Shipbucket

Hi RegiaMarina:

Intresting ship! May I comment some points? I think that the rudder is too little, and the open stern, too wet. Do you plan to give your vessel any stabilization device? May I ask the reason of two medium round caliber (57 and 76.2 mm) guns, instead an uniform caliber for all your artillery? It will be nice to see your desing in a deck view, to see the arrangement of the superstructure and flight deck. Have a good Friday! Cheers.

Nah, doesn't seem to change anything. The image is still scaled down, Photobucket will do that.

I second the remarks on the open stern. You should probably close the lowermost deck, maybe with some cutouts for tie-downs and life rafts, but nothing more. By the way, since your ship appears to have an anti-submarine mission, you could use that lower deck for a towed-array sonar. That was standard practice in Soviet ASW ships big and small at the time.
Also Reytuerto's point on the artillery. There is no good reason to have an AK-176 and an AK-725 on the same hull. Also the AK-176 is single-tube and there are more current versions of the turret drawing on SB. Both turrets, actually.
So yes, you are needlessly complicating your loadout with medium-caliber DP guns of two separate generations, which need separate fire directors and ammunition. Better pick a technology level (60s or 80s) and stick to it. If you want a fall-back low-tech weapon in case the electronics for the main kit are compromised (whether by ECM or lack of spares), you'll need to think more low-tech than the AK-725, which was fairly high on the tech scale at the time. In that case I would propose replacing it with an open twin-57mm with manual control, but backup manual weapons can probably afford to be of smaller caliber (25 to 37mm). I think I already mentioned that about your earlier minelayer/sub-tender.
Another thing I already mentioned about weaponry is that the AK-230 comes in pairs it if is to get a radar fire control. three turrets means one gets left out or will cost double with its own radar pointer. Might be a moot point anyway considering what I just told you about sticking to a single tech generation, because the AK-630 would have a much easier time sharing a fire-direction radar with the AK-630, but I can admit that kind of lapse from a second-tier user that might not want to splurge for the whole lot of fancy options on their ship. If that's where you're going, again, I would find it more sensible to stick to old-school twin-25 or twin-37 manual mounts. Since the AK-230 is remote-control-only, it would suffer most of the same problems as more recent mountings.
While we're on the weaponry, the position of your Osa is kind of risky. That thing is heavy and reportedly suffered from some stability problems, so IMHO it would be better off in front of the bridge, where you would also be able to put its guidance radar on top of said bridge because you always need that radar for the Osa. I mean come on, it's a beamrider missile, no beam to ride => no way to reach its target. If you hadn't mentioned the Osa by name, I would have thought that it was just a Strela quad. Not that there is anything wrong with this choice, or with the Osa for that matter, but you have to do things completely or not at all.
That's all I have on the weapons, I might come back to the sensors and the hull when I have more time, provided you aren't fed up with my endless nitpicking.

Anyway, that's an interesting design you've got there, so keep it going!

_________________
Soviet Century/Cold War 2020 Alternate Universe: Soviet and other Cold War designs 1990-2020.
My Worklist

Yea I'm probably gonna change that aft 57-mm to a single 76-mm. The AK-230 will be changed to AK-630 mounts. The missile will probably be reworked as well. By the way I'm so sorry I said Osa. I meant Strela the whole time!

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

The image has been terribly resized and stretched by photobucket and I can't seem to fix it to get it back to normal. What should I resize it to? No resolution has worked so far.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

A Helicopter carrier is unnecessary and your nation doesn't need amphibious assault vessels as your nation should be focusing on a defensive doctrine instead of a interventionist type.

_________________
Wansui!

The carrier is intended as a defensive measure against enemy submarines and surface vessels, not really as an interventional weapon. Later on the nation will develop interventional carriers.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

What would a Caribbean nation need to intervene on? Let alone with a communist system your nation(s) would be dirt poor, let alone them supporting a large navy would be hard and any engagement with the navy of a western nation would be suicide especially America. And why would a Caribbean nation have to intervene on anything that isn't in the southern Atlantic? Intervention should be kept to the Soviet Union and China.

_________________
Wansui!

A helicopter carrier would mainly be used for ASW and amphibious assault.

Why are you throwing around terms like defensive and interventionist? It doesn't make much sense at all. A country can have a CATOBAR carrier, ASW and Amphibious Assault Heli carriers, landing ships, and all, and still only be concerned with protection of it's assets. Just because a ship has an offensive purpose does not mean it is for a so-called 'interventionist' doctrine.

Don't be immediately presumptuous that a Caribbean nation would be poor. There could be some great MacGuffinite that makes a richer Caribbean possible that Regia is using. I haven't looked into this thread that much, so I'm not sure, but I just felt like coming out of lurking and saying something. I'm certainly intrigued by the whole scenario and I look forward to what Regia makes this into.

_________________
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.

It would be Easier to have Anti-Ship & Submarine installations that a dedicated ship to transporting helicopters. As well as Ships could just be installed with Rocket Depth charges. But i do understand a Helicopter Carrier is effective but a whole fleet dedicated to it isn't really effective unless with other types of ships for defense which I'm guessing are assigned to a group so they aren't hit by missiles and such. Im saying Interventionist only because Helicopter carriers are very unnecessary if you have a defensive doctrine you should already have dedicated defensive coastal installations along the coast. Im only assuming its poor considering Cuba was communist and it still uses to this day t-55's. For all i know its the richest Caribbean nation im just guessing.

_________________
Wansui!

As I said before, the carrier is for anti submarine operations. And the idea that a communist government would dirt poor is debatable.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939