Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Yukonastan]

Your numbering system confuses me.

If I take this right, this is the fourteenth hull of aviation ships, third rate?

Yes.

What if you have several classes of ships with the same purpose and the same rate?

For the sake of argument, the LCS-Odd Freedom class and the LCS-Even Independence class.

These would have the same classification, say, for example 4R-L-1 and 4R-L-2. However, there's no class distinction. Is this an issue or no? Or am I missing something?

[Oaledonia]

Your numbering system confuses me.

If I take this right, this is the fourteenth hull of aviation ships, third rate?

Yes.

This is why Imperial Japan had the best system

[Gallia-]

i will fite u irl w/ cvb

I still use Merchant Aircraft Carriers in large numbers. I think I have 87.

this is harrier central need more harriers pls

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/653 ... /SCADS.jpg

[Kouralia]

Yes.

What if you have several classes of ships with the same purpose and the same rate?

For the sake of argument, the LCS-Odd Freedom class and the LCS-Even Independence class.

These would have the same classification, say, for example 4R-L-1 and 4R-L-2. However, there's no class distinction. Is this an issue or no? Or am I missing something?

They would find something to differentiate it. I haven't thought it through much yet, but they would try to retain the hull numbers of a class together, so it would be 4R-L-1 to 4R-L-5 as the Freedom, and the 4R-L-6 to 4R-L-10 as Independence. Otherwise they might append on something else, e.g. 4R-L(F)-1 is the Fourth Rate - Littoral Combat Ship (Freedom Class) - Hull 01, but that creates the obvious problem of making it appear as if a 4R-L(F) ship has a different purpose to a 4R-L(I) ship, when it might not.

[Yukonastan]

What if you have several classes of ships with the same purpose and the same rate?

For the sake of argument, the LCS-Odd Freedom class and the LCS-Even Independence class.

These would have the same classification, say, for example 4R-L-1 and 4R-L-2. However, there's no class distinction. Is this an issue or no? Or am I missing something?

They would find something to differentiate it. I haven't thought it through much yet, but they would try to retain the hull numbers of a class together, so it would be 4R-L-1 to 4R-L-5 as the Freedom, and the 4R-L-6 to 4R-L-10 as Independence. Otherwise they might append on something else, e.g. 4R-L(F)-1 is the Fourth Rate - Littoral Combat Ship (Freedom Class) - Hull 01, but that creates the obvious problem of making it appear as if a 4R-L(F) ship has a different purpose to a 4R-L(I) ship, when it might not.

It might actually not be an issue (Rate-Role(Class)-Hull), at least as I read it. The bigger issue is going to be fitting it on the hull neatly. Your class numbers are longer than the hull.

I assume it'd be written like 4L1-I (short hand for 4R-L(I)-01), or 1AN2 (sh for 1R-AN-02), to keep a clean hull?

[Connori Pilgrims]

The ship carries 24 Torpedoes ready to launch from either of the two four-tube batteries, visible just aft of the shutter doors and afore of the hangar's 'outline'. It's also got a Merlin-sized helicopter, and I'll consider the ASROC role. It's also got sonar in the bow bulge. Anything else it needs, or is that enough for an AA Frigate?

2 four-tube torpedo tubes are quite enough (IRL ships just have triple-tubes) if indeed it is meant for AAW. I forget its a frigate and is probably not big like a Burke so hard decisions on VLS missile loadout are needed.

What do you mean RE: the capability splitting? Like the way the Type 45 is primarily an AA Destroyer?

Sort of, although the Russian practice with Sovremennyy/Udaloy is the more obvious and blatant because their main missile weapons are so different. The RN nowadays has both Type 45 and Type 23/26 conduct ASW mainly through their helos (Type 23 has the advantage in ASW due to the towed sonar array, which I'd guess your ASW frigates should have).

[Neu-Pommern]

I stand by my opinion that long range subsonic, active seeker AShMs are useless due to CIWS and ECM. So save that weight for more VLS tubes, which you can fill with delicious dual purpose Standard Missiles

[Kouralia]

They would find something to differentiate it. I haven't thought it through much yet, but they would try to retain the hull numbers of a class together, so it would be 4R-L-1 to 4R-L-5 as the Freedom, and the 4R-L-6 to 4R-L-10 as Independence. Otherwise they might append on something else, e.g. 4R-L(F)-1 is the Fourth Rate - Littoral Combat Ship (Freedom Class) - Hull 01, but that creates the obvious problem of making it appear as if a 4R-L(F) ship has a different purpose to a 4R-L(I) ship, when it might not.

It might actually not be an issue (Rate-Role(Class)-Hull), at least as I read it. The bigger issue is going to be fitting it on the hull neatly. Your class numbers are longer than the hull.

I assume it'd be written like 4L1-I (short hand for 4R-L(I)-01), or 1AN2 (sh for 1R-AN-02), to keep a clean hull?

Yeah, the RKNV Zeus is a First Rate, Aircraft Carrier and nuclear powered, lead ship of her class (1R-AN 01) and would be written as 1AN02. That's the same length as CVN68, the code for the USS Nimitz.

[Kouralia]

The ship carries 24 Torpedoes ready to launch from either of the two four-tube batteries, visible just aft of the shutter doors and afore of the hangar's 'outline'. It's also got a Merlin-sized helicopter, and I'll consider the ASROC role. It's also got sonar in the bow bulge. Anything else it needs, or is that enough for an AA Frigate?

2 four-tube torpedo tubes are quite enough (IRL ships just have triple-tubes) if indeed it is meant for AAW. I forget its a frigate and is probably not big like a Burke so hard decisions on VLS missile loadout are needed.

