Shipbucket

Very interesting, and well rendered; and not a design I've come across before.

Nice post WW-2 design, but are the two turrets use the quadruple design in order to keep the maximum firepower of 8x2 main guns? I like to see if the main armament would be 18"/50 guns instead of 16"/55.

Not necessarily; like I said, "final" plans for HMS Lion completely deleted the aft main turret. A drawing of it is in the "What-If" database.

Yes very interesting. It wasn't really a battleships as the turrets were built for shorebombardment and it was going to have less armour protection. It is what I would call a Mobile Artillary Ship. I have plans to build a small version for the currently Royal Navy as class of two ships based on the Invincible class hull with 2 turrents for 4 13 inch heavy guns with new shells for shore bombardment. However in my "Dream Navy" I have a ships just like this but with modern systems, helicopters, VLS and so on.

Nice.

Can someone tell me the various electronics that are on this ship? I'm interested in the development of postwar British radar and electronics.

No problem:

Main directors: Type 274 (the later single dual-array version)
Secondary directors: US Mk 37 upgraded with Type 275 (as was done to Vanguard)
AA directors: Close-Range Blind-Firing (CRBF) directors (the number of the radar it contains escapes my memory at the moment)
Mainmast: Type 280 air-search radar
Foremast: not sure what the thingy is on top (I cut it from Bombhead's Vanguard I think), some kind of HF/DF array? Lower down on the platform is Type 277P height-finding/ surface search radar.

Please note the RN Radars part sheet now has updated versions of all of these parts.
These are all late-war items of equipment, CRBF just early post-war.

Interesting, so the British put the main director below the secondary, while the US did the opposite?

Know what kind of differences that makes?

I think its maybe just a carry on from the RN planing to fight at closer ranges pre radar (so lower is ok) and then not changing/swaping them round later as that would cost money ? (not sure, that or saving weight if the main is heavier ?)

JSB

That seems to have been standard practice since the 1920s, especially with the introduction of the tower superstructure.

I think the reason is twofold; better unobstructed arcs for the HACS or HA director of whatever type) and to lessen the topweight as the director towers were quite heavy two-storey structures.