Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 11 of 22  [ 216 posts ]  Go to page « 19 10 11 12 1322 »
Author Message
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: June 25th, 2014, 6:31 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9101
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
And it is also vert heavy, something that would not Help on the vessel top weight.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Oberon_706
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: June 25th, 2014, 6:52 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 207
Joined: April 1st, 2014, 12:17 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
With respect, i don't think weight is an issue with this iteration, The std WWII Dido class armament fit of 3 x 5.25" twin mounts in the A, B and Q positions is hardly going to be lighter than 2 x 4.5" twins + 1 x 3"/70.

The comment about reliability of the 3"/70 is a valid one though - will have to give that some thought...

Keep the contributions coming!

_________________
"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: June 25th, 2014, 7:17 am
Offline
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
IMO
Oberon_706 wrote:
HMS Scylla emerges from the 1956 refit/reactivation
Not sure they would bother TCLs are TCL for a reason, mine damage to hull/engines will not be cheap (it might be cheaper + much better to just finish a newer hull, they cancelled a lot at the end of the war)
Quote:
- Serve as flagship of RN South Atlantic SQDN until sold to Falklands in mid-'60's (in line with Harold Wilson Gov't's navy cuts of the period)
I think they would have given it away to a close ally ? (but its a bit late)
Quote:
- Argentinian Invasion made possible due to HMFS Scylla being in transit back from the UK after what was to be final major refit -
Why you should buy lots of little ships and not a CL !
Quote:
During the fighting it serves in tandem with HMS Plymouth in the liberation of South Georgia, as a NGFS platform and escort during the San Carlos landings (during which it shot down two Argentinian SkyHawks), in the fighting at Darwin/Goose Green and in the final assault on the mountains around Stanley.
I think you need to write a totally new war, as the increased population will have much more facilities (airports/roads/ports) so totally different dynamic to the war (big ports/roads mean MTB can be landed etc)
Quote:
- Seacat and 3"/70 twin replaced with SeaWolf during 1983 refit (ship reviewed by HRH QEII during stay in the UK)
Not sure its worth it this late on.

Overall I think CLs are a bad idea for the FI (rather than as a RN unit paid for by the FI) and spesifically I think the Didos are just to old (Old AC electrical etc ?)/ hard used (WW2) they will not be worth rebuilding.

So If you want one keep (45/47-to-55/60) it with a very small modernisation (radars only ?) and then replace with something newer.
JSB


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: June 25th, 2014, 2:28 pm
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Speaking just as a matter of nomenclature, it would be quite atypical to refer to a ship as a DDG/CG only for shipping a half-dozen Exocets.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Novice
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: June 25th, 2014, 6:35 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4126
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
For some reason you persist on retaining the torpedo tubes. When I suggested HMS Scylla I meant for you to use the Mk. III BD r.5" mountings, but you chose to use the Mk. VI (6), these to mountings differ in many ways, not least the weight. Also the 3"/70 gun mounting weighed in as much as the Mk.6 4.5" gun mounting, in fact it was use as stop gap mounting in the Type 12 frigates pending availability of the 3"/70 gun mounting.

_________________
[ img ] 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"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: June 25th, 2014, 7:09 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
JSB wrote:
Oberon_706 wrote:
During the fighting it serves in tandem with HMS Plymouth in the liberation of South Georgia, as a NGFS platform and escort during the San Carlos landings (during which it shot down two Argentinian SkyHawks), in the fighting at Darwin/Goose Green and in the final assault on the mountains around Stanley.
I think you need to write a totally new war, as the increased population will have much more facilities (airports/roads/ports) so totally different dynamic to the war (big ports/roads mean MTB can be landed etc)
You wouldn't get a war at all. When the Argies invaded there were at most 150 fighting men on the Islands including Royal Marines, Royal Navy sailors and FIDF personnel and even then they only invaded because they were convinced Britain wouldn't act against them.
A single squadron of jets or a company of soldiers would have prevented the entire thing from happening at all. A fully established military would have done a lot more.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: June 26th, 2014, 4:26 pm
Offline
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
Thiel wrote:
JSB wrote:


I think you need to write a totally new war, as the increased population will have much more facilities (airports/roads/ports) so totally different dynamic to the war (big ports/roads mean MTB can be landed etc)
You wouldn't get a war at all. When the Argies invaded there were at most 150 fighting men on the Islands including Royal Marines, Royal Navy sailors and FIDF personnel and even then they only invaded because they were convinced Britain wouldn't act against them.
A single squadron of jets or a company of soldiers would have prevented the entire thing from happening at all. A fully established military would have done a lot more.
Yes I did suggest that above (not sure how many times ;) ),
If you have a CL (say Dido with 480 crew) you will need at last 2 x that in shore personnel (I would think ?) so that's already more than the total 82 garrison !


If you really want a Dido (and since this is a AU with a big change pre WW2) why not just make one available ?

I base my idea on the tribal class DDs, why not have Canada/Aus start some Dido class CLs in 1939/40/41 ? (like they did with tribals later then the RN ones ?).
They then run into shortages/ US CL take over and they lose priority.
So in 45 you have say 3 CL hulls not totally finished but to complete to be worth scraping.
CAN/AUS finishes then in late 40s/early 50s with RN/US help and runs them for a few years, (then in late 50/60s they think about fitting missiles and new radar ?)
The cost of them is huge compared to running more DDs so they get cut a bit in a budget and the FI get offered one ?
This way the FI get a Dido (but with a post war hull/systems so worth keeping a bit and modernising) ?

What do you think ? and since its AU you can make it a bit bigger and fit say 5 x 5.25 vanguard turrets (or MKIII ;) post war swap 2 for 3inch ?) and a bit better range etc ? (as AUS/CAN would want that and would have the reports on the dido's when making them).

JSB


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Oberon_706
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: June 28th, 2014, 3:20 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 207
Joined: April 1st, 2014, 12:17 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Thanks gents, very helpful again. JSB I'm starting to get this feeling that you dislike Cruisers :P or at least, Dido class cruisers... I'm working on some alterations to the AU timeline to hopefully make the naval and military situation around the time of the falklands war a little more plausible. Will post as it gets done.

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

[ img ]
____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Oberon_706
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: June 28th, 2014, 3:52 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 207
Joined: April 1st, 2014, 12:17 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Thoughts on this please - intended to be the Falklands contemporary long range patrol asset (in the vein of a up-gunned coast guard cutter rather than a genuine frigate) to serve as an adjunct to the primary surface fleet assets of the Falklands navy. tentatively named the 'Cape' class - there will be 4 such vessels existing from about 1990ish till the mid 2020's

[ img ]


Originally fitted with Mk41 VLS for ESSM, Oto Melara 76/62 Super Rapid, QF 40mm Single mount and GoalKeeper CWIS.
Contemporary Armament consists of Mk41 VLS for ESSM; Oto Melara 76/62 Super Rapid; Oto Melara Marlin 30mm mount and SeaRam Mod 1.

First pass so expecting to make some significant changes based on your advice.

Cheers

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

[ img ]
____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rowdy36
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: June 28th, 2014, 4:26 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 942
Joined: August 1st, 2010, 7:51 am
Location: Perth, Australia
I would probably consider increasing the freeboard a touch and moving the whole superstructure forward to allow room for a hangar of some description, allowing for a more permanent helicopter detachment. SeaRam might also be a bit redundant on an OPV/Patrol frigate that is also shipping Sea Sparrow or ESSM but I'll leave that to the experts.

It looks good though, keep 'em coming :)

_________________
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 11 of 22  [ 216 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page « 19 10 11 12 1322 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests


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


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