Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 5  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
Charwhick
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 22nd, 2014, 9:48 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 104
Joined: March 22nd, 2014, 1:28 am
Here's one possible down-armed configuration. The single 20mm replaces the twin .50s on the helideck rear, the RAM is moved to the front and made wartime-only, and a crane is added where the 20mm gun was.
[ img ]

Edit: crane colour fixed

_________________
Worklist:
FFG Halifax Redraw


Last edited by Charwhick on March 22nd, 2014, 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 22nd, 2014, 9:50 pm
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
I believe SPQ-9B is sufficient, if not ideal, for all of your needs. I don't really like the 20mm right aft as currently arranged; if you're going to block the helo deck, you might as well block it with something a lot more useful.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 22nd, 2014, 9:58 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
the holland class OPV's, which are a bit larger, have an 76, an 30mm, and 2 .50's. basically, this arrangement. maybe that ship is a bit large for it's load, but it is something to keep in mind. it has 3 of the 4 weapons forward though.

keeping that in mind......
what about placing the crane on the current position (but an a bit larger one, maybe foldable, which can service the helideck and over the sides), the .50's at the side of it, and the 20 mm forward. in the wartime config, the 20 mm can be replaced by the RAM. you don't need an 'coastguard' 20mm if you are at war. otherwise, if you loose the OPV role, you might loose the crane for the RAM. that gives you 360 degrees coverage against AA.

_________________
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]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 22nd, 2014, 10:10 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
I'd put a crane on each side and the 20mm on the raised bit in the middle. In wartime you'd replace it with a RAM launcher for all round AA cover.

_________________
“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]
Charwhick
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 22nd, 2014, 10:13 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 104
Joined: March 22nd, 2014, 1:28 am
What do you mean by "on each side"? You mean alongside the superstructure?

Edit: Here's a version following Ace's suggestions, but lacking Thiel's 360 AA coverage.

[ img ]

I couldn't find a larger crane that didn't end up looking too large... :?

_________________
Worklist:
FFG Halifax Redraw


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 22nd, 2014, 10:30 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Charwhick wrote:
What do you mean by "on each side"? You mean alongside the superstructure
Yes.

_________________
“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]
Charwhick
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 22nd, 2014, 10:41 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 104
Joined: March 22nd, 2014, 1:28 am
Is this what you meant?

[ img ]

_________________
Worklist:
FFG Halifax Redraw


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Judah14
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 23rd, 2014, 2:47 am
Offline
Posts: 752
Joined: March 5th, 2013, 11:18 am
For the ship's radar I would recommend the Saab Sea Giraffe or Thales Variant.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 23rd, 2014, 9:33 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
we have part-sheets with many cranes on, but I'm not at home so...


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charwhick
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 23rd, 2014, 7:17 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 104
Joined: March 22nd, 2014, 1:28 am
I honestly prefer the crane-rear version, and I'll certainly look for a bigger crane on the sheets (or maybe another ship if none fit); but I'm not at home for the next week. Which means not having the .pdn file whoch means no layers, which means annoying editing. I might however start the larger ship. If I wanted a pseudo-frigate with ESSM ans a hangar, what length would I look at?

_________________
Worklist:
FFG Halifax Redraw


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 5  [ 43 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 47 guests


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


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