The Ship Model Forum

[quote="Russ2146"]. Seems to me that if beefing up the mounting will allow you to use a RAM launcher capped with a SeaRam radar and be switchable from remote to mount control, that is the way to go.

This post is getting long so I'll stop now.[/quote]
Have you ever seen this?
[img]http://img.docstoccdn.com/thumb/206/42911271.png[/img]
This was a proposal back when they were first mounting RAM on ships, so they figured they could put 2 RAM launchers on a 5inch gun mount.

The thing with the hanger was that since Kentucky is at the 2nd deck, you could continue to complete her up in the shape that the Vittorio Venetos were, completing the stern only up to the first deck and making it a helo deck with the hanger underneath the guns of Turret 3. Some sort of spacer would be needed to raise the height of the top of the barbette up 1 or 1/2 deck for sufficient clearance, but I think that should be feasible before installation of the turret itself.

As you can see in this picture:
[img]http://www.stardestroyer.net/Armour/ShepStuff/Website/DrakaWB/RomaBBCompleted.gif[/img]
My comment about the Italians was that their VVs were perfectly arranged for this. All that was needed was to build the hanger, and they would have been good to go. Since you're building up your Kentucky from the 2nd deck up, she should be able to accommodate such a design change :woo_hoo:

Dave,
Wow!! So many ways to go in responding to your post, especially the last sentence. (which I agree with)

Lets just consider the ship for now. My thought is that the effectiveness of the anti-ship weaponry deployed today, both by the US and by potential adversaries, is based on the fact that there are no longer any armored combat vessals. Thus, activation or building of armored vessals would be a game changer with the advantage going to whoever has the armored vessals. I don't suggest that it would be possible to armor all combat vessals, but certainly cruiser and up. However, the smaller vessals should certainly have a higher degree of survivability than is currently being built.

For naval weaponry, I am not a fan of the 155. The reason the Army dropped the 175 and the 8" had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the rounds. The gun crew for one gun was 13 men (it took 5 and a cradle to load the projectile) The effort expended to pack as much capability into a 155 projectile is ridiculous, from a naval standpoint when a lightly manned, self loading 8" mount can be placed easily on a ship and the projectile has a lot more room for improvements. It does not need to be land mobile and the "shoot and scoot" aspect is vested in the ship, rather than the gun mount.

For AA, I note that during WW2, the 40mm and 5" mounts had both director and local fire control capability, which makes sense since if the Director was out for any reason, you could still shoot. This brings me to RAM and SeaRam. It seems to me that dual fire control is a desirable quality. If your primary FC is out for any reason, you can still shoot with a reasonable expectation of hitting the target. So SeaRam is a good thing but I have difficulty with the decreased number of available rounds. Seems to me that if beefing up the mounting will allow you to use a RAM launcher capped with a SeaRam radar and be switchable from remote to mount control, that is the way to go.

This post is getting long so I'll stop now.

Russ,

I have been thinking about it a lot, and before I was against having a helo hanger under the Turret 3's main guns. I have since changed by stand. I think it could be easily accomplished.

In fact, I am so much a proponent of the helo hanger under major caliber guns that I have changed my position for a new-construction battleship. If the Italians had kept their Vitorrio Venetos, they would have been able to build these ships. To me, a new construction battleship would see 9 or 12 sixteen-inch guns, and a helo hanger(above deck or beloo deck).

In the most term, people have forgotten that the battleship is a capital ship, and it's able to accomplish mission that the carrier does not need to perform. As far as a service portion of the population goes, there are many elements that will actually work.

I would imagine a main battery of 16" guns, a battery of 155m guns, a battery of CIWS guns and missiles (Phalanx CIWS and RAM).

The Navy is shrinking to an "UNOPERATIONAL" standpoint. :'-(

[quote="carr"]I don't know how far into the "What If" world you're looking to go but you might consider the Mk57 VLS (Peripheral Launch System) that's supposedly being installed on the DDG-1000. Raytheon has also developed other versions of VLS as documented on their site. I don't know what the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems are but, clearly, someone thinks the Mk57 has enough advantages to be placed on the DDG-1000. Just a thought ...[/quote]
I am not as well versed in the Mk57 as I would like to be, but I believe the Mk57 is only being used on the DDG-1000 because it's a new technology, and they were really focused on packing that ship with as much new technology as they possibly could.

The advantage that I see is that the Mk57 has a larger growth margin for bigger missiles. The only bigger, heavier, and longer missile is the SM-6s...and that's an anti-ballistic missile missile that fits in the Mk41 VLS. The individual modules are very big, and you only get 4 tubes per module. So if you want about 1/2 as many missile tubes in [i]Kentucky [/i] than you would get with the mk41 I would suggest the Mk57. Otherwise the Mk41 is still the way to go. However, it would look pretty cool with Mk57s! :heh:

I don't know how far into the "What If" world you're looking to go but you might consider the Mk57 VLS (Peripheral Launch System) that's supposedly being installed on the DDG-1000. Raytheon has also developed other versions of VLS as documented on their site. I don't know what the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems are but, clearly, someone thinks the Mk57 has enough advantages to be placed on the DDG-1000. Just a thought ...

David,

The 4X1 configuration is 4 modules, side by side. is there any reason they couldn't be end to end? Like this:

OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO
OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO

I'm thinking on both sides of the aft stack in the above configuration to avoid going too far outboard of the stack, though I haven't worked the measurements yet.

I'm thinking Strike Length amidships between and extending outboard of the stacks, then Tactical Length along both sides of the aft stack, and finally Self Defense length abeam the centerline between the aft stack and the aft director tower.

Interesting process you guys have followed. Really looking forward to seeing what Dave comes up with.

My own opinion is that there is, and never has been, anything like a battleship for power projection, firepower, intimidation, point strike, sea control, I could go on... the only problem with intelligently designed battleships has always and ever been politics. Otherwise there is no defensible reason why a modern bluewater navy with the resources to build and support battlegroup operations should steadfastly refuse to commission one (or four, heck, why not 8?)!

LL

[quote="Russ2146"]Thanks for the input David.
I'm somewhat on 'stand down' at the moment with the CinC in hospital getting a new valve, bypass and pacemaker.[/quote]
My goodness, yes my best wishes are with you, too. You guys will be in my prayers. I hope everything turns out well, Russ.

[quote="Russ2146"]Thanks for the input David.
I'm somewhat on 'stand down' at the moment with the CinC in hospital getting a new valve, bypass and pacemaker.[/quote]
Good luck and best wishes! :thumbs_up_1:

Thanks for the input David.
I'm somewhat on 'stand down' at the moment with the CinC in hospital getting a new valve, bypass and pacemaker.

Russ,

I have been thinking about something that might apply to your design and build. There were a lot of designs for the Burkes that utilized "half" B-modules of VLS.
This means that they were literally 32-cell modules that were the 8-cell modules assembled in-line making up 32-cells. How we do 32-cells on the Burkes is that we have 4 8-cell modules set up in 2x2, and this is called an "A-module" VLS arrangement.
[attachment=2]VLSA-module.jpg[/attachment]
We all know the full 64-cell B-cell module version.
[attachment=1]VLSB-module.jpg[/attachment]
This other one I am talking about is still 32-cells, but it's a single strip of moduels of 4x1 instead.
This arrangement might be good for your new-build [i]Kentucky[/i] and my battleship designs as well. The advantage to this arrangemetn is that it would not be instrusive as the full 2x4 64-cell nests common to US ships and would offer a large capacity while minimizing the foot print.
[attachment=0]VLShalfB-module.jpg[/attachment]
Food for thought. I look forward to seeing what yoy might come up with, Russ. Either a Montana or an Improved Iowa design, this year I would like to cut plastic on my own new-build battleship.

[quote="Russ2146"]Instead of two SH-60's, how about one SH-60 and one AH-1W? Whoops, too long unles we can get the rotor blades to fold.[/quote]Well, from a practical point of view, the reason to have 2 helos is because almost always one is down. It's really great if both are up at once, but that's not as common as we would like :frown_2: . So, if you split your capability type, you will lose one or the other when you need it.

From a tactical point of view, if you are doing covert operations you do [i]not[/i] want a helo anywhere nearby just hanging out making a bunch of noise. AH-1s are cool but are only called in when things get bad, and even then they take a little while to show up. Gun rounds arrive a lot faster than a helo does, and the risk of the helo being shot down is greater than the gun rounds not being able to reach the enemy due to terrain. Also, as a point of comparison. There are not attack helos on DDGs performing special operations missions, just SH-60s. So, unless you have a really cool reason (and I would love to hear why you'd like an AH-1) I would suggest keeping it at 2 SH60s or HH60s.

