Heuhen's Large surface combatant

[Morten812]

Great drawing

Appears to be af 'beffed-up' version of the danish 'Absalon' class support-ship, as the also have e flex-dech

That is those 3 yellow object on the port side of the fligth-deck?

Thanks


Those three yellow object's is tow vehicle, for deck and flex deck work

Thanks....

[erik_t]

I still don't have a good feeling for what the various fixed radar/radio apertures are for. Their fields of view give the impression that the superstructure was designed first, then it was "filled in" with apertures that seemed about right.

One glaring example of this is the low, wide aperture on the aft deckhouse at 45deg between athwartships and aft. This array clearly illuminates the back of the ~40mm mounts. What is this actually supposed to be for?

The main air search arrays (I assume) are the roughly square arrays below the satcom domes. Yet these are at 45deg to the bow, and the third array is facing right aft. This doesn't make sense.

[sebu]

Well, I guess very few of us don't know what these small details really are. On the other hand some of them are still "secret information"; especially in modern designs. While I admire your knowledge and work in these, I'd like to remind you that this is personal design section in ship drawing forum (not ship design). I've always liked heuhen's unorthodox approach and I think he will take account your comments seriously As we all.

[acelanceloet]

Well, I guess very few of us don't know what these small details really are. On the other hand some of them are still "secret information"; especially in modern designs. While I admire your knowledge and work in these, I'd like to remind you that this is personal design section in ship drawing forum (not ship design). I've always liked heuhen's unorthodox approach and I think he will take account your comments seriously As we all.

Heuhen has just redrawn this drawing based on the comments made in the challenge thread where he first posted this. I'd say he's open for technical discussion of the design

That said, things like the same equipment being with an 90 (forwards) and 120+ (aft) degree field of vision doesn't require secret information to see errors in. antenna's being blocked by other equipment is also never a good thing, whatever the purpose of said equipment. This is hardly going deep into ship design, this is drawing ships that might work without needing the full understanding how they work.

Ship drawing and making sure said ships work have gone hand in hand as long as I am active on shipbucket. Everyone is free to comment on a drawing (hell Heuhen is asking for it especially), the only "drawing vs designing" thing is that nobody can force anybody to actually do something with the comments. Heuhen can say "meh but I like how this looks" and that would be that, or he could do something with the comments from Erik, that is his choice, but if comments like Erik's are not allowed we could instead use a like/dislike button instead of making comments. Once somebody knows how to draw shipbucket style, we can say very little about the drawing itself, we can just comment on the ships design, be it the looks or if it works. So I am not sure what is the point of your reminder?

[heuhen]

I still don't have a good feeling for what the various fixed radar/radio apertures are for. Their fields of view give the impression that the superstructure was designed first, then it was "filled in" with apertures that seemed about right.

I was designe all faces first and tried many variant of superstructure to get it to work. The main problem I was working with (I gave that to myself, although):
1. Main radar have only 3 faces. two at 45deg front and one pointing aft.
2. Secondary radar have 4 faces. and there where my problems start
3. I could have all smaller VHF, UHF, etc. faces in one superstructure, but I didn't want to overload, so I wnt with a sort of cross solution with both 3 and 4 faces. and there is my second problem.
4. I wanted to keep the superstructure low, and the top weight low, since the ships is already high.

One glaring example of this is the low, wide aperture on the aft deckhouse at 45deg between athwartships and aft. This array clearly illuminates the back of the ~40mm mounts. What is this actually supposed to be for?

Originally the mount was on deck mounted, but due to deck penetration and a helicopter deck control room, I had to lift the gun. but didn't do anything with the radar structure. my bad. But that is in it self a easy fix. BTW. the gun is a 56mm

The main air search arrays (I assume) are the roughly square arrays below the satcom domes. Yet these are at 45deg to the bow, and the third array is facing right aft. This doesn't make sense.

