Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Druzhinia]

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?

Sorry. It will mainly be used on stand alone missions by itself. Patrolling against illegal fishermen mainly, but I would like it to be able to take on most ships. Anti sea battle mainly. Also, it is in arctic waters for much of the time.

[North Arkana]

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?

Sorry. It will mainly be used on stand alone missions by itself. Patrolling against illegal fishermen mainly, but I would like it to be able to take on most ships. Anti sea battle mainly. Also, it is in arctic waters for much of the time.

Sounds more like you need two distinct classes of ship then. One low-end cheaper class, with limited built-in capabilities which still allow for some usefulness in open warfare which you can make in larger numbers and possibly refit during wartime, but geared for long range patrolling, and one high-end more expensive class of smaller number, designed with open warfare in mind. You're asking a bit too much from one class of vessel it seems.

Of course this assumes a large area of ocean needs patrolling. If it's a small area, then you may be able to cover it with the higher end ships alone, and not need a low end design for patrol duty over a large area.

[The Akasha Colony]

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?

Sorry. It will mainly be used on stand alone missions by itself. Patrolling against illegal fishermen mainly, but I would like it to be able to take on most ships. Anti sea battle mainly. Also, it is in arctic waters for much of the time.

"Most ships" is a rather large range. It could include everything from 30,000 tonne cruisers like Kirov to 8,000-10,000 tonne destroyers like Arleigh Burke down to swarms of small boats. And that will be rather hard to accomplish on a relatively compact frigate hull. At least, not without crowding out other systems. At the very least it will require a rather large frigate, but this would be overkill for just inspecting fisheries and would be expensive to operate for this purpose. This is why such roles are normally turned over to law enforcement services like the coast guard.

Honestly, independent surface ships are not ideal platforms to take down other surface ships, out of all the options available. Aircraft and submarines are generally better.

[Druzhinia]

Sorry. It will mainly be used on stand alone missions by itself. Patrolling against illegal fishermen mainly, but I would like it to be able to take on most ships. Anti sea battle mainly. Also, it is in arctic waters for much of the time.

Sounds more like you need two distinct classes of ship then. One low-end cheaper class, with limited built-in capabilities which still allow for some usefulness in open warfare which you can make in larger numbers and possibly refit during wartime, but geared for long range patrolling, and one high-end more expensive class of smaller number, designed with open warfare in mind. You're asking a bit too much from one class of vessel it seems.

Of course this assumes a large area of ocean needs patrolling. If it's a small area, then you may be able to cover it with the higher end ships alone, and not need a low end design for patrol duty over a large area.

Ok. I think that the lower end ones would be right. Would they be able to provide helicopter support?

[Al-Sosya]

Do you guys think that a navy of 2 carrier groups, 4 wolfpacks of submarines along with number of corvettes and patrol vessels is a good idea?

[The Akasha Colony]

Do you guys think that a navy of 2 carrier groups, 4 wolfpacks of submarines along with number of corvettes and patrol vessels is a good idea?

It's impossible to evaluate an idea like this in a vacuum. Whether it's a good idea depends on your nation's requirements and whether this idea meets those requirements.

Does your navy have a need for two carrier groups, and can it afford them? If the answer is yes, then it fits.

Does your navy have a need for more than two carrier groups? Then it doesn't seem like a good idea, you should have more, if possible in the budget.

Does your navy have no real use for carrier groups at all? Then it doesn't seem like a good idea either since you've bought expensive ships you don't need.



In any event, modern submarines no longer operate in "wolfpacks." They operate independently.

[North Arkana]

Sounds more like you need two distinct classes of ship then. One low-end cheaper class, with limited built-in capabilities which still allow for some usefulness in open warfare which you can make in larger numbers and possibly refit during wartime, but geared for long range patrolling, and one high-end more expensive class of smaller number, designed with open warfare in mind. You're asking a bit too much from one class of vessel it seems.

Of course this assumes a large area of ocean needs patrolling. If it's a small area, then you may be able to cover it with the higher end ships alone, and not need a low end design for patrol duty over a large area.

Ok. I think that the lower end ones would be right. Would they be able to provide helicopter support?

I have no idea. Are you willing to sacrifice some system or another to fit the helicopter handling facilities on-board while maintaining a low enough cost to still be able to call them a "low end design"?

[Druzhinia]

Ok. I think that the lower end ones would be right. Would they be able to provide helicopter support?

I have no idea. Are you willing to sacrifice some system or another to fit the helicopter handling facilities on-board while maintaining a low enough cost to still be able to call them a "low end design"?

I don't really mind the cost. I am happy for them to be mid-high end designs.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Do you guys think that a navy of 2 carrier groups, 4 wolfpacks of submarines along with number of corvettes and patrol vessels is a good idea?

FYI "wolfpacks" of submarines stopped being a thing when everyone got sonar.
Especially today, trying to have submarines communicate to coordinate their attack would give away their position, causing them to be attacked. And submarines can't stand up against surface ships, they would lose. The submarine's greatest advantage is the enemy not knowing where they are.

