Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

The Alternative Postwar Royal Navy
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1088		 Page 22 of 24
Author:  Portsmouth Bill [ October 12th, 2011, 10:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Alternative Postwar Royal Navy
Very nice Rifleman, but this is not your topic; and it is considered a courtesy not to piggyback onto anothers thread; so could you please delete here and repost in 'Own Designs'
Author:  bezobrazov [ October 12th, 2011, 10:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Alternative Postwar Royal Navy
Besides the discourtesy shown; why am I even mentioned as a contributor to the Type 82? Rifleman should take care to remove my tag from his picture.
Author:  rifleman [ October 12th, 2011, 10:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Alternative Postwar Royal Navy
bezobrazov because elements of your type 22's were used
Author:  bezobrazov [ October 12th, 2011, 11:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Alternative Postwar Royal Navy
Ahhh...but those are only elements...free use for all! No need to credit that! (And in honesty I did not even spot 'my' stuff! 8-)
Author:  knut 75 [ October 13th, 2011, 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Alternative Postwar Royal Navy
The double ended missile cruisers and the Type 82 nuclears are very impressive solutions
to the long range air defence issue.

Hood- did you look at any of the strange looking NIGS/Blue Envoy style missiles that come
in between your two versions? If you did, it would be fun to see what the ships looked
like. The double ended cruisers could certainly have coped with the British Secret Project
4 missiles. I think you or someone else did a full on Long Beach style cruiser with them, but
they would work just as well on your cruiser here.
Author:  Hood [ October 14th, 2011, 3:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Alternative Postwar Royal Navy
Knut 75,
Well I did look at those missiles in BSP:4, and I've even drawn some of them in SB scale but they are so massive and would require such massive launchers and reload facilities that IMHO such weapons would have reduced the ship's effectivness to no more than a few dozen missiles and been a massive constraint on the overall design. The Sea Dart integrated ramjet is just the best design option for a compact missile, Blue Envoy beside it just looks like an overblown pilotless supersonic aircraft, totally unsuited to the reality of shipboard stowage and use.

Bombhead's Flower impresses me, it has both high-end and low-end use and also has the ability to be an export success with modular weapons and sensor fits.
Author:  Psilander [ October 14th, 2011, 8:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Alternative Postwar Royal Navy
Quote:
I miss a anti-ship missile like Exocet MM38, should be able space to fit these.
Well...I think there is no space, if the MM38 isn't capale of rail launch from the seadart launcher, to the cost of seadart or subdart missiles. These ships are designed before the MM38 entered service aswell. The IRL type 42 didn't carry them either, because there is no use for a SSM on such a ship because they would be fighting enemy surface ships, if they get close enough they use the SAM as a SSM or stand off attack by Seaskua armed helicopters.

I would prefere a larger caliber gun though, like a twin 4,7in or even 6". Feel free to compare to my "Mannerheim" class which is similar in mission but a bit smaller.
Author:  Novice [ October 14th, 2011, 9:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Alternative Postwar Royal Navy
Psilander wrote:
Quote:
I miss a anti-ship missile like Exocet MM38, should be able space to fit these.
...
The IRL type 42 didn't carry them either, because there is no use for a SSM on such a ship because they would be fighting enemy surface ships, if they get close enough they use the SAM as a SSM or stand off attack by Seaskua armed helicopters.
...
BTW the two Argentinian Type 42 did carry MM38 on their hangar roof, each having two missiles.
Author:  Morten812 [ October 14th, 2011, 10:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Alternative Postwar Royal Navy
Novice wrote:
Psilander wrote:
Quote:
I miss a anti-ship missile like Exocet MM38, should be able space to fit these.
...
The IRL type 42 didn't carry them either, because there is no use for a SSM on such a ship because they would be fighting enemy surface ships, if they get close enough they use the SAM as a SSM or stand off attack by Seaskua armed helicopters.
...
BTW the two Argentinian Type 42 did carry MM38 on their hangar roof, each having two missiles.
IRL type type 42 didn't carry anti-submarines missiles either like this design. A SSM would make this ships truly allround - an early equivalant to US ticonderoga's
Author:  knut 75 [ October 15th, 2011, 9:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Alternative Postwar Royal Navy
Hood

Thank you for your detailed reply. I agree entirely with your logic. Your take on
Seadart with booster is a British Talos, and probably better.

On the final edition of your drawing is one of the missiles a surface to surface variant?

The existence of a Subdart makes a surface to surface and even a shore bombardment version perfectly feasible and would make full use of the launcher and rotary magazine.
It would also avoid the need to clutter the ship with box launchers.

No need for MM38 Exocet or Harpoon in your version as the big Seadart launcher is more than able to cope with a long range stos missile as required by the RN (see Friedman).

Your nuclear dlgn and Seadart system as it should have been is a brilliant combination.

I agree with you about Bombhead's Flower class. It is a Knox type ship on a smaller hull with
more flexibility and much more attractive lines. Will there be a high end Type 22 style towed array etc ASW ship to go with it?
Page 22 of 24 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/