The Socialist Republic of Sieran

Thiel wrote:

Trojan wrote:

Really nice! Does the bomber version have an eternal bomb bay or external racks?

That sounds like a really handy feature

no excuses for that fail haha.

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

Very nice looking plane, I must say.
Practically You've re-invented early Heinkel He-111, so I guess that since You have a similar-sized plane could fit inside much more than just 500kg of bombs (He-111 could take 2000kg in internal bay, so I doubt if You will be limited to less than 1000kg even with some crappy engines - besides, 14 passengers plus their luggage could be expected to weigh at least somewhere in the 1400kg range, so it gives You already some indication of minimum available payload for that plane).

Now you mention it it does look similar to an early model He-111. I'm pretty sure they were a bit bigger than these ones. Also the main reason I'm thinking of a reduced size bomb bay is because unlike the -111, this was designed to be just a passenger plane with the bomber variant adapted a year later (kinda like the Bristol Blenheim Mk 1). As a result its structure isn't really designed to support a heavy payload of bombs in a fairly localised section of the cabin.

That said it might possibly be able to fit more. The Tupolev SB I based this on is about the same size and could carry 600kg of bombs.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

He-111C was 17,5m long - almost exactly the same. And Blenheim IV had a payload of 540kg but was just 12,98m long (Blenheim I was even shorter).

Ah alright. I don't know what the FD scale is but I had some aircraft saved before the forums went down and used them as a guide xD I thought the He-111 was around the 20m mark, must be mistaking it for another plane. Maybe 800-1000kg could do for this. Some of the cabin will be taken up by fuel tanks to add to the ones in the wings to give the bombers range to bomb Northern Japan and Japanese occupied and controlled China.

Interesting side note, I was watching Battle of Britain when I drew these, gotta love Aces High (the Luftwaffe march in the opening credits).

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

As mentioned in another thread, I decided to re-work my old drawing of the training carrier SRN Lazarev in her appearance as Sieran was dragged into war by the Japanese air strike on Anadyr on June 1st, 1942 (I'm currently writing a battle log about the event so I'll post it when its done).

[ img ]

I am currently thinking about doing a top view for this drawing as well but I wanted some feedback on it first. As she was now forced into being an operational vessel, her airwing is reduced to about the same of a Bogue, maybe less considering the Lazarev is still in her history an oiler hull.

I'm also writing up the ships involvement during the Aleutian Campaign which will be posted hopefully with the final image.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

Back onto the aircraft, here is the Chajka as it looked as the B model, introduced in 1939;

[ img ]

The B model introduced a twin gun, semi-retractable dorsal turret equipped with 2x .303 machine guns, adding an additional gun over the A models. The turret was heavier than the flexible mount initially fitted and also introduced more drag. This was counted by the replacement of the original Wright R-1820-33 Cyclones (775 hp (578 kW) ) with the newer R-1820-57 (1,060 hp (790 kW) ). The new engine variant was somewhat larger than the original and required a lengthened and enlarged cowling to accommodate it. With these engines the Chajka became the first Sieranian bomber with engines exceeding 1000hp capable of speeds over 220 knots.

Production models of the B became progressively slower as new equipment was added to them, leading to the later C model with yet more powerful engines and refined aerodynamics. Despite this, the B model was the most common bomber in the Sieranian Army Aviation bomber division at the outbreak of war, continuing Sierans belief of relatively high speed light bombers being of greater importance than heavier, slower aircraft.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

No feedback yet? Alright.

Currently put the carrier temporarily on hold as I've been working (in conjunction with KHT) to produce Sierans latest and ultimately final true big-gun "capital ships", the Cruiser killer design currently known solely as 'C3'.

