Shipbucket

Lots of stuff on 1945 Yamato might be considered "useless" on Hypothetical 1990 Yamato. It's impossible to say unless we know what day-to-day purpose such a ship would actually serve.

I, for one, have no idea.

I meant the equipment on the 1940's Yamato sorry but I'm on the same boat with you there.

_________________
FD Worklist
Me-262 Series
Fw-190/Ta-152 Series
Germany AU Thread
Luft '46 Thread

List of Aircraft with Acquired Data (Updated)
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... 80#p123956

So why would you want to keep Yamato ?

Realistically the only bit of the Yamato that makes it unique is the 18inch guns (+the amour as well but nukes/LGBs/magnetic Torps make that less useful).

So I would suggest (like the Iowa's) the use of a rebuilt Yamato will be NGFS using 18inch (and probably 6.1 I think you should maybe keep them over the 5 inch AA ? AA guns are not going to help in 1990s).

What systems would a NGFS ships needs (apart from its main guns ?), AAW defence ? , ASW defence ? the question is if that should be on Yamato or the escorts ?

I would also suggest you need to try to cut the crew as much as possible (remove lots of duplicate guns/etc).

JSB

Given the apparently severe blast effects from the 18", I think you could make a very reasonable argument that the after turret would have to be landed, so that more sensitive gear could be repositioned as far aft as possible. I'd also expect some rather massive trunking in order to move/construct a mack near the current location of the after main battery director.

You'd have to fill the aft barbette with 3000t of concrete or something, but such is life. You'll have a vast expanse of free deck area for the sorts of command-and-control requirements that would seem likely to glom onto a hull of this size. Deckhouses, helos, all sorts of good stuff. Maybe something like a Mk 13 GMLS port and starboard, well aft, since you'd prefer to have SOME self-defense capability. I don't think you're going to be able to have 360deg CIWS coverage, unfortunately; those guns are just too damned big.

As long as you have CIWS coverage for the bit where you keep your electronics you're golden. Against anything that can pose a serious one-hit kill threat against a ship like this CIWS is really marginal anyway, so it's only good against soft-kill threats anyway.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

Depends on how you define one-hit kill (and, for that matter, how you define CIWS). I would offer favorable odds on a 57mm against something like P-500; meanwhile, I would not want to bet the survival of the ship on resisting a single 1000kg-warhead (plus whatever fuel remains) hit from the latter.

The reason why It would be used for such a long time is that every Japanese battleship ever made lasted for 30+ years.

However while that was mainly because the Japanese focused on quality over quantity but it is worth mention that external political reasons somewhat saved the Japanese capital ships before 1920 the fate of their western counterparts, the cost was the huge expansion plan of the IJN in the 1920's was either scrapped or converted (Hence we get the Kaga and Akagi), Nagato and Mutsu were the last of the Existing battleships before the Yamato. Worth also noting that most sea going ships last 25-35 years.
Let me just stop you there

Kawachi-6 Years
Settsu-10 Years
Fuso-29 Years
Fuso-27 Years
Ise-28 Years
Hyuga-27 Years
Nagato-26 Years
Mutsu-22 Years
Yamato-4 Years
Musasahi-2 Years

Average-18 Years

Battlecruisers
Kongo-31 Years
Hiei-28 Years
Kirishima-27 Years
Haruna-30 years

Average-29 Years

Only one made it to the 30+ bracket, one other made it to 30.

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

note also that for example to kongo's got an rebuild with new machinery, superstructure, bulges, lengthening......
in how much sense these ships were the same before and after the rebuild (since machinery is one of the first parts that actually gets too old to operate safely) and how much time these ships thus really had......
note that, IIRC, the yamato was at least partially war build, which is never good for construction standards.

_________________
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

Think two rebuilds of some sort actually for most Kongo's just to show the need to update over their lifespans

Indeed Ace, IIRC certain hull sections and armour joints were poorly designed in a rush and built even more poorly, undermining the ships immense figures. I remember hearing of statements that even the Shinano wasn't built correctly, as air and water rushed through gaps in bulkheads when she was torpedoed, not to mention sections of the frames actually knocking down other bulkheads.

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards