Royal Navy Ships for 1947

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Saturday, August 1st 2015, 4:24pm

1947 Naval Planning Committee

There has been no work on any capital ships and none are projected before 1950.

HMS Ocean has been successfully rebuilt with a prototype steam catapult and trials are underway. Carriers K & L (HMS Albion and HMS Centaur) will commission in early 1947. The design for a future fleet carrier, Carriers Q and R, has been further refined with the use of two new BAH.II steam catapults and replacement of twin 57mm 6pdr AA mounts with the new sextuple 40mm 2pdr mount currently under development. The DNO expects Vickers to have a trial mounting ready by January 1947 for shore based testing. It is probable that all carriers and capital ships with 6pdr mounts will receive some of these mounts before 1950. HMS Ark Royal is to be refitted from late 1946 to accommodate steam catapults and will also carry the new mounts. The DNE has confirmed that the loss of steam power using the catapults will be no greater than that for the current hydraulic accelerators and therefore no additional boiler capacity is required. The earlier more ambitious plan to raise the upper hanger and flight deck has been dropped.

The second batch of four Northumberland Class heavy cruisers have been laid to replace the Howe Class from 1948 was approved by the committee. The DNO reported on the progress of the automatic 6in mount programme during the past twelve months. The decision not to build a seagoing prototype, briefly considering rebuilding a surplus County Class hull, was agreed. DNC had looked at two new light cruisers using the new gun and mounting. Design A1 was based on the Northumberland Class but with five twin mounts, only four 4.5in mounts and thinner 4.5in thick belt, the slightly slimmer hull allowed a 0.5kts increase in speed using the same 100,000shp machinery. Design A2 was 40ft shorter and only had four turrets for a much cheaper design. Controller Admiral Charles Saumarez Daniel felt the smaller design had more promise and the DGD felt four turrets would be easier to control with two ended fire-control systems. At 12,500 tons standard displacement the design was still not cheap nor could it use the smaller dry docks available overseas. The Committee was clear however that given the expenditure on the 6in gun a class of at least five ships should be built, at least ten light cruisers were already earmarked for decommissioning within the next two years.

Trials with the ‘Special’ HMS Revolution continue. The DNC has drawn up a productionised version with B mount raised to be superfiring and Q mount moved to X position superfiring Y mount. The fixed torpedo tubes will be moved to the upper deck and the twin 6pdr mounts may be replaced by the new sextuple 2pdr mounts. Although expensive the Committee decided to ask the Treasury for funds to lay down four ships.
Due to lack of progress on the ASWRE Mortar D, the proposed Q and P Classes will now be staggered 1947-48 programme as initially envisioned. The DNC’s larger two 4.5in mount ship was selected. The eight Qs will be fitted with twin Squid mortars and the eight Ps a single Mortar D (now codenamed Limbo).

The River Class sloops continue to commission in batches of four, the fifth batch was laid down during 1946 and a sixth batch was approved for 1947. Work has begun on a new sloop to finally replace the Mountain Class. The design drawn up by DNC is larger with two 4.5in Mk.VI mounts, twin Squid mortars and a 15,000hp ‘mini-YARD’ standardised machinery unit for a speed of 27.5kts. It is hoped later vessels may replace the aft 4.5in mount with two Limbo mortars. At 1,210 tons light they are bigger and more expensive than the Rivers but will offer a fully modern destroyer-like command spaces and fire-control systems. It is hoped to lay down at least a single prototype in 1947.

Two additional Beach Class Landing Ship Tanks will be laid down during 1947, these ships have been delayed since 1944 and plans for another two have been postponed.

No decision was reached on whether to order another batch of five W Class submarines.

The Treasury have refused to fund a Polar expedition ship and the Terra Nova design has been placed in abeyance.

Quoted

Ark Royal Class, Great Britain Aircraft Carrier laid down 1932

Displacement:
21,240 t light; 22,008 t standard; 24,803 t normal; 27,039 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
691.38 ft / 685.00 ft x 94.75 ft x 27.75 ft (normal load)
210.73 m / 208.79 m x 28.88 m x 8.46 m

Armament:
16 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (8x2 guns), 45.00lbs / 20.41kg shells, 1945 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread
36 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (6x6 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1944 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns in single mounts, 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1944 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 824 lbs / 374 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 550

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 485.00 ft / 147.83 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 109 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.00" / 25 mm 485.00 ft / 147.83 m 26.00 ft / 7.92 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm -
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Armour deck: 3.00" / 76 mm, Conning tower: 5.00" / 127 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 122,009 shp / 91,019 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,031 tons

Complement:
987 - 1,284

Cost:
£6.067 million / $24.269 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 104 tons, 0.4 %
Armour: 4,082 tons, 16.5 %
- Belts: 980 tons, 3.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 467 tons, 1.9 %
- Armament: 90 tons, 0.4 %
- Armour Deck: 2,455 tons, 9.9 %
- Conning Tower: 92 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 3,601 tons, 14.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,553 tons, 30.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,563 tons, 14.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 5,900 tons, 23.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
36,313 lbs / 16,471 Kg = 797.0 x 4.5 " / 114 mm shells or 5.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 5.5 ft / 1.7 m
Roll period: 16.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.05
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.22

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.482
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.23 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30.77 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 12.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Mid (25 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Stern: 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Average freeboard: 23.78 ft / 7.25 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 98.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 196.7 %
Waterplane Area: 44,230 Square feet or 4,109 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 138 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 121 lbs/sq ft or 588 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.45
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

