It'd break the heart of all who love to see a proper broadside, but is there any possibility that the infrastructure for one of the 6inch turrets might have been removed and given room for a sea dart fit forward?
Point taken about the Leander SW fit, but the Exocet canisters were fixed and blew the missiles clear with a relatively modest oomph compared to the blast that comes off a Sea Dart in a hurry. And being fixed they never directly impinged upon the SW canisters.
Edit: Apparently this is a wooden mock up of the 6inch twin mount, showing a rather deep and extensive magazine arrangement. http://www.dockmuseum.org.uk/archive/de ... &subtitle=
RN 1950's proposed cruiser GW96A
Moderator: Community Manager
-
Portsmouth Bill
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
- Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Re: RN 1950's proposed cruiser GW96A
NooooPortsmouth Bill
Re the Sea Dart against Sea Wolf blast damage. The early Type 22's/Leander's had Exocet mounted very close to the forward Sea Wolf and suffered no effects.
The Dart loader could easily be modified to take the missile from a vertical stowage and load it out of the doors horizontal. After all it only requires some engineering work and you have a loading room that was designed to take 2 Sea Slug so plenty of space.
No offence, but you are suggesting completly redesigning the weapon system to fit onto an already old hull. Come on, please, you must realise this is a non-starter. By the time the re-designed Seadart was built and tested we'd be seeing the new Darings coming down the slips 
And meeware has it right re the Exocet compared to the Seadart; and notwithstanding that, why group them on top of each other - very vulnerable IMHO. Anyway, I'll let you get on
