Your Nation's Warships, Batch 3

[New Vihenia]

Couldn't you simply have it rotate with the rest of the wing when folding, and possibly have some kind of height reduction system like the early E-2s had?

which would mean the radar dome/rotodome must be placed on the wingbox. There will be needs for structural enhancement, and potentially the propeller wash will interact with the radar dome, which would be undesired for vertical takeoff or hovering in general.

and of course you can't have large radome

an illustration.



The black circle and thin oval are the radome. see that on wingbox it will interfere with main rotor rotation

This could be a solution



But yeah, it seems entirely new wing have to be developed.

[The Akasha Colony]

This could be a solution

(Image)

But yeah, it seems entirely new wing have to be developed.

That was the image I was referring to when I suggested it.

With a modern fixed phased array there's no longer any real need for the elliptical rotating domes anymore so the simple triangular arrangement could be used. It's the same arrangement I used on my large AWACS, albeit rotated 180 degrees so one point faces forward and one of the flat faces faces aft.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Would it be possible to mount a radome on top of an Osprey as seen in AWACS concepts? It seems like an attractive alternative to helicopter based systems for smaller STOBAR carriers (think Kuznetsov or Vikrant), but I'm not sure whether it would interfere with the wing folding mechanism, nor how much more hangar space I might need.

The alternative to an E-2 type radar would be something like the Cerberus suite used on British Merlins, which while obviously worse for air defense, has ground tracking capabilities which the E-2 doesn't. Either way it'd still be a significant improvement, what with the Osprey's better speed, endurance and altitude right?

You'd have to deal with interference from the rotor blades when they're oriented forward for horizontal flight. IIRC the V-22's rotor blades are a graphite/fiberglass composite which may not be entirely radar-transparent. You'd also probably have to redesign the wingbox and wing-folding mechanism to accommodate the extra weight of the radar.

Like you mentioned this is the simpler solution which appears to use the Thales Searchwater- Cerberus radar used by the RN's merlin AEW helicopters. Unlike the top mounted radome this could be a relatively simple drop-in modification to existing MV-22s or CMV-22Bs. It's something I've considered for use on my LHA/LHD class ship as it would allow the AEW V-22s to be quickly re-purposed as tankers or COD aircraft as necessary.

[New Vihenia]

That was the image I was referring to when I suggested it.

With a modern fixed phased array there's no longer any real need for the elliptical rotating domes anymore so the simple triangular arrangement could be used. It's the same arrangement I used on my large AWACS, albeit rotated 180 degrees so one point faces forward and one of the flat faces faces aft.

Well that still means you need to develop entirely new structure for it. and eventually new aircraft.

This AEW Osprey will probably have little in common to baseline osprey, thus why it seems such proposal does not progress.

[New Chilokver]

Thanks for the responses.

The issue is that the osprey is not pressurized, this means it can't really fly much higher then a helicopter based AEW craft, making it a minimal improvement at best.

This is what really killed the V-22 based AEW projects, the massive increase in cost isn't worth the minimal increase of capability over a Merlin with the Radome from the Seaking ASaC.7 stapled to the side.

How big of an improvement is 9000 ft? (what would have been on offer if the Brits chose to replace their Merlins with Osprey derived AEW- not that they ever will) The speed and endurance improvement alone seems worth the cost tbh..?

You'd have to deal with interference from the rotor blades when they're oriented forward for horizontal flight. IIRC the V-22's rotor blades are a graphite/fiberglass composite which may not be entirely radar-transparent. You'd also probably have to redesign the wingbox and wing-folding mechanism to accommodate the extra weight of the radar.

Like you mentioned this is the simpler solution which appears to use the Thales Searchwater- Cerberus radar used by the RN's merlin AEW helicopters. Unlike the top mounted radome this could be a relatively simple drop-in modification to existing MV-22s or CMV-22Bs. It's something I've considered for use on my LHA/LHD class ship as it would allow the AEW V-22s to be quickly re-purposed as tankers or COD aircraft as necessary.

(Image)

Yeah, that's what I've been thinking. For my nation, which operates two STOBAR carriers, the Osprey offers a lot of potential as a “universal” platform for the tanker, COD, ASuW and AEW roles. I'll go with the second option then.

[Odentia]

I'm currently planning the Odentian navy. The manpower will probably be around 6,500. The plan is to operate:

• Exactly two or four cruisers that are basically slightly upscaled Zumwalts
• Exactly five or ten OPVs
• A couple nuclear submarines
• Exactly one or two UNREP ships
• A host of smaller ships (perhaps patrol boats, minelayers/sweepers, etc.)

