Your Nations Warships, MKII

[The Akasha Colony]

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.

Of course it's a carrier group. It's centered around a carrier. Whether it happens to have additional carriers does not detract from this. Unless this is a pedantic argument about how it should be called a "fleet" or something since it would have task force-sized units under its command.

The US Navy currently arranges their carrier groups around a single carrier to increase deployment flexibility because they have few available (usually only 3-4) at any given time and need to spread them across the globe to different stations. They cannot afford to have multiple carriers in a single group while still maintaining sufficient global coverage. But if you had more carriers available, there is no reason you could not have several operating together and still call it a carrier group. Or was the Fast Carrier Task Force not a carrier group?

[Dostanuot Loj]

I determined years ago that for my needs, a 2-carrier group was best. But my needs were for trade protection, sea lane defense, and general ASW/AAW capability in open ocean, not power projection.

So I came to two carriers, carrying 36 fighters each, to provide best benefit. With 1-2 cruisers, and 6-8 destroyers for AAW and ASW capability.

The big driver of this though was to cycle fighters through the launch/recover cycle faster, especially recover. CAP needs dictated this. A single larger carrier would have provided less capability and reduced recovery rates for having higher launch rates and heavier sortie weights. I didn't need heavy sortie weights (not bombing people), but I needed recovery. So two smaller won.

There are lots of sides to the carrier decision.

[Roski]

I determined years ago that for my needs, a 2-carrier group was best. But my needs were for trade protection, sea lane defense, and general ASW/AAW capability in open ocean, not power projection.

So I came to two carriers, carrying 36 fighters each, to provide best benefit. With 1-2 cruisers, and 6-8 destroyers for AAW and ASW capability.

The big driver of this though was to cycle fighters through the launch/recover cycle faster, especially recover. CAP needs dictated this. A single larger carrier would have provided less capability and reduced recovery rates for having higher launch rates and heavier sortie weights. I didn't need heavy sortie weights (not bombing people), but I needed recovery. So two smaller won.

There are lots of sides to the carrier decision.

I used to do a supercarrier with a small carrier in a CSG, but that kinda fell apart.

Usually, in my larger navy, the Supercarrier is accompanied by an amphibious assault ship acting as a light carrier for the time being.

[New Chilokver]

Ah, but I RP in a closed-world region, where the necessity of spreading out my assets for the purpose of power projection and the likelihood of large-scale fleet vs fleet action is much higher and lower respectively compared to NS. So I've my CSGs built correspondingly, with 1 carrier, 2 air-defence cruisers and 5 multirole destroyers, plus submarines and supply vessels.

[Theodosiya]

Would subs be useful as part of CBG?

[Rhodesialund]

Would subs be useful as part of CBG?

Very much so.

[United Kingdom AU]

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

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

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

Is your current year 1932?

[New American Republic of Texas]

Our most prized destroyer ship: Zumwalt Class Destroyer. We've got 85 of these babies:

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

Our most prized Transport ship: Supercarrier class. We've got 14 of these

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier

[Theodosiya]

Would subs be useful as part of CBG?

Very much so.

SSK? Others?

[The Akasha Colony]

Ah, but I RP in a closed-world region, where the necessity of spreading out my assets for the purpose of power projection and the likelihood of large-scale fleet vs fleet action is much higher and lower respectively compared to NS. So I've my CSGs built correspondingly, with 1 carrier, 2 air-defence cruisers and 5 multirole destroyers, plus submarines and supply vessels.

Cool story bro.

That doesn't change the generic meaning of the term "carrier battle group" and its lack of any firm definition on the number of carriers involved.

Would subs be useful as part of CBG?

Sort of.

Yes, they are very useful to have, but they will not operate with the group in the same way that the other escorts do, by nature of their mission. While they might be attached to the group on the organizational chart, they will generally be operating independently in the vicinity and only check in occasionally as permitted by the demands of their mission, unlike the other parts of the task force which will be in more regular communication. So yes, you should have them, but they won't be employed in the same way as other ships in the group.

SSK? Others?

Diesel-electric submarines will have a hard time keeping up with a fast carrier task force, due to their very low speed. Nuclear submarines are far preferred for this task if available.

Guided missile submarines might be useful supplements as needed if the group is expected to need a lot of extra cruise missiles. Ballistic missile submarines have no business being attached to carrier groups and thus should operate separately.

[Theodosiya]

Ah, but I RP in a closed-world region, where the necessity of spreading out my assets for the purpose of power projection and the likelihood of large-scale fleet vs fleet action is much higher and lower respectively compared to NS. So I've my CSGs built correspondingly, with 1 carrier, 2 air-defence cruisers and 5 multirole destroyers, plus submarines and supply vessels.

Cool story bro.

That doesn't change the generic meaning of the term "carrier battle group" and its lack of any firm definition on the number of carriers involved.

Would subs be useful as part of CBG?

Sort of.

Yes, they are very useful to have, but they will not operate with the group in the same way that the other escorts do, by nature of their mission. While they might be attached to the group on the organizational chart, they will generally be operating independently in the vicinity and only check in occasionally as permitted by the demands of their mission, unlike the other parts of the task force which will be in more regular communication. So yes, you should have them, but they won't be employed in the same way as other ships in the group.

SSK? Others?

Diesel-electric submarines will have a hard time keeping up with a fast carrier task force, due to their very low speed. Nuclear submarines are far preferred for this task if available.

Guided missile submarines might be useful supplements as needed if the group is expected to need a lot of extra cruise missiles. Ballistic missile submarines have no business being attached to carrier groups and thus should operate separately.

Guided Missiles then. However which Soviet nuclear submarines have guided missile capability, and not accident prone?

[United Kingdom AU]

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

Is your current year 1932?

1923. Close enough.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Is your current year 1932?

1923. Close enough.

kk.

[New Chilokver]

Ah, but I RP in a closed-world region, where the necessity of spreading out my assets for the purpose of power projection and the likelihood of large-scale fleet vs fleet action is much higher and lower respectively compared to NS. So I've my CSGs built correspondingly, with 1 carrier, 2 air-defence cruisers and 5 multirole destroyers, plus submarines and supply vessels.

Cool story bro.

That doesn't change the generic meaning of the term "carrier battle group" and its lack of any firm definition on the number of carriers involved.

I still say a Carrier (not Carriers) Battle Group (CVBG) consists of an aircraft carrier (designated CV) and its large number of escorts, together defining the group. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[The Akasha Colony]

Guided Missiles then. However which Soviet nuclear submarines have guided missile capability, and not accident prone?

None. Not in the sense that the US has with the Ohio-class SSGN conversions. In fact, no one else even in NATO has done it since no one has surplus missile submarines lying around, and even the US has only four, not enough to give one to each carrier group. Which is why I said they were deployed as needed. Not every deployment can have one because there just aren't enough.

The Soviet Union did build submarines to launch guided missiles but these were not land-attack missiles like the Tomahawks the Ohios were meant to carry, but huge anti-ship missiles meant to sink American carriers. And these submarines were expected to operate alone, supported by the Soviet satellite network and spotter aircraft to guide their missiles on target, so they wouldn't be working with a carrier group. It's also looking rather unlikely that any new guided missile submarines will be built, with the preferred solution being to add some missile tubes to attack submarines, distributing the tubes across the fleet rather than concentrating them in a few boats.

I still say a Carrier (not Carriers) Battle Group (CVBG) consists of an aircraft carrier (designated CV) and its large number of escorts, together defining the group. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And what happens if a nation that happens to not use the USN-exclusive hull classification system (like, say, most other nations in the world including all of Europe) has a carrier that's not designated as a CV and puts this as the center of a task force? Queen Elizabeth will not be classified as a "CV" by the Royal Navy, so I guess the British will never fulfill their dreams of reviving the carrier group. Quite a shame, really. But for want of two letters, they could have revived their imperial aspirations.

