WesWorld

Yes the FAA is introducing the Firebrand this year (I've used the OTL name in the absence of any other suitable name and because the B.44 was related to the B.37).

The B.44 was designed as a fighter for more remote spots, specifically in the Far Eastern Region. Tactically they are 'shore' based using slips and generally operating alongside the flying boats. Some kind of small tenders will be required eventually. It is suitable for short-range recon and can probably carry a couple of F.24 cameras. Two crew are probably best for long-range recon and at the moment the FAA relies on carrier-based Barracuda's for this role. The Swordfish and Sea Fox floatplanes aboard cruisers and battleships are for local recon and spotting. So far a modernised Swordfish is the only available aircraft as a two/three-seat recon type. A two-seat B.44 has been raised but is still a few years away, if it proves feasible.

It's interesting to see that most players have put these vessels off due to other prorities. As technology continues to evolve beyond seaplanes then it seems unlikely many of these projects will be built as the chances of return for investment diminish further over time.

Both Mexico and Australia operate seaplane cruisers. Australia especially uses them to boost recon capabilities and provide some ASW support to convoys. Australia also has a pair of dedicated flying boat tenders. Mexico also wants to get its hands on at least one seaplane carrier submarine (I-400) for strike missions.

Quoted

Mexico also wants to get its hands on at least one seaplane carrier submarine (I-400) for strike missions.

If Mexico wants one, it should build one then or have a nation build one.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

Mexico also wants to get its hands on at least one seaplane carrier submarine (I-400) for strike missions.

If Mexico wants one, it should build one then or have a nation build one.

Well, I didn't think he was leaving a note for Saint Nicholas, but I guess it doesn't hurt to try.

If Mexico were to do that in the hope to get a ship, they'd still be waiting for it when Wesworld reaches the year 101943!

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
It's interesting to see that most players have put these vessels off due to other prorities. As technology continues to evolve beyond seaplanes then it seems unlikely many of these projects will be built as the chances of return for investment diminish further over time.

Part of that is the hand that I was dealt. First constrained by Clieto- which is when I built several, then playing catchup after SATSUMA pulled out of Clieto.

The most likely next version for the Dutch would be a merchantman- probably an oiler- conversion in the mid/late 40s.

During discussion yesterday in IRC, the scenario of seaplane fighter versus carrier-based fighter came up.

It is worth remembering that the seaplane fighter will – in most configurations (the WW Blackburn B.44 being an exception) have the permanent penalty of the drag induced by its floats. This can be seen prominently in comparison of the Mitsubishi A6M2 “Zero” with its floatplane cousin, the Nakajima A6M2-N “Rufe”.

The Zero had a maximum speed of 533 kph; the Rufe had a maximum speed of 436 kph – a reduction of 18%; now the Rufe was only 50 kg heavier than the Zero, and had a comparable engine (the speed quoted refers to the A6M2 Type 0 Model 21 with a 950 hp engine). The performance reduction is due primarily to the floats.

Even the designed for the purpose Kawanishi N1K1 “Rex” had a maximum speed of only 490 kph.

Therefore, I suspect that in most combat scenarios pitting seaplane fighters versus carrier-based fighters, the carrier-based fighter will come out the winner; not every time of course, but the odds favor the carrier fighter.

Well, nobody argued a floatplane fighter would be superior, just that it would still have a chance against fighters like the F4F.

The idea behind floatplane fighters is to provide means to dominate the skies in absence of landbased or carrier-based fighter - against enemy scouts (small and big) and bombers a floatplane fighter should be able to stand its ground.

Harder to design than I thought.

Quoted

[SIZE=3]Seaplane Carrier laid down 1943[/SIZE]

Displacement:
10,233 t light; 10,576 t standard; 12,802 t normal; 14,583 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
598.17 ft / 590.55 ft x 62.34 ft x 22.97 ft (normal load)
182.32 m / 180.00 m x 19.00 m x 7.00 m

Armament:
6 - 5.98" / 152 mm guns (2x3 guns), 110.23lbs / 50.00kg shells, 1943 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, all forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns (4x2 guns), 35.27lbs / 16.00kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all forward
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns in single mounts, 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1943 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 959 lbs / 435 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Ends: Unarmoured

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.18" / 30 mm 314.96 ft / 96.00 m 24.61 ft / 7.50 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3.94" / 100 mm 1.97" / 50 mm 2.76" / 70 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm
3rd: 0.59" / 15 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.77" / 45 mm, Conning tower: 1.97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines plus diesel motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 33,959 shp / 25,333 Kw = 25.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,007 tons

Complement:
601 - 782

Cost:
£3.768 million / $15.074 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 113 tons, 0.9 %
Armour: 1,374 tons, 10.7 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 339 tons, 2.6 %
- Armament: 152 tons, 1.2 %
- Armour Deck: 860 tons, 6.7 %
- Conning Tower: 23 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 877 tons, 6.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,870 tons, 30.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,569 tons, 20.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 4,000 tons, 31.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
21,784 lbs / 9,881 Kg = 203.3 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 3.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.07
Metacentric height 2.8 ft / 0.9 m
Roll period: 15.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.21
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.59

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.530
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.47 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.75 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 45 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 32
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 24.61 ft / 7.50 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 21.33 ft / 6.50 m
- Mid (50 %): 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 11.48 ft / 3.50 m (18.04 ft / 5.50 m before break)
- Stern: 11.48 ft / 3.50 m
- Average freeboard: 18.29 ft / 5.58 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 94.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 156.3 %
Waterplane Area: 26,240 Square feet or 2,438 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 159 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 96 lbs/sq ft or 468 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.21
- 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

Heavy guns for surface fighting but no hull armor at all? Don't you expect counterfire? Magazins and planes will go boom and burn.

A cruiser like hull with a high l:b ratio and transom stern but only 25kn max speed. Why?

That's lots fo range, probably excessive? What's the planned area of operations?

What's the idea/concept/doctrine behind in general? You posted just a SS file.

How much hangar space? How many planes? How many catapults? Deck layout? What about a drawing or at least a rough sketch?

Interesting...

Rather like a better-armed (OTL) Commandant Teste. How many aircraft would it likely operate? It ought to have a decent sized air group.

One point though... do you think a slightly increased bow angle might rid you of the 'wet-forward' warning? Or is that not so important?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Heavy guns for surface fighting but no hull armor at all? Don't you expect counterfire? Magazins and planes will go boom and burn.

I actually started with 138mm dual guns, which is probably a better option in the long term, as it's a DP gun rather than breech-loading. I didn't add armour because no amount of protection is really going to make a difference when the ship is getting shot at.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
A cruiser like hull with a high l:b ratio and transom stern but only 25kn max speed. Why?

My theory was to design what was basically a cruiser hull for economy, and just half the cruiser's regular propulsion units.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
That's lots fo range, probably excessive? What's the planned area of operations?

How much hangar space? How many planes? How many catapults? Deck layout? What about a drawing or at least a rough sketch?

Pacific, I'd say. That's the only place France doesn't have much land-based air forces.

I've not calculated any of the rest yet; I was just putting together a Springsharp. It'd probably look like a longer, prettier Commandante Teste.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
One point though... do you think a slightly increased bow angle might rid you of the 'wet-forward' warning? Or is that not so important?

Springsharp only cares that the prow is a certain percentage of height over the main deck, so the angle of the bow doesn't really matter. If, for instance, you simmed a Standard battleship with the correct freeboard - no rise from the midships to the forecastle - it'd say the ship is wet forward even if it was forty feet from the waterline. Conversely, if the average midships freeboard was 10 feet and the prow was 30 feet, it wouldn't throw the warning.

I don't pay all that much attention to the "wet forward" warning, myself.

Commandante Teste - probably the best floatplane carrier ever build.

I agree on the wet bow thing...

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Springsharp only cares that the prow is a certain percentage of height over the main deck, so the angle of the bow doesn't really matter. If, for instance, you simmed a Standard battleship with the correct freeboard - no rise from the midships to the forecastle - it'd say the ship is wet forward even if it was forty feet from the waterline. Conversely, if the average midships freeboard was 10 feet and the prow was 30 feet, it wouldn't throw the warning.

I don't pay all that much attention to the "wet forward" warning, myself.

Um, no.
SS assigns the "wet forward" if your bow is below a certain height. That height being based on ship length.
Probably has to do with a pitch formula as the ship goes through waves or something.

Anyhow, it doesn't care what the difference over the main deck is. Sometimes it defaults to "wet forward" if the formula rounds the default stem height down instead of up.

