Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Pharthan]

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.

Doesn't matter if you can't get repair parts, and with the way tech went in the universe, they most certainly didn't go the "Hey let's make every circuit card off-the-shelf or at least standardized," so when it comes to that reactor - Good luck keeping it up, because if anything breaks, your guys have to figure out how to fix it. If they can.

Just let it die.

[Naganasu]

I'm back and I realized I'm screwed if I don't buy some up to date ships soon.

[Kassaran]

I'm back and I realized I'm screwed if I don't buy some up to date ships soon.

Awesome! While your heart was in the right place before, you're lack of knowledge on the fundamentals in modern naval warfare had left you thinking in a fashion that would only get people killed in your navy. Now though with but an inkling of the knowledge bestowed upon you, you have an understanding that far surpasses perhaps a solid 60-70% of RPers on NS have in regards to naval combat.

I cringe whenever I think of how I looked at naval combat two and three years ago. I was too far starstruck by scenes like that from Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica and the obvious naval parallels I thought they made that I didn't realize fiction was hardly playing like reality. Rather, now reality is a much more interesting subject for me.

On that note, time to begin with the creation of my fleet's basic inventory.

[Urran]

An/SPY-6 on a Zumwalt, yay or nay? Just to give it a bit more AA capability.

[New Chilokver]

Are large anti-ship missiles (think P-500 and P-700) obsolete? I note that the Russians are currently either removing or replacing the launch tubes on the ships that currently carry them. (Oscar II, Kirov, Kuznetsov)

[The Akasha Colony]

An/SPY-6 on a Zumwalt, yay or nay? Just to give it a bit more AA capability.

It already has AN/SPY-3.

Are large anti-ship missiles (think P-500 and P-700) obsolete? I note that the Russians are currently either removing or replacing the launch tubes on the ships that currently carry them. (Oscar II, Kirov, Kuznetsov)

They're expensive and often platform-exclusive. Ships carrying such weapons often had to be more or less designed around them due to their size, compared to a more conventional flexible VLS. Moving to a more streamlined fleet of a few common missile types with better, more modern electronics saves money and is more effective.

[United States of PA]

Bit late for this party

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 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?

There is a factor of cost there to consider for those who wish too, plus the amount of shells you can store per Tomahawk, i do not think you are adequately considering this when it comes to Naval Gunfire support. The day of gun fights on the high sea's is over, yes and possibly even their role of providing artillery support for the Marine's in real life, but this is NS, and in NS you should be able to conduct opposed landings. You will still need naval superiority, and at least aerial parity obviously, as every successful Amphibious invasion in history had (where aircraft apply).

This bring's me to the cost matter. A Block IV Tomahawk cost ~$1.6mn in 2014. That's $1.6mn for a foxhole, pillbox or strongpoint. I could not get a reliable cost estimate for the cost of 6 or 8 inch artillery shells, but what i did find varied between $300-$1000 for unguided, unassisted rounds. At that high end it is 1,600 rounds of 155mm-203mm caliber, yes the range and accuracy is limited, but that is what you would have artillery observer's for.

If we use Excalibur instead, as we know the cost of it ($68,000 per shot), that is still around 23-24 shells fired. This get's more expensive when you go into the proposed ERGM round's for the USN (both 127mm and 155mm), but you are still on the order of a dozen or two round's per Tomahawk

Why not just use field artillery deployed onto the beaches from your landing craft?

Because that takes time to deploy them, both to the beach and to be ready to fire once there. They may also be under fire the entire time, or even destroyed. Meanwhile, you have ship's offshore to support the landing that could be doing this job the entire time, all you have to do is put (fairly) cheap artillery systems on them.

I do not know what the average number of shells a average Artillery battery has ready for each gun, but NavWeaps says Spruance was supposed to carry 500 shells and 556 propellant charges when plans were made to equip them with a pair of Mark 71s instead of 45's, and Spruance was obviously a common ship in the USN for a long time. It was also intended to mount Mark 71 on many new designs, which i'm sure might've even included Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga (after they supplanted the Strike Cruiser proposal)

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

Probably the last thing i would expect such guns to be used for. If you enable a combat ship to get within artillery range of you in war, something is going very very wrong, or both you and your enemy are incompetent (Much of this on NS).

(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

A autocannon would most surely suffice for such roles.

, but again, shore bombardment is a thing of the past in most modern conceptions of war.

I'd say hardly, you just need to be more strategic about it now. If you are attempting a amphibious landing, you have already eliminated, or negated all known threats to you DD or CG.

Want to know what is more vulnerable than those to a AShM strike? Amphibious Landing Ships/Craft.

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.

Lesson 1 in Modern Amphibious warfare there i would say. At the end of the day, on NS or IRL if you plan to launch a attack, from sea or land you need artillery or air support. Air support is nice, but its ToT is limited and its payload is too. Naval Artillery however, is there all the time, and has hundreds or even thousands of rounds available per ship. You need both, you just need to be smart about using it.

