CSGN mk2

Post any drawings of planned or conceptual ships.

Moderator: Community Manager

Message
Author
TimothyC
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: CSGN mk2

#51 Post by TimothyC »

I'd use "United States" instead of "USA", but that is just me.
πŒπ€π“π‡ππ„π“- 𝑻𝒐 π‘ͺπ’π’ˆπ’Šπ’•π’‚π’•π’† 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆
acelanceloet
Posts: 7512
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands

Re: CSGN mk2

#52 Post by acelanceloet »

yeah, your right about that. I think it is more worthwile to name it 'united states, csgn mk2' instead of 'USA, cruiser strike guided missiles nuclear mk2' :P I'll do that.
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
acelanceloet
Posts: 7512
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands

Re: CSGN mk2

#53 Post by acelanceloet »

Image
fixed
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
Kamikazi
Posts: 18
Joined: November 16th, 2010, 8:22 pm

Re: CSGN mk2

#54 Post by Kamikazi »

The spacing between the Harpoons does not match up between the side and top views.
acelanceloet
Posts: 7512
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands

Re: CSGN mk2

#55 Post by acelanceloet »

actually, it does. they are exactly the same. there is only one difference: I have left out one of the diagonal canisters on the sideview, because it gave an really cluttered view over there.
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
acelanceloet
Posts: 7512
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands

Re: CSGN mk2

#56 Post by acelanceloet »

Image
updated. half the parts that were on have had an update, so it needed it...
if there are no flaws found out in 24 hours from now, I will put her in the upload session :P
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
User avatar
klagldsf
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm

Re: CSGN mk2

#57 Post by klagldsf »

The top view looks grossly underdetailed, especially to your own standards.
acelanceloet
Posts: 7512
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands

Re: CSGN mk2

#58 Post by acelanceloet »

that is mainly because it was made to show the basic arrangement, not to be an complete top view like Erik sometimes makes :P
that is not that much of an problem, is it?
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
Hood
Posts: 7234
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am

Re: CSGN mk2

#59 Post by Hood »

Looks good, I remember doing an AU version of this design some time ago kitbashed from Tico and Spruance parts. It's a odd ship to classify, it lacks the long-range punch of a Kirov but on the other hand lacks the aircraft capability of an Invincible. It's a kind of half-way house between the two. Very interesting, certainly such a ship is more useful now than it would have been during a Cold War WWIII-type scenario.
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft
erik_t
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US

Re: CSGN mk2

#60 Post by erik_t »

Well, you're thinking about it from the wrong point of view. It's not intended as the centerpiece of a ASW escort flotilla, like an Invincible, and it's not intended as some sort of command-center-god-king of ship-hunting surface combatants like a Kirov. It's really a ship driven entirely by the introduction of the Tomahawk, and a return of a strategic role that had disappeared with the end of Regulus. AEGIS allows such a ship to operate fully independently in the face of quite significant air forces, and the multitude of hangars on this particular type would most likely be full of ASW helos, making it less vulnerable to a cheap kill by some pokey SSK. Ultimately it's all to leverage the period maritime strategy of applying USN resources to somewhat asymmetric vulnerabilities of the Soviet Union. In this case, it spreads the nuclear wealth over a much wider range of sea. When you consider it as a relatively (!!) inexpensive nuclear delivery platform that could only be decisively countered by a couple of Backfire regiments, whose weapons are a completely different intercept target than a ballistic missile, it makes quite considerable sense.
Post Reply