Author Topic: A very subtle alternate RAN  (Read 8132 times)

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
A very subtle alternate RAN
« on: May 30, 2014, 05:52:25 AM »
Basically the RAN opts for British platforms and US combat and weapons systems from the either the early 60s or 70 and sticks with them through to the modern day.  The Type 42 destroyer was assessed along side the FFG-7 which was selected, in this scenario the Type 42 with a Mk-13 and a Mk-45 gets up.  Maybe additional Type 42, the Amazon with Mk-45 and Mk-29 (Sea Sparrow) or the Type 22 with same is selected for the Australian Frigate Program that built an additional pair of FFG-7 in the real world.  Type 23 in selected for the ANZAC Project (they were in the final three designs in real life) but with Mk-41 and VLS NATO Sea Sparrow. Finally the Type 45 is selected to replace the DDGs that would be either Charles F Adams or Modified Tartar Counties.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2014, 08:33:29 PM »
Ok I have a 1/700 Illustrious, Daring and Sheffield, 1/600 Amazon and County, 1/350 Westminster.

Thinking Sheffield class replacement for DDL instead of FFG-7.  Maybe Mk-13 Standard and Harpoon, or a Mk-26 and canister Harpoons, a Mk-45 or Oto Melara 5" gun, new radars and directors etc.

Daring, SPY3, Mk-41 and Mk-45 Mod4

Westminster as ANZAC class instead of selected MEKO 200ANZ.  Do not have any details but believe the real world ship was to have retained Sea Wolf but gone for a 76mm Oto Melara.  Thinking Mk-41 and NATO Sea Sparrow (to be replaced with quad packed ESSM later) and a 5" gun plus Phalanx.  Maybe a follow on FFG version with 48 cell Mk-41 forward and maybe another pair of 8 cell launchers adjacent to the hanger for SM-2 and ESSM and 5" gun.  Can this be done without a hull stretch?  ASMD upgrades for whichever I build.  A Sea King on the flight deck.

Any ideas or suggestions

Offline Cliffy B

  • Ship Whiffer Extraordinaire...master of Beyond Visual Range Modelling
  • Its ZOTT!!!
    • My Artwork
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2014, 06:34:15 AM »
You ever heard of the "Super 23" or the "Super Duke"?  Yarrow lengthened the Type 23 and added some more goodies but the RN said no  :(  PM your e-mail and I'll send you some drawings and articles on them.  I found them online some time ago but Google is failing miserably to find them again.

Remember the Cyber Hobby 1/700 Amazon is a 1/600 hull and 1/700 everything else.  Could mix and match with the Airfix kit and/or design a slighter larger FF.  Maybe a Type 24?

Otherwise, I'm liking this A LOT!  I'll add some more Frigate designs I've found in the e-mail.

-Mike
"Radials growl, inlines purr, jets blow!"  -Anonymous

"Helos don't fly.  They vibrate so violently that the ground rejects them."  -Tom Clancy

"If all else fails, call in an air strike."  -Anonymous

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2014, 09:20:33 AM »
Yes Cyber Hobby did a broad beam Amazon hull for us.  I was looking at starting on the Tartar Sheffield but even that will be a month or more off as I am heading interstate for several weeks. 

The Type 23 I am interested in was the version offered up for the Australian Patrol Frigate project that became the ANZACs, it was as I understand it a shortened hull although I could be wrong and it was the standard hull just with less standard equipment.

PM on its way.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2014, 10:35:43 AM »
A Type 42 with a Mk.13 GMLS and a Mk.45 gun should be perfectly doable, though it would, like any Type 42-based project, be better with the longer batch III hull. Most Standard-armed ships have both trackers in the same arc as the launcher, which might involve some swapping around of masts on a Type 42, but it's not carved in stone: the Jacob Van Heemskerks had Standard control via fore and aft STIR 240 trackers, for example. I suspect though that that requires SM-2 with it's autopilot and datalink update in order to steer the missile into the FOV of the other tracker, but I might be wrong.

The Mk.45 gun should be a straight swap for the 4.5" Mk.8 and would be a sensible move for ammo compatability, since the Mk.8 4.5" ammo isn't even the same as the Mk.6 stuff already in RAN use. The Oto Melara 5" is a better gun than either, but it's much heavier, and the Type 42 probably wouldn't have weight margin for it.

