Your Nations Warships, MKII

[The Soodean Imperium]

I should probably post this here now that I've finished it :|

http://iiwiki.com/images/e/ec/IMS_Tianrong_1936.png

http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Tianrong-class_light_cruiser

'30s light cruiser for my predecessor regime. Main battery is eight 150mm guns in four twin turrets, speed is 34.8 knots. SpringSharp gives a Composite Strength value of 0.98, probably higher than what I could get away with for a light cruiser, but also warns that the hull is wet and somewhat strained in heavy seas.

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

I should probably post this here now that I've finished it :|

http://iiwiki.com/images/e/ec/IMS_Tianrong_1936.png

http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Tianrong-class_light_cruiser

'30s light cruiser for my predecessor regime. Main battery is eight 150mm guns in four twin turrets, speed is 34.8 knots. SpringSharp gives a Composite Strength value of 0.98, probably higher than what I could get away with for a light cruiser, but also warns that the hull is wet and somewhat strained in heavy seas.

Strain might be due to the relatively shallow hull, despite the over the top sheer forwards, an alternative would be to raise the forecastle anywhere from 2ft to a whole deck or extending the next deck to just forwards of "B" mount\

Overall it looks good, though the spotting top looks a bit heavy

[Mitheldalond]

How wide/thick/deep/whatever a torpedo belt would be required to stop the 1,080 pound warhead of a Japanese Type 93 Long Lance torpedo from breeching the inner hull of a battleship?

[The Akasha Colony]

How wide/thick/deep/whatever a torpedo belt would be required to stop the 1,080 pound warhead of a Japanese Type 93 Long Lance torpedo from breeching the inner hull of a battleship?

Well in excess of six meters, if not a full seven, for any reasonable chance of stopping such a warhead, presuming a generally efficient distribution of voids, liquid spaces, splinter protection, and bulkheads. Per side.

[New Oyashima]

How wide/thick/deep/whatever a torpedo belt would be required to stop the 1,080 pound warhead of a Japanese Type 93 Long Lance torpedo from breeching the inner hull of a battleship?

Too much to be viable, you're much better off not getting hit by one.

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

How wide/thick/deep/whatever a torpedo belt would be required to stop the 1,080 pound warhead of a Japanese Type 93 Long Lance torpedo from breeching the inner hull of a battleship?

Pretty damn deep, the warhead of a Type-93 was/is a huge threat to any vessel, whilst I can't immediately find some documentation as to the damage caused to battleships, on light cruisers, we luckily have a fair idea of what happens courtesy of the USN

USS Portland had most of her stern obliterated by the 93, seen on this schematic

USS Helena also was documented to a similar degree

You'd want a deep and through torpedo defense set up to minimize the damage from a 93

[Chistanad]

The Chistanad Navy was founded in 1920. The navy took a consterable hit, almost getting completely destroyed, in the Chistanad Civil War. Ever sense it has grown to a reasonable size. Here's the list:

