Shipbucket

Hi Krakatoa,
With respect, I think in this instance that may not be the case - you'll note that on US battleships, for instance, the 5" DP mounts - which can be quite close to each other horizontally - are given vertical separation to prevent the barrels clashing. On your design, if the forward 4.5" develops a fault (or takes combat damage) that prevents traversal of the mount while it's pointed out to the broadside you pretty much lose the forward arc for the aft gun.

My suggestion would be to make a decision - if it's something the must work at any cost, set the mounts superfiring. One end will be a little worse than it is now and the other end will work better. If it's not, why the extra weight? Anything big enough or tough enough to require a barrage from two 4.5", you can just shoot with the 15" instead...

Regards,
Adam

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

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

Howdy Adam,
Thanks for your comments, however the way the 4.5" turrets are is fine. One of the reasons the UK was slow to go to superfiring mounts was the difference in fire control times. The upper turret always will be slower to load by the height of the extra length of hoist, and also by the slightly different angle of the guns between mounts when firing at the same target (by the extra height above water). Todays computer controlled fire control systems will make that easier, but it is still adding extra steps to the system. As is, fire control and loading is simple.

As to battle damage, without separating the turrets (which can currently use a joint magazine / shell handling area) any battle damage is likely to take out both turrets, que sera. If a turret has a fault then that has to come under the 'Shit happens' category.

General.
Everybody is trying to tell me, lose this, change that etc. I have given a bit of thought to the differing weapons I have used on the ship. The main guns do the long range work, the medium 4.5" do the intermediate range jobs, while the 40mm and CIWS do the short range work. The VLS system does everything else. That is the same separation of job descriptions that has worked on ships armaments for a long time past to the present day. I see no need to change that.

If you really want a drone for spotting what's wrong with scan eagle..... All it needs is something to catch it......

Thanks Shippy2013,

I had never heard of that system before. Reading up on it, it is a good observation platform. One of the drawbacks I noticed was a lack of long range radio (having a range of over 62 miles (100 km)) and also its not big enough to carry a laser designation system. With the range of the main guns I would need almost double the communication range. For those places where there are no boots on the ground then you do need some form of airborne designation system to improve your long range accuracy.

Its launch and retrieval system would certainly suit something the size of the Tempest.

One of those problems, to have something that has the operational capabilities you want, you are not big enough to have it.

Try the RQ 21A integrator, it's a larger development of Scan Eagle, big enough for you radios and laser range finder and operated in the same launch and recovery as Scan Eagle. If there's one thing the RN and indeed the UK has a whole has proved time and time again we are good at making a system designed for one thing become a capable system at doing multiple tasks through upgrade and addition.

Failing that there's the MQ 8 Fire scout, a helicopter drone, that has the benefit of being able to use no additional equipment for launch and recovery than a normal Helo and has the added advantage of being able to be armed.... If the base model hasn't already got the laser range finder being a full sized Helo there's plenty of scope to add additional system be it integrated or podded.

on modern gun mountings, the issue with difference in height of superfiring mounts is nulfied.
this because the modern guns have ready use magazines, and the RoF is not dependent on the loading speed of the magazine lifts until the ready use magazine is shot dry. of course, when you are reloading the ready use magazine, it might take a bit more time for the higher guns to reload, but you don't want to do that in action anyways.

RoF concerns on modern guns are also more something when used against AA targets in modern times, something that these guns cannot do.

for fire control, as the computers no longer work with the spotting of the impacts but calculate the trajectory of the guns with the circumstances, I highly doubt height issues are a problem. on second thought, if there is any problem with that, you get a similar problem just from having another gun close by which interferes with each other

the FREMM also proves it is possible for guns of about this size to share a magazine without interfering with each other physically.

_________________
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.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Hope you don't mind I had a go cutting and pasting what I might do.



JSB

Thanks Shippy2013,
The RQ21 sounds exactly like what is required. Plenty of room on the heli-deck to mount the launch and retrieval system. For the others:
From Wiki:
The RQ-21A Blackjack is designed to support the U.S. Marine Corps by providing forward reconnaissance. A Blackjack system is composed of five air vehicles and two ground control systems. The air vehicles can be launched on land or on a ship by a rail and land using a "skyhook" recovery system, where a vertical wire must be hooked onto its wing; when on the ground, the launch and recovery systems are towable by vehicles. Its wingspan is 16 ft (4.9 m) and it can carry a 39 lb (18 kg) payload. The day/night camera can achieve resolution rating of 7 on the NIIRS scale at 8,000 ft (2,400 m). The Marines are working with Insitu to modify the Blackjack fuselage to carry greater and more various payloads. Enlarging the fuselage would increase its maximum takeoff weight from 135 lb (61 kg) to 145 lb (66 kg) and lengthen endurance from 16 hours to 24 hours. New turrets are being explored as well as other payloads including a synthetic aperture radar to track ground targets, a laser designator to mark targets for precision-guided munitions, and foliage-penetration capabilities for foreign customers operating in lush environments.



If anyone wants to try an SB drawing of the RQ-21, please do. I've tried twice and they both looked like stick figures.

The problem with your VLS is not that you don't have deck space for the hatches (though your bow is not shaped correctly) but rather they will be sticking out of the side of the hull as the bow tappers to the waterline and below. You are talking about full strike length cells here.

Shipright:
I modelled the vls units shown in the SB parts sheet against the hull and overview to see if they would fit where I wanted them to go. Yes the hull does taper down, but the vls units don't extend down below the black waterline mark on the hull and would easily fit inside the taper.

Have a look at the pics I have added to the drawing on page 1 for comparisons. The hull is supposed to be an enlarged Daring but I haven't quite got the bow right yet. The actual picture of HMS Duncans bow gives a graphic indication of the taper.