Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Is this a load-bearing surface?
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1015		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Wikipedia & Universe [ April 9th, 2011, 6:08 am ]
Post subject:  Is this a load-bearing surface?
I remember seeing a picture of an AIM-7 box launcher on a carrier which was on what appeared to be a sponson or other load-bearing surface near the starboard waist. Even with shadowing it's hard to really emphasize that in 2D unless you place something on that surface such as objects or rails. I'd like to know if this area of a carrier is a load-bearing surface that could mount an ESSM or RAM launcher, or if this is only an illusion. I've decided to ask fellow bucketeers before doing anything potentially stupid (back when I was a n00b I put a British radome on top of the USS Halsey's smokestack. Thankfully I later realized the folly in this and never uploaded it.)

Is this a load-bearing surface for a possible launcher placement?
[ img ]
Author:  acelanceloet [ April 9th, 2011, 8:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Is this a load-bearing surface?
well, look at the real thing...... btw, which carrier are we talking about? I suppose a nimitz?
Author:  Wikipedia & Universe [ April 9th, 2011, 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is this a load-bearing surface?
acelanceloet wrote:
well, look at the real thing...... btw, which carrier are we talking about? I suppose a nimitz?
That one is from the USS George HW Bush, so yes.

I suspect that area is the same as this area, but I thought I'd ask around before I go placing floating RAM launchers, radars on top of smokestacks, or something similarly idiotic.
[ img ]
Author:  acelanceloet [ April 9th, 2011, 3:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is this a load-bearing surface?
http://en.valka.cz/attachments/11563/US ... VN-77_.jpg
I think this gives you your answer. no sponson over there. and I also have to say, that that is an very bad place for an CIWS, as there is much less coverage then on the other positions.
Author:  Wikipedia & Universe [ April 9th, 2011, 5:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is this a load-bearing surface?
acelanceloet wrote:
http://en.valka.cz/attachments/11563/US ... VN-77_.jpg
I think this gives you your answer. no sponson over there. and I also have to say, that that is an very bad place for an CIWS, as there is much less coverage then on the other positions.
Thanks for that picture. I see that the starboard waist is far fore of that area. Earlier on I placed a second, smaller sponson aft of the main one, but I want to get rid of it because it not only looks stupid but it's also conflicting with the waist. Consequently I need to move around the defense systems for which I created the second sponson (Phalanx and LADS). I was going to move the Phalanx to the stern, leave the Sea Sparrow launcher where it is on the main sponson, move LADS to the main sponson next to the box launcher, and then I needed some place to put the RAM launcher. Bad news is that thing I circled is not a sponson, good news is that there is a RAM launcher on the aft starboard near the stern, so I can bump the Phalanx to the port stern, delete the second RAM launcher, and do what I said above.

To be clear, this is an AU design which amounts to a modified Bush partially kitbashed with some Ford parts plus my own original modifications. It uses Ford-style sponsons which can mount two systems to one sponson.

Also, on the real Bush image, for new ship her deck, deflectors, etc look corroded as hell. She wasn't commissioned like that was she?
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/