
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 28th, 2014, 12:23 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 208
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 8:48 pm
Location: Engerlands
Contact: Website
Millenium Vs Bushmaster is an interesting question.

Firstly, there is the target set: The AHEAD ammo used by Millenium has the ability to put a very large number of holes in things, but in some quarters there is concern as to whether the pellets actually have enough energy to disable an oncoming speedboat (or its' crew), as the system was developed to destroy fast moving, lightly constructed, very densely packed air targets, not slow moving, possibly armoured, relatively spacious surface targets. Direct hits from 30-40mm weapons are similarly found to be much more effective against these surface targets.

Secondly, deck penetration may actually be a good thing. It allows for reloading under protection, which is very significant if under attack by a determined or skilled opponent, or one who loads down their boats with lots of crew with light weapons. Also a lot of "non deck penetrating" systems actually have a space underneath them anyway, for local power conversion, switchboards etc. The Only time it's an advantage is if you are refitting - hence in the RN Phalanx was for refits, Goalkeeper for newbuilds.

RP1

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: FFG(x) 98Posted: February 28th, 2014, 1:32 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
I know the RDN considers them primarily AA weapons. The official SOP in case of small craft attacks is 76mm shells. The act that AHEAD shells are in the same price range as the 76mm ones might have something to do with that.

_________________
“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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 8 of 13  [ 126 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 16 7 8 9 1013 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


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


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