Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The thing is "combined nuclear and gas" Phartan-san. :V

Did see that and edited it in.
Yeah, America doesn't do CONAG. That's for Commies.

I assume you also are aware that none of this is his own work right? <.<

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Guys, gib me your opinion on this idea: gutting a supertanker, slapping on some laser PD, ciws, SAMs, anti-missile missiles, and then just filling it with missile tubes and missiles? Could such a ship overwhelm the defense of an enemy fleet? How about two or three? Thoughts?

You still need aviation assets to detect your targets and provide targeting data for this ship, unless ofc you want to conduct all your fighting at 37 times less than everybody else who's sitting out at 600 nautical miles with their long-range strike assets and just pummelling you where you can't do jackshit about it.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I should probs get into this heavy cruiser business one day, and I got no naval limitation treaties to worry about. :V

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The Astute was a hilarious effort to cram a massive SSBN reactor into a much smaller attack submarine. Which is why it has such a strange shape. And why it will never reach it's original design speed. The reactor design has seriously compromised the hydrodynamics of the sub and this also likely affects its noise while traveling.

Also the Astute was built by BAE. Never a good sign. There have already been at least two instances of critical parts made from the wrong material because BAE gives zero fucks.

The Virginia class has also had teething problems obviously. But at least they made it the right shape. It is hard to compare sonar because of the tight secrecy, but the Virginia has more and larger sonar arrays. It also has VLS cells, which is a far more space efficient way to store missiles.

I read that the hull is shaped with a hump to reduce the hydrodynamic effect of the large sail. I could be wrong about that.

The Astute and Virginia carry the same amount of weapons, too. I'd argue that the torpedo tubes gives the Astute more flexibility when it comes to load.

Virginia also has torpedo tubes...

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

In a MT environment would a carrier like this be acceptable to be utilized

http://pre15.deviantart.net/2d91/th/pre ... 70zm1f.jpg

Yes, but you're gonna have to accept worse seakeeping, slower sortie rates and possible increase in landing accidents compared to conventional single-hulled, angled flight deck carriers.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

which crane, the one on the Stern?

That one doesn't have to reach the catapult, aircraft are loaded onto the catapult straight from the hangar using a rail and trolley system.

Oh, I see. So what's the crane used for then? I figure it would be a pain in the ass to retrieve planes.

To haul seaplanes out of the water obviously. :P

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So guys. In the case of securing modern sea lanes against hostile submarine forces, is there any use in a separate ASW group? I mean things like mashing an ASW carrier, an 8000 ton AA escort and a few lighter 3,500 ton MEKO escorts together to protect sea lanes.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

If there wasn't an viable use for a separate ASW group, and if ASW wasn't so important, the Japanese wouldn't have three massive ASW destroyers.
And wouldn't be building a fourth.

China has a lot of old submarines and submarines that sound like old submarines.

Unless they are dropping mad sonobouys, which does not require a ship, ASW ships rely very heavily on intercepting something at or near the surface. This is a seriously depreciated tactic. It can no longer be taken for granted that a submarine will have to raise its periscope before attacking. Very high performance sonar is the only answer. And the self-noise of large, fast warships quite limits the sensitivity of sonar it is worth fitting on them.

It's not for nothing the USN is investing so heavily in new ASW technology like LFA and that DARPA robot boat thing.

Speaking of China...
Yeah my original question was regarding a NotImperial Japan in the 21st century with territory stretching to Saipan etc etc. Have a modest amount of supercarriers, and big escorts and all that shit, and lighter forces as I described. I'm mostly defending against Norks and PLAN cutting my sea routes to and from my far flung islands. I'm not running an independent air force.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

What kind of radars, sensors, electronic warfare systems and so forth would you put on a warship?

That differs on what purpose your warship has.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

On a side note, due to some treaties after the second world war I can't build new ships until this year...

I suggest you retcon this at once. You will lose any shipbuilding expertise in twenty years and seventy years on while others have learnt new lessons and incorporated them you are still building the equivalent of pre-dreadnoughts in 1970.
Imagine a pre-dreadnought force active in 1970 with the threat environment teeming with antiship missiles and aircraft. Yeah that's how bad your situation will be unless you retcon.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

My navy is pretty much PT because using the Yamato battleship is not a good idea .

Your navy is not just PT. You are using ships designed in a period where antiship missiles were just emerging, were guided by a person with a flight controller plus wire and your AA of dual purpose secondaries and autocannons could reasonably defend yourself, along with propeller driven aircraft. You're now in 2016 at the very least. Some antiship missiles now have low-observability characteristics and every vessel in the world apart from aircraft carriers and patrol boats have at least a few, aircraft fly at altitudes and speeds, and loaded with things your WWII equivalents could never dream of, and some of them are carrier-capable. Radar has advanced so much your WWII equivalents are laughable. All in all if you keep your utterly outdated ships in this era you will never have a good time apart from fighting Somali pirates. Even the North Koreans will beat you in a naval engagement.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Your navy is not just PT. You are using ships designed in a period where antiship missiles were just emerging, were guided by a person with a flight controller plus wire and your AA of dual purpose secondaries and autocannons could reasonably defend yourself, along with propeller driven aircraft. You're now in 2016 at the very least. Some antiship missiles now have low-observability characteristics and every vessel in the world apart from aircraft carriers and patrol boats have at least a few, aircraft fly at altitudes and speeds, and loaded with things your WWII equivalents could never dream of, and some of them are carrier-capable. Radar has advanced so much your WWII equivalents are laughable. All in all if you keep your utterly outdated ships in this era you will never have a good time apart from fighting Somali pirates. Even the North Koreans will beat you in a naval engagement.