"Carriers battle group" would be incorrect anyway regardless of the number of carriers involved. Notice how when we refer to a group of destroyers, we say "destroyer squadron" not "destroyers squadron." Or when we refer to a grouping of aircraft, we might say "fighter wing," not "fighters wing." Or "tank platoon" not "tanks platoon," even though all of these units involve more than one unit of that classification.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Guided Missiles then. However which Soviet nuclear submarines have guided missile capability, and not accident prone?

None. Not in the sense that the US has with the Ohio-class SSGN conversions. In fact, no one else even in NATO has done it since no one has surplus missile submarines lying around

This is not entirely true.

Near the end of the Cold War the Soviet Union converted at least two Pr.667 SSBNs (NATO name "Yankee") to the Pr.667AR configuration, which carried RK-55 land-attack cruise missiles in place of the ballistic missile tubes. Unlike the Ohio-class, these were carried horizontally within the hull and fired through reloadable angled torpedo tubes in distinct indents on either side, earning the conversions their NATO codename of "Yankee Notch." Apparently a total of around 10 might have been converted if not for the severe reduction in naval funding that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Strictly speaking it's not a direct equivalent to the Ohio-class, as it carries up to 40 (?) cruise missiles rather than 154 and can only launch up to 6 (?) at a time, but it is a fact that the Soviet Union in the 1980s had surplus SSBNs lying around and did produce land-attack SSGN conversions for them.

As far as "accident prone" is concerned, one Pr.667 SSBN out of 34 built was lost in a controversial 1986 incident, though this was due to seawater leaking through a missile hatch and reacting violently with the ballistic missile's fuel - something which would not happen with the SSGN conversion.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Azimuth thrusters/azipods vs pumpjets vs conventional propellors/rudder? What are the advantages/disadvantages of each system? I'm working on a 20,000-25,000 ton CGN and a 100,000-110,000 ton CVN and I'm on the fence as to what propulsion system I want to employ. The factors I'm weighing the most are low noise and high speed. Right now I'm leaning towards pumpjets but I'd be willing to reconsider if there any particularly strong views against them, ie poor efficiency at low speeds. Thoughts?

[Theodosiya]

I'd convert either some Delta/Oscar/Sierra/Akula/Charlie and use them as pseudo Ohio. Which means they will be prioritised to use NATO standard equipment.

[New American Republic of Texas]

Imperial Mars-Class Star Destroyer:

(Image)

The Mars class Star Destroyer, more commonly know as a "Star Hammer", is the secnd most common starship of the Imperial Staeus Armada (KISA). The Mars class was first produced on Mars as the largest ship of its class, bolstering a variety thousands of weapons, from Cyclone Torpedoes to Mass Quantum Energy Weapons (MQEW's). It has several hundred meter thick armor plating combined with the venerated Void energy shields. It is powered by dual Medium-standard Plasma engines and utilizes a Quantum drive for FTL.

Role
- Escort Star Fleets
- Lead Planetary Assaults within atmosphere
- Captial ship of small fleets
- Guard Star systems

Length
- 5200 meters

Width
- 1900 meters

Height
- 1000 meters

Engines
- 4x Veus-Pattern Plasma-drive Engines

FTL drive
- MK X Quantum Drive

Hull
- 100m Ural-rank Steel
- Quantum Void Shields

Weaponry:
- 600x Hecutor-Pattern Plasma batteries
- 1000x Warp missile launchers
- 48x M46A Stygies-Pattern Bombardment Cannons
- 80x dual turbo Mega Lasguns
- 1x QKR-4 Macrocannon

Compliment
- 2500x crew
- 40x Mechanicum Adeptus
- 70x Venys Wing bombers, 130x Jorrg-class fighters
- 1x Auto-mechanicii
- 1x Astropathica
- 1 Imperial Legionnaire Division

Holy shit. How much would one cost? $3 Trillion a pop?

[Druzhinia]

Can anyone help me to design a frigate for my navy?

[The Akasha Colony]

This is not entirely true.

