Re: Heuhen's Large surface combatant
Posted: May 23rd, 2020, 4:22 pm
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 designsebu wrote: ↑May 24th, 2020, 7:19 am 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.
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):
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
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.
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)acelanceloet wrote: ↑May 24th, 2020, 8:57 amHeuhen 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 designsebu wrote: ↑May 24th, 2020, 7:19 am 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.
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?
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)
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.
thankserik_t wrote: ↑May 24th, 2020, 2:01 pmIt 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.
Google Absalone class.