Your Nations Warships, MKII

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Would it be possible to equip the FREMM frigate with a CWIS? It has none.

It actually does, the Oto 76mm Strales system has guided ammunition that can intercept missiles.

http://www.leonardocompany.com/document ... nload_file

Neat stuff. Much longer range than conventional 20 or 30mm gun CIWS and can pull 40gs to hit maneuvering sea-skimming missiles.

[NARNIA NATION]

Admiral Use The Ion Canon

[Urran]

Would it be possible to equip the FREMM frigate with a CWIS? It has none.

It actually does, the Oto 76mm Strales system has guided ammunition that can intercept missiles.

So its main gun doubles as a CIWS? Awesome.


I'm also attempting to build a modern battleship for shore bombardment in support of amphibious forces and anti-shipping purposes. I want it to have 256 MK57 cells and at least three to four main gun turrets with three guns each. But the size of the guns is the issue. I know they didn't equip the Iowa class with Aegis or sea sparrow launchers because they claimed the shock from the 16 inch guns would be too great and would damage or destroy the sensitive electronics. The Zumwalt has 6 inch guns that will have a range between 80-100 miles which is approaching the range I would like. Preferably I'd like a 100-120 mile range with rocket assisted ammunition. They are also claimed to be capable of MRSIF. Again that's something I'd like. But what size would be appropriate for such a task without obliterating the AN/SPY3 and 4 radars I intend to equip?

[Laritaia]

I'm also attempting to build a modern battleship for shore bombardment in support of amphibious forces and anti-shipping purposes. I want it to have 256 MK57 cells and at least three to four main gun turrets with three guns each. But the size of the guns is the issue. I know they didn't equip the Iowa class with Aegis or sea sparrow launchers because they claimed the shock from the 16 inch guns would be too great and would damage or destroy the sensitive electronics. The Zumwalt has 6 inch guns that will have a range between 80-100 miles which is approaching the range I would like. Preferably I'd like a 100-120 mile range with rocket assisted ammunition. They are also claimed to be capable of MRSIF. Again that's something I'd like. But what size would be appropriate for such a task without obliterating the AN/SPY3 and 4 radars I intend to equip?

no....


...just, no.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

It actually does, the Oto 76mm Strales system has guided ammunition that can intercept missiles.

So its main gun doubles as a CIWS? Awesome.


I'm also attempting to build a modern battleship for shore bombardment in support of amphibious forces and anti-shipping purposes. I want it to have 256 MK57 cells and at least three to four main gun turrets with three guns each. But the size of the guns is the issue. I know they didn't equip the Iowa class with Aegis or sea sparrow launchers because they claimed the shock from the 16 inch guns would be too great and would damage or destroy the sensitive electronics. The Zumwalt has 6 inch guns that will have a range between 80-100 miles which is approaching the range I would like. Preferably I'd like a 100-120 mile range with rocket assisted ammunition. They are also claimed to be capable of MRSIF. Again that's something I'd like. But what size would be appropriate for such a task without obliterating the AN/SPY3 and 4 radars I intend to equip?

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71.htm

Either use a zumwalt or put the mark 71 on an existing destroyer or cruiser. Any destroyer or cruiser sized ship that can fit a 5"/127mm gun like the 5"mark 45 or Otobreda 127/64 could probably fit the 8" mark 71 with some minor hull modifications. A modern battleship is silly for a variety of reasons of which I'm certain have been discussed numerous times in this thread.

[Urran]

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.

[Kassaran]

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.

>First Gulf War
>No Naval Contest

Why would you need a series of Eight-Inch guns with a limited engagement range of 100 or so km at most when you could do the same with missiles?

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?

[Dostanuot Loj]

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.

Just to make sure you understand.

The Iowas "performed exceptionally well" in a conflict against a navy which had at it's disposal no more than nine OSA I/II class missile boats, able to throw out a combined maximum of thirty six SS-N-2 anti-shipping missiles which were obsolete by 1990.

By the time Missouri and Wisconsin were far enough into the Persian Gulf to be within range of Iraqi naval assets (Early February 1991), the Iraqi Navy had effectively been erased from history.

The original two Mississippi class pre-Dreadnaught battleships could have "performed exceptionally well" in that situation.

[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.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

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.

[Kassaran]

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.

Exaggeration doesn't suit you well here. You're even worse off than the Soviets using this method. There is a reason why modern militaries are the way they are. The Soviets were trying to compete in a world they weren't able to. They wanted force projection capabilities at a time when all they had to do to project force was just knock on the doors to one of their border states and ask for some help or money or permission to move forces through. America literally sits on the other hemisphere of the globe, it needs to be able to project force to combat Russia's relative nearness to it's own assets and interests abroad.

Guns on ships are important for when you finally do manage to close in on your quarry (god forbid that this ever actually happen given the resulting gunfight will likely be along the lines of a knife fight - the only winner is the man who made the knives) or have to engage surface assets which suddenly appear within the horizon and don't warrant something as expensive as a missile strike (eg, a fishermen's boat with terrorists onboard planning to ram the side of your ship though now we're going with LRADS and other ADS for this). Stopping cargo vessels dead in their tracks for maritime boarding ops might be another reason for this, but again, shore bombardment is a thing of the past in most modern conceptions of war. Only in the places where you're absolutely certain the enemy won't be able to field AShMs within an hour of your attack beginning effectively should you ever consider moving close enough to shore to hit it with your gun.

Never again will troops storm the beaches of Normandy, they'd be cut down in swathes by rockets, mortars, radar-guided artillery, CIWS and any number of other things long before they reach the shallows, much less the beach. Never again will massed paratrooper invasions into the hearts of Europe play out across the Parisian countryside as now SAM sites will laugh at your transport lumbering into view on the horizon, hostile AEW craft simply eat popcorn as waves upon waves of Patriots or Tor Missile Launchers go ham. That's all if the enemy air force isn't present and you don't have any strike capacity.

For a good look at modern warfare, Operation Desert Storm is a good example. An infiltrator team of six Apache gunships breached the static radar defenses of the Iraqi perimeter and did so within minutes of the impending invasion reaching the gap. Quick, swiftly timed actions lead to a swift and timely end to the war. Saddam ran back to Iraq after setting Kuwait's oil fields on fire when he realized he'd lost. Nowhere where the fighting really mattered did those battleships really need to be implemented. They were just a real-life RoC addition to the strike force built to impress.

[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.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

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.

I mean if you're sending a ship close enough to the shore to where it can hit inland targets with naval artillery you're probably not too worried about hostile AShMs. Like the USN in the gulf war for example.

Or you're like "Screw it this is NS where CSGs are thrown around like candy so a shitty old escort carrier and a few M270s is pretty expendable"

[Rhodesialund]

It actually does, the Oto 76mm Strales system has guided ammunition that can intercept missiles.

http://www.leonardocompany.com/document ... nload_file

Neat stuff. Much longer range than conventional 20 or 30mm gun CIWS and can pull 40gs to hit maneuvering sea-skimming missiles.

Can we make it a rule that any link that will automatically download relevant data to one's PC must have a warning?

I'm getting sick of finding out that I don't have enough space for my porn stash.

[Kassaran]

Can we make it a rule that any link that will automatically download relevant data to one's PC must have a warning?

I'm getting sick of finding out that I don't have enough space for my porn stash.

I use zippers. Zippers are nice, and they hide everything away in nice little parcels for later use.

Just my input though.

So anyways, restructuring my nation completely right now, I've completely turned everything about it on it's own head and have decided to now turn to self-defense forces.

I use a Coastal Guard which doubles as the Maritime Forces of the Confederation, but I need an idea on how many ships I should be looking at with a joint navy-marine corps made up of roughly 12,000 people.

I'm thinking I can run a puddle carrier as the Flagship of the Homeguard Naval Squadron (Not even enough ships for a true fleet).

For it's escorts, a pair of box-head !NotZumwalt Destroyers, one of which would probably be in-port at all times (on a rotating schedule, so say Z-1 goes to shore, Z-2 goes for escort duties)

And then for screening duties, I'm thinking I'll have a sustainable amount of likely seven or so Frigates. Two ASW/Minesweepers (Also on rotation), two-to-three Multirole, and three AA frigates.

I'll have a decently sized Littoral combat force of cutters and corvettes, probably twelve or so in all, but all the LCF would be for are likely coast-guard duties, so probably some light Catamaran/Trimaran hulls for fast movement across relatively light waters. Might even design a Quadramaran for wreckage and debris scavenging (internal hulls would go around a submarine bay, the ship can lower its waterline for retrieval or deployment of said submarine while the outer hulls have most of everything else).

Are there any Quadramaran hulls out there?

Apparently so, but the only active example I found was a yacht and I have no idea why it's there. Oh well.

For training purposes, I assume I'll use my LCF in its limited capacity and then do on-the-job training for combat-type roles. I have a surprisingly big budget for training each soldier annually, so this could be of some use.

I don't know how many support ships in terms of tankers and whatnot, but given I rely primarily on defense contractors, I could write off support in that way as being provided by independent defense contractors? Not the most secure, but definitely cost-effective for what I hope would be a relatively low-budget navy. According to Tamkurk Int'l, I've got a budget of 17.22 Billion to work with here... but they also proclaim I can't have more than a squadron of ships meaning capital-type vessels I assume? I get they aren't the all-solution source, but I do at least trust them to give me realistic and workable numbers.

