Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Crookfur]

Cruisers are nice and all, however they don't seem to be relevant in RL nowadays. Same goes for battleships. I believed this is due to the development of modern missiles and submarines which probably rendered big ships irrelevant.

Tho' in NS wars...I don't think I need to say anything much about it. Cuz in NS, anything goes, one way or another.

Why would relevance today have anything to with 1939s heavy cruisers?

[The Akasha Colony]

Cruisers are nice and all, however they don't seem to be relevant in RL nowadays. Same goes for battleships. I believed this is due to the development of modern missiles and submarines which probably rendered big ships irrelevant.

Tho' in NS wars...I don't think I need to say anything much about it. Cuz in NS, anything goes, one way or another.

None of these are being designed for the modern era, they're all being designed for the interwar/WWII-era, in the age before missile warfare and before submarines became as serious a threat as they are today.

[Grand Karelia]

Cruisers are nice and all, however they don't seem to be relevant in RL nowadays. Same goes for battleships. I believed this is due to the development of modern missiles and submarines which probably rendered big ships irrelevant.

Tho' in NS wars...I don't think I need to say anything much about it. Cuz in NS, anything goes, one way or another.

As previous posters have noted, those cruisers are clearly 30's designs, and as a result are entirely period-accurate.

For what it's worth, the current generation of US DDGs are large enough that they're essentially cruisers in all but name. The Flight III Burkes even displace as much as the Ticonderogas they've replaced.

[Kassaran]

Cruisers are nice and all, however they don't seem to be relevant in RL nowadays. Same goes for battleships. I believed this is due to the development of modern missiles and submarines which probably rendered big ships irrelevant.

Tho' in NS wars...I don't think I need to say anything much about it. Cuz in NS, anything goes, one way or another.

As previous posters have noted, those cruisers are clearly 30's designs, and as a result are entirely period-accurate.

For what it's worth, the current generation of US DDGs are large enough that they're essentially cruisers in all but name. The Flight III Burkes even displace as much as the Ticonderogas they've replaced.

Zumwalt Class destroyers anyone?

[Roski]

Cruisers are nice and all, however they don't seem to be relevant in RL nowadays. Same goes for battleships. I believed this is due to the development of modern missiles and submarines which probably rendered big ships irrelevant.

Tho' in NS wars...I don't think I need to say anything much about it. Cuz in NS, anything goes, one way or another.

inb4 ticonderoga

[Pharthan]

Cruisers are nice and all, however they don't seem to be relevant in RL nowadays. Same goes for battleships. I believed this is due to the development of modern missiles and submarines which probably rendered big ships irrelevant.

Tho' in NS wars...I don't think I need to say anything much about it. Cuz in NS, anything goes, one way or another.

As previous posters have noted, those cruisers are clearly 30's designs, and as a result are entirely period-accurate.

For what it's worth, the current generation of US DDGs are large enough that they're essentially cruisers in all but name. The Flight III Burkes even displace as much as the Ticonderogas they've replaced.

This is pretty much why I just made a type of ship that combined both. Not quite full size/heavy armament of a modern cruiser, but more air-defense coordination capability than a destroyer.

[Krazakistan]

Rough sketch of a class of two Laritaian Heavy cruisers launched in 1938.
([url=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42395079/Heavy%20cruiser%20study%20E3B%20R4%28thumbnail%29.png]Image)[/url]

The minimal amount of AA makes me think it's an inter-war design but the design of the super structure make me think during/post-war USN cruiser design.

[Novorden]

I am designing a light carrier based on my previous Cruiser, going on what i have got so far does this look ok? (I have no idea what i am doing)

[Laritaia]

Rough sketch of a class of two Laritaian Heavy cruisers launched in 1938.
([url=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42395079/Heavy%20cruiser%20study%20E3B%20R4%28thumbnail%29.png]Image)[/url]

The minimal amount of AA makes me think it's an inter-war design but the design of the super structure make me think during/post-war USN cruiser design.

The superstructure design was based roughly on a combination of the various 1930s County modifications and my favorite US heavy cruiser USS Wichita. With a touch of La Galissonniere in regards to aircraft facilities.

I am designing a light carrier based on my previous Cruiser, going on what i have got so far does this look ok? (I have no idea what i am doing)

The break in the deck level is going to give you issues, i think it would be perhaps more practical to build up the hull aft to be a flush with the forecastle and raise the hangar up by one deck, giving you more room to accommodate your dramatically increased crew.

[Krazakistan]

The minimal amount of AA makes me think it's an inter-war design but the design of the super structure make me think during/post-war USN cruiser design.

The superstructure design was based roughly on a combination of the various 1930s County modifications and my favorite US heavy cruiser USS Wichita. With a touch of La Galissonniere in regards to aircraft facilities.

Ah. I was getting a Cleveland and Baltimore vibe based off the superstructure. Regardless, she's a nice looking ship. Would very much love to see the finished lineart.

[Laritaia]

The superstructure design was based roughly on a combination of the various 1930s County modifications and my favorite US heavy cruiser USS Wichita. With a touch of La Galissonniere in regards to aircraft facilities.

Ah. I was getting a Cleveland and Baltimore vibe based off the superstructure. Regardless, she's a nice looking ship. Would very much love to see the finished lineart.

Wichita was the ship all later US cruisers designs were based upon, so that's probably why.

Edit: Adding the ships boats

[Novorden]

I am designing a light carrier based on my previous Cruiser, going on what i have got so far does this look ok? (I have no idea what i am doing)

The break in the deck level is going to give you issues, i think it would be perhaps more practical to build up the hull aft to be a flush with the forecastle and raise the hangar up by one deck, giving you more room to accommodate your dramatically increased crew.

Better?

In regards to aircraft carried, the Independence-class aircraft carrier (a similar RL design) could carry 24 F6F Hellcats and 9 TBM Avengers, however I can only seem to fit 26 fighters max (F4Us). Is there a trick to packing them in or am i missing something?

Snip

It needs far more 40mm to be American

[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.

[Laritaia]

Snip

It needs far more 40mm to be American

American ships didn't really start getting Bofors in any significant numbers till 1942ish and besides which she isn't American.

In regards to aircraft carried, the Independence-class aircraft carrier (a similar RL design) could carry 24 F6F Hellcats and 9 TBM Avengers, however I can only seem to fit 26 fighters max (F4Us). Is there a trick to packing them in or am i missing something?

it might be that the Corsair has a higher spot factor then the Hellcat, it's also possible that the Independence class was expected to employ a small deck park as a matter of course.

[The Kievan People]

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.

No.

Something like SURTASS is far more important than "moar ASW" ships. The added noise of the vessels will only make it harder to find the submarines.

[Rich and Corporations]

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.

No.

Something like SURTASS is far more important than "moar ASW" ships. The added noise of the vessels will only make it harder to find the submarines.

doesn't this depend on sonar range and area of search?

[The Selkie]

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.

I think, that depends on who and where you will be fighting - who, because if they don't have submarines, you don't really need ASW-groups, and where, because if it's within the range of your coastal air forces, which can search for submarines, you don't need them either.
But if you think, that you need them, then you most likely need them. Or have the capabilities to establish them.

I wouldn't organize these groups in the way you proposed them, though. I would leave submarine hunting near my shores to the Naval Air Force and/or patrol vessels (with whatever sonar-system you like, which SURTASS, basically a towed-array sonar) and use these groups to secure the sea lanes directly by reestablishing convoys, escorting them with a few ASW-vessels with AA-capabilities and a light carrier with ASW-capabilities. Additionally, ASW for your other warship groups should be a given.

[Velkanika]

STANAVFORLANT actually had a plan to form roaming ASW Task Forces to intercept and destroy Soviet SSNs running the GUIK Gap early in the war. The idea was to kill as many of them as possible during the initial surge of boats into the North Atlantic while they could get the best possible cues from SOSUS. Depending on the era, these task forces could very well be centered around an ASW carrier.

[Dostanuot Loj]

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.

This was effectively the role of every non-US Navy through the cold war while they still had carriers, and the RN after they lost CATOBAR carriers.

In the RCN, HMCA Bonaventure's patrol group was intended to sail around and sink submarines, and not much else.

[Pharthan]

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.

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.

[The Akasha Colony]

I wouldn't organize these groups in the way you proposed them, though. I would leave submarine hunting near my shores to the Naval Air Force and/or patrol vessels (with whatever sonar-system you like, which SURTASS, basically a towed-array sonar) and use these groups to secure the sea lanes directly by reestablishing convoys, escorting them with a few ASW-vessels with AA-capabilities and a light carrier with ASW-capabilities. Additionally, ASW for your other warship groups should be a given.

SURTASS is a bit more than just another towed array sonar, it's a rather large and fairly involved system that so far the US Navy has only installed on custom ships designed for the role. It's a very powerful and very expensive system.

Towed arrays are not new, but active low-frequency towed arrays using the same concept as SURTASS are becoming more popular as modern submarines are too quiet for passive detection alone. Thales offers Sonar 2087 which is an active LFA like SURTASS, but is smaller and designed for use in existing ships. But most ships today still use older systems like TACTAS, and the USN has no plans to retrofit SURTASS onto its surface combatants (AN/SQR-20 MFTA is the preferred solution ATM).

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.

No.

Something like SURTASS is far more important than "moar ASW" ships. The added noise of the vessels will only make it harder to find the submarines.

So would the solution be something like a dedicated SURTASS ship in the vein of Impeccable providing wide-area surveillance using its large towed array, supported by a number of smaller surface combatants with helicopters able to be dispatched to chase down anything it detects? Or would, say, a single large helicopter carrier be more useful as a means of keeping ship noise to a minimum?

I'm trying to rationalize my lighter surface combatants, especially frigates and corvettes, which share the ASW burden. Figuring out which capabilities are needed and/or useful for that role would be helpful.

[Lamoni]

http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/erdogan-turkey-will-build-its-own-aircraft-carrier

I really find myself questioning just how much need that Turkey has for an aircraft carrier, since their only real naval threat can be bottled up in the Black Sea via naval mines.

[Spirit of Hope]

http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/erdogan-turkey-will-build-its-own-aircraft-carrier

I really find myself questioning just how much need that Turkey has for an aircraft carrier, since their only real naval threat can be bottled up in the Black Sea via naval mines.

Turkey probably wants to get in on the global power game. I mean they don't really have any capabilities for it, but getting a carrier is a step in the right direction. Your right that Turkey has no direct need for a carrier to meet any of their for any threats to themselves though.

[Pharthan]

http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/erdogan-turkey-will-build-its-own-aircraft-carrier

I really find myself questioning just how much need that Turkey has for an aircraft carrier, since their only real naval threat can be bottled up in the Black Sea via naval mines.

A [Redacted] could also do it well.
Build in Bosporous strait.
No one gets through.
Ever.
Doubles as dam.
And bridge.

[The Kievan People]

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.