Shipbucket

What exactly do you mean by "interesting"?

Ummm...I think somebody confused the quote and edit buttons.

Oops.

Anyway, am generally curious what you mean by "interesting".

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

I wish there was a top view so this could be confirmed but the idea is that the VLS deck is wide enough that the VLS modules are far enough to port and starboard, (but not at edge of deck), as not to be centerlined and be interfered with by the masts and funnels. The roll up doors are for mission modules and boat stowage. as there is space, though not a lot, before your against the VLS magazines. The captain can park his car there also (just kidding). The deck is extended around the aft funnel and actually overhangs AGS-L #4 slightly, limiting it's trajectory a little. (I originally omitted #4, but decided it was still usable for most situations.) With this deck overhang, (which also explains the deeper shadow line) the Harpoons are not as close to the aft funnel as the side view appears, but given a little space away from the vents.

Armor is important. Had the Montanas been built, as planned, the armor belt, which can not be duplicated by modern manufacturing methods, would be nearly impervious to any modern torpedo. Again, we know that there is no way a conversion of this magnitude would ever be done in real life.

I will be working on it, but it will probably be a while. I'll get those corrections made to the radars, directors, RAMS, stray pixels, blurred stuff etc., and will re-review all the suggestions made. Again, thanks to each of you for your input. (Even you Ace)

_________________
."They don't call me good for nothin'"

you know that modern torpedo's are of the 'keel breaker' type, which explode under your ship instead of trying to penetrate your armoured belt?
I can assure you, when hit by an torpedo, your ship is sunk, whatever armour you have

(I have heard of an carrier design that made them resistant to keelbreaker torpedo's, this was by creating an deep hull with great resistance to bending moments. this ship would not fit in the carrier bases of the USN though, and the design was abandoned)

anti ship missiles have the same inpact as artillery shells. the montana would, IIRC be resistant to 406mm shells....... which have about the same impact speed, weight, explosive load and size as an harpoon or exocet missile, estimated. the large russian anti-ship missiles, for example the recent brahmos, have an higher speed, and the size and explosive load would be similar to that of an 800mm shell. I doubt your ship is resistant to that, even if it can withstand the lighter missiles.

also, where did you get your intel that the armoured belt could not be reproduced? in proces technology we can work with tanks and pipes with an plating thickness of 20cm if we want. yes, it is expensive, but the reason we do not build it into ships is because there is no need to, not because the knowledge does not exist (like on the gun barrels, there the knowledge is lost indeed)

that said, I am a bit wondering why you put my name separate, with your 'even you ace'.

_________________
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

Making armor that thick is uneccessary because we can use materials like kevlar, which is much stronger than steel could possibly ever be. You could even mix some titanium, but that would be really expensive as titanium is rare and hard to work with because of it`s resistance to heat.

Kevlar is only good for certain types of stresses, it won't stop the full gambit of forces form a warhead explosion. It will, however, work as a secondary layer of protection against shrapnel which is why it is used on ships to armor interior spaces and for spall liners on tanks.

Then you can use the advantage of the Skjold class building technic. she is build of composite, with Kevlar at some areas. The composite alone can withstand a 76mm cylinder alone, but for something as big as an 16"...

Well...by "interesting" I mean "opinionated." And no, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Chobham?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour

_________________

Jabba's Worklist