Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 9 of 10  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page « 16 7 8 9 10 »
Author Message
Vossiej
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: December 6th, 2010, 6:59 am
Offline
Posts: 498
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:29 am
Location: The Netherlands
Either use the Smart-S Mk2, or replace all sensors by an I-mast 400/500 on the lower one.

_________________
“The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person who is doing it.”


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: December 6th, 2010, 1:11 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7497
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
indeed. smart-s mk1 is no longer installed in new ships as far as I know. btw, use the newest oto 127 on the destroyer, you used the old one -.- and don't forget to recolour the guns to the right colour

_________________
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.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
prairie canuck
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: December 6th, 2010, 11:30 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 54
Joined: October 18th, 2010, 4:14 pm
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
OK make any changes you wish but I'm sticking with APARS for everyone!! Could happen ;)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: December 9th, 2010, 10:16 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7497
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
looks nice, but keep in mind that APAR's and SMART-L's are very expensive. in reality, this would most likely not be chosen, but as this is your design, everything is possible.

_________________
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.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: December 9th, 2010, 11:48 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
Quote:
looks nice, but keep in mind that APAR's and SMART-L's are very expensive. in reality, this would most likely not be chosen, but as this is your design, everything is possible.
acelanceloet wrote. Yes, they are, but it didn't prevent Denmark, a much smaller country to invest in them for their three new "patruljeskibe" (patrolships or frigates). Granted restricted fiscal realities, mayhaps the RCN would not be able to replace the venerable Tribals and Town-class ships on a ship-for-ship ratio, but rather have to restrict itself to, say half the number, i e six to eight vessels. But I do believe the Canadians, given their flair for independent weapons procurements from the USA, will rather invest i a European system.
Also Prairie Canuck, if I may humbly suggest a few late-in-the-coming ideas how you may keep the cost down: re-use the Town-class' guns as ship after ship is retired. Mind you, if you do that, be sure to not to retain the rocket-rails! Also a variety of electronics can with advantage be re-used, such as the ECM:s, and do cannibalize the retiring Tribals as well!

As for your overall design, well, I hate to say it, it does lack the sheer elegance of the Tribals or the sleekness of the Towns, but it appears to be a very efficient design enough. I would, though angle the athwardships stacks, so as to minimize exhaust interferrence with the Smart-L array. In addition to the two stabilisators, I'd add a real bilgekeel, the design of which you can experiment with. (It can either be broken up in three separate sections, forward, amidships, and aft of the stabilisators, or a solid one along the amidships' section betwix the stabilisators.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: December 9th, 2010, 2:28 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7497
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
bezobrazov wrote:
Quote:
looks nice, but keep in mind that APAR's and SMART-L's are very expensive. in reality, this would most likely not be chosen, but as this is your design, everything is possible.
acelanceloet wrote. Yes, they are, but it didn't prevent Denmark, a much smaller country to invest in them for their three new "patruljeskibe" (patrolships or frigates). Granted restricted fiscal realities, mayhaps the RCN would not be able to replace the venerable Tribals and Town-class ships on a ship-for-ship ratio, but rather have to restrict itself to, say half the number, i e six to eight vessels. But I do believe the Canadians, given their flair for independent weapons procurements from the USA, will rather invest i a European system.
wait! you didn't get what I was saying!
these ship would replace the destroyers and frigates of the canadian navy. in this case, the destroyer would be mostly of air defence, and the frigates asw/asuw or multirole. APAR+ SMART-L is an air defence system only, and is by that very expensive to put on ships not build for that role!
for your idea of re-using stuff from older ships: ECM and other electronical systems are constantly evolving. this ship will most likely build in 2020's, so it uses 50 year old stuff if it uses systems from the old frigates.....
for weapons it is possible though, but also keep in mind that the guns on these ships are (IMO) the best for their roles.

