Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Costa Fierro]

Please inform me of how shit I am and how many levels I need to increase on.

You've got support ships, which is better than most people. I might add another tanker if I were you.

OK. What about tugs? Would I need those or will ordinary civilian tugs be fine?

[New Vihenia]

Multifunction Phased Array Radar (MPAR)
-G band
-Long range active electronically scanned array
-Air tracking up to 200 targets at 300 km
-Surface tracking up to 150 targets to 100 km
-Horizon search out to 100 km
-Highly effective EW package
-Highly resistant to counter jamming
-Allows for guidance of upto 64 semi-active radar homing missiles

These are personal notes, not sure if they are to much or to less for a giant AESA radar.

Horizon and surface target tracking range appears somewhat too much. It will be determined by how tall your mast and it's less than 100 Km.

[Spirit of Hope]

You've got support ships, which is better than most people. I might add another tanker if I were you.

OK. What about tugs? Would I need those or will ordinary civilian tugs be fine?

You would probably have a small number of tugs but civilian tugs would work for the most part (so long as you do a back ground check). Whatever tugs you use would be for classified or clandestine operations/ships where you couldn't trust a civilian tug.

[Zeinbrad]

The East Europan Autocratic State Navy during the Not!Crimea War. Note, Europa was more advanced then Earth, at least during the 1800's

Pallada-class cruiser
Svetlana-class cruiser
Borodino-class battlecruiser
Gangut-class battleship
Russian cruiser Rossia
Russian destroyer Novik (1911)
Ekaterina II-class battleship
Russian submarine Delfin (One of, if not the first submarine to ever sink a ship)

[Triplebaconation]

And yet every surface warship ever built (with the exception of Enterprise) has had two reactors instead of a single giant one.

A larger reactor means a higher center of gravity (and less righting moment), a larger hole in the strength deck, etc, etc.

"Every surface warship ever built," apart from aircraft carriers is not a very large selection of ships, and those in that selection come from also come from the era when we thought that having eight reactors on a carrier was a good idea (save for the Kirov, icebreakers, and a couple of other ships). Aircraft carriers do it for the obvious necessity of redundancy and their sheer size, and the Russians were so worried about redundancy they added additional boilers.
On the contrary, prospective CGN designs like the scrubbed CGN(X) proposals had their most promising designs using a single A1B plant, or at least a cut-down one.

More reactors also means more weight, more people, more complexity, more maintenance, more downtime, more repairs, more difficult logistics, higher costs...
And it really doesn't increase center of gravity by much at all.

Please inform me of how shit I am and how many levels I need to increase on.

You've got support ships, which is better than most people. I might add another tanker if I were you.

The A1B reactor required a 21,000 ton ship.

[Costa Fierro]

OK. What about tugs? Would I need those or will ordinary civilian tugs be fine?

You would probably have a small number of tugs but civilian tugs would work for the most part (so long as you do a back ground check). Whatever tugs you use would be for classified or clandestine operations/ships where you couldn't trust a civilian tug.

They're just assisting naval vessels when they berth. It's not like I'm going to use them for special operations missions or anything.

[Pharthan]

"Every surface warship ever built," apart from aircraft carriers is not a very large selection of ships, and those in that selection come from also come from the era when we thought that having eight reactors on a carrier was a good idea (save for the Kirov, icebreakers, and a couple of other ships). Aircraft carriers do it for the obvious necessity of redundancy and their sheer size, and the Russians were so worried about redundancy they added additional boilers.
On the contrary, prospective CGN designs like the scrubbed CGN(X) proposals had their most promising designs using a single A1B plant, or at least a cut-down one.

More reactors also means more weight, more people, more complexity, more maintenance, more downtime, more repairs, more difficult logistics, higher costs...
And it really doesn't increase center of gravity by much at all.

You've got support ships, which is better than most people. I might add another tanker if I were you.

The A1B reactor required a 21,000 ton ship.

Hence the "cut down" bit.

[Triplebaconation]

That was the cut-down option.

[Spirit of Hope]

You would probably have a small number of tugs but civilian tugs would work for the most part (so long as you do a back ground check). Whatever tugs you use would be for classified or clandestine operations/ships where you couldn't trust a civilian tug.

They're just assisting naval vessels when they berth. It's not like I'm going to use them for special operations missions or anything.

