Your Nation's Warships, Batch 3

[The Akasha Colony]

I see. In that case, I'll choose two out of the three submarines - Virginia and Severodvinsk. As for the destroyers, Alriegh Burke since they can carry more than Type 45.

That doesn't solve the problem. Severodvinsk and Virginia share nothing in common and were developed basically at the same time. That was the whole problem to begin with.

I'll make it simpler: Pick American (Seawolf and Virginia) or Russian (Akula and Severodvinsk).

[Gallia-]

just

pick

seawolf

[EsToVnIa]

I was wondering how this sounds for a CAG that would be assigned to a Pr. 1160-esque carrier.

12 x Su-27K
12 x Navalised Su-30
12 x Su-32
6 x Some sort of Recce/AEW model Su-27
6 x Beriev P.42 (ASW configuration)
4 x Yak-44
8 x Ka-27PL

The Pr. 1160 I plan on using is more or less identical to the planned "Orel," except I have removed the granit VLS tubes to increase the hangar space.

For "rule of cool" purposes, I'm tempted to replace the Su-27K with a squadron of MiG-23Ks but I don't think I could really justify it

[United States of PA]

just

pick

seawolf

Wish i could thumbs up that so hard lol

[Illuminati of Asia]

Well this my first time on one of these threads so lets start big
The William Jacobs Class Aircraft Carrier

The Flagship of the Fleet
Carries up 160 aircraft
Six Catapults
Able to launch ballistic and cruise missiles
12 aa guns
16 surface to air missiles launchers
All about unbeatable
Edit: This is for PMT rps

[The Soodean Imperium]

If I wanted I could go into detail about all the problems the last thread identified with tri-hull megacarriers, but for now I'm dumbstruck by the fact that someone went to the trouble of linearting a detailed three-view of this thing but didn't remember to de-mirror the "100" on the starboard side.

[North Arkana]

All that structural fatigue on the joining sections must be a joy for the maintenance shipyards.

[Warg the Immortal]

SPACE NAVY, NOT SEA SHIPS

Fighters: WIP

Frigates:

-Cerberus-Class: Transport, 1/2 kilometer long

-Hydra-Class: Escort, 1 kilometer long

-Chimera-Class: Destroyer, 1 1/2 kilometers long

-Ladon-Class: Cruiser, 2 kilometers long

Battleships - Second largest ships in the Imperial Navy. These ships are so large that they must be made off-planet in a Naval Space Based Ship Manufacturing Facility:

-Tartarus-Class: Transport, 4 kilometers long

-Triglav-Class: Battlecruiser, 5 kilometers long

-Taranis-Class: Battlecruiser, 5 kilometers long

-Tyr-Class: Warship/Battleship, 7 kilometers long

-Typhon-Class: Warship/Special, 7 kilometers long

Flagships - Biggest ships of the Imperial Navy, each is owned by one either the Imperial Family, Royal Families, or Archduke Familys. Each Flagship is equipped with either a Tier I, II, or III Tachyon Singularity Accelerator Cannon. Every flagship is capable of holding it's own in battle without the aid of an escort:

Nidhogg-Class - Eight in existence, each one is owned by an archduke family. Each is 10 kilometers long
Archduke Ships:
-WES Red Servant (Algol Family)
-WES Lunar Citadel (Blackwall Family)
-WES Antediluvian Vengeance (Caine Family)
-WES Undying Warrior (Cairn Family)
-WES Dark Sibling (Gauldur Family)
-WES Cosmic Leviathan (Lurk Family)
-WES Sable Mane (Montagu Family)
-WES Lupine Inferno (Pitt Family)

Fenrir-Class - Five in existence, four are owned by the royal families, and one is owned by the Imperial branch family. Each is 15 kilometers long
Royal ships:
-WES Argent Stallion (Karloff Family)
-WES Gilded Ram (Pher Family)
-WES Crimson Lion (Robey Family)
-WES Amethyst Serpent (Tayren Family)
-WES Andean (Warg Branch Family)

Jormungand-Class - Two in existence, both owned by the Imperial family. Each is 20 kilometers long
Imperial ships:
-WES Gevaudan - Flagship of the Graves Family(Graves Family)
-WES Devour - Flagship of the Imperial Navy(Graves Family)

[Thermodolia]

All that structural fatigue on the joining sections must be a joy for the maintenance shipyards.

