NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #5

[Voltrovia]

Insurgents and tanks don't mix. They need rifles, RPG's and depending on the terrain and combat conditions MANPAD's, machine guns, mortars and other similar stuff.

Eh, I wasn't going to give them any, I was just going to give them some training in case they managed to steal some M1A2's from the notUSA force they'll be going up against.

Just a question - would you have the rebels use your own arms or those of the enemy (as in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan)? That issue is quite important in terms of what operations the rebels can undertake and whether a regional conflict turns into an international war over the blatant supplying of arms to rebel forces.

Also, tanks and heavy equipment of that kind simply do not mix with extremely poor/mountainous terrain, at least in the hands of insurgents. To give but a few reasons:
- Delivery is difficult
- Maintenance is not only needed much more but is often available far less
- Dust/marsh/extremely humid conditions do not aid operation
- Traversing effectively in such terrain is impossible (especially considering where you've said their bases will be)
- Isolated, slow-moving tank units will become magnets for enemy fire and aerial strike missions
- The rebels will require extensive training for effective use (the above difficulties excluded) at any rate and may well gleefully take such heavy and advanced equipment without, well, returning it or paying much allegiance, so to speak...which leads into the issue of how to fund and align your rebels.

Edit: They need light man-portable equipment (ideally durable and capable of withstanding conditions and basic misuse by poorly trained rebels). If you want to give them heavy equipment, the only option is for yourself or an allied neighbouring state (read: North Vietnam) to launch a parallel conventional and asymmetric campaign against the generic superpower you are fighting.

[Velkanika]

The Kirov is practical for its intended role. The nuclear reactor gives it long-range endurance without refueling while the steam turbines give it excellent "sprint" performance for when it needs to move really fast to evade a torpedo or something. As it will never have to move at flank speed for more then a few minutes, it doesn't need a steam turbine as the primary propulsion system. The nuclear plant on the other hand was a little too primitive to provide enough power to get it up to that ridiculous flank speed, hence the second engine plant

Now, if you want it to be 'optimized' all you can really do is completely replace the engine rooms with a single modern nuclear reactor and associated equipment. You can't add more missiles without removing some just like you can't redesign the superstructure without creating new radars from scratch. A Kirov is designed the way it is mostly for the sake of the radars, so you won't get any increase in performance by trying to turn it into a Ticonderoga-class with a red star on the bow.

Don't try to turn the Kirov into a Tico. We'll mock you.

All noted

My idea is the have a class of ships that are very kirov like, but using mostly locally developed technologies and weapons. My basic idea was to have a the ships superstructure closer to the rear of the ship to allow for more space on the bow for missiles and a much more powerful modern reactor to allow for greater speed and more space for weapons systems.

The superstructure needs to be directly over the center of mass to give it good sea keeping properties. Otherwise your idea is fine for building a domestic cruiser design.

Kirov is a bad ship the only reason you'd use it is because you're too poor to afford something better.

Go back under the bridge or posit a valid point.

[Voltrovia]

All noted

My idea is the have a class of ships that are very kirov like, but using mostly locally developed technologies and weapons. My basic idea was to have a the ships superstructure closer to the rear of the ship to allow for more space on the bow for missiles and a much more powerful modern reactor to allow for greater speed and more space for weapons systems.

The superstructure needs to be directly over the center of mass to give it good sea keeping properties. Otherwise your idea is fine for building a domestic cruiser design.

Kirov is a bad ship the only reason you'd use it is because you're too poor to afford something better.

Go back under the bridge or posit a valid point.

Would your ship have helicopter capability under that model?

You would more or less have to do away with a Kirov-sized hangar if you wanted a focus on missile launch capability unless significant tonnage increases were instituted.

To add a question for the thread, one which I think I might have asked some time ago, could VTOL aircraft be operated, either in clear skies or foul weather, from a (very) heavy cruiser with a ~30-40m x 20m landing area, or would it be too impractical?

[Alduinium]

Eh, I wasn't going to give them any, I was just going to give them some training in case they managed to steal some M1A2's from the notUSA force they'll be going up against.

Just a question - would you have the rebels use your own arms or those of the enemy (as in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan)? That issue is quite important in terms of what operations the rebels can undertake and whether a regional conflict turns into an international war over the blatant supplying of arms to rebel forces.

Also, tanks and heavy equipment of that kind simply do not mix with extremely poor/mountainous terrain, at least in the hands of insurgents. To give but a few reasons:
- Delivery is difficult
- Maintenance is not only needed much more but is often far less available
- Dust/marsh/extremely humid conditions do not aid operation
- Traversing effectively in such terrain is impossible (especially considering where you've said their bases will be)
- Isolated, slow-moving tank units will become magnets for enemy fire and aerial strike missions
- The rebels will require extensive training for effective use (the above difficulties excluded) at any rate and may well gleefully take such heavy and advanced equipment without, well, returning it or paying much allegiance, so to speak...which leads into the issue of how to fund and align your rebels.

Edit: They need light man-portable equipment (ideally durable and capable of withstanding conditions and basic misuse by poorly trained rebels). If you want to give them heavy equipment, the only option is for yourself or an allied neighbouring state (read: North Vietnam) to launch a parallel conventional and asymmetric campaign against the generic superpower you are fighting.

I was going to give the rebels mostly Soviet equipment. Seeing as to how Soviet gear is pretty common, I highly doubt that he notUSA will instantly realize it's me giving them supplies.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

1. Yes, it would replace the HMMWVs used in front-line service.

2. I never wanted a 90mm gun on it, which is another reason I turned down the Cadillac Gage Commando (another other major reason being the versions without the 90mm are older and do not have as great protection as the Direct Fire version.) I am sorry if I worded this wrong, but a 90mm gun was never even an option for the Cavall.

3. The Cavall isn't an MRAP, it is just an armored patrol vehicle. I will not assume it will withstand an IED, just that the V-Hull and other armor capabilities I have not listed will protect the crew. Vehicles can be replaced, lives cannot.

4. Rough water is an unavoidable concern for my Armed Forces. Being a completely island nation and the countless number of operations the Armed Forces have undertaken in the maritime or marsh environment due the said environment and the similar environments of the countries we are most likely to involve ourselves with. Several more factors at play here, just know we prefer maritime environments and being able to launch the Cavall from a ship would free up many LCVs for un-amphibious vehicles.

I understand the added weight could be treacherous (although unless it is something extremely heavy the Cavall will not sink because it is not an open top vehicle), but I was questioning how far within the "green zone" of floating I am with only 0.24m of freeboard to spare.

1. If you mean replace only Humvees being used as combat vehicles, then yes it would work. If you mean replace all Humvees, including ones used for non-combat transport and logistical purposes, then no. The LAV-150 (I assume that's the version you're talking about) is not a general purpose truck, it's a light AFV. If you want a general Humvee replacement, I'd recommend looking into the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program or the Combat Tactical Vehicle, which is what I went with.

2. There is literally no reason you can't swap out the 90mm gun for a 20mm autocannon, or a machine gun and grenade launcher combo, seeing as how they took off the 20mm to install the 90mm turret. There is also no reason you can't modernize a Commando; That's almost exactly what the M1117 is. Though the M1117 isn't amphibious. Adding more armor to a Commando would probably have negative effects when it comes to seaworthiness though.

3. Technically speaking, lives can be replaced. That's what recruitment centers are for.

4. Not being open topped won't stop it from sinking. There are quite a few seams around viewports, doors, the turret ring, etc where water can leak in. If you try to drive through too heavy seas in an armored truck, it is going to sink. Even large sea-faring ships can sink in rough weather.

the CTV looks like smth out of mad max tho

[Velkanika]

The superstructure needs to be directly over the center of mass to give it good sea keeping properties. Otherwise your idea is fine for building a domestic cruiser design.


Go back under the bridge or posit a valid point.

Would your ship have helicopter capability under that model?

You would more or less have to do away with a Kirov-sized hangar if you wanted a focus on missile launch capability unless significant tonnage increases were instituted.

To add a question for the thread, one which I think I might have asked some time ago, could VTOL aircraft be operated, either in clear skies or foul weather, from a (very) heavy cruiser with a ~30-40m x 20m landing area, or would it be too impractical?

You could fly a VTOL jet off of that deck, but it would have extremely low lifting capacity. Helicopters on the other hand would love it.