....what you could maybe do is sneak one in between your two elevators and keep the 60s on the elevators all the time. It would be kind cramped, and you would only have one, but you could at least have one Cobra in there. I am not saying it's not at all practical :big_grin: but it would look pretty neat!!!

[quote]Something arrived from HK today. As soon as I closed the door, I went and ordered some stuff to go with it. I guess the long lead time item is some one to pour four 8" Mk71 mounts.[/quote]I think you are right. Once I get all of my stuff again I can send some to you.

[quote]BTW, the sea tested tube was 8"/55. Did Dahlgren come up with an 8"/60?[/quote]Yes, they did develop one, they did not make one to my knowledge. The 55caliber prototype barrel was a lined barrel. The 60caliber barrel was to be a mono-barrel, just like the 16"/50caliber replacement barrels designed in the '80s.

[quote]What are the advantages of the 25mm remotely controlled vs the 30mm Mk 46 mount?[/quote]Good question. The 25mm (Mk38 Mod2) is an autonomous bolt-on weapon system. The Mk46 is slaved to something else and has to be hard installed onto the ship. The Mk38 Mod2 has a 30mm option. With the exception of possible ammunition capacity differences, to me, the 30mm Mk38 Mod2 beats out the Mk46 hard-core.

Dave,

Just had a wild thought.

Instead of two SH-60's, how about one SH-60 and one AH-1W? Whoops, too long unles we can get the rotor blades to fold.

Russ

Something arrived from HK today. As soon as I closed the door, I went and ordered some stuff to go with it. I guess the long lead time item is some one to pour four 8" Mk71 mounts.
BTW, the sea tested tube was 8"/55. Did Dahlgren come up with an 8"/60?

What are the advantages of the 25mm remotely controlled vs the 30mm Mk 46 mount?

[quote="carr"]The mission list is fine although it reads suspiciously like a Powerpoint presentation generated by the Pentagon. [/quote]You are correct, sir. It is in a power-point presentation for those types. The actual "Missions", which I should have included first, are:
Anti-Surface Warfare
Land Attack
Naval Surface Fire Support (naval gunfire and tomahawk missile).

The sub-missions listed were for the audience following the thread. I assumed they knew those original first (however I should not assume. I should have followed the missions with the sub-missions).

[quote="carr"]4x Mk38 Mod2 25mm remotely controlled guns. Given that we have Mk110 and CIWS, what does the Mk38 do for the BB?[/quote]In the place of a Montana with 4 Phalanx and 2 RAM I think you have a very valid point of over-redundancy. On a modernized Iowa where there are only 2 Phalanx CIWS and 2 RAM I would still suggest the 25mm in the situation that if the Mk110 goes down you don't have use your anti-ship missile protection system on boats.

[quote="carr"]Overall, this excellent. Build it![/quote]Sounds like it will make a pretty fun build for Russ. The hanger will be a neat situation, too. I am looking forward to see if he uses the side-by-side double elevator hanger or the inline type. I am still weighing both for my Montana build.

[quote="Seasick"]For ASW the BB needes a lot of passive defense. The ship sould be very quiet. Electrical motors are a must, no reduction gears connected to turbines. A top speed of 22 to 27 knots should be sufficient ...[/quote]
[quote]Super speed (such as 33+ knots) is just as important to the battleship as it is to the aircraft carrier in that it needs to arrive on station as soon as possible, because there are guys waiting for support. That is paramount. [/quote]
The BSG is going to have 4+ ships operating together. It will be the focus of intense enemy surveillance (satellite, radar, aerial, etc.). A little extra quieting of the BB won't accomplish much and certainly should not be implemented if it impacts speed. Speed is vital, although reaching a fire support position for troops in trouble would be the least of the reasons why (if we have people ashore who need fire support and don't already have it, then we've screwed up monumentally in planning and the BB's fire should be directed at the Pentagon). The speed requirement comes from tactical necessity. Speed provides the best ASW by making it impossible for subs to intercept (barring dumb luck putting them directly in the path) without "going loud". Avoidance is easier than combat and ASW is not a BSG mission. Speed is necessary to allow rapid penetration to a target area (same as WWII carrier groups did in early WWII) from an initial, distant, undetected point (appear out of nowhere). Speed provides the ability to deal with enemy surface groups from a position of tactical advantage by being able to choose and dictate the time and place of engagement.



[quote="Seasick"]Volume of fire and range outweigh the need for a large bursting charge. In a perfect world a 155mm or 175mm naval gun to fire fin stabilized rounds out to 25 to 30 nautical miles with either IR or GPS guidance. Going after hardened bunkers shouldn't be a high priority for this gun. The rounds need to be optimized for anti-personal and light vehicle targets. Naval Gun fire support is most effective at breaking up enemy infantry movements. A 12 inch self loading mortor should be developed also.[/quote]
Destroying [u][b]both [/b][/u]hard and soft targets is exactly the mission of the BSG. "Artillery" in the general sense has always recognized the existence of both types of targets and utilized rounds appropriate for each. I would assume this would continue with the BB. I'm not an expert on BB guns/ammo so someone tell me if the BB does not (or could not) have both types. The idea of a 12 inch mortar is interesting but what would it offer that a BB's set of 16"/8" guns would be incapable of?

[quote]
Missions:
Operate as the centerpiece of a battleship strike group (BSG) independent of aircraft carriers.

1. Operate offensively in areas of interest.
2. Operate as a sea-domination force (destroy up to 5 surface targets up to 80nm)
3. Operate in areas inaccessible/undesirable to aircraft carriers
4. Operate in areas of high priority to free aircraft carriers for more important areas of interst
5. Destroy shore targets at short or long range with massive amounts ordnance
6. Provide Naval Gunfire Support (NGFS/NSFS)
7. Support amphibious operations (invasion and on-ooing operations)
8. Perform surgical low-cost/high effect 16" strikes
9. Perform surgical or "alpha" level strikes up to 1000nm inland with TLAM
10. Provide NSFS to on-ground elements
11. Blockade
12. Air control for ASW, SAR, and patrol
13. Host and support SOF
14. UAV intelligence gathering
15. Electronic intelligence collection and tactical deception
16. Refuel accompanying ships in group
17. Influence other nations' political/military decisions
18. Show the flag in foreign waters and ports
19. Operate and fuel all types of helos used by the USN (SH-60, CH-53, V-22)
20. Flag Support
21. Defend itself against air threats (missile or aircraft)
22. Provide itself with point defense systems
[/quote]
The mission list is fine although it reads suspiciously like a Powerpoint presentation generated by the Pentagon.

[quote]4x Mk38 Mod2 25mm remotely controlled guns[/quote]
Given that we have Mk110 and CIWS, what does the Mk38 do for the BB? I'm missing your intent on this.

Overall, this excellent. Build it!

Regards,
Bob

[quote="ingura"]Hi Dave,

how many crew do you think would this Monster have?

Peter.[/quote]
Hey, Peter!!!
About 900. No more. In comparison to an aircraft carrier (3500) it's not a monster at all. It's an economy capital ship.

....

Alright, now that we have input from some thinkers, I would like to comment on what they had to say.

[quote="Seasick"]The Mk23 Target acquisitions system had a 2D radar on the main mast to locate and track targets that were queued from the AN/SPS-40 radar. [/quote]While the MK32 TAS was supposed to be installed aboard all 4 battleships in 1993 (hence why the [i]Wisconsin[/i]'s main mast was built with a larger platform than the other four while the other 3 ships were to receive a similarly large modification matching the mainmast). Both of those are out of date and are have been replaced by the wonderfully effective SPQ-9B 360 degree radar. They cue up ESSM and provide the platform with 100% radar horizon radar picture.

[quote="Seasick"]For ASW the BB needes a lot of passive defense. The ship sould be very quiet. Electrical motors are a must, no reduction gears connected to turbines. A top speed of 22 to 27 knots should be sufficient and the all electric design should be powered by the latest generation of diesel alternators. [/quote]I disagree. Carriers are noisy as :censored_2: and in fact they are twice as noisy as a WWII configured Iowa-class battleship. Like a carrier, a battleship would need to be as fast as possible. Either new construction ship or [i]Kentucky[/i] here would carry half the acoustic signature of a CVN. Super speed (such as 33+ knots) is just as important to the battleship as it is to the aircraft carrier in that it needs to arrive on station as soon as possible, because there are guys waiting for support. That is paramount. The speed of 22-27 knots you describe is a handicap that I would suggest you would wind up criticize by saying "the battleship can only reliably achieve 25 knots, so it is ineffective. By the time it arrives, the decisive engagement will be over". Seeing past this, the faster it goes the better. Since the available power plants will produce 280,000shp the ship should achieve 35knots cruising (without breaks to cool off the turbines) and 39-41 sprinting (with cooling time).

[quote="Seasick"]Volume of fire and range outweigh the need for a large bursting charge. In a perfect world a 155mm or 175mm naval gun to fire fin stabilized rounds out to 25 to 30 nautical miles with either IR or GPS guidance. Going after hardened bunkers shouldn't be a high priority for this gun. The rounds need to be optimized for anti-personal and light vehicle targets. Naval Gun fire support is most effective at breaking up enemy infantry movements. A 12 inch self loading mortor should be developed also.[/quote]While this is a well thought out point I would disagree. Since the battleship is acting in place of an aircraft carrier in important areas of interest needing more than CGs can provide but not worth a CVN, the ships will need to be able to deliver CVN amounts of ordnance. Remember, the BB is not simply a NGFS/NSFS weapon, it is replacing an aircraft carrier. As a result it needs to deliver a massive amount of ordnance. As the Iowas are, they deliver appro 6 times the ordnance of an CVN. A [i]Montana [/i]would deliver approx. 8-12 times that.

Thus I would disagree with and discard the recommendation for a 155mm or 8" soft ordnance delivery system in place of the 16" Naval Gun System; especially since in this situation the 16" guns and support systems are already in place and ready to be installed on the pre-comUSS [i]Kentucky[/i]. Like Seasick pointed out, however, the latest Sea Sparrow (ESSM) is the paramount defensive missile system for this ship. SM-2 of CGs and DDGs is unnecessary and a drain on the ship's resources.

So, now on to the mission of the configured battleship [i]Kentucky[/i]:

Situation:
The US Navy issued a decree saying that it needs 12 aircraft carriers (ships that can deliver the same ordnance as an aircraft carrier) to protect the United States of America and its allies and 10 aircraft carriers to itself alone.

Well, that has worked out okay, but now the Navy is looking at only having 9 active aircraft carriers. Two of those are in the yards and unavailable for deployment at all times for the foreseeable future. The USS [i]John F Kennedy [/i](CV-67) was decommissioned 12 years(!!!) ahead of scheduled, because of [i]horrible[/i] maintenance decisions], and the [i]Enterprise[/i] (CVN-65) is being cut early. One could accurately say that the [i]Kennedy[/i] (CV-67) was gang raped like a victimized school girl. USS [i]Kitty Hawk [/i]was decommissioned 5 years before schedule, and [i]Constellation [/i]was decommissioned 8 years before schedule. (So, we are already down 3 aircraft carriers.)

CNO Roughead has said that in order to save money the USS [i]Enterprise [/i]should be decommissioned as soon as possible. He claims this is reasonable, because "the US can do with 10 carriers until the USS [i]Gerald Ford[/i] is put in commission". I super disagree with that. That's taking it down to the situation that we cannot sustain any casualties amongst our carrier force at all (combat or accident causalities). In addition to all of that, as of 2009 President Obama has said the USS[i] Abraham Lincoln[/i] (CVN-72) will not be refueled. That fact alone removes the last straw to the US Navy's ability to defend the United States of America.

This results in a fleet of 9 aircraft carriers by the time the [i]Enterprise [/i]is decommissioned :frown_2: . This is not just unacceptable but dangerous to the security of the United States of America.

All of these decisions have been made as a result of extremely restricted (and some would say irresponsible) budget choices. These choices have been made by pursuing the DDX/DDG-1000 and LCS programs as aggressively as the Navy has. This has resulted in a national security crisis of a falling of capital ship levels to a pre-WWI level.

The reaction to this must be immediate, economical, and swift. The way to accomplish the task of bringing the force level back up to 12 capital ships (ships capable of delivering aircraft carrier levels of ordinance) in as little time at the greatest economy is the immediate modernization and reactivation of the Iowa-class battleships. We have already established that the battleships are extremely economical and cost effective.

In Russ's scenario, the (pre-USS) [i]Kentucky[/i]'s hull has been preserved and is ready for completion upon a modern weapons system and configuration is decided upon. Because of its WWII protection methods and planning for sustaining attack, unlike modern warship design, this super-survivable Iowa-class hull is a perfect vessel for 21st century technology in a ship actually meant to go into "harm's way" in the modern combat environment.