A couple questions:

• Could the inherent instability of tumblehome be resolved with a trimaran configuration?
• Will 6,500 personnel be adequate for the military described above?
• How many land-based support personnel will I need?
• How many patrol boats will I be able to support with 6,500 personnel?

Thank you!

[The Akasha Colony]

Could the inherent instability of tumblehome be resolved with a trimaran configuration?

Zumwalt's instability is not really a problem. A trimaran configuration would add other problems due to metacentric height issues.

Will 6,500 personnel be adequate for the military described above?

Maybe just barely if you took the smallest number of ships from the range you listed. But probably not because the two major combatants you listed (Zumwalt and the submarines) require lots of support personnel. Not only are they technologically sophisticated ships, they're also designed to minimize their onboard crew, which inevitably means that some support functions get moved to shore personnel to be handled in port.

How many land-based support personnel will I need?

Who knows? It will depend on how hard you plan to use them, and what your standards of operability and readiness are. You will obviously need more personnel if you want to use these ships continuously, trying to keep at least one at sea at all times (the best that can be hoped for with this force). You will need fewer if you only need to put a ship to sea every few months or so.

[Odentia]

Could the inherent instability of tumblehome be resolved with a trimaran configuration?

Zumwalt's instability is not really a problem. A trimaran configuration would add other problems due to metacentric height issues.

Will 6,500 personnel be adequate for the military described above?

Maybe just barely if you took the smallest number of ships from the range you listed. But probably not because the two major combatants you listed (Zumwalt and the submarines) require lots of support personnel. Not only are they technologically sophisticated ships, they're also designed to minimize their onboard crew, which inevitably means that some support functions get moved to shore personnel to be handled in port.

How many land-based support personnel will I need?

Who knows? It will depend on how hard you plan to use them, and what your standards of operability and readiness are. You will obviously need more personnel if you want to use these ships continuously, trying to keep at least one at sea at all times (the best that can be hoped for with this force). You will need fewer if you only need to put a ship to sea every few months or so.

Ok then. I might shift around populations to give myself a larger military.

[Pharthan]

I'm currently planning the Odentian navy. The manpower will probably be around 6,500. The plan is to operate:

• Exactly two or four cruisers that are basically slightly upscaled Zumwalts
• Exactly five or ten OPVs
• A couple nuclear submarines
• Exactly one or two UNREP ships
• A host of smaller ships (perhaps patrol boats, minelayers/sweepers, etc.)

A couple questions:

• Could the inherent instability of tumblehome be resolved with a trimaran configuration?
• Will 6,500 personnel be adequate for the military described above?
• How many land-based support personnel will I need?
• How many patrol boats will I be able to support with 6,500 personnel?

Thank you!

No. That is not a large enough Navy for the ships you want to crew.
First off, cruisers are overly large compared to your next smallest surface combatant. Go for a smaller destroyer/larger frigate.
Support personnel ranges quite a bit, but at least double your Navy from your actual crewed numbers. A number of your sailors will be in training, doing the training, performing maintenance support, doing various admin, logistics, et cetera. It winds up being a lot.

[Odentia]

I'm currently planning the Odentian navy. The manpower will probably be around 6,500. The plan is to operate:

• Exactly two or four cruisers that are basically slightly upscaled Zumwalts
• Exactly five or ten OPVs
• A couple nuclear submarines
• Exactly one or two UNREP ships
• A host of smaller ships (perhaps patrol boats, minelayers/sweepers, etc.)

A couple questions:

• Could the inherent instability of tumblehome be resolved with a trimaran configuration?
• Will 6,500 personnel be adequate for the military described above?
• How many land-based support personnel will I need?
• How many patrol boats will I be able to support with 6,500 personnel?

Thank you!

No. That is not a large enough Navy for the ships you want to crew.
First off, cruisers are overly large compared to your next smallest surface combatant. Go for a smaller destroyer/larger frigate.
Support personnel ranges quite a bit, but at least double your Navy from your actual crewed numbers. A number of your sailors will be in training, doing the training, performing maintenance support, doing various admin, logistics, et cetera. It winds up being a lot.

How many personnel would I need to support my proposed Navy?

[Kettu]

http://imgur.com/a/y7nqD

Delivered: 2010
Main Armament: Dutch 3-inch single barrel guns
Secondary Forward Gun: 40 mm Bofors (Boffin Single Mount)
Displacement: 1,260-1,500 tons

[The Selkie]

http://imgur.com/a/y7nqD

Hi.
The picture is a good start, but I have a few questions for details, namely for which time period is this, technical data, what do you want it to do and so on. Without these information, it's just a nice picture.

[New Korongo]

http://imgur.com/a/y7nqD

Delivered: 2010
Main Armament: Dutch 3-inch single barrel guns
Secondary Forward Gun: 40 mm Bofors (Boffin Single Mount)
Displacement: 1,260-1,500 tons

I don’t want to seem hostile, but if you are using Shipbucket parts (or an entire Shipbucket ship, as is the case here), you should adhere to the crediting system specified by Shipbucket. Also, you seem to have saved the image of the Pr. 50 as a JPEG or similar lossy image format before making your modifications. This is likely why there is anti-aliasing in some places but not in others. Additionally, the specifications you have given don’t really match up with the armament depicted in the drawing (and any change in armament probably warrants a reconsideration of the sensors installed on the ship). From a realism standpoint, you may also run into issues with below deck penetration. I am not sure, but I think the 100 mm B-34 is simply bolted to the deck whereas the 3"/70 requires a large amount of room below the deck for its ammunition. There is also the matter of the Finnish ensign, which is still present.

[Odentia]

http://imgur.com/a/y7nqD

Delivered: 2010
Main Armament: Dutch 3-inch single barrel guns
Secondary Forward Gun: 40 mm Bofors (Boffin Single Mount)
Displacement: 1,260-1,500 tons

I don’t want to seem hostile, but if you are using Shipbucket parts (or an entire Shipbucket ship, as is the case here), you should adhere to the crediting system specified by Shipbucket. Also, you seem to have saved the image of the Pr. 50 as a JPEG or similar lossy image format before making your modifications. This is likely why there is anti-aliasing in some places but not in others. Additionally, the specifications you have given don’t really match up with the armament depicted in the drawing (and any change in armament probably warrants a reconsideration of the sensors installed on the ship). From a realism standpoint, you may also run into issues with below deck penetration. I am not sure, but I think the 100 mm B-34 is simply bolted to the deck whereas the 3"/70 requires a large amount of room below the deck for its ammunition. There is also the matter of the Finnish ensign, which is still present.

Speaking of which, does anyone know the deck pen of the Mk 54 Mod 4 or Zumwalt's AGS?

[Laritaia]

http://webspace.webring.com/people/du/um_684/MK45MOD4B.jpg

[Odentia]

http://webspace.webring.com/people/du/um_684/MK45MOD4B.jpg

Thank you; I've been trying to find that info for-fucking-ever.

[Laritaia]

i literally googled Mk45 Mod4.

[Odentia]

i literally googled Mk45 Mod4.

It doesn't show up when you google Mk45 deck pen for some reason. Is there a more common term for it?

EDIT: does anyone know the freeboard of the Spruance class?

[Laritaia]

i literally googled Mk45 Mod4.

It doesn't show up when you google Mk45 deck pen for some reason. Is there a more common term for it?

literally just "Mk45 Mod4"

and "Mk45 Mod4 deck penetration" brings up a similar image

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk45_sketch.jpg

[Odentia]

It doesn't show up when you google Mk45 deck pen for some reason. Is there a more common term for it?

literally just "Mk45 Mod4"

and "Mk45 Mod4 deck penetration" brings up a similar image

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk45_sketch.jpg

Guess I ddin't look hard enough then.

Thanks anyway; I'll be off playing Duck Game and searching for the Spruance freeboard.

[Rich and Corporations]

wargame red dragon implies that CIWS can defeat missiles and that ships need to close into gunnery range to destroy each other

truth to this?

[Laritaia]

wargame red dragon implies that CIWS can defeat missiles and that ships need to close into gunnery range to destroy each other

truth to this?

IRL evidence suggests that modern missile defence is good enough that unless you throw them all at once you will run out of anti-ship missiles long before the enemy runs out of inner layer interceptors.

[Gallia-]

https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/t ... tions.230/

https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/t ... ost-166941

Update:
In a series of unfortunate exchanges has resulted in a spiral of losses on my part. I'm up to 24 lost Typhoons, and all but 1 Harrier has been shot down. I've also lost several helicopters and Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_ ... iation.jpg

I've shot down over 90 F-16s at this point.