42 × De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate

Statistics:
Displacement: 6,050 tonnes (full load)
Length: 144.24 m (473.2 ft)
Beam: 18.80 m (61.7 ft)
Draught: 5.18 m (17.0 ft)
Propulsion: Combined diesel and gas
* 2 × Wärtsilä 16 V26 diesel engines, 4.2 MW (5,600 hp) each
* 2 × Rolls Royce Spey SM 1C gas turbines, 18.5 MW (24,800 hp) each
* 4 × GEC Alsthom Paxman diesel-generators, 1,650 kW (2,210 hp) each (To be replaced by Wärtsilä)
* 2 × propeller shafts, controllable pitch propellers
Speed: 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Range: 4,000 nmi (7,400 km; 4,600 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)
Complement: 30 officers, 202 ratings
Sensors and processing systems:
* Thales Nederland SMART-L long-range air and surface surveillance radar
* Thales Nederland APAR air and surface search, tracking and guidance radar (I band) DECCA NAV navigation radar
* Thales Nederland Scout (Low Probability of Intercept)surface search/navigation radar
* Thales Nederland Sirius IRST long-range infrared surveillance and tracking system
* Thales Nederland Mirador optical surveillance and tracking system
* Atlas Elektronik DSQS-24C hull-mounted sonar
* MK XII IFF system
Electronic warfare & decoys:
* 2 × Thomson Racal (now Thales) Sabre ECM suite
* 4 × Sippican Hycor SRBOC MK36 launcher
* 1 × AN/SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo decoy
Armament:
Guns:
* 1 × Oto Melara 127 mm/54 dual-purpose gun
* 2-4 × Browning M2 12.7mm machine guns
* 4-6 × FN MAG 7.62mm machine guns
* 1-2 × Goalkeeper CIWS
Missiles:
* 40-cell Mk.41 vertical launch system
* 32 × SM-2 IIIA surface-to-air missiles
* 32 × Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (quadpacked)
* 8 × Harpoon anti-ship missiles
* 2 × twin MK32 Mod 9 torpedo launchers with Raytheon MK46 Mod 5 torpedoes
Aircraft carried: 1 × NHIndustries NH-90 helicopter

24 × Almirante Brown-class destroyer

Statistics:
Displacement: 2,900 tons (empty); 3,360 tons (full load)
Length: 413 ft (125.9 m)
Beam: 49 ft(15 m)
Draught: 19 ft(5.8 m)
Propulsion:
* 2 shafts
* 2 Rolls-Royce Tyne RM-1C cruise gas turbines, 10,200 shp (7,600 kW) tot.
* 2 Rolls-Royce Olympus TM-3B boost gas turbines, 25,800 shp (19,200 kW) tot.
* Max shaft horsepower: 51,600 shp (38,500 kW) max
Speed: 30.5 knots (56.5 km/h)
Range: 4,500 nautical miles (8,330 km) at 18 knots (33 km/h)
Armament:
* 8 × MM40 Exocet SSM
* 1 × 8-cell Albatros SAM (24 Aspide missiles)
* 1 × OTO Melara Otobreda 127/54 Compact
* 4 × twin 40 mm 70-cal. OTO Melara AA
* 12.7 mm machine guns
* 2 × triple 324 mm Whitehead Sistemi Subacquei ILAS-3 ASW torpedo tubes (18 torpedoes tot.)'
* 1 × depth charge rack (9 depth charges)
Aircraft: 1 × Eurocopter AS-555-SN Fennec
Complement: 224
Radar: DA-08A air/surface search
Sonar: Krupp-Atlas 80 hull
Fire Control: WM-25 gun control, STIR SAM control
Electronic Warfare:
* Racal Scimitar jammer
* 2 × 20-round OTO Melara SCLAR decoy launching system
* 1 × Graseby G1738 towed torpedo decoy

16 × Kobben-class submarine

Statistics:
Displacement: 435 t (428 long tons; 480 short tons) surfaced
485 t (477 long tons; 535 short tons) submerged
Length: 47.2 m (155 ft)
Beam: 4.7 m (15 ft)
Draft: 3.8 m (12 ft)
Propulsion: Diesel-electric
* 2 × MTU 1,100 hp (820 kW) diesel engines
* 1 × 1,700 hp (1,300 kW) electric motor
Speed: 10 kn (19 km/h) surfaced
17 kn (31 km/h) submerged
Range: 4,200 nmi (7,800 km) at 8 kn (15 km/h)
228 nmi (422 km) at 4 kn (7.4 km/h)
Test depth: 180 m (590 ft)
Complement: 24
Armament: 8 × 533 mm (21.0 in) torpedo tubes

4 × Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier

Statistics:
Displacement: 60,933 tons light
81,780 tons full load
Length: 1,069 ft (326 m) overall
990 ft (300 m) waterline
Beam: 130 ft (40 m) waterline
282 ft (86 m) extreme
Draft: 38 ft (12 m)
Installed power: 280,000 shaft horsepower
Propulsion: Westinghouse geared steam turbines, eight steam boilers, four shafts; 280,000 shp
Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h)
Range: 12,000 miles (19,300 km)
Crew: 3150 - Air Wing Crew=2,480
Armament:
24 × Sea Sparrows and RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles
3-4 × Phalanx CIWSs
Aircraft carried: Up to 90 aircraft

