| Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
| Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2750 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Dilandu [ March 3rd, 2012, 6:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier |
Well, i'm back with another crasy stuff! Attachment: Snark submarine.png
Not too many changes, I agree. Submarines are generally boring redraw - the laws of hydrodynamics are too severe.But for fun - intercontinental cruise missile, the SM-62 "Snark" is almost equal to the length of the "Regulus-II". And if you equip its folding wings (ok - double folding wing), then ... USS "Halibut", in the role of the "Snark"-carrier, at least it's fun! P.S. If someone needs "Snark" for their projects - please take it! |
|
| Author: | klagldsf [ March 3rd, 2012, 8:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier |
...you realize Regulus-II would've been a better cruise missile than Snark, rendering this somewhat outright obsolete from the drawing board, right? |
|
| Author: | Dilandu [ March 3rd, 2012, 9:25 am ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier | |
...you realize Regulus-II would've been a better cruise missile than Snark, rendering this somewhat outright obsolete from the drawing board, right?
Of course (I wrote: crasy stuff)! But the 10000-km range "Snark" looks crazy cool as shiborne missile! 
|
||
| Author: | Hood [ March 3rd, 2012, 9:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier |
Interesting idea even if the Snark wasn't an ideal weapon. On a side note, what's with the funky purple credit? Black, non-aliased Arial 8 is the standard. |
|
| Author: | Dilandu [ March 3rd, 2012, 1:07 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier | |
Interesting idea even if the Snark wasn't an ideal weapon.
It would be a better weapon, if he appeared sometime in the 1950s. His features were good before the advent of high supersonic speed fighters.But... in some AU world, where V-2 was never build, and ballistic missiles were slow down in their advent... Old "Snark" may be a VERY useful weapon! |
||
| Author: | Dilandu [ March 3rd, 2012, 1:08 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier | |
On a side note, what's with the funky purple credit? Black, non-aliased Arial 8 is the standard.
WHAT?! Purple? Where? I don't see any purple!
|
||
| Author: | Hood [ March 3rd, 2012, 2:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier |
I think perhaps its just my screen, its bold black. Anyhow the credits are supposed to match in font and size. |
|
| Author: | deankal55 [ March 4th, 2012, 11:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier |
Sea Snark sure has a ring to it. Here are a couple of observations and some suggestions. The Snark and the Regulus II were very different systems. Snark was subsonic but had a 5,000 to 6,000 mile range (with drop tanks), carried a 3.8 megaton warhead, and used a celestial navigation system which on a good day got the warhead to within 4 miles of the target. Regulus II was a supersonic missile with about a 500 mile range, carried a 2.0 megaton warhead, and used inertial navigation that need a guidance beacon 150 miles from the target but could get the warhead to within 600 m of the target. The Regulus II had a marginally higher ceiling than the Snark, but both were within the ceiling of Societ SAMs. So while the Sea Snark is interesting to depict, the missile accuracy from a mobile launch platform would mean you were probably wasting warheads. Now my suggestions. I would change the wing folding system to a Grumman-style single hinge, fold back against the fuselage system. The Snark is perfect for this system since it has no horizontal stabilizers. Also since there is no deck under the outer wings once they start to unfold you need a mechanical system for extending them. If the fold line is far enough out you might be able to fit the drop tanks (or use smaller one since you have sailed part way to the target). You may need to lose the bow torpedo tubes. The Snark is 3 m longer than the Regulus II. You will need to convert the torpedo room into more space for the missiles. The hull may need to be longer (or the sail set further aft) to allow deck handling of the larger missile. I would give the missiles with the wing folding and on the launcher a more tactical color scheme-midnight blue or midnight blue above white. |
|
| Author: | TimothyC [ March 4th, 2012, 11:37 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier | |
Snark [...] used a celestial navigation system which on a good day got the warhead to within 4 miles of the target.
On a bad day you'd hit the wrong continent.
|
||
| Author: | deankal55 [ March 5th, 2012, 1:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier |
We did hit Brazil didn't we! The contract called for an intercontinental missile, I guess it didn't specify which continents. Guidance and accuracy were the downfall of both of these programs. And ICBMs were immune to air defenses of the day. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|