Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Alright, cruiser mark II. A few small tweaks, anything else that needs fixing?

Class overview
Builders: Krupper-Thyssen Shipyards
Operators: Yukonastan Defense Force Navy, Yukonastan Expeditionary Force Navy
Built: 1978 – 1995
In service: From 1985
Planned: 12
Completed: 12
Cancelled: 0
Active: 8 (1 undergoing modernization)
Laid up: 1
Retired: 2

General characteristics
Type: Heavy guided missile cruiser/battlecruiser
Displacement: 19 500 tons standard, 25 000 (full load)
Length: 220 m
Beam: 25 m
Draft: 7 m
Propulsion: 2-shaft combined nuclear and gas turbine propulsion, 2x MN-2 marine nuclear reactors with 2x gas turbine engines
120,000 shp (86,000 kW)
Speed: 32knots (59 km/h)
Range: 1,200 nautical miles (2,000 km) at 32 knots (59 km/h) (combined propulsion),
unlimited at 20 knots (37 km/h) on nuclear power
Complement: 650

Sensors and processing systems:
Radars:

• 1x 6 MW combat system radar, bridge structure.
• 2x 3D tracking radar, foremast.
• 1x navigation radar, foremast.

Sonar:

• 1x towed array sonar, 2km line, stern.
• 1x bow sonar

Electronic warfare and decoys:

• 2x 8rd decoy launchers, 128 reloads carried.
• 1x 4MW radar jammer/spoofer, rear mast.

Armament:
Missiles:

• 128x angled VLS cells (500x500 mm, 7m long), two large and two small batteries. No reloads carried.
• 8x mid-range SAM launchers (250x250 mm, 5 m long), two batteries. 64 reloads carried.
• 2x 32-cell mid-range point defense missile launchers, 256 reloads carried.

Guns:

• 1x quick-fire 155 mm high velocity howitzer, 500 rounds carried.
• 2x Close-In Weapons Systems, 24 mm rotary cannon, 12 000 rounds carried.
• 12x 14.5 mm machine guns, 180 000 rounds carried.

Torpedoes and others:

• 2x 500 mm AS(u)W torpedo launchers, 24 reloads carried.
• 4x 425 mm AS(u)W rocket launchers, 48 reloads carried.

Armour: 100 mm plating around reactor compartment, 50mm plating around CIC, light splinter protection
Aircraft carried: 2 helicopters, space for 2 more on deck.
Aviation facilities: Hangar on deck

This has gone without replies for a while, going to assume it's good.

I'd personally like a bit more power if it's going to do 32 knots consistently, also at 60,000 hp per shaft you're quite close at their limits according to my hearsay sources.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Does anyone know what electronics suites the Argentinian carriers and cruisers carried in the seventies?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Does anyone know what electronics suites the Argentinian carriers and cruisers carried in the seventies?

Nothing good.

Obviously. And your assumption of whether or not I wondered if it was decent or not could not have been more wrong.
Now, onto some more pertinent routes, I know it was Dutch, my question really is, which of the Dutch radars and what about ESM?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Just go full fucking yolo and use Amagi.

Why not do the entire set from Nagato to No. 13 for ultimate yolo?

([url=http://fs2.directupload.net/images/user/150323/temp/8lfstrze.png]Image)[/url]
Click to enlarge.

So... what would be your thoughts of this modification of the Fuso?

Uh... 36 cm 41st Year Types? 12.7 cm Type 89's? You've plated over the casemates... and installed new AA guns. Anything else?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Graphical points: you've missed a few 14-cm barrels and cut the four 12.7-cm guns on the foremast.
I'd also put the Type 89's where the pits for the 25-mm triples stood on the main deck for a total of 20 5" guns. And generally try get my hands on the Bofors if possible.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

*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.