It kinda has the catamaran design going on there

[Connori Pilgrims]

I was wondering how this sounds for a CAG that would be assigned to a Pr. 1160-esque carrier.

12 x Su-27K
12 x Navalised Su-30
12 x Su-32
6 x Some sort of Recce/AEW model Su-27
6 x Beriev P.42 (ASW configuration)
4 x Yak-44
8 x Ka-27PL

The Pr. 1160 I plan on using is more or less identical to the planned "Orel," except I have removed the granit VLS tubes to increase the hangar space.

For "rule of cool" purposes, I'm tempted to replace the Su-27K with a squadron of MiG-23Ks but I don't think I could really justify it

If a naval Su-30 is already available why not just standardize on that (i.e. ditch the 27Ks), with Su-32 as the carrier bomber?

"Some sort of Recce/AEW model Su-27" If you have Yak-44s or the P.42 (if you have these for ASW may as well use the AEW mod too) that's your AEW outfit right there. Unless you meant EW/ECM version of the Su-27 (ala the EA-6 Prowler or EA-18 Growler)...

[EsToVnIa]

Because I'm on my phone rn

-30 is intended to be a fleet defence interceptor ala F-14
-27K is more akin to F/A-18 for things like SEAD and what have you

Yes that's clearly what I meant. I was looking at the Yak-44 when typing it.

P.42 was purely a cosmetic choice. In a just world, the Yak-44 would be used for ASW, AEW, and COD.

e: i guess if i wanted to be "cool" air wing would entirely consist of navalised PAK-FA, Skat, V-22, and P.42

[United Earthlings]

TBH, the aft VLS cells were originally inspired by my discovery last year of Buyan-M, which fits eight 9-meter-deep VLS cells in a much smaller hull (albeit the hull of a shallow-draft corvette built for enclosed seas). These VLS cells are only 6.1 meters deep, if that helps, though it might also raise the metacentric height which is also bad. I would gladly raise the full-load displacement to 3,800 tonnes by deepening draft, though, if that helps things. I'd originally envisioned it closer to 4,000 but after running the dimensions through SpringSharp again I got a lower number.

You succumb to the same trap I did that first time and probably for similar reasons. When we design our ships here on NS, most of us view and design them in a Two Dimension space. In one of those classical “duh” epiphanies, do we later realize ships are Three Dimension objects. You got the hull depth {metacentric height} factor in, hence my original critique, did you also factor in the length and width of all those VLS cells you added? Because when you have 10 to 16 meters of VLS cells in both length and width taking up volumetric space for just the forward VLS, that’s space that can’t be occupied by other objects. Your larger amount of aft VLS cells will take up even more room length, width and height wise then those forward.

By way of comparison the Mk41 tactical VLS is 6.756 4 meters deep and hence probably similar in length and width to those Russian VLS cells used on the Buyan-M.

If anything, I enjoy building warships that are a little sub-par. I find they add a lot more flavor to writeups than "ideal" designs which outperform all their real-life counterparts but still came in below budget and ahead of schedule. As long as my ships aren't splitting apart in heavy seas I'm basically fine, and even then it's not without precedent

I prefer competitive Fixed-price plus incentive contracts so they come on budget and on the agreed upon schedule, ahead of schedule/on budget the company gets a bonus, behind they absorbed the loss even if that means the project gets slightly delayed if a new contract needs to be redrawn. Benefit though is that being a private company, very few export restrictions exist so a company can really make a profit selling to the international market.

I do have a wiki page for a diesel-electric submarine but I don't know if I'll ever get around to revising it

To late with the link, already read the wiki for it, along with the Hichimaze-class Attack Destroyer one. I skipped over the Hydrofoil one since unlikely to encounter that ship type way out in international waters.

On the ISN wiki page, you mean?

Yeah that's next on my list for revisions anyway, I hope to give it a thorough overhaul some point.

If by this one, you mean this, then yes.

