NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Mitheldalond]

I use 20mm CIWS. I also have a slightly higher proportion of missiles for defense, from what I can tell.

This is all very besides the point, yes you can make a 30mm CIWS, it will be heavier, bigger and take up more space than a 20mm CIWS. Probably isn't a deal breaker though.

Not necessarily. Oerlikon Millennium is roughly the same weight as Phalanx.

Why does NS prefer so much soviet stuff?

There is no single reason. Lots of people us NATO stuff too, but I think there's a perception among some that those used Western equipment are "more n00bish" than the "more informed" players who use Soviet gear.

So, I'm working on a plan for a modernized Iowa that would actually be a capable (if inefficient) surface combatant. Not for new production or a frontline warship of course, just for if you happen to have some lying around.

My intention is to make as few changes to the ships' actual structure as possible. So for starters, in going to just load up the Tomahawk launchers with Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missiles. Then I'm going to remove the Harpoon launchers and install a pair of 8-cell Tactical length Mk 41 VLS modules to carry ESSMs. Finally, I plan to remove the remaining six 5"/38 turrets and install Mk 22 GMLSs for the RIM-66 SM-2 in their place. Along with that comes swapping out the 5" fire control radars for the targeting radars for the SM-2 and ESSM (SPG-62 I think?).

The 5" turrets may have to be widened slightly to fit the Mk 22 launchers. The 16" guns will be kept, mostly because removing them would require some seriously heavy machinery, but also partly because they'd still be useful for shore bombardment, especially with the TLAMs gone.
(And because it just wouldn't have the same coolness factor without them. And let's face it, this is NS. There will come a time when the enemy drives his Kirovs, Ticonderogas, and Zumwalts into gunnery range. And the effects of nine 2,700 pound shells hitting an unarmored warship will be glorious. As will your maniacal laughter when their own guns barely even scratch your paint. )

I've worked aboard one. There's no space where the Harpoon launchers are, as Velk points out. The other difficulty is that unlike those Australian frigates, any significant modifications outside of the weather decks and superstructure would require dealing with the armored deck, which is a hassle to say the least. There's no reason a battleship would even need more anti-air power, it's basically the same as those ideas to mount VLS on carriers.

The problem is the same one that is so common on NS: it's a "solution" in search of a problem. Do you really need your battleships to be fighting off air attacks and attacking enemy warships with missiles? Their escort screens should already be handling this, and they can be built and operated more cost-effectively than this battleship. It's like the classic "turn this carrier into a missile battleship that can take on the entire enemy fleet alone" idea that pops up in the warship thread. The role of this battleship should be shore bombardment, it's the only thing it has a capability advantage in vs. its escorts, who will have better integrated radar and presumably full VLS suites.

How about removing the catwalk the Harpoons are sitting on, sitting the Mk 41 down on top of the deck, and building a support structure up around it? Might be a bit on the tall side for a heavy VLS module, but I don't really think that it's going to make a 58,000 ton battleship top heavy.

The problem can be described as "we've lost too many many ships and need something to replace them fast." So they actually would need decent air defenses, as they're filling in for the ships that would normally be escorting them. I'm not saying its an especially good idea, but if that's all you have, it's certainly better than nothing.

I'm also designing a weird kind of third-worldy nation that can't get ahold of things like modern warships for whatever reason, yet also somehow has access to some modern weapons. Thus you have things like F-8 Crusaders carrying AIM-120s, and Sherman M-51s covered in Russian-style ERA and firing LAHATs in active service in a modern military. I know that there's no logical explanation for how that situation could have come about, I'm just doing it because it's fun.

[Velkanika]

Not necessarily. Oerlikon Millennium is roughly the same weight as Phalanx.



There is no single reason. Lots of people us NATO stuff too, but I think there's a perception among some that those used Western equipment are "more n00bish" than the "more informed" players who use Soviet gear.



I've worked aboard one. There's no space where the Harpoon launchers are, as Velk points out. The other difficulty is that unlike those Australian frigates, any significant modifications outside of the weather decks and superstructure would require dealing with the armored deck, which is a hassle to say the least. There's no reason a battleship would even need more anti-air power, it's basically the same as those ideas to mount VLS on carriers.

