Quote:
Originally Posted by maximusslade
DD-1000 = FUGLY ship. That is all I am going to say on that, other than the fact that I AM NOT a naval architect.  |
Fugly has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
|
I am curious as to how you define how a VLS layout is inefficient though.
|
You've got what look like a 64-cell (presumably Mk 41) here, another one there, then some 8-cells here and there with a couple of groups of 32 in-between. I can't quite figure out why. 4 groups of 64 (paired side-by-side) would be a more efficient layout. Given that this will by necessity be a long ship and will be hurting far more for precious centerline space than your drawings indicate, a peripheral VLS makes more sense for the majority of VLS cells though. By the way, you can't go bigger than 64 on a Mk 41 VLS.
When laying things out look at how modern ships are arranged. Aegis ships for example all have a similar look. This is because SPY-1 is packaged in one of several different types of standardized deckhouses sized to accomodate this rather large system. Deviate from that and you have a substantial redesign to deal with. Pay attention too to the enormous amount of topside volume in a modern ship compared to those of 50-60-70 years ago. Those big superstructures are necessary to house all the electronics, command spaces, computers and to hang all the various transmitters, recievers, etc of the modern surface combattant.
Signature reduction of course is essential and the many angles of your ship don't do it many favors. A simpler, bulkier design would be more efficient, if less sexy.