Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 10  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 510 »
Author Message
prairie canuck
Post subject: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: November 6th, 2010, 9:50 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 54
Joined: October 18th, 2010, 4:14 pm
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
G'day all, My first post. I've been a frequent visitor to this site and have decided to take the plunge.
For someone who is usually surrounded by a sea of wheat I've developed a great interest of Canada's Navy and more directly the future vessels which will replace the ones in the present inventory. Here's my first attempt. (You may fire when ready)
Attachment:
IROQUOIS NEW BUILD 2 narrow 3d.GIF


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Mitchell van Os
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: November 6th, 2010, 9:55 pm
Offline
Posts: 1056
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:19 pm
1. The hull is to undeep for vls.
2. The phalanx above the SRBOC is not going to work.
3. You dont need missile directors with APAR+Smart-L.

Great start for a ''beginner?''

_________________
Fryssian AU with Lt.Maverick 114
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9802&p=193331#p193331
[ img ]
Embarked on: HNLMS Karel Doorman A833
To do list:
-Zeven Provincien class cruiser
-Joint support ship all sides
-F124 Sachsen class frigate
-F125 Baden-Württemberg class frigate
-Clemencau class aircraft carrier
-Zeven provincien class frigate
-Poolster class AOR
-Amsterdam class AOR
-Minas Gerais aircraft carrier


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
radagast477
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: November 6th, 2010, 10:10 pm
Offline
Posts: 64
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:49 am
Location: Duluth, MN
Is this vessel supposed be the planned Province Class?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
prairie canuck
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: November 6th, 2010, 10:18 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 54
Joined: October 18th, 2010, 4:14 pm
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
The Province class was supposed to be based on the "Halifax" Hull but stretched to accomodate the VLS cells. This is just my stab at something new. How much more hull would it need?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: November 6th, 2010, 10:24 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
the apar and smart-l are the old ones, look at the dutch parts sheet for the latest ones :
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/ ... 317qb2.png
also, I doubt this ship will be really stealthy... the bow looks stealth, the stern looks more like the previous generation of ships.
funnel looks weird....
look at the hull of real ships how it should be done......
otherwise: good start, but needs improvements :D ;)

_________________
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]
prairie canuck
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: November 6th, 2010, 10:31 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 54
Joined: October 18th, 2010, 4:14 pm
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
otherwise: good start, but needs improvements

That's what its all about right ;)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Chris Roach
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: November 7th, 2010, 3:42 am
Offline
Posts: 49
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 10:58 am
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Okay, good first shot at the style but a few minor niggles about the ship. For a start the draught appears somewhat on the shallow side.
Secondly, 64 self-defense length VLS? I'm not sure if you could fit that many given the hull form shown in the bow on view (I think lack of space would preclude fitting the outer most 2x8 cell blocks on each side reducing the number of cells to 32 instead) and given ESSM is quadpacked you'll be carrying a utter heap of point-defense missiles per ship (but no area defense missiles)... Anyway, either cut down the number of VLS cells or redesign the hull in order to take longer VLS cells, thus allowing carrige of SM-2s (giving you an effective layered AAW system rather just an insane level of point defense and making full use of the radar fit you've got).


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
MC Spoilt B'stard
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: November 7th, 2010, 4:35 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 498
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:52 pm
Location: Willemstad, Curacao
indeed a good start , specialy the topvieuw and the front/stern vieuw.

_________________
Vi coactus
Door geweld gedwongen
Forced by violence
------
Caption signing treaty with England by Johan de Witt

[Working List]
None


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: November 7th, 2010, 8:11 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
A few improvements.
  • Reduce by half your forward VLS. Right now the 64 cells make a very very big hole in the deck, and you're mounting up to 256 ESSMs/RAMs/NULKAs
  • Remove the missile guidance radars APAR can cover this roll.
  • Raise the Bridge up one level
    • You need the internal volume
    • It brings the Phalanx mount down so it isn't sitting on a platform like you have. What you have now works, but I would think it's sub-optimal.
  • Modern Sonars that have rubber covers get a dark-gray coloration, not brown.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: November 8th, 2010, 8:41 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Sure, a good beginning, and you've gone to a lot of trouble to show the various views. Most of the points for correction have already been made, so nothing to add there. Generally, around the bridge area there are too many odd angles and platforms (as in the Phallanx mount). You could also remove the black line beneath the bridge windows as (on the other views) this is not a deck edge. You don't need to label the various systems, but if you do you'll need to place the legend next to whatever your describing; and not as you've done, where you've sort of mixed them up.

That said, a most impressive first post; and on this basis you should find a welcome berth on board :)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 10  [ 94 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page 1 2 3 4 510 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests


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


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