Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 17 of 21  [ 210 posts ]  Go to page « 115 16 17 18 1921 »
Author Message
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Caledonia??Posted: August 15th, 2020, 3:27 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8619
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
let's go to the past.

Caledonia is an country of many islands, so for the navy to be able to show it' presence and power out over the country and also patrol and protect it's home water far from naval bases. A demand for a cruiser that had the power and range andenough space for crew, but also can help out island people.

Carana class

Amored cruiser build to patrol and protect all Caledonia islands. Armed with 240mm main guns, it had fire power to challenge most large combatan and in addition with an large secondary armament it could protect itself against most ships. They had unusually long service, since the Navy didn't see the need to replace them as a cruiser that is only patrolling home water.

RCN Carana was heavily damaged in a battle and partially sunk at Port Ron, where she in a partial sunk state operated as an gun-battery/fortress, she would thus be partially maintained there, later one crew of the fortress Carana would over time while in service, start to repair her hull, in their free time. But she wouldn't float, due to she had sunk and got stuck in the harbor mud. First in 60's There was laid down a project together with the Navy, to dig her out and put here on a barge. She was then sendt to her original shipyard and was totally rebuild, even her guns. In 1967 she once again raised the command flag, and sailed for her own steam after many years. she would eventually become the flag ship of Caledonia's museum ships, and always sailed first in naval parades or when out on trips with aspirants. She would also on occasions fire her 240 mm main guns in celebration of the long war. As a museum ships under command by the Navy, it is expected by the Navy to hold her in top condition like they do with all active ships.

A version of RCN Carana as a sailing-museum ship, will come later (I take in suggestion on things that might have been done to her!)


[ img ]

--------------------
name: Carana class
operators: Royal Caledonia Navy
Preceded by: Diadem class
Succeeded by: Drake class
Built: 1897–1904
In service: 1901–1942 (RCN Carana was salvaged in the 60's, and restored to an museum ship and under command of the Navy)
Completed: 8
Lost: 1
Damaged: 1
Scrapped: 6
--------------------
Type: Armoured cruiser
Displacement: 12,400 tons normal
Length: 148.4 meter
Beam: 21.2 meter
Draught: 8.8 meter standard

Installed power:
2 x 12.000 hp triple-expansion steam engines; 2 shafts
30 boilers
Speed: 23 knots

Complement: 700–800

Armament:
2 × twin 240 mm Mk VI guns
12 × single 150 mm Mk IV guns
14 × single 76 mm Mk XI guns
3 × 40 mm guns (not always mounted)
3 × single 350 mm under water torpedo tubes (bow, starboard, port tubes)

Armour:
Belt: 35–160 mm
Decks: 20–80 mm
Barbettes: 150 mm
Turrets: 148 mm
Conning tower: 280 mm
Bulkheads: 120 mm

[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Caledonia??Posted: January 3rd, 2021, 3:55 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8619
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Marsdorf class

Marsdorf class recived it name from the old fortress city of Marsdorf. Ordered to replace aging cruiser in the Navy and take the cruiser force, fully in to the missile age.

Design history:

Originally designed as a Nuclear cruiser, but due to change of politics and doctrine the class was redesigned into a all Gas turbine powerplant with auxiliary Diesel engines. and since the decision was made early enough, the Naval architect could do it without to much of a delay. In addition of saving on the weight of a nuclear powerplant, meant they could arm the class much better then originally intended and at the same time equip it with a overpowered powerplant. Designed with full command facility, the class would carry a bigger compliment of officers than normal.

In service:

The class served either alone or in a carrier fleet, with it's excellent all-round capability, made the class an excellent ship to operate alone or in fleet, going on mission to "deliver" influence, wherever the class go. The class would be send out on many "peace" missions, doing everything from gunfire support to missile support. Among the many operation the class was on, 8 ships of the class, was part of the collision forces in the Gulf War operating together with the American's Iowa's in fire supports and sometimes hang around the American's carriers. In more modern era, occasionally the Navy would send 2 or 4 of them on an "exercise" trip along Chinese disputed waters and visiting South Korean, sometimes these ships can also be spotted in an European harbor, or sometimes in either North or South America. The class was everywhere, some was part of the navy's plan.

2 ships in class was laid up after fire at a shipyard where cranes and the building they was in during there MLU, collapsed on to of the ships, although the hull was still intact, the combination of age of both ships and damage to superstructure and equipment and there are other ships in the fleet that can cover some of the operations, it was decided to not repair them, instead the damaged superstructure got removed and the hull was towed out to anchor for future plans.

