Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 6 of 7  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page « 13 4 5 6 7 »
Author Message
Hood
Post subject: Re: AU ships by SkyderPosted: May 6th, 2016, 7:47 am
Offline
Posts: 7233
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
It an attractive design and I like the mini-Krivak/Talwar-esque looks.

I have nothing to add to the detailed critiques of citizen and erik and once those items are fixed this will be a much better ship. You might have to lengthen her a bit though perhaps?

Regarding Erik's point about lattice masts, the Soviets do seem to have clung onto them for some time, the Neustrashimyy and Novik still had lattice masts despite their supposed low RCS features. Even the USN was quite late rejecting the lattice mast (Burkes being the first?), in contrast the RN seemed to have ditched them by the early 1960s (County & Leander), though that less to do with RCS I suspect.

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Skyder2598
Post subject: Re: AU ships by SkyderPosted: May 6th, 2016, 12:00 pm
Offline
Posts: 516
Joined: April 29th, 2015, 7:57 pm
Location: Germany
@all: thanks for the input ;-)

I reworket the Pr.510:
Pr.510 F100-class
[ img ]
The ship is mainly used for anti ship missions.

-removed the front MR-123
-air search radar on the top of the mast, radar for the Uran in front
-removed backward VLS system
-ECM suit added
-"hangar" for the towed sonar
-main hangar won't fit a helo, more like a UAV hangar (like K-130)
-addad air intakes
-reduced the gun size to 100mm

_________________
best regards
Martin

~~Normerr~~FD stuff~~


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: AU ships by SkyderPosted: May 6th, 2016, 3:30 pm
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Hood wrote:
Regarding Erik's point about lattice masts, the Soviets do seem to have clung onto them for some time, the Neustrashimyy and Novik still had lattice masts despite their supposed low RCS features. Even the USN was quite late rejecting the lattice mast (Burkes being the first?), in contrast the RN seemed to have ditched them by the early 1960s (County & Leander), though that less to do with RCS I suspect.
The broader design of RN vessels demonstrate absolutely no interest whatsoever in addressing RCS. Not really until the Type 45 is there any sort of attempt to avoid vertical surfaces or achieve planform alignment.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: AU ships by SkyderPosted: May 7th, 2016, 9:18 am
Offline
Posts: 7233
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Type 43 and Type 23 were probably the first to have design elements to reduce RCS to some degree.
Even so, I'm doubtful how much of the sloped panel craze in modern ships is really just fashion rather than any serious attempt at RCS and whether RCS really matters on naval vessels.

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: AU ships by SkyderPosted: May 7th, 2016, 9:43 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Hood wrote:
Type 43 and Type 23 were probably the first to have design elements to reduce RCS to some degree.
Even so, I'm doubtful how much of the sloped panel craze in modern ships is really just fashion rather than any serious attempt at RCS and whether RCS really matters on naval vessels.
If I remember correct on what my step dad said (worked on the Norwegian frigate project): the Norwegian frigate will look in some cases as an small fishing vessel, and in other cases as an small cargo ship, RCS on that scale is hard to do, but not impossible.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: AU ships by SkyderPosted: May 8th, 2016, 1:10 am
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Hood wrote:
Type 43 and Type 23 were probably the first to have design elements to reduce RCS to some degree.
Even so, I'm doubtful how much of the sloped panel craze in modern ships is really just fashion rather than any serious attempt at RCS and whether RCS really matters on naval vessels.
Well, if you're saying that the Zumwalt hullform probably is not the wave (ha) of the future, I agree. But "craze" and "fashion" are way off-base.

Let's remember that all radar (and sonar, for that matter) techniques are probabilistic things. We live in an EM-noisy environment, and detection is based on the agglomeration of thousands of individual pulses. A low radar signature is not some sort of magic scaling factor that reduces detection range by a factor of X in a universally consistent and repeatable way.

Suppose you've got a MEKO-style inward-outward-inward-outward-creased superstructure. And ships roll, the observer says, and so therefore who cares! But the ship will roll those reflection spikes at a lazy, moderately variable rate. That roll rate will form a convolution with the pulse repetition frequency of the interrogating radar. Maybe the radar will catch a tenth as many pulses as it would from a ship with a lattice mainmast chock full of corner reflectors (which reflect an incident beam from any direction back at its source), and these pulses will come in a relatively chaotic distribution. It will look very much like noise, and for a radar to detect the target anyway, a much higher false alarm rate will result. Or you'll have to use much more complex processing algorithms, which might be too expensive for a ship radar, or too bulky for a missile one.

And, frankly, it's pretty cheap. Just because relatively enclosed, flat-surfaced designs aren't amazing proof against radar detection, putting a mild steel box around your RHIB is not a huge ship impact. It's good return on modest investment.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: AU ships by SkyderPosted: May 8th, 2016, 5:46 pm
Offline
Posts: 10696
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Nice looking drawings.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
zagoreni010
Post subject: Re: AU ships by SkyderPosted: May 13th, 2016, 9:43 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 51
Joined: March 15th, 2016, 10:01 pm
Location: Croatia
Nice ships Skyder, as always, cant wait to see more,

_________________
“You are fighter pilots first, last, always. If I ever hear of any of you shooting at someone in a parachute, I'll shoot you myself." Gustav Rödel


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Skyder2598
Post subject: Re: AU ships by SkyderPosted: August 28th, 2016, 8:26 pm
Offline
Posts: 516
Joined: April 29th, 2015, 7:57 pm
Location: Germany
Hello all,

after quiet a long time I finished a new soviet/ russian style vessel:

[ img ]

The ship is used for ASW/ ASuW missions, missiles are stored in fold away containers on both sides of the hangar.
I dont fitted radars yet, but I think a similar layout as the Neustrashimyy would fit (since the ship is based on the Neustrashimyy design)?

Hope you like it ;-)

_________________
best regards
Martin

~~Normerr~~FD stuff~~


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Blackbuck
Post subject: Re: AU ships by SkyderPosted: August 28th, 2016, 10:51 pm
Offline
Posts: 2743
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 9:15 am
Location: Birmingham, United Kingdom
Completely out of my wheelhouse so to speak but that looks great.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 6 of 7  [ 68 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 13 4 5 6 7 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


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


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