Shipbucket
http://shipbucket.com/forums/

United States Strike Cruiser
http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3127		 Page 2 of 6
Author:  MC Spoilt B'stard [ June 3rd, 2012, 3:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: United States Strike Cruiser
I know that the frontvieuw does not match but i just made it to look how the guns would come out. The rest is just for image fillup

rest of comments : will look for some changes,
By the way: its 32 Harpoons not 64
Author:  Dilandu [ June 3rd, 2012, 5:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: United States Strike Cruiser
Oh... Sorry, my mistake with calculation.

However, with some TASM's it will look better!
Author:  Carthaginian [ June 3rd, 2012, 7:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: United States Strike Cruiser
I would go with only two turrets forward, more modest aviation facilities (loosed the Harrier) and put two turrets aft. Removing the third 5" twin would allow the Harpoon launchers to be placed lower, saving a bit of topweight.
Author:  travestytrav25 [ June 3rd, 2012, 1:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: United States Strike Cruiser
Great design! It's definitely reminiscent of the powerful gun cruisers of WWII. I wish we still had ships like that.

I agree with klagldsf on the gun armament. I think having the 5" and 3" guns together is kind of reduntant. What I would do is keep the 76mm Mk 75s for DP use and replace the 5" mounts with 8"/55 Mk 71 mounts for shore bombardment. However, considering the weight of the Mk 71 system, I'm not sure you could have 4 of them on the ship. Maybe do like some have suggested and delete the stern gunmount alltogether, have 2-3 Mk 71 guns on the bow, push your stern VLS further aft a bit, and expand your aviation facilities on the stern.

Also, it looks kind of like the ship has a stern gate. What's that for?
Author:  Dilandu [ June 3rd, 2012, 6:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: United States Strike Cruiser
Quote:
reat design! It's definitely reminiscent of the powerful gun cruisers of WWII. I wish we still had ships like that.
Er... maybe it will be much easier and more efficient to just re-start the Mk-71 production?
Author:  travestytrav25 [ June 3rd, 2012, 6:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: United States Strike Cruiser
Dilandu wrote:
Er... maybe it will be much easier and more efficient to just re-start the Mk-71 production?
Nah! Big, armored, triple-gun turrets were so much sexier. LOL. But realistically, I think the upcoming 155mm gun systems are much more versatile and capable than the Mk 71 was.
Author:  gordo8000 [ June 4th, 2012, 4:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: United States Strike Cruiser
travestytrav25 wrote:
Dilandu wrote:
Er... maybe it will be much easier and more efficient to just re-start the Mk-71 production?
Nah! Big, armored, triple-gun turrets were so much sexier. LOL. But realistically, I think the upcoming 155mm gun systems are much more versatile and capable than the Mk 71 was.
What would be great would be combining the technology being developed for the AGS (lighter weight, stealthy housing, advanced ammunition handling, advanced propellants) and combine them with an 8inch Gun. An 8inch projectile can fly farther with a bigger payload than a 155mm. They even designed a laser guided projectile for the Mk71. Projectile Picture
Author:  travestytrav25 [ June 4th, 2012, 4:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: United States Strike Cruiser
Yup, I totally agree. An 8" version of the AGS would be totally awesome. I think all-around, the 8" was the most versatile heavy gun of the modern era against both ships and shore targets. 8" Copperhead and Excalibur rounds would really devastate a shore target or even ships. It was a sad day in 1975 when the USS Newport News was decommissioned and the operational use of 8" guns passed into history. The only advantages the 155mm would have over the 8" are you can store more 155mm ammo in a ship's magazine than you can 8" rounds, and 155mm guns can take advantage of readily available 155mm ammunition used by land-based field artillery.
Author:  klagldsf [ June 4th, 2012, 5:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: United States Strike Cruiser
Dilandu wrote:

However, with some TASM's it will look better!
Every ship that has had TASMs equipped also shipped Harpoon. Sometimes in number (i.e. the Iowas).

And TASM would (at least thoeretically) fit into Mk 41, considering how many TASMs were converted into TLAMs.
travestytrav25 wrote:
Great design! It's definitely reminiscent of the powerful gun cruisers of WWII. I wish we still had ships like that.
Because one gun can now do the work of 8 or even 12. That was kind of my point.
Quote:
What I would do is keep the 76mm Mk 75s for DP use and replace the 5" mounts with 8"/55 Mk 71 mounts for shore bombardment.
That's still redundant. You have 76mm mounts mainly for ships that don't justify a larger armament (i.e., are not likely to engage in NGFS). There's a reason why only one class of USN surface vessel is equipped with them, and why only two classes of ships are equipped with the MK 110. Cruisers and destroyers are typically thought of as being NGFS-capable. If you have a Mk 71, you would simply engage whatever targets with that.
Quote:
However, considering the weight of the Mk 71 system, I'm not sure you could have 4 of them on the ship.
Nor would you need them. Or even two.
Quote:
Also, it looks kind of like the ship has a stern gate. What's that for?
I imagine that's a well deck. Tim talked about that in Heuhen's thread.
Dilandu wrote:
Er... maybe it will be much easier and more efficient to just re-start the Mk-71 production?
It's honestly not worth it. The Mk 16 rifle (which is the actual barrel that goes into the Mk 71 mount) is literally the exact same design that equipped the first USN heavy cruisers (i.e. treaty cruisers) and for its size its range is grossly insufficient. You'd be better off with simply using the technology currently available to make a superior gun - which is exactly what the USN did and came up with AGS.
travestytrav25 wrote:
Yup, I totally agree. An 8" version of the AGS would be totally awesome. I think all-around, the 8" was the most versatile heavy gun of the modern era against both ships and shore targets. 8" Copperhead and Excalibur rounds would really devastate a shore target or even ships. It was a sad day in 1975 when the USS Newport News was decommissioned and the operational use of 8" guns passed into history. The only advantages the 155mm would have over the 8" are you can store more 155mm ammo in a ship's magazine than you can 8" rounds, and 155mm guns can take advantage of readily available 155mm ammunition used by land-based field artillery.
It's not about raw size, it's about range and the actual energy delivered to target. The largest gun ever made (Mons Meg) by diameter is something like 35 inches or something, but it would pale in comparison to a late 19th-century Hotchkiss 2-pndr repeater except for the ability to squash a man by sheer mass.
Author:  gordo8000 [ June 4th, 2012, 5:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: United States Strike Cruiser
travestytrav25 wrote:
and 155mm guns can take advantage of readily available 155mm ammunition used by land-based field artillery.
Your wrong there, the AGS can't use standard 155mm ammunition.
Page 2 of 6 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/