Oversized Battleships Redux.

Post any drawings you have made that do not pertain to an Alternate Universe scenario and are not a never-built design.

Moderator: Community Manager

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

Re: Oversized Battleships Redux.

#21 Post by TimothyC »

I might rotate the mid-ships VLS block or otherwise adjust it so that it interferes with the hanger spaces less.
πŒπ€π“π‡ππ„π“- 𝑻𝒐 π‘ͺπ’π’ˆπ’Šπ’•π’‚π’•π’† 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆
BB1987
Posts: 2818
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 1:01 pm
Location: Rome - Italy

Re: Oversized Battleships Redux.

#22 Post by BB1987 »

acelanceloet wrote:I have some doubts about an twin gun fitting in that unit, though :P and I also doubt the forward 2 VLS cells would be different in position, for construction reasons, unless you can show me an real world ship with an arrangement like that? (note, for 2 blocks a bit apart from each other it makes sense, but as close as this I doubt it)
i should have enough space to space a bit more the fore VLS cells, Sejong the Great has indeed two vls block near to each other (aft, near the hangar) but you indeed are right as they are not that close.
i also admit that a twin mount built using the frame of the Oto 127mm is a bit forced, the only explanation i had is that on one of his personal design CGs Erik_t draw a twin 5-inch gun that had roughly the same dimensions of the Oto-compact, and beign (despite it's denomination) the largest gun mount fitted on modern warships i tought it might have done the job...
TimothyC wrote:I might rotate the mid-ships VLS block or otherwise adjust it so that it interferes with the hanger spaces less.
Technically the aft superstructure with the 32-cell VLS block, helo hangar and everything else is lifted there without modifications from the Atago class DDG, wich has a beam of 21 meters versus the 22 of my drawing.
acelanceloet
Posts: 7512
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands

Re: Oversized Battleships Redux.

#23 Post by acelanceloet »

on the VLS, I see now that I have not been entirely clear, I meant that the forward ones are a bit different in height, which I would prefer them not to be :P
on the oto, IIRC, the 5in on that vessel was an ASuW unit only, quite a class apart from the AAW/ASuW oriented oto 127. this is why the Mk 45 is still smaller then the current 127/54 lightweight.
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
eswube
Posts: 10696
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am

Re: Oversized Battleships Redux.

#24 Post by eswube »

Certainly it looks impressive! :)
User avatar
Syzmo
Posts: 285
Joined: August 13th, 2011, 4:03 am
Location: Baltimore MD

Re: Oversized Battleships Redux.

#25 Post by Syzmo »

i also love that design, but im not sure how i feel about the vls. What are you calling her? what type of ship is she, cruiser or battlecruiser?
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." Thomas Edward Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom
User avatar
Trojan
Posts: 1216
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 4:29 am
Location: Big House

Re: Oversized Battleships Redux.

#26 Post by Trojan »

Awesome! Why not go for a double version of the new stealth Oto Melala 127/65 though?
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!
Hood
Posts: 7234
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am

Re: Oversized Battleships Redux.

#27 Post by Hood »

As a design exercise it looks good to me. It doesn't look wildly improbable and has a certain style missing from most modern warships.
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft
BB1987
Posts: 2818
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 1:01 pm
Location: Rome - Italy

Re: Oversized Battleships Redux.

#28 Post by BB1987 »

Syzmo wrote:i also love that design, but im not sure how i feel about the vls. What are you calling her? what type of ship is she, cruiser or battlecruiser?
a cruiser, to give her the term battlecruiser to her i feel i'd have to lenghten her some 100 feet (30 meters) at least and pack her with more missiles.
Hood wrote:As a design exercise it looks good to me. It doesn't look wildly improbable and has a certain style missing from most modern warships.
thanks hood, altough i must admit that the style you see in her is not entirely there because of me, i did in fact done some changes, like placing the funnels more spaced, but the supestructure comes nearly unchanged from the JDS Kongo and Atago class destroyers, while the hull is much like that of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer (obviously some 200 feet longer)
BB1987
Posts: 2818
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 1:01 pm
Location: Rome - Italy

Re: Oversized Battleships Redux.

#29 Post by BB1987 »

Erusia Force wrote:Very nice! One small nitpick i got from the BBGN-029 I did, with a ship this size, the propeller blades may need to be a little fatter in order to maximize the water grab. I especially like your secondaries.
it's been awhile but i've done it, i hope you don't mind if i used your props as a reference (i can assure you that except the color palette i've modified my screws pixel py pixel and not by a copy-paste of your BBGN-029 propellers)

Image
emperor_andreas
Posts: 3908
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact:

Re: Oversized Battleships Redux.

#30 Post by emperor_andreas »

Very nice!
Image
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB
Post Reply