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

Request for Critiques - AU Surface Combatants
https://111903.jhzobq.asia/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=8323		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Miklania [ February 22nd, 2018, 9:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Request for Critiques - AU Surface Combatants
Hi. I've been practicing for a while, so I'm not bad at drawing, but I still need some help with details, like artistic errors, obscure but necessary pieces of gear that I've missed, or glaring fundamental design flaws. It's my first time posting here, so please be gentle.

When judging, keep in mind that one of the ideas of this series of vessels that I'm making is to evoke some of the aesthetics of late WWII vessels while remaining relevant, modern platforms. The cruiser is supposed to have a silhouette vaguely reminiscent of a Fargo or Oregon City class, and the DE is supposed to look like a John C. Butler. For these drawings purposes, the aesthetics matter.

[ img ]

The Stalwart Dawn class are considered light guided missile cruisers by the Miklanian Navy. They are basically equivalent to what the USN would call a DDG. ~10,000 tons, 96 Mk. 41 cells, 48 forward and 48 aft, a 155mm main gun (called 6 inch because we cling stubbornly to customary units but also want to be practical), and some CIWS. Radars are Not!SPY-6 and Not!SPQ-9B. Fleet defense is her main mission, with a focus on AAW.

The missiles, from left to right, are ASROC, Glaive (Not!LRASM), TLAM, A notional hypersonic thing that you shouldn't worry about, Spear-3 (Not!SM-3), Spear-6 (Not!SM-6), Spear-5 (Not!SM-6 minus booster), quad packed vertical launch Small Diameter Bombs, and quad Spear-1s (Not!ESSM Blk. II). The torp is essentially an MU-90.

[ img ]

[ img ]

The Dochorraithe are inexpensive convoy escorts, designed to fulfill the same role as the DEs of old. I derived her from the Batch II River class OPVs, stretching and adding weapons to make it a real warship. She has 16 tac length VLS cells forwards of the bridge, a 5"/54 gun, a Mk. 46 RAM launcher, and heavy torpedoes. Western nations don't really do that, but the Ruskies do, so I figured I give it a try, just for giggles. She's got a little itty bitty Not!Sea Giraffe radar. She'll make 26 knots at full power, which is provided by four large LNG piston engines. ASW is her primary mission. She definitely comes closer to the aesthetic goal.

[ img ]

The flag hoists were the call signs of the Fargo and Samuel B. Roberts, respectively.
Author:  Colosseum [ February 23rd, 2018, 3:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Request for Critiques - AU Surface Combatants
Cool stuff. Re: trying to emulate ships from World War II in your modern ship designs, I think it's a noble idea but ultimately rather pointless... ships are built a certain way for a reason. ;) If you are trying to emulate Fargo with your DDG, trunk the funnels into one large funnel. ;)

What is a "Not!SM-6"?

Otherwise I think these are pretty cool and definitely an admirable first post!
Author:  Kannevets [ February 23rd, 2018, 3:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Request for Critiques - AU Surface Combatants
If you want to make the first ship emulate that reference a little better, try closing the gap between stacks, it would help you get a closer result.

Otherwise a far sight better than my first drawing!
Author:  Miklania [ February 23rd, 2018, 4:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Request for Critiques - AU Surface Combatants
Thanks guys. Not! implies that it's essentially the same thing as a real world item, even though the fictional universe might not interact with the real world.

The aft thing that looks like a stack isn't, of the CLG. It's just there to hold the illuminator. That said I will be revising the stack, it's not large enough to support all the engines it needs to.

The premise of making them look like older ships is more of a thought exercise, I might not actually use these for anything. They're good practice though.
Author:  Hood [ February 23rd, 2018, 9:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Request for Critiques - AU Surface Combatants
It's an interesting concept, though as Colosseum says, its hard to achieve, especially since design trends have come so far in 70 years.

I think the Dochorraithe looks pretty good and gets quite close to what you want to achieve.
I'm not sure old-fashioned turntable torpedo mounts are the best use of space these days, but certainly the Russians have gotten good use out of using them for decades.

