Shipbucket

did the designer design exactly THAT gun on THAT place? I highly doubt it. if so, can you show any prove of it? maybe the gun is placed to the side, then it might be possible. (maybe it can carry the gun indeed..... but then without the hangar.) all other points do also still count.
also: on your next version of this ship you should credit the original drawer of the ship, as you haven't drawn everything yourself.

_________________
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

my bad..... spoilt just told me that the gun is possible more or less on that position. sorry. I would put it a bit higher tough, and a bit backwards, as there is an large open deck over there, what is most likely the space for it. my other points still count though.
there was also some intel that an CIWS could be placed somewhere. do you know anything about 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

yea! I have just a little wacky/crazy humor from time to time!

ll see what I can find out about the CIWS Over the next few days.

The 76MM on top of the hangar was contemplated during the design process, but was rejected when it came to the final cut. As a result, there isn't room for the deck penetration that a 76MM would require in the hangar. It simply isn't designed for it (anymore). Furthermore, according to concept art, the NANSEN-class would get a US Mark-45 5" gun, not a OTO 5".

As for CIWS, the plans were something in the 30-40MM vicinity, and the current plans for CIWS is for missile-based CIWS. That said, the entire reason for ESSM to be on the NANSEN-class (which is optimised as an ASW frigate) is for self-defence against aircraft / missiles.

in fact, that is wrong. most likely it is build 'fitted for but not build with'. and concept art is not as reliable as hard facts and data: it was really the oto 127 that can be placed over there.

_________________
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

First off, thank you for pointing out that the original needs an upgrade.

Second, why did you remove the original artist's name? If you modify an existing drawing, you place your name AFTER that of the original artist! This rule is NOT up for debate. Rectify that the next time you post this ship, or it might be your last post.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...