25% refit changes
4.7in replaced by 4.5in
Octuple 2pdr replaced by sextuple 2pdr
HMG mounts replaced by 2pdr singles
New BAH Mk.II steam catapults (115ft long) fitted
New AIO installed in hull linked to revised bridges
Four new Close Range Blind Firing (CRBF) directors with Type 298 RDF
Two new Gunnery Director Type 288 with Tallboy console
Addition of electrical equipment; one Type 971 aerial search, one Type 276 high definiition surface search, two Type 972 height-finding, one Type 295Q VHF Direction Finder, Passive Radio Intercept Type 293 series and Passive Radio-Location Intercept Type 294 series

Quoted

Carriers Q & R, Great Britain Aircraft Carrier laid down 1947

Displacement:
35,868 t light; 36,923 t standard; 40,313 t normal; 43,026 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
896.02 ft / 850.00 ft x 120.00 ft x 29.00 ft (normal load)
273.11 m / 259.08 m x 36.58 m x 8.84 m

Armament:
16 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (8x2 guns), 45.00lbs / 20.41kg shells, 1945 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
72 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (12x6 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1945 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
12 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1944 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 888 lbs / 403 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 450

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.50" / 114 mm 630.00 ft / 192.02 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 114 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.50" / 64 mm 800.00 ft / 243.84 m 26.00 ft / 7.92 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm -
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Armour deck: 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 155,500 shp / 116,003 Kw = 32.02 kts
Range 12,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,103 tons

Complement:
1,422 - 1,849

Cost:
£13.835 million / $55.338 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 130 tons, 0.3 %
Armour: 9,123 tons, 22.6 %
- Belts: 1,893 tons, 4.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,924 tons, 4.8 %
- Armament: 110 tons, 0.3 %
- Armour Deck: 5,121 tons, 12.7 %
- Conning Tower: 76 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 3,841 tons, 9.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 14,174 tons, 35.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,445 tons, 11.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 8,600 tons, 21.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
100,402 lbs / 45,541 Kg = 2,203.6 x 4.5 " / 114 mm shells or 19.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.27
Metacentric height 10.1 ft / 3.1 m
Roll period: 15.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.03
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.89

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.477
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.08 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 34.37 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 37
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 55.00 ft / 16.76 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 55.00 ft / 16.76 m (32.00 ft / 9.75 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Quarterdeck (22 %): 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Stern: 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Average freeboard: 36.60 ft / 11.16 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 69.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 296.6 %
Waterplane Area: 69,196 Square feet or 6,429 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 152 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 143 lbs/sq ft or 698 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.94
- Longitudinal: 1.76
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Hangar deck: 625 x 90 x 18ft
Served by three 45 x 39ft lifts with a capacity for 30,000lbs
Two BAH.II steam catapults (151ft long) with capacity for 40,000lbs aircraft
Arrestor gear of 10 wires, 1 trickle wire, 3 forward wires and two safety barriers
Air Group: 80-120 plus 16 spare aircraft carrie disassembled for attrition replacement

Deck Armour: 1in flight deck, 3in main deck, 1in lower deck (1,282 tons misc weight to sim flight deck armour)
Torpedo Bulkhead: Two 1in and one 0.5in thick bulkheads

Radar Equipment:
Ten Heavy Automatic Gunnery Director Radar Type 289 (CRBF)
Two Gunnery Directior Type 288 with 'Tallboy' console
One Target Indication Type 980
One Aerial Search Type 971
One Surface Search High Definition Type 276
Two Height-Finder Radar Type 972
Passive Radio Intercept Type 293 series
Passive Radar Intercept Type 294 series
VHF Direction Finder Type 295Q
Radio-Location Jammer RU series

Quoted

Production Revolution, Great Britain Cruiser-Destroyer laid down 1947

Displacement:
3,534 t light; 3,708 t standard; 4,207 t normal; 4,605 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
463.00 ft / 448.00 ft x 48.60 ft x 14.70 ft (normal load)
141.12 m / 136.55 m x 14.81 m x 4.48 m

Armament:
4 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns in single mounts, 80.00lbs / 36.29kg shells, 1945 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (2x6 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1945 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 344 lbs / 156 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 450
8 - 24.5" / 622.3 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 120.00 ft / 36.58 m 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 41 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.50" / 38 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm -

- Conning tower: 0.50" / 13 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 60,000 shp / 44,760 Kw = 34.01 kts
Range 7,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 897 tons

Complement:
260 - 339

Cost:
£2.732 million / $10.926 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 53 tons, 1.3 %
Armour: 196 tons, 4.7 %
- Belts: 165 tons, 3.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 28 tons, 0.7 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 3 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 1,482 tons, 35.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,523 tons, 36.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 673 tons, 16.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 280 tons, 6.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
2,954 lbs / 1,340 Kg = 35.5 x 5.5 " / 140 mm shells or 0.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.18
Metacentric height 2.3 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 13.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.26
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.27

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.460
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.22 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.43 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 65 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 24.36 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26.50 ft / 8.08 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 21.50 ft / 6.55 m
- Mid (50 %): 20.50 ft / 6.25 m
- Quarterdeck (14 %): 20.50 ft / 6.25 m
- Stern: 20.50 ft / 6.25 m
- Average freeboard: 21.25 ft / 6.48 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 132.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 144.8 %
Waterplane Area: 14,550 Square feet or 1,352 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 109 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 56 lbs/sq ft or 274 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.65
- Longitudinal: 2.62
- Overall: 0.75
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Belt armour is box protection for magazines (40 tons misc weight to sim box roofs)
Torpedo tubes are fixed at an anlge of 55 degrees with one reload for each tube
Twin Squid A/S Mortars are fitted

