Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Assuming you can actually get the fuzing right in other than tests against stationary target boats...

Well... there's this thing called controlled variable time fuse...

[North Arkana]

Assuming you can actually get the fuzing right in other than tests against stationary target boats...

Well... there's this thing called controlled variable time fuse...

I didn't really even think when I was writing that (lack of caffeine does weird things to me).

The RoE is more of a restriction than anything else.

[Allanea]

How thick is the side of a freighter or a cruise liner? What kind of things can shoot through it?

[North Arkana]

How thick is the side of a freighter or a cruise liner? What kind of things can shoot through it?

I can't pull up anything off the top of my head, but a few things I'm seeing indicate ships like the Titanic and Fletcher class destroyers, ships not built with armoring in mind, has hull plates approximately 18-22 mm think with some variance among other ships also made without armor in mind. I don't know if that kind of near standard hull plate thickness of around 20 mm has stuck around. If it has, then HMG caliber and up will be capable of penetrating the outer hull plates at least.

[The Akasha Colony]

How thick is the side of a freighter or a cruise liner? What kind of things can shoot through it?

Modern large oceangoing ships have hulls roughly an inch (2.5 cm) thick of high-tensile steel. So anything that can penetrate 25 mm of standard steel can get through a ship hull. So this excludes most .50 BMG ammunition but does not exclude 14.5 mm MGs or more powerful weapons.

[Rich and Corporations]

A sub will know where the enemy is when the sonar picks up massive underwater explosions, no matter how far away the sub is from the enemy.

[The Soodean Imperium]

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:

The weight and space argument assumed ceteris paribus, e.g., Goalkeeper plus Bushmaster vs. Goalkeeper with additional ammunition. Assuming one 30x173mm round is around ~800 grams (figures vary by round type), 570 kilograms is the same mass as about 700 30x173mm rounds, a 60% increase over Goalkeeper's normal ammunition load. Naturally if you compare Goalkeeper with additional ammunition to Phalanx plus Bushmaster, the situation changes, but in that case the main variable is the type of CIWS mount rather than the presence of a separate autocannon.

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).

^

I should clarify here that in the Imperial Soodean Navy's case this was not a matter of "let's design a new 30mm CIWS mount which can pull double-duty against small craft, and use it to replace existing 20mm mounts," but rather "we already have a 30mm CIWS in widespread use, and we only recently became likely to face opponents reliant on small craft, so rather than developing or procuring a new deck autocannon let's just introduce a variant of the existing CIWS with a variable-speed hydraulic drive and retrofit it in place of the old mounts." The weight and placement of CIWS guns was already a given, variable RoF was a minimal-effort attempt to keep ammunition expenditure under control when engaging surface targets.

At any rate the ISN's doctrine is mainly centered around repelling hostile CVBGs, small boat threats only became a thing when the new regime tried to win international credibility by joining peacekeeping operations in the 1990s and haven't been a major part of the ISN's role since then.

Mostly this conversation reminds me that after linearting so many early-20th-century ships I should go back and revise my modern fleet soon

[The Akasha Colony]

On the subject of modern ships:



Fleet carrier design based heavily on magazine sketches for the notional Japanese Hōshō-class. This drawing started out as a sketch for the Diligence-class light carrier I had listed in my navy as an anti-submarine carrier and sea control ship, but got enlarged as it went to its current 55,000-60,000 tonne size because I liked the proportions of the original Hōshō drawings. As you can probably tell, a lot of parts are getting recycled due to more and more parts being available from various past drawings. The new color scheme is an attempt to try something new given that it's not a Carthaginian ship and is taken from drawings of the IRL Japanese helicopter destroyers. There's also the return to conventional propellers away from the easier-to-draw motor-propulsors in most of my recent drawings.

The large bow sonar is based on the OQQ-21 used in the Hyūga-class, although it appears this design was not repeated in the larger Izumo-class which has a more conventional bow sonar (AFAIK). It's probably wasted though since as a larger carrier it will probably be moving at higher speeds to support air operations than the original helicopter destroyer. The original goal of this ship was to focus on anti-submarine warfare with a light fixed-wing complement for basic protection, operating either in safer waters or under the protection of a supercarrier battlegroup for serious air defense. The original design was supposed to operate STOVL aircraft, but it's now big enough to handle CATOBAR. CATOBAR is better but I had sort of wanted to keep a STOVL fighter to keep another fighter manufacturer in the business and reduce workforce contraction. Self-defense armament is on par with Cavour.

Propulsion is diesel + gas turbine electric. Aircraft capacity is probably around 50-60 aircraft depending on type and what not. Still not 100% sure what I'm going to do with the design, it's larger than needed for its original use and Carthage already has a larger supercarrier design for high intensity conflicts and power projection.

One thing that's always sort of bugged me when drawing is getting the shading on the sonar dome right. Tried a gradient this time, and while I think it looks a little better the transition from the lower hull to the dome itself is still a bit abrupt.

[Druzhinia]

Would anyone be able to draw me a design for a frigate based off the specs I mentioned earlier?

[Allanea]

How thick is the side of a freighter or a cruise liner? What kind of things can shoot through it?

Modern large oceangoing ships have hulls roughly an inch (2.5 cm) thick of high-tensile steel. So anything that can penetrate 25 mm of standard steel can get through a ship hull. So this excludes most .50 BMG ammunition but does not exclude 14.5 mm MGs or more powerful weapons.

