| Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
| Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major Power http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=677 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | Ming777 [ January 25th, 2011, 9:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major Power |
This is actually another person's TL on AlternateHistory.com , but I have contributed to it. Source: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discuss ... p?t=146633 The first ship would be the Flagship of the Canadian Navy circa ATL 2011 EDIT: I can't remember the full Credits, as it was a modification of shipbucket's Forrestal hull in the old forum by TheMann. Attachment: hmcswarrior10.png
HMCS Warrior (as commissioned)Rebuilders: Saint John Maritime Shipbuilding, Saint John, New Brunswick Engineering Contractors: SNC-Lavalin, Maritimes Marine Engineering Displacement (light): 59,720 tons Displacement (full load): 82,260 tons Length: 990 feet (waterline), 1,088 feet (overall) Beam: 129 ft 4 in (waterline), 256 feet (extreme width) Draft: 37 feet (full load) Propulsion: 5 General Electric LM6000NV gas turbines, 8 General Electric H-Model 265 turbodiesel cruise engines, 13 Westinghouse electric generators, 16 Kinova Electronics 15MW geared electric motors, 4 shafts Power Output: 325,400 shp Top Speed: 36.5 knots (67 km/h) Range: 16,500 miles at 15 knots Complement: 627 officers, 2,537 men (including air wing) Air Defenses * 3 × 16-cell Mk 41 VLS * 3 × 30 mm Goalkeeper CIWS Aircraft Carried: VFH 855 "Wolfpack" (8 CF-184C Supercat) VFH 856 "Renegades" (8 CF-184C Supercat) VF 880 "Gunfighters" (12 CF-185 Typhoons) VF 881 "Blackjacks" (12 CF-185 Typhoons) VA 810 "Hellions" (10 CF-187 Corsair II) VA 811 "The Uninvited" (10 CF-187 Corsair II) VS 896 “Whalers” (8 CP-121T Turbo Tracker) VAW 800 "Dark Knights" (4 CE-2C Hawkeye) VAQ 860 Detachment 1 "Stingrays" (6 CE-188G Growler) HR 810 Detachment 1 "Voices" (4 CH-149 Cormorant) VR 842 "Suppliers" (4 CC-172 Greyhounds, 4 CH-151 Vulcan) HSC 893 Detachment 1 “Grandmasters” (4 CH-148 Cyclone) Quarters -For all areas of the ship, there is Wireless internet (though some use ethernet when possible due to higher download rates) -Junior Enlisted (Able Seaman and below) are housed in four-man rooms. They have no desks but are fitted with power outlets and ethernet. Each person is provided with a small compartment to store belongings. Around 10 such rooms take up the same space as a traditional 50-man "compartment" in traditional carriers. Every 5 rooms shares a common washroom facility. (20 persons/washroom) -Petty officers (LS to PO2) and Junior Officers (up to and including Lt(N)) are housed in two man bunk rooms, with somewhat more room than the junior enlisted personnel. These have small desks, ethernet access, and two small mini-closets for storing personal items and uniforms. Three such rooms take up about the same space as two traditional four man rooms. Every 6 rooms share a common washroom. (12 persons/washroom) -Senior Enlisted (PO1, CPO2, and CPO1) and Mid-to-Senior Level Officers (LtC to Cpt(N)) are berthed in modest twin quarters, with separate beds and medium sized desks. They also recieve medium closets for storage. Like above, they have ethernet access. Every two quarters replaces three traditional two man quarters used by this level of personnel in older carriers. The CO of the Air Wing and the XO of the ship shares a larger room (25% larger than standard rooms). Every three rooms share a washroom. (6 people/washroom) -CO of the Vessel possess a small 30' x 30' quarters to himself, with a large desk as the quarters doubles as an office. The Battlegroup/Task Force Commander also has a small 30' x 30' quarters. He, however, has a separate office (6' x 6'). Both rooms have internet access, and both had moderately sized closets. Both also have small private washrooms attached to their cabins. Food -Restaurant style mess halls. All cooks have qualifications in culinary arts; senior supervisor is a qualified nutritionist. Food is plentiful; courtesy of increased storage space due to crew size reduction and removal of steam boilers. -Small Tim Horton's outlet, operated by logistics personnel. Tend to provide 90% of the ship's coffee intake and all donuts . Medical -Standard fare, with separate physicians, dentists, and moderate-sized medical ward. Medical staff had won awards for high quality care and efficiency. Recreation -Three lounges are placed in the fore, mid, and aft sections of the hull. These have HDTVs (used in their hockey night festivities), wireless and ethernet-based internet, leather couches, PS3s, X360s and Wiis, and fridges stocked with non-alcaholic drinks. -Large Gymnasium, with all the ususal fitness equipment and HDTVs all around. Attached to the gym is a 25 meter, 4 lane swimming pool with 4 sauna rooms, 2 steam rooms and a medium sized whirlpool. -Well-stocked library, with lots of books, CDs, and DVDs. -Small on board-store, selling snacks, pins, and some luxury items (and the obligatory supplies for pranks; available on demand). |
|
| Author: | Vossiej [ January 25th, 2011, 9:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major Power |
Not half bad, quite a diverse air-wing though. Maybe sticking to max. 2 combat aircraft, one Electronic warfare/attack and one type of helicopter for SAR? |
|
| Author: | Ming777 [ January 25th, 2011, 10:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major Power |
Well first, that CF-16K is actually a mistake as it will replace the corsair in the future. As to the diversity, it was partially based on the diversity of CVN air wings during the Gulf War, which had Tomcats, Intruders, Hornets, and other aircraft. This is more of a combat load, with the Corsairs assigned to land installations in peacetime. The large number of aircraft is also due to the fact that air operations are 24/7, so there is a constant air presence over the ship and her escorts. This is admittedly an ATL wank, but a fun one. |
|
| Author: | TimothyC [ January 25th, 2011, 10:17 pm ] | ||||
| Post subject: | Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major Power | ||||
EDIT: I can't remember the full Credits, as it was a modification of shipbucket's Forrestal hull in the old forum by TheMann.
Credits go on the drawing. This is a MUST.
HMCS Warrior (as commissioned)
Displacement (light): 59,720 tons Displacement (full load): 82,260 tons Length: 990 feet (waterline), 1,088 feet (overall) Beam: 129 ft 4 in (waterline), 256 feet (extreme width) Draft: 37 feet (full load) Propulsion: 5 General Electric LM6000NV gas turbines, 8 General Electric H-Model 265 turbodiesel cruise engines, 13 Westinghouse electric generators, 16 Kinova Electronics 15MW geared electric motors, 4 shafts Power Output: 325,400 shp Top Speed: 36.5 knots (67 km/h) Range: 16,500 miles at 15 knots Complement: 627 officers, 2,537 men (including air wing) Air Defenses * 3 × 16-cell Mk 41 VLS * 3 × 30 mm Goalkeeper CIWS Nothing horribly wrong here. You may want more Turbines though.
Aircraft Carried:
I'd ditch the Growlers and replace them with an EW version of the Typhoon, or ditch the Typhoon in favor of Super Hornets.VFH 855 "Wolfpack" (8 CF-184C Supercat) VFH 856 "Renegades" (8 CF-184C Supercat) VF 880 "Gunfighters" (12 CF-185 Typhoons) VF 881 "Blackjacks" (12 CF-185 Typhoons) VA 810 "Hellions" (10 CF-187 Corsair II) VA 811 "The Uninvited" (10 CF-187 Corsair II) VS 896 “Whalers” (8 CP-121T Turbo Tracker) VAW 800 "Dark Knights" (4 CE-2C Hawkeye) VAQ 860 Detachment 1 "Stingrays" (6 CE-188G Growler) HR 810 Detachment 1 "Voices" (4 CH-149 Cormorant) VR 842 "Suppliers" (4 CC-172 Greyhounds, 4 CH-151 Vulcan) HSC 893 Detachment 1 “Grandmasters” (4 CH-148 Cyclone)
Quarters
I'll have to ask a few friends who have served aboard naval ships, but something doesn't smell right. I could be wrong though.
<Snip Accommodations> |
|||||
| Author: | Ming777 [ January 25th, 2011, 10:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major Power |
Well, in TheMann's wank TL, they decided to find as many ways to cut down on manpower requirements as possible. All engineering controls are managed electronically in a control room developed by Research in Motion. As well, the steam catapults were replaced with compressed air catapults. It pushes the limits of realism but since the timeline diverged in 1970s, butterflies may ensue. Generally the turbines work in concert with the turbodiesel engines. Remember that those engines are the marine versions of the GE engines used on Boeing 747s. And this carrier has 5 of them. In TheMann's TL, buying the Growlers was a compromise as they selected the Typhoons to replace the Hornets in Air Command and the Fleet Air Arm. They had previously purchased A330s and joined in developing that timeline's A400M but also bought C-17s as a consolation prize. DND did something similar here. |
|
| Author: | TimothyC [ January 25th, 2011, 11:27 pm ] | |||
| Post subject: | Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major Power | |||
Well, in TheMann's wank TL, they decided to find as many ways to cut down on manpower requirements as possible. All engineering controls are managed electronically in a control room developed by Research in Motion. As well, the steam catapults were replaced with compressed air catapults. It pushes the limits of realism but since the timeline diverged in 1970s, butterflies may ensue.
It's bad form to push things past the break point. Engineers are there to fix things when they break, not just for show."Air Catapults" just reeks of silliness. You'd push believability less if you used EMALS instead.
Generally the turbines work in concert with the turbodiesel engines. Remember that those engines are the marine versions of the GE engines used on Boeing 747s. And this carrier has 5 of them.
Yeah, that's my mistake. I missread that as LM2500 not LM6000. The designer still knows that you won't be hitting top speed while launching planes right?
In TheMann's TL, buying the Growlers was a compromise as they selected the Typhoons to replace the Hornets in Air Command and the Fleet Air Arm. They had previously purchased A330s and joined in developing that timeline's A400M but also bought C-17s as a consolation prize. DND did something similar here.
Ok, but it's still silly, and will cause issues with maintaining the aircraft.
|
||||
| Author: | Ming777 [ January 25th, 2011, 11:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major Power |
When I say realism, I'm referring to the plausibility of the concept. The compressed air is a bit silly, but you can't use steam since the ship uses gas turbines and EMALS hasn't been developed when this ship was comissioned. The designer knows... usuallly, the ship cruises at a much slower speed and only need to go over 20 knots when launching heavily loaded aircraft. Max speed=/=aircraft launching speed. Well... All I can is that it wasn't my design. Its from the guy who made this TL. Later there is a replacement perhaps more suited... a CVN using EMALS and pebble bed reactors. |
|
| Author: | TimothyC [ January 26th, 2011, 12:52 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major Power | ||
When I say realism, I'm referring to the plausibility of the concept. The compressed air is a bit silly, but you can't use steam since the ship uses gas turbines and EMALS hasn't been developed when this ship was comissioned.
You can, it just requires that you generate your own steam, which takes volume and power. It's more plausible than air cannons.
Later there is a replacement perhaps more suited... a CVN using EMALS and pebble bed reactors.
Pebble bed reactors don't have the power density that conventional reactors have, and yes that is a consideration.
|
|||
| Author: | bezobrazov [ January 26th, 2011, 1:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major Power |
There's no British/Canadian/Australian/Kiwi tradition to have the name on the stem. The color of the letters seems ok, but should most properly be moved closer to the fantail; in this case it might be entirely moved to this position, which might preclude it from showing. In fact the only man-o'-war I know of in history - apart from sheer hulks and such, that ever displayed its name on the stem was the Italian battleship Dante Alighieri of 1913... |
|
| Author: | Rainmaker [ January 26th, 2011, 1:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major Power |
A few pieces of information: A navalised Eurofighter was considered in the United Kingdom but ultimately abandoned due to the expenses it would've entailed to convert the fighter to a navalised profile. A major problem was that in order to approach slowly enough to land on the deck of an aircraft carrier, the Eurofighter would have to be at such a nose-high attitude that visibility for the pilots would be almost nonexistent. This results from the design of the Eurofighter's airframe being specifically designed as a land-based aircraft where long runways would be available. Along with that major problem, a complete redesign of the airframe and landing gear would have been necessary in order for it to withstand the stressed imposed with landing on a carrier deck, not to mention that it would have to be made saltwater-resistant, new software and instrumentation would be required, etc. To summarize, the problems faced with making a navalised variant of the Eurofighter were such that they resulted in the termination of the program - it's simply more cost-efficient to operate the F-18, or if you're looking for something even more modern (and expensive), the Dassault Rafale. As for a navalised F-16, it was considered by the US Navy, but problems faced with the reliability of the F-100 engine vs that of the F/A-18 (read: poor) led to the cancellation of that project as well; the Navy was unwilling to operate a single-engined aircraft with known reliability problems, where an engine failure over the ocean could leave pilots stranded in freezing water for hours before rescue. Even if the engine issues were fixed, the F-16 would still face the same problems as the Eurofighter, as it was simply not originally designed to be a Navalised fighter. This is the problem with various AU scenarios, it's assumed that just because it's an alternate universe, practical design decisions can be ignored. A good rule of thumb is that if it was chosen in real life, it probably was because it was the best possible decision, otherwise you would see navalised Eurofighters and F-16s, submarine aircraft carriers, and battleships still roaming the seas! Now, I'm aware that this isn't your design, but you may wish to pass that information along. |
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|