Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 5 of 9  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page « 13 4 5 6 79 »
Author Message
waritem
Post subject: Re: Purple ChallengePosted: January 27th, 2015, 8:14 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 325
Joined: August 4th, 2011, 6:37 am
Location: France
Well!
It's seems that not much people are inspired about this challenge. :cry:

Personnaly i've plenty of ideas.
They're mostly based on WWII or preWWII ships, i hope this is not against the spirit of the purple challenge.................

For my first post is almost a "never build" ship. j've tried to guess what the chinese cruiser Chongqing (former hms Aurora) would have look like if he was put back into service after chinese civil war.

[ img ]

_________________
"You can rape history, if you give her a child"
Alexandre Dumas

JE SUIS CHARLIE


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: Purple ChallengePosted: January 27th, 2015, 9:11 am
Offline
Posts: 6614
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
That is a really great idea and very well thought out.
Adding the SA-N-1 aft would require some serious internal modifications but it could probably be done.

I have an entry in mind but no time to doodle yet (same with the 25,000ton challenge), at the moment I'm drawing seven cruisers at once!!

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: Purple ChallengePosted: January 27th, 2015, 8:32 pm
Offline
Posts: 9734
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
@Waritem
I wish I could share Hood's praise, but unfortunately I can't, as I see some issues with that design.

Going from bow towards stern.
1) On this ship refitted in 1958 You've got bow-located RBU-6000 launcher, that entered service in 1960-1961. Leaving aside why anyone would put it on a cruiser, particularly one that has no sonar and therefore no effective means of aiming them, it has to be noted that these launchers demand quite sizeable belowdeck installations:
http://ot-a-do-ya.org/Images/enc/RI-SSS ... 6000_1.jpg

2) P-15 launchers miss one important thing - rocket blast deflectors of some sorts (Osa 1 class had small ones behind hangars, Tarantul class had specially shaped superstructure etc.) - especially the forward-most launchers, due to their higher location, when launching missiles would nicely fry the launchers behind them. And definitely You'd have to shield somehow the doors and portholes visible in the background. ;)

3) I see another RBU-6000 amidships. Besides everything from point 1), I'm also bit curious about how all of it - the radar mast, launchers, superstructure and P-15 launchers - fit together on width (and it's also strange place to locate RBU's at all. Actually I don't remember any other ship than Pr.1155 to have them located in similar place). And finally, the AAA emplacements next to it, when missiles are fired will be a very unpleasant place.

4) And last but not least - the SAM launcher. Let's leave aside the fact that China never (at least officialy) got M-1 Volna complex (SA-N-1 in NATO code), as in this timeline it could. Problem is, that this ship is supposedly refitted in 1958, so taking whole process of refit into account (both the preliminary design and actual re-construction) they should be available even earlier. Problem is, that in 1958 even Soviet's didn't had M-1's available - actually in 1958 they didn't even had S-125 Neva (land-based SAM from which M-1 was derived) available yet. First S-125's were delivered to operational units only in 1961, while first M-1's were trialled in 1962 on destroyer Bravyi (Pr.56K).


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Purple ChallengePosted: January 27th, 2015, 8:43 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7329
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
eswube, may I use this chance to request a belowdeck part of the RBU-6000? it would be really interesting to compare with the bofors launchers on ships :P if you are not willing to draw it, I may do so on a later date but you might be the better shot here :P

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Bombhead
Post subject: Re: Purple ChallengePosted: January 27th, 2015, 9:01 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2299
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 7:41 pm
I don't know about the technical aspects raised by Eswube. But it's certainly a fine looking ship and well exected drawing. I like it. 8-)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: Purple ChallengePosted: January 27th, 2015, 9:11 pm
Offline
Posts: 9734
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
@Acelanceloet
In current circumstances I suppose that this "later date" at which You could draw it would be even "faster date" than I could do it. :P


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
waritem
Post subject: Re: Purple ChallengePosted: January 27th, 2015, 11:19 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 325
Joined: August 4th, 2011, 6:37 am
Location: France
Well it seems that i have to improve my entry...............;;; :?
eswube wrote:
1) On this ship refitted in 1958 You've got bow-located RBU-6000 launcher, that entered service in 1960-1961. Leaving aside why anyone would put it on a cruiser, particularly one that has no sonar and therefore no effective means of aiming them, it has to be noted that these launchers demand quite sizeable belowdeck installations
The RBU-6000 is really a distinctive part of russian ships so i really wished to have it.
To me the system don't seem so hard to set up.
I've chosen to keep the hull unchanged, but i should add a sonar.
eswube wrote:
2) P-15 launchers miss one important thing - rocket blast deflectors of some sorts (Osa 1 class had small ones behind hangars, Tarantul class had specially shaped superstructure etc.) - especially the forward-most launchers, due to their higher location, when launching missiles would nicely fry the launchers behind them. And definitely You'd have to shield somehow the doors and portholes visible in the background. ;)
I should look for how to design deflectors.
eswube wrote:
3) I see another RBU-6000 amidships. Besides everything from point 1), I'm also bit curious about how all of it - the radar mast, launchers, superstructure and P-15 launchers - fit together on width (and it's also strange place to locate RBU's at all. Actually I don't remember any other ship than Pr.1155 to have them located in similar place). And finally, the AAA emplacements next to it, when missiles are fired will be a very unpleasant place.
I have to confess that i've simply used the structure from the Gollevainen Pr.57A Kanin.
eswube wrote:
4) And last but not least - the SAM launcher. Let's leave aside the fact that China never (at least officialy) got M-1 Volna complex (SA-N-1 in NATO code), as in this timeline it could. Problem is, that this ship is supposedly refitted in 1958, so taking whole process of refit into account (both the preliminary design and actual re-construction) they should be available even earlier. Problem is, that in 1958 even Soviet's didn't had M-1's available - actually in 1958 they didn't even had S-125 Neva (land-based SAM from which M-1 was derived) available yet. First S-125's were delivered to operational units only in 1961, while first M-1's were trialled in 1962 on destroyer Bravyi (Pr.56K).
So what kind of SAM can i use?

I see twoo solution:
- Move the time line to 1963.
the chinese were very slow to rebuild it (that fits with the state of China after the war)or used it a few years with it's original british systems.
- Remove the RBU-6000 and the SA-N-1

_________________
"You can rape history, if you give her a child"
Alexandre Dumas

JE SUIS CHARLIE


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: Purple ChallengePosted: January 28th, 2015, 1:06 pm
Offline
Posts: 6614
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
I would say move the timeline to 1963 or just after.
Ditch the midships RBU too, I wonder whether rather than having the SAM you could fit another 130mm mount or perhaps some 57mm AA? I don't think the Chinese Navy had any SAMs until the 1970s.
The Chinese used a twin P-15 launcher on their destroyer conversions, not sure what blast protection they had, but I think they trained outboard. Adding a sonar should be no bother.

I still think its a groovy idea, its just (as with all kitbashes and AU work) the devil is always in the details.

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
waritem
Post subject: Re: Purple ChallengePosted: January 28th, 2015, 3:05 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 325
Joined: August 4th, 2011, 6:37 am
Location: France
@Hood

I think i will do 2 versions.
A 1958 rebuilt version without SAM, sonar, and RBU. The spare space would be used for more AA guns and maybe a third 130mm turret.
A 1963 refitted version. I really wish a SAM for this version. First I think it make sense that chineses wish to protect this precious ship, so they won't wait for the 70's to stole the french Crotale. Second without SAm there's no need for the very eastern block structure that support its radar........... :D
But the SAM and RBU could not be "directly" provided by USSR as by this time Sino-Soviet split had already occured.
The ship would use a reverse-engineered MBU-200 (russian copie of british Hedgehog ) arranged in a similar way to the RBU-6000 (i have to create the part)
But for the SAM i don't know.
Maybe navalised SA-2 Guideline as the russian tried on the Dzerzhinsky (isn't that's to huge for the ship?).

@eswube
Is it those kind of deflectors i should use?
[ img ]

_________________
"You can rape history, if you give her a child"
Alexandre Dumas

JE SUIS CHARLIE


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: Purple ChallengePosted: January 28th, 2015, 9:14 pm
Offline
Posts: 9734
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
@Waritem
1) It still remains unclear to me why on Earth You (or rather Chinese - or anyone else) would want to adapt a gun cruiser to have a sonar and RBU's. I'm also unsure how the installation of the 1950s era sonar would influence keel, but if Hood says it's ok, then let's leave it.

2) Deflectors are nothing complicated. On this photo of a model of Osa missile boat You can clearly see them.
http://merit-intl.com/meritnew/_images/ ... %20008.jpg
Re: the drawing of Pr.61M.
Yes and no, as what You pointed at is indeed deflector, but for M-1 - which also should be present, but since I wrote about M-1 what I wrote, didn't cared about this detail.

3) Ah, yes. I forgot about RBU's on Pr.57. But it still doesn't change much, as on Pr.57 they were located on a platform that extended to whole width of the ship:
http://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/images/pr.57a.jpg
while You need to take into account the fact, that now it seems that there is (from the side towards the centre): the P-15 launcher, walkway, superstructure, with all the width necessary for RBU and finally the mast - on a hull that's just some meter and a half wider than on Pr.57.

4) On a first glance the M-2 Volkhov (navalized S-75M) looks a better solution - also because the S-75 family missiles were license-produced in China. But on a second glance not so much, as actually Pr.70E Dzierzynski was converted between 1957 and 1962. So it would work only with timeline moved to around 1963 anyway - assuming it would indeed fit at all. (I'll try to look in my materials about it, but not today)
Btw. besides the HQ-7 which was copy (not necassarily stolen, though ;) ) of Crotale, Chinese also created around the same time their own ship-borne SAM - the HQ-61 (initially created in land-based version). But both of these were available only around late 1970s/early 1980s anyway.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 5 of 9  [ 89 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 13 4 5 6 79 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


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


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