Electronic Systems;
Surface Search Type 970 X-Band
Height-Finder Radio-Location Type 272
Aerial Search Type 971
Two Gunnery Director Type 288 with 'Tallboy' console
Three Heavy Automatic Gunnery Director Type 289 mounted on three CRBF (Close-Range Blind Firing)
VHF Direction Finder Type 295Q
Type 293 Passive Radio Intercept series (293P, Q, M & O)
Type 297 Passive Radio-Location Intercept (S, C and X-Bands)
ASDIC Type 147
Deep ASDIC Type 148
Depth-Finding ASDIC Type 145

Quoted

Bay Class, Great Britain Sloop laid down 1947

Displacement:
1,210 t light; 1,272 t standard; 1,435 t normal; 1,564 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
340.55 ft / 330.00 ft x 40.00 ft x 9.10 ft (normal load)
103.80 m / 100.58 m x 12.19 m x 2.77 m

Armament:
4 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (2x2 guns), 45.00lbs / 20.41kg shells, 1945 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
6 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (3x2 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 192 lbs / 87 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.50" / 64 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 15,000 shp / 11,190 Kw = 27.71 kts
Range 5,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 292 tons

Complement:
116 - 151

Cost:
£0.861 million / $3.445 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 29 tons, 2.0 %
Armour: 22 tons, 1.5 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 22 tons, 1.5 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 371 tons, 25.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 539 tons, 37.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 224 tons, 15.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 250 tons, 17.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,303 lbs / 591 Kg = 28.6 x 4.5 " / 114 mm shells or 0.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.25
Metacentric height 1.9 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 12.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.22
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.50

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.418
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.25 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 21.31 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 61 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 33
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2.00 ft / 0.61 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 23.50 ft / 7.16 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 23.50 ft / 7.16 m (17.00 ft / 5.18 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
- Quarterdeck (10 %): 10.00 ft / 3.05 m (17.00 ft / 5.18 m before break)
- Stern: 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Average freeboard: 17.73 ft / 5.40 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 119.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 238.1 %
Waterplane Area: 8,531 Square feet or 793 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 115 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 35 lbs/sq ft or 170 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 2.91
- Overall: 0.59
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Class Names:

Misc Weight includes:
ASDIC Type 148
Depth-Finding ASDIC Type 145
Passive ASDIC Type 147
Passive Torpedo Warning ASDIC Type 941
Surface Search Type 970
Target Indication Type 287P
Gunnery Director Mk VI with Type 288
Close Range Blind Fire Director (CRBF) with Type 289
HF/DF Type 292
Passive Radio Intercept Type 293 Series
Passive RDF Intercept Type 297
2x Squid A/S Mortar with 30x projectiles per mortar

Go to the top of the page

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

2

Saturday, August 29th 2015, 12:03pm

A potential light cruiser design to make use of the new twin 6in auto under development for several years.

Northumberland Class, Great Britain Heavy Cruiser laid down 1947

Displacement:
12,600 t light; 13,272 t standard; 15,093 t normal; 16,549 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
651.91 ft / 645.00 ft x 75.00 ft x 20.00 ft (normal load)
198.70 m / 196.60 m x 22.86 m x 6.10 m

Armament:
10 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (5x2 guns), 112.00lbs / 50.80kg shells, 1947 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (4x2 guns), 45.56lbs / 20.67kg shells, 1945 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread
24 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x6 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,547 lbs / 702 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 400
12 - 24.5" / 622.3 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.50" / 114 mm 340.00 ft / 103.63 m 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 81 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 3.00" / 76 mm 4.00" / 102 mm
2nd: 1.50" / 38 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -
4th: 0.50" / 13 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Armour deck: 3.00" / 76 mm, Conning tower: 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 120,000 shp / 89,520 Kw = 33.93 kts
Range 7,000nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,277 tons

Complement:
680 - 885

Cost:
£7.597 million / $30.388 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 224 tons, 1.5 %
Armour: 3,178 tons, 21.1 %
- Belts: 740 tons, 4.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 468 tons, 3.1 %
- Armour Deck: 1,943 tons, 12.9 %
- Conning Tower: 26 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 2,964 tons, 19.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,853 tons, 38.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,493 tons, 16.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 380 tons, 2.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
26,621 lbs / 12,075 Kg = 246.5 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 2.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.19
Metacentric height 4.5 ft / 1.4 m
Roll period: 14.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.22
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.05

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.546
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.60 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.18 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 12.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.50 ft / 9.91 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Mid (65 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Stern: 24.90 ft / 7.59 m
- Average freeboard: 24.99 ft / 7.62 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 80.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 181.6 %
Waterplane Area: 35,013 Square feet or 3,253 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 134 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 113 lbs/sq ft or 554 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.47
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

RDF Sets
One Aerial Search Type 971 set
One Surface Search Type 970 set
One Height-Finder and Surface Search Type 277 set
Five Gunnery Director Type 988 fitted directors with Tallboy consoles (two primary and three secondary directors)
Four Close-Range Blind Fire (CRBF) directors with Type 289 fitted
HF/DF Type 292
Passive Radio Intercept Type 293 series
Passive RDF Intercept Type 297
Fitted for but not with two RU-series jammers
ASDIC Type 146

Go to the top of the page

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

3

Sunday, November 15th 2015, 5:22pm

I have still not decided whether to build any 6in automatic cruisers or scrap the entire project.
I've plenty of 5.5in armed AACLs now and the 6in ship would mainly be an anti-surface ship and now the bigger Northumberlands seem able to handle that role much more effectively.

