Posts:7510 Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
that, of course, is an entirely different matter
_________________ Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new. Shipbucket Wiki admin
Posts:2936 Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
In all cases, I'd exchange the forward SPS-30 with the above-bridge illuminator. Since the missiles rode beams in some fire control modes (all Talos on SPW-2, some Terrier on SPG-55), it's important that the directors be as close to the firing rails as possible. This improves the speed and certainty of the missile "capturing" the projected guidance beam.
Posts:2936 Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Very nice, although the second two drawings both have a forward SPW-2 for some reason.
On the double-ended Talos design, I would revert to the previous forward configuration, with both SPW-2 down near the missile rails. SPG-49 doesn't have to be super close to the launcher, but SPW-2 definitely does. The former configuration was somewhat superior.
Much better so.lution, BB! I agree with erik-t:s suggestion, I, unfortunately missed that one. Only one thing remains: you ought to set the forward SPW-2:s closer to their "parent units" of SPG-49:s, like you did aft. Also you didn't move the SPS-30 to the aft stack on your mixed version. I would do that; and quite possibly find a new place for the SPS-2 on your single-end version and move the SPS-30 to that platform. Mind you, though, the Little Rock, the only missile cruiser carrying the SPS-2, did not have the SPS-30 initially. Maybe you should delete the SPS-2 completely on your last version?!?
_________________ My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen