Shipbucket

The idea behind the use of Mk48 was to have one more Sea Zenith front.Like M-Class (same outside appearence).
http://s7.postimage.org/p7ob9bge3/Klasse_122_TN.png

you can use the mod 1 but have to cut in your hangar (and the dutch S frigate has, at the other side, already space that could be used for an Mk 48 with not that much changes, as was proposed a few times)

_________________
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

Edit above.

Something else now,from an era long ago (late 1930s).RHN AU had 10 midget submarines with average dimensions 24.5m X 26m ,weight about 110tn.I would like to have one or two motherships for these (containing one or two subs).
The Imperial Japanese Navy had the No.1 Landing Ship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No.1_class_landing_ship and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HIJMS_LS-5.jpg,while today North Korea has this :http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/1163 ... idecb2.jpg for submercible boats (but these are much lighter,about 5-6tn).I thought a similar ship with the No.1,based somewhat to the Frieseland Seaplane Carrier.

Note that the heavier load for the 96m/1800tn No.1 was the 6 Kairyu,of 116tn total.

Any ideas?

P.S Do we have a 1930's oil tanker?Or someone is doing one?Except the Japanese ones.

A Danish tanker from around 1933 here
A British tanker slightly older from 1923
A Dutch tanker here
I hope these are good for you now.

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"

Ok for the tankers,thanks a lot.What about the mothership?

The DDG Gaziantep (AU)

After the 1974 War,Turks woke up and decided to modernise the equipment of their armed forces.The creation of a strong Naval Force in East Mediterranean Sea and Aegean was important.Among other programs,Turks wanted to have Guided Missile Destroyers as Hellenes had.As usuall,they went for something "bigger and better",considering the DG Aegis from USA in 1977.USA refused to sell it,because Americans want to retain a balance between Hellenic Kingdom and Republic of Turkey.Talks however continued and in 1982 USA offered an export,simplified DDG with GMLS Mk13 and SPS-48 radar.Turks agreed and the agreement was for first 2 ships built in USA,while last four in Turkey.US-built ships commissioned in 1985 and Turkish built supposed to have been commissioned until 1990,but the program delayed due to many technical problems and finally last ship entered service in 1994.The Gaziantep Class was the most compicated ships ever built by Turkish shipyards in the 20th Century and Turks are very proud of them.In 2004-2008 all ships modernised (program similar with the real O.H Perry FFG they have),as an answer to RHN Modernisation Program.

http://s7.postimage.org/dyhqjhdor/DDG_G ... _Class.png

Hmmm, interesting idea to expand an OHP into a proper destroyer. Kind of surprised the Aussies didn't actually do this.

This is a cross between DG/Aegis and the DG/Perry,it has nothing to do with the OHP.She has twin screws and is pwered by 2 X PW FT4 and 2 X LM2500,total 80,000hp for a top speed of 33kn.The hull is that of the DG/Aegis FY74.

as the artist who designed DG/perry, I have some comments here:
- so, you decide to remove 2 FT4 engines and replace them with the 2 LM2500. this results in:
* enlarging the engine room, and most likely the hull, of both fore and aft engine rooms, as each one runs one of the two shafts
* requires an new superstructure setup above these engine rooms, due to the removal channels of these engines
* gives you an estimated 50% power update from DG/AEGIS, which in turn
- results in about 1 knot more speed
- results in 50% more fuel consumption
* also, most likely, your propeller and stern design can not take the extra speed and/or power put on to it, so it has to be redesigned completely or you will loose that extra knot (and maybe even another one)

so, not an good idea.

- you have put the DG/AEGIS uptakes on top of the DG/Perry structure. this won't fit, as the DG/Perry has 2 ofset funnels, which are ducted inside the hull, while DG/AEGIS has 4 funnels, which go almost straigth up from the engines
- the same as above goes for the intakes
- why Mk 13? using the Mk 13 would require an remoddeling of the entire forward hull between the foremast and the gun, and maybe even more. the hull was designed with Mk 26 in mind, and that is the only, yes, ONLY reason why DG/Perry was even an option when comparing it with regular perry
- the harpoon burns your boat down when fired
- that VLS cannot be there, it gets damaged when the Mk 13 fired and the strength girder of the Mk 13 makes it impossible to fit it there without decomissioning the Mk 13.
- the CIWS locations are horrible
- why SPG-51? it is once again an step from the basic perry fit, which the ship was designed to be as close as possible to

in other words, I disagree with most if not all modifications you did to this from the basic ship. the cost of this modification would be huge,as it would be an new ship entirely (and that only for the few points mentioned above that work but need heavy modification)
DG/Perry

_________________
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