------------------------
Name: Marsdorf class
Builders: Navy main yard, Marsdorf city Fortress Naval shipyard
Navy second yard at Bremock city
Operators: Royal Caledonia Navy
Build: 1978-1988
In commission: 1981 - present
Subclass: Marsdorf Type 2 class
Class Motto: "The fleet's fortress"
Completed: 18
Active: 10
Reserve: 4
Laid up: 2
Retired: 0
------------------------
Type: Guided missile cruiser
Displacment: Approx: 10,000 tons full load
Length: 170.7 meters (560 feet)
Beam: 19.2 meters (63 feet)
Draft: 9.9 meters (32.5 feet) with sonar

Propulsion:

6 x Atech M5J21 Mk1 Turbine (27,000bhp, tot: 162,000bhp
4 x Befer M45D2V16 Diesel auxiliary engines (tot. 15000 bhp)
2 × controllable-reversible pitch propellers
2 × rudders

Speed:
Max: 36 knots (33 knots standard Max)

Range:
6000+ nmi at 20 knots; 3000+ nmi at 30 knots

Complement: 50 officers and 300+ enlisted

Sensors and processing systems:
1 x Havok ind. 6D3 Type 6 Long range radar
1 x Havok ind. 6GD2 Type 12 Medium range radar
1 x Havok ind. 56C Medium Indicator
1 x Havok ind. 58C Large Indicator
1 x Havok ind. F3 Gun fire control radar
4 x Havok ind. Licensed AN/SPG-62 fire control radar
8 x Comunication dishes
16 x short to medium range radio coms.
2 x Long range ultra long range radio coms.
4 x Havok ind. B6 Navigation radars
1 x Atech 67B/D Passiv/active hull mounted sonar
1 X Atech modified licensed 45/C towed active sonar

Electronic warfare & decoys:
Atech Mark 28 SRBOC
Atech Narwhale launcher SLQ Mk 8

Armament CG 72-78:
1 x Havok ind. Mod 505 Mk 43, 140 MM (AAW, ASuW, ASW-limited)
2 x Havok ind. Mod 108 Mk 23 single, 40mm (AAW, ASuW)
2 x Licensed MK 26 GMLS mod 2 (RIM-66, RIM-156, RUR-5)
1 x Licensed Mk 29 GMLS (RIM-7)
4 x Simbad launcher for AAW rocket
4 x quad pack launcher for Mk-12 Eagle (ASuW)
2-4 x 12.7 mm machine guns
2 x 324 mm triple torpedo launcher for Stingray or equivalent

Armament CG 79-90:
1 x Havok ind. Mod 505 Mk 44, 140 MM (AAW, ASuW, ASW)
2 x Havok ind. CIWS, 30mm Gatling (AAW, ASuW)
Licensed MK 41 VLS (160 cell's) (RIM-156, RIM-161, RUR-5, NLOS, RIM-162)
- 1 x 64 cell
- 1 x 80 cell
- 2 x 8 cell SDLS basic

4 x Simbad launcher for AAW rocket
4 x quad pack launcher for Mk-12 Eagle (ASuW)
2-4 x 12.7 mm machine guns
2 x 324 mm triple torpedo launcher for Stingray or equivalent

Helicopter Hangar with fully equipped repair facility:
2 x lynx helicopters. later on due to layout improvement/change there was place for 3 x lynx or 2 large helicopters

[ img ]


[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Caledonia??Posted: January 3rd, 2021, 4:53 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7354
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
a few comments are in order, if I may :P Sorry to say, but ship design wise I found some issues with the design. Not all of them are critical, but together they lead to major issues, which you might want to resolve....

- First of all, components. if I see it correctly, you have the old Mk 26 part, the current one is slightly more accurate.
- Note that the magazine of the Mk 26 goes aft from the launcher. So, on the type 1, the plenum vents and reload hatch are inside the superstructure (making the launcher unable to fit there) while on the type 2 the VLS cannot go directly into the hole where the Mk 26 was.
- The propeller is quite far away from the rudder, which will make your rudder less effective.
- I find it unlikely a ship classified as an CG would not have unitised machinery.
- I cannot find air intakes big enough for the turbines that would require 6 of those huge exhausts anywhere on the ship
- I find it unlikely that on the type 2 the Mk 29 would be swapped for SDLS cells. You already fit more missile cells on the ship then you originally had and you can quadpack sea sparrow on them.
- You have fitted SM-2 ER and SM-3 on these ships, but I have some doubts about it having guidance systems capable of taking advantage of this.
- Mk 26 is not capable of firing SM-2 ER
- I have some doubts about the advantages of having 3 layers of missile air defence on a single ship. (mistral, sparrow, standard)
- SPG-62 has only be fitted in combination with the AEGIS system. In addition, while your text says SPG-62, what you have on the drawing is the SPG-51.
- If the ticonderoga class of similar size and displacement had difficulty fitting all her systems and 2 Mk 26 mod 1 launchers (as her hull was originally designed to fit a less complex weapons system and 1 Mk 26 mod 1 and one Mk 26 mod 0) I highly doubt you could get 56 more missiles (8 additional harpoon, 8 sea sparrow, 40 cells in the Mk 26's) in more optimal locations (note the tico's harpoon location) While also having more then twice the engine power AND the same range at 20 knots.
- Note that on the drawing, ASROC for the Mk 26 and VL-ASROC should not look the same.

All in all, this looks good drawing wise, as we are used to from you, but ship design wise I doubt it is possible. To quote Erik's response to a similar case a few days ago:
erik_t wrote: *
As a very rough rule of thumb, modern warships are pretty carefully designed for operability and maintainability. Improvements can be nibbled away on the margins, but if one finds oneself sketching out a super badass cruiser of doom that is a dramatic advance on existing ships in nearly every respect, there's probably something you're missing. In this case, the chief shortcoming is the new artist's common mistake of trying to fit ten tons of equipment into a three-ton bucket

_________________
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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Caledonia??Posted: January 3rd, 2021, 6:06 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8619
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Quote:
- First of all, components. if I see it correctly, you have the old Mk 26 part, the current one is slightly more accurate.
Just me not updating my part-folder on my computer
Quote:
- Note that the magazine of the Mk 26 goes aft from the launcher. So, on the type 1, the plenum vents and reload hatch are inside the superstructure (making the launcher unable to fit there) while on the type 2 the VLS cannot go directly into the hole where the Mk 26 was.
on the type 1:
- forward Mk-26 is normal, and I used bellow deck parts for that one did the same with the aft one but with a twist
- aft Mk-26 i flipped the launcher around so basically vents and reload are toward the hangar. that could give problems with the reload for the launcher it'self but then the Mk-26 do turn around to the "general" direction it want to fire. and for vent's, there should be a problem to deflect it. or do you say that the Mk-26 have no flexibility to be modified at all
Quote:
- The propeller is quite far away from the rudder, which will make your rudder less effective.
minor adjustment
Quote:
- I find it unlikely a ship classified as an CG would not have unitized machinery.
I designed her mainly as an all turbine vessel, although there are 4 auxiliary diesel engine. the Turbine do mainly propulsion and some power production. the Diesel are more or less a back up or for when it's need for large loads. after all there is tot.: 162000 bhp for the propulsion, and some of it is used for electricity. with those 4 diesel engine tot.: 15000 bhp backing up in both area. Of course the would be some random small generators around the ship.

Turbines could probably better be described as turbine-electric powerplant
Quote:
- I cannot find air intakes big enough for the turbines that would require 6 of those huge exhausts anywhere on the ship
The entire funnel-radar-electronic structure is used for air intakes, and the air intake is not only on the sides, there also to the front and on top, between the funnels, although that one is mainly to cool down the funnels
Quote:
- I find it unlikely that on the type 2 the Mk 29 would be swapped for SDLS cells. You already fit more missile cells on the ship then you originally had and you can quad-pack sea sparrow on them.
Type 1 and Type 2 aren't the same design. Type 2 design are a modified version of Type 1 and not an MLU

