Shipbucket

Please, create this thread. I can't wait to join in the discussion.

Okay, tips on making this ship more realistic:
-I would personally change the forward hull. That design is just bad, particularly for your forward most VLS bays.
-Why have two different secondary gun batteries? Why not just make them all the same type?


Just a comment: Armour isn't obsolete. It's just that speed and active defences are much better than passive defences. Armour would be very good at stopping lots of modern weapons. I've seen arguments that modern missiles can't penetrate much armour, and guns are very low calibre now, compared to what they used to be. It's just that using active defences keeps you quick as well.

I agree and also disagree about the armor thing. I mean, you could for instance use ERA (explosive reactive armor) or something similar, but it creates a conundrum. How much is necessary to stop a AShM with 300 kg of eplosives?

I mean, an Exocet for instance can penetrate around 39" of homogenous rolled steel with a shaped charge. Also, it's a similar issue with the Fritz X glide bomb. Yes, armor can help mitigate damage from a modern missile or bomb. But as the Fritz-X weapons showed, the weapon can strike an area above or below one of the armored belts, and easily penetrate. The Roma is a good example of that.

You could mitigate that by applying the armor in a form other than a belt for instance, But you'd have to figure out a way to cover a large enough area without adding too much weight.

As for the secondary batteries? They are all the same? 155mm.

The other guns on board are CIWS (Kashtan and AK-630). And the 57mm turrets near the front are tertiary mounts. I use them for a CIWS as well as a surface weapon.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

Here is what I drew for a littorial ship used for shorebombardment

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x39 ... MISSLE.png

Yeah! I saw that and like it a lot. Still a little rough around the edges though. But I have no room to talk there! lol@me. I actually made a new thread about this topic.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1348

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

Okay, so in all honesty I am a newb too; I have only drawed one SB drawing before. But I have picked up enough here and on Nationstates to give you some advice here. And that is:

1: Why so many different missiles? You currently have 29 different types! What do all those missiles do?
2: Why so many guns? It looks like overkill for shore bombardment, way too expensive too.
3: Why so many SPY-1 plates? Do 20 plates work better then four or something?
4: Why so many CIWS systems? I count seven of them. That is more then any warship I know of.

In short, this thing has too much of everything, sorry. Aside from that, I would argue that this ship would not be of much use for anything, sorry. I hate to say it, but the guns are overkill for supporting landings, and for a cruiser it is just too large. You know, if you ask you'd be better off trying again. Sorry.

But cheer up. No one gets it exactly right the first time. You know what they say, practice makes perfect, so don't give up!

Hope this helps.

-A&D

_________________
You can call me Andy.

You couldn't fit it in a normal bow. A wavepiercing bow gives you less internal volume, not more.
Well, submarines are equipped with specialized VLS cells. So if necessary, they can just put something like those on there instead.[/quote]
Submarines use highly specialized and heavy VLS cells. They are in fact so heavy that they tend to cause stability problems if not submerged.
No you can't. So far nobody has managed to design a seal that allows rapid linear movement and remains watertight. And while what you say about freeboard would be true with a conventional bow, you've chosen a bow specifically designed to let water over it.
Your weapons won't be able to handle that kind of treatment. In fact I doubt any of them can handle being thrown into the water from that height.
Actually it does. While it's true that longer Length-to-diameter ratio barrels have been tested, these have all been landbased systems, meaning they don't have to deal with the stresses involved in being bolted to a moving ship, and they have transport cradles for when they are not being fired. So yeah, droop is going to represent a problem. And your big and heavy muzzle brake isn't going to help either.
They can't fire either ahead or astern, so unless the submarine is obliging enough to come alongside they won't be able to target it.
That just makes the problem worse. The area behind the SPY plates (and all other Phased Arrays) are filled with electronics, cooling systems and maintenance accesses. No way are you going to fit the entire launcher and its magazine in there.
You'll notice that those launchers launches the missile quite a distance and perpendicular to the hull.
I was thinking more about the noise generated by a torpedo passing it a few feet away. Their ears will be ringing for hours afterwards. This is a serious problem on submarines as well btw.
[/quote]
The size of the ship has nothing to do with this. I'm talking about the amount of systems you're carrying. Phased arrays demands ridiculously high levels of power.

_________________
“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.

Yeah, but it's still a 100,000 t ship no matter how you cut it. There's enough room up there for a few ALS.
Submarines are more space and weight constrained than a ship is. Plus, I've never heard of water leakage being a problem with VLS before on any sort of consistent basis.
No, it's a bow which is designed to slice through waves with marginally more water over the bow in heavy weather. Also, ships have routinely fought 10 to 30 ft waves before without their turrets getting washed out.

Plus, the freeboard rises (about a meter) from the bow on this design, and that's something, since you have 32 ft of freeboard at the bow itself. It's going to take some pretty decent waves to get over that. Also, the DDG-1000 is designed to operate with a wave-piercing bow, and has turrets further forward towards the stem of the bow. If it's not a problem for the DD(X), I don't see why it would be with a significantly larger ship.
The SPYski's are angled out diagonally, and don't aim at the turrets at all. So there's no interference there. There's two right there in front, angled out.

Would sort of look like this:





As for the torpedo tubes, I suppose I can move them. I'll give you that one.
What are you talking about? There's tons of longer barrels in use even today. Like I said, it's just a Pzh 2000 barrel with a muzzle brake. So no, I totally disagree.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussi ... _ak130.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussi ... _ak100.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_5-64_LW.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_61-52_MONARC.htm

An excessive example-

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_9-98_mk1.htm
Consider them so moved. I have more than enough room in other places.
And they seem to get by just fine. I think we're okay there.

Moved.

But the ship also has torpedoes and Klub ASW missiles, but I want the RBU to be able to fire upon torpedoes more than subs. So I moved them more for that reason. The larger missiles can deal with the submarines.
The Spy-1 system is a 6 MW system powering 4 phased arrays. And this is on a 9,000 t burke with a conventional powerplant mind you. What we have here is 6 phased arrays. With 14 smaller ones. So, I'd say 8 (1.5 each) MW total for the larger arrays and 7 MW (500 kw each) total for the smaller ones.

So that's 8 MW and 7 MW total. 15 MW altogether. For a ship that has 4 reactors (Plus COGAS auxiliary) that's really not that much, considering it's only 2.5 times the radar wattage installed on a Burke.

And the tower might be something like 3 MW tops.

I'll provide an updated design later, with the modifications from this post.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

one thing: the PZH-2000 barrel you used is way to large, as that was an old sb drawing of the part
I have redrawn it some months ago: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=491&start=50 (the MONARC)

_________________
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

I'd need one with them elevated to fix them. As it is, they are like... 90 caliber length guns? Why don't they update the main site? -_-

Instead of leaving faulty sheets up.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

there is being worked on updating ALL the parts sheets on the main site, but that is an huge amount of work as it has not been done in years. meanwhile, look in the parts sheet subforum.

_________________
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