Posts:7510 Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
this radar placement is much better. I'm wondering if you really need it, but it is on the ford class, so.....
_________________ 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
Posts:7510 Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
the weapons fit seems a bit silly. especially the VLS, but also the mix of the phalanx and the 76's and the RAM's.... on a ship like this, those are all doing the same role, and even if they don't, they are in each others way. I also really don't know what that LCVP is doing there...
_________________ 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
Posts:7510 Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
for the cruiser: you have an phalanx on top of your SPY-3? and your missiles aren't aligned with the VLS. IMHO, the SPY-1 version looked much better....
for the carrier: yes, 76's are good for self defence for an carrier. but you don't need AND RAM AND phalanx AND 76's. I would say: put 1-2 RAM's on the bridge (or an ESSM VLS cell) and put 2 76's and 2 phalanxes on the hull (1 on each corner) that way you have all around coverage of your CIWS + an missile close in defence. you could use 4 phalanxes or 4 76's as well, that's your choice..... but what I proposed is what I use (more or less) on my own carrier design.
_________________ 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