Hybrid battleship-carriers if you using Western sources and properly en Japanese: 航空戦艦 - Kōku senkan - Aviation Battleship. So Oale is correct, depending on whether or not you are a - gaikokujin. [/pedantry]
On the other hand you'll have to forgive Oale's obsession with the Ise-class. Besides, it wasn't just the Japanese who were doing aviation BB's, the French had proposal for the Jean Bart, Britain the Lion-class and the Soviets the Sovetsky Soyuz's.
Generally though if we are debating the merits of such conversions I'll go with what the Director of Naval Gunnery of the Royal Navy said regarding converting the Lions:

"The functions and requirements of carriers and of surface gun platforms are entirely incompatible ...the conceptions of these designs ...is evidently the result of an unresolved contest between a conscious acceptance of aircraft and a subconscious desire for a 1914 Fleet ...these abortions are the results of a psychological maladjustment. The necessary readjustments should result from a proper re-analysis of the whole question, what would be a balanced fleet in 1945, 1950 or 1955?"

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Not 41cm triple mounts?

Even though Kancolle and blueprints show that they attempted 41cm triple mounts, she wouldn't realistically be able to receive them.

Was looking at kancolle again and was thinking, how about an Andrea Doria-type rebuild where one to two centerline turrets gets removed, barbettes plated over and the main battery arranged in a 3-2-2-3 arrangement?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

My Navy Almost exlusively uses destroyers, with only a few Battleships, carriers crusiers and Destroyer escorts (with ~4 Submarines)
The Backatri Class Destroyer is powered by a Breeder Nuclear Reactor, is fully equiped with a Multipule Rocket Launch System, for support to ground troops, and to fight ships, 4 127mm Cannons on turrets, as well as 2 381mm Cannons, Each one on a seperate Turret
(Can I have help w/ this? What would be an ideal Displacement? Is this realistic?)

You're looking at no less than 30,000 tons for all the gear you are cramming in, and got out a battleship with less combat value than a pre-dreadnought with an MLRS bolted onto it. Sure it's possible to built a pre-dreadnought with a nuclear reactor, 2 15" guns and 4 5" guns and an MLRS. But you are going to have to babysit it with everything conceivable in the air defence department for it to have any chance of survival, because with no inherent surface-to-air missiles or discernable radar systems any anti-ship missile leaking through your screen will kill this thing outright. And if this is your only "destroyer" design you are totally and unequivocally screwed when you fight anyone with as much as a single missile boat squadron.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

For a small aircraft carrier like the HTMS Chakri Naruebet, what sort of fix wing fighter aircraft could I use? Now that harriers aren't really a thing anymore and Padnak hasn't been a good enough boy to afford/be able to purchase F-35s, what are my options for fixed wing fighters?

Hornet/Super Hornet are very good choices. Or some Sukhoi stuff.

Can't take Hornets or even MiG-29K's. Probably can't take F-35's too (not to mention it's too fucking expensive for Padnakistanees). Only options are ex-Indian Sea Harrier FRS.51's w/ Magic/AIM-9B/E's.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Can't take Hornets or even MiG-29K's. Probably can't take F-35's too (not to mention it's too fucking expensive for Padnakistanees). Only options are ex-Indian Sea Harrier FRS.51's.

Looks like I'm going to need to find someone to sell me a bigger aircraft carrier...

Given your situation I sincerely doubt you can cough up the Geld for anything better.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Hypothetically, if one was to make a full size submersible carrier, but with normal navy planes. Is there any plausible way to keep the deck dry or to dry it off very quickly after surfacing so the planes don't slide around like a fat kid on Slip N' Slide?

Submarine carriers are a horrible idea in the first place, even if Pharthan built one already.

Forgive me for posing a "dumb" question but for the benefit of Iltica would you mind qualifying that statement Lamoni?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Wouldn't really call it a 'ship' but does anyone think there's potential in making a tiny fast submersible? Kind of a weaponized version of this?
(Image)
(Image)
It could sneak into harbors or up rivers to deliver a small explosive charge and speed away before anyone knows what happened. Or possibly to insert/extract agents from shoreline locations with a 2 seater?

