Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 1  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
Adm_Thermistocles
Post subject: Type 83 DestroyerPosted: April 5th, 2021, 2:16 pm
Offline
Posts: 11
Joined: December 21st, 2020, 3:30 pm
The Type 83 destroyer is a concept destroyer proposed for the Royal Navy to replace its current Type 45 destroyers.

The Type 83 was announced by the Defence Command Paper which stated the intention to proceed with "the concept and assessment phase for our new Type 83 destroyer which will begin to replace our Type 45 destroyers in the late 2030s."

I thought it would be an interesting idea to exapnd upon the existing design of the T45s but adapt it to include a more modern gunnery system, increased variey weapon systems and a bigger focus on uncrewed systems as well as building on the evolution of naval architecture in the RN over the last few decades.

She incorporates designs from the T26FFG/T21FFG/T45DDG/SachsenFFG and older never-built/real designs from the Cold War. She brings back the broadside and utilises a new style of weapon for the RN; the RIM116 rolling airframe missile system. A note on the missiles; the missile bay is multi-functional containing the Asters, Sea Vipers and Harpoons.

Her beam and complement is an estimate only based on similar designs of similar lengths and draughts.

Do bear with me on the weapons and electronic systems; I'm still learning with regards the exact names and corresponding designs.

I would really appreciate any feedback!

[ img ]

_________________
Adm. Thermistocles signing off.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Type 83 DestroyerPosted: April 5th, 2021, 3:28 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8526
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Good that you try that is what I want to say first

1. Picture is posted as JPG picture, I recommend to post it as a PNG picture.
2. Credit is a must. And avoid modifying the template to much


But the ships is overkill and not realistic.. we live in the modern world not WW2... just saying.

I don't see any 40mm, 30mm, 155mm guns

Weaponry you have:
- at bow you have: Bofors 57 mm gun (as used by Visby class) (not 155mm)
- above hangar and on Starboard/port side: 3x76mm Oto Melara 76/63 Strales (not40mm)
- 4 GAM B-01 20mm guns (not 30mm)
- 4 Phalanx CIWS that have been cropped. (they are wrong size on the drawing)
- No laser weapons visible
- Harpoon is being taken out of service due to it being an old system that today's radar and weapon system have no problem to defeat.
- 1 RAM launcher
- 1 VLS silo on forward deck

To many radars:
- A sonar in the bulb, will have reduced effect, sonar should be under the hull (away from noise)
- BAE Sampson and Signaal-Marconi S-1850M (that what they type 45 use as there main radar and all you need)
- APAR (does the same as the radar above... used on Dutch and Germans ships mainly, you don't need that, you use British radars)
- Radar elements from a radar system you find on Australian ships, called CEFAR (all those squares that are placed on an angle) CEFAR does basically the same as APAR and the British radar's
- 7 SatComs some are even placed in weird location and it might be to many of them as well
- 4 WM 20 "Egg" (that you have modified) some are a fircontroll system and have been out-dated for some time now
- various mast that basically do the same, use 1

Other things:
- single shaft, possible, but today we use more than one shaft on a big warship. important to have redundancy.
- Not enough funnel and air-intake for engines

- as long as a Japanese Atago class Guided missile destroyer, but 10 meter wider then Atago class... you ship is as wide as an US Battleship...


Modern Naval ships are clean on the outside, but packed with modern technology and weapons.

For a ship like yours it would probably be equipped with:
- Newer version of BAE Sampson and Signaal-Marconi S-1850M
- probably some new communication technology not yet available, and old school (2-3) SatComs and antennas


- A sonar under the hull
- 1 x 5" (127mm) cannon (since it appear that is what the Brits going after)
- 2 x RAM-launcher or 1-2 Phalanx instead (depending what they have at hand (Phalanx is getting old))
- 2 x 20 mm guns and additional 2-4 12.7mm guns for close in protection and port protection against small boats and other things (not for air-defense, only limited)
- 2 x twin torpedo launcher, because we have space for it.
- Hangar for 2 helicopters
- VLS silo with 70-95 silos for Aster-family or what ever the Brits want to use for there AAW-defense
- for Surface defense, they would use a boxed launcher like the Norwegian "NSM"