the difference between type 1 and type 2. is that type 2 that is a subclass that is build totally new as that, from CG79 and up to CG90, it's only CG 72 to 78 that aren't upgraded, altough they get there MLU, but that is only in the electronic department.
Quote:
- You have fitted SM-2 ER and SM-3 on these ships, but I have some doubts about it having guidance systems capable of taking advantage of this.
Better to have something than nothing... that you can't use it fully doesn't mean you can't use it, the ship is full of compromises after all
Quote:
- Mk 26 is not capable of firing SM-2 ER
upsi! easy fix
Quote:
- I have some doubts about the advantages of having 3 layers of missile air defense on a single ship. (mistral, sparrow, standard)
why not, the ship can cover several combat zone at the same time. Ships do it today, but with fewer equipment.
Quote:
- SPG-62 has only be fitted in combination with the AEGIS system. In addition, while your text says SPG-62, what you have on the drawing is the SPG-51.
typo, writing, while looking at something else.
Quote:
- If the Ticonderoga class of similar size and displacement had difficulty fitting all her systems and 2 Mk 26 mod 1 launchers (as her hull was originally designed to fit a less complex weapons system and 1 Mk 26 mod 1 and one Mk 26 mod 0) I highly doubt you could get 56 more missiles (8 additional harpoon, 8 sea sparrow, 40 cells in the Mk 26's) in more optimal locations (note the tico's harpoon location) While also having more then twice the engine power AND the same range at 20 knots.
Tico's are 3 meter longer, and 2.4 meter smaller. I have bigger volume then Tico's and thus much bigger displacement, while Tico's is a sub 10,000 cruiser, my is more than 10,000 tons, estimated! and originally the design history in the AU is that this class was started of as an Nuclear design but since the requirement (politics) change come early enough, it was re-designed as a turbine-design. I choose Turbine to save up as much weight as possible compared to a combined powerplant. and it all are lighter then a nuclear reactor with it's facility.
Quote:
- Note that on the drawing, ASROC for the Mk 26 and VL-ASROC should not look the same.
forgot to change, easy fix
Quote:
All in all, this looks good drawing wise, as we are used to from you, but ship design wise I doubt it is possible. To quote Erik's response to a similar case a few days ago:
been a while since I did draw last time.

For me it doesn't feel overloaded. I use a hull that was designed for a nuclear powered Cruiser with less equipment and higher displacement then Tico's. i'm up there with Japanese Atago and Maya class. The Nuclear powerplant is heavy, I replaced it with turbines that are lightweight and a lot of structural change over what a nuclear cruiser would look like, to lower the center of gravity as much as possible due to the loss of a nuclear powerplant


erik_t wrote: *
As a very rough rule of thumb, modern warships are pretty carefully designed for operability and maintainability. Improvements can be nibbled away on the margins, but if one finds oneself sketching out a super badass cruiser of doom that is a dramatic advance on existing ships in nearly every respect, there's probably something you're missing. In this case, the chief shortcoming is the new artist's common mistake of trying to fit ten tons of equipment into a three-ton bucket
I am careful, but we should go blind on text like that, many ships is designed that way, due to politics, and some ships is designed to only do that and some ships doesn't carry more than that, due to economy. Many warships out there doesn't have all equipment on the even. while a Norwegian frigate is build and operate with 1/3 of the equipment it is supposed to have other looks like the are overloaded like crazy, there are no definitive answer to how the perfect warship should look like, only what type of missions it is designed to do.
.
And no ship is perfect, if they was, then there would be any point in design and developing new technology. US Navy had problem with getting all the equipment on Ticos's, then they come with Arleigh Burke class after, that even today with all the different batch's look like it have retched it's limit's.. and that before we take into account the South-Korean and Japanese version's


All edit the drawing after next, argument/discussion, I don't want to redo/change the design now, and find out I have to do it again after. ;)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Ro-Po Max
Post subject: Re: Caledonia??Posted: January 3rd, 2021, 7:06 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 796
Joined: May 1st, 2017, 8:35 am
Location: Ukraine
Detailing, graceful forms, .. impressive. More works pls :)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Caledonia??Posted: January 3rd, 2021, 7:52 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7354
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
heuhen wrote: *
on the type 1:
- forward Mk-26 is normal, and I used bellow deck parts for that one did the same with the aft one but with a twist
- aft Mk-26 i flipped the launcher around so basically vents and reload are toward the hangar. that could give problems with the reload for the launcher it'self but then the Mk-26 do turn around to the "general" direction it want to fire. and for vent's, there should be a problem to deflect it. or do you say that the Mk-26 have no flexibility to be modified at all
Well, that means your launcher always has to rotate 180 degrees before reloading. On a launcher designed for quick firing, this is quite a handicap. It also means your launcher blasts your superstructure every time it first because it is too close to it.
heuhen wrote: *
I designed her mainly as an all turbine vessel, although there are 4 auxiliary diesel engine. the Turbine do mainly propulsion and some power production. the Diesel are more or less a back up or for when it's need for large loads. after all there is tot.: 162000 bhp for the propulsion, and some of it is used for electricity. with those 4 diesel engine tot.: 15000 bhp backing up in both area. Of course the would be some random small generators around the ship.

