Page 162 of 179
Posted:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:06 amby The Manticoran Empire
If the funds were available, would it be worth it to assign a Forrestal-class or similar carrier to Amphibious Ready Groups for operations involving Marine Expeditionary Forces? A maximum of 4-6 carriers is what I'm thinking about (my nation has 4 active MEFs and one reserve).
Posted:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:31 amby Sleet Clans
The Manticoran Empire wrote:If the funds were available, would it be worth it to assign a
Forrestal-class or similar carrier to Amphibious Ready Groups for operations involving Marine Expeditionary Forces? A maximum of 4-6 carriers is what I'm thinking about (my nation has 4 active MEFs and one reserve).
You'd want a nuclear carrier maybe just so it can stay on station until it needs to be rearmed and resupplied, and plus you'd want some very good escorts and/or protection for said carrier. Maybe an amphibious assault ship or two to tag along too for the extra support, but honestly I'd assign heavy flattops like
Forrestals to carrier strike groups. But if the funding was available, then yes, it would be worth it to have that sort of firepower tagging along.
Posted:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:42 amby The Manticoran Empire
Sleet Clans wrote:The Manticoran Empire wrote:If the funds were available, would it be worth it to assign a
Forrestal-class or similar carrier to Amphibious Ready Groups for operations involving Marine Expeditionary Forces? A maximum of 4-6 carriers is what I'm thinking about (my nation has 4 active MEFs and one reserve).
You'd want a nuclear carrier maybe just so it can stay on station until it needs to be rearmed and resupplied, and plus you'd want some very good escorts and/or protection for said carrier. Maybe an amphibious assault ship or two to tag along too for the extra support, but honestly I'd assign heavy flattops like
Forrestals to carrier strike groups. But if the funding was available, then yes, it would be worth it to have that sort of firepower tagging along.
Well the MEFs are mainly just shipped around for major operations and exercises. The ARG already has 1 Amphibious Assault Ship, 1 Dock Landing Ship, and 1 Amphibious Transport Dock, with escort provided by 2-3 destroyers. The
Forrestal would accompany a force of about 8-10 ARGs to carry most of the MEF's air wing.
Posted:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:28 pmby The Akasha Colony
The Manticoran Empire wrote:Sleet Clans wrote:You'd want a nuclear carrier maybe just so it can stay on station until it needs to be rearmed and resupplied, and plus you'd want some very good escorts and/or protection for said carrier. Maybe an amphibious assault ship or two to tag along too for the extra support, but honestly I'd assign heavy flattops like
Forrestals to carrier strike groups. But if the funding was available, then yes, it would be worth it to have that sort of firepower tagging along.
Well the MEFs are mainly just shipped around for major operations and exercises. The ARG already has 1 Amphibious Assault Ship, 1 Dock Landing Ship, and 1 Amphibious Transport Dock, with escort provided by 2-3 destroyers. The
Forrestal would accompany a force of about 8-10 ARGs to carry most of the MEF's air wing.
This is basically what the primary carrier groups are for anyway, so why would you want separate carriers for this task?
Posted:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:32 pmby The Manticoran Empire
The Akasha Colony wrote:The Manticoran Empire wrote:Well the MEFs are mainly just shipped around for major operations and exercises. The ARG already has 1 Amphibious Assault Ship, 1 Dock Landing Ship, and 1 Amphibious Transport Dock, with escort provided by 2-3 destroyers. The
Forrestal would accompany a force of about 8-10 ARGs to carry most of the MEF's air wing.
This is basically what the primary carrier groups are for anyway, so why would you want separate carriers for this task?
Honestly, since you put it that way, there really isn't much of a point.
Posted:
Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:19 pmby Pharthan
Taihei Tengoku wrote:Kouralia wrote:What's a reasonable number of marines/naval fleet security bods/naval police to have on ships of different sizes? Does anyone know of any numbers for western navies atm?
Usually "naval police" duties would be filled by sailors of the appropriate rating (in the USN it is the "master-at-arms"). In submarines there are very few, if any. Large surface ships like carriers would top out at a couple dozen.
In the US Navy, Security Forces onboard ships are predominantly filled by various sailors from various departments, usually excluding Reactor Department, as a Temporarily Assigned Duty.
