Shipbucket

IKARA loading was a guestamate not sure how it worked on Bristol. She's the same size. Type 42 has 909 on bridge roof....

Bow weight I hoped would be balanced out by keeping Bristol gas turbine and steam plants.....

T42 has the Type 909 aft of the bridge, if I interpret this correct: http://shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Re ... 201982.png
if she is the same size, you will certainly have issues with the weight up front. you remove 2 quite heavy systems aft (missiles and limbo) and add one of them forward. this means you have either to remove volume aft and add it forward or to accept quite an bow heavy ship, with trim forward. the other option is to balance stuff again, by adding heavy equipment aft (trimming the ship level again, but making the total heavier and by that the draft deeper) IIRC, the heavy boiler of the T82 was forward as well

btw, the ikara magazine on the T82 is (as far as I know) that small structure. you most likely have the deck height of the launcher quite correct, but the magazine is on the same level but shorter then you have drawn (I have no exact references for the T82's magazine fit, so my idea might be off, but that was what I found out while doing research on it)

_________________
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

If boilers are forward would replacing them with gas turbine reduce weight. IKARA mag looking at it is probable shorter yes. Additional structure for hangar plus magazine space for helicopter launched munitions must ad some weight aft as well as 2 Lynx.

I think the helicopter aft more or less replaces the limbo + magazine aft, but not the missiles. replacing the boilers with gas turbines might save weight, but would cut range and the machinery being in the middle of the ship saves very little actual weight forward and aft but will give you space to put some ballast aft to get her back on displacement. I just noticed your sea dart is 2 full decks higher then it is on the real world T82, the weight of that almost certainly would get you stability problems may I suggest lowering it, as you had done on one version? note also that your current magazine is also smaller then that of an T42 (you have drawn in the same size but it goes into the Ikara pit as it is now, so it will be smaller in reality), was that intentional?

shippy, not trying to burn you down but you have chosen the hard way out changing an 'working' ship into something else takes a lot more effort and time then you would think, sometimes (and I think this is one such) more then designing from scratch.

_________________
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

Although not intentional the magazine could be smaller but I could also move the whole sea dart system backwards enough to miss. On my other design the system sat lower, lowering the Cog and putting the magazine below the IKARA pit.

Hood, I think it would be totally reasonable to claim you'd fit interim cruise turbines for workup and teething of new systems, to be replaced by larger units a few years later at refit.

Hood : any chance of some information on the super sonic sea cat, wiki only skins the surface, I'd be interested in range, traking etc.....

Any chance of seeing batch 2, would the Falklands still happen and would they ship CIWS ?

Interesting work Shippy, but like Ace I feel that starting afresh is the only realistic way to go. I briefly considered a midships Ikara layout, but I feel forward arcs are important. Another idea was to move the magazine layout 180 degrees, but I couldn't really get Sea Dart - Ikara - Gun to work out.

There is very little on Sea Cat 2, doesn't seem to have gotten very far and probably was a private venture. There are a couple of posts over at Secretprojects.co.uk, but not much to go on. From a drawing in 'British Secret Projects: Missiles and Hypersonics, the missile is 6.5ft long. It was meant to use most of the same missile electronics, motors and fire-control systems and the same launcher. Better aerodynamics were to provide supersonic speed. Range might be slightly higher, probably coasts further.

I have not really thought about Batch II other than the brief thoughts above, but I might draw it to see how it would look. The Falklands would still happen, but I think the Argentines would suffer much more, given the AA power of these ships. The 3in was an accurate weapon, superior to the 4.5in Mk6 for AA, Sea Cat 2 would not run out of steam before it could intercept fast Mirages and the 3-D radar would offer much better situational awareness than the 965M used.

I don't want to build up crazy hopes, but I'm hoping that this ship, and a couple of previous concepts, might form the core of the Royal Navy AU Mk.2 folks were talking about a couple of months ago.

erik_T, true and that's a good idea and should be relatively easy to do.

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

My take on the improved type 82, these drawings were made a good few years ago and not updated from the new sheets but if anyone wishes to feel free.

Your images have been resized

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.