Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 12  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 512 »
Author Message
CATZ
Post subject: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 11th, 2011, 2:54 am
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
[ img ]

W.I.P

(Note, that isn't Spy-1, it's just meant to be a similar technology)

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Carnac
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 11th, 2011, 4:00 am
Offline
Posts: 310
Joined: April 28th, 2011, 11:59 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
I'm going to ignore everything that is wrong with this, and that's a considerable amount, and ask one question.


Why the fuck are the turrets domes?

_________________
Probably posting from and iPhone and naval terms befuddle it. If I say a ships' hill, you know what I meant.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 11th, 2011, 4:04 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
I for one would like to steal that design for NationStates.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
CATZ
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 11th, 2011, 4:09 am
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Well sorry guys. Not everyone starts off doing well at this sort of thing. No need to be rude about it though. :-(

Of course Klag never says anything but. I mean, it takes a pretty troll'ish personality to go on the beginners forum and insult the newest users posting their first designs. How sad. For klag that is.

As for domes, if I want to draw them as domes, that's my prerogative. Maybe I just don't like squares. In actuality, it's my attempt to model continuous/constant curvature for radar mitigation purposes. It was either that, or make them more like a box, like the 155mm/62 AGS. With that method, the turret is like a box, and the gun is concealed inside. With this, I think it might be easier to just retract the barrels and breech rearward into a recessed portion of the hull.

The idea, is that the CIWS and other smaller equipment will retract into the hull when not in use. Inspired by the navalized Osa-M, which is retractable in RL.

Also, there are no modern battleships. I have to just make it up as I go, really. Not all that easy. Making something conservative is a lot easier, because you have existing examples. If you think you can do better, do it. I for one would like to see more concepts for modern battleships.

I really don't see much wrong with it. It's a little cluttered. And cobbled together a little roughly (though it is my first draft for this ship). Spacing is off a little. All these things are typical of rough drafts. And my drawing skills are still pretty raw. Takes time and practice to fix that particular issue though. Which is what I'm doing. :-)

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 11th, 2011, 5:30 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
CATZ wrote:
Of course Klag never says anything but. I mean, it takes a pretty troll'ish personality to go on the beginners forum and insult the newest users posting their first designs. How sad. For klag that is.
So what's the point? Is this for NationStates? Is this just some sort of personal design? Do you intend on making realistic-looking ships at all?

You mention that the phased array faces are not SPY-1 even though you clearly just used the SPY-1 template from the parts sheet. Do you even know what SPY-1 is? Are you aware that you're suggesting the use of torpedo tubes as P-700 Granit launchers? Or that even as torpedo tubes, they're installed incorrectly?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 11th, 2011, 7:18 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Let's see.
You don't have the volume forward to fit both the VLS, the large Side Scan sonar and have a wavepiercing bow.
Now, you know my opinion of that type of bow, but in this case you have an additional problem. VLS cells are not 100% watertight and missiles doesn't like water.
Your anchor doesn't clear the hull, so It'll knock a whole through it going down.
The most forward gun or two is likely to be inoperable due to water getting into the mount. At the very least you're looking at a serious reduction in maintenance intervals.
Domed turrets, assuming they are armoured, doesn't really work. They made sense back in the 1880-90 when they started popping up, because combat ranges were as short as they were. However they were all abandoned once battleranges started to increase since they pretty much guaranteed that an incoming AP shell would hit it at the optimum angle.
The Forward SPYski plates interferes with the turrets, and so does the torpedoes. Torpedoes that are likely to land on deck if launched in bad weather btw.
You secondary guns are going to suffer from barrel droop, badly.
Your RBU launchers are unable to engage anything from that position.
The two arm launchers pretty much have to be single shot since there's no space for a magazine up there.
Your underwater Torpedo tubes won't fit where you've placed them, they'll overlap.
Not that it makes much difference. Anything launched aft will be sucked into the screw and anything going forward will be "blinded" by the bow noise. Your sonar operators won't be much better of either.
Unless the Azipods are drop-downs then they won't work there. The are likely to get da0aged by any number of things.
Lastly, I don't think there's a nuclear reactor in the world powerful enough to power this ship for long.

_________________
“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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
HMS Sophia
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 11th, 2011, 9:24 am
Offline
Posts: 863
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 10:34 am
Quote:
Also, there are no modern battleships. I have to just make it up as I go, really. Not all that easy. Making something conservative is a lot easier, because you have existing examples. If you think you can do better, do it. I for one would like to see more concepts for modern battleships.
Why?
I mean this seriously, why would you want to design a modern battleship, when all they are these days are great big floating targets. A carrier does the same jobs, just better, much better.
What you have there, really, is a floating target. A big one.
And if you want it for shows of force, or just showing of, a cruiser would be a better choice.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 11th, 2011, 9:32 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7324
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
the only reason I would want an battleship like ship would be for shore bombardement. and well... with all 155 mm guns popping up currently, and the railgun in about 20-30 years, I would say an large destroyer sized ship could do that better and cheaper.

so simply said: what would you want this ship do?

