WesWorld

1938 New Construction
1938 is not a very exciting year for new Chilean construction; only one new warship is being laid down, but it's a big one. The carrier Libertad is being laid down in Talcahuano according to a modified scheme not previously published. Size and protection is modestly increased, and a larger 130mm DP battery will be included. Another significant change is the inclusion of an enclosed bow, following US, British, and Atlantean design practices. Construction will hopefully complete in late 1940. Upon completion, Libertad's airgroup will be brought aboard from the carrier Mapuche and the various training cadres. (Mapuche will be heading for a modernization within six months of Libertad's commissioning.)

1938 Continuing Construction
The heavy cruiser CNS Constitution is expected to be completed in late 1938. The remaining destroyers of the Eyzaguirre-class (eight ships total) will likewise be completed, forming a new destroyer squadron. Similarly, the eight SAE-built Frey-class light destroyers will commission as the Fourth Destroyer Squadron.

1938 Acquisitions
Chile has, as noted elsewhere, acquired the Atlantean C & D class destroyers as well as two Warrior-class CLs. The DDs will be converted to Orella-class Fast Ocean Escort/Escort Destroyer (FOE/DDE) specifications. The two Warriors, with the recent excellent performance of the two Astraea-class CLAAs, will likewise be converted into flak cruisers, names indeterminate at this time. The Warriors, unlike the Astraeas, will carry no more than 10x5.12" guns, with a secondary battery of 3" AA guns. They are likely to serve for an indeterminate period in their current configuration (7x140mm) before being rebuilt.

1938 Conversions
The major conversion for 1938 is the acquisition and conversion of the incomplete cargo-liner MS Chiloe to become a training carrier. As CNS Chiloe, the ship will carry 24 ENAER Coati-N training planes for training carrier pilots. The ship's conversion should last until 1939, permitting eighteen months for the ship to begin her training regime prior to the commissioning of the carrier Libertad (thus permitting Libertad to inherit a trained complement of airmen and aircraft handlers). As Mapuche is scheduled for a 1941 modernization, this will prevent the AdCAA from being overtaxed by training. In wartime, Chiloe will serve as a maintenance ship and command vessel for an ASW task force. Argentina has been offered and accepted a number of pilot trainee slots aboard the ship (Chile will also offer slots to Brazil, I just forgot to ask Jason... ).

I will post Springsharps later.

Quoted

Another significant change is the inclusion of an enclosed bow, following US, British, and Atlantean design practices.

The only Atlantean design that seems to use the enclosed bow is the training carrier Nautica. Not sure about the more modern Arcurtus Class yet...

If Libertad has put on weight yet again it's turned into quite a large carrier. Any particular reasons for the increased protection and armament?

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Another significant change is the inclusion of an enclosed bow, following US, British, and Atlantean design practices.

The only Atlantean design that seems to use the enclosed bow is the training carrier Nautica. Not sure about the more modern Arcurtus Class yet...

I've seen the (apparently unpublished?) Arcturus drawings and Arcturus has the same enclosed bow.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
If Libertad has put on weight yet again it's turned into quite a large carrier. Any particular reasons for the increased protection and armament?

Yes. First, I had failed to make her TDS cover her entire hull. Second, I decided to add two more twin 130mm guns to increase AA/DP firepower. Third, the original design was constrained by having a 220m-length limit on my largest drydock. The incorporation of intermediate lengths, and my acquisition of a 3.5 Drydock, has removed that artificial limitation, permitting a more capacious design. Fourth, I was at one time planning to build two CVLs after completing Libertad, in order to bolster overall carrier capabilities. Instead, I canceled those two ships as well as an additional planned 24 destroyers, so I had some tonnage to play with (and modernize Mapuche to boot).

I designed this latest incarnation of Libertad before we really discussed the Peruvian War, but I guess you can claim a bit of the upsizing is part of the postwar reaction, with the brownshoe aviators looking smugly at the blackshoes, who didn't get to sink a blessed thing.

The sad thing is, I'm still a bit uncertain about this design, because she's still got a very narrow beam: 75' with bulges (72' without), when most OTL carriers of her tonnage are beamier by 8' or more. I still have enough left-over tonnage to make her the size of an OTL Yorktown-class carrier, though...


