Shipbucket

When people design battleships of the Cold War, it's always following the refitted Iowa/Montana pattern - large guns, armored hulls etc. I've kinda wondered what a battleship would be like if it were actually following Cold War sensibilities - all-missile armament, etc.

So I've decided to try to go ahead and o that. I'll be designing at least one class to represent each decade, or at least paradigm shift in ship design, starting with the 1950s. It's obviously a work in progress, and I'll have a B-side done too.




Florida class, BBG guided-missile battleship (redesignated CBG guided-missile large cruiser)

BBG-72/CBG-7 USS Florida
BBG-73/CBG-8 USS North Dakota
CBG-9 USS Connecticut construction suspended; modified as separate subclass
CBG-10 USS Michigan re-ordered as Connecticut class

Any ship this big is going to mounting 2, if not 4 Tartar launchers.

And as I said before the Radars for the 'B Launcher" are going to get a log of interference if you're not careful. And I don't like the position of the "A Launcher" Strikedown crane.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Oh, yeah, it has two Tartar launchers abeam of each other ala Albany. And I don't like the position of the crane either but I can't think of any better place.

I can't see how that second Talos won't completely screw up the forward illuminators. You might want to refer to the Long Beach for possible placement of the Illuminators. Also, with a ship that size, why not give it a second talos aft? Will this also be packing the Regulus?

_________________
In Hoc Signo Vinces

By This Sign You Will Conquer

The weapons fit is as you see - I already had enough trouble just fitting three Talos GMLR systems onto a hull that's already larger than Montana (the magazines require 236 pixels of "guaranteed" space). When I post the backstory, I'll explain that the weapons fit was reduced from four Talos launcher and Regulus II due to space and systems integration.

I've also decided to revise this class quite a bit. Instead of being a uniform class of 2 ships, then 2 ships, each ship will be different:

USS Florida: vertical-loading twin-arm launchers
USS North Dakota: horizontal-loading twin-arm launchers (as currently depicted)
USS Connecticut: SPS-32/33 (as on Long Beach/Enterprise); either Terrier-Talos mix or all-Terrier
USS Michigan: Reversion back to conventional radar systems; likely all-Terrier armament

All will be conventionally powered. I'm also planning a USS Kearsarge to be nuclear powered, and a Montana class that will introduce TYPHON/AEGIS (may or may not be nuclear powered). After that, probably only one or two more classes until the Ticos make large ships like this obsolete.

Three Talos is almost certainly not feasible on a hull of anything less than supertanker size. You've already discovered why. The combination of huge GMLS itself and requirement for very-nearby beam projectors (which you've already broken) just destroy the concept. I have done much pondering on the subject. There is one slightly possible alternative; I'll show it to you later.

Taking all those in, well, I did some changes:

Seems like a lot of hull and money getting spent on something that can really be done by two smaller (and cheaper) surface combatants of the cruiser/destroyer size range.

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

I have to agree with Colo, all missile battleships just doesn't make much sense when two smaller & cheaper ships can do the same job more effectively. The reason normal Big Gun Battleships still survive as viable in the minds of Airchair Admirals & Marine Corp Generals is due to those very guns being used in amphibious assaults to help support the Marines.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series

Yeah, in other words it's a battleship.