[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 22  [ 216 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 522 »
Author Message
Oberon_706
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: May 22nd, 2014, 3:15 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 207
Joined: April 1st, 2014, 12:17 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Thanks both for your responses – to address each in turn;

acelancelot:

I thought something didn’t work quite right in the link from photobucket – any suggestions on how to fix it, as I’m lost as to where I’m going wrong?

Thanks for the tip about Hood’s Daring Class - it looks great! As a longer term goal, I’ll have a look and see if it’s worth starting from scratch – initially though I may just add detail and replace weapons on the Squizzy/Portsmouth Bill version, as I’ve already invested a fair bit of time and effort and don’t really want it to be a waste (As I’m sure you can understand).

With regard to the Australian connection; it’s true that having something worked on in the UK come out exactly the same as their Aussie compatriots is a little bit fanciful – I’m honestly still trying to dream up the correct AU circumstance to legitimize it all – and I may not be able to yet :) (lets be honest – refurbishing a 30 year old, all-gun destroyer to modern standards for another 10+ years of operation is a bit fanciful to start with isn’t it! – but then again, what are AU’s for if not to legitimize our overactive and optimistic imaginations!!). I will give it some long hard thought and get back to you.

Forgive my ignorance but what are you referring to when you say ‘Daring FRAM”?? Never heard of it before! If you feel the weapons and sensor fit on the final FDS version is a little over the top (IMO emulating a Type 22’s load out with a few variations (i.e 1022 Radar) seemed like an awesome and plausible option), then perhaps you could suggest some viable alternatives? Is a less capable vessel a more realistic option? Would it provide the capability and the deterrence required to replace RN Frigates and Destroyers in the South Atlantic Patrol mission? Thoughts??

JSB;

In answer to your comments; yes, the Falklands in my AU becomes considerably different from the one in real life – when I formally post the backstory of the AU you’ll obviously get the full version, but, to summarize for now;
The Falklands is still claimed by the British Empire in 1833 (much to Argentinian disgust)
Falklands serves as a vital RN outpost during both world wars and a legacy of that is a considerably larger population post-war (some 50-60,000 – mainly free settler families (+ progeny) that immigrated to provide ancillary services to the military presence on the islands – and simply decided to stick around!)
Post War, the islands are demilitarized as the Empire and the RN start to shrink (a process encouraged by the decolonization moves in the UN – but one that starts some 10 or so years earlier than the official history). Encouraged by the UN moves and Britain’s withdrawal of forces, Argentina becomes bolder and more aggressive in its territorial claims. This provides the impetus and a viable historical context for the genesis of the Guardian class as I’ve already described.
Funding and manning issues: Prior to the 1982 war, crews and funding are largely provided by the RN – but post-1982, the exploitation of the oil and gas discoveries that encouraged the Argentinian invasion (another appropriate tweak of the official history) allows for a massive boost in both the population and wealth of the Falkland Islands. This, along with the Island’s successful bid for greater autonomy from the UK (but notably not nationhood in it’s own right) in 1983 allows for the creation of the Falklands Defense Service – a majority Falkland’s manned and funded enterprise, but still subsidized and augmented by forces from Great Britain.

Hopefully this covers everything – Thanks so much for your thoughts, it’s humbling for a nubile rookie like myself to have contributions from some seriously seasoned members like yourselves. Keep it coming!!


Cheers

_________________
"Come to the Dark Side... We have Cookies!"
____________________________________________

[ img ]
____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: May 22nd, 2014, 4:13 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7210
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
FRAM was the conversion of USN WW2 destroyers to modern ASW combatands, IIRC. daring FRAM was just an similar thing applied to the daring class.

_________________
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]
Oberon_706
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: May 23rd, 2014, 8:29 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 207
Joined: April 1st, 2014, 12:17 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Thanks 'acelanceloet'


Cheers

_________________
"Come to the Dark Side... We have Cookies!"
____________________________________________

[ img ]
____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: May 23rd, 2014, 11:18 am
Offline
Posts: 1421
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
All the Falklands needs is (3 small ?) ships to put off the Argies by suggesting it will be a war not a free annexation. :roll:
The RN was downsizing loads in the 70/80s and selling off/scraping lots of ships so you have a good choice of hulls to modernise.
So would it not make more sense to use the Type 12M Rothesay /Type 81 Tribal/Type 41 Leopard/Type 61 Salisbury ? or County-class destroyers or Leander-class?
I would want the following,
- I would go for diesels/turbines over steam and newer so less cost to run/man.
- Do you need a hangar (if you are going to be close to the FI airports ? would it not be cheaper to base a flight of Seakings ashore for ASW/rescue/trop movement ?)
- Cut costs (don't really need to be ready to fight the USSR to deter Argentina ;) ) All I think you need is a OPV with a medium gun to start shooting with and then use a flight of fighter lunched Excocet to kill the invasion convoy and or C130s ? you need them to defend the FI airspace anyway so why not multi role them ? say 4-8 phantoms (or more reasonably older 2nd hand stuff not needed in Europe, hunters ? will still mess up any invasion force in OTL the FI garrison had a few hrs to get ready with 8 aircraft up the Argentineans in RIB's are in big trouble :twisted:) if you have a runway for them ! but with some 50-60,000 pop you will have a much bigger airport so will be ok 8-) )

Option 1 - Cheap type 12L/12M/41/61/81 modification. cant decide witch one I would use (they all have problems with them (81-designed for calm water ! Not realy FI :shock: / 41,61 small and slow but cheaper to run and better in big storms) but 3 (2 on station down south) would put off the Argentineans). I would cut down to 1 twin gun and fit minimum Excocet anti-ship missile and SeaWolf anti-air missile, no helicopter (just use shore based ones so maybe fit a pad for resupply).

Option 2 - Probably better to modify 12M Rothesay or 12L Leader class this would be the newest class and might be available from the RN (Mod the same a option 1 but faster/ newer hulls).

Option 3 - County-class destroyer ( 4 sold to Chile in 80s ).
The expensive (but powerful) Option, take the Batch 2's with 1 4.5 twin, Excocet anti-ship missile and SeaWolf anti-air missile in place of SeaCat & SeaSlug and fit a real hangar for Sea King !
This option is the best if you have the cash and the hulls are much younger (All eight of the class had short Royal Navy careers, serving on average less than 16 years) than anything else so will be worth upgrading and you have space for more added kit.

PS - with 50-60k pop (I think you need more of a pull other than a base in the middle of nowhere ie Oil/etc ?) you can easily have a much larger FIDI (say a RM reserve Commando of 600-700 men (+ light tanks/APC's ?) ? this will make it a much harder job to invaded, it would require much larger sea lift in first wave, not 80 man in RIBs! so I can't see it happening unless Argentina buys loads more amphibious ships but that will stand out to much to be missed). Politically with 700+ men its going to start with a big hard battle so UK will have to respond rather than just accept it (to much lose of face will raise questions about the cold war commitments and the Argentineans will know this so will not start anything, or invade Chile instead :( :roll: ).
JSB


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Chris Roach
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: May 28th, 2014, 4:43 am
Offline
Posts: 49
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 10:58 am
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
If you need an excuse for a larger population the onshore geology may provide an excuse:
Quote:
Recent exploration found some possible diamond-indicator minerals such as chromite and garnet, although there is no evidence that the chemistry of these minerals is indicative of an origin in a kimberlite pipe.

Gold grains have been panned from a number of Falklands streams, and fresh, angular gold grains have been discovered, suggesting that the grains have not traveled far from their bedrock source.

Over 300 gold grains have been independently analysed by BGS, confirming three potentially different gold sources:
- a pyritic Black Shale source
- two separate epithermal sources in unknown host rocks.

A comprehensive gold exploration programme was conducted in the early to mid 2000s by Falklands Gold and Minerals Ltd. .... However, they failed to locate any potentially viable gold deposits, and the company relinquished its exploration licence in 2008.

Garnet and rutile grains are concentrated in features such as raised beach deposits. These could potentially form extractable mineral deposits, but are at present considered to be uneconomic due to the geographical isolation of the Falklands.
A short-lived gold rush in the 1890s followed by someone blundering upon a (hypothetical) deposit of diamonds in the early 1900s? That'd give reasons for first an initial boom knocking the population into the (low) tens of thousand followed by a reason for many of 'em to stay... leave the population to grow freom there.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Oberon_706
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: May 29th, 2014, 2:51 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 207
Joined: April 1st, 2014, 12:17 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Thanks 'Chris Roach' - Very much appreciate your suggestions. Suffice it to say for the moment that natural resources do play a crucial role in the population size of the Falklands AU - and for that matter the need for a seemingly over sized military!! (shades of New Cromer...but non-nuclear).

Moving on, I have acted on the advice given thus far regarding my initial Guardian Class DDG design to produce the following;

[ img ]

Whilst being acutely aware that some believed my upgrades to be a little over the top - I'm working on the premise that during the late 80's - early 90's, FDS naval power consisted of these two ships (Guardian and Gauntlet) only - and as such they had to be pretty capable 'all rounder’s'. You will note that in comparison to the original version the 1022 air search set is replaced with the type 9xx as fitted to the Type 22 Broadsword frigates, the forward SeaWolf battery is replaced by Exocet launch boxes for a more credible anti-surface capability, and the correct secondary gun mounts are shown amidships. I wasn't completely sure about illuminators/directors for guiding the Exocet missile (do they need one ore are they truly ‘fire & forget’??) so any advice on that would be appreciated - I will then update the design further if required.
You will also note the color scheme change. This is in response to the quips I’ve received about the RAN Storm Grey paint job, which to be honest I find quite amusing, as I understand that originally, Storm Grey was developed as a northern hemisphere paint scheme for use on the Atlantic Ocean under stormy and overcast skies (much like the Falklands for the majority of the year!!! Go figure). I'm not entirely convinced by my attempt at a modern revised scheme however and it's likely that I won’t adopt it as a standard for the FDS future fleet requirements (I’ll write it into the AU as an experimental scheme or something similar).

As an aside - you'll notice that I've solved the photobucket sizing Issue - follow this link: http://support.photobucket.com/hc/en-us ... ze-Options if you want to update yourself on photobucket procedures.

Cheers

_________________
"Come to the Dark Side... We have Cookies!"
____________________________________________

[ img ]
____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rodondo
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: May 29th, 2014, 5:11 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2441
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 5:10 am
Location: VIC, Australia
My concern is that's a lot of weight you've added the to stern, maybe shorten the helipad and place the Seawolf on the fantail? Alternatively I recommend shaving some of the structure around the base of the aft mast and using a lighter SAM system

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)

There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Kilomuse
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: May 29th, 2014, 6:30 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 487
Joined: August 6th, 2010, 4:07 am
Location: California
Are you sure that helo can carry an Exocet? I've only seen it mounted on heavier helicopters like the Cougar, Super Frelon or Sea King.

_________________
Republic of Lisenia AU - In progress
Republic of Lisenia in FD Scale - In progress


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: May 29th, 2014, 7:26 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7210
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
a few points to add:
- the WM eggs aft serve no purpose, there is nothing to guide for them over there (the small guns are not directed, IIRC) the WM egg forward might better be placed on top of the bridge instead of on the mast, then it can do gun guidance. that said, I think the radar on the foremast is an targeting radar, which duplicates it's functions with the WM (which is both an targeting radar and director)
- the towed sonar is an fairly modern type, think 2000+. is it really worth it to fit that? and does that year check out?
- it might be interesting, on a refit like this, to look at an larger hull mounted sonar.
- I think the aft funnel has not enough clearance with the director next to it.
- I think the seawolf is too high placed.
- there is some weird stuff going on with green in the underwater hull.
- it might be a good thing to remove 2 of the 40mm guns, most likely those forward, as weight compensation for seawolf.
- I would expect some Mk 32 SVTT on board on a ship with an towed array.
- all in all, try not to add more weight then the australians had in their 1970 refit. the stubby masts on this ship show that this conversion was already at the limit the hull could take.

- what about moving the seawolf forward, keeping the hangar an simple box, and move the exocets midships? there are some 'harpoon style' launcher available for the exocet, and even if they are not, there is nothing stopping you from placing these midships (although a bit turned :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]
Hood
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: May 29th, 2014, 7:59 am
Offline
Posts: 6268
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Artistically this looks very good and I like the colour scheme.
My main concern is that I'm not sure this would work at all, there is way too much topweight involved here.

If I read the drawing correctly, the hangar sides are flush with the deck edge, that means the aft Bofors are overhanging the hull.
The two VM eggs are wasteful and not ideally placed. Again they are high in the ship. (You've added a lot of weight aft in the ship and lightened the fore-end, that's going to cause problems too)
The Sea Wolf and 910 tracker are too high, these weighty items are at the top of the ship. Not a good idea.
The bridge could be lowered a deck and still have ample space.
Fitting such modern electronics to these ships seems almost impossible unless your going to strip out the electricals and generators and replace them. Remember, some of the Darings had DC systems and others AC, it was the electrics as much as anything else that killed the RN's desire to rebuild these ships.
I think the hangar is too large, the FRAMs had a dinky hangar for DASH, this is a massive block and I think its sheer size is giving you most of the problems.

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 22  [ 216 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 522 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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


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