Turbines could probably better be described as turbine-electric powerplant
and this makes it an good idea to put all those turbines and generators close together in one spot in the ship how exactly?
heuhen wrote: *
The entire funnel-radar-electronic structure is used for air intakes, and the air intake is not only on the sides, there also to the front and on top, between the funnels, although that one is mainly to cool down the funnels
Yes, I suspected that. That is still about then the intake area of a tico, which has half the amount of gas turbine power. The intakes on the sides of the funnel alone are about the size what is needed for the exhaust cooling alone I suspect.
heuhen wrote: *
Type 1 and Type 2 aren't the same design. Type 2 design are a modified version of Type 1 and not an MLU
Yes, I got that, but the type 2 is clearly based on the type 1. No big changes were made in the hull and superstructure, so in the base design these parts are 'swapped'.
heuhen wrote: *
Better to have something than nothing... that you can't use it fully doesn't mean you can't use it, the ship is full of compromises after all
That is like bringing a cordless drill to nail a table together. Yes, you can use it as a hammer, but if you know in advance you won't be able to find any screws, why would you not just bring a hammer? That would do the designated job better, be cheaper, and easier to use.

These missiles would not be used unless there was nothing else in the cells, and in that case, you'd better bring something you could use in those cells right?
heuhen wrote: *
why not, the ship can cover several combat zone at the same time. Ships do it today, but with fewer equipment.
I don't think I have ever seen 2 layers of self defence missiles (both sparrow and mistral count as self defence only) on a single ship.... and especially not on a ship that also has area defence capabilities.
heuhen wrote: *
Tico's are 3 meter longer, and 2.4 meter smaller. I have bigger volume then Tico's and thus much bigger displacement, while Tico's is a sub 10,000 cruiser, my is more than 10,000 tons, estimated! and originally the design history in the AU is that this class was started of as an Nuclear design but since the requirement (politics) change come early enough, it was re-designed as a turbine-design. I choose Turbine to save up as much weight as possible compared to a combined powerplant. and it all are lighter then a nuclear reactor with it's facility.
I'm sorry to say, but this makes no sense. If you change a ship from nuclear to gas turbine power, everything changes. The systems can stay the same, but you get an all new hull and propulsion layout. Compare the Kidd class to the Virginia class: the same combat system and (more or less) the same top speed, but an all new much bigger hull, less power, different hull shape.....

How much more displacement then, if I may ask? looking at your systems, I would estimate over 15000 tons, but no way you are getting that into those dimensions.
heuhen wrote: *
For me it doesn't feel overloaded. I use a hull that was designed for a nuclear powered Cruiser with less equipment and higher displacement then Tico's. i'm up there with Japanese Atago and Maya class. The Nuclear powerplant is heavy, I replaced it with turbines that are lightweight and a lot of structural change over what a nuclear cruiser would look like, to lower the center of gravity as much as possible due to the loss of a nuclear powerplant
Nuclear powerplants are heavy, yes, but you should use an hull designed for an nuclear powerplant as starting point then. The Atago has only 96 cells on that displacement, where you put 180. Actually, if you start with a nuclear powerplant and remove that and then add gas turbines, the hull would have to become wider because of the increased topweight, which again would be lengthened to keep the required power reasonable....

So in a hull design that started out nuclear, but 10000 tons, the result would be LESS systems high up (compared to the nuclear powerplant, main deck level is high up) when compared with ships designed for gas turbine powerplants, not more.
heuhen wrote: *
I am careful, but we should go blind on text like that, many ships is designed that way, due to politics, and some ships is designed to only do that and some ships doesn't carry more than that, due to economy. Many warships out there doesn't have all equipment on the even. while a Norwegian frigate is build and operate with 1/3 of the equipment it is supposed to have other looks like the are overloaded like crazy, there are no definitive answer to how the perfect warship should look like, only what type of missions it is designed to do.
.
And no ship is perfect, if they was, then there would be any point in design and developing new technology. US Navy had problem with getting all the equipment on Ticos's, then they come with Arleigh Burke class after, that even today with all the different batch's look like it have retched it's limit's.. and that before we take into account the South-Korean and Japanese version's
This is why I took the tico as an example, the tico is pretty close to maxed out on that hull. Note that CGBL, a design where the tico systems would be placed on a hull designed to burke standards, which ended up nearly 14000 tons. The F2A burkes have about half the radar and weapon systems your ship have (and half the propulsion) and still end up roughly at the displacement of a tico, 'just under 10000 tons' which your ship is supposed to be 'just above'.

