[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 3  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3
Author Message
Novice
Post subject: Re: HMAS Melbourne FACPosted: October 8th, 2010, 7:31 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4073
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
Good looking (of course), and now for the top view?

_________________
[ img ] Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: HMAS Melbourne FACPosted: October 9th, 2010, 1:35 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Arggh :( I knew I'd get asked that next :) I will eventually tackle that, but at present I'm involved in other projects. Also, while top views are no doubt an added aspect to a drawing, the emphasis (for myself) is to get a wider range of types represented; for example, with the Majestic/Collossuss class, it would be other ships in R.N. and other navies.

BTW; something I'm working on with Hoods support: a missile conversion of these light carriers as mentioned by Freidman - watch this space ;)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ALVAMA
Post subject: Re: HMAS Melbourne FACPosted: October 9th, 2010, 1:38 pm
Great work bill. excellent ship for the collection of Shipbucket


Top
[Quote]
Bombhead
Post subject: Re: HMAS Melbourne FACPosted: October 10th, 2010, 11:40 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2299
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 7:41 pm
A missile conversion sounds good to me Bill,I will look forward to seeing that.I'm looking at Friedman's book at the moment.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: HMAS Melbourne FACPosted: October 10th, 2010, 6:17 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
The missile conversion is well away: I'm enjoying a bit of 'what if'. I've pm'd the result so far to Hood as I want to work in with his own AU, and get his advice. Basically, the RN was stuffed postwar with a deficit of suitable hulls to accept the Seaslug (not to mention the cancelled Blueslug ssm). One idea was to take advantage of the Majestic hulls still incomplete, cut them down (in the most ambitious version), and allow double ended Seaslug launchers. Also, the engines would be based on the Daring machinery to allow a speed to keep up with the fast carriers.

I already hear the protests: too expensive etc. But consider; what the Brits spent on the three Tigers, then the Victorious, to mention just two projects; it does not disallow what was being proposed to get a large hulled ship with (also) good command facilities. again, watch this space ;)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ALVAMA
Post subject: Re: HMAS Melbourne FACPosted: October 10th, 2010, 6:56 pm
Portsmouth Bill wrote:
The missile conversion is well away: I'm enjoying a bit of 'what if'. I've pm'd the result so far to Hood as I want to work in with his own AU, and get his advice. Basically, the RN was stuffed postwar with a deficit of suitable hulls to accept the Seaslug (not to mention the cancelled Blueslug ssm). One idea was to take advantage of the Majestic hulls still incomplete, cut them down (in the most ambitious version), and allow double ended Seaslug launchers. Also, the engines would be based on the Daring machinery to allow a speed to keep up with the fast carriers.

I already hear the protests: too expensive etc. But consider; what the Brits spent on the three Tigers, then the Victorious, to mention just two projects; it does not disallow what was being proposed to get a large hulled ship with (also) good command facilities. again, watch this space ;)

About whish AU we are talking about? I really enjoy it.

Bill: serious I would be damn great to see you doing some AU ships again or even an AU. :)


Top
[Quote]
Bombhead
Post subject: Re: HMAS Melbourne FACPosted: October 10th, 2010, 7:27 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2299
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 7:41 pm
Absolutly Bill we Brits have spent untold billions on re-fits that have just bodged up inadequate to start with designs.Ships that have spent more time in the dock yard at horrendous cost, to produce at the end of the day a makeshift that only serves a few years, most of the time tide alongside for lack of ABs to man them :x


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Novice
Post subject: Re: HMAS Melbourne FACPosted: October 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4073
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
A good case is HMS Swiftsure, which was taken in hand for modernization, and after many billions poured into her it was decided that "It isn't worth the effort' to produce an outdated design", and so she was scrapped. IIRC the conversion/modernization was making her more or less compatible with the Tiger class cruisers (with which they shared a common hull anyway)

_________________
[ img ] Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Obi Wan Russell
Post subject: Re: HMS Swiftsure modernisationPosted: October 11th, 2010, 2:14 pm
Offline
Posts: 11
Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:10 pm
Swiftsure's refit was cancelled halfway through, at which point her original armament had been removed but not yet replaced (planned fit was identical to the Tiger class, two twin 6"/50 mk26 turrets in 'A' and 'Y' positions and three twin 3"/70 mk6 in 'B', 'P' and 'Q' positions). Her new bridge and lattice masts were in place, but the bridge did not have any windows cut before the cancellation. In terms of shape it was closer to that fitted to Belfast during her mid fifties modernisation, three sided at the front instead of flat like Tiger's. Two stories circulate as to the reason her refit was cancelled, first that during the refit she was found to have suffered serious structural damage to her hull during a collision with HMS Diamond in 1953. Secondly, it was cancelled because gun armed cruisers were virtually overnight now regarded as obsolete (the last two Tigers, Lion and Blake were still to complete at this point, so if this was the case why were they not cancelled immediately?) and the refit was costing far too much to produce an obsolete (ie non missile armed) ship. Another cruiser, HMS Superb, had also paid off pending a similar refit but this was not begun and she went for scrap shortly afterwards.

Although the refit was expensive, even after adjusting for inflation it didn't cost "many billions"! ;-)

But overall, it does contribute to a picture of the RN's intended cruiser force planned for the early 60s in the mid 50s. The existing Town class and Crown Colony class cruisers were wearing out despite refits, large scale new construction was out of the question for at least another decade so to bridge the gap (to the 70s) the RN would have had effectively five Tiger class (Tiger, Lion, Blake, Swiftsure and Superb) supplemented by the modernised Belfast and Sheffield, though the latter two would not have been expected to serve beyond the mid to late 60s.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 3  [ 29 posts ]  Return to “Real Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: darthpanda and 9 guests


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


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