I look forward to seeing more of your work.
Author:  LEUT_East [ February 24th, 2018, 4:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Request for Critiques - AU Surface Combatants
Very impressed and I concur with Hood's comments mate. Keep it up and I will be certainly following this one.
Author:  erik_t [ February 24th, 2018, 9:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Request for Critiques - AU Surface Combatants
These are quite good for a newcomer! A few things really jump out at me from a design standpoint (versus from a drawing standpoint, where you've got some dueling grays going on):

The USN envisioned heavyweight torpedoes on a number of postwar ASW combatants. It's noteworthy that they chose to host these tubes fixed within deckhouses, firing at a fixed angle. Arguably, this could/would produce a lighter, more compact installation that reloaded faster and more easily. With modern torpedoes, there certainly would be no reason to fire at a variable angle.

Your DEG probably doesn't have sufficient air search radar capability to fully exploit ESSM, never mind Standard MR (although I guess she appears to have CEC or similar).

On the DDG, the after stack (as discussed) doesn't make a lot of sense as-is. It must be kept in mind that gas turbine exhaust is damned hot and damned voluminous, and putting anything atop a GT uptake is a bad plan (as you've located OE-82C). I think the aft SPG-62 would be dubious too.

The satcom arrangement on both is a little schizophrenic. The DDG has duplicated (probably over-duplicated) L-band, but anemic (or non-existent) S-band. No matter how much of the latter modern western navies can put aboard, it doesn't seem to be nearly enough. I've been going down a path of satcom craziness recently, so I'd be happy to talk more about this as desired.

I think the Zumwalt experiment (as with MONARC and the Brit 155mm project) should make one think long and hard about duplication of development effort between 5L54/5L62 and other similar calibers. Yes, 155mm has some real serious advantages, but unless you're going to build a whole bunch of them, you're probably better off leveraging the vast economies of scale we see with 5L54 development.

Putting a fixed azimuth thruster on an ASW escort is a bad idea - this will be very noisy, and putting a noise source next to a bow sonar is very counterproductive. If you're desperate for a bow thruster, make it retractable.

The DDG's active roll stabilizers are so small as to be purposeless on a hull that large.
Author:  Miklania [ February 25th, 2018, 2:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Request for Critiques - AU Surface Combatants
If by dueling greys you are refering to the differences in grey schemes, I know. Particularly on the DE's 5" gun. The story there is that because of how cheap the Miklanian Navy is, they re-used the guns from a decommissioning class of destroyers. I know that it's generally not a good thing to do that. Use different greys that is.

Which USN ships had torps in that arrangement? I saw that the Russians use fixed tubes on the Neustrashimmyy class, but it looked like it took up even more space, just below decks instead of above decks. Although I can see the advantage for reloading. I'll keep that idea in mind for future designs.

Probably not, no.

Again, the after stack is not actually a stack, it's just a mounting for the illuminator and the WSC-3. That said, I get that the one stack isn't actually set up very well at all. I'm not sure I can fix that.

But speaking of satcoms, I would love to learn more about those. That's one of those holes in my knowledge. I get that the WSC-3 is a satcom uplink/downlink thingy, and that some radome thingys are also satcom thingys, but that's about where my knowledge ends. I'm not even sure what band the WSC-3 is supposed to be. :oops:

My understanding is that the AGS screwed up by using a very low twist rate which would stabilize that one proprietary round, and that one proprietary round only. Which, of course, means that you're locked into one supply chain which can't go bust. And if it does... Forgetting how competition and capitalism works is apparently common in the DOD. Single source everything, cost-plus contracts... but that's a rant for another thread. The idea of these guns is that they would be able to use normal 155mm ammo with minimal modification. The 6" guns were to go on anything classified as a cruiser and the 5" guns on anything classified as a destroyer.

I was hoping (in vain) that no one would notice that tunnel thruster. Or at least come up with some new piece of evidence that says they're not bad for sound. Oh well. It'll get changed to a retractable thruster.

I will increase their size. Or I might not do any more work on that ship, since the stack configuration seems unsalvageable, and I'm kind of inclined to move on to a different, uncompromised design.
Author:  Miklania [ February 28th, 2018, 3:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Request for Critiques - AU Surface Combatants
Also, thoughts on the substitution of a GAU-12/U for the M61 on the Phalanx-called-Guardian CIWS? The idea is better ballistics and a tighter dispersion makes it better at longer range than 20mm, increasing the PK and decreasing risk of fragments to the ship.
Author:  Blackbuck [ February 28th, 2018, 3:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Request for Critiques - AU Surface Combatants
There was already a 25mm Phalanx(ish) CIWS prototyped using an Oerlikon KBD rather than a GAU-12. This being it.

Also handily already in SB format.

[ img ]
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/