Shipbucket

- may I suggest these Mk 41 top parts? http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63276563/GMLS%2 ... %20VLS.png I had a lot of work to get them correct.
- the 64 cells came into service with the burke, IIRC
- the additional displacement is indeed the reactor weight. the gas turbines would be replaced about one on one with steam turbines, so the reactor plants are additional space and weight. you have to remove stuff from board or add hull size to accomodate this weight. (laying the ship deeper is also possible, but that might run into strength problems)
- I think having the VLS as you have them now would be most correct
- the satcoms block the directors on the tico because there is no other good place for them. here, however, you have an large flat deck on your aft superstructure where I would put them.
- on the SLQ, when the bridge wing and platform protects them, I suppose it would work. still, I would think it something that should be avoided if you can.

in addition, a few points now I see the top view of this:
- why is the aft SPY island so wide? you should get away with half that width and it would get you quite a bit of deck space for equipment (like those satcoms), would enlarge the phalanx's firing arc and put less weight on the hangar, which is as an empty box construction not as strong as an normal superstructure of the same weight.
- those phalanx platforms need to have additional reinforcements or supports if you are putting them this far out. without them, the vibrations of the mount would severely weaken the strength, if it keeps in position at all.

EDIT: what erik says about the blocked horizon on the aft SPY-1 faces becomes worse if you put less width on that deckhouse, so there is something to be said for an full width deckhouse..... but there should be other solutions.

_________________
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

<snip>NM

That being said I don't see the cutouts for the directors being too much of an issue. SM2 has a minumum engagement distance and looking at the top down it looks like your cutouts will intersect well within 1nm off the port and starboard sides. Yeah it reduces reduancy between the forward and aft coverage arcs off the beam but compromise is required. The parameters of that compromise are up for debate.

I find your CIWS bocks more arc than your SATCOMS, though only along the low altitude shots. Unfortunetly thats exactly where you would expect to find the most dangerous ASM threats. I assume you pushed them out like that to give you more arc forward but since you have your SLQ-32 and Bridge wings in the way now you aren't getting much from that placement. I would move the CIWS down a deck and put them where you have that random windowed enclosure. using the smae platforms they are pushed out just as far but by moving them aft you extend their forward arc for a very small reduction in aft arc (EDIT: actually no reduction in aft arc), lower them below your directors, and you can have the platform supported by stanchions to the deck below instead of just sticking out of the side a bulkhead for far greater support.

Rearranging the forward Mk 41 might make a Burke-style forward Phalanx a possibility. This would certainly alleviate any perceived forward-arc concerns.

I think I'd rather turn all four VLS blocks sideways anyway; this would allow for a broader chunk of unbroken deck between them, which ought to improve hull strength. Certainly you've got the beam for it.

As an aside, we're now discussing electronics layout and hull framing.

May I respectfully wonder out loud if the Beginner Forum is still the right location for this topic?

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

does that mean we cant talk about that here in the beginner's forum, or that I can go hang out with the big boys now?

The latter.

Specifically, I moved the thread.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Thank you Timothy

Rereading Ace's comment, I agree with a much narrower aft SPY-1 deckhouse. Of course, you'll again want to raise it a bit to keep the low-angle field of view good.

Thank you all for the comments and suggestions. All the points you all made are for to numerous to address one by one, so I'll just post the newest version. It incorporates my interpretation of all of your though full suggestions....



I have drawn three different versions of the aft "director" house. Lets call the one on the ship No.1. The other two are at the bottom, under the top view. Lets call the one on the left No.2 and the one to the right of that No.3. I would also like you all to consider the setup on the previous version, and call it No.4. I would like a consensus, if I may, on which would be best. Of course I would also love to hear your toughts on the spy antenna placement, as well as any other comments

Again, that you all for all your help

Joe