Your Nation's Warships, Batch 3

[Theodosiya]

Won't mind, since i meant to have some stuff based on them, but it will have new hull, probably in 636 style.

[Rhodesialund]

Those things that make you go, "Hmmmm, what if Stalin never did die?"

The only sub big enough to handle Stalin's ego.
http://i.imgur.com/7BJHvxb.jpg

[Novorden]

I am designing a WW2 cruiser and have got to the hanger (the highlighted area). How tall should it be? As if I want to keep it inline with my decks I have the option of 5.1m (x2) or 7.5m (x3) tall.

[Laritaia]

(Image)
I am designing a WW2 cruiser and have got to the hanger (the highlighted area). How tall should it be? As if I want to keep it inline with my decks I have the option of 5.1m (x2) or 7.5m (x3) tall.

well on RN cruisers it's 2 and a half decks so you're gonna have to go with 3

though on the french la galissonniere class cruisers it was two decks, so i suppose it really depends on the aircraft in question and the deck handling system

[Celery AKA Celibrae]

Shaurya as an antiship missile?

[Austrasien]

Anti-ship ballistic missiles are a thing, yes.

[Allanea]

Those things that make you go, "Hmmmm, what if Stalin never did die?"

The only sub big enough to handle Stalin's ego.
http://i.imgur.com/7BJHvxb.jpg

It strikes me more of a Khruschev thing, given the man's obssession with submarines.

[Celery AKA Celibrae]

Anti-ship ballistic missiles are a thing, yes.

But would it be effective?

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Anti-ship ballistic missiles are a thing, yes.

But would it be effective?

Just use an SM-6 if you want an ASBM that actually works. Shauyra is a land attack missile that lacks any kind of active seeker needed for hitting ships or other mobile targets.

[Celery AKA Celibrae]

But would it be effective?

Just use an SM-6 if you want an ASBM that actually works. Shauyra is a land attack missile that lacks any kind of active seeker needed for hitting ships or other mobile targets.

Not literally Shaurya, but a missile of the same characteristics. If fitted with the necessary guidance systems, would it be effective using a conventional warhead?

[Taihei Tengoku]

But would it be effective?

Just use an SM-6 if you want an ASBM that actually works. Shauyra is a land attack missile that lacks any kind of active seeker needed for hitting ships or other mobile targets.

SM-6 isn't a ballistic missile

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

SM-6 isn't a ballistic missile

It is if you launch it at a surface target. Once the sustain motor on the upper stage burns out what kind of flight profile do you think it follows?

it's technically quasi-ballistic because the strakes on the kill stage are designed to generate lift and thus give it a positive L/D ratio which means it doesn't follow a purely ballistic trajectory

[Gallia-]

Just use an SM-6 if you want an ASBM that actually works. Shauyra is a land attack missile that lacks any kind of active seeker needed for hitting ships or other mobile targets.

Not literally Shaurya, but a missile of the same characteristics. If fitted with the necessary guidance systems, would it be effective using a conventional warhead?

No_one_knows

[New Oyashima]

War is bad money is good Gayla.

[Rhodesialund]

War mixed with money is good Gayla.

FIFY

[Gallia-]

War is bad money is good Gayla.

(((stock exchanges)))

[Novorden]

Click for full size

Does anyone see any obvious issues/flaws with the layout before I start adding details?

Also how common was it for surface ships in WW2 to fire torpedoes from a fixed tube rather than having rotating launchers?

[Laritaia]

Also how common was it for surface ships in WW2 to fire torpedoes from a fixed tube rather than having rotating launchers?

basically un heard of, HMS Nelson supposedly did it

it makes aiming the torpedoes much harder, as you basically only have the ship's course and gyro-angling

but this looks like a late, even post war design, so in all likelihood any torpedo tubes it did have would be early ASW mounts

[The Soodean Imperium]

Also how common was it for surface ships in WW2 to fire torpedoes from a fixed tube rather than having rotating launchers?

basically un heard of, HMS Nelson supposedly did it

Do you mean unheard of by the start of WW2, or unheard of in general? By the start of WW1, fixed, submerged torpedo tubes were an almost universal feature of battleship armament, and G3, Lexington, Amagi, and Tosa would have had them if completed.

The Washington Naval Treaty seems to have killed off the idea though, for the very reasons that you mentioned. NavWeaps claims that HMS Rodney was the only battleship to ever fire a torpedo at another battleship, and AFAICT by that time the USN and IJN had faired over their battleships' torpedo tubes to save space and tonnage. For a late-WWII heavy cruiser they're definitely unheard of and not worth investing in.

[Palmyrion]

What's the point of battlecruisers like Kirov today?

[Laritaia]

What's the point of battlecruisers like Kirov today?

the Kirov isn't really a battlecruiser, it's a classic example of how inadequate ship designations from the 1900s are when applied to modern surface combatants

[Palmyrion]

What's the point of battlecruisers like Kirov today?

the Kirov isn't really a battlecruiser, it's a classic example of how inadequate ship designations from the 1900s are when applied to modern surface combatants

CCGN?

BTW, in a 21st century warfare, does it really make sense to have large combatant warships like the Kirov?

[Gallia-]

Yes big atomic ships are cool.

[Palmyrion]

Yes big atomic ships are cool.

Notwithstanding cool factor...

I was thinking of having a not-Kirov lead a group of 3 destroyers and one SSN. They could join arms with a carrier and another group of said composition to create a Carrier Strike Armada, with 3 T/AOEs, for a total of 14 ships.

[Gallia-]

CG(X) was going to be close to 30,000 tons full before it died.