Bellow, Japanese Atago class DDG as an example on how a modern destroyer looks like (Atago class is as long as you'r ship, but note how simpler equipped it is):
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Type 83 DestroyerPosted: April 5th, 2021, 3:29 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7328
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
Hello, and welcome to shipbucket.
This drawing isn't terrible (I've seen much worse!) but ther are some issues with it fitting the basic requirements of an shipbucket drawing. First of all, take a look at the standard templates (which can be found on the shipbucket.com wiki) The most important thing on that template is the credits, which show who made this drawing. In this case, it would be your (user)name and the credits to all people who are credited on drawings of which you took significant parts.

Lastly, for now, your drawing looks artifacted/blurry, as if you scaled it up. Note that in the shipbucket style, we never scale our drawings, as that would end up with the pixels of this pixel art being either larger or smaller then a single pixel on the drawing, creating a blurry result.

_________________
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: Type 83 DestroyerPosted: April 5th, 2021, 7:10 pm
Offline
Posts: 2875
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
heuhen wrote: *
Other things:
- single shaft, possible, but today we use more than one shaft on a big warship. important to have redundancy.
- Not enough funnel and air-intake for engines
It's a two-screw skeg hullform. I would happen to know because I am the one that drew it.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Adm_Thermistocles
Post subject: Re: Type 83 DestroyerPosted: April 5th, 2021, 9:02 pm
Offline
Posts: 11
Joined: December 21st, 2020, 3:30 pm
heuhen wrote: *
Good that you try that is what I want to say first

1. Picture is posted as JPG picture, I recommend to post it as a PNG picture.
2. Credit is a must. And avoid modifying the template to much


But the ships is overkill and not realistic.. we live in the modern world not WW2... just saying.

I don't see any 40mm, 30mm, 155mm guns

Weaponry you have:
- at bow you have: Bofors 57 mm gun (as used by Visby class) (not 155mm)
- above hangar and on Starboard/port side: 3x76mm Oto Melara 76/63 Strales (not40mm)
- 4 GAM B-01 20mm guns (not 30mm)
- 4 Phalanx CIWS that have been cropped. (they are wrong size on the drawing)
- No laser weapons visible
- Harpoon is being taken out of service due to it being an old system that today's radar and weapon system have no problem to defeat.
- 1 RAM launcher
- 1 VLS silo on forward deck

To many radars:
- A sonar in the bulb, will have reduced effect, sonar should be under the hull (away from noise)
- BAE Sampson and Signaal-Marconi S-1850M (that what they type 45 use as there main radar and all you need)
- APAR (does the same as the radar above... used on Dutch and Germans ships mainly, you don't need that, you use British radars)
- Radar elements from a radar system you find on Australian ships, called CEFAR (all those squares that are placed on an angle) CEFAR does basically the same as APAR and the British radar's
- 7 SatComs some are even placed in weird location and it might be to many of them as well
- 4 WM 20 "Egg" (that you have modified) some are a fircontroll system and have been out-dated for some time now
- various mast that basically do the same, use 1

Other things:
- single shaft, possible, but today we use more than one shaft on a big warship. important to have redundancy.
- Not enough funnel and air-intake for engines

- as long as a Japanese Atago class Guided missile destroyer, but 10 meter wider then Atago class... you ship is as wide as an US Battleship...


Modern Naval ships are clean on the outside, but packed with modern technology and weapons.

For a ship like yours it would probably be equipped with:
- Newer version of BAE Sampson and Signaal-Marconi S-1850M
- probably some new communication technology not yet available, and old school (2-3) SatComs and antennas


- A sonar under the hull
- 1 x 5" (127mm) cannon (since it appear that is what the Brits going after)
- 2 x RAM-launcher or 1-2 Phalanx instead (depending what they have at hand (Phalanx is getting old))
- 2 x 20 mm guns and additional 2-4 12.7mm guns for close in protection and port protection against small boats and other things (not for air-defense, only limited)
- 2 x twin torpedo launcher, because we have space for it.
- Hangar for 2 helicopters
- VLS silo with 70-95 silos for Aster-family or what ever the Brits want to use for there AAW-defense
- for Surface defense, they would use a boxed launcher like the Norwegian "NSM"

Bellow, Japanese Atago class DDG as an example on how a modern destroyer looks like (Atago class is as long as you'r ship, but note how simpler equipped it is):
[ img ]
Hi!

