You are not logged in.

1

Thursday, August 6th 2009, 3:38am

The Filipino Flying Raider

With a double-meaing placed on 'flying'...

Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
Flying Deck Cruiser, Filipino Raider laid down 1939

Displacement:
	11,822 t light; 12,152 t standard; 13,217 t normal; 14,069 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
	738.19 ft / 738.19 ft x 73.82 ft x 18.86 ft (normal load)
	225.00 m / 225.00 m x 22.50 m  x 5.75 m

Armament:
      6 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (2x3 guns), 101.41lbs / 46.00kg shells, 1939 Model
	  Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
	  on centreline, all forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
      6 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns in single mounts, 13.23lbs / 6.00kg shells, 1939 Model
	  Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
	  on side, all amidships
      2 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns in single mounts, 13.23lbs / 6.00kg shells, 1939 Model
	  Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
	  on side, all aft
      16 - 1.38" / 35.0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 1.10lbs / 0.50kg shells, 1939 Model
	  Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts 
	  on side, all aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
      4 - 1.38" / 35.0 mm guns (1x4 guns), 1.10lbs / 0.50kg shells, 1939 Model
	  Anti-aircraft guns in a deck mount with hoist
	  on centreline forward, all raised guns - superfiring
	Weight of broadside 736 lbs / 334 kg
	Shells per gun, main battery: 150
	4 - 24.0" / 610 mm submerged torpedo tubes
	Air Group: 24 aircraft

Armour:
   - Belts:		Width (max)	Length (avg)		Height (avg)
	Main:	2.76" / 70 mm	517.55 ft / 157.75 m	12.30 ft / 3.75 m
	Ends:	Unarmoured
	Upper:	0.79" / 20 mm	344.49 ft / 105.00 m	9.84 ft / 3.00 m
	  Main Belt covers 108 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:	Face (max)	Other gunhouse (avg)	Barbette/hoist (max)
	Main:	2.95" / 75 mm	1.97" / 50 mm		1.97" / 50 mm
	2nd:	1.18" / 30 mm	0.39" / 10 mm		      -
	3rd:	1.18" / 30 mm	      -			      -
	4th:	0.39" / 10 mm	      -			      -
	5th:	0.79" / 20 mm	0.20" / 5 mm		      -

   - Armour deck: 0.79" / 20 mm, Conning tower: 1.18" / 30 mm

Machinery:
	Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, 
	Geared drive, 4 shafts, 135,750 shp / 101,269 Kw = 36.73 kts
	Range 7,600nm at 15.00 kts (Bunkerage = 1,917 tons)

Complement:
	616 - 801

Cost:
	£5.856 million / $23.422 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
	Armament: 93 tons, 0.7 %
	Armour: 1,505 tons, 11.4 %
	   - Belts: 837 tons, 6.3 %
	   - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
	   - Armament: 128 tons, 1.0 %
	   - Armour Deck: 526 tons, 4.0 %
	   - Conning Tower: 14 tons, 0.1 %
	Machinery: 3,673 tons, 27.8 %
	Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,701 tons, 43.1 %
	Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,395 tons, 10.6 %
	Miscellaneous weights: 850 tons, 6.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
	Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
	  17,209 lbs / 7,806 Kg = 167.1 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells or 1.8 torpedoes
	Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
	Metacentric height 4.2 ft / 1.3 m
	Roll period: 15.1 seconds
	Steadiness	- As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
			- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.12
	Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.09

Hull form characteristics:
	Hull has rise forward of midbreak
	  and transom stern
	Block coefficient: 0.450
	Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
	'Natural speed' for length: 31.20 kts
	Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
	Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 65
	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:		30.35 ft / 9.25 m
	   - Forecastle (20 %):	22.97 ft / 7.00 m
	   - Mid (85 %):		22.15 ft / 6.75 m (18.04 ft / 5.50 m aft of break)
	   - Quarterdeck (15 %):	18.04 ft / 5.50 m
	   - Stern:		18.04 ft / 5.50 m
	   - Average freeboard:	22.55 ft / 6.87 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
	Space	- Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 106.8 %
		- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 251.8 %
	Waterplane Area: 36,106 Square feet or 3,354 Square metres
	Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 127 %
	Structure weight / hull surface area: 109 lbs/sq ft or 530 Kg/sq metre
	Hull strength (Relative):
		- Cross-sectional: 0.98
		- Longitudinal: 1.12
		- 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

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Swamphen" (Aug 6th 2009, 3:46am)


2

Thursday, August 6th 2009, 3:38am

Armoured deck's too thin, otherwise I have no issues.