The production Revolutions will be known as the Town class, thus moving naming traditions closer to scout cruisers of old.

The Terra Nova has finally made it into the programme. I've rejigged slightly to fit radar and three new 2,500hp Admiralty-Paxman diesels, prototypes for a future 3,000hp engine for submarines and ship use.

HMS Terra Nova, Great Britain Antarctic Survey Ship laid down 1947

Displacement:
1,126 t light; 1,160 t standard; 1,667 t normal; 2,072 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
231.70 ft / 225.00 ft x 36.00 ft x 13.00 ft (normal load)
70.62 m / 68.58 m x 10.97 m x 3.96 m

Armament:
2 - 0.66" / 16.8 mm guns in single mounts, 0.14lbs / 0.07kg shells, 1947 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 0 lbs / 0 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 5,000

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.20" / 30 mm 131.99 ft / 40.23 m 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
Ends: 1.20" / 30 mm 92.99 ft / 28.34 m 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
Main Belt covers 90 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 7,500 shp / 5,595 Kw = 20.40 kts
Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 912 tons

Complement:
129 - 169

Cost:
£0.475 million / $1.902 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 79 tons, 4.7 %
- Belts: 79 tons, 4.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 185 tons, 11.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 581 tons, 34.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 541 tons, 32.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 280 tons, 16.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
4,305 lbs / 1,953 Kg = 29,810.6 x 0.7 " / 17 mm shells or 1.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 1.5 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 12.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.78

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.554
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.25 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15.00 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 65 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 28
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Mid (50 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Stern: 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
- Average freeboard: 17.04 ft / 5.19 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 55.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 138.2 %
Waterplane Area: 5,674 Square feet or 527 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 228 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 50 lbs/sq ft or 244 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.88
- Longitudinal: 7.70
- Overall: 1.09
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Misc Weight
90 tons for survey/ research crew qaurters, 3 tons per person
120 tons for survey equipment and deck handling gear
5 tons for navigation and surface search RDF set
35 tons for arcticisation
30 tons reserve

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

4

Sunday, November 15th 2015, 6:51pm

Quoted

I have still not decided whether to build any 6in automatic cruisers or scrap the entire project.
I've plenty of 5.5in armed AACLs now and the 6in ship would mainly be an anti-surface ship and now the bigger Northumberlands seem able to handle that role much more effectively.

Now I am no expert, but what advantages does the 6in automatic give you over the 5.5in automatic? To me I would say "not much" and considering that you have "plenty of 5.5in armed AACLs now", I would think that it is best to stick to that one if it is capable enough.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

5

Sunday, November 15th 2015, 9:02pm

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

I have still not decided whether to build any 6in automatic cruisers or scrap the entire project.
I've plenty of 5.5in armed AACLs now and the 6in ship would mainly be an anti-surface ship and now the bigger Northumberlands seem able to handle that role much more effectively.

Now I am no expert, but what advantages does the 6in automatic give you over the 5.5in automatic? To me I would say "not much" and considering that you have "plenty of 5.5in armed AACLs now", I would think that it is best to stick to that one if it is capable enough.

In my personal opinion, I'd concur.

Go to the top of the page

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

6

Monday, November 16th 2015, 9:43am

I must confess the same thoughts. I've been working on the 6in auto (effectively the OTL Mk26) since 1940 or so and probably invested a great deal of money but I can't see the reason to build a 6in auto armed cruiser, or any new light cruisers for that matter, for the time being.
The cruiser-destroyer of course is new concept to fill that role, and I'm currently working on another radical cruiser-sized ship idea which I'll share later when I've worked up the details.

Go to the top of the page

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

7

Sunday, November 22nd 2015, 1:16pm

In Gravina's time, he built three seaplane carriers; one large traditional seaplane carriers (HMS Pegasus) and two hybrid cruiser carriers with a 6in armament (HMS Engadine & Athene).
All now serve as ocean scouts, fulfilling much the role of the smaller Ocean class carriers, but with seaplanes. Now these 1920s ships are aging and despite refit are obsolete (open-shield 6in guns) and despite the Blackburn B.40 two-seat fighter/recon aircraft, newer types are unlikely and the ships cannot really operate rotary-wing types.

Therefore the Admiralty are looking for like-for-like replacements as ocean scouts carrying a small airgroup of helicopters or autogyros with a large open carrier-like deck but retaining a gun armament for self defence.
I have drawn up two options;
A - a light cruiser-sized vessel, 2x2 4.5in, 9x aircraft, based on the OTL Study 21H2 escort cruiser design of 1960 but with a 4.5in instead of Sea Slug forward and the 4.5in mounted aft on the island. Note this is inspiration for layout, not a 1960s ship I'm proposing.
B - a large destroyer-sized vessel, 1x2 4.5in, 6x aircraft, based on the OTL Study 6D of 1960 in terms of layout but with 4.5in instead of Tatrar.

Light armour covers the vitals in boxes, the hangars are integral with the hull, they have no ASW weapons but do have ASDIC, I'd be interested in opinions on whether they should be ASW escorts too. Unlike OTL developments these are inspired from, I see these as scouting ships able to defend themselves from light ships (they are normally in consort with a CL anyway). Another (as yet unsimmed) choice is a single 5.5in auto gun, perhaps forming a group with four Revolution/ Town Class ships.
Option D would be a basic CVE type vessel but it would be weakly armed but potentially useful.

