Your Nations Warships, MKII

by **New Oyashima** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:37 pm

Tulacia wrote:
New Oyashima wrote:Except you might as well replace the cruiser with a destroyer, because they are pretty much the same thing.

If anything I'd eliminate the destroyers and keep the cruisers. Because IRL the cruisers, at least to me, have more historical value. Most are named after cities and had some pretty big guns (8-inchers of the Baltimore-class, anyone? I nominate USS Chicago and USS Saint Paul best all-gun cruisers 1943). Meanwhile the destroyers had pretty random names and the biggest guns they got were 5-inchers.

We're talking about this ~~destroyer~~ cruiser:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga-class_cruiser

by **The Kievan People** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:40 pm

Tico has additional command & control facilities that aren't present on the Burke though.

by **Yukonastan** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:41 pm

New Oyashima wrote:
Tulacia wrote:
If anything I'd eliminate the destroyers and keep the cruisers. Because IRL the cruisers, at least to me, have more historical value. Most are named after cities and had some pretty big guns (8-inchers of the Baltimore-class, anyone? I nominate USS Chicago and USS Saint Paul best all-gun cruisers 1943). Meanwhile the destroyers had pretty random names and the biggest guns they got were 5-inchers.

We're talking about this ~~destroyer~~ cruiser:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga-class_cruiser

Cruiser harder, at least get a real cruiser, senpai.

by **Venice-Slovenia1** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:45 pm

how is the sovermenny class for a standard fleet vessel for an area like the mediterrenean and adriatic sea?

by **New Oyashima** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:49 pm

Yukonastan wrote:
New Oyashima wrote:We're talking about this ~~destroyer~~ cruiser:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga-class_cruiser

Cruiser harder, at least get a real cruiser, senpai.

Holy fuck that's an ugly fuck.

by **Radicchio** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:01 am

What is the reason that carriers NEED escort ships?
More specifically, why couldn't a carrier be escorted by other carriers or pocket carriers just as effectively?

by **Yukonastan** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:10 am

Radicchio wrote:What is the reason that carriers NEED escort ships?
More specifically, why couldn't a carrier be escorted by other carriers or pocket carriers just as effectively?

A carrier is a very single-purpose warship. It launches and operates planes (the Air Force's job but I'll stay out of the politics), and not a whole lot else. It's also big as fuck, highly conspicuous, and a juicy propaganda target. It's not completely unwarranted to refer to a carrier as a bomb magnet.

Now, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, all that fun stuff, they provide a bubble of protection around the carrier. A destroyer or frigate can concentrate on operating missiles, guns, R2D2, and a big radar. A bunch of escorts can focus on a bunch of threats at once from all directions.

by **Radicchio** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:20 am

Yukonastan wrote:
Radicchio wrote:What is the reason that carriers NEED escort ships?
More specifically, why couldn't a carrier be escorted by other carriers or pocket carriers just as effectively?

A carrier is a very single-purpose warship. It launches and operates planes (the Air Force's job but I'll stay out of the politics), and not a whole lot else. It's also big as fuck, highly conspicuous, and a juicy propaganda target. It's not completely unwarranted to refer to a carrier as a bomb magnet.

Now, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, all that fun stuff, they provide a bubble of protection around the carrier. A destroyer or frigate can concentrate on operating missiles, guns, R2D2, and a big radar. A bunch of escorts can focus on a bunch of threats at once from all directions.

But cant planes do most of that? I mean, there are aircraft launched anti-ballistic missile missiles now and there are carrier operated radar aircraft and multiple aircraft with anti-shipping missiles can surely engage multiple threats...
I am not trying to make any specific argument but it just seems that something like a flotilla consisting of a full size carrier escorted by a couple of pocket carriers with aircraft dedicated to escort duty could do the same job.

by **Yukonastan** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:25 am

Radicchio wrote:
Yukonastan wrote:
A carrier is a very single-purpose warship. It launches and operates planes (the Air Force's job but I'll stay out of the politics), and not a whole lot else. It's also big as fuck, highly conspicuous, and a juicy propaganda target. It's not completely unwarranted to refer to a carrier as a bomb magnet.

Now, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, all that fun stuff, they provide a bubble of protection around the carrier. A destroyer or frigate can concentrate on operating missiles, guns, R2D2, and a big radar. A bunch of escorts can focus on a bunch of threats at once from all directions.