Near the end of the Cold War the Soviet Union converted at least two Pr.667 SSBNs (NATO name "Yankee") to the Pr.667AR configuration, which carried RK-55 land-attack cruise missiles in place of the ballistic missile tubes. Unlike the Ohio-class, these were carried horizontally within the hull and fired through reloadable angled torpedo tubes in distinct indents on either side, earning the conversions their NATO codename of "Yankee Notch." Apparently a total of around 10 might have been converted if not for the severe reduction in naval funding that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Strictly speaking it's not a direct equivalent to the Ohio-class, as it carries up to 40 (?) cruise missiles rather than 154 and can only launch up to 6 (?) at a time, but it is a fact that the Soviet Union in the 1980s had surplus SSBNs lying around and did produce land-attack SSGN conversions for them.

As far as "accident prone" is concerned, one Pr.667 SSBN out of 34 built was lost in a controversial 1986 incident, though this was due to seawater leaking through a missile hatch and reacting violently with the ballistic missile's fuel - something which would not happen with the SSGN conversion.

Yeah, I had forgotten about those. Thanks.

I'd convert either some Delta/Oscar/Sierra/Akula/Charlie and use them as pseudo Ohio. Which means they will be prioritised to use NATO standard equipment.

Guided missile submarines, it should be noted, are by no means a requirement for a carrier group. The US has only had theirs for barely ten years so far. If you've got a ton of surface escorts, which it looks like you do, then they'll probably have more than enough VLS cells between them to carry a rather beefy complement of land-attack ordnance while still carrying anti-air/anti-ship/etc. munitions.

Imperial Mars-Class Star Destroyer:

(Image)

The Mars class Star Destroyer, more commonly know as a "Star Hammer", is the secnd most common starship of the Imperial Staeus Armada (KISA). The Mars class was first produced on Mars as the largest ship of its class, bolstering a variety thousands of weapons, from Cyclone Torpedoes to Mass Quantum Energy Weapons (MQEW's). It has several hundred meter thick armor plating combined with the venerated Void energy shields. It is powered by dual Medium-standard Plasma engines and utilizes a Quantum drive for FTL.

Role
- Escort Star Fleets
- Lead Planetary Assaults within atmosphere
- Captial ship of small fleets
- Guard Star systems

Length
- 5200 meters

Width
- 1900 meters

Height
- 1000 meters

Engines
- 4x Veus-Pattern Plasma-drive Engines

FTL drive
- MK X Quantum Drive

Hull
- 100m Ural-rank Steel
- Quantum Void Shields

Weaponry:
- 600x Hecutor-Pattern Plasma batteries
- 1000x Warp missile launchers
- 48x M46A Stygies-Pattern Bombardment Cannons
- 80x dual turbo Mega Lasguns
- 1x QKR-4 Macrocannon

Compliment
- 2500x crew
- 40x Mechanicum Adeptus
- 70x Venys Wing bombers, 130x Jorrg-class fighters
- 1x Auto-mechanicii
- 1x Astropathica
- 1 Imperial Legionnaire Division

Holy shit. How much would one cost? $3 Trillion a pop?

Please avoid gravedigging, it's a four year old post. It is probably best to contact the author directly.

Can anyone help me to design a frigate for my navy?

For what role?

[Druzhinia]

Can anyone help me to design a frigate for my navy?

For what role?

Patrol and naval supremacy mainly. I want it to be good at combat and have potential to launch helicopters.

[The Selkie]

For what role?

Patrol and naval supremacy mainly. I want it to be good at combat and have potential to launch helicopters.

Do you have any ideas about the size? Length, draught, displacement?

[The Akasha Colony]

For what role?

Patrol and naval supremacy mainly. I want it to be good at combat and have potential to launch helicopters.

Those are rather broad requirements. Supremacy against what? Are you just patrolling against maybe some illegal fishermen and pirates, or are you expected to need to fight serious naval engagements? Are you expecting a heavy air or submarine threat? Do you need it to function as an escort for larger ships like aircraft carriers? Will it be working in conjunction with any other types of ships?