WesWorld

17inc
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 26
(4/26/03 12:14:49 am)
Reply Austalian times 24/11/20 1d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
navy news the RAN will start work on two new aircraft carriers 1/12/20 base on the furirous carrier this give Austalia 3 CVs to paly with this reporter ask the navy minister sir will black how may aircraft will she and sister have he repiled 35 each puls 40 on HMAS Hobart . he when on to say the RAN will have the most up to date cvs in the world .


Furirous Class, UK AUST Aircaft carrier laid down 1920

Displacement:
24,407 t light; 25,044 t standard; 28,105 t normal; 30,441 t full load
Loading submergence 1,361 tons/feet

Dimensions:
786.80 ft x 89.30 ft x 25.00 ft (normal load)

Armament:
10 - 5.5 " (140 mm))
5 - 3 " (76 mm) AA
5 - 0.4 " (10 mm)
Weight of broadside 900 lbs (408 kg)

Armour:
Belt 3.00 ", upper belt 3.00 ", end belts 2.00 ", belts cover 100 % of normal area
AA gun shields 2.00 ", Light gun shields 2.00 "
Armour deck 4.00 ", Conning tower 10.00 ", Torpedo bulkhead 5.00 "

Machinery:
169,707 shp steam turbines, oil fired boilers = 33.00 kts, range 26,500nm at 10.00 kts

Complement:
1,085 - 1,410

Cost:
£4.206 million / $16.824 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 112 tons, 0.4 %
Armour: 7,579 tons, 27.0 %
Belts: 1,463 tons, 5.2 %, Armament: 25 tons, 0.1 %, Armour Deck: 3,526 tons, 12.5 %
Conning Tower: 200 tons, 0.7 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 2,365 tons, 8.4 %
Machinery: 5,934 tons, 21.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9,906 tons, 35.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,698 tons, 13.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 875 tons, 3.1 %

Metacentric height 5.4

Remarks:
Room for 35 aircraft 15 figther + 15 torpedoe bomber and 5 reconisent palns
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.14
Shellfire needed to sink: 33,191 lbs = 399.0 x 5.5 " shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 4.8
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 100 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.04
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.56
Sharpness coefficient: 0.37
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.92
'Natural speed' for length: 28.05 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim: 82
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 97.7 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 200.7 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 132 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.16
(Structure weight per square foot of hull surface: 140 lbs)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.12
(for 24.00 ft average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 5.38 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.13






Edited by: 17inc at: 4/26/03 12:19:47 am

Red Admiral
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 4
(4/26/03 4:53:00 pm)
Reply Re: Austalian times 24/11/20 1d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No offense but is this reporter illiterate or does he just fail to grasp the complexities of the english language such as grammar and spelling.

more to the point, i can hardly read this.

TheCSANavy
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 1
(4/27/03 8:03:49 pm)
Reply Give him a break
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why dont you give him a break? He is here to have fun like the rest of you guys and if I can read it you sure as hell can. Now if you want to be a knit pick everything on the boards go right ahead but is it needed? No so get over it.

Unwarnted comments and such to be reported to Admin and I dont care if you are but it is comments like these that push people away from these games.

Now get a life,.

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 80
(4/28/03 3:28:03 am)
Reply Yes and no.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He´s a native speaker after all while several of the others are not (including myself). So nitpicking on a typo here and there would be nonsense but one should expect him to write things down in a way everybody else can understand him - without reading it ten times.

That´s not the case.

thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 60
(4/28/03 5:58:27 am)
Reply grammar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While bad grammar can be anoying...i got the point...spelling errors aside. Two notes i do wish to point out, its spelled Furious (a grand name for a carrier) and these two ships will be the most up to date carriers.....untill the Atlantian carriers Arrogant and Fearless are completed

LordArpad
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 21
(5/3/03 7:13:48 pm)
Reply aussie carriers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The government of His Majesty strongly protests Autralia's announced intention of building 2 25.000 ts aircraft carriers. This would be in violation of the Treaty of Cleito. Iberia will not sign the Treaty if this infamous action continues.

[Player
II.
No aircraft-carrier exceeding 22,000 tons (22352 metric tons)
standard displacement shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for,
or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers.

Folks, these carriers are illegal as far as I can see.]

cheers

Bernhard

The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 67
(5/3/03 7:30:24 pm)
Reply Re: aussie carriers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Indian government - somewhat belatedly, given the distraction with Yemen - sees that the government of Iberia may be correct. The Furious class would exceed treaty allowances if laid down as purpose-built carriers; however, as conversions of existing hulls, they would be legal. We would seek clarification from Australia on which is the case.

Nonetheless, these two carriers would completely use Australia's total carrier tonnage, yet we understand there is a similar vessel - HMAS Hobart - already operational. Is it Australia's intention to delete HMAS Hobart once replaced by a Furious-class carrier?

thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 77
(5/4/03 12:42:20 am)
Reply well
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the carriers Austrailia plan to build are convertions then they are fine...if they are purpose built then they are indeed over the limit and in violation of the treaty.