Shipbucket

Place the Harpoons on the deck, not floating on the railing.

_________________
Current Worklist: http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... f=5&t=5562

Look around the board for the post I made that has a cut away of both the Mk-10 and Mk-12 GMLSs that Long Beach mounted, and look for a Mk-26 cutaway to get a feel for what they look like on the inside. This will help prevent such silly looking 'refits'.

Edit:

Here are what the Mk-10 and Mk-12 mounts look like:

Mk-10:





Mk-12 (Yes it is technically of the Mk-7, but the layout is the same):




I don't have a good image of the Mk-26 to post, but this United Defense PDF has a cut away view:

Thank you Shep!

As you can see, the geometry of your 'refit' does not work.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

May I respectfully suggest that all 'budding bucketeers' really study these drawings, to comprehend what is required to incorporate these type of missiles onboard? I notice that a lot of drawings seem to lack a basic understanding of below deck space allocation for various weapon systems.

I would recommend the MK13 as you need less length in a ship

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

While this is true, the Mk-13 is also very limited in the size of weapons it can fire (the magazine spaces were too small for ASROC even).

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

My question is why even bother to replace the Mk 10 Terrier launcher? It doesn't make sense to me at all! I believe that the basic weapons outfit that the long beach eventually received should stay and instead maybe focus can be placed on the sensors fit. Your proposal is simply not economically defensible in my opinion.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

No, you're quite right. The launch rate of the Mk 10 is more than enough to keep up with things as long as every missile requires continuous illumination from launch to intercept (which they do in this case).

Ok I was going to post a second version but I just noticed that I put the Mk. 71 where it should not be. How about replacing the original 5 inch with a new, let's say Mk. 45 5 inch?

That is probably within the realm of possibility, although I'm not sure why you'd bother.