Altrenate Carrier for the 80's RN

acelanceloet wrote:

while it is always the worst example, the french did 10 years from keel laying to commissioning for their CVN.......

A fair point but not 4 of them in the same period, not too mention the crew numbers enlargement that would be needed, and buying a new fleet of aircraft for the carriers.

And if there's OTL Troubles I can't see a British Government happy to take the risk of building Nuclear ships in Belfast in the 80's, early 90's (Fort Victoria), not without substantial security headaches anyway.

@Ace thought id seen a better gun somewhere.......

will swap them soon. line of the hull top will alter may raise stern and loose that kink, Bombhead has provided some awsome drawings for some inspiration.... just one question for 2 Sea Dart instalations are 4 type 909 required or could 2 suffice for both instalations?

shes about 178meters at the moment may stretch her to 198meters would like to operate around 3 - 4 Merlin sized Helecopters.

2 should be possible, 4 would be best. the type 43 design had both setups, an version with 4 type 909 and 2 type 910, with 2 sea dart and 4 sea wolf, and one version with 2 type 909 and 2 type 910, with 2 sea dart and 2 sea wolf launchers. as far as I know, that is the only double ended proposal with sea dart ever seriously considered.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Thiel wrote:

Given the complexity of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier I'd say four years between keel laying and launch and at least another year pier side fitting out would be more realistic.
And given the sheer amount of other vessels you're building I doubt you'll have the resources to build more than one at a time.
Assuming you spend the time between the Falklands War and 1987 on creating the necessary infrastucture and designing the ships, by no means a small job by any means. In fact five years might not be enough to design the ships, even with US assistance. It took the USN eight years to design the Nimitz class and they had the not inconsiderable advantages of having a nuclear carrier in service and being able to base the ship to some degree on the Kitty Hawk class.

Ship building capacity would be at a real stretch but back in 1980's and 90's we still had building capacity at Devonport (Frigates possibly destroyers), Portsmouth (Frigates, Destroyers), Tyne Side, Built one of the Invincibles so my new Cruisers could be built there, Birkenhead (Frigates, Destroyers maybe Cruisers), Rosyth (Carriers), Barrow (Submarines)' Belfast (Carriers). So although probably in need of heavy investment and expansion possible.....

man power could be a major problem but during th early 90's britain was recovering from a recesion the dole ques were long so plenty of able and willing workers are available and by the late 90's britain was in the full boom (before the bubble burst in the mid 2000's)

With a lot of Help from Bombhead this is progress so far, she feels British, and shes a mean beastie. for the moment she has no ASM but she would be with a carrier or a General purpose Frigate most of the time.

I am debating weather she would be fitted with Excocets (salvaged off of the Leander, Amazon and County Class), Newly bought Harpoon or just not fitted with any ASM relying on the Emergancy Sea Dart Anti Ship capability. or would Sea Dart 2.0 have been inproved to allow it to be used as both ASM and AA......

[ img ]

Looks awesome, with but isnt that 4.5" mount a newer model?

Think she'd mount the one like on the Type 23s, not the Mod1 which came out in '98?

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

Gun Changed....

Cant make my mind up Leopard Class Named after Large Cats or Shire Class named after English Shires.....

Cant imagine they'd call them the Leopard class, seeing the previous ones were small frigates

One solution to my ASM problem.

[ img ]

i have done a bit of tinkering with the Sea Dart System based on the GWS 30 launch system.

Missile 1 is the Sea Dart 2.0 Medium to Long range SAM using the 909 system to home and track target.

Missile 2 is the Sea Skuba Long Range ASW weapon using the Sea Dart rocket stage coupled with the Sea Skua or similar Torpedo. using ships sonar to locate an enemy submarine it is fired into the general area. before splash down torpedo seperated and uses it out sonar to target sub. rocket stage splashes down some distance away to aviod upsetting torpedo. could also in theory i suppose be coulped with the WE177 warhead to give a nuclear depth charge capability

Missile 3 in the Sea Harpoon. Medium range ASM. using the Sea Dart rocket stage but fitted with an active homing radar and larger ship killing warhead.

a few comments......
first of all, parts.
- you mirrored the gun, so the starboard view shows the wrong side of the gun

- there is an new sea dart launcher, as the ones you have is slightly too big. for reference, we also have the belowdeck parts...
- that goalkeeper is old and horrible, I would advise you to swap it for the latest ones. the latest one also has belowdeck parts, which might come handy..... I will return to that later.
all these can be found in the belowdeck parts thread
I would also look into the radars if I were you, at least the large search radar is redrawn IIRC.

second, the design.
it looks interesting! I see a lot of influence from the type 43
it might help to take a look at miho's drawing of it here: http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... e%2043.png
EDIT: and of bombheads of course, but miho's has the latest parts and is on the main site..... didn't know we had 2 recent drawings of the same ship :S

but in the differences between that and your ship pose some problems.
- both the ships are about the same size. still, you have VLS seawolf (taking more deckspace) and could take only 2 lynxes or 1 sea king, while you have 2 sea king sized hangars. I would think you would run into problems there.....
- at least some of those problems are visible. how is your engine room laid out? I see funnels in the middle, air intakes at the side, so where are the hangars? I would think the entire engine setup would be staggered, while the turbines might be amidships, the funnels and intakes would each be at one side
- the goalkeeper penetrates in your hangar or in your intakes. or both. uhm.....
what about fitting it somewhere else?

- with the hangar next to the funnel aft, I doubt that boat is going to fit next to it. I would also take an better looking RHIB then this drawing....
- the rudder looks somewhat small to me.
- while this is not an mistake or error, I myself would personally put the air search radar aft and the targeting radar (992) forward. the original type 43 has it the way you have though, so I suppose there are good reasons against, but I would always keep the lines between command center and fire control radar as short as possible.

all in all, I would try to make her just a bit bigger, add an gun aft to make her fully double ended and get a bit more growth space out of her hull. moving the seawolf more amidships (at the beam) and the goalkeepers fore and aft would seem like an good idea too.

drawing wise, I only have that the coms next to the aft mast have no black outlines, and the fact that I do not like the way too harsh but soft at the same time look of that underwater hull shading

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Shipbucket

Who is online