WesWorld

Companion/upgrades of the Gam class, capable of operating with them as a standard unit. Intended to replace, with their predecessors, all of the lesser designs currently in service, while immunizing against airframe growth and increased landing speeds from jet aircraft.


Nordish Carrier '45, Nordmark Aircraft Carrier laid down 1945

Displacement:
33,065 t light; 34,140 t standard; 38,140 t normal; 41,340 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
866.12 ft / 820.21 ft x 98.43 ft x 29.53 ft (normal load)
263.99 m / 250.00 m x 30.00 m x 9.00 m

Armament:
8 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (4x2 guns), 67.03lbs / 30.40kg shells, 1945 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (4x2 guns), 67.03lbs / 30.40kg shells, 1945 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
64 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (16x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1945 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
48 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (24x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1945 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 1,209 lbs / 548 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 400

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.94" / 100 mm 598.75 ft / 182.50 m 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 112 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.97" / 50 mm 598.75 ft / 182.50 m 27.10 ft / 8.26 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
2nd: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
3rd: 0.59" / 15 mm - -
4th: 0.59" / 15 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2.95" / 75 mm, Conning tower: 4.92" / 125 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 180,000 shp / 134,280 Kw = 33.21 kts
Range 5,663nm at 24.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7,199 tons

Complement:
1,363 - 1,773

Cost:
£13.270 million / $53.078 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 151 tons, 0.4 %
Armour: 6,560 tons, 17.2 %
- Belts: 1,930 tons, 5.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,182 tons, 3.1 %
- Armament: 93 tons, 0.2 %
- Armour Deck: 3,235 tons, 8.5 %
- Conning Tower: 120 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 4,545 tons, 11.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 11,808 tons, 31.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,075 tons, 13.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 10,000 tons, 26.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
64,426 lbs / 29,223 Kg = 961.1 x 5.1 " / 130 mm shells or 9.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 17.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 69 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.09
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.53

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.560
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.33 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.94 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 49.21 ft / 15.00 m
- Forecastle (12 %): 49.21 ft / 15.00 m (29.53 ft / 9.00 m aft of break)
- Mid (40 %): 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Stern: 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Average freeboard: 31.89 ft / 9.72 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 89.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 244.4 %
Waterplane Area: 59,221 Square feet or 5,502 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 142 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 134 lbs/sq ft or 653 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
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

8,100t misc weight = Nominal group strength of 90 planes
--32x Kongsberg Aurora I fighters (1.2 'nominal planes' each, 38.4)
--32x Kongsberg Blizzard I naval attack planes (1.5 'nominal planes' each, 4
--2x Kongsberg-Breguet Nautilus seaplanes (1.5 'nominal planes' each, 3)

300t flagship facilties
250t aircraft flight control
250t assorted radar and fire control
500t damage control
600t crated aircraft parts, (16 at 25t each) and spare parts

A very workmanlike design. She carries a very heavy AA outfit though - sixteen heavy AA guns seems to be a lot. But other than that I see nothing bad about her.

The Gam class had twelve 130mm to start with. Sometime tomorrow I may try working up a 6x2x130mm layout, but I think I'll stick with this design that just upgrades the four singles to twins.

Looks a good design overall. I don't think 16x130mm is a problem, although firing arcs might be crowded and blast an issue to be aware of.

Initial layout sketch, 'helpfully' shrunk by Photobucket:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c386/v…zpsb61b235b.png

Wondering if people will see the same issues I do.

Quoted

'helpfully' shrunk by Photobucket

Personally I don't find it helpful at all. Photobucket used to be pretty good, but ever since this new version, it has been nothing but a load of [this part of the sentence has been removed by the Imperial Japanese Censorship Agency].


Not so sure about those two port mounts in the center. You might have a problem with the firing arcs with those elevators (at least I assume they are elevators) so close by. I would move those twp mounts fore and aft of them.

Agreed, and the starboard equivalents might be a little iffy from the island.

When did deck-edge elevators become 'normal'? I don't pay much attention to CV designs in general, so I could have missed something rather easily, but I was under the presumption that those were still 'out-there' a little in the timeline. I mean we've really not had the experience to see that you'd need them for simultaneous launch/recover operations (IIRC, no one even does launch/recover at the same time, or has even tried.) If I'm way off base, I blame my cold and the fact I've not had coffee yet today.

Anywhoo...remove them and the 13cm guns have all kinds of room on the port side. Is that blob on the starboard side, well aft supposed to be the superstructure? Why so far aft? Not saying anything wrong with it, but why? I'd personally want it as far forward as possible. Gets it away from landing ops, where you're far more likely to have a crash landing slam into it than you are a botched take-off.

The reasoning for the deck-edge elevators is to do something useful with the weight they require and counterbalance the island, rather than anything operational. Nordmark, after their experience with the Orn crash, is the last nation to pick up simultaneous operations without angled decks... which you'll note are going to be problematic to install with this layout.

The island is where it is primarily because I thought it would look cool, but I note that it's strongly off to the side of the flight deck rather than being 'in' the edge.

I agree that the initial midships mounts' placements are problematic, and that the port ones will be going 'outside' the elevators and the starboard ones forward a bit.

I don't really look at deck-edge elevators as a "simultaneous launch/recover operations" option. I see it more as a "recovery and send down to the hangar without bothering the next recovery" option at this point.

I think that the mount directly in front of the superstructure should be facing forward. Since the superstructure is sticking out there anyway, that mount can be placed higher than the other mounts for a reasonable field of fire.

Quoted

Originally posted by Valles
The reasoning for the deck-edge elevators is to do something useful with the weight they require and counterbalance the island, rather than anything operational. Nordmark, after their experience with the Orn crash, is the last nation to pick up simultaneous operations without angled decks...

To the best of my knowledge, no nation ever did simultaneous launch and recovery of aircraft prior to the creation of angled flight decks.

I'm not sure about the elevators, myself. They're just not very well placed for landing or launching operations, particularly in comparison with historical vessels. While Wasp brought in a skeletal deck-edge elevator, and the Essex expanded the size of the deck-edge elevator, nobody ditched centerline elevators until well into the 1950s. The first ship I can find that definitely did so was the Midway, when rebuilt post 1955 to include angled decks. There also should be an elevator forward so planes can be brought down into the hanger.

For disclosure, France has four carriers with deck-edge elevators (the two Bucentaures and the two Vengeurs). Both classes (which are derivatives of each other) are basically the French equivalent of the Essex class, and their elevator layout is thus similar.

Tinker tinker tinker.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c386/v…zps0118d011.png

Now with front view!

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c386/v…zps42b48f8b.png