WesWorld

I like her and Seawold really is such a great artist, what a wonderful drawing!

I´m working on very similar ships too as I think the SAE has to go with the flow here (and when thinking of the RADIANCE class we did so pretty early even thought there were other reasons too). A 17kts ship with guns above 210mm caliber should be clearly superior to anything build under the CT short of a capital ships (1st or 2nd rate*) and capable of taking on any other super-cruiser. Due to the high speed of most cruisers and super-cruisers the usual capital ship will not be capable to catch them (even though the RSAN rates among the fastest battleline) so a ship is necessary that offers a good chance to hunt down fast ships in the open waters of the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean. And there never will be enough capital ships to project power even if the days of a classic battle fleet clash are over. During the ABS war the RSAN lost at least six capital ships so far (either for the duration of the war or permanently). Against an enemy with only a handful of large combatants remaining RSAN BBs are suffice for superiority at sea but against a fleet with more resources and more capital ships the RSAN battleline would - after the loss of a third of her strength - no longer be capable to provide long range cover for all vital shipping lanes. This task could be taken over by super-cruisers to provide at least some kind of cover. And finally, the HAMMER incident clearly showed a carrier - despite being armed with 150mm guns - will need short range support, probably beyond the size of a treaty CA even though the LADON fought an impressive fight. Todays carrier aviation is not very good in projecting power, sinking ships and can hardly be operated during bad weather or at night. Of course it would have helped too to have a pair of 8000 tonners with her with her but I doubt the result would have been much different. However, if a super-CA would have been here the fight might have been different as the risk for the Argentinians would have been much greater and HAMMER might have stood a chance to escape while the super-CA takes on the enemy.

Shin_Ra, could you please run a sim for me what the Ontario would look like with 250mm main guns, 135mm secondaries and small guns in mounts used with the RSAN? IF hull strength dropes below 1.00 feel free to reduce speed.

Cheers,

HoOmAn



(*)1st rate is 32-40kts and 2nd rate is 25-32kts for me

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
And finally, the HAMMER incident clearly showed a carrier - despite being armed with 150mm guns - will need short range support, probably beyond the size of a treaty CA even though the LADON fought an impressive fight. Todays carrier aviation is not very good in projecting power, sinking ships and can hardly be operated during bad weather or at night. Of course it would have helped too to have a pair of 8000 tonners with her with her but I doubt the result would have been much different. However, if a super-CA would have been here the fight might have been different as the risk for the Argentinians would have been much greater and HAMMER might have stood a chance to escape while the super-CA takes on the enemy.

Exactly my design theory for the Constitution-class!

And the Brazilians are planning on building two half-cousins to her with the 12in guns from Sao Paulo. Although it may take a bit longer to build a carrier for them to escort.

This class was originally going to have a lot of fluff behind it; I originally wanted to lay them down two years ago or so, with fake stats in the 13k 7.5" range, and have them comissioned as true supercruisers. But delays came up, and it turned out people were building larger supercruisers anyway, so the subterfuge became a bit moot.

An alternative design about 2k tons heavier was considered with slightly thicker armour, and quad turrets. Allied consensus seemed to be at that size, i'd be better off with 12" guns, but I wasn't looking to build a light battlecruiser, so I stuck with the smaller ship.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Shin_Ra, could you please run a sim for me what the Ontario would look like with 250mm main guns, 135mm secondaries and small guns in mounts used with the RSAN? IF hull strength dropes below 1.00 feel free to reduce speed.

Couldn't find 250mm guns in service anywhere, so I left the default shell weights. The lighter and less complicated secondaries freed up some weight, but not enough; she loses half a knot. RSAN and RCN seem to use similar AA batteries, so I swapped the 4 Octuple 40mms for 8 quads. No other changes.


