Shipbucket

yeah but new members.... but I will do as you said since i see what you are on about!

It looks better with the Mast, it just does.

Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:It looks better with the Mast, it just does.

Then just add an little Navigation mast, not the Eiffel tower....


Edit: I hope I didn't give someone a bade Idea now!

more progress. please comment



Joe

Looking better and better with each rev - I like it.

This is starting to become something very interesting.

I belive something similar to this, just downsized to an (large) cruiser size, would have had a high possibility to have been build if the money was there.

To say it in an different way... I like it, and it gives me ideas.

I thank both of you. I'm really enjoying this. I have other ships in mind, such as a new frigate. Also A battle ship style armed with big rail guns. Ill probably use this same hull for that one.

As this ship is coming together and her size is more apparent, I'm thinking it needs a new designation other than CGN or even CSGN. Something like Fleet Ballistic Missile Defense FBMDN? That sounds like a pretty grand designation haha. What do you all think?

One more question for everyone. Does this ship need four total screws due to her size? I looked at the San Antonio class, as its about the same tonnage as this ship and only has two screws. Of course she doesn't do 30+ knots either. Would I just need bigger screws? Would four have any distinct advantage or disadvantage over two?

Any comments, suggestions greatly appreciated and I'd like to thank everyone who's commented thus far. Your insight and knowledge is invaluable

Fair seas

Joe

CGN's all it needs, see nothing special that would require a new designation. However this is the USN and they love new designations...

Still say the Burke Mast looks better.

the Des Moines class, displacing 20,000 tons full load, made 33 knots with 4 shafts. (src=Wikipedia...) Given that this is a newer ship, not a 1940's era ship, you might be able to do that on 2 screws if the engineering is right, but I'd probably go with 4. If nothing else, there's some level of redundancy (USS Portland lost 2 of her screws from a torpedo hit, having 2 other screws allowed her to make for safe harbor under her own power.)

Certainly making good progress. A few comments:

• Can you indicate on a little cartoon what arrays are what, and at what angles (relative to the bow) they are located? This would help understanding, and ease the visualization of excess arrays or blind spots in coverage.
• Both of the major 24ish-foot arrays are a little lower than I'd like; the forward one poses a bit of HERO concern with regards to the RAM immediately in front of it, and the after arrays will lose view of the horizon in any pitching and rolling (since the hangar beneath is wide and rectangular!). Elevating both arrays a bit would solve this problem.
• CVNs can put about 70,000shp into a screw, but theirs are deeper than yours. Besides, four screws is right and proper on a cruiser.
• Where and how big do you envision your reactors? It's helpful to have vertical access (we may envision never refueling, but ships have certainly been known to operate beyond their initially planned service life! Note the APHNAS program in the 1970s envisioned about a 60kshp reactor; I'm not aware of any design work on what would really be ideal, which is about an 80kshp plant. Nimitz plants, in any event, are too big.
• I'll maintain to my dying day that the SeaRAMs are silly. If you're worried about battle damage or whatnot, great! You should be. But that's an argument for a sub mainmast with SPQ-9B, not a reduced-capability CIWS.
• You've got a long, low hull. I'd strongly consider a bow bulwark.
• You've seemingly got an entire superstructure level aft that you don't need. Why not drop the VLS to main deck level, the helo deck to O1, and so on and so forth? This would nicely resolve the radar field of view issue noted above.
• The VLS amidships would seem to subject a lot of fragile weather-deck items to blast damage and personnel danger for very little real combat system gain, probably not even 10% of the cells overall. I would delete this GMLS.
• As far as comms go, you seem very stunted. That mainmast would give you another platform for VHF and UHF antennas, with a better horizon, and perhaps a platform for a HF wire fan antenna. As it is, you seem to have... maybe a collection of phased-array transmit antennas?
• I'd consider a top view cartoon to see if you really need all of those sponsons all over the place for RAM, SRBOC, etc etc. I have a hunch you don't.
• Is the little deckhouse atop the pilothouse intended for EO/IR and whatnot? It's way larger than necessary, if so. I'd leverage AAQ-37 DAS in this space.
• Since you're looking like you want to control RCS somewhat, note your current lifeboat arrangement (rectangular cavities in the sidewall of the ship) is extraordinarily high in RCS. I would rethink this arrangement.
• You're sure got weight and volume to burn -- I'd consider those AGS to be the heavyweight 12rpm (10rpm?) version. No reason that I can see that those couldn't be in this style of gunhouse.
• I'd consider taking a page from the Europeans and throwing on SMART-L or something similar. There's a lot to be said for L-band for air search, and it's not like cost is an issue!
• I'd think about Mk 57 VLS rather than Mk 41, since it will be able to take a much larger SM-3 (if the 27" weapon ever gets re-funded).