Shipbucket

Well it made me chuckle. Overall though the whole concept is bogus and its just impossible to put 14in guns on an LPD.

Support to Fearless is going to come from a carrierload of Buccs and Phantoms, maybe some Harriers, the RAF etc etc. The whole purpose of these ship's isn't some kind of D-Day scenario. Even in WW2 no landing ship had guns over 5in. It just makes no sense, you can't unload LCVPs aft while you've got three 14in guns firing up front, with that light-built hull you're going to be sinking in no time. Not to mention with the dock dried out the trim is going to be awful to control.

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

Well thank you for some of the constructive thoughts.
Apart from the actual life of the guns which I didn't know, the whole reason for my idea was based on the lack of gunfire support available to the troops landing at San Carlos as they advanced inland.
So in order.

Not all the 4.5's in the world will reach the distance that a 14 inch will so you can have increased range that you have NGS over land.
Think of the times that the USN supported long distance ie outside the range of 155mm and 8 inch with the Iowa's in Vietnam. I take on board you statistics about what was used on Okinawa but the point I always remember is the story about one of Warspite's hits on an bunker that blew it off its foundations and put it out of use.
Would I unload out of the dock the whole time, no so having the support is a plus a big plus. Same with conducting flight ops whilst firing you don't need to be doing the other after all an Amphib is not a line of battle unit. the RN has a long history of putting large caliber guns in units that are not battle ships in order to support the Troops ashore.

Cost
Having been in places where I've not had the correct kite cause it costs too much then in my world kit gets bought.
Also the truism of your kit is built by the cheapest bidder is true in the real world and I've seen the result of long periods of down time as the result of failures so I'm afraid I would pay the money out in the initial budget for a better product rather than pay for the the refit and repairs later. So Cheap is not an option results are.
Man power intensive yes I agree, but if you are using 1 turret to reach out and touch then the job can be done, if you need lower caliber then the other units on the gun line can do the job. Again job related
Any ship is full of potential explosive situations, aviation fuel, paint the list is endless.

Full of troops and equipment. Well that's why my "Fearless" is longer in the well deck, accommodation area and turret area all to make it work.
Once the initial landings are done then the high tempo slackens off and for me the idea of having the big gun support is a good one. If and it is a big if the troops need support then it is available relatively quickly, compared to summoning a BB who might otherwise be engaged. Keep the ship within the Amphib area.

Blast and Electrics mixing is never good but if you spend the money and cushion the electrics then they will be less likely to suffer and hence still do the job.
As for star shell that became redundant with NVG's.

Re the 14" turrets being cut up and not available, sorry just going with the smallest "big guns" available to the UK from after the dates that were talked about and as nothing was said about going with historical facts then I failed to have them cut up.

Re phalanx's and Goalkeepers. In my opinion the RN has since the end of WWII consistently under armed it's ships. Yes I know it is crew and cost related but both these systems are auto and require basic support of tech's and reloading not any crew to "man" them. Yes they overlap coverage but if you are being attacked by more than one weapon system then you can engage each at different ranges. So using the Falklands for example the Goalkeepers engage the 1st Exocet and miss. So hand the mission over to the Phalanx and engage the 2nd and 3rd missiles of as in one case the A4's following.
So for the cost of two Phalanx and 2 Goalkeepers you get to keep the ship, which also completes its mission. For me the point is made by the lack of close in weapon systems available to the Type 42's as they were expected to go from Sea Dart to 20mm. so if each unit in the task force had had a fit for purpose close in protection then the loses would have been fewer.

So all in all my design was to put in value for money rather than throw money away.
Gents I find some of the negative comments extremely frustrating. You seem to be thinking like accountants! If the AU is yours to design why are you imposing real world limits on it. A lot of posts about how it would not work and yet none about how it could be made to work. Politicians have little or no idea or concept of how to fight a war or even build a ship. That is for the people who are the experts.
I will say this a last time. Cheap is not good. Spend the money to make things work first time and they will.



Hood
Most of the time that I have thought about, read or experienced navy ops, none of them are ever like D Day 6 June 1944. When I thought about this "Fearless" I was thinking of D Day in San Carlos with a stationary Amphib group that lacked close in support. Long range Naval gunfire support, and was stationary. That's why I came up with this personal design.
However, I apologise if you felt insulted but was heartened by the fact that I made you laugh, as the post at the start of the thread was talking about value for money I took you at your word and posted this for you people to see. However if you wish I will delete the posting.

No, no, don't delete it For us weapon ignorants it's nice to see some dare to make a non-real ship with exciting ideas concerning armament. Though the discussion proves that it can't be done, the discussion taught us some good angles to be aware of. I like that

_________________
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms

I do second Kim's appeal. It's worthwhile to preserve even apparent failures to be able to improve our skills in designing better vessels!