If you have feedback on the specific role played by Gimonbyun, though, feel free to say it - I currently have a second-batch Gimonbyun-II as WIP lineart and I'm interested in knowing if there's anything I should add or remove.

Personally preference only, but smaller combatants both in real life and in NS seem to do and perform better when designed around mission specific objectives {Antiair only, ASW only} instead of trying to be a multipurpose design where they end up many times becoming a “jack of all trades, master of none” especially when combined with their limited hull dimensions that limits their potential for future weapons system growth, a very valuable commodity given the unpredictable nature of future threats. See the service lives of the Sprunce class ASW destroyers versus the Perry Class frigates as an example. The US Navy tried again to solve this problem, by having module weapons suites that they were supposed to be able to plug and play into the LCS vessels. Hasn’t worked out as planned and I’ve read/heard of rumors about ending the LCS production run short to start fresh on a new design.

My reply wasn't directed at you; it was meant to pre-empt anyone else from jumping in with "US Navy is heading in that direction, that means I can have 3D printers on all my warships by 2030!!!1!

Good Call...

Spirit of Hope Navy, now with more frigates, and less aircraft carriers.

NOT……NS…….ENOUGH……Where’s the battleships and battlecruisers? Some type of monstrosity that makes no practical sense in a modern navy? Previous I had VLS equipped nuclear battleships, but I’m working on my replacement for them at the moment that should tickle the NS naval community just right.

Also, I’m very upset with you that you don’t have at least one Carrier under construction.

Not cool, not cool at all…

Finally, I don’t speak Assault Ship, care to let the rest of us know what type they are? LSD, LPD, LHA, LHD, etc…?

It gets tiring hearing people trying to proclaim the death of aircraft carriers because of assorted anti-ship missiles, overrated ballistic missiles, and them supposedly being only good for bombing brown people.

You can add lack of effective ASW screening platforms due to the proliferation of quieter subs {both nuclear and diesel-electric} and underwater drones to the because of list. That’s at least according to a recent article in the “The Economist”.

Well this my first time on one of these threads so lets start big

Should have started at practical. By the time you get done expanding your naval shipyard(s) that will build that monstrosity, completed R&D and EMD on the design itself, spent over at least $30 billion before even the first class of vessel has entered service I would have built 6 more Ford Class SuperCarriers, assembled them into a naval task force, sailed halfway around the world to re-launch the sequel to Pearl Harbor to critical exclaim, proceeded to turn the ship itself and its surrounding naval shipyard into Swiss cheese, sailed back home with the entire crew of the naval task force along the way making crude jokes as they are want to do on a long voyage about your nation needing this vessel to compensate for its lack of natural endowment or whatever it thinks it seems to be lacking. Return home, await the inevitable nuke spam sure to follow as your entire nation has an epic freak-out over its perceived loss of pride due to it’s newly diagnosis ED.

[Lamoni]

Should have started at practical. By the time you get done expanding your naval shipyard(s) that will build that monstrosity, completed R&D and EMD on the design itself, spent over at least $30 billion before even the first class of vessel has entered service I would have built 6 more Ford Class SuperCarriers, assembled them into a naval task force, sailed halfway around the world to re-launch the sequel to Pearl Harbor to critical exclaim, proceeded to turn the ship itself and its surrounding naval shipyard into Swiss cheese, sailed back home with the entire crew of the naval task force along the way making crude jokes as they are want to do on a long voyage about your nation needing this vessel to compensate for its lack of natural endowment or whatever it thinks it seems to be lacking. Return home, await the inevitable nuke spam sure to follow as your entire nation has an epic freak-out over its perceived loss of pride due to it’s newly diagnosis ED.

You forgot the failed conventional invasion, which would then lead to the nuking.

[The Soodean Imperium]

TBH, the aft VLS cells were originally inspired by my discovery last year of Buyan-M, which fits eight 9-meter-deep VLS cells in a much smaller hull (albeit the hull of a shallow-draft corvette built for enclosed seas). These VLS cells are only 6.1 meters deep, if that helps, though it might also raise the metacentric height which is also bad. I would gladly raise the full-load displacement to 3,800 tonnes by deepening draft, though, if that helps things. I'd originally envisioned it closer to 4,000 but after running the dimensions through SpringSharp again I got a lower number.

