Colombamike wrote:1998 ?
mix the following design
1995
late 1990's/early 2000's
Thank you Mike. I want to make this ship look like it was designed by the same group of people who did The Burke. Maybe I should have choose 90 instead of 98
Anyway, those two designs don't look too bad and the second comes closest to The look I'm going for. I'm not a big fan of the combined mast/radar...OMG, they sound have named that COMRAD ahahaha
sorry I couldn't help myself
The second example look like the mast is going to rip off the whole forward deckhouse, unless it goes all the way to the keel.
acelanceloet wrote:
- the hangar seems a bit low
Agreed, I'll raise it a bit
acelanceloet wrote:
- I am doubtful about those 30mm guns, or at least about the mounting used
I'll remove them for now as I don't think they were even around yet in my time frame
acelanceloet wrote:
- may I suggest using the newer oto melara 76mm drawing, that one is quite a bit out of scale
I thought I had the newest parts sheets available.... this is a frustrating phenomenon at the bucket. would you mind throwing me a link please??
acelanceloet wrote:
- I am not certain about that midships VLS
What is it exactly that your not certain about?? Is it to close to the engine room?
acelanceloet wrote:
- bulbous bows are not often fitted on warships, and I cannot think of any of this size and year that has one.
I was thinking they help with stability, but apparently they improve efficiency?? honestly, I put it there because it looked naked without a sonar dome
would it be detrimental in anyway? or should I remove it just because its not been used in real world??
acelanceloet wrote:
- the uptake for the turbine generator just aft of the funnel might best be pulled into the funnel, or the generator moved further away from the engine room
Agreed, I'll move it
acelanceloet wrote:
- I am not that content with that midship director, and maybe 2 directors for an ship like this might be enough
Wow, I thought you would hate the aft director. I just threw it on there because it was so empty back there? Also, I agree two is plenty, but you would ditch the one on the funnel??
acelanceloet wrote:
- there is something weird going on with the forward hull shading
Agreed
acelanceloet wrote:
- that deck height change just aft of the gun looks weird to me
Agreed. Do you like the lines in the version I PM'ed you better? Or something different that that too?
acelanceloet wrote:
all in all, interesting to see how you took the 'mini-burke' approach to the frigate, but I am not certain all scales that well (deck heights etc)
Thank you Sir
The mini-burke is exactly what I'm going for. I have to admit that I don't understand what you mean by "I am not certain all scales that well" It scaled didn't it? I mean, its right there...is my forward deckhouse not viable?
MihoshiK wrote:sabotage181 wrote:ok, I've been wanting to do a frigate for a while now. this is my submission. I see there is a new "American frigate" thread here and I hope I'm not stepping on any toes with mine
-SNIP-
this is what I've got so far, and I am looking for the help you guys give so freely before I go any further. As always comments, suggestions and even criticism are welcome
I'll be honest, and say that Ace captured most of my comments.
One thing I would like to add is that due to the extreme angles of the bow and stern and the low freeboard, this ship gives the illusion of having been squashed down, as if it should be taller.
Thank you MihoshiK. I rather like the low look on this frigate
I would raise it a bit if its technically wrong. Are there any seaworthiness issues with this low design?
ghost792 wrote:
US warships in the 1910s had a form of bulbous bow called the Taylor bow. They fell out of favor at some point, but newer versions started showing up on ships in the 50s and 60s. The US really started looking into ways to save fuel in the 70s and 80s. There was a study done by the David Taylor Model Basin in 1994 showing that bulb bows could be effective in reducing fuel usage by warships. There was a second study by the same group that ended in 2000 specifically looking at bulb bows and stern flaps on DDG-51s. That study got far enough to design a bulb bow for the DDG-51 that would work with the existing sonar dome, but it was not funded. (
Link)
Given the time frame of this design, it makes sense to include a bulb bow because that was a contemporary topic of study.
Having two VLSs is nice, but it adds unneeded cost and complexity to an FFG. One should be sufficient, as should two missile directors vice three. 16 missile cells would be enough. That provides a decent offensive punch for ASW and limited strike missions. It also gives the FFG enough cells for area defense AAW, especially with ESSM already in production and entering the fleet within a few years. If the FFG would load all 16 cells with quadpacked ESSMs, it would have 64 missiles for AAW, which is more than twice the number an FFG-7 carried.
I'd consider scrapping the 76mm and 30mm gun and replace them with a 127mm gun instead. Either the US Mk 45 or the OTO lightweight would work.
An axillary, steerable propulsion pod (like the FFG-7) or bow and stern thrusters would be nice.
I'm not sold on the need for AEGIS on an FFG. Ultimately, it comes down to cost. An updated version of the NTU suite might be good enough, especially if that translates into more ships being built.
All good suggestions Ghost, and I will consider them all. I was actually thinking about doing a frigate version of NTU with an upgraded version of the SPS-52 instead of with the SPS-48E....maybe my next project
For now I'm not really trying to make this the perfect "real world" frigate, more of just what I think would be cool and I really wanted to design a "burke-style" frigate with the SPY-1f. Thank you for all you helpful suggestions, not just here but also my other posts. I really appreciate your help
