Chilean Ships for 1947

The Shadow

Monday, January 9th 2017, 9:25pm

Bruce's activity in Peru got me looking at Chile again. I'd prepared a full wave of construction for 1947, but I never published any of the sim reports. (It also seems I neglected to post the Q4/1946 report that I *did* write.)

There's not much that's really new for 1947. Old destroyers are being scrapped as soon as docks are available, and by mid-year, the first of the Araucanía-class cruisers will enter service to replace the old Concepción-class air defense ships, which will probably be retired. (Similarly, the old carrier Mapuche is being decommissioned - the Armada doesn't need four carriers, and it's entirely possible that the training carrier Chiloe might be parked or even disposed in order to cut down on operating costs.)

However, there are two projects on my forecast, one of which is pretty firm. Previously, Chile built two Almirante Williams-class destroyers to bolster Destroyer Flotilla 5 to standard 8-ship size, as well as serve as flotilla leaders. The Williams design was pretty well liked by the Armada de Chile's leadership for having a good blend of capabilities for - importantly - a decent price, and even before the ships were completed the Armada considered building a full class of them. A short series of minor changes were made to the design due to a mix of operational experience and the use of some more modern electronics; but otherwise this is just "Williams 2.0".

Makes for an interesting comparison with Bruce's recent Cano-class, I think.

Quoted

Hm, it looks like a Vickers!

Almirante Simpson, Chilean Destroyer laid down 1947

Displacement:
2,200 t light; 2,350 t standard; 2,656 t normal; 2,901 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
402.37 ft / 393.70 ft x 37.73 ft x 14.44 ft (normal load)
122.64 m / 120.00 m x 11.50 m x 4.40 m

Armament:
4 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns in single mounts, 67.03lbs / 30.41kg shells, 1947 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns in single mounts, 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1947 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns (2x4 guns), 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1947 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 325 lbs / 147 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 500
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.57" / 40 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm - -
3rd: 0.59" / 15 mm - -

- Conning tower: 1.97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines plus diesel motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 46,626 shp / 34,783 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 6,500nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 551 tons

Complement:
184 - 240

Cost:
£1.973 million / $7.890 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 47 tons, 1.8 %
Armour: 29 tons, 1.1 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 21 tons, 0.8 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 8 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 1,103 tons, 41.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 821 tons, 30.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 456 tons, 17.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 7.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
931 lbs / 422 Kg = 13.9 x 5.1 " / 130 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
Metacentric height 1.4 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 13.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 75 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.56
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.34

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.434
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.43 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.76 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 66 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 56
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 1.64 ft / 0.50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 23.79 ft / 7.25 m
- Mid (50 %): 21.33 ft / 6.50 m (13.94 ft / 4.25 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13.94 ft / 4.25 m
- Stern: 13.94 ft / 4.25 m
- Average freeboard: 18.80 ft / 5.73 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 158.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 110.8 %
Waterplane Area: 9,712 Square feet or 902 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 91 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 38 lbs/sq ft or 187 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 2.81
- Overall: 0.59
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Breakdown of Miscellaneous Weights:
- 67 tons for Electronics (see below)
- 18 tons for eight reload torpedoes (4,410 lb each)
- 15 tons for Colocolo antisubmarine rocket-launched depth charges
- 20 tons for Colocolo reloads
- 20 tons for air-conditioning
- 60 tons for additional 130mm gun automation equipment (15t per gun)
200 tons total miscellaneous weight

Go to the top of the page

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

2

Monday, January 9th 2017, 9:32pm

A few Peruvian ship operators are envious, but most of them are happily playing with their own new toys. ;)

A very well balanced design.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

3

Monday, January 9th 2017, 9:36pm

Yeah, I thought it made for an interesting compare-and-contrast with your recent Montero and Cano classes; but there's a few degrees of difference. The Chileans have definitely chosen different ways to invest their tonnage budget.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

4

Monday, January 9th 2017, 10:41pm

The second major project that I have for 1947 is "Proyecto-O" or Reemplazo Hyatt: a ship to replace the old, weird cruiser (or is it even a cruiser?) Marina Guardia Hyatt. The Hyatt has always been... quirky. Originally a seaplane carrying cruiser of very poor quality, it was massively rebuilt into the first helicopter cruiser... of slightly less-poor but still pretty dubious quality.

The new Proyecto-O is still in a weird place, just like the ship it needs to replace. Operationally, I'd like to place the new ship with Cruiser Squadron 1, which is currently composed of the Armada's three heaviest cruisers. Placing the new ship here will give the Armada de Chile three squadrons of four cruisers each:
-- Cruiser Squadron 1, with the heavy 254mm-armed Constitucion, the two 190mm-armed Almirante Latorres, and Proyecto-O.
-- Cruiser Squadron 2, with Magellanes and the three Atacamas.
-- Cruiser Squadron 3, with the four Araucanías.

The Hyatt was never a large ship and I don't want to have to spend a large amount of tonnage on its replacement; I'm setting an upper boundary of 8,000 tons light displacement, but it should ideally run between 5-6,000 tons light. At the same time, I'd like it to be honestly classified as a "cruiser".

The most expensive option currently on the table is to build a fifth Araucanía-class cruiser, possibly with light modifications to operate 2-3 helicopters. The cost of that would be around 8,000 tons, which sets the upper limit for this design. Upside: it's an existing design. Downside: it's an existing design, and I wanted to do something different! And it's on the expensive side.

A second possibility would be a hybrid cruiser-carrier that could operate helicopters in lieu of fixed-wing aviation. This is mostly disregarded since it would do neither role well, and even getting a halfway competent hybrid design will probably run up to the tonnage limit or beyond. Further, this is pretty much the exact role that the old Hyatt had... with all the attendant flaws. On the positive side, it would retain the extremely unusual helicopter capability that Hyatt has pioneered.

Third possibility would be to build a CLAA - a 130mm-armed dakka-carrier in the same breed as the German Aspern, the Russian Project 80bis Diana, the British Amphion, etc. This would advantageously add a powerful close-range air defense ship to Cruiser Squadron 1 for about the 5-6,000 ton price that I'm looking for. Downside is that, given the gun carrier nature of the ship, it'd probably lose most if not all of the helicopter capacity that the current Hyatt provides.

At the present time, the name of this ship will likely be Los Ríos or Arica; the name Marina Guardia Hyatt is probably going to be reused in 1948 or so for an oceanic patrol ship.

I'll likely post a CLAA design later tonight, but are there any thoughts?

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

5

Tuesday, January 10th 2017, 3:12am

Tentative design for a CLAA...

Quoted

Arica, Chilean Antiaircraft Cruiser laid down 1947

Displacement:
5,275 t light; 5,654 t standard; 6,453 t normal; 7,092 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
517.73 ft / 508.53 ft x 54.13 ft x 16.40 ft (normal load)
157.80 m / 155.00 m x 16.50 m x 5.00 m

Armament:
10 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (5x2 guns), 67.03lbs / 30.41kg shells, 1947 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority forward, 3 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1947 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships
8 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns (2x4 guns), 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1947 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 779 lbs / 353 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 550
6 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.26" / 32 mm 360.89 ft / 110.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 109 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.57" / 40 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.59" / 15 mm -
3rd: 0.59" / 15 mm - -

- Armour deck: 0.59" / 15 mm, Conning tower: 1.97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines plus diesel motors,
Electric motors, 2 shafts, 67,303 shp / 50,208 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,438 tons

Complement:
359 - 467

Cost:
£3.733 million / $14.931 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 114 tons, 1.8 %
Armour: 457 tons, 7.1 %
- Belts: 185 tons, 2.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 49 tons, 0.8 %
- Armour Deck: 208 tons, 3.2 %
- Conning Tower: 15 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 1,663 tons, 25.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,742 tons, 42.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,178 tons, 18.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 4.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
8,210 lbs / 3,724 Kg = 122.5 x 5.1 " / 130 mm shells or 1.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 2.4 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 14.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.40
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.15

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.500
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.39 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25.86 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 61
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 25.26 ft / 7.70 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 24.93 ft / 7.60 m
- Mid (50 %): 24.61 ft / 7.50 m (16.73 ft / 5.10 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16.73 ft / 5.10 m
- Stern: 16.73 ft / 5.10 m
- Average freeboard: 20.83 ft / 6.35 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 105.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 172.7 %
Waterplane Area: 19,076 Square feet or 1,772 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 129 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 86 lbs/sq ft or 420 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 2.14
- 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

Breakdown of Miscellaneous Weights:
- 150t for 13cm gun automation (30t per turret)
- 90t for electronics
- 40 tons for air-conditioning
- 20 tons for laconic humor

Go to the top of the page

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

6

Tuesday, January 10th 2017, 3:28am

CODAS with electric motors? That strikes me as a bit over-complex. Other than that I see nothing too outre, save for the minimum of laconic humor provided for in the miscellaneous weight.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

7

Tuesday, January 10th 2017, 4:14am

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

CODAS with electric motors? That strikes me as a bit over-complex.

Yes, that's pretty standard across most of the Chilean-built ships larger than around 3,000 tons since about 1930. I think the original reason was that the Chileans had quality control issues cutting the gears for the geared drives, and found it easier to manufacture electric motors. Most of the ships with geared drives (destroyers, in the main) use gears bought from Atlantis, Britain, or Germany. Whether a flaw or a feature, it's one of those design threads that I've followed since 1935. ;)

Go to the top of the page

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

8

Tuesday, January 10th 2017, 9:46am

Almirante Simpson looks good to me.

Arica looks good too.
I'd never noticed the electrical motors theme despite its longevity!
I think a CLAA will suit Chile's needs better than an odd helicopter hybrid, but then I've been prejudiced against helicopters in WW. Yes several nations have them now but I've never really seen a role for them so far in the sim. Once someone builds a compact but powerful enough helicopter to lug a dipping sonar and a homing torpedo then I'll be interested. As things stand currently I don't really buy them as being adequate seaplane replacements due to shorter range and vulnerability. They are fine for ship-to-shore communications and plane guards for carriers and light duties, but you'd need a hefty tandem-rotor design to get anything worthwhile and that really needs a small carrier for adequate deck space.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

9

Tuesday, January 10th 2017, 4:39pm

Quoted from "Hood"

I think a CLAA will suit Chile's needs better than an odd helicopter hybrid, but then I've been prejudiced against helicopters in WW. Yes several nations have them now but I've never really seen a role for them so far in the sim. Once someone builds a compact but powerful enough helicopter to lug a dipping sonar and a homing torpedo then I'll be interested. As things stand currently I don't really buy them as being adequate seaplane replacements due to shorter range and vulnerability. They are fine for ship-to-shore communications and plane guards for carriers and light duties, but you'd need a hefty tandem-rotor design to get anything worthwhile and that really needs a small carrier for adequate deck space.

I tend to agree with that assessment, particularly in my more rational moments. ;) The Hyatt's conversion as a helicopter cruiser was, both in-character and out, a choice of some desperation given just how bad the ship was in "soft stats".

The Hyatt's probably got one of the best light helicopters suitable for naval service, but even that's not really proven all that impressive in overall service.