WesWorld

FM: Commodore Robert April, Fleet Planning HMCS Shearwater
TO: Admiral Robert Bennet (CNO / First Sea Lord? Someone help me out with that)
CC: Rear-Admiral J.P. Hanson
Rear-Admiral William Ross
Commodore Robert Wesley
Commodore Matthew Decker
RE: Naval Planning under the Cleito Treaty

Capital Ships;
(Still not entirely decided what to do, but that's not too critical, as Canada lacks the capability to do anything for a few years anyway. Also, unforunately, my inability to get springsharp working on my computer means I have no way of designing the ships I'm planning on at this time.)

Three leading plans are for
-1; R&R will be extensively rebuilt and modernized (possibly even more so than Renown's historical refit),
-2; Dispose of R&R, obtain two QE class when they come onto the 'market', and modernize them, or
-3; Dispose of R&R, and build three new capital ships of smaller size.

1 and 2 have the advantages of not having to design new ships from the keel up, and depending on how extensively they're modernized, obtaining ships far cheaper and quicker than new builds. However, this will most likely result in having an excess in Capital Ship tonnage

The third option will require an extensive expansion of shipbuilding and industrial capabilities, take far longer, and result in possibly inferior ships, but would result in an additional hull of more modern design, and maximization of allotted tonnage.

Carriers;
This is pretty much decided; 3 new build ships of 15,000 tons, with Hermes relegated to a Training carrier.

Cruisers;
A design for a class of 5.5" gun class B cruisers will be required (possibly modified Hectors, as suggested elsewhere)

A design for a class of 8" gun class A Cruisers may be required, but not until final decisions are made on the recently aquired Effingham class cruisers are made

Studies are to be undertaken for possible ways to modernize the recently aquired Effingham class cruisers so generously transferred by the RN. A proposal to downgrade them to 5.5" gunned class B cruisers has been rejected as "ridiculous", so proposals are requested for designs retaining their current 7.5" guns, or (if possible under treaty terms) upgrading to 8" guns. If a satisfactory rebuild cannot be done, it is intended to reduce these ships to CDS category, and replaced with new build Class A cruisers, as above.

It has been decided that modernizing the Chester class is not feasible, and they will be sold/scrapped when there are sufficent Class B cruisers in service to send the Diana class cruisers to replace them in the newly established Pacific Squadron.

Coastal Defense, Escort;
As stated above, studies are being conducted towards reducing the Effignham class to CDS tonnage, which would fill most of the allocated tonnage. Consideration is being given towards moving towards aquiring the 5th ship of this class from Australia to fill out the remainder of the tonnage.

If the Effinghams are able to be rebuilt into capable Class A cruisers, proposals will be taken into consideration for escort cruisers that fill the CDS tonnage requirements.


Destroyers;
A design for a class of 5" gun Class B Destroyers will be required

A Design for a class of Four 5" gun Class A Destroyer Leaders will be required

Cruiser requirements, and possible Capital ship modernizations will most likely delay building of any Destroyers for several years, so all designs should be updated yearly to incorporate new technology, and take into consideration other country's designs


Submarines;

[pending, since I don't have any stats for the existing H-class subs I've been allocated]

CDS unlimited;

Designs for 600 ton Ocean Escorts will be required, with such designs being updated yearly to reflect advances in technology and other factors. There are no immidiate plans to build any of these ships, unless a noticable surplus in shipbuilding capacity becomes availible.

Quoted

A design for a class of 5" gun Class B Destroyers will be required

A Design for a class of Four 5" gun Class A Destroyer Leaders will be required

5" guns? American guns, then? Certainly the RN isn't using 5" guns on their DDs.....

Well, I wanted 5.5" guns, but I also knew that wasn't going to happen. As far as I can tell, all of the RN Destroyers (including the S-class allocated to RAN and RCN) are WWI vintage, with 4" guns (OTL, some of the 4.7" DDs would have been introduced, but none of them are in the WW encyclopedia). RCN light cruisers are already going to be undergunned in the face of most foreign counterparts, so 4" destroyers are not considered satisfactory. I had vauge thoughts of a 5.1" liner for the 5.5" gun, but I believe that'd make the guns excessively overweight, in addition to causing diplomatic issues.

As stated, Destroyers will be a few years down the line. Depending on relations and the international situation, we may settle for the UK 4.7, or may be at a point that Canada could attempt to obtain a license on, or directly purchase the US 5"/38.

There is three examples left of destroyers armed with British 4.7 inch guns that I know of:

Almirante Williams
Almirante Goni
Almirante Riveros (I) - lost in British service as HMS Tipperary
Almirante Riveros (II) (ex-Almirante Simpson )

Chilean Destroyer laid down 1911 (British built)

Displacement:
1,496 t light; 1,546 t standard; 1,700 t normal; 1,816 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
335.08 ft / 331.30 ft x 32.50 ft x 11.00 ft (normal load)
102.13 m / 100.98 m x 9.91 m x 3.35 m

Armament:
2 - 4.70" / 119 mm guns in single mounts, 51.91lbs / 23.55kg shells, 1911 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1911 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward
2 - 1.59" / 40.3 mm guns in single mounts, 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1911 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all amidships
Weight of broadside 172 lbs / 78 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 3 shafts, 37,317 shp / 27,838 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 2,750nm at 12.00 kts (Bunkerage = 277 tons)

Complement:
132 - 172

Cost:
£0.213 million / $0.854 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 21 tons, 1.3 %
Machinery: 1,021 tons, 60.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 429 tons, 25.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 204 tons, 12.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 25 tons, 1.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
320 lbs / 145 Kg = 6.2 x 4.7 " / 119 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 1.1 ft / 0.3 m
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.26
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.02

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.502
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.19 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.20 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 69 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 98
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 4.85 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 %): 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
- Mid (40 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m (13.00 ft / 3.96 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
- Stern: 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
- Average freeboard: 14.82 ft / 4.52 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 205.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 104.5 %
Waterplane Area: 6,914 Square feet or 642 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 49 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 30 lbs/sq ft or 147 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.91
- Overall: 0.57
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is extremely poor
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
Well, I wanted 5.5" guns, but I also knew that wasn't going to happen. As far as I can tell, all of the RN Destroyers (including the S-class allocated to RAN and RCN) are WWI vintage, with 4" guns (OTL, some of the 4.7" DDs would have been introduced, but none of them are in the WW encyclopedia).

