Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Pegraynaky]

For my next ridiculous stunt, I will modernize the Hiyou class as escort carriers. Any tips?

Assuming this is just a concept design, gut the engine machinery and replace with diesel-electric or gas powerplants. Improve the propellors and hull if possible. Replace the original armor with kevlar spall lining, rework the damage control and fire suppression. Upgrade electric wiring to modern standards, add new sensors, radar and computer systems. Completely rework the bridge and quarters while you're at it. Armament wise, get rid of all the original AA guns and replace with CIWS and Rolling Airframe Missiles. You may like to add a ski jump- otherwise I don't really see you operating anything but helicopters. Even so, don't expect to be operating anymore than 8 VTOL jets and helicopters.

[Maverica]

Hello everyone. I would like to ask a question About Pre Dreadnoughts. For pre Dreadnoughts during ww1 period I heard that over the course of the war some were modernized and renovated. Also some one told me that pre dreadnoughts can even be modified into heavy cruisers and experimental aircraft carriers. Is this true and is it worth it to renovate pre Dreadnoughts into cruisers and aircraft carriers.

Remember this is for my ww1 period navy. Not modern.

Thank you.

[Grays Harbor]

Pre dreads would probably be too slow for a cruiser or aircraft carrier. They generally had a top speed of around 18 knots is all. Most pre dreads were used in secondary theaters or as convoy escorts where they were less likely to meet up with dreadnaughts.

[Gig em Aggies]

question: where can I find a site with deviant art like ships and other military vehicles that have the correct parameters to fit w/ the image tag here on NS?

[Husseinarti]

question: where can I find a site with deviant art like ships and other military vehicles that have the correct parameters to fit w/ the image tag here on NS?

Shipbucket?

[Backatri]

Here is a new destroyer we have made:

Type: Air warfare destroyer
Displacement: 6,250 tonnes (6,150 long tons; 6,890 short tons) full load
Length: 147.2 metres (483 ft)
Beam: 18.6 metres (61 ft) maximum
Draught: 5.17 metres (17.0 ft)
Propulsion: Combined diesel or gas (CODOG) arrangement
2 x General Electric Marine model 7LM2500-SA-MLG38 gas turbines, 17,500 kilowatts (23,500 hp) each
2 x Caterpillar Bravo 16 V Bravo diesel engines, 5,650 kilowatts (7,580 hp) each
2 x controllable pitch propellers
Speed: Over 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph)
Range: Over 5,000 nautical miles (9,300 km; 5,800 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)
Complement: 186 + 16 aircrew
Accommodation for 234
Sensors and
processing systems:
Aegis combat system
Lockheed Martin AN/SPY-1D(V) S-band radar
Northrop Grumman AN/SPQ-9B X-band pulse Doppler horizon search radar
Raytheon Mark 99 fire-control system with two continuous wave illuminating radars
2 x L-3 Communications SAM Electronics X-band navigation radars
Ultra Electronics Sonar Systems' Integrated Sonar System
Ultra Electronics Series 2500 electro-optical director
Sagem VAMPIR IR search and track system
Rafael Toplite stabilised target acquisition sights
Electronic warfare
and decoys:
ITT EDO Reconnaissance and Surveillance Systems ES-3701 ESM radar
SwRI MBS-567A communications ESM system
Ultra Electronics Avalon Systems multipurpose digital receiver
Jenkins Engineering Defence Systems low-band receiver
4 x Nulka decoy launchers
4 x 6-tube multipurpose decoy launchers
Armament: 48-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch System
• RIM-66 Standard 2 missile
• RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow missile
2 x 4-canister Harpoon missile launchers
1 x Mark 45 Mod 4 5-inch gun
2 x Mark 32 Mod 9 two-tube torpedo launchers
• Eurotorp MU90 torpedoes
1 x Phalanx CIWS
2 x 25mm M242 Bushmaster autocannons in Typhoon mounts
Aircraft carried: 1 x MH-60R Seahawk
BASED ENTIRELY ON THE UPCOMING HOBART-CLASS DESTROYER

[New Korongo]

I have observed that many warships equipped with the Harpoon have only two or three canisters on each launcher instead of the standard four. Is the main purpose of this practice to extend the life of each missile? I assume that each launcher would carry four canisters in wartime it is common for ships that have two or three canisters in each launcher to be described as having four in sources.

[Tulacia]

Pre dreads would probably be too slow for a cruiser or aircraft carrier. They generally had a top speed of around 18 knots is all. Most pre dreads were used in secondary theaters or as convoy escorts where they were less likely to meet up with dreadnaughts.

IIRC Britain's first aircraft carriers were pre-dreadnought conversions. I think it was called the HMS Achilles, converted in 1916.

[Connori Pilgrims]

Pre dreads would probably be too slow for a cruiser or aircraft carrier. They generally had a top speed of around 18 knots is all. Most pre dreads were used in secondary theaters or as convoy escorts where they were less likely to meet up with dreadnaughts.

IIRC Britain's first aircraft carriers were pre-dreadnought conversions. I think it was called the HMS Achilles, converted in 1916.

The only HMS Achilles around in that timeframe was a Warrior-Class Armoured Cruiser, which by the by was never converted into a carrier.

There was a pre-dreadnought used for aircraft trials: HMS Hibernia of the King Edward VII class, which launched the first wheeled aircraft to take off from a ship underway in 1912. But she was never used as a true aircraft carrier and she spent the rest of her life as a battleship.

The ship you are probably thinking of is HMS Argus, the first completed carrier which was completed in 1918, not 1916. Note, she was built from the hull of an ocean-liner.

[New Oyashima]

IIRC Britain's first aircraft carriers were pre-dreadnought conversions. I think it was called the HMS Achilles, converted in 1916.

The only HMS Achilles around in that timeframe was a Warrior-Class Armoured Cruiser, which by the by was never converted into a carrier.

There was a pre-dreadnought used for aircraft trials: HMS Hibernia of the King Edward VII class, which launched the first wheeled aircraft to take off from a ship underway in 1912. But she was never used as a true aircraft carrier and she spent the rest of her life as a battleship.

The ship you are probably thinking of is HMS Argus, the first completed carrier which was completed in 1918, not 1916. Note, she was built from the hull of an ocean-liner.

Hiyo was the height of ocean liner carriers.

[Tulacia]

IIRC Britain's first aircraft carriers were pre-dreadnought conversions. I think it was called the HMS Achilles, converted in 1916.

The only HMS Achilles around in that timeframe was a Warrior-Class Armoured Cruiser, which by the by was never converted into a carrier.

There was a pre-dreadnought used for aircraft trials: HMS Hibernia of the King Edward VII class, which launched the first wheeled aircraft to take off from a ship underway in 1912. But she was never used as a true aircraft carrier and she spent the rest of her life as a battleship.

The ship you are probably thinking of is HMS Argus, the first completed carrier which was completed in 1918, not 1916. Note, she was built from the hull of an ocean-liner.

Yeah, I was thinking Argus. I had done research on WWII-era British ships a few months ago and that doesn't do good to remembering things correctly.

[Condottieri International]

Do yall think a navy of stealth frigates and nuclear submarines could hold their own against a generic carrier task force? For my navy i don't want to have aircraft carrier becuase i took a page out of ww2 germany for surface raiders and submarines. It fits more in line with a privateer navy or am I wrong and need an aircraft carrier?

[Spirit of Hope]

Do yall think a navy of stealth frigates and nuclear submarines could hold their own against a generic carrier task force? For my navy i don't want to have aircraft carrier becuase i took a page out of ww2 germany for surface raiders and submarines. It fits more in line with a privateer navy or am I wrong and need an aircraft carrier?

The German Navy before WW2 was working on expanding its fleet and thinking about building a carrier force to support its expanding fleet. The war started to early for that to happen so they changed to submarines and attempted to use them to choke there enemies.

Really it depends on what you want your fleet to do, and who you want to use it against. If you aren't planning on projecting power, and have a high likely hood of facing an opponent with a navy you can't match then submarines and limited surface combatants makes sense. Your objective isn't necessarily to gain control of the ocean but to deny it to your opponents.