Aren't many of them double-hulled?

[North Arkana]

Would anyone be able to draw me a design for a frigate based off the specs I mentioned earlier?

You mean the incredibly vague requirements for ship capable of high-end low-end operations ranging from fishery protection to open warfare? Not much to work with there in regards to image.

[New Chilokver]

What kind of tonnage and dimensions are you looking at for a Burke/Atago type destroyer with a 5 inch gun, 96 cell VLS, 2 x Phalanx CIWS, 2 x 4 cell Harpoon launcher, 2 x triple lightweight torpedo launcher and carrying 2 helicopters?

[The Jaclean Empire]

This is a dumb question but what software do you use to draw/design ships?

[The Akasha Colony]

Modern large oceangoing ships have hulls roughly an inch (2.5 cm) thick of high-tensile steel. So anything that can penetrate 25 mm of standard steel can get through a ship hull. So this excludes most .50 BMG ammunition but does not exclude 14.5 mm MGs or more powerful weapons.

Aren't many of them double-hulled?

No, only some more modern supertankers are. There is generally little need for a cruise ship or regular container or bulk cargo ship to be double-hulled. The double hull is due to the environmental hazard in the event of a grounding, but this threat isn't so large in the case of a cruise ship or regular cargo ship.

What kind of tonnage and dimensions are you looking at for a Burke/Atago type destroyer with a 5 inch gun, 96 cell VLS, 2 x Phalanx CIWS, 2 x 4 cell Harpoon launcher, 2 x triple lightweight torpedo launcher and carrying 2 helicopters?

Given that this is more or less exactly the armament as an actual Burke or Burke variant, it would more or less be the same.

This is a dumb question but what software do you use to draw/design ships?

Adobe Fireworks for drawing.

[Pharthan]

This is a dumb question but what software do you use to draw/design ships?

Most people stick with Microsoft Paint, since it's free, or any Paint site.
Some shell out the cash (or illegal download) and go for Adobe products. I've found that using Adobe Illustrator makes technical drawings rather easy, but the transition to vector-art is a bit hard for some people. A good free version is Inkscape.

[New Chilokver]

Aren't many of them double-hulled?

No, only some more modern supertankers are. There is generally little need for a cruise ship or regular container or bulk cargo ship to be double-hulled. The double hull is due to the environmental hazard in the event of a grounding, but this threat isn't so large in the case of a cruise ship or regular cargo ship.

What kind of tonnage and dimensions are you looking at for a Burke/Atago type destroyer with a 5 inch gun, 96 cell VLS, 2 x Phalanx CIWS, 2 x 4 cell Harpoon launcher, 2 x triple lightweight torpedo launcher and carrying 2 helicopters?

Given that this is more or less exactly the armament as an actual Burke or Burke variant, it would more or less be the same.

This is a dumb question but what software do you use to draw/design ships?

Adobe Fireworks for drawing.

Actually, it's an Atago with an extra helicopter and hangar. So perhaps what I should be asking is, how much more weight and space would I need to add an extra hangar?

[The Akasha Colony]

Actually, it's an Atago with an extra helicopter and hangar. So perhaps what I should be asking is, how much more weight and space would I need to add an extra hangar?

I don't know if you'd need to add any noticeable extra weight. Burke Flight IIA fits two hangars in that same space, but I don't know if there's any extra equipment the Japanese added in that area that would have to be moved to accommodate another hangar.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

reposting:

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?

On another note would it be possible to quadpack PAC-3 interceptors into a mark 41 or mark 57 VLS? The diameter of the PAC-3 is 10 inches, the same as the RIM-162 ESSM, so I assume it would be feasible. I'd like to have a terminal phase ABM capability for my ships and while SM-6 can function in that role being able to pack 4 ABMS into one VLS cell would help the ship deal with saturation ASBM attacks and free up SM-6 missiles for aircraft and cruise missile targets.

[Gallia-]

SM-3 is superior in basically every way.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

SM-3 is superior in basically every way.

I would use the SM-3 with the PAC-3, kind of like how the ESSM supplements the SM-2 and/or SM-6. The SM-3 would be used for midcourse intercepts while the the PAC-3 would be used for terminal phase intercepts.

[Gallia-]

you have a problem

PAC-3 is TVM

it would be very difficult to work within the framework of Aegis

you can also just use the air launched PAC-3 instead

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

you have a problem

PAC-3 is TVM

it would be very difficult to work within the framework of Aegis

you can also just use the air launched PAC-3 instead

could I keep the ka band active seeker and replace the TVM midcourse system with the same aegis datalink system used by the SM-6?

[Gallia-]

why dont you just use SM-6 which is better in every way

just stuff a san antonio full of SM-6s

if you want a real BMD warship then start using LIM-49s and Sprints

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

why dont you just use SM-6 which is better in every way

just stuff a san antonio full of SM-6s

if you want a real BMD warship then start using LIM-49s and Sprints

So SM-6 is better for terminal BMD compared to PAC-3?

[Gallia-]

why would you need "terminal bmd"

SM-3 is midcourse for protecting airbases against IRBMs

you would obviously get a bigger and less shit ABM than SM-3

like SM-3 blk 2 or LIM-49

a candy ass rocket like PAC-3 is about as useful as spitting for mid-course interception which is all that matters

you can put it on planes if you want i guess