But cant planes do most of that? I mean, there are aircraft launched anti-ballistic missile missiles now and there are carrier operated radar aircraft and multiple aircraft with anti-shipping missiles can surely engage multiple threats...
I am not trying to make any specific argument but it just seems that something like a flotilla consisting of a full size carrier escorted by a couple of pocket carriers with aircraft dedicated to escort duty could do the same job.

Whatever you're using a ship for you don't have to use aircraft for. These aircraft can then be used for other things. Also, carriers are expensive and take a massive amount of crew. Escort ships that are not carriers are far cheaper and also have vastly lower manning requirements.

by **Radicchio** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:28 am

Yukonastan wrote:
Radicchio wrote:
But cant planes do most of that? I mean, there are aircraft launched anti-ballistic missile missiles now and there are carrier operated radar aircraft and multiple aircraft with anti-shipping missiles can surely engage multiple threats...
I am not trying to make any specific argument but it just seems that something like a flotilla consisting of a full size carrier escorted by a couple of pocket carriers with aircraft dedicated to escort duty could do the same job.

Whatever you're using a ship for you don't have to use aircraft for. These aircraft can then be used for other things. Also, carriers are expensive and take a massive amount of crew. Escort ships that are not carriers are far cheaper and also have vastly lower manning requirements.

So the reality is that it has more to do with money and manpower than actual combat effectiveness.

That makes total sense, thanks.

by **Yukonastan** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:30 am

Radicchio wrote:
Yukonastan wrote:
Whatever you're using a ship for you don't have to use aircraft for. These aircraft can then be used for other things. Also, carriers are expensive and take a massive amount of crew. Escort ships that are not carriers are far cheaper and also have vastly lower manning requirements.

So the reality is that it has more to do with money and manpower than actual combat effectiveness.

That makes total sense, thanks.

Also combat effectiveness, actually. An air defense frigate can cover more airspace, or can cover its assigned sector more thoroughly, than a patrol from an escort carrier can. Plus with its planes freed up, your carrier can fly more actual combat sorties.

by **The Kievan People** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:50 am

Radicchio wrote:But cant planes do most of that? I mean, there are aircraft launched anti-ballistic missile missiles now and there are carrier operated radar aircraft and multiple aircraft with anti-shipping missiles can surely engage multiple threats...
I am not trying to make any specific argument but it just seems that something like a flotilla consisting of a full size carrier escorted by a couple of pocket carriers with aircraft dedicated to escort duty could do the same job.

Escorts are there. Planes are often elsewhere.

The availability of a destroyer approaches 100%. The availability of a plane, much less than 100%.

by **Novaya Marshal** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 1:45 am

Check my Military Factbook

by **Venice-Slovenia1** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 3:44 am

Venice-Slovenia1 wrote:how is the sovermenny class for a standard fleet vessel for an area like the mediterrenean and adriatic sea?

by **Dewhurst-Narculis** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 4:02 am

Venice-Slovenia1 wrote:
Venice-Slovenia1 wrote:how is the sovermenny class for a standard fleet vessel for an area like the mediterrenean and adriatic sea?

Would be a tad overkill for the Adriatic and rather outdated but for the Mediterranean as a cheap DDG, should be ok

by **Tulacia** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 4:27 am

Yukonastan wrote:
New Oyashima wrote:We're talking about this ~~destroyer~~ cruiser:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga-class_cruiser

Cruiser harder, at least get a real cruiser, senpai.

Long Beach best missile cruiser, because it was the first-ever nuclear-powered one. I've already planned for a :not:Long Beach to serve as a training ship.

by **Spirit of Hope** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:02 am

Radicchio wrote:What is the reason that carriers NEED escort ships?
More specifically, why couldn't a carrier be escorted by other carriers or pocket carriers just as effectively?

As Yukastan has already pointed out there are a number of reasons, a big one of which is planes can't always be launched. The first complication is weather, which can keep a carrier from being able to launch or recover aircraft. Without escorts that leaves the carrier exposed, especially since that weather may not be hindering enemy air operations.

Additionally carriers can not just launch aircraft at all times even if the weather is good, flight operations require the carrier to set itself up at certain speeds and align the catapults in specific ways with the wind. That means that a carrier maneuver at high speeds may not be able to launch or recover aircraft, leaving it exposed.

Third what happens if the flight deck or catapults are damaged, either through enemy action, weather, or mismanagement?

There are also limitations to the number of planes a carrier can launch at any time, which means a carrier can not necessarily have enough planes launched to fully defend and attack at the same time.

