Battleship Yamato Aegis Modernization and Rebuild

[r3mu511]

... and some Arleigh Burke class ships in the USN use the SeaRAM instead of the Mk 48 even though they have the Aegis system.

for the USN, these were initially the 4 burkes deployed to Rota Spain as part of the EPAA for european bmd... the reason they required SeaRAM and not just RAM is because the version of the aegis bmd system these ships used (ie. BMD 3.6.x/4.x) could not operate in integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) mode hence when they were performing their bmd picket duty their spy1 sets could not perform aaw defense... modernized burkes (ACB-12) and new build IIA burkes (ACB-16) would have aegis baseline 9.C with BMD 5.0 CU/5.1 which is capable of operating in IAMD mode hence their spy1 can perform bmd and aaw modes simultaneously...

in you ships case, because you are showing use of SM-3 block IIA, this means you are using aegis BMD 5.1 which means your spy1 set can function in IAMD mode as well...

which gives you a (USN) RL technical basis to follow @citizen's suggestion on RAM

(I believe you also have an ESM system which will provide the initial seed target frequency for the RAM for it to use if it is launched in dual-mode, ie. rf seeking midcourse, passive IR terminal -- so combined: spy1 in IAMD mode provides the radar track while your ESM provides the rf freq track for your RAM in dual-mode, while if RAM is launched in autonomous-IR/AIR mode it will just use spy1 for the radar track)...

[KWAM]

for the USN, these were initially the 4 burkes deployed to Rota Spain as part of the EPAA for european bmd... the reason they required SeaRAM and not just RAM is because the version of the aegis bmd system these ships used (ie. BMD 3.6.x/4.x) could not operate in integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) mode hence when they were performing their bmd picket duty their spy1 sets could not perform aaw defense... modernized burkes (ACB-12) and new build IIA burkes (ACB-16) would have aegis baseline 9.C with BMD 5.0 CU/5.1 which is capable of operating in IAMD mode hence their spy1 can perform bmd and aaw modes simultaneously...

in you ships case, because you are showing use of SM-3 block IIA, this means you are using aegis BMD 5.1 which means your spy1 set can function in IAMD mode as well...

which gives you a (USN) RL technical basis to follow @citizen's suggestion on RAM

(I believe you also have an ESM system which will provide the initial seed target frequency for the RAM for it to use if it is launched in dual-mode, ie. rf seeking midcourse, passive IR terminal -- so combined: spy1 in IAMD mode provides the radar track while your ESM provides the rf freq track for your RAM in dual-mode, while if RAM is launched in autonomous-IR/AIR mode it will just use spy1 for the radar track)...

This makes sense. Guess this means the RAMs should probably have been there from the beginning instead of the SeaRAMs. Maybe I should do more homework next time.

It looks good either way.

The whole point was that I simply couldn't find a way to make it look good without the Iowa bridge, the armored conn was just too out of place.

[acelanceloet]

no shame about the SeaRAM, because I learned something new from that post as well

[erik_t]

For what it is worth, removal of conning tower is by no means unprecedented. In fact, I would expect that to occur to remediate topweight problems associated with SPY-1's addition.

But it's a drawing for fun, not a naval architecture senior design project. If you want it, keep it. I think it can be justified (at least acting without the benefit of hindsight) if you're willing to bend over sufficiently far backwards.

[KWAM]

For what it is worth, removal of conning tower is by no means unprecedented. In fact, I would expect that to occur to remediate topweight problems associated with SPY-1's addition.

But it's a drawing for fun, not a naval architecture senior design project. If you want it, keep it. I think it can be justified (at least acting without the benefit of hindsight) if you're willing to bend over sufficiently far backwards.

Personally I think there's enough justification to keep it. Plus, topweight problems are sort of accounted for by the bulge, and there are certainly stupider parts of this design that I'm still keeping (replaced engines, rebuilt bow).

But you're absolutely right, this isn't a naval architecture senior design project. If it were, I know for a fact I wouldn't have put an armored conning tower there in the first place. Hell, probably a good half of the choices in this drawing are things that I wouldn't do if this were such a project.

no shame about the SeaRAM, because I learned something new from that post as well

It was quite the informative post. Honestly this whole thing has taught me a lot more than I ever thought it would.

[Colosseum]

Just don't let anyone from nationstates see this thread.

[citizen lambda]

I will have learned something new as well today, but as a rule, r3mu511's posts on USN systems are always a wellspring of information so detailed I can only give it the benefit of the doubt
Naively, I was just looking to reduce radar redundancy and add a handful of missiles.

All in all, this has been an awesome design in all senses of the word, and a very rewarding discussion on top of that. So, once again, congratulations on a job well done.

[Kokia]

Nice

Reminds me of Muv Luv, where there was a whole class of modernized Yamatos. (Alternate history + alien invasion)

[Tempest]

Have you thought about changing the hull colour on this cool idea to what it would have been in WW2?http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... rsion2.png

All the best

Tempest.

[heuhen]

I am no expert on sonar, but I am wondering on that it perhaps should have an sonar that hangs under the hull, instead of build in, it could perhaps give the sonar a better field of view...