Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 3  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: UK converted missile cruiserPosted: September 20th, 2012, 11:34 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
Amen to that picture, ace!

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Dilandu
Post subject: Re: UK converted missile cruiserPosted: September 21st, 2012, 3:32 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 381
Joined: October 8th, 2011, 11:26 am
Location: Russian Federation
Hm, are this REALLY neсessary lenght? Accroding to the prototype "Gridle Ness" scheme - i don't think so.

http://books.google.ru/books?id=dytTKHJ ... th&f=false

Only about 24 meters, all hangar complex.

_________________
Serve the Nation! Be striped!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: UK converted missile cruiserPosted: September 21st, 2012, 4:25 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
Your link doesn't work for me in the US.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: UK converted missile cruiserPosted: September 21st, 2012, 4:40 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
that is a test ship!

there are a difference between a test ship and a wars ship. a Test ship has just around 5 missile when a warship has up to 100 missiles.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Dilandu
Post subject: Re: UK converted missile cruiserPosted: September 21st, 2012, 5:02 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 381
Joined: October 8th, 2011, 11:26 am
Location: Russian Federation
According to the scheme on page 16, it's more then 20 missiles on this "test ship configuranion" in just one hangar.

And according to my sources, the enormous lenght of "County" magasines was for better nuclear-blast protection, not for really technical reasons.

_________________
Serve the Nation! Be striped!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: UK converted missile cruiserPosted: September 21st, 2012, 5:54 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Nuclear blast protection is a technical reason.
It's also worth remembering that Girdle Ness didn't carry an operational SeaSlug system. She used a different launcher for one, and even though she could chuck three missiles at a time, she had a lower rate of fire than the operational system on board the Counties.
Lastly, since you're carrying more directors than the Counties, you're going to need more missiles than the Counties to make them worth it.

_________________
“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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Dilandu
Post subject: Re: UK converted missile cruiserPosted: September 21st, 2012, 6:18 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 381
Joined: October 8th, 2011, 11:26 am
Location: Russian Federation
Quote:
Lastly, since you're carrying more directors than the Counties, you're going to need more missiles than the Counties to make them worth it.
Not correct. If you have more missile guidance radar, you could guide more missile in flight. "County"-class were able to guide only one missile in flight due to only one guidance radar.

Proposed cruiser could guide four missile in flight, that make she an equivalent to four "County"-class.

_________________
Serve the Nation! Be striped!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: UK converted missile cruiserPosted: September 21st, 2012, 6:35 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
You probably don't have the volume to do everything you want with this ship. It's not just spacing on the superstructure for guidance sets, it's internal volume for additional electrical generation, chilled water, the magazines - which are going to be large, and other things on those lines. The closest analog I can think of is an Albany, and that was a massive rebuild - and several thousand tons larger.

You've also made a very basic mistake that because you've got four guidance channels your ship is the equivalent of four counties - she's not. While she might be able to engage four times the number of targets (and that's a rather large might), she can only ever be in one place at a time, and part of that time is in dock.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: UK converted missile cruiserPosted: September 21st, 2012, 6:56 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Dilandu wrote:
Not correct. If you have more missile guidance radar, you could guide more missile in flight. "County"-class were able to guide only one missile in flight due to only one guidance radar.

Proposed cruiser could guide four missile in flight, that make she an equivalent to four "County"-class.
Er no. Since SeaSlug is a beam rider you can guide as many missiles as you can put in the air, you just can't shoot at more than one target.
Which was a good thing since it was assumed that it would take several missiles to down an aircraft.

Now, the Counties carried one Type 901 director, you're carrying four, which means you can engage four targets at a time, each of which is going to take two missiles. The result is that you'd fire off the 24 rounds carried on a County in just three "broadsides", so yeah, you're going to need a lot more missiles.

_________________
“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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: UK converted missile cruiserPosted: September 21st, 2012, 11:00 am
Offline
Posts: 7233
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
As a member of the Grey Line Faction I must comment on this.

The magazines will not be long enough, no use arguing otherwise. The horizontal stowage would entail long magazines for stowage and assembly. Don't forget the missiles need to be assembled before they are launched apart from a few ready-use rounds at the front. The Counties had extra length and complex bits not for nuclear resistance but for fitting the missiles with nuclear warheads. This added further weight to the ship. There were schemes to refit some of the latter Colony Class cruisers with Sea Slug aft but it became clear the work would be too expensive and the magazine too small to be worth it (even with two Type 901 radars). Your design would mean gutting the entire forward lower superstructure deck as far as the first funnel, the aft magazine would need to strech beyond the after funnel which would entail some dificulties. This would amount to probably enough work and cost as to build a new-build cruiser.

In our RN AU me and PB felt to get anything like enough capability to engage four targets would need at least a production triple-missile launcher as fitted to Girdle Ness and more than double, perhaps two-thirds, more missiles than the County.

There were studies of vertical magazines for the Sea Slug, that is to say the missiles were still horizontal but were stacked like a multi-storey car park.
Here is my AU version based on a real early study for the County Class. The blockhouse near the Sea Slug launcher hold 24 missiles but is four decks deep! Two above the upper deck and two below. An immense structure for just.
[ img ]
Even assuming your cruiser had 48 missiles in such hangars they would need armouring and would serious affect topweight (as would four 901 radars, I seriously doubt the Belfast could take as much topweight as you have added already). It would be impossible to put them inside the current 6in magazines as they would be too narrow and the structure needs to be above deck to feed the launcher.

Also you've left the belts on the Belfast but they would be useless protecting empty magazines. The deck armour is also useless being below the missle magazines too. Realistically you need to start from scratch from the keel up to get anything remotely workable. At best I feel a two-channel ship might work but 4-channel seems almost impossible unless you want an unaffordable massive vulnerable ship.

[Thanks Thiel, link fixed!]

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 3  [ 22 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page « 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]