Any thoughts are most welcome.

Quoted

Scout A, Great Britain Rotary-Wing Carrier Scout laid down 1947

Displacement:
5,415 t light; 5,578 t standard; 6,678 t normal; 7,559 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
442.63 ft / 435.00 ft x 55.00 ft x 19.50 ft (normal load)
134.91 m / 132.59 m x 16.76 m x 5.94 m

Armament:
2 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (1x2 guns), 45.00lbs / 20.41kg shells, 1945 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in a deck mount with hoist
on centreline forward
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1945 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 106 lbs / 48 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 450

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm 75.00 ft / 22.86 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 27 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.50" / 38 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 0.50" / 13 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 60,000 shp / 44,760 Kw = 31.34 kts
Range 12,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,981 tons

Complement:
369 - 480

Cost:
£2.983 million / $11.932 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 16 tons, 0.2 %
Armour: 704 tons, 10.5 %
- Belts: 75 tons, 1.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 11 tons, 0.2 %
- Armour Deck: 614 tons, 9.2 %
- Conning Tower: 4 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 1,482 tons, 22.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,788 tons, 41.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,263 tons, 18.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 425 tons, 6.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
13,748 lbs / 6,236 Kg = 301.7 x 4.5 " / 114 mm shells or 1.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
Metacentric height 2.7 ft / 0.8 m
Roll period: 14.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.06
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.84

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise aft of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.501
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.91 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.26 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 66 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 38
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2.00 ft / 0.61 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Mid (30 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m (32.00 ft / 9.75 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Stern: 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Average freeboard: 28.04 ft / 8.55 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 81.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 255.6 %
Waterplane Area: 16,592 Square feet or 1,541 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 158 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 78 lbs/sq ft or 380 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.80
- Longitudinal: 7.27
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Notes

Main Belt armour is box protection for magazines and aviation stores
Aviation fuel (320 tons) simmed as bunkerage, normal range is 10,000nm at 20kts, with 1,661 tons (could be used as additional bunkaerage in emergency)

Misc Weight:
150 tons for 6x rotary-wing/ gyrocopters/ small seaplanes
30 tons for aviation stores
85 tons for accomodation for 42 air wing personnel
80 tons for CIC
40 tons for RDF
20 tons for electronic gear
20 tons for ASDIC

Quoted

Scout B, Great Britain Rotary-Wing Carrier Scout laid down 1947

Displacement:
6,929 t light; 7,183 t standard; 9,473 t normal; 11,305 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
544.43 ft / 535.00 ft x 65.00 ft x 19.30 ft (normal load)
165.94 m / 163.07 m x 19.81 m x 5.88 m

Armament:
2 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (1x2 guns), 45.00lbs / 20.41kg shells, 1945 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in a deck mount with hoist
on centreline forward
2 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (1x2 guns), 45.00lbs / 20.41kg shells, 1945 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in a deck mount with hoist
on side amidships, all raised guns
6 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (1x6 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1945 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
on side forward
4 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1945 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 200 lbs / 91 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 500

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm 86.00 ft / 26.21 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 25 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.50" / 38 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
2nd: 1.50" / 38 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -
4th: 0.50" / 13 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 0.50" / 13 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 60,000 shp / 44,760 Kw = 30.35 kts
Range 12,000nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,122 tons

Complement:
479 - 624

Cost:
£3.455 million / $13.819 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 30 tons, 0.3 %
Armour: 997 tons, 10.5 %
- Belts: 88 tons, 0.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 18 tons, 0.2 %
- Armour Deck: 887 tons, 9.4 %
- Conning Tower: 5 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 1,482 tons, 15.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,840 tons, 40.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,544 tons, 26.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 580 tons, 6.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
27,109 lbs / 12,297 Kg = 595.0 x 4.5 " / 114 mm shells or 3.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.31
Metacentric height 4.3 ft / 1.3 m
Roll period: 13.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.06
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise aft of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.494
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.23 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.84 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 35
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Mid (30 %): 21.00 ft / 6.40 m (30.00 ft / 9.14 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Stern: 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Average freeboard: 27.54 ft / 8.39 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 61.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 272.6 %
Waterplane Area: 23,961 Square feet or 2,226 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 198 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 89 lbs/sq ft or 437 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.87
- Longitudinal: 3.53
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Notes

Main Belt armour is box protection for magazines and aviation stores
Aviation fuel (673 tons) simmed as bunkerage, normal range is 10,000nm at 20kts, with 3,449 tons (could be used as additional bunkaerage in emergency)

Misc Weight:
225 tons for 9x rotary-wing/ gyrocopters/ small seaplanes
45 tons for aviation stores
110 tons for accomodation for 55 air wing personnel
100 tons for CIC
40 tons for RDF
20 tons for electronic gear
20 tons for ASDIC

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

8

Sunday, November 22nd 2015, 4:07pm

I find such a high seaboat rating unnecessary especially when it means that valuable hull strength is unnecessarily being wasted in such manner by making the hangar part of the hull rather than just making the hangar part of the superstructure... but that is just the way I look at it. Also comparing the two designs, if you are really set on simming the hangar like that, I think it should be easily possible for the Scout B design to have an 18 ft forecastle area like the Scout A design instead of the current 20ft one and the Scout A design should easily have the 30ft raised area of the Scout B design instead of its current 32ft one.

"Aviation fuel", "aviation stores" and "air wing personnel accommodation" I consider to be part of the tonnage assigned to the aircraft, unless it is extra stuff (in which case it would be best if it was marked as such).

