Your Nations Warships, MKII

[The Akasha Colony]

Is the los Angeles class attack sub a good investment?

It depends what you're investing against.

[Erics republic]

Is the los Angeles class attack sub a good investment?

It depends what you're investing against.

Carriers, destroyers, subs, let's, merchant ships, capital ships, etc

[The Ashkenazi]

It depends what you're investing against.

Carriers, destroyers, subs, let's, merchant ships, capital ships, etc

Are you planning on fighting in coastal waters, or far out to sea? If you're mostly concerned with coastal defense and not force projection, a nuke-boat isn't going to be the most cost effective submarine available.

[The Akasha Colony]

It depends what you're investing against.

Carriers, destroyers, subs, let's, merchant ships, capital ships, etc

Which is to say, everything. Not very helpful. But regardless, there are newer and better submarines out there although the Los Angeles-class can't be called bad. I do recall though you said you stopped caring about cost for your military.

[Mostrov]

(Image)
A scanderan war cog in it's full glory. This ship did not only replace large deep hulled Knarrs for deep sea travel even if primitive galleys remained in control of the shallower seas and internal oceans of Scandera. A ship like this is not able to carry warriors and equipment to battle but in a large sea battle so can the majority of it's crew be armed with crossbows well protected behind wooden walls and shields in the front and rear towers. When the ship get close enough so are they armed with axes and shields as well as grappling hooks to drag in an enemy ship to allow boarding.

Further more so is it's hull re-enforced in the front to give it the ability to survive ramming of enemy ships.

Undoubtedly very pretty, but there are several rather important errors here if you want me to provide criticism (Constructive of course) regarding various design features that are anachronistic and inconsistent. What century are you aiming at in particular?

[Pharthan]

A nuclear destroyer wouldn't be able to beat a carrier in a race either. That's the main reason nothing smaller than the frigates was built, not because destroyers are intended to be missile sponges.

I dare say one could - pop a reactor in, perhaps needing speed-screws as well.
And yes, I do fully understand it's not as easy as "popping a reactor in."
We actually had prototype (sodium) reactors in testing for destroyers
That prototype unfortunately had the world's largest man-made sphere prior to the Epcot center being built. Which is another reason why the project was canceled - the pressure housings required to contain the blast of all of the sodium detonating at once (a Naval requirement to ensure crew safety) were just too huge. That sucker looks like the Death Star driving up to it.
However, the reactor and new engines meant to take the load would be more than enough to get a destroyer up to proper speed. They're already close. Carriers just max out a bit higher and get a nice "secondary" point of acceleration, like a second wind, when going for a low-bell to a high-bell where they kind of just take off unexpectedly, usually at the same point the destroyers are hitting their own top speed.

Destroyers can already accelerate faster than carriers, carriers just have a higher top-speed.
Also, frigates are smaller than destroyers, so I don't see where you were going with that.
They stopped because destroyers are meant to "go first," prior to a carrier, and they reasoned that in a modern (well, Cold War) carrier v. carrier 'battle, that gas-turbine based destroyers would be more cost effective based on the fact that they'd lose them first. Not necessarily that they were intended as "missile-sponges," but that they were more or less bodyguards considered less valuable.
That, and it wasn't cost effective by fuel-regards, either. I've actually seen a report on this; basically they figured out that even LHDs wouldn't be effective at modern Naval Reactor costs as Nuke boats, but Cruisers would, provided they lasted more than something like ten or twelve years.
That, and that'd be fewer ports to visit, therefore less diplomacy and PR with the world, and a number of countries would be pissed because of the influx of the American dollar into their economy because they were also those countries refusing American nuke boats to pull in. Navy Admirals love playing nice with other nations.
Admiral Rickover had a lot of enemies, too, he generally hated the guys who were trying to rip of the military; the US military is notorious for buying "from the lowest bidder," but that's just the guy that decides he doesn't want to screw you over as bad.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

(Image)
A scanderan war cog in it's full glory. This ship did not only replace large deep hulled Knarrs for deep sea travel even if primitive galleys remained in control of the shallower seas and internal oceans of Scandera. A ship like this is not able to carry warriors and equipment to battle but in a large sea battle so can the majority of it's crew be armed with crossbows well protected behind wooden walls and shields in the front and rear towers. When the ship get close enough so are they armed with axes and shields as well as grappling hooks to drag in an enemy ship to allow boarding.

Further more so is it's hull re-enforced in the front to give it the ability to survive ramming of enemy ships.

Undoubtedly very pretty, but there are several rather important errors here if you want me to provide criticism (Constructive of course) regarding various design features that are anachronistic and inconsistent. What century are you aiming at in particular?

Wrong boat to fix man, wrong boat.

[Imeriata]

Undoubtedly very pretty, but there are several rather important errors here if you want me to provide criticism (Constructive of course) regarding various design features that are anachronistic and inconsistent. What century are you aiming at in particular?

Sure, the only one I could think of was the shields, the large forecastle and the figure head which was supposed to be a call back to viking longships.

[Triplebaconation]

A nuclear destroyer wouldn't be able to beat a carrier in a race either. That's the main reason nothing smaller than the frigates was built, not because destroyers are intended to be missile sponges.

I dare say one could - pop a reactor in, perhaps needing speed-screws as well.
And yes, I do fully understand it's not as easy as "popping a reactor in."
We actually had prototype (sodium) reactors in testing for destroyers
That prototype unfortunately had the world's largest man-made sphere prior to the Epcot center being built. Which is another reason why the project was canceled - the pressure housings required to contain the blast of all of the sodium detonating at once (a Naval requirement to ensure crew safety) were just too huge. That sucker looks like the Death Star driving up to it.
However, the reactor and new engines meant to take the load would be more than enough to get a destroyer up to proper speed. They're already close. Carriers just max out a bit higher and get a nice "secondary" point of acceleration, like a second wind, when going for a low-bell to a high-bell where they kind of just take off unexpectedly, usually at the same point the destroyers are hitting their own top speed.

Destroyers can already accelerate faster than carriers, carriers just have a higher top-speed.
Also, frigates are smaller than destroyers, so I don't see where you were going with that.
They stopped because destroyers are meant to "go first," prior to a carrier, and they reasoned that in a modern (well, Cold War) carrier v. carrier 'battle, that gas-turbine based destroyers would be more cost effective based on the fact that they'd lose them first. Not necessarily that they were intended as "missile-sponges," but that they were more or less bodyguards considered less valuable.
That, and it wasn't cost effective by fuel-regards, either. I've actually seen a report on this; basically they figured out that even LHDs wouldn't be effective at modern Naval Reactor costs as Nuke boats, but Cruisers would, provided they lasted more than something like ten or twelve years.
That, and that'd be fewer ports to visit, therefore less diplomacy and PR with the world, and a number of countries would be pissed because of the influx of the American dollar into their economy because they were also those countries refusing American nuke boats to pull in. Navy Admirals love playing nice with other nations.
Admiral Rickover had a lot of enemies, too, he generally hated the guys who were trying to rip of the military; the US military is notorious for buying "from the lowest bidder," but that's just the guy that decides he doesn't want to screw you over as bad.

Carriers have been faster than destroyers over the long haul since the first fleet carrier. It's because they're larger, not because they're nuclear-powered. Making nuclear escorts doesn't change that, and a trimaran hull would only make it worse for obvious reasons.

Informative:

Here's the sphere you mentioned:

That obviously doesn't have anything to do with an actual seagoing reactor. The D1G was actually fairly compact, but it still required more volume than a high-pressure boiler or gas turbine plant of equivalent power. A Burke, for example, would need three or four. Good luck.

Also, frigates are smaller than destroyers, so I don't see where you were going with that.

???????

[The National Socialist Philippines]

2000

Modernized Bismarck

Present


Andromeda class Flying Saucer

[Pharthan]

Carriers have been faster than destroyers over the long haul since the first fleet carrier. It's because they're larger, not because they're nuclear-powered. Making nuclear escorts doesn't change that, and a trimaran hull would only make it worse for obvious reasons.

You're talking only a few knots. Yes, I know the power difference at that level is considerably larger than at lower speeds.

Here's the sphere you mentioned:

I'm quite well aware of what D1G looks like (aka the "Dig Ball" or "Death Star") looks like. I've been considerably closer and drove at and away from that thing for nearly 8 months out of every day. In all likelihood, if that picture was at all recent, I probably work with someone in that photo, considering that's almost assuredly a MARF or S8G Graduation photo.

That obviously doesn't have anything to do with an actual seagoing reactor. The D1G was actually fairly compact, but it still required more volume than a high-pressure boiler or gas turbine plant of equivalent power. A Burke, for example, would need three or four. Good luck.

And you can fit three our four boilers into a Destroyer Hull. Heck, you could fit three or four A4W carrier boilers into a destroyer hull. It'd be tight, but you could do it. Not that you'd need ones that size.
I'm also well aware that the D1G was relatively compact - I didn't have the luxury of going into the Dig Ball since I wasn't a Staff-Pick-Up, but my roommate did.
I'm assuming it's not much larger than an S5W. But that doesn't matter. Reactors are tiny compared to the plants they have to power. The problem with a Sodium Reactor is the that your RC has to be considerably heavier and sturdier.

Which is why you'd go with a standard PWR for a Destroyer Reactor. With newer technology it wouldn't at all be too much of a problem to have a downsized carrier reactor plant fit into a regular destroyer engineering space - especially if you start going for an All-Electric system and just have a pair (or quad) of much larger Turbine Generators doing everything. That'd cut out an entire engine-room.
I don't know for sure how much of a problem it would be or not - I've never been in a Burke's engineering spaces, but based on size comparisons and what I do know about carrier Reactor Rooms and Machinery Rooms, I don't think it would be all that difficult. Heck, with a bit of finagling and ensuring you get rid of all of the extraneous valves, you could probably fit a whole A4W in a Burke's engineering space. Not that it'd be a good idea, but I'm pretty sure you could do it. And that gives you some leeway with horsepower - thought that also brings weight concerns to play.

Considering the new advances in nuclear technology since the A4W was designed, I'd venture it wouldn't be too hard to manage. Granted, that also means you have to go up against the A1B.

???????

You mentioned that reactors weren't made for anything smaller than frigates. We were talking about destroyers. Dunno if I missed something with that.

[Triplebaconation]

???????

You mentioned that reactors weren't made for anything smaller than frigates. We were talking about destroyers. Dunno if I missed something with that.

The entire history of the nuclear navy, apparently.

[Mostrov]

Wrong boat to fix man, wrong boat.

Considering its an area I think I can talk about with some degree of expertise, I'd at least like to contribute in an area I am knowledgeable about. Not everyone has an innate understanding of modern warships.

Sure, the only one I could think of was the shields, the large forecastle and the figure head which was supposed to be a call back to viking longships.

I'll presume you want something that's from around the era of say, the Hundred Years war; that is 14-15th Centuries for the sake of argument.
The most striking thing that comes to mind is the rigging, the single-sail design is evidently quite old going back into the depths of antiquity, unfortunately it isn't very efficient and made for vessel that could often be helpless in the weather. This is because the weather leach, due to various misunderstandings by the people at the time, was often the opposite to what it should have been. In any case, around 1400 three-masted designs were enacted; which lead to the ability to far better control the wind. In a short period of time that followed, due to the fact that a single monolithic sale was no longer needed they divided the main-masts sails into a mainsail and a topsail which had the additional benefit of making the masts easier to acquire as they often had to be very large and straight timber's comparatively.
The reason for pointing this out is that the ship also has ratlines and, presumably, footropes; which were developed around the same time. Before that most sails were actually hoisted from the deck. I think what must have happened here is that you've simply copied the rigging from a much later ship, the easiest way to fix this is too simply remove the ratlines. Alternatively you might as well add the other two sails, as they would greatly, greatly increase performance but it starts to slip into renaissance shipwrightery here.
One of the main advantages of the Cog compared to the ships before was that it was capable of having a stern-rudder which greatly increased the height (A major combat advantage) of the freeboard and made it more maneuverable.

For inspiration you might want to look at the Grace Dieu which was an incredibly large (Only slightly smaller than the HMS Victory of Trafalgar fame). Of note, all ships around this time were clinker built in the northern seas, which made them substantially more expensive than contemporary production in the mediterranean which were skeleton built. The fact that they were clinker built meant that they were stronger and actually lead to the unique shape of the cog and hulk as opposed to a more hydrodynamic shape.

Now what this whole thing leads to is that it means that most battles if conducted at all due to the abysmally poor handling of ships were in sheltered areas, often bays, with a good weather vane for the attacking force. It was more like the unromantic Battle of Sluys than the Battle of Winchelsea. In either situation as there were no real anti-ship weapons it was a purely boarding affair, ships often lashed together. What this means is that your ship is an expensive vainglory that will not get especially used or at least not in the role you intended, the idea of shields is admittedly a good one, the Cog was something that was designed rather more for transport and their main utility was logistics and increasinging the mobility of forces.
This brings me to the Galley, which was actually a very effective weapon, due to being able to go against the wind but more importantly for having such a shallow hulls which meant they are perfect for raiding, which is probably the most effective offensive stratagem that the naval technology at the time would allow. Burning docks and the ships within was a standard tactic throughout this era.

Another thing that might be added is that even galleys didn't ram (In the popularised sense, as even in most naval battles there main action was unsurprisingly boarding), indeed it was quite a different thing from antiquity; they were equipped with an above water spur that was designed to disable the enemy rather than a true 'weapon'. That galleys could do this, given the fact that they were absurdly more maneuverable in the environment that a medieval naval battle might take place and even then without it being anywhere near a dominant tactic, means that the reinforced bow is utterly useless as a sailing ship would handle to poorly to be able to do that with any degree of accuracy and would likely not damage a ship especially, given that many were double or even triple hulled.

For the sake of brevity I'll stop here, but I can continue on this a great deal more if you have any further questions.

[Pharthan]

You mentioned that reactors weren't made for anything smaller than frigates. We were talking about destroyers. Dunno if I missed something with that.

The entire history of the nuclear navy, apparently.

Still not catching your drift with that.
Whether or not I retained the history of the nuclear navy, I was taught it at some point, and I recall quite a bit of it at that. Except for dates, but those are trivial.
You'll have to forgive me if my brain deemed reactor operations and physics over certain other things.
And the California's hardly classify as "frigates," despite the fact of the frequency we called them that, just because the Long Beaches were bigger.

Okay, granted, we had NR-1, and a lot of earlier sub cores which were smaller than the D2Gs.

[Triplebaconation]

The DLGNs were generally called frigates until 1975. The Long Beach was originally designed as a frigate, in fact.

Here's a really basic physics question. Which is more efficient, a heat engine with an outlet temperature of 300°C or one with an outlet temperature of 450°C? What about 600°C?

[Imeriata]

I'll presume you want something that's from around the era of say, the Hundred Years war; that is 14-15th Centuries for the sake of argument.
The most striking thing that comes to mind is the rigging, the single-sail design is evidently quite old going back into the depths of antiquity, unfortunately it isn't very efficient and made for vessel that could often be helpless in the weather. This is because the weather leach, due to various misunderstandings by the people at the time, was often the opposite to what it should have been. In any case, around 1400 three-masted designs were enacted; which lead to the ability to far better control the wind. In a short period of time that followed, due to the fact that a single monolithic sale was no longer needed they divided the main-masts sails into a mainsail and a topsail which had the additional benefit of making the masts easier to acquire as they often had to be very large and straight timber's comparatively.
The reason for pointing this out is that the ship also has ratlines and, presumably, footropes; which were developed around the same time. Before that most sails were actually hoisted from the deck. I think what must have happened here is that you've simply copied the rigging from a much later ship, the easiest way to fix this is too simply remove the ratlines. Alternatively you might as well add the other two sails, as they would greatly, greatly increase performance but it starts to slip into renaissance shipwrightery here.
One of the main advantages of the Cog compared to the ships before was that it was capable of having a stern-rudder which greatly increased the height (A major combat advantage) of the freeboard and made it more maneuverable.

For inspiration you might want to look at the Grace Dieu which was an incredibly large (Only slightly smaller than the HMS Victory of Trafalgar fame). Of note, all ships around this time were clinker built in the northern seas, which made them substantially more expensive than contemporary production in the mediterranean which were skeleton built. The fact that they were clinker built meant that they were stronger and actually lead to the unique shape of the cog and hulk as opposed to a more hydrodynamic shape.

Now what this whole thing leads to is that it means that most battles if conducted at all due to the abysmally poor handling of ships were in sheltered areas, often bays, with a good weather vane for the attacking force. It was more like the unromantic Battle of Sluys than the Battle of Winchelsea. In either situation as there were no real anti-ship weapons it was a purely boarding affair, ships often lashed together. What this means is that your ship is an expensive vainglory that will not get especially used or at least not in the role you intended, the idea of shields is admittedly a good one, the Cog was something that was designed rather more for transport and their main utility was logistics and increasinging the mobility of forces.
This brings me to the Galley, which was actually a very effective weapon, due to being able to go against the wind but more importantly for having such a shallow hulls which meant they are perfect for raiding, which is probably the most effective offensive stratagem that the naval technology at the time would allow. Burning docks and the ships within was a standard tactic throughout this era.

Another thing that might be added is that even galleys didn't ram (In the popularised sense, as even in most naval battles there main action was unsurprisingly boarding), indeed it was quite a different thing from antiquity; they were equipped with an above water spur that was designed to disable the enemy rather than a true 'weapon'. That galleys could do this, given the fact that they were absurdly more maneuverable in the environment that a medieval naval battle might take place and even then without it being anywhere near a dominant tactic, means that the reinforced bow is utterly useless as a sailing ship would handle to poorly to be able to do that with any degree of accuracy and would likely not damage a ship especially, given that many were double or even triple hulled.