[Aznazia]

Do you guys think that a navy of 2 carrier groups, 4 wolfpacks of submarines along with number of corvettes and patrol vessels is a good idea?

FYI "wolfpacks" of submarines stopped being a thing when everyone got sonar.
Especially today, trying to have submarines communicate to coordinate their attack would give away their position, causing them to be attacked. And submarines can't stand up against surface ships, they would lose. The submarine's greatest advantage is the enemy not knowing where they are.

Didn't the Soviets use coordinated Submarine plans until their collapse? My understanding was that Soviet Bears would find a convoy, radio it to the Soviet subs who then would attack from multiple directions to overwhelm their enemy. They also used coordinated efforts in ASW tactics between aircraft, surface ships, and submarines.

[Dostanuot Loj]

FYI "wolfpacks" of submarines stopped being a thing when everyone got sonar.
Especially today, trying to have submarines communicate to coordinate their attack would give away their position, causing them to be attacked. And submarines can't stand up against surface ships, they would lose. The submarine's greatest advantage is the enemy not knowing where they are.

Didn't the Soviets use coordinated Submarine plans until their collapse? My understanding was that Soviet Bears would find a convoy, radio it to the Soviet subs who then would attack from multiple directions to overwhelm their enemy. They also used coordinated efforts in ASW tactics between aircraft, surface ships, and submarines.

No, the Bears hunted for other aircraft and surface ships.
Soviet subs operated in bastions, areas where they patrolled and operated independently.

Or, some subs operated like interceptors. But in this case the ships would be found by surface ships or Bears, and the subs would race out of port to get them. But they were sitting in port, not out being stealthy. And the bastion was the preferred method.

[United States of PA]

Isn't there also a legit threat that because today's submarines are so quiet you can more easily sink a friendly on accident because you cannot get enough of a signature to identify?

[United Earthlings]

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

I think you meant the latter USS Texas instead, right?

Unless I'm mistaken, ships sunk by Germans and later scraped don't tend to perform particularly well.

The above USS Texas was also at Normandy/D-Day, so given the context of your statement it seems fitting that it would also have "performed exceptionally well" in ODS.

[New Chilokver]

Are autocannons and machine guns necessary on ships of cruiser/destroyer size?

[Triplebaconation]

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.

Note that while submarines may be loathe to transmit, they're equipped with datalinks and can constantly receive information from surface forces with towed HF antennas. The modern trend is towards closer cooperation.

[Shonburg]

Are autocannons and machine guns necessary on ships of cruiser/destroyer size?

To take on a rush of small craft, yes. Or when you want to fire warning shots.

[New Chilokver]

Are autocannons and machine guns necessary on ships of cruiser/destroyer size?

To take on a rush of small craft, yes. Or when you want to fire warning shots.

Can't a CIWS do the former equally well, and your main cannon the latter?

[The Akasha Colony]

To take on a rush of small craft, yes. Or when you want to fire warning shots.

Can't a CIWS do the former equally well, and your main cannon the latter?

Better to preserve CIWS ammunition for use against the threats it is actually meant to deal with, and most ships only carry 1-2 CIWS mounts. And at least for navies that use RAM, one or both of these mounts may be missile-based and thus rather unsuited for this role. The main gun may also have an insufficient rate of fire to deal with a swarming small boat threat, especially one that may come from several directions. And what happens if you are attacked while one of these systems is undergoing routine maintenance or inspection?

MGs and autocannons are very cheap to add and can be placed in a few key areas to provide full coverage around the ship. The former especially, since they can probably just be pulled from existing armories and thus add essentially nothing to the cost of a ship. Why wouldn't you add a handful of cheap self-defense guns to ensure your multi-billion dollar warship doesn't get mission-killed by a bunch of speedboats?

[Pharthan]

Can't a CIWS do the former equally well, and your main cannon the latter?

Better to preserve CIWS ammunition for use against the threats it is actually meant to deal with, and most ships only carry 1-2 CIWS mounts. And at least for navies that use RAM, one or both of these mounts may be missile-based and thus rather unsuited for this role. The main gun may also have an insufficient rate of fire to deal with a swarming small boat threat, especially one that may come from several directions. And what happens if you are attacked while one of these systems is undergoing routine maintenance or inspection?

MGs and autocannons are very cheap to add and can be placed in a few key areas to provide full coverage around the ship. The former especially, since they can probably just be pulled from existing armories and thus add essentially nothing to the cost of a ship. Why wouldn't you add a handful of cheap self-defense guns to ensure your multi-billion dollar warship doesn't get mission-killed by a bunch of speedboats?

Or just train a group of your sailors to be really good with Squad Automatic Weapons and, as mentioned, .50 cal machine guns. Security forces are a good idea.
And give them assault rifles, too. Turns out the steel hull of a ship works for a good fortification.
Speedboats... not so much.

