Your Nation's Warships, Batch 3

[The Corparation]

ultimate warship confirm

galla just has eternal FFG-7 forever

ultimate mass production ship for the ultimate mass productionocracy

This is a worksafe thread.

[Gallia-]

XXX HOT TORPEDO and ROCKET on FRIGATE action MASSIVE PENETRATION-CUM-BLAST waterline HULL PUNCHING XXX

DELETE YOUR BROWSER HISTORY AFTER VIEWING! DONT TELL YOUR FRIENDS!!! AMAZING SHIP STAYS AFLOAT AFTER EATING TEN THOUSAND POUNDS OF TNT! YOU WONT BELIEVE YOUR EYES!!!

4missiles1frigate.avi

[Imperial States America]

Feast your eyes on our new INS Submission class and INS Obedience Class ships


INS Submission 1st ship of the Submission class line


INS Obedience 1st ship of the Obedience class line

[North Arkana]

Feast your eyes on our new INS Submission class and INS Obedience Class ships

(Image)
INS Submission 1st ship of the Submission class line

(Image)
INS Obedience 1st ship of the Obedience class line

At least put a little effort into stealing other people's work.

[Imperial States America]

Feast your eyes on our new INS Submission class and INS Obedience Class ships

(Image)
INS Submission 1st ship of the Submission class line

(Image)
INS Obedience 1st ship of the Obedience class line

At least put a little effort into stealing other people's work.

First I did not say I drew them second tons of people on here use images off of sites such as google so I would tone it down on calling me a thief okay.

[Laywenrania]

Someone has any information on the composition of landing ship fleets for ww2 and modern times?

Like what different types of ships are used and in which numbers (depending on the size of the landing ofc) etc.

I can't seem to find anything.

My approach now would be "get some No.101 landing ships, slap Daihatsu landing craft on it and escort it with available ships" - though I have no idea for more modern fleets.

[North Arkana]

Someone has any information on the composition of landing ship fleets for ww2 and modern times?

Like what different types of ships are used and in which numbers (depending on the size of the landing ofc) etc.

I can't seem to find anything.

My approach now would be "get some No.101 landing ships, slap Daihatsu landing craft on it and escort it with available ships" - though I have no idea for more modern fleets.

Huge. As. Fuck.

Central Pacific Task Forces (Fifth Fleet) under Admiral Raymond Spruance:
Covering Forces and Special Groups (Task Force 50) directly under Spruance:
Fast Carrier Force (TF 58) under Vice Admiral Marc A. Mitscher with 88 ships (including 11 fleet carriers, 6 light carriers, 7 battleships and 18 cruisers);[24]
British Carrier Force (TF 57) under Vice Admiral Sir Bernard Rawlings with 4 carriers, 2 battleships, 5 cruisers, 14 destroyers and fleet train;[24]
Joint Expeditionary Force (TF 51) under Vice Admiral Richmond K. Turner (who was holding position of Commander, Amphibious Forces, Pacific):[25]
Amphibious Support Force (TF 52) under Rear Admiral William H. P. Blandy:[25]
TG 52.1: 18 escort carriers with 450 aircraft;[25]
Sl Escort Carrier Group: 4 escort carriers with Marine Aircraft Group 31 and 33;[25]
Mine Flotilla (TG 52.2)
Underwater Demolition Flotilla (TG 52.11): 10 100-strong UDT aboard destroyer escorts[25]
170 fire support landing craft
Western Islands Attack Group (TG 51.1) under Rear Admiral Ingolf N. Kiland with 77th Infantry Division, 17 attack and attack cargo transporters, 56 LSTs and support vessels;[25]
Northern Attack Force (TF 53) under Rear Admiral Lawrence F. Reifsnider, Commander Amphibious Group 4, aboard USS Panamint (AGC-13) with III Amphibious Corps (Major General Roy Geiger) on 40+ attack and attack cargo transporters, 67 LSTs and support vessels;[25]
Southern Attack Force (TF 55) under Rear Admiral John L. Hall with XXIV Corps (Major General John R. Hodge);[25]
Demonstration Group (TG 51.2) with 2nd Marine Division (Major General Thomas E. Watson);[25]
Gunfire and Covering Support Group (TF 54) under Rear Admiral Morton L. Deyo with 10 old battleships, 11 cruisers and 30 destroyers.[26]
Expeditionary Troops (TF 56) under Lieutenant General Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr. with 10th Army.[25]

[Taihei Tengoku]

Modern ESGs/ARGs are quite small in comparison--like 7 ships and a P-8. Many of the smaller ships have condensed into a few high-performance transports and escorts and there is a single battleship of the Los Angeles or Virginia class to land UDTs and sink enemy ships.

[Laritaia]

I have returned to my

shitty MS paint art using retextured shipbucket parts

To generally improve a bunch of things and add bow and stern views.

[Astuana]

[Laywenrania]

Huge. As. Fuck.

well... I could probably match the british TF? xD
but it seems a bit like I thought, multiple bigger transporters and some LSTs.

[United Earthlings]

250,000 tons of carrier could do what your 650,000 tons of carrier does. Which is to say, two Nimitzes or Fords are better than your goofball idea that wouldn't make sense even given unlimited resources. Efficiency doesn't care about resource values, it cares about return on investment. If you can make three Nimitzes for the price of one of your dumb megacarriers, the Nimitz is obviously better.

Diminishing returns means that capability does not scale linearly. Nimitz and Ford are already well past the peak of the s-function and into plateau territory. Ford's major improvements are a correction to the Nimitz list (I think), more reliable catapults and arresting gear, and reduced crew/operating/procurement costs. Its ability to produce sorties is comparable to Nimitz, despite its advanced technology, and this isn't something that "more carrier" can fix.

I'm well aware of the practicality value of a 650,000 ton vessel (Carrier or otherwise), hence my OP which it appears from the replies many seem to have skipped {skimmed} reading.

The key part here quoted again: "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?"

What I was proposing was nothing more than a thought exercise. And since Super Carriers are currently some of the largest warships afloat, that's where I decided to start my basis at for the exercise. I was never in anyway attempting to submit a realistic ship design that would be built.

Why. What conceivable purpose is there to liteeally split the carrier's air wing in two like that.

Various reasons that ran the gauntlet from ensuring some semi-effective form of Command&Control to damage control if or when a vessel of that type got damaged, etc...

It should be noted that it was my attempt to project some realism and practicality into a design that was always probably going to be unrealistic and unpractical to begin with, as funny or odd as they may seem or sound.

You image what a 650,000 ton naval vessel would appear as and it’s conceivable purpose.

So... you have two carriers... without having two carriers, aka all the drawbacks of one carrier combined with all the drawbacks of two carriers?

Look on the bright side, at least I didn't propose three carriers.

[Gallia-]

Modern ESGs/ARGs are quite small in comparison--like 7 ships and a P-8. Many of the smaller ships have condensed into a few high-performance transports and escorts and there is a single battleship of the Los Angeles or Virginia class to land UDTs and sink enemy ships.

The caveat is that ESGs are designed to carry a very small unit and land in places that can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, tbf.

A forced entry against a sizeable defending force (a division or a regiment) would require about 25-30 ships to transport the assault elements, if only to ensure that you have enough tanks and troops on the beachhead to keep the motor rifles that show up 30-90 minutes after landing from throwing you back into the sea.

The USN can just about muster two of those types of assault landings at once. Thirty years ago it could muster something like three and a half brigade-sized landings, though. In both cases it isn't really "enough", since thirty years ago it wanted a "division and a brigade" and today it wants "two brigades" but it's just short in both cases. Today it is much closer to what it thinks it needs, though, but that's a small consolation. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I have returned to my

shitty MS paint art using retextured shipbucket parts

To generally improve a bunch of things and add bow and stern views.

Good
speg.

Feast your eyes on our new INS Submission class and INS Obedience Class ships

(Image)
INS Submission 1st ship of the Submission class line

(Image)
INS Obedience 1st ship of the Obedience class line

At least put a little effort into stealing other people's work.

>"stealing"
>ctrl+f "drew" phrase not found

what?

[Laritaia]

stern view is now more or less finished, but bow view is waiting on me to finish messing around with the mast electronics

[The Akasha Colony]

stern view is now more or less finished, but bow view is waiting on me to finish messing around with the mast electronics

([url=https://www.dropbox.com/s/ssconh9uu7qtvy9/Type%2043%20Heavy%20Frigate%20%2810%20to%201%29%20Revision%203%20%282%29%28Thumbnail%29.png?raw=1]Image)[/url]

Those are the best side-view propellers I've yet seen.

[Gallia-]

stern view is now more or less finished, but bow view is waiting on me to finish messing around with the mast electronics

([url=https://www.dropbox.com/s/ssconh9uu7qtvy9/Type%2043%20Heavy%20Frigate%20%2810%20to%201%29%20Revision%203%20%282%29%28Thumbnail%29.png?raw=1]Image)[/url]

offset vsr i want to die

#triggered

[Taihei Tengoku]

It's kinda clever you have to admit

[Gallia-]

no doubt but it triggers my OCD

e: tbf id have offset the uptakes abaft the radar too but that might cut into the helicopter hangar

[Laritaia]

no doubt but it triggers my OCD

e: tbf id have offset the uptakes abaft the radar too but that might cut into the helicopter hangar

...why? there is literally no reason to

[Gallia-]

no doubt but it triggers my OCD

e: tbf id have offset the uptakes abaft the radar too but that might cut into the helicopter hangar

...why? there is literally no reason to

It's not symmetrical so yeah there is.

[Laritaia]

...why? there is literally no reason to

It's not symmetrical so yeah there is.

most ships aren't symmetrical

[Gallia-]

It's not symmetrical so yeah there is.

most ships aren't symmetrical

d e d
e
d

[Palmyrion]

China is apparently making submersible arsenal ships.

[Laritaia]

China is apparently making submersible arsenal ships.

So it's a half arsed submarine

not impressed

[Allanea]

China is apparently making submersible arsenal ships.

To be precise, it's making 3D pictures of them.