Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Spirit of Hope]

No I mean a guided missile battleship(essentially a larger Kirov class)

While those are slightly more viable, they still generally aren't the best option.

While you can concentrate more missiles on them, they don't gain a substantial increase in ability because of that. Their range is still limited, though this time by the radar horizon beyond which they can't target anything without support. The best way to give them support that can see beyond the radar horizon is aircraft, however once you have aircraft around you are better off arming them with missiles as they can travel further faster than the guided missile battleship.

Essentially a guided missile battleship would cost more than a guided missile cruiser or destroyer without have a significant increase in capability.

[Axis Nova]

TBH i'd rather spend money on making better missiles and carrying fewer of them on more platforms rather than having one single point of failure.

[Gallia-]

just have a fleet of boston whalers with styx missiles

[Purpelia]

No I mean a guided missile battleship(essentially a larger Kirov class)

The Kirov isn't a battleship it's a giant AA cruiser. The only reason it has weapons to fire on stuff other than aircraft is because every Soviet ship did. Like if you went and knocked up a Soviet fishing boat back in the day you'd find a couple of ASHM's.

[Connori Pilgrims]

No I mean a guided missile battleship(essentially a larger Kirov class)

Just to add a counterpoint to most of the above: there is reason to have combatants larger than your bog-standard 7000-12000ton guided missile destroyer. Larger vessels can carry better sensors and processing suites and more staff to manage the data, and if you're gonna go nuclear power you may as well go big. Also, a larger hull can carry larger and more potent missiles than a smaller vessel, all things being equal. But if you're just gonna carry the same stuff your smaller vessels fire... then well unless this ship is also a command ship then there's no point really.

Also, a "battleship" i.e. a surface ship focused exclusively on fighting and destroying other ships, is generally considered inefficient and unnecessary in the presence of 1.) proper-sized aircraft carriers with proper strike aircraft and 2.) nuclear-powered attack/guided-missile submarines - which arguably are today's "battleships", given that their purpose lies entirely in fighting and destroying other ships and almost nothing else (apart from delivering tacticool operatorz stealthily).

As Purpelia mentioned, Kirov and her sisters are first and foremost AA cruisers (and command ships), not "battleships".

[The Kievan People]

The carrier already fills the role of flagship quite nicely.

Big battleships wouldn't add much.

[Connori Pilgrims]

The carrier already fills the role of flagship quite nicely.

Big battleships wouldn't add much.

Provided that there are carriers in one's navy. If there's none, or one can't afford to build and keep so many like the US can for any reason, a larger than average (but not too large) surface combatant can be of use. And even in USN CVBGs there's merit to distributing command functions - IIRC, apart from the general flagship duty there's AAW control (usually on a cruiser) and ASW control (usually on a destroyer).

In any event I wasn't advocating big missile battleships - certainly not one of those NS meme-ships.

[The Kievan People]

Provided that there are carriers in one's navy. If there's none, or one can't afford to build and keep so many like the US can for any reason, a larger than average (but not too large) surface combatant can be of use. And even in USN CVBGs there's merit to distributing command functions - IIRC, apart from the general flagship duty there's AAW control (usually on a cruiser) and ASW control (usually on a destroyer).

In any event I wasn't advocating big missile battleships - certainly not one of those NS meme-ships.

1. If a navy can't even afford one carrier, it can't afford a fleet to command either.
2. If a navy built a fleet large enough to warrant a command ship but no carrier, it needs to re-evaluate its priorities.

[New Brasilia]

The Project 320 "Golfinho" is a type of nuclear-powered attack submarine built by the MPB (Brasilian People's Navy). The design is identical to the Soviet/Russian Project 971 attack submarine, but the Golfinhos are completely built here, and they use our own electronics instead of Russian ones. The Project 320 is the fastest Brasilian submarine, with a top speed of over 60 km/h. And it is the most common submarine, with 65 Golfinhos in active service and 5 more planned for 2020. They can be frequently seen passing by beaches, sometimes with a larger Project 420 "Mako" or Project 480 "Megalodonte" ballistic missile submarine following them.

Type: attack submarine
Displacement: 8140 t
Length: 110 m
Propulsion: OK-650 nuclear reactor, steam turbine, 7 blade propeller, electric propulsor × 2
Top speed: > 60 km/h
Complement: 73
Armament: 533 mm torpedo tube × 8, surface to air missile × 2

[Palakistan]

I've been thinking awhile on this. What if you designed a Bob Hope Vehicle Cargo Ship with two well decks on each side so it can self deploy its own vehicle from ship to shore? Is this a crappy idea? Note: I do not have any Vehicle Cargo Ships, or LPD's, or MLP's.

