| Shipbucket http://shipbucket.com/forums/ |
|
| HMAS Melbourne FAC http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=274 |
Page 3 of 3 |
| Author: | Novice [ October 8th, 2010, 7:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: HMAS Melbourne FAC |
Good looking (of course), and now for the top view? |
|
| Author: | Portsmouth Bill [ October 9th, 2010, 1:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: HMAS Melbourne FAC |
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 
|
|
| Author: | ALVAMA [ October 9th, 2010, 1:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: HMAS Melbourne FAC |
Great work bill. excellent ship for the collection of Shipbucket |
|
| Author: | Bombhead [ October 10th, 2010, 11:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: HMAS Melbourne FAC |
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. |
|
| Author: | Portsmouth Bill [ October 10th, 2010, 6:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: HMAS Melbourne FAC |
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
|
|
| Author: | ALVAMA [ October 10th, 2010, 6:56 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: HMAS Melbourne FAC | |
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.
|
||
| Author: | Bombhead [ October 10th, 2010, 7:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: HMAS Melbourne FAC |
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 
|
|
| Author: | Novice [ October 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: HMAS Melbourne FAC |
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) |
|
| Author: | Obi Wan Russell [ October 11th, 2010, 2:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: HMS Swiftsure modernisation |
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. |
|
| Page 3 of 3 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|