WesWorld

The Australian navy has reached the stage where its WWI era ships are in dire need of replacement and its post-WWI destroyers are in need of a refit. It has also become bloated with non-standard obsolete ships. In order to go forward the RAN has unveiled a 5-year plan (starting 1943) with the goal of updating current ships and replacing those that are too old. While expensive it is expected that a good part of the plan can be financed through the scrapping of obsolete ships.

The biggest ships will be a pair of 15” gunned battlecruisers to replace the two Splendid Cats. Two new carriers will be built; a fleet carrier to operate with the battlecruisers and a training carrier to replace Argus.

Sixteen obsolete light cruisers will be replaced by a combination of ships. There will be four improved Sydney class heavy light cruisers, eight oceanic heavy destroyers, and four littoral combat ships.

The amphibious and escort forces will be strengthened with the addition of two heavy escort cruisers/monitors, two heavy landing ships, two seaplane carriers, and a further ten oceanic escorts.

Finally, all A/D/F class destroyers will be refitted, with all forty-eight ex-UK destroyers being placed in long-term storage. Five additional K-class submarines will be built, replacing fourteen J/H/A class submarines. And a yet undetermined number of auxiliaries and amphibious support ships will be built or converted.

New ships:
2 BC Wombat class
1 CV Atlantis
1 CVT New training class
2 CVS Albatross class
2 CE Erebrus class
2 LSH Coral Sea class
4 CLH New heavy class
4 CLL New littoral class
8 DDH New heavy class
10 OFF 1-class
5 SS K-class
+ Auxilaries

Decommissioned/Reserve/Scraped:

2 BC Splendid Cats
1 BB Iron Duke
1 CVT Argus
4 CL Chatham class
4 CL Port Shepstone class
8 CL D-class
10 DD Thornycroft/Admirality class
8 DD U-class
30 DD S-Type
5 FF FF-A class
3 SS J-class
8 SS H class
3 SS A class
4 PV Polar class

Sounds quite interesting. Looking forward to seeing your designs.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Sounds quite interesting. Looking forward to seeing your designs.

+2

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Sounds quite interesting. Looking forward to seeing your designs.

+2

+3

Here they are. I still have to do SS2s for the carriers, the cruiser and destroyer designs. The Albatross, OFF and K-class will just be updated versions of the ships already in service.

BC Wombat class:
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…5024#post135024

CV Atlantis:
~24,000t light, 32kts, 90 AC, light AA, light armor, potentially angled deck?

CVT Training carrier:
~9,000-12,000t light, 24kts, 24 AC

CVS Albatross class:
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…72126#post72126

CE Erebrus class:
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…1724#post121724

LSH Coral Sea class:
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…6859#post126859

CLH Heavy light cruiser:
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…75728#post75728
Based on the Sydney design but using the new semi-automatic rapid fire twin turrets (10x6"), B turret will not be superfiring (Mogami layout)

CLL Littoral combatant:
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…7053#post127053

DDH Oceanic destroyer:
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…72125#post72125
Based on this deisgn but bigger (3,000t light) and designed for independant operations, more of a light cruiser than a destroyer.

FF OFF-1 Class:
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…1703#post121703

SS K class:
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…6332#post116332

A very preliminary timeline for this plan. Also just remembered Atlantis actually exists here so its not a good name for a carrier, now changed to Aurora.

1943
2 CE Erebrus class
2 LSH Coral Sea class
5 SS K-class
2 CVS Albatross class
2 DDH New heavy class

1944
2 BC Wombat class
1 CVT New training class
10 OFF 1-class
2 DDH New heavy class

1945
1 CV Aurora
2 CLH New heavy class
2 CLL New littoral class
2 DDH New heavy class

1946
2 CLH New heavy class
2 CLL New littoral class
2 DDH New heavy class

I was rather curious why the name Atlantis would be used for the CV built in Australia, though Aurora is also a CV in Atlantis!

Quoted from "thesmilingassassin"

...though Aurora is also a CV in Atlantis!

And a French submarine... and a Russian light cruiser. And I think a British cruiser, too...

I don't think I have an Aurora...

Curious to see what the carrier will look like, given that I'm building a ship of similar air group on 50% more tonnage.

Any work on Australian infrastructure? My memory is that this is rather limited.

Quoted from "Desertfox"

CV Atlantis:
~24,000t light, 32kts, 90 AC, light AA, light armor, potentially angled deck?

I missed this bit earlier. What is your rationale for this design choice? While some basic trials were carried out in the late 1940s, the angled flight deck did not really appear until 1952-1954, and so I'd have some serious reservations...

Quoted

I don't think I have an Aurora

Maybe you should take a look at what the name translates into in Hindi and use that one.

I was picking names from shuttles, and forgot we actually have Atalntis. I must be getting old.

Think tinclad US carriers, little armor and armament. USS Enterprise was supposed to carry up to 90 AC on I think 20,000t.

Whats infrastructure? Isn't that what the UK is for?

I wasn't sure how far along we where on angled decks. Thats why there's a question mark. If its too early its no big deal keeping it off.

Singapore's a bit of a trip, and the British might be using the facilities if there's a situation afoot.

The new heavy oceanic destroyer.


HMAS Charon, Australia Oceanic Destroyer laid down 1943

Displacement:
3,001 t light; 3,176 t standard; 3,771 t normal; 4,247 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
445.94 ft / 440.00 ft x 44.00 ft x 17.00 ft (normal load)
135.92 m / 134.11 m x 13.41 m x 5.18 m

Armament:
10 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns (5x2 guns), 52.58lbs / 23.85kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority aft, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (3x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1943 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread
20 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (10x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1943 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 554 lbs / 251 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 310
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.20" / 30 mm - -

- Conning tower: 1.20" / 30 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 47,971 shp / 35,786 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,071 tons

Complement:
239 - 312

Cost:
£2.204 million / $8.815 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 69 tons, 1.8 %
Armour: 33 tons, 0.9 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 27 tons, 0.7 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 6 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 1,239 tons, 32.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,240 tons, 32.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 769 tons, 20.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 420 tons, 11.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
2,066 lbs / 937 Kg = 39.3 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 1.7 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 14.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.55
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.24

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.401
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.26 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 61 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 9.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2.46 ft / 0.75 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forecastle (15 %): 19.00 ft / 5.79 m
- Mid (50 %): 19.00 ft / 5.79 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Stern: 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Average freeboard: 17.88 ft / 5.45 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 134.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 127.0 %
Waterplane Area: 12,375 Square feet or 1,150 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 53 lbs/sq ft or 261 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.62
- Longitudinal: 2.01
- Overall: 0.70
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

Misc weight:
100t improved crew facilities
100t radar/electronics suite
100t ASW armament
100t reserve/cargo
20t aircraft facilities (no hangar, no embarked aircraft, can carry 1 autogyro)

1) overall hull-strength is too low for its displacement.
2) Not sure about the autogyro. I was thinking of putting an autogyro or helicopter on the Ashida class which is about 84% bigger and decided that there was probably not enough space for that on it...

1) adding 5 shells per gun solves that problem.
2) Aircraft facilities are limited to some paint on the quarter deck, some tie down rings, and a fuel pump. These ships wont be carrying an autogyro regularly. But Australia wants to see if they are capable of doing so and have the capability in case of emergencies or to transfer a guy or two around ships.

Problem with the quarterdeck is that you most likely have a bunch of your ASW gear there (depth charge racks, depth charge throwers, depth charges, etc.) It is probably hard to put an autogyro there, unless you remove all the ASW gear from the quarterdeck. Probably needs a bit of space as well to be able to take off.

Edit: you also have the majority of your main armament aft, which takes up space there...

Edit2: ... especially with only 2 raised mounts...

Edit 3: ... and your 40mm mounts on the centerline...

Edit4: ... and adding 5 shells does not help the hull strength. It is still too low for its displacement (needs to be 0.75 for ships with standard displacement of 3001-4500 tons, thus you would need to get rid of 176 tons to get to 3000 tons)

I'll throw a drawing together, see how it looks, its not a big deal to get rid of it.

Is it standard? I always thought it was light. I thought the only time we ever used standard was for the Cleito Treaty. Don't we use light for everything else?

Shouldn't be a problem anyways:

HMAS Charon, Australia Oceanic Destroyer laid down 1943

Displacement:
2,702 t light; 2,873 t standard; 3,436 t normal; 3,886 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
425.94 ft / 420.00 ft x 42.00 ft x 17.00 ft (normal load)
129.83 m / 128.02 m x 12.80 m x 5.18 m

Armament:
10 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns (5x2 guns), 52.58lbs / 23.85kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
12 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (3x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1943 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread
20 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (10x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1943 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 554 lbs / 251 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 320
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.20" / 30 mm - -

- Conning tower: 1.20" / 30 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 46,207 shp / 34,470 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,012 tons

Complement:
223 - 291

Cost:
£2.093 million / $8.374 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 69 tons, 2.0 %
Armour: 33 tons, 1.0 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 27 tons, 0.8 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 6 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 1,193 tons, 34.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 987 tons, 28.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 733 tons, 21.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 420 tons, 12.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,402 lbs / 636 Kg = 26.7 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
Metacentric height 1.6 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 14.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.64
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.401
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23.70 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 9.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2.46 ft / 0.75 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forecastle (15 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Mid (50 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m (15.00 ft / 4.57 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Stern: 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Average freeboard: 17.62 ft / 5.37 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 142.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 115.9 %
Waterplane Area: 11,275 Square feet or 1,048 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 101 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 45 lbs/sq ft or 220 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.53
- Longitudinal: 1.94
- Overall: 0.61
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

It used to be light but for some reason, someone decided to change that to standard.

Thinking about it a few moments ago, I became curious as to how the cross section of the Australian K2 submarine might look like with a 0.5 depth:beam ratio.

Rough x-section sketch comparison of Australia's K2 submarine and Japan's I-305 submarine based on the SS data... should be 2 pixels for 1 foot.

Man, that looks flat... Any more beam and it will be as flat as the meat on your burgers...