But what if you have a classified ship, or want to try and move a ship without your enemy knowing about it, or a ship has to enter a restricted part of the harbor? As I said you might want a small number of tugs for yourself, not enough for all operations but for the occasional operation where you need to maintain secrecy.

[Pharthan]

That was the cut-down option.

Going to try to check my sources again on that one...
... It's been remarkably hard to find on the internet.

I know size isn't an issue. It's actually a better fit for such a role than the A4W, on that count.

You've got support ships, which is better than most people. I might add another tanker if I were you.

OK. What about tugs? Would I need those or will ordinary civilian tugs be fine?

They'd be government contracted, but wouldn't be Navy. Or you could just use civilian tugs.

[Costa Fierro]

They'd be government contracted, but wouldn't be Navy. Or you could just use civilian tugs.

I was planning on doing the latter.

[Lyras]

For Realism!
A Guide to Reactor Plant Design. More or less a guide to picking which nuclear reactor you want to use for your naval vessels, more than anything.

Imperializt Russia was the only one I recall caring, but whatevs. Maybe someone else will like it.

Cheers for this. Useful.

[The Soodean Imperium]

I can into 200 meter long frigate?

Here are the missiles that aren't IRL.

Name: Malafon II
Type: Standoff anti-submarine weapon system
Weight: 400 kg
Length: 5 m
Diameter: 324 mm
Warhead: 50 kg shaped-charge (NTL-90)
Engine: Aluminum-silver oxide battery
Wingspan: 550 mm
Operational range: 30 km
Speed: rly fast I guess
Guidance system: Inertial guidance

Name: R.750C
Type: Medium range surface to air missile
Weight: 450 kg
Length: 6 m
Diameter: 350 mm
Warhead: 75 kg HE-Frag
Engine: Liquid fuel rocket
Wingspan: 650 mm
Operational range: 120 km
Speed: Up to Mach 3.5
Guidance system: On board ship targeting, semi-active homing

Name: ASMP-ESP
Type: Nuclear cruise missile
Weight: 1,450 kg
Length: 6.5 m
Diameter: 480 mm
Warhead: TN 90 nuclear warhead (150/300 kt variable yield)
Engine: TRI 60-30 turbojet
Wingspan: 2.85 m
Operational range: 1,000 km
Speed: 800 km/h
Guidance system: Inertial, GPS, and TERPROM. Terminal guidance using imaging infared

Name: R.800
Type: Ballistic missile defense
Weight: 1,750 kg
Length: 7 m
Diameter: 350 mm
Warhead: Kinetic warhead
Engine: 3 stage solid fuel
Wingspan: 160 mm
Operational range: 1,000 km
Speed: Up to 4.5 km/s
Guidance system: GPS, INS, semi-active radar homing, passive LWIR seeker

Also,

Multifunction Phased Array Radar (MPAR)
-G band
-Long range active electronically scanned array
-Air tracking up to 200 targets at 300 km
-Surface tracking up to 150 targets to 100 km
-Horizon search out to 100 km
-Highly effective EW package
-Highly resistant to counter jamming
-Allows for guidance of upto 64 semi-active radar homing missiles

These are personal notes, not sure if they are to much or to less for a giant AESA radar.

New Vihenia's right: Surface tracking for radar is determined by the distance to the horizon, not the power of the radar. Assuming this is in Shipbucket scale, the AESA radar is roughly 170 px = 85 ft = 25 m above the waterline, so you won't detect another 25 m tall surface target until it's under 40 km away... and even less than that for a smaller surface target. I recommend you play around with this nifty little website when finding radar horizon distance, it's saved me a lot of time and trouble.

Also,

A digital drawling of the La Galissonnière-class

^ you may want to fix this.

[San-Silvacian]

These are personal notes, not sure if they are to much or to less for a giant AESA radar.

New Vihenia's right: Surface tracking for radar is determined by the distance to the horizon, not the power of the radar. Assuming this is in Shipbucket scale, the AESA radar is roughly 170 px = 85 ft = 25 m above the waterline, so you won't detect another 25 m tall surface target until it's under 40 km away... and even less than that for a smaller surface target. I recommend you play around with this nifty little website when finding radar horizon distance, it's saved me a lot of time and trouble.[/quote]

Alright, however by this calculator, some of the larger surface ships can't track anything over 50km.

