Shipbucket

Hi all!

Georges-Leygues-class destroyers – AAW variant

Parallel with the second ASW batch, a batch of AAW frigates was built to replace the ancient T47 AAW-ships. Due to budget constraints, they were to recycle the T47’s Standard SM-1 launchers, obsolescent already by the time the F70 AAW variant was built. Originally, four were projected (Cassard, Jean Bart, Courbet and one unnamed hull), of which in the end only the first two were completed, as the USN had retired SM-1 by that time, and only two of the extant systems were in a shape that allowed for refurbishing; in addition, the construction of the last two coincided with the end of the cold war, and they were converted into peace dividend.

Although Cassard and Jean Bart had the same hull as the ASW ships, their superstructure looked entirely different, and they also differed internally. Their CODOG machinery was replaced by an all-diesel plant, because the only viable position for their DRBJ-11 3D-radar needed for air defence was on top of the exhaust, because of fears that hot jet exhaust gases might damage the radar. The uptake and the radar mast was combined into a huge, blocky mack which also carried the Satcom; the foremast only mounted commo and ESM gear. A DRBV-26 air surveillance radar was mounted in the same position as on the first ASW batch. They had two kinds of decoy launchers (Dagaie and the bigger Sagaie) on the bridge and mounted Sadral from the start, dead aft at the sides of a small hangar for a single Lynx helicopter. They had the same bow sonar and torpedo launchers as the ASW ships, but no VDS. When Cassard completed in 1988, DRBJ-11 was not yet ready for installation, and she mounted a DRBV-15 as an interim solution.


Jean Bart was accepted into service with the final radar installation, which was retrofitted to Cassard in 1992.


Otherwise, there were few modernizations. They were given the usual four 12,7mm HMG mounts early in their careers, landed their Oerlikons in favour of more modern F2 cannon, and in the 2010s both replaced the DRBJ-11 with SMART-S. Other modifications to commo and EW systems were hardly visible to the naked eye, except fitting larger Syracuse-3 satellite antennae. Both embarked Panther helos after the Lynx was retired.


By 2022, both have been retired and replaced by FREDA.

Next: Commandant-Rivière-Class Frigates

Cheers
GD

Are you sure the Mk 13 was bolted flat on the deck like that? No other installations I have seen have it like that....
You also have SPG-62 on there while these would have had SPG-51?

And that SMART-S looks not that great, why not use the one from the Dutch Parts sheet? http://67.205.157.234/wiki/images/3/3e/ ... _sheet.png

_________________
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

Not going to comment on equipment, but they look great.
(ok, because it was raised in different thread - IMHO using just one darker shade for underwater hull would be more "in style" )

I'm just happy to see such great looking French ships!

I just compared this to Wakazashi's Cassard from probably 15 years ago, wow what a difference!

I trust Garlicdesign as an experienced artist when it comes to shading.
But yes, the Cassards did have SPG-51C and not SPG-62.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Hi all!

I've rechecked the photographs I used and think I've got the location of the Mk13 launcher quite right. The directors are not from the parts sheet, because they looked a litte bland, but from a drawing showing the japanese destroyer Sawakaze (http://www.shipbucket.com/drawings/7926/file), which likewise had SM-1MR and SPG-51, and look different from both the SPG-51 and the SPG-62 on the USN fire control sheet. I didn't spot any difference on the photographs, but I admit I didn't look too closely. Maybe I'm wrong there. Have to check.

As for the 3D-radar, the dutch parts sheet only shows Smart-S Mk.1, whilst Cassard and Jean Bart were retrofitted with Smart-S Mk.2, which looks quite different and IMHO very much like the part I used.

So I'm now sort of unsure about the directors, but I'm convinced I've got the launcher and the Smart-S Mk.2 right.

Concerning the underwater shading - I wasn't aware some would consider it a breach of style. I think especially the aft part of a ship's hull can't be properly portrayed with only one shade.

Cheers
GD

It's not the "absolute, total and unqestionable breach of style", rather point of contention. IMHO with 45-degree rule showing the aft part of hull could work, but I'm not insisting.
Anyway, I mentioned it because in some other thread I raised this issue and Ace wrote that if I'm telling to a newbie that it's rather not quite ok, then I should tell it also to You.

Garlicdesign, I disagree on your reply. I looked a bit closer into it later....
The Mk 13 is closer to the deck then in most installations. However, it is not flat on the deck as you have shown, there is a slightly wider cover under the magazine cover and the part the launcher arm is on is off the deck. https://www.seaforces.org/marint/French ... ent-04.jpg and https://www.balearspotting.com/francia/cassard-class/
In my opinion, this would be how it should be drawn. https://i.imgur.com/BZ1JxJN.png

It is true the SPG-51 does look a bit bland, and I do have it on my list of parts that require a recheck and possibly redetailing. The SPG-51 is of course one of the oldest parts in shipbucket. That said, what you have here is, similar to what is on gunships drawing, wrong. It is immidiately recognisable as being not an SPG-51, missing the camera systems and blocky back of that system. It does however look exactly like what I drew for the SPG-62 http://shipbucket.com/wiki/index.php/AN/SPG-62
I do have to mark that USN fire control sheet as depreciated though, over half the components shown on it have been redrawn since, so it should not be the first thing to look at when looking for the up to date parts.