3

Thursday, August 6th 2009, 3:42am

Why submerged torpedo tubes when you can't be going full speed and open the doors?

Also, use geared turbines, not direct-drive.

4

Thursday, August 6th 2009, 3:44am

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Armoured deck's too thin, otherwise I have no issues.


The only practical way I can see to thicken the deck is to reduce the range - and even then, it'll only be 5mm increase at best. I decided it was better to follow much the same route as the historical French 'tinclads', and merely bulletproof the deck.


Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Why submerged torpedo tubes when you can't be going full speed and open the doors?

Also, use geared turbines, not direct-drive.


Gah - I thought I had done that with the turbines... >.<

As for the torpedo tubes, the idea is that the fish are there for finishing off a target that's been either bombed or bombarded. I'm leery of having the oxygen bottles out on deck.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Swamphen" (Aug 6th 2009, 3:46am)


5

Thursday, August 6th 2009, 3:51am

Then use wet-heaters. If you're just planning to use them for coup d'grace, range isn't going to be a big issue.

6

Thursday, August 6th 2009, 4:19am

Quoted

Originally posted by Swamphen
As for the torpedo tubes, the idea is that the fish are there for finishing off a target that's been either bombed or bombarded. I'm leery of having the oxygen bottles out on deck.


Rig a hangar-level launcher that can drop some of your air complement's fish over the side.

7

Thursday, August 6th 2009, 4:24am

Huh. That makes a lot of sense...

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

8

Thursday, August 6th 2009, 10:41am

Didn´t we had a discussion on the usefulness of flight deck cruisers lately? The idea was shot down then because of reduced flight deck length, turbulences etc.....

What´s the difference to the design presented above?

9

Thursday, August 6th 2009, 11:27pm

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
What´s the difference to the design presented above?


They're still a bad idea, but this ship is rather smaller and cheaper, so it's less of a bad idea.

It's very, very fast, but not really fast enough to escape shells or bombs. The airgroup is probably overstated. Would be most likely under ten aircraft.

I personally think that dedicated raiders are a no-no. They tie up too many resources into ships of marginal usefulness. A few converted merchantmen and lots of mines are rather more cost effective.

10

Friday, August 7th 2009, 2:14am

The basis of this ship is actually a RL U.S. Navy proposal (see the Squadron/Signal "Escort Carriers In Action" book); that's where the 24 aircraft number comes from.

Turbulence isn't as much as an issue with this one because it has a conventional island and also has a slightly angled deck - which is another part of the historical design, it might be noted.

I'll scan the picture from the book later after my allergies aren't making me quite as miserable...

11

Friday, August 7th 2009, 2:41am

Quoted

Originally posted by Swamphen
The basis of this ship is actually a RL U.S. Navy proposal (see the Squadron/Signal "Escort Carriers In Action" book); that's where the 24 aircraft number comes from.

Turbulence isn't as much as an issue with this one because it has a conventional island and also has a slightly angled deck - which is another part of the historical design, it might be noted.

I'll scan the picture from the book later after my allergies aren't making me quite as miserable...

This one you commented on in 2005. :P

12

Friday, August 7th 2009, 3:17am

Yup, that one. :P

Has it really been that long? Geez, time flies...

13

Friday, August 7th 2009, 3:34am

http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?threadid=3917&sid=

There's the Aussie take on this concept, too. I should go through that thread and replace the dead graphic links....

15

Friday, August 7th 2009, 10:48am

Yes I remember. Aircraft complement really comes down to how many can really be operated effectively. I'd be pretty sure that 24 aircraft is how many you can physically get on the ship without jamming the catapult run. There isn't room for a deck park. Maybe just three or four aircraft pushed right forwards when trapping aircraft.

You've got very limited aircraft ability, coupled to limited gunfighting ability, on a fairly expensive ship.