Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So I'm guessing anyone who says they have radar jammers on their anti-ship missiles is really just bullshitting?

Such a vague statement is no where near bullshitting, it's also a quite meaningless statement if we aren't provided further qualifiers. For example if the proponent claims that the onboard ECM immunizes the missile vs all threats past present and future then it's bullshitting wankery.
What I'm saying is yes you can mount an ECM on a missile, the power output however won't be terribly impressive compared to a shipboard-array capable of hundreds of megawatts, thereby the efficiency of this device would be highly in doubt.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

nobody said it's wrong so I'm carrying on
still not sure if it's a battleship or battlecruiser.

Soode probs has more accurate criticism since he does dreadnoughts and I don't, but the A turret (the turret closest to the bow) feels like its way too forward and tips the balance too far ahead. The entire main battery and the bridge could do with moving everything further aft, or lengthening the entire ship to accomodate the guns and the machinery.
How big guns are those?
Also, no casemate secondaries?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

They're great for harassing civilian merchant ships, fishing boats, and the odd cruise ship if you want to make the evening news. An RPG will just severely piss off a true warship.

As some Somali pirates have already discovered in the past.

Iirc they mistook tanker Spessart from the Bundesmarine for a civilian ship and got actually chased down for their troubles a few years ago.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

How do people feel about aircraft cruisers? By carrying helicopters and maybe STOVL jets, I thought they could increase my ASW capabilities.

There's also the Kiev-class aviation cruisers if you're using Soviet technology, it carried the Yak-38 VTOL and several helos.

Ah yes, the Forger. Apart from spotaneously ejecting its pilot, consuming its own exhaust or run out of fuel just outside its own carrier's SAM's it practically carried nothing in terms of actual weapons. One has to wonder how such a prototypical aircraft got as far as it did.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my aircraft cruiser question. I'll keep the ones I have in my roster. Btw, I was thinking of something like the Vittorio Venetto (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian ... eneto_(550)).

Yakolev had conned the Admiral of the Fleet at the time into believing that they could make a STOVL fighter superior to all existing CATOBAR options for the Soviet Union. That's the reason why they used STOBAR instead of CATOBAR, because the absolute only time a ski jump is equal to a catapult is if you want to use STOVL aircraft.

Speaking of ski jumps, Halfblakistan may want to use the F-35B instead of the F-35C if he's dead set on STOBAR carriers. The payload capacity limitations from flying a F-35C off a ski jump will limit it to about half a tank of gas and two Sidewinders. While this is indisputably far superior to the performance of the Yak-38, I personally would rather have the variant of the same airframe that can loft a reasonable payload from an STOBAR flight deck.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I really hate the F-35 for too many reasons to list here. Why not just use the Sea Harrier?

I plan on trying to build my own STOVL jet for export and I'll need some help with lineart. Be on the lookout!

There's always the Hawker P.1216.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my aircraft cruiser question. I'll keep the ones I have in my roster. Btw, I was thinking of something like the Vittorio Venetto (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian ... eneto_(550)).

That particular ship probably isn't the best design to go with, especially with the plentiful supply of aircraft people will throw at it.

Vittorio Veneto is perfectly fine if you don't look at it as a power projection machine but as its original intended role as the centre-piece of an ASW battlegroup.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Vittorio Veneto is perfectly fine if you don't look at it as a power projection machine but as its original intended role as the centre-piece of an ASW battlegroup.

With the meta of II... It's likely it will never see its intended role. There's a distinct lack of naval warfare, much less submarine warfare in II.

The general wankery that is the II-universe is actually of no concern to me and hasn't been for a long while, let's leave it at that, shan't we?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The F-35 Lightening II is far and away the best STOVL fighter in the world. Believe it or not, the carrier and land-based versions are also decent dogfighters compared to everything the Chinese have. In the case of the F-35A, it can almost certainly turn within 2­° per second of the F-16 once the AoA limiters are relaxed.

My main problem with the F-35B is the prohibitive cost of over $100 million. I'm RPing as a small island nation in the South Atlantic, and I think that the F-35 is just too much hardware. If I was a major country with a GDP of trillions of dollars and multiple suppercarriers, I would absolutely consider the F-35, but the country I'm RPing as is small.

The main reason I want a STOVL capability is so I can deploy my fighters from a helicopter carrier or STOBAR carrier.

