Shipbucket

Glad to hear!

There is indeed a cargo crane on the other side, also just like the Holland Class where this design is heavily based on this vessel is also having an drop-out FRISC
which is even faster deploy-able then the one on the side

Ah I see, I just looked up the base vessel.

The lack of comments are starting to worry me, is this good or bad?

I'd move the foremost Marlin and the main gun back about five meters or so to clear up the bow and make room for the anchor and associated gear. You might also want to drop the main gun down to deck level since according to the fair-leads it's floating around about 1½ meter above the deck. I'm not saying that it's impossible by any means, but it does mean you have to construct a rather tall platform beneath it.
Obviously this is going to cost you some coverage, however the aft Marlin and the two beam mounted HMGs should be plenty to deal with the kind of targets that could take advantage of the gaps.

Speaking of anchors, you're going to need at least one of those.

_________________
“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.

I am in doubt on that I-mast. I see no reason why it would not work, but it is gonna make the mast somewhat cramped (the cooling equipment and computers for the seapar need to fit somewhere as well) and all that is driving your CoG up.
also, I believe you have used on older drawing of the I-mast as base....
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =16&t=1307 here you can find the latest dutch parts.

_________________
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

On the mast, I think cooling wise it should be no problem, mainly because the new mast is wider and even the cooling equipment in the SeaPar should have more room

Thiel, thank you for your advice and I'll change the things, on the new mast I'll update it.

Are you certain about this? Northrup-Grumman's MWVR small-ship phased array surface search set advertises navigation capability as well. I don't see any intrinsic reason that a sufficiently good surface search radar could not provide nav support.

Certain? No. But I know the ships build or in service now equipped with I-mast kept at least one (and I believe even 2) dedicated navigation radars.

This might be due to the fact that they want radars which can run for navigation work when the main radars are off.

_________________
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

Final version?

that anchor is kind of big and very vulnerable on that position. also, it does not really fit the stealth shape of the rest of the ship
I would also suggest to get 8 cells of Mk 48 on board and couple them together. try to have as many of the angled surfaces in the same angle instead of 10 different ones (better for stealth), the green navigation lights should be on the bridge (as right now they are blocked by it) and the pilothouse and the bridge deck have different shapes, you should cut the corner a bit. also, I see no evacuation zones and no holes to let the water of the deck, apart from the cable holes.
I would also suggest moving to one bigger bow thruster and lengthening the bilge keel a bit

after all that is done, I think she is near finished, if not finished.

_________________
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