[Theodosiya]

I'd reclassify ships type by size. (Btw,Sigma-class are counted as Guided Missile Destroyer Escort)
Corvettes,under 1500 tonnes and no longer than 105m
Frigates, under 5000 tonnes and no longer than 150m
Destroyer, under 10.000 tonnes and no longer than 180m
Cruisers, maximum 30.000 tonnes and 260m

Corvettes role would be ASW and ASuW
Frigates will be ASuW and AAW
Destroyers and Cruiser would be multirole.

Cruisers will be the lead ships for strike fleet. Destroyers would be lead ship for Non littoral defence fleets. Frigates would be lead ship for littoral defence fleets

ADD : Could Admiral Kuznetsov or Liaoning fitted with CATOBAR system replacing the STOBAR?

[Kassaran]

Bit late for this party

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 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?

There is a factor of cost there to consider for those who wish too, plus the amount of shells you can store per Tomahawk, i do not think you are adequately considering this when it comes to Naval Gunfire support. The day of gun fights on the high sea's is over, yes and possibly even their role of providing artillery support for the Marine's in real life, but this is NS, and in NS you should be able to conduct opposed landings. You will still need naval superiority, and at least aerial parity obviously, as every successful Amphibious invasion in history had (where aircraft apply).

In NS, if you're making an opposed landing, you're doing landings wrong, or you seriously didn't have the time or the resources to commit to a proper siege and landing in the first place.

Naval superiority comes in the form of Destroyer and Submarine screens/pickets while carriers provide the air power.

This bring's me to the cost matter. A Block IV Tomahawk cost ~$1.6mn in 2014. That's $1.6mn for a foxhole, pillbox or strongpoint. I could not get a reliable cost estimate for the cost of 6 or 8 inch artillery shells, but what i did find varied between $300-$1000 for unguided, unassisted rounds. At that high end it is 1,600 rounds of 155mm-203mm caliber, yes the range and accuracy is limited, but that is what you would have artillery observer's for.

You know what else works really well? A single 1000lb iron bomb to the face of a pillbox, a cluster-bomb for the foxholes and a series of JDAM strikes on a 'strongpoint'.

If we use Excalibur instead, as we know the cost of it ($68,000 per shot), that is still around 23-24 shells fired. This get's more expensive when you go into the proposed ERGM round's for the USN (both 127mm and 155mm), but you are still on the order of a dozen or two round's per Tomahawk

The proposed rounds, whatever they are, are to go onto our current-day ships. What do you notice about these ships? A lack of shore-bombardment batteries. Sure, they have that single main cannon, but it's there as the stop-gap, not the save-all. The proposition of a large vessel for shore bombardment like a battleship is bad because it amasses too many resources under a single asset that's far too big for it's own good already.

Why not just use field artillery deployed onto the beaches from your landing craft?

Because that takes time to deploy them, both to the beach and to be ready to fire once there. They may also be under fire the entire time, or even destroyed. Meanwhile, you have ship's offshore to support the landing that could be doing this job the entire time, all you have to do is put (fairly) cheap artillery systems on them.

I do not know what the average number of shells a average Artillery battery has ready for each gun, but NavWeaps says Spruance was supposed to carry 500 shells and 556 propellant charges when plans were made to equip them with a pair of Mark 71s instead of 45's, and Spruance was obviously a common ship in the USN for a long time. It was also intended to mount Mark 71 on many new designs, which i'm sure might've even included Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga (after they supplanted the Strike Cruiser proposal)

Takes time to deploy them? Yeah, I'm aware, but if you're trying to deploy them under fire, you've done fucked up in the first place. Don't make opposed landings, do your recon, do your intel, do your homework in short and if you find opposition, pull back and find a new place.

Who is to say that having a ship off-shore is going to keep the enemy from launching AShMs? Artillery? Rockets? Your best bet is just not to do that 'opposed' landing. Just because something can be destroyed doesn't mean it isn't useful, you need to have mobile land-based batteries to push up with your troops, because eventually your ship's run out of water and then lose relevance and then, great! Congratulations! You now have a ship that has no more usefulness and needs to be babysat. Trying to do anything else with it is going to overburden the hull or crew and ultimately you'll get things like Longsword which tries to do everything and ends up being shit at all of them anyways.

The number of shells ready in a destroyer or cruiser is there for niche circumstances. I never said shore bombardment can't be a thing, but in modern naval warfare for landings it won't be. attacking a pirate stronghold in an archipelago? Sure, use your main gun, because that's what it's there for. Landing troops under fire? Go yell at your Admiral because he done fucked up naval strategy somewhere in his boot-licking modern life.

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

Probably the last thing i would expect such guns to be used for. If you enable a combat ship to get within artillery range of you in war, something is going very very wrong, or both you and your enemy are incompetent (Much of this on NS).

Gun = Cheap, short range solution to missile.

Wouldn't use on something cheap and at short range.

(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

A autocannon would most surely suffice for such roles.

Hummm, what about a single main gun? Like on every other modern warship?

, but again, shore bombardment is a thing of the past in most modern conceptions of war.