The C3 design originated from the shift in Sieran naval policy from a traditional battlefleet intended to engage an enemies navals forces in decisive naval engagement to a fleet orientated greater around coastal and trade line defense. For the later role, vessels of long range and high average speed were required in order to provide effective 'distant' escort (operating independently or with a squadron of destroyers patrolling certain sea lanes and moving in on reported enemy positions when needed). In this role, the importance of remaining undetected by the enemy was essential and with the rise of aircraft being used for scouting, an effective AA battery was essential to destroy the scout before the position of the task force could be broadcast.

For this role, the traditional battleship was both too large and too slow to be effective. Budgetary constraints during the mid 1930s and limited recruitment possibilities meant that large battlecruisers could also not be afforded. Clearly a cruiser was most suitable. Assessment of current and future enemy vessels (ie Japanese warships) identified the Takao and Myoko class heavy cruisers as being the most likely opponents as well as the possibility of the Kongos, though the later were seen as being unlikely but possible. To this end the new cruisers would need to be able to hold their own and preferably be able to defeat their counterparts.

During the design process, members of the design committee were invited to Gotrige to view the latest developments in gunnery and rangefinding. The 240mm (9.45in) gun then in development was identified as being suitable for use whilst not officially being classed as a battleship gun. With this gun in mind, plans were drawn up for 8 gun and 9 gun variants. The 9 gun version was chosen due to the reduced displacement required for triple guns whilst also freeing up deck space.
For the secondaries and AA batteries, weapons were selected in common with other Sieranian and Gotrige vessels. A range was marked at 7,000nm to allow for extended operations into the North Pacific.

The choice of powerplants for the new vessels was lengthy and drawn out. Geared turbines were lighter and cheaper to produce however they were less efficient than the turbo-electric drive also proposed. Whilst TE drive was heavier and more costly, performance was much greater due to allowing the turbines to run constantly at their most efficient speed. Another influential factor was the fast response times to engine commands through TE Powerplants and the ability to use vessels such equipped to provide shore power when needed. After many drawn out design competitions, the TE equipped, 9 gun design proposal - C3 - was selected.

---

Here is the C3 design in springsharp developed jointly by KHT and myself. I'm still undecided between having the superfiring gun fore and aft. Fore would allow greater chasing power however having the majority aft would allow for more effective combating of chasing enemy vessels.

Code: Select all

C3, Socialist Republic of Sieran Cruiser Killer laid down 1935

Displacement:
	15,775 t light; 16,616 t standard; 17,854 t normal; 18,845 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
	(660.39 ft / 649.61 ft) x 76.77 ft x (28.87 / 29.98 ft)
	(201.29 m / 198.00 m) x 23.40 m  x (8.80 / 9.14 m)

Armament:
      9 - 9.45" / 240 mm 50.0 cal guns - 446.52lbs / 202.54kg shells, 100 per gun
	  Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model
	  3 x Single mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
		1 raised mount - superfiring
      16 - 4.72" / 120 mm 45.0 cal guns - 53.18lbs / 24.12kg shells, 320 per gun
	  Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1935 Model
	  8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
		4 raised mounts
      16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 39.0 cal guns - 1.85lbs / 0.84kg shells, 2,500 per gun
	  Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model
	  8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
		4 raised mounts
      24 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm 50.0 cal guns - 0.51lbs / 0.23kg shells, 10,000 per gun
	  Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model
	  12 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
		8 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 4,911 lbs / 2,228 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:		Width (max)	Length (avg)		Height (avg)
	Main:	6.69" / 170 mm	495.41 ft / 151.00 m	9.84 ft / 3.00 m
	Ends:	Unarmoured
	  Main Belt covers 117 % of normal length

   - Hull void:
		1.18" / 30 mm	419.95 ft / 128.00 m	0.00 ft / 0.00 m

   - Gun armour:	Face (max)	Other gunhouse (avg)	Barbette/hoist (max)
	Main:	9.06" / 230 mm	5.91" / 150 mm		7.68" / 195 mm
	2nd:	0.79" / 20 mm	      -			      -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
	For and Aft decks: 4.33" / 110 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 5.91" / 150 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
	Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, 
	Electric motors, 2 shafts, 115,271 shp / 85,992 Kw = 32.00 kts
	Range 7,000nm at 15.00 kts
	Bunker at max displacement = 2,230 tons

