98m Basic design

Post any drawings you have made that do not pertain to an Alternate Universe scenario and are not a never-built design.

Moderator: Community Manager

Message
Author
User avatar
Thiel
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

Re: 98m Basic design

#11 Post by Thiel »

It's funny to see just how differently people see the same hull.
The moment I saw that long free deck and especially the towing gear, my brain just screamed OPV.
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.
Blackbuck
Posts: 2743
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 9:15 am
Location: Birmingham, United Kingdom

Re: 98m Basic design

#12 Post by Blackbuck »

Wow there's a lot of artefacts left in there. Moving stuff around the template is like something attracting dust :\
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
No Gods, Only Monsters
User avatar
TurretHead
Posts: 193
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:38 am
Location: End of a bad sci fi movie.

Re: 98m Basic design

#13 Post by TurretHead »

Thiel wrote:It's funny to see just how differently people see the same hull.
The moment I saw that long free deck and especially the towing gear, my brain just screamed OPV.
I saw: Gunboat!
Image

Still a WIP and also using my original unfinished drawing of the Vosper 98m light frigate as a base.
Novice
Posts: 4126
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat

Re: 98m Basic design

#14 Post by Novice »

TurretHead
I don't believe there is enough hull-depth aft for that gun of yours. Also your radar mast seems to have too much for a ship of this size and function.
Image Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"
Blackbuck
Posts: 2743
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 9:15 am
Location: Birmingham, United Kingdom

Re: 98m Basic design

#15 Post by Blackbuck »

I concur. Personally I'd go for a 76 in the A position, a 40mm twin or missile CIWS in the B position and either another twin forty or smaller calibre (20mm etc) aft of the funnel.
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
No Gods, Only Monsters
User avatar
TurretHead
Posts: 193
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:38 am
Location: End of a bad sci fi movie.

Re: 98m Basic design

#16 Post by TurretHead »

Novice wrote:I don't believe there is enough hull-depth aft for that gun of yours. Also your radar mast seems to have too much for a ship of this size and function.
If you look at the design of most modern naval guns they only require a single deck level under the turret. In this space is a carousel in which shells are loaded. The bulk of rounds are stored elsewhere and carried by hand to this carousel. There is a deck level aft in this design. The original design it is based on (Vosper Mk 18) has a very bulky towed sonar array in this position. So there is plenty of room at the rear.

The radar mast is from the original Anzac class radar upgrade drawing. It is designed to be lightweight and cheap. Their webpage says this technology is scaleable from "corvette to cruiser". This boat is a 2000 ton “light frigate” and not just a little patrol boat. My version is designed to be a littoral gunboat capable of defending itself, maritime interdiction against coastal traffic and naval gunfire support.
Blackbuck
Posts: 2743
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 9:15 am
Location: Birmingham, United Kingdom

Re: 98m Basic design

#17 Post by Blackbuck »

My humble and rather pathetic contribution to this :geek:

Image

Finished in standard ISE naval colours, Battleship & Ash Grey.
Armament is as follows; 1x 57mm Bofors Mk2, 1x SVTT bank either side of the main superstructure, 1x sextuple Mistral launcher (as fitted to Rauma type missile boats) 6x Penguin AShMs, 4x M2 12.7mm HMGs, 1 or 2 Rheinmetall RH-202s in pedestal mounts aft of the mast and finally a bank of depth charges on the stern (probably will and or would be discarded but we'll see).

Sensors are much the same as my Corvette in the Atlantia AU thread, EO gunlayer for the 57mm, EO for passive search and adverse weather. Air and surface search radar as the Corvette too.
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
No Gods, Only Monsters
Canadai
Posts: 94
Joined: August 22nd, 2010, 1:11 am

Re: 98m Basic design

#18 Post by Canadai »

Actually looks really good.
Atheism. Because Religion Has No Proof.
Canada Rules
~Obligatory Sig Image Here~
User avatar
TurretHead
Posts: 193
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:38 am
Location: End of a bad sci fi movie.

Re: 98m Basic design

#19 Post by TurretHead »

I think its good too. I like the idea of having the main gun on the forward deck.
erik_t
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US

Re: 98m Basic design

#20 Post by erik_t »

TurretHead wrote:
Novice wrote:I don't believe there is enough hull-depth aft for that gun of yours. Also your radar mast seems to have too much for a ship of this size and function.
If you look at the design of most modern naval guns they only require a single deck level under the turret. In this space is a carousel in which shells are loaded. The bulk of rounds are stored elsewhere and carried by hand to this carousel. There is a deck level aft in this design. The original design it is based on (Vosper Mk 18) has a very bulky towed sonar array in this position. So there is plenty of room at the rear.

The radar mast is from the original Anzac class radar upgrade drawing. It is designed to be lightweight and cheap. Their webpage says this technology is scaleable from "corvette to cruiser". This boat is a 2000 ton “light frigate” and not just a little patrol boat. My version is designed to be a littoral gunboat capable of defending itself, maritime interdiction against coastal traffic and naval gunfire support.
I struggle mightily to think of what a double-ended gunboat could do that a single-ended one could not. Particularly since a single LGB would be the end of this critter.
Post Reply