You succumb to the same trap I did that first time and probably for similar reasons. When we design our ships here on NS, most of us view and design them in a Two Dimension space. In one of those classical “duh” epiphanies, do we later realize ships are Three Dimension objects. You got the hull depth {metacentric height} factor in, hence my original critique, did you also factor in the length and width of all those VLS cells you added? Because when you have 10 to 16 meters of VLS cells in both length and width taking up volumetric space for just the forward VLS, that’s space that can’t be occupied by other objects. Your larger amount of aft VLS cells will take up even more room length, width and height wise then those forward.

I fully understand the volume factor with VLS, it's my main problem with NS's "stick missiles everywheer!!!" ships.

Based on a 3-view scale drawing I made in one of my parts sheets, the aft VLS set is 5.95 meters port-to-starboard, 5.34 meters fore-to-aft, and 6.1 meters deep (or 7.47 meters including venting and floor structure). So in other words it's a tad larger than a 16-cell Mk41 tactical VLS, with five cells to a row rather than 4, and about twice the size of Buyan-M's VLS. The forward VLS set is 5.34m port-to-starboard, 3.2m fore-to-aft, and 5.49m deep including venting and floor structure, hence why it can only hold the ESSM-sized LD-39 SAM.

I admit that putting that much weight so high up just forward of the hangars might be a problem, but it's definitely not "10-16 meters of VLS cells in both length and width," which would be wider than the beam of the ship >.>

If anything, I enjoy building warships that are a little sub-par. I find they add a lot more flavor to writeups than "ideal" designs which outperform all their real-life counterparts but still came in below budget and ahead of schedule. As long as my ships aren't splitting apart in heavy seas I'm basically fine, and even then it's not without precedent

I prefer competitive Fixed-price plus incentive contracts so they come on budget and on the agreed upon schedule, ahead of schedule/on budget the company gets a bonus, behind they absorbed the loss even if that means the project gets slightly delayed if a new contract needs to be redrawn. Benefit though is that being a private company, very few export restrictions exist so a company can really make a profit selling to the international market.

So?

My point more generally speaking is that I'm not out there to create an ideal warship, or an ideal procurement strategy, so that I can go trounce my virtual opponents around NS. I'm out there to fill iiwiki with writeups, and maybe occasionally do an RP. For that purpose, whether it's the best is irrelevant as long as it's believable. And most real-life tanks, ships, and formations are neither ideal nor stupid but somewhere in between, so that's where I like to end up

I do have a wiki page for a diesel-electric submarine but I don't know if I'll ever get around to revising it

To late with the link, already read the wiki for it, along with the Hichimaze-class Attack Destroyer one. I skipped over the Hydrofoil one since unlikely to encounter that ship type way out in international waters.

Unless you join my region you're not going to encounter any of these

On the ISN wiki page, you mean?

Yeah that's next on my list for revisions anyway, I hope to give it a thorough overhaul some point.

If by this one, you mean this, then yes.

OH GOD NO, did I really not delete that yet?

Here, you can read this one instead. For once I actually followed through on a promise and finished revising it yesterday.
http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Imperial_Soodean_Navy#Doctrine

If you have feedback on the specific role played by Gimonbyun, though, feel free to say it - I currently have a second-batch Gimonbyun-II as WIP lineart and I'm interested in knowing if there's anything I should add or remove.

Personally preference only, but smaller combatants both in real life and in NS seem to do and perform better when designed around mission specific objectives {Antiair only, ASW only} instead of trying to be a multipurpose design where they end up many times becoming a “jack of all trades, master of none” especially when combined with their limited hull dimensions that limits their potential for future weapons system growth, a very valuable commodity given the unpredictable nature of future threats. See the service lives of the Sprunce class ASW destroyers versus the Perry Class frigates as an example. The US Navy tried again to solve this problem, by having module weapons suites that they were supposed to be able to plug and play into the LCS vessels. Hasn’t worked out as planned and I’ve read/heard of rumors about ending the LCS production run short to start fresh on a new design.

