IoT (Isle of Texas)

There's really no way to fit those missiles in that shallow a hull.
In fact, I just measured it, and you have about two feet of space under the missile, if you put it hard against the deck plating.
I don't know much about rail launchers, so it might have been possible if the hull was shaped like a shoe box. However, this being a ship, it isn't.
I doubt you could even fit a mk 13 in there, let alone the much bigger mk 23.
If you want a rail launcher on it, you'll pretty much have to do like they did with the Perry. Fit the launcher in the bow and put the gun wherever there might be some room left.
A bonus to that approach is that you can extend the helicopter facilities further aft, giving you a larger flight deck and a larger hangar. The pilots will love you and the mechanics will love you.

Can't say anything about the modern version since I can't see the picture due to the usual reasons.

_________________
“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.

Rear large elevator like on the mistral, tandem coaxial rotors on the Chinook, large superstructure also accounts for accommodation, what's wrong with the bow and the azimuth propulsion is from the Canberra.

[ img ]

_________________
Salide - Denton - The Interrealms

I am not very active on the forums anymore, but work is still being done on my AUs. Visit the Salidan Altiverse Page on the SB Wiki for more information. All current work is being done on Google Docs.
If anyone wishes for their nations to interact with the countries of the Salidan Altiverse, please send me a PM, after which we can further discuss through email.

ezgo394 wrote:

See, this is why I sometimes feel like giving you pointers can be frustrating. Rather than modifying your designs to fit a more realistic and reasonable approach, you just justify stupid stuff. This is the kind of stuff that is just one notch above turkishnavalguy and danzig.

A Chinook ALREADY HAS tandem rotors. Unless you're trying to make a super-heavy lifter of a class about x3 as large as what currently exists, you don't need four rotors. And no, toys do not qualify as a reference. Frankly I would think this would be intrinsically obvious.

Elevators need support structures. You can't just hang an elevator deck off to one side and hope for the best. You're imparting a huge moment force on that thing (if you don't know what a moment force is, then you better learn soon if you're serious about being an engineer). Look at the construction of the elevators of nearly every other ship that uses them.

And the superstructure is...almost comically huge, but I'll still give you that, though. On the other hand, what's with the external decks? Or are the lines just temporary? Either way, you better justify them, and I mean really justify them. Like, Timothy Oliphant in that new FX show (which is really quite good) justified.

And "artifact" is a graphics design term for all that interference you have going around the picture. It means you saved it in a compressed format (.JPG). How many times has Colo been harping on that, since day 1 of the forums?

I took a quick look at the mistral and realized my elevator mistake.

The lines on the structure are temporary.

I have the ships in PNG.

No comment on the chinook.

Moved to Beginner's Forum per OP's request.

Ezgo, how about before you do any other designs, you read:

. Ryan has put together a good starting point in the Big Book of Warfare, and you would be wise to take from the available resources.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Ok thanks Timothy. I will look into that, but my Internet is out (on my phone), so it will be a while.

Just as a side project, here is my MBT (WIP).
[ img ]

Please dont make fun of me. This is my first computer generated tank design. The way I have it figured is 20 pixels equals 3 feet (22 for 1 meter).

Well it's actually pretty decent.

Shipbucket

Who is online