_________________
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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
CATZ
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 11th, 2011, 3:35 pm
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Well, I think what I'm going to do is create a thread for debating the concept of a modern battleship. Because that is really neither here nor there for this thread. What I'd really like in this thread is for tips on making it better or more realistic.

Quote:
So what's the point? Is this for NationStates? Is this just some sort of personal design? Do you intend on making realistic-looking ships at all?
Depends on your definition of realistic. Read what I said above for the 'why.' If it's about a modern battleship not being realistic, then no. Save that for my other thread. If it pertains to making this ship look better, by all means, I'd like to hear it.

I don't do NationStates. I'm making this for a Shipbucket AU.
Quote:
You mention that the phased array faces are not SPY-1 even though you clearly just used the SPY-1 template from the parts sheet. Do you even know what SPY-1 is?
It's a 3D air-search phased-array radar for use in the USN and with it's allies. Supports AEGIS. I wanted to use something similar for my own Russian version of AEGIS for use with this ship. Goes back to the whole idea of installing AEGIS on the reactivated Iowa class battleships. Big floating targets need highly-capable defense systems.

It's really not an odd statement, such Russia has produced American look alikes in the past.
Quote:
Are you aware that you're suggesting the use of torpedo tubes as P-700 Granit launchers? Or that even as torpedo tubes, they're installed incorrectly?
In what way? I specifically used the angled-launch system cells from the parts sheet for the P-700. I do a lot of Russian designs, so I know what I'm working with there. That's why I'm reading and re-reading your statement wondering what the hell you're talking about. lol.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Last edited by CATZ on June 12th, 2011, 4:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
CATZ
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 11th, 2011, 3:50 pm
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Quote:
Let's see.
You don't have the volume forward to fit both the VLS, the large Side Scan sonar and have a wavepiercing bow.
Yeah I do. It's got a lot of beam at the waterline.
Quote:
Now, you know my opinion of that type of bow, but in this case you have an additional problem. VLS cells are not 100% watertight and missiles doesn't like water.
Well, submarines are equipped with specialized VLS cells. So if necessary, they can just put something like those on there instead.
Quote:
Your anchor doesn't clear the hull, so It'll knock a whole through it going down.
Will fix.
Quote:
The most forward gun or two is likely to be inoperable due to water getting into the mount. At the very least you're looking at a serious reduction in maintenance intervals.
The freeboard is too high for that. In heavy seas it might be a problem though. I can just say it's water-tight though. Afterall, it's not an existing system.
Quote:
Domed turrets, assuming they are armoured, doesn't really work.
I explained that in my second post. It's for continuous curvature, for mitigating it's radar cross-section. It was either that, or a giant box shaped turret similar to what the 155mm AGS system uses. I favored the dome approach.

And no, there is no armor on this ship. None. Except for similar kevlar protection, like what the Arleigh Burke's have (splinter protection).

Armor is obsolete really. Unless you wanted to do some insane approach using explosive reactive armors.

Quote:
They made sense back in the 1880-90 when they started popping up, because combat ranges were as short as they were. However they were all abandoned once battleranges started to increase since they pretty much guaranteed that an incoming AP shell would hit it at the optimum angle.
Nothing like that. I just needed the turrets flush with the hull as much as possible.
Quote:
The Forward SPYski plates interferes with the turrets, and so does the torpedoes. Torpedoes that are likely to land on deck if launched in bad weather btw.
I may move them. But they'll clear the deck from there. Especially if I use steam catapults or something equally weird.
Quote:
You secondary guns are going to suffer from barrel droop, badly.
Those are just Pzh 2000 barrels from the part's sheets, with my own added muzzle-brakes on the end. I didn't lengthen them aside from that. lol.

But there's been longer barrels tested and used in service before. So barrel droop doesn't make any sense.
Quote:
Your RBU launchers are unable to engage anything from that position.
If you can make a valid argument for that, I'll move them. :-)
Quote:
The two arm launchers pretty much have to be single shot since there's no space for a magazine up there.
They're retractable. The magazine for them wouldn't be real big aside from that.
Quote:
Your underwater Torpedo tubes won't fit where you've placed them, they'll overlap.
I may move them. But they are angled out from the hull at sharp angles.
Quote:
Not that it makes much difference. Anything launched aft will be sucked into the screw and anything going forward will be "blinded" by the bow noise
.

That's foolish. If that was the case modern ships would have their above-deck launched torpedoes suffer the same fate. They're too far away for that anyways. Modern submarines usually have to slow down somewhat to launch their torpedoes, to prevent them from running the torpedoes over as they swim out of the tube.
Quote:
Your sonar operators won't be much better of either.
Wouldn't be any worse than any other ship. Carriers have sonar. And they aren't even designed to be quiet. This is a ship that is designed to be quiet.
Quote:
Unless the Azipods are drop-downs then they won't work there. The are likely to get da0aged by any number of things.
Lastly, I don't think there's a nuclear reactor in the world powerful enough to power this ship for long.
They're retractable.

And, this ship is 20 ft shorter than a Nimitz class carrier, and even more shorter than the Enterprise class. Both of which are nuclear powered.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Last edited by CATZ on June 12th, 2011, 4:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 12  [ 118 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page 1 2 3 4 512 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]