Shipbucket

Actually, there was a shift to all missiles in the Leahy, Bainbridge and Long beach, but as you can clearly see on, all ships after that guns came back. If your logic were true the Mk 45 would never have been developed

This ship probably would have showed its value during the Lebanon bombardment.

Ok, where is the flight II ship. I need to fix a couple of things still but I thought I'd show you all how the flight I will evolve



Comments and suggestions always welcome

Joe

Having been drawn into this thread by the Tagger debacle, I have to say that it's a beautiful ship, BUT... I'd go back to the shorter version as a base. Adding that much lenght just to put an extra set of ABL's on it is not really justified, especially since it doesn't give rise to a corresponding increase in the magazine space of the other missile weapons. The MK-26 was never designed with a magazine larger than 64 missiles.

The Aegis update looks nice, although I'd change the aft deckhouse a bit more. Especially the early versions of Aegis took up quite a bit of space.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

I would just extend it back flash with the stack.

I'd sacrifice the fore ABLs and the aft gun.

In mid 1970's single Tomahawk boxes where also proposed together with the ABL.There are somewhere in the old part sheets in triple configuration.(Though I do not remember if hese are AU part or never built).

The decision to drop MK 71 went over like a lead balloon with the amphip types that REALLY wanted that kind of gunfire support, or so I was told by some shipmates that went to ships of that type. The tests on a Forrest Sherman were generally very successful (if rather too big for a ship of that size).

Ok, i have heard the masses and I'm going back to the smaller hull. I'll post undates a soon as I can. For now i have some questions for the buckets mass intelligence. First, hull number. Taking into account my back story, this ship was designed fir aegis and spy 1 so there was never a Ticonderoga class as we know it. Now we have to take into account that the Virginia class was supposed to be mass produced. Question is, in that scenario, how many hull numbers would have been set aside for the Virginias? This should give me a starting point for my hull number.

Next question is would this cruiser had been bended after a state?

Does anyone know approximately when all ships masts were being painted grey?

I would appreciate any and all help

Thank you

virginia mass production would be CGN-42 class? that was the only way more virginia's would have been build, I think. the numbers of those would have been at least 4 (before cancellation) and go up to 2 per nuclear carrier at that time (authorisation in FY 79-83)
I think this ship might have been build instead of repeat virginia's though, so CG-42 and further would fit it too. especially as there is an non-aegis variant, I would suppose it would be pre-CGN-42 design.
the grey masts were between 1990-1995 on the spruance and kidd classes, which I think would be what this would be based on.

_________________
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