I'd say hardly, you just need to be more strategic about it now. If you are attempting a amphibious landing, you have already eliminated, or negated all known threats to you DD or CG.[/quote] And then why are you not deploying artillery? If something no longer can engage your destroyers because it is too far inland, wouldn't that be because it's out of shore bombardment range? Isn't that range usually longer than a mounted naval system and aren't extended range engagements dangerous for those your supporting with any form of close-fire support?

Want to know what is more vulnerable than those to a AShM strike? Amphibious Landing Ships/Craft.

Amphibious landings, you're doing them wrong. Don't be opposed. Additionally, a $400,000 missile being used on a single landing ship is kind of a waste, especially where nowadays you can just mount something like an Oerlikon 35mm CIWS to deter inbound threats. Even if you only destroy one missile, you've now forced the enemy into firing almost $1,000,000 of payload at you, not including maintenance and setup for the firing center. Salvo fire would be even less cost-effective and it's at that point where I turn your own argument back against you and ask, why would you use an AShM against something as small as an amphibious landing ship/craft? You wouldn't. You'd use something more conventional like rockets from an attack helicopter or other air assets. Why? Because those are cost effective.

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.

Lesson 1 in Modern Amphibious warfare there i would say. At the end of the day, on NS or IRL if you plan to launch a attack, from sea or land you need artillery or air support. Air support is nice, but its ToT is limited and its payload is too. Naval Artillery however, is there all the time, and has hundreds or even thousands of rounds available per ship. You need both, you just need to be smart about using it.

Modern Amphibious Warfare is an oxymoron. You don't do it. That is the rule.

Launching an attack, you need air superiority to be absolute long enough to deploy your forces. Once that's done, you now have mobile shore batteries in the form of deployed artillery, you have MBTs and troops, and you have whatever logistics troops you planned to deploy in the first place. Using naval artillery for anything more than just a target of opportunity is simply being inefficient in spite of seemingly initial unit waste.

Yes, I did just destroy that pillbox with an airstrike that likely just cost a quarter of a million dollars, but I did so with enough precision to not have almost leveled an entire city block alongside it.

Yes, I did just wipe out that enemy entrenchment using a series of cluster munitions with anti-personnel incendiaries, that probably just cost me somewhere upwards of %300,000, but I've also made it certain that the trench has been rendered useless for the enemy and once my combat engineers reach it, they will be able to restore it to working order for my own forces to use.

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.

These are the pros of using the niche weapons for their niche targets. An Artillery piece aboard a ship should just be your M207's on an old flat-top as someone earlier suggested, not a series of double or triple cannon mounts that if struck by a torpedo just cost thousands of sailors their lives.

'But wait!' I hear you say,' what of modern naval guns on modern naval ships?'

They are there for indeed still engaging land targets, but also for engaging air and sea targets as well. They are there as a last-resort weapon because firing it either means you're 100% sure you're safe from retaliation or you've somehow been surprised.

'if you're surprised, then you did it wrong and isn't the first thing you said contradicting everything you just wrote?' Why yes, you're correct that if you've been surprised you've done something wrong, but it wouldn't be the first time in the modern day and age that the US Navy has been surprised or fooled. It happens to everyone.

On the note of contradicting myself, I have only ever said that big guns for shore bombardment no longer have a place, trying to use a battery of naval guns to replace the roles of land artillery to an extent is a bad idea and as such you should never resort to that. Leave your guns in reserve, keep them generally small and able to keep up a high RoF because all they really will ever have to be used for again is on commerce or raiding ships too big to be affected by smaller weaponry.

[Triplebaconation]

Yet "IRL" naval guns are moving away from the dual-purpose paradigm. Even the current generation of 5" guns isn't very good at anything except shore bombardment because they've gotten pretty unwieldy at 62 calibers.

Anything is fine for "shore bombardment" (this term vaguely reminds me of the Civil War or something) but modern naval fire support requires long-range heavy weapons (6" or above, 16" is dumb, 8" probably optimal) because the "shore" can be 75-100 miles from the beach, while meanwhile the ship is 25 miles offshore, safe from the vast majority of threats.

This pretty much demands guided shells of some sort, so at first glance missiles become more attractive as the cost disadvantage has narrowed or even disappeared. However, they lose badly on magazine density. VLS is a great invention, but not particularly dense.

Far better to use the limited VLS cells available after the self-defense tax is paid for truly important targets. Kassaran has it backwards - it's fine to use Tomahawks against machine-gun nests in low intensity conflicts. Why not? Against numerous and sophisticated adversaries they're needed elsewhere.

At long ranges even a Mach 3 shell will struggle with the time on target demands of fire support, while something like a Tomahawk is simply a non-starter. Time is usually ignored on NS, this is the nature of forum-based games.

Kassaran thinks everybody wants to relive D-Day while in reality amphibious warfare is far more sophisticated. The missiles versus naval guns versus aircraft versus artillery argument is silly, as all are needed and none can adequately replace any of the others.

[Rich and Corporations]

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

Only in NS is heavy shore bombardment going to be an actual issue.

