Shipbucket

I was going to use the 1976 CSGN hull for one of my AU designs, but I'm thinking of using this instead. That I'll be sure to credit goes without saying. Mine is a CGGN 21, but I haven't started it yet.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!

Well Erik has made another well thought out ship but this time its too large for my tastes. Excessive is one word. It's not Kirovitis and its not wholly crazy as a concept but it has a touch of meglomania about it.

Then again if your going to spend millions on a nuclear powerplant you might as well go the full hog.
Very nice top view too.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Is that twin 21inch torpedo tubes I spot aft? I get why they installed them in the Peder Skram class back in the seventies since it was build mainly for Danish waters and was almost as agile as an MTB. But stern firing ones on a ship with enough missiles to flatten your average country? I see that you already have ASW torpedoes, so I guess that's not the reason.

Also, you don't happen to know what kind of deck penetration the Mk. 66 was supposed to have.
I'm playing around with a what-if version of the Peder Skram class where the RDN realizes that they'd gotten shafted with 5"/38 deal and the mk 66 could be a likely candidate for a MLU

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Excessive is certainly a correct descriptor. Things were forced by the "need" for both the C-band and L-band phased arrays, both at least larger than real-life SPY-1. C-band would be pretty crap for long-range search, and L-band is much too coarse for missile guidance. The size of the superstructure block, and the desired height of the radar sets, functionally drove the size of the hull. Of course, once you have a big hull you start wanting to pack it with all sorts of goodies... Nope, definitely ASW. The USN flirted with 21" ASW tubes for a number of years, the idea falling in and out of favor as weapons development raced and stalled. They were shipped early on on Norfolk (8 tubes!) and many Forrest Shermans (4), generally amidships in location and bearing, and in the fantail (as here) on some of the later DE(G)s. Knox and Spruance had space for them, but the death of the surface-launched Mk 48 was the end of the line and I don't believe either class ever had the tubes installed. I don't know for sure. Surely large. Navweaps notes a single 100-round ready-use ammo drum below decks; scaling based on the Mk 45 drum suggests... big. Really hugely big. I think scaling in this way is probably incorrect in this case.

It just seems weird for it to carry both. Even if if this thing is the epitome of redundancy.
Damn, it would have been a sweet piece of kit to carry. What gun to use then? It can mass about 1.5 as much as a 5"/38 and penetrate a bit deeper, but there won't be much play length and crosswise. Hmm, maybe if I went for a smaller drum?

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Perhaps not as much as it first seems. One must remember that the US short ASW torpedo was really the world's best depth charge - it has pretty minimal effective range. In contrast, the 21" weapon was seriously floated (no pun intended) as competition for ASROC. It was an effective offensive weapon, not a defensive one. One might note that the Soviet/Russian approach wasn't too far from this, with 533mm weapons backed up by RBUs. The latter is a different solution to the same problem of close-in ASW defense.

Of course I am being sufficiently silly to have helos, ASROC, long and short ASW TTs, but note that the Garcias and Brookes had exactly that, on only 3500 tons or so.
There was a single version of the same weapon, the Mk 65. It might be up your alley.

It might. I certainly have enough spare mass to play around with. Something like 80 tons if memory serves.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Should be iffy-to-okay on weight, then. I suspect that Mk 65, at most, weighed as much as Mk 42. But it wouldn't be vastly less either, I don't think.

NavWeaps put the Mark 42 at 66tons fully loaded, so that should be okay. I'm replacing two 5"/38 Mark 38 with one Mark 65 and an Mk 113.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.