I would then suggest some kind of Indian arrangement, MiG-29K's, Sea Harriers and Ex-Soviet carriers.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

4 VLS cells on a corvette Y/N

Primarily for filling 'er up with ESSM's and SM-6 missiles for self-defense.

What will you ever hope to accomplish with only 4 long-range missiles and a boat that will never have the processing power or radars anywhere close to an Arleigh Burke?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

British Batlecruisers took more damage than their German counterparts who were more armored and could take the hits while the British Battlecruisers could not.

IIRC the British BCs were ordered to forgo safety measures (eg. Closing ammo hatches) to increase the rate of fire and overwhelm the germans early on. Instead it lead to a lot of unnecessary casualties.

I don't have Death in the Grey Wastes with me right now but basically this. For example SMS Seydlitz survived a hit at Jutland very much like the one she received at Dogger's Bank, it managed to knock out only one turret as opposed to the entire battery at Dogger's Bank because the Germans applied their lessons learnt and cleared the working area around the magazines of flammable and explosive materials.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

*sigh*
More battleships... And newly built ones at that...

At least the 85,000 ton monster I'm planning was designed in 1940, laid down 1942 and commissioned in 1948. <.<

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

At least the 85,000 ton monster I'm planning was designed in 1940, laid down 1942 and commissioned in 1948. <.<

We need a big shiny link on the OP about why battleships are bad...

Like errything else the answer to your proposal is "It Depends".

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Well, battleships haven't led their own battle groups since the 1950s due to the air threat. Since then, the RHN has used Combined Air/Battle Strike Groups, nicknamed Cabs-Gees by sailors. CABSGs are created and used in deployments, and are led by both a supercarrier and a battleship. Any ship can be assigned to a CABSG. Grand Admirals in the Navy assign ships to CABSGs and select which ships are deployed.

Your average CABSG will consist of a supercarrier, a battleship, a medium carrier, 2 light carriers, 2 amphibious assault ships, 2-4 destroyers of some kind, 2-4 cruisers of some kind, 2-4 submarines of some kind excluding midget submarines, and 4-8 supply ships of some kind. However, in some cases, CABSGs have had multiple supercarriers and/or battleships in them.

On their own, our modern battleships can reasonably defend itself well against air attack, especially the new Excellence-class. Their VLS cells are usually split between anti-ship/anti-ground missiles, anti-sub missiles, and anti-air missiles, usually carrying a total of 64 anti-air missile packs (usually quad-packed anti-air missiles, with a total of 256 of them), 32 anti-sub missile packs, and 32 anti-ship/anti-ground missile packs. If a fleet of aircraft and/or missiles somehow makes it past 256+ anti-air missiles as well as electronic countermeasures and a lot of chaff (assuming they make it past carrier aircraft and AA systems on other ships), they will have to deal with our CIWS 20-mm miniguns and our CIWS missile batteries, as well as our 76-mm and 5-inch autocannons.

There has been discussion in the Kingdom to build a new type of battleship where the missiles will be the main form of weapon instead of both guns and missiles. However, the Army and the Navy Land Forces are opposed to taking big guns off of battleships due to their barrage capabilities, as shown on Eighteen-Inch Monday, the thundering start of hostilities with the nation of Brasilistan in 2000 after they intentionally sank an older destroyer escorting commercial shipping in international waters off of the Brasilistanian coast, thus starting our involvement in a 3-year war that first began between Brasilistan and Markland in 1998 and led to Brasilistan's government being toppled in 2003 by an uprising that began in 2001.

Because of the battleships in operation at the time, a large stretch of ports and naval forts along Brasilistan's northern coast was rendered inoperable. They tried to retaliate by attacking us with aircraft and missiles, and one battleship plus 11 other ships were sunk and 61 of our aircraft were destroyed, but it was only one out of 8 battleships and 65 others that were bombarding the coast. Brasilistan lost 48 ships and 284 aircraft, almost a fifth of their navy and a sixth of all of their aircraft in their entire military. Many were shot down or sunk by the guns/missiles of the battleships.

Yes, Horensia loves their battleships, and we will continue to modernize them.

Attempting to justify the use of battleships by citing a war with a fictional nation everyone wins against. Riiiight...(ಠ_ಠ)

What do you mean you don't base your military on your geopolitical situation? After all, it's Horensia's world and they have their own threat pictures to deal with, not yours. Who are you to decide what Horensia does and doesn't for his own stories?

I don't know about you, I don't know about what the rest of the thread thinks, I think I stopped giving fucks around last year. But if I want to think that an 85,000 ton white elephant with hilariously big guns built to fight enemies she never got to fight once commissioned is way more interesting a story than vanilla Ticonderogas that are dime-a-dozen on NS I'll fucking damn well do that.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

But making it competitive probably means programming a simulation, basically developing a video game. And even then absolutely no guarantee of realism.

Isn't this true for just about everything?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Somehow I suspect that's why people dislike my method to naval warfare and generally refuse to take part once I begin explaining things to them... I feel the curse has followed me from before I came to NS as I haven't had the opportunity for a good naval campaign on NS yet.
They try to force an old fashioned close range gun battle with battleships (seriously... I'm just getting tired of the things), only to find out I like to keep my distance and attrit them with air attacks and standoff weapons. They look for a Mahan-like decisive battle, but I refuse to give them one. Most have a distinct lack of supply ships, so things would always change once I "gently" reminded them of the concept of limited ammunition for VLS and CIWS, and their situation is often exacerbated by a lack of AWACS on their side.

My main naval tactic is to take a bunch of stealth bombers (with stealth fighter escorts), load them full of AShMs, have them fly towards the enemy fleet, unload their several dozen AShMs at standoff range, then immediately turn tail and head back to base. For the enemy its basically like having a huge swarm of missiles heading right towards your fleet appear out of thin air.

It pisses people off, but it's a realistic and effective strategy IMO.

And then AEGIS + Mk 41 VLS on four Burkes for a total of around 200 SM-6's directed by orbiting E-2D's engages the swarm.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

And then AEGIS + Mk 41 VLS on four Burkes for a total of around 200 SM-6's directed by orbiting E-2D's engages the swarm.

And this process can be repeated as needed, as there is a distinct lack of supply vessels with most NS navies, and then they all die. The end.

You do realize that there's way more missiles in one battlegroup than AShM's available to any bomber regiment right? Besides... missile spamming is not even the point. And frankly as an ex-missile spammer I'll tell you what: It was exceedingly boring.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Suzutsuki

USS New Orleans is unimpressed.

When the flagship Minneapolis was struck by two torpedoes, New Orleans, next astern, was forced to sheer away to avoid collision, and ran into the track of a torpedo which detonated the ship's forward magazines and gasoline tanks. This explosion severed 150 ft (46 m) of her bow just forward of turret No. 2. The severed bow, including Turret No. 1, swung around the port side and punched several holes in the length of New Orleans' hull before sinking at the stern and damaging the port inboard propeller. With one quarter of her length gone, slowed to 2 kn (2.3 mph; 3.7 km/h), and blazing forward, the ship fought for survival. Individual acts of heroism and self-sacrifice along with skillful seamanship kept her afloat, and under her own power she entered Tulagi Harbor near daybreak on 1 December. The crew Camouflaged their ship from air attack, jury-rigged a bow of coconut logs, and worked furiously clearing away wreckage. Eleven days later, New Orleans sailed stern first to avoid sinking to Cockatoo Island Dockyard in Sydney, Australia, arriving on 24 December. At Cockatoo, the damaged propeller was replaced and other repairs were made including the installation of a temporary stub bow. On 7 March 1943, she left Sydney for Puget Sound Navy Yard [in Washington State], sailing backward the entire voyage, where a new bow was fitted, interestingly enough with the use of Minneapolis' No. 2 Turret.

People don't really want to fight modern naval combat.

I imagine that many people don't particularly find the concept of small groups of ships fighting each other to be all that interesting. I'd venture to say that what most people really want, is a WWI or perhaps even a pseudo-WWII mentality with certain bits of modern tech slapped on. The battleship is big, majestic, a sign of national power and success, and truly captures the romance of naval warfare (and a large fleet doubly so); a hoard of missile cruisers - probably not nearly as much.

I tend to think missiles, jets, and high levels of automation ended the grandeur of naval combat... But that's just my opinion. After all, writing about the experience of those manning the weapons control in modern warships, for example - with their multiplicity of screens and relative isolation from the outside - is a considerably different story from talking about the stench of cordite, the musty air inside a turret, and the exertion of moving shells by hand.

Questers has a good post, in fact a series of good posts, made a while back arguing the opposite. Searching for a nuclear submarine in the endless ocean, scanning the seas for a hostile carrier-battlegroup as it nears your shores, and struggling to bring your fighter into a better firing position against a maneuvering supersonic enemy all offer abundant opportunities for tension, suspense, and sudden unexpected developments. And a severely damaged ship, burning stem to stern and taking on water but narrowly kept afloat by the heroism and sacrifice of her crew, is the same story in any era, regardless of whether the damage came from a Harpoon missile, a 14-inch shell, or a lead cannonball. "I fire 500 AShMs" followed by "I fire 500 SAMs at your AShMs" isn't a sad window into the state of modern naval combat, it's a sad window into the state of the average player's writing ability.

In my honest opinion, though, even if you do think gun-warships look cooler than missile ones, and that a gun broadside is cooler than a missile launch, that's no reason to drag battleships into MT. Just RP in the tech levels where they were common. I've linearted well over half a dozen battleships in the last year, and I would never dare to use one in a modern-tech engagement.

On top of all this, I suspect the battle scenes most battleship fans imagine are a world apart from the boring reality of WWII-era naval combat - where, when firing at a target 27 kilometers away, shell flight time is 53.2 seconds and accuracy against a side-on target is 2.7%.

There's always the option of leaving out entirely the cesspool that is competitive "roleplay".

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

>2016
>RPing

gaylastaneestan plz go back to worshipping MBT-70 and leave the rping to the rest of us onegaishimasu. :V

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Can ramming ships become relevant again? Torpedo rams deserve to be kool again

Ramming as a valid non-emergency tactic died a horrible death when Tsushima, dreadnoughts with a large number of massive 14 km range guns and central fire control happened. It died even more as ranges increased to a hundred kilometers in WWII. Now? When naval engagement ranges are measured in 300 nautical miles?

Hmmm...I may try to make one experimental unit and see how it ends up in a RP.

Realistically, the idea seems a little fruitless in reality as the cost of all of it would probably be quite high to create such specialized units, and their existence would be a mere novelty.

Welp off to create my weapon to fight against flying aircraft carriers that seem to pop up in every war.

gg you've created a thing that's possibly as loud as the first Romeos if you go with manned aircraft. Which is... fucking loud for the 21st century. Ohio SSGN already carries 154 long range suicide drones so why does everybody go the I-400-class route is beyond me.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Time for some W81's I see.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The last non-emergency naval ram was in 1988 but it's hardly the thing you want.

I assumed that the rammer and the rammee (rammee? Is that a word?) would be at war with each other, as USS Yorktown and the Krivak incident wasn't.
It looks cool on World of Warships I agree, going "Tennou Heika Banzai" on ppl, but irl when that DDG you're trying to ram with your ship puts three of her eight Harpoons into you and then calls the rest of her airborne friends with bombs and missiles on you?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Wolfpacks died when submarines could begin to dive for days on end and the option of coordinating via the surface (which got these scary little buggers with bombs and AGM's that you in a sub practically have zero defenses against, called aircraft) ceased being a thing. Apart from radar (while both of you are surfaced and thus probably being detected and getting bombers sent after you) and a rather seasoned sonar technician there's no way you could identify other subs under water. It gets more difficult since modern nuclear subs are bloody quiet of themselves.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I assumed that the rammer and the rammee (rammee? Is that a word?) would be at war with each other, as USS Yorktown and the Krivak incident wasn't.[/url]

This is false.

k gaylastan. wars do not have any intensity scales. Entry tagged. Categorized. Recorded.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I'd argue that while large caliber naval artillery is certainly expensive to maintain, the costs pale in comparison to using aircraft and missile spam for bombardment.

Please present your calculation.

A battleship would costs millions and millions of dollars just to pay the crew - excluding the requirements for maintenance, parts, etc.

While - again - the firepower of a battleship is very visually impressive, it's not at all unsurpassable when one considers its vast cost.

A JDAM is easily comparable in terms of destructive power to a 16-inch battleship shell (which costs about $6500 in today's money), and while a JDAM is more expensive, it's more accurate and has more range (meaning less JDAMs would be needed per target).

You practically never have the abundance of precision guided weapons that a field commander would like to have. Instead you are going to run a majority of your missions on iron bombs, saving your JDAM's and AGM's for more important things.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

How about Slava and Kara ? Is it easier to convert to western standard?

If you want "western" stuff just use ticos, burkes, and/or type 45s or Horizons. Trying to re-engineer Russian ships with western weapons and/or sensors is pretty pointless.

Or if Theodosiya doesn't want vanilla Ticos doing vanilla things like patrolling vanilla Somalias and fight vanilla Iraq Wars he could always go CSGN's.