NationStates

Palmyrion wrote:Can a conveniently-sized destroyer serve as a mothership for USVs and USubVs, launching them from its transom garage, while being able to carry 128 VLS cells (64 fore, 64 aft) and a 127/64 DP gun?

What is "conveniently-sized" supposed to mean?

The Akasha Colony wrote:

Palmyrion wrote:Can a conveniently-sized destroyer serve as a mothership for USVs and USubVs, launching them from its transom garage, while being able to carry 128 VLS cells (64 fore, 64 aft) and a 127/64 DP gun?

What is "conveniently-sized" supposed to mean?

Beam: 30-40m
Length: 186.4m

Palmyrion wrote:

The Akasha Colony wrote:
What is "conveniently-sized" supposed to mean?

Beam: 30-40m
Length: 186.4m

That's a rather unfavorable L:B ratio. And a very large "conveniently-sized" destroyer.

Anyway, it's probably fine, but it also raises (unsurprisingly) the question of what kinds of vehicles you're talking about, because "unmanned vehicles" encompasses a huge size range. UUVs for instance include everything from small torpedo-sized minesweepers to massive large-diameter UUVs designed to be operated from actual ports without the use of a mothership.

The Akasha Colony wrote:

Palmyrion wrote:Beam: 30-40m
Length: 186.4m

That's a rather unfavorable L:B ratio. And a very large "conveniently-sized" destroyer.

Anyway, it's probably fine, but it also raises (unsurprisingly) the question of what kinds of vehicles you're talking about, because "unmanned vehicles" encompasses a huge size range. UUVs for instance include everything from small torpedo-sized minesweepers to massive large-diameter UUVs designed to be operated from actual ports without the use of a mothership.

Basically a UUV that isn't quite large. Mainly for anti-sub ops. If launching UUV's from your ass to be deployed around the ship's perimeter and scan for enemy subs isn't an option, then what is?

Overall the transom can hold a wide range of USVs. Minesweepers and subhunters, I only denoted a few.

Celery AKA Celibrae wrote:Russia's budget is also worth about two-three times less than what it was in 2014.

It doesn't matter.

They'll just cut money from less important things. Like roads and subsidies.

Palmyrion wrote:

The Akasha Colony wrote:
That's a rather unfavorable L:B ratio. And a very large "conveniently-sized" destroyer.

Anyway, it's probably fine, but it also raises (unsurprisingly) the question of what kinds of vehicles you're talking about, because "unmanned vehicles" encompasses a huge size range. UUVs for instance include everything from small torpedo-sized minesweepers to massive large-diameter UUVs designed to be operated from actual ports without the use of a mothership.

Basically a UUV that isn't quite large. Mainly for anti-sub ops. If launching UUV's from your ass to be deployed around the ship's perimeter and scan for enemy subs isn't an option, then what is?

Overall the transom can hold a wide range of USVs. Minesweepers and subhunters, I only denoted a few.

How about a... self-operating self-guiding UUV with an explosive warhead! We'll call it... a homing torpedo!

Palmyrion wrote:Basically a UUV that isn't quite large. Mainly for anti-sub ops. If launching UUV's from your ass to be deployed around the ship's perimeter and scan for enemy subs isn't an option, then what is?

Overall the transom can hold a wide range of USVs. Minesweepers and subhunters, I only denoted a few.

Who said it wasn't an option?

But a fairly massive destroyer with 128 VLS is probably not something you want wasting time with UUVs. Especially because the ability of small UUVs to find submarines is very limited since their small size also means they have fairly weak sensors and low mission endurance.

UUVs are not very useful. They need to surface to communicate or be tethered.

Knifefish is kind of cute imo.

Because I'm a masochist,
Write up for oceana
http://m.imgur.com/account/CharleSanders/images/5841e5X

Palmyrion wrote:

The Akasha Colony wrote:
That's a rather unfavorable L:B ratio. And a very large "conveniently-sized" destroyer.

Anyway, it's probably fine, but it also raises (unsurprisingly) the question of what kinds of vehicles you're talking about, because "unmanned vehicles" encompasses a huge size range. UUVs for instance include everything from small torpedo-sized minesweepers to massive large-diameter UUVs designed to be operated from actual ports without the use of a mothership.

Basically a UUV that isn't quite large. Mainly for anti-sub ops. If launching UUV's from your ass to be deployed around the ship's perimeter and scan for enemy subs isn't an option, then what is?

A sonar?

It would just be a glorified towed array.

Taihei Tengoku wrote:

Palmyrion wrote:Basically a UUV that isn't quite large. Mainly for anti-sub ops. If launching UUV's from your ass to be deployed around the ship's perimeter and scan for enemy subs isn't an option, then what is?

A sonar?

This, the only UUV's that should be on board your escorts in any sizable numbers are its homing torpedoes.

Gallia- wrote:Knifefish is kind of cute imo.

It wears camo cuz it's shy.

Gallia- wrote:

Celery AKA Celibrae wrote:Russia's budget is also worth about two-three times less than what it was in 2014.

It doesn't matter.

They'll just cut money from less important things. Like roads and subsidies.

Seemingly they haven't so far.

'The Aoshima', the very first Aoshima-class battlecruiser out of the 150,000 built.

Do images count?

Northern Ateria wrote:(Image)
'The Aoshima', the very first Aoshima-class battlecruiser out of the 150,000 built.

Do images count?

> 150,000 built

Wew lad

w e w
e
w

Is it on civ iii?

So, what would you say are the optimum characteristics of a naval cruise missile these days?

Celery AKA Celibrae wrote:So, what would you say are the optimum characteristics of a naval cruise missile these days?

Gotta be supersonic.

The Yuktobanian Republic wrote:

Celery AKA Celibrae wrote:So, what would you say are the optimum characteristics of a naval cruise missile these days?

Gotta be supersonic.

I seem to recall Galla making the argument for subsonic high-altitude cruise followed by a terminal supersonic stage, much like the 3M-54 system.

I made that statement offhand, because I was remembering Klub did that, but I'd forgotten Klub's name at the time. Then Viky said it and I was like "yay that's the one".

It's basically the optimal unless you have hypersonic cruisers. You get the range of a subsonic with the terminal effectiveness of a supersonic. The only problem is that it's vulnerable to interception by fighter aircraft in the Outer Defense Zone during flight. Supersonic cruisers are somewhat of an annoyance in that shooting them down is hard during all phases of the flight, which is why Outer Defense Zone fighters would be tasked with intercepting and destroying the launch platforms before they could fire, ideally.

Given that a carrier battlegroup's "long arm of the law" is about 250-450 kilometers along the threat axis, if we take fighter patrols and pickets into account and add another 100-200 kilometers for weapons range at the patrol distance, you're going to be in for a rather long period of puckering before the other guy is.

Of course if you're that serious, you'll be shotgunning megatons of ordnance at a battlegroup. And the battlegroup still won't be knocked out of the fight despite its escorts evaporating in multiple miniature suns.

Alsace-class qt battleships > German ugly battleship.

What sort of sensors? Infrared imaging, passive radar?