Still WIPs but this is what I have.
![[ img ]](http://i737.photobucket.com/albums/xx15/EZGO394/IOTsurfacevessels1.png)
In order of appearance:
8 Challenger Class Frigate/Destroyers
2 Challenger Flight Deck/Helicarrier
4 Minehunter
10 Patrol Boats
![[ img ]](http://i737.photobucket.com/albums/xx15/EZGO394/IOTSubsinservice1.png)
2 Shadow Class Stealth subs
10 Texas Class Subs
2 Seeker Class Subs
| Shipbucket http://shipbucket.com/forums/ |
|
| IoT (Isle of Texas) http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=28 |
Page 17 of 18 |
| Author: | ezgo394 [ November 7th, 2010, 11:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: IoT (Isle of Texas) |
I made a new map of IoT, but it will be a while before I post it. It looks a lot more realistic, and it will now be located in the Indian Ocean. The population is 1.325 Million. Here is my new navy list. 8 Challenger Frigate/Destroyer 2 Challenger Flight Deck/Heli Carrier 4 Minehunters 10 Patrol Boats 2 New Stealth Subs 12 Deltic Submarines 2 Replensishment ships Please Comment. |
|
| Author: | ezgo394 [ November 10th, 2010, 10:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: IoT (Isle of Texas) |
Still WIPs but this is what I have. In order of appearance: 8 Challenger Class Frigate/Destroyers 2 Challenger Flight Deck/Helicarrier 4 Minehunter 10 Patrol Boats 2 Shadow Class Stealth subs 10 Texas Class Subs 2 Seeker Class Subs |
|
| Author: | klagldsf [ November 11th, 2010, 5:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: IoT (Isle of Texas) |
"Stealth Sub" is rather redundant. Also that's a rather small hull to be supporting CH-47. That thing eats up deck space. |
|
| Author: | ezgo394 [ November 12th, 2010, 12:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: IoT (Isle of Texas) |
Well, I mean stealthier than the Texas. Would you recommend the CH-46 Sea Knight. Also, would this concept work? Don't immediately shoot it down because it's never been done before or that it looks weird. I just want to know that its possible and has just as much advantage as the conventional setup. ![[ img ]](http://i737.photobucket.com/albums/xx15/EZGO394/concept.jpg)
|
|
| Author: | Hood [ November 14th, 2010, 9:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: IoT (Isle of Texas) |
Erm, I take it this is a bow propeller and rudder and not just a shipbucket stern turned the other way with the bows cut off? No, can't see this working, propellers are designed for maximum effiency to push the water behind them to create thrust. Here the hull behind the propeller blocks most of this thrust as the water now finds itself stuck and has to move past the hull aft thus losing speed and thrust. Rudders need a slipstream of water passing them to be effective, that is why they are behind the propllers so they are more effective. Bow rudders were tried on several early destroyers at the turn of the last Century to aid manoeurving in confined places and at low forward speeds but they often weren't much use. Also your bows will be much thicker than an ordinary bow thus losing more speed and needing more propulsive power to acheive the same speed as a normal ship. Saying that have a finer stern might improve the waterflow over the hull but by losing propulsive efficency you're gaining much. There have been some double-ended ferries etc with propellers bow and stern (or even better with a Voith-Schneider propeller) for routine rapid turn-around times but really you can't argue against 200 years (rudders aft for 1,000 years) of tried and tested. Your idea has no real benefits at all. Ships are designed for optimum effiency. Just sticking the stern at the front is not a Eureka moment, nor is it a serious "concept" at all. |
|
| Author: | ezgo394 [ November 14th, 2010, 6:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: IoT (Isle of Texas) |
Ok. I figured that. Thank you for clarifying that. |
|
| Author: | klagldsf [ November 14th, 2010, 6:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: IoT (Isle of Texas) |
It would be a very good configuration for ice breaking (see Double-Acting ships and some icebreakers) but as for raw efficiency for moving forward on the ocean, it's not very good. |
|
| Author: | Thiel [ January 3rd, 2011, 2:56 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | Re: IoT (Isle of Texas) | ||
Would it make sense to have a Miesweeper that is also a minelayer?
In the past many mineseepers had also the ability to lay mines. HMS Abdiel (1973) was in fact a training minelayer, used to train minesweepers , and so was used to lay mines.I believe the RDN also used its sweepers to lay mines. The SF300 itself isn't capable of clearing mines. While it's constructed from GRP, it still have a way too powerful magnetic field. What it can do is control two drones of either the MSD, MSF or Holm classes, making it the worlds smallest mothership. Since the drones are smaller and don't have to support enough weapons to arm a corvette or small frigate, it's fairly straigt forward to demagnetize them and make them ultra quiet. That said, the first series of SF300 (There's three) had a hydraulic drive for silent running. |
|||
| Author: | ezgo394 [ January 18th, 2011, 2:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: IoT (Isle of Texas) |
![[ img ]](http://i737.photobucket.com/albums/xx15/EZGO394/CopyofSenator2.jpg) ![[ img ]](http://i737.photobucket.com/albums/xx15/EZGO394/senatoir4.png)
|
|
| Author: | Demon Lord Razgriz [ January 18th, 2011, 7:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: IoT (Isle of Texas) |
JPEG fail on the screws! DK |
|
| Page 17 of 18 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|