F-250, Canadian Export Frigate laid down 1937

Displacement:
16,993 t light; 17,839 t standard; 19,505 t normal; 20,837 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
713.04 ft / 705.00 ft x 70.00 ft x 24.00 ft (normal load)
217.33 m / 214.88 m x 21.34 m x 7.32 m

Armament:
9 - 9.84" / 250 mm guns (3x3 guns), 476.75lbs / 216.25kg shells, 1937 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 5.31" / 135 mm guns (6x2 guns), 75.07lbs / 34.05kg shells, 1937 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
32 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1937 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
20 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (10x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1937 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 5 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 5,259 lbs / 2,385 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 430.00 ft / 131.06 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 94 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 5.00" / 127 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - 0.25" / 6 mm

- Armour deck: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 137,223 shp / 102,369 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 9,500nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,998 tons

Complement:
824 - 1,072

Cost:
£9.160 million / $36.641 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 657 tons, 3.4 %
Armour: 4,476 tons, 22.9 %
- Belts: 1,449 tons, 7.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 986 tons, 5.1 %
- Armour Deck: 2,041 tons, 10.5 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 3,803 tons, 19.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,956 tons, 40.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,512 tons, 12.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
26,309 lbs / 11,934 Kg = 55.2 x 9.8 " / 250 mm shells or 2.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 3.5 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 15.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 52 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.88
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.06

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.576
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.07 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30.04 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Mid (55 %): 27.00 ft / 8.23 m (20.00 ft / 6.10 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (25 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Stern: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Average freeboard: 24.09 ft / 7.34 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 90.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 207.9 %
Waterplane Area: 36,776 Square feet or 3,417 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 112 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 138 lbs/sq ft or 674 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.41
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

The Indians use a pure 25cm gun, actually.

and the SAE also. IIRC a couple of their ships have that caliber guns.

So, some input on the layout for the class...

I went about sketching out the design in the more uniform style I'm working into the RCN, and more or less directly adapted Seawolf's layout (see top of thread), and came out with the following;

I'm fairly happy with how it looks; Modern, distinctive, and in line with other Canadian designs without being a scaled version of something already produced. However, Brock and Wes are of the opinion that the widely spaced stacks aren't practical, and needled me into reworking the drawing into the following;

Which they both like. However, it just looks a bit too generic to me, almost a by-the-numbers scaling down of the Renowns or the RN's newer battleships. Not as impressive or distinctive, but that's a subjective view.

Thoughts?

The upper one looks more distinctive, for sure, but the second stack is pretty far aft. Not sure if that is a realistic position, guessing where boilers and engines are. That stack also tipps the "optical balance" aft, which looks a bit odd - but probably it is not really the stack but the "gap" in front of it. Not sure.

Her hangar looks pretty long. So perhaps it is possible to reduce the length of the hangar midships, then move the second stack forward a bit and lengthen the aft superstructure. Just an idea. Might bring her closer to seawolfs original drawing - which is still awesome and "optically" well balanced.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
That stack also tipps the "optical balance" aft, which looks a bit odd.

This is a very good way of saying it. I think that "optical balance" is what threw me off with the first drawing. The second still looks a tad aft-heavy to me, but it's barely noticeable there.

I like it overall. Given the treaty CAs/CLs out there, there is certainly a niche. I would prefer end belts on something that lives by speed, to stop common rounds from holing the bow.

I've had a similar design for the Dutch for some time, just always had other priorities.

Another pass, with the hangar moved aft.

Bette,r but the aft secondary mount as poor arcs, maybe shrink the hangar a little to open its forward arc?

I agree, hangar looks odd at that length anyway.

Passes on the Tribal batches. Batch 3 is still theoretical at this point.

My take on the Tribals...



or this...

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc




Passes on the Tribal batches. Batch 3 is still theoretical at this point.

I think you've gone a bit overboard with the bridge and mast. I'd make the bridge a bit lower and lose the massive radar antenna. Generally try and lower the profile a bit.

I'm not really sure if I understand the reasoning behind the 8 gun Batch III. Realistically you'd probably be moving back to 4 guns with the extra weight going into additional systems.

The Batch IIIs are going to be about 300 tons heavier. I have a couple other ideas on what to do specifically (None I'm really happy with yet), but the last posted concept was the four turret version.

Batch I and II were built with the CXAM-1 (As that's what Canada was producing at the time) in mind, which is what the heavy mast and array is supposed to represent.

The 'tall' bridge is due to Canadian prefernece for fully enclosed bridges due to the RCN's home climates and environment, and the ability to see over the weapons. Lowering the structure by a level would reduce silhouette and topweight, but would have an obstructed view right forward.

Foxy requested a pass on his Tasman class Frigates;

Another pass on the Tribals.