Shipbucket

false. the noise problem of bow and stern thrusters is related to the noise you hear in port, but not the same. the noise you hear is from the water pushed trough an relatively small and long tube. and when the ship is sailing, that tube is still there, and creates noise due to the fact that the water does not follow the lines of the hull but instead it tries to go into the pipe.
stopping this can be done partially by fitting doors on the pipes, but these do not close perfectly and are considered to vulnerable for military ships. instead I would recommend an retractable thruster in the bottom, like the perry or the nansen class has.
keep an eye on the huge space it would take, and the fact that it runs through multiple watertight compartiments, by that requiring an compartiment for itself along the hull, this complicates construction and maintenance a lot, while it works less then an towed array sonar that takes a lot less space. also, I have doubts about the exact dimensions of your array, I think it should be higher and shorter, and more near or even under the keel.
I have to admit it has been a long time since I had the chance to look at the technical drawings of the APAR. but, I know for certain that SEAPAR does not fit in the space available. true, there was to be fitted an radar in that space, but it would be an wider, less deep and less heigh system for ABM defence. this was never fitted, so there is some space, but I highly doubt SEAPAR would fit in it, and I doubt even more why you would want to do so.
all the guns I named, apart maybe from the 125/54LW, are developed for shore bombardement. there is currently no 8 in gun in production, and that is for a reason.
if you would fit an gun like the Mk 71, and you would want to reduce the radar cross section, I think you would most likely end up with something between the latest Mk 45 mods and the oto 127 stealth mounts. both of these are relatively high mounts more like the Mk 71 instead of the square (round, from origin actually) oto 76 cupola.
surprisingly, false! the goalkeeper has substantial deck penetration, as can be found in the belowdeck thread I manage for exactly to stop this kind of mistakes from happening
the bofors gun has no deck penetration apart from it's ammunition lift, which could quite likely be fitted at the side of an hangar (like is done on the USS zumwalt)
the only thing making an goalkeeper in that position better, is that it is an slightly better CIWS (but it cannot be used against surface targets) and the bofors might have an slightly heavier inpact on the construction due to recoil. of course, if you take an AU goalkeeper with 2 gatling guns and an RAM launcher, yeah, the deck penetration issue would be even worse and the recoil issue at the very least the same.
well, here is my problem with this. the CB-90's seem to suggest its role is littoral, with area air defence as secondary capability. the large guns and large number of secondary guns support that claim.
with what you said in mind, I would suggest 2 RHIB bays, (on the ship, not per side) of which one can take an CB-90 or other littoral support boat if needed, and one bay in the stern that can take another littoral support boat or an light modular load, like an towed array, a few containers or some UAV's, for example.

_________________
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

These passive beam arrays tend to stand proud of the shell of the ship, and only penetrate infrequently (perhaps only once) for a power and data connection. Here's a Thales example. Remember they tend to be (or are always?) used in submarine construction, which if anything has far more stringent requirements on hull penetration and watertightness.

Mind, I still have major doubts that a flank-only installation would be a good choice for a surface combatant.

I did some Changes that worked in some of your suggestions I hope you like it

_________________
who am I

-both SEAPAR and APAR are not designed to be split and it would effectively be an redesign of the entire system to do so. and if you already do so, why would you not use an new system for both functions in one?
- the funnels blow smolke on the SMART-L
- the guns look doable in size now, but also they look really bad due to there not being a single straight line in them
- the flagmast is invisible from quite some angles now
- most of my points apart from the ones mentioned above still stand, right now you have an expensive, noisy, huge, inshore combatant with large fins sticking out of the hull being vulnerable.

_________________
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

To avoid interfernce problems, I may suggest lowering the funnels (or make the ship nuclear-powered ) and use this mast:

OK you are right I have to do something with the funnels. They are weired and look bad in that position.
Maybe I shorten the fins and put another pair of them in beneth the forward VLS.
I tryed to put the 57 mm gun at the Hangar roof an it looks realy realy bad. I still think the 57 mm stealth turret looks to big.
can you suggest me what to do with my tracking and fire control radar I want to have more fire control channels than 4 APAR faces can provide but it would be ok if the aditional FCs could only command ESSMs. And the hole thing should be TBMD capable.
I say I like the guns.
What ist your problem with lithoral combatants? The new F125 claas is lithoral, the Zumwalt Claas is lithoral, even the Iowas ond CVNs are lithoral combatants.
This is an offensiv weapon System which mission is to launch gun and missle strikes on selected inshore targets and/or support special operations.

_________________
who am I

what about this. that was basically what I was suggesting, and it would actually be stealthy.

I have nothing against littoral combatants, but ships that have too many functions together can't do any of them properly.
(also, Iowa and CVN littorals, don't know where you heard that........ but CVN's are certainly not and Iowa's counted as gunfire and tomahawk support and not at all as what currently is know as littoral combat ship.)

you mission also differs every time you say it: for the role you call now, you need loads of VLS, some fast RHIB's and some guns on an destroyer platform. not an ABM capable cruiser with some CB-90's hanging at the sides, ruining the stealth.

the 57mm stealth turret is really big, because it is stealthy. on the level of stealth you have now, there is nothing lost if you go for the Mk 110/ bofors 57mm Mk 3 turret.

BMD is purely done by the SMART-L and active missiles. you have thus an unlimited number of guidance channels for this role.
for other roles you have, according to unofficial sources, 16 semi active (ESSM) guidance channels and 16 additional missiles in autopilot mode in flight (SM-2). by adding SM-2 ERAM/SM-6 you could even go above these numbers. I don't think you would need more then that, to be honest.

if you want more, expanding the APAR plate (filling out the square around the current spherical part, for example) would do the trick, as would addition of computing space.

I doubt you would have to split your stabilisers, just making them smaller would suffice, they are currently much to big to move effictively anyways.

_________________
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

ok your gun is better may I use it?
so the guidence capacitx of APAR is 4 SM2 AND 4 ESSM per face at the same time. I thougt it was 4 missiles regardless of ESSM or SM2. Your numbers really makes the CEAPAR needless. Sorry for changing the missions every time I write about it. But all the different missions are parts of the one I have in mind. As a cruiser it is a generalist and the flagship of its own task group. For the ABM senario I have in mind this ship detect missile launches fires ABM-missiles against them and fires cruise missiles or 8" shells on the launch sites.

And how can I show in the piture that the boat-bays can be closed due to stealth reasons?

_________________
who am I

of course you may use it. it is yours, I only fixed some lines which looked off, so it is yours and I fixed it for your use.
all that data about the numbers is unconfirmed as it is secret, but it is not per face. I think all targets can be targeted by one face, the amount limited by computer power and data handling.

you can close those bays with hatches or shutters. best way to show them is showing one open, one closed, or them halfway opened. showing them closed an putting the CB-90's somewhere else on the drawing 'as launched' or floating in the air, is also an option.

when you fire SM-3 at ballistic missiles you are roughly halfway their trajectory IIRC, not close enough to the launch sites to strike them. these 2 roles are really always separate. but, now I am getting your line of thought and I am pondering how I would fix this, although, as stated above, the exact mission you say here doesn't exist.

_________________
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

Can anybody Tell me what comsystems And radars are integrated in the various Thales I-Masts? Of posibele compared to other more convetional Systems, because i haven't found any Info on Wikipedia

_________________
who am I