Shipbucket

And you are also wrong. The 8" gun was tested on a destroyer and did exactly what it was supposed to do. But as I wrot: the US Navy pulled the plug. Reason for that is at that time many did'n see the usage of guns, due to missiles.

I could post a picture of that gun in use during it's final testing. But I am to bored to do that!

Here you go:

as the spruance class update program originally included this system, as did the CSGN program, and the gun was tested and worked. it would be weird if it didn't, because it was based on the long history of cruiser guns. the concept wasn't flawed, but the USN apparantly didn't see the need for it, and thus it was never installed. not an reason to not install it here to me

that said, back to the design.
I see no reason to lengthen the ship again.
the only way to enlarge the powerplant would be adding diesels, adding gas turbines or making the entire thing nuclear.

compare your ship with the CSGN's and try to find a ship with the same weaponnery. you will, I think, find out that your ship is larger then those CSGN's, while it should be smaller due to the more compact powerplant. (look at DXG and DXGN, the kidd and the virginia classes)
so, the question is what has gone wrong here.
the only reason why it would be bigger then an virginia would be the command spaces. so it would end up close to what you had earlier on this page..... I see no need to enlarge it further. (also, I think you have again blocked the plenum vents to the Mk 26, or are the ABL's at the beam entirely?

_________________
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

IIRC it was a question of having insufficient range compared to the 5" (though the Mk 71 used a Mk 16 gun barrel of the exact same type that was used in WWII strictly for development purposes; I think they were going to use a new, longer-caliber barrel for the production version). What really killed it (and most programs) was simply that they didn't feel like spending the money to put a new weapon system into production.

I am clearly in a thread of lunatics. The reason it was not used in real life is because of the rise of missiles (as you yourself state in this condescending and rude post). Therefore, it's inadvisable for the gun to be present on this "AU" drawing, as the gun never entered real life service!

S/F Tagger sends

I'm not rude. but if you want to go that way... (you have to remember her on the forum we have people from: France, Asia, Norway, Sweden, UK, Poland, Russia, etc. that means that from time to time there will be some lost in translation, and understanding what the people are really talking about. Like me, you never know when I am joking around or use some of my twisted humor here... But most time I just write the text out directly as it appears in my head... and think about the diplomacy in the text later (almost like the saying: "shoot first, ask later"))


BTW. This drawing is as stated by other people: and that means he is allowed to do so. he can even mount a 12" gun on it for the LOL's.

Yes, I understand that this is a whimsical design created by boys in order to assuage a fantasy, but at the same time I would aim for maximum realism within the parameters. I am not sure what "for the LOL's" means but I can anticipate that it equates to a non-serious approximation of naval architecture that should not be posted on a forum like Shipbucket, where studious adherence to the rules of physics and historical realism should be observed at all times. Otherwise we are just children playing at creation.

And frankly, I don't accept the construct of an international team to excuse rude behavior on your part. I would personally like an apology for your harsh words, else I will contact the moderators of this forum and ask for resolution. I hope we can resolve this constructively. Please observe the forum rules, specifically Rule #2 which specifically disallows flaming, baiting, and trolling.

S/F Tagger sends

if we go for maximum realism, the entire own design and AU sections would not exist.
and the Mk 71 was, as far as I know, and as far as is stated within official sources IIRC, cancelled for budgetary reasons. the same reason why there is no CSGN, or no fully nuclear fleet. doesn't stop us from drawing it or thinking about it

_________________
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

Please tell me this is a joke. Who is it... Own up.

In that case you will have no problem to apology members of this community who post in this thread for using the word, may I quote: Or you know, we contact the Moderatii and ask for resolution. I hope we can resolve this in a peaceful manner.

_________________

Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!