Many thanks for the AMAZING feedback!
I see a lot of your work on the forum and I love it!
Ok, i'll upload in PNG.

Yes, I'll defo be credting those due - I wasn't too sure where to get templates from when I designed her but Acelanceloet posted re that.

Wow I really messed up on weapons and electrical classes haha - will redo the description to suit. Do you think the 57mm is enough as a main weapon?
That's really decent of you to set me straight on the systems there - I get what you main re too heavily armed. I defo went a bit overkill - more missiles and less guns(?).
I didn't know that about Harpoon - cheers.

I'll reposition the sonar to midships and cut the APAR/CEFAR and a few satcom stuff as well.
I'll stick with the Brit masts to avoid overcomplicating things then aha.
That's really kind of you to put down the proper names of the systems - I'm not great at identifying thigs like that to be honest.

Thanks for the ideas for the elec + weapons systems - I'll redraw to suit I've not heard of the NSM.
Do you think 30mm cannons would be suited for post-T45 class? They're getting on a bit themselves I think.

I see what you mean re proportions! I'll defo resize her.
Interesting points about keeping it clean - more like the exterior of the T45s.
The Atago looks a lot more realistic actually - certainly something to take lessons from.

Thanks so much for all of this - I really appreciate all the feedback and details about everything. I've only just started out and it's amazing to learn from you all! I'll upload a re-draw soon.

Many thanks!

_________________
Adm. Thermistocles signing off.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Adm_Thermistocles
Post subject: Re: Type 83 DestroyerPosted: April 5th, 2021, 9:03 pm
Offline
Posts: 11
Joined: December 21st, 2020, 3:30 pm
acelanceloet wrote: *
Hello, and welcome to shipbucket.
This drawing isn't terrible (I've seen much worse!) but ther are some issues with it fitting the basic requirements of an shipbucket drawing. First of all, take a look at the standard templates (which can be found on the shipbucket.com wiki) The most important thing on that template is the credits, which show who made this drawing. In this case, it would be your (user)name and the credits to all people who are credited on drawings of which you took significant parts.

Lastly, for now, your drawing looks artifacted/blurry, as if you scaled it up. Note that in the shipbucket style, we never scale our drawings, as that would end up with the pixels of this pixel art being either larger or smaller then a single pixel on the drawing, creating a blurry result.
Hi!
Thanks for this info! I've seen this format but could never seem to trace the template - I'll amend future designs to suit.
Yes, there's a couple of people due credits from SB forum and DeviantArt - I'll be sure to add them on.
Interesting point re scaling; hadn't thought of that actually - thanks.

_________________
Adm. Thermistocles signing off.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Adm_Thermistocles
Post subject: Re: Type 83 DestroyerPosted: April 5th, 2021, 9:04 pm
Offline
Posts: 11
Joined: December 21st, 2020, 3:30 pm
erik_t wrote: *
heuhen wrote: *
Other things:
- single shaft, possible, but today we use more than one shaft on a big warship. important to have redundancy.
- Not enough funnel and air-intake for engines
It's a two-screw skeg hullform. I would happen to know because I am the one that drew it.
Hi!

Firstly; many thanks for posting your message - really useful.
I'm in the process of adapting my design to suit SB formatting regs and will credit you.
To be honest, I didn't actually know the hull was your design as I first saw it used in what looked like a USN/AUS DDG mix on DeviantArt (SB won't work with college wifi usually so I use DA a lot).
Like I siad, I'll credit you on the updated design and any others who inspired the design.

Also; could you explain how the design is two-screw and what's meant by skeg hullform?

_________________
Adm. Thermistocles signing off.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Type 83 DestroyerPosted: April 5th, 2021, 9:59 pm
Offline
Posts: 2875
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
South Dakota, but without the inner pair of propellers.

[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 1  [ 8 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only”

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


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


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]