Shipbucket

I'm starting to wonder if I'm going to need to add an extra missile-guidance radar on top of the radar-doom.

Thats what im talking about! 100% strike force
You could add one below the aft guidance and maybe raise the one thats already there a bit. I tried something without saving it and it will be possible

_________________
Vi coactus
Door geweld gedwongen
Forced by violence
------
Caption signing treaty with England by Johan de Witt

[Working List]
None

added an extra illuminatior to here.



and with added walls:



then I wondered, how would it be looking like if I moved two of the NSM launcher more back:

I think it is an bad idea to move the NSSM towards the funnel like this, mostly because that closes of one way to get to the other side of the ship. you should keep an opening (not a door, an opening) for replenishing ops, emergency and boat handling, mostly.

_________________
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

Hi Heuhen,

Wouldn't you also get flames from missile launch impinging on the structure, risk of warping / damaging VLS structure / missiles withing VLS structure?

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

Ace.. it's NSM not NSSM. if you are not talking about "The" NSSM:

but if you think about the staggering of NSM launcher in front of the funnel. well many other ships have the same problem and they still manage!

at the Tromp class you would have to walk around the entire superstructure or above. (Yeah it's an older ship)
then we have Brandenburg class.... you have to literally have a long walk around the ship to get to the other side..
you also have US Perry class.

so I don't see that problem at all. and there is also still passage from one side of the ship to the other side of the ship, behind the funnel. If an man can't walk those 4 meters... then he should ask him self: "Why are I'm in the Navy at all?". but if you compare it to De Zeven Provincien class, well they did, because they wanted to. but there is nothing stooping them either for use an door there either. But if you can come with an much more cleaner solution to it.. than just an hole, that can give interesting stealth problem if not done probably, a wrong shape in there, is all between looking like an fishing vessel on the radar to an big....

that you need an opening for replenishing ops. are you just basing on how other ship is looking. I have seen pictures at dad's former work place, of Coast Guard vessel refilling trough an Hatch! I have seen the same operation been done trough the RHIB bay doors... There is always an solution to an problem. for example one of the Skjold class was crosing the Atlantic, it did the refiling at see... over the bow and down an hatch in the chain room. and as my step dad said, the best place on a ship is often a couple meters from stern. it's more quiet there.

Boat handling is been doing the same way Fridtjof Nansen class have done for many years for now. I haven't changed it a bit. all the old doors the Navy used in that operation is at the same place as before, she have just got an extra door. something that I didn't need to giver her, I just did.

Other ships don't have that problem. and the flame from the launcher is hitting the deck to... just as the Harpoon launcher do to... and they have no problem with it. But the direct flame from the NSM can be an small problem, but that can be solved with making an some sort of funnel for it. For example Visby class, when it launch it's missiles that are placed inside the ship, the flames from it come out on the other side, and that ship is an Plastic toy, just like Skjold Class. But there is always an solution to an problem. I see what you are talking about and I can add an channel/funnel for the NSM, by just leading it up next to the VLS.

yeah, NSM, sorry.
note that also the superstructure does not add to the strenght of the hull, so the superstructures may not connect or they will break when the hull bends.
the tromp and perry have a entry with non-watertight doors, IIRC. both those ships have the superstructure as part of the strenght deck so they require the superstructure over that length.

really, if it was an good idea to have that additional bit of superstructure volume without any loss of deck space (as the space just ends up usable a deck higher) it would have been done on the real ship already.

_________________
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

The reason the Real 60cm "shorter" Nansen have the deck lower like this, is because they want to save as much weight as possible, so they can get that 300 tons ice caring mark. My design is working a little outside that box. If I was to work inside the box, I would had to have an 320-350 tons ice mark. thus the only thing I could give here is the 8-cell VLS aft. but I am just testing the limit of the hull it's self. But in the real world the structure in front of the funnel would not be there, there would be no MK-41 VLS but MK-56 (weight) aft and max three 8 cell MK-41 on the forward deck. thats the limit of the Nansen.

In theory the Original Nansen can take three 8-cell VLS up front. (tight!)

and what is the different in looks in Shipbucket scale is an non-watertight door compared to an watertight door?

next to none. however, on a ship like this, where this superstructure will not help with the strength, you are better off putting just an open deck there. you can put the NSM launchers in a deck on top, like the LCF has, but building it entirely in is an bad idea for different reasons (the tromp has this only for the lower of the 2 superstructure decks, and has the boats on that deck, and the UNREP at the rear, the perry has it like that also because it is space critical, which this frigate will never be )

_________________
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

there is one thing that have bothered me a lot, why didn't the Norwegian Navy give here two helicopters, Perry have... and two helicopters is better than one in an ASW situation. something the first draft of the frigate project was, an pure ASW frigate. but it might just be the government telling they navy that an 12 mm shell is more deadly than an 127mm shell!