Shipbucket

I think this takes gratuitousness to a whole new level.

WWII44 wrote:I think this takes gratuitousness to a whole new level.

It's not quite gratuitousity (sp?)... it's the ultimate spiral evolution of a modern surface combatant. Although yes, it is emphatically in excess of any reasonable need. We must satisfy the unreasonable needs.

Anyway, more slight updates. Above links deprecated.

Updated side view.

Updated top view.

• Additional extensible HF comms.
• Extensible SHF satcom fore and aft. Casualty EHF satcom would be provided by Marine grunts on deck.
• Extensible TACAN/Link-16/CEC masts fore and aft.
• Notional monorail crane system is shown in top view. Presumably extensible crane is locked down in position, as are variable-length guy wires tied to fixed deck tiedowns (controlled from monorail central location). This gives substantial lift capability all over the weather deck, probably sufficient for PVLS reload.
• Initial fore and aft views are beginning on the stbd drawing. Eventually full fore and aft drawings will be completed.
• Note vaguely common secondary array size, approximately the size of SPS-49, in fore and aft drawing. Good L-band search capability is present in eight cardinal directions (and thus is pretty damned good in any azimuth).
• USS Great Lakes. Regions are bigger than states.

I'm not really sold on the MRLS. Given the size of the ship and the navigational problems that brings along, would you want to get close enough inshore to use it? Imagine the kind of tug you'd need to pull it of the bottom if it got stuck somewhere.

Also, presumably budgets are death also applies to the other side, so presumably it would have to face the mother of all counter fires if it were to venture into hostile coastal waters.

The diagonal shadow from the ladders looks odd. Other than that it is astonishingly impressive (at least to me ) in every aspect. My compliments.

I don't care what anyone says, I like it, it's fun. Love to see more out of this world gigantic designs.

Thiel wrote:I'm not really sold on the MRLS. Given the size of the ship and the navigational problems that brings along, would you want to get close enough inshore to use it? Imagine the kind of tug you'd need to pull it of the bottom if it got stuck somewhere.

Also, presumably budgets are death also applies to the other side, so presumably it would have to face the mother of all counter fires if it were to venture into hostile coastal waters.

You're absolutely right, but the MLRS is really not intended for shore bombardment. It's primarily a cheap and cheerful way to move the local ASW problem a bit further offboard, deploying sonobuoys, anti-torpedo torpedos, and Limbo-class depth charges out to 30km or so, in the event that weather is bad, helos are busy elsewhere, etc etc. Single sonobuoys and nuclear depth bombs are also available for longer-range use (as are, of course, Sea Lance successors). As I think I've said here, my partners and I envision squadrons of 45kt 15000-ton super-Alfas to be by far the most pressing budgets-are-death threat. GMLRS are probably shipped too (range maybe 100km?), but that isn't the primary reason the launchers are aboard.

Note that one might not want to get within 50km of shore, but there are more than a couple of channels less wide than that which might need to be transited in some case.

WhyMe, virtually no ladders are shown, so I'm not sure to what you are referring.

That does change the picture quite a bit.
So, if my count is right you can launch a pattern of 48 nuclear depth charges with simultaneous detonation?
I wouldn't want to see the submarine(s) after that.

WWII44 wrote:I think this takes gratuitousness to a whole new level.

Nah not at all.But I might need to purchase a bigger monitor.Extremeley impressive work erik.

erik_t wrote:

WWII44 wrote:I think this takes gratuitousness to a whole new level.

It's not quite gratuitousity (sp?)... it's the ultimate spiral evolution of a modern surface combatant. Although yes, it is emphatically in excess of any reasonable need. We must satisfy the unreasonable needs.

In short - OGW is what happens when you apply the thinking that went into the Tillman designs to a modern surface combatant in a hostile gravity well. Without that last part, you'd end up with something the displacement of an Nimitz rather than 7-10 times that.

Thiel wrote:I wouldn't want to see the submarine(s) after that.

Just a bit tosty!