Eh... It's got 16 specialist CAMM tubes, and then either 7 or 12 (5*2, and then two more) Sylvers. I'm not sure what size the Sylvers are, but at least two (four) will be 70.

What do you mean RE: the capability splitting? Like the way the Type 45 is primarily an AA Destroyer?

Sort of, although the Russian practice with Sovremennyy/Udaloy is the more obvious and blatant because their main missile weapons are so different. The RN nowadays has both Type 45 and Type 23/26 conduct ASW mainly through their helos (Type 23 has the advantage in ASW due to the towed sonar array, which I'd guess your ASW frigates should have).

Yeah, they probably do have that.

[Yukonastan]

It might actually not be an issue (Rate-Role(Class)-Hull), at least as I read it. The bigger issue is going to be fitting it on the hull neatly. Your class numbers are longer than the hull.

I assume it'd be written like 4L1-I (short hand for 4R-L(I)-01), or 1AN2 (sh for 1R-AN-02), to keep a clean hull?

Yeah, the RKNV Zeus is a First Rate, Aircraft Carrier and nuclear powered, lead ship of her class (1R-AN 01) and would be written as 1AN02. That's the same length as CVN68, the code for the USS Nimitz.

you dun goofed unless there's a secret hull somewhere

Is there?

[Kouralia]

Yeah, the RKNV Zeus is a First Rate, Aircraft Carrier and nuclear powered, lead ship of her class (1R-AN 01) and would be written as 1AN02. That's the same length as CVN68, the code for the USS Nimitz.

you dun goofed unless there's a secret hull somewhere

Is there?

Nah, typo. But 1R-C-01 (first Rate, Cannon (a ship relying on guns more than missiles), Hull Number 01) is going to be the code for the navy's not!Victory/not!Ironsides.

[Yukonastan]

you dun goofed unless there's a secret hull somewhere

Is there?

Nah, typo. But 1R-C-01 (first Rate, Cannon (a ship relying on guns more than missiles), Hull Number 01) is going to be the code for the navy's not!Victory/not!Ironsides.

i'm posting in the navy thread without suggesting a big gun ship firing scramjet shells

i must be ill

You should load those :not:Ironsides with scramjet shells.

[Freihafen]

I stand by my opinion that long range subsonic, active seeker AShMs are useless due to CIWS and ECM. So save that weight for more VLS tubes, which you can fill with delicious dual purpose Standard Missiles

Consider that even the most sophisticated defenses can be overwhelmed by saturated missile attack.

One should not discount the fact that missile ECCM is also becoming more advanced and low observable design more commonplace (the LRASM being a notable example of this), both of which contribute to missile survivability.

In any case, I personally favor AShMs that are subsonic in cruise and supersonic in terminal.

[San-Silvacian]

I stand by my opinion that long range subsonic, active seeker AShMs are useless due to CIWS and ECM. So save that weight for more VLS tubes, which you can fill with delicious dual purpose Standard Missiles

If CIWS killed everything and ECM jammed everything with impunity.

However I will agree they are seriously set back by newer CIWS and EW systems.

[Gallia-]

ECM is the most effective defense against anti-shipping missiles though.

[Oaledonia]

I still use Merchant Aircraft Carriers in large numbers. I think I have 87.

this is harrier central need more harriers pls

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/653 ... /SCADS.jpg

Sadly I don't use harrier-chan :c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_XFV-12

[Gallia-]

this is harrier central need more harriers pls

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/653 ... /SCADS.jpg

Sadly I don't use harrier-chan :c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_XFV-12

this is cleaning closet actual vacuum one is away

better than xfv12

http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Saab_Sea_Fox

[Oaledonia]

http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Saab_Sea_Fox

Do want
Am fapping

[San-Silvacian]

ECM is the most effective defense against anti-shipping missiles though.

Isn't killing everything carrying them most effective ;-;

[Neu-Pommern]

this is harrier central need more harriers pls

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/653 ... /SCADS.jpg

Sadly I don't use harrier-chan :c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_XFV-12

However, it proved unable to produce enough thrust for vertical flight, even with an installed engine with more thrust than its empty weight, and the project was abandoned.

...What?

[Neu-Pommern]

I stand by my opinion that long range subsonic, active seeker AShMs are useless due to CIWS and ECM. So save that weight for more VLS tubes, which you can fill with delicious dual purpose Standard Missiles

If CIWS killed everything and ECM jammed everything with impunity.

However I will agree they are seriously set back by newer CIWS and EW systems.

CIWS and EW systems versus Mach 3 inertial guidance and IR terminal homing. That's why I like Standard 2s.

[Gallia-]

http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Saab_Sea_Fox

Do want
Am fapping

oh my~

you can add yourself under the operators list im sure

ECM is the most effective defense against anti-shipping missiles though.

Isn't killing everything carrying them most effective ;-;

Yes, but that's also called "cheating".

If CIWS killed everything and ECM jammed everything with impunity.

However I will agree they are seriously set back by newer CIWS and EW systems.

CIWS and EW systems versus Mach 3 inertial guidance and IR terminal homing. That's why I like Standard 2s.

Any hard kill system is less effective than soft kill when employed against AShM.

[Neu-Pommern]

Any hard kill system is less effective than soft kill when employed against AShM.

What I meant was using Standard 2 as the AShM.

[Gallia-]

Any hard kill system is less effective than soft kill when employed against AShM.

What I meant was using Standard 2 as the AShM.

SM-2 doesn't have IR terminal, it requires illumination.

[Neu-Pommern]

What I meant was using Standard 2 as the AShM.

SM-2 doesn't have IR terminal, it requires illumination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-66_Standard

SM-2MR Block IIIB missiles have dual infrared/semi-active terminal homing.