Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 4 of 9  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 69 »
Author Message
Thiel
Post subject: Re: mini AU: US ship based RNLN 1980-85Posted: October 11th, 2011, 5:59 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Not intentionally.

_________________
“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]
Navybrat85
Post subject: Re: mini AU: US ship based RNLN 1980-85Posted: October 11th, 2011, 6:28 am
Offline
Posts: 489
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 1:47 am
Location: In the study, with the Candlestick
Contact: Website
I think I see where you're going, Thiel...Aren't most European ships CODAG, CODLAG, or CODOG configurations? Spruance uses a COGAG. Diesels are much more fuel efficient than Gas Turbines, so the European designs, incorporating Diesel or Diesel-Electric drives as the primary movers increases fuel economy over the more powerful, but gas-guzzling turbines. You generally sacrifice some speed with the Diesel engines, usually 2-5 knots off the top speed, but you increase range when you use those engines as your "Prime movers"

_________________
World's Best Okayest Author and Artist


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: mini AU: US ship based RNLN 1980-85Posted: October 11th, 2011, 6:51 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Not quite. It has more to do with the manning. Contemporary US designs were rather more manpower intensive than their European contemporaries. That's why Britain had more success with selling (As opposed to giving and/or lending) surplus ships.
Denmark were offered as many Fletchers as we wanted essentially for free, but we still went ahead and rented and later bought a number of British designs

_________________
“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]
Navybrat85
Post subject: Re: mini AU: US ship based RNLN 1980-85Posted: October 11th, 2011, 7:11 am
Offline
Posts: 489
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 1:47 am
Location: In the study, with the Candlestick
Contact: Website
Just did some quick research and I see your point. A Fletcher had a crew of around 330 men. Doesn't seem like a lot, but for a smaller Navy those numbers add up quick. Interestingly, Spruance had about the same crew compliment, dispite being much larger. What a difference technology makes.

_________________
World's Best Okayest Author and Artist


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: mini AU: US ship based RNLN 1980-85Posted: October 11th, 2011, 7:13 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
you both are correct. but all these things tell about the disadvantages for the dutch. more crew, more fuel consumption, foreign equipment....... the reason why the dutch build these ships can only be political, IMO.

_________________
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]
Navybrat85
Post subject: Re: mini AU: US ship based RNLN 1980-85Posted: October 11th, 2011, 7:22 am
Offline
Posts: 489
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 1:47 am
Location: In the study, with the Candlestick
Contact: Website
Perhaps the US offered a better deal somewhere..like use of overseas facilities. In this AU do the Dutch have interests in the Caribbean or pacific? The US could allow use of, say, Gitmo or Puerto Rico if they agreed to buy rights to the design. Perhaps the Netherlands approached the US first about berthing rights, and the US said sure, if you agree to use our designs for your next frigate and destroyer? Just brainstorming here...

_________________
World's Best Okayest Author and Artist


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: mini AU: US ship based RNLN 1980-85Posted: October 17th, 2011, 8:55 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
added the second spruance version......
this version is build for the same role as the S-frigate, mainly ASW and ASuW. she can fire SM-1 missiles as well, but she is normally not equipped with them. the design was build in a way that she could be converted to an air defence ship quite easily as well, the main differences would be the replacement of the WM-25 by an DA-08 or SMART-S.

well, as always, please comment. :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]
ALVAMA
Post subject: Re: mini AU: US ship based RNLN 1980-85Posted: October 17th, 2011, 8:56 am
Awesome.


Top
[Quote]
Navybrat85
Post subject: Re: mini AU: US ship based RNLN 1980-85Posted: October 17th, 2011, 6:57 pm
Offline
Posts: 489
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 1:47 am
Location: In the study, with the Candlestick
Contact: Website
Hey, Ace, those twin 120's...What's the range and rate of fire on those mounts? The 76's are shorter-ranged than the 127s you replaced on the second Spruance variant, but have a SIGNIFICANTLY higher rate of fire...I was wondering what the advantage, if any, the 120's provide (Aside from two additional barrels) over the Mk. 45?

_________________
World's Best Okayest Author and Artist


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: mini AU: US ship based RNLN 1980-85Posted: October 17th, 2011, 7:09 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
well, they are placed there (first of all) because they are cheaper. these ships were build while some of the A and B destroyers were decomissioned, so the arnament was taken over, just like was done on the real tromp class.
navweaps list the specifications of the 120 as:
Rate Of Fire 42 - 45 rounds per minute
Range @ 45 degrees 20,890 yards (19,100 m)
AA Ceiling about 9,800 feet (9,000 m)
Elevation -10 / +85 degrees
Elevation Rate 40 degrees per second
Train about +150 / -150 degrees
Train Rate 25 degrees per second

said simply, they are bloody powerful. it says something that it was even considered to place the guns of the real world tromp class on the new LCF's.

this of course raises the question: why have I used the 76 on the other spruance? well, that is because they weren't available anymore. by 1980, all mounts apart from the ones used on the tromp class would have been scrapped.

_________________
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]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 4 of 9  [ 83 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 69 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


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


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