[United States of PA]

In NS, if you're making an opposed landing, you're doing landings wrong, or you seriously didn't have the time or the resources to commit to a proper siege and landing in the first place.

Maybe because at the end of the day, there are only so many suitable landing spots in any given stretch of coastline. Normandy because it was not Pas de Calais and was in close proximity to Cherbourg, Incheon had well, Incheon, Iwo Jima as we all know had only the one beach. You're enemy will know as well as you do where it is possible to land and where it isn't, it is just up to him to decide whether or not to defend such locations well, or not at all. If he doesn't, congratulations, if he does well, you should've expected it.

Naval superiority comes in the form of Destroyer and Submarine screens/pickets while carriers provide the air power.

No crap.

You know what else works really well? A single 1000lb iron bomb to the face of a pillbox, a cluster-bomb for the foxholes and a series of JDAM strikes on a 'strongpoint'.

Yes, it does, but what if your air force's are so over taxed elsewhere that they cannot respond? While not involved in a Amphibious landing, Pavlov's House held for 60 days, surrounded and cut off by the German's before the Soviet's managed to relieve them. The Luftwaffe was over extended during this whole engagement. The same thing could happen during your landing, and if you had your way, you would have no artillery to support your troops, so you would have to throw them at it until you managed to overrun it.

The proposed rounds, whatever they are, are to go onto our current-day ships. What do you notice about these ships? A lack of shore-bombardment batteries. Sure, they have that single main cannon, but it's there as the stop-gap, not the save-all. The proposition of a large vessel for shore bombardment like a battleship is bad because it amasses too many resources under a single asset that's far too big for it's own good already.

LRLAP to be exact, did not realise at the time i wrote that it had both a 155mm and 127mm variant, i had thought the previously canceled ERGM program was still ongoing for the 127mm gun.

And never did i say anything about having big gun battleships again, the biggest gun i mentioned was the Mark 71 203mm Lightweight, which was tested on a 3,000 tonne standard load destroyer in the 1970's. In fact, USS Hull, the ship that mounted Mark 71 for its tests, was even scrambled from San Diego in 1972 to provide Naval Gunfire support for ARVN troops after the DMZ was overrun.

Takes time to deploy them? Yeah, I'm aware, but if you're trying to deploy them under fire, you've done fucked up in the first place. Don't make opposed landings, do your recon, do your intel, do your homework in short and if you find opposition, pull back and find a new place.

Who is to say that having a ship off-shore is going to keep the enemy from launching AShMs? Artillery? Rockets? Your best bet is just not to do that 'opposed' landing.

Again, there are only so many options when planning a landing, and any competent enemy would have them all, or at least the most obvious ones garrisoned to delay your attack until their response force's can arrive.

Just because something can be destroyed doesn't mean it isn't useful, you need to have mobile land-based batteries to push up with your troops, because eventually your ship's run out of water and then lose relevance and then, great! Congratulations! You now have a ship that has no more usefulness and needs to be babysat. Trying to do anything else with it is going to overburden the hull or crew and ultimately you'll get things like Longsword which tries to do everything and ends up being shit at all of them anyways.

Congratulations, you just took leave of your senses. Mark 45 Mod 4 has a 20mi (37km). Assuming you move no closer than 5mi from shore, that leaves 15mi inland in range. On D+1 of the Normandy invasion, no beach head moved more than a handful of miles inland, but that is enough to land organic support such as artillery.

That is VERY different from landing artillery in the assault phase. Better to use those LCACs for something, oh i don't know, more useful.

The number of shells ready in a destroyer or cruiser is there for niche circumstances. I never said shore bombardment can't be a thing, but in modern naval warfare for landings it won't be. attacking a pirate stronghold in an archipelago? Sure, use your main gun, because that's what it's there for. Landing troops under fire? Go yell at your Admiral because he done fucked up naval strategy somewhere in his boot-licking modern life.

lol, Funny how the only thing of note that i can recall ships using their main guns for since WWII is shore bombardment, from Korea to Vietnam to Desert Storm.

Gun = Cheap, short range solution to missile.

Wouldn't use on something cheap and at short range.

Cheaper, shorter ranged, and able to be used en masse and on fairly short notice. As Triple said, a Tomahawk is a non-start for CAS, iirc the time it targets to "aim" one is closer to hours rather than minutes, since you need to program the entire flight path. Aircraft may not always be a option, your enemy is rarely going to be so kind to you as to allow you to do whatever you want.

But, if you want to take all 80-96 VLS cells on your Burkes and Zumwalt's for Ship-to-Land missiles, feel free, when you could fill the magazine of Burke for its Mark 45 several times for the cost of one such missile, especially considering said missile would be better off being used in the pre-landing phase to take out strategic targets. Bridges, C&C centers, Powerplants & Electrical Substations, rail yards, enemy bases and air fields, etc.

Hummm, what about a single main gun? Like on every other modern warship?

Find me a time off of Africa or in Indonesia when a naval vessel on Anti-Piracy patrol used a 76mm-127mm caliber gun against a pirate dinghy or mothership, and i will grant you this argument.

