Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Quoted
Interesting concept. That floating bomb will carry avgas or standard oil?
Quoted
Why does Australia think they need such a vessel?
Quoted
The cruiser has a relatively low BC and really high bunkerage....
Why do people build oilers? That's basiclly what it is, and oiler with a flight deck and a small airwing, much like the RN MACs.Quoted
Why does Australia think they need such a vessel?
Great Britain. And it's not like GB is around the corner. Trade protection is Australial's biggest concern right now.Quoted
I'd also like to ask; convoys to where? and who is expected to attack them?
I also want her too operate with the fleet. Better to have and not need, than to need and not have.Quoted
20knts is pretty fast for a merchant vessel, probably more like 15-16knts. I don't see the need for two lifts. In fact you're most likely better off having no hangar at all.
True, but the ship was based of the Sydney's which do require the long range. I'll reduce fuel and see how much I can reduce her cost.Quoted
Does seem to be that case. Regarding the fuel, considering the area that Australia needs to deal with with SAER, that's wasting hull strength. You need to spend more HS on the fuel than that you get back from making the ship bigger.
Quoted
A shell hits and she's going up in smoke.
Quoted
True, but the ship was based of the Sydney's which do require the long range.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Rooijen10" (Mar 11th 2008, 5:08pm)
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Red Admiral" (Mar 11th 2008, 5:33pm)
The Sydneys were built before SEAR, and frankly Australia beleives that fighting for France or Russia is Bravo-Sierra.Quoted
Considering your appointed SAER sector, the fact that the Sydneys require the long range is a load of Bravo-Sierra.
... and Bravo-Sierra is not allowed.
(sorry I just had to create some excuse to use it...)
No I don't want a carrier that can do everything. Like I said this is an oiler with a flight deck. All the aircraft facilities are external to the ship itself, internally she is just an oiler.Quoted
So pretty much you want a carrier that can do everything but is still very small, cheap and simple. Given your requirements you are far better off in building a Colossus Class carrier and a separate fleet replenishment vessel. The RN fell into the same trap pre-war when they were thinking about building escort carriers, they specced merchant vessel conversions that would actually be more capable than the Colossus class as built.
A MAC conversion is simple. It really just involves strapping a flight deck over the hull, with the internals being unchanged.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Red Admiral" (Mar 11th 2008, 7:32pm)
Colossus was capable of 25 knots and had an airwing of 48 AC. That's quite a difference.Quoted
I can only say not bad for a Merchant ship. Not even a Colossus had most of that. "
Liberty ships had heavy armament, and armor, and they were merchants. My ship only has a 4 plane hangar, its not exacly an aircraft carrier.Quoted
Your oiler has belt armour, heavy LA armament and more AA guns, in addition to being an oiler. Its the complete opposite of cheap and simple, in which case a real carrier might as well be built instead.
Quoted
Who are you expecting to attack on those long convoys to GB? India who you've just signed an agreement with? South Africa which has no interest (but you can never trust those evil afrikaaners ? Iberia which has no interest? Atlantis who you're allied with? France who you're allied with?
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
20knts is pretty fast for a merchant vessel, probably more like 15-16knts. I don't see the need for two lifts. In fact you're most likely better off having no hangar at all.
Interestingly I stole the idea from the Indians!Quoted
I might just take a gander at the Aussie idea
oh, and of course you can trust the Afrikaaners, it's those Bharat-bazooks that you have to be careful of.
All of the Australian ships have large bunkers, even the destroyers are capable of 7,000miles at 15knots! I was originally going to reduce range a bit, but I noticed that all my other cruisers are capable of at least 14k @ 15.Quoted
As for the cruiser's bunkerage, it is quite high and probably near max. I tried some ships a while ago, hull dimensions, speed, range.. run report.. 17-19% is what I recall near the top for like USN vessels. While the Panzerschiffs were higher, there was no allowance for better diesel fuel consumption. In this case the "ammunition" part of the equation is probably responsible for at least that 0.7% over 19%.
The US Brooklyns had 5 triples on 600ft. Of course a 666ft cruiser is just plain wrong.Quoted
However, I'm amazed that my 6 turret CL on a 666ft hull was shot down- despite my pointing out the BB Ise fit 6 twin 14" on 640 ft, yet no peep about that here with 6 turrets on 600 feet.
I just noticed I posted the wrong SS2 report, the correct one is below.Quoted
I do note the text says six twins, but the SS shows 6 triples.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH