Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Youngobania]

The most important asset of the Youngobanian Navy is the Skinfaksi-class nuclear submarine, with a length of over 300 meters. Its primary weapons are "burst missile" launchers, which vertically launch to an altitude of about 800 m, split into several warheads, each detonating mid-air in a massive explosion. It also carries multiple unmanned fighter drones which are also launched vertically. Two submarines of this class have been built: the Skinfaksi and the Khrimfaksi.

[Yugoshvanka]

ships exist in three classes

carrier
escort
submarine

-resupply...-

[Yugoshvanka]

I got this idea last night and I'd like you guys to hear it out:

Have a warship, bit larger then everyone's favorite Kirov-class, with the super structure pushed to the front, and a very large bed of VLS tubes covering most of the ships aft, but in the same way that there are missile tubes in the deck of the Admiral Kuznetsov have a large flight deck over the whole thing for helicopters and VTOL fighters.


I know its a stupid idea, I'm just wondering what you guys think of it

*think of it as a mating of the kirov and the Moskva-classe*

[Yugoshvanka]

I got this idea last night and I'd like you guys to hear it out:

Have a warship, bit larger then everyone's favorite Kirov-class, with the super structure pushed to the front, and a very large bed of VLS tubes covering most of the ships aft, but in the same way that there are missile tubes in the deck of the Admiral Kuznetsov have a large flight deck over the whole thing for helicopters and VTOL fighters.


I know its a stupid idea, I'm just wondering what you guys think of it

*think of it as a mating of the kirov and the Moskva-classe*

VLS is very heavy and fucks around with the displacement.

You can't simply move x and place y on warships.

I would think it would balance out, given that the superstructure is pushed to the front.

but hey.

[Yugoshvanka]

I got this idea last night and I'd like you guys to hear it out:

Have a warship, bit larger then everyone's favorite Kirov-class, with the super structure pushed to the front, and a very large bed of VLS tubes covering most of the ships aft, but in the same way that there are missile tubes in the deck of the Admiral Kuznetsov have a large flight deck over the whole thing for helicopters and VTOL fighters.


I know its a stupid idea, I'm just wondering what you guys think of it

*think of it as a mating of the kirov and the Moskva-classe*

The Soviets had ships like that. Part missile cruiser, part carrier. They were cool in the 80's.

I'm the soviets in the 60's, so I'm just ahead of the curve

[Yugoshvanka]

Good, at least you recognise that.

Like it has never have made mistakes before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship

*Cough*

[Yugoshvanka]

The Soviets had ships like that. Part missile cruiser, part carrier. They were cool in the 80's.

It also failed.

The Keiv's failed because the soviets couldn't develop a vtol fighter capable of properly utilizing them and the Moskva-class would have been quite useful in its role as a protector of ballistic missile submarines if it had been better designed for rough seas

Its not the concept that's flawed, it was the execution.

[Yugoshvanka]

The Keiv's failed because the soviets couldn't develop a vtol fighter capable of properly utilizing them and the Moskva-class would have been quite useful in its role as a protector of ballistic missile submarines if it had been better designed for rough seas

Its not the concept that's flawed, it was the execution.

Sadly, it sort of was the concept. A dedicated missile cruiser and a dedicated aircraft carrier will still perform better than two mixed-purpose cruiser-carriers, and allow greater flexibility when engaging a target (i.e., aircraft carrier hangs back while the cruiser moves closer to get into missile range).

ICly, you can still build Kiev-ish warships in their era and role, but with the OOC expectation that they won't perform very well. This is what I'm planning to do for my historical background.

I'm planning on building a class of kiev/moskva type vessels to protect my ballistic missile subs.

Because the "alt earth" (still needs to be named) is almost twice the size of the earth we know and love most of it is covered in massive oceans.

[Yugoshvanka]

The Keiv's failed because the soviets couldn't develop a vtol fighter capable of properly utilizing them and the Moskva-class would have been quite useful in its role as a protector of ballistic missile submarines if it had been better designed for rough seas

Its not the concept that's flawed, it was the execution.

Yak-141 was pretty cool tbh.

Yak-43 would have been even cooler.

*unzips pants*

[Yugoshvanka]

I would post a link for you if I could.

Sorry, but I am done with the topic of the obsolescence of carriers. I think I am myself to blame a bit for not wording myself in a nicer way but I am done arguing.

If I am right, more and more articles on this will come across your path in the near future.

And if not, well, it wouldn't be the first time and it wouldn't be the last. Not the end of the world and all.

I am not out to convince anybody of my views on this. Just gave my two cents. .

There are indeed a lot of articles out there claiming that China's new DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile has rendered carrier battlegroups obsolete in the Pacific theatre; one prominent Navy official (I forget who) said that if the DF-21D ever enters full service, the US Navy's carriers should never leave Pearl Harbor.

But for every article claiming carriers are obsolete, there are several more taking the other stance. A Ticonderoga-class with modified SM-3 SAMs/ABMs positioned near Taiwan can shoot down the DF-21D in its launch stage, additional missiles are being designed to destroy the falling kill stage, and there are other plans to interfere in the "kill chain" of detection, communication, targeting, etc. that go into planning a missile strike of that size and time delay.

Just wait till they find a way to put a DF-21D inside a submarine...

[Yugoshvanka]

Just wait till they find a way to put a DF-21D inside a submarine...

It would still be pretty useless, sadly.

How so?

Its not like they would only launch one of them...

[Yuketobaniac]

(Image)

Can we take all the containers off and put a fuckton of missiles on instead?

Sounds good

[Yukonastan]

Quick practicality question.

38cm cannon firing an APFSDS round, for maximum armor penetration? This'd be near-end-of-battleship era technology. (Early 40s)

[Yukonastan]

Quick practicality question.

38cm cannon firing an APFSDS round, for maximum armor penetration? This'd be near-end-of-battleship era technology. (Early 40s)

APFSDS wasn't a thing at the time. It would have far too short a range.

DM53 KEP has a stated effective range of 4KM, fired from a 120mm l/55 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M830 HEAT has a stated effective range of 2.5KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M829A1 APFSDS has a stated effective range of 3KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.

Far too short a range, wat.

[Yukonastan]

DM53 KEP has a stated effective range of 4KM, fired from a 120mm l/55 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M830 HEAT has a stated effective range of 2.5KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M829A1 APFSDS has a stated effective range of 3KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.

Far too short a range, wat.

Battleship engagement ranges even in the 1940s were on the order of 20+ km, barely on the horizon at all.

Remember that I'm showing modern tank cannons here, with only a 12cm bore. I'm talking of taking the concept, upscaling it, using special propellant bags that have a hole in the middle, and applying it to something like the SK C/34 cannon that were mounted on the Bismarck and Tirpitz.

By having the rounds accelerated to a higher muzzle velocity, then as a result of the sabots falling away and the now vastly smaller cross section of the penetrator, the round can fly a lot flatter, meaning that you not only stretch to ridiculous ranges, but also to ridiculous target effects at normal ranges. Imagine a battleship being shot clean through to see what I mean.

[Yukonastan]

DM53 KEP has a stated effective range of 4KM, fired from a 120mm l/55 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M830 HEAT has a stated effective range of 2.5KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M829A1 APFSDS has a stated effective range of 3KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.

Far too short a range, wat.

Battleships have ranges in the upwards of dozens of kilometers. If I recall the Empire of the British had significant amounts of trouble with correct accuracy with early APDS(Which would be all that would be available and not the later APFSDS). Even late era battleship accuracy still was problematic enough, never mind using rounds that had difficulty hitting targets with high reliability under a kilometer away during tests. I can look around for the evidence to back it up, I remember it clearly enough but not the source though. By the time it took to solve this, its probable the battleships would be obsolete, at which point there isn't a reason to develop it.

Battleships also have guns of dozens of centimetres in calibre, that are dozens of metres long. Tank guns, specifically the one that I mentioned, has a dozen centimetres of bore, and is 6.6 metres long. A tank gun is a peashooter compared to a battleship.

But let's leave the technological developments and eras of use behind (because the plot), and let's say that I have smoothbore 38cm cannons (with 20m of barrel) on a dreadnought, and hence, fin-stabilized ammunition. Let's say that I have a say 15cm subcalibre finned dart, that is fired with a sabot to fit it in that 38cm barrel.