You are likely going to want more than just stealth frigates, they have limited utility for convoy work, anti submarine work, and various other missions your navy might want to or need to take on. So you will probably want some destroyers and potentially cruisers (depending on how you define the classes) in your navy.

Also something to think about depending on your navies strategic goals getting diesel/electric/fuel cell submarines might be something look into.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Do yall think a navy of stealth frigates and nuclear submarines could hold their own against a generic carrier task force? For my navy i don't want to have aircraft carrier becuase i took a page out of ww2 germany for surface raiders and submarines. It fits more in line with a privateer navy or am I wrong and need an aircraft carrier?

Germany's WWI and WWII approach to naval warfare was strongly influenced by its constrained geography; the Kreigsmarine's only access to the open ocean came through the North Sea and the English Channel, both of which gave Britain considerable power to restrict their access to the Atlantic and the open ocean beyond. Likewise, the focus on surface raiders and submarines was brought about by the need to starve Britain, which was surrounded by water and dependent on colonial imports.

Each naval strategy is designed to fit its context; you can't really Copy/Paste it into an entirely different situation and expect it to work as well. I'd recommend that you take some time to think about your own nation's geopolitical situation: Who are your main rivals? What are your main objectives? What is your geography like? Things like that. This will give you a better idea of where to start.

[Condottieri International]

Do yall think a navy of stealth frigates and nuclear submarines could hold their own against a generic carrier task force? For my navy i don't want to have aircraft carrier becuase i took a page out of ww2 germany for surface raiders and submarines. It fits more in line with a privateer navy or am I wrong and need an aircraft carrier?

Germany's WWI and WWII approach to naval warfare was strongly influenced by its constrained geography; the Kreigsmarine's only access to the open ocean came through the North Sea and the English Channel, both of which gave Britain considerable power to restrict their access to the Atlantic and the open ocean beyond. Likewise, the focus on surface raiders and submarines was brought about by the need to starve Britain, which was surrounded by water and dependent on colonial imports.

Each naval strategy is designed to fit its context; you can't really Copy/Paste it into an entirely different situation and expect it to work as well. I'd recommend that you take some time to think about your own nation's geopolitical situation: Who are your main rivals? What are your main objectives? What is your geography like? Things like that. This will give you a better idea of where to start.

Thanks, all useful information here. For a little background my nation's is composed all of mercenaries on an island resembling madagascar.

[The Akasha Colony]

Do yall think a navy of stealth frigates and nuclear submarines could hold their own against a generic carrier task force? For my navy i don't want to have aircraft carrier becuase i took a page out of ww2 germany for surface raiders and submarines. It fits more in line with a privateer navy or am I wrong and need an aircraft carrier?

The frigates are unnecessary. Submarines can be an effective impediment to a carrier task force (and indeed are a task force's worst nightmare), but any navy that can afford carriers can also afford submarines and ASW platforms to fight your submarines. This doesn't completely eliminate their value, but against the surface elements a carrier will have a rather large information advantage.

[New Oyashima]

Would an Atlanta-class make a good shore bombardment vessel?

[Gallia-]

The problem with attack submarines is that they can't hunt for carriers. They sort of just sit in these little geographical boxes and drive around slowly.

If your task force is fast enough it can cover enough sea space that it makes any submarines more of a random chance thing rather than any sort of deliberate sea ambush. Provided you aren't constrained by contrived exercise necessities, a carrier group can evade attack submarines (and detection in general) for weeks.

A combination of submarine and land based aviation would be needed, and give the submarines cruise missiles so you can extend striking radius beyond a few nautical miles. Oscars and Tu-95 or Tu-16 would be a good pair for hunting carrier battle groups.

The actual worst nightmare for a battle group is a Bear-Badger regiment sneaking up on them while they're operating EMCON Alpha or something. Submarines are minimal threats in that they can't deliberately chase down a carrier without getting swatted by ASW for making too much noise, but they are very sneaky and that is why they are dangerous: a CVBG might roll over a sub without realizing it. However, that wouldn't be a common thing.

Nuclear submarines are better at interdiction of either other nuclear submarines (SSBNs) or harassment operations of shipping, where they can operate with near impunity against mega convoys or widely dispersed packets of ships. If they see a carrier, it will probably die, but they're not actively prowling the North Atlantic looking for carriers or whatever. They're an ambush weapon, not a proactive one.

