Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Gallia-]

1) Unimportant, as the supporting structure of datalinks ensures that it will never be hit in the first place. o:

2) You use Soviet anti-submarine weapons (I'm pretty sure?), welcome to losing. Using any advanced Soviet weapon is a sign of a diminished technology industry and inferior integrated circuit production, though, so S-400 will equally predispose your industry to losing.

Not to be all :cliche: here, but good RPing isn't necessarily about winning or losing - it's about writing the story that accompanies that conflict. Which means that if a given nation's historical canon involves ties to the Eastern Bloc, having a less-than-developed economy, or using a doctrine that rests on quantity rather than quality, Soviet/Russian weapons are a good choice from a story-oriented point of view, even if (as you claim) they are inferior to what NATO has to offer. And in my experience, working within the flaws of your given equipment makes far better RP material than simply boasting about how superior it is.

I agree that there's far too much "ROSSIYA STRONK USE S400 KILL ALL UR WEAK WESTURN PLANES!!!1" - but as far as writing quality goes, that's no different than "NATO STRONK USE PATRIOT MISSILE KILL ALL UR WEAK COMMIE PLANES!!!1". The problem on today's II isn't people overusing one bloc's equipment or another; it's people using any equipment in general and claiming that it's the best in the world and will allow them to crush everything in their path with minimal losses. Hence the obsession with mega-dreadnoughts, ultra-heavy MBTs, and super-soldier spec-ops.

If you think that NATO-based equipment is a better match for your canon, then by all means use it. If you think someone is overstating what their equipment can do, then by all means politely point it out. But please think twice before waving your genitals in people's faces every time you see anything remotely non-Western appear. It's a little disconcerting to watch.

I'm merely stating facts.

Whether you agree or not is immaterial.

[Pharthan]

Unless there is storm there are always helicopters on deck and planes on carriers. But that is in RL. I would personally still keep some on deck in case of an unforeseen emergency

Unless doing sea-trials, or very close to homeport, there are always helicopters and planes on the flight-deck of carriers. Including storms. Storms are, however, usually avoided when manageable.

[San-Silvacian]

10-14 fixed wing aircraft (Navalized Mirage 2000 pl0x, Jaguars, Entendards, E-2s) and 10-16 rotor wing for ASW.

[San-Silvacian]

So on the carrier,

Its going to carry 4 Super Entendards (Or Jaguars) and 10 Mirage 2000s. The 'desired' aircraft of choice is the Rafale, however until more of those can be procured, its stuck with what it can get.

All ships will carry 2 E-2 Hawkeyes.

[Connori Pilgrims]

At least island is smaller now...

So where exactly does this thing fit in the whole greater french navy? Escort carrier? Postage for foreign stations (like the Floreal-Class corvettes)?

[San-Silvacian]

At least island is smaller now...

So where exactly does this thing fit in the whole greater french navy? Escort carrier? Postage for foreign stations (like the Floreal-Class corvettes)?

It supports destroyer/cruiser squadrons.

You have a squadron of 6 destroyers or 4 cruisers, each squadron has a carrier.

The destroyers I have are being replaced by the cruisers since it'd be cheaper to operate 5 ships instead of 7 per squadron while greatly increasing the capabilities.

[Pharthan]

([url=http://s25.postimg.org/w62ao853v/frenchlightcarrier.jpg?noCache=1396484389]Image)[/url]

10-14 fixed wing aircraft (Navalized Mirage 2000 pl0x, Jaguars, Entendards, E-2s) and 10-16 rotor wing for ASW.

Looks like it's more fit for 24-36 aircraft. It's similarly sized to the Izumo, but you match it in number of aircraft, when the Izumo is also using a good deal of it's space for vehicles as well.

I recommend adding a dedicated Flight Bridge, or "Pri-Fly."

Also, I'd offset your forwardmost CIWS to being beside the bow, not on top of it; that's generally valuable space right there.

Also, what's it powered by? It looks like you've got a stack on it, but I'm not sure.

