Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Novorden]

Unrelated to everything: Playing Atlantic fleet (a simple turn based naval game on steam) and I somehow got the Admiral Graf Spee to retreat with heavy damage under smoke using only a County-class heavy cruiser (HMS Suffolk) and a V-class destroyer (HMS Vega)

I'm not sure that's how it would have gone in real life

[Naganasu]

Is it okay to have some Guidance system jammers on my ship so it isnt such an easy target to ballistic missiles and guided Torpedoes? Effective range is only 3 kilometer radius though.

[Velkanika]

Is it okay to have some Guidance system jammers on my ship so it isnt such an easy target to ballistic missiles and guided Torpedoes? Effective range is only 3 kilometer radius though.

You know what ESM/ECM is, right? You have some reading to do.

[The Akasha Colony]

Is it okay to have some Guidance system jammers on my ship so it isnt such an easy target to ballistic missiles and guided Torpedoes? Effective range is only 3 kilometer radius though.

Every warship should have some form of electronic countermeasures.

Ballistic missiles and torpedoes though are two of the hardest to jam though since ballistic missiles are simply too fast and most have guidance systems that are more or less immune to jamming (inertial guidance) and wake-homing torpedoes can't be spoofed. 3 kilometers is also an extremely short range for an electronic countermeasures system.

[Spirit of Hope]

Is it okay to have some Guidance system jammers on my ship so it isnt such an easy target to ballistic missiles and guided Torpedoes? Effective range is only 3 kilometer radius though.

Every warship should have some form of electronic countermeasures.

Ballistic missiles and torpedoes though are two of the hardest to jam though since ballistic missiles are simply too fast and most have guidance systems that are more or less immune to jamming (inertial guidance) and wake-homing torpedoes can't be spoofed. 3 kilometers is also an extremely short range for an electronic countermeasures system.

An anti-ship ballistic missile is likely to have some form of terminal attack guidance, otherwise they wouldn't be all that valuable. How susceptible this guidance would be to electronic countermeasures would vary with the design, supposedly the Chinese design doesn't have the best computer which could make it more susceptible to ECM.

[Naganasu]

Is it okay to have some Guidance system jammers on my ship so it isnt such an easy target to ballistic missiles and guided Torpedoes? Effective range is only 3 kilometer radius though.

Every warship should have some form of electronic countermeasures.

Ballistic missiles and torpedoes though are two of the hardest to jam though since ballistic missiles are simply too fast and most have guidance systems that are more or less immune to jamming (inertial guidance) and wake-homing torpedoes can't be spoofed. 3 kilometers is also an extremely short range for an electronic countermeasures system.

Again, a disadvantage for having outdated ships and only keeping up to date by replacing equipment.

I originally planned for it to be 20 kilometers radius but some people in a certain roleplay complained about it being overpowered despite having cloaking devices on ships which was shrugged off when I asked them about it.

It is not to jam the guidance system it's more like malfunctioning it to prevent it from going on its original course. Though it could be called Jamming.

On a side note, due to some treaties after the second world war I can't build new ships until this year that's why most of my ships are outdated old ones with somewhat up to date equipment. I am starting to make new ships but it takes time.

[The Akasha Colony]

An anti-ship ballistic missile is likely to have some form of terminal attack guidance, otherwise they wouldn't be all that valuable. How susceptible this guidance would be to electronic countermeasures would vary with the design, supposedly the Chinese design doesn't have the best computer which could make it more susceptible to ECM.

This is why I said "most." DF-21 isn't even new in including active terminal guidance; Pershing II introduced terminal radar guidance in the 1980s. Regardless, a 3 kilometer range is far too short to deal with any sort of ballistic missile, even a slower one will cross that distance in less than a second.

Again, a disadvantage for having outdated ships and only keeping up to date by replacing equipment.

I originally planned for it to be 20 kilometers radius but some people in a certain roleplay complained about it being overpowered despite having cloaking devices on ships which was shrugged off when I asked them about it.

It is not to jam the guidance system it's more like malfunctioning it to prevent it from going on its original course. Though it could be called Jamming.

On a side note, due to some treaties after the second world war I can't build new ships until this year that's why most of my ships are outdated old ones with somewhat up to date equipment. I am starting to make new ships but it takes time.

Well that's not how electronic countermeasures work so there's not much that can be said if others are demanding unrealistic things from you.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

On a side note, due to some treaties after the second world war I can't build new ships until this year...

I suggest you retcon this at once. You will lose any shipbuilding expertise in twenty years and seventy years on while others have learnt new lessons and incorporated them you are still building the equivalent of pre-dreadnoughts in 1970.
Imagine a pre-dreadnought force active in 1970 with the threat environment teeming with antiship missiles and aircraft. Yeah that's how bad your situation will be unless you retcon.

[Naganasu]

An anti-ship ballistic missile is likely to have some form of terminal attack guidance, otherwise they wouldn't be all that valuable. How susceptible this guidance would be to electronic countermeasures would vary with the design, supposedly the Chinese design doesn't have the best computer which could make it more susceptible to ECM.

This is why I said "most." DF-21 isn't even new in including active terminal guidance; Pershing II introduced terminal radar guidance in the 1980s. Regardless, a 3 kilometer range is far too short to deal with any sort of ballistic missile, even a slower one will cross that distance in less than a second.

Again, a disadvantage for having outdated ships and only keeping up to date by replacing equipment.

I originally planned for it to be 20 kilometers radius but some people in a certain roleplay complained about it being overpowered despite having cloaking devices on ships which was shrugged off when I asked them about it.

It is not to jam the guidance system it's more like malfunctioning it to prevent it from going on its original course. Though it could be called Jamming.

On a side note, due to some treaties after the second world war I can't build new ships until this year that's why most of my ships are outdated old ones with somewhat up to date equipment. I am starting to make new ships but it takes time.

Well that's not how electronic countermeasures work so there's not much that can be said if others are demanding unrealistic things from you.

Also, what defines as early PMT in Naval warfare? Are there shell guidance systems or cloaking mechanisms?

[The Akasha Colony]

Also, what defines as early PMT in Naval warfare? Are there shell guidance systems or cloaking mechanisms?

Nothing firmly defines PMT in general. Or most tech categories, really.

But it should probably be noted that guided shells already exist today and are in use, so I'd hardly call that PMT. I'd call outright "invisibility" cloaking probably some FT-level lulz, but again, there's no firm delineation between PMT and FT.

[Spirit of Hope]

This is why I said "most." DF-21 isn't even new in including active terminal guidance; Pershing II introduced terminal radar guidance in the 1980s. Regardless, a 3 kilometer range is far too short to deal with any sort of ballistic missile, even a slower one will cross that distance in less than a second.



Well that's not how electronic countermeasures work so there's not much that can be said if others are demanding unrealistic things from you.

Also, what defines as early PMT in Naval warfare? Are there shell guidance systems or cloaking mechanisms?

PMT is basically defined as using "technology" that doesn't currently exist. Depending on your level of MT this can mean anything from only using equipment in use, using technology that has been proven but not put to use yet, or using technology that has a strong theoretical base, but few real world uses yet.

Guided shells are very much MT, a number exist and are in use. A cloaking system would probably be PMT, depending on how it worked and your strictness on MT.

[Naganasu]

Also, what defines as early PMT in Naval warfare? Are there shell guidance systems or cloaking mechanisms?

PMT is basically defined as using "technology" that doesn't currently exist. Depending on your level of MT this can mean anything from only using equipment in use, using technology that has been proven but not put to use yet, or using technology that has a strong theoretical base, but few real world uses yet.

Guided shells are very much MT, a number exist and are in use. A cloaking system would probably be PMT, depending on how it worked and your strictness on MT.

Yeah. On an unrelated note, my typing speed has been severely slowed down because using an on screen key board is like typing with one finger.

My navy is pretty much PT because using the Yamato battleship is not a good idea .

[Kassaran]

Alright, I've been summoned. I saw the magical three-letter acronym.

So, Cloaking and PMT? No. It won't work, at least not for the scale they want, and that's even if they're wanting that. They need to first define their cloaking mechanism and how it works before they can claim one. Right now, two forms of potential 'cloaking' systems that could be used in PMT are based either with the camera-based (so having armor that puts out a lot of light), or are heat-based (the idea being to bend the air immediately around the vessel in order to invoke a reaction with ambient light rendering the ship, for all intents and purposes invisible. There are massive flaws with both of these which make them completely infeasible:

1) Cloaking Cameras

To mount enough photo-responsive panels on the side of your ship, and properly coat them and maintain them at all times to make them even a feasible countermeasure would place a huge logistics strain on the ship that doesn't need to be there. In the end, ships aren't spotted by sight anymore, they're either spotted by their wakes, their sonar returns, or their radar returns. Anyone trying to turn invisible is using the wrong ideas and the wrong implementations of that field.

2) Heat Cloaking

Well, the heat output, on a ship no less would be massive. You're now going to just be constantly generating a massive heat signature that every IR missile will home in on and orgasm over. That's why it's stupid. Not even worth.

So what should you focus on in PMT for countermeasures? Well, for one, you need countermeasures. Anyone claiming that you having countermeasures reaching to 20km is OP obviously knows nothing about how naval combat or naval ships in modern combat works and they're pulling shit out of their asses.

Your countermeasures start on the dozens of kilometers range, by having either an AEW, or an ASW platform airborne at peak points or in proper shifts around your main fleets. Your fleets alone should be spread out over a few kilometers in every direction unless you have some sort of close-maneuvers op going on. Second, you have electronic warfare and countermeasures suites which starts as far as it can reach and comes as close to your ship as possible. That's not even all though, alongside that you have sonar and radar which both act as a means of also defending yourself. Radar can alert you to incoming pings while sonar can screen for passive threats like submarines, torpedoes, or mines. Starting at roughly 15km is when you start getting activation of more direct LOS countermeasures, and in PMT it would be things like the Skyshield DEDS and other ADS systems. At 5-10km, your CIWS begin to activate, starting likely with guided self-propelled munitions and ending with buzz-cannons.

In the end, nothing short of an extensive missile attack should be able to penetrate a modern, much less a Post-Modern Tech level fleet defense. Individual ships are obviously more susceptible to attack, but honestly they shouldn't be if you're playing your cards right.

[Roski]

Just have missiles, ecm, and ciws

Shit wont phase you

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

My navy is pretty much PT because using the Yamato battleship is not a good idea .

Your navy is not just PT. You are using ships designed in a period where antiship missiles were just emerging, were guided by a person with a flight controller plus wire and your AA of dual purpose secondaries and autocannons could reasonably defend yourself, along with propeller driven aircraft. You're now in 2016 at the very least. Some antiship missiles now have low-observability characteristics and every vessel in the world apart from aircraft carriers and patrol boats have at least a few, aircraft fly at altitudes and speeds, and loaded with things your WWII equivalents could never dream of, and some of them are carrier-capable. Radar has advanced so much your WWII equivalents are laughable. All in all if you keep your utterly outdated ships in this era you will never have a good time apart from fighting Somali pirates. Even the North Koreans will beat you in a naval engagement.

[Crookfur]

A few Crookfur thoughts:

if you can't build your own ships, then just buy them abroad. To be honest you will need to be on very good terms with a major overseas shipbuilder to be able to secure the expertise required to restart warship design and construction in your nation anyway.

Electronic warfare is a pretty huge topic but in general a warship has two types of defence, hard kill (SAMs and CIWS) and softkill (radio frequency jamming and decoys/flares/chaff). Any Jamming is all about attacking the enemy's sensors and blinding or deceiving the sensors and thus the guidance system of attacking weapons.

the wiki on EW is a reasonable place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_warfare
and you cna easily find basic guides and primers like this:
http://textlab.io/doc/839313/electronic ... r-of-the...
and this:
http://www.radartutorial.eu/16.eccm/ja05.en.html
radar tutorial is also handy for getting more comfortable with some radar basics.

Anyone claiming that they can "cloak" thier naval vessels is talking out thier arse unless they are playing space opera level PMT/FT

[Naganasu]

My navy is pretty much PT because using the Yamato battleship is not a good idea .

Your navy is not just PT. You are using ships designed in a period where antiship missiles were just emerging, were guided by a person with a flight controller plus wire and your AA of dual purpose secondaries and autocannons could reasonably defend yourself, along with propeller driven aircraft. You're now in 2016 at the very least. Some antiship missiles now have low-observability characteristics and every vessel in the world apart from aircraft carriers and patrol boats have at least a few, aircraft fly at altitudes and speeds, and loaded with things your WWII equivalents could never dream of, and some of them are carrier-capable. Radar has advanced so much your WWII equivalents are laughable. All in all if you keep your utterly outdated ships in this era you will never have a good time apart from fighting Somali pirates. Even the North Koreans will beat you in a naval engagement.

I know that. I am making newer ships like the INN-Yokosuka and INN-Kirishima but they are under construction. Probably would feel slightly badass firing an entire broadside from a Yamato class battleship for a few moments but my navy would be screwed without new ships which sucks because of this period of vulnerability.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Your navy is not just PT. You are using ships designed in a period where antiship missiles were just emerging, were guided by a person with a flight controller plus wire and your AA of dual purpose secondaries and autocannons could reasonably defend yourself, along with propeller driven aircraft. You're now in 2016 at the very least. Some antiship missiles now have low-observability characteristics and every vessel in the world apart from aircraft carriers and patrol boats have at least a few, aircraft fly at altitudes and speeds, and loaded with things your WWII equivalents could never dream of, and some of them are carrier-capable. Radar has advanced so much your WWII equivalents are laughable. All in all if you keep your utterly outdated ships in this era you will never have a good time apart from fighting Somali pirates. Even the North Koreans will beat you in a naval engagement.

I know that. I am making newer ships like the INN-Yokosuka and INN-Kirishima but they are under construction. Probably would feel slightly badass firing an entire broadside from a Yamato class battleship for a few moments but my navy would be screwed without new ships which sucks because of this period of vulnerability.

Thing is if you haven't constructed or bought a warship for seventy years all your naval expertise are long gone and probably literally in the grave. Germany for example had all their shipbuilding capacity destroyed after WWI and by the 1930's the best they came up with was basically a rehash of the Baden-class superdreadnought while others were doing Yamato's and North Carolinas. Your WWII era fleet that don't have shipbuilders and designers that understands them will be detected, outmanoeuvred and sunk long before you get a shot off against anybody remotely competent employing a modern era carrier battlegroup, and you won't have the guys at home repairing your lucky survivors. If you're a nation that depends on its navy for survival you're basically irreversibly screwed.

[Naganasu]

I know that. I am making newer ships like the INN-Yokosuka and INN-Kirishima but they are under construction. Probably would feel slightly badass firing an entire broadside from a Yamato class battleship for a few moments but my navy would be screwed without new ships which sucks because of this period of vulnerability.

Thing is if you haven't constructed or bought a warship for seventy years all your naval expertise are long gone and probably literally in the grave. Germany for example had all their shipbuilding capacity destroyed after WWI and by the 1930's the best they came up with was basically a rehash of the Baden-class superdreadnought while others were doing Yamato's and North Carolinas. Your WWII era fleet that don't have shipbuilders and designers that understands them will be detected, outmanoeuvred and sunk long before you get a shot off against anybody remotely competent employing a modern era carrier battlegroup, and you won't have the guys at home repairing your lucky survivors. If you're a nation that depends on its navy for survival you're basically irreversibly screwed.

Which is why I hired some foreign shipbuilders to help me build Independence class ships for use. My fishing is more advanced than my current navy and that is extremely embarrassing but that will change and I can finally put my Yamato class battleships as museums.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Thing is if you haven't constructed or bought a warship for seventy years all your naval expertise are long gone and probably literally in the grave. Germany for example had all their shipbuilding capacity destroyed after WWI and by the 1930's the best they came up with was basically a rehash of the Baden-class superdreadnought while others were doing Yamato's and North Carolinas. Your WWII era fleet that don't have shipbuilders and designers that understands them will be detected, outmanoeuvred and sunk long before you get a shot off against anybody remotely competent employing a modern era carrier battlegroup, and you won't have the guys at home repairing your lucky survivors. If you're a nation that depends on its navy for survival you're basically irreversibly screwed.

Which is why I hired some foreign shipbuilders to help me build Independence class ships for use. My fishing is more advanced than my current navy and that is extremely embarrassing but that will change and I can finally put my Yamato class battleships as museums.

Great you're getting the littoral "combat" minesweeper...

[Rhodesialund]

A few days ago Rhodesialund suggested a trimaran guided missile cruiser concept, and since I had most of the parts, I tried throwing something together.
([url=https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fa2ua3-8VU4/V3IpMclUdyI/AAAAAAAARV8/qiPvf6RfAD8VEzzAKL0c0S_A7MSl67viQCCo/s900/Cruiser1.png]Image)[/url]

General Characteristics:

• Displacement: ~25,000 tonnes full load
• Length: 245 meters
• Beam: 42 meters
• Draft: 9.6 meters
• Propulsion: 2 x pressurized water reactor, 350 MW combined; 2 x 5-meter motor-propulsors, 150,000 shp
• Speed: ~32-33 kts
• Complement: ~425 officers and enlisted
• Sensors:
  
  • S/X-band dual band radar
  • VHF/L-band radar
  • Hull-mounted sonar
  • Multi-function towed array sonar
  • Electro-optical/IR
  • ESM array
• Electronic warfare and decoys:
  
  • 5 x Centurion countermeasure dispenser
  • ECM array
  • Hardkill torpedo defense
  • Towed torpedo decoy
• Armament:
  
  • 128-cell bow VLS
  • 2 x 32-cell amidships VLS
  • 2 x 76 mm SR + Strales
  • 2 x 3-tube surface ship torpedo launcher
  • 1 x Laser CIWS
  • 2 x 24-cell RAM launcher
  • 2 x 35 mm autocannon
  • 2 x 15.5 mm machine gun
• Aircraft: 2 x Merlin-class helicopters in hangars

The primary intended role for this ship is area air defense and coordination of other surface combatants in a battle group. For that reason, the ship carries a particularly powerful search radar and is also designed to handle defense against ballistic missiles into the IRBM category (but not ICBMs). This makes the particularly large flight deck and spacious helicopter facilities rather superfluous, but there wasn't much more that could be put in their space (I suppose more spacious crew facilities are always an option). The two hangars are combined with the outboard boat davits, creating a larger multi-mission space. The hull sonar and towed array are primarily for self-defense purposes. Propulsion is nuclear-electric, with the reactors low in the central hull in an attempt to move the center of gravity lower.

The design is not necessarily finalized in its details. I have been considering moving the two 76 mm guns currently positioned on the flanks to a more conventional fore-and-aft mount, which I had initially avoided because it made the 76 mm bow gun seem awkwardly small. But the fore-and-aft arrangement would have better coverage than the current arrangement which has a blind spot directly aft. The exact number of tubes in the amidships VLS is still in flux; there is sufficient space blocked out in the diagram for at least 64 cells, but I'm trying to avoid over-arming it with an unnecessary number of tubes. In the initial concept, it was also supposed to carry conventionally-armed IRBMs itself for use against ships or land targets, but these were dropped, along with a larger KEI-type interceptor missile. The largest anti-air missile it currently carries is an SM-3 Block IIB analogue. Also trying to fill in details, since it still feels like large parts of the ship are "empty" visually, which is partly a function of its large size compared to my other ships (aside from the carrier).

While it wasn't intended to be a design actually put into IC service, I might decide to use it as such since it's already done at the moment and drawing another would take time. It might get retconned down the line into a more conventional monohull if another design were made.

I love it.


I highly support the idea of moving the 76mm guns to the more conventional fore and aft location. In place of the former positions of the guns could be CWIS or SeaRam launchers of your Punic variety.

Although I have to ask, with it's spacious hangers, it seemed more plausible that it would be a cruiser with a massive focus on ASW. Especially considering the two Merlins that can be stored.

[The Akasha Colony]

[I highly support the idea of moving the 76mm guns to the more conventional fore and aft location. In place of the former positions of the guns could be CWIS or SeaRam launchers of your Punic variety.

This is the test arrangement with the guns fore-and-aft:


And this is the version with the guns in their original locations, but with the other additions present in the rearranged model:


The main additions are the box-mounted anti-submarine launchers, one aft of the flight deck and two barely visible flanking the forward VLS. The original configuration also adds an aft 35 mm gun and a Centurion launcher, while these are replaced with the aft 76 mm gun in the new configuration. The new configuration puts the two displaced Centurion launchers on the flanks instead, maintaining the same number overall (6). Minor detailing work continues, probably with a focus on beefing up the communications equipment. I considered the design with RAM launchers on the flanks but I'm trying to avoid turning it into an *NS* floating CIWS fortress.

There's a part of me that still leans toward the flank gun arrangement, since the bow gun still feels kinda small. But I can put that decision off for now since small detailing work continues. With IIWiki's space issues, I'm trying to avoid uploading lots of updated images for relatively small changes so I'm trying to get everything I can possibly think of done first.

Although I have to ask, with it's spacious hangers, it seemed more plausible that it would be a cruiser with a massive focus on ASW. Especially considering the two Merlins that can be stored.

AFAIK there's no reason for an anti-submarine ship to be that large though, at least not in that configuration. The ASW suite itself can be crammed into a smaller frigate or corvette hull and the trimaran corvette previously posted can already handle two Merlins. Two large helicopters for 25,000 tonnes is also not terribly impressive compared to something like Izumo which can carry seven helicopters for slightly more displacement, or Hyuga which can fit at least four with much lower displacement.

Going back to what Kyiv explained, the mission profiles of an ASW-focused surface combatant and an AAW surface combatant would result in very different designs, and in this case IMO the speed provided by the trimaran design and the sprinting endurance offered by the nuclear plant would be wasted on an ASW ship that would be expected to spend most of its time crawling along at single-digit knots. The corvette benefits from a trimaran design because it allows a larger flight deck than would normally be possible on a monohull of that displacement and is useful for littoral operations, but a monohull in the 25,000 tonne range would provide more than enough space for a spacious flight deck and more internal volume to support more helicopters.

My frigate (not yet drawn, but it will be a monohull) will basically have that specific role: carry the same dedicated ASW suite as the corvette (including large hangar/flight deck), but in a more seaworthy hull with better endurance and additional space for anti-ship weapons. The surface combatant role breakdown for the Punic Navy basically goes:

• Cruisers: Coordination of all surface combatants in a task force, direct escort of any high-value ships, control of the inner air battle, and ballistic missile defense. Sonar is primarily for self-defense.
• Destroyers: General purpose work but primarily serving as the outer layer of the inner air battle area, providing air defense for other surface combatants in the vicinity. Sonar is primarily for self-defense.
• Frigates: Blue-water anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare. Only basic point air defense equipment is carried.
• Corvettes: Littoral and limited blue-water anti-submarine warfare. Only basic point air defense and very little anti-surface weaponry. These are usually deployed as required and are not a standing part of a carrier task group.

All of these are expected to be supported by a growing network of unmanned vehicles and offboard sensors, including ACTUV-like USVs to supplement the sub-hunting net, UAVs for wide-area surveillance, and UUVs for minesweeping and surveillance. There are also manned support ships, including electronic warfare ships (inb4 OTH radar jamming) and SURTASS-LFA ships for wide-area high-performance sonar coverage.

