NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #2

[Purpelia]

China says hello.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21D#DF- ... ic_missile

[Useful Daveia]

I made this ship. It's designed to really spoil any beach walker's day.
What do y'all think?
(Image)

It looks like you just slapped whatever onto whatever really.

[Bafuria]

I made this ship. It's designed to really spoil any beach walker's day.
What do y'all think?
(Image)

Large caliber naval cannons became obsolete a long time ago.

Make something with a shitload of VLS cells.

[Galla-]

I made this ship. It's designed to really spoil any beach walker's day.
What do y'all think?
(Image)

Large caliber naval cannons became obsolete a long time ago.

Make something with a shitload of VLS cells.

Large calibre guns are still useful for NFS missions, but that's about it.

Almost not worth the cost of keeping big gun battleships around.

[Discordant Schism]

Large caliber naval cannons became obsolete a long time ago.

Make something with a shitload of VLS cells.

Large calibre guns are still useful for NFS missions, but that's about it.

Almost not worth the cost of keeping big gun battleships around.

railguns

[Useful Daveia]

Large calibre guns are still useful for NFS missions, but that's about it.

Almost not worth the cost of keeping big gun battleships around.

railguns

Replacing the barrel every shot, guns even more expensive than regular ones given their power requirements and the whole new ship needed to be built because you can't just keep that Cold War relic in service anymore.

Believe it or not, railguns won't issue in an age of a new battleship.

[Discordant Schism]

railguns

Replacing the barrel every shot, guns even more expensive than regular ones given their power requirements and the whole new ship needed to be built because you can't just keep that Cold War relic in service anymore.

Believe it or not, railguns won't issue in an age of a new battleship.

A single railgun-equipped battleship could do force projection a lot cheaper than a supercarrier could. As planes age, the maintenance hours go up incredibly(I remember hearing at the time the Tomcat was phased out, it needed 50 hours of maintenance for every flight hour). The guns do indeed need to be secured very strongly - The US Navy's railgun is riddled with industrial-strength bolts - But I believe barrel maintenance is cheaper than plane maintenance. Plus, the US Navy has had several ships built in the past decade or so. Independence-class LCS is one, though I admit it's pretty darn small compared to a battleship. Also, I recall seeing a new supercarrier in design stage. Ronald Reagan-class, was it?

[Galla-]

railguns

Replacing the barrel every shot, guns even more expensive than regular ones given their power requirements and the whole new ship needed to be built because you can't just keep that Cold War relic in service anymore.

Believe it or not, railguns won't issue in an age of a new battleship.

They have railguns that can fire multiple shots fine.

Large calibre guns are still useful for NFS missions, but that's about it.

Almost not worth the cost of keeping big gun battleships around.

railguns

If anything would serve to improve small guns like 5-6", not 16" battleship guns.

[Grand Britannia]

Replacing the barrel every shot, guns even more expensive than regular ones given their power requirements and the whole new ship needed to be built because you can't just keep that Cold War relic in service anymore.

Believe it or not, railguns won't issue in an age of a new battleship.

A single railgun-equipped battleship could do force projection a lot cheaper than a supercarrier could. As planes age, the maintenance hours go up incredibly(I remember hearing at the time the Tomcat was phased out, it needed 50 hours of maintenance for every flight hour). The guns do indeed need to be secured very strongly - The US Navy's railgun is riddled with industrial-strength bolts - But I believe barrel maintenance is cheaper than plane maintenance. Plus, the US Navy has had several ships built in the past decade or so. Independence-class LCS is one, though I admit it's pretty darn small compared to a battleship. Also, I recall seeing a new supercarrier in design stage. Ronald Reagan-class, was it?

I'm pretty sure you mean Gerard R Ford-Class.

[Discordant Schism]

A single railgun-equipped battleship could do force projection a lot cheaper than a supercarrier could. As planes age, the maintenance hours go up incredibly(I remember hearing at the time the Tomcat was phased out, it needed 50 hours of maintenance for every flight hour). The guns do indeed need to be secured very strongly - The US Navy's railgun is riddled with industrial-strength bolts - But I believe barrel maintenance is cheaper than plane maintenance. Plus, the US Navy has had several ships built in the past decade or so. Independence-class LCS is one, though I admit it's pretty darn small compared to a battleship. Also, I recall seeing a new supercarrier in design stage. Ronald Reagan-class, was it?

