WesWorld

Long planned medium weight class ships for the RCN, planned to bridge the gap between the RCN's comparitively light-weight and undergunned CLs and the two Renowns. Mission roles are varied, depending on circumstances. Capable of independant operations, or operating with other elements of the fleet as needed. High speed requirement due to the seen need to avoid combat with heavier armed supercruisers and fast capital ships.


Ontario class, Canadian Frigate laid down 1937


HMCS Ontario
HMCS Quebec
HMCS British Columbia
HMCS Alberta

Displacement:
17,000 t light; 17,779 t standard; 19,355 t normal; 20,615 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 - 9.20" / 234 mm guns (3x3 guns), 510.00lbs / 231.33kg shells, 1937 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns (6x2 guns), 83.19lbs / 37.73kg shells, 1940 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
32 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x8 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 5,655 lbs / 2,565 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 120

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 425.00 ft / 129.54 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 93 % 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 - 0.20" / 5 mm

- Armour deck: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 144,360 shp / 107,693 Kw = 34.50 kts
Range 9,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,836 tons

Complement:
819 - 1,066

Cost:
£9.032 million / $36.130 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 596 tons, 3.1 %
Armour: 4,379 tons, 22.6 %
- Belts: 1,435 tons, 7.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 912 tons, 4.7 %
- Armour Deck: 2,032 tons, 10.5 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 4,001 tons, 20.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,899 tons, 40.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,355 tons, 12.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 125 tons, 0.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
25,290 lbs / 11,471 Kg = 65.0 x 9.2 " / 234 mm shells or 2.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 3.6 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 15.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.91
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.01

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.572
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.07 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30.06 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
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 (50 %): 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: 23.74 ft / 7.24 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 91.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 202.9 %
Waterplane Area: 36,620 Square feet or 3,402 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 112 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 139 lbs/sq ft or 677 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.38
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Improved light-weight Automated Dual-Purpose twin 5.5" guns simmed as 1940 Automatics.
60 tons - additional weight of DP mounts (10 tons per)

...isn't she a "Little" large for a "Frigate"????

BTW, Nice Pic!!

I prefer the classic definition of Frigate; Slighter and quicker than the Ship-of-the-Line. I have no idea how the term went from that to dinky little escorts....

And thanks, the Pic is courtesy of Seawolf; this class has been in the works for a while.

Definitely agree. After all, Churchill wanted to call the Tribal-class destroyers "corvettes" by the same reckoning. I don't think the term corvette was attached to vessels smaller than DDs until the Flowers ended up with the designation!

I suspect the "Frigate" appelation was mainly applied because the British needed a name for a ship larger than a corvette and smaller than a destroyer; and "sloop", the next-best term, sounds like something you do to melting ice-cream.

I kinda prefer the designation "armoured cruiser" myself, as I tend to eschew the term "large cruiser" entirely.

I guess I secretly agree with that notion, I have very few frigates and no sloops in my fleet.

It's kinda amused me that many of us have used the terms 'corvette' and 'frigate' and applied them to vessels which didn't exist until World War II. I've kinda even fallen into it myself - the Irish fisheries patrol 'sloops' carry the hull designation 'F' for frigate.

...maybe I should change that.

All these destroyer leaders, super destroyers and scout cruisers seem to be more akin to the definition of "frigate" by modern standards IMO.

Its fast definitely but so are all those Japanese large cruisers and battlecruisers that she's likely to be engaging and they have more armour and guns as well. If Japan had built the historical series of 203mm gunned cruisers it would make sense as this is clearly superior, but compared to what has been built there is no clear superiority (and all the other cruisers are small 6" gunned types)

I'd just try to avoid torpedoes like the plague.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I'd just try to avoid torpedoes like the plague.

Never mind the plague, they would be the Ebola virus to this design!!

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Its fast definitely but so are all those Japanese large cruisers and battlecruisers that she's likely to be engaging and they have more armour and guns as well. If Japan had built the historical series of 203mm gunned cruisers it would make sense as this is clearly superior, but compared to what has been built there is no clear superiority (and all the other cruisers are small 6" gunned types)

I'd just try to avoid torpedoes like the plague.

