Paul E

Thank you Francis, that would be very helpful.

I am looking for a drawing or a clear image for a Simple Tachymetric Director used in some RN ships post war as shown in the picture

My preference is for waterline ship models, it makes them come "alive" in my mind. Making a sea base is not that hard with some of the materials now available. AK Interactive make an excellent gel that I now use for my models. There is also a tutorial by AK on Youtube. The main issue I have is cutting full hull models down to the waterline, I just hate having to do it.

This is impressive work, I built the Resin Shipyard 1/700 version of a Halifax Class last year as my COVID lockdown project and I had wondered about trying it at 1/350, your build is giving me good insight to what to expect from the ISW kit.

Very nice build indeed.

Try Fox Model Transfers, they have coach lining white strips and rounded corner decals. I used these for my mode of Invincible. https://fox-transfers.co.uk/general-alphabets-linings?colouralpha_lining=2699&p=2

It is my model of HMS Brereton that you have seen on this site. The starting point of the model is the Atlantic Models Ton Class HMS Nurton kit (it was originally marketed as HMS Upton) ATK35007 https://atlanticmodels.net/kits/index.html. There is a small amount of conversion to make HMS Brereton and I have described that on my build log. It was a nice kit to buiild. Good luck

As having been part of the design team for this ship and others, I can tell you that design is by committee as it is full compromises. and as for biscuits, there were never enough to go around for us to fall out over.

Fantastic, I really like how you have added the little extra details too. It has been a pleasure following your build I look forward to your next one.

At the risk of finding me. The air weapons mag is at the forward end of the hangar, the torpedoes are rolled straight out of the magazine into the hangar where they are preped ready to load on the aircraft.

The model is still beautiful. I do understand your pain though when something you spend so much effort and time building gets damaged. I am glad that you feel you want to keep the model after all that has happened. I had a model which was destroyed (maliciously) and it affected me so badly I actually stopped building models for about 5 years. I started on a replacement but I still can't manage to progress it so many years later. As it is I am currently in a state of dread as I am waiting to receive my collection after a transit across the Atlantic in a shipping container. Seeing your post has given me reassurance that it is possible to recover from a disaster, thank you! It is really hard to get across to some people that a model is a piece of art. Had it been a painting or sculpture the response would have been different.

I do like your hangar it is a nice feature.

I would say that the Hawk Graphics decals are more accurate. There is a standard for pennant number dimensions but I don't know wat the size should be. As for the display cases I use, I get the covers manufactured by PlasticOnline: www.plasticonline.co.uk and the bases are from wood that was off cut from a hardwood deck.

That's a lovely model, I am proper impressed!

That's not the major cost driver, although efficiencies are made between the first and subsequent vessel builds. Whilst the hull shape may be the same, altering the mast and fitting new combat system equipment impacts on weight and stability. Also each customer may have different space requirements, so there may be changes inside the hull which although not visible change the construction. New equipment will need more cooling and electricity too, all these changes to design add up. Don't worry Governments also think that if they use someone else's design then it would be cheaper. Then they chuck in their own wish list from the sweetie shop and discover it wasn't such a bargin after all! The reason why I think the Type 26 has been successful is because BAe when it started the design considered export opportunities and hedged their bets hence the GCS (Global Combat Ship) variant of the Type 26. Australia having been burnt by the Air Warfare Destroyer programme would have understood that. Canada has also an unfortunate record with the Cyclone helicopter and wouldn't want a repeat with a ship programme. Anyone who presented a design that specfically enabled customisation was on to a winner in my mind. I also think a large dose of politics came into play from UK Plc, we just weren't as blatant as the French who got disqualified from the competition. The RN will still need the Type 31 Frigates because they are supposed to fulfil a different role to the Type 26. Although I personally feel that the driver behind the design (cost) is the wrong one. However there is an export opportunity to New Zealand who do not need a high end Anti Submarine frigate that the Type 26 GCS offers, so who knows?

In answer to your question the answer is no. Each of the three countries ship designs are different enough such that the None Recurring Engineering costs cannot be spread so easily. Also each country has its own budgets. Any savings in cost per ship will go back to BAe the UK government will get a cut of that in Tax but it won't pay for any more Type 26s

Topsides = vertical surfaces = walls. 😁 The actual term for the external walls are screens but I wouldn't worry about that. Not wishing to upset you but HMS Westminster didn't carry the Portculis badge on the funnel until around 2002ish before then she was part of the 4th Frigate squadron and carried a large number 4 below the Crown. Also as she was a Swan Hunter built ship the Crown is gold all over and doesn't have red in it. I happen to think the badge in front of the bridge is about the right size. They are actually quite large and certainly bigger than the badges that you see hung up in pubs and such like.

I use Humbrol 127 as my topsides grey, I find it a close match having had opportunity to test it against the real thing.

I have a copy of that photo, but it is still in the container with all my modelling bits. It is an interesting photograph because it show the DLF1 fitted port and starboard but the Anchor is missing. That is not normal, she's lost it. You can see rusting around the hawse pipes and there is corrosion and weathering indicating the vessel is not just out of maintenance period when it maybe expected that an anchor may be removed. Also the gun barrel is not in the usual stowed position. All of which indicates that this photograph was taken when Westminster was on deployment, probably in the South Atlantic.

I wouldn't have thought that you really need to fit the spurn water as the bottom part of the pe railings will do that for you, unless that is you want to thicken it up. Love the progress so far your build is tempting me to get one of these.

Having only served on one Leander and not an Ikara one (on the account that they went out of service when I joined) I cannot be certain of the exact purpose of the pole on the fore deck. What I can say it isn't a rest for the RAS crew, a vent, a periscope or an exhaust for a DG. It is without a doubt an antenna and it relates to the Ikara system. Judging by its location I would say it is a beacon transmitter. What I do know is that the 184 Sonar Instrument Space is located in that position and below that the main Sonar dome. As Ikara is an Anti Submarine Weapon the position of the missile relative to the Sonar will be essential to enable the missile to accurately release its torpedo pay load. I suspect that the missile triangulates using the antenna on the foredeck and the antenna on the pole aft of the bridge to get its range. The dome on the bridge roof is used for in flight guidance for the missile. To me as an ex Weapons Engineer that seems the most plausible answer.

That's correct. There is a little hatch in the transom behind each one of them so the lamps can be replaced. I like the rendition of the towed array fairlead. Spot on in my mind, the mast is looking good too.

I assume your comment refers to the aircraft having the US insignia. It's a pity you didn't read the article before commenting, then you would know that the two aircraft in question are co-owned development airframes and were flown by RN and RAF pilots on this occasion. As for me, I am pleased to see this moment having been involved in the early design of the ship. It has been a long slog but it is justification for all those who have worked hard on creating this ship. A job well done!

That's not the 2031 Fairlead. It is part of the 2087 Sonar fit, however in the absence of the correct part I would say with a bit of careful jigery pokery you could readily fashion the correct fairlead for the the 1996 timeframe.

There is an optical director on the platform of the foremast and there are temporary guardrails around the edge of the platform. Normally they are only rigged for maintenance every other time they were collapsed down.