All i remember is the time that USS Ashland made some pirates pay for the mistake of thinking she was a freighter, and iirc she used a 35mm Bushmaster.

Amphibious landings, you're doing them wrong. Don't be opposed.

Again, not completely in your control

Additionally, a $400,000 missile being used on a single landing ship is kind of a waste, especially where nowadays you can just mount something like an Oerlikon 35mm CIWS to deter inbound threats. Even if you only destroy one missile, you've now forced the enemy into firing almost $1,000,000 of payload at you, not including maintenance and setup for the firing center. Salvo fire would be even less cost-effective and it's at that point where I turn your own argument back against you and ask, why would you use an AShM against something as small as an amphibious landing ship/craft? You wouldn't. You'd use something more conventional like rockets from an attack helicopter or other air assets. Why? Because those are cost effective.

We do not use Higgins boats anymore.

Those are modern Amhpibious Landing Ships, i believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of just what is involved in such operations today. The USN & USMC does not yet have the capability to do over the horizon landings, as its primary method of getting infantry to shore can go 20nmi on water before it is out of fuel. A Harpoon alone cannot destroyer any of those save for the LCAC, and a 35mm autocannon definitely wont to anything bigger than the LCAC.

Sure, you can use Helicopters to get your infantry ashore instead, that and LCAC's, allowing you to stand off 50-100 miles, but than you have a entire new issue as the LCAC's will be the only means of getting armor to shore, and they will than have a 1hr + trip EACH WAY.

Modern Amphibious Warfare is an oxymoron. You don't do it. That is the rule.

Hope you dont ever plan to roleplay than, and better tell the USMC too, you just put ~300,000 men and women out of work.

Launching an attack, you need air superiority to be absolute long enough to deploy your forces. Once that's done, you now have mobile shore batteries in the form of deployed artillery, you have MBTs and troops, and you have whatever logistics troops you planned to deploy in the first place. Using naval artillery for anything more than just a target of opportunity is simply being inefficient in spite of seemingly initial unit waste.

And until you have a beachhead deep enough to deploy said support troops?

Why, you need ARTILLERY SUPPORT TOO! And where is this support going to come from, but oh why, from the ships just a few miles off shore protecting your landing docks! That is about the only thing their guns are good for today anyways.

Yes, I did just wipe out that enemy entrenchment using a series of cluster munitions with anti-personnel incendiaries, that probably just cost me somewhere upwards of %300,000, but I've also made it certain that the trench has been rendered useless for the enemy and once my combat engineers reach it, they will be able to restore it to working order for my own forces to use.

I could've done the same with a 8in shell fired from my destroyer set to air burst. I could've also used a submunition shell from the same gun, i'm sure it is possible since mine scattering shells exist.

And even if i did just use a contact detonation shell and scored a direct hit on the trench, i also just created a crater that could be used too!

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.

And the enemy just destroyed your 1 rpm sustained M109s, along with their 6 man each crew because you brought indefensible pieces to the front lines of a battlefield! When you could used the 20rpm for the first minute (followed by however quickly your crew can reload the carousel) Mark 45 on that destroyer off shore, easily besting the firepower of those M109s at far less risk! Cause a Destroyer can defend itself from what threatens it!

These are the pros of using the niche weapons for their niche targets. An Artillery piece aboard a ship should just be your M207's on an old flat-top as someone earlier suggested, not a series of double or triple cannon mounts that if struck by a torpedo just cost thousands of sailors their lives.

'But wait!' I hear you say,' what of modern naval guns on modern naval ships?'

They are there for indeed still engaging land targets, but also for engaging air and sea targets as well. They are there as a last-resort weapon because firing it either means you're 100% sure you're safe from retaliation or you've somehow been surprised.

'if you're surprised, then you did it wrong and isn't the first thing you said contradicting everything you just wrote?' Why yes, you're correct that if you've been surprised you've done something wrong, but it wouldn't be the first time in the modern day and age that the US Navy has been surprised or fooled. It happens to everyone.

On the note of contradicting myself, I have only ever said that big guns for shore bombardment no longer have a place, trying to use a battery of naval guns to replace the roles of land artillery to an extent is a bad idea and as such you should never resort to that. Leave your guns in reserve, keep them generally small and able to keep up a high RoF because all they really will ever have to be used for again is on commerce or raiding ships too big to be affected by smaller weaponry.

I'm tired of what has turn into a wall of text, but the USMC and its ardent support of Naval Gunfire Support, as well as historical use since the end of the Second World War itself contradict's you. As Triple say's, Naval guns are increasingly less effective against missiles and aircraft.

Also, placing M270s (not M207) on a flattop would be very very very niche-role. You would be better off using even a obsolete aircraft carrier as a less-than-perfect LHA, pack as many Huey's or Blackhawks onto it as you can and use them to ferry troops to shore quicker than a LCAC can.

Used the weapon on your escorts for one of its intended roles is not niche.

