NATION

PASSWORD

Your Nations Warships, MKII

A place to put national factbooks, embassy exchanges, and other information regarding the nations of the world. [In character]

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Druzhinia
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 11
Founded: Jul 06, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Druzhinia » Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:10 am

The Akasha Colony wrote:
Druzhinia wrote: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.

User avatar
North Arkana
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8854
Founded: Dec 16, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby North Arkana » Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:13 am

Druzhinia wrote:
The Akasha Colony wrote:
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.
Last edited by North Arkana on Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
"I don't know everything, just the things I know"

User avatar
The Akasha Colony
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14157
Founded: Apr 25, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Akasha Colony » Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:18 am

Druzhinia wrote:
The Akasha Colony wrote:
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.
A colony of the New Free Planets Alliance.
The primary MT nation of this account is the Republic of Carthage.
New Free Planets Alliance (FT)
New Terran Republic (FT)
Republic of Carthage (MT)
World Economic Union (MT)
Kaiserreich Europa Zentral (PT/MT)
Five Republics of Hanalua (FanT)
National Links: Factbook Entry | Embassy Program
Storefronts: Carthaginian Naval Export Authority [MT, Navy]

User avatar
Druzhinia
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 11
Founded: Jul 06, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Druzhinia » Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:19 am

North Arkana wrote:
Druzhinia wrote: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?

User avatar
Al-Sosya
Secretary
 
Posts: 28
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Al-Sosya » Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:25 am

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?

User avatar
The Akasha Colony
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14157
Founded: Apr 25, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Akasha Colony » Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:33 am

Al-Sosya wrote: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.
A colony of the New Free Planets Alliance.
The primary MT nation of this account is the Republic of Carthage.
New Free Planets Alliance (FT)
New Terran Republic (FT)
Republic of Carthage (MT)
World Economic Union (MT)
Kaiserreich Europa Zentral (PT/MT)
Five Republics of Hanalua (FanT)
National Links: Factbook Entry | Embassy Program
Storefronts: Carthaginian Naval Export Authority [MT, Navy]

User avatar
North Arkana
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8854
Founded: Dec 16, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby North Arkana » Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:37 am

Druzhinia wrote:
North Arkana wrote: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"?
"I don't know everything, just the things I know"

User avatar
Druzhinia
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 11
Founded: Jul 06, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Druzhinia » Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:43 am

North Arkana wrote:
Druzhinia wrote: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.

User avatar
Dostanuot Loj
Senator
 
Posts: 4027
Founded: Nov 04, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Dostanuot Loj » Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:48 am

Al-Sosya wrote: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.
Leopard 1 IRL

Kyiv is my disobedient child. :P

User avatar
Aznazia
Minister
 
Posts: 2312
Founded: Feb 18, 2013
New York Times Democracy

Postby Aznazia » Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:01 am

Dostanuot Loj wrote:
Al-Sosya wrote: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.
The Federal Republic of Aznazia

My Political View: https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=4.13&soc=2.82
Pro: USA, Guns, Republic, Capitalism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Gay Rights, Patriotism, Environment, Green Energy.
Anti: Communism, Corruption, Crony-Capitalism, Accommodation, Fascism, Religious Extremism, Neo-Progressivism.
Peace Time: 450,000 total

Breakdown by branch (peace time):
    -Army: 250,000
    -Navy: 100,000
    -Marines: 35,000
    -Air force: 65,000
Population: 98.362 Million
Current Chancellor: Fredrick Pudikov
Minister of Foreign Affairs: Dwight Folwer
Press Secretary: David Piers
Aznazian Trade Secretary: Christopher Olson

User avatar
Dostanuot Loj
Senator
 
Posts: 4027
Founded: Nov 04, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Dostanuot Loj » Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:05 am

Aznazia wrote:
Dostanuot Loj wrote:
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.
Leopard 1 IRL

Kyiv is my disobedient child. :P

User avatar
United States of PA
Senator
 
Posts: 4325
Founded: Apr 01, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby United States of PA » Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:22 pm

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?
In other words, conservatives are generous with their own money, and liberals are generous with other peoples money.
"I object and take exception to everyone saying that Obama and Congress are spending money like a drunken sailor. As a former drunken sailor, I quit when I ran out of money." ~ Unknown
"See, it doesn't matter how many people you have, how old your civilization is, or any such tripe. We're still the by-God US of A and we will seriously bitch slap you so hard your ancestors going back millenia will feel it if you piss us off."

User avatar
United Earthlings
Minister
 
Posts: 2032
Founded: Aug 17, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby United Earthlings » Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:27 pm

Dostanuot Loj wrote: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? :p

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

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.
Commonwealth Defence Export|OC Thread for Storefront|Write-Ups
Embassy Page|Categories Types

You may delay, but time will not, therefore make sure to enjoy the time you've wasted.

Welcome to the NSverse, where funding priorities and spending levels may seem very odd, to say the least.

User avatar
New Chilokver
Minister
 
Posts: 2091
Founded: Oct 05, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby New Chilokver » Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:47 pm

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

About User
Hong Kong-Australian Male
Pro: Yeah
Neutral: Meh
Con: Nah
| [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] |
[HOI I - Peacetime conditions]
Head of Government: President Ada Luong
Population: 193.55 million
GDP (nominal): $8.77 trillion
Active Military: 1.2 million
Member of: IFC, UL
IIWiki
| There is no news. |
Other Stuff
Lingria wrote:Just realized I'm better at roleplaying then talking to another human being.
Fck.
WARNING: This nation represents my RL views.

User avatar
Triplebaconation
Senator
 
Posts: 3940
Founded: Feb 22, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Triplebaconation » Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:19 am

The Akasha Colony wrote:
Theodosiya wrote: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.
Proverbs 23:9.