I'm also going to try and field a decent AEW system from land-based bases. I'll likely have to add that to my KAC (Kassaran Air Corps) roster, but helicopters can be maritime aviation too, meaning I'm going to be using different craft in my naval forces than I'd use for my regular Air Corps?

[Naganasu]

Kitakami was a great destroyer with 40 torpedo tubes. But is it useful in an MT roleplay?

[Kassaran]

Kitakami was a great destroyer with 40 torpedo tubes. But is it useful in an MT roleplay?

No.

It is from 1920 for gods' sakes. You want torpedoes? You get a submarine. You want a Destroyer, then get a destroyer. Don't try to do both. The kitakami comes from an era where subs were still new, but torpedoes relatively weren't. They were well-understood, nowadays torpedoes act like missiles, but they only work at closer ranges compared to sea-skimming AShMs and if you close to torpedo ranges in a surface ship and not being shot at yet, you're detected and the captain is just being nice.

[Naganasu]

Kitakami was a great destroyer with 40 torpedo tubes. But is it useful in an MT roleplay?

No.

It is from 1920 for gods' sakes. You want torpedoes? You get a submarine. You want a Destroyer, then get a destroyer. Don't try to do both. The kitakami comes from an era where subs were still new, but torpedoes relatively weren't. They were well-understood, nowadays torpedoes act like missiles, but they only work at closer ranges compared to sea-skimming AShMs and if you close to torpedo ranges in a surface ship and not being shot at yet, you're detected and the captain is just being nice.

Destroyers are fast and Maneuverable though I seriously doubt it would be able to dodge all shots coming from a modern warship. Would the torpedoes still be lethal to the modern ships? 40 torpedoes sounds terrifying if you ask me.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

No.

It is from 1920 for gods' sakes. You want torpedoes? You get a submarine. You want a Destroyer, then get a destroyer. Don't try to do both. The kitakami comes from an era where subs were still new, but torpedoes relatively weren't. They were well-understood, nowadays torpedoes act like missiles, but they only work at closer ranges compared to sea-skimming AShMs and if you close to torpedo ranges in a surface ship and not being shot at yet, you're detected and the captain is just being nice.

Destroyers are fast and Maneuverable though I seriously doubt it would be able to dodge all shots coming from a modern warship. Would the torpedoes still be lethal to the modern ships? 40 torpedoes sounds terrifying if you ask me.

Torpedoes have a range of a few dozen kilometers. AShMs can have ranges in the hundreds of kilometers. The only way you're getting close enough to a ship to launch a torpedo at it is with a submarine.

[The Kievan People]

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.

Because a ship designed for naval fire support is not a battleship.

"Battleship" originated as contraction of "Ship of the battle line". Battleships were the heart of the battle line meant to win control of the sea by sinking the enemies fleet in pitched battle. If your ship doesn't do that it isn't a battleship, by definition. All battleships were built for this purpose, including the Iowa's.

You can of course call it a battleship anyways. But then you can also call a zodiac boat a modern battleship if you feel like it, a .50 cal is a gun too!

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

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.

Because a ship designed for naval fire support is not a battleship.

"Battleship" originated as contraction of "Ship of the battle line". Battleships were the heart of the battle line meant to win control of the sea by sinking the enemies fleet in pitched battle. If your ship doesn't do that it isn't a battleship, by definition. All battleships were built for this purpose, including the Iowa's.

You can of course call it a battleship anyways. But then you can also call a zodiac boat a modern battleship if you feel like it, a .50 cal is a gun too!

I believe the correct term for a gun armed ship intended for NGFS is a "monitor", no?

[The Kievan People]

Monitor or floating battery would be the most appropriate.

[Gallia-]

~arsenal ship~

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Monitor or floating battery would be the most appropriate.

I mean I guess you could call a kirov class a "modern battleship" considering its intended to attack and destroy other ships with powerful long range armament as opposed to say a tico or burke which is primarily tasked with defending a carrier. Ship classes seem like an archaic distinction, the difference between a modern destroyer and cruiser seems fairly arbitrary.

~arsenal ship~

Ohio class SSGN

[Pharthan]

Monitor or floating battery would be the most appropriate.

I mean I guess you could call a kirov class a "modern battleship" considering its intended to attack and destroy other ships with powerful long range armament as opposed to say a tico or burke which is primarily tasked with defending a carrier. Ship classes seem like an archaic distinction, the difference between a modern destroyer and cruiser seems fairly arbitrary.

~arsenal ship~

Ohio class SSGN

Biggest difference between a cruiser and a destroyer is being able to coordinate fleet defense. A new build destroyer would likely have this capability, or could be given it, with as much as computer technology has developed since Tics were built. A lot of development has been made since Tics got updated computers, even.
I just made a new breed of ship class and called it a day.