This design is old; I originally drew it up before the large cruiser fanaticism kicked in, especially the Japanese batch. Regardless, Canada is simply unable to build what it really needs, even against a single opponent, such as Japan; Canada has two oceans (With no method of speedy transit either) to defend on 10 factories, quite possibly the worst ratio of "what's needed" to "what can be built" going on in Wesworld. Dueling with other Large or Battlecruisers is not the job for these ships; The Renowns have to handle that. There's a handful of ships that have anywhere near their speed, and of those only the Japanese Kongos are near their weight class, 33 knots to 34.5. The Hiei is faster, but much weaker. But even so, Canada cannot build to match every possible foe; the list of Canada's potential opponents in event of conflict is a lengthy one.

Larger designs were considered, but rejected as the RCN is not looking for Light Battlecruisers, as they're too expensive and take too long to build, and attempts to incorporate a TDS in a design this size led to too many compromises in other areas deemed vital.

I faced a lot of the same dilemmas when I was drawing up Constitution and Libertad for Chile. Originally I had planned to build a derivative of Pancho Villa and concentrate instead on a fast dreadnought armed with 15" or 17" guns: my designs got as large as 9x17", with a 15" belt, 6" deck, on 30 knots.

But then I turned Libertad into a fleet carrier and tasked Constitution with being her geisha cruiser, and the design parameters changed, and I started from scratch with a 9x10", 34-knot ship that looked a LOT like the Canadian Ontarios here. Eventually it dropped to a 33.5-knot ship to add more AA; then went to 33 knots and jumped 1,000 tons so I could add a TDS.

The Canadian ships are really fairly close to Constitution in many specifics, particularly compared to some of my early 34-knot designs. It seems we diverged when ShinRa went for the speed, while I went for the TDS while still trying to manage the 10" guns. (Honestly, if I didn't have the 10" guns in the stable already, I would have gone for the 9.2" guns myself.) Like ShinRa, I had the option of building bigger - building a repeat of the Capitan Oyama, in my case - but I declined because of cost.

I don't think there's anything right or wrong with either decision - it's all the perception of the mission. I strongly believe in not building a ship solely as the response to another vessel; I believe in building a ship for a mission, and so long as I judge a ship suitable for the mission, then its a design worthy of construction.

What I'm reading into these Ontarios tells me that they're ships for a mission, not a response to an adversary. And I think that's all that matters. I also appreciate that there's going to be four ships!

Quoted

Canada is simply unable to build what it really needs, even against a single opponent, such as Japan;

That's what the RN is for though.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I faced a lot of the same dilemmas when I was drawing up Constitution and Libertad for Chile.

Ditto for me and the Neptune class CB's, they would be outgunned by the La Luna's but they would have trounced any other cruiser killer and stood up well vs. El-Cid or say the Brazilian Rio's. Problem was they were too big to be economical.

The strongest ship on paper doesn't always win the fight.

I like this class and it was this class that influenced my Princess Royal Class. I consider ships like these much more useful than the Super CAs being built around the world. Also I don't believe in making ships to counter a specific possbile enemy ship/class. The 9.2in gun is good enough for the job.

What this ship is is the next generation of the Treaty heavy cruiser. It's not a small capital ship, like the German Blucher or Derfflinger, but it's not trying to be either. It's speed is very good, it can be built and repaired in a Class 3 dock, and it's seakeeping, while not exceptional, will be good enough for most circumstances (and when it's rough, she can slow down and be fine).

Wearing my American hat, this ship makes me want to build a 10" gunned New York City.

The problem with that is that the "heavy" cruiser isn't really needed. The time of battlescouts is gone to be replaced with aircraft and increasingly, radar. As a second class capital ship it makes some sense, but there are so many 1st rates around her chance for survival are slim. Theres still room for a traditional cruiser role, but those ships can still be 8000tons or so with 6" guns.

Quoted

I consider ships like these much more useful than the Super CAs being built around the world.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by Super CA but the margin of superiority over a 13000ton ship with 12x8" is fairly limited. Each side would get a severe drubbing.

Wearing my Atlantean hat this class makes me want to rebuild the 2 Lyra class to revert back to their 9.2" armament.

It does amaze me that so many here claim that they don't design ships to counter other designs, but I'm sure they use other historical designs as a guideline for their own designs or needs.