That was my aim (or at least the ISN's aim) with Gimonbyun: it has good anti-air self-defense capabilities, it can lob AShMs or cruise missiles at something, but its main role is to sit at the edge of a battlegroup or other escorted formation and keep submarines from getting in. The LD-39s are only there so that it doesn't get plinked by enemy AShMs while it's sitting so far ahead of the DDGs and their SAM umbrella.

Gimonbyun-II strains this somewhat by upgrading to a 130mm gun, as well as a larger helipad and longer hangars to fit the GHZ-36M, so that the frigate can also be used in coastal bombardment rather than risking a larger and more expensive DDG. This in turn requires a "stretched" hull (maybe 4400 tonnes full load?) and adds a new primary role to the ship, but in line with the examples you gave, the drawbacks already have ample real-life precedent so I don't mind including them. And even then it's not going to be as bad as the LCS's modular mission features.

[Purpelia]

I was thinking off making a river monitor and I need your opinion on the armament I'd be using. In particular:

The primary gun would be a 155mm artillery piece. The entire turret would be lifted strait from the mobile artillery used by my ground army. The idea here is to cut costs and generally just reuse what I already have. The turret would be mounted at the front of the ship

Secondary armament would be dual purpose 40mm gun-missile system. Basically it's a 96К6 but with the guns being 40mm Bofors. This again would be lifted strait from my ground army where the turret is mounted on tracks and used as an AA vehicle.

Aside from this there would be some machine guns that can clamp on to the side railings and stuff on an as needed basis.

So how does that sound?

[Minroz]

That doesn't solve the problem. Severodvinsk and Virginia share nothing in common and were developed basically at the same time. That was the whole problem to begin with.

I'll make it simpler: Pick American (Seawolf and Virginia) or Russian (Akula and Severodvinsk).

Hmm, aight thanks. Tho' I'll think about it before making up my mind. Oh yeah, what about the Graney-class, the successor of the Akula?

[Prosorusiya]

I was thinking off making a river monitor and I need your opinion on the armament I'd be using. In particular:

The primary gun would be a 155mm artillery piece. The entire turret would be lifted strait from the mobile artillery used by my ground army. The idea here is to cut costs and generally just reuse what I already have. The turret would be mounted at the front of the ship

Secondary armament would be dual purpose 40mm gun-missile system. Basically it's a 96К6 but with the guns being 40mm Bofors. This again would be lifted strait from my ground army where the turret is mounted on tracks and used as an AA vehicle.

Aside from this there would be some machine guns that can clamp on to the side railings and stuff on an as needed basis.

So how does that sound?

Pretty good, tbh, although the gun-missile system might be overkill. I'd go with a lighter weight system, like just a straight Bofors 40mm, that can be used as a DP weapon. Even better, a light weight frame launcher for MANPADS like the Soviets had for the Igla could be mounted on the central superstructure, freeing up the aft for a IFV turret which would give you ATGM capability plus a good fast firing gun for close in action. Fitting a mortar might be useful too.

If you have a river monitor,you aren't going to be facing incoming AShMs (well, maybe Penguins and ATGMs, but that's what armour is for). More likely aircraft targets will be something like A-10s, Su-25s, Mi-24s, and Apaches. The primary aim of a monitor is to support forces ashore with NGS, wasting weight on an already limited displacement for AAA is contra-productive.

[Purpelia]

Basically I figured I would literally just lift what ever my army is using for AA defense. And my current aspirations for that is basically a 9K22 like setup consisting of a pair of 40mm Bofors guns and an ADATS style launcher that can fire ATGM's or AA missiles interchangeably. Not sure how plausible or desirable that is in a ground AA vehicle. But ultimately what ever my army uses is what I'd clone for this thing. It just does not make too much sense to purpose develop something given that these will have a production run of 6 or so.

[United Latin Lesbians]

http://orig09.deviantart.net/521d/f/201 ... 81rdll.png

I made a warship once. It was a horrible time for everyone involved.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Basically I figured I would literally just lift what ever my army is using for AA defense. And my current aspirations for that is basically a 9K22 like setup consisting of a pair of 40mm Bofors guns and an ADATS style launcher that can fire ATGM's or AA missiles interchangeably. Not sure how plausible or desirable that is in a ground AA vehicle. But ultimately what ever my army uses is what I'd clone for this thing. It just does not make too much sense to purpose develop something given that these will have a production run of 6 or so.