[The Akasha Colony]

I feel like all of its problems could be fixed by adding more weapons and more powerful reactor

but hey, my solution to all problems is to just add more weapons

Soviet stonk

This isn't a simple task. By the time you're done overhauling the engineering plant, replacing and overhauling the weapons, and refitting the electronics, you won't have anything resembling a Kirov left in anything but tonnage, and indeed, you could probably make something more compact anyway. Replacing the reactor and the engineering plant requires extensive overhauling of the interior, to the point that pretty much nothing would be left.

The Kirov is practical for its intended role. The nuclear reactor gives it long-range endurance without refueling while the steam turbines give it excellent "sprint" performance for when it needs to move really fast to evade a torpedo or something. As it will never have to move at flank speed for more then a few minutes, it doesn't need a steam turbine as the primary propulsion system. The nuclear plant on the other hand was a little too primitive to provide enough power to get it up to that ridiculous flank speed, hence the second engine plant

You won't be able to start up the steam turbines fast enough to evade a torpedo. Even the torpedoes of the 1970s would have likely been able to keep up (Mk. 48 dates from 1971). One of the main reasons steam turbines lost out to gas turbines is their much inferior acceleration, while diesels are more efficient for cruising. The issue with the reactor wasn't design, it was simply that for Soviet naval doctrine, it wouldn't be expected to operate outside of its naval bastions, for which sprint range wasn't an issue. The nuclear plant was sized for cruising, to allow it to remain on extended patrol, then sprint the short range needed to intercept capitalist pig-dog interlopers. There are times when it would have to move at greater speed for somewhat more extended periods (certainly more than a few minutes), but not farther than the edge of the bastion. Thus, 2,000 km was sufficient.

Now, if you want it to be 'optimized' all you can really do is completely replace the engine rooms with a single modern nuclear reactor and associated equipment. You can't add more missiles without removing some just like you can't redesign the superstructure without creating new radars from scratch. A Kirov is designed the way it is mostly for the sake of the radars, so you won't get any increase in performance by trying to turn it into a Ticonderoga-class with a red star on the bow.

You would almost certainly want to replace the radars anyway though, given their age.

Kirov was designed for a particular role in a particular time period from a particular industrial base. However, most nations on NS will not use it for that role, and are no longer restricted to that time period, or that industrial base. It isn't worth overhauling into the sort of ship people want, since charitably the only thing that would be left is the outer hull, and steel is cheap. Everything else would have to be torn out, redesigned, and replaced, and at that point it would be cheaper and more efficient to design a new ship around those components rather than try to shoehorn them into an old hull.

Because I know how much this thread loves Kirov's, here's a proposition: I'm planning of completely redeveloping my nation over the summer and being the man I am I want my navy to have a group of large Kirov type ships which would act as flagships and generally be used to intimidate my neighbors. From all that I've gathered, the Kirov suffers from three main problems: Its armament is lacking for its weight compared to ships like the Slava class, its nuclear reactors aren't powerful enough to propel it to max speed without the help of conventional power and its value for money is lower then more versatile vessels such as light aircraft cruisers.

Going form this, if these problems could be rectified, with the exception of value for money, would having a fleet of at max five kirov style ships be effective . Again going from this, what would be the best way to rectify these problems?

Come hell or high water I will some day have a practical modern battle cruiser!

More obsession with that "battlecruiser" term...

In any event, "effective" is dependent on what you want them to be used against. The argument for Kirov diminishes somewhat if you have and rely on carriers to provide striking power, since then Kirov becomes oversized and rather expensive for an escort ship, and less effective as an attacker than a carrier. A competent navy won't be "intimidated" by it though. I'm not sure where the myth that nations or soldiers are automatically intimidated by big things comes from, probably movies and pop culture.

[Krazeria]

Kirov sized ship + Kirov sized armament + Helicopter Carrier + Nuclear Power

=

The beginnings of a good idea...

[Krazeria]

I feel like all of its problems could be fixed by adding more weapons and more powerful reactor

but hey, my solution to all problems is to just add more weapons

Soviet stonk

This isn't a simple task. By the time you're done overhauling the engineering plant, replacing and overhauling the weapons, and refitting the electronics, you won't have anything resembling a Kirov left in anything but tonnage, and indeed, you could probably make something more compact anyway. Replacing the reactor and the engineering plant requires extensive overhauling of the interior, to the point that pretty much nothing would be left.

