Shipbucket

Why that? It clearly shows a railing goes to the edge of the floor...
(Near bridge)

_________________
Fryssian AU with Lt.Maverick 114
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9802&p=193331#p193331

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

yeah, but the bridge is wider then the deck underneath it. and he drew a stairs at the edge of the bridge.

_________________
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

Alright, thanks for your input sofar. I've carefully considered both Miho's and erik's suggestions, and while I may not have adopted them fully as they suggested, I've tried to find my own solutions to the various problems. As for ace's suggestions, I've adopted the labelling one, since that makes a whole lot of sense. As for the authorship, I think we may differ on that, since, afterall, in the original conceptualization of the Tromp, after Master Miho, I believe I draw a lion's share, including the rigid boats and the underwater hull. True you've rebuilt the superstructure to conform with the 1967 image, yet still you did not adhere faithfully to it; amongst others you did not accept the (agreeably very ugly) oblong funnel uptakes either side of the massive bridge structure. Thus I think we still stand about 50/50 on the alterations etc, while Miho, naturally will always preceed us as being the original master of the drawing from which we have, in turn evolved these creations. Thus I did not bother to change any of that. However, I can agree with you on the ladder thing, so I've changed that back to as it were.

But I digress...

My solutions include the moving forward on all three versions of the Type 909 forward director to attain a better field-of-vision. I also substituted a forward Type910 director on the Sea Wolf variant with a Dutch WM-25 'egg', seeing as I did that the Type43 can suffice with one director per two launchers either beam! Instead I have the Type910 just beneath and aft of the aft Type909 director. On the Sea Cat version I have retained four directors, inspite of dear ace's protestations, since, being very sophisticated vessels for their age, they would have the best available fire directors, and I don't fel that having a back up for aft-directed fire of the Sea Cat launchers can be that bad. They certainly can duplicate as gunnery fire directors as well!

Anyway, I know much still can be debated, and I'm sure will, but since the only evidence appear to be minutes and sketchy reports, I think much is left to the author's interpretation of viability and logic about the various systems.

Here are now the updated editions:

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

I have only three real objections now.

First, why do the guns change from design to design? Pick one; neither AAW nor ASW mission really demands either system.

Second, missile blast issues for the forward Type 909. Sea Wolf would be very hard on it, I think. The Sea Wolf drawing in particular, I'd move the T909 to the Sea Wolf position, move the T910 to the WM20 spot, and the Sea Wolf launcher proper to the current T910 location. Two directions aren't really necessary for a single launcher.

Third, the WM20x. Type 909 can do gun direction. Type 910 is proper for Sea Wolf. Three direction systems means far too many spare parts and technicians. Choose two and defend the choice thereof to the death. Three is just too many on a hull this size. I think Type 909/910 is most likely.

erik, you may have a good point there, my friend! As for the guns, well, the original drawing show the French-made 100mm M1968 gun, but in the two other versions I've transferred the available turret(-s) from the discarded Friesland-class DD Groeningen, that's what it is. But let me work on your suggestion and we'll see what we can get out of it!

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

just to make sure: my idea for the credits was: mihoshik, acelanceloet, bezobrazov. this for the reason that you made the final work, not me. when uploaded I'd like to have that clear to everybody.

_________________
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

Updated with the suggestions submitted by erik_t, though I didn't follow them in a litteral sense. However, they gave me an impetous to reconsider the placements of the various systems.

So here's the updated (and hopefully improved) version of the Sea Wolf-version:

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

This is much, much better. My only concern is that the forward Type 909 might interfere with the field of view of the main air search radar. All of the antenna might be above the top of T909 though, so you could well be fine.

Certainly lowering the surface search radar as far as possible would improve the Type 909 situation.

topweight might be an issue as well, the current systems and directors look a lot heavier then those oringally on my drawing, and even then I was wondering if she wouldn't be too unstable.

_________________
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

Thank you erik! Yes, I quite understand your concerns. The reason why I left the Decca navigational radar as it was, is because that's the original height of it. As for the SPS-01 vs Type909 situation, I don't think there's any interferrence of consequence to fear, since, after all, the Dutch put two quite conspicious SatCom radomes just at the forefoot of that huge radome!, That's why I wonder whether the Decca radar will actually interfer that much or at all with the Type 909. But, having said this, I consider myself more a naval designer and not an electronics engineer!

ace: yes, I am inclined to agree with you there! It is certainly not a most optimal design solution. Having presented it, doesn't mean that I'd endorse it in the end! Considering that, evidently no preliminary sketches were drawn of how a Dutch Sea Dart vessel would ultimately look like, I have come to lean to the obvious conclusion that an entirely novel design, perhaps resempling the British Type42 would have been the goal. I have in mind of attempting to see just how such a ship might have looked like.
Had the Dutch persisted in adopting the 1967 sketch-version, then most likely, a different stabilization system would've been employed; either one akin to the contemporary Counties, or one resembling that of the slightly later Type42s.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen