Your Nation's Warships, Batch 3

[Crookfur]

Because gunz are teh coolest.

You might also want to mention the cruisers with a shaft that isn't connected to anything and the completely ineffective air defences...

and the to low engine output to achieve these speeds and the complements beeing rather low?

Nah that's just being needlessly nit-picky

Frankly these just confuse me, they seem kind of ww2ish (the class names really don't help with that) but also sort of modern and still seem lacking compared to even thier ww2 namesakes.

[North Arkana]

and the to low engine output to achieve these speeds and the complements beeing rather low?

Nah that's just being needlessly nit-picky

Frankly these just confuse me, they seem kind of ww2ish (the class names really don't help with that) but also sort of modern and still seem lacking compared to even thier ww2 namesakes.

They seem like some of the old style systems were torn out to make room for modernish weapons in some cases, but they end up being inferior for both periods of warfare because there's just not enough of anything. Not enough AA to really even disrupt a modern air attack, and sure as hell won't stop a determined WW2 air attack, but can't stand up and fight in an old gunnery fight either. The only thing they might be able to with any success is surface-surface missile engagements, but it's a case of "they can shoot missiles, but stand a chance vs return fire".

[Laywenrania]

They do look useful as some sort of coastal monitor...

[Vassenor]

Hm... Ocean or Flight 0 America as helicopter carrier?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Hm... Ocean or Flight 0 America as helicopter carrier?

Flight 0 America. Ocean is a glorified escort carrier of the last rank without the Harriers.

[Laritaia]

Hm... Ocean or Flight 0 America as helicopter carrier?

Flight 0 America. Ocean is a glorified escort carrier of the last rank without the Harriers.

Ocean never carried Harriers

[Gallia-]

Flight 0 America. Ocean is a glorified escort carrier of the last rank without the Harriers.

Ocean never carried Harriers

I believe xe means it should carry Harriers, but doesn't.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Ocean never carried Harriers

I believe xe means it should carry Harriers, but doesn't.

It should've been unidea'd and Britain carrying on with Not!CVA-63'sCVA-01's and "Invincible" Audacity CVL's. The Royal Marines can live on LPD's and a CVA-01 BG provided by the grâce of the First Sea Lord to provide support for a Suez 2017. :3

[Vassenor]

Then again if I want helicopter carriers maybe it's time to go full Weeb.

[Okan]

They do look useful as some sort of coastal monitor...

That's pretty much all the navy is used for, patrol and defence

[Laritaia]

Ocean never carried Harriers

I believe xe means it should carry Harriers, but doesn't.

why

that's what the invincibles were for

[Gallia-]

because every CV should carry some manner of fixed wing aircraft ofc

helicopters are supplementary and should only be used exclusively by surface escorts

[Theodosiya]

Between Oerlikon 35mm, Goalkeeper, Phalanx, AK-630, 40mm Bofors and 76mm Super Rapid, which one would be a good gun CIWS? (Missile would be onboard, but considered to be the "main" while guns supplement.)

[Laritaia]

Between Oerlikon 35mm, Goalkeeper, Phalanx, AK-630, 40mm Bofors and 76mm Super Rapid, which one would be a good gun CIWS? (Missile would be onboard, but considered to be the "main" while guns supplement.)

76mm Strales

it's the only one with guided ammo

[Theodosiya]

So, my Not-STG, Not-Ivers and Not-Slava on steroid could have 76mm Strales CIWS? Ok.

[Celitannia]

I'm pretty sure that this thread has discussed the cost-effectiveness (or rather the lack thereof) of the 76mm Strales versus point-defence missiles.

[Laritaia]

I'm pretty sure that this thread has discussed the cost-effectiveness (or rather the lack thereof) of the 76mm Strales versus point-defence missiles.

well yes, but my point was that it's the only one that provides more then flip a coin effectiveness

[North Arkana]

Between Oerlikon 35mm, Goalkeeper, Phalanx, AK-630, 40mm Bofors and 76mm Super Rapid, which one would be a good gun CIWS? (Missile would be onboard, but considered to be the "main" while guns supplement.)

35mm has AHEAD as an option, but I'm sure you could make that type of round in just about any suitable caliber.

[Purpelia]

Between Oerlikon 35mm, Goalkeeper, Phalanx, AK-630, 40mm Bofors and 76mm Super Rapid, which one would be a good gun CIWS? (Missile would be onboard, but considered to be the "main" while guns supplement.)

Soviet Daleks best Daleks.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

The Hydra class SSGN is the primary attack submarine of the Arcaenian navy with 90 of the boats either in service, under construction, or planned to be built. A large double hulled submarine, the Hydra displaces 11,400 tons surfaced and 16,300 tons submerged (30% reserve buoyancy). Crew is 90 (15 officers) with 40 additional bunks allocated for extra personnel such as SOF. The pressure hull is constructed from HY-210 (12Ni-5Cr-3Mo), a low-carbon maraging steel with a strength/weight comparable to titanium albeit being cheaper and easier to weld (although not nearly as corrosion resistant). The light hull, sail, and bow are made from a carbon-fiber/fiberglass reinforced epoxy composite. The Hydra is powered by a 200 MWth ultra-high temperature reactor (UHTR) with a 1,200 degree C operating temperature which drives two supercritical CO2 brayton cycle gas turbine generators. This somewhat exotic combination is several times smaller than a conventional PWR/steam turbine combination of similar power output, allowing more room inside the sub to be used for sound-deadening coatings and other acoustic stealth measures. Backup/emergency power is provided by two diesel generators and four Proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells. Propulsion is via an integrated motor/propulsor unit (radial field SCH motor plus pumpjet) with 50 megawatts of power which gives the sub a maximum submerged speed of ~40 kts.

The Hydra is fitted with 10 660mm water-ram torpedo tubes and has a three-deck weapons room which can accommodate up to 60 660mm weapons. The top eight tubes feature chain driven autoloaders with a 15 second reload time and are used exclusively to launch weapons while the bottom two tubes are manually loaded with a crane and usually reserved for deploying mines and mine-hunting ROVs. Rather unusually the Hydra also carries twin stern-facing torpedo tubes located inside the tail cone outside of the pressure hull which each carry two 400mm ASW torpedoes (which cannot be reloaded from inside the sub). For launching missiles the sub's midsection contains eight missile tubes each 3m in diameter and 12 meters deep which are virtually identical (albeit slightly shorter) to the tubes carried by the Arcaenian navy's SSBNs. Each tube normally carriers a flexible payload module 3 m in diameter and 7 m deep which can carry seven fasthawk or arclight cruise/boost-glide missiles (respectively) each in a BUBL (Broaching Universal Buoyant Launcher) canister which floats to just under the surface before the missile is fired. Th allows the Hydra to fire its missiles at a depth of several hundred feet or more immediately after receiving a launch order from its communications buoy. The bottom 5 meters of the missile tubes not taken up by the FBM each contain a two-story workspace usually used to carry berthing and gear for SOF. Located in the bow and surrounded by the integrated bow confomal array (IBCA) is a 30 x 10 x 30 foot modular payload bay which can carry an additional three FPMs, allowing a total of 70 cruise missiles to be carried by the submarine. The sub's composite sail, besides carrying a high-frequency sonar array and various masts and sensors, also carries a 12 x 5 x 5 foot VLS module which can carry up to 40 NETFIRES missiles for engaging small boats, helicopters, and targets inland.

[United Earthlings]

A few days ago I was channel surfing and happen to catch a few minutes of BBC world news as they were covering the arrival of HMS Queen Elizabeth at Portsmouth naval base.

Now I know very well it was a misplaced typo, but they had displayed that the new HMS Queen Elizabeth was 650,000 tonnes. That typo made me chuckle, but then got me to thinking, this is NS!

What would a 650,000 tonne vessel look like? Below is what I’ve come up with so far, is it NS enough, what can I add to the design?

Right off the bat, combining two Nimitz/Ford class supercarriers together gets us to approx. 212,600 metric tons, but since this is 650,000 tonne vessel it’s going to need more than a gargantuan air wing to qualify for NS status, so I thought why not add an arsenal ship capability with a shit load of VLS cells.

Might not be enough to start with, but five {5} Mark 41 VLS sections with each section composed of 64 total cells. The sixth most forward VLS section will be composed of 16? ASBM/ICBM modules for something like Trident D5, M51 or similar missiles armed with either nuclear payloads or conventional payloads.

That now gets us to around 225,032 metric tons, but of course a massive vessel wouldn’t be complete without guns: 4 (6.1 in) Advanced Gun Systems and two Phalanx CIWS.

With the guns installed we’ve arrived at approx. 225,460.4 tonnes or almost half way there. Besides maybe starting from a tri-carrier base of three Nimitz/Ford class carriers, what else can I add or expand to get to 650,000 tonnes?

So, far these are the dimensions I got based on the above.

• Trimaran hull design {Carrier hulls as the two outer hulls with a smaller central hull that contains all the VLS systems}.
• An Overall Length of 332.8 meters
• An overall beam of 175 meters
• 320 Mark 41 VLS cells
• 16 Ballistic Missile cells
• 4 Advanced Gun Systems and two Phalanx CIWS
• Air wing of 150 to 160 aircraft
• 4 A1B or similar reactors connected to 8 shafts.

[Laritaia]

A few days ago I was channel surfing and happen to catch a few minutes of BBC world news as they were covering the arrival of HMS Queen Elizabeth at Portsmouth naval base.

Now I know very well it was a misplaced typo, but they had displayed that the new HMS Queen Elizabeth was 650,000 tonnes. That typo made me chuckle, but then got me to thinking, this is NS!

What would a 650,000 tonne vessel look like? Below is what I’ve come up with so far, is it NS enough, what can I add to the design?

Right off the bat, combining two Nimitz/Ford class supercarriers together gets us to approx. 212,600 metric tons, but since this is 650,000 tonne vessel it’s going to need more than a gargantuan air wing to qualify for NS status, so I thought why not add an arsenal ship capability with a shit load of VLS cells.

Might not be enough to start with, but five {5} Mark 41 VLS sections with each section composed of 64 total cells. The sixth most forward VLS section will be composed of 16? ASBM/ICBM modules for something like Trident D5, M51 or similar missiles armed with either nuclear payloads or conventional payloads.

That now gets us to around 225,032 metric tons, but of course a massive vessel wouldn’t be complete without guns: 4 (6.1 in) Advanced Gun Systems and two Phalanx CIWS.

With the guns installed we’ve arrived at approx. 225,460.4 tonnes or almost half way there. Besides maybe starting from a tri-carrier base of three Nimitz/Ford class carriers, what else can I add or expand to get to 650,000 tonnes?

So, far these are the dimensions I got based on the above.

• Trimaran hull design {Carrier hulls as the two outer hulls with a smaller central hull that contains all the VLS systems}.
• An Overall Length of 332.8 meters
• An overall beam of 175 meters
• 320 Mark 41 VLS cells
• 16 Ballistic Missile cells
• 4 Advanced Gun Systems and two Phalanx CIWS
• Air wing of 150 to 160 aircraft
• 4 A1B or similar reactors connected to 8 shafts.

(un)fortunately there is a point where you start to see diminishing returns with regards to how many more sorties you can generate per thousand tons of extra displacement, you also start to run into issues of command and control and your ability to manage that many aircraft from one place.

both of these things start to take effect around about 100,000 tons, after this point your sortie generation rate plateaus, so while you may be able to carry more aircraft you can't actually put any more of them in the air a day then the Nimitz can.

[Gallia-]

The sigmoid function strikes again!

Coincidentally, it strikes with a similar amount of surprise and impact as a carrier air wing. Just like you can never quite be sure which airbases will be turned into radioactive rubble by USS Reprisal (CVN-84) until it actually happens, you can never be sure where the sigmoid function will plateau until it actually happens, but you can make educated guesses that will probably turn out to be wrong.

[Allanea]

On the other hand - and I don't know if this is true or not - as we all know , the sortie generation rate of an aircraft carrier drops precipitously after the first 1-2 days of operation due to ground crew, pilot and airframe fatigue. Would a larger carrier (perhaps a slightly larger carrier, rather than a 650,000 monster) be able to push high sortie rates for, say, a day or two longer due to having more spare pilots and crews, or better facilities?

[The Akasha Colony]

On the other hand - and I don't know if this is true or not - as we all know , the sortie generation rate of an aircraft carrier drops precipitously after the first 1-2 days of operation due to ground crew, pilot and airframe fatigue. Would a larger carrier (perhaps a slightly larger carrier, rather than a 650,000 monster) be able to push high sortie rates for, say, a day or two longer due to having more spare pilots and crews, or better facilities?

It would probably be better to simply have another carrier, which would allow the two to alternate operations. Which has the added benefit of allowing more intensive maintenance and repairs to take place on the aircraft handling equipment that can't happen if the flight deck is continuously operating even if the crews are switching off. For the amount of manpower involved, a second carrier is probably a better investment.