Shipbucket

What purpose does the 76mm serve? It's not CIWS, because you already got that covered, it can't be for shore bombardment, cause carriers don't go that near to the shore, and if you need it for dealing with surface vessels, then you're in such deep shit it won't matter anyway.
Why put the VLS in two places? Keep them in one place and they wont take up as much space, since you won't need two of everything, be they cables or cooling pipes.
I'd either put the deck level goalkeeper where you have the 76 now, or put it on the island to get a better field of fire across the deck.
What are those dark cicles just above the waterline?

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Eh, I commend you for your efforts to improve.

the carrier was originally build with 4 76's..... but durint it's buildtime they wanted more CIWS, so that was added. the ship was build for an similar role as the kusnetsov (protecting the fleet, nothing more) so it was build with minimal escort in mind. even during the build the requirements were changed (by the cancelation of the utopian kirovitis project )
the deck level GK will be placed on the structure most likely, but still on the front of the structure, not on top.
the VLS is split like it is done on the ford and the CDG..... don't know what reason they had, but IMO it is better for this ship because the old fit had an HUGE vls bay which was in the way all the time. the current setup has 2 small, outboard VLS's.
I have no idea which those things on the waterline are they just stayed there from the previous camelot, which ALVAMA detailed for me....

_________________
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

Even with minimal escorts, if the enemy gets within 12000m you're royally screwed, so the gun won't help you anyway.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

true. I didn't said it was an good idea this ship is supposed to be an experimental ship, which would be followed by more of it's class. on the single ship that was build after this one, there were 4 goalkeepers instead of 3 GK's and 2 oto melara's. I am working on an building history of this ship, and I will draw different versions, most likely : as planned, as build, minor modifications after the firs year of service and an proposed update for 2021 (which was never carrier out because the ship was sank)

_________________
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

Even if it's an experimental ship, the utopian equivalent of BuShips should be capable of doing a simple cost benefit analysis.
It's been true for a looong wile that carriers in close proximity of enemy ships is a BAD thing. So it should be obvious from the get-go that is would be a wqaste of effort.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

as said: originally the CIWS would be the OTO melara's, which could also be used against small craft.
and: look at this
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... 719832.JPG
what gun do you see on this ship? correct, the indian vikrant class will have 76 compact's. so why would it be impossible for utopia to choose the same option?

_________________
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

update..... still wrestling with the bridge, but the basic components are in place. I am wondering right now if I would need 1, 2 or 3 bridge decks.
in the bridge, there should be placed:
- navigation bridge
- secondary admiral's bridge (main admiral's bridge is in CIC)
- flight deck command
- secondary radar and radio room

the flight deck command will be in an 'tower' added at the other side, +/- at the position of the door at this side. the navigational bridge is clearly visible already. the secondary radio and radar are the windows aft of it. the admiral's bridge will be added just below it.

am I missing something? and is this 'island' large enough?

also, other comments, questions or ideas are always welcome of course

_________________
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

Flight Ops needs to be able to see the entire flightdeck at least. 360 degree vision would be best.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

isn't 240 enough? because it will 'stick out' of the bridge structure.... neither on the soviet or the US carriers I see an 360 degrees tower, only the new british one has something that comes close....

_________________
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