Your Nations Warships, MKII

[The Kievan People]

Where is the hangar?

[Gallia-]

Concept Visions is the industry equivalent of a engineering student design competition. Perseus is literally nothing more than a CGI video.

RATTLRS was never going to be developed into a operational system. It was not even interested in that. The interest was in seeing if Rolls-Royce's new turbine engine worked, which it did, to be used in future missiles that have yet to be conceived. The timeline of RATTLRS and HiSTED goes:

~2005 (probably): Rolls-Royce and DARPA team up to test YJ102R in an airframe: HiSTED (High Speed Turbine Engine Demonstration) is the engine, RATTLRS is a then proposed flight test vehicle developed by Lockheed-Martin. RR and L-M cooperate on HiSTED using RATTLRS design airframe.

2007: RATTLRS finishes design review and a flight test body is fabricated.

2008-2009: RATTLRS and HiSTED are mated, RATTLRS undergoes flight tests probably at China Lake.

2009: RATTLRS is deemed successful in flight testing, HiSTED meets its objective of demonstrating the feasibility of a small supersonic missile.

2010: With the conclusion of the flight tests, RATTLRS is stricken from funding.

RATTLRS was really just to see if YJ102R could be used to power a relatively small, affordable, lightweight supersonic cruise missile. It was roughly comparable to X-51 or NASA HTV, but far less ambitious than either.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... attlrs.htm

This site seems to indicate a mach 3 test with a 500 ib payload was scheduled to occur although it doesn't indicate whether or not it was actually performed.

The "payload" likely refers to an avionics test package or something

RATTLRS flew in 2008 and finished its demo in 2009.

[Lubyak]

Some more pictures:

Here's an F-35 on the flight deck for size comparison.

(Image)

Here's the side view with the F-35 for scale. As you can see the propeller/pump-jet assembly is still a work in progress

(Image)

Wouldn't the exposed CIWS stations make its radar reflection bigger?

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Wouldn't the exposed CIWS stations make its radar reflection bigger?

That is true. I designed the CIWS with a stealthy housing but I was also thinking the CIWS would be able to retract into the deck when not in use for reloading as well as to keep the ships rcs as low as possible.

Also, i've come across some literature that claims the tumblehomme hull is unstable in rough waters, with the physics being that there is no buoyant force pushing in towards the centerline of the hull to stabilize the ship and thus it's prone to capsizing.

[Pharthan]

I'll let the rest critique the details, just a note on crew numbers: An air-defence ship actually will need quite a few people to manage all the data in order to get decent engagement of multiple targets. Also, unless these nuclear reactors are some kind of highly-automated, liquid-metal-cooled exotic reactor you will also need a decently sized and highly-trained/specialist engineering crew.

I personally would say that at the barest minimum you'd be looking at 400~ crew per ship, with 550-600 more likely... 150 is too little.

150 is closer to the size of your Reactor Department alone, presuming you're using a carrier's reactor.

Problem you're going to run into is that, by my rough estimations, you aren't going to be able to fire a rail gun quickly whenever you're running at Ahead Flank III*, presuming a few different things.
[spoilers=Presuming]
1. While you do have a better block-coefficient than a carrier, it isn't super significant.
2. Max speed ~30-33knots
3. That rail-gun capacitors have a similar base-loading requirement,charge rate, and operation similar to filling aircraft carrier catapult accumulators. (Kinda makes sense since a capacitor-bank is like an electron-accumulator/pressurizer).
*Assuming you use standard cruiser ordered bells.
[/spoilers]
Simply put, you can actually stuff more power in there than a 550MW reactor. You'd be able to fit one of the new A1Bs in there easily. and still have room to spare (maybe not for a second reactor, though), especially if you cram it in like a submarine would instead of like a carrier would, which is considerably more spacious.
If you got creative, you could probably fit in two 550MWs if you placed them in the same RC and put all of their equipment in the same engine-room. Would also reduce crewing requirements as your supervisory watchstanders would be similar in number to a single-reactor plant, and you'd be able to cut down roving watchstanders. My guess would be you could crew a plant that style with 280-350 people. Give or take.

My bigger concern is:
Where the heck do you store your helicopters?
There is no visible hangar bay or shelter. The closest thing I see is a raised VLS box.

For your CIWS, I would recommend doing a Mini-AGS style casing. Keeps you from having to sacrifice belowdecks space with the storage area and mechanical systems and it keeps you stealthier in combat.
Doing a non-stealthy retractable design means you're not stealthy when you really want to be. Yes, I'm aware it's not exactly as heavily emphasized in combat when they're already firing at you, but every last bit helps when it comes to avoiding incoming missiles.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

I'll let the rest critique the details, just a note on crew numbers: An air-defence ship actually will need quite a few people to manage all the data in order to get decent engagement of multiple targets. Also, unless these nuclear reactors are some kind of highly-automated, liquid-metal-cooled exotic reactor you will also need a decently sized and highly-trained/specialist engineering crew.

I personally would say that at the barest minimum you'd be looking at 400~ crew per ship, with 550-600 more likely... 150 is too little.

150 is closer to the size of your Reactor Department alone, presuming you're using a carrier's reactor.

Problem you're going to run into is that, by my rough estimations, you aren't going to be able to fire a rail gun quickly whenever you're running at Ahead Flank III*, presuming a few different things.
[spoilers=Presuming]
1. While you do have a better block-coefficient than a carrier, it isn't super significant.
2. Max speed ~30-33knots
3. That rail-gun capacitors have a similar base-loading requirement,charge rate, and operation similar to filling aircraft carrier catapult accumulators. (Kinda makes sense since a capacitor-bank is like an electron-accumulator/pressurizer).
*Assuming you use standard cruiser ordered bells.
[/spoilers]
Simply put, you can actually stuff more power in there than a 550MW reactor. You'd be able to fit one of the new A1Bs in there easily. and still have room to spare (maybe not for a second reactor, though), especially if you cram it in like a submarine would instead of like a carrier would, which is considerably more spacious.
If you got creative, you could probably fit in two 550MWs if you placed them in the same RC and put all of their equipment in the same engine-room. Would also reduce crewing requirements as your supervisory watchstanders would be similar in number to a single-reactor plant, and you'd be able to cut down roving watchstanders. My guess would be you could crew a plant that style with 280-350 people. Give or take.

My bigger concern is:
Where the heck do you store your helicopters?
There is no visible hangar bay or shelter. The closest thing I see is a raised VLS box.

For your CIWS, I would recommend doing a Mini-AGS style casing. Keeps you from having to sacrifice belowdecks space with the storage area and mechanical systems and it keeps you stealthier in combat.
Doing a non-stealthy retractable design means you're not stealthy when you really want to be. Yes, I'm aware it's not exactly as heavily emphasized in combat when they're already firing at you, but every last bit helps when it comes to avoiding incoming missiles.

The plate in the back (flight deck in between the rearward vls cells) represents the below deck hangar bay. An elevator carries helicopters up to the flight deck where they are launched.

I was thinking of doing a mini AGS for the CIWS like you suggest since it keeps the ship's low rcs and will free up space below deck that a retracting CIWS would take up.

[The Jaclean Empire]

Won't Let Me Delete It.

[Auroya]

Lose the large-caliber guns.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Lose the large-caliber guns.

He has a block coefficient of 0.034. Such a value doesn't exist in most normal literature. It's ten times off the scale of even the most thin sail-powered racing boats. With Bismarck's block coefficient this thing would require 1.857 million tons of displacement.

[The Jaclean Empire]

There I Fixed It

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

There I Fixed It

You fail to fix the block coefficient. It's currently reading way off the scale, and you lack 1.7 million tons of displacement.

[The Jaclean Empire]

There I Fixed It

You fail to fix the block coefficient. It's currently reading way off the scale, and you lack 1.7 million tons of displacement.

I Was Talking About The Guns

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You fail to fix the block coefficient. It's currently reading way off the scale, and you lack 1.7 million tons of displacement.

I Was Talking About The Guns

And with the second fix you still lack 488 thousand tons.
EDIT: I swapped Bismarck's Cb for HMS Dreadnought's, since this is not doing 30 knots.

[Polar Svalbard]

What about just having a hanger on the stern of the ship and then have a retractable flight deck that is used for take off and storage of the helicopters. It saves on space

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

What about just having a hanger on the stern of the ship and then have a retractable flight deck that is used for take off and storage of the helicopters. It saves on space

That's similar to what I have. There's an elevator on the flight deck that carries helicopters to and from the hangar which is right underneath it. I plan to make a detailed model of the hangar so it's easier to see how it works.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Her'es a WIP of a destroyer I created as a sort of "smaller brother" to the bigger CGN. Length is 180 meters, Beam 24 meters, Draft 8.4 meters, and displacement is around 15,000 tons. The primary roles of the ship are anti-surface, anti-air, and anti-sub warfare. Armament consists of 384 VLS cells, two 5" 64 caliber guns mounted fore and aft, 10 533mm torpedo tubes, 4 "super CIWS" each consisting of two GAU-8s and a 21 cell rim-116 launcher, and 2 35mm revolver cannons.

Update: Here's a comparison between the cruiser and the destroyer.

[Kassaran]

Why so much CIWS? Is your CIWS and active countermeasures not enough? I'd say three to four for the Cruiser at most, two for the Destroyer.

Optimal positions for Cruiser would be one on either side, one to cover the front axis and the other to cover the rear axis... Honestly I feel three would be perfect with two covering the aft and one covering the front would be more than enough, dedicating the two rear batteries to covering their respective sides. Even then that seems like a bit much. Also, why no concealed CIWS?

Hang on, before I continue, is concealed CIWS a thing? Like if you detect a threat, you deploy CIWS from specially designed bays within the hull? When they've done their thing, they retract back in to reduce the radar signature.

As for the Destroyer, like I said two would be more than enough from what I've seen. Then again I might be forgetting something or just stupid, so check with the more experienced people here.

[Connori Pilgrims]

Why so much CIWS? Is your CIWS and active countermeasures not enough? I'd say three to four for the Cruiser at most, two for the Destroyer.

Optimal positions for Cruiser would be one on either side, one to cover the front axis and the other to cover the rear axis... Honestly I feel three would be perfect with two covering the aft and one covering the front would be more than enough, dedicating the two rear batteries to covering their respective sides. Even then that seems like a bit much. Also, why no concealed CIWS?

Hang on, before I continue, is concealed CIWS a thing? Like if you detect a threat, you deploy CIWS from specially designed bays within the hull? When they've done their thing, they retract back in to reduce the radar signature.

As for the Destroyer, like I said two would be more than enough from what I've seen. Then again I might be forgetting something or just stupid, so check with the more experienced people here.

Two is usually sufficient if they're arranged on the ship's centreline so you can have full 360-degree coverage. Four is for cruisers & capital ships and its usually 2 on either side, because they're so large that there may be gaps in coverage and/or there may be limited or no place for centreline mountings.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Why so much CIWS? Is your CIWS and active countermeasures not enough? I'd say three to four for the Cruiser at most, two for the Destroyer.

Optimal positions for Cruiser would be one on either side, one to cover the front axis and the other to cover the rear axis... Honestly I feel three would be perfect with two covering the aft and one covering the front would be more than enough, dedicating the two rear batteries to covering their respective sides. Even then that seems like a bit much. Also, why no concealed CIWS?

Hang on, before I continue, is concealed CIWS a thing? Like if you detect a threat, you deploy CIWS from specially designed bays within the hull? When they've done their thing, they retract back in to reduce the radar signature.

As for the Destroyer, like I said two would be more than enough from what I've seen. Then again I might be forgetting something or just stupid, so check with the more experienced people here.

I was considering using concealed CIWS that retract into the hull to reduce the radar section. The problem is that it takes up valuable space inside of the the ship so I'm not completely sure if it's worth it.

Two is usually sufficient if they're arranged on the ship's centreline so you can have full 360-degree coverage. Four is for cruisers & capital ships and its usually 2 on either side, because they're so large that there may be gaps in coverage and/or there may be limited or no place for centreline mountings.

I wanted to put the CIWS on the sides of the ship so that they could depress enough to effectively engage sea-skimming cruise missiles. In that case 4 would be the minimum to provide 360 degree protection as two on the centerline would leave blindspots forward and aft of the hull.

Something I noticed doing research is that Western ships usually only carry 1 or 2 CIWS but Soviet and later Russian ships carry up to eight as is the case with the Kirov class and Admiral Kuznetsov ships.Not sure what the rationale is on both sides but it's curious to note the difference.

[Connori Pilgrims]

I wanted to put the CIWS on the sides of the ship so that they could depress enough to effectively engage sea-skimming cruise missiles. In that case 4 would be the minimum to provide 360 degree protection as two on the centerline would leave blindspots forward and aft of the hull.

Something I noticed doing research is that Western ships usually only carry 1 or 2 CIWS but Soviet and later Russian ships carry up to eight as is the case with the Kirov class and Admiral Kuznetsov ships.Not sure what the rationale is on both sides but it's curious to note the difference.

If you want them to depress enough you want them to be higher on the superstructure, not lower on the hull sides.

Russian CIWS deployment has not been known for its efficiency in most cases; until the Kashtan/Kortik gun-missile system they relied on separate mounts for gun CIWS and the fire-control systems.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

If you want them to depress enough you want them to be higher on the superstructure, not lower on the hull sides.

Russian CIWS deployment has not been known for its efficiency in most cases; until the Kashtan/Kortik gun-missile system they relied on separate mounts for gun CIWS and the fire-control systems.

Problem is the CIWS are really big and there isn't anywhere to mount them up on the bridge without them getting in the way of the radar. It also precludes the possibility that the CIWS could retract into the hull for reloading/lowering the ships rcs.

[Velkanika]

(Image)

Her'es a WIP of a destroyer I created as a sort of "smaller brother" to the bigger CGN. Length is 180 meters, Beam 24 meters, Draft 8.4 meters, and displacement is around 15,000 tons. The primary roles of the ship are anti-surface, anti-air, and anti-sub warfare. Armament consists of 384 VLS cells, two 5" 64 caliber guns mounted fore and aft, 10 533mm torpedo tubes, 4 "super CIWS" each consisting of two GAU-8s and a 21 cell rim-116 launcher, and 2 35mm revolver cannons.

Update: Here's a comparison between the cruiser and the destroyer.

(Image)

There is literally nowhere for crew berthing or supply storage on those 3d models. The only place to put the engine room is forward of the aft VLS bank, and that will fill up the area in the aft superstructure except for the top two decks or so, assuming it doesn't require a lot of air intakes and exhaust vents that would fill the rest. The fantail is filled with hanger space and VLS, so there's nothing else you can put there. I don't see anywhere to put an internal corridor or passage of any kind past the aft VLS banks, so crew would have to access the hanger from the main deck. The bow of the ship is similarly packed to capacity with weapons, as everything forward will take up all space right down to the bilges and there's no way to access the little free space there is without walking across the main deck again. The forward superstructure is also too small for anything other than the mission-critical battle stations.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

There is literally nowhere for crew berthing or supply storage on those 3d models. The only place to put the engine room is forward of the aft VLS bank, and that will fill up the area in the aft superstructure except for the top two decks or so, assuming it doesn't require a lot of air intakes and exhaust vents that would fill the rest. The fantail is filled with hanger space and VLS, so there's nothing else you can put there. I don't see anywhere to put an internal corridor or passage of any kind past the aft VLS banks, so crew would have to access the hanger from the main deck. The bow of the ship is similarly packed to capacity with weapons, as everything forward will take up all space right down to the bilges and there's no way to access the little free space there is without walking across the main deck again. The forward superstructure is also too small for anything other than the mission-critical battle stations.

I based the ships superstructure and weapons layout off of concept designs for the sc-21 family of ships like the one below. On both ships there's enough space for corridors to access all areas of the ship without having to use the main deck. The VLS cells are 7.7 meters deep whereas the hull in the rear is around 10 meters deep so there's room underneath for storage or crew berthing. There's also a large triangular section of the bow not occupied by VLS cells on both ships which provides further area for stowage, etc. The KEI silos go all the way down to the bilges on the cruiser but other than that there's room under the VLS cells.



Update: Here's a WIP of the proposed internal layout from the side. White means currently unassigned space. The hangar is in between the rear VLS cells and is thus not shown. I'm working on a top view to show that and some other stuff as well.

[The Kievan People]

There are two problems:
1. Too many VLS cells
2. Too much CIWS

It's an arsenal ship.

[New Vihenia]

T
2. Too much CIWS

It's an arsenal ship.

I think one cannot have too much CIWS :3