The Kirov is practical for its intended role. The nuclear reactor gives it long-range endurance without refueling while the steam turbines give it excellent "sprint" performance for when it needs to move really fast to evade a torpedo or something. As it will never have to move at flank speed for more then a few minutes, it doesn't need a steam turbine as the primary propulsion system. The nuclear plant on the other hand was a little too primitive to provide enough power to get it up to that ridiculous flank speed, hence the second engine plant

You won't be able to start up the steam turbines fast enough to evade a torpedo. Even the torpedoes of the 1970s would have likely been able to keep up (Mk. 48 dates from 1971). One of the main reasons steam turbines lost out to gas turbines is their much inferior acceleration, while diesels are more efficient for cruising. The issue with the reactor wasn't design, it was simply that for Soviet naval doctrine, it wouldn't be expected to operate outside of its naval bastions, for which sprint range wasn't an issue. The nuclear plant was sized for cruising, to allow it to remain on extended patrol, then sprint the short range needed to intercept capitalist pig-dog interlopers. There are times when it would have to move at greater speed for somewhat more extended periods (certainly more than a few minutes), but not farther than the edge of the bastion. Thus, 2,000 km was sufficient.

Now, if you want it to be 'optimized' all you can really do is completely replace the engine rooms with a single modern nuclear reactor and associated equipment. You can't add more missiles without removing some just like you can't redesign the superstructure without creating new radars from scratch. A Kirov is designed the way it is mostly for the sake of the radars, so you won't get any increase in performance by trying to turn it into a Ticonderoga-class with a red star on the bow.

You would almost certainly want to replace the radars anyway though, given their age.

Kirov was designed for a particular role in a particular time period from a particular industrial base. However, most nations on NS will not use it for that role, and are no longer restricted to that time period, or that industrial base. It isn't worth overhauling into the sort of ship people want, since charitably the only thing that would be left is the outer hull, and steel is cheap. Everything else would have to be torn out, redesigned, and replaced, and at that point it would be cheaper and more efficient to design a new ship around those components rather than try to shoehorn them into an old hull.

Because I know how much this thread loves Kirov's, here's a proposition: I'm planning of completely redeveloping my nation over the summer and being the man I am I want my navy to have a group of large Kirov type ships which would act as flagships and generally be used to intimidate my neighbors. From all that I've gathered, the Kirov suffers from three main problems: Its armament is lacking for its weight compared to ships like the Slava class, its nuclear reactors aren't powerful enough to propel it to max speed without the help of conventional power and its value for money is lower then more versatile vessels such as light aircraft cruisers.

Going form this, if these problems could be rectified, with the exception of value for money, would having a fleet of at max five kirov style ships be effective . Again going from this, what would be the best way to rectify these problems?

Come hell or high water I will some day have a practical modern battle cruiser!

More obsession with that "battlecruiser" term...

In any event, "effective" is dependent on what you want them to be used against. The argument for Kirov diminishes somewhat if you have and rely on carriers to provide striking power, since then Kirov becomes oversized and rather expensive for an escort ship, and less effective as an attacker than a carrier. A competent navy won't be "intimidated" by it though. I'm not sure where the myth that nations or soldiers are automatically intimidated by big things comes from, probably movies and pop culture.

Why must logic and reason be such bummers

[The New Lowlands]

Kirov sized ship + Kirov sized armament + Helicopter Carrier + Nuclear Power

=

The beginnings of a good idea...

Kirov sized ship + Kirov sized armament + Helicopter Carrier = bigger than kirov, innit?

[Krazeria]

Kirov sized ship + Kirov sized armament + Helicopter Carrier + Nuclear Power

=

The beginnings of a good idea...

Kirov sized ship + Kirov sized armament + Helicopter Carrier = bigger than kirov, innit?

I'm a dumb ass sometimes lol, yeah it would be probably allot bigger

[Spirit of Hope]

Kirov sized ship + Kirov sized armament + Helicopter Carrier + Nuclear Power

=

The beginnings of a good idea...

Kirov sized ship + Kirov sized armament + Helicopter Carrier = bigger than kirov, innit?