[Rich and Corporations]

this is the supporting batteries that you'll likely find:

1. missile barges

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_C ... nk_(Rocket)

3. landing craft tank (self-propelled)

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_warfare_ship

[Gallia-]

based mclwg

[New Chilokver]

I thought amphibious landings nowadays were a lot harder to predict and fortify against due to hovercraft landing craft? Something like 15% of the world's coastline being available to conventional LC's compared to 70% for LCACs? Of course, that's not accounting for the closeness of nearby strategic targets and goals, but still.

[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.

[Theodosiya]

Is it possible to modify Kuznetsov with CATOBAR system and use it to launch Su-33,Mig-29K and Harriers?

[United States of PA]

I thought amphibious landings nowadays were a lot harder to predict and fortify against due to hovercraft landing craft? Something like 15% of the world's coastline being available to conventional LC's compared to 70% for LCACs? Of course, that's not accounting for the closeness of nearby strategic targets and goals, but still.

LCAC's would help i would imagine, but you still need a suitable beach to land on, plus you need to be able to land sufficient supplies there until you manage to take (Or like with Overlord, build a temporary one) a port. That alone limit's the possibilities.

Unless there are numbers to support that, i don't think it would be quite that severe. Higgins boats could go just about anywhere a LCAC can i would think, except over land and extremely shallow water (Maximum draft was 3ft for reference)

[New Chilokver]

Is it possible to modify Kuznetsov with CATOBAR system and use it to launch Su-33,Mig-29K and Harriers?

First off, all the aircraft you've listed there are STOBAR/STOVL capable. They have absolutely no need for a catapult assisted takeoff on a carrier, and I dare say they're not capable of one.

And the answer is no, at least not realistically. While the Kuznetsov's turbines may provide enough steam for a catapult launching system, her ski jump means that catapults can't be installed without a complete rebuild of the bow, removal of the Granit launchers etc. Given the cost of doing so, you may as well build a new one. Unless you happen to be the Indian Navy.

[Theodosiya]

Is it possible to modify Kuznetsov with CATOBAR system and use it to launch Su-33,Mig-29K and Harriers?

First off, all the aircraft you've listed there are STOBAR/STOVL capable. They have absolutely no need for a catapult assisted takeoff on a carrier, and I dare say they're not capable of one.

And the answer is no, at least not realistically. While the Kuznetsov's turbines may provide enough steam for a catapult launching system, her ski jump means that catapults can't be installed without a complete rebuild of the bow, removal of the Granit launchers etc. Given the cost of doing so, you may as well build a new one. Unless you happen to be the Indian Navy.

Hmm. I still wanted it to have beefy AShM and AAM. Might replace all missile launcher with Mk 41 and Mk 56 VLS. But left 4 launcher for Oniks. Aside from the Kuznetsov, there are two Kievs. I won't turn them like the Indian Navy. They will bring the Harrier. Kuznetsov will carry Su-33.

[Dostanuot Loj]

I thought amphibious landings nowadays were a lot harder to predict and fortify against due to hovercraft landing craft? Something like 15% of the world's coastline being available to conventional LC's compared to 70% for LCACs? Of course, that's not accounting for the closeness of nearby strategic targets and goals, but still.

Helicopters, not LCAC, are what changed amphibious landings forever. LCACs can still be predicted, still dealt with, still planned against. And pretty easily. It's true they can land more places, but the options are still limited.

But helicopters are faster, and can go anywhere.

Is it possible to modify Kuznetsov with CATOBAR system and use it to launch Su-33,Mig-29K and Harriers?

This is a loaded question with multiple answers. I'll start with the easiest.

Harrier: Can already operate from Kuznetsov, needs neither ski jump or standard STOBAT/Arrestor gear.
Su-33/Mig-29K: Can not operate from catapults, STOBAR only. Possibly could be modified to operate with an older bridle, but this can be wasteful and the USN/FN have moved away from these.

Kuznetsov could be modified to a semi-CATOBAR approach, or even full. The Soviets/Russians considered it repeatedly. It's expensive, and a full conversion would actually reduce the capability of Kuznetsov to undertake the missions it was meant for. For full CATOBAR you are looking at a complete rebuild of the foredeck, removing the ski jump, the missiles, etc. It's expensive and time consuming, and then you have no aircraft to operate from it because you can't launch Su-33/Mig-29K from it. Modifications to the aircraft design would take time to implement, so you would end up with a carrier that was unusable for a while, and a lot of money blown, for not a whole lot of gain.

The closest considerations the Soviets/Russians ever got to actually doing was to put 1-2 catapults on the waist of Kuznetsov. This would remove one line from the ski ramp, the heavy-load line, but that would be OK because you can use the better catapult. And you could still launch fighters in their primary role from the ski jump while you worked on a catapult-launchable modification or fighter. Still costly, but doable.

Of course, then the question is why. Kuznetsov got along perfectly well in its role without catapults, and their introduction would have provided no benefit to the role Kuznetsov was to fill.

Today things are a little different though. Both Russia and China are looking at their Kuznetsov class ships as work-ups to a more USN/FN style use. Both are in the middle of updates, and both are starting or about to start new programs. So realistically you could easily see both ships get waist catapults, as both countries are still working on their new carrier based fighters and could make them compatible. You won;t see full conversion, it's just not that useful, but a stepping stone and developmental program for the next generation is viable.

If you're running Kuznetsov in NS, you are running it like it was meant to be run, so catapults are pointless. Or you are in a transition, so full updates are pointless because you need to replace it anyway.

[Theodosiya]

I thought amphibious landings nowadays were a lot harder to predict and fortify against due to hovercraft landing craft? Something like 15% of the world's coastline being available to conventional LC's compared to 70% for LCACs? Of course, that's not accounting for the closeness of nearby strategic targets and goals, but still.

Helicopters, not LCAC, are what changed amphibious landings forever. LCACs can still be predicted, still dealt with, still planned against. And pretty easily. It's true they can land more places, but the options are still limited.

But helicopters are faster, and can go anywhere.

Is it possible to modify Kuznetsov with CATOBAR system and use it to launch Su-33,Mig-29K and Harriers?

This is a loaded question with multiple answers. I'll start with the easiest.

Harrier: Can already operate from Kuznetsov, needs neither ski jump or standard STOBAT/Arrestor gear.
Su-33/Mig-29K: Can not operate from catapults, STOBAR only. Possibly could be modified to operate with an older bridle, but this can be wasteful and the USN/FN have moved away from these.

Kuznetsov could be modified to a semi-CATOBAR approach, or even full. The Soviets/Russians considered it repeatedly. It's expensive, and a full conversion would actually reduce the capability of Kuznetsov to undertake the missions it was meant for. For full CATOBAR you are looking at a complete rebuild of the foredeck, removing the ski jump, the missiles, etc. It's expensive and time consuming, and then you have no aircraft to operate from it because you can't launch Su-33/Mig-29K from it. Modifications to the aircraft design would take time to implement, so you would end up with a carrier that was unusable for a while, and a lot of money blown, for not a whole lot of gain.

The closest considerations the Soviets/Russians ever got to actually doing was to put 1-2 catapults on the waist of Kuznetsov. This would remove one line from the ski ramp, the heavy-load line, but that would be OK because you can use the better catapult. And you could still launch fighters in their primary role from the ski jump while you worked on a catapult-launchable modification or fighter. Still costly, but doable.

Of course, then the question is why. Kuznetsov got along perfectly well in its role without catapults, and their introduction would have provided no benefit to the role Kuznetsov was to fill.

Today things are a little different though. Both Russia and China are looking at their Kuznetsov class ships as work-ups to a more USN/FN style use. Both are in the middle of updates, and both are starting or about to start new programs. So realistically you could easily see both ships get waist catapults, as both countries are still working on their new carrier based fighters and could make them compatible. You won;t see full conversion, it's just not that useful, but a stepping stone and developmental program for the next generation is viable.

If you're running Kuznetsov in NS, you are running it like it was meant to be run, so catapults are pointless. Or you are in a transition, so full updates are pointless because you need to replace it anyway.

Alright then. Otoh, how many Su-25,Su-33,Harriers and various helicopters could be carried by a fleet composed of a Kuznetsov, 2 Kiev, a Kirov, three Slava, two Mistral, eight Destroyer and sixteen frigates? I wanted a CBG as the main strike group.

[The Akasha Colony]

Alright then. Otoh, how many Su-25,Su-33,Harriers and various helicopters could be carried by a fleet composed of a Kuznetsov, 2 Kiev, a Kirov, three Slava, two Mistral, eight Destroyer and sixteen frigates? I wanted a CBG as the main strike group.

This might seem rude, but it's really not meant to be: you can do basic addition and multiplication, right?

There's no hard answer anyway because it depends on the balance of aircraft you're using. Some helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft are larger than others. Su-33's a fairly huge fighter, much larger than Su-25UTG or Harrier. And an assault ship like Mistral operating large helicopters like CH-53 or AW101 will have space for fewer units than if it were operating medium or light helicopters like Cougar or Lynx.

[New Chilokver]

That's not a CBG. A CBG/CSG will have 1 carrier as it's centrepiece, along with an escort of destroyers and frigates plus 1-2 supply ships and submarines.

A quick search on Wikipedia will tell you how many aircraft each ship carries. From memory, the Kuznetsov carries 41-53 fixed and rotary, the Kiev 12 fixed and 16 rotary, the Kirov 3 rotary and the Slava 1 rotary. Depending on what exactly you mean by a frigate and destroyer, you can expect them to carry 1 to 2 helos each.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Helicopters, not LCAC, are what changed amphibious landings forever. LCACs can still be predicted, still dealt with, still planned against. And pretty easily. It's true they can land more places, but the options are still limited.

But helicopters are faster, and can go anywhere.


This is a loaded question with multiple answers. I'll start with the easiest.

Harrier: Can already operate from Kuznetsov, needs neither ski jump or standard STOBAT/Arrestor gear.
Su-33/Mig-29K: Can not operate from catapults, STOBAR only. Possibly could be modified to operate with an older bridle, but this can be wasteful and the USN/FN have moved away from these.