I know that. I am making newer ships like the INN-Yokosuka and INN-Kirishima but they are under construction. Probably would feel slightly badass firing an entire broadside from a Yamato class battleship for a few moments but my navy would be screwed without new ships which sucks because of this period of vulnerability.

Thing is if you haven't constructed or bought a warship for seventy years all your naval expertise are long gone and probably literally in the grave. Germany for example had all their shipbuilding capacity destroyed after WWI and by the 1930's the best they came up with was basically a rehash of the Baden-class superdreadnought while others were doing Yamato's and North Carolinas. Your WWII era fleet that don't have shipbuilders and designers that understands them will be detected, outmanoeuvred and sunk long before you get a shot off against anybody remotely competent employing a modern era carrier battlegroup, and you won't have the guys at home repairing your lucky survivors. If you're a nation that depends on its navy for survival you're basically irreversibly screwed.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Thing is if you haven't constructed or bought a warship for seventy years all your naval expertise are long gone and probably literally in the grave. Germany for example had all their shipbuilding capacity destroyed after WWI and by the 1930's the best they came up with was basically a rehash of the Baden-class superdreadnought while others were doing Yamato's and North Carolinas. Your WWII era fleet that don't have shipbuilders and designers that understands them will be detected, outmanoeuvred and sunk long before you get a shot off against anybody remotely competent employing a modern era carrier battlegroup, and you won't have the guys at home repairing your lucky survivors. If you're a nation that depends on its navy for survival you're basically irreversibly screwed.

Which is why I hired some foreign shipbuilders to help me build Independence class ships for use. My fishing is more advanced than my current navy and that is extremely embarrassing but that will change and I can finally put my Yamato class battleships as museums.

Great you're getting the littoral "combat" minesweeper...

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Why would you want to amass so much firepower and ammo in one spot? Lose that ship, you lose a large chunk of your shore-bombardment potential... the Iowas operated well in the First Gulf War because naval power was unchallenged (relatively speaking) and thus it could be afforded to operate within the extent of its boundaries. This says nothing about how it would work in a naval war that is contested. I'd rather have fast, mobile ships with a general spread of ammunition between them than one upon which might rely the sole batteries capable of engaging a distant target. Why not just use field artillery deployed onto the beaches from your landing craft? Why not use Tomahawks and missiles? why not use things that while more expensive immediately, don't cost a solid million or so to maintain and update every year alone, not including training and operating costs?

Might as well have sixty million littoral "combat" minesweepers with SPY-1K attached using this argument... overwhelm the entire Soviet Navy with your wrecks and run them out of missiles to throw at you.
tbqfh I never understood this raging hate-boner for battleships, Urran's plan isn't even too far-fetched for a CSGN.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I know the arguments against modern battleships, but I disagree with them to a point. Iowa class battleships performed exceptionally well during the first Gulf War despite being outdated. I don't see why I couldn't put at least 3 8 inch guns on a ship and maybe 128 to 160 vls cells and call it a modern battleship.

You want a dedicated shore bombardment ship? Put a few M270s on the deck of an old escort carrier and call it a day.

And then the enemy sinks it with a salvo of Klub missiles. Omedetou gozaimasu you've lost the corps artillery. Now what.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Naganasu buddy, you got some out-dated ideas on naval warfare: read this and you should be able to fix any problems you might have.

That doesn't help since he says he hasn't built a single warship for 70 years.

Useless against modern submarines. Modern ships carry lightweight deep-diving torpedoes specifically to engage submarines.

My Navy is obsolete and I feel insecure about that.

Honestly the Yuugumo's are a better torpedo boat than the heavy torpedo cruisers.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Using a combination of standardization, mods, and *imagination*, I have taken it upon myself to create an organized fighting force in Fallout 4: The First Reformed Infantry Regiment of the Stae of Massachussetts. Naturally, the formation of a standing army warrants the formation of a naval arm, which is why I've come here with what I assume is rather atypical criteria: I need to figure out how to organize and equip a post-apocalyptic navy using repurposed fishing vessels, rowboats, tugs, and a nuclear submarine.

Any suggestions?

M2HB's. All dem M2HB's. mb a few LAW's and a Stinger.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Yes, I did just attack those pinned down enemy troops using a pair of Paladin artillery at 'close' range. Moving them into position probably cost about $50,000 and subsequent firing probably cost $1,000. I've now been able to keep up with the infantry line from the start and have been able to render immediate on-site ordnance without having to extensively calculate a firing solution from an extreme distance.

Why are you using your limited numbers of landing craft for SPH's instead of using every single one of them for substantially more armoured things like idk, MBT's? I mean it's not as if an SPH can engage an enemy fortification any better while within visual range.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Navy, navy. Let's see... Well, we've got the HMS Hood! (Don't laugh.)

Is your current year 1932?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Is your current year 1932?

1923. Close enough.

kk.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Assuming you can actually get the fuzing right in other than tests against stationary target boats...

Well... there's this thing called controlled variable time fuse...

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The Imperial Navy's most numerous main combat vessel is the Pennant Class Destroyer. It is a lot like the U.S. Navy Fletcher Class from WWII, only with six modern 127mm guns, and a total of four triple torpedo mounts, two per side. Due to the size of the ship, and the space used by the guns, she does not carry any CIWS. She carries 10 quad mount 10mm guns, 2 at the bow on each side, 4 in gun tubs around the bridge, 2 on each side amidships, and 2 at the stern. She also has 4 dual mount 25 mm guns, 2 on each side between the bow and amidships 10mms, and 2 on each side between the stern and amidships 10mms. She has four diesel powered engines turning two screws, and a max speed of about 45 knots. Length is 130 meters. She has two radar mounts, sonar, a smoke generator, and one stern depth charge rack. Due to modern technology, her full complement is only 124 enlisted personnel, 6 petty officers, and 3 officers. The Pennant Class is used in a variety of roles including fire-support, reconnaissance, escort, patrol, communications, anti-submarine warfare, and anti-air support. Currently the Imperial Navy boasts only 40, but the addition of at least 60 more destroyers is being looked into. Also slated for the future is a guided missile variant, with ICBM and nuclear payload capability, and the addition of CIWS.

Please for the love of god. No. Please. Lolgunz modern ships make me cri(nge) so fucking hard.

Cringe harder then.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So,240 Mk41/57 VLS,2 Mark 32,3 Otobreda 127mm,4 M2 and Remsig/Oerlikon KCB,maybe 4-6 Bofors AA gun,4 Goalkeeper CIWS. Could i add something more before moving to electronic detail?

My replacement for my 70-80's NotSlava. Zenta is the AAW cruiser while Novara is the GP cruiser. As I see it you have way too many guns. the 40 mm/56 was good back when planes did a maximum of 200-300 kph on the attack. You will have immense difficulties stopping even A-4's with it. Meanwhile your Goalkeeper is rekting the dude trying to attack you WWII style perfectly fine. You'll also note that my 4 guns/two mounts on my cruisers take less space than your three, and pour out more shells because lolMk. 66 ripoff. :3 You'll never use the torpedo tubes for anything in 2016 basically and even my gigantic 660 mm ones that goes flush with the side of the ship is only there to relieve the VLS from tossing ASROC's.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

My replacement for my 70-80's NotSlava. Zenta is the AAW cruiser while Novara is the GP cruiser. As I see it you have way too many guns. the 40 mm/56 was good back when planes did a maximum of 200-300 kph on the attack. You will have immense difficulties stopping even A-4's with it. Meanwhile your Goalkeeper is rekting the dude trying to attack you WWII style perfectly fine. You'll also note that my 4 guns/two mounts on my cruisers take less space than your three, and pour out more shells because lolMk. 66 ripoff. :3 You'll never use the torpedo tubes for anything in 2016 basically and even my gigantic 660 mm ones that goes flush with the side of the ship is only there to relieve the VLS from tossing ASROC's.

TBH I'm not sure large caliber guns (>100mm) are that useful for anything other than shore bombardment. I'm designing an AA/BMD cruiser and I'm debating whether or not I even want to put a large caliber gun on it as I don't see the gun being used for anything other than shore bombardment which is not what the cruiser will be tasked with doing. I've thought of giving it two 76mm OTO guns because they can fire radar guided DART ammo at 120 rpm which makes them better suited for AA and missile defense or on the other hand just giving it two or four 30mm chainguns for point defense against missile boats and calling it a day.

STRALES, the DART guidance radar doesn't seem to have more than three guidance channels. Also shore bombardment is exactly why I ripped off the 5"/54 Mark 66.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

What would the following armament class a ship as?

12 16-inch guns (in 4 turrets)
4 5-inch guns
3 105mm multipurpose anti-air/anti-surface guns
10 40mm anti-air guns
Capability to drop naval mines into the water by way of a crane mounted in the rear

The length of the ship is about 160~ meters and was launched in the late 30s, mainly as a propaganda piece to show off the navy's power.
I'm calling it a battleship right now but I feel like it's a wee bit light on armament to be a true battleship. If it is, I can always just class it as a battleship for the previously mentioned propaganda purpose, but I would like to know what it would really be.

Which, one of these 5-inch guns are we talking about? Any of those except the 5"/51 could do dual-purpse/"multi-purpose" work, some of them even better than your 4.1" guns. What speed, shaft horsepower, length and displacement are we talking about?