For the sake of brevity I'll stop here, but I can continue on this a great deal more if you have any further questions.

I actually knew the few battles that were fought were horrible melee's but I did not know a re-enforced hull was that bad for sailing and it will be corrected while I remove the ratlines.

Though while I have designed galleys and mentioned them as being used so did I thought that they were too shallow for use on the open sea and that they were best reserved for shallow and relatively calm waters like those of the Mediterranean. But thank you for the pointers, t'was an interesting read.

[Pharthan]

The DLGNs were generally called frigates until 1975. The Long Beach was originally designed as a frigate, in fact.

Here's a really basic physics question. Which is more efficient, a heat engine with an outlet temperature of 300°C or one with an outlet temperature of 450°C? What about 600°C?

Typically your higher temperatures are going to give you a higher efficiency, but it's more based on the differential. If your inlet temperature is 599°C and your outlet temperature is 600°C, you're not doing crap. Not that you'd see that.

But that's why a carrier operating in the Persian Gulf might not be able to hit top speed without being at 100% power, but one operating in the Arctic might find they can even squeeze out a few extra knots they didn't know they had.

[Atlantica]

I was just reading about Chinese and Iranian ASBMS... and how North Korea was going to develop one, with potential help from Iran.

I see that though they are very deadly to the carrier (especially in re-entry and terminal phase), but the fact that it's gonna be high up in the air would mean that they'll be detected easier, by the Aegis Radar or one of the Hawkeyes flying over.

How would you guys evaluate the potential of ASBMs in the 21st century, and to counter such ships as Aegis destroyers and even aircraft carriers?

[Dragomere]

Standard Dragomerian Ships

Battleship:
1 meter thick steel hull below water line
.5 meter thick steel hull above water line
4 rail gun turrets
325 meters long
75 meters wide at widest point
6 anti-air guns
2 anti-sub weapons
1 torpedo bay
6 cruise missile launchers
500 crew

Destroyer:
250 meters long
60 meters wide
.5 meter thick steel hull
4 anti-projectile guns
3 anti-air guns
1 rail guns
1 helipad
6 cruise missile launchers
2 torpedo launchers
2 Dragomerian EMP Missile launchers
200 crew

Submarines:
200 meters long
40 meters wide
1 meter steel hull
Silent propulsion
18 nuclear missile launchers
6 cruise missile launchers
8 torpedo tubes
150 crew

Aircraft Carriers:
500 meters long
90 meters wide
1 meter steel hull
10 anti-air weapons
10 anti-missile weapons
100 aircraft
1000 crew

Frigate:
150 meters long
30 meters wide
.5 meter steel hull
3 cruise missile launchers
2 torpedo launchers
1 rail gun
5 anti-air weapons
3 anti-projectile weapons
1 helipad
150 crew

[Triplebaconation]

The DLGNs were generally called frigates until 1975. The Long Beach was originally designed as a frigate, in fact.

Here's a really basic physics question. Which is more efficient, a heat engine with an outlet temperature of 300°C or one with an outlet temperature of 450°C? What about 600°C?

Typically your higher temperatures are going to give you a higher efficiency, but it's more based on the differential. If your inlet temperature is 599°C and your outlet temperature is 600°C, you're not doing crap. Not that you'd see that.

But that's why a carrier operating in the Persian Gulf might not be able to hit top speed without being at 100% power, but one operating in the Arctic might find they can even squeeze out a few extra knots they didn't know they had.

You now know why a nuclear destroyer will always be larger, slower or most probably both than i's fossil-fuel equivalent, and why any rational purely nuclear destroyer design will be slower than a carrier with far greater volume and the hydrodynamic and seakeeping advantages inherent in its size.

[Paranthropia]

Since we are a maritime country, despite our small size and developing economy, a large portion of government money goes towards the construction of a modenr navy. Here are our top vessels:

[Pharthan]

Typically your higher temperatures are going to give you a higher efficiency, but it's more based on the differential. If your inlet temperature is 599°C and your outlet temperature is 600°C, you're not doing crap. Not that you'd see that.

But that's why a carrier operating in the Persian Gulf might not be able to hit top speed without being at 100% power, but one operating in the Arctic might find they can even squeeze out a few extra knots they didn't know they had.

