Shipbucket

I was reading up on the post WW2 RN when I found http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Alternative%20RN.htm by Anthony G Williams.

So I decided to work out the 2 ships proposed,
I made a few changes,
Both - Womba, as my AsufW missile (instead of Exocet as if you are going to make Ikara VLS why not make an anti ship version ? ok might go for a French tie up if they offered to buy our stuff ). Add in Anti Sub torps (may as well as the helicopters will have then anyway), Fast forty v 30mm KCB (due to tie up with OTO (5 inch OTO Melara main gun, preferred to others as can use USN ammo) )
Frigate - cut as I thought it would be overweight/too expensive - cut VSL/ fit 8 fixed tubes (for Womba/Ikara ).

Very WIP


Thanks JSB

on these type of vessels VLS have to be center placed, so on the destroyer you can remove the VLS a midships.

VLS in bow you can cluster more together. with clustering the VLS together more you can get the bridge more forward, thus he funnel a tad more forward, giving better internal space for an engine room.

British VLS is is basically similar as to the US VLS, at least in SB-scale.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63276563/GMLS%2 ... %20VLS.png

I have never seen VLS IKara, and it would be space for that old weapon. the torpedo itself would take up most of the space. and you going to have an rocket around it...

For the Frigate, I would change to an smaller funnel. for you have one shaft, thus one big jet-turbine is enough (25 000+-hp) (The old Norwegian frigate of Oslo class, did 28+knots when it was build. and that by a 20 000hp steam engine, in an 96+-m vessel

I don't think the frigate would carry the heavy 127mm, it would most likely carry one of the lighter British guns.

Thanks for the feedback,

Didn't know about VLS have to be center placed

Clustering the VLS together more you can get the bridge more forward

I was using the US VLS ( 3 small ones as place holders, well at least I thought so)

VLS IKara is very AU as are all the stuff in purple in pic ( read the web reference for the back story AND yes a VL Ikara (+Womba) would be a very different missile).

Could I quad pack my SeaWolf ?
My ship is 112m (2750t) so MUCH bigger than an Oslo (1,763 t).
My ship ( or rather Anthony G Williams ship ) is the same size ish as a Leander class , they used 30,000 shp 2 shafts to get speed of 27 knots so I was planning on using 2 x 15,000 shp Spey in a COGAG arrangement, providing 30,000 shp on a single shaft, rising to 38,000 with development. ( This should give me 15,000 shp for cruising with better economy than using 1/2 power on a big turbine ? and anyway what 25,000+shp would GB have in 1970 ? )
( 4 Spays on destroyer for 60shp/2 shafts and 3 or 4 for my CV's or TDC ).

Maybe I wll fit a OTO 75 or the French 100 mm ?(but I like my cheaper ships having good fire support so I don't have to risk my destroyers in San Carlos and close to shore .



JSB

Quite on the contrary, midships beam VLS is definitely a thing that can be done if desired. Many ships mount Mk 48 abeam their hangars or funnels. The Halifax frigates are a good example.

What's with the stumpy gun on the Destroyer? Is that a 5/38?

Hi JSB,

One thing I would point out is that if you're changing from 30,000shp through two shafts to 30,000-38,000shp through one shaft you'll probably need a bigger propellor, assuming you keep the same prop loading (you don't have to necessarily, but as far as I am aware, the necessary changes to fit 2-2.5x power through the same swept volume would do bad things to your efficiency - the prop would probably spend a lot of time at full load cavitating)

Ad

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

Good work, I like the lines of these ships.

If these ships replace the Type 12, why do not recycle the MkV 4.7in guns? This would be a much cheaper solution, while there already were available ammunition stock and supporting chain. An SSM based on Ikara was indeed planned, I think Australians did some trials, but it used the convectional Ikara launcher. Sea Dart did also have some anti-ship capability, you can develop more an SSM Sea Dart. Another weapon that should UK developed was the surface to surface variant of the Martel and Sea Eagle.

if i remember correctly, i recall reading an artical about testing of a boxed sea eagle but i think thats as far as it went.

erik_t hum will have to think if 2nd VLS is worth the space (I think it will depend if I can quad pack my Sea Wolf into the main VLS and if I want redundancy if I flood the main mags after a hit ?).

klagldsf
( its the same as before I just moved the turret wrong)

apdsmith I have changed the prop on the small ship, it looks like the destroyer one as that has 2 sets of 30,000-38,000shp through one shaft ( ie the FF has 2 turbines on 1 shaft and the DD has 4 turbines on 2 shafts, the prop is from Hoods 42III so should be ok ish ? )

odysseus1980
Im keeping the old ships as OTL (just not spending loads on modernizing them, as my old gun ships for colonial gunboating etc) and in OTL the RN wanted a gun with smaller crew faster response etc ? (and using USN ammo will save cash).
As to my Ikara/Womba it will need work on it will have a bit more thinking (lots of stuff got tested , but not finished ).

Thanks JSB

Interesting work. I've read Anthony William's alternate 1970s RN a few times, I've some doubts about it but I've always wondered what those ships might look like.

I think the engines on the larger ship are probably too far aft juding by the location of the funnel.
I'd be wary of overloading the smaller ship, right now that sonar fit is just too big- your looking at only the Type 184 being used like the Type 21 Class.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft