Page 2 of 2
Re: Surface Action Groups Long Beach
Posted: August 27th, 2011, 4:32 am
by ONI-Defense
Place the Harpoons on the deck, not floating on the railing.
Re: Surface Action Groups Long Beach
Posted: August 27th, 2011, 4:47 am
by TimothyC
SINJOORTJE wrote:Where do you recommend I put the 8 inch. And there was a terrier missile where I proposed to put the other Mk. 26. Wouldn't it still work? For both the MK. 26 and the 8 inch?
Look around the board for the post I made that has a cut away of both the Mk-10 and Mk-12 GMLSs that Long Beach mounted, and look for a Mk-26 cutaway to get a feel for what they look like on the inside. This will help prevent such silly looking 'refits'.
Edit:
Here are what the Mk-10 and Mk-12 mounts look like:
Mk-10:
Mk-12 (Yes it is technically of the Mk-7, but the layout is the same):
I don't have a good image of the Mk-26 to post, but this United Defense PDF has a cut away view:
Thank you Shep!
As you can see, the geometry of your 'refit' does not work.
Re: Surface Action Groups Long Beach
Posted: August 27th, 2011, 10:08 am
by Portsmouth Bill
May I respectfully suggest that all 'budding bucketeers' really study these drawings, to comprehend what is required to incorporate these type of missiles onboard? I notice that a lot of drawings seem to lack a basic understanding of below deck space allocation for various weapon systems.
Re: Surface Action Groups Long Beach
Posted: August 27th, 2011, 11:29 am
by Rodondo
I would recommend the MK13 as you need less length in a ship
Re: Surface Action Groups Long Beach
Posted: August 27th, 2011, 12:13 pm
by TimothyC
Rodondo wrote:I would recommend the MK13 as you need less length in a ship
While this is true, the Mk-13 is also very limited in the size of weapons it can fire (the magazine spaces were too small for ASROC even).
Re: Surface Action Groups Long Beach
Posted: August 27th, 2011, 3:01 pm
by bezobrazov
My question is why even bother to replace the Mk 10 Terrier launcher? It doesn't make sense to me at all! I believe that the basic weapons outfit that the long beach eventually received should stay and instead maybe focus can be placed on the sensors fit. Your proposal is simply not economically defensible in my opinion.
Re: Surface Action Groups Long Beach
Posted: August 28th, 2011, 12:13 am
by erik_t
No, you're quite right. The launch rate of the Mk 10 is more than enough to keep up with things as long as every missile requires continuous illumination from launch to intercept (which they do in this case).
Re: Surface Action Groups Long Beach
Posted: September 8th, 2011, 12:21 am
by SINJOORTJE
Ok I was going to post a second version but I just noticed that I put the Mk. 71 where it should not be. How about replacing the original 5 inch with a new, let's say Mk. 45 5 inch?
Re: Surface Action Groups Long Beach
Posted: September 8th, 2011, 1:29 am
by erik_t
That is probably within the realm of possibility, although I'm not sure why you'd bother.