Shipbucket

One more thing. So AK-130 isn't all the best, but can I still use it after all?

I was thinking of the gun being a proper realistic alternative to NS-grade lol-Iowa capitol ships, firing quite powerful rounds (I was even thinking of cluster or thermobaric rounds, but that might be a tad overdoing it) at a high rate of fire, thereby equaling several much larger and expensive guns. It might convince people to buy the Anghellis instead of battleships. That, and it could assist in the ship's air defence\anti missile defence, by the use of heavy AHEAD munitions.

The other alternative is sea-MLRS.

Also, I'll put a hitrole (or multiple ones) on my wish list for this ship.

_________________
You can call me Andy.

well, I would favor the OTO over any other system for this ship. it is lightweight, but still packs a punch, it is suitable for shore bombarement and (limited) in anti-ship role, it can take out air targets...

of course there are other sytems which can do this as well. the best thing against nationstates battleships really is an good air defence system, so you can take out their shells really possible, ESSM and possibly sea sparrow should be able to do it.

ak 130 is an good system, without a doubt, but I (personally) would favor the OTO, which can do all the ak can do, only with an lower rate of fire.

_________________
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

Put simple, the kind of continuous fire suppression you're describing isn't necessary these days, since nobody build the kind of static defences they did back in WWII and before.
You can use the AK, but again personally I don't think it's worth all that extra weight. Modern fire support is all about several small "missions" were you put five or six round here, a couple of more there and a handful over there, rather than the continuous bombardment of old.

_________________
“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.

That's really possible? I mean, I knew you could indeed take down artillery shells with CIWS, but it really is possible like in the Anime you linked on the other thread?

Anyways, when fighting NSbattleships they usally fire missiles instead of guns. That does explain a lot. And it gives me a little time to reconsider my thoughts. I mean, in NS a WWIII is just around the corner, it always is. So maybe I will need the rapid fire ability some now and then.

I think I have made my decision. I choose the AK-130.

_________________
You can call me Andy.

I tried, and tried, and kept trying... and nope. Top down views are very difficult to do realistically. Especially since bows need to be pointy yet curved... or something in that general direction. This stuff really freaked me out.

So I decided it would be better to ask here if there's an easy way to do it. Or at least what guidelines in width I should take.

(Also, slightly off-topic, but I heard Mitch got banned. Is there any way to contact him after he's banned? I want to ask him something regarding his 50. stealth mount.)

_________________
You can call me Andy.

Maybe the hull could be a bit thinner, maybe 25m tops?

_________________
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

The hull currently is 25 meters, if my calculations are correct. Seems a tad wide though, would 18 meters or something be good?

_________________
You can call me Andy.

15-19 would be perfect for an fast ship, 19-21 for an 'broad' ship, IMO (in this case). if you do around 19 meters, you can use the hull shape of the LCF.

_________________
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

(Dutch LCF or American LCF?)

Point taken. I suppose I want a wide hull yet not sacrifice too much speed, so around 19 meters seems perfect. Nearly all equipment here is centralized on the midline of the ship so I guess it doesn't has to be too wide. (Except maybe for the reactor or the hangar.)

Also, is my new stealth AK-130 mount okay? Seems pretty nice to me.

_________________
You can call me Andy.

I don't like it, but it could work, I guess.
the dutch of course, the US has lcS

_________________
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