Your Nations Warships, MKII

by **Axis Nova** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 5:01 am

Post War America wrote:Well I'm hung up on whether or not its actually physically possible...

If its not then I don't think the idea is cool enough to warrant handwaving. If it is then I'd have a valid choice. After that the choice comes down to what combination is best for mounting a nuclear warhead and also provides the optimum reaction time for interception.

As stated above, the main issue with hypersonic anything is the IR signature. The faster you go, the more atmospheric friction you have, and the greater your IR signature.

by **Axis Nova** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 5:19 am

Not very. Hovercraft, by nature, have terrible acceleration and are extremely vulnerable to damage.

by **Axis Nova** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:18 pm

Should be noted that the fast attack boat thing was tried by the Iranians before and it ended up with them being hilariously curb stomped. Admittedly that was quite a while ago, though.

by **Axis Nova** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:09 am

Battlecarriers are objectively shit. Don't build them, don't use them.

by **Axis Nova** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:54 am

New Oyashima wrote:
Axis Nova wrote:Battlecarriers are objectively shit. Don't build them, don't use them.

*Aviation Battleship

Get the name right, scrub.

I don't care what the nerd-approved name in this thread is. They're still a terrible idea both in theory and in practice.

by **Axis Nova** » Mon May 18, 2015 4:49 pm

Not having terrible damage control would be a good start.

by **Axis Nova** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 3:58 pm

How do you prevent recoil from tearing that entire top turret off of the hull the first time it fires?

by **Axis Nova** » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:13 am

While we're on the subject of space warships, I maintain a number of PMT vessels (invariably using fusion torches for their primary drive system), but their primary purpose is mostly supporting drop operations or providing space to surface bombardment. I havn't really thought too much about their design other than they'd be incredibly ugly, since they'd be built and operated entirely in space.

by **Axis Nova** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:46 pm

I should go back and try to make that fusion powered hydrofoil battleship idea work some time, if only to make people's brains break.

(also everything else on the ship itself from the vibration)

by **Axis Nova** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:22 am

What limitations, if any, are there on the size of a hydrofoil?

by **Axis Nova** » Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:20 pm

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

by **Axis Nova** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 1:24 pm

I could see a jammer being included to throw off CIWS and RAM during terminal guidance, but not to make the missile entirely invisible. Personaly I am more in favor of incorporating stealth features into missiles from the get-go.

by **Axis Nova** » Fri Nov 13, 2015 11:08 am

The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:
The Kievan People wrote:Yes.

What would be an effective countermeasure for something like that?

The thought of your nation being burned to the ground by your opponent's nuclear weapons?

by **Axis Nova** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:18 pm

North Arkana wrote:*fires missiles at Coastal Defender while visibility is bad*
*keks as the laser system fails to protect the ship*

Lasers do not work the way you think they do.

by **Axis Nova** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:32 pm

It will reduce the range somewhat... assuming the laser's using a wavelength that doesn't mostly or completely ignore water. It won't make it useless by any means.

by **Axis Nova** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 9:59 pm

North Arkana wrote:
Axis Nova wrote:It will reduce the range somewhat... assuming the laser's using a wavelength that doesn't mostly or completely ignore water. It won't make it useless by any means.

The laser would need to have the range to engage incoming targets from far enough away that it has time cause sufficient damage. A shortened range will reduce it's effectiveness enough that the system will not be able to destroy multiple missiles within its now reduced range. Missile spam would not be needed, just proper allocation of resources and multiple attack angles.

That depends on the output of the laser and how many the target has. Given that in this specific instance, it's mounted on a large vessel, one could reasonably guess that it's at the higher end (5

Also, bad weather is going to make it harder for the missile to lock on as well, so it cuts both ways.

Really, there's plenty of room to criticize the concept (a battleship in 2015? really?) without making uninformed comments about lasers.

On a further note, while the military in the US is understandably rather close-mouthed about it considering their plans for a fleet-wide rollout in a decade or so, there have been tests with lasers in bad weather (the information I've found mostly concerns rain and fog in Florida specifically) and nailing stuff hasn't bene a major issue.

by **Axis Nova** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:19 pm

Just use full sized subs instead. Midget subs are no good because of their extremely limited speed, range, and payload.

by **Axis Nova** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:09 pm

Why bother? Put it on something that doesn't require a more expensive radar instead.

by **Axis Nova** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 9:59 pm

You could just build a supercarrier and not load it completely except when needed, if costs are your concern. The air wing is the expensive part anyways.

by **Aznazia** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 8:09 am

The Soodean Imperium wrote:
Valdiu wrote:You are absolutely right - absolutely none. This is my first time doing ships. Do you have any resources where I could start?

Shipbucket's forum has a guide to shipbuilding which you may find useful, from the early 20th century up to the present, for destroyers and frigates.
Unfortunately it lacks references for the distinct Soviet shipbuilding style of 1975-1990 (i.e., heavy AShM battery but poor AA/RCS reduction) but as an introduction it is still very useful for you to take a look at.

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... ilit=guide

Hmmm this could be a useful link!

Also here are some of my destroyers:

http://i.imgur.com/JNBXwcK.png

http://i.imgur.com/1daLgPG.png

by **Aznazia** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:27 am

The Akasha Colony wrote:
Aznazia wrote:
Hmmm this could be a useful link!

Also here are some of my destroyers:

http://i.imgur.com/JNBXwcK.png

http://i.imgur.com/1daLgPG.png

Is there a rear-mounted radar panel that is not visible on the DeLunio-class? The two broadside panels toward the rear would leave a 60 degree gap otherwise.

Yes there is. It is mounted on the port side next to the hangar entrance on the starboard side.

by **Aznazia** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 12:31 pm

Oaledonia wrote:Is it wise to transform the Mogami and Fuso classes into BBVs? I'm asking for reasons.

Isn't the Fuso pretty much the same as the Ise Class? If so then I say go for it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... se1944.png

The Mogami probably would be ok to since it already has two sea plane catapults and has three forward turrets.

by **Aznazia** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:09 pm

Oaledonia wrote:
Aznazia wrote:Isn't the Fuso pretty much the same as the Ise Class

No.
And for answering incorrectly, I hate you now.

Oh I forgot that the funnel of the Fuso is in between the number 3 and number 4 turrets...

by **Aznazia** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:48 pm

Novorden wrote:([url=http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/631/85Whjn.png]Image)
Look at all the things i probably did wrong![/url] (ignore the bow), It feels wrong devoting this much space to... stuff.

Korva wrote:Is he ok

i am afraid...

Awesome. So will you classify these as a cruiser or destroyer?

by **Aznazia** » Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:06 am

Valdiu wrote:A) There's nothing wrong with being ancient. The Bofors gun is still in use today by navies, and aboard the Spectre aircraft.

B) I'll remove two (which is to say one on each side) but they're there to protect amidships and the rear as best they can.

Most navies use 40 mm for close in defense against small boats and against aircraft and missiles but the majority of 40mm now look something like this https://dl.dropbox.com/u/63276563/BAE_S ... t%20sb.png

They are a single bofor in a automated platform that can be used against incoming missiles. Also the 40mm bofor in the AC-130 gun ship is for ground attack only.

Also I advise only using 1 Mk 41 VLS in the front of your ship. I would then use a evolved sea sparrow in a vertical launch system in placed in the center of your ship so that you have a more layered defense against anti-ship missiles. Here is a template of vertical launch systems:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63276563/GMLS%2 ... %20VLS.png

I Hope this helps

Your Nations Warships, MKII

Who is online