While I appreciate the idea of using Army equipment where possible, I'm not sure I see what these monitors do that land-based vehicles can't do already. Six 155mm guns sounds like a tiny amount compared to the number of 155mm guns in the Purpelian Army; even if all six monitors were massed together in one area, a single Artillery Battalion that happens to be in the same area would be able to put out at least three times as much firepower. Likewise, while the idea of canal-mobile AA platforms is nice, I don't see how it's any better than having SPAAGs with those turrets on roads beside the canal.

[Purpelia]

Basically I figured I would literally just lift what ever my army is using for AA defense. And my current aspirations for that is basically a 9K22 like setup consisting of a pair of 40mm Bofors guns and an ADATS style launcher that can fire ATGM's or AA missiles interchangeably. Not sure how plausible or desirable that is in a ground AA vehicle. But ultimately what ever my army uses is what I'd clone for this thing. It just does not make too much sense to purpose develop something given that these will have a production run of 6 or so.

While I appreciate the idea of using Army equipment where possible, I'm not sure I see what these monitors do that land-based vehicles can't do already. Six 155mm guns sounds like a tiny amount compared to the number of 155mm guns in the Purpelian Army; even if all six monitors were massed together in one area, a single Artillery Battalion that happens to be in the same area would be able to put out at least three times as much firepower. Likewise, while the idea of canal-mobile AA platforms is nice, I don't see how it's any better than having SPAAGs with those turrets on roads beside the canal.

Rivers are important highways of trade and transportation in Purpelia accounting for something like 30% of all my cargo traffic even to this day. And the river navy is an important part of my army. Their job is to provide a rapid response force that can harass and assault enemy river positions and get around to places in ways that avoid roads, rail and generally provide a different dimension of mobility to my army. The only thing a river borne SPG can do that a land one can't is swim.

Now, the role of a river monitor in all this is primarily to serve as the centerpiece of a riverline flotilla and deny the rivers to my enemies. Just the fact that this thing exists means my enemies are going to have to devote dedicated assets to making sure what ever shipping, river crossing etc. they have won't be harassed by something big and nasty.

But that can mostly be done by lighter craft as well, yes. In fact, I would probably be better off with its weight in patrol boats with an ATGM and a couple of machine guns and stuff. However the second role of a river monitor is to be a flagship (hence the small production count, one per river flotilla) and in general prestige piece for my river navy. Their real job will, more than anything be to show off how big and strong my river navy is. So I figured I'd mount the largest gun I can get without having to actually pay extra for development costs.

[The Akasha Colony]

That doesn't solve the problem. Severodvinsk and Virginia share nothing in common and were developed basically at the same time. That was the whole problem to begin with.

I'll make it simpler: Pick American (Seawolf and Virginia) or Russian (Akula and Severodvinsk).

Hmm, aight thanks. Tho' I'll think about it before making up my mind. Oh yeah, what about the Graney-class, the successor of the Akula?

Those are literally the same thing. Graney and Yasen both refer to the same class, and Severodvinsk is the name of the first boat of that class.

[North Arkana]

Just how overrated are Russia's "black hole" subs anyway?

[Taihei Tengoku]

Yasen is pretty quiet but not as quiet as Seawolf/Virginia/Astute

[Velkanika]

Just how overrated are Russia's "black hole" subs anyway?

The Severodvinsk-class is a very dangerous submarine, but it's not as quiet as the Seawolf or Virginia. It's closer to the improved Los Angeles-class in terms of noise radiated, and has a very nasty anti-ship missile armament. Russian sonar technology has also gotten considerably better, with its towed array sonar being comparable to the AN/TB-16 at best. Her passive sonar is probably a fair bit worse then that judging by the current state of Russia's microelectronics industry.

I personally think they're very good boats, especially in light of what happened to Soviet submarine building after the end of the Cold War, but they're about 30 years out of date by NATO standards.

TL;DR They'd live up to the hype if launched in 1980, but are still good subs.