NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Gallia-]

Would modernizing the Yak-41M be any use for nation's wishing to operating VTOL aircraft that aren't western or NATO?

Yeah... that's kind of the closest to the F-35B like VTOL's. Range might be shorter tho as the plane basically have 3 engines, 2 of which are turbojets. gonna need more fuel to loiter or land.

It wouldn't be terribly difficult to go from Yak-41 to F-35B. Yakovlev literally did it in less than 4 or so years from a Yak-38 style lift engine system, in the Yak-201. Unf. they built the Yak-41 and ran out of money for new planes (though they had like 20 engines). Considering how absurdly powerful the R79 was it would not be difficult to connect a shaft driven lift fan to the front TBH. It would easily be STOVL with a warload and VTO with a tiny fuel load. Exactly like F-35B I suppose.

Would be pretty good.

[Hinachi]

Apparently, in 1978 they tried to put APG-65 in F-16.

[Gallia-]

There's only one thing running through my mind seeing that image. It's that joke. Yes that one.

Smh at least Lavi avoids it.

e: Could also be an Armenian F-16, actually.

[Miku the Based]

(Image)

Why does that look like Arma?

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Is it possible to use 16-inch MK7 naval gun to launch cruise missile,glide bomb or rocket-assisted projectile after upgrading and refitting ?I want to raise 50-caliber to 55-caliber or 62-caliber and I believe its range will be much greater than the 109km of AGS.

[Veridian Union]

Is it possible to use 16-inch MK7 naval gun to launch cruise missile,glide bomb or rocket-assisted projectile after upgrading and refitting ?I want to raise 50-caliber to 55-caliber or 62-caliber and I believe its range will be much greater than the 109km of AGS.

No on the first, no on the second, yes on the third but with far less retrofitting than one might think of for the barrels.

Base-bleed and rocket assist exists at far smaller calibers. You can extend the range significantly. The important question is why when you have other platforms that do the job better at further distances, better accuracy, and better information gathering/dissemination.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

There is a gap between battleship and other ships in ammunition delivery.If I can use 406mm naval gun to launch cruise missiles like bgm-109, then the number of missiles I can launch in one attack is far more than the limit of one destroyer and the range is much longer than the old naval gun.The ship's ability to strike the ground is always useful.And battleships are cool.9*406mm is so cool.And this modification makes it cool and useful

[Miku the Based]

How much electricity does a Railgun need on a naval vessel?
What's the range of a rail gun in comparison to a missile?
Would a internally loaded missile bay be better option then a rail gun?
How much weight do you save by stockpiling missiles and just keeping cwis systems?
How much power and weight is needed to keep a laser CWIS working? Is it more effective than a missile or gun cwis?
How much weight would a railgun + laser cwis take in comparison to a missile bay + laser cwis?
I wanna make fast going craft with lots of firepower and good countermeasures, so what is the best engine for that when regarding sea going vessels? Nuclear, Diesel, Electric, or something else?
What torpedo and noise makers should I use? Missile torpedoes?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

There is a gap between battleship and other ships in ammunition delivery.If I can use 406mm naval gun to launch cruise missiles like bgm-109, then the number of missiles I can launch in one attack is far more than the limit of one destroyer and the range is much longer than the old naval gun.The ship's ability to strike the ground is always useful.And battleships are cool.9*406mm is so cool.And this modification makes it cool and useful

So pretty much so that you can carry a larger missile load on an old battleship without going completely nuts with overhauling the magazines like they had to do with the USS Wisconsin with Armored Box Launchers everywhere and torpedo-handling equipment in order to reload them while at sea. Correct?

The downside of BB-64's conversion was that the missiles had to use the magazines for the 5" guns, and not the more spacious ones of the 16".

ofc, we could always downgrade the three triple 16" turrets to a pair of quad 8" and a VLS-rack. Although in 1953 the 16" guns were converted into a short range nuclear deliver device, so nobody wanted to scrap those anytime soon.

