Shipbucket

Naval forces exist to defend territorial waters and sea lanes from aggressors - the situation in the Falklands is no different. You're right that it's a big population on not much land, but in this AU there's not just the falklands themselves, but also South Georgia that is inhabited. Despite this, yes, the Falklands are, by necessity, heavily reliant on Imports (mainly from Australia, the USA and from Europe, given the hostility from South America that precludes much trading activity) and this trade is by sea and requires protecting, hence the large and capable Navy.

_________________
"Come to the Dark Side... We have Cookies!"
____________________________________________


____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation

DCFI Naval Service - Improved Exeter Class Heavy Cruiser

As the fledgeling Falklands Naval Service kicked itself into gear during the 1930's, a need was identified for a fast, heavily armed cruiser to form the striking power of the new fleet and provide a strong deterrent to enemy surface forces and commerce raiders. Based on experience gained in the construction and early service of the York Class Cruisers, the plans for HMS Exeter (completed in 1931) were used as the basis for a substantially larger heavy cruiser, mounting as it's main armament, 10 x 8" guns in 5 MkII Turrets, Secondary armament and Torpedoes etc were as per the original Exeter design. Crewed by a ships compliment of 760 (+ embarked Marine Detachment) The 'Improved Exeters' as they became known, were 210m Long, with a beam of 22m and weighed in at some 13,660 Tonnes full displacement, making them the largest cruisers operating with any navy outside the major powers (USA/UK/Germany/Japan). Despite their size they could top out at an impressive speed of some 32 knots which, teamed with their equally impressive armament, gave them more than a fighting chance against larger surface combatants such as the Nazi Pocket Battleships and Japanese Heavy Cruisers.

Built at John Brown and Swan Hunter's Clyde-side yards respectively, HMFS Falkland was completed in January 1937, with her sister HMFS Falconer commissioned in October of the same year. The third ship of the class, HMFS Forceful, also came from John Brown and didn't begin build until Falkland had slid down the ways in 1936, additional delays in build and the prioritization of Royal Navy orders meaning that war had already broken out by the time she commissioned in December 1939.

The three ships early war service mainly saw them escorting Convoys to and from the Falklands and into the Mediterranean. and it was this service that saw them enter their first real action. Forceful and Falkland were heavily involved in the hunt for the Graf Spee, although weren't present for any ship-to-ship action. Falconer was seconded to Admiral Cunningham's Mediterranean fleet during March 1941, and saw heavy action in the Battle of Cape Matapan, combining with the Battleships Barham, Warspite and Valiant in the sinking of several Italian Cruisers and Destroyers. Falconer was later severely damaged by german bombing whilst on convoy duties near Malta and retired to the UK for extensive repairs and upgrades. During these repairs, the majority of her wrecked forward superstructure was replaced with a new design based on the Edinburgh class light cruisers and much of her gun direction and radar systems were replaced with up-to-date marks. The reborn cruiser recommissioned in June 1943, joining the 10th Cruiser Squadron and operating in support of the Arctic convoys to the Soviet Union. It was during this period when Falconer was involved in the sinking of the German Battleship Scharnhorst at the Battle of North Cape.

Forceful and Falkland both received the same upgrades as their battle-scarred sister by the end of 1943, at which time both were assigned to the bombardment force supporting the campaign in Sicily and the follow-on invasion of Italy. Both ships served with distinction in this role and in late May 1944, sailed north to conduct similar duties in the D-day landings, serving in support of British and Canadian Divisions off Juno and Gold Beaches. Forceful and Falkland were relieved in this role by Falconer in December, after which both retired to Portsmouth for refit and crew leave. Falconer ended it's deployment to french waters supporting additional allied landings in the bay of Biscay, and after a short period in refit, joined it's two sisters in a fast transit cruise (via Panama) to Australia to join the newly formed RN Taskforce 37 (British Pacific Fleet) operating with the light fleet Carrier HMFS Pioneer in the Feet train Escort role till the end of the war. All three ships were present in Tokyo bay for the Japanese surrender.

Story to be progressively added to....

As Delivered Configuration (1937-1939)


As Modified WW2


Space Saver: As Upgraded Post-War

Space Saver: HMFS Falkland - As Preserved

And before anyone cries fowl over crediting etc - this drawing is 110% my own work. My first truly original drawing so probably lots of room for improvement, and any comments to that end are welcomed.

Cheers

Edit: As-Built Image updated 18/07/14
Edit: WW2 Upgrade Image added 21/07/14

_________________
"Come to the Dark Side... We have Cookies!"
____________________________________________


____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation

It's very nice, as far as I can see. However, I'd lower the 'Q'-turret to the same level as the 'A'-turret, thereby as far as is possible precluding any unnecessary blocking and/or overlapping of the 'B'-turret. Also I wonder if your funnel arrangement is enough for your likely powerplant. I'd probably work in a third funnel, or make either one wider to accommodate a fourth uptake.
But those are just my five cents worth of opinion...

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Alternately, one might prefer to lower B turret, resulting in a Worcester-like arrangement.

True erik, and I'm not opposed to such an arrangement. However, I believe it'll impact the overall length and quite probably sea-keeping quality negatively. Already now, I believe the turrets ought to be brought closer to the center, but, again, there are multiple choices; mine's not necessarily the best, it's only how I'd prefer doing it!

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Well, lowering B turret instead of Q would have the effect of moving the center turret of the three aft, and would also shift aft the higher-up weight, thus reducing the roll-pitch coupling. If anything, seakeeping would probably be improved.

Thanks for the Contributions Gents,

Please note the additions and changes I've made to original Image in response to your suggestions.

Cheers

_________________
"Come to the Dark Side... We have Cookies!"
____________________________________________


____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation

A nice looking design.
I agree Q turret would be better at A level, to reduce topweight and the weight of the extra barbette armour more than anything else.

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

Hi Oberon_706 1) I don't think they do ? The FI will likely still have very good relations with the rest of the white Commonwealth (massive and powerful) and although they are separated out they still have easy sea links.
If the FI is awash with oil revenue all they need to do is pay a significant contribution to the RN (always desperate for cash) and they get cast iron get out of jail free card of a battle fleet/CBG. (well in public we all know how Singapore went )

2) How the 'New' FINDF ? change the LNT ? (how would they share out the CA tonnage ?) and the building capabilities of British yards ?('additional delays in build and the prioritization of Royal Navy orders' would they not be treated as part of the RN ?)

3) Would they not just order RN type ships (I know that spoils the fun of drawing new ships ). I would think the FI would build what it was suggested to (after debating the cost) by the RN, They would want more smaller units to cover a larger area (and you can always team up to fight a large raider).

4) you cant lay down a 10,000+ ship pre 37 ? unless you are very estranged from GB ? (WNT/LNT/LNT2).

JSB

Just noticed your cruiser, a beautiful ship, but for a 1937 ship, there are a lot of radar antenas.

_________________
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"