The USS [i]Kentucky[/i]'s (as well as any battleship in a modern environment) purpose and missions would be as follows:

Purpose:
Replace lost aircraft carrier numbers (hulls) without costly reactivation and yearly costs of decommissioned CVs or the costly refuel of the USS [i]Enterprise [/i]in addition to that of the USS [i]Abraham Lincoln[/i].

Missions:
Operate as the centerpiece of a battleship strike group (BSG) independent of aircraft carriers.

1. Operate offensively in areas of interest.
2. Operate as a sea-domination force (destroy up to 5 surface targets up to 80nm)
3. Operate in areas inaccessible/undesirable to aircraft carriers
4. Operate in areas of high priority to free aircraft carriers for more important areas of interst
5. Destroy shore targets at short or long range with massive amounts ordnance
6. Provide Naval Gunfire Support (NGFS/NSFS)
7. Support amphibious operations (invasion and on-ooing operations)
8. Perform surgical low-cost/high effect 16" strikes
9. Perform surgical or "alpha" level strikes up to 1000nm inland with TLAM
10. Provide NSFS to on-ground elements
11. Blockade
12. Air control for ASW, SAR, and patrol
13. Host and support SOF
14. UAV intelligence gathering
15. Electronic intelligence collection and tactical deception
16. Refuel accompanying ships in group
17. Influence other nations' political/military decisions
18. Show the flag in foreign waters and ports
19. Operate and fuel all types of helos used by the USN (SH-60, CH-53, V-22)
20. Flag Support
21. Defend itself against air threats (missile or aircraft)
22. Provide itself with point defense systems

In order to accomplish these missions we would have the following:
ASuW: 16" guns - a precision (laser/GPSGPS-guided) capability currently out to 47nm
. 8" guns - a precision (laser/GPS-guided) capability currently out to 21nm
. Harpoon ASM - 60-80 nm anti-ship missile capability
. Mk110 57mm rapid-fire horizon anti-small boat gun

AAW: ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile)
ASW: None

Armament:
9x 16"/50caliber Mk7 Mod1 naval guns
4x 8"/60caliber Mk71 Mod2 guns
4x 57mm Mk110 super rapid-fire guns

128 x Strike Length Mk-41 VLS tubes for 120 TLAM (Alpha-Strike capbility) and 8 for 32 ESSM
64 x Tactical Length Mk-41 VLS tubes for 64 Harpoon CIII ASM
Total:
192 Mk-41 VLS tubes

Defensive close in weapon systems:
4x Mk15 Block1B Phalanx CIWS
2x RAM
4x Mk38 Mod2 25mm remotely controlled guns

Electronics:
SPS-49(v)5
SPS-48G
SPS-67
SPQ-9B
SLQ-32(v)
3x SPG-62 Mod1(with track and scan capbility), or SPG-51D/E, or Mk95 bug-eyes
Standard electronics package such as SATCOM, etc.
OUTBOARD AN/SSQ-108(V)
NIXIE
Cooperative OUTBOARD Logistics Update (COBLU)
...and a bunch of other incidental stuff like TACAN, etc.

Aircraft:
2x SH-60B LAMPSIII helicopters in below-deck hanger aft of Turret 3
8-12 UAV (Pioneer BlockIII and/or SCANEAGLE) for gunfire spotting, laser designation, and intelligence gathering

Power plant:
8× 35,000 hp gas turbines (GE - LM 2500+) 280,000shp
6 × 4,000 kW diesel generators (Fairbanks Morse Engines) as just-in-case generators

Do we have any more inputs?

Hey, guys, I have to apologize for keeping you guys waiting (especially Russ). I am spending a lot of my time getting back in shape for the next Navy PFA, learning a LOT about the Navy's lightweight torpedoes, and learning about ASW. Carr just distracted me (...what a jerk) with a concept for a new Flight of Perry-class.

..by the way, Bob, 32-cells, no fewer :heh: There is room, and Harpoons are too easy. If you can, why not. There is nothing like a surface ship getting its @$$ wooped by an ASW ship.

Thanks to the contributions by Seasick and SumGui. Hooyah, guys. I will be back in a minute.

[quote="Russ2146"]Dave,
I think that all you're going to get on Mission. Now I think its time for the Design Board to take over.

Russ[/quote]

I agree, you guys have re-hashed the mission enough into a very solid set of a requirements; its good to go!

Could we get a recap on weapons layout please? The more detailed the better? I'll add some input in that area. I'm also more than happy to do some line drawings or concept drawings if needed.