Although due to the depth of where the Iowa's magazine is, a twin arm laucher may be required

So pretty much this, but with several decks between the magazine and the deck

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Hey, isn't the deck spacious?Return the 16" gun back!If this is a Russian ship, they can carry hundreds of missiles in VLS while keeping 16 inch guns

[Gallia-]

Russia would prefer a battery of naval BM-30s or something.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

There is a gap between battleship and other ships in ammunition delivery.If I can use 406mm naval gun to launch cruise missiles like bgm-109, then the number of missiles I can launch in one attack is far more than the limit of one destroyer and the range is much longer than the old naval gun.The ship's ability to strike the ground is always useful.And battleships are cool.9*406mm is so cool.And this modification makes it cool and useful

So pretty much so that you can carry a larger missile load on an old battleship without going completely nuts with overhauling the magazines like they had to do with the USS Wisconsin with Armored Box Launchers everywhere and torpedo-handling equipment in order to reload them while at sea. Correct?

I think he wants to fling cruise missiles from the tubes of the 16"/50's.

[Gallia-]

I'm also confused how he thinks 9 launch tubes is better than 32 or something.

Anyway if you think it's cool it's whatever.

[The Manticoran Empire]

There is a gap between battleship and other ships in ammunition delivery.If I can use 406mm naval gun to launch cruise missiles like bgm-109, then the number of missiles I can launch in one attack is far more than the limit of one destroyer and the range is much longer than the old naval gun.The ship's ability to strike the ground is always useful.And battleships are cool.9*406mm is so cool.And this modification makes it cool and useful

At most you will have 9 tubes to launch missiles if you use the guns. Compare this to an Arleigh Burke class destroyer which can fire 90 missiles in a single salvo. Now in theory you can reload the guns with additional missiles, allowing you to potentially fire more missiles but it will take longer and, in a world where close in weapon systems exist and are fairly effective, 90 missiles in one massive salvo is far more likely to get through defenses than 90 missiles in 10 smaller salvoes. Plus you can have more destroyers for the price of one battleship. A battleship needs 1,500 men, which could crew five destroyers. So you could either have a battleship or 5 destroyers. 9 missiles in one salvo or 450 missiles in one salvo. The math supports destroyers.

[Gallia-]

It's just a submarine with more spinny bits.

[Arkandros]

How much electricity does a Railgun need on a naval vessel?

32-64 MJ of energy is currently the USN's experimental railgun target. This doesn't require a significantly large power supply (a diesel engine could charge a capacitor bank to store this much) but repeated firings in rapid succession will need a large power source.

What's the range of a rail gun in comparison to a missile?

Railguns have been demonstrated to be capable of 70+ mile ranges, though lack of guidance capability is currently the most limiting factor in their effective employment. If memory serves, RAPs have also proven capable of similar ranges, with similar guidance issues.

Would a internally loaded missile bay be better option then a rail gun?

Currently, I would put far more faith in a missile than in a railgun for any use, so I would weigh in favor of the missile bay. Your descriptor of internal is honestly weird to me and makes me think you're referring more to a Soviet style of missile magazine, which even the Russians don't build anymore (having gone to VLS).

How much weight do you save by stockpiling missiles and just keeping cwis systems?

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but if you're saying remove all missiles and just keep CIWS, you have now removed your long range strike capability, severely limiting your vessel.

How much power and weight is needed to keep a laser CWIS working? Is it more effective than a missile or gun cwis?

Way, WAY more space than you think. They'd require a significant sustained power draw, on the order of hundreds of KW to a MW and we haven't even demonstrated that laser CIWS works aboard ships. Iron beam, the closest extant land based system I am aware of, has only been utilized against UAVs and short range unguided missiles, and the LaWS has only been utilized against vehicles, UAVs, and functionally stationary munitions. I can't say with any certainty that either would be effective against a cruise missile. ODIN and HELIOS also exist, but I don't have any information on those trials, much less have information on their efficacy to hard kill or soft kill a cruise missile.

How much weight would a railgun + laser cwis take in comparison to a missile bay + laser cwis?

The railgun has never been intended to replace missiles- it is significantly outranged by them. Its big space savings comes in the magazines being theoretically smaller for the same amount of rounds, which is at least partially offset by the additional power generation and storage requirements. A railgun and ammunition will be smaller than an equivalent number of missiles on anything other than the lightest of armed frigates, but at that point you also run into power issues.

