Shipbucket

Alright, how bout I put the 155 (its a double turret btws) around the middle of the missile area and just situate two vls in front and two behind? Also the 76mm would only be installed when the large caliber gun (I've figured a single18in that fits in place of the 155. The space there was made for the switch so there is ample room provided for either. I'll take up your idea for the phalanx re positioning, and good point for the 30mm guns, four sounds like a better idea. I'll look into the rhib bay idea. And I'm waiting for users with significant knowledge on the intakes and funnels. I think you're correct that I may need more, but I want an "expert's" opinion first. Remember the ship is nuclear powered, so intake needs are differant.

I would be very worried what an 18inch gun blast will do to my radars/missiles.

I would be even more worried where I'm going to build it (but its your AU so have fun, and I'm very intrigued what it looks like)
(sorry was thinking about the 18 inch gun not ship, it can be built anywhere QE was)
JSB

It would be built in sections across the country. You have a point about the blast. I'll try to get some ideas into what could be done about that. It also doesn't need to be the 18in, I'm also open to the venerable 15in as a major calibre artillery weapon.

In original blurb, Dmitri has motive power as nuclear so no need for funnels.
He does ask for help with cooling, air ducts etc for the nuclear plant.

The idea looks good and is probably more useful than my BCG in another thread.

I think even 8" would be pushing it. 6" is just fine for whatever purposes this ship would fill.

Due to the size of the ship, I felt that placing a gun of the sizes I mentioned would be feasable as well as usefel. I envisioned a gun directed by a computer calculating the direction of the gun by radar or laser designators. The shells would only be minimally guided at most and would be mostly upgraded variants of the kinds used last. The point of the gun is to fire cheap and accurate ordanance with a computer calculating the angle of fire and the such, instead of the shell. By the way, what might the rate of fire be for a modern gun of this caliber?

I'm not sure any big new gun will be cheap (you just don't have a big production line to cut unit cost and spread development costs)
155mm guns can range 30-40km+ (and more with special ammo) why not just fit a few of these ? (I would go with multiple single turrets to give redundancy and ability to hit different targets at the same time) say 2 or 3 ?

JSB

What JSB said. Coming up with the infrastructure just to make that gun turret and all the equipment around it will be a huge cost, for a weapon that really isn't needed. The main usage for battleship caliber guns these last 50 years has been for shore bombardement, and you can go considerably lower and still be perfectly able to bust open any pesky bunkers. I'd go with something along the lines of the USN 8"/55 Mk.71:
(http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71.htm)

Hi all,

One thing I would say is that historically people have queried nuclear NGFS ships on this board, on the thinking that you're letting your nuclear-reactored ship a little too close to any surprise threats for comfort...

Regards,
Ad

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

We're already doing that with existing artillery and while it's true it's cheaper than missiles on a per round basis it's by no means cheap in the general sense of the term. We simply don't make enough artillery of any type to really get the savings usually associated with mass production.

_________________
“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.