Anything over 50km for most ships begins to make them rather hilariously tall.

Also,

A digital drawling of the La Galissonnière-class

^ you may want to fix this.

Why.

[The Soodean Imperium]

New Vihenia's right: Surface tracking for radar is determined by the distance to the horizon, not the power of the radar. Assuming this is in Shipbucket scale, the AESA radar is roughly 170 px = 85 ft = 25 m above the waterline, so you won't detect another 25 m tall surface target until it's under 40 km away... and even less than that for a smaller surface target. I recommend you play around with this nifty little website when finding radar horizon distance, it's saved me a lot of time and trouble.

Alright, however by this calculator, some of the larger surface ships can't track anything over 50km.

Anything over 50km for most ships begins to make them rather hilariously tall.

Exactly. This is why AEW&C/AWACS is so important, and why sea-skimming supersonic AShMs are so dangerous. No matter how powerful your radar is, you're not going to "see through" the curvature of the earth (OTH radar aside).

Also,
^ you may want to fix this.

Why.

"Digital drawing" evokes a well-done piece of lineart like yours.

"Digital drawling" evokes Stephen Hawking with a Texan accent.

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

I would be greatly honored if those in the possession of substantially more knowledge than me were willing to look over and correct my faults and failings regarding the text I had created for my navy's destroyer. It would arrive in the equivalent of sometime circa 1990, and is supposed to be a multi-purpose, nuclear powered destroyer intended primarily for the air defense role. Eventually it is also supposed to serve as the base for a later upgrade which would be designated the Model 75 class, which is slightly larger and with a lot of modifications to systems. I apologize deeply for the lack of any photo or visual illustrations, since I'm not up to the standards of properly drawing anything passable.

No need for variable pitch.

Why three guns?

Variable pitch is a mistake now that I look back over it. I had adopted it from the La Fayette-class, but now realize that I don't at all need it. It would be for, if I assume correctly, fuel efficiency, which isn't something I need. Or at least that is what I recall from reading of U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History. They had said in there that there had been a consideration of adoption of variable pitch propellors, when there was the major issue over increasing range so our fleet could get into the Caribbean from our rather distance bases in the North East and West Coast. Or at least that is what I recall, maybe I'm not remembering it correctly. I'll remove it then.

I was including the three guns as an expanded range CIWS system. I had liked the Horizon-class frigates that France and Italy built, and they both had the 76mm gun systems for them, two in the case of the French and three in the case of the Italians. While I understood that the Italians would have details outside of their air defense role for having gun systems (Their naval ships seem to have a larger number of naval artillery pieces than that of other fleets, more 76mms, but that would make sense in the enclosed waters they operate in and since they use them as CIWS as well) I still thought it was applicable to an extent. So I was planning to have my 76mm gun systems equipped with the equivalent of their DART rounds, and they would have the appropriate fire control as well. I'm fine removing the third one, but is it necessary to get rid of the second? I liked the arrangement of them on the Horizon-class in the front a rather lot. Although I guess having them there would probably have a disproportionate effect on the space available for the missile systems, since VLS has to be mounted in the center, although the USN does have their new PVLS on the new Zumwalts, but of course I could not have that in the 1990s.

I would be greatly honored if those in the possession of substantially more knowledge than me were willing to look over and correct my faults and failings regarding the text I had created for my navy's destroyer. It would arrive in the equivalent of sometime circa 1990, and is supposed to be a multi-purpose, nuclear powered destroyer intended primarily for the air defense role. Eventually it is also supposed to serve as the base for a later upgrade which would be designated the Model 75 class, which is slightly larger and with a lot of modifications to systems. I apologize deeply for the lack of any photo or visual illustrations, since I'm not up to the standards of properly drawing anything passable.

Go from two reactors to one twice as powerful. You'll save on space, weight, complexity, and at least 40 or so crew. Heck, you could cancel out the space saved and go for one more than twice as powerful. You could almost put a carrier core in there. You might be able to if you made it as tight as plants are on a sub.
The redundancy is more necessary for carriers. Not so much for smallboys. Carriers rely on their speed to be able to launch and recover aircraft, so have no reactors running can mean death even in everyday ops.

Drop the second and third 76mm and go for more missiles.

I'll do that with the reactors, as you point out I might be able to get an aircraft carrier core in there. I know that I have two aircraft carriers of relatively modest proportions that would be in service at the time of the Model 70-class arriving - 40,000 ton equivalent ships and 75,000 ton equivalent ships. The reasoning behind this is that initially the idea for the aircraft carriers was as just fielding multi-purpose fighters of relatively small size for air defense purposes, and AEW&C aircraft, with only modest strike capability requiring larger aircraft. 40,000 ton units were mostly supposed to serve as anti-submarine warfare carriers as well to an extent; when I eventually re-do my nation's geography away from the cliche earth set up, there were going to be much more substantial island geography that shipping lanes would have to go an extensive distance to. Which is why the Navy has such an emphasis on anti-submarine warfare. They can launch fighters and the like of course as well(They'd have to, if we just wanted rotary wing anti-submarine warfare assets we wouldn't need a 40,000 ton ship), they're large enough for that, but the 75,000 tonners were the first ships that really came around being designed as the equivalent of super-carriers, with capability to carry the full array of fighters that would be in service, with them coming in in the rough area as the doctrinal changes from carriers just being escort platforms to being the principal strike units of the fleet arriving. But besides that, they'd both logically have adopted a two-reactor system(They both came in post the 1950s era when there was experimentation with more reactors, and they'd have received help in the design phase from allies who knew what they were doing), and so there should be one reactor in the ballpark of the necessary power levels needed for the destroyer. There was also an abortive nuclear powered missile battleship proposal which a design firm proposed on a whim and that the navy had to pretend to be interested in due to Assembly connections in the... 3750s and 3760s I think it was, that eventually was transformed over into a nuclear powered command and control ship. It went through a bunch of design revisions and didn't arrive until about 3780, nearly a decade after the Model 70s, but that was mostly due to continual reversions in the sensors it would be equipped with, while the hull and nuclear power plant didn't see those continual changes and were finished much earlier. If the carriers don't have the equivalent of reactor type, those ships should. Of course there would have been an attempt to standardize between all of these classes, so they'd probably share at least one reactor system.

What power level of reactor do you recommend for the it thought? I had been somewhat basing the nuclear reactors to an extent off of the last US nuclear cruisers in service, which had D2G reactors, but obviously there are major differences with an entirely different transmission system, different power requirements, and different design priorities stemming from adopting the same type as the aircraft carrier. While since they're taken from the air craft carrier they wouldn't have been designed for this ship in particular, it would be nice to know if there is a general power range I should aim for on this ship.

[San-Silvacian]

Anything over 50km for most ships begins to make them rather hilariously tall.

Exactly. This is why AEW&C/AWACS is so important, and why sea-skimming supersonic AShMs are so dangerous. No matter how powerful your radar is, you're not going to "see through" the curvature of the earth (OTH radar aside).[/quote]

I already knew that its pretty much AWACS or die in regards to naval warfare, however does this mean that two groups of warships without the support of a carrier are pretty much going to be wondering around, trying to find each other until they get within 50>km of each other?

[The Soodean Imperium]

Exactly. This is why AEW&C/AWACS is so important, and why sea-skimming supersonic AShMs are so dangerous. No matter how powerful your radar is, you're not going to "see through" the curvature of the earth (OTH radar aside).

I already knew that its pretty much AWACS or die in regards to naval warfare, however does this mean that two groups of warships without the support of a carrier are pretty much going to be wondering around, trying to find each other until they get within 50>km of each other?

Ship-based helicopters, even if they're just "scanning in the visible light range," can extend that distance considerably. Some militaries, including the Soviet Navy, developed specialized AEW helicopters to act as stand-in AWACS for non-carrier fleets.

There was also a discussion on SIGINT, ELINT, radio silence, and radar silence on the Military Realism thread a few pages back; that might be worth looking into.

I was including the three guns as an expanded range CIWS system. I had liked the Horizon-class frigates that France and Italy built, and they both had the 76mm gun systems for them, two in the case of the French and three in the case of the Italians. While I understood that the Italians would have details outside of their air defense role for having gun systems (Their naval ships seem to have a larger number of naval artillery pieces than that of other fleets, more 76mms, but that would make sense in the enclosed waters they operate in and since they use them as CIWS as well) I still thought it was applicable to an extent. So I was planning to have my 76mm gun systems equipped with the equivalent of their DART rounds, and they would have the appropriate fire control as well. I'm fine removing the third one, but is it necessary to get rid of the second? I liked the arrangement of them on the Horizon-class in the front a rather lot. Although I guess having them there would probably have a disproportionate effect on the space available for the missile systems, since VLS has to be mounted in the center, although the USN does have their new PVLS on the new Zumwalts, but of course I could not have that in the 1990s.

As far as guns go, it's worth asking what kinds of enemies you see Manchukuo's navy going up against. South Korea, for example, appears to have a lot of gun-heavy frigates; but any war on the Korean peninsula would see them mostly bombarding shore targets and tearing through waves of obsolete fast attack craft.

If you're looking at a conventional war with a parity opponent on the open seas, however, guns are much less useful. The Italian 76mm is a powerful and accurate CIWS gun, but it's still a CIWS gun - your last line of defense. For the anti-air and anti-missile roles, you're much better off using intermediate-range SAMs.

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

I was including the three guns as an expanded range CIWS system. I had liked the Horizon-class frigates that France and Italy built, and they both had the 76mm gun systems for them, two in the case of the French and three in the case of the Italians. While I understood that the Italians would have details outside of their air defense role for having gun systems (Their naval ships seem to have a larger number of naval artillery pieces than that of other fleets, more 76mms, but that would make sense in the enclosed waters they operate in and since they use them as CIWS as well) I still thought it was applicable to an extent. So I was planning to have my 76mm gun systems equipped with the equivalent of their DART rounds, and they would have the appropriate fire control as well. I'm fine removing the third one, but is it necessary to get rid of the second? I liked the arrangement of them on the Horizon-class in the front a rather lot. Although I guess having them there would probably have a disproportionate effect on the space available for the missile systems, since VLS has to be mounted in the center, although the USN does have their new PVLS on the new Zumwalts, but of course I could not have that in the 1990s.

As far as guns go, it's worth asking what kinds of enemies you see Manchukuo's navy going up against. South Korea, for example, appears to have a lot of gun-heavy frigates; but any war on the Korean peninsula would see them mostly bombarding shore targets and tearing through waves of obsolete fast attack craft.

If you're looking at a conventional war with a parity opponent on the open seas, however, guns are much less useful. The Italian 76mm is a powerful and accurate CIWS gun, but it's still a CIWS gun - your last line of defense. For the anti-air and anti-missile roles, you're much better off using intermediate-range SAMs.

Point taken. I used to try to fit a lot more guns onboard, with the first planning I had for my corvettes being for having four 76mm gun systems, and with my destroyers having 2 127mm guns, which are even less useful than the 76mms. That was to be fair a while back, I had started on my navy first then, then switched over to my army and forces of the air. I'll reduce down to 1 like suggested, but I don't think I'll add in anything extra. While I've tried to stay as much in line with the weapon systems used by other navies on similar displacements, I'm still worried that I'm over-gunning (Over-missileering would be a better term nowadays I suppose) the ships. Only having a single 76mm gun system would cut down on weight by a tad and make me more comfortable regarding them. As well as having a bit extra displacement if for some reason I need to add anything in the future.

[edit]Also didn't help that when I initially designed my navy I had had the misfortune of happening upon sites advertising that battleships were still a good idea and thinking their suggestions were legit and the gun range proposed was serious, but thats a story for another time.

[The Soodean Imperium]

As far as guns go, it's worth asking what kinds of enemies you see Manchukuo's navy going up against. South Korea, for example, appears to have a lot of gun-heavy frigates; but any war on the Korean peninsula would see them mostly bombarding shore targets and tearing through waves of obsolete fast attack craft.

If you're looking at a conventional war with a parity opponent on the open seas, however, guns are much less useful. The Italian 76mm is a powerful and accurate CIWS gun, but it's still a CIWS gun - your last line of defense. For the anti-air and anti-missile roles, you're much better off using intermediate-range SAMs.

Point taken. I used to try to fit a lot more guns onboard, with the first planning I had for my corvettes being for having four 76mm gun systems, and with my destroyers having 2 127mm guns, which are even less useful than the 76mms. That was to be fair a while back, I had started on my navy first then, then switched over to my army and forces of the air. I'll reduce down to 1 like suggested, but I don't think I'll add in anything extra. While I've tried to stay as much in line with the weapon systems used by other navies on similar displacements, I'm still worried that I'm over-gunning (Over-missileering would be a better term nowadays I suppose) the ships. Only having a single 76mm gun system would cut down on weight by a tad and make me more comfortable regarding them. As well as having a bit extra displacement if for some reason I need to add anything in the future.

I used to have a big problem with over-arming (?) my ships a year ago when I started on NS. The key is to remember that in addition to weapons, you need room for ammo storage, engines, radars, crew accommodations, fuel, etc, etc, etc. In simple terms, just because there's room for a new weapon on the outside doesn't mean there's room on the inside for the internal systems that need to support it. It's also good to see that you're looking at other ships in the same class and seeing what features they have, this is a good place to start.

And as always, think about the most likely tasks your national security situation will put these ships into. If you plan to mostly be fighting pirates and bombarding shore targets in coastal waters and inland seas, then a focus on guns is fine.

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

Point taken. I used to try to fit a lot more guns onboard, with the first planning I had for my corvettes being for having four 76mm gun systems, and with my destroyers having 2 127mm guns, which are even less useful than the 76mms. That was to be fair a while back, I had started on my navy first then, then switched over to my army and forces of the air. I'll reduce down to 1 like suggested, but I don't think I'll add in anything extra. While I've tried to stay as much in line with the weapon systems used by other navies on similar displacements, I'm still worried that I'm over-gunning (Over-missileering would be a better term nowadays I suppose) the ships. Only having a single 76mm gun system would cut down on weight by a tad and make me more comfortable regarding them. As well as having a bit extra displacement if for some reason I need to add anything in the future.

I used to have a big problem with over-arming (?) my ships a year ago when I started on NS. The key is to remember that in addition to weapons, you need room for ammo storage, engines, radars, crew accommodations, fuel, etc, etc, etc. In simple terms, just because there's room for a new weapon on the outside doesn't mean there's room on the inside for the internal systems that need to support it. It's also good to see that you're looking at other ships in the same class and seeing what features they have, this is a good place to start.

And as always, think about the most likely tasks your national security situation will put these ships into. If you plan to mostly be fighting pirates and bombarding shore targets in coastal waters and inland seas, then a focus on guns is fine.

Spoilered because I noticed my response was too long.

Thats been the primary reason behind me redesigning my ships. When I initially built them, I hadn't payed enough attention to the doctrines and situation I had devised and was theoretically designing my ships to match. At the same time, I hadn't put enough focus on the various sensors and I hadn't clarified to an appropriate extent their missiles, rather than just the systems themselves. Although I had worked out a doctrine for my ships, which was initially a navy focused on surface to surface warfare conducted by surface ships, the ships in many cases were contrary to the actual design role given to them. To go back to that corvette again, it was supposed to be a multi-purpose unit focusing on anti-submarine warfare, escorting, littoral combat, and light air defense, at a low cost and displacement. But despite that I had it at 3,000 tons, armed with too many cannons, and with little emphasis on the sensor systems given to it. This can be partially explained away by my then belief that the 76mm guns would make good defensive armament and still useful against other vessels, and the relative disinterest in sensor systems specifics I previously had, but it was still clearly an inferior set up for a ship supposed to be designed to follow in the roles provided for it. There were similar ships in other categories, air defense ships of unreasonably large size equipped with missile systems that were mostly intended for usage against surface ships, assault ships which were designed mostly to be light carriers which didn't emphasize the aviation role to enough, and worst of all a submarine that was 30,000+ tons and was intended as a cruise missile carrier.

So now I'm trying to go back and revise most of my previous designs, incorporating better the actual weapons systems I designed for them, and their sensors. It isn't as bad as it was entirely made out - the cruise missile carrying submarine for example, stemmed from the initial idea that my nation wouldn't have nuclear weapons, for various reasons, although its excessive size would still be a major obstacle to its usage. I'm also trying to cut down on the number of warships my nation would have fielded of different classes - there is no reason for example, to have a 36,000 ton surface warship in the modern age, much less to have a 24,000 ton ship to operate alongside it as an air defense ship. As well as focusing on continuing the revision of doctrine to a more sensible carrier aviation fleet.

