| Shipbucket http://shipbucket.com/forums/ |
|
| Fisherless Royal Navy http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6001 |
Page 26 of 29 |
| Author: | Krakatoa [ July 30th, 2015, 11:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
Oh well - one from three - not good odds. At least my designers tried something even if it was a bit of a fail. Would Naiad be better with a Sea Slug system? (I'll try one and post it to see what comments it gets) Only way I am going to learn modern systems is to try things out and see what works and what does not. Though I might have to start a new thread "Kraktoas Modern RN Failures" let everyone learn from my mistakes. 
|
|
| Author: | JSB [ July 30th, 2015, 5:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
Well they are interesting and teach some of us (me) about new (old) systems  .My thoughts about a what if missile ship, would be a what about rebuilding a light fleet (Colossus or Majestic) as a sea slug ship ? (or early commonality and go with Bloodhound/Thunderbird ? ) |
|
| Author: | Novice [ July 30th, 2015, 7:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
An interesting concept, and I join my peers in the criticism of radar placement. Type 992 on the aft mast along with Type 293 on the fore mast is redundant. Both radars have the same function, with Type 992 is newer, with a different antenna (same transmitter/receiver, with some updating like using transistors instead of vacuum tubes). I would place Type 984 on a specially designed pedestal/structure above the bridge, remove C 4" gun turret and use the aft mast for the Type 992 radar along with a lightweight fore mast for other electronics (counter measures and communication) ad Type 978 or Type 1006 navigation radar. |
|
| Author: | Tobius [ July 31st, 2015, 9:36 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy | |
Well they are interesting and teach some of us (me) about new (old) systems \ .My thoughts about a what if missile ship, would be a what about rebuilding a light fleet (Colossus or Majestic) as a sea slug ship ? (or early commonality and go with Bloodhound/Thunderbird ? ) Since the Sea Slug missile/radar combo is no good at all, and it eats into the aircraft carrying qualities of the ship.... why? With Thunderbird (At least as good or better than HAWK), you might have something there., provided that it was a bodyguard County and not a carrier. Bloodhound is too big and complex. Overengineered and underperforming for the size wasted, like Sea Slug. |
||
| Author: | Krakatoa [ July 31st, 2015, 9:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
Ok, take two. HMS Naiad armed with Sea Slug which is a more likely event than NIGS. Naiad would have only been about 10 years old with at least another 15-20 years service available. ![[ img ]](https://www.dropbox.com/s/2jtl15ytcqgyc1q/CLA_HMS_Naiad-1958.png?dl=1)
|
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ July 31st, 2015, 10:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
would the directors have no deck penetration into the magazine? anyways, the sea slug fitted to carrier hulls were actually proposed, as there were some unfinished light fleet carriers on the slibways and the missiles had similar requirements as aircraft (as in, lots of volume! mostly) IIRC. |
|
| Author: | Krakatoa [ July 31st, 2015, 10:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
Good point Ace, but I thought about that and decided that the directors had a considerable sized 'block' underneath the director itself which would have all the rotation gear in it and all that might penetrate the deck would be cabling for power and information cabling to the CIC (or its equivalent). |
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ July 31st, 2015, 10:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
the answer would be in the early version of the county class (with the loader with the elevator in it) in friedmans british destroyers & frigates........ so I checked...... and found an (earlier model of) the director in this same position. the director itself looked higher though, so it might have had a full deck of electronics underneath it (the issue here would not be the size of the systems underneath it, but the space required to actually maintain those systems) btw, http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 8285;image refering to the carrier hull conversion mentioned earlier..... http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... ic=8124.15 and sea slug cruisers in general. |
|
| Author: | heuhen [ August 1st, 2015, 12:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
I think the director have a deck penetration. as we can see on "B" on the drawing bellow. The only thing is, if it's only a room full of switches and old school fusses and that type of stuff, then it should be possible to move that electronic to a different position, but close is better. sketch from Freidman's book to illustrate: ![[ img ]](http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/dougiemoody/Majesticssamconv.jpg)
|
|
| Author: | Krakatoa [ August 1st, 2015, 1:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
I have done some reading on Type 901, which can control 2 missiles at a time. So no need for 2nd 901. The remaining 901 can have deck penetration to the underlying space. (Changed drawing in dropbox) |
|
| Page 26 of 29 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
