Shipbucket

Nice to see something different

A few questions why,
1- don't you extend the full width hangar back to stern for more space ?

2- make it symmetrical ? ie have both sides for launch and recovery if needed ? that way you can survive damage or just send up a larger strike ?

3- put the elevators in the centre so they don't damage the protection of each hull ?

4- funnels to the side to reduce trunking and save gas flowing back over the landing approach ?

5- not split the 130mm into each corner ? 4 sets of a twins and single rather than 2 sets of 3 twins ? for damage and weigh distribution ?
6- why the crash barrier you could just move plans out of the way to the inside and act like a angled deck ?

Hi JSB,

With regards to point 3, I'm not sure K's got the under-deck space to fit the elevator machinery into the between-hulls part. With regards point 4, it'd seem to make sense - I'd assumed it'd be used for boats but K's already said he thinks that won't work - Admiral Furashita had the exhausts trunked into the between-hulls part.

Regards,
Adam

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

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

Howdy John, Merry Xmas to you.

In answer to your queries.
Airflow, if I extend it back the full length to the stern the airflow would spread immediately from there, where I am hoping that the airflow would start breaking up at the point the flight deck finishes and produce less turbulence to affect the landing on area.
That would just double the problems experienced by CV's of the time. Both sides could launch and recover if necessary due to damage. Look at modern carriers, the angled deck is used mainly for recovery while the front portion with catapults for launching. The angled deck does normally also have a catapult for extra launch points when required to get more aircraft in the air.
There is not enough room (as Ad said) The fittings for the elevators extend below what would be the hangar floor.
Compared to normal CV of the time the funnel is 30 feet to one side of the deck line. Put the funnels on the left and right hand sides of the hulls and you create two turbulence points rather than one.
I did actually think originally to delete the 130's entirely. But figured with the ships of the time it should have a heavy AA battery. My next thought was to place those weapons in the place where they are least likely to interfere with that hulls primary purpose, launch or recovery. Also I only need two magazine points with my layout but would need four for yours and all the associated armour protection needed.
After a strike and the 60-100 planes are returning you would need to land them on as quickly as possible, so the aircraft pass the barrier and move to either elevator for striking below. But the aircraft can land quicker than the elevator can go up and down so there is a quantity of aircraft forward that need to be protected from an overshoot. Hence the crash barrier. If it is just the CAP returning the length of the deck would be clear and if the landing aircraft make a mess of it, then they can go round and try again.

Outside of the grave structural concerns, one wonders how one might duct the uptakes from the various boiler rooms into a single central stack that is not above either hull, without badly compromising the utility of the hangar spaces (it would seem likely to split it up into at least four spaces, and possibly more...).

Most carriers have the same general layout for uptakes as the pic below. With the Condor, instead of curving right round the ducting would pass across the deck and up into the funnel.

Last offering for 2015, something less controversial.

Llullaillaco Class Battleships.

The completion of the Aconagua class battlecruisers gave the Imperial Navy two types of capital ship to base the next class of Imperial battleships on. Speed or armour or a bit of both, the debate was heated with supporters of all three types. Half a dozen different designs were put forward and finally the Chief of Construction and Design chose one of the fast battleship designs. This is the end of 1911 beginning of 1912. The British are building 12 x 13.5" dreadnoughts, the Germans are building the nine Konig/Kaiser class, the US has the Texas/Oklahoma classes under construction while lastly the Japanese had started the four Kongo's. Then if that was not enough to give the Empire headaches, the Admiralty advised the Empire of the new Queen Elizabeth design and the step up to 15" guns. The 700 foot 8 x 14" design the Chief had chosen, no longer looked a world beater. The 15" 40 calibre gun of the British was purchased and the design recast to take 8 x 15" with a 28 knot speed.



What the Empire ended up with was a 780 x 98 foot fast battleship. The ships weighed in at a massive (for the time) 34,000 tons standard displacement. Armour was not stinted with a 12" armoured belt and 3.5" of deck armour. The armament was 8 x 15" in four twin turrets and these would be the last sloped armour main turrets. Secondary armament of 10 x 6" single mounts were fitted on the forecastle deck level. No casemates required. The anti-torpedo boat guns of 12 x 100mm were fitted around the superstructure and funnels. Lastly a large propulsion system of 120,000shp through four shafts produced 28 knots.

Four ships of the class were built completing in 1916-17. Each ship had taken just over 5 years to build and by the time of their completion the British had built 14 (Fisherless RN) 15" ships while the rest of the world had completed plenty more of complimentary sizes.

IS Llullaillaco. 1916. Service/Fate:

IS Huascaran. 1916. Service/Fate:

IS Quilotoa. 1917. Service/Fate:

IS Alpamayo. 1917. Service/Fate:

Rebuild units will arrive next year. Happy New Year to one and all!!

Imperial Ship Alpamayo, Fast Battleship.

Taken in hand for rebuilding, one per year, from 1936 to 1939, with the rebuilds taking two years each the ships re-entered service 1938-41. The Alpamayo was the third of the class to be rebuilt. The new Battleship class was being designed and built at the same time and as many parts as possible were mass produced for the eight ships of the two classes.



The rebuilding was quite a major work with virtually all of the superstructure and secondary/tertiary armaments being removed and replaced with new equipment and superstructure. When this was done the opportunity was taken to replace the old propulsion system with a new set of boilers and turbines. Technology increases meant that a similar sized propulsion package as that removed (120,000shp) produced 140,000shp for an increase of speed from 28 to 30 knots.

Armament at this stage of their careers was:
8 x 15" (4x2)
20 x 130mm (10x2)
12 x 40mm (6x2)
26 x 20mm (26x1)

4 Aircraft

Most impressive!

Jaguar Class Destroyer Leaders.

This class of ships emerged as the escorts for the Condor (CV). The original requirements was for an air defence destroyer. However the design and fittings requested grew and grew. So did the size of the ship. Going from the original 360 foot length to the 427 foot ship depicted below. One of the main requests that enlarged the size markedly was the request for extra long range to be able to escort the Condor at fleet speed without needing refuelling too often. 8,000 miles at 18 knots was the requirement.



The Jaguars started as an original class of four, and twelve had been completed by wars end.
The basic armament was:
8 x 130mm (4x2)
8 x 40mm (4x2)
10 x 20mm (10x1)
6 x 21" TT (2x3)

I will find some more names for these ships.
First group.
IS Jaguar (1940) Service/Fate:
IS Anaconda (1940) Service/Fate:
IS Piranha (1940) Service/Fate:
IS Margay (1940) Service/Fate:

2nd Group
IS Boa (1942) Service/Fate:



The batch 2 vessels featured a redesigned centre section with rearranged funnels and the 20mm battery raised to have a clearer field of fire over the ships boats.

May I suggest Boa and Margay, assuming you wish to use only names
of predators?

Thank you Signal I will add those in.