You're just badgering me to get that encyclopaedia up to date, aren't you?

The RN does have 4.7" gunned destroyers, and has been building them since at least 1926. The latest "A" class carries six of 'em, in three twins.

RLBH

Quoted

The third option will require an extensive expansion of shipbuilding and industrial capabilities, take far longer, and result in possibly inferior ships, but would result in an additional hull of more modern design, and maximization of allotted tonnage.

It doesn't have to. Why bother to build up your infrastructure when you can simply build the ships in GB where there is lots of capacity? Maybe you need a Type 4 drydock to hold anything you build, but thats about it.

Cruisers. 6" guns, either in twins like Enterprise or enclosed singles like Diomede.

Quoted

It doesn't have to. Why bother to build up your infrastructure when you can simply build the ships in GB where there is lots of capacity? Maybe you need a Type 4 drydock to hold anything you build, but thats about it.

Doesn't provide jobs for Canadian workers, for one thing. Not to mention that if things start going pear-shaped, the British shipyards might be full of ships for Great Britain, and Canadian orders get ignored. It's not a bad idea to have some domestic capability to build your own fleet. Spending too much on it, well, that's the usual balancing act.

Quoted

Originally posted by RLBH

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
Well, I wanted 5.5" guns, but I also knew that wasn't going to happen. As far as I can tell, all of the RN Destroyers (including the S-class allocated to RAN and RCN) are WWI vintage, with 4" guns (OTL, some of the 4.7" DDs would have been introduced, but none of them are in the WW encyclopedia).

You're just badgering me to get that encyclopaedia up to date, aren't you?

The RN does have 4.7" gunned destroyers, and has been building them since at least 1926. The latest "A" class carries six of 'em, in three twins.

RLBH

Well, the most obvious place for Canada to get a basis for her designs are the RNs. But that's hard to do when I can't find the data on the RN's most recent designs... Either that or go to the US, but that's a stretch at this point. Depending how the Gulf excersizes go, the Canadian observers may be impressed with the US 5" performance enough to go with a RN based design, modified to take the US 5" guns, but that's as far as anyone involved would be willing to go, I wager.


btw, regarding the Effingham's;
"In the mid-1920s there was a proposal to re-gun these ships with three twin 5in turrets, but this never progressed beyond planning."
http://www.world-war.co.uk/

Appearently, there is some historical precedent for modernizing them, but it wasn't carried out. Anyone know if it was economy reasons, or if it was just deemed unworkable?

The famous 5"/38 has yet to enter US service, its being installed on the new Farraguts which will be completed at the end of the year. Historically I think they had some teething problems that had to be ironed out before they entered wide spread service and it will be a couple more years at least until the classic twin model comes out.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

It doesn't have to. Why bother to build up your infrastructure when you can simply build the ships in GB where there is lots of capacity? Maybe you need a Type 4 drydock to hold anything you build, but thats about it.

Doesn't provide jobs for Canadian workers, for one thing. Not to mention that if things start going pear-shaped, the British shipyards might be full of ships for Great Britain, and Canadian orders get ignored. It's not a bad idea to have some domestic capability to build your own fleet. Spending too much on it, well, that's the usual balancing act.

It also isn't a bad idea to aproach the U.S. for some of those builds as well, that way you have 2 nations capable of building ships and when they can't you have the infrastructure to build when they can't.

Quoted

Originally posted by CanisD
The famous 5"/38 has yet to enter US service, its being installed on the new Farraguts which will be completed at the end of the year. Historically I think they had some teething problems that had to be ironed out before they entered wide spread service and it will be a couple more years at least until the classic twin model comes out.

The way I see it, Canada may be impressed with the 5"/51 and 5"/25, and if they ask US officials about them, they'll mention the new 5"/38 now being installed on the Farraguts. I can't see anyone trying to purchase the older 51 or 25 caliber guns with the new weapon already in production.

Other than relining a 5.5", or producing an entirely new gun, the 5"/38 seems to be Canada's obvious option for aquiring a 5" gun.

Aside from maintaining the historical preference for UK ships and guns (which I am taking into consideration), are there any benefits to shipping the 4.7" over the 5"/38?

The newest 120mm gun that GB is producing is a -50cal weapon if I remember correctly. 62lb shell for the 120mm/50 vs 54lb shell for the 5"/38

Quoted

Aside from maintaining the historical preference for UK ships and guns (which I am taking into consideration), are there any benefits to shipping the 4.7" over the 5"/38?

No major ones that I can see. The 5"/38 fired more rapidly, fired a heavier shell, and elevated and trained much more rapidly. The 4.7"/40 Mk VIII was a bit lighter, but it was totally open to the weather which may account for that difference in weight. The 4.7"/50 Mk XI fired a heavier shell than the 5", but was slower in both train and elevation and didn't fire as rapidly.