Shipbucket

ok, as per usual..once I look at something long enough I cant leave it alone....however I like this look. I've used the masts from the Kidd and modified them a bit. what do y'all think?

Harry new year firstly.

Both this variant and the previous are handsome,however this seem less top heavy.

I am in doubt about the diagonally placed ABL's, and I am surprised you swapped the fore and aft masts?

_________________
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

ok, here is my nuke version. I really like this...a lot. In fact, I'm thinking of changing the original conventional cruiser to be more in line with this version. Ace, you will be happy to see that I've designed it for easy core removal and replacement




OK, I would love to hear any and all thoughts. I would like to hear your thought of changing the conventional cruiser to be more like this. I really like the "hull wide" hanger, and the boat layout. I still need to add emergency back-up power and not really sure if I should use gas-turbine or diesel. Also curious to know if I should have a full sized unrep refueling station solely for aviation and emergency power fuel, or if it would be something smaller. I know Virginia didn't have a full sized one like that on the gas-turbine ships, but she didn't really have an embarked helo either.

The Standard Missile you are using is the SM-1, not the SM-2 used with Aegis.

Wow I too like the look of this version a lot excellent job! Its great to see the evolution of your drawings throughout the thread.

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

nice, although the ship would have an additional displacement of at least 2*1400 long tons. where do you put this displacement?
your forward CIWS is blocked by the SATCOM which, I think, could better be placed on the aft superstructure (where it is now it even blocks an director)
your SLQ-32 is now on the very much widest point of the ship, I think that could be vulnerable when mooring? (normally very little sticks out of the line formed by the ships deck on warships)
the VLS blocks are huge. you might want to split them. also, the Mk 26 Mod 1 could be replaced one on one with an 64 cell (the mod 0 on the tico forward could be only because it intruded in the former gun magazine, I think) so in an Mod 2 space you could theoretically get an 64 cell and an 32 cell. you might get away with 2* 64 in each position, but you should separate the 2 64 cell blocks, because otherwise the gaps in your ship become huge.

btw, where are your reactors? the only positions that would really be for easy core removal would be the helideck and the harpoon position, am I right?

and I might suggest an director aft for the Mk 71 there, as right now your SPQ-9A does the guidance of both forward and aft guns.

_________________
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

That's how the SLQ-32 on the DDG51s are in regards to sticking out. Granted they have a bridge wing above but they still stick out farther.

It is tricky when nesting vessels at the pier and I have seen them bump equipment (luckily only the platform not the SLQ-32 itself). This is bad when moring against cruisers too as their supersticture is vertical to the deck edge. You just offset a bit.

thank you all for the comment. I really appreciate all your suggestions. This top down view is a work in progress, but I'm hoping it will make the side view more understandable



Ace, you are correct about the core placement. I'm not really sure what you mean about adding the additional displacement. I assumed its contained in the reactor plants. I had planned for two separate MK-41's fore and aft. I went with the 61's because I'm thinking this ship would have "rolled out " in 82 or so, and I wasn't sure when the 64's came into service. My biggest question on the VLS is would you all mount them side by side or fore to aft (as pictured). Looks like there would be plenty of room either way. The sat-com domes are blocking some the FC directors on some azimuth, but not really any worse than they do on a tico. Additionally, with the aegis system you only need to "light up" the target with the directors in the last few seconds. I assume that if you cant use one of the other three directors, you could maneuver the ship to clear up the azimuth. Coincidentally, NTU also has this launch on scan capability. As far as a separate director for the aft gun, I would have to ask why the Tico's don't have one? I don't even have room back there for another director unless I completely re-design that back "SPY Island". The slick 32's protrude no further than the bridge wings do and if need be they can probably be recessed into the hull a bit. I'm sure if there was a mooring issue, the proper bumpers would be used between the ships. Maybe even a floating dock, like the carriers use to keep them separated while moored.

Again, I would like to thank you all for the comments and suggestions

Joe

Your electronics are maddeningly cramped for a ship this size, particularly the illuminators, with a disposition that might actually be worse than a Tico.

Elevating the after SPY-1 faces a few feet would also be recommended. I think you may have some beam quality issues at low elevations. That'd be fine if this were a Burke or something, but you have displacement and stability to burn. Enlarge the deckhouses (especially aft), raise the SPY-1 aft, move the illuminators further apart, and for goodness sake move the satcom domes toward the center of the ship where they won't block everything.