Shipbucket

well.......
1. first of all you should use the newest version I made. second, why do you need the mk 48 at all, when you have an huge mk 41 block?
for the placement: add it wherever there is space for it. that is the good thing about the mk 48 mod 3
2. depends. in single block rows: 64 in an double block (as most ship have it) 128. in tripple.... you see where I am going.
3. no clue on what would be best. US: SPY-3 & VSR. NL: APAR+ SMART-L GB: SAMSPON & S 1850....... at least, that is what the newest heavy radar systems are now.
4. the hangar seems big enough, although you might have some problems with the GK on top.
5. there seems to be enough space for the VLS, the engine room might be a bit crammed though.
6. a few....
- it looks like an single prop design. THAT is not an good thing xD
- this design + this role + small, fast and sleek = an very good laugh. consider that the CSGN designs and the Kirov's had an role that looks surprisingly similar
- I believe your main gun is floating in the air, look at how the deck is and how the bulwarks are
- I personally would always split the machinerooms on a ship like this. with the VLS in between though, it might be advisable to use gas/diesel electric propulsion.
- the midship/stern is extremely heavy, while the bow area is relatively light. this is gonna give the ship some strange movement, IMO.....
- I see you have offset your funnels. why not move the hangar more amidships, between the funnels, and give your helideck an more comfortable position?

and some questions: what kind of missiles do you want to carry? & what beam has this ship?

acelanceloet wrote: well.......
1. first of all you should use the newest version I made. second, why do you need the mk 48 at all, when you have an huge mk 41 block? for the placement: add it wherever there is space for it. that is the good thing about the mk 48 mod 3

My thoughts were that I wanted to reserve the Mk 41 for offensive weapons only (SSM and Cruise missiles) and have the defensive AAW seperate. But I am not wedded to that, just giving my thoughts on why I started that way on this.

acelanceloet wrote:2. depends. in single block rows: 64 in an double block (as most ship have it) 128. in tripple.... you see where I am going.

Probably double block. Good to know I am not completely senile, and got the count right. LOL

acelanceloet wrote:3. no clue on what would be best. US: SPY-3 & VSR. NL: APAR+ SMART-L GB: SAMSPON & S 1850....... at least, that is what the newest heavy radar systems are now.

I was thinking about the APAR. I read some about it and it seemed quite the system.

acelanceloet wrote:4. the hangar seems big enough, although you might have some problems with the GK on top.

Magazine space probably? Yeah, good point. I'll look at relocating it. Maybe lengthen the hull and put it near the stern?

acelanceloet wrote:5. there seems to be enough space for the VLS, the engine room might be a bit crammed though.

Needs more room for the "black gang" Noted. I look into getting that resolved.

acelanceloet wrote:6. a few....
- it looks like an single prop design. THAT is not an good thing xD
oops. I meant to correct that.
- this design + this role + small, fast and sleek = an very good laugh. consider that the CSGN designs and the Kirov's had an role that looks surprisingly similar
Well, I do have the Simpson class battle cruisers, but I was looking at the St Edwards as kind of a "Heavy cruiser" type alternative to the BC's. Complement them, not replace them.
- I believe your main gun is floating in the air, look at how the deck is and how the bulwarks are
ummmm.... maglev turret? Thanks for pointing that out.
- I personally would always split the machinerooms on a ship like this. with the VLS in between though, it might be advisable to use gas/diesel electric propulsion.
Wouldn't the missile magazines hinder the prop shaft though? Just me thinking out loud. I could be wrong.
- the midship/stern is extremely heavy, while the bow area is relatively light. this is gonna give the ship some strange movement, IMO.....
Good point.
- I see you have offset your funnels. why not move the hangar more amidships, between the funnels, and give your helideck an more comfortable position?
Another good point

and some questions: what kind of missiles do you want to carry? & what beam has this ship?
Main missile armament is the Tsunami (Tomahawk IRL) cruise missile and the Viper (NSM IRL) SSM (yes, in my world the NSM is capable of being launched from the Mk 41. )

Thank you for the comments and suggestions! They certainly help.

additional point on the split engines: yes, that would hinder the prop shaft arrangement. hence the electric part: drive generators with your machines fore and midships and drive the props with electrical engines. that way, you can spread your weight, split the machinerooms and might be able to fit that VLS over there. another option is to make it only an single row of VLS and let the shafts run next to them.

That would give me 32 VLS tubes then, right? hmmm.

I think the electrics might be the better option for me. Thanks.

well, you could keep the 64 then with the current setup, in only a single row.

Something a little more like this, then?



Unfortunately, the Mk 41 VLS is now mostly obscured by the railings.

looks better now. I frown a bit on the double bow gun though, there is not that much gained by that setup, except an larger (shared) magazine space.....
also, please use this MK 48: http://i830.photobucket.com/albums/zz22 ... Snew-7.png
and you might want to lower it into the deck, if you are keeping it.
EDIT: an idea: move the hangar a bit to the side and bow, next to the funnel. that gives you the space to move the helideck more forward even and add the second gun behind the goalkeeper. you might want to raise the hangar+ helideck a bit then, to give the GK an good firing arc without being an hindrance for heli operations.

Shared magazines is exactly what I was thinking for the guns. I figured most modern cruisers have two guns, one forward and one aft. So, what if a smaller cruiser also had two, but both forward to utilize space for the magazines more efficiently? Plus, there was a whole lot on unutilized space forward.

Hanger forward. Nice idea. It will mean moving the Mk 41's a bit more forward, but there is space there so that shouldn't be a problem.

Looks to be rather on the shallow side 4.5m for ~165m? Not meaning any disrespect to the OP below is what I'd do to the design if it were mine. Really quick and very nasty mockup (sorry about that)

hmmm..... interesting. I'll have to take some or all of those into consideration.