Shipbucket
https://111903.jhzobq.asia/forums/

Canadian Surface Combatants - Carnac's Canucks
https://111903.jhzobq.asia/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3657		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  Carnac [ October 24th, 2012, 3:58 am ]
Post subject:  Canadian Surface Combatants - Carnac's Canucks
Just in time for Halloween, it's a ghost. My doodle for the Canadian Surface Combatant that aims to replace our 12 Halifax and 3 Iroquois with 15 destroyers. The "Province-class" was pure speculation that I liked and isn't unreasonable.

[ img ]

Of course, since this ship is on a relatively limited budget and we would like to get them in the water before we have to pull the Iroquois out of it, I've made a few compensations. Obviously you'll notice no VL-Harpoons, instead this would use our existing launchers and block-1 stocks. The APAR/SMART-L combination is indeed quite spendy, but since the government wants to divide it into two flights - one for AAW area defence and command, one to replace the ASW and escort capabilities of the Halifaxes - this could be reduced to cheaper radar at a later date. I currently have it using the same CODOG powerplant as the Halifax class, but I didn't go too deep into propulsion. This is at least partially a WIP, but I've gotten as far as I can without feedback.

As for the Kingston Replacement, it's just a relatively quick doodle I did for fun. It would replace the Kingston class for coastal defense and patrol, being a glorified coast guard cutter during peacetime and a small missile boat during wartime.
[ img ]
Author:  klagldsf [ October 24th, 2012, 4:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Canadian Surface Combatant and Kingston Replacement
Carnac wrote:
The "Province-class" was pure speculation that I liked and isn't unreasonable.
Unfortunately it's Canadian which automatically makes it unreasonable :P

Seriously, I get the impression that Canada's defense departments are like the UK's MoD back in the 60s - but worse. Then again they're also dealing with a fraction of the financial resources available.

Also, why do you have four sets of ASW tubes?
Carnac wrote:
As for the Kingston Replacement, it's just a relatively quick doodle I did for fun. Although with an 8-pack of self defense length Mk41, a 57mm Bofors and a drone I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of one. Also a WIP.
A drone and Mk41 would be a bit too fancy for something like this - it would probably not even bother with a helicopter deck at all and at best use Mk 48 or Mk 56 as used on the Halifaxes now, or even a locker stocked with MANPAD tubes.
Author:  Kilomuse [ October 24th, 2012, 4:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Canadian Surface Combatant and Kingston Replacement
I'm not a ship expert by any means, but I can't help but think that the Province could a bit more bow on her.
Author:  Carnac [ October 24th, 2012, 4:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Canadian Surface Combatant and Kingston Replacement
klagldsf wrote:
Carnac wrote:
The "Province-class" was pure speculation that I liked and isn't unreasonable.
Unfortunately it's Canadian which automatically makes it unreasonable :P

Seriously, I get the impression that Canada's defense departments are like the UK's MoD back in the 60s - but worse. Then again they're also dealing with a fraction of the financial resources available.

Also, why do you have four sets of ASW tubes?
The name "Province-class" is what isn't unreasonable, but the Canadian Surface Combatant project going somewhere reasonable before the Iroquois are retired is.

Are you referring to the rear panel by the hangar? I honestly can't remember what was supposed to be there, but I'm fairly certain it isn't torpedoes. I think it was supposed to be a life boat chute.
Kilomuse wrote:
I'm not a ship expert by any means, but I can't help but think that the Province could a bit more bow on her.
She had a much nicer looking bow until I put the stealthy-style railing on her, it's a shame.
klagldsf wrote:
A drone and Mk41 would be a bit too fancy for something like this - it would probably not even bother with a helicopter deck at all and at best use Mk 48 or Mk 56 as used on the Halifaxes now, or even a locker stocked with MANPAD tubes.
I agree that it's quite a fancy setup for an OPV, so I'll knock the Mk41 down to a Mk48, but I would argue a helicopter of any sort would be a good addition to an OPV. It's primary mission is patrolling, and helicopters are rather good at that. But if you really think it's too much I'll take it off. Or perhaps a small two-seat manned helicopter instead of a drone.
Author:  heuhen [ October 24th, 2012, 5:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Canadian Surface Combatant and Kingston Replacement
"Province-class"

you can't have VLS there you have it. (can and cannot) the VLS will make problem with the space needed for engine's that will be directly under there.