[SIZE=1]Image by thesmilingassassin and modified by me.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Note: I am still fiddling with the above image. I would like to redesign her stern to be more enclosed, like the OTL Illustrious-class, and I'm unsatisfied with her bridge masts.[/SIZE]

Quoted

[SIZE=3]CNS Libertad, Chilean Fleet Carrier laid down 1938[/SIZE]

Displacement:
20,192 t light; 21,102 t standard; 23,998 t normal; 26,315 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
784.56 ft / 750.00 ft x 72.00 ft (Bulges 75.00 ft) x 27.10 ft (normal load)
239.13 m / 228.60 m x 21.95 m (Bulges 22.86 m) x 8.26 m

Armament:
8 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (4x2 guns), 67.03lbs / 30.41kg shells, 1938 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (8x2 guns), 67.03lbs / 30.40kg shells, 1938 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread
32 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
32 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 3 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,679 lbs / 762 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 400

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm 561.00 ft / 170.99 m 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 115 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
1.00" / 25 mm 561.00 ft / 170.99 m 27.00 ft / 8.23 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: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm

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

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 134,151 shp / 100,076 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,212 tons

Complement:
963 - 1,253

Cost:
£7.876 million / $31.502 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 210 tons, 0.9 %
Armour: 3,373 tons, 14.1 %
- Belts: 457 tons, 1.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 560 tons, 2.3 %
- Armament: 122 tons, 0.5 %
- Armour Deck: 2,180 tons, 9.1 %
- Conning Tower: 54 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 3,673 tons, 15.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,575 tons, 31.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,806 tons, 15.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 5,360 tons, 22.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
33,797 lbs / 15,330 Kg = 504.2 x 5.1 " / 130 mm shells or 4.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 3.7 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 16.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 58 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.23
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.48

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.551
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.08 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 39
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 50.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Mid (50 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Stern: 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Average freeboard: 26.24 ft / 8.00 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 114.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 202.0 %
Waterplane Area: 39,272 Square feet or 3,649 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 135 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 115 lbs/sq ft or 560 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.45
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Breakdown of Miscellaneous Weights:
Weight for 72 planes: 5184 tons / Room for 72 planes
Air search radar - 20 tons
Surface search radar - 20 tons
Radar-assisted fire control - 30 tons
Air conditioning/Heating - 10 tons
Crew Comforts, movie theatre, ice cream machines - 6 tons
Flag Bridge - 90 tons
Total extra weight - 5,360 tons

[SIZE=1]Image by thesmilingassassin and modified by me.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]CNS Chiloe, Chilean Escort Carrier laid down 1938[/SIZE]

Displacement:
8,000 t light; 8,259 t standard; 11,178 t normal; 13,513 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
564.76 ft / 560.00 ft x 62.00 ft x 19.00 ft (normal load)
172.14 m / 170.69 m x 18.90 m x 5.79 m

Armament:
1 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns in single mounts, 67.03lbs / 30.40kg shells, 1938 Model
Dual purpose gun in deck mount
on centreline forward
8 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns (4x2 guns), 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1938 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 206 lbs / 94 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines plus diesel motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 31,301 shp / 23,350 Kw = 24.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,253 tons

Complement:
543 - 706

Cost:
£2.376 million / $9.506 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 26 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 857 tons, 7.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,217 tons, 28.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,178 tons, 28.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 3,900 tons, 34.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
19,833 lbs / 8,996 Kg = 295.9 x 5.1 " / 130 mm shells or 2.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
Metacentric height 3.2 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 14.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.02
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.82

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0.593
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.03 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23.66 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 33
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 27.00 ft / 8.23 m (18.00 ft / 5.49 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Stern: 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Average freeboard: 19.80 ft / 6.04 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 65.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 159.3 %
Waterplane Area: 25,229 Square feet or 2,344 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 192 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 84 lbs/sq ft or 409 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.01
- Longitudinal: 1.17
- Overall: 1.02
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

Breakdown of Miscellaneous Weights:
- 576 tons for 24 aircraft
- 424 tons for crated aircraft and parts
- 1000 tons for aviation repair shop
- 1,900 tons for training facilities, crew cabins, electronics (DRADIS?) etc.

Since I noted in response to RA that I consider Libertad a bit waifish on the beam... this is Libertad made even bigger! 4" deck armour, now, and 1.5" TDS! I like the stern in this particular drawing. I think I'll use it regardless of whatever design I choose.

...Huh. When queried about a ship's large size, I promptly go and make it Bigger. How weird is THAT? (Now we're solving problems the Wesworld Way!)


[SIZE=1]Image by thesmilingassassin and modified by me.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Alternate Larger CNS Libertad, Chilean Fleet Carrier laid down 1938[/SIZE]

Displacement:
24,395 t light; 25,398 t standard; 28,619 t normal; 31,196 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
814.56 ft / 780.00 ft x 80.00 ft (Bulges 84.00 ft) x 28.00 ft (normal load)
248.28 m / 237.74 m x 24.38 m (Bulges 25.60 m) x 8.53 m

Armament:
8 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (4x2 guns), 67.03lbs / 30.40kg shells, 1938 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (8x2 guns), 67.03lbs / 30.40kg shells, 1938 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread
32 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
32 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 3 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,679 lbs / 761 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 400

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm 561.00 ft / 170.99 m 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 111 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
1.50" / 38 mm 561.00 ft / 170.99 m 27.00 ft / 8.23 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: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm

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

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 147,781 shp / 110,244 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,799 tons

Complement:
1,099 - 1,430

Cost:
£8.999 million / $35.997 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 210 tons, 0.7 %
Armour: 4,848 tons, 16.9 %
- Belts: 462 tons, 1.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 841 tons, 2.9 %
- Armament: 122 tons, 0.4 %
- Armour Deck: 3,342 tons, 11.7 %
- Conning Tower: 81 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 4,047 tons, 14.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,711 tons, 30.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,225 tons, 14.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 6,580 tons, 23.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
41,488 lbs / 18,819 Kg = 618.9 x 5.1 " / 130 mm shells or 5.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 4.3 ft / 1.3 m
Roll period: 17.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 62 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.16
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.35

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.546
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.29 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.89 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 46
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 50.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Mid (50 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Stern: 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Average freeboard: 26.24 ft / 8.00 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 104.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 203.5 %
Waterplane Area: 45,164 Square feet or 4,196 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 135 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 123 lbs/sq ft or 599 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.23
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Breakdown of Miscellaneous Weights:
Weight for 80 planes: 6,400 tons / Room for 83 planes
Air search radar - 20 tons
Surface search radar - 20 tons
Radar-assisted fire control - 30 tons
Air conditioning/Heating - 10 tons
Crew Comforts, movie theatre, ice cream machines - 10 tons
Flag Bridge - 90 tons
Total extra weight - 6,580 tons

...I... DARNIT! Now I want to build this version of her!!

Quoted

Ship tends to be wet forward

This would concern me......


Other than that, and the lower-than-specification belt armor, she rather reminds me of the KM's Peter Strasser.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Ship tends to be wet forward

This would concern me......

Er, yes... haven't fiddled with freeboard much.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Other than that, and the lower-than-specification belt armor, she rather reminds me of the KM's Peter Strasser.

The way I see it, the belt armour is supposed to be splinter protection only. If she ends up in a shootout, armour won't help her much anyway. I'd rather spend my weight protecting against bombs and long-range deck hits. (In fact, I've mulled over deleting her belt armour altogether.)

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Another significant change is the inclusion of an enclosed bow, following US, British, and Atlantean design practices.

The only Atlantean design that seems to use the enclosed bow is the training carrier Nautica. Not sure about the more modern Arcurtus Class yet...

I've seen the (apparently unpublished?) Arcturus drawings and Arcturus has the same enclosed bow.

Yes, Arcturus has an enclosed bow. I haven't published the picture yet because I still don't like the look of the finished product and I'm still fiddling with the drawing.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Other than that, and the lower-than-specification belt armor, she rather reminds me of the KM's Peter Strasser.

The way I see it, the belt armour is supposed to be splinter protection only. If she ends up in a shootout, armour won't help her much anyway. I'd rather spend my weight protecting against bombs and long-range deck hits. (In fact, I've mulled over deleting her belt armour altogether.)

There are a lot of islands off the southern coasts of Chile, and rain squalls in the dark can hide things like DDs Not to mention glide-bombing attackers, whose bombs would be coming in at an angle where they might hit side armor as well as deck armor.

True, which is part of the reason I didn't altogether delete it; I figured some was better than nothing. Did OTL carriers have belt armour?

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Yes, Arcturus has an enclosed bow. I haven't published the picture yet because I still don't like the look of the finished product and I'm still fiddling with the drawing.

Drop me a copy and what's bothering you, and maybe I can take a stab at it for you.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
True, which is part of the reason I didn't altogether delete it; I figured some was better than nothing. Did OTL carriers have belt armour?

Everything up until CVA-58 United States, including the CVLs and Brit carriers.

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/

The Chiloe looks quite cute! It also has a very reasonable armament although the lack of light AA other than 40mm concerns me slightly.
I'm assuming two lifts?

I like the new Libertad design its much closer to the Argentine carriers in size and firepower and would be a formidible target for enemy planes with all that AA firepower. Deck armour seems fine, belt is useful for splinter protection and not much else but I think overall I'd go with thicker decks and TB at the expense of belts with a carrier. Seems the most sensible path given aerial and sub threats.
80 aircraft seems a high capacity, I think its doable but certainly higher than I'd expect for Chile. As carrier flagship she's suitable but its a case of eggs in one basket...

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
The Chiloe looks quite cute! It also has a very reasonable armament although the lack of light AA other than 40mm concerns me slightly.
I'm assuming two lifts?

Thanks! Yes, two lifts is probably right. Even though the carrier rules permit quite a large air-group, I really don't see her operating more than 24 planes, and rarely in high intensity operations to demand more. Regarding AA fit, it wouldn't be a problem at all for me to add some 20mm, if that's what you're referring to. Maybe 4x4 20mm? I specifically didn't load her down with much armament, since she's just a conversion.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I like the new Libertad design its much closer to the Argentine carriers in size and firepower and would be a formidible target for enemy planes with all that AA firepower. Deck armour seems fine, belt is useful for splinter protection and not much else but I think overall I'd go with thicker decks and TB at the expense of belts with a carrier. Seems the most sensible path given aerial and sub threats.

Well, I've put together another sim which gives her 3.2" belt, 1.5" TDS, and 3" decks (and fixing the freeboard issue Hrolf noted). That makes her a very heavy CV indeed - 26,000tons light.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
80 aircraft seems a high capacity, I think its doable but certainly higher than I'd expect for Chile. As carrier flagship she's suitable but its a case of eggs in one basket...

Very true. I've pondered many times building something smaller - closer to the size of the Argentine carriers, with 40-50 planes, and just building two of them. I'm just always hearing these comments about how "Ranger taught the USN small carriers didn't work", etc etc: with Mapuche, would Chile have decided on another midsized CV (a Wasp-class?) or decided to upsize (Yorktown-class, like Libertad)?

At one time, I was prepared to build two additional carriers (based on CL hulls) to give me four fleet CVs. The idea was that one of them could *always* be at sea, and in wartime, the big Libertad would carry a strike-heavy wing, while the smaller CVLs carried fighter-heavy wings. In case of inbound air strikes, two CVLs should be launching fighters faster than one big CV (at least as I see it).

My biggest Libertad designs are actually getting larger in size and displacement than the OTL Yorktown-class, I see...

Hmm...

So what do folks suggest I do? I will build another CV, but which type? How many? When? I'm open to advice, here...

Quoted

First, I had failed to make her TDS cover her entire hull. Second, I decided to add two more twin 130mm guns to increase AA/DP firepower. Third, the original design was constrained by having a 220m-length limit on my largest drydock. The incorporation of intermediate lengths, and my acquisition of a 3.5 Drydock, has removed that artificial limitation, permitting a more capacious design.

With the limited beam there isn't going to be much of a TDS anyway, especially towards the ends of the ship. Really I'd want more beam as it's not really possible to resist anything but small charges. The length/beam ratio is probably a bit much; it's only the Japanese carriers that were so long and thin. Something between 7.5 and 9:1 seems more likely.

I don't think the Type 3 dock is that limiting in terms of size. The postwar Ark Royal/Eagle were only 720ft on the waterline. Longer is usually better for aircraft carriers though.

The ship is likely to be around for a long time unless she get's sunk, so it might be worth the extra cost of size increases in order to give more design stretch in future. Its just a more expensive refitting process with a smaller ship (e.g. HMS Hermes) to operate larger aircraft. Is having a single large carrier enough for Chile. Realistically you're only spending 15-20% of the time at sea so another ship might be worthwhile. How many aircraft does the Chilean Navy actually have? It may be problematic simply trying to fill a carrier of this size.

The larger version is quite nice but I think I'd still add some more beam. The AA armament of 130mm weapons might be a bit much as well. They're fairly heavy mountings, high up on the ship.

The belt armour is ok, maybe a little thin for adequate splinter protection. It's very high though, but not really high enough to go from the waterline to the top of the hangar, which is what I guess you're aiming for. With the open hangar design it's not really possible to armour the hangar sides as you're having to cantilever the armour upwards from the hangar deck, rather than attaching it to the flight deck at the top.

How is the deck armour arranged? A single layer on the main deck?

Quoted

Yes, Arcturus has an enclosed bow. I haven't published the picture yet because I still don't like the look of the finished product and I'm still fiddling with the drawing.

I've gone through loads of carrier drawings trying to get something that I'm satisfied with.

Quoted

So what do folks suggest I do? I will build another CV, but which type? How many? When? I'm open to advice, here...

I think the seas off Chile preclude effective operations from a small carrier. A larger ship is more capable and has more design stretch for the future. Carriers are expensive to run as well so two large ships may be cheaper than three or four smaller ships.

Chiloe is interesting but very fast for a merchant ship conversion. The enclosed bow looks a bit strange as well.

[SIZE=1]Image by thesmilingassassin and modified by me.[/SIZE]
Two possibilities for a rebuild of the two Atlantean Warrior-class CLs. (Tentatively nicknamed "Aella" and "Alcippe".) I like the top one best, and the SS design shows that one.

The rebuild is a 50% rebuild. The ships receive new engines, new guns, and new superstructure/funnels, similar to the Astraea rebuilds of 1936. I decided with these ships that I wasn't going to go quite so far overboard with the 130mm guns, though!

[SIZE=3]Rebuilt Warrior, Atlantean Light Cruiser laid down 1916 (Engine 1939)[/SIZE]

Displacement:
6,644 t light; 6,985 t standard; 7,700 t normal; 8,273 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
575.00 ft / 575.00 ft x 56.00 ft x 18.00 ft (normal load)
175.26 m / 175.26 m x 17.07 m x 5.49 m

Armament:
10 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (5x2 guns), 67.03lbs / 30.41kg shells, 1940 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority forward, 3 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns (4x2 guns), 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1939 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
24 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1939 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
12 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1916 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 828 lbs / 376 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 375
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.74" / 95 mm 480.00 ft / 146.30 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: 1.57" / 40 mm 95.00 ft / 28.96 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 128 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.57" / 40 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.18" / 30 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm - -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.18" / 30 mm, Conning tower: 5.91" / 150 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 75,814 shp / 56,557 Kw = 32.50 kts
Range 7,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,288 tons

Complement:
410 - 534

Cost:
£1.016 million / $4.063 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 120 tons, 1.6 %
Armour: 1,457 tons, 18.9 %
- Belts: 905 tons, 11.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 48 tons, 0.6 %
- Armour Deck: 454 tons, 5.9 %
- Conning Tower: 50 tons, 0.6 %
Machinery: 2,051 tons, 26.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,915 tons, 37.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,057 tons, 13.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 1.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
9,260 lbs / 4,200 Kg = 138.1 x 5.1 " / 130 mm shells or 1.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
Metacentric height 2.8 ft / 0.9 m
Roll period: 14.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.27
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.01

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.465
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.27 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23.98 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 69
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Mid (65 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m (10.00 ft / 3.05 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Stern: 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Average freeboard: 16.66 ft / 5.08 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 101.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 135.5 %
Waterplane Area: 20,799 Square feet or 1,932 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 116 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 90 lbs/sq ft or 440 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.10
- 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 Excess Weights:
Air search radar - 20 tons
Surface search radar - 20 tons
Extra AA ammo - 20 tons
Air conditioning/Heating - 5 tons
Torpedo reloads - 30 tons
Crew comforts - 5 tons

I tend to agree with Gavin. Two ships of Yorktowns size would seem reasonable.

As for the Warrior conversions, I'm torn. The top one looks preaty damn snazzy but the bottom one seems more realistic. The layout keeps the topweight down from the 5.1" mounts.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
With the limited beam there isn't going to be much of a TDS anyway, especially towards the ends of the ship. Really I'd want more beam as it's not really possible to resist anything but small charges. The length/beam ratio is probably a bit much; it's only the Japanese carriers that were so long and thin. Something between 7.5 and 9:1 seems more likely.

Okay then, can do. (I should note much of my inspiration for the 750'-long CV was the Japanese Unryu-class, so that's why dimensions are the way they are.)

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
How many aircraft does the Chilean Navy actually have? It may be problematic simply trying to fill a carrier of this size.

The larger version is quite nice but I think I'd still add some more beam. The AA armament of 130mm weapons might be a bit much as well. They're fairly heavy mountings, high up on the ship.

The belt armour is ok, maybe a little thin for adequate splinter protection. It's very high though, but not really high enough to go from the waterline to the top of the hangar, which is what I guess you're aiming for. With the open hangar design it's not really possible to armour the hangar sides as you're having to cantilever the armour upwards from the hangar deck, rather than attaching it to the flight deck at the top.

How is the deck armour arranged? A single layer on the main deck?

I can make those changes.

Deck armour should be according to the USN style. I'd say it should have a sort of "decapping" deck located at the flight deck, and then the main armoured deck on the hanger floor. At least that's the way I understand the USN CVs to be designed.

Are the open hangers problematic? I was under the impression that they permit better air movement, and closed hangers were bad for damage control; but somewhere I saw a person critique the USN's open hanger design (for reasons I don't recall).

The AdCAA (Armada Air Arm) currently has, for carrier aircraft, 36 Buchon-N fighters and 36 Spartan Corsair IIs for fighters; 36 ANAF TBN-8 torpedo bombers, and 36 Banshee dive bombers. Currently, they're in three different Wings rotating off Mapuche (one month on, two months at the AdCAA's shore base). By the time Libertad is commissioned - in whatever guise I build her in - the training programs should give me enough pilots to man her. That's another reason why I'm planning a Mapuche modernization, though: I can switch her air group over to the Libertad while she's being worked on. I'm actually planning to cut the size of the FACh by 120 aircraft in 1938, so the AdCAA might just get a few ex-Air Force squadrons straight off the top.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

So what do folks suggest I do? I will build another CV, but which type? How many? When? I'm open to advice, here...

I think the seas off Chile preclude effective operations from a small carrier. A larger ship is more capable and has more design stretch for the future. Carriers are expensive to run as well so two large ships may be cheaper than three or four smaller ships.

Okay then, I'm convinced. I'll make the final changes and see how the budget looks...

Quoted

Are the open hangers problematic? I was under the impression that they permit better air movement, and closed hangers were bad for damage control; but somewhere I saw a person critique the USN's open hanger design (for reasons I don't recall).

DK Brown gives;

Open: Good ventilation, easy to warm up planes, mount large strikes, side lifts, more planes.

Closed: Stronger, lighter hull. Much safer against fire, easy to armour, planes protected from weather and some enemy action.

Essentially the open hangar allows for a wider hangar going near to the width of the ship so you can carry more aircraft. It's also easier to add deck edge elevators. Closed hangars are better for survivability by simply being inside the ship more.

Which would be best for Chile? I think they'd probably follow the Atlantean practice of open hangars.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Are the open hangers problematic? I was under the impression that they permit better air movement, and closed hangers were bad for damage control; but somewhere I saw a person critique the USN's open hanger design (for reasons I don't recall).

DK Brown gives;

Open: Good ventilation, easy to warm up planes, mount large strikes, side lifts, more planes.

Closed: Stronger, lighter hull. Much safer against fire, easy to armour, planes protected from weather and some enemy action.

Essentially the open hangar allows for a wider hangar going near to the width of the ship so you can carry more aircraft. It's also easier to add deck edge elevators. Closed hangars are better for survivability by simply being inside the ship more.

Which would be best for Chile? I think they'd probably follow the Atlantean practice of open hangars.

That sounds right to me. I'll keep using open hangers, then. I'm uncertain about deck-edge lifts; probably won't use them at the moment.

Why are closed hangers safer against fire? I would have figured it the other way around...