20 × LCM-8 "Mike Boat" landing ship

Statistics:
Type: Mechanized landing craft
Displacement: 57.8 long tons (58.7 t) light
111.4 long tons (113.2 t) loaded
Length: 73 ft 7⁄12 in (22.265 m)
Beam: 21 ft 0 in (6.4 m)
Draft: 4 ft 7⁄12 in (1.234 m) light
5 ft 3 in (1.60 m) loaded
Propulsion: (original) 4, 2-twin-pak GMC6-71 or Gray Marine 6-71 diesel paired to 2 hydrostatic transmissions Detroit 12V-71 diesel engines, twin screws
Speed: 12 knots (22 km/h) light
9 knots (17 km/h) loaded
Capacity:53.5 long tons (54.4 t) of cargo
Complement: 4–6
Armament: 2 × 12.7 mm machine guns

4 × Blue Ridge-class command ship

Statistics:
Displacement: 18,874 long tons (19,176.89 metric tons) full load
Length: 634 ft (193 m)
Beam: 108 ft (33 m)
Draft: 26 ft 9 in (8.15 m) full load
Propulsion: Two boilers, one geared turbine, one shaft; 22,000 hp (16,000 kW)
Speed: 23 kn (26 mph; 43 km/h)
Range: 13,000 nmi (24,000 km; 15,000 mi) at 16 knots (30 km/h)
Complement: 720 enlisted, 23 officers
Aircraft carried: 2 × Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk

4 × Mercy-class hospital ship

Statistics:
Displacement: 69,360 tons (70,470 t)
Length: 894 ft (272 m)
Beam: 105 ft 7 in (32.18 m)
Propulsion: two boilers, two GE turbines, one shaft, 24,500 hp (18.3 MW)
Speed: 17.5 knots (20.1 mph; 32.4 km/h)
Complement: 63 civilian, 956 naval hospital staff, 258 naval support staff, up to 1,000 bed patients
Time to activate: 5 days
Aviation facilities: 4 × Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion

8 × Rhön-class tanker

Statistics:
Type: Replenishment tanker
Displacement: 14,169 tonnes
Installed power: 5,880 kW (8,000 PS)
Speed: 16 knots
Capacity: 11,500 m³
Complement: 42 (civilian)

[hr]There is also a naval air wing.

Fighter/Attack
75 × F/A-18E/F Super Hornet- Multirole Fighter
60 × F/A-18C/D Hornet- Multirole Fighter
64 × F-14X Super Tomcat- Interceptor
38 × AV-8B Harrier II- Ground Attack/ Support Aircraft

Electronic Warfare
18 × EA-18G Growler
12 × EA-6B Prowler
26 × E-2 Hawkeye

Helicopters
42 × NHIndustries NH-90 helicopter
24 × Eurocopter AS-555-SN Fennec
16 × Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion
8 × Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk

Carrier Onboard Delivery
10 × C-2A(R) Greyhound

[Lamoni]

Your navy seriously needs more escorts for the carriers, if you are going to use them in serious combat.

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

This would be the minimum that i'd ever feel safe having around an aircraft carrier in any sort of combat:

The only serving French carrier is the Charles de Gaulle, which also serves as the flagship of the Marine Nationale. The Carrier Battle Group (Groupe Aéronaval, GAN, in French) of the Force d'Action Navale is usually composed, in addition to the aircraft carrier, of:

a carrier air wing (Groupe Aérien Embarqué, GAE, in French), a complement composed of about 60 aircraft:
Rafale F3 and Super Étendard (up to 30)
E-2C Hawkeye (2)
SA365 Dauphin (3) for RESCO and EC725 Caracal for CSAR (2)
one Rubis-class submarine
two anti-submarine destroyers (currently Tourville or Georges Leygues class)
one or two anti-air destroyers (Horizon or Cassard class)
one stealth frigate in forward patrol (usually a La Fayette class)
one supply ship

[Gallia-]

He has more than enough escorts for his CVs.