Master-At-Arms on a ship even the size of a carrier are perhaps two dozen. I never counted, but I also never saw many of them. Most of Security was not made of MAs, but other random rates. Still, if this number broke a hundred, I'd be surprised.
Submarines don't have MAs. The smaller the vessel, the more diversity of one's job, to the point that on submarines you don't have Boatswain's Mates or MAs.
Posted:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:06 amby Rhinocera
Pharthan wrote:Taihei Tengoku wrote:Usually "naval police" duties would be filled by sailors of the appropriate rating (in the USN it is the "master-at-arms"). In submarines there are very few, if any. Large surface ships like carriers would top out at a couple dozen.
In the US Navy, Security Forces onboard ships are predominantly filled by various sailors from various departments, usually excluding Reactor Department, as a Temporarily Assigned Duty.
Master-At-Arms on a ship even the size of a carrier are perhaps two dozen. I never counted, but I also never saw many of them. Most of Security was not made of MAs, but other random rates. Still, if this number broke a hundred, I'd be surprised.
Submarines don't have MAs. The smaller the vessel, the more diversity of one's job, to the point that on submarines you don't have Boatswain's Mates or MAs.
Glad to see you back Pharthan.
Posted:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:11 pmby Taihei Tengoku
Pharthan wrote:Taihei Tengoku wrote:Usually "naval police" duties would be filled by sailors of the appropriate rating (in the USN it is the "master-at-arms"). In submarines there are very few, if any. Large surface ships like carriers would top out at a couple dozen.
In the US Navy, Security Forces onboard ships are predominantly filled by various sailors from various departments, usually excluding Reactor Department, as a Temporarily Assigned Duty.
Master-At-Arms on a ship even the size of a carrier are perhaps two dozen. I never counted, but I also never saw many of them. Most of Security was not made of MAs, but other random rates. Still, if this number broke a hundred, I'd be surprised.
Submarines don't have MAs. The smaller the vessel, the more diversity of one's job, to the point that on submarines you don't have Boatswain's Mates or MAs.
From my two days aboard a CVN the MAs were inadequate in number to stop us from ordering Chinese after hours and breaking into restricted areas
Posted:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:41 amby Pharthan
Taihei Tengoku wrote:Pharthan wrote:In the US Navy, Security Forces onboard ships are predominantly filled by various sailors from various departments, usually excluding Reactor Department, as a Temporarily Assigned Duty.
Master-At-Arms on a ship even the size of a carrier are perhaps two dozen. I never counted, but I also never saw many of them. Most of Security was not made of MAs, but other random rates. Still, if this number broke a hundred, I'd be surprised.
Submarines don't have MAs. The smaller the vessel, the more diversity of one's job, to the point that on submarines you don't have Boatswain's Mates or MAs.
From my two days aboard a CVN the MAs were inadequate in number to stop us from ordering Chinese after hours and breaking into restricted areas
General idea is that you're not
supposed to be maliciously trying to sneak into restricted areas.
That's not their job. They're not security guards.
Posted:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:05 amby Gallia-
Why have them at all if they're not supposed to do their jobs?
Pharthan wrote:maliciously
*Marinciously.
Uncle Sam's Mega Cuties?
Posted:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:16 pmby Velkanika
Gallia- wrote:Why have them at all if they're not supposed to do their jobs?
Pharthan wrote:maliciously
*Marinciously.
Uncle Sam's Mega Cuties?
Posted:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:35 pmby The Manticoran Empire
Velkanika wrote:Gallia- wrote:Why have them at all if they're not supposed to do their jobs?
*Marinciously.
Uncle Sam's Mega Cuties?
You know, I could actually see Marines doing that.
Posted:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:40 pmby Velkanika
The Manticoran Empire wrote:You know, I could actually see Marines doing that.
They are, I stole it off of the Terminal Lance Instagram page.
Posted:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:38 pmby Pharthan
Gallia- wrote:Why have them at all if they're not supposed to do their jobs?
Pharthan wrote:maliciously
*Marinciously.
Uncle Sam's Mega Cuties?
'Cuz that's not their job to keep people out of restricted spaces? That's the job of people who run those spaces.
Posted:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:30 pmby Gallia-
Velkanika wrote:Gallia- wrote:Why have them at all if they're not supposed to do their jobs?
*Marinciously.
Uncle Sam's Mega Cuties?
