Escort for HMAS Australia (CV) - RAN DLL

[Thorvic]

Whilst doing research on the RAN Essex proposal and HMAS Melbourne to help with the Angled Essex build it has inspired me to have a try at doing an some of the Escorts.

The RAN actually had a project to develop and build their own Destroyer force to replace their older Frigates & Destroyers with a new modern destroyer. Details of the program can be found in the attached link and some of the links contained within that thread:-

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=10698.0

So suitably inspired i have decided to try and build a RAN DLL to go with the HMAS Australia  .

As can be seen in the Secret Projects thread, the design and look was heavily influenced by the British Type 42 but configured for US weapons & Sensors, thus the basis of the Hull will be a Dragon Type 42 kit. Now the RAN ship is somewhat longer than the RN ship so the hull needs to be cut in two and a plug added to stretch the short Type 42 to the correct length. (The stretched Batch III Type 42 kit is not as handy as that needs to be shortened and its hull was stretched fwd of the superstructure and has a squarer stern which doesn't give the right shape for the DLL.

The hull plug is currently curing so i will take photos later to show the progress so far.

The superstructure will be mostly scratch built as whilst the DLL looks similar there are enough shape and layout differences to warrant a scratch building rather than conversion. Due to the fittings being of US origin, the various US/JMSDF weapon sprues included in many of the kits should provide the bulk of the items needed to detail the build.

[Jschmus]

Which configuration will you be going with, the pure destroyer with two five-inch guns, or the DDG?

[Thorvic]

The final DDG design as decent drawings and close to the Type 42 in looks.

BTW Anybody read the Wiki page, when the DDL program was cancelled the RAN's preferred solution was a Type42 design fitted with Standard SM1 rather than Sea Dart.

[Jschmus]

There's an illustration on Shipbucket:

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Never%20Built%20Designs/Australia/Aus%20DDG%20Sheffield_%20DDL%201.gif

The Wiki article says there were "serious doubts" about them being able to fit Standard missiles to the Type 42.  Any idea why?

[Thorvic]

There's an illustration on Shipbucket:

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Never%20Built%20Designs/Australia/Aus%20DDG%20Sheffield_%20DDL%201.gif

The Wiki article says there were "serious doubts" about them being able to fit Standard missiles to the Type 42.  Any idea why?

I suspect the 'doubt's' related more to having to pay for the study and the redesign needed to actually fit the system. Everything would have been configured for Sea Dart so if the Stardard had a different layout they would have to redesign the the ships hull structure to accomodate the launcher and magazine. On the DLL the launcher is in place of the aft 909 director so it dosen't effect the hull to much.

[Weaver]

The Mk.13 launcher hasa big drum right underneath it, while Sea Dart has a relatively small room underneath it and the magazine drum one deck below that. Much easier to work Mk.13 into a revised superstructure than to start re-arranging the bulkheads within the hull.

[Weaver]

(The stretched Batch III Type 42 kit is not as handy as that needs to be shortened and its hull was stretched fwd of the superstructure and has a squarer stern which doesn't give the right shape for the DLL.

As far as I can see,the DLL had a square stern much like the Type 42 batch III.

[Thorvic]

(The stretched Batch III Type 42 kit is not as handy as that needs to be shortened and its hull was stretched fwd of the superstructure and has a squarer stern which doesn't give the right shape for the DLL.

As far as I can see,the DLL had a square stern much like the Type 42 batch III.

Ah but i have a scaled deck plan and the batch I/II Type 42 stern is the best match, (you get both flight deck pieces and the Batch III part is too wide.