MCMVs, Tide Class and Type 31e concept
Page 2 of 2

Author:  waterwings [ March 15th, 2018, 12:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: MCMVs, Tide Class and Type 31e concept

Thanks for your feedback, team :)
Hood wrote: *
The Tidespring looks great but I would be tempted to tone down the shadow in the hull cut-outs as right now they look like black blobs.
I agree that the black is too severe - tried it with a lighter background:

[ img ]

Regards the bow thruster ...
darthpanda wrote: *
The forward thruster of Tidespring is not correct, we have installed a extendable thruster in the bow.
... can you help me out with that? From this photo it seems like although the thruster extends out beneath the ship, there's still a hole in the hull in the normal place? How should I show it?
As I understand it, the thruster functions as normal but can be deployed below the ship to act as emergency forward propulsion?

[ img ]
[ img ]
erik_t wrote: *
What happened to the poor Mk 45 (?) on the Type 31?
It got cold :lol:

... or potentially during the process of me trying to crowbar it onto the bow of my old River I must have accidentally chopped the barrel off. Sorted now.
Novice wrote: *
...belongs in the Never Built section of this forum...
Just put it in here to avoid starting 4 different topics for 4 ships ;)
MitcheLL300 wrote: *
I do see an error already btw. Between the bridge and the reserve diesel behind the bridge is a gap to walk between them.

[ img ]
heuhen wrote: *
Are you planning to do the Norwegian one?
I don't think they're too fundamentally different, and I found an okay profile for her ... might as well! :)

All the best!

Author:  Mist [ March 16th, 2018, 3:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: MCMVs, Tide Class and Type 31e concept

fyi the current Leander concept has an 8 cell Mk41 silo amidships.

it's doubtful that it will make it onto the final ship, but at the moment it is there

Author:  heuhen [ March 16th, 2018, 7:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: MCMVs, Tide Class and Type 31e concept

Don't forget that 5" is wrong gun on Type 31e concept. On the illustration you pictures you can clearly see it's a 76mm

For me it would be more likely that UK used one of there own 4.5" then a US 5"

Author:  waterwings [ March 16th, 2018, 9:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: MCMVs, Tide Class and Type 31e concept

I agree that the concept art shows a 76mm - I'm just confused as to why. As it's a BAe concept surely a BAe Mk 45 5" mod 4 would be installed? As there will be on the Type 26? I'll admit when I drew it I put the 45 on because that seemed the logical choice :lol:

You'd assume the people at BAe who made up the picture would know what systems would go on it, but then I'm cynical enough to think they probably just reused their Khareef-class concept art - I think that's got a 76mm on it :? Seems like the sort of lacklustre approach BAe would take given they know they'll probably get the contract anyway. We love shovelling money at BAe :lol:

[ img ]

I've also reduced the length to the 117m specified here. There's so many unknowns about it - if we go down the Forth route following the catastrophic 'Year of the Navy', it'll be just an incredibly expensive hull fitted for but not with anything of use! At least they managed to put a hangar on this one, unlike the River II :( To be as true to life as possible, I should probably take all the weapons off it!

Author:  heuhen [ March 16th, 2018, 3:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MCMVs, Tide Class and Type 31e concept

it's most likely down to weight and what you get out of the gun, a 76mm would be more effective as a CIWS than a 5"

but it come down to the role of the ship, it's no point to install a 5" if the ships isn't intended for tasks that need a 5"

The aft end of the Hangar structure, should be angled forward and not flat

Author:  Scorch157 [ March 19th, 2018, 6:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MCMVs, Tide Class and Type 31e concept

Also, consider expense. The Mk45 isn't a cheap bit of kit, and if we have to choose between a smaller gun and more missiles, or a big gun and lackluster missile load, I'd choose the heavier missile load. Plus, the cost of Sea Ceptor is mostly for the missile, which can be offset from the £250mn cost of the ship by classing the missiles as ammo and therefore not in the price of the ship, whereas the main cost of the gun is, obviously, the gun mount, which is definitely a part of the ship.

Also also, the Leander render seems somewhat misleading, as it still has the round, widely spaced launch cells for the Khareefs' MICA missiles

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited