WesWorld

Gentlemen,

below is a concept design for a battle scout. It´s basically a slightly improved rebuild of the RSAN Triumph class with slightly different layout and an added flight deck aft. That lannding deck has a length of about 90 meters with a hangar below that can hold 20 aircraft. With no flying off deck planes will be launched from catapults on both forward edges of the flight deck.

The idea behind this design is a to have a multi-role vessel capable of defeating all the worlds large super-cruisers and older BC and probably BBs plus adding an airborn element for superb scouting, spotting and probably even attacking (depends on type of plane carried - wheeled once like on a real CV, fitted to be launched from cats).



What do you think? Is it worth it? How would you modify that doctrine if you´d be in charge of the RSAN?

Stats:

BCV A 40, South Africa Battlescout laid down 1940

Displacement:
29.552 t light; 30.915 t standard; 33.721 t normal; 35.966 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
816,16 ft / 800,52 ft x 93,50 ft x 29,20 ft (normal load)
248,76 m / 244,00 m x 28,50 m x 8,90 m

Armament:
8 - 12,99" / 330 mm guns (2x4 guns), 1.135,38lbs / 515,00kg shells, 1940 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, all forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
20 - 4,53" / 115 mm guns (10x2 guns), 46,30lbs / 21,00kg shells, 1940 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, 1940 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns (4x6 guns), 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1940 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
12 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1940 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 10.080 lbs / 4.572 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 120

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11,8" / 300 mm 459,32 ft / 140,00 m 11,81 ft / 3,60 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 88% of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,18" / 30 mm 459,32 ft / 140,00 m 27,89 ft / 8,50 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13,0" / 330 mm 7,87" / 200 mm 13,0" / 330 mm
2nd: 0,98" / 25 mm 0,59" / 15 mm -
3rd: 0,59" / 15 mm - -
4th: 0,39" / 10 mm - -
5th: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 5,91" / 150 mm, Conning tower: 3,94" / 100 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 150.134 shp / 112.000 Kw = 32,34 kts
Range 8.000nm at 18,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5.051 tons

Complement:
1.243 - 1.617

Cost:
£15,734 million / $62,935 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1.221 tons, 3,6%
Armour: 10.961 tons, 32,5%
- Belts: 2.772 tons, 8,2%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 560 tons, 1,7%
- Armament: 1.656 tons, 4,9%
- Armour Deck: 5.885 tons, 17,5%
- Conning Tower: 89 tons, 0,3%
Machinery: 4.014 tons, 11,9%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12.855 tons, 38,1%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4.170 tons, 12,4%
Miscellaneous weights: 500 tons, 1,5%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
47.367 lbs / 21.485 Kg = 43,2 x 13,0 " / 330 mm shells or 6,8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,03
Metacentric height 4,8 ft / 1,5 m
Roll period: 17,9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 69 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,59
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0,540
Length to Beam Ratio: 8,56 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32,54 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 69
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 4,92 ft / 1,50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Forecastle (25%): 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Mid (50%): 19,52 ft / 5,95 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 19,52 ft / 5,95 m
- Stern: 19,52 ft / 5,95 m
- Average freeboard: 19,91 ft / 6,07 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87,2%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 161,4%
Waterplane Area: 53.866 Square feet or 5.004 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 115%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 174 lbs/sq ft or 847 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,99
- Longitudinal: 1,07
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Even a few waterline hits in unarmored areas will force counterflooding. To say nothing of an aerial torpedo.

Then there's all the flammibility issues from bringing avgas to a gunfight.

Might not be the best idea you've had. I attribute it to sleep deprivation.

Hahaha... Sleep debrivation. Har har har... Very good! *zzzzZZZzzzz*

Seriously, why is stability more of an issue than it is anyway regarding any other design? 1,03 is not that much but well above the minimum.

Regarding flammibility - I expected that argument. Of course it is an issue whenever planes are put to sea and even more so when many planes are carried. Remember the hangar hit on one of the Hertos during the Battle off St. Helena? Had quite some incinerating effect, for sure. However, here the hangar is aft and well away from critical stuff like machinery and main gun magazins. When going forward with some steam flames and smoke should carry aft, not forward. And isn´t it compensated by a much higher operational flexibility? Just asking your opinions....

1.03 might be higher than the minimum, but it means that you have very little reserve here. A couple waterline hits and you will have to counterflood, and that will slow you down.

The flammability of the ship is a fairly serious problem: while the wind-driven flames on the outside of the ship might tend to work aft (which has it's own problems, like the rudder controls), interior flames will follow the flammables, and any fuel-fed fires will tend to go downwards as the burning fuel drips through any openings in the decks.

My mental warship designer gets a tad schizo if I come up with a stability of less than 1.10. It's not that I'm paranoid - this is warship design. They really ARE out to get me!

The concept of a battlecarrier has always intrigued me somehow: the mixing of aircraft and guns... In that particular frame of mind, I like this ship and would build it.