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Been thinking.
Part of the frustration is the way that people are saying it can't be done. When I think it could be done.
Ok structure yes the ship would have to be beefed up and that would cost money and it would take time. But, if the ship was built to BB standards then it could take the battering. After all the armour belts would not be needed because any other BB would be kept out of range by SSM's such as Harpoon.
The Iowa's were rebuilt with modern electronics and weapons systems and had a large caliber gun and were still capable of operating. The experiments with laser guided sub munitions also prove that with the right equipment delicate and explosives do go together.
The idea that the aft Phalanx would interfere with flt ops is to me a bad idea. Physically its there and a known obstruction so you go round it. Weapon wise if the ships was under attack then all helo's would clear the MEZ (Missile engagement zone) by landing or not coming within so many miles of the fleet.
So you see that I would still disagree with what the guys are saying. Basically because I wish to get the job which in this case is landing and then supporting the troops done.
I can understand the wish to identify the problems associated with big guns. But, for the arguments that it would interfere too much with Flight ops or well deck ops is not a great one. For me I know that although it will, with the guns in the traditional bow position away from both then all it takes is a management decision from the CO of what the priorities are and then to give the orders.
I have this hatred of accountants saying that it costs too much to do and then people/troops getting killed, cause they the penny pinchers wanting to save money.
I could understand being told that it would make the ship too tender and subject to capsizing. In fact even the argument that the trim would be effected seems to be to be superfluous. Sub's have no problem, surface ships with flooding can adjust the trim on their boat or ship it just takes extra thought to think the problems and therefore the solutions out.
I thought that the AU idea was to explore different ships/ideas/needs that people could draw and talk over which is why I posted this design that I modified in the RN AU thread.
I can understand being told that this would be an expensive design and that the problems are this or that but to say it could not be built.
bezobrazov, Kim thank you.

As others have said, this thread won't be getting deleted, as it was/is a learning experience. The ship might be improved if you went for the 6"/50 QF Mark N5 turret used on the Tigers rather than the 14"/45 Mark VII from the KGVs. This gets you much longer barrel life, higher rates of fire, and has the advantage of being in service at the time of launch. You won't gain anything in the way of reduced crew, or reduced operational limitations, but it would be a lighter mount.
Even battleships are vulnerable to SSMs, and if you could clarify, these two sentence seem contradictory.
The Iowas had some old equipment removed, and were put into service because they could be pushed into service quickly, and could carry a large number to TLAMs, which prior the the USN's VLS spam (on Ticos, Burkes, and refited Spruances) was a concern.
Obstructions, by their very definition obstruct, or interfere with something.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Battleships were heavily Armoured not only against plunging fire but also against direct fire. ie shells coming in from above the deck which killed Hood so easily and fire from the sides along with torpedoes. So yes the weight was considerably. However if you omit the armour you still have to have a heavier structure than the "Fearless" was actually constructed.

Yes Obstructions are there and you know about them so you take them into account and you avoid them. Having been aircrew, you can live with with something if you know about it. It ay make your job interesting but you get on with it.

Everyone's opinions count in this forum and as a newbie I welcome you to these boards trap one.

I don't think shore support was necessarily the major problem in the Falklands, far more danger came from the lack of adequate air defence. I'll agree the 4.5in Mk8 proved unreliable as a bombardment weapon but then in post-war planning shore fire support seems to have been far down the priority list. The Commando carriers and Fearless Class in the early days had to rely on the Tiger Class and they didn't have reliable guns either for prolonged firing. Then again the Falklands was the war the RN hadn't planned for, Fearless was designed to cross the Norwegian Sea or for landings against Arab nations. The Soviets though went for MRL armaments, the Ivan Rogov's having a twin 76mm too.

I wish folks would remember that battleships were designed to fight other battleships and destroy them in fleet combat. The only reason why they were used for shore bombardment in the war becuase the threat of enemy battleships receeded (Japan) or vanished (Germany and Italy) so they were available for other duties and that other duty could only have been shore bombardment by the virtue of their large calibre guns. They lacked any other purpose, although US fast battleships became in effect floating AA batteries. Iowa and all her early-mid 40s ilk were obsolete and lacked purpose from the moment the hulls touched water. Yes large guns have proved useful in many post-war conflicts but 6in and 8in cruisers provided the bulk of that firepower. Don't forget LPDs operate inshore, not the best place for big-guns to be (if you are wanting to maximise your long-range punch offshore).

I would add one point trap one, the best AUs tend to stick to real-world realities. You could graft a Yamato to the rear hull of Fearless but it wouldn't make any sense. Your idea has some merit and does look quite nice but as a realistic what-if it falls wide of the mark. As a pure AU concept of your own design it seems ok but its just the proposed role that makes many of us sceptical.

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

All said above Trap One I wellcome you aboard, and though agree with almost everything said against the use of the 14" guns I tend to agree with the concept of a fire-support ship. Instead of the 14" guns may I suggest you use the Mk.24 triple turret from former cruisers (in 1962 some turrets were still available -HMS Swifture was just entering dock for a complete modernization at that time, during which she lost her three main guns turrets).

_________________
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"

Hood/Novice
Thank you.
There in those last posts was what I was expecting to hear. Speculation, and talking about alternatives, not just out right dismissal.
Hood, the design was never ever a BB replacement, more a combining of the Monitor and LPD/H.
Novice I take on board what you said and would agree. I even speculated about the 15" but thought no go with the smaller caliber. As for a good fire support weapon I couldn't really identify one from the RN arsenal. Preference would have been a 155mm gun but nothing in Fearless's days of construction would have been available. unless it would have been even older twin 8" turrets. This was because the better range seemed so important. I heartily agree about the very poor layers of the RN's air defence at the time of the Falklands war. Especially as the RN was supposed to be going up against Soviet Long Range and Naval aviation units with very fast ASM's

Again thank you for the welcome and the constructive points.