Shipbucket
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/

Alternative Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact (Revisited)
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=3715		 Page 3 of 8
Author:  eswube [ November 14th, 2012, 7:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact (Revisited)
I must admit that I find Your backstory about Syria/Palestine, Sinai and Suez Canal somewhat... ekhem... convoluted and still have some reservations about it (actually even more than initially ;) ). But ok, let it be as it is.

But the ships and parts sheets... AMAZING and AWESOME! :o :shock: :D
Author:  Portsmouth Bill [ November 14th, 2012, 8:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact (Revisited)
I'm Awestruck by these designs; just goes to show that The Master is still on form :D
Author:  Hood [ November 15th, 2012, 2:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact (Revisited)
A truely masterful peice of work. I thought the Soviet Master had been quiet for too long... he must have been working in the shipyard for months to acheive all these great works!
Author:  Gollevainen [ November 15th, 2012, 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact (Revisited)
Almoust a year actually;)

...and all the flashy stuff is still yet to come...
Author:  gral [ November 15th, 2012, 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact (Revisited)
Nitpick: On the Grisha drawing, you listed the sensor fit twice, once in the correct place, and the other where armament fit was supposed to be listed.
Author:  erik_t [ November 16th, 2012, 1:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact (Revisited)
Great stuff, Golly.

One thought. What era do you envision for Big Wall? Early in the design process for what would become Long Beach, the USN played around with various phased array configurations. As the design matured, it became clear that it would be much easier to stabilize the tracking beams (which were narrow pencil beams) against the ship's motion if the arrays were facing right forward, aft and to each beam. This way, fore and aft arrays needed to be stabilized only in pitch, and beam arrays only in roll. Arrays that were at 45deg would all need to be stabilized in both pitch and roll.

It's notable that the Burkes were the very first ships to actually be built with 45deg arrays (which by that point were a cost saving measure, requiring only a single transmitter in a single deckhouse rather than two in two deckhouses). Long Beach, Enterprise, and the various Sky Watch designs all showed fore/aft/beam arrays.

I think it would be appropriate for your forthcoming designs to reflect this, rather than the 45deg arrays you're currently showing on the parts sheet.
Author:  klagldsf [ November 16th, 2012, 1:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact (Revisited)
What about CGSN/DGX? All of those designs show 45-degree arrays, in separate deckhouses no less.
Author:  erik_t [ November 16th, 2012, 2:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact (Revisited)
I thought the 'very first to actually be built' part was fairly clear.

In any case:
  • CGN-42 etc., products of the late 1970s, had computers far in excess of anything available in the 1960s anywhere, and probably better than would be cheaply available to the Eastern Bloc into the late 1980s.
  • Aegis computer requirements dramatically trumped mere beam-stabilization issues.
  • CG-47 arrangement (both facings and number of deckhouses) was totally dictated by the Spruance engine room layout.
Author:  klagldsf [ November 19th, 2012, 3:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact (Revisited)
erik_t wrote:
I thought the 'very first to actually be built' part was fairly clear.
CGSN and DGX still came before CG-47 so that was confusing - but my questions are cleared up now.
Author:  Gollevainen [ November 19th, 2012, 5:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact (Revisited)
Quote:
Nitpick: On the Grisha drawing, you listed the sensor fit twice, once in the correct place, and the other where armament fit was supposed to be listed.
Nice for you to spot that. I've been messing around with these drawings some many times over that something like that was bound to happen. I'll fix the template once I get home.

For Erik about the Tron/Big Wall (which apparently is another mistake from my part as that is one of the Komintern designs, should be Mars-Passat/Sky Watch in its place) it dates around same time as the OTL Mars-Passat or perhaps little bit earlier. The angled fit of the system is for the pr. 1153 carrier which OTL dates around 1973 for preminary design, I guess it would have entered in service about the same time as in this AU which is around 1979-81.

Interesting to note that the Sky Watch fits that saw daylight in OTL were in fact fitted right forward and sideways as you descriped. However the first time the system is mentioned is in the Pr. 1153 where the "Burke" like arrangment. But I'm not sure how far that system was in the terms of operationally when the models of that project were made. Perhaps it was more of an artistical appeal to fit the arrays 45deg and later when the system was first fitted on Baku it was already chosen to go with the straight forward/side 90deg arragement.

I will return to this matter once I get to the carriers.
Page 3 of 8 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/