Further escorts have capabilities that planes can't have. A destroyer is going to have a much more powerful radar ad sonar set up than any plane, and will be able to carry heavier weapons to fight against threats the carrier faces. Escorts can detach from the carrier for much longer than a plane can to carry out other missions, like watching for enemy aircraft.

by **New Oyashima** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:45 am

Tulacia wrote:
Yukonastan wrote:Cruiser harder, at least get a real cruiser, senpai.

Long Beach best missile cruiser, because it was the first-ever nuclear-powered one. I've already planned for a :not:Long Beach to serve as a training ship.

She looks pretty with Aegis :3

Do hyper menuverable, high proformance prop driven aircraft have any role on a modern carrier? Besides training?

by **Yukonastan** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:51 am

New Oyashima wrote:
Tulacia wrote:
Long Beach best missile cruiser, because it was the first-ever nuclear-powered one. I've already planned for a :not:Long Beach to serve as a training ship.

She looks pretty with Aegis :3

Do hyper menuverable, high proformance prop driven aircraft have any role on a modern carrier? Besides training?

What, you mean like C2 Greyhound? That's your Carrier On-board Delivery, that delivers your mail. How else can you keep the contingent of Marines in the task group happy if they can't get their Playboys and Maxim magazines?

by **New Oyashima** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:59 am

Yukonastan wrote:
New Oyashima wrote:She looks pretty with Aegis :3

Do hyper menuverable, high proformance prop driven aircraft have any role on a modern carrier? Besides training?

What, you mean like C2 Greyhound? That's your Carrier On-board Delivery, that delivers your mail. How else can you keep the contingent of Marines in the task group happy if they can't get their Playboys and Maxim magazines?

No. But I'll not talking about a modern!Reppuu either....

by **Purpelia** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 11:01 am

Would a river patrol craft that's basically a seaborne 9K22 make sense?

by **Yukonastan** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 11:10 am

Let's try this again.

I've been working on my expeditionary navy, and I'd really appreciate if someone more knowledgeable of such things could give it a once-over and tell me if my reasoning is, well, reasonable. Right now it's got 48 ships.

With regards to names; only ships that have been in RPs have names ('cause I'm lazy)

The idea behind the current balance of force for my navy is that I can have two task fleets plus some ships in port or in drydock. Now, I don't have any carriers per sé, so I base my task fleet around one guided missile battlecruiser.

This results in a task fleet of anywhere from 7 to 22 ships.

As an example: In a roleplay I was recently engaged in, I had the following deployed.

Question here is, does the balance of escorts for such a ship make sense, or no?

As for ship designs... Well, I have the battlecruiser and escort frigate somewhat mostly complete barring lineart.

by **Chanel Clan** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:31 pm

Purpelia wrote:Would a river patrol craft that's basically a seaborne 9K22 make sense?

Well, there have been river ships that are basically floating tanks, so maybe? The question is, what would it's role be? Would it be a flak-ship escort type ship, or are you proposing to use it in an antipersonnel role? I'm big into river warships, they are really neat.

by **Chanel Clan** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:36 pm

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Chanel Clan wrote:What would the best kind of ships for a small navy be? Patrol\Missle Boats? Midget Subs?

Depends mostly on what the small navy wants to do, and who they want to do it against.

I'm thinking both coastal patrol\defense with a limited ability for force protection so I can join in MT rps, as NS puts more emphasis on expeditionary warfare than real life. Do you think blue or brown water ops would be more interesting to other rp-ers?

by **Spirit of Hope** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 4:02 pm

Chanel Clan wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:Depends mostly on what the small navy wants to do, and who they want to do it against.

I'm thinking both coastal patrol\defense with a limited ability for force protection so I can join in MT rps, as NS puts more emphasis on expeditionary warfare than real life. Do you think blue or brown water ops would be more interesting to other rp-ers?

You are probably going to want have some blue water operation ability if you want to engage with other people. Depending on the size of your navy you might want to build it around 1-2 helicopter/VTOL carriers. This can be supported by a number of destroyers and frigates, some to act as escorts and others to patrol and convoy your merchant marine.

If that sounds a little large for you I would then suggest a small force built on a core of destroyers with patrol ships and marine search aircraft.

Missile boats are really for a very specific mission, generally fighting amphibious landings. Unless you have a large neighbor with the ability, and interest to, carry out an amphibious landing of your nation.

Midget submarines are also rather specific, generally to carry special forces into near by places. Not something you seem to be interested in.

Your Nations Warships, MKII

Who is online