[New Korongo]

Your navy seriously needs more escorts for the carriers, if you are going to use them in serious combat.

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

This would be the minimum that i'd ever feel safe having around an aircraft carrier in any sort of combat:

The only serving French carrier is the Charles de Gaulle, which also serves as the flagship of the Marine Nationale. The Carrier Battle Group (Groupe Aéronaval, GAN, in French) of the Force d'Action Navale is usually composed, in addition to the aircraft carrier, of:

a carrier air wing (Groupe Aérien Embarqué, GAE, in French), a complement composed of about 60 aircraft:
Rafale F3 and Super Étendard (up to 30)
E-2C Hawkeye (2)
SA365 Dauphin (3) for RESCO and EC725 Caracal for CSAR (2)
one Rubis-class submarine
two anti-submarine destroyers (currently Tourville or Georges Leygues class)
one or two anti-air destroyers (Horizon or Cassard class)
one stealth frigate in forward patrol (usually a La Fayette class)
one supply ship

The Chistanad Navy has 42 De Zeven Provinciën class frigates and 24 Almirante Brown class destroyers. The latter is roughly analogous to the anti-submarine destroyers mentioned in the French battle group and the former could fill the roles of the Horizon and La Fayette classes with relative ease. The submarines might be a bit slow for supporting a carrier battle group, but I don't think his navy will have any trouble finding enough surface escorts for its four carriers. One of the main issues I can see with the Chistanad Navy is the number of command ships and hospital ships. If I remember correctly, the main purpose of the Blue Ridge class is to command a large-scale amphibious assault. His navy's amphibious capability is 20 landing craft, which could be an issue depending on whether or not he wishes to project power. As for hospital ships, the entire United States Navy has two so it is a bit odd for the Chistanad Navy to have four.

[Gallia-]

Peru has half as many hospital ships as the US Navy.

[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...

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

How much are they different from WWII ships? How do missiles launched from ships work and how can they be powered by nuclear technology?

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

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

How much are they different from WWII ships? How do missiles launched from ships work and how can they be powered by nuclear technology?

After the second world war, armor was removed from naval design and the focus went after that to surviving in a nuclear climate, though these days the idea is to minimize radar return which lowers the chance of the enemy getting a lock on your ship. Ships these days are largely reliant on computers and sensors to fight.

Well there's a few types of missiles, theres the type that are "Fire and forget", you lock on with your radar,get basic location, heading etc and fire, missile does the rest. (Easy as!) The other generally need a device called a director or an illuminator which guides the missile to the target

I assume you mean the ship being powered by nuclear power, same way a reactor works on land, heat generated by controlled fission of nuclear material generates heat which turns water to steam and turns the turbines, either directly turning the propellers or powering another motor

[Tulacia]

How much are they different from WWII ships? How do missiles launched from ships work and how can they be powered by nuclear technology?

After the second world war, armor was removed from naval design and the focus went after that to surviving in a nuclear climate, though these days the idea is to minimize radar return which lowers the chance of the enemy getting a lock on your ship. Ships these days are largely reliant on computers and sensors to fight.

Well there's a few types of missiles, theres the type that are "Fire and forget", you lock on with your radar,get basic location, heading etc and fire, missile does the rest. (Easy as!) The other generally need a device called a director or an illuminator which guides the missile to the target

I assume you mean the ship being powered by nuclear power, same way a reactor works on land, heat generated by controlled fission of nuclear material generates heat which turns water to steam and turns the turbines, either directly turning the propellers or powering another motor

Thank you, this helps greatly.

Do modern ships still use large-caliber guns in addition to missiles?

[Crookfur]

After the second world war, armor was removed from naval design and the focus went after that to surviving in a nuclear climate, though these days the idea is to minimize radar return which lowers the chance of the enemy getting a lock on your ship. Ships these days are largely reliant on computers and sensors to fight.