"see bellow deck part's in the part's sheet forum."

forward structure with bridge and radar is to far forward, you'r ship will be bow heavy, and that's not good.

"A warship is build with a relative sharp hull for better speed and sea keeping"

torpedo tubes should always be placed next to hangar, for you'r torpedo magazine is there.

"Helicopter is using the same torpedo for ASW as the ship"


Fraser -class.

VLS can't be mounted there because of engine's.

She is bow heavy.

An OPV doesn't carry missile in a normally duty. they normally carry an 56 mm gun or a 76 mm (depends of the size of the ship). Theire helicopters is always an rescue helicopter or No helicopter at all. If helicopter: you need an helicopter to transport people fast a shore when needed, but also the helicopter that araive before the vessel and start the rescue work.




This is a typical OPV (from the Norwegian master's of OPV)

[ img ]
[ img ]

[ img ]
and if war!:
[ img ]
Author:  klagldsf [ October 24th, 2012, 5:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Canadian Surface Combatant and Kingston Replacement
Oh, and you'd probably need some heavier manned guns than what you have now (two or so 25-30mm weapons) or better yet something like the Mk38/Typhoon which is a remotely controlled weapon.
Author:  TimothyC [ October 24th, 2012, 6:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Canadian Surface Combatant and Kingston Replacement
I like the lines on the Providence class, but there are some minor issues I'll point out when I am more awake. Until then, nice work.
Author:  Blackbuck [ October 24th, 2012, 10:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Canadian Surface Combatant and Kingston Replacement
heuhen wrote:
"Province-class"

you can't have VLS there you have it. (can and cannot) the VLS will make problem with the space needed for engine's that will be directly under there.

"see bellow deck part's in the part's sheet forum."

forward structure with bridge and radar is to far forward, you'r ship will be bow heavy, and that's not good.

"A warship is build with a relative sharp hull for better speed and sea keeping"

torpedo tubes should always be placed next to hangar, for you'r torpedo magazine is there.

"Helicopter is using the same torpedo for ASW as the ship"


Fraser -class.

VLS can't be mounted there because of engine's.

She is bow heavy.

An OPV doesn't carry missile in a normally duty. they normally carry an 56 mm gun or a 76 mm (depends of the size of the ship). Theire helicopters is always an rescue helicopter or No helicopter at all. If helicopter: you need an helicopter to transport people fast a shore when needed, but also the helicopter that araive before the vessel and start the rescue work.
Well engines aren't always directly amidships. Look at the A200 SAs for instance, they appear to have their engines well aft as a result of their propulsion set-up. So it's not impossible to mount a VLS in either of the vessels in that location, just not all that likely. Also IMHO the funnels do sorta betray that the propulsion gear is somewhat aft...

If it were me on this I'd combine the mast and bridge structures into one solid structure, elongate the bow and heighten it, waterline exhausts for the diesels (possibly) and a single centreline funnel for the GT.
For the VLS I'd either raise it up another deck or so and build up the sides to the same height as the harpoon enclosure or fit one into the lengthened bow depending on how much more front heavy she'd be after said mods...
Finally, relocate the ASW tubes aft to beside the hangar and raise the RIB and associated crane to either aft of the funnels or up to the harpoon launcher's height.
Author:  heuhen [ October 24th, 2012, 2:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Canadian Surface Combatant and Kingston Replacement
yeah the funnel is aft, but the engine can still be on the center-line. A funnel doesn't need to be placed exactly above the engine, but not more off than a couple of meters.

the hull shape it self say that he have the engine on the center-line. unless he have V-gear (I hate that one), or pure electric drive (with the electric drive, the generators can in theory be on the boat next to it, and still drive the electric engine, But then you need a h*** a lot off cable)
Author:  Carnac [ October 24th, 2012, 3:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Canadian Surface Combatant and Kingston Replacement
I had roughly blocked out the rear of the ship with the below deck parts and yes indeed the engine is under the funnel, but if the hull shape interferes with the I'll lengthen it. I'll give in and remove the missiles off the Fraser completely when I get home and switch out the heli to a little two-seat SAR. I'll also enlarge and lengthen the bow of the Province class as suggested, which should help make it less now heavy.

As for the torpedoes I'll take the suggestion to move them near the hangar.
klagldsf wrote:
Oh, and you'd probably need some heavier manned guns than what you have now (two or so 25-30mm weapons) or better yet something like the Mk38/Typhoon which is a remotely controlled weapon.
Will do.
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/