[Urran]

([url=http://s25.postimg.org/w62ao853v/frenchlightcarrier.jpg?noCache=1396484389]Image)[/url]

10-14 fixed wing aircraft (Navalized Mirage 2000 pl0x, Jaguars, Entendards, E-2s) and 10-16 rotor wing for ASW.

Cute carrier. Is it nuclear?

[San-Silvacian]

([url=http://s25.postimg.org/w62ao853v/frenchlightcarrier.jpg?noCache=1396484389]Image)[/url]

10-14 fixed wing aircraft (Navalized Mirage 2000 pl0x, Jaguars, Entendards, E-2s) and 10-16 rotor wing for ASW.

Cute carrier. Is it nuclear?

No.

[Sevvania]

http://oi58.tinypic.com/e5iek1.jpg
My first attempt at a Sevvanian naval vessel circa WWII, based on a design by Gawdzendia that was based on a Pennsylvania-class battleship by Alvama.

It's a bit longer than the Pennsylvania-class, but with a lower profile. Provisions for launching and recovering seaplanes have been removed, and it has an additional smokestack, because I figured that a larger ship would require greater engine power.

I ah... I really don't know much about naval vessels in general, so I'm not sure if there are any glaring issues that need to be addressed.

[United States of PA]

Need to add credits for that pic.

[Sevvania]

Need to add credits for that pic.

based on a design by Gawdzendia that was based on a Pennsylvania-class battleship by Alvama.

[Oaledonia]

Need to add credits for that pic.

based on a design by Gawdzendia that was based on a Pennsylvania-class battleship by Alvama.

It needs to be in the pic, as does the water-mark. Did you not read the rules of the site?

[Sevvania]

It needs to be in the pic, as does the water-mark. Did you not read the rules of the site?

No, I got the base image from Gawdzendia. I'll get that sorted once I figure out what needs fixed/changed.

[Lubyak]

http://oi58.tinypic.com/e5iek1.jpg
My first attempt at a Sevvanian naval vessel circa WWII, based on a design by Gawdzendia that was based on a Pennsylvania-class battleship by Alvama.

It's a bit longer than the Pennsylvania-class, but with a lower profile. Provisions for launching and recovering seaplanes have been removed, and it has an additional smokestack, because I figured that a larger ship would require greater engine power.

I ah... I really don't know much about naval vessels in general, so I'm not sure if there are any glaring issues that need to be addressed.

Yeah, that lower profile is going to hurt you. If you're basing it on the Pennsylvania class, then you're going to need to use optical rangefinders. The masts are there so that the fire control sensors, range finders, and later radar, can have as large a field of view as possible. Getting rid of them, you're severely reducing the range at which you can engage the enemy.

[The Soodean Imperium]

It needs to be in the pic, as does the water-mark. Did you not read the rules of the site?

No, I got the base image from Gawdzendia. I'll get that sorted once I figure out what needs fixed/changed.

Shipbucket has a guide to citations here, under #6: Crediting.

I faintly recall a more specific crediting guide on Shipbucket, but I can't seem to find it right now.

EDIT: Never mind, found it five seconds after I posted. Shipbucket Fair Use Agreement

[Sevvania]

http://oi58.tinypic.com/e5iek1.jpg
My first attempt at a Sevvanian naval vessel circa WWII, based on a design by Gawdzendia that was based on a Pennsylvania-class battleship by Alvama.

It's a bit longer than the Pennsylvania-class, but with a lower profile. Provisions for launching and recovering seaplanes have been removed, and it has an additional smokestack, because I figured that a larger ship would require greater engine power.

I ah... I really don't know much about naval vessels in general, so I'm not sure if there are any glaring issues that need to be addressed.

Yeah, that lower profile is going to hurt you. If you're basing it on the Pennsylvania class, then you're going to need to use optical rangefinders. The masts are there so that the fire control sensors, range finders, and later radar, can have as large a field of view as possible. Getting rid of them, you're severely reducing the range at which you can engage the enemy.

Ahh, that explains things. I wasn't entirely certain why they were there, and figured it had something to do with air traffic control regarding the seaplanes. I guess I'll need to bring those back, then.

Any other problems?

[Anacasppia]

Okay, so the primary radar suite of my destroyer is going to be a series of three radars mounted on the deckhouse and mast (the later tapers off from the top of the former).

The X-band AN/SPY-3 and S-band AN/SPY-4 (making up the Dual Band Radar system originally being touted for Zumwalt) will be on the deckhouse, each comprising three fixed arrays, with SPY-3 above and SPY-4 below. SPY-3 is primarily for surface/horizon search, and SPY-4 for SAM guidance (though it is perfectly capable of air/volume search, for which it is the secondary radar).

Atop the mast (~30m) will be rotating array radar acting as primary air/volume search radar, the intent being to stretch the radar horizon. Of course, this also adds a deliberate degree of redundancy to the radar suite.

How does this sound? Should I go with SAMPSON or SMART-L for the mast-top radar?

[Crookfur]

Okay, so the primary radar suite of my destroyer is going to be a series of three radars mounted on the deckhouse and mast (the later tapers off from the top of the former).

The X-band AN/SPY-3 and S-band AN/SPY-4 (making up the Dual Band Radar system originally being touted for Zumwalt) will be on the deckhouse, each comprising three fixed arrays, with SPY-3 above and SPY-4 below. SPY-3 is primarily for surface/horizon search, and SPY-4 for SAM guidance (though it is perfectly capable of air/volume search, for which it is the secondary radar).

Atop the mast will be rotating array radar acting as primary air/volume search radar, the intent being to stretch the radar horizon. Of course, this also adds a deliberate degree of redundancy to the radar suite.

How does this sound? Should I go with SAMPSON or SMART-L for the mast-top radar?

seems a bit pointless and redundant.

The thing is AN/SPY 3 will be your primary SAM guidance radar (if using the US standard series) since its X-band and the other two are S-Band. There are proposals out there for using the standard series with SAMPSON and they all add in X-band illuminators.

if you must hybridise use SMART-L for volume search and AN/SPY3 as your engagment/MF radar, there would be no point in having 2 VSRs. However in all honesty you would likely be best served sticking with the fully featured DBR (SPY3/4) setup

[Lubyak]

Yeah, that lower profile is going to hurt you. If you're basing it on the Pennsylvania class, then you're going to need to use optical rangefinders. The masts are there so that the fire control sensors, range finders, and later radar, can have as large a field of view as possible. Getting rid of them, you're severely reducing the range at which you can engage the enemy.

Ahh, that explains things. I wasn't entirely certain why they were there, and figured it had something to do with air traffic control regarding the seaplanes. I guess I'll need to bring those back, then.

Any other problems?

I actually would say you should keep the seaplane. Its there to provide even more spotting capability for long range fire, so it's quite useful for this era of combat. Unfortunately, I think we'll need more information on the individual ship and your navy's general geopolitical situation to really comment on it. If it's based on the Pennsylvania, I'm assuming you're going along the same line of the Standard Battleship and its ilk.

[Gallia-]

This isn't a warship, but I'm rebellious:

[Sevvania]

Ahh, that explains things. I wasn't entirely certain why they were there, and figured it had something to do with air traffic control regarding the seaplanes. I guess I'll need to bring those back, then.

Any other problems?

I actually would say you should keep the seaplane. Its there to provide even more spotting capability for long range fire, so it's quite useful for this era of combat. Unfortunately, I think we'll need more information on the individual ship and your navy's general geopolitical situation to really comment on it. If it's based on the Pennsylvania, I'm assuming you're going along the same line of the Standard Battleship and its ilk.

I see. I'm aiming for some sort of standard battleship for a nation that's doesn't have a particularly large navy. This one in particular might be some sort of flagship, since it's a bigger version of the Pennsylvania. I'll try to address some of the issues you pointed out later.

[San-Silvacian]

This isn't a warship, but I'm rebellious:

(Image)

It could pass for a frigate.

[Gallia-]

This isn't a warship, but I'm rebellious:

(Image)

It could pass for a frigate.

It's a destroyer:

[San-Silvacian]

It could pass for a frigate.

It's a destroyer:

o

still very nice