Shipbucket

I have a hard time believing they would be fitted with anything but a 4.5" gun. They already have them in service and if they don't haven any in storage, they will once they're done decommissioning the type 22s.

acelanceloet wrote:

Carnac wrote:I disagree. That one has a "chip" on the upper casing, where there's a break in the roofline. The other one has no such chip and a steeper roof, as seen in the picture.

please name which one you call 'that one' and which who you disagree. and I see clearly an 76, I have just checked with my source material as well.

I think the 127mm matches the drawing better, based on the roofline.

Has anyone thought that BAe might have just told their modelers "We don't know yet, draw a gun that looks moderny"?

although I agree it would be more logical to fit one of the BAE 4.5's, the image clearly shows an oto 76.

carnac and colombimike, look at this and say again that it is the 127 lw, without lying?

acelanceloet wrote:although I agree it would be more logical to fit one of the BAE 4.5's, the image clearly shows an oto 76.

carnac and colombimike, look at this and say again that it is the 127 lw, without lying?

The front looks like the 76, I agree. But the roofline has the profile of the 127.

edit: wait, I blew it up in paint.net and now I agree, I didn't see somehting I should have.

Carnac wrote:I think the 127mm matches the drawing better, based on the roofline.Has anyone thought that BAe might have just told their modelers "We don't know yet, draw a gun that looks moderny"?

I Agree

Carnac wrote:The front looks like the 76, I agree. But the roofline has the profile of the 127.
edit: wait, I blew it up in paint.net and now I agree, I didn't see somehting I should have.

The gun look like a 127
Even the Turret size look like bigger than a 76

turret size is the only point I agree, colombimike. at least... the size of the barrel. but that could be simple modelling mistakes, while the rest looks EXACTLY like the 76? (see my last post) it is absolutely NOT the 127 LW.
another proof? look at the back of the gun.


I see a flat back, not the one of the 127.

it is an mistake that is easily made, from a distance they look much alike, but at high res renders as these we can clearly see which gun it is.

btw, anybody else thinks the COM suite looks a lot like ICAS?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1307

acelanceloet wrote:it is an mistake that is easily made, from a distance they look much alike, but at high res renders as these we can clearly see which gun it is.

Highly probable....

@ Jabba

Colombamike wrote:Jabba
Note that 2 others SB Artists made previous attempts to draw this design

That 2nd drawing was one of my old ones.

bezobrazov wrote:Please use the props for the Type23 that I drew. They are more likely to resemble the real deal,instead of the 'shovelring' you presently have (I know: generic 1 gen stuff from the toolbox here!) Otherwise very promising drawing, though not a particularily elegant vessel.

Yes! I will do that, I know what you mean. Also, it's nice to have a constructive comment in an otherwise
negative and misguided thread!!!

Colombamike wrote:Jabba
Note that 2 others SB Artists made previous attempts to draw this design

I am aware of this, but my drawing is based upon different material.

Colombamike wrote:If this ship is YOUR INTERPRETATION, move to the "Own warships" section ?

Yes this is MY INTERPRETATION. If any moderators feel it is needed, please move this thread . I consider the use of upper case to be shouting when writing in forums, and find it annoying where this is inappropriate.

acelanceloet wrote:it is the correct size, IMO, and even if it is too big: the phalanxes are way too small
oow and looking again: the VLS deck looks wrong, the front phalanx is too low placed and the gun mounts at the side aren't placed on sponsons. I also miss the UCAV catapult and the platform with the hitrole on seems wrong. also, where did you get that hitrole from? it isn't on the renders

btw, if you can show me recent refs proving me wrong, I have said nothing of the above this is purely based on the renders, not on my own knowledge of these ships (which is almost none)

Yeah you are right. I based my drawing on someone else's interpretation of the 'Type 26 Frigate' design. I thought it would be nice to draw/show people a slightly different looking vessel with similar specs.

Colombamike wrote:@ Jabba
Your drawing need some refinement

My drawing wasn't based on this render.

TimothyC wrote:Short of having builders plans, all of the warships under Never-built are subject to some degree of interpretation.

Thank you, I totally agree.

Colombamike wrote:

acelanceloet wrote:it is an mistake that is easily made, from a distance they look much alike, but at high res renders as these we can clearly see which gun it is.

Highly probable....
@ Jabba

I am aware of the existing SB drawings already. I have the other photos/3D renders on my hard drive. You have gone to all the effort of pointing out the differences between my drawing and a photo it wasn't even based on.

This maybe should have been posted in the 'Personal Designs' section due to the slightly obscure source of reference, but to be honest some drawings that have appeared in the 'Never were' section have been based on material more questionable than this, and more 'artistic license' has been used (to good effect) in plenty of cases.

As mentioned above, I just wanted to try drawing something new a little differently.

Also, Colombamike, Where did you get the idea that it had only one engine from? In which part of the drawing does it show only one engine?