The Ship Model Forum

My concept for the Bloodhounds would have capitalized on space formerly known as the hangar area, for horizontal storage after realizing that the magazine for the 5.25's just wouldn't work for Bloodhound.

The 5.25 magazines, as I figure they weren't too far apart, might work for a Sea Dart mounting though, if you tied the magazine for 3&4 together to increase the number of stowed rounds.

Removing the guns I would question in truth, because you're essentially removing part of the Battleship's Raison d'Etre, which is to deliver with its BFG's.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

I know, I know, but I don't feel so strongly about the Y turret. It's just two guns in ten and I can imagine how impressive a bloodhound launcher would look atop that barbette... I think it would do it justice.

Marco

I always thought of that as B turret - A-B-P-Q-X-Y were the normal designations in the RN if I recall. Still not sure even a 14" magazine would be tall enough to support a vertical feed for the bloodhounds, though it would be rather impressive - Sea Dart maybe?

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

I am looking at the Bloodhound concept from two angles & I need to play with some drawings to see what fits. Either Sauragnmon's idea of utilising the old hanger space as stowage. The launchers I think would have to go where the ends of catapult track used to be, I dont think, allowing for the size of the missile they fit, loaded from inboard where No.2 secondary position was. Or utilising No.'s 3&4 secondary magazines opened up into one space & stowing the Missiles Horizonally, yes it would mean much more internal modification, but at least the missile stowage would be better protected. It is a matter of if the two magazines combined are long enough to take the missiles, and there was nothing in the space above them that could not be moved.

One thing to take into account, the removal of all the original light AA, & 5.25 mounts, associtated directors etc, and replacement with more modern systems is going to cause a noticable reduction in crew requirements, so space would be not be at as much of a premium.

Helicopter, if the bloodhound launchers end up just aft of the hanger space, then the Boat stowage would have to go back on to the after Superstructure, so that would leave a Helipad on the end of the Quaterdeck, if in old 3/4 secondary positions, maybe work something by way of a hanger / Helipad into the after superstructure, but I do not see it as a viable use of weight / space, just stick to the helipad on the quarterdeck, a ship like this would almost always work as part of a sizable task group probably including a carrier, so there should be ample assets to be "borrowed" if needed.

Another point to consider, had bloodhound gone to sea, would seadart in it's current form have been developed? or would it have lead to a longer range, albiet larger weapon more akin to SM1/2? again we are looking at an alternative timeline where the RN was much better funded.

I am going to try and find some time play with some scale drawings over the weekend, and see what, at least in theory would fit.

Si

_________________
Simon Heathwood

Here goes with what I have come up with, apologies for the quality of the drawings, but I am not much of a draughtsman, but I have tried to get everything to scale.



This is based on using the former hanger space as a magazine for the Bloodhounds, the old No.2 secondary mount space would be the working / loading space for the launchers. twin 4.5" fitted in 1 & 4 positions, 4 quad seacat, one abeam of the fwd funnel and one in the old No.3 seconadary position. 6 single bofors. Radar fit, I have assumed the 14" guns would have their own radar fire control. Thinking about it a back optical system may be a good idea too. this drawing is based on mid 1960's fit.





1st of the above drawings shows configuration with launcher / loading space located in place of no.3/4 secondary mounts. to make this fit have trunked the two funnels into one, to move the boiler uptakes for the after boiler room out of the after superstructure. The after 5.25" magazine is abt 6" longer than a Bloodhound so the missiles could be stored there, the wings & boosters added in the working space & then onto the launcher in the loading space. In theory the space is there, but in reality?? (equally the after funnel could just have been moved forward, but I wanted to have an idea of what a single funnel configuration would look like.) the rest of the fit dates to mid 80's with seawolf replacing seacat, and goalkeeper replaceing the 40mm. again the radar fit is period RN.

The stuff relative to each time period can be swapped betwwen the two, I am certainly not intimating that a one of the class modernised in the early 60's would have had the launcher moved in the late 70's / early 80's.

I am certainly looking at taking this idea further, and when I have some space on workbench. 1st job scratchbuilding bloodhounds in 1/700th

Si

_________________
Simon Heathwood

I think I like the 60's version more, as it seems to be better rounded. Goalkeeper and systems could be introduced in an upgrade later on, that and the stacks look somewhat better as is, I think. Less space with all the trunking needed for the single stack.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

I think I like both, but I would like to pose a question: why keep the boat deck?

By the 1960's we could probably make due with a pair of motorboats on davits, take out the heavy duty cranes and save a lot of space, no?

Marco

True enough, and if you've got the handling and prep area for the bloodhounds under the boat deck, that could probably use some reconstruction anyways. Davits like the 60's picture, around the Sea Cats, might be the choice. Otherwise, the question does become one of "where do we put them?"

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Thinking on it, I like the idea of loosing the boat stowage & the big cranes. Looking at it, I seem to have got tied into the layout of the Vanguard a bit and not taken things far enough forward. Taking the above ideas into account, getting rid of the heavy cranes and the boat deck, with the handling space for the bloodhounds moved into a structure on the boat deck for the midships launcher, then structures over the old 2 secondary positions could be made smaller, to take seacat, with davits, & motor boats outboard of it. With the launcher in the old No.4 secondary postion I reckon a couple of modern motorboats would fit each side on the boat deck. The mainmast could then go forward of the after funnel, or up against the after end of single funnel, which could then leave the after superstructure free for a helicopter (flight deck & hanger, I am thinking a pair of wessex maybe, might have to make the flightdeck overhang the end of Y turret), with the after fire control radars and iluminators for the missile systems mounted on top of the hanger.

Time to do some more playing with drawings and see what comes out.

I am not sure the single funnel design would be that practical a mod, but I am tempted to build one, just to see how it looks.

Si

_________________
Simon Heathwood

Yes, yes, indeed that's what I was thinking earlier on: taking the mainmast out or placing it forward and that superstructure would have more than enough space for handling helos.

Marco

2 thoughts if keeping the twin funnel arangement, first the after funnel could be moved forward, over the after boiler room, as this was under the boat deck, this would reduce the internal space taken up with trunking. allowing for better hanger space. this then give's two options for mast layout, either build the mainmast on top of the Hanger, or a single structure between the funnels, smaller radar masts one on top of the bridge & on top of the hanger. second, the simpler, would just be to move the mainmast in front of the after funnel.

With the single funnel layout, simplest would just be to move the mainmast forward to the after end of the funnel, however, this could also work as a single structure, loosing the foremast, with radar masts atop the bridge / hanger.

Need to try and draw this up, see what it looks like.

Si

_________________
Simon Heathwood

Again apologies for poor drawing skills, but this is what I have come up with, Firstly, 1965 fit, with 2 funnels. I decided in the end to move the after funnel forward on to the old boat deck space, thus keeping the hanger space clear.I did try a single mast between the funnels, but it didn't look right, so I put the mainmast atop the hanger.



moving the handling / loading spaces means the launcher layout would be asymetric, the starboard side launcher would be at the after end of the old boat deck to allow room for the missiles to come out horizontally without the nosecone protruding over the rail, otherwise pretty much as per the previous sketch.

The single funnel layout shown in 1985 ish fit, I have taking on board what has been previously said gone for phalanx rather than goalkeeper. I have moved the funnel slightly forward to make it more central between the two boiler rooms & allow for the mainmast to fit aft of it, but in front of the hanger. I have extended the fwd superstructure back slightly to take the foremast on top of it.



I think I am now happy with the two layouts, this weekend's job is to scratchbuild at least 1 bloodhound in 1/700th scale & start thinking about what the launcher's would look like.

Si

_________________
Simon Heathwood

I still think the 60's arrangement is much better overall, though I think the bloodhound launcher needs to be moved a slight bit aft in that area - the forward field of fire in both of them for the bloodhound is rather limited, though it's got a great sweep aft and broadside, it lacks a little forward coverage. I like the double-ended layout with the 4.5's overall, though one thought might be a split of Sea Wolf and Sea Dart in the upgrade, with darts aft and fed through the magazine and lift.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

A slight change of direction,,,, I've started a 1/400 KGV which I plan to build as the 3 x quad turret version. On the "as built" ships, there appears insufficient room to fit a quad turret at "B". Does anyone know what the layout was for the 3 x quad version, was "A" moved forward, or was the superstructure modified/cut down to accomadate a quad turret at "B"? I've scoured all over the place and cant find any answer to this, so any help would be much appreciated, thanks.

_________________
What Admiral Nelson really said when he put the telescope to his blind eye,,,,
"I see no ships,, whats that Hardy? oh er, right, ah, thats better, F@@k Me, look at all those ships"

Hello everybody, finally found people whom think as I do This topic is especially close to me as a while ago I bought a B resina HMS Vanguard wiith the intension of upgrading it along simillar lines to HMS Blake and HMS Tiger, ships I love.

My thoughts were along the same lines as mentioned, replace the 5.25" guns with 4.5" in the front two positions (Commonality with the rest of the fleet, reliable dual purpose unlike the 3" 70 cal fitted to the Tigers), Seacat replacing the Pom Poms one for one (HMS Eagle had 6 after all). Fitting a 3D Type 984 & Type 965 radar like the HMS Eagle upgrades. And of course removing the aft turret and fitting a flight deck and hanger. Has anyone really appreciated the fine design in Tigers? The curve from weather deck to flight deck is beautifully curved in two planes with other facets.

However, the more I read about HMS Vanguard the more I fell in love with the design and couldn't bare the thought of corrupting her, so I was in limbo. Until two weeks ago when I managed to get the far superior kit of HMS Vanguard by Samek. So now I'm back considering the updates to the B resina kit

I hadn't seriously considered updating the KGV but this topic rekindled the ideas and gave me new ones, Bloodhound? Mmmmmmm maybe using the old hangers and the rails/turntable to make an update using the RAF launcher. Abit like the Ikara launchers on the Australian Destroyers and Frigates. They didn't require the pits and dome of the leanders and HMS Bristol. Maybe an update with Loon or Regulus cruise missiles in the same way?

How about removing the rear 5.25" gun positions and building a hanger either side, each carrying two Wessex, abit like the Devonshire class. A landing area at the stern and the helicopter is manouvered past the turret into it's hanger. That way the rear turret can stay and you have a meaningfull anti submarine force, maybe fit a Limbo or Squid mortar

I also recently read that the range of Seadart Mod 0 (basic) 40 nmi (46 mi; 74 km) but Seadart Mod 2 (upgrade) 80 nmi (92 mi; 150 km) This is very close to the Bloodhound's