Would, under these idealized circumstances (in an alternate universe), would this be a feasible battleship armament?

[Yukonastan]

DM53 KEP has a stated effective range of 4KM, fired from a 120mm l/55 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M830 HEAT has a stated effective range of 2.5KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M829A1 APFSDS has a stated effective range of 3KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.

Far too short a range, wat.

Mark 8 armor-piercing shell has a stated effective range of 32 km when fired from the Iowa-class battleship's 16"/50 cal Mark 7 naval gun.

55 pound shell fired from a 5"(127mm)/38 cal Mark 12 naval gun has a range of 16 km.

Far too short a range indeed.

Once again, since tank ammunition needs to be carried in land vehicles it is an order of magnitude smaller than battleship ammunition.
Point of contention was that a HEAT shell, as an analogue for a standard naval shell, flies 2.5KM from a certain tank gun, and an APFSDS flies 3 KM from the same gun.

[Yukonastan]

Remember that I'm showing modern tank cannons here, with only a 12cm bore. I'm talking of taking the concept, upscaling it, using special propellant bags that have a hole in the middle, and applying it to something like the SK C/34 cannon that were mounted on the Bismarck and Tirpitz.

By having the rounds accelerated to a higher muzzle velocity, then as a result of the sabots falling away and the now vastly smaller cross section of the penetrator, the round can fly a lot flatter, meaning that you not only stretch to ridiculous ranges, but also to ridiculous target effects at normal ranges. Imagine a battleship being shot clean through to see what I mean.

The problem is that by the 1940s, engagement ranges were moving almost beyond the horizon. It's also worth noting that even tanks at the time did not have APFSDS ammunition, at most they had APDS or APCR. Might as well just say you're already building missile ships if you're going to be pushing technology that far.

It's also not even the most effective way to defeat an enemy battleship at range. Plunging fire, along with proper shell design, should be more than sufficient to defeat any reasonably practicable battleship with a 38 cm gun. The Italians got penetration figures approaching those of the American 16" Mk 7 out of their 38 cm pieces.

Alright, so in a realistic period sense, APFSDS is out of the question.

Battleships also have guns of dozens of centimetres in calibre, that are dozens of metres long. Tank guns, specifically the one that I mentioned, has a dozen centimetres of bore, and is 6.6 metres long. A tank gun is a peashooter compared to a battleship.

Irrelevant. A larger bore does not mean a greater accurate range. A 155 mm tank cannon does not have a noticeably longer accurate range than a 120 mm tank cannon simply because it is larger.

Not entirely. My idea was NOT to illustrate the difference in accurate range, but to demonstrate that your conclusion of my (tank gun) range of 3-4KM vs 2.5KM effective range was entirely inadequate when applied to a battleship, whose guns are an order of magnitude larger, and hence have a range that is similarly increased. The rough length of a tank cannon is anywhere between 5.5 and 6.5 metres, and the average length of a battleship cannon is closer to 20 metres.

But let's leave the technological developments and eras of use behind (because the plot), and let's say that I have smoothbore 38cm cannons (with 20m of barrel) on a dreadnought, and hence, fin-stabilized ammunition. Let's say that I have a say 15cm subcalibre finned dart, that is fired with a sabot to fit it in that 38cm barrel.

Would, under these idealized circumstances (in an alternate universe), would this be a feasible battleship armament?

No. Because by then, your engagements would be taking place at such a range that direct fire would be pointless, and plunging fire on a ballistic trajectory would be of greater import.

The US had a few battleships in the 70s and 80s that were used in Vietnam, those had longer range rangefinders and radars than the WWII tube sets. Since I'm already saying "Screw you, era. I'll mash technology together", if fitted with modern targeting systems and very accurate drives and timed firing, you could still have flatter trajectories at semiridiculous ranges, and if you went for a more ballistic arc, your effective range would be completely stupidly long for a non-assisted shell.

[Yukonastan]

Not entirely. My idea was NOT to illustrate the difference in accurate range, but to demonstrate that your conclusion of my (tank gun) range of 3-4KM vs 2.5KM effective range was entirely inadequate when applied to a battleship, whose guns are an order of magnitude larger, and hence have a range that is similarly increased. The rough length of a tank cannon is anywhere between 5.5 and 6.5 metres, and the average length of a battleship cannon is closer to 20 metres.

And my entire point is to demonstrate that this change in size is irrelevant. You will presumably be firing a proportionately larger projectile, which will be launched at essentially the same speed (or less) as a modern tank cannon. And that's the problem. A target twice as far away will have twice the time to move out of your target zone by the time the shell arrives, and the shell will have twice the distance to be affected by various atmospheric factors (although a heavier shell is more resistant to them). In fact, probably more than this because at greater distances, you would need a greater ballistic arc in order to keep the shell in flight.

And unlike tanks, which may routinely encounter stationary enemy vehicles and fortifications that allow them to actually engage reliably at such ranges, ships are essentially always in motion unless you happen to be fortunate to catch your enemy at anchor. In which case it probably won't even matter what you hit them with, you've already won.

The US had a few battleships in the 70s and 80s that were used in Vietnam, those had longer range rangefinders and radars than the WWII tube sets. Since I'm already saying "Screw you, era. I'll mash technology together", if fitted with modern targeting systems and very accurate drives and timed firing, you could still have flatter trajectories at semiridiculous ranges, and if you went for a more ballistic arc, your effective range would be completely stupidly long for a non-assisted shell.

More accurate targeting systems, motors, and timing won't make your ballistic trajectory flatter. Tests with sub-caliber shells were done, and the ranges weren't "completely stupidly long."

More accurate targeting systems, smoother motors, and trackingpoint style firing allow the gun itself to be aimed more accurately, thus enhancing Ph.

[Yukonastan]

More accurate targeting systems, smoother motors, and trackingpoint style firing allow the gun itself to be aimed more accurately, thus enhancing Ph.

Which has nothing to do with the ballistic arc or projectile range. Neither solves the problem that it simply becomes increasingly difficult to hit a moving target at greater ranges with a given projectile speed.

Next odd round, and this one was apparently either trialled, proposed, or at least designed, scramjet KEP. Not a subcal, is fired from a rifled barrel, but after firing, a scramjet motor ignites. Apparently it was to give the Iowa-class ships stupid long ranges for shore bombardment.

[Yukonastan]

Next odd round, and this one was apparently either trialled, proposed, or at least designed, scramjet KEP. Not a subcal, is fired from a rifled barrel, but after firing, a scramjet motor ignites. Apparently it was to give the Iowa-class ships stupid long ranges for shore bombardment.

We call those missiles, or rockets if they're unguided. They don't need to be fired from cannons.

It wasn't a rocket, it seriously was a 16" shell fitted with a scramjet engine. It was designed for ballistic arc fire, from a rifled cannon, and spin-stabilized. It was NOT a rocket or a missile.

[Yukonastan]

It wasn't a rocket, it seriously was a 16" shell fitted with a scramjet engine. It was designed for ballistic arc fire, from a rifled cannon, and spin-stabilized. It was NOT a rocket or a missile.

It was actually a "vehicle."

Alright, alright, I just got the memo about having to have lolhueg flying carriers. I'll stick to my IDT and MGV threads. *cri*

[Yukonastan]

The problem is that by the 1940s, engagement ranges were moving almost beyond the horizon. It's also worth noting that even tanks at the time did not have APFSDS ammunition, at most they had APDS or APCR. Might as well just say you're already building missile ships if you're going to be pushing technology that far.

It's also not even the most effective way to defeat an enemy battleship at range. Plunging fire, along with proper shell design, should be more than sufficient to defeat any reasonably practicable battleship with a 38 cm gun. The Italians got penetration figures approaching those of the American 16" Mk 7 out of their 38 cm pieces.

The Nazis are most similar to NS in technology and mindset. They did attempt to build ballistic missile submarines.

Eh, I was convinced that this wasn't a good idea, even after I eliminated technological barriers of the time "because the plot".

[Yukonastan]

Is it possible to have a modernized battleship?

As long as you stay away from battleship-calibre APFSDS shells or other comparable odd ammunition. I was really busted over the last few pages on this.
But I don't see why not, I mean, the US did it with the Iowas.

[Yukonastan]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/169463542/Ships/Berg-Onund%20class.png

:Arleigh-Burke intensifies:

-desire to know more intensifies-