[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 2  [ 11 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 »
Author Message
reytuerto
Post subject: AU Destroyer Escort / Frigate 1960sPosted: April 19th, 2017, 11:05 pm
Offline
Posts: 474
Joined: February 21st, 2015, 12:03 am
Good evening:

I want to show to the fellow artists 04 preliminary drawings (WIP) for my AU navy in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 1960s. Initially I planed a design between a Leander and a Blackwood. But after seeing the nice Heuhen´s Fletcher/Oslo based vessel, I also tried with a flush deck destroyer escort / frigate.

The gun selected was a Vickers 4 inch. ASW weapons were 2 triple torpedo tubes, 1 Terne mounting (the other candidates were Bofors 375 mm sextuple rocket launcher and trainable Hedgehog), 1 light helicopter (Wasp or Alouette III, if it can handle, an helicopter of UH1 or Lynx class), and Bofors L70. Last ships of the series would be armed with Sea Chaparral too.s

The machinery is with 2 shafts. It can be an all diesel plant, a codog, or traditional for the era steam turbines.

[ img ]

May I ask which of the designs is more balanced and plausible for a Navy which was the "poor maid" of the armed forces of my fictional country? Thanks for your help and

A final note about the credits: I´m not sure about the final quality of my drawings, but I´m completely sure that the base drawings that I chose are of excellent quality. So, if my attempt is successful I will credit the original artists, but if the drawings are a failure, I am the sole and only responsable. Cheers!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: AU Destroyer Escort / Frigate 1960sPosted: April 20th, 2017, 9:02 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7717
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
I'm at work at the moment, so I can't study the drawing so much. But I recommend visiting "NavWeps" and find out how much that 4" gun with turret weight totally, compared to other guns. Also think about not overkill it on the superstructure... These vessels doesn't have that large hull volume a modern vessel have.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: AU Destroyer Escort / Frigate 1960sPosted: April 20th, 2017, 2:28 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5326
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
It's within spitting distance of the contemporary British Mark 6 and 7 4.5inch gun.

_________________
“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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
reytuerto
Post subject: Re: AU Destroyer Escort / Frigate 1960sPosted: April 21st, 2017, 1:06 pm
Offline
Posts: 474
Joined: February 21st, 2015, 12:03 am
Thanks Heuhen!, I am looking the weigths of several guns of the era:

4"/62 (10.2 cm) Vickers Mark Q
Turret Weight: 21,337 kg

5"/54 (12.7 cm) Mark 42
Weight: Fully loaded: 66,193 kg Mod 9 and Mod 10

4.5"/45 (11.4 cm) QF Mark V (Mark 6 and Mark 7)
Weight: 44,706 kg Mark VI

100 mm/55 (3.9") Model 1953
Weight 22,000 kg

3"/50 (7.62 cm) Marks 27, 33 and 34
Weight: 14,696 kg Mark 33

76 mm/62 (3") M.M.I.
Weight Single Mounting: 12,100 kg

I am afraid I don't understand about what do you mean with "overkilling" the superstructure. Cheers!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: AU Destroyer Escort / Frigate 1960sPosted: April 21st, 2017, 5:59 pm
Offline
Posts: 418
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
I think Heuhen means working space. On that subject matter he is an expert. Might I suggest some of the weapons chosen need clearer sight lines for flyout and working room, (*ASW tubes need a lot of space for reloads), for example.) ?

Back in the day, the USN was notoriously inefficient about such matters. One might watch out for top-weight. (I'm notoriously amiss at this fault in my own AU renders.) Radars' aerials are heavy. Also, one might want to think about corrosion of aforesaid heavy antennas by stack gases.

The USN example one might use RTL is the KNOX.

[ img ]

One is almost immediately struck by the working space the USN allowed for weapons and the way they diverted the stack gasses away from the aerials mounted to the mack? Also the anti-roll winglets are present on the hull. Even so, I believe, (Some expert please correct me?) the class might have been a little top-heavy?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: AU Destroyer Escort / Frigate 1960sPosted: April 21st, 2017, 7:32 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 6902
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
While I do not entirely disagree about the Knox class's field of fire for the different systems with you Tobius, the Knox is also the class still surprising people by the fact that both of the main search radars (the SPS-40 and the SPS-10) have their antenna's rotate trough or directly above the exhausts from the 2 boilers.

Note also that anti-roll stabilisers do very little against an too unstable ship. They actually have the largest advantage in a ship that is too stable, where harsh movements can result in faulty weapons control, hard to land helicopters and seasick crews. they are not at all a proof of top heavyness. I have not seen any proof of an knox class being top heavy, and especially when her profile is compared with for example an Charles F Adams class, I highly doubt she was.

2D aerials are not that heavy. They need to be placed as high up as possible on an as stiff as possible construction though. This makes them quite effective in heightening the center of gravity of a ship. 3D radars however tend to be very heavy.

As for the ships this thread is actually about. I would like to see a drawing of them unresized, as it is hard to compare these with other ships right now. Especially the flush deck ships look quite good, as long as they are diesel powered (the funnels and air intakes are just too small for turbines or steam boilers) It might be good to choose the propulsion you want to use before finishing, as the propulsion takes, espeically in this time era, about 40% of the ships hull volume and affects quite a bit of the topside arrangement.

At the time, superstructures had not that much volume as you have drawn now. Compare with real life ships, or even better, find an general arrangement plan of an similarly sized escort ship and find out what the spaces are used for, and what you want to use it for.

_________________
[ img ]
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: AU Destroyer Escort / Frigate 1960sPosted: April 21st, 2017, 7:47 pm
Offline
Posts: 2245
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Knox and sisters probably didn't have the most amazing separation ever between stack gases and electronics, but the Shipbucket side profile makes it look worse than it was. Certainly it wasn't a single vertical stack blowing right up onto SPS-40.
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: AU Destroyer Escort / Frigate 1960sPosted: April 21st, 2017, 7:52 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 6902
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
Geh, I had never seen that before! I thought it was a dual stack blowing straigth up! I (and I hope I was not the only fool that misinterpreted (somewhat less clear) pictures and the sb profile) am glad to have learned this :P That explains matters entirely

_________________
[ img ]
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: AU Destroyer Escort / Frigate 1960sPosted: April 21st, 2017, 8:29 pm
Offline
Posts: 418
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
I feel the same way. Learned something new about roll dampers.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: AU Destroyer Escort / Frigate 1960sPosted: April 22nd, 2017, 1:59 pm
Offline
Posts: 2245
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Don't worry, ace, for many years I assumed the same :)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 2  [ 11 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page 1 2 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


Contact us | The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited