Grays Harbor Designs

[LEUT_East]

I would raise the midships section up one deck as the midships launchers and their relevant machinery and auxilliaries would be almost scraping the hull. From memory during my time on HMAS Sydney in 1991, the launcher mechanisms albeit the one armed bandit launcher drops down 3 decks to the base of the mechanism. I know that for a fact as I had to climb up and down the bloody access ladder when doing my rounds!

[acelanceloet]

ah well. my bad... I meant these http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... Mustin.gif

[Zephyr]

Actually, and its only 3 RHIB's. 2 to starboard, but only a single on to port.

[Zephyr]

lets try this again....



lengthened it some. also, used the mast from the Type 45 as it seemed to have all the electronics I needed, and I couldn't see any reason to try and redesign it just for the sake of redesigning it. that aft antenna really isn't coming out of the aft funnel. being offset, the mast is behind it from this view. but, I'm sure most of y'all are sharp enough to have figured that one out for yourselves.

[acelanceloet]

keep in mind that you now have an very heavy AAW set, and only ESSM as missile.... and I should check if SAMPSON can guide ESSM at all. also, is your S 1850 and the goalkeeper offset towards the opposite side then the funnel or the same side? (or another combo?)

[Zephyr]

well, I had considered using a junior ensign with binoculars and a compass to guide the missiles, but it seems the academy was fresh out of them.

and the Sampson suite was one of the ones you recommended back on page 7.

Maybe I'll start looking for that ensign again.

I do not want an A/A cruiser. This is a strike cruiser, designed to kill other ships. Any A/A they have is purely defensive. Fleet screens are provided by the DD's and FF's. I used ESSM because it is, from what I've read, an excellent S/M range missile. I think I may well just delete it completely though and go with self-contained RAM launchers, that would solve this whole thing nicely.

[acelanceloet]

well, if you go for sampson you should use ASTER, as it is designed to work with that. fact is, if you equip an expensive system like SAMPSON, and ship an huge amount of VLS, you most likely would carry at least some mid/long range air defence. I personally don't believe in ships build for one role only, they always have one role in which they are very good, and one they can do but not at top level. right now, you have an very expensive anti-ship and land attack platform, perfectly suitable for AAW work, but not with the missiles needed for that. also, I read back a bit: if you look at real ships, you will see the goalkeeper on top of the hangar. in those cases, the reload room is above the hangar, next to the hangar, or between an double hangar.
also, I made an ship with an similar role, that should work in reality..... if you wanna take a look: http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/ ... 4f1p95.png

[Thiel]

I have my doubts about that huge VLS block.
Such a big hole in the strength deck is not going to leave much in way of hull integrity.

[Zephyr]

hmmmm

I may just adapt that one for this role then. Thing is, my navy's doctrine is to have ships which are dedicated to a specific mission: CV's for long-range strike missions; CG's for surface combat; DD's for AAW, but with the capability for some ASW and surface combat (mission dependent); FF's for ASW and fleet screen AAW. Each navy picks which doctrine they believe is best for them. *shrug*

I already have a good class of strong AAW cruisers (Mars Class. Tico-clones), and need a new class which is dedicated to the surface combatant mission. Something smaller (and less expensive) than the BCGN class Erik-T did which I am using as my Simpson class BC's, and can fill that role as well, but on a smaller scale, I guess. I guess it would fall under the "You don't always need a sledgehammer to swat a fly" category?

Hopefully, I'm making my intentions clear. Sometimes my ability to translate my thought process into actual words is limited. LOL

[Zephyr]

I have my doubts about that huge VLS block.
Such a big hole in the strength deck is not going to leave much in way of hull integrity.

What would you suggest then? Maybe break it up into 2 or 3 seperate blocks of VLS? Maybe one smaller block of 24 or 32 forward, with a block of 48-62 midships? That sound any better?