I'm pretty sure you mean Gerard R Ford-Class.

That's it.

[The Kievan People]

Believe it or not, railguns won't issue in an age of a new battleship.

No it will usher in a new age of destroyers with railguns.

[The Akasha Colony]

Replacing the barrel every shot, guns even more expensive than regular ones given their power requirements and the whole new ship needed to be built because you can't just keep that Cold War relic in service anymore.

Believe it or not, railguns won't issue in an age of a new battleship.

A single railgun-equipped battleship could do force projection a lot cheaper than a supercarrier could. As planes age, the maintenance hours go up incredibly(I remember hearing at the time the Tomcat was phased out, it needed 50 hours of maintenance for every flight hour). The guns do indeed need to be secured very strongly - The US Navy's railgun is riddled with industrial-strength bolts - But I believe barrel maintenance is cheaper than plane maintenance. Plus, the US Navy has had several ships built in the past decade or so. Independence-class LCS is one, though I admit it's pretty darn small compared to a battleship. Also, I recall seeing a new supercarrier in design stage. Ronald Reagan-class, was it?

Railguns won't herald the end of aircraft carriers, no more so than cruise missiles and long-range SAMs have.



On the note of battleships, I suppose I'll post one for use in a WWII-era PT thread. I posted it before in the lineart thread, but changed and improved the secondary anti-aircraft armament.

Q-class Schlachtschiff

Stat block:

Service History: [Not in commission]
Preceded By: Szent Istvan-class
Length: 295.5 meters / 303.45 meters
Beam: 36.50 meters / 38 meters
Draft: 11.30 meters / 11.77 meters
Displacement: 74,257 tonnes; 78,087 tonnes
Propulsion: 24 x MAN double-acting 2-stroke 9-cylinder diesels; 12 x MAN turbo-generators; 4 x shafts driving two 4-bladed propellers and two 5-bladed propellers; 254,500 shaft horsepower
Speed: 33.02 knots estimated
Range: 10,000 nautical miles at 16 knots
Complement: 2,500 crew
Armament:
-12 x 42 cm/52 SK C/42 naval rifles in Drh-L C/44 four-gun turrets (3 x 4)
-30 x 12.8 cm/61 SK C/41 DP naval rifles in Dop L C/43 twin-turrets (15 x 2)
-58 x 5.5 cm/77 SK C/42 naval rifles in LM/44 twin open mounts (29 x 2)
-94 x 2.0 cm naval rifles in Vierling C 38/43 quad mounts and Flak L/30 single mounts (20 x 4, 14 x 1)
Fire Control and Radar:
    -3 x GEMA FuMO 27 Seetakt surface-search/fire-control sets + 10.5 m Zeiss stereoscopic optical rangefinders (bridge tower, main tower, aft superstructure)
    -1 x FuMO 30 Hohentwiel surface-search radar (foremast yardarm)
    -1 x FuMO 81 Berlin-S volume-search radar (foremast top)
-2 x FuMO 212 Würzburg-C gun-laying radar + 3D stabilized AA fire director (abaft after superstructure)
    -2 x 3D stabilized AA fire director (abaft main tower)
    -1 x FuMB 4 Sumatra passive radar antenna (main tower)
-3 x 10.5 m Zeiss stereoscopic optical rangefinders (main turrets)
Armor:
-Belt: 410 mm internal side belt, inclined inward @ 20 degrees
-Deck: 210 mm main deck
-Conning Tower: 110 mm sides
-Main Turrets: 570 mm faceplate, 280 mm sides and roof, 380 mm barbettes
-Secondary Battery Turrets: 45 mm front, 30 mm sides and roof
-Magazines: 100 mm armored box
-Underwater Protection: 50 mm outer torpedo bulkheads, 350 mm inner bulkheads
-Subdivision: 32 watertight compartments, 70% triple bottom
-Armor Type: Terni Cemented KC-type armor for belts, Krupp Wotan Weich for bulkheads and splinter-proofing, Krupp Wotan Starrheit for secondary battery turrets and gun shields
Aircraft carried: 2 Arado 196 with 1 double-ended catapult on fantail
Builder: Kaiserliche Werft Fiume; Kaiserliche Werft Pula

The large number of secondaries is due to her wartime design, which pushed every historical battleship's AA complement up. The engines are still being worked on but I suspect they will be changed to 16 MAN 24-cylinder 24VZu42/58 engines, with eight generators, from the current 24 9-cylinder diesels. And I am aware of the depth restrictions historically faced by German battleships.

Design started in late 1943, a primary requirement being the ability to reuse equipment, particularly guns, manufactured for a previously-cancelled battleship, the S-class. Design completion date is somewhere in 1944, with laying down in that same year.

[Mikoyan-Guryevich]

Replacing the barrel every shot, guns even more expensive than regular ones given their power requirements and the whole new ship needed to be built because you can't just keep that Cold War relic in service anymore.

Believe it or not, railguns won't issue in an age of a new battleship.

A single railgun-equipped battleship could do force projection a lot cheaper than a supercarrier could. As planes age, the maintenance hours go up incredibly(I remember hearing at the time the Tomcat was phased out, it needed 50 hours of maintenance for every flight hour). The guns do indeed need to be secured very strongly - The US Navy's railgun is riddled with industrial-strength bolts - But I believe barrel maintenance is cheaper than plane maintenance. Plus, the US Navy has had several ships built in the past decade or so. Independence-class LCS is one, though I admit it's pretty darn small compared to a battleship. Also, I recall seeing a new supercarrier in design stage. Ronald Reagan-class, was it?

I think you'll find the type of force that is projected by a battleship is quite different to that projected by the aircraft carrier, I'm suprised nobody pointed this out. An aircraft carrier is a far more useful tool at performing expeditionary warfare than what a battleship is, no amount of railguns on earth will change this.

That said, naval applications are one of the few areas where railguns have the potential to outperform conventionally fired munitions.

[San-Silvacian]

Replacing the barrel every shot, guns even more expensive than regular ones given their power requirements and the whole new ship needed to be built because you can't just keep that Cold War relic in service anymore.

Believe it or not, railguns won't issue in an age of a new battleship.

A single railgun-equipped battleship could do force projection a lot cheaper than a supercarrier could. As planes age, the maintenance hours go up incredibly(I remember hearing at the time the Tomcat was phased out, it needed 50 hours of maintenance for every flight hour). The guns do indeed need to be secured very strongly - The US Navy's railgun is riddled with industrial-strength bolts - But I believe barrel maintenance is cheaper than plane maintenance. Plus, the US Navy has had several ships built in the past decade or so. Independence-class LCS is one, though I admit it's pretty darn small compared to a battleship. Also, I recall seeing a new supercarrier in design stage. Ronald Reagan-class, was it?

Since I, personally, give about this much of a shit about LOLRAILGUNSRFUTUROFMILITRYBRO, I'll say the average U.S. Navy Railgun has a range of 150 miles (Going WAY over the 40-50 miles it would most likely be).

>150 mile railgun range of shell
>5,000 mile flight range of aircraft

Then, the ships themselves.

>Carries giant, massive, expensive railguns and a few CIWs and if MAYBE a few VLS cells
>Carries 70-80 aircraft and helicopters

Then, the uses of each ship.

>DIE SLIMY COMMIE SCUM! AMHURRICA FTW!
>Able to perform extensive operations like Anti-Submarine, Search and Rescue, Air Dominance, Close Air Support, Commander and Control, Anti-Shipping, Etc. Etc. Et-fucking-c, hell an Amphibious Assault Ship does more than a Battleship.

So yeah, swallow that.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Large calibre guns are still useful for NFS missions, but that's about it.

Almost not worth the cost of keeping big gun battleships around.

railguns

Cruise missiles are better in every way, apart from their ability to be intercepted. That is the one advantage of a railgun over a cruise.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

This website looks very cool.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/i ... ml#general

[Estainia]

To interject on the BB-hating.

Me and realism; we're not friends, I had realism beaten to death and then it's mangled corpse thrown to the anti-realism wolves; in a world I hate realism, honestly.

However; I do like little tiny snippets of 'realism' in my conglomerate of anti-realism now and then so my question is thus; how long would it realistically take to bring a 10,000,000 man military force (totality, not one branch) to full operational readiness?

[San-Silvacian]

That one big-cluster-fuck war that you are either on a serious offensive fighting multiple fronts, or on a serious defensive being invaded from multiple fronts.

Or, for gits and shiggles to make that small nation next to you piss themselves.

[The Akasha Colony]

To interject on the BB-hating.

Me and realism; we're not friends, I had realism beaten to death and then it's mangled corpse thrown to the anti-realism wolves; in a world I hate realism, honestly.

However; I do like little tiny snippets of 'realism' in my conglomerate of anti-realism now and then so my question is thus; how long would it realistically take to bring a 10,000,000 man military force (totality, not one branch) to full operational readiness?

Depends on a lot of things. How many of those are active-duty? How many are reservists? Do you normally stockpile enough equipment for all of them, or do you order it when war comes for the long-term reservists? Can your depots and bases handle all of them at once? Does your nation have enough transportation capacity to move them all to their duty stations? Is your nation large enough to be able to pull that many men away quickly without leading to total economic collapse?

You're looking at something along the lines of months at the very least, if not at a year or more, to get that many men moved, barracked, and properly integrated. Unless you're one of those modern-day Sparta nations for whom all of society serves the military, which is ready to launch a Desert Storm if a foreign border guard so much as sneezes in their direction.

[San-Silvacian]

I made this ship. It's designed to really spoil any beach walker's day.
What do y'all think?
(Image)

I'm no idiot, but I'd suggest giving the proper credits to the many Shipbuckkket authors that you ripped off before people complain about plagiarism.

Also, tbf, I just need to drop a decently sized bomb on top of it and it will go boom. Not very special, just screams "HEY! HEY FUCKERS! FIRE YOUR MISSILES HERE ON THIS GIANT FUCKING SHIP THAT COSTS MORE THAN 20 NORMAL CARRIERS THAT COULD DO MUCH MUCH MORE!"

[Immoren]

81mm @ company weapons? Seems a bit heavy. Then again, I pack 60mm commandos @ platoon. >:

Because 60mm mortar can't cope with Finnish terrain.

I'd guess Company.
No medics per se (I think), only designated doctors and surgeons I believe. All infantry are trained in relevant first aid anyway.

No. US military disperses 6 combat medics/corpsmen, a doctor, and a physician's asst. to each battalion HQ for the battalion's aid station, which is the lowest form of medical care that doesn't involve stuffing QuikClot treated gauze into your wound and shaking you like a ragdoll.

There are combat medics, they're just usually sent out in MEVs to collect casualties and make sure they make it to the Aid Station alive. Combat lifesavers are trained to put a bandage on and apply pressure, while 68W and Corpsmen are trained to similar levels to Paramedics and do the actual lifesaving part.

Seems like Finnish army battalion has much larger number of medical personel than US one. Then again I guess that due to larger mechanization rate and bigger number of helicopters they (US) can more easily move wounded much farther behind lines.

[Discordant Schism]

Where would you post ballistic vests used?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Here, I guess.
Occasionally kit (as opposed to weapons) gets posted on the MMW thread, I typically let it slide.

[Discordant Schism]

A single railgun-equipped battleship could do force projection a lot cheaper than a supercarrier could. As planes age, the maintenance hours go up incredibly(I remember hearing at the time the Tomcat was phased out, it needed 50 hours of maintenance for every flight hour). The guns do indeed need to be secured very strongly - The US Navy's railgun is riddled with industrial-strength bolts - But I believe barrel maintenance is cheaper than plane maintenance. Plus, the US Navy has had several ships built in the past decade or so. Independence-class LCS is one, though I admit it's pretty darn small compared to a battleship. Also, I recall seeing a new supercarrier in design stage. Ronald Reagan-class, was it?

Since I, personally, give about this much of a shit about LOLRAILGUNSRFUTUROFMILITRYBRO, I'll say the average U.S. Navy Railgun has a range of 150 miles (Going WAY over the 40-50 miles it would most likely be).

>150 mile railgun range of shell
>5,000 mile flight range of aircraft

Then, the ships themselves.

>Carries giant, massive, expensive railguns and a few CIWs and if MAYBE a few VLS cells
>Carries 70-80 aircraft and helicopters

Then, the uses of each ship.

>DIE SLIMY COMMIE SCUM! AMHURRICA FTW!
>Able to perform extensive operations like Anti-Submarine, Search and Rescue, Air Dominance, Close Air Support, Commander and Control, Anti-Shipping, Etc. Etc. Et-fucking-c, hell an Amphibious Assault Ship does more than a Battleship.

So yeah, swallow that.

Expecting the average range to be 50 miles is more than a little on the conservative side. Wikipedia says a 10.5 megajoule railgun could accurately hit a target at 200 nautical miles, but BAE delivered a 32 megajoule prototype to the US Navy in 2009, and the planned weapon should be twice that. Now, I've seen wildly different reports on ranges, and I don't have enough information to make my own estimates, but railguns have several advantages over planes:
1. No warning. Even with supersonic planes and cruise missiles, radar can see them coming. At Mach 8, radar might still see it, but there would be no time to get a warning out.
2. Cost. This probably negates the railgun cost: An average 16-inch shell used by the USS Iowa costed about 1000 dollars. The newest BGM-109 costed 1.45 million; average JDAMs cost $25,000. Steel would probably be used, because it's ferrous and probably strong enough to survive the acceleration. Though that's a guess.

I don't think railgun battleships would be used. I think I remember the DDG-1000 might eventually have a railgun or two, and the Zumwalt has 80 VLS cells. Supercarriers themselves are also expensive as hell. Really, only the US Navy has the budget to operate 11 of them, and half are in drydock when the other are on deployment anyway.

>DIE SLIMY COMMIE SCUM! AMHURRICA FTW!
>Able to perform extensive operations like Anti-Submarine, Search and Rescue, Air Dominance, Close Air Support, Commander and Control, Anti-Shipping, Etc. Etc. Et-fucking-c, hell an Amphibious Assault Ship does more than a Battleship.

That's immature. Carriers and battleships exist for the exact same reason: To kill the enemy.


And battleships themselves are incredible pieces of technology with incredible power, far greater than a supercarrier, provided the enemy is in range. Back in '91, the battleships that were reactivated fired both cruise missiles and their guns: Remember these famous pictures? Plus, the Iraqis surrendered to the Missouri's UAV after one round of bombardment. 16-inch guns are unmatched absolutely when it comes to support, with a great balance in cost and hitting power. Yes, they are very limited when it comes to range. But five-inch guns just don't cut it in some cases.

None of this is going to happen tomorrow or next year. But railguns are coming: The mere existence of this proves it.

[Lubyak]

That's immature. Carriers and battleships exist for the exact same reason: To kill the enemy.

This is a MAJOR oversimplification. By that logic, tanks, artillery, pistols, rifles, pikes, swords, and pointy sticks all exist for the same reason.

Yes, they exist for killing the enemy. However the nature in which they do so is extremely difficult. It's why even a M1A1 and a T-84 are different. Yes, they kill the enemy, but the role they fulfill is extremely different.

And battleships themselves are incredible pieces of technology with incredible power, far greater than a supercarrier, provided the enemy is in range. Back in '91, the battleships that were reactivated fired both cruise missiles and their guns: Remember these famous pictures? Plus, the Iraqis surrendered to the Missouri's UAV after one round of bombardment. 16-inch guns are unmatched absolutely when it comes to support, with a great balance in cost and hitting power. Yes, they are very limited when it comes to range. But five-inch guns just don't cut it in some cases.

This is true. However, that range problem is a big enough issue that there's no reason to keep fleets of BBs around. Yes, 9 Volkswagen Bug weighted shells of high explosive can fuck you up massively, however this application is such a niche role that can be fulfilled with air support, cruise missiles and smaller guns that keeping a BB around just isn't worth it. Not to mention, the Iraqis weren't exactly reknowned for their navy or their coastal defenses.

Somehow, I think, an NS nation would have far better coastal defense.s. Enough to make it impossible to close to gun range with a BB until AFTER your aircraft have destroyed his air force/coastal defenses.

None of this is going to happen tomorrow or next year. But railguns are coming: The mere existence of this proves it.

Railguns will be devgeloped. But I disagree with you in claims that they'll become the new weapon of choice.