Kuznetsov could be modified to a semi-CATOBAR approach, or even full. The Soviets/Russians considered it repeatedly. It's expensive, and a full conversion would actually reduce the capability of Kuznetsov to undertake the missions it was meant for. For full CATOBAR you are looking at a complete rebuild of the foredeck, removing the ski jump, the missiles, etc. It's expensive and time consuming, and then you have no aircraft to operate from it because you can't launch Su-33/Mig-29K from it. Modifications to the aircraft design would take time to implement, so you would end up with a carrier that was unusable for a while, and a lot of money blown, for not a whole lot of gain.

The closest considerations the Soviets/Russians ever got to actually doing was to put 1-2 catapults on the waist of Kuznetsov. This would remove one line from the ski ramp, the heavy-load line, but that would be OK because you can use the better catapult. And you could still launch fighters in their primary role from the ski jump while you worked on a catapult-launchable modification or fighter. Still costly, but doable.

Of course, then the question is why. Kuznetsov got along perfectly well in its role without catapults, and their introduction would have provided no benefit to the role Kuznetsov was to fill.

Today things are a little different though. Both Russia and China are looking at their Kuznetsov class ships as work-ups to a more USN/FN style use. Both are in the middle of updates, and both are starting or about to start new programs. So realistically you could easily see both ships get waist catapults, as both countries are still working on their new carrier based fighters and could make them compatible. You won;t see full conversion, it's just not that useful, but a stepping stone and developmental program for the next generation is viable.

If you're running Kuznetsov in NS, you are running it like it was meant to be run, so catapults are pointless. Or you are in a transition, so full updates are pointless because you need to replace it anyway.

Alright then. Otoh, how many Su-25,Su-33,Harriers and various helicopters could be carried by a fleet composed of a Kuznetsov, 2 Kiev, a Kirov, three Slava, two Mistral, eight Destroyer and sixteen frigates? I wanted a CBG as the main strike group.

Well, now you're in weird territory.
Harrier won't fit through the elevator of the Kiev. The Yak-38, with a smaller overall wingspan, needed folding wings to fit. So Kiev is useful to you exclusively for helicopters.
This means all of your fixed wing aviation is on the Kuznetsov or the two Mistral.

So, the question is, what is the use? Su-25 probably isn't useful from an unmodified Kuznetsov, can't carry much ordinance. The naval variant is a trainer only anyway, so 2-4 maximum. So you have to pick between Su-33 and Harrier. Su-33 is probably the better aircraft unless you can get top-line Harriers. If you can get top line Harriers, you can get F/A-18 Hornets, which are better still, so you don't need either. But if you can't, then Su-33 is where it's at.

Kiev is a crapper Kuznetsov in role, so you really don't need the Kievs in this fleet if you have Kuznetsov. Get rid of them.
Kirov and Slavas do the same role, except Slava does it almost as good, and a bit cheaper. There is no point to having Kirov and Slava. 1-2 Kirovs would be more capability, or 3-4 Slavas. One or the other, but not both.
Mistral can cover helicopters as good as Kiev, and can do other stuff to. You have Su-33, so you don't even need harriers, which means your helicopter capability is best offloaded to the Mistrals and escorts.

You have a lot of destroyers and frigates, and you don't really need them. You can cut the frigates completely, especially if you are going with Soviet/Russian stuff.

So instead your CBG for best Russian should look like:
- Kuznetsov
- 2x Kirov Cruisers
- 2x Mistral
- 6-8 Destroyers (2-4 ASW Destroyers, 4 Multirole/AAW Destroyers).

Lets say you can get 24 helicopters of a mixed type on Mistral (For landing troops and other jobs). Three more from Kirov, leads 51 total now. Kuznetsov should have 2 for pilot recovery and safety, so 53 helicopters. Say you have 4 Sovremennyy each with one helicopter, so 57. Add in let's say 4 Udaloy for ASW with two each, for 65 helicopters total. About 35-36 of these will be light ASW/SAR helicopters, mostly ASW.

So Kuznetsov is the last remaining aviation asset, and we already have 2 helicopters and 2 Su-25 for training. You could probably comfortable get away with a 24-ship air group of Su-33. That would give you three squadrons of 8 aircraft. So realistically, with allotment for spares and down time, you have three squadrons of six aircraft. That's enough for constant BARCAP with an alert on deck to respond, but not enough for serious bombing. For serious bombing, you want another carrier, not Kuznetsov.

So: Revise your CBG, and get:
- Kuznetsov
- 2x Kirov Cruisers
- 2x Mistral
- 4x Udaloy ASW Destroyers
- 4x Sovremennyy Destroyers
- 65x Helicopters
- 2x Su-25 (Training)
- 24x Su-33

Some of those helicopters on the Mistral could be attack helicopters, which would provide sufficient air support to landing marines.
And FYI, these are solid numbers, not Wiki numbers, which are not entirely accurate.
I did most of the aircraft spotting size research years ago for a carrier design I never finished.