Shipbucket

The turrets on the X1 weren't waterproof and the Surcouf had to be secured in on a specific bearing and elevation to be so, and they never got it to work properly.

_________________
“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.

Yes, IIRC that they could only fire the X1's guns in calm weather and some time after resurfacing as the water would still be in the gun housing

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

Both submarines had "tampions" at the muzzles of their guns. The "tampions' were in effect like big corks, which were designed to prevent water entering the barrels. In the Surcouf, it was opened mechanichaly from the turrest, which was only kept water tight when aligned with the conning tower and the guns were at zero elevation. On HMS X-1 the "tampions" were removed for firing by hand, but the gun housings (they were not true turrets, as they did not have a roof, hence were not fully enclosed), were not water-tight.

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"

Well yeah. Most of the post WW 2 tanks...

T-54, T-62, T-64, T-72 ect

Of course that's not why I used domes for the turrets.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

As I've said before, the ship has no armor beyond what current naval vessels use. The domes have nothing to do with armor. The domes are due to RCS reduction issues. It was either use a box like turret, like the DD(X) does, which can store it's guns inside.

OR-

Use a dome shape, utilizing continuous curvature (utilizing curved surfaces with a constantly changing radii). And try to find a way to shroud, shield or retract the guns (A mind boggling proposition to be sure, due to the size of the guns). Regardless of whether the guns can be partially concealed, a dome turret could reduce RCS to a point. Whether or not it's greater than a box turret would be pointlessly debatable. I just thought I'd like to play with the concept a little in this design, and use domes instead of a more conventional AGS like turret design.

As for how many guns can fit in there, I just said 4, since that seemed feasible for a 20m turret. However it could also be 3. It doesn't really matter to me. However, I'm not sure I agree with you about there being 3 at best, since I was using the KGV's quad turrets as examples, scaled up slightly to account for the bigger guns which are equipped.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

The DD(X) is designed with two turrets on the fore deck, and has the same type of bow and hull as my design, and I am of the opinion, that a larger ship would be less prone to these types of issues than a DDG-1000 sized ship.

I'm still not convinced that it's not possible for a turret since you did acknowledge that the Sucouf maintained water-tightness when used properly. Nor am I convinced that it's something that a simple water pump wouldn't be able to handle. And I've seen little evidence to suggest that turret flooding has ever been a considerable problem for modern ships when operating in normal conditions.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

No it doesn't. First of, in both cases the guns were manually loaded, had to have tampions inserted before being submerged, had to be cleaned thoroughly on a daily basis and even then, at least on Surcouf, they were plagued with mechanical troubles.
The guns on your ship are fully automatic, filled with electronics and have a much tighter fit.
There hasn't been any tests on the subject yet. From what I've been able to find they've tested the RCS reduction, the handling, the propulsion control and the radar/antenna setup.
The turret wasn't inherently watertight. In order to make it watertight it had to be stationary in a specific position and then the crew had to insert a whole slew of panels and corks and even then it had an annoying tendency to leak like a sieve.
That would be because they're build with hulls specifically designed to prevent it. And it is a problem on a lot of the smaller crafts.
If you look closer at many ships you'll realise that the guns tends to be mounted on slightly raised platforms or behind bulwarks in order to keep the water away from the turrets.

_________________
“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.

I only count 13 different types of missiles.

However, it isn't intended that the ship would carry the capability to operate all of them. The idea, is that the large VLS cells you see, would have interchangeable liners/tube modules that could be swapped in and out. I think of them as mission-modules like the LCS has (except it's mission modules are different altogether, but I liked the concept...I just applied it to a different aspect of the ship design).

Using all of the missiles would be silly, since some of them overlap in capabilities. But, the idea is that you could use them, depending on the mission modules installed. My main reason for doing this, was because I felt one of the greatest weaknesses of Russian technology was the non-uniformity of their technology. If they had a more common VLS unit for example, I felt that it would be a great asset to Russian naval design.

I won't explain what every single one does, since I'd be here all night.
That's covered in my BB(X) thread. It has to do with reducing collateral damage depending on mission parameters, and allowing the ship to fulfill a greater variety of naval fire support scenarios.

However, only two of those gun types are actually used for land bombardment as you refer to it as. The others are CIWS/CIGS or dual-purpose close fires guns.

All in all, you have-

Bombardment/NSFS/NFS
Main 20.1" guns
155mm guns


Dual-Purpose/CIGS
57mm guns


CIWS/CIGS
AK-630
Kashtan

Really it comes down to personal preference. I had some issues that I felt required a larger round and greater range than a 30mm gun could provide, so I supplemented the 30mm guns with 57mm guns. Which also double as CIGS when necessary.
I integrated guns laying and some other features with the SPYski's. So the SPYski's operate roughly 5 different systems altogether, including navigational radar. This eliminated the need for a system similar to a bass-tilt radar for gun laying, ect.

There's also some field of operation restrictions which would occur if I had fewer SPYskis than what I have (i.e, the ability to cover all angles of approach to the ship due to line of sight issues).
Saturation attacks are considered to be a weakness of AEGIS like systems. I felt that greater CIWS/CIGS assets would be necessary if the radar capabilities were increased to more amply deal with such a threat. That's yet another reason for more radars being present than a conventional design, which would hopefully allow the simultaneous engagement of more targets than would otherwise be possible.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

You're actually quoting something I edited out before you made your post. However, it's really a pointless argument, since you'd have to prove that the turrets would flood in normal conditions, and then explain why it won't/doesn't occur on a DD(X) design.

Furthermore, older pre-dreadnoughts and some dreads had similar hulls and bows, yet experienced none of these problems to a significant degree (when designed properly).

Now, if you could make the case, that every ship ever designed with this hull and bow combination has had and will have problems with forward turret flooding, then I would agree to change them.
Doesn't really matter, since so far both the DD(X) and this BBG are both paper designs. It doesn't really matter if the've tested them for that yet, since they designed the DD(X) that way in the first place. Professional ship engineers would probably anticipate such a problem, if it was a problem. The fact that the ship is designed the way it is, tells me that it isn't.
lol.

I would imagine that modern technology would provide a simpler solution. But even then, that would be workable IMO.
All except for the DD(X) evidently. And some of the older ships.

Also, the design does have a raised platform for the turrets. Not to mention, any water which managed to wash over the bow would probably just slosh off before even reaching the turrets. Afterall, there is 50 meters of fore-deck and bow before the turrets. So any water washing over would have to travel roughly 164 ft before it even reached the turrets. And even then, the free-board inclines slightly, and has a design which would direct most of the water over the sides. The only scenario I could see this even possibly being a problem in, would be if the ship tried to plow through a 100 ft wave. But then again, I'm pretty sure that any ship would have issues with that.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

one thing again: your spyski's....... the SPY-1 is only an search radar. so you can't do guidance with it, you'll need other systems for that, for example directors or an APAR type radar.

_________________
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