Actually the kirov was a little inefficient for weapons size to displacement. Might be able to get in a similar weapons amount and carry a couple of helicopters for the same displacement. Of course the question would then be why make a ship that does a little of both but not fully one or the other.

[Krazeria]

Kirov sized ship + Kirov sized armament + Helicopter Carrier = bigger than kirov, innit?

Actually the kirov was a little inefficient for weapons size to displacement. Might be able to get in a similar weapons amount and carry a couple of helicopters for the same displacement. Of course the question would then be why make a ship that does a little of both but not fully one or the other.

Possibly have a ship that is (for the lack of better words) a kirov with a much modified superstructure (pushed closer together and towards the bow) and an extended aft with a large flight deck similar to that used on the moskva class (as an example)

or another idea: have a ship that is basically a widened kirov hull, with most of its weapons pushed to one side and a long flight deck (maybe even with a ski jump if you want to get fancy), simmular to that used on the Kiev class aircraft carriers

[The Akasha Colony]

Possibly have a ship that is (for the lack of better words) a kirov with a much modified superstructure (pushed closer together and towards the bow) and an extended aft with a large flight deck similar to that used on the moskva class (as an example)

or another idea: have a ship that is basically a widened kirov hull, with most of its weapons pushed to one side and a long flight deck (maybe even with a ski jump if you want to get fancy), simmular to that used on the Kiev class aircraft carriers

Figure out your doctrine first and foremost. Ships are designed to fit doctrines, not the other way around. There are lots of features you can add to a ship, but if they don't fit what you navy is supposed to be doing, they could end up being worthless. Notice how other navies have not seen fit to pursue the same concepts as the Soviets did. They made small carriers yes, but no carrier-cruiser hybrids.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Actually the kirov was a little inefficient for weapons size to displacement. Might be able to get in a similar weapons amount and carry a couple of helicopters for the same displacement. Of course the question would then be why make a ship that does a little of both but not fully one or the other.

Possibly have a ship that is (for the lack of better words) a kirov with a much modified superstructure (pushed closer together and towards the bow) and an extended aft with a large flight deck similar to that used on the moskva class (as an example)

or another idea: have a ship that is basically a widened kirov hull, with most of its weapons pushed to one side and a long flight deck (maybe even with a ski jump if you want to get fancy), simmular to that used on the Kiev class aircraft carriers

To be honest, the closest you would get with this is something like Baku (Kiev-class with 10x P-500 Vulkan missiles on the bow) or Kuznetsov (aircraft carrier with 12x P-700 Granit that launch through hatches in the deck). The idea of an enlarged Kirov/Kiev came up on this thread about a week ago, but the discussion that followed was a mess so I recommend you don't search back for it. Long story short, you'll end up with a ship that can do carrier things and cruiser things, but is "meh" at both roles; a specialized carrier paired with a specialized cruiser would be better.

In my opinion, you're looking at the problem backwards, which is a common misstep for new ship designers. Your approach, like that of many others, reads as follows:
1) start with a big hull.
2) add as many weapons, aircraft, radars, and other equipment as you can shoehorn into it.

This approach is very easy to take, both mentally and when linearting. The problem is, it tends to lead to very big ships that are packed with missiles, decoys, helicopters, and everything but the kitchen sink, but cost a fortune and don't really do anything a group of smaller destroyers can't do even better. I recommend that instead you follow the same path real designers tend to follow:
1) identify a doctrinal role you need filled.
2) list out the minimum equipment you will need to fulfill that role.
3) fit that equipment onto the smallest hull that can comfortably accommodate it.

[Krazeria]

Possibly have a ship that is (for the lack of better words) a kirov with a much modified superstructure (pushed closer together and towards the bow) and an extended aft with a large flight deck similar to that used on the moskva class (as an example)

or another idea: have a ship that is basically a widened kirov hull, with most of its weapons pushed to one side and a long flight deck (maybe even with a ski jump if you want to get fancy), simmular to that used on the Kiev class aircraft carriers

Figure out your doctrine first and foremost. Ships are designed to fit doctrines, not the other way around. There are lots of features you can add to a ship, but if they don't fit what you navy is supposed to be doing, they could end up being worthless. Notice how other navies have not seen fit to pursue the same concepts as the Soviets did. They made small carriers yes, but no carrier-cruiser hybrids.

