Shipbucket

I believe kim has actually drawn the rear of the director instead of the front/side we should use.

_________________
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

No, no, no I'm very astounded. The illuminators (which I believe are the MK95's because of the Sea Sparrows) are always shown directed against the stern on pictures (I haven't pics where Sea Sparrows are fired from Sacramento). I have attached a comparison picture where it obvious I had drawn the right size, which is bigger than the parts sheets MK95. Beside Gollevainen (and thanks for your clear-sight!) the others insist in I should use the smaller ones. Why? We can all make mistakes - I've certainly does it before - but here I got the feeling, that even if I'm right, it is not allowed because the experts dislike it

_________________
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms

No, I was so set against it because there was one piece of evidence that I just found that supported your position - a piece that you didn't find yourself. Friedman's The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems 1996-97 does not outright state that there is a difference, but implies that there might be one between the Mod-0/1 that we have drawn and the later mods that went on the AOEs and AORs. I've got the book reserved so I should gen an answer in the next few weeks.

Kim, even if your drawing is generally correct, I'll give it a once-over because well, it needs it.

Other correction - you need to use the correct current SLQ-32 ECM set, it can be found on DG/AEGIS.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

I appreciate that Timothy. The SLQ-32 ECM is it the big square thing behind the illuminators?

_________________
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms

yeah, that's it.

_________________
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

Thanks

_________________
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms

Searching NavSource got me the following:

U.S.S. Sacramento:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/59/09590155.jpg

U.S.S. Sacramento as Taken from U.S.S. Carl Vinson:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/59/09590112.jpg
Note the Mk-95 on the U.S.S. Carl Vinson in the corner of the image. It appears to be the same as those on U.S.S. Sacramento.

U.S.S. Sacramento with the U.S.S. John C. Stennis:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/027422.jpg


U.S.S. Camden in Alaska:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/59/09590220.jpg

U.S.S. Camden:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/59/09590208.jpg

http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/59/09590207.jpg

U.S.S. Camden, in port (1987 - earliest image I've found that shows the Mk-95s):
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/59/09590204.jpg


U.S.S. Seattle:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/59/09590305.jpg


U.S.S. Detroit With U.S.S. Philippine Sea:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/59/09590404.jpg

U.S.S. Detroit with U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/027123.jpg

U.S.S. Detroit with U.S.S. Ford:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/59/09590405.jpg


From these images it looks like the Mk-95 radars Sacramento Class uses are the same externally as those in the rest of the US fleet.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

I'm very close to agree with you. In that case I will conclude, that the parts sheet MK95 has to be redrawn because it is too small. BTW nice to find pictures where the details are clear to see. I still say my drawing has the right size, but cause your pics I can now see I have to change it slightly in the front

_________________
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms

I'll see what Friedman says when I get home. I have a nagging recollection he straight-up quotes an antenna diameter, and I find attempting to scale from photographs of dubious resolution and angle to be an unsatisfying approach. I will have to disagree with nighthunter - if someone can provide a compelling reason to fix an apparently-inaccurate part, we are or should be receptive to that.

*EDIT*

That didn't take long. World Naval Weapons Systems '96 explicitly quotes an antenna diameter of 39", or 6.5 pixels. The total nacelle height should probably be 7 pixels. The current parts sheet version is 6 pixels; KimWerner's is 11 pixels.

The total height of the system, pedestal included, is 100" (17 pixels). The current version is 15 pixels, KimWerner's is 19.

I will revise the current version to ensure the size is correct, unless KimWerner would prefer to do so.

Erik, thanks for these good and proper informations. When I have to redraw them anyway, I will be glad to do it. I've got now correct informations and good pictures.

_________________
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms