Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Naganasu]

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.

And then there are depth charges.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

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.

And then there are depth charges.

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

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.

Yeah my navy currently doesn't operate a destroyer, I just have a 20,000 ton "anti-everything" cruiser with huge radars, a big sonar, and lots of VLS cells which is primarily tasked with defending carriers. I'm calling it a CSGN or "strike cruiser" because it's really big and "strike cruiser" sounds cool. The way I see it surface ships can be broken down into carriers, escorts (destroyers, cruisers, and frigates), littoral ships (missile boats, LCS), and support ships. I just have one "escort" which combines AA, BMD, and ASW into one platform.

[Naganasu]

And then there are depth charges.

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My Navy is obsolete and I feel insecure about that.

[Realm of Councilry]

Should I have more destroyers or frigates?

[Kassaran]

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.

[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.

[Kassaran]

Him saying he has an obsolete navy, and him not having built a ship in 70 years means he should probably look at just buying ships. In order to best analyze what he needs to do and how he needs to do it, he should read guides on Naval Warfare, especially on NS.

[Naganasu]

Him saying he has an obsolete navy, and him not having built a ship in 70 years means he should probably look at just buying ships. In order to best analyze what he needs to do and how he needs to do it, he should read guides on Naval Warfare, especially on NS.

Be right back. I'm going to gather up knowledge.

[Roski]

Should I have more destroyers or frigates?

That is dependent on your budget.

The US navy currently does not operate Frigates while having 50 or some odd destroyers.

[Realm of Councilry]

Should I have more destroyers or frigates?

That is dependent on your budget.

The US navy currently does not operate Frigates while having 50 or some odd destroyers.

My navy budget is €19,500,000,000

[EsToVnIa]

What does your navy define as a "frigate" and what does it define a "destroyer" as

[The Akasha Colony]

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?

I would question the utility of 9-12 guns for bombardment purposes on a single ship. In this case, you would be looking at a very large ship, especially to accommodate all of those VLS cells. And this would make it a very expensive ship, yet one that is also limited in flexibility. If a single 155 mm AGS on Zumwalt can match the firepower of an entire battery of 155 mm howitzers, then what do you need with essentially a corps' worth artillery contingent on a single ship, that can only be in a single place at once? Especially if this ship is going to end up with very expensive radar sets. It looks like this ship doesn't have a particularly clear role, it has lots of guns and lots of missiles and a big air search/BMD radar, more than it needs for any of its listed roles.

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.

Define "exceptionally." Yes, their guns fired at inland targets successfully. And yes, they sustained no damage from enemy fire, although this was primarily because the coalition forces had already secured complete air and sea dominance and even a few shots from a destroyer's 5" gun probably would have prompted the Iraqis to surrender all the same.

The Iowas were not built as battleships for shore bombardment purposes and they were not recalled into service for such roles either (primarily, since they were used in shore bombardment roles often). The US didn't make them the centerpiece of entire surface action groups just so they could bombard some stupefied third-world conscripts. They were meant to engage in real surface actions against enemy task forces, which is why they also carried more Harpoons than any other surface ship in the US Navy. They also carried a very hefty load of Tomahawks, more than other US Navy ships until VLS became more common.

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.

This is a rather facetious argument and you (presumably) know it.

Losing an old ship and a handful of M270s is a far cry from putting a 20,000 tonne warship with expensive radars and a massive arsenal of expensive weapons in harm's way.

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

No. Kitakami had so many torpedo tubes because torpedoes of the day were unguided, so the only way to ensure an acceptably high chance to hit was to fire a whole salvo of them at once. The more the better, and this is why destroyers of the time also often carried 8-10 torpedo tubes. Even then, there was usually a relatively small chance to hit except against very large targets, like say a line of enemy battleships maneuvering in close formation.

This is no longer true today. All modern torpedoes are guided, meaning there is no need to fire off such a huge number simultaneously. A single guided torpedo has a much higher chance to hit than an entirely salvo of torpedoes from Kitakami, and modern task forces are spread out over hundreds of square kilometers of ocean, rather than moving in neat battle lines. Most importantly though, modern torpedoes are significantly out-ranged by modern missiles, which can fly hundreds of kilometers at a far greater speed. Torpedoes were seen as useful in WWII because they had a comparable range to other surface weapons, namely guns, but this is no longer true. This is why the torpedo boats of old have been replaced by modern missile boats.

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.

A torpedo-armed ship would probably be detected and sunk before it could fire off its torpedoes. The best way to deliver a torpedo now (and then) is via submarine. Torpedoes are of course still damaging to modern ships (although modern ships are better-designed than older ones and more resistant to damage), but so are missiles.

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.

It was always fairly arbitrary until for a short period the Washington and London naval treaties created mostly universal definitions for various ship categories based on gun size and tonnage. But even then, there was a lot of (often intentional) ambiguity. Were the Mogamis really "light" cruisers? By treaty definition they certainly were, with their 6" guns, but they were as large as heavy cruisers and clearly designed to be re-gunned with 8" guns once it became politically viable. Where did the line between "battleship" and "battlecruiser" lie, especially with the development of fast battleships? How much armor could a battlecruiser have before it crossed the magical line into battleship territory?

And then there are depth charges.

If the submarine is close enough for your ships to be throwing depth charges at it, you're probably already sinking. There is no reason for a modern submarine with modern torpedoes to come that close if he has any actual intention of attacking. He can open fire a dozen kilometers away, or even more depending on the cross range. Modern ships carry torpedo tubes and missile-launched torpedoes (like VL-ASROC and MILAS) to deal with detected submarines at greater range, but their real ASW defense is their embarked helicopter, which greatly extends their detection and engagement range.

