Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

A bit large cruiser (tico style)
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2504		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  heuhen [ January 20th, 2012, 7:46 pm ]
Post subject:  A bit large cruiser (tico style)
Do not know what happened but I was drawing a big cruiser with improved living comfort, when she began to resemble too much the Ticonderoga class. so anybody can take it. as I am drawing a new one that is little more Haram style! ;)

[ img ]
Author:  Zephyr [ January 20th, 2012, 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit large cruiser (tico style)
Ticonderoga on steroids!

I may well take a shot at completing her, just for S&G. Maybe add her to my fleet someplace.
Author:  erik_t [ January 20th, 2012, 8:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit large cruiser (tico style)
Another example of That-Ship-Looked-That-Way-For-A-Reason :)
Author:  klagldsf [ January 20th, 2012, 11:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit large cruiser (tico style)
Zephyr wrote:
Ticonderoga on steroids!
Which makes it potentially pointless.

What's the extra size for? Extra speed? Extra bunkerage? Ticos are already 35+ knot ships that are almost always accompanied by replenishment ships so that's pointless. Extra mag space? A single Tico already has enough mag space to put up a significant umbrella, and you're still using Mk 26s so its not like you can throw up a bunch of missiles at once (which would still be pointless anyway). Regardless of launcher the SPY-1 system itself won't be able to take advantage of that mag space.

Most logically a hull this size would either be nuclear powered or try to take advantage of a large hangar and helo deck. Or have some boxy launchers for some oversized missiles, like ABLs.

Not that it's a bad ship, it just seems to be a ship looking for a purpose. The missile cruisers you have in your AU look purposeful and the products of a natural development cycle.


EDIT: actually disregard all that: I've just been informed that a larger displacement Tico brings about things I wasn't aware about. I'm going to keep the above just for future reference but it goes to show that even the USN can't design ships, and that ship design is often a matrix of compromises.
Author:  Zephyr [ January 21st, 2012, 3:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit large cruiser (tico style)
This is why I said I'd finish it for S&G, which is southern talk for "the amusement of it". The steroids comment was directed as "oh, look how much larger it is than a standard Tico".
Author:  erik_t [ January 21st, 2012, 6:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit large cruiser (tico style)
I'll go ahead and detail what I assume Timothy said to klag.

The Ticonderogas were/are very tight ships, and while successful they can't be said to be wholly without fault. The Spruance hull can only be pushed so far. Pressed into a CG mission for which they weren't really designed, I understand the Ticos to be somewhat subpar on comms channels and accommodation for flag staff. Certainly they are not as good of sea boats as the Sprucans, and in fact are so overloaded that they are experiencing some superstructure cracking, and bulwarks were necessary to keep the bow dry. They are quite lively in a seaway, which doesn't show up on a Jane's spec sheet but certainly affects maintainability, operability and crew effectiveness. Aluminum was used extensively in the superstructure, as there was just no other way around the topweight. When the USN sat down post-Burke to do a clean-sheet-of-paper Aegis CG, it came out quite a lot larger than the Ticonderogas - 13500 vs 9500 long tons, give or take.

In the meantime, this ship has some advantages beyond just shoving the straight Tico superstructure onto a larger hull. By no means all-inclusive:
  • The Oto 127mm is roughly doubly as capable as the Mark 45 (which is an astonishingly lightweight mount compared to its competitors)
  • This ship probably has 64-round Mk 26 GMLS, rather than the 44-round magazines of Ticonderoga. Presumably the USN would have preferred 64-round, as this is what CSGN had.
  • The SPG-62 illuminators have better fields of view.
  • The helo deck is larger, as is the hangar (probably)
  • NSSM can be shipped (although God Himself only knows why you'd care about having it on an Aegis ship)
  • Presumably all-steel construction, with superior space for accommodation etc.
  • Superior ship handling
It can certainly be argued that these gains aren't enough relative to the additional cost, but by no means can it be suggested that this upgrade is pointless.
Author:  heuhen [ January 21st, 2012, 7:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit large cruiser (tico style)
Quote:
Presumably all-steel construction, with superior space for accommodation etc.
it was one of my ideas.
Author:  erik_t [ January 21st, 2012, 8:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit large cruiser (tico style)
You should also be able to improve the Harpoon disposition and clear the field of fire of the after 127mm mount.
Author:  TimothyC [ January 23rd, 2012, 12:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit large cruiser (tico style)
If I might add something, to the best of my knowledge, CGBL was one of the largest AEGIS ships devised. As Erik pointed out, it was a model developed to compare future designs to an AEGIS CG done right if you will. It's 40% larger than a Tico, and only 65% of the size of the largest AEGIS ship proposal (CSGN Mk-2). Here is a picture:

[ img ]
Author:  ghost792 [ January 23rd, 2012, 3:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit large cruiser (tico style)
What's the bottom ship in that picture?
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/