It is somewhat Ironic when you look at say the Atlantean and Iberian fleets which for a while were designed to face each other,

You have the Tyrrhenia and Portugals with similar armaments, the Atlas/Aggamemnon's vs the Carlos V, the CA's of the Inigo Montoya seemingly designed to match the Menelaus class, only to be out done by the Apollo/Darnanus/Daedalus class ships and the bulk of early Iberian CL's with their 6.69/6.7" guns countered with the Medusa/Pioneer class and later swelled numbers of CL's armed with 5.5' guns.

I can keep going with the comparisons as they seem to be endless, in fact it might be a good history write up for me to do.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
The problem with that is that the "heavy" cruiser isn't really needed. The time of battlescouts is gone to be replaced with aircraft and increasingly, radar. As a second class capital ship it makes some sense, but there are so many 1st rates around her chance for survival are slim. Theres still room for a traditional cruiser role, but those ships can still be 8000tons or so with 6" guns.

Quoted

I consider ships like these much more useful than the Super CAs being built around the world.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by Super CA but the margin of superiority over a 13000ton ship with 12x8" is fairly limited. Each side would get a severe drubbing.

I can't help but think about how the American fleet used their CA's in the Pacific as CV gun escorts (out of lack of BB's post Pearl Harbour) and see where a design like the Ontario's would lend additional AA capability's to the fleet and perhaps abit more survivability when they attempt to sacrifice themselves for their CV charge, not to mention increased gun presence (albeit not much more).

I disagree I feel a heavy cruiser is still needed.

Battlescouts still exist, many smaller navies still have them or mainly have CLs. These need to be countered by ships than can destroy them, a CL with 15 6in guns is good but 8-9in is better.

Aircraft might serve Italy well since the Med is somewhat more calmer and clearer than mid Atlantic and the Italian fleet is never out of ground-based air cover. In the oceans fleets have to take thier scouts with them. Aircraft can't always shadow for hours and need radar to keep contact at night or in poor weather.
Radar has not yet been proven at sea, nor has it reached a useful capability (the wavelengths are still too long but don't worry the UK is working on it!) and is prone to mechanical and electrical malfunctions. Many navies have no access to this technology or if they do only hand-me-downs or decreased capabilty sets (the RCN has no such problems having full access to the latest British types). Thus getting a decent scouting ship into place is still very much neccessary as of 1937 and thus destroying the enemy's scouts is a prime mission.

I've concluded (and naturally, the RCN concurs) that attempting to design a ship to outclass any other specific ships is a waste of effort; Even if this class had been laid down when I originally drew it up, before the past two years of new large and super cruisers, it still would've been outclassed by them anyway.

So it goes down to what the RCN's requirements are, in an objective evaluation;

Speed: From the moment I started playing Canada, the RCN has been a high-speed fleet, with almost every ship hitting the realm of 32 knots. The only ships I have under 30 knots are the Canadas (28 knots) Hermes (25 knots), and the Dianas (28 knots). Unfortunately, springsharp requires a lot of tonnage to get speed.

Size: Canada already has 2 4-ship classes of new 8k ton CLs, and 4 older CLs recently refitted. After experience with them, they're considered good as escorts and fleet units, but at 32 knots with a smaller battery than almost all contemporaries (5.5 inch) lack any capacity for independant action against anything bigger than Destroyers. While larger small battlecruisers would be nice to have, they're too expensive and take too long to build; around 17k light was deemed the upper limit on what Canada was willing to spend on a medium ship. Smaller would've been cheaper and quicker, but would likely end up with ships unable to operate independantly if needed.

Armament: Canada got stuck with some odd calibers when the RCN has formed, and has been developing them to make the most of their strengths; the 5.5" gun into a DP weapon, and pursuing a 7.5" automatic. With the numerous ships having guns ranging from 8-12", a slightly larger gun was desired, so a 9.2" caliber was chosen. To keep it competative with larger guns, a super-heavy shell has been developed. the 7.5" gun will likely show up in a future, smaller class, but something with more of a punch was desired this go-round.

With Armament, Speed, and Size pretty much set, that meant the armour scheme had to become a series of compromises, which mostly led to a lack of TDS.

The result is a class of ships the RCN sees as variably being capable of independant operations, either as a raider or anti-raider, or serving with the Carrier groups (or other task forces).