A straight Amazon with Sea Sparrow wouldn't be possible: no weight margin, plus where do you put it? If you put it on the hangar roof, how are you going to get reloads up there, bearing in mind that Sea Sparrow is twice the size and weight of Seacat?

If you want a Vosper Frigate, then a Niteroi-style Mk.10 is a better bet, but it's very different in detail from the Amazon, notably it has an extra superstructure deck, with the helo pad at 01 deck level with a weapon position behind it, which was used for Ikara/Mk.8 gun originally, then for Sea Sparrow after the refit. Using a 1/600th hull with 1/700th bits is something that I've looked at too. It's still not quite big enough for a straight Niteroi copy, but it makes a credible "Mk.9.5". Either way, be sure to plate in that open quarterdeck on the Amazon hull, since that was the source of the problem.

Re Type 22s or Type 23s, I don't see the point in dumping Seawolf for Sea Sparrow on a dogmatic point of using US weapons for their own sake. Sea Wolf is very good, and the Type-22s were pretty much designed around it. The Type 23 was originally intended to have a 76mm compact before the post-Falklands redesign, so that's probably the version offered to the RAN.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2014, 06:55:24 PM »
Using a 1/600th hull with 1/700th bits is something that I've looked at too. It's still not quite big enough for a straight Niteroi copy, but it makes a credible "Mk.9.5". Either way, be sure to plate in that open quarterdeck on the Amazon hull, since that was the source of the problem.

Sorry, just realised that's completely wrong... :-[ :-[ :-[

Amazon
Beam : 41.7 ft
Length : 384 ft

Niteroi
Beam : 44.2 ft
Length : 424 ft

Amazon hull scaleorama'd from 1/600th to 1/700th
Beam : 48.65 ft
Length : 448 ft

That means that the scaleorama'd Amazon is actually significantly bigger than the Niteroi and is slightly bigger than a Type 22 Batch I, which is very interesting....

"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2014, 05:24:15 AM »
Pretty much my thoughts on the Type42, a straight swap of systems for a very simple clean build on a batch I hull.  May look at a batch III down the track.

Think I might skip the Type 21 all too hard without an accurate 1/700 hull.

I believe the RAN T23 retained Sae Wolf and optioned either a3" or 5" gun.  It was short listed because the RAN really liked it and wanted it. I think the issue the design had was it didn't fit the systems or industrial models the government were after and it was too high end for a low end PF.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2014, 01:33:52 AM »
Second thoughts on the Amazon, keep it basic, Sea Cat and Oto Melara 3" with Lynx, a basic light frigate / patrol frigate / sloop.  Midlife update (post Falklands scare) RAM replaces Sea Cat on hanger roof and forward of the bridge.

Batch III T42 based Batch II Adelaide class DDG, Mk26 in place of Sea Dart, including ASROC to replace Ikara..  Batch III Broadsword hull with Mk 45 & Mk 41 built in early 90s as a GP destroyer / cruiser. USN NTU systems.  T23 with Mk 45 & Mk 41 (selected for commonality) replaces River class (T12) DE.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #8 on: June 04, 2014, 08:47:21 AM »
ASROC replaces Ikara?  Heresy!  Heresy, I say!  ASROC was very primitive compared to Ikara as an ASW missile. 

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2014, 08:50:30 AM »
Second thoughts on the Amazon, keep it basic, Sea Cat and Oto Melara 3" with Lynx, a basic light frigate / patrol frigate / sloop.  Midlife update (post Falklands scare) RAM replaces Sea Cat on hanger roof and forward of the bridge.

That's highly credible. The 76mm adds useful extra AAA firepower and saves a fair bit of weight. There isn't too much room in front of the bridge, but I think it would take a RAM launcher. Since RAM was a bit later in timescale than Phalanx, why not have a two-stage update? Phalanx in place of Seacat immediately post-Falklands (when the RN was fitting a lot of Phalanx guns IRL) and then RAM in place of Exocet later.

Quote
Batch III T42 based Batch II Adelaide class DDG, Mk26 in place of Sea Dart, including ASROC to replace Ikara.. 

I suspect that's doable, but I'm not sure what magazine capacity the Type 42 bulkhead spacing would allow. My suspicion is not more than 44. I've always felt Ikara was superior to ASROC, but the latter's ability to use some of the same launchers as Standard is pretty persuasive on a small platform where it might make the difference between having an ASW missile and not having any.

Quote
Batch III Broadsword hull with Mk 45 & Mk 41 built in early 90s as a GP destroyer / cruiser. USN NTU systems. 

The problem with that is where does the Mk.41 go? Type 22s had almost no "deep" weapon stations: Exocet and Seawolf launchers were surface mounted and the latter's ammo came up from deep magazines via lifts inside the superstructure. You can make A-pos deep (as the Batch IIIs showed) but then you want a Mk.45 gun too, so that would take that position. You might be able to make B-pos deep by re-arranging internal compartments, but the next problem is that it's very close to the bridge windows. X-pos can't be made deep because it's on the hangar roof.


Quote
T23 with Mk 45 & Mk 41 (selected for commonality) replaces River class (T12) DE.

You might get the short (Sea Sparrow only) version of Mk.41 on in place of VLS Seawolf, but anything longer would create space issues again.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2014, 12:08:23 PM »
May need to resort to a hull stretch on the Broadsword.

Ikara wouldn't fit on a T42, ASROC or nothing.

Was only thinking NATO Sea Sparrow on the T23 16 cells, ESSM later.  Possibly the same for the T22, dropping SM2 and NTU.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2014, 04:33:47 AM »
Still puzzled why you want 16 x Sea Sparrow on your Type 23 when you could have 32 x Seawolf....
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2014, 09:01:11 AM »
In each case, it appears you're going for the least best weapon system.   ASROC instead of Ikara, Sea Sparrow instead of Sea Wolf.

The Indians are BTW the only Navy which has mixed and matched weapons in this way with western hulls with Russian weapons and like everything the Indians do, it cost them twice as much as if they'd stuck with a single source supplier.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2014, 10:11:31 AM »
Well you could argue that China's naval systems are a mish-mash of western and Russian systems too, at least in terms of the source they're copied from.

I can understand the point about ASROC though, because it can be fired from launchers that are mainly used for SAMs (Mk.10, Mk.26, Mk.41), so essentially, you get the ASW missile capability for free, without having to use a separate weapons position for it. On a small ship, that might be the difference between having an ASW missile or not having any. Ikara was a much better weapon, but it needed a weapon station of it's own.

There were two attempts to produce an improved Ikara IIRC. One was the standard missile containerised with folding wings, so it could be carried and launched like a Harpoon or Exocet. The other was also containerised, but the missile was completely updated, with a turbojet engine, INS and digital datalink (which meant it didn't need the troublesome tracking radar). Both were dropped for lack of funds, and because the Italian MILAS missile was on the cards, although neither the RN nor the RAN bought MILAS in the end. MILAS is basically an Otomat AShM with it's tracker and half it's fuel replaced by a torpedo.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2014, 12:16:25 PM »
I'd look to building an Ikara launcher that could launch SAMs.  Thing is, Ikara still has unmatched capabilities as an ASW weapon but the ASW threat has sort of gone away since the demise of the fUSSR only to now start returning with the proliferation of advanced submarines in more navies.   ASROC was a pretty simply weapon, which because of it's nature alerted submarines to it's having fired when the rocket body splashed down at the same time as the torpedo, whereas Ikara's carried on well past the target zone and splashed down separately. Ikara could have it's course changed throughout it's flight, constantly being updated whereas ASROC couldn't.   It's biggest problem compared to most modern system is that it has wings.  Hard to fold, hard to store, makes it take up more room and it requires pre-assembly before loading.  Which is why I'd suggest rather than making Ikara fit a different launcher, make the other missiles fit the Ikara launcher...

The Chinese have found the same problem the Indians have - you use mismatched weapons and hulls, you end up with big integration problems, particularly with EM interference and radar issues.   Things that the original designers worked out when they were designing their ships.   I think you'd see the RAN changing over more rapidly to USN systems rather than trying to mix and match.   Tom Frame wrote an excellent little book on the RAN's change over to integrating USN stuff called, "Pacific Partners" where he charts the changes in RAN doctrine and culture.  Well worth finding a copy.  It also explains the reasons why it took a comparatively long time (it wasn't until the 1970s that the changes really took hold, as all the old salts retired).