Fluff War I.
Posted:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:50 pmby Prosorusiya
So been reading up on the Ukrainian Navy & it’s establishment of a new base in the Azov. Since we love to pick apart real navies decisions and armchair admiral here, I was wondering what people’s thoughts were on their forces thus far committed.
From what I understand, currently the Ukrainian Navy forces in the Azov consist of the following:
(Flag) A500 UkS. Donbass, a Project 304 class repair ship, converted to a Command ship, previously caprtured by the Russians & stripped of whatever C-in-C equipment she had, now called a search and rescue ship by the media. From reports she is to be a floating barracks, possibly a repair depot too, a role for which she is well suited imho.
A830 UkS. Korets, a Project 745 Class Fleet tug. No idea why the Ukrainians sent her other than prehaps they were worried about Donbass not being able to make it all the way under her own power. She managed fine though so not sure if Korets will be sticking around. The patrol boats in the flotilla are unlikely to need her aid... but prehaps she is there for missions wherein Ukrainian ships might need help if disabled?
Kremenchuk (P177) & Lubny (P178) are both Gyurz-M Class armored patrol boats aka modern monitors.
Jane’s claims Ukraine intends to move it’s second base from Nikolayev to Brydansk, not sure why then the Donbass is docked in Mariupol atm? I doubt in any case they will move all the units, anyways, no doubt Naval Aviation will remain where it is in Niikolayev.
Anyhow, considering the state of the current Ukrainian Navy, and the current situation, what would y’alls Next move be?
I for one would move the Matka Class hydrofoil Priluki into the Azov Sea, as she would be faster than the PBs already there and thus an credible way to deal with the highspeed boats that have been harassing Ukrainian shipping in the area. She may be tied up right now though, it appears Ukraines other corvette U206 Vinnytsia is not long for this world, so maybe Ukraine dosen’t want to weaken its 1st Combat Ship Division anymore. I suppose given the espoused “anti-mine” purpose of the base it might get the U360 Henichesk minesweeper transferee there as well, as the Ukrainians are supposed to recieve 3 New minesweepers from the Danish. That’s all I can think of in the short term, that could be shifted without compromising security at other bases tremendously. Thoughts?
Posted:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:12 pmby New Chilokver
If, as I've been led to believe, spherical sonar arrays are superior to their U-shaped counterparts, why is the Virginia-class switching to LAB sonars?
Posted:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:11 pmby The Akasha Colony
New Chilokver wrote:If, as I've been led to believe, spherical sonar arrays are superior to their U-shaped counterparts, why is the Virginia-class switching to LAB sonars?
Because the spherical shape wasn't really the important part.
The spherical arrays introduced in
Thresher had the advantage of being very large and having the entire nose dedicated to them. Soviet submarines continued to use the upper half of the nose for torpedo tubes which limited the space available. British submarines had thinner profiles and compound noses which would have made a spherical arrangement rather awkward. The large size of BQQ-2 and its successors and the advances in American electronics and understanding of acoustics contributed to their excellent performance. The spherical design helped simplify computation and direction-finding and covered a wider area particularly in the vertical plane than more limited horseshoe arrays.
The LAB array retains the large size and dedicated nose of the previous arrays but discards the spherical shape because it is no longer necessary. Digital signal processing on modern computers has no problem accounting for irregular sensor shapes so it makes more sense to simply blanket the entire nose with transducers, covering an even
larger area. This has been possible for a while but design momentum and development difficulties delayed the shift away from the proven spherical design.
The bow sensor is also simply less important than it used to be. By its nature it has basically no baseline so it has a very difficult time determining range unless it resorts to active measures, which are obviously to be avoided. This is why the flank arrays and particularly the towed array are increasingly important because they at least can establish a baseline for passive rangefinding.
Posted:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:56 amby New Chilokver
Could you explain what you mean by a baseline for passive rangefinding please? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that concept.
Posted:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:58 amby Post War America
New Chilokver wrote:Could you explain what you mean by a baseline for passive rangefinding please? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that concept.
Passive sensors can pick up and generate an accurate firing solution more quickly if the thing they're trying to find is banging away with active sensors.
Posted:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:13 pmby Crookfur
New Chilokver wrote:Could you explain what you mean by a baseline for passive rangefinding please? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that concept.
It's basic trigonometry.
The flank and towed arrays have a length and receivers that have a distance between them.
Thus when two or more "distant" receivers pick up a signal you don't just get a bearing that the signal came from you get at least 2 bearings whose angles can be compared and in combination with your base line length you can work out the range to the signal's source.
Think stereoscopic range finding.
Posted:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:05 amby The Manticoran Empire
What are the pros and cons of nuclear powered cruisers and destroyers? Also, would it be feasible to power amphibious warfare ships (LSD, LPD, LHD, LHA) with nuclear reactors and what costs and benefits could be seen?
Posted:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:30 amby Post War America
The Manticoran Empire wrote:What are the pros and cons of nuclear powered cruisers and destroyers? Also, would it be feasible to power amphibious warfare ships (LSD, LPD, LHD, LHA) with nuclear reactors and what costs and benefits could be seen?
I'm sure someone can deliver a more comprehensive answer to the question but I'm gonna attempt a crack at it too. The big benefit of nuclear powered vessels is the theoretically unlimited range, which enables much greater power projection capability, especially if one is on the shared NS earth which is bloody enormous. While you would obviously need to resupply the vessel with food, spare parts and other essentials over the course of a long duration mission, but you don't also need to worry about carting over fuel if the ships are nuclear powered. There is a reason why the USN's carrier and submarine fleets rely on nuclear powered vessels after all. Nuclear powered vessels can also be useful if you have limited access to oil given that most oil powered ships suck down fuel like nobody's business. That being said, if you're lacking in oil and nuclear fuel, its probably better to import the former than the latter. The downsides are pretty significant though, nuclear vessels tend to be much more maintenance intensive than conventionally powered ones, and much more costly to maintain as well, which is probably why the USN to my knowledge never had nuclear destroyers and only briefly experimented with nuclear cruisers (well that and being more expensive to construct). Nuclear powered submarines also tend to be more somewhat more noisy than comparable diesel electrics as well. This may be conjecture from my part, but I've noticed that nuclear powered vessels seem to have a shorter operational life span than conventionally powered ones, though I must admit that may simply be differences in procurement rates and military doctrine than anything else. As for the actual act of sticking them in ships, I've heard of a nuclear powered airplane that could actually fly (I think it was a Soviet experiment with a modded TU-95), so theoretically it could be possible, but you'd need to talk to a maritime engineer to actually know.
Posted:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:02 amby The Corparation
Another benefit that post war America missed is the fact that nuclear power doesn't just give you range it gives you the ability to go fast and keep going fast. A conventionally powered ship can get going fast but it can't maintain that speed without burning through all its fuel.
As for shorter lifespans, the main reason for many US Navy nuclear cruisers having short lives was that manning them was expensive (They require more crew than conventional warships), refueling them was expensive, and most of them needed weapons upgrades which is also expensive. It should be noted that the first 3 nuclear cruisers in US Navy service all served for more than 30 years and were slated for refit/refueling before it was decided to retire them. Had they not been retired and refueled as planned they'd easily have seen at least another decade of life.
Also the Soviet's nuclear Tu-95 didn't fly on nuclear power, it served roughly the same job as the American NB-36. A flying laboratory to see what its like to have a nuclear reactor in a plane prior to building a plane powered by a nuclear reactor.
Posted:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:15 amby The Manticoran Empire
The Corparation wrote:Another benefit that post war America missed is the fact that nuclear power doesn't just give you range it gives you the ability to go fast and keep going fast. A conventionally powered ship can get going fast but it can't maintain that speed without burning through all its fuel.
As for shorter lifespans, the main reason for many US Navy nuclear cruisers having short lives was that manning them was expensive (They require more crew than conventional warships), refueling them was expensive, and most of them needed weapons upgrades which is also expensive. It should be noted that the first 3 nuclear cruisers in US Navy service all served for more than 30 years and were slated for refit/refueling before it was decided to retire them. Had they not been retired and refueled as planned they'd easily have seen at least another decade of life.
Also the Soviet's nuclear Tu-95 didn't fly on nuclear power, it served roughly the same job as the American NB-36. A flying laboratory to see what its like to have a nuclear reactor in a plane prior to building a plane powered by a nuclear reactor.
Well the USS Nimitz has been in service since 1975 and the last Nimitz isn't expected to leave service until the 2050s.