I've been giving doctrine allot of though, and so far what I've come up with can be summarized as fallows:


KoMODO
(Krazerian Military operations Doctrine)

The Krazerian Military uses the vast size of its forces (Army, Navy, Air force) (Tier Two) to act as a deterrent and defense against aggression on home territory, while relying on advanced forces such as the KNM (Krazrian Naval Marines), KAF (Krazerian Airborne Forces) and KSP (Krazerian Special Forces) (Tier One) to conduct offensive operations abroad with support from the Tier Two forces. Krazeria lacks a large strategic nuclear arsenal to directly deter aggression, so a major emphases is placed on preemptive offensive operations conducted by Tier One forces.

[Pharthan]

Do you know the part about chickens in a barnyard coop from Dr. Strangelove? That scene describes my opinion on the matter. It'll work, but I have to question the sanity of implementing it.

1) This is NS.
2) If you're using low-power reactors, it's plausible. You might just want to keep the aircraft on the flight-line for a bit before servicing them. Recommended time after shutdown before really doing anything with them would be more than a day.

The Kirov is practical for its intended role. The nuclear reactor gives it long-range endurance without refueling while the steam turbines give it excellent "sprint" performance for when it needs to move really fast to evade a torpedo or something. As it will never have to move at flank speed for more then a few minutes, it doesn't need a steam turbine as the primary propulsion system. The nuclear plant on the other hand was a little too primitive to provide enough power to get it up to that ridiculous flank speed, hence the second engine plant

Steam turbines are actually poor for sprinting; they're actually what the reactors use to propel the ship. The Kirov just has additional conventional boilers, which is silly. One bigger reactor is all you need. Perhaps a large battery.
As for the diesels, as were mentioned (I think), I'm not entirely sure that they're able to be used for propulsion. Most nuclear reactors have diesels for auxiliary power in case the reactor has to scram out and they need a power source for pumps and restoration of the reactor. I could be wrong, but just something to think about.

If you really want to give the Kirov a better reactor, build it that way from the bottom up. At which point, you might as well change anything and everything else about the ship you deem fit while you're at it. Overhauling the entire engine room and reactor room is about as logical, and comparable to, taking an engine out of a car, everything that touched the engine, then putting a new engine in said car that requires the entire frame of the front-end to be remodeled and redone. In the end, it's cheaper, better, and faster to build it fresh from the bottom up.

[Velkanika]

Do you know the part about chickens in a barnyard coop from Dr. Strangelove? That scene describes my opinion on the matter. It'll work, but I have to question the sanity of implementing it.

1) This is NS.
2) If you're using low-power reactors, it's plausible. You might just want to keep the aircraft on the flight-line for a bit before servicing them. Recommended time after shutdown before really doing anything with them would be more than a day.

The Kirov is practical for its intended role. The nuclear reactor gives it long-range endurance without refueling while the steam turbines give it excellent "sprint" performance for when it needs to move really fast to evade a torpedo or something. As it will never have to move at flank speed for more then a few minutes, it doesn't need a steam turbine as the primary propulsion system. The nuclear plant on the other hand was a little too primitive to provide enough power to get it up to that ridiculous flank speed, hence the second engine plant

Steam turbines are actually poor for sprinting; they're actually what the reactors use to propel the ship. The Kirov just has additional conventional boilers, which is silly. One bigger reactor is all you need. Perhaps a large battery.
As for the diesels, as were mentioned (I think), I'm not entirely sure that they're able to be used for propulsion. Most nuclear reactors have diesels for auxiliary power in case the reactor has to scram out and they need a power source for pumps and restoration of the reactor. I could be wrong, but just something to think about.

If you really want to give the Kirov a better reactor, build it that way from the bottom up. At which point, you might as well change anything and everything else about the ship you deem fit while you're at it. Overhauling the entire engine room and reactor room is about as logical, and comparable to, taking an engine out of a car, everything that touched the engine, then putting a new engine in said car that requires the entire frame of the front-end to be remodeled and redone. In the end, it's cheaper, better, and faster to build it fresh from the bottom up.

I misspoke on the bit about steam turbines, I meant boilers. You're absolutely right about that.

If you already have a partially-constructed Kirov hull like Ukraine did until Putin made like an asshole, you could build it with a different configuration pretty easily. On the other hand, given the proliferation of Kirovs for sale cheap on NS it might actually be cost effective to use them as oversize escorts, seeing as a nation could probably buy a half dozen moderately used ships for bargain-bin rates.

[The Akasha Colony]

As for the diesels, as were mentioned (I think), I'm not entirely sure that they're able to be used for propulsion. Most nuclear reactors have diesels for auxiliary power in case the reactor has to scram out and they need a power source for pumps and restoration of the reactor. I could be wrong, but just something to think about.

Diesels are actually very common in modern warships, and in most commercial ships. They consume much less fuel than gas turbines especially at a set cruising speed, although they are bulkier and heavier. For navies or ships that don't require a lot of speed, diesels will often be used alone. For ships that might require faster speeds with good cruising endurance, they'll often be paired with gas turbines in CODAG or CODOG. The earliest efforts were from the Imperial German Navy, which sought to introduce diesels to give their battleships much longer cruising range (since they didn't have the global base network the British did), but these were never ready in time. The Kriegsmarine persisted in this and the Deutschland-class was diesel powered, but the Bismarcks were converted to steam power.

The biggest diesel engines, used to power huge container ships and tankers, tend to look something like this:

If you already have a partially-constructed Kirov hull like Ukraine did until Putin made like an asshole, you could build it with a different configuration pretty easily. On the other hand, given the proliferation of Kirovs for sale cheap on NS it might actually be cost effective to use them as oversize escorts, seeing as a nation could probably buy a half dozen moderately used ships for bargain-bin rates.

On NS though, you could probably get better ships for just as cheap. Operating a nuclear warship is expensive, and Kirov (like most nuclear ships) had a big crew, not really points in favor of their cost. It's why the US decided to accelerate the retirement of the Virginias in favor of more Ticonderogas and Burkes.

[Chebucto Provinces]

What kind of things would I need to do to update WW1 and WW2 era coastal defense forts for modern use? Specifically by reservists who would form both a coastal defense pool and the reserve for actual field artillery. They would use the same towed 155mm artillery (I think the G5) as field artillery uses.

I think, for my typical three-gun fort I can do the following:
- Large gun pits, such as former 9.2 inch gun emplacements, would be heavily modified to allow a G5 to be backed/driven into it, set up, and if needed fired.
- Other pits/emplacements would be modified to allow parking of mobile fire director vehicles and other assorted support vehicles for their use.
- Updated/modern accommodations, power, and other ancillary parts.

A little bit of work for the engineers/construction units, and a durable parking placement for the equipment for the reservists to practice. All on existing government infrastructure or land.

For proper coastal defense in the modern world, I should mix in some truck-mounted anti-shipping missiles and smaller ones like those Norwegian Hellfire mounts, right? Perhaps as accessories to the forts, and for actual use in coastal defense. I don;t see the forts being ever used, or seriously intended for defense. Maybe a SHTF situation, but that's a stretch to sat the least.

Could I perhaps take the same approach to modifying such old forts to national air defense? Station a Hawk battery at these forts as well, and maybe some gun-based close defense?

[Kampala-]

Use a few for fixed radars. Implode the rest and build beach resorts.

[Inyourfaceistan]

What kind of things would I need to do to update WW1 and WW2 era coastal defense forts for modern use? Specifically by reservists who would form both a coastal defense pool and the reserve for actual field artillery. They would use the same towed 155mm artillery (I think the G5) as field artillery uses.

I think, for my typical three-gun fort I can do the following:
- Large gun pits, such as former 9.2 inch gun emplacements, would be heavily modified to allow a G5 to be backed/driven into it, set up, and if needed fired.
- Other pits/emplacements would be modified to allow parking of mobile fire director vehicles and other assorted support vehicles for their use.
- Updated/modern accommodations, power, and other ancillary parts.

A little bit of work for the engineers/construction units, and a durable parking placement for the equipment for the reservists to practice. All on existing government infrastructure or land.

