Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 4  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 »
Author Message
Hood
Post subject: Re: Proposed conversion of Majestic classPosted: October 17th, 2010, 11:08 am
Offline
Posts: 6617
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
I think all the Majestics had been completed up to the flight deck. Certainly Leviathan was cocooned to perserve her hull. Given the Colossous and Majestics used merchant scantlings I can't see the hulls standing up to cutting about even with a new strength deck put in. It's going to cost as much as a new ship perhaps more.

On the other hand designs like GW96A were too limited, if you were to design an AU new Seaslug cruiser the DNC would want to make it a cruiser, ie have 6in autos etc to tackle surface vessels like the Soviet Sverdlov's etc. Size and weight doubts would prevent using a hull carrier-sized and I suspect 28.5kts on a new-build cruiser would have been scoffed at by the brass hats. There is something in using the Majestic as a basis. An all-missile ship is something not really attempted by the RN until the Type 22. Even the last batch of those had a gun added.

This design looks pretty cool though, something very much equal to the latest US ships (the Type 984 is the most advanced radar in the world even if Seaslug is not the most advanced SAM in the world, although not as bad as some claim). Blueslug nuke-armed SSM variant would be useful to tackle enemy warships (in 1950s terms of thinking). Its interesting to note that when they tried to put a second Type 901 onto the County design it was sacrificed partly to provide weight margin for the nuclear warhead magazine.

I hope Friedman's forthcoming book on British cruisers will shed more light on cruiser development post-war and much needed light on the NIGS Cruiser with the 985 array radar.

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: Proposed conversion of Majestic classPosted: October 17th, 2010, 2:45 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Well, the general opinion is that the more advanced design I began with would not be feasible on the Majestic hull. And as I hate to pursue illogical concepts that means no go. But if we take the overall concept, and (as we are in the realm of 'what if') we agree it has potential, it means a new hull, but with the basic layout unchanged. So lets presume a modern day Admiral Fisher Or even Mountbatten having an epiphany (and some influence) I can still pursue my project as a radical concept. As the same Admirals had apolexy when they saw the Battle class with no main armament aft, lets give them some more burst blood vessels with a 'rocket cruiser' without large 6-in gun turrets, but with the automatic 3-in as some local defence. The main weapon will be the Seaslug/Blueslug, as shown. The role of this ship would be as Flagship, probably in the Meditteranean, where good anti-air defence would be vital. It should also be able to escort carriers, and see off any Russian cruisers or other surface units with Blueslug (if they risked the Med).

I have to confess my own AU project, based on a radically different postwar R.N., so any future update of my Rocket Cruiser will go in a new thread in that section. Menawhile, I've made a start on the limited version of the Majestic Seaslug conversion from Colombamikes drawing: I'll post that here when ready.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Bombhead
Post subject: Re: Proposed conversion of Majestic classPosted: October 17th, 2010, 5:22 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2299
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 7:41 pm
Whether the design is viable or not is a bit iffy,but I think you should finish it as it is a very interesting design. 8-)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: Proposed conversion of Majestic classPosted: October 17th, 2010, 5:33 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Thanks Shipmate, but I know when to bow out gracefully :P But I'll post my own take on the concept under own designs when I can.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Novice
Post subject: Re: Proposed conversion of Majestic classPosted: October 17th, 2010, 8:31 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4126
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
Viable or not the RN in the 1950's was very much into cutting costs down. The 'money people' probably were saying "we have all those hulls, and we certainly do not need that many carriers", and voilla the missile-cruiser conversion was born. Also other half-baked ideas were born like the Type 18 frigates conversions (save money from Type 15, and having more capability that Type 19). Even the Devonshire class of DDG was somewhat a compromise between what is needed and what the money can afford.

_________________
[ 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]
Bombhead
Post subject: Re: Proposed conversion of Majestic classPosted: October 17th, 2010, 9:59 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2299
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 7:41 pm
Bill
If you would like to use Vanguards or Centuars hull please feel free.It's a shame you are going to scrap that one on the slip.Would you mind if I finish her and PM you back the result? :idea:


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TurretHead
Post subject: Re: Proposed conversion of Majestic classPosted: October 18th, 2010, 1:05 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 193
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:38 am
Location: End of a bad sci fi movie.
Portsmouth Bill wrote:
A good point. To quote Freidman:

"All structure above the gallery deck would be removed, and a new strength deck,the new upper deck, built at the gallery deck level."
Ahh of course. They knew what they were doing! It makes a lot of sense to lower the deck to improve stability. You should keep drawing the cut down light carrier. Make for an interesting comparision to the American light carriers made from converting the Cleveland class cruiser.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: Proposed conversion of Majestic classPosted: October 25th, 2010, 6:25 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Further on this project we have the 1951 proposal for converting HMS Majestic. Rather than cut down the deck it remains in place, but with the Seaslug system cut into the deck and the magazines (52 missiles in each) occupying the hangar space. Compared to the earlier drawing I attempted - which was actually a later concept - this would have been possible; but we can ask the quetion why bother? Obviously not, as this was never taken forward into a real ship conversion. One of the problems was that she would have been top heavy, without a reserve of stability; but that said an interesting exercise:

[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Novice
Post subject: Re: Proposed conversion of Majestic classPosted: October 25th, 2010, 8:00 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4126
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
Excellent drawing Bill, but I think that with Type 984 radar (2 of these monsters) the benefit of having Type 960 (on the main mast) is mute. No other ship had them both IIRC (with the exception of HMS Eagle maybe).
Also a ship of that size could easily accomodate the Wessex helicopter (though the Wasp looks nice)

_________________
[ 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]
Bombhead
Post subject: Re: Proposed conversion of Majestic classPosted: October 25th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2299
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 7:41 pm
She looks like a right bruiser,and if it looks top heavy so did Albany,Columbus and Chicago of the same time frame.Shame it was never built.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 4  [ 36 posts ]  Return to “Never-Built Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


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


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