Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Pacific Confederacy missile destroyer
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3162		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  Dilandu [ June 11th, 2012, 3:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Pacific Confederacy missile destroyer
Initially, the Confederate navy was not going to build destroyers armed with missiles. Anti-aircraft missiles were regarded as belonging cruisers.

However, the emergence of a long-range bombers Tu-16 with AS-5 "Kelt" missiles in the hands of Colombian and Venezuelan socialists in the early 1960s, forced the Confederacy Navy to reconsider the position. The anti-aircraft missiles armed ships were needed to cover the "counter-submarines operational squadrons" consisting of destroyers.

The Parliament of the Confederation flatly refused to allocate money for building a new missile cruisers. However, the naval program in 1964 budget included the 4 new destroyers and admirals have decided to take advantage of it.

[ img ]

"Confederacy"-class destroyers were the first missiles-armed ships built in South America (weapons and radio-electronic equipment components were British-made). They had a displacement of about 4000 tons.

Their main armament was twin anti-aircraft missile launcher "Sea Bloodhound", British production. Reloading was a horizontal: 16 spare missiles were stored in the hangar.

Artillery guns were two twin 4.5 "/ 45 (11.4 cm) QF Mark V installation.

In the bow was mounted the "Ikara" anti-submarine rocket launcher.
Author:  odysseus1980 [ June 11th, 2012, 3:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pacific Confederacy missile destroyer
Why not going for the Sea Dart?The Type 42 destroyers are about the same displacement and you will have at least 22 missiles ready to fire or even 40 in an MLU program.And there is also the choice of havine SPS-39/SPG-51/Standard,which was cheaper from Sea Dart.

Note that the Tu-16 had the AS-5 Kelt/KSR-2 missile,so perhaps you mean this.The SS-N-1 preceded the famous SS-N-2 "Styx" and was surface mount.The KSR-2 was exported in Egypt,so Soviets would definetely were willing to sell it in Colombian and Venezuelan socialists.Indonesia had the previous AS-1 "Kennel"/KS-1 Komet.
Author:  Dilandu [ June 11th, 2012, 4:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pacific Confederacy missile destroyer
Quote:
Why not going for the Sea Dart?The Type 42 destroyers are about the same displacement and you will have at least 22 missiles ready to fire or even 40 in an MLU program.And there is also the choice of havine SPS-39/SPG-51/Standard,which was cheaper from Sea Dart.
Just because i really like "Bloodhound". ;) And didn't like "Sea Slug". And the "Sea Dart" will be avaliable in any condition only in 1970-th!
Quote:
Note that the Tu-16 had the AS-5 Kelt/KSR-2 missile,so perhaps you mean this.The SS-N-1 preceded the famous SS-N-2 "Styx" and was surface mount.The KSR-2 was exported in Egypt,so Soviets would definetely were willing to sell it in Colombian and Venezuelan socialists.Indonesia had the previous AS-1 "Kennel"/KS-1 Komet.

My mistake with NATO classification. Thank you to point this!
Author:  odysseus1980 [ June 11th, 2012, 4:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pacific Confederacy missile destroyer
I also like Bloodhound,but it was a large missile of 8.5m long.So,the DDG with this missile should be larger to accomodate more missiles in a horizontal launcher.Your launcher seems to be similar with that of Sea Slug or US Talon.The UK County DDG did had the Sea Slug,so perhars they could be modified for the Bloodhound.You can design something based loosely on the County Class,thats what I would do.The timeline fits.
Author:  Dilandu [ June 11th, 2012, 5:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pacific Confederacy missile destroyer
Quote:
I also like Bloodhound,but it was a large missile of 8.5m long
I must agree, but the "Sea Slug" or "Talos" were long enought - 6 and 10 meters long. And in my timeline, Confederacy focuses more on Britain, than the USA - so, the Confederacy-British partnership were more preferable for them than attempt to buy the US missile. More than that - "Bloodhound" missiles had already been in Confederacy inventory!
Author:  erik_t [ June 11th, 2012, 10:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pacific Confederacy missile destroyer
No chance that there's enough hull volume to actually support all of those weapons and electronics.
Author:  klagldsf [ June 11th, 2012, 10:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pacific Confederacy missile destroyer
odysseus1980 wrote:
I also like Bloodhound,but it was a large missile of 8.5m long.
And that is a big part as to why you're going around calling a cruiser a destroyer.
Author:  Dilandu [ June 12th, 2012, 5:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pacific Confederacy missile destroyer
Well, "County"-class could carry more than that, isn't it? And there is "Gyatt" with "Terrier" missiles in 2425 displacement.
Author:  Portsmouth Bill [ June 12th, 2012, 7:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pacific Confederacy missile destroyer
I have to agree that this just won't work. I cannot see the point of trying to get a very large missile, designed exclusively for land use navalised, with all the attending stowage, handling, guidance etc. Put a Bloodhound alongside a Seaslug and you'll see what I mean. Also, no offence, but you don't seem to have thought throught the radar and weapon direction, where is the Ikara datalink? And you've got two different generations of gun directors, with two on the beam that don't seem to offer much to the aft 4.5-in. With the two radar masts, you've reversed the usual arrangement, placing the long range air forward, blocking some of the arc for the aft surface (?). And do I see a small surface radar sitting on the funnel behind the bridge? More importantly, once you've exhausted the small number of 'Seabloodhounds' all you've got left to defend this hull is the two 4.5-in, and (again) the aft one is already compromised. I wouldn't like to be aboard when the enemy starts streaming in low level air attack. You've also allowed for six inflatables and two lifeboats, for a crew that would demand at least twice that amount (once its sunk). Another problem is that you've posted the drawing so blurred that its hard to make out the smaller details (anti aliasing).

These are constructive comments :)
Author:  odysseus1980 [ June 12th, 2012, 12:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pacific Confederacy missile destroyer
Dilandu wrote:
Well, "County"-class could carry more than that, isn't it? And there is "Gyatt" with "Terrier" missiles in 2425 displacement.
The "Gyatt" was a sole modified Gearing to test the Tartar missile for the DDG Charles F.Adams.Never entered production.
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/