The only time a carrier or carrier-like object is at serious risk of being attacked by submarine would be if it were operating in the littorals, such as an amphibious assault ship. Air attack is the most common threat in open sea, and why carrier battlegroups IRL are so heavily protected against it. It's also the most effective method of attacking a CVBG because it's the only thing that can actively locate, track, and attack a carrier group (or any warship) beyond the horizon.

[Padnak]

The problem with attack submarines is that they can't hunt for carriers. They sort of just sit in these little geographical boxes and drive around slowly.

If your task force is fast enough it can cover enough sea space that it makes any submarines more of a random chance thing rather than any sort of deliberate sea ambush. Provided you aren't constrained by contrived exercise necessities, a carrier group can evade attack submarines (and detection in general) for weeks.

A combination of submarine and land based aviation would be needed, and give the submarines cruise missiles so you can extend striking radius beyond a few nautical miles. Oscars and Tu-95 or Tu-16 would be a good pair for hunting carrier battle groups.

The actual worst nightmare for a battle group is a Bear-Badger regiment sneaking up on them while they're operating EMCON Alpha or something. Submarines are minimal threats in that they can't deliberately chase down a carrier without getting swatted by ASW for making too much noise, but they are very sneaky and that is why they are dangerous: a CVBG might roll over a sub without realizing it. However, that wouldn't be a common thing.

Nuclear submarines are better at interdiction of either other nuclear submarines (SSBNs) or harassment operations of shipping, where they can operate with near impunity against mega convoys or widely dispersed packets of ships. If they see a carrier, it will probably die, but they're not actively prowling the North Atlantic looking for carriers or whatever. They're an ambush weapon, not a proactive one.

The only time a carrier or carrier-like object is at serious risk of being attacked by submarine would be if it were operating in the littorals, such as an amphibious assault ship. Air attack is the most common threat in open sea, and why carrier battlegroups IRL are so heavily protected against it. It's also the most effective method of attacking a CVBG because it's the only thing that can actively locate, track, and attack a carrier group (or any warship) beyond the horizon.

Learned more from this post then I did from the collective mass of all the IDTs. Thanks Gallia <3

[Gallia-]

Bearing in mind neither the efficacy of anti-shipping aviation regiments nor nuclear powered attack submarines against carrier battlegroups has been validated experimentally, i.e. in battle.

[HMS Vanguard]

Do yall think a navy of stealth frigates and nuclear submarines could hold their own against a generic carrier task force? For my navy i don't want to have aircraft carrier becuase i took a page out of ww2 germany for surface raiders and submarines. It fits more in line with a privateer navy or am I wrong and need an aircraft carrier?

The stealth frigates won't add anything, but today the nuclear submarine is the capital ship at sea. Nuclear attack boats are categorically different in capability and role to WWII submersibles.

The current primary role of aircraft carriers in the few navies that operate them is not to sink ships but to bomb targets on land and to provide fighter cover for amphibious forces.

An equal cost of SSNs is probably more, not less, effective than aircraft carriers at fighting a naval battle. On the other hand, their offensive options are limited, and after a point you can gain more from combining SSNs with aircraft carriers than adding more SSNs.

[HMS Vanguard]

Bearing in mind neither the efficacy of anti-shipping aviation regiments nor nuclear powered attack submarines against carrier battlegroups has been validated experimentally, i.e. in battle.

That's not quite true. The intervention of nuclear attack boats drove the ARA 25 de Mayo out of the Falklands conflict permanently, while the Argentines had previously been willing to operate her against the British aircraft carriers even at a two-to-one disadvantage.

[Grays Harbor]

Would an Atlanta-class make a good shore bombardment vessel?

With all those 5" guns, i'd say yes.

[Tulacia]

I know nothing about modern ships. As soon as missile stuff and nuclear-powered craft starts happening, I lose interest. I'm switching back to MT again...please help...

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

I know nothing about modern ships. As soon as missile stuff and nuclear-powered craft starts happening, I lose interest. I'm switching back to MT again...please help...

Well what exactly do you what to know, modern ships are still a broad topic