[Roski]

Are autocannons and machine guns necessary on ships of cruiser/destroyer size?

Necessary? No.
A good idea? Probably.

[Pharthan]

Are autocannons and machine guns necessary on ships of cruiser/destroyer size?

Necessary? No.
A good idea? Probably.

I'd actually call them necessary. More necessary for a destroyer than a 5" gun.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Can't a CIWS do the former equally well, and your main cannon the latter?

Better to preserve CIWS ammunition for use against the threats it is actually meant to deal with, and most ships only carry 1-2 CIWS mounts. And at least for navies that use RAM, one or both of these mounts may be missile-based and thus rather unsuited for this role. The main gun may also have an insufficient rate of fire to deal with a swarming small boat threat, especially one that may come from several directions. And what happens if you are attacked while one of these systems is undergoing routine maintenance or inspection?

MGs and autocannons are very cheap to add and can be placed in a few key areas to provide full coverage around the ship. The former especially, since they can probably just be pulled from existing armories and thus add essentially nothing to the cost of a ship. Why wouldn't you add a handful of cheap self-defense guns to ensure your multi-billion dollar warship doesn't get mission-killed by a bunch of speedboats?

For what it's worth, my approach has been to use 30mm CIWS with a variable rate of fire: ~5,000rpm for engaging aircraft and missiles, and ~300rpm for engaging light surface craft. This keeps ammunition consumption at a reasonable level when firing on surface targets, and at any rate the weight and space required for additional CIWS ammunition is less than the weight and space required for additional separate autocannons with their own mountings, firing arcs, and potentially incompatible ammunition storage.

For anything that gets closer, I just use a boring combination of 12.7mm HMGs and crew assault rifles.

[Theodosiya]

Better to preserve CIWS ammunition for use against the threats it is actually meant to deal with, and most ships only carry 1-2 CIWS mounts. And at least for navies that use RAM, one or both of these mounts may be missile-based and thus rather unsuited for this role. The main gun may also have an insufficient rate of fire to deal with a swarming small boat threat, especially one that may come from several directions. And what happens if you are attacked while one of these systems is undergoing routine maintenance or inspection?

MGs and autocannons are very cheap to add and can be placed in a few key areas to provide full coverage around the ship. The former especially, since they can probably just be pulled from existing armories and thus add essentially nothing to the cost of a ship. Why wouldn't you add a handful of cheap self-defense guns to ensure your multi-billion dollar warship doesn't get mission-killed by a bunch of speedboats?

For what it's worth, my approach has been to use 30mm CIWS with a variable rate of fire: ~5,000rpm for engaging aircraft and missiles, and ~300rpm for engaging light surface craft. This keeps ammunition consumption at a reasonable level when firing on surface targets, and at any rate the weight and space required for additional CIWS ammunition is less than the weight and space required for additional separate autocannons with their own mountings, firing arcs, and potentially incompatible ammunition storage.

For anything that gets closer, I just use a boring combination of 12.7mm HMGs and crew assault rifles.

For me, and after modifying the Soviet Legacy ships, I'll mix modified Kashtan CIWS, 20mm autocannons,.50s and ARs.

[The Akasha Colony]

For what it's worth, my approach has been to use 30mm CIWS with a variable rate of fire: ~5,000rpm for engaging aircraft and missiles, and ~300rpm for engaging light surface craft. This keeps ammunition consumption at a reasonable level when firing on surface targets, and at any rate the weight and space required for additional CIWS ammunition is less than the weight and space required for additional separate autocannons with their own mountings, firing arcs, and potentially incompatible ammunition storage.

I'm not too sure about the weight and space argument though. A Mark 38 mounting for the 25 mm Bushmaster weighs only 570 kg and a mount for the Mauser BK 27 only 850 kg. One of these together with a Phalanx system weighs less than a lot of existing CIWS mounts out there, such as Goalkeeper. And the Bushmaster requires very little space at all:


If you've got lots of big CIWS a la *Russia* then you probably don't have a need for more guns. But if you're like the newer Arleigh Burkes that carry only a single Phalanx, then it's probably undesirable to have that single gun be responsible for small boat defense as well as missile defense even with a selective rate of fire, given Phalanx's comparatively small magazine. And it's cheaper, lighter, and easier to add a few Bushmasters on a random spot at the deck edge than it is to add even a single extra Phalanx, if you aren't looking for actual missile defense capability.

Since my ships have converted entirely over to RAM/ESSM for point defense against missiles (plus a Strales-equipped deck gun if they are large enough to support one), separate deck-mounted autocannons either in fully remote mounts or in more traditional mounts have become standard on practically all of my surface combatants (and even the newer submarines lel).

[North Arkana]

Assuming you can actually get the fuzing right in other than tests against stationary target boats, airburst rounds from main guns would be useful if the RoE let's you use the gun's range to your advantage against small boats. But those modern RoE mean keeping autocannons and MGs on board is good, and even with lifted RoE, it's still a good idea.