WesWorld

As noted in the news, Nevado Ojos del Salado survived the Battle of Barranca but is, quite frankly, a crippled hulk. Though it might be more economical in the long run to scrap her and build something new, that's not my preferred option...

So I'm considering giving her a 75% rebuild. Here's the idea: replacement bow, lengthening the ship to 640', completely new guns, engines, and upgraded armour. Secondaries improved to 10x5.12". She's not going to be a match for an armoured cruiser, but I want to continue using her as a cruiser squadron flagship. Cost will be 9,055.5 tons to complete this reconstruction, which is something I'm willing to budget. (I'm also thinking Nevado Ojos del Salado will receive the nickname "Resurrection Ship", which amuses me.



[SIZE=3]Nevado Ojos del Salado, Chilean Heavy Cruiser laid down 1928 and rebuilt 1940[/SIZE]

Displacement:
12,074 t light; 12,678 t standard; 14,120 t normal; 15,274 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
640.00 ft / 640.00 ft x 64.00 ft (Bulges 66.00 ft) x 22.50 ft (normal load)
195.07 m / 195.07 m x 19.51 m (Bulges 20.12 m) x 6.86 m

Armament:
9 - 8.00" / 203 mm guns (3x3 guns), 335.00lbs / 151.95kg shells, 1940 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (4x2 guns), 67.03lbs / 30.40kg shells, 1940 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
2 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (1x2 guns), 67.03lbs / 30.40kg shells, 1940 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mount
on side, all raised guns
12 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns in single mounts, 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1940 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 3,709 lbs / 1,682 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
12 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 410.11 ft / 125.00 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 3.94" / 100 mm 4.72" / 120 mm

- Armour deck: 1.97" / 50 mm, Conning tower: 5.91" / 150 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 116,133 shp / 86,635 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,596 tons

Complement:
646 - 841

Cost:
£4.475 million / $17.901 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 375 tons, 2.7 %
Armour: 2,659 tons, 18.8 %
- Belts: 1,011 tons, 7.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 562 tons, 4.0 %
- Armour Deck: 1,012 tons, 7.2 %
- Conning Tower: 74 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 3,105 tons, 22.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,785 tons, 41.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,046 tons, 14.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 1.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
17,511 lbs / 7,943 Kg = 68.4 x 8.0 " / 203 mm shells or 1.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 3.1 ft / 0.9 m
Roll period: 15.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 65 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.77
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.17

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.520
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.70 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25.30 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 56
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: 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 27.50 ft / 8.38 m
- Mid (50 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m (18.00 ft / 5.49 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Stern: 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Average freeboard: 22.61 ft / 6.89 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 93.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 141.6 %
Waterplane Area: 27,797 Square feet or 2,582 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 117 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 124 lbs/sq ft or 603 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.62
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Breakdown of Weights:
Air search radar - 10 tons
Surface search radar - 10 tons
Radar-assisted fire control - 25 tons
2 Seaplanes - 50 tons
Catapult - 35 tons
Air conditioning/Heating - 10 tons
Crew Comforts, movie theatre, rum, ice cream machines - 10 tons
Total extra weight - 150 tons

I was thinking "Lazarus" would be a shorter term to use for a nickname.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I'm also thinking Nevado Ojos del Salado will receive the nickname "Resurrection Ship", which amuses me.

I have some fellows here who'd like to discuss a matter of intellectual property infringement with you.

Ahah! Somebody digs the reference!

She will be a nice and useful post-rebuild but I really wonder if it´s worth it. From a mathematical point of view it might be cheaper than building something new but its still a lot for a used hull that was stressed beyond limits.

Btw, what´s the deck height you use? For some reason your decks seem a bit low, reminding me of my earliest drawings. Back then my ships looked similar "flat" until I raised decks by 1 pixel (from about 2m to 2,4m).

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
She will be a nice and useful post-rebuild but I really wonder if it´s worth it. From a mathematical point of view it might be cheaper than building something new but its still a lot for a used hull that was stressed beyond limits.

That's why I've posted the design idea here - I want to know if people think it's worth it. Personally, I like the look of the rebuilt ship, and I think it'd extend the life of the ship for another ten years or so. As the two ships in this class are a tad light on armor and mediocre on speed - both of which are fixed in the reconstruction - I'm honestly not rating them highly for being retained in the long term. Rebuilding Ojos del Salado and then Volcan Osorno, while expensive, is going to keep them in the game for another decade, IMHO.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Btw, what´s the deck height you use? For some reason your decks seem a bit low, reminding me of my earliest drawings. Back then my ships looked similar "flat" until I raised decks by 1 pixel (from about 2m to 2,4m).

I just started with the original heavy cruiser drawing and pasted on new superstructure.

Chile already has lots of heavy cruisers. Spending lots of money rebuilding one to a smaller, worser design than the others isn't really worth it. The money would be better spent elsewhere.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Chile already has lots of heavy cruisers. Spending lots of money rebuilding one to a smaller, worser design than the others isn't really worth it. The money would be better spent elsewhere.

You mean the Oyamas and Tylor. The Oyamas, IMHO, are second-class battlecruisers, and I'm not using them in the heavy cruiser role anyway. (Truth be told, if Peru wasn't acquiring the Villar I'd probably consider selling them to an ally.) The Tylor is rented to Colombia and will almost certainly be sold to the Colombians when the lease is up in 1941. I think of Constitution as a heavy cruiser, though - which gives me two heavy cruisers and one under construction.

If you think the funds should be used on other projects, what do you suggest I build?

If you want the ship, built the ship .

I do want the ship, but I'm smart enough to know that what I want, what I need, and what I actually get are sometimes very very different things...

It depends what the Chilean Navy is actually meant to achieve. Its already rather large, with many large ships. A few light cruisers like the Arethusas to ply the Pacific might be useful, but there isn't really that much trade that passes that way. Maybe some submarines?

I don't like submarines. And I've already budgeted twelve new light cruisers for 1939-1943.

[SIZE=1]Okay, four new light cruisers 12x6", four AA cruisers, and four flotilla leaders.[/SIZE]

What ships to build really depends on what the Chilean Navy is for. To me, the military mission is fairly limited; not much trade to protect; not much threat of invasion by sea. I see it more of a prestige thing amongst the other South American powers. Its difficult to say what to build for that role. There's a fair amount of lonely coastline, a class of patrol/police vessels might be nice; no helicopters but a few floatplanes and lots of accommodation space would be good.

Maybe something like this, you're thinking?

If we're going for prestige, I might as well start building a replacement for the current battleships. Heck, I've got a 31-knot 12x16.54"-gunned Yamato-slayer BB which should just rake in that prestige like nothing else.

I think rather less armament is needed. Maybe 1x4", 2 x 40mm, two boats capable of taking some marines ashore, and space for a floatplane, catapult and hangar. Not sure quite how to fit it all in at the moment, I'll draw something up.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I think rather less armament is needed. Maybe 1x4", 2 x 40mm, two boats capable of taking some marines ashore, and space for a floatplane, catapult and hangar. Not sure quite how to fit it all in at the moment, I'll draw something up.

What about something based on a Barnegat-class?

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
What about something based on a Barnegat-class?

Might not be too bad a basis. Catapult and crane aft on the quarterdeck. Extend the superstructure aft for a blocky hangar. Two assault boats amidships.

Looks great