So all in all, I expect your ship lacks the space and stability to actually use all these systems, due to not having space for things like fuel, crew, damage control, storage space etc.

Honestly, if the ship did not have 2 Mk 26 mod 2 but had 2 Mk 13's and maybe 2 turbines less, it would be a pretty reasonable and capable ship, something like the DXG concepts of the 1970's. But an tico is kind of the smallest hull I see capable of taking 2 mod 1 Mk 26's, and you bring 2 mod 2's and a lot more stuff on roughly the same size a ship. I just don't see it happen.

Personally, I would do the abovementioned Mk 13 modification to this ship or grow it larger, to 14-15000 tons. Either would make sense, and both would make great drawings. This one is just trying to do too much IMO.

_________________
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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Caledonia??Posted: January 3rd, 2021, 8:01 pm
Offline
Posts: 2898
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
While I share the concerns about overloading, this feels more in the "not a great idea" range of overloading rather than "this ship would be completely inoperable in service". For a navy operating on shorter deployments closer to its home bases, it might make sense to deviate fairly substantially from USN practice (which isn't some sort of sacred perfect practice, in any case!). This was an observation made particularly of, IIRC, Italian designs in the US in the Sprucan era.

Two different point-defense missiles just doesn't make sense, though. I wholly agree with this detail. I'm skeptical even of NSSMS+Standard, as clearly were many Western navies.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Caledonia??Posted: January 3rd, 2021, 8:18 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8619
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Ro-Po Max: Thanks, there will at some point come more

acelanceloet:

I see you'r point's and I will look into do some adjustment.


- Note: main structure was on my first draft 1 deck higher!! locked ridiculous :lol:
- I was at some point considering a larger helicopter hangar and larger helicopter pad. If I implement it, I could gain around 5-10 meters alone there.
- adjusting stern hull for better the rudder propeller position/layout
- I am going to at least add 2-3 meter on the bow, just for the look it'self mostly
- with length adjustment I should end around 178-180 meters on a 19.2 meter hull, that should put me around 12-15k tons, would perhaps
- MK 26 I'll adjust it for now to a variant of Mod 2 forward and mod 1 aft
- For me Mistrals is more or less, if you don't have anything else to defend with, you have Mistral, but I can half it, to only have only mistral aft, then instead of mistral on the bridge deck, have a 20 mm station (for crew moral :lol:)
- engine plant is placed forward and aft of funnel, the only problem is the funnel design it'self. it still is more or less a port and starboard funnel, that you see on some ships, it's just placed more toward center.
- improve a little on auxiliary engine funnels a little, should still be bit "naked"
- wondering on replacing Mk-51 with something different, or just give it 1-2 more Mk-51 somewhere, perhaps side mounted like on battleship, would look cool :lol: nah. there is space for one more foraward at least. so guidance channel I should have enough of

- wonder if I have space for a small RHIB at the forward structure


I have some work and other stuff to do over the next couple of days, but I'll see if I can get it updated at some point


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
odysseus1980
Post subject: Re: Caledonia??Posted: January 3rd, 2021, 8:49 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3455
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 8:53 am
Location: Athens,Hellenic Kingdom
Perhaps an even larger hull is needed, look my in AU Nikiforos Fokas Class Cruiser. But I like very much your cruiser.


Last edited by odysseus1980 on January 4th, 2021, 6:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Miklania
Post subject: Re: Caledonia??Posted: January 4th, 2021, 3:26 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 76
Joined: February 11th, 2017, 12:45 am
Location: Baltimore, MD
Another option would be to retain the Mk 26 mod 2 forwards and eliminate the one aft. The Mk 29 would be retained to provide self-defense missile coverage aft. The freed up space could be used for a luxuriously large hangar, as in the more modest DDH-997 proposal, and for spreading out the GT engine rooms.

_________________
"Common sense is an uncommon virtue." "Says the guy that wanted to make a Nimitz hull into a battleship." "I never said I was one of the people with common sense."

Real drawings signed (M.Morris)
AU drawings signed (Miklania)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 17 of 21  [ 210 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 115 16 17 18 1921 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]