The entire navy is supposed to be built to a similar logic that the Model 70 got built to. Initially (As in historically by what I've now decided is the history of the armed forces, not as I planned it chronologically) the plan was to just have a fleet for anti-submarine warfare, with the vast majority of the denial of sea space capabilities stemming instead from land based anti-ship missiles, diesel-electric submarines, fast attack craft, and naval aviation. But during the 3760s it was realized that we needed a fleet capable of at least providing the appearance of power projection capabilities, so that potential enemies had to divert at least a portion of their fleet to making sure that we didn't attack them while the majority of their fleets were off dealing with the allies we have on the other side of the globe. At the same time though, while those power projection capabilities would be very real, the main emphasis in what was realistically expected was that the ships would be operating as a fleet in being, and in of course that anti-submarine warfare role. A perfect example of that is the amphibious assault ship classes- they're going to be entirely workable amphibious assault ships, but their main focus is going to be as helicopter carriers and for operating VSTOL aircraft off their decks, instead of ferrying invasion fleets to enemy shores. While not all of the ships have that same easy switch over available for them, the majority of ships are going to be geared for similarish type ideals. Which is also a major reason for why I eventually realized, me as in my shaping of the armed forces instead of their historical development, that using carrier fleets would be ultimately a better idea for my nation. Sure having the surface to surface warships would be a good idea for them if they were just on the defensive, without any actual offensive priorities and with land aviation cover, but the carriers do a great job of combing the two. I can use my carriers to provide fleet air defense, and at long range against bombers carrying anti-ship missiles that otherwise my ships would be extremely challenged in, for anti-submarine warfare, for anti-surface warfare with aircraft equipped with our own long ranged anti-ship missiles, and they work perfectly fine in the defense in supplementing the land based aviation force that was initially expected to do the majority of the work, and in the offense in providing the needed force projection. Which to get back to my original idea, is the reasoning behind the fleet redesign, to both patch up the marginal combat capabilities they originally were in possession of, and to focus on adapting into the new doctrine and role I'm assigning them.

Also, do you know what sort of size I could reasonably get away with for a ship to carry an OTHR system? The reason for this is that I do have OTHR land based systems, but I believe my nation wouldn't be happy with them, since of course they would be immobile and thus have inferior defensive capabilities. We would want some sort of back up system, less capable perhaps, and mounting a mobile oceanic counterpart would be a good idea. I was planning to use them on my mobile sensor ships that I mentioned earlier, the equivalent of 60,000 tons, but I am not sure if that is an adequate size for an OTHR unit. I can scrap that idea easily enough, if it isn't technically feasible.

[Gallia-]

Please inform me of how shit I am and how many levels I need to increase on.

no harriers what a shit navy

looks good

edit: get rid of sa'ar v replace it with visby or something

fremm and cassard are fine

[Costa Fierro]

Please inform me of how shit I am and how many levels I need to increase on.

no harriers what a shit navy

looks good

edit: get rid of sa'ar v replace it with visby or something

fremm and cassard are fine

Haven't included the aircraft yet. There's 12 Harriers aboard both carriers. And what's wrong with Sa'ar?

[Gallia-]

no harriers what a shit navy

looks good

edit: get rid of sa'ar v replace it with visby or something

fremm and cassard are fine

Haven't included the aircraft yet. There's 12 Harriers aboard both carriers. And what's wrong with Sa'ar?

Besides it being literally a floating arms warehouse? There's a reason no other navy in the entire world uses Sa'ar V style super corvettes, and it isn't because there was a shortage of targets (bear in mind all corvettes today in the West were built to fight the Red Navy). The thing would tip over if you sat a hair dryer next to it.

It's just overloaded and a really poor design.

Even Sa'ar 4.5 takes away half the armament.

Something like Visby or Hamina class does the same thing, but much better and can withstand storms and stuff without capsizing.

[Costa Fierro]

Besides it being literally a floating arms warehouse? There's a reason no other navy in the entire world uses Sa'ar V style super corvettes, and it isn't because there was a shortage of targets (bear in mind all corvettes today in the West were built to fight the Red Navy). The thing would tip over if you sat a hair dryer next to it.

It's just overloaded and a really poor design.

Even Sa'ar 4.5 takes away half the armament.

Something like Visby or Hamina class does the same thing, but much better and can withstand storms and stuff without capsizing.

I didn't realize that. I'll look at investing in something else.