The realist, unfortunately, wants to veto that idea. She's too expensive for the commerce-raiding role (my personal opinion being that an extremely long-legged 6x6" CL with three or four floatplanes is the ideal commerce raider) and that's the role I'd see her working best in. Use the planes to scout and keep out of trouble she can't handle, and run away from something that can hurt her.

I'd probably compromise by building another Vengeance-class ACR and a second Michel Endress-class light carrier. (14,913 tons + 9,885 tons = 24,798 tons versus 29,552 tons).

I tend to agree with the others (though its always cool to see another battlecarrier design!), I wouldn't want to bring avgas to a gunfight, unless I had a suitable delevery system for it

I wouldn't give this particular design an edge against say an Atlantean Vengeance class BC and the CVL Alioth as an escort. I'd say this hypothetical Atlantean fleet would have the bigger edge in operational flexibility, they can be in two places at once! Also, Alioth carries double the aircraft and Vengeance doesn't have the avgas accident waiting to happen.

Comments on the design itself. I'd say with the superstructure aft she would be carrying floatplanes as the aft superstructure would make a good crash barrier but I don't think pilots would be fond of it!

All this being said I wouldn't mind seeing what the final design would look like!..because either if you love em or hate em, Battlecarriers are just so damn awesome looking!

Others have adressed the stability and fire issues so I won't rehash those.

GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm self working on a Japanese/Chinese version on the Ta`pai battlecruiser in the 30/40. I'll post soon to Parador and he to you!, I think.

Nice concept for ship designers to come up with, but as Wes says, I wouldn't rate this against say Vengeance and Aloith or Repulse and Glorious.

And at the end f the day, this is wesworld so I assume the designers are including Anti-Manzo and Anti-filipino weaponry?

Quoted

Originally posted by Earl822
Nice concept for ship designers to come up with, but as Wes says, I wouldn't rate this against say Vengeance and Aloith or Repulse and Glorious.

I really cannot follow this "argument". What´s the point in bringing up a 38500ts capital ship and a 13500ts carrier or an even heavier british compination of BC and CV to counter a single 31000ts unit and claiming them to be superior?

In fact, if such a combination is necessary so you feel confident to have a chance against my design I´d say I´ve done something right and it´s the best argument PRO building it! ;o)

Seriously, if I´d like to counter Vengeance I send a similar sized South Africa, Mocambique or Ophion and blow her out of the water. Even the design above or her older cousin Triumph may stand a chance 1-on-1 versus Vengeance as the latter has no imune zone (or at best between 20000m and 22000m) against the 33cm gun firing a 515kg shell. And of course I could add a purpose build CV at any time too....

So again what´s your point in bringing up 50000+ tons of warships against a single unit of a bit more than half that tonnage?


The flamibility issue because of avgas needs to be considered of course. But then again, how many CVs or AVs were really lost to avgas vapor igniting? I can think of two purpose build CVs (Taiho and Wasp) but that´s it. All other CVs or AVs did not succumb to avgas but to severe below water damage or heavy damage in general. That is including fires of course but also ships without avgas burn when hit by HE bombs and the like. Especially british carriers never seemed to have a problem with avgas spreading. Perhaps this was because of their armored deck which helped to localize damage.....

So how serious is the danger of avgas fire and a likely loss of the ship because of that? Especially when you considere that on a battle carrier like above avgas will hardly spread like on a real CV (where you also have much less armor but much more avgas).

What historical incidents do you know where AVs or CVs or any other ship was lost to minor damage but heavy avgas fires?

Also, the Triumph was rated a very decent design on this board with a good combination of speed, power and armor. The above design study keeps all this. Does the added flight deck and planes negates it all?

Arrrggghh!!! No, no, no, no, no!

Do not do this. Exterme health hazard! Your pilot's won't be worried about dying of cancer or eating too much lard!


Seriosuly this idea is bad. The history of hybrid warships is littered with these kinds of failures. There is no top view but I assume the superstructure is on the centerline. If so that deck is useless for anything but sunbathing. You can't land planes on it, the turbulence and eddies from the superstructure, even a "streamlined" one are such that no safe landing is possible. I give the Furious as one live example and most of the WW2 German hybrid designs as another. I won't even mention the effects of the two funnels. Even if you stripped the superstructure off or made a small island the turbulence from the forward turrets would make take-off a hazard.

Flamability and stability are really not that important, staiblity can be increased and avgas put behind thick armour or under the waterline in the double hull. The main flaw is that you can't operate aircraft from her unless its a one-way trip.

I'd suggest maybe making Chitose type seaplane carrier aft end and marrying that with the big guns. Flight decks certainly not.

Why do everybody has something against it

To reduce the turbulences, what about a greater length of the flight deck ? Something like this ....

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
What historical incidents do you know where AVs or CVs or any other ship was lost to minor damage but heavy avgas fires?

Depending how you look at it? Taiho.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I really cannot follow this "argument". What´s the point in bringing up a 38500ts capital ship and a 13500ts carrier or an even heavier british compination of BC and CV to counter a single 31000ts unit and claiming them to be superior?

In fact, if such a combination is necessary so you feel confident to have a chance against my design I´d say I´ve done something right and it´s the best argument PRO building it! ;o)

S'why I compared it to a Vengeance/Endress pair. Sure, the ACR can't smash in the nose of any other ACR which comes calling, and the Endress can't chase down and sink a heavy cruiser, but they can both expend their full attention on their own tasks.

If this were the missile age, what you'd be hunting for is a Kiev-type aviation cruiser... which would work better, methinks, as getting hit in return isn't going to be such a certainty.

That said... I still do like to see battlecarriers. Bad idea or good idea, I think they're cool.

Red lines show major shipping routes. Black circles show 1000m radius, red circles 2000m radius.

There isn't much of South Africa's likely operating environment that can't be covered by land based reconnaissance aircraft (either landplanes or flying boats). A few years ago a hybrid ship might have been a better idea given the lower performance aircraft available but in 1943 I'm not so sure. She'll be entering service at a similar time to really long range aircraft, which are cheaper and can do a better job at scouting - especially with ASV radar.

It depends what you're scouting for as well. Really I feel that in their operating environment, South Africa can bring a large superiority of force to bear. I think the solution is more long ranged aircraft, or more small carriers, rather than this ship which is rather flawed. Three small carriers for the same job can do a much better role as scouts.

I think they look cool but if I was the one building it I try to extend the deck as much as possible, change the funnels to something similar to the Japanese curved things, construct an island and make one of the turrets offset to the opposite direction of the island to counter the weight.

I was thinking about doing the same with the Samanjir but finally decided to instead paired the Samanjir to a CVL that still is not in the encyclopedia.

Still I think they look cool. No real reason to built it IMO but go for it.

Parador I'll make your idea too!

I'm still against it.

Parador's V.2 is a big carrier but still lugging round all that armour, there is no proper island but a big collection of two deckhouses and two funnels. The gun barrels still throw up nasty currents over the deck-edge for take-off.
Now you have a big carrier that can't carry as many planes as a proper carrier and you've lost a quarter of a full flight deck.

You could always build a carrier with extra armament, some kind of heavily-armed carrier with cruiser-calibre guns but this line of development seems flawed.


Nice drawing Alex!

Thanks Hood!
It's based on the Ise (I'm working on the RL version at SB) The hangar is based on The Ise too and to the US fligthdek cruiser at SB you might know?
Is the concept of mine better? Or what Sould I change on it to make it might reasistic..
sorry for my English

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I really cannot follow this "argument". What´s the point in bringing up a 38500ts capital ship and a 13500ts carrier or an even heavier british compination of BC and CV to counter a single 31000ts unit and claiming them to be superior?

In fact, if such a combination is necessary so you feel confident to have a chance against my design I´d say I´ve done something right and it´s the best argument PRO building it! ;o)

Seriously, if I´d like to counter Vengeance I send a similar sized South Africa, Mocambique or Ophion and blow her out of the water. Even the design above or her older cousin Triumph may stand a chance 1-on-1 versus Vengeance as the latter has no imune zone (or at best between 20000m and 22000m) against the 33cm gun firing a 515kg shell. And of course I could add a purpose build CV at any time too....

So again what´s your point in bringing up 50000+ tons of warships against a single unit of a bit more than half that tonnage?

My point is Alioth can perform the carrier role better than the hybid and the Vengeance has a good enough chance to take her out on her own as well under the right conditions, yet both can be in two different places at once if needed.

Overall its a similar delema the U.S. examined when they looked at flight deck cruisers, too expensive a ship with too many vulnerablity's.

Oh and I see your South Africa, Mocambique or Ophion and raise you Memnon, Emathion and Neptune

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Oh and I see your South Africa, Mocambique or Ophion and raise you Memnon, Emathion and Neptune ;)

Ah, wait a minute. There is something wrong with your bet!

You but Vengeance against my Triumph so I raised you by SA, Mocambique and Ophion so your latest bet cannot raise me. In fact, it cannot even put you on par as the Neptunes are still building while all RSAN classes mentioned above are in service for years. But even if we allow to rate the Neptunes I counter you by adding the Imperators and Monarchs to my bet. ;o)

(By the end of 1937 the RSAN OOB contains 13 capital ships, two with 33cm rifles and 11 with at least eight 38cm guns and a 12th nearing completion - a force second only to the British Royal Navy. So my ..... is bigger than yours. ;o))

To sum it up: Bad concept, flawed doctrine.

Guess she will be moved to the Never-were category of my encyclopedia.

Thanks for that map, RA. Helped a lot to visualize the whole situation. ;o)