To further clarify, I think it’s possible for Taihei Tengoku to be able to have a ship design with a practical displacement of somewhere between 3,400 and 3,600 standard tons vessel that meets their range requirements. What realistically said ship design could accommodate in weight for sensors and armament I’m unsure of. This is why I’m also of the opinion that Taihei Tengoku should just forget the minimum practical design and instead simply focus on a more multipurpose larger derivative design exclusively instead of as the latter part of their design plan phases.
If were voting on crazy sailing vessels, then my vote goes to a modern version of large clippers and windjammers like this & this.
Mitheldalond wrote:I also believe it places far too much weight on speed when it comes to calculating seakeeping (I don't buy that my knock-off HMS Devastation is a good seaboat, no matter how slowly it goes).
I don’t understand the problem. By all historical accounts, HMS Devastation (the 1871 one) was a pretty good sea boat. You’re recreating a design as accurately as possible that was a good seaboat historically, but are somehow mad that’s its imperfectly generated computer model is also still a good seaboat. That makes no sense.
“Devastation proved successful on trials, being a steady gun platform and a good steamer. Although her forecastle was subject to being washed down in a seaway, she was a good seaboat and rolled and pitched less than many broadside ironclads. She generally remained dry amidships and heavy weather did not affect her fighting ability except for her low freeboard fwd limiting her speed.”