Cruisers and Destroyers

Weaver · March 10, 2011, 02:21:48 PM

Quote from: RLBH on March 10, 2011, 09:06:44 AM
How much of a limitation that is depends on how you plan to use it. For an AAW ship, you'd ideally want more directors, which would drive you towards upperworks similar to the Ticonderoga class. For an ASW ship, which is what the DXG would have been if built for the USN, the forward Mark 26 launcher would have functioned mostly as an ASROC launcher in any case (the launcher in that position had a capacity of 24 missiles, the same as a vanilla Spruance's ASROC capacity), so you've only really got a single-ended SM-2 ship anyway.

True, although then again, the Tico's upperworks are also heavily dictated by the SPY-1 aerial arrays, and you wouldn't have those on a "cooking" AAW Spruance. You could easily put twin, staggered SPG-51Cs on the top of the hanger, with the higher one on a lightweight pedestal rather than the Tico's solid block. The interesting question would be whether you could get two side-by side on top of the bridge: the forward location of the mast makes it impossible to have them "superfiring". IIRC, the Kidd has a "balcony" just to get one in.

ChernayaAkula · June 12, 2011, 10:19:01 AM

How about this Soviet design from X-Men: First Class?

Pic from the trailer

Looks like a whif to me, but I'm not that well-versed in Soviet warships of that era. I don't remember twin SS-N-14 Silex launchers per side on any ship, though. And, AFAIK, the Ak-130s wouldn't have been in service yet in 1962. And it looks like there might be some VLS between the AK-130 and the RBU-6000.

Might be something for the Ship GB.

Too bad the DVD won't be out in time (to obtain decent stills).

icchan · June 12, 2011, 11:57:55 AM

It's a Kara-class from the bridge and four-eyed radars, but definitely modified. Looks like they shortened the deck under the forward twin-arm, and replaced it with dual twin AK-130s and added the extra missile pack on the sides. Keeps the tail twin-arm launcher though. Not bad looking, hooray CGI!

Thorvic · June 12, 2011, 02:22:00 PM

Nice but looks like a mix and match of 70's & 80's soviet designs rather than the late 50's early 60's, they obviously didn't do enough research or felt the ships of the period were not menacing enough and jazzed them up as the missile systems were big clunky and basic.

icchan · June 12, 2011, 03:20:53 PM

Well, if you consider that that universe would have a Super-Intelligence mutant running around in Soviet Russia too, it only makes sense there'd be applications of the work to the military fields, and unexpected advancement. Even fits the political mindsets of the era, and puts a mean spin on the New Soviet Man. So I'll consider the anachronistic military hardware legitimately justified, in that.

Weaver · June 12, 2011, 06:08:33 PM

Since it's got twin 57mm guns amidships, I'd say Kresta II based rather than Kara. As has been said, it's all a bit too late for 1962. My inclination would have been to mix up Kynda, Kashin and Kotlin elements. You could have a double-ended layout something like this:

A Pos: twin old-style 130mm gun as seen on Kotlins
B Pos: SA-N-1 launcher
C Pos: quad elevating SSN-3 launcher with four reloads under bridge

P&S amidships: twin 57mm guns and 533mm TTs

X,Y,Z-pos: as per A,B & C but reversed.

dy031101 · July 11, 2011, 05:04:17 PM

I heard that there is a third Moskva class helicopter cruiser that would have been built as an anti-surface warfare vessel...... does anyone have some idea on how would it have looked like?

rickshaw · July 11, 2011, 07:15:30 PM

Much smaller helicopter deck?

dy031101 · July 11, 2011, 08:58:41 PM

Quote from: rickshaw on July 11, 2011, 07:15:30 PM
Much smaller helicopter deck?

Well I kinda want to see if it'd still be a helicopter carrier......

rallymodeller · July 11, 2011, 11:09:19 PM

Presuming this was pre-Kiev? After all, the Kiev TAKRs are more-or-less sea control ships anyway what with their fixed-wing capability and missile fit. Sure they're about twice the size of the Moskva PKRs but the capability is increased as well; IIRC the Kiev-class was already in the planning stages by the time the Moskvas were being built. And at that point the USSR was still planning on having a 50,000t conventional angle-deck carrier Real Soon Now.

Jschmus · July 12, 2011, 11:28:26 AM

A Moskva built for surface warfare would likely have beached the SUW-N-1 antisubmarine system in favor of some sort of SSM. Perhaps the 57mm guns would've been replaced with heavier guns. It would still have retained the helicopters.

ALVAMA · July 12, 2011, 11:51:08 AM

It's quite easy to see it not a real design. No ship of that time could handle 4 13mm AK-130s on the front IMO. The design seems indeed to be based at Soviet cruiser classes like ''KARA'' and KRESTA''

rickshaw · July 12, 2011, 04:20:14 PM

Quote from: Jschmus on July 12, 2011, 11:28:26 AM
A Moskva built for surface warfare would likely have beached the SUW-N-1 antisubmarine system in favor of some sort of SSM. Perhaps the 57mm guns would've been replaced with heavier guns. It would still have retained the helicopters.

All of them? Why? Its role had changed from, as you note, ASW - which is a helicopter intensive role to ASuW - which is not helicopter intensive. Suddenly it would carting 'round all this empty hangar space and extensive flight deck. I could see it retaining a larger than normal helicopter pad, allowing simultaneous operations for perhaps two helicopters but most of that wasted space would have been rededicated to its primary mission I think. Something like HMS TIGER would have been the result.

dy031101 · July 12, 2011, 06:03:15 PM

Quote from: rickshaw on July 12, 2011, 04:20:14 PM
All of them? Why? Its role had changed from, as you note, ASW - which is a helicopter intensive role to ASuW - which is not helicopter intensive.

I don't suppose the Soviets had plans for a missile of Penguin or Sea Skua's calibre?

rickshaw · July 13, 2011, 07:27:13 AM

Quote from: dy031101 on July 12, 2011, 06:03:15 PM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 12, 2011, 04:20:14 PM
All of them? Why? Its role had changed from, as you note, ASW - which is a helicopter intensive role to ASuW - which is not helicopter intensive.

I don't suppose the Soviets had plans for a missile of Penguin or Sea Skua's calibre?

Not really. They tended to rely upon unguided rockets for tactical roles for a long time. The first tactical guided missiles didn't appear until the approximately the early 1980s.

They also intended their missiles for big targets - carriers usually so they tended to build big missiles. Too big for most helicopters to carry. That's an idea. Put Mi-6 helicopters on Moskva, carrying SS-N-3 Shaddocks!

Remember, the Soviet Navy's deterrence doctrine was based on "bastions" for their SLBM submarines and the surface fleet was intended to push the intruding Western submarines and surface task forces as far as possible away from those bastions. The US Navy's strategy was "go into harm's way" and attack the Soviet missile carrying submarines in their bastions. So, if a war broke out, you'd see battles in the North Atlantic and Pacific very quickly.