You now know why a nuclear destroyer will always be larger, slower or most probably both than i's fossil-fuel equivalent, and why any rational purely nuclear destroyer design will be slower than a carrier with far greater volume and the hydrodynamic and seakeeping advantages inherent in its size.

Elaborate, please.

Getting a destroyer (larger destroyers, albeit) up to 30-33 knots has been done in the past; I don't see how coaxing a few extra knots out would be an issue if you've got considerably more- it would really come down to structural issues rather than propulsion.

[Irabaq]

For the moment, we are limited to Cold War-era destroyers and subs, while having a few LHDs.

[Triplebaconation]

You now know why a nuclear destroyer will always be larger, slower or most probably both than i's fossil-fuel equivalent, and why any rational purely nuclear destroyer design will be slower than a carrier with far greater volume and the hydrodynamic and seakeeping advantages inherent in its size.

Elaborate, please.

Getting a destroyer (larger destroyers, albeit) up to 30-33 knots has been done in the past; I don't see how coaxing a few extra knots out would be an issue if you've got considerably more- it would really come down to structural issues rather than propulsion.

Considerably more what? Not power. The numbers above weren't random - they're roughly the operating temperatures of a PWR, an oil-fired high-pressure boiler and a gas turbine, respectively. Reactors simply aren't as thermally efficient as fossil fuel plants. They can't generate as much power in the same volume, so the engine compartment has to be bigger. On a carrier that's no problem, especially since they're very long and therefore need far less power per ton for a given speed, but on a tight ship like a destroyer that means more beam. To maintain speed the ship has to be longer, and pretty soon you don't have a destroyer at all.

Structure and propulsion are inextricably linked, especially at speeds over 30 knots, where "coaxing a a few extra knots out" generally means doubling power.

[Mostrov]

I actually knew the few battles that were fought were horrible melee's but I did not know a re-enforced hull was that bad for sailing and it will be corrected while I remove the ratlines.

Though while I have designed galleys and mentioned them as being used so did I thought that they were too shallow for use on the open sea and that they were best reserved for shallow and relatively calm waters like those of the Mediterranean. But thank you for the pointers, t'was an interesting read.

Presuming it is clinker built it will be quite strong, but even if there was a way to reinforce such boats (I'm doubtful its possible given the manner in which its conducted), it simply wouldn't be able to ram in a controlled sense. The hulls weren't exactly good at sea, the main reason they were built as they were was because they could be larger and carry more rather than any real improvement. I mean they often lacked any real stability, I believe the keel was either quite poorly 'exaggerated' or something of the type (I'd personally say that yours is probably slightly too large, but its probably a bit irrelevant).
Its often quite difficult to comprehend how 'bad' the technology for ships was at this time, and so its tempting to copy down much of the technology from later ages but it's just wildly inaccurate.

It depends on how they were handled, galleys were quite ubiquitous in the hundred years war; the Genoese being the main contributors. They weren't good in rough sea, but as I pointed out the sailing technique at the time was so primitive that neither were the sailing ships; and they mostly stuck to the coasts in any case. Something like a cross channel dash on a good day isn't something that really stretches the realm of imagination. So the shallowness isn't exactly an issue when you're hugging the coast, the main limitation being range due to the fact that they were fragile ships and the exhaustion of the crew (Which in these times weren't slaves, often warriors rather).

With all this in mind how would I design an optimum warship for this melee-centric era (This is of course going to be substantially more powerful than anything else comparable) I would probably have something quite similar to the 15/16th Century Galleons which were often ruled by the same dichotomy of boarding, the combination of several castles and a very high freeboard meant that they would be nigh unboardable. With rigging I'd probably adopt a three-masted ship that would have divided masts, despite this being a much later innovation I think that it is something that could be done correctly at the time, albeit much more primitively.

Additionally there is the problem that to construct such a boat in the first place many nations at the time lack the administration to actually fund such a navy, when navies are bought using a kings discretion and then left to rot at the moors without a efficient and capable fiscal support its likely to be something that isn't exactly standardised. The 'governments' of the time weren't exactly the best at such things, and I think a standing navy is quite unlikely at that time in general.

This leads me to my final points, which is that even with technology in mind most rulers at that time had a very, very poor grasp of the sea as a strategic element and most thought purely in terms of land battles. The most you can really get out of a country of the time, for the aforementioned reasons regarding administration and lack of ideas on how to apply the ships, is probably a more effective logistics force; with incidental battles occurring and them being won through weight of numbers.