Shipbucket

At least something like GUNAR would be called for. There's no reason to spend the weight and volume on something as complicated as 3/70 if you can't use it effectively.

Bombhead, now the CoA is done (and it's good!). You can get it in the thread Coat of Arms for navy vessels: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1095

_________________
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms

Light Carriers
The Colossous and Majestic Class carriers by the mid-1950s had moved way for the four Centaur Class carriers.
Bulwark and Albion completed as interim ASW carriers with axial decks and amred much as planned during the war. They entered service in 1953 and 1954. The two other sister ships were built as second-line carriers, they would have one Type 984, modest fighter-direction capability, two steam catapults, one deck-edge lift and an angled deck. HMS Centaur commissioned in 1958 and HMS Hermes commissioned in 1959.

HMS Hermes in 1966 as an ASW and second-line carrier with Gannet ASW, AEW and Strike plus Scimitar fighter-bombers and helicopters.

HMS Centaur in 1966, eight years later she was scrapped. Centaur lacked the Type 984 and the deck-edge so she could complete in 1958 and her Type 984 was given to Victorious as production at this stage still lagged behnd demand. She was due to be refitted in 1965 with the missing radar but this never happened.


From 1959 to 1961 both Albion and Bulwark were released from service as ASW carriers and instead were refitted as Commando Carriers with four LCVPs and up to sixteen Wessex helicopters. The Westminsters proved too big but could be used on deck for heavy lift. Albion was sticken in 1975 but Bulwark remained in service until 1977 when she was replaced by a new ship.

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

Thanks for the feedback Thiel, Hood, erik_t. This has been more of a speculative addition, and I'm aware its much larger than the Tenacity as built. With the 3/70, we did have a lot of discussion amongst the GFL members; even with the single tube version it was thought that the hull would not be able to accomodate the penetration - hence the bigger size. For its time I still consider that the 3-in/70 would provide good dual purpose fire, and the twin 40mm would give added capability. With the six Fancy torpedo's, I don't see a problem as they are guided - so no spread, and this is not a MTB, having to dash back to base, but a proper seagoing warship with the endurance to match, and I would expect replishment at sea a possibility, so six torpedo's is certainly not excessive. But yes, what is needed is a decent guidance system for the guns - especially the bigger caliber, so I'm very open to advice here, beginning with GUNNAR - that I'll look into - I couldn't find anything small enough in contemporary RN service. As I see it, I could either scale down a bit and go with four Fancy, but maybe no 3in/70 forward; or, stick with the current hull size but beef up the gun control.

The boat may have a design flaw or two.But no Admiral would want to see a dozen of these coming out of the mist in the Skagerrak or the Channel approaches.

GUNAR sits entirely on-mount, and was used on the USN Ashevilles, which I think were rather smaller than this. That was for 3"/50 single application. It is period-appropriate as well. This is about as good a reference as I have handy.

I'd consider making the 3/70 be the same gun with a different (lighter, more reliable) loading scheme. A single barrel on a lousy gun platform isn't going to be a fantastic AA weapon regardless of ROF, and one would certainly rather have 50rpm every day than 100rpm two out of three. Meanwhile, you're already building a new mount around the weapon and I can't think of any other application where you'd use anything but the twin. So again, you'd end up with something like the forward half of USS Asheville. Hell, you could do worse than using exactly the US 3/50 mount.

Like the Albion, Bulwark and Centaur completed and the service story Though my AU RN also has Hermes, Monmoth and Polythemus completed as Hermes. The 3 early carriers would serve as Commando ships from 1961-1983 and the 3 Hermes as ASW,Training and Light Carrier. With Arrogant and Elephant completed and sold to Royal Australian Navy Elephant as a Albion class and Arrogant as a Hermes class.

_________________
"There was nothing wrong with Titanic when she left the Shipyard" Tim McGarry Belfast Comedian

Great work! I think that this RN should use a naval TSR.2

I'd like to see something that big operate from a carrier without problems... This is starting to become quite the interesting scenario. I look forward to more =D

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

I think that TSR.2 is too big and heavy for Aircraft Carrier, but if AU RN has something like USS Nimitz Class, may is possible to launch TSR.2.I thought to name it "Vindicator", continuing the tradition of namine bomber aircrafts with names started with "V" (Vulcan,Valiant,Victor). Any suggestions?