Also is the second 4.5" gun on the side with the Scout B design a sim error or deliberate?

Regarding the ASW escort option, I could see something like a hedgehog firing over the 4.5" gun being placed on it as extra, although the main ASW job would still be done by the vessels this one would be escorting.

Go to the top of the page

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

9

Monday, November 23rd 2015, 2:11am

Unless the RN is positing significant advances in the weapons and sensor systems available to rotary wing aircraft, I am not convinced that the investment in tonnage to put six or nine helicopters to see is worth it. They are described as scouts - surface search is far better accomplished by a fixed wing aircraft (I will admit that you have allowed for such); if aimed at submarines, I do not think that we have generally reached level of technology where effective A/S helos would be fielded; is it our general consensus that we have? As ships employed independently, they are extremely under-armed, at least IMHO. If employed as part of a task force, exactly what role would they play?

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

10

Monday, November 23rd 2015, 6:05am

I kinda feel the same as Bruce. Over the last few quarters I've given some consideration to doing something much along these lines, principally for Russia. But I don't see helicopters gaining the necessary capabilities for ASW until the mid to late 1950s, and for surface search, a floatplane has more range and speed. (Gyrocopters have the worst of both worlds, being too slow and under-armed and still requiring a flight deck, albeit not as large.) Personally, I believe that for a helicopter to take over the antisubmarine warfare roles, then several things need to happen. First, deck guns need to be pretty much eliminated from submarines - otherwise, it may be an entirely reasonable choice for the sub to stay on the surface and fight it out against the helicopter. Second, the helicopter needs both a viable dipping sonar and a weapon to use against a submarine while submerged.

For scouting, transitioning to helicopters results in dramatic drop in operational radius, as well as a lower effective operational altitude from which to conduct reconnaissance. The loss of capabilities is far too extreme to justify the switch, I feel.

Of the options you outlined, I feel only the CVE-style vessel has any real operational merit given the level of technology currently at hand... because it can just go ahead and operate fixed-wing aircraft.

I will note for sake of transparency that Chile has an operational helicopter-cruiser, the Marina Guardia Hyatt, which has now been in service for several years. In that case, I was attempting to make the best of a poorly-designed ship, rather than trying to revolutionize something. The Chileans, having experience in operating this sort of vessel, would say "Don't expect anything of consequence".

Go to the top of the page

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

11

Monday, November 23rd 2015, 12:44pm

For what it is worth, Germany has had some experience with operating rotorcraft from small hulls – the F-class fleet sloops of 1937 (designed by Hrolf) were built with landing pads for the small Flettner helicopters, and when these ships were rebuilt as the Jagd class corvettes the helo facilities were expanded somewhat.

As far as the KM is concerned, they are not successful in the helicopter role – the Flettner helo has been found to be too fragile for oceanic operations and is a design dead end; the newer Fa 336 is too large to operate off such a small platform; and while the KM is working to develop a useful helo, at the moment the technology does not allow for one capable of operating from these ships.

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

12

Monday, November 23rd 2015, 2:53pm

I've hummed and hawed over the matter, giving thought to similar-sized vessels for similar-sized roles. At the moment, though, I'm not really satisfied the combat utility is there.

I do foresee helicopter pads showing up on Bharati ships - particularly auxiliaries - to support utility functions such as transferring small quantities or cargo, passengers, and such, before 1950. Don't imagine most warships would have any more dedicated facilities than a relatively clean quarterdeck, though.

Go to the top of the page

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

13

Monday, November 23rd 2015, 3:01pm

Thanks for the feedback guys. It's always to kick around these kind of ideas and see if there is any use in them, despite whatever sense it makes in my crazy head!

ASW is not the mission for these ships, never entered my mind other than perhaps as a convoy escort in a big war.

Aerial reconnaissance is a tricky thing at the moment. Most CLs still have catapults aboard them but as new AA weapons (often larger mounts) are fitted, space becomes a premium and addition of radar is increasing topweight and catapults are an easy item to remove to cut back on weight and topweight especially. Those same radars are largely making spotter planes redundant for local over-the-horizon recon and gunnery spotting. Also, new seaplanes are not being designed and they are increasingly vulnerable. The FAA is lucky to have the innovative Blackburn fighter-recon, but most cruisers have lumbering biplane Sea Otters and the new Seagull is too big.
So while CLs are losing a less vital tool, the taskforce commander or squadron commander has lost some strategic vision. He may call for carrier support; the RN has a larger carrier fleet (actually bigger than I had initially planned) but is strike and fleet orientated. The four Ocean class are the only scout carrier forces in overseas stations. The new Hermes class ships are capable of launching strikes and are modern ships but probably still too useful for pootling around with a small taskforce, especially since carriers need escorts too (AA ships, ASW ships, plane guard destroyer).
Yet rotary wing has not really reached a key stage of development. Britain has some prototypes but none are frontline suitable and the Navy only has a few Canadian and German types of limited efficiency. Autogyros developed in Canada are still pretty much experimental and woefully lack performance. Its easy to see the next 5 years the helicopter will take off (no pun intended!) and develop for a multitude of tasks. Even then payload is a problem and radar is not going to fit for some time.
So, do we gracefully bid farewell to ship-based aircraft and rely on carriers or seek other methods (long-range radar) for reconnaissance. Carrier-based AEW and surface-radar scouts are more than possible now and perhaps that is the best root and make do with what is available. As attractive as a CVE is, it is building more flattops which I'm loathe to do.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

14

Monday, November 23rd 2015, 3:41pm

In one of the Ashida versions prior to the one built that was eventually built, I had helicopter facilities on it but in the end I kicked them off considering the vessel too small when taking the diameter of a helicopter's rotor into consideration. Even something as small as those small Flettner helicopters I considered too big. Now when I had that option on that cruiser, I really saw it more as a reconnaissance platform, keeping an eye on the surrounding area while the ship was busy doing something else. I never really looked at it as a useful offensive weapon (although I guess that a helicopter might be able to carry a depth charge to scare any subs in the area).

Now for the Oshima class battleships I have included helicopter facilities. I feel that it is big enough to handle helicopters and by the time it is completed, more useful helicopters will be around which can operate from those battleships.

Quoted

First, deck guns need to be pretty much eliminated from submarines - otherwise, it may be an entirely reasonable choice for the sub to stay on the surface and fight it out against the helicopter.

I doubt that with a helicopter it is going to fly 50 or 100 miles away from the base ship. It is going to stay much closer. When you are in the middle of an ocean, even with a deck gun I doubt that it would be a good strategy for the submarine to engage the helicopter since the base ship won't be that far away. If the helicopter is hovering about 10 miles from the base ship, then your sub could easily be in range of the main guns of that base ship and I doubt that you want your submarine's pressure hull to have a hole in it when you are going to dive.

Quoted

Most CLs still have catapults aboard them but as new AA weapons (often larger mounts) are fitted, space becomes a premium and addition of radar is increasing topweight and catapults are an easy item to remove to cut back on weight and topweight especially. Those same radars are largely making spotter planes redundant for local over-the-horizon recon and gunnery spotting.

Well, the thing is you need space for a helicopter as well. I think more so than a floatplane due to the diameter of the rotor. You can't just remove the floatplane facilities and put helicopter facilities there in its place.

Quoted

So, do we gracefully bid farewell to ship-based aircraft and rely on carriers or seek other methods (long-range radar) for reconnaissance.

... considering that I plan to build that CAV design, I'm not saying farewell to ship-based aircraft just yet. Sure I can see somewhere in the future those planes being replaced by helicopters but right now no helicopters exist that can take over the duties of the E16A/M6A or the H8K. Now I never really looked into it, but I guess I should take a look at some ideas for new floatplanes...

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

15

Monday, November 23rd 2015, 6:19pm

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

First, deck guns need to be pretty much eliminated from submarines - otherwise, it may be an entirely reasonable choice for the sub to stay on the surface and fight it out against the helicopter.

I doubt that with a helicopter it is going to fly 50 or 100 miles away from the base ship. It is going to stay much closer. When you are in the middle of an ocean, even with a deck gun I doubt that it would be a good strategy for the submarine to engage the helicopter since the base ship won't be that far away. If the helicopter is hovering about 10 miles from the base ship, then your sub could easily be in range of the main guns of that base ship and I doubt that you want your submarine's pressure hull to have a hole in it when you are going to dive.

Sure, if you're in range of the mother-ship's deck gun, you ought to be diving. But if you're 50-100 miles from the mothership, the sub might have two to four hours that they could otherwise operate normally before the surface ship arrives in main gun range.

If we set up one of my more recent French submarines - Roland Morillot - against a hypothetical opponent, the Morillot has a 100mm deck gun, two 40mm AA guns, and two 15mm machine guns that it could use to shoot at a helicopter. France's most capable helicopter, the SFG SH.20M Cigale, only carries two small depth charges. If the sub was operating at periscope depth, the helicopter might be able to drop depth charges in relative safety. But if the sub decides to remain surfaced, maneuver and fight the helo, what's the pilot going to do? His weapons are so minimal for the task at hand... The sub captain can just brazen it out, waiting until the helo runs out of fuel.

(In fact, this is what many German Uboat commanders were instructed to do during 1942 and 1943 - remain surfaced and fight it out with fixed-wing aircraft. In response, the Allies started deploying Wildcats alongside the Avenger search aircraft. If the Uboat chose to stay on the surface and fight it out, then the Wildcat would strafe the submarine while the Avenger approached with bombs.)

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

16

Monday, November 23rd 2015, 11:47pm

Quoted

But if you're 50-100 miles from the mothership, the sub might have two to four hours that they could otherwise operate normally before the surface ship arrives in main gun range.

Maybe the French choice of operating helicopters?

I was thinking of having them closer than that, depending on what friendly units are around. Maybe something like 10-20 miles or so. Unlike a floatplane that has to fly around in circles, the helicopter can hover above the submerged submarine when spotted and remain there so the ASW ships have a clear point to move to in order to engage the submerged threat. Being surfaced is not a safe option in that case.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

17

Tuesday, November 24th 2015, 12:51am

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

But if you're 50-100 miles from the mothership, the sub might have two to four hours that they could otherwise operate normally before the surface ship arrives in main gun range.

Maybe the French choice of operating helicopters? :)

Yes, but the French don't operate helicopters for ASW purposes. The SH.20M can be armed, but in most cases the French use helos only for utility and liaison work.

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

18

Tuesday, November 24th 2015, 1:25am

Quoted from "Hood"

Thanks for the feedback guys. It's always to kick around these kind of ideas and see if there is any use in them, despite whatever sense it makes in my crazy head!

ASW is not the mission for these ships, never entered my mind other than perhaps as a convoy escort in a big war.

Aerial reconnaissance is a tricky thing at the moment. Most CLs still have catapults aboard them but as new AA weapons (often larger mounts) are fitted, space becomes a premium and addition of radar is increasing topweight and catapults are an easy item to remove to cut back on weight and topweight especially. Those same radars are largely making spotter planes redundant for local over-the-horizon recon and gunnery spotting. Also, new seaplanes are not being designed and they are increasingly vulnerable. The FAA is lucky to have the innovative Blackburn fighter-recon, but most cruisers have lumbering biplane Sea Otters and the new Seagull is too big.
So while CLs are losing a less vital tool, the taskforce commander or squadron commander has lost some strategic vision. He may call for carrier support; the RN has a larger carrier fleet (actually bigger than I had initially planned) but is strike and fleet orientated. The four Ocean class are the only scout carrier forces in overseas stations. The new Hermes class ships are capable of launching strikes and are modern ships but probably still too useful for pootling around with a small taskforce, especially since carriers need escorts too (AA ships, ASW ships, plane guard destroyer).
Yet rotary wing has not really reached a key stage of development. Britain has some prototypes but none are frontline suitable and the Navy only has a few Canadian and German types of limited efficiency. Autogyros developed in Canada are still pretty much experimental and woefully lack performance. Its easy to see the next 5 years the helicopter will take off (no pun intended!) and develop for a multitude of tasks. Even then payload is a problem and radar is not going to fit for some time.
So, do we gracefully bid farewell to ship-based aircraft and rely on carriers or seek other methods (long-range radar) for reconnaissance. Carrier-based AEW and surface-radar scouts are more than possible now and perhaps that is the best root and make do with what is available. As attractive as a CVE is, it is building more flattops which I'm loathe to do.

On the flip side, if anybody can afford to build prototypes and find their time has not yet come, it's the RN.

Go to the top of the page

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

19

Tuesday, November 24th 2015, 6:11am

Quoted from "Hood"

Autogyros developed in Canada are still pretty much experimental and woefully lack performance.

Canada was supposed to introduced an improved article around 1945, but I don't think I got around to detailing it.

With Jets in various stages of development and deployment, I think the writing would be on the wall for building any small carriers. CVEs sized ships were purely products of piston-era war emergency thinking. Any thoughts of building something CVE sized with the idea of also operating fixed-wing aircraft from it would not seem prudent.

Canada has built pads and other support infrastructure on it's ships for some time now, but has not actually built anything soley to operate them.

I'll concur with what other people have said....rotary aircraft are not really ideal for scouting. Even when 'perfected', they will never have the range or loiter time that a fixed-wing aircraft will. There are naturally other uses for them, or for a ship based around operating them, but a scouting platform is not it.

Go to the top of the page

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

20

Tuesday, November 24th 2015, 9:55am

Quoted

Well, the thing is you need space for a helicopter as well. I think more so than a floatplane due to the diameter of the rotor. You can't just remove the floatplane facilities and put helicopter facilities there in its place.

I was not advocating that. My point is that eventually all cruisers and battleships will loose their aviation capabilities either through space or weight limitations or by the aircraft simply not being available. Also, hangar space is needed for internal accommodation as crew sizes increase.
I fully agree however that in terms of space required, rotors are worse than fixed wing since you need a clear pad and a high hangar and it hogs the quarterdeck. Turbulence off the superstructure is another problem.

To the cons of operating aircraft I would add; recovery, to pick up a seaplane means falling out of formation and stopping or crawling very slowly which is hazardous (radar warns you of aerial threats but subs are another matter) and also the hazard of having extra fuel and bombs aboard and in a surface fight your aircraft are going to get shredded by splinters etc.

Quoted

If we set up one of my more recent French submarines - Roland Morillot - against a hypothetical opponent, the Morillot has a 100mm deck gun, two 40mm AA guns, and two 15mm machine guns that it could use to shoot at a helicopter.

For my next class of subs I'm toying with dispensing with a deck gun but some form of AA armament is likely to be retained in the 20-40mm range. Not sure fighting it out is the best idea, against choppers probably yes, but against some of the bigger maritime patrol bombers that could be fatal if they do drop their charges on you.
Helicopters with dumb depth-charges are unlikely to be effective unless they can get to the spot where the sub has just submerged. Without sonar they are blind and without guided torpedoes a manoeuvring sub underwater has a good chance of escaping. I can't of any ASW helicopters that sank submarines by depth-charges alone (I'm thinking of Kayaba Ka-1 operations too).

Quoted

With Jets in various stages of development and deployment, I think the writing would be on the wall for building any small carriers. CVEs sized ships were purely products of piston-era war emergency thinking.

I would fully agree with that statement, that is why my new Centaur Class of 'light' carriers are so big. I'm not sure a CVE could operate the Fairey Spearfish sized aircraft required. I guess you could say they could be turned into helicopter carriers later in the 50s, but at the moment that is just speculation. But as a cheap aircraft carrier concept it has few rivals, other than perhaps the kind of scout I have outlined above.

Quoted

Sure I can see somewhere in the future those planes being replaced by helicopters but right now no helicopters exist that can take over the duties of the E16A/M6A or the H8K. Now I never really looked into it, but I guess I should take a look at some ideas for new floatplanes...

If I had time I would do some analysis on this. I suspect all nations are using seaplanes designed some 5-10 years ago and their remaining airframe life cannot be long and I've seen no new designs for a long time (I made a Dutch seaplane design based on Kirk's ideas backdated to 1943, is that the most recent?)

Go to the top of the page

WesWorld

Royal Navy Ships for 1947

Royal Navy Ships for 1947

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

Quoted from "Hood"

Quoted from "Hood"

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted