Shipbucket

Ace
I commend you on the drawing, a very nice on, and very realistic.
Two points now
1 you may consider moving the aft mast in front of the the funnel as was done in real life to the cruisers. Nothing wrong in that.
2 you wrote that the Dutch didn't use helicopters until the Van Speijk class which is not true. The destroyers Piet Hein (D805) ex-HMS Serapis had a platform built on her after torpedo tubes for the use of helicopters (no hangar), Kortenaer and Evertsen also former S class destroyers had that platform. Granted it was not a permanent use, but it paved the way for small ship operations with helicopters.

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"

Ok, matter of choice
But in the 1950s, do not put a lightweight (fragile) helicopter on the aft of this LARGE warship, it is a lack of flexibility (Com/SAR)


Ah, Ok, thank you, I did not know this system
Is a missile illuminator/director or a"Flash/light" rocket (to illuminate the night, a "starshell-rocket" ?). I do not understand well
Ok
Here, I do not agree with your choice
Looking closely the 1948-1957 Dutch designs, they often merge both funnels & radar-mast.
Your aft radar-mast should be merged with the aft funnel and the forward radar-mast should be merged with the forward funnel & the bridge.
LOL, your forward tripod mast look "1930s style"
I concur
The problem is that in your scenario, you'll bring 11"in guns on your ship, during 1946-1952 rebuilding. A 11"in gun with some flaws (very "crew-expensive", single-purpose & slow-firing) on a ship that may confront Soviet jets, mines, submarines, MTBs, destroyers, cruisers...
A 6"in gun HA with a fast RPM (10 to 15 rounds per minute) is better than a 2/3 rounds per minute for a 11"in guns
Yet, the Dutch cruisers of this era have...4 twin mounts...
Ok, this is your choice
Ok
This is your choice, ok
Ok
Here, I do not agree with your choice.
Your ship is very wide in the center, it can carry utility-boats here.
It is better to put utility-boats amidship and put severals AA guns toward forward & aft the superstructures.
To deal with Soviet jets during 1950s, think Arc of fire & responsiveness of your AA guns (radar controlled)
Your large mast aft look more closely same as similar (large) mast onboard some 1950s british carrier...
Think cost-effectiveness...
At a time when 35% of the Dutch fleet could be destroyed in a few hours .....with 2 or 3 soviet atomic bombs
Roooooooooohhh !
You asked for comments
I give you my opinion

The project looks interesting so far. I can't comment on the technical side, but it looks interesting. Will we see an updated version of the 'original' 1047 as well?
Hmm, the last there was such a race, I drew the Drache as a response. I wonder what I can do this time...

_________________
My worklist
Any help and source material is always welcome.

I considered that. liked this better though nice to know, never heard of that. my statement should have been 'no ships designed for use of helicopters before van speijk class' then.

colombamike,

of course, many ships did tests. however, no ship of this era was designed with helicopters in mind. star-rocket or illumination rocket is the descriptions in english that seems to fit it best. 1948-1957 dutch designs= the destroyers, the van speijk, the carrier (when looking at commissioning dates, only the holland class destroyer). all of them have separate funnels and masts. the holland and friesland class destroyers have the foremast on top of the funnel, but this is for an good reason (the machinery reaches very far forward, the A class having the entire boiler room in front of the funnel and the B class having one boiler forward of the funnel and one underneath it) which in case of this ship is not neccesary.

the forward radar mast is an tripod mast, as it is on the zeven provincien. only, in case of the one on the zeven provincien, it is locked into the superstructure and funnel a bit. I think this has more to do with the larger then designed superstructure then with any design choice. look at the british proposal for this ship, with exactly such an mast as I have.
yes,but I bring these guns on board as the ships raison d'etre. without those guns, it would not have been worth it to rebuild the ship. I agree that the 150mm bofors would have been more capable, but that is not the point of this ship. the only real targets for these guns would be enemy cruisers, and land attack. these ships were developed against those enemy cruisers, so while outdated in design that should still work. and for land attack it quite an power. the jets, mtb's and destroyers are an good reason for the quite strong secondaries.

of course, the ship would have been outdated fast, but that goes for every big gun ship, including the eendracht class cruisers.
yes. but the dutch cruisers of this era have no DP main guns. the 57mm's take the place of the 120mm's here. also, 3 main gun calibers on a ship seems enough.
and that is exactly why I haven't put my boats over there, the arc of fire forward and aft on the guns placed quite far out to the beam is excellent, but would be quite restricted when placed on the forward and aft superstructure. as a result, there is an space between the midships directors on this ship that cannot be reached very well, but where I would otherwise have placed the boats.
http://shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Re ... 201971.png
it also looks quite similar to the radar mast added here on the very same position on the zeven provincien, with the difference that there is an secondary conning position underneath it.
as could the netherlands itself. and britain, for that matter. makes more sense to me to spend money on good air defence so that doesn't happen, don't you think? and history says that we converted an ship to missile cruiser, and had plans for another. so why would it not be this ship instead?
not going to reply to this.
most likely not. I have completely worked from gollevainens hull, so any faults in that one are in this one as well. I really lack the knowledge of prewar ships to do that one, but I will gladly advice anybody who wants to.


thanks for the comments everyone!

_________________
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

Very interesting work.

Very nice work, and considering the firepower of those swedish turrets alone, she's a total monster.

My biggest concern is the height finding radar. I'd think it's arc would be a bit restricted, placed so close to the forward mast.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

Great work! Indeed, it looks like an updated "Kreuzer P" with substantially more AA-firepower. I like it!

Lousy arcs of height-finding radar don't really concern me a ton, not in this era. I'm much more perturbed by the low level of the main battery directors, which are going to seriously hamper long-range action. I'd probably trade the position of the height-finder and the forward director, raising the latter as far as possible, and raise the after one a fair amount as well.

This will clear up the height-finder arcs too, although I think that is of secondary importance.

I chose this arrangement following that of the cruisers. on those ships too the main battery director got lowered quite a bit, while on this ship the director is actually lowered less (only one deck level) and the aft one being the same height as on the original design. the heightfinder can rotate at least about 100 degrees from the forward position, and has (according to the sb drawing) an less restricted arc in vertical direction as well.

erik, any idea why the directors were lowered on these ships?

_________________
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

Not offhand. I know you get a bit better horizon range with radar than with optical gunlaying. When the Alaskas were wiggling between 8" and 12" main armament, you see this reflected in the height of the main battery director in the Spring Styles. Anything with 8" or smaller mains doesn't need to worry about this problem nearly as much.