[Connori Pilgrims]

1. If a navy can't even afford one carrier, it can't afford a fleet to command either.

Or when faced with a procurement choice between one carrier (and its air wing) and a larger number (even just 2 or 3) of surface combatants and/or submarines, it chose the latter due to its (perceived) needs. Which I suppose goes to your number 2...

2. If a navy built a fleet large enough to warrant a command ship but no carrier, it needs to re-evaluate its priorities.

I guess that means practically every big navy that is not the US and maybe Italy and India needs to reevaluate its priorities. Not sure about the one-carrier navies like Russia, China, France and Brazil because when that one carrier goes on refit...

[Spirit of Hope]

1. If a navy can't even afford one carrier, it can't afford a fleet to command either.

Or when faced with a procurement choice between one carrier (and its air wing) and a larger number (even just 2 or 3) of surface combatants and/or submarines, it chose the latter due to its (perceived) needs. Which I suppose goes to your number 2...

2. If a navy built a fleet large enough to warrant a command ship but no carrier, it needs to re-evaluate its priorities.

I guess that means practically every big navy that is not the US and maybe Italy and India needs to reevaluate its priorities. Not sure about the one-carrier navies like Russia, China, France and Brazil because when that one carrier goes on refit...

Lets look at navies shall we? Everyone over 200 ships: Russia, US, China. The US has multiple carriers. It looks like China may be developing multi carrier capabilities, while at the same time generally having rather localized desires for its navy. Russia doesn't have a lot of good ports, and also inherited the Soviet Unions navy which wasn't exactly designed around power projection with it's fleet.

Everyone between 199 and 100: North Korea, India, Indonesia. North Korea is both poor and has strictly local interests, its fleet is almost entirely landing ships and submarines, which makes sense it just wants to attack South Korea, and cut South Korea off from the US. India has carriers, two of them in fact. Indonesia has half of its fleet in Patrol boats and Corvette's, which makes sense, they need them to patrol their own waters.

Next up is Japan at 98, they don't have carriers but they do have 4 helicopter carriers. Again makes sense until recently Japan legally couldn't engage in non defensive wars and thus had little need for power projection, and was interested in protecting its fleet and merchant marine from submarines.

The Greek, Turkish and Iranian navies follow. They all have rather similar looks, few deep ocean ships besides submarines. They all look mostly interested in coastal work, anti pirates, and merchant marine protection. Iran bucks this a little bit by having a bunch extra submarines, but the reasoning is obvious: good for going after supply ships/fleet elements of any possible aggressor.

Next is South Korea, who has one helicopter carrier and a stated interest in getting more. They have more deep water warships, but their primary threat zone is literally next door, where they have to worry about lots of landing ships and submarines. Most likely any fighting they do will already be in air cover and land control.

Now comes France and the UK, both with more substantial deep water fleets, France with a good carrier, UK working on getting some. IIRC France wanted a second carrier but couldn't afford it/didn't want to pay for it. France also has a couple of helicopter carriers/amphibious assault.

Last one I'm looking at is Brazil, who has a carrier.

If you list them by tonnage, everyone in the top ten has a carrier or helicopter carriers.

[Crookfur]

I've been thinking awhile on this. What if you designed a Bob Hope Vehicle Cargo Ship with two well decks on each side so it can self deploy its own vehicle from ship to shore? Is this a crappy idea? Note: I do not have any Vehicle Cargo Ships, or LPD's, or MLP's.

What's this thing with side mounted well decks these days...

They simple don't work, a well deck pretty much has to be at the rear to avoid critically weakening the hull and doing other nasty things to the ship.

Honestly I don't see much point in sticking a well deck on a ro-ro transport. If you want off load them off shore just stick a mexeflote on each side and use that as a bridge between the transport and the landing craft of what ever type. Heck you can probably ballast a mexeflote so one end slops under war to allow air cushion vessels to "fly" onto them.

[The Kievan People]

I guess that means practically every big navy that is not the US and maybe Italy and India needs to reevaluate its priorities. Not sure about the one-carrier navies like Russia, China, France and Brazil because when that one carrier goes on refit...

Actually, it's a huge problem and they are quite aware of it. As has been mentioned China and India have made acquiring more carriers their top priority. The Russian's want more carriers, but submarines are a higher priority for their navy for strategic and technical reasons. France and Brazil bought what they could afford but they are under no illusion about the limitations of a single carrier.

