Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 3  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
erik_t
Post subject: Re: 100m River IIsPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 9:56 pm
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
The drawing is attractive and well-executed, but I pity the fool who has to navigate the ship in harbor or other congested waters...

I don't know how much topweight is added by a mostly-empty-air pilothouse, but another deck level would seem necessary.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: 100m River IIsPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 10:05 pm
Offline
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
erik_t wrote:
The drawing is attractive and well-executed, but I pity the fool who has to navigate the ship in harbor or other congested waters... Agree but cant think where better to fit the CAMM VLS and don't think fitting it down into the original deck will be easy?

I don't know how much topweight is added by a mostly-empty-air pilothouse, but another deck level would seem necessary.
Would just moving it a bit forward work? My thought was the wings would help and it has a camera on top would it be that bad?
Thanks for the feedback.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: 100m River IIsPosted: January 24th, 2017, 8:43 am
Offline
Posts: 7150
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Do you need CAMM?
I think the first version with the 30mm was fine if patrolling is the main function. If not, maybe a beefier gun might still be more useful than CAMM.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: 100m River IIsPosted: January 24th, 2017, 10:16 am
Offline
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
Hood wrote:
Do you need CAMM?
I think the first version with the 30mm was fine if patrolling is the main function. If not, maybe a beefier gun might still be more useful than CAMM.
My issue was want to put on a more warlike River, I did not want any none RN systems as that defeats the point of saving money. This cuts out the obvious 76mm or 57mm guns so its 20mm(CIWS only) 30mm (bit small) or 5" (big and heavy on such a small ship).

My thinking was that CAMM (and Sea Spear) would be better than a 5", what does anybody think?

My thinking was for a limited corvette/frigate for export and so that it did not look like a frigate to the number counters in HMT?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Blackbuck
Post subject: Re: 100m River IIsPosted: January 24th, 2017, 2:46 pm
Offline
Posts: 2741
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 9:15 am
Location: Birmingham, United Kingdom
You can't escape that 5 inch shells are cheap relatively speaking when compared to missiles. A 5 inch gun and a couple of 30mm weapon stations with attached LMM / HVM or maybe even Sea Spear (the Brimstone one, not the actual SPEAR 3 derivative) would seem like the best compromise.

_________________
AU Projects: | Federal Monarchy of Tír Glas| Other Ivernic Nations | Artemis Group |
Blood and Fire


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: 100m River IIsPosted: January 24th, 2017, 3:54 pm
Offline
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
Blackbuck wrote:
You can't escape that 5 inch shells are cheap relatively speaking when compared to missiles. A 5 inch gun and a couple of 30mm weapon stations with attached LMM / HVM or maybe even Sea Spear (the Brimstone one, not the actual SPEAR 3 derivative) would seem like the best compromise.
My thinking was that 5" also gives you much less, ie its a shore bombardment gun only.
30mm is really a close small boats only gun (unless it can be used a CIWS what's its anti aircraft or missile targeting like?)

So you realistically need CAMM to survive any realistic air attack, if you cant close to a hostile shore to use the 5" due to SSM risk what does it give you? At least the CAMM/30mm only ship can act as an extra escort and heliport?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Blackbuck
Post subject: Re: 100m River IIsPosted: January 24th, 2017, 4:12 pm
Offline
Posts: 2741
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 9:15 am
Location: Birmingham, United Kingdom
You've gotta decide what they actually are then. IF they are to remain patrol vessels albeit more 'warlike' then they're still meant to be cheap things to show the flag and defend themselves in low-threat areas however if they are actually intended more as light frigates to supplement the existing Type 23 and future Type 26 force then build them as such. OPVs shouldn't be having to deploy to high-threat areas, they should be releasing 'real' warships to do that.

_________________
AU Projects: | Federal Monarchy of Tír Glas| Other Ivernic Nations | Artemis Group |
Blood and Fire


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: 100m River IIsPosted: January 25th, 2017, 8:54 am
Offline
Posts: 7150
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Something tells me the same conversation is probably taking place in Whitehall.
I don't think you can blur the lines between OPV/corvette and light frigate and still have something battleworthy and capable of adequate self-defence, let alone offensive action.
Maybe focus on special forces insertion or UUV deployment as a patrol asset?
Self-defence is a thorny issue, CAMM might be overkill and most CIWS would be too expensive and large to fit adequately. It's a pity the RN has never made use of the 76mm OTO because it feels a good enough match for this hull. 127mm would be overkill and I agree its worthless having it if you can't defend from the range of shore-based threats and land-based aircraft threats. That's the principle reason I dislike the Type 31 concept.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: 100m River IIsPosted: January 25th, 2017, 12:48 pm
Offline
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
Ok have expanded to the Avenger sized hull to get more in, shouldn't add that much to the OPV cost as its not got any more systems fitted or more crew.
[ img ]
[ img ]

The idea is a OPV for the RN that can be sold as an export corvette and potentially unarmed if needed at shorter notice than building new frigates.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Navybrat85
Post subject: Re: 100m River IIsPosted: March 29th, 2017, 8:24 pm
Offline
Posts: 489
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 1:47 am
Location: In the study, with the Candlestick
Contact: Website
Hood wrote: *
Something tells me the same conversation is probably taking place in Whitehall.
I don't think you can blur the lines between OPV/corvette and light frigate and still have something battleworthy and capable of adequate self-defence, let alone offensive action.
Maybe focus on special forces insertion or UUV deployment as a patrol asset?
Self-defence is a thorny issue, CAMM might be overkill and most CIWS would be too expensive and large to fit adequately. It's a pity the RN has never made use of the 76mm OTO because it feels a good enough match for this hull. 127mm would be overkill and I agree its worthless having it if you can't defend from the range of shore-based threats and land-based aircraft threats. That's the principle reason I dislike the Type 31 concept.
Perhaps I'm wrong..I've been away for a bit..but isn't that what the LCS was supposed to be?

_________________
World's Best Okayest Author and Artist


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 3  [ 22 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests


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


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