[Minroz]

[I highly support the idea of moving the 76mm guns to the more conventional fore and aft location. In place of the former positions of the guns could be CWIS or SeaRam launchers of your Punic variety.

This is the test arrangement with the guns fore-and-aft:


And this is the version with the guns in their original locations, but with the other additions present in the rearranged model:


The main additions are the box-mounted anti-submarine launchers, one aft of the flight deck and two barely visible flanking the forward VLS. The original configuration also adds an aft 35 mm gun and a Centurion launcher, while these are replaced with the aft 76 mm gun in the new configuration. The new configuration puts the two displaced Centurion launchers on the flanks instead, maintaining the same number overall (6). Minor detailing work continues, probably with a focus on beefing up the communications equipment. I considered the design with RAM launchers on the flanks but I'm trying to avoid turning it into an *NS* floating CIWS fortress.

There's a part of me that still leans toward the flank gun arrangement, since the bow gun still feels kinda small. But I can put that decision off for now since small detailing work continues. With IIWiki's space issues, I'm trying to avoid uploading lots of updated images for relatively small changes so I'm trying to get everything I can possibly think of done first.

Although I have to ask, with it's spacious hangers, it seemed more plausible that it would be a cruiser with a massive focus on ASW. Especially considering the two Merlins that can be stored.

AFAIK there's no reason for an anti-submarine ship to be that large though, at least not in that configuration. The ASW suite itself can be crammed into a smaller frigate or corvette hull and the trimaran corvette previously posted can already handle two Merlins. Two large helicopters for 25,000 tonnes is also not terribly impressive compared to something like Izumo which can carry seven helicopters for slightly more displacement, or Hyuga which can fit at least four with much lower displacement.

Going back to what Kyiv explained, the mission profiles of an ASW-focused surface combatant and an AAW surface combatant would result in very different designs, and in this case IMO the speed provided by the trimaran design and the sprinting endurance offered by the nuclear plant would be wasted on an ASW ship that would be expected to spend most of its time crawling along at single-digit knots. The corvette benefits from a trimaran design because it allows a larger flight deck than would normally be possible on a monohull of that displacement and is useful for littoral operations, but a monohull in the 25,000 tonne range would provide more than enough space for a spacious flight deck and more internal volume to support more helicopters.

My frigate (not yet drawn, but it will be a monohull) will basically have that specific role: carry the same dedicated ASW suite as the corvette (including large hangar/flight deck), but in a more seaworthy hull with better endurance and additional space for anti-ship weapons. The surface combatant role breakdown for the Punic Navy basically goes:

• Cruisers: Coordination of all surface combatants in a task force, direct escort of any high-value ships, control of the inner air battle, and ballistic missile defense. Sonar is primarily for self-defense.
• Destroyers: General purpose work but primarily serving as the outer layer of the inner air battle area, providing air defense for other surface combatants in the vicinity. Sonar is primarily for self-defense.
• Frigates: Blue-water anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare. Only basic point air defense equipment is carried.
• Corvettes: Littoral and limited blue-water anti-submarine warfare. Only basic point air defense and very little anti-surface weaponry. These are usually deployed as required and are not a standing part of a carrier task group.

All of these are expected to be supported by a growing network of unmanned vehicles and offboard sensors, including ACTUV-like USVs to supplement the sub-hunting net, UAVs for wide-area surveillance, and UUVs for minesweeping and surveillance. There are also manned support ships, including electronic warfare ships (inb4 OTH radar jamming) and SURTASS-LFA ships for wide-area high-performance sonar coverage.

I gotta to say this, nice boat you made, Akasha. It kind of makes me feel like I want to order it.

[Urran]

Would it be possible to equip the FREMM frigate with a CWIS? It has none.

[Laritaia]

Would it be possible to equip the FREMM frigate with a CWIS? It has none.

It actually does, the Oto 76mm Strales system has guided ammunition that can intercept missiles.