Things are a bit larger than you appear to think, my friend.

User avatar
Shonburg
Diplomat
 
Posts: 822
Founded: Jan 11, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Shonburg » Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:27 am

New Chilokver wrote: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.
Queendom of Shonburg

User avatar
New Chilokver
Minister
 
Posts: 2091
Founded: Oct 05, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby New Chilokver » Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:59 am

Shonburg wrote:
New Chilokver wrote: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?

About User
Hong Kong-Australian Male
Pro: Yeah
Neutral: Meh
Con: Nah
| [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] |
[HOI I - Peacetime conditions]
Head of Government: President Ada Luong
Population: 193.55 million
GDP (nominal): $8.77 trillion
Active Military: 1.2 million
Member of: IFC, UL
IIWiki
| There is no news. |
Other Stuff
Lingria wrote:Just realized I'm better at roleplaying then talking to another human being.
Fck.
WARNING: This nation represents my RL views.

User avatar
The Akasha Colony
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14157
Founded: Apr 25, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Akasha Colony » Sat Jul 09, 2016 1:11 am

New Chilokver wrote:
Shonburg wrote: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?
A colony of the New Free Planets Alliance.
The primary MT nation of this account is the Republic of Carthage.
New Free Planets Alliance (FT)
New Terran Republic (FT)
Republic of Carthage (MT)
World Economic Union (MT)
Kaiserreich Europa Zentral (PT/MT)
Five Republics of Hanalua (FanT)
National Links: Factbook Entry | Embassy Program
Storefronts: Carthaginian Naval Export Authority [MT, Navy]

User avatar
Pharthan
Minister
 
Posts: 2969
Founded: Feb 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Pharthan » Sat Jul 09, 2016 7:23 am

The Akasha Colony wrote:
New Chilokver wrote: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.
Last edited by Pharthan on Sat Jul 09, 2016 7:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
HALCYON ARMS STOREFRONT

"Humanity is a way for the cosmos to know itself." - Carl Sagan
"Besides, if God didn't want us making glowing fish and insect-resistant corn, the building blocks of life wouldn't be so easy for science to fiddle with." - Dracoria

Why haven't I had anything new in my storefront for so long? This is why. I've been busy.

User avatar
Roski
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15601
Founded: Nov 18, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Roski » Sat Jul 09, 2016 7:26 am

New Chilokver wrote:Are autocannons and machine guns necessary on ships of cruiser/destroyer size?


Necessary? No.
A good idea? Probably.
I'm some 17 year old psuedo-libertarian who leans to the left in social terms, is fiercly right economically, and centrist in foriegn policy. Unapologetically Pro-American, Pro-NATO, even if we do fuck up (a lot). If you can find real sources that disagree with me I will change my opinion. Call me IHOP cause I'm always flipping.

Follow my Vex Robotics team on instagram! @3921a_vex

I am the Federal Republic of Roski. I have a population slightly over 256 million with a GDP of 13.92-14.25 trillion. My gross domestic product increases each year between .4%-.1.4%. I have a military with 4.58 million total people, with 1.58 million of those active. My defense spending is 598.5 billion, or 4.2% of my Gross Domestic Product.

User avatar
Pharthan
Minister
 
Posts: 2969
Founded: Feb 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Pharthan » Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:01 am

Roski wrote:
New Chilokver wrote: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.
HALCYON ARMS STOREFRONT

"Humanity is a way for the cosmos to know itself." - Carl Sagan
"Besides, if God didn't want us making glowing fish and insect-resistant corn, the building blocks of life wouldn't be so easy for science to fiddle with." - Dracoria

Why haven't I had anything new in my storefront for so long? This is why. I've been busy.

User avatar
The Soodean Imperium
Senator
 
Posts: 4859
Founded: May 10, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Soodean Imperium » Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:32 am

The Akasha Colony wrote:
New Chilokver wrote: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.
Last harmonized by Hu Jintao on Sat Mar 4, 2006 2:33pm, harmonized 8 times in total.


"In short, when we hastily attribute to aesthetic and inherited faculties the artistic nature of Athenian civilization, we are almost proceeding as did men in the Middle Ages, when fire was explained by phlogiston and the effects of opium by its soporific powers." --Emile Durkheim, 1895
Come join Septentrion!
ICly, this nation is now known as the Socialist Republic of Menghe (대멩 사회주의 궁화국, 大孟社會主義共和國). You can still call me Soode in OOC.

User avatar
Theodosiya
Minister
 
Posts: 3145
Founded: Oct 10, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Theodosiya » Sat Jul 09, 2016 9:20 am

The Soodean Imperium wrote:
The Akasha Colony wrote:
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 strong rules over the weak
And the weak are ruled by the strong
It is the natural order

User avatar
The Akasha Colony
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14157
Founded: Apr 25, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Akasha Colony » Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:05 am

The Soodean Imperium wrote: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:
Image

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).
A colony of the New Free Planets Alliance.
The primary MT nation of this account is the Republic of Carthage.
New Free Planets Alliance (FT)
New Terran Republic (FT)
Republic of Carthage (MT)
World Economic Union (MT)
Kaiserreich Europa Zentral (PT/MT)
Five Republics of Hanalua (FanT)
National Links: Factbook Entry | Embassy Program
Storefronts: Carthaginian Naval Export Authority [MT, Navy]

User avatar
North Arkana
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8854
Founded: Dec 16, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby North Arkana » Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:47 am

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.
Image
"I don't know everything, just the things I know"

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Factbooks and National Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: The United States of Ibica, Thermodolia, Wesleys Theorist

Advertisement

Remove ads