I Keep these around just to piss off other Navies which are heavy on air defense but low on anti-submarine warfare.

The SB Series One man Submersible is a one manned, short duration submersible watercraft with high value target seeking active sonar and a high maneuverability which is armed with a single "bottom up" attack stealth torpedo.

The reserve fleet maintains two SB Series "Mantas" on each of the sixty five Islands in the Radicchio Chain for a total of 130 Boats. These submersibles are stored in undesignated, civilian harbors and manned by highly trained pilot crews who live at "sleeper" naval communication bases near the harbors, making them very hard to detect.

And your expected enemy is?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

If it was to be refitted in a many similar to the Boston class early on, no reason why you couldn't have one lying about in reserve or in training

The problem with the Boston-class is that by the time they saw action, their missile systems were obsolescent. But if I kept updating the missile systems of my version of the Saint Paul, it just might work. I think I'll keep the forward 8-inchers just for badassery.

You and I have very differing definitions of badass.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Everything is better then Kirov.

Kirov is beautiful. the number of missiles. the nuclear warhead capabilities (shhh the Russians are listening)

And the sensor and bridge arrangement is none other but truly atrocious. And the radars all date from the 1960's.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

brb, plugging the data into SpringSharp to see whether it falls apart in heavy seas

Unbelievable, it actually works.

It has a hull form that makes merchant tankers look sleek, it requires a 325,000-hp turbine set powering six shafts, and you have to halve the thickness of the armored decks, but once you do that it actually works.

Of course, it's a completely excessive answer to a question that nobody ever asked, and would serve no real purpose but to look cool and present a big target. But structurally speaking, it's capable of holding together in heavy seas, though again only after you halve the thickness of the armored decks.

So... an HMS Incomparable but waaaaaaay more unworkable and with even less armour? Splendid, eight magazines protected by no more than 4.5" deck and 8" belts. This is going to be a massive firework display courtesy of any TF38 equivalent.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So apperently new papers are surfacing that 1944 Yamato may have mastered a 300 yard dispersion at 3000km

300 m at 35 kyards/32 km* Goddamit oale, check ur cruise control and (entirely uncited) sources.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Speaking of large battleships, how sensitive are those engines and ballbearings under armour to extensive shock really? Tirpitz is the only example I can think of, having had turrets disabled and reduced to an artillery barge because multiple explosions and Tallboy impacts dislodged vital parts.
Of course then there's Bismarck who shot out his own FuMO 23 set before Denmark Strait, so there's another problem with shock.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I've another question. What are the defenses of a carrier?

Well for starters, the planes that it carries help to defend them. According to the all-knowing Wikipedia, a Nimitz Class carrier has 16–24 × RIM-7 Sea Sparrow or NATO Sea Sparrow missiles and 3 or 4 × Phalanx CIWSs or RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles for defense. It also carries SLQ-32A(V)4 Countermeasures suite and SLQ-25A Nixie torpedo countermeasures for electronic warfare and decoys.

From the Armament and protection section of the Nimitz class wiki page:

In addition to the aircraft carried on board, the ships carry defensive equipment for use against missiles and hostile aircraft. These consist of either three or four NATO RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missile launchers designed for defense against aircraft and anti-ship missiles as well as either three or four 20 mm Phalanx CIWS missile defense cannon. USS Ronald Reagan has none of these, having been built with the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile system, two of which have also been installed on USS Nimitz and USS George Washington. These will be installed on the other ships as they return for Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH).[3][15] Since USS Theodore Roosevelt, the carriers have been constructed with 2.5 in (64 mm) Kevlar armor over vital spaces, and earlier ships have been retrofitted with it: Nimitz in 1983–1984, Eisenhower from 1985–1987 and Vinson in 1989.[2][22]

The other countermeasures the ships use are four Sippican SRBOC (super rapid bloom off-board chaff) six-barrel MK36 decoy launchers, which deploy infrared Flare (countermeasure) and chaff to disrupt the sensors of incoming missiles; an SSTDS torpedo defense system; and an AN/SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo countermeasures system. The carriers also use AN/SLQ-32(V) Radar jamming and deception systems to detect and disrupt hostile radar signals in addition to the electronic warfare capabilities of some of the aircraft on board.[23][24]

The presence of nuclear weapons on board U.S. aircraft carriers since the end of the Cold War has neither been confirmed nor denied by the U.S. government. As a result of this, as well as concerns over the safety of nuclear power, the presence of a U.S. aircraft carrier in a foreign port has occasionally provoked protest from local people, for example when USS Nimitz docked in Chennai, India, in 2007. At that time, the Strike Group commander Rear Admiral John Terence Blake stated that: "The U.S. policy is that we do not routinely deploy nuclear weapons on board Nimitz."[25][26]

You neglect to tell that the primary line of defence of a carrier under air and subsurface attack are her escorts, both surface and subsurface.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Having trouble finding Hull templates. I don't want to hear Shipbucket, because I am having a though time finding anything on it. Can anyone help

There are no hull templates on Shipbucket. You are supposed to draw your own hull on there. Which is why everybody should start with easy things like patrol boats, less things on them and smaller hull to understand and micromanage.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

There are no hull templates on Shipbucket. You are supposed to draw your own hull on there. Which is why everybody should start with easy things like patrol boats, less things on them and smaller hull to understand and micromanage.

But how do I use the template?

You start by selecting a suitably sized one, copy-paste to MS Paint then apply a hull to it. After that you go back and show the pic and ask people who does shipbucket on a regular basis for advice, then you go back to continuously adding, correcting and rethink stuff. Sometimes later with much blood, sweat and tears you hopefully have a ship that can both float and satisfy your aesthetic sense.

---

yuko :not:kirov can be offered for export, has 2 155mm cannons, 128 vls, conag by default but is up to customer desires, the works.

You best back the fuck up before you get smacked the fuck up comrade yukon

muh manual 20.3 cm/60 SK C/34 with zero remote power control...

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

http://imgur.com/6HJCq1c

PEG Klauswitz class Patrol Boat

Try reducing the battery to one gun fore and aft, and resize no parts. See how large those Harpoon launchers and 76 mm's really are on a similar-sized vessel? Yours will need to be of the same size, which this template provides.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

(Image)

I win.

m16, dats 6edgy11me. would u like a prize to go along with the edginess?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Try reducing the battery to one gun fore and aft, and resize no parts. See how large those Harpoon launchers and 76 mm's really are on a similar-sized vessel? Yours will need to be of the same size, which this template provides.

http://imgur.com/Qoet5F9

How about now?

I have severe doubts on a patrol boat-sized hull being able to support a six inch gun. At best you are getting 3-6 ready rounds in the turret and nothing more, at worst your hull digs in on the front because it's too front-heavy, subsequently your gun is inundated and not only disables itself but also makes the ship dig in into the water, when ships do that you encounter substantially greater drag and instability, effectively killing your speed and possibly sink the ship. Especially when you have a ship that weighs 11.8 metric tons and mount any equivalent to the 155 mm/52 FNG. For your information those turrets in the lightest configuration weighs twice as much as your ship weighs. Aesthetically that front turret resembles a 6"/47 Mark 16, which weigh in their lightest configurations thirteen times more than your entire ship. Furthermore to achieve 55 knots you are going to need some gigantic engines even if you go hydrofoil-borne. You are not getting in any engine at all at the moment as all gas turbines suitably sized all weigh in excess of 100 metric tons completely installed, ten times as much as your boat.
Here's what I would do, delete the six inch gun, a patrol boat has no need to fire 20-40 km inlands anyway, and then I would add on to the weight by some hundreds of tons. For that I'm afraid you have to ask someone else, I'm not entirely clear with how to handle buoyancy and handling.

[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.

[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.