It's a 3 faces radar, they should perhaps be around 50+deg, don't have the number in my head, how do US mount there 3 faces.
The 3 face radar is backed up by a secondary radar with 4 faces (the second biggest fases that we can only see toward us.



I'm at the moment looking into a conceptual idé on how she would look like I I had pullet both radar structure together, a bit forward of center, with funnel for engineering coming up inside the structure... almost Zumwalt like!

Well, I guess very few of us don't know what these small details really are. On the other hand some of them are still "secret information"; especially in modern designs. While I admire your knowledge and work in these, I'd like to remind you that this is personal design section in ship drawing forum (not ship design). I've always liked heuhen's unorthodox approach and I think he will take account your comments seriously As we all.

Heuhen has just redrawn this drawing based on the comments made in the challenge thread where he first posted this. I'd say he's open for technical discussion of the design

That said, things like the same equipment being with an 90 (forwards) and 120+ (aft) degree field of vision doesn't require secret information to see errors in. antenna's being blocked by other equipment is also never a good thing, whatever the purpose of said equipment. This is hardly going deep into ship design, this is drawing ships that might work without needing the full understanding how they work.

Ship drawing and making sure said ships work have gone hand in hand as long as I am active on shipbucket. Everyone is free to comment on a drawing (hell Heuhen is asking for it especially), the only "drawing vs designing" thing is that nobody can force anybody to actually do something with the comments. Heuhen can say "meh but I like how this looks" and that would be that, or he could do something with the comments from Erik, that is his choice, but if comments like Erik's are not allowed we could instead use a like/dislike button instead of making comments. Once somebody knows how to draw shipbucket style, we can say very little about the drawing itself, we can just comment on the ships design, be it the looks or if it works. So I am not sure what is the point of your reminder?

Well I gladly admit I do not have 100% control on what all faces should be, so I limited it to UHF, VHF, two types of Navigation faces, electronic warfare and "passive signatur/signal detection", plus windoes for eventually cameras (infrared and similar things)

Ship drawing and making sure said ships work.

I taught the concept in it self is good, basically a light version of a Amphibious ship aft, with a destroyer at front. Can I call it a "Missile Guided Amphibious Destroyer" (my original concept was for a cruiser.. but I trooped it, was to... crazy)

since the concept in it self is good, I wanted to at least make the ship work to a degree, of course it can't be perfect, no ships are, but work it should.

[heuhen]

This is what I have now, I just did some fast changes. will have to work with the angle for both 3 and 4 faces radar. altough.

I put in a alternative variant of the ship, for fun. That one will definitely be top heavy

[erik_t]

It's a 3 faces radar, they should perhaps be around 50+deg, don't have the number in my head, how do US mount there 3 faces.

It would not be hard to look up, but it's easier to do the math and recognize that you probably want even coverage across 360deg of azimuth, 360/3 is 120, and thus the radars should be optimized so that they have to have a field of 60deg to either side of their boresight.

[heuhen]

It's a 3 faces radar, they should perhaps be around 50+deg, don't have the number in my head, how do US mount there 3 faces.

It would not be hard to look up, but it's easier to do the math and recognize that you probably want even coverage across 360deg of azimuth, 360/3 is 120, and thus the radars should be optimized so that they have to have a field of 60deg to either side of their boresight.

thanks

[TallBox]

Awesome design - and I love seeing it when illustrators provide an interior compartment schematic as well.

One piece of feedback I'd have is that the ship can't seem to decide what it is; is it an auxiliary, a surface combatant or an LPD?

[heuhen]

Awesome design - and I love seeing it when illustrators provide an interior compartment schematic as well.

One piece of feedback I'd have is that the ship can't seem to decide what it is; is it an auxiliary, a surface combatant or an LPD?

Google Absalone class.

I have earlier described the class as a vessel that a basically merging several things into 1 vessel to cut down the amount of ships operating for the Navy and thus reduce cost, but at the same time can do all missions