In any event, the existence of a countermeasure to an enemy attack does not actually make that attack any less dangerous or effective. Depth charges did not defeat the German U-boat threat, better detection and tracking technologies, better training, better organization, and a significant increase in the number of available escorts and aircraft coupled with attacks on German U-boat facilities did.

Should I have more destroyers or frigates?

It depends on your navy's requirements. The delineation between "destroyer" and "frigate" varies by navy, it is no longer really universal. Many navies do not operate any destroyers at all. The US Navy does not operate any frigates at all, based on its classifications. Some have both frigates and destroyers, and some have frigates that would be called destroyers in other navies.

[Theodosiya]

RIMPAC 2016
When your country Sigma is parked near Hyuga...
In fairness though, how much chance this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma-class_corvette ship classe fare against PLAN Destroyers?

[Triplebaconation]

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.

Surely there was no shortage of rockets, mortars, radar-guided artillery and so on at Normandy?

Large numbers of advanced defenses make guns more important, not less.

[Purpelia]

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.

Surely there was no shortage of rockets, mortars, radar-guided artillery and so on at Normandy?

Large numbers of advanced defenses make guns more important, not less.

All of which came from warships. Warships which quite frankly would have been murderfucked into oblivion had the allies not first have ground the German air force into dust. And yes, you heard that right. During WW2, in a time before all the fancy anti ship weapons of today that invasion would still have been completely impossible without absolute control of the air by the invader. Completely. That is why sealion newer happened.

[Gallia-]

Yeah just like when the entire British Navy was sunk at San Carlos.

[Sevvania]

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?

[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.

[Spirit of Hope]

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?

Mount a couple heavy MG's on the fishing boats and tugs. Depending on the size of the tugs and fishing boats you could mount MBT/APC/IFV turrets on them. Would be more of a green water force, but not like there is going to be much else to fight against you.

The nuclear submarine stumps me. I would just tie it up to a city and use it for electrical power. It isn't going to do much good for you, you can't really make it a good surface ship and you probably don't need the long range anti ship/ballistic missile capability it provides.

Also, not using the USS Constitution? What did you hand the nice robot's over to the scrappers?

[EsToVnIa]

USS Constitution is currently manned by an entirely robotic crew, trapped on the roof of a skyscraper

[The Akasha Colony]

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?

The nuclear submarine will likely be almost impossible to operate without a functioning industry capable of supplying the necessary spares, shipyard expertise for maintenance, and crew training. It's much more complex than a simpler diesel submarine. Without this support train, its days are numbered (and not a high number, either), at least if it is expected to continue to operate on nuclear power. Even replacing more mundane components will be difficult compared to maintaining a simple fishing boat with an MG on the bow.

[Spirit of Hope]

USS Constitution is currently manned by an entirely robotic crew, trapped on the roof of a skyscraper

I'm well aware of that. Note I mentioned the robots and the scrappers who want it for it's tech. If your going beyond the cannon of the game you can say you helped them finally reach the ocean.

[Sevvania]

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?

The nuclear submarine will likely be almost impossible to operate without a functioning industry capable of supplying the necessary spares, shipyard expertise for maintenance, and crew training. It's much more complex than a simpler diesel submarine. Without this support train, its days are numbered (and not a high number, either), at least if it is expected to continue to operate on nuclear power. Even replacing more mundane components will be difficult compared to maintaining a simple fishing boat with an MG on the bow.

These are good points that I'd not previously considered, although the presence of the Yangtze leads me to believe that, at least in Fallout's version of reality, these vessels can continue to operate in some capacity for decades/centuries. Granted, the Yangtze probably hasn't been doing a whole lot in that time.

USS Constitution is currently manned by an entirely robotic crew, trapped on the roof of a skyscraper

I'm well aware of that. Note I mentioned the robots and the scrappers who want it for it's tech. If your going beyond the cannon of the game you can say you helped them finally reach the ocean.

Since the USS Constitution isn't within the build area of any of my settlements, I don't count it amongst my available resources. It's rather unfortunate, considering it'd be perfect for my intentions.

[Novorden]

Surely there was no shortage of rockets, mortars, radar-guided artillery and so on at Normandy?

Large numbers of advanced defenses make guns more important, not less.

All of which came from warships. Warships which quite frankly would have been murderfucked into oblivion had the allies not first have ground the German air force into dust. And yes, you heard that right. During WW2, in a time before all the fancy anti ship weapons of today that invasion would still have been completely impossible without absolute control of the air by the invader. Completely. That is why sealion newer happened.

Well that and the fact that the German army wasn't ready to invade, plus they didn't have the ships, oh and don't forget that the royal navy would have likely blocked the channel even if they did land making it hard/impossible to resupply the troops in the UK, Also they planed on using converted river barges rather than something sensible like what we used.

[Rich and Corporations]

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?

The nuclear submarine will likely be almost impossible to operate without a functioning industry capable of supplying the necessary spares, shipyard expertise for maintenance, and crew training. It's much more complex than a simpler diesel submarine. Without this support train, its days are numbered (and not a high number, either), at least if it is expected to continue to operate on nuclear power. Even replacing more mundane components will be difficult compared to maintaining a simple fishing boat with an MG on the bow.

It is more complex, but part life will last longer if you don't stress it i.e. run at quarter power.