Well there's a few types of missiles, theres the type that are "Fire and forget", you lock on with your radar,get basic location, heading etc and fire, missile does the rest. (Easy as!) The other generally need a device called a director or an illuminator which guides the missile to the target

I assume you mean the ship being powered by nuclear power, same way a reactor works on land, heat generated by controlled fission of nuclear material generates heat which turns water to steam and turns the turbines, either directly turning the propellers or powering another motor

Thank you, this helps greatly.

Do modern ships still use large-caliber guns in addition to missiles?

Nope the biggest gun you might see these days would be a 6" system ( although the USN did play with an 8"gun) with 3-5"ers being the most common and generally only one of them.

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

Thank you, this helps greatly.

Do modern ships still use large-caliber guns in addition to missiles?

Yes, whilst 76mm is the standard, 127mm guns are quite common and 155mm are making a comeback, usually one gun per ship though. Largest guns in service currently are the 152mm of the BAP Admirante Grau (Peru gets a second mention today!) but the new DDG1000 USS Zumwalt will have a 155mm gun

[Crookfur]

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/MCG.html
As ever Mr Tony Williams has a nice article on the subject.

[The Akasha Colony]

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/MCG.html
As ever Mr Tony Williams has a nice article on the subject.

That Bofors 120 mm looks quite interesting, although rather heavy.

[New Oyashima]

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/MCG.html
As ever Mr Tony Williams has a nice article on the subject.

That Bofors 120 mm looks quite interesting, although rather heavy.

The age of the bofors dreadnought looms...

[Tulacia]

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/MCG.html
As ever Mr Tony Williams has a nice article on the subject.

So many guns to choose from...Dat 57mm sounds real nice, probably have a couple turrets of those for AA with a turret mounting a set of 5-inch guns for NGS.

[The Akasha Colony]

Which brings up the matter of rationalizing naval gun calibers going forward for my navy, which I've been trying to figure out. The showdown is in two mostly separate categories, for a lighter defense-oriented gun and for a heavier bombardment-oriented gun. The light gun contenders:

57 mm: CIWS and anti-missile protection, with limited shore support capability. Used by heavier ships as CIWS and by lighter ships as a deck gun. Basically the 57 mm Bofors. Under consideration, but not in service.

76 mm: Multi-role anti-ship and CIWS protection, with basic to moderate shore bombardment capability. Used by cruisers, carriers, and other large ships that have sufficient space to field it as CIWS, and as the primary deck gun for some smaller combatants (corvettes). This is the current gun that I've been using, and is a basic 76 mm OTO-Melara Super Rapid clone.

The heavy guns:

127 mm: Shore bombardment and anti-ship defense. Carried by destroyers and frigates. Standard 127 mm OTO LW gun. Not currently fielded.

155 mm: Shore bombardment and limited anti-ship defense. Carried by destroyers and frigates with either a separate robust CIWS suite or expendable enough to risk in shore bombardment roles in the littorals (but with enough space to house the system). Can use the same shells as land-based howitzers, but with an integrated charge. Basic AGS clone, and currently used.

203 mm: Shore bombardment and anti-ship defense, considered for use in destroyers and larger frigates for the same reasons as the 155 mm. No longer under very serious consideration due to size and weight concerns in smaller vessels and the need to develop and procure completely separate 203 mm shells (although I suppose they could be made to simply use the 155 mm guided fuzes).

And now the Bofors 120 mm wildcard, which has sufficient size and range to be a reasonable bombardment gun while also having sufficient rate of fire to be used in a defensive role, provided the train rate could be improved (I imagine it could). The downside of course being that it neither fires as large a shell as far as the 155 mm or as rapidly as the 76 mm and is larger than the latter. I suppose the French 100 could be considered as well.

The goal is to where possible avoid using too many calibers. Or at the very least rationalize their specific roles and usages. I'm considering eliminating the 155 mm entirely in favor of a rapid-firing 120 mm, which could also be used for heavier surface combatants. Lighter ones would use 76 mm. Both would likely be the only gun-based CIWS the particular ship in question carries, supplemented by missile-based point defense (and for some very new ships, lasers against lighter targets). 20-40 mm autocannon-based CIWS is being phased out but still used as drop-in systems on lighter and older ships.

So, I suppose the question is which combination of calibers do others here think would be most useful? I'm aware that usually this decision is based on what's already in service and such, but as I've not yet fleshed out previous ship classes leading up to the current crop (as is ever so common on NS), the history is a bit malleable.

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/MCG.html
As ever Mr Tony Williams has a nice article on the subject.

So many guns to choose from...Dat 57mm sounds real nice, probably have a couple turrets of those for AA with a turret mounting a set of 5-inch guns for NGS.

You only really need 1-2 of those 57 mm guns per ship. Anything more is unnecessary since CIWS is the last line of defense you have, and an expensive destroyer should avoid the littorals if possible where it might get swarmed by small boats. They take up space that could either be allocated to other systems or simply saved to reduce size and cost. One 5" gun is usually sufficient as well, since it can match the combined rate of fire of an entire battery of land-based artillery.

[Tulacia]

Which brings up the matter of rationalizing naval gun calibers going forward for my navy, which I've been trying to figure out. The showdown is in two mostly separate categories, for a lighter defense-oriented gun and for a heavier bombardment-oriented gun. The light gun contenders:

57 mm: CIWS and anti-missile protection, with limited shore support capability. Used by heavier ships as CIWS and by lighter ships as a deck gun. Basically the 57 mm Bofors. Under consideration, but not in service.

76 mm: Multi-role anti-ship and CIWS protection, with basic to moderate shore bombardment capability. Used by cruisers, carriers, and other large ships that have sufficient space to field it as CIWS, and as the primary deck gun for some smaller combatants (corvettes). This is the current gun that I've been using, and is a basic 76 mm OTO-Melara Super Rapid clone.

The heavy guns:

127 mm: Shore bombardment and anti-ship defense. Carried by destroyers and frigates. Standard 127 mm OTO LW gun. Not currently fielded.

155 mm: Shore bombardment and limited anti-ship defense. Carried by destroyers and frigates with either a separate robust CIWS suite or expendable enough to risk in shore bombardment roles in the littorals (but with enough space to house the system). Can use the same shells as land-based howitzers, but with an integrated charge. Basic AGS clone, and currently used.

203 mm: Shore bombardment and anti-ship defense, considered for use in destroyers and larger frigates for the same reasons as the 155 mm. No longer under very serious consideration due to size and weight concerns in smaller vessels and the need to develop and procure completely separate 203 mm shells (although I suppose they could be made to simply use the 155 mm guided fuzes).

And now the Bofors 120 mm wildcard, which has sufficient size and range to be a reasonable bombardment gun while also having sufficient rate of fire to be used in a defensive role, provided the train rate could be improved (I imagine it could). The downside of course being that it neither fires as large a shell as far as the 155 mm or as rapidly as the 76 mm and is larger than the latter. I suppose the French 100 could be considered as well.

The goal is to where possible avoid using too many calibers. Or at the very least rationalize their specific roles and usages. I'm considering eliminating the 155 mm entirely in favor of a rapid-firing 120 mm, which could also be used for heavier surface combatants. Lighter ones would use 76 mm. Both would likely be the only gun-based CIWS the particular ship in question carries, supplemented by missile-based point defense (and for some very new ships, lasers against lighter targets). 20-40 mm autocannon-based CIWS is being phased out but still used as drop-in systems on lighter and older ships.

So, I suppose the question is which combination of calibers do others here think would be most useful? I'm aware that usually this decision is based on what's already in service and such, but as I've not yet fleshed out previous ship classes leading up to the current crop (as is ever so common on NS), the history is a bit malleable.

So many guns to choose from...Dat 57mm sounds real nice, probably have a couple turrets of those for AA with a turret mounting a set of 5-inch guns for NGS.

You only really need 1-2 of those 57 mm guns per ship. Anything more is unnecessary since CIWS is the last line of defense you have, and an expensive destroyer should avoid the littorals if possible where it might get swarmed by small boats. They take up space that could either be allocated to other systems or simply saved to reduce size and cost. One 5" gun is usually sufficient as well, since it can match the combined rate of fire of an entire battery of land-based artillery.

Single-gun turrets exist, you know...As for the 5" guns, I was thinking just a two-gun forward turret should do.

[Connori Pilgrims]

I'm on the fence on this; while it is likely there will be no more need for shore bombardment in the service of an invasion or coastal strategic attack between peer first-world powers, I'm not entirely convinced such a need will disappear when fighting second-tier or lesser powers.

However, if one does takes the extreme position that shore bombardment is no longer a serious concern or need, then one can argue to dispense with any calibre greater than 80mm entirely (i.e. forget even the 120mm). Given the existence of mini-Vulcano ER munitions tech for such calibres one can argue that 80mm can serve even the NFS role adequately though it will of course have inferior range and hitting power to the larger-scale versions; but if NFS is not a primary (or even relevant) mission then who needs the better hitting power and range of 120mm+ calibre guns?

A prospective evolved Bofors 120mm would also be best utilized as a CIWS-type weapon at distances greater than 6KM (the start of engagement distances for the 76mm-80mm class weapons), but would not more point-defence missiles be an alternative to this?

For my nation anyway, it will still retain larger-calibre gunnery, mainly because it(I) isn't convinced yet that NFS is deader than disco, and has fought recent (RP) conflicts where it has been able to utlize NFS relatively successfully, keeping the perceived need alive. 170mm is the largest calibre for the NFS/AS role on land-attack-focused vessels (or ships large enough to carry em), 130mm will be retained as the dual-role/gen-purpose calibre (basically AK-130 clone) for mid-size & AAW-focused vessels while 80mm is be the OTO-Melara Super Rapid analog CIWS.

[Tulacia]

I'm on the fence on this; while it is likely there will be no more need for shore bombardment in the service of an invasion or coastal strategic attack between peer first-world powers, I'm not entirely convinced such a need will disappear when fighting second-tier or lesser powers.

However, if one does takes the extreme position that shore bombardment is no longer a serious concern or need, then one can argue to dispense with any calibre greater than 80mm entirely (i.e. forget even the 120mm). Given the existence of mini-Vulcano ER munitions tech for such calibres one can argue that 80mm can serve even the NFS role adequately though it will of course have inferior range and hitting power to the larger-scale versions; but if NFS is not a primary (or even relevant) mission then who needs the better hitting power and range of 120mm+ calibre guns?

A prospective evolved Bofors 120mm would also be best utilized as a CIWS-type weapon at distances greater than 6KM (the start of engagement distances for the 76mm-80mm class weapons), but would not more point-defence missiles be an alternative to this?

For my nation anyway, it will still retain larger-calibre gunnery, mainly because it(I) isn't convinced yet that NFS is deader than disco, and has fought recent (RP) conflicts where it has been able to utlize NFS relatively successfully, keeping the perceived need alive. 170mm is the largest calibre for the NFS/AS role on land-attack-focused vessels (or ships large enough to carry em), 130mm will be retained as the dual-role/gen-purpose calibre (basically AK-130 clone) for mid-size & AAW-focused vessels while 80mm is be the OTO-Melara Super Rapid analog CIWS.

Why would NFS be unnecessary in a first-world country vs. first-world country invasion?

[Connori Pilgrims]

Why would NFS be unnecessary in a first-world country vs. first-world country invasion?

An amphibious invasion between peer powers will be extremely difficult; as apart from a defending country's navy and air force contesting the sea and skies the defender could have access to long range anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles that can hit well beyond the range of any NFS system. These in concert with the proper surveillance assets can make any amphib invasion/bombardment operation extremely costly.