For proper coastal defense in the modern world, I should mix in some truck-mounted anti-shipping missiles and smaller ones like those Norwegian Hellfire mounts, right? Perhaps as accessories to the forts, and for actual use in coastal defense. I don;t see the forts being ever used, or seriously intended for defense. Maybe a SHTF situation, but that's a stretch to sat the least.

Could I perhaps take the same approach to modifying such old forts to national air defense? Station a Hawk battery at these forts as well, and maybe some gun-based close defense?

You will need lots of long-range SAM and radar installations.
If you plan to use guns in defense at least try guided models such as Excalibur, but keep them hidden because they will loose to cruise missiles and air strikes, and most likely lack the capacity to sink most ships with ease unlike an AShM.

[San-Silvacian]

Name: Malafon II
Type: Standoff anti-submarine weapon system
Weight: 400 kg
Length: 5 m
Diameter: 324 mm
Warhead: 50 kg shaped-charge (NTL-90)
Engine: Aluminum-silver oxide battery
Wingspan: 550 mm
Operational range: 30 km
Speed: rly fast I guess
Guidance system: Inertial guidance

Name: R.750
Type: Medium range surface to air missile
Weight: 450 kg
Length: 6 m
Diameter: 400 mm
Warhead: 75 kg HE-Frag
Engine: Liquid fuel rocket
Wingspan: 650 mm
Operational range: 120 km
Speed: Up to Mach 3.5
Guidance system: On board ship targeting, semi-active homing

Name: ASMP-ESP
Type: Nuclear cruise missile
Weight: 1,450 kg
Length: 6.5 m
Diameter: 480 mm
Warhead: TN 90 nuclear warhead (150/300 kt variable yield)
Engine: TRI 60-30 turbojet
Wingspan: 2.85 m
Operational range: 1,000 km
Speed: 800 km/h
Guidance system: Inertial, GPS, and TERPROM. Terminal guidance using imaging infared

Name: R.800
Type: Ballistic missile defense
Weight: 1,750 kg
Length: 7 m
Diameter: 350 mm
Warhead: Kinetic warhead
Engine: 3 stage solid fuel
Wingspan: 160 mm
Operational range: 1,000 km
Speed: Up to 4.5 km/s
Guidance system: GPS, INS, semi-active radar homing, passive LWIR seeker

look i made missiles

[NewLakotah]

What kind of things would I need to do to update WW1 and WW2 era coastal defense forts for modern use? Specifically by reservists who would form both a coastal defense pool and the reserve for actual field artillery. They would use the same towed 155mm artillery (I think the G5) as field artillery uses.

I think, for my typical three-gun fort I can do the following:
- Large gun pits, such as former 9.2 inch gun emplacements, would be heavily modified to allow a G5 to be backed/driven into it, set up, and if needed fired.
- Other pits/emplacements would be modified to allow parking of mobile fire director vehicles and other assorted support vehicles for their use.
- Updated/modern accommodations, power, and other ancillary parts.

A little bit of work for the engineers/construction units, and a durable parking placement for the equipment for the reservists to practice. All on existing government infrastructure or land.

For proper coastal defense in the modern world, I should mix in some truck-mounted anti-shipping missiles and smaller ones like those Norwegian Hellfire mounts, right? Perhaps as accessories to the forts, and for actual use in coastal defense. I don;t see the forts being ever used, or seriously intended for defense. Maybe a SHTF situation, but that's a stretch to sat the least.

Could I perhaps take the same approach to modifying such old forts to national air defense? Station a Hawk battery at these forts as well, and maybe some gun-based close defense?

To make it effective you would need to place several long range ABM units there as well as several shorter ranged SAM sites as well. Also, place several anti-ship missiles would be effective too. I would consider your forts as a part of a series of defenses to protect your shores. Your navy would be the first line, then your air force, then this as your last resort before facing a amphibious assault or any other type of conventional assault. Also, a fortification like this is also, like I previously stated, is good for placing your ABMs or ballistic missiles as well.

[Pharthan]

I misspoke on the bit about steam turbines, I meant boilers. You're absolutely right about that.

Boilers would be no different. They're good for the duration side of sprinting, but boilers and nuclear reactors (anything that deals with steam) tend to be slow to get there.
Nuclear reactors are just the most complex, ridiculous way to boil water we've ever come up with.