Shipbucket

that one was designed for and had more place for it, but the type 43 was only an prototype, something that should also explain many things why it wasn't build. When you do an prototype design you can do almost whatever you want. place an mk 26 GMLS o top of the funnel. But then an engineer that will make you'r concept in to an ship will say you can't.

The other thing is that haveing the helo deck that high.... well the deck move more out there than on the main deck, increasing the risk for the helicopter to crash in to the funnel.

Best place for the Helicopter is on the aft deck. just add an helicopter hangar on deck there aft. The main guns doesn't need to fire aft, since this is 1975, big guns was at that time only an secondary weapon, and will most of the time do only artillery operation, and when they do they will only fire broadside, mostly for protecting the deck from being damaged.

If you want this ship to be modernized, then you should look at Iowa class, they was modernized as mush a ship a BB can be.

for the engine. well 60-70% of the length is the ship engine and boilers, then you have magazine and ruder control. the engine room is so big and the engine is so heavy that if you replace the entire engine with diesel engine, the ship will flip around and have it underwater hull up in the air. you see the engine works as the ship ballast, so if you replace 5.000-10.000 tons of engine and boilers with equal powerful diesel engine that weight only 1.000-3.000 tons... you just get an stability problem since the center of gravity of the ship will come higher up, and the center of gravity you want to have as low as possible.

one that actually had quite a chance of having been build, Heuhen. there are different stages of concept design, and this one was quite workable.
actually, the best place is 2/3 aft, as that is the place that moves the least. the ideal place is thus where the Iroquis and Spruance have it. arrangement concerns mean that it is mostly placed as far aft as possible.
I disagree, look only at the missile conversion, VLS version etc variants of the iowa. there were quite a few proposals that could have been done. if it was good that those were not done, that is another matter, but they could have been done.

in addition, diesels are not that much lighter then steam propulsion, they are quite a bit smaller though. The effects as you describe would not happen, that much is certain.

_________________
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

The Morskoye class battleships were again modernized in 1975,

Do you want any more comments ?

(even if you exclude cost due to your AU)

1- flight deck as above commentators (why not on stern in a cheap box ?)
2- why so many new AsurfW guns 5' ? when nobody is going to fight you at close range with 4x3 BIG guns ?
3- I spy 6+ types of gun and 3 missiles
4- and some of them are not ready in 1975.....

(tip rebuilding BBs is a waste of time and money, only the USN did it and that was more for political rather than military reasons, 600-Ship Navy and so they have something bigger than a Kirov-class battlecruiser)

JSB

I have decided to add a new class of battleship which is capable of firing missiles, and handling helicopters and still have heavy guns.
The Morskoye will be redone to make it more sensible

_________________
"Lead me, follow me or the get the hell out of my way!" -George S. Patton
"A ship is referred as a "she" because it takes so much powder and paint to maintain her"- Chester W. Nimitz

Hi Oberst,

In that case, I'd suggest something like a Dunkerque, Nelson or Richelieu-class layout - that way you can keep your big guns forward and have helos, missiles and other whatnot aft.

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

I think I will go with a Nelson layout because I like that class battleship the most of the three

_________________
"Lead me, follow me or the get the hell out of my way!" -George S. Patton
"A ship is referred as a "she" because it takes so much powder and paint to maintain her"- Chester W. Nimitz

I think choosing the Nelson over the Dunquerque or Richelieu is a rather poor choice as it leaves very little room for a helipad or a rail launcher, unless you want to scrap the X turret and put your missiles there, which will look quite weird, or put your helipad there, which will also look quite weird. Your best bet is a Dunkerque or Richelieu layout because you'll get a much better balance. But if you're not sold on those ships, you could also go for a N3 setup. That'll work just a well, IMO.

_________________
Salide - Denton - The Interrealms

I am not very active on the forums anymore, but work is still being done on my AUs. Visit the Salidan Altiverse Page on the SB Wiki for more information. All current work is being done on Google Docs.
If anyone wishes for their nations to interact with the countries of the Salidan Altiverse, please send me a PM, after which we can further discuss through email.

Well a 45/50kt Nelson would have plenty of space over the TR/BRs (sized for 30+Kn) ?

Hi JSB,

Nelson was actually slower than that - 23kn - and that was with a hull was designed to be very hydrodynamically clean to make the most out of the (extremely limited) plant - given Treaty considerations the RN decided to keep guns and armour but sacrifice speed.

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

Well, since this new battleship class will long after World War 2 and long after the Naval treaties that were ripped to shreds by the Japanese. I think speed will not be an issue.

_________________
"Lead me, follow me or the get the hell out of my way!" -George S. Patton
"A ship is referred as a "she" because it takes so much powder and paint to maintain her"- Chester W. Nimitz