More importantly both of my flotillas are now moving into range to use naval gunfire; the northern one going after a cluster of coastal SAMs and nearby airbase, the southern one against a last remaining Greek SAG. I thought to break off the DDG with Standard missiles to go in and allow them to use their SAMs for anti-surface tasks and looked for it....
Pictured: my Standard missile slinger

http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/377314/ship.jpg

I've mostly exhausted the missile inventories on both of my flotillas, the southern one much more severely (completely out of AShMs, LR/MR SAMs, I'm down to the short range self-defense missiles with around 40% of those left) the only reason I'm still pushing in is that I'm pretty sure they're out of missiles too. So I sail on to the point of decision. I expect the matter shall be settled at gun point...

http://i.imgur.com/LMeu4A4.jpg

So, would successfully putting Italy's naval aviation wing out of business feel like a much greater accomplishment if it wasn't under your command at the time?

I dunno, he can still use them as decoys if the Greeks have any anti-ship missiles left! :V

They don't.
For I have taken control over the waves of the Ionian Sea by Fire and Steel...

http://i.imgur.com/5ip30Wa.jpg

Both of my carriers have more kills with their 76mm guns than with their embarked airwings...

It's good enough for BAE!

http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=3885

[Gallia-]

The point of that is to say that there isn't enough data to come to a conclusion what would happen.

Naval surface engagements with AShM are rare for obvious reasons. What data exists isn't really enough to draw conclusions from because it's either old or very special circumstances like Trident, the Arab-Israeli wars, the Gulf War, or Praying Mantis. Falklands is the closest to a big war because it was two reasonably competent countries fighting each other instead of total morons being curb-stomped by The World and that had very little AShM use. What it did have was lots of iron bombs because that was standard playbook of the day, though.

Failure rates of AShM like Exocet are unusually high, for some reason, as many missiles fired in Falklands (and Stark) failed to detonate post-impact. On the other hand, it may simply be that Exocet has such an anemic warhead it causes very little damage that creates conditions for sinking, but a missile impact with or without detonation will still disable a warship.

Softkill measures, when they work, defeat all missile attacks utterly and absolutely. This is the only method of missile defence that has been repeatedly verified and possibly means a return to bombs and rockets for naval officers facing advanced electromagnetic weapons. Hardkill measures provide a modicum of protection but relatively little, but this is more than likely because the most obvious source of data (Falklands) featured manually guided weapons (Sea Cat) as the primary point defence system. There is basically zero data on the performance of automatic/robotic defense systems since the end of Desert Storm.

The leakage rate of hardkill systems appears to be 0.25-0.45 in the best and typical case scenarios. Worst case scenario, the leakage rate is essentially unity (>0.98).

Since littoral combat is the combat of the past, present, and future, it's likely that leakage rates will stay about the same regardless. At open sea, with layered defenses, longer reaction times, and relatively clear IR and radar pictures, that all implies the leakage rate would be lower. But combat in the future will not be at open sea, so it is somewhat moot.

Kinetic energy correlates highest with missile impact/kills, while explosive warhead content correlates highest with sinking.

There is no real data for ships larger than guided missile destroyers or large frigates (=>7,000 tons) since the Falklands is the primary source of data and British ships are anemic. Greater tonnages imply greater survivability and protection against missile attack/flooding/fires/whatever.

Most warships require one or two missiles to be sunk or put out of action with the previous tonnage caveat, but I don't really see that changing until you get into very large ships over 15,000 tons. Even then, it would just make the ship harder to sink. Freighters in Praying Mantis that were attacked with AShM in the Exocet class were uncommonly sunk, but most still had substantial damage (0.2 sunk, 0.6 major damage, 0.2 minor), while larger 30-70,000 ton freighters were never sunk, and most received minor damage in missile attacks.

I suspect a large carrier like Nimitz may be mostly immune to missile attacks in terms of able to be sunk, short of a magazine detonation or uncontrollable fire or something equally catastrophic, short of multiple extremely large missiles like AS-4.

[Rich and Corporations]

https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/poaw-commands-modern-air-and-naval-operations.230/

https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/t ... ost-166941

you can tell how dated the thread is by complaints that the F-35 will cost $112 million.


once we develop cavitating bullets for torpedos, all that's left is the return to the Montana class.

There is basically zero data on the performance of automatic/robotic defense systems since the end of Desert Storm.

the raspberry pi can run facial recognition https://i.imgur.com/S10fQ7R.gifv (linked to on /r/cyberpunk if you want to know the origin)