_________________
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.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: December 9th, 2010, 10:37 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
Well, ace, I get your point, which is valid enough. Canada as well as all Western Powers are currently down-scaling their navies due to harsh economic conditions, with diminished GNP growth, rising unemployment and an ever more protectionistic world around them. My suggestions were thus entirely based on the actual possible capabilities that the RCN may have, not some merry-go-round distant future economic upturn allowing more freely weapons and sensors procurement (which still might happen though!)

I was thus well aware of the risk of retaining obsolete systems, but I'm also fairly confident that the highly skilled Canadian engineers could resolve such problem, possibly in a much more cost efficient way that new purchases might entail. I know that, when you add the fiscal side to it it's not that easy to solve all little or big matters that come before you! - Now, Prairie Canuck appears to be well aware of the limited scope this situation offers him, hence my friendly advice. - And, yes, there can be obtained other almost as capable systems for an area air defense ship. Canada may, indeed, not need the expensive Thales system at all - and if they decide to go with it, then it will in all likelihood be limited to only, say three or four vessels at the most!

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
prairie canuck
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: December 10th, 2010, 12:45 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 54
Joined: October 18th, 2010, 4:14 pm
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Procurement will without a doubt be a very expensive undertaking and though many states are struggling to recover from the "big dip" Canada weathered the storm with much less damage to its economy. I , and I believe the majority of Canadians, are very optimistic about our future. We're resource rich, our fiscal policies and regulatory system seem to be ones to be copied, and our long believed ties to the ups and downs of the US economy did not materialize or at least not to the extent we thought. Politically we're respected, and though still of middle power influence, that influence is growing. This and many other things show the promise of a prosperous future as we recover much quicker than most.

This may, depending on which way the political wind is blowing, translate into an optimistic building program for the Navy. As mentioned before once we weaned ourselves off the British empire and started to design and build our own vessels some truly innovative and robust ships were launched from Canadian yards. I have full confidence that given the opportunity that will happen again.

What will continue to throw a wrench into the gears is the broken procurement system. Political interference has shown to be almost criminal in scale (see Liberal PM Chretien's cancellation of EH101 purchases) The new Shipbuilding strategy will hopefully take the naval procurement process out of the politician's hands and provide a steady replacement of vessels which would take advantage of any advances in technology and design. As for reducing the ship numbers I disagree, I see the opposite. With as much coastline as Africa to patrol, including the Arctic as it opens up, there will be a need for more vessels but these other vessels would likely be smaller OPV type vessels. The most promising idea I've come across would be to man these with a constabulary force of the RCMP since the Coast Guard is unarmed. Such a force would free up the navy for bluewater and expeditionary tasks. Anyways it's supposed to be about the drawings and I'm babbling.

Back to the drawings; APAR and SMART L would likely only be on the 3 Iroquois replacements but if they stick to one hull, as opposed to the two I have above, then I imagine all 15 hulls would be able to have APAR due to commonality. That said, the I-mast series seems the most likely candidate for the frigate replacements and possibly the Big Honkin Ship (see link below) if they ever materialize. The shipbuilding strategy will however stretch the building of these vessels over decades and there will be technology developed over that time which will make APAR obsolete. Who knows what could be available in 10 yrs.

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacit ... -ship.aspx


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: December 10th, 2010, 5:05 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
Dear Sir, what a comprehensive answer. I think that should settle it. Congratulations! And, since you're a Canadian, allow me to express my outmost admiration for the skills of your naval engineers and designers in creating those fantastic, rugged, and yet handsome ships. And, on a private note, my wife and I will always fondly remember Alberta, and in particular Banff and Lake Louise... :D - I'm still wearing, when occasion warrants, my maple-leaf cap with pride!

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Philbob
Post subject: Re: Canadian Common Hull combatant ConceptPosted: December 12th, 2010, 10:36 am
Offline
Posts: 586
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 3:45 am
flip the gun position and the missile battery.

it may of been done with the old Iroquois but that arrangement was discontinued for a reason.

_________________
Supreme Commander of the Astrofleets


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 9 of 10  [ 94 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page « 16 7 8 9 10 »

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 ]