There was actually a very large debate in Britain over this issue when they contemplated building only one QE. Critics very rightly pointed out that the Royal navy would have no surface power projection capability when the single carrier was out of service. And it helped save the class.

[Questers]

Do not be too optimistic. One still may be sold to France. What kept the class was actually when people realised the contract had a cancellation fee that was more expensive than the continued cost of building the ship and acquiring the aircraft.

[The Kievan People]

Do not be too optimistic. One still may be sold to France. What kept the class was actually when people realised the contract had a cancellation fee that was more expensive than the continued cost of building the ship and acquiring the aircraft.

In my dream they sell it too Canada.

;_;

[Dostanuot Loj]

Do not be too optimistic. One still may be sold to France. What kept the class was actually when people realised the contract had a cancellation fee that was more expensive than the continued cost of building the ship and acquiring the aircraft.

In my dream they sell it too Canada.

;_;

It's OK buddy.
We will always have dreams.

There's a French ship in the dock she could use too right now.

[Questers]

You had your chance.

Put the flag back in the canton and we might consider selling it to you instead of those mongoloids across the channel.

By the way, while on the topic of 'carriers' and baguettes: has this thread talked about the sale of those two Mistrals to Egypt yet?

[Palakistan]

I've been thinking awhile on this. What if you designed a Bob Hope Vehicle Cargo Ship with two well decks on each side so it can self deploy its own vehicle from ship to shore? Is this a crappy idea? Note: I do not have any Vehicle Cargo Ships, or LPD's, or MLP's.

What's this thing with side mounted well decks these days...

They simple don't work, a well deck pretty much has to be at the rear to avoid critically weakening the hull and doing other nasty things to the ship.

Honestly I don't see much point in sticking a well deck on a ro-ro transport. If you want off load them off shore just stick a mexeflote on each side and use that as a bridge between the transport and the landing craft of what ever type. Heck you can probably ballast a mexeflote so one end slops under war to allow air cushion vessels to "fly" onto them.

I like the idea of using Mexeflotes. I could potentially roll them off the back of the ship into the LCAC's, and then sink the Meceflotes a bit. How long do you think it would take to unload the entire ship using this strategy?

[Aznazia]

You had your chance.

Put the flag back in the canton and we might consider selling it to you instead of those mongoloids across the channel.

By the way, while on the topic of 'carriers' and baguettes: has this thread talked about the sale of those two Mistrals to Egypt yet?

I don't think so. However I don't understand how Egypt could benefit from buying them. They are not a trade/ maritime power and don't have any enemies that have large navies either. The other issue is that they don't need them to transport Marines anywhere since they can move troops over land if they needed to. If anything Canada, Singapore or Malaysia would of had a better use for them.

[Questers]

You had your chance.

Put the flag back in the canton and we might consider selling it to you instead of those mongoloids across the channel.

By the way, while on the topic of 'carriers' and baguettes: has this thread talked about the sale of those two Mistrals to Egypt yet?

I don't think so. However I don't understand how Egypt could benefit from buying them. They are not a trade/ maritime power and don't have any enemies that have large navies either. The other issue is that they don't need them to transport Marines anywhere since they can move troops over land if they needed to. If anything Canada, Singapore or Malaysia would of had a better use for them.

Neither Singapore nor Malaysia have any use for them.

But yes, Canada might. It is the same question I thought. WHY? What does Egypt even want them for?

[Allanea]

Maybe Egypt is more ambitious than we think they are?

[North Arkana]

I don't think so. However I don't understand how Egypt could benefit from buying them. They are not a trade/ maritime power and don't have any enemies that have large navies either. The other issue is that they don't need them to transport Marines anywhere since they can move troops over land if they needed to. If anything Canada, Singapore or Malaysia would of had a better use for them.

Neither Singapore nor Malaysia have any use for them.

But yes, Canada might. It is the same question I thought. WHY? What does Egypt even want them for?

Floating casinos/resorts? Gotta find something to boost the tourism numbers.

[Questers]

Neither Singapore nor Malaysia have any use for them.

But yes, Canada might. It is the same question I thought. WHY? What does Egypt even want them for?

Floating casinos/resorts? Gotta find something to boost the tourism numbers.

The collapse of the Ringgit is doing that just fine. Of course, buying the actual carriers might help that process along, so... good point!

[Husseinarti]

Gotta invade jewland somehow.