Using an empty hull 350' x 50' x 20' and default freeboards as a base

Quoted

Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.58 ft / 6.27 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Mid (50 %): 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Stern: 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Average freeboard: 13.70 ft / 4.18 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Sometimes the default height is rounded down, so the base ship is "wet forward". Easy fix.
Just add 0.01 to the stem height.

Quoted

Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.59 ft / 6.28 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Mid (50 %): 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Stern: 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Average freeboard: 13.70 ft / 4.18 m

Magically the wet forward vanishes.
Extend the hull even 1 foot and it comes back.

What about the flush deck example?

Quoted

Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.59 ft / 6.28 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 20.59 ft / 6.28 m
- Mid (50 %): 20.59 ft / 6.28 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 20.59 ft / 6.28 m
- Stern: 20.59 ft / 6.28 m
- Average freeboard: 20.59 ft / 6.28 m

Not a problem. All SS cares about is the elevation forward to trigger the "Wet forward". Much like overall seakeeping is rated off of average freeboard- not where that freeboard is.

Taking this same flushdeck hull, at 30kts / 15cruise/15000nm, seakeeping is 0.75.

Adding 20 feet to the bow raises the average freeboard to 22.19feet and makes the seakeeping 1.0

Likewise adding 20 feet to the stern instead manages *nearly* the same trick, you get 0.98, adding 22ffeet is needed to get 1.0.

Curiously, raising the entire freeboard 2 feet to 22.19 eats up more comp hull than just adding 20 feet to the stern or bow.

Hm. I must admit, I didn't believe you and had to go check it out myself, because I thought I'd done the same sort of trial myself several years ago to figure the warning out. But it seems you're right.

Odd. I wonder if I'd tried that on a different version of Springsharp rather than 2.1.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Hm. I must admit, I didn't believe you and had to go check it out myself,

Perfectly reasonable, I post the best information I have, that doesn't mean it's written in stone. Heck..I've...*gasp* been known to be wrong sometimes. Plus that's why I included the parameters- so it can be replicated and verified.

Well, I was pretty certain that at one point I did experiment, trying to figure out what made the 'wet forward' warning; so I was really rather surprised.

The DNC has come up with a seaplane carrier that is more of a tender than a hybrid cruiser. It's design origins stretch far back to an obscure 1926 idea that was floated for a similar class of ship. Design D would carry about 12 seaplanes, possibly 15, and be a tender. The huge rang includes bunker fuel for the diesel generators when stationary. Deck armour is for the magazine spaces etc and vital C&C spaces. Will she get built? Not sure, as a tender she's very speciailised and really a converted merchant would probably suffice, although perhaps lacking adeqaute hangar space. The OTL Engadine and Athene conversions for the RN proved too small and ended up as tenders rather than seaplane carriers.


Floatplane Carrier D, Great Britain Seaplane Carrier/ Tender laid down 1943

Displacement:
7,672 t light; 7,978 t standard; 10,754 t normal; 12,976 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
584.23 ft / 580.00 ft x 78.00 ft x 16.00 ft (normal load)
178.07 m / 176.78 m x 23.77 m x 4.88 m

Armament:
8 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (4x2 guns), 45.00lbs / 20.41kg shells, 1936 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 0.66" / 16.8 mm guns (2x12 guns), 0.14lbs / 0.07kg shells, 1936 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 387 lbs / 176 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 400

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.50" / 38 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 35,879 shp / 26,765 Kw = 25.00 kts
Range 20,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,998 tons

Complement:
527 - 686

Cost:
£2.876 million / $11.503 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 49 tons, 0.5 %
Armour: 875 tons, 8.1 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 23 tons, 0.2 %
- Armour Deck: 852 tons, 7.9 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 927 tons, 8.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,122 tons, 38.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,082 tons, 28.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 1,700 tons, 15.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
28,006 lbs / 12,703 Kg = 614.7 x 4.5 " / 114 mm shells or 4.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.44
Metacentric height 6.4 ft / 2.0 m
Roll period: 12.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 65 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.03
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.22

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.520
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.44 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.08 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 53
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Mid (50 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m (10.00 ft / 3.05 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Stern: 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Average freeboard: 15.32 ft / 4.67 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 50.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 162.2 %
Waterplane Area: 30,701 Square feet or 2,852 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 223 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 105 lbs/sq ft or 514 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.20
- Longitudinal: 0.94
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Hm, very interesting.

I must question the high speed if the ship is intended to be used as a base ship, rather than a patrol sort of vessel.