Complement:
	771 - 1,003

Cost:
	£7.700 million / $30.801 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
	Armament: 1,447 tons, 8.1 %
	   - Guns: 1,447 tons, 8.1 %
	Armour: 4,384 tons, 24.6 %
	   - Belts: 1,313 tons, 7.4 %
	   - Armament: 1,041 tons, 5.8 %
	   - Armour Deck: 1,943 tons, 10.9 %
	   - Conning Tower: 87 tons, 0.5 %
	Machinery: 3,275 tons, 18.3 %
	Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,310 tons, 35.3 %
	Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,079 tons, 11.6 %
	Miscellaneous weights: 360 tons, 2.0 %
	   - Hull below water: 50 tons
	   - Hull void weights: 200 tons
	   - Hull above water: 50 tons
	   - On freeboard deck: 20 tons
	   - Above deck: 40 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
	Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
	  22,157 lbs / 10,050 Kg = 52.5 x 9.4 " / 240 mm shells or 2.4 torpedoes
	Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
	Metacentric height 4.1 ft / 1.2 m
	Roll period: 16.0 seconds
	Steadiness	- As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 55 %
			- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.54
	Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.11

Hull form characteristics:
	Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
	  a normal bow and a cruiser stern
	Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.434 / 0.441
	Length to Beam Ratio: 8.46 : 1
	'Natural speed' for length: 25.49 kts
	Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
	Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
	Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 12.00 degrees
	Stern overhang: 4.92 ft / 1.50 m
	Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
				Fore end,	 Aft end
	   - Forecastle:	20.00 %,  27.56 ft / 8.40 m,  24.61 ft / 7.50 m
	   - Forward deck:	45.00 %,  24.61 ft / 7.50 m,  21.65 ft / 6.60 m
	   - Aft deck:	15.00 %,  14.44 ft / 4.40 m,  14.44 ft / 4.40 m
	   - Quarter deck:	20.00 %,  14.44 ft / 4.40 m,  14.44 ft / 4.40 m
	   - Average freeboard:		20.62 ft / 6.28 m
	Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
	Space	- Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 86.9 %
		- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 162.6 %
	Waterplane Area: 31,411 Square feet or 2,918 Square metres
	Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
	Structure weight / hull surface area: 144 lbs/sq ft or 701 Kg/sq metre
	Hull strength (Relative):
		- Cross-sectional: 0.95
		- Longitudinal: 1.68
		- Overall: 1.00
	Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
	Excellent accommodation and workspace room

As always, feedback is most welcome.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

It's an impressive design, although expensive. However, for a ship this side I would like to see a TDS installed for greater survivability...

Yeah they are expensive. To build the two of them it was decided to retire a number of older vessels including the old battleships to cover the costs (and also provide some of the guns). Also according to Janes the C3 costs about the same amount as the USNs Cleveland Class Cruisers.

Also another factor that would lower their cost (compared to the Springsharp report) is that all of the second battery and some of the AA weaponry comes from existing ships and hence does not have to be built anew (Springsharp as far as I am aware calculates for new weapons being built for all on board). The cost of the mains would be somewhat reduced do the development having already been carried out by Gotrige. Also unlike US vessels, Sieranian ships tended to be fairly spartan in crew outfit. The essentials were supplied and a few creature comforts but nothing like the Soda Fountains. Sieran naval vessels were expected be on patrol on average for no more than a week and crews tended to live ashore when in port.

As for the TDS, I had a go at developing a proper one however I'm also trying to limit the displacement to under 20,000t and as they are there isn't much leeway to provide a better system. The increased compartmentalization thanks to TE drive would count for something but it wouldn't be direct. Bulges could be used but would slow her down when the speed of 32 knots is already right on the limits of usable in her role.

EDIT: Updated the cost section above

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

Shipbucket

Who is online