Shipbucket

That... might not entirely be true. For example, the designers of the defunct British Type 43 certainly tried to at least give her an esthetic worthy of WWII cruisers. So while officially looks don't matter, the designers might think differently...

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

Thank you odyesseus. Forward SBROC is now added, also all director pairs are offset
Thank you ghost. I did a version with three directors front and aft and didn't like the results. I like this set-up as it harkens back to the Long Beach (only reversed) I don't really think it matters a whole lot (the fore-aft split) as an engagement that would require the maximum number of directors would also require a "broadside" toward the threat bearing, which as the other reason I didn't want any side by side directors.
Thank you klagldsf. While aesthetics did play a small part in my not liking the height of the middle director set, it was more a "am I to top heavy?" thought. I think its ok as is but if anyone thinks it isn't please let me know


Ok, I'm pretty sure this is the final. I'm going to say the first ship commissioned in 85. The drawing depicts a layout that would be seen in about 2002, I believe. I didn't like the aft mast so I redrew it. I think next I will do an RCS'ed version.



I would like to thank everybody for support, commetns and help offered. As usual, I would love to hear any comments and/or suggestions

Well, I know it has been mentioned that functionality goes over aesthetics, but there is a way to revert to the original straight bridge structure (under the bridge windows themselves), like you had earlier? Your cruiser looks amazing, but (of course aesthetically) the superstructure steps ahead of the bridge do not look as good as the rest of the ship, imho..

_________________
My Worklist
Sources and documentations are the most welcome.

-Koko Kyouwakoku (Republic of Koko)
-Koko's carrier-based aircrafts of WWII
-Koko Kaiun Yuso Kaisha - KoKaYu Line (Koko AU spinoff)
-Koko - Civil Aviation

Thank you for the comment Mihoshik, I try to balance the two leaning toward functionality.
Thank you BB. The steps came about because of the MK-86. If I want it I need the steps in order to place CIWS for best coverage. I asked Ace if I really needed the MK-86, as the Tico's don't have them. I suppose the difference might me that you can aim the guns at two different targets this way? Not sure, I was hopping Ace would get back to me and give me his thoughts. Speaking if having thoughts, I just had one...this ship should have SPS-9B in the year shown (I think...) what year did 9B get deployed?

I agree with both Miho and BB1987 about the missing aesthetics of the ship presently. I would like to add too, that she looks very un-American now; more like a Japanese Kongo-class DDG...

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

I am assuming that you have that forward Phalanx against the rail on both port and starboard sides? If so it is directly in front of the forward spy arrays and will 1.) get fried by them and 2.) mark the critical horizon search for a good portion of the horizon.

Rather nice, although I still don't understand the persistent desire to block weapons arcs and consume precious stability margins with high-up satcom domes. With very few exceptions, I cannot think of any ships that put the high-datarate comm systems in such locations; FLTSATCOM could presumably indicate to a ship that she needs to come about to open arcs for such systems, if there is incoming traffic. I think the rearward units are problematic, as well. The rhombus-arrangement was superior in literally every way; I'm not sure why we've gone away from that.

Thank you bezo, I didn't model after the Kongo class and to be honest I've not even really studied that class. I did however feel the forward superstructure looked a bit tractor-ish
You are correct about the Phalanx placement, and I didn't like it either. so its been changed. Thank you for the comment
Thank you Erik, I will change the SATCOM antenna next update. I didn't think they were particularly heavy, but I did not like the look anyway. Both CIWS have been moved in my latest update. What is the rhombus-arrangement?? feel free to copy what you are talking about and re-post it you desire

here is the latest. I've made a pretty drastic change and would like to hear everybody's thoughts. I think its workable (and doesn't look Japanese) but is it dangerously top heavy??

They're not super-heavy, but every little bit helps. They really do not derive hardly any benefit from being mounted high.

When I referred to a rhombus-arrangement, I meant a single CIWS on the forward and aft ends of the superstructure, and two beam mounts amidships.

even just 2 phalanx, one forward and one aft, would actually be an improvement on the firing arcs of the phalanx and the workability on the ship. I would go for that, you had it a few versions before this one. if you really can't work it on the hangar, you might even be able to fit it behind the helideck, or en echelon, as on spruance (at the corners of the superstructure) if you think this lacks firepower, go for goalkeepers, the USN considered them so it is not an bad idea, although they take a lot more space, but you should have enough of that.
the huge superstructure towering up from the bow deck seems oversized now, and I think the stepped forward superstructure was superior in all but maybe looks.
all other systems seem to be quite nicely placed now, although I frown a bit on the director setup.

_________________
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