Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Advice on Cruisers
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2137		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Monty [ November 6th, 2011, 11:22 am ]
Post subject:  Advice on Cruisers
As I mentioned in the my off-topic thread above I'm thinking of for my first design creating a Trimaran-based warship to act as a modern day gun-cruiser.

My basic idea is based around the Type 45 but a little larger and with a sleeker main hull. It would have two gun turrets fore arranged like the RN Leander Class with no rear turrets because of the helicopter pad. Whereas on the Type 45 the SeaViper/PAAMs is located behind the 4.5inch gun the SeaViper/PAAMs on this would be in the trimaran wings that extend from where the superstructure begins and ends on the Type 45. They would also be capable of firing Harpoons/Tomahawks or maybe even a sea-based variant of Storm Shadow that could be come up with.

You'll have to wait a while before its done as I'm usually rather busy and won't get much time for it but also I'm not too brilliant with paint etc!

But that leads me questions of....
1. Would that be feasible if actually built?
2. Is there a need for modern day gun cruisers? (I've heard all the talk about Belgrano in the Falklands and the reason why it was sunk because of the threat of it getting it at the main fleet with its exocets and then its guns when the RN task force had no ship capable of taking it on and causing damage to it. I imagine if it had come to it the taskforce would have had to do something similar to Harwood at the Battle of the River Plate.)
Author:  Portsmouth Bill [ November 7th, 2011, 12:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on Cruisers
An Interesting concept, and good luck with it :)

Re: 1) Well, the term 'cruiser' is now more or less covered by a lot of modern day destroyers, which weigh in as small cruisers in the old rating. And if this is a R.N. project, cost would be the difficulty.

Re: 2) I doubt if we could justify a new design based on the Falklands experience. While the testing of weapons on hulls etc. proved very useful, it was not a represenative conflict, as between major powers like the USA/USSR. Certainly, the Belgrano would have been a threat, if allowed near the main fleet, but she was sunk without any great dificulty, even using old fashioned torpedo's - though fired from a nuclear powered attack submarine. And it did serve the purpose of keeping the Argentinian fleet 'bottled up'.
Author:  Monty [ November 10th, 2011, 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on Cruisers
Yeah I appreciate that in regards to the Belgrano. The SSN is probably the greatest threat to a modern ship these days so long as its not protected against such threats with sufficient screening units.

And thanks for the support in the concept. Every time I've brought forward the idea of bringing back bigger guns on other forums I've always been shot down as if its anathema. Personally of the opinion that in an age when countermeasures to missiles are getting more and more advanced then we can't rely on the mantra that the missile will always get through. It also seems to me that the more modern naval vessels are designed to counter submarines or counter aircraft whilst actually mounting ship on ship actions is considered quaint.
Author:  Rowdy36 [ November 10th, 2011, 4:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on Cruisers
Hmmm, sounds interesting - I look forward to watching this develop :)

By the way, have you seen this website?
http://www.aandc.org/research/cruisers/cr_navsea.html
Author:  TimothyC [ November 10th, 2011, 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on Cruisers
Monty wrote:
It also seems to me that the more modern naval vessels are designed to counter submarines or counter aircraft whilst actually mounting ship on ship actions is considered quaint.
This is because that most weapons that can be used against subs or aircraft can be used against ships. IIRC the USN considers an SM-2 missile to have the penetration power of a 12" shell. That's enough to ruin your whole day.
Author:  acelanceloet [ November 10th, 2011, 6:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on Cruisers
TimothyC wrote:
Monty wrote:
It also seems to me that the more modern naval vessels are designed to counter submarines or counter aircraft whilst actually mounting ship on ship actions is considered quaint.
This is because that most weapons that can be used against subs or aircraft can be used against ships. IIRC the USN considers an SM-2 missile to have the penetration power of a 12" shell. That's enough to ruin your whole day.
and this same thing counts for sensor systems as well. radars and sonar's that can pick up subs or missiles are very well suited to target ships as well.
Author:  Navybrat85 [ November 11th, 2011, 1:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on Cruisers
Is there a size limit for Trimaran hulls? I know the largest one out there in the real world right now is the Independance class, which is in the 420 foot area.
Author:  Thiel [ November 11th, 2011, 2:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on Cruisers
Well, the brits have befo playing around with Daring sized designs for years.
Author:  erik_t [ November 11th, 2011, 4:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on Cruisers
The ship handling issues become an issue before the science and engineering does. There's a range of appropriate length:beam ratios for any multihull ship, and there aren't a lot of 200ft wide drydocks around.
Author:  Navybrat85 [ November 11th, 2011, 4:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on Cruisers
Even carrier Drydocks aren't that wide, I think. The 200 foot wide flight decks are several stories above the top of the dock if I remember from the pictures correctly.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/