The problem is the same one that is so common on NS: it's a "solution" in search of a problem. Do you really need your battleships to be fighting off air attacks and attacking enemy warships with missiles? Their escort screens should already be handling this, and they can be built and operated more cost-effectively than this battleship. It's like the classic "turn this carrier into a missile battleship that can take on the entire enemy fleet alone" idea that pops up in the warship thread. The role of this battleship should be shore bombardment, it's the only thing it has a capability advantage in vs. its escorts, who will have better integrated radar and presumably full VLS suites.

How about removing the catwalk the Harpoons are sitting on, sitting the Mk 41 down on top of the deck, and building a support structure up around it? Might be a bit on the tall side for a heavy VLS module, but I don't really think that it's going to make a 58,000 ton battleship top heavy.

The problem can be described as "we've lost too many many ships and need something to replace them fast."

I'm also designing a weird kind of third-worldy nation that can't get ahold of things like modern warships for whatever reason, yet also somehow has access to some modern weapons. Thus you have things like F-8 Crusaders carrying AIM-120s, and Sherman M-51s covered in Russian-style ERA and firing LAHATs in active service in a modern military. I know that there's no logical explanation for how that situation could have come about, I'm just doing it because it's fun.

Nope, that would involve cutting through not only a very thick, solid armor deck but redesigning the engine room. Because of the nature of that kind of armor, you'd have to cut through it with torches. That would take the better part of a year at minimum. You can build a modern guided missile destroyer in that same time period for less than it would take to complete the battleship refit.

[Mitheldalond]

How about removing the catwalk the Harpoons are sitting on, sitting the Mk 41 down on top of the deck, and building a support structure up around it? Might be a bit on the tall side for a heavy VLS module, but I don't really think that it's going to make a 58,000 ton battleship top heavy.

The problem can be described as "we've lost too many many ships and need something to replace them fast."

I'm also designing a weird kind of third-worldy nation that can't get ahold of things like modern warships for whatever reason, yet also somehow has access to some modern weapons. Thus you have things like F-8 Crusaders carrying AIM-120s, and Sherman M-51s covered in Russian-style ERA and firing LAHATs in active service in a modern military. I know that there's no logical explanation for how that situation could have come about, I'm just doing it because it's fun.

Nope, that would involve cutting through not only a very thick, solid armor deck but redesigning the engine room. Because of the nature of that kind of armor, you'd have to cut through it with torches. That would take the better part of a year at minimum. You can build a modern guided missile destroyer in that same time period for less than it would take to complete the battleship refit.

What I meant was to not cut through the deck, and just plonk the VLS down on top of it. Like if you were to just kind of sit it on the ground instead of digging a hole to put it in.

Basically, instead of cutting away parts of the ship to fit the module in, you build a new structure above the deck to hold it.

[Velkanika]

Nope, that would involve cutting through not only a very thick, solid armor deck but redesigning the engine room. Because of the nature of that kind of armor, you'd have to cut through it with torches. That would take the better part of a year at minimum. You can build a modern guided missile destroyer in that same time period for less than it would take to complete the battleship refit.

What I meant was to not cut through the deck, and just plonk the VLS down on top of it. Like if you were to just kind of sit it on the ground instead of digging a hole to put it in.

Basically, instead of cutting away parts of the ship to fit the module in, you build a new structure above the deck to hold it.

Strike-length Mk 41 Vertical Launch Systems are 303 inches tall. They also require extensive load-bearing support from a surrounding structure. In a word, no.

[Doppio Giudici]

Does anyone know what the smallest homing rocket is right now?

[Roski]

Does anyone know what the smallest homing rocket is right now?

The rocket the Javelin fires, I believe.

[Erusuia]

I'm starting to work on my nations main battle tank and I was wondering what was better, tracks supported by return rollers or tracks without them

[The Republic of Lanos]

Does anyone know what the smallest homing rocket is right now?

The rocket the Javelin fires, I believe.

That's the initial propulsion system to get the missile out of the launching tube.

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

Nope, that would involve cutting through not only a very thick, solid armor deck but redesigning the engine room. Because of the nature of that kind of armor, you'd have to cut through it with torches. That would take the better part of a year at minimum. You can build a modern guided missile destroyer in that same time period for less than it would take to complete the battleship refit.

What I meant was to not cut through the deck, and just plonk the VLS down on top of it. Like if you were to just kind of sit it on the ground instead of digging a hole to put it in.

Basically, instead of cutting away parts of the ship to fit the module in, you build a new structure above the deck to hold it.

So your going to expose the entire VLS pretty much? I can think of a few reasons why that's bad, either go with Tomahawks or carry a few more harpoons, simple systems with no deck penetration

[Velkanika]

Does anyone know what the smallest homing rocket is right now?

Laser-guided Hydra is a good contender for that title, but there is also a lightweight missile under development for US UAVs which is smaller.

The rocket the Javelin fires, I believe.

That's the initial propulsion system to get the missile out of the launching tube.

All a missile is is a rocket with a guidance package and the ability to adjust its flight path.

[Doppio Giudici]

Does anyone know what the smallest homing rocket is right now?

Laser-guided Hydra is a good contender for that title, but there is also a lightweight missile under development for US UAVs which is smaller.

That's the initial propulsion system to get the missile out of the launching tube.

All a missile is is a rocket with a guidance package and the ability to adjust its flight path.

What about wire-guided? Is there anything sorta small that could be wire-guided from a distance?

[Crookfur]

Nope, that would involve cutting through not only a very thick, solid armor deck but redesigning the engine room. Because of the nature of that kind of armor, you'd have to cut through it with torches. That would take the better part of a year at minimum. You can build a modern guided missile destroyer in that same time period for less than it would take to complete the battleship refit.

What I meant was to not cut through the deck, and just plonk the VLS down on top of it. Like if you were to just kind of sit it on the ground instead of digging a hole to put it in.

Basically, instead of cutting away parts of the ship to fit the module in, you build a new structure above the deck to hold it.

MK41s would be right out becasue as Velk said they need a fair bit of laod bearing support.

MK48/56 on the other hand has deck mountable launch tubes and ones you cna strap to a bulkhead. Admittedly they only give you ESSM but thats plenty for point self defence and about all thats worth using unless you are also fitting a whole new radar mast/super structure

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

Laser-guided Hydra is a good contender for that title, but there is also a lightweight missile under development for US UAVs which is smaller.


All a missile is is a rocket with a guidance package and the ability to adjust its flight path.

What about wire-guided? Is there anything sorta small that could be wire-guided from a distance?

There's an small soviet tank missile that comes to mind, the At3 Sagger

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT-3_Sagger

[Padnak]

I'm starting to work on my nations main battle tank and I was wondering what was better, tracks supported by return rollers or tracks without them

I could be wrong but I think the main befit to having a supported track is the track is less likely to be thrown, but its cheaper and faster to produce tanks with unsupported suspension

[Crookfur]

Laser-guided Hydra is a good contender for that title, but there is also a lightweight missile under development for US UAVs which is smaller.


All a missile is is a rocket with a guidance package and the ability to adjust its flight path.

What about wire-guided? Is there anything sorta small that could be wire-guided from a distance?

wire guidance adds a fair bit of weight and size as you know the msisile now needs to carry 5+ km of wire

As a rule laser beam riding or semi active alse rhoming is as small and cheap as you are goign to get bar soem sort of intertial system like predicted line of sight (MBT LAW)

the smallest guided system i'm aware of is the USN spike mini missile (not to be confused with the isrealli Spike ATGM) which is 2.5" by 25" and weight sin at 5.5 pounds (about half the weight of a hydra's warhead on its own) it uses a visual spectrum (EO) imaging sensor (i.e. a cell phone camera).

[Mitheldalond]

What I meant was to not cut through the deck, and just plonk the VLS down on top of it. Like if you were to just kind of sit it on the ground instead of digging a hole to put it in.

Basically, instead of cutting away parts of the ship to fit the module in, you build a new structure above the deck to hold it.

Strike-length Mk 41 Vertical Launch Systems are 303 inches tall. They also require extensive load-bearing support from a surrounding structure. In a word, no.

I'm using the self-defense length, which is only 209 inches tall. It's just to carry ESSMs.

What I meant was to not cut through the deck, and just plonk the VLS down on top of it. Like if you were to just kind of sit it on the ground instead of digging a hole to put it in.

Basically, instead of cutting away parts of the ship to fit the module in, you build a new structure above the deck to hold it.

So your going to expose the entire VLS pretty much? I can think of a few reasons why that's bad, either go with Tomahawks or carry a few more harpoons, simple systems with no deck penetration

Yes and no. I plan on having it above deck, but fully enclosed by a supporting structure built around it. Basically just to avoid having to cut through 5" of armor steel. It shouldn't be in too much danger of being hit, considering that its a single 8-cell launcher on either side of an 887 foot long ship.

And I am keeping the Tomahawk launchers. The VLS are just to carry RIM-162 ESSMs for close range air defense.

I suppose I could just forget the VLS and mount a few Mk 29 ESSM launchers here and there. It's not like there's a shortage of space after all.

[Mitheldalond]

What I meant was to not cut through the deck, and just plonk the VLS down on top of it. Like if you were to just kind of sit it on the ground instead of digging a hole to put it in.

Basically, instead of cutting away parts of the ship to fit the module in, you build a new structure above the deck to hold it.

MK41s would be right out becasue as Velk said they need a fair bit of laod bearing support.

MK48/56 on the other hand has deck mountable launch tubes and ones you cna strap to a bulkhead. Admittedly they only give you ESSM but thats plenty for point self defence and about all thats worth using unless you are also fitting a whole new radar mast/super structure

Dang, I completely forgot about the Mk 56, thanks. ESSMs is all I wanted to carry anyway.

[Doppio Giudici]

What about wire-guided? Is there anything sorta small that could be wire-guided from a distance?

wire guidance adds a fair bit of weight and size as you know the msisile now needs to carry 5+ km of wire

As a rule laser beam riding or semi active alse rhoming is as small and cheap as you are goign to get bar soem sort of intertial system like predicted line of sight (MBT LAW)

the smallest guided system i'm aware of is the USN spike mini missile (not to be confused with the isrealli Spike ATGM) which is 2.5" by 25" and weight sin at 5.5 pounds (about half the weight of a hydra's warhead on its own) it uses a visual spectrum (EO) imaging sensor (i.e. a cell phone camera).

I'm looking over the design and I actually really like it.

I'm thinking of mounting a four shot launcher on my IFVs.

[Gallia-]

Fuck why!?

[Crookfur]

wire guidance adds a fair bit of weight and size as you know the msisile now needs to carry 5+ km of wire

As a rule laser beam riding or semi active alse rhoming is as small and cheap as you are goign to get bar soem sort of intertial system like predicted line of sight (MBT LAW)

the smallest guided system i'm aware of is the USN spike mini missile (not to be confused with the isrealli Spike ATGM) which is 2.5" by 25" and weight sin at 5.5 pounds (about half the weight of a hydra's warhead on its own) it uses a visual spectrum (EO) imaging sensor (i.e. a cell phone camera).

I'm looking over the design and I actually really like it.

I'm thinking of mounting a four shot launcher on my IFVs.

its a bit pointless in an IFV cosndiereing you should have a good cannon that will fire projectiles roughly simialr in weight to the tiny 1lb warhead on spike and have enough of a weight budget to support proper ATGMs.

Spike is a solution for collateral adverse dismounted infantry and teeny tiny little drones

[Gallia-]

Spike is just a PGM72 tbh

[Doppio Giudici]

I'm looking over the design and I actually really like it.

I'm thinking of mounting a four shot launcher on my IFVs.

its a bit pointless in an IFV cosndiereing you should have a good cannon that will fire projectiles roughly simialr in weight to the tiny 1lb warhead on spike and have enough of a weight budget to support proper ATGMs.

Spike is a solution for collateral adverse dismounted infantry and teeny tiny little drones

Is there an laser-guided munition roughly similar to the RPG-7 warhead in explosive power?

Also is there a replacement to the TOW that is laser-guided?

[Gallia-]

1) Probably, but it would be heavier than an RPG by a fair margin.
2) Yes. Kornet or Saber come immediately to mind, but the latter is a lot smaller.

[Purpelia]

One thing the Spike does do is give us a plausible minimal size for a missile of its guidance and capabilities. So I can plausible claim to make say a 100mm derivative to fire out of a BMP-3 style barrel.

[Gallia-]

One thing the Spike does do is give us a plausible minimal size for a missile of its guidance and capabilities. So I can plausible claim to make say a 100mm derivative to fire out of a BMP-3 style barrel.

Why.

Why.

Why.

Why.