Shipbucket

klagldsf wrote:One of the most bizarre things actually is why this vessel would be carrying Sea Killer.

Because it seemed appropriate for a remote and very independent minded Dominion trying to do something different from the mother country.

Remember, this ain't earth we're talking about. Not an AU, more of an AD (alternate dimension) or something. A lot is the same, but there are many things which ain't.

Zephyr wrote:

klagldsf wrote:One of the most bizarre things actually is why this vessel would be carrying Sea Killer.

Because it seemed appropriate for a remote and very independent minded Dominion trying to do something different from the mother country.

Remember, this ain't earth we're talking about. Not an AU, more of an AD (alternate dimension) or something. A lot is the same, but there are many things which ain't.

Still, Sea Killer? It has shorter range than surface mode Standard.
I'm all for doing things differently, but at least select a missile that has an advantage over the other missiles you're carrying.

Thiel wrote:

Zephyr wrote:

klagldsf wrote:One of the most bizarre things actually is why this vessel would be carrying Sea Killer.

Because it seemed appropriate for a remote and very independent minded Dominion trying to do something different from the mother country.

Remember, this ain't earth we're talking about. Not an AU, more of an AD (alternate dimension) or something. A lot is the same, but there are many things which ain't.

Still, Sea Killer? It has shorter range than surface mode Standard.
I'm all for doing things differently, but at least select a missile that has an advantage over the other missiles you're carrying.

My reason for choosing it are these:
1.) Its different from what the Kingdom uses, and the Dominion which is designing this (Aldeshar) is notoriously stubborn and contrarian.
2.) So, they try to design many things on their own. Sometimes with great success, sometimes not.
3.) This is one of those "not" times.
4.) After a number of years of trying to improve the system, they finally give up and in the mid 90's during the mid-life refit of the cruisers (3 of them in the class), they begin using Imperial missile systems.

The Sea Killer (or, as I have named it in my little fantasy/fictitious universe), the Mongoose, is from the same design bureau and weapons manufacturer who in the 1930's tried to design a "torpedo gun", a triple turret with 21" barrels which were supposed to be able to 'shoot' torpedoes at a target for up to 18,000 yards, at which point the torpedo would then enter the water and continue on to the target. When testing this concept they discovered that many of the torpedos tended to explode in the barrel, which did not endear them to the gun crews, and those that managed to somehow not explode had the flight characteristics of a lopsided brick and exploded upon hitting the water. It was never deployed on board warships, something for which an entire generation of gun crews and their families were thankful.

Hopefully, that gives some background on why I chose a less-than-optimal weapons system for this particular class of cruisers.

acelanceloet wrote: - aren't the roles of you 2 types of missiles quite overlapping?

After thinking about it, probably so. My initial idea was to have the forward launcher be dedicated anti-air, while the stern launcher would be dedicated anti-ship. But, I suppose that same goal could be accomplished by just having the missiles stocked in their magazines reflect that? Then I could do away with that dreadful Sea Killer entirely. The idea of using the Sea Killer, while amusing, probably ought be relegated to the "not" file the same as the torpedo gun, hnh?

Zephyr wrote:

acelanceloet wrote: - aren't the roles of you 2 types of missiles quite overlapping?

After thinking about it, probably so. My initial idea was to have the forward launcher be dedicated anti-air, while the stern launcher would be dedicated anti-ship. But, I suppose that same goal could be accomplished by just having the missiles stocked in their magazines reflect that? Then I could do away with that dreadful Sea Killer entirely. The idea of using the Sea Killer, while amusing, probably ought be relegated to the "not" file the same as the torpedo gun, hnh?

Probably. Don't forget that in anti-surface mode the Standards are pain in the ass missiles to deal with.

I've relegated the Ticoginia concept to my personal "never built" file and gone back to my original idea of early 60's instead of early 70's. For this one, which I had started before, I based it off the Swedish Tre Kroner design which I am already using as my Mt Monarch class, figuring that a modification of that design, built to similar specs, would probably be more likely than a complete new design. So, I've made a few modifications trying to reflect that these were built in the 1960-64 time frame instead of the late 40's-early 50's like the initial Mt Monarch Class. I replaced the forward 152mm with the 6" Mk XXVI and the midships 40mm mounts with 4 x 3"/70 turrets, two to a side. The pair of aft turrets were replaced with a Sea Slug (SeaRaven in my navy) and a Sea Cat (SeaDagger in my navy). Of course, that now leaves a big wide open space between the funnels and the Sea Slug that I have no frelling idea what to put there. I had thought of maybe a helipad, but that seemed to be an awkward location, and ideas for other things just ain't coming, so I'm hoping that one of y'all may have some bright ideas. I have also made a start at replacing some of the electronics, but I am open to suggestions on those as well.

Well there is a more recent Sea Slug drawn, so you'll want to use that.

As for a mid-ships helo hanger, that's not such a bad thing. The closer to the CG, the less the pad moves in absolute terms as the ship rolls (see the T43 for a really centered location).

TimothyC wrote:Well there is a more recent Sea Slug drawn, so you'll want to use that.

I thought there was, but I couldn't seem to find it so I just used the Sea Slug from the older drawing of the County Class DDG's. I'll look some more for the updated drawing.

TimothyC wrote:As for a mid-ships helo hanger, that's not such a bad thing. The closer to the CG, the less the pad moves in absolute terms as the ship rolls (see the T43 for a really centered location).

Hmm. Ok, so my idea wasn't crap after all. Good to know. I think an above deck hanger may be too large, so what of having an elevator to a below decks hanger for a single helo? Feasible? Or if an above decks one is used, then extend the funnels a few feet so they clear it?

a few comments.
- the tre kronor class was of about WW2 vintage, so the weapons and hull design would be completely different 20 years later.
- your drive train is incredibly long. you have an hull of the same length as the tre kronor, but you moved the funnels and by that at least part of the machinery forward. if I may ask... why? the problem you come up with, the long midsection, is mostly because of that.
- sea cat needs additional directors. what nation do you want to base your radars on?
- why not move or add another seacat somewhere forward? that would give you 360 degrees coverage, something I would want on a ship this size.
- what kind of helicopter do you want on board? on that it depends what size and by that what type of hangar you could get.

well, I did replace all the weapons systems with more modern.

good point on the machinery. Didn't think of that. Move the funnels further aft?

for continuity, I'll keep with UK electronics. What else does the sea cat need and where should I put it? masts? near the launcher itself?

another sea cat, not a bad idea.

helo would be early 60's vintage, haven't settled on which one yet, but either UK or US design most likely. I would prefer smaller.