| Shipbucket http://shipbucket.com/forums/ |
|
| Fisherless Royal Navy http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6001 |
Page 25 of 29 |
| Author: | TimothyC [ July 28th, 2015, 4:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
My main concern is the lack of separation between fire control radars. While I don't know the exact specs of the units in question, they look too close together and lacking in vertical separation. And no, I don't have a solution. |
|
| Author: | JSB [ July 28th, 2015, 10:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
Maybe put some off the centre line ? (its not like you don't have the weight for plenty  ) Say remove the Sea Cat on the side of rear funnels ? and use that space for the radars ? IMO personally I would also think you need to fit a helicopters instead of the rear sea cat ? and I would also just for fun swap the DP guns for 3/70s 
|
|
| Author: | Hood [ July 29th, 2015, 7:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
I think four launchers would be too much for the second ship. I doubt the fire-control system could handle that many targets at once anyway. I think 2 launchers and 4 illuminator radars would work and would match the proposed system quite well. Vanguard has space and that's in its favour, but its not an optimal design for air-defence work. The use of 984 is ok, probably can't exploit the full range of NIGS, but two of them certainly makes up for the loss of the 985 planar system. I think the key to the NIGS system is a new-build ship, simply because of the size of the magazines, the space needed for the radars and the electrical generating capacity required. Nuclear power would seem out of the question, but you'll need lots of power to keep the system going. |
|
| Author: | Krakatoa [ July 29th, 2015, 1:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
Thanks to all for your comments. The second drawing with 4 launchers was always the least likely. Fitting the command and control functions would require a purpose built ship with space being provided for everything required. The Vanguard while big enough would require almost a total rebuild to fit everything in. Cheaper and quicker probably to build from scratch. So No.2 = 'No'. The first drawing is fairly decent as is but needs internal reworking to add more things like electrical generation. Removing all the aft turrets and fittings like the armouries does allow more space to be allocated for electrical generation. So that side of things can be catered for. The requirement for a conversion is how much can be done as cheaply as possible on a 15 year old hull. JSB - I can probably raise the target designators to give some height separation. I did look at having a chopper and hangar aft, but in consultation with Hood, he advised a helicopter arrangement was probably not needed as the ship would have plenty of others around that could supply helicopter services. All Vanguard would require is a circle on the aft deck somewhere. With the 3"/70, I actually removed 8 twin mountings and replaced four of them with the 4"/54 mountings. The 3"/70 never had a good reputation so replacing it with my AU 4" auto, which of course is a brilliant gun, makes sense. ![[ img ]](https://www.dropbox.com/s/x5h6txuh3t72c3t/BB-AU_Vanguard-1960s_headroom.png?dl=1)
|
|
| Author: | Krakatoa [ July 29th, 2015, 10:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
The original ship I had in mind to convert was the CLA Naiad. But... the Vanguard conversion was more fun. So back to the humdrum drawings The Naiad is an easier conversion as with only one twin launcher there is only one pair of guidance/illuminators to mount in the after bridge superstructure. I kept with the 984 3D system for area management. ![[ img ]](https://www.dropbox.com/s/jsfj7n2nyyz2e7z/CLA_HMS_Naiad-1965.png?dl=1) To reduce topweight, all but 3 of the twin 4"/54 mountings were removed. The remaining 3 mountings were tied to an MSR-3 director for radar control. The only additional equipment that survived from the 1950's refits was the one pair of 40mm mk5 either side of the bridge. |
|
| Author: | MihoshiK [ July 29th, 2015, 11:29 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy | |
The original ship I had in mind to convert was the CLA Naiad. But... the Vanguard conversion was more fun. So back to the humdrum drawings
Ideally, you want the 984 to be as high up as possible, without a mast blocking it, as you can. I.E., put it on a fat mast, and put all other electronics you need on the forward mast. The way it is now you are cutting a huge amount of sky off from being scanned.
The Naiad is an easier conversion as with only one twin launcher there is only one pair of guidance/illuminators to mount in the after bridge superstructure. I kept with the 984 3D system for area management. To reduce topweight, all but 3 of the twin 4"/54 mountings were removed. The remaining 3 mountings were tied to an MSR-3 director for radar control. The only additional equipment that survived from the 1950's refits was the one pair of 40mm mk5 either side of the bridge. |
||
| Author: | Krakatoa [ July 30th, 2015, 2:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
Is it better for the 984 to be mounted forward or aft? I don't think the Naiad is big enough to warrant two 984's. |
|
| Author: | JSB [ July 30th, 2015, 6:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
I would ask is the hull going to have room at the stern where you have the missile mags ? (its a big missile how many do you have ?) (maybe as MihoshiK says + move as much as you can forward to make space, or move everything forward and 4" at stern ?) |
|
| Author: | Krakatoa [ July 30th, 2015, 7:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
JSB - if you have a look on the RN weapons sheet there is two drawings Hood has done for NIGS loading systems, I have gone with the rotary loader. You will note that I have raised the launcher 3 feet above deck so the magazine will clear everything. |
|
| Author: | Hood [ July 30th, 2015, 7:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fisherless Royal Navy |
This too ambitious I think. You'd need to totally rebuild the aft section of the ship to get this stuff to fit. 984 should be mounted higher, perhaps shift the 992Q to the foremast. Topweight is the main concern though, you might just do it but only just. Maybe remove C 4in mount? Two 984 is a no-no. The other thing that makes conversions less sensical is that NIGS is a brand-new system and you want the ships carrying it to last 20-25 years. Putting them on hulls already 20 years old is a waste of resources and money. Much better to design from scratch. Like Sea Slug, NIGS was too demanding on needs to easily accommodate it by any rebuild. |
|
| Page 25 of 29 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|