Battleships

[Joe C-P]

If you want to see some really impressive maximum battleship designs from between the wars, look up the Tillman designs of the USN. Up to 15 18" guns! 

Nah, the versions with twenty-four 16" guns, in four sextuple turrets (!) are far more fun for insanity.

See here:
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f252/CanisD/Misc/MyStarshipFiles/NeverWeres/Tillman_sextuple16.jpg

There was some consideration for the turrets to be double-decked, with three guns over three guns or two over four. The USN had done something like this before, though with 8" guns over 16". Just a design idea for consideration.

JoeP

[Trident3B]

All the USN needed were the Montana class battlewagons. My father was slated to be aboard the USS Montana had it been completed and entered service.

[dy031101]

Recently I'm messing with a Shipbucket pic of Kirov class cruiser.  I can't seem to figure out what the circled items are for:



Out of the Shipbucket pics I've seen so far, Kiev class has it, Moskva class has it, and Kirov class has it.  Kuznetsov doesn't, however, so I can't say all Soviet/Russian capital ships have it.

Does anyone know what this is?

[Weaver]

They're powerful radar jammers, NATO codename Side Globe. Each P & S pair gives 360 deg coverage in one band, and there are four pairs to cover bands L, S, C and X.

Internally, each dome contains a pair of receiving DF aerials each side of a powerful directional noise transmitter, all on a rotating platform. When the signal strength at both DF aerials is equal, the operator knows he's got the bearing of the threat radar and can turn the jammer on.

The output from Side Globe is so powerful that it's said to be lethal to humans within 50ft!

[dy031101]

Each P & S pair gives 360 deg coverage in one band, and there are four pairs to cover bands L, S, C and X.

P & S pair?

[Weaver]

P & S = Port and Starboard


Good article: http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry2539.aspx

[dy031101]

P & S = Port and Starboard


Good article: http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry2539.aspx

Thanks.

(Guess that means I can get rid of the jammers on my Strike Cruiser Mk.IV mental note, too......  )

=============================================================



Out of concern over flight deck size, I deleted the aft CIWS cluster altogether.

Now how should I go from here?

Do you value shore bombardment firepower (two 5-inch guns) more, or would you think of more CIWS firepower (one 5-inch gun and two side-by-side 57mm turrets, as depicted above) as being always more beneficial?

Suggestions would be appreciated.

[rickshaw]

What time period are we considering?  Until about 1970, I would have retained the 5 inch.  After then, as anti-shipping missiles became a greater threat I would consider replacing one with a single fast-forty.  After about 1980, I'd replace it with two.  After ~1990, I'd be looking at the suggested two 57mm turrets or twin 27mm/Goalkeeper 30mm.  I'd also place the two turrets in a staggered formation so that they could both fire on each other's side of the ship, without interfering with each other's line of fire.  IMHO, you can never have too much CIWS. 

[dy031101]

After ~1990, I'd be looking at the suggested two 57mm turrets or twin 27mm/Goalkeeper 30mm.

Those are V-22s I'm putting on her.  

I'd also place the two turrets in a staggered formation so that they could both fire on each other's side of the ship, without interfering with each other's line of fire.

As in...... having them superfiring in place of the aftmost 5-inch?

[Weaver]

I don't think shore bombardment is a good role for such a big, expensive ship after the advent of coast-defence AShMs. Leave it to frigates, which have a shallower draft so they can get in closer anyway, have point defence weapons to protect them from the AShMs, and which are, if push comes to shove, more expendable.

[rickshaw]

After ~1990, I'd be looking at the suggested two 57mm turrets or twin 27mm/Goalkeeper 30mm.

Those are V-22s I'm putting on her.  

I'd also place the two turrets in a staggered formation so that they could both fire on each other's side of the ship, without interfering with each other's line of fire.

As in...... having them superfiring in place of the aftmost 5-inch?

Superfiring would be best but if you can't do that, put them at opposite corners so they can traverse to the opposite side when on the same level.  That way you could concentrate their fire on an incoming missile from a given flank or if necessary, split them to fire to either flank.

You could, even after about 1990 think about removing both after 5in and putting a hangar there, with two CIWS on top.  Somewhere to shelter your V-22s in bad weather.

[dy031101]

You could, even after about 1990 think about removing both after 5in and putting a hangar there, with two CIWS on top.  Somewhere to shelter your V-22s in bad weather.

I was under the impression that Kirov already have a below-deck hanger (which I realize would need some alterations along with the flight deck itself- before this post I was thinking of the pattern found on CM62 class corvette- to support the Ospreys......)?

Or is that hanger just not tall or big enough, making the above-deck hanger a much-better idea?

[rickshaw]

The below deck hangar is intended for Kamov helicopters.  It may be tall enough but I suspect it certainly would be a very tight fit trying to take a V-22 down to it.

Remove both turrets and provide a larger hangar, is what I'd suggest.

[Jschmus]

Photos indicate that the doors into the hangar on a Kirov are scarcely wider than the helicopters it was built for.  Even with the props and wings folded, an Osprey would be a bit bigger than that.  Here's another vote for the bigger hangar in place of the guns.

[dy031101]

To prevent my awful sense of scale playing tricks on me, is this the kind of arrangement you have in mind?



Some kind of walkways (and the Bushmaster guns there) are retained on both sides of the hanger.