The Dutch Parts sheet I linked from the wiki, has both SMART-S Mk 1 and Mk 2. They are not directly underneath each other as that sheet is roughly sorted on introduction date. The part you used looks like an reshade of the SMART-S Mk 2 that we used to use years ago, which was found to be way oversized so it was redrawn..... into what is now on the part sheet. So yes, what you used is also meant to represent that radar, so it looks alike, but it is looking way off in size.


As for eswube's comment on the shading. As the person who is well known for complaining about people's shading styles not being accurate, I actually have no issues with yours. (I do have preferences, as I myself would not shade that dark et all but we consider that artistic license and individual style). I think this is perfectly in style, as the shading rule is clearly consistent over the ships length and the additional shade clearly represents no angle change but just a small border area which is neccesary because otherwise the shading would be very harsh with that dark shade. But shipbucket style wise and accuracy wise I don't think there is any issue here. In that other thread I actually used your work as an example that more then 1 shade for the shading of the hull could be perfectly fine and was used by other artists.

_________________
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

Hi everyone!

OK the Smart-S overlook was embarrassing (typical, my wife would say...).

I revamped the SPG-51s by hand from a photograph, hope you like them. I'm assembling a French parts collection anyway, which will contain them.

Cheers
GD

awesome! I might start from your new SPG-51 when taking my look at the SPG-51's, but if I touch components I try to make matching top and front views at the same time as well these days so I might modify it more to get it all to line up.

_________________
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

Hello again

Commandant-Rivière-Class frigates

This class resulted from De Gaulle’s priority shift from a NATO-first to a France-first strategy. Instead of their single-purpose convoy escort predecessors of the E50/52 type, these somewhat larger frigates were designed primarily for intervention in France’s remaining or former colonies and enforcing France’s interests in the third world, with ASW being a secondary concern. They received a powerful gun battery for their size, enabling them to attack shore targets, and their muzzle-loading quad ASW mortar forward also had a secondary shore bombardment capability. They had additional accommodation for 80 marines and could substitute their boats with LCPs for landing missions. Armament was completed by two 30mm Hotchkiss autocannon and two triple ASW TT sets without reloads, reflecting the shift away from ASW. They also were somewhat slower than their predecessors, at 25 kts. Four early units (Commandant Rivière, Victor Schoelcher, Amiral Charner and Commandant Bory) had streamlined bridge windows sloping inward.


The other five (Commandant Bourdais, Balny, Doudart de Lagree, Enseigne Henry and Protet) had outward-canted bridge windows, probably to eliminate reflections of bridge instruments in the windows.


All but two had twin-shaft diesel powerplants. Commandant Bory was fitted with free-piston gas generators driving twin-shaft gas turbines instead (don’t ask me what exactly a free-piston gas generator is), which had no impact upon her external appearance. Apparently, they didn’t work very well, and were replaced by a standard diesel installation in 1974. Balny however trialled France’s first CODAG engine, consisting of two cruising diesels and a SNECMA Atar 8 gas turbine, all clutched to a single shaft. Due to the compactness and low weight of this installation, she was a hundred tons lighter than the others (also owing to the fact that the engines left no space for turret Y’s magazines, so she had only turrets A and X). Her slight range advantage was bought with a significantly lower cruise speed; apart from that, the installation worked reliably. Top speed was slightly higher (26 kts) as on her sisters. Prolonged trials delayed her entry into service till 1970.


In the early 70s, three units – Amiral Charner, Commandant Bourdais, Enseigne Henry – were fitted with a helicopter landing platform instead of turret Y, for trials. By 1975, all three had their turrets back.


In the late seventies, all except Balny had turret X replaced by four single MM38 Exocet launch canisters. They also received a new navigation radar, landing the obsolete DRBV-50 target indicator, and their single gun director was upgraded with a newer radar. They also landed their 30mm Hotchkiss guns and replaced them with Bofors 40/70s. Schoelcher had an additional deckhouse fitted between the launch canisters, which is not visible on photos of the other units (although I don’t claim to have seen them all).


In this guise, they spent the rest of their service life.


Commandant Bory had her 305mm ASW mortar removed in 1990; I found no evidence for this modification on any of the others.


Schoelcher, Bourdais and Charner were sold to Uruguay between 1988 and 1991. Rivière had already been downgraded to sonar trials ship in 1985. The others were retired between 1992 and 1996. Their replacements were five Lafayette-class frigates and six Floréal-class OPVs.

Cheers
GD