I wanna make fast going craft with lots of firepower and good countermeasures, so what is the best engine for that when regarding sea going vessels? Nuclear, Diesel, Electric, or something else?

Short top speed sprint, gas turbine. Sustained sprint across oceans, nuclear. Diesels are simpler to run, cheaper to build, less complex, and less fuel hungry than turbines, though also generally larger for equivalent power output. Nuclear is far larger than either, but is far more energy dense.

What torpedo and noise makers should I use? Missile torpedoes?

Depends what you want them for. LWTs will never replace HWTs, different antitorpedo countermeasures are effective against different threats and in different situations, and torpedo tube launched missiles (as opposed to supercavitating torpedoes or ASROCs, I'm unclear which you meant by missile torpedoes) all have their uses and which you use will largely be determined by your political ties, tactical and strategic need, and existing infrastructure and equipment.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

You can have up to 130 * 9 missiles with 16 " guns.Generally, Burke class salvos with more than 10 missiles are rare.And Berkeley can't carry 90 cruise missiles, because it has air defense missions.

[Gallia-]

A gun isn't a terribly useful means to fire a cruise missile if you have an option for anything else.

The US Navy just slapped some box launchers on the Iowas. The most accurate analogy is a submarine, which takes a while to reload its tubes and fire cruise missiles, while a VLS ship can shoot a lot faster. Considering the largest salvo of cruise missiles ever fired was somewhere around 300 I'm not sure you need more than a dozen missiles per tube. Incidentally what I did for Galla was it has a Strategic Cannon Battery in its Stavka reserve analogue and that has six or nine 16" guns on tanks, like various Krupp Schnaebel guns. They shoot 500 kilometer range ramjet shells with nuclear warheads. One of them causes a nuclear war that plunges Galla back into the dark ages of...1975 or soabouts.

Ramjet shells are a lot simpler than turbojet powered cruise missiles in construction (they are also easier to shock harden), can still carry atomic warheads, and rely entirely on the speed imparted by the gun to extend their range. They're not cruise missile range sure, but a battleship deep modernization probably has VLS cells or armored boxes for firing those anyway, and 500 kilometers isn't much to sneeze at I guess.

If you're just doing it because it's cool IDK go wild, but there's no inherent reason to do it. The cruise missile would need to be heavier to survive the gun launch, which means for a given size it will be shorter ranged and have less fuel.

[United Earthlings]

Because local politics is driven by a variety of competing and sometimes mutually exclusive issues. How do you please a constituency that both wants good quality roads and a reduction in the tax burden? You already killed the roads budget. What's next? Schools? Police? Fire department? Roads are the obvious target, because they've been cut before. There are other issues, like growing the town by adding additional subdivisions, or simply developing new lands within the existing borders of the town.

For the most part the town isn't terrible, it's just kinda stupid and annoyingly congested, so a normal smallish town.

Basically, the people there want the city government to expand roads, fix existing roads, and make more roads, to ease congestion and increase the throughput of the roads. OTOH they don't want to pay for it. So the city is constantly trying to squeeze more money from the governor, who offered a new gas tax (bear in mind my state has some of the lowest gas/petrol costs in the USA) to pay for roads, and the Federal government, which gives highway subsidies to the state to pay for the interstate. No one really expects the city government to actually tax the roads increase (it wouldn't be able to afford it) but that would be the fastest way to do it, albeit expensive, and the state government is going to pay for it. Eventually.

The question is how long until the stupidest voters get it through their heads that new roads means new money needs to be raised, temporarily, to pay for them, assuming they ever grasp that, and perhaps coordinated fear mongering (if you don't vote yes on Proposition 69.420 in December, your job will go to Texas! Tyson told us this [after we asked them to tell us it]) or something is necessary to drill it into their brains. Alternatively the state could propose a new gas tax for a period of time, say 5 years, during which road construction and expansion will take place, and the money raised is set aside in a separate roads trust. But that has its own problems compared to an indefinite duration tax increase.

Local politics can at times be confusing asinine especially when it comes to parochial interests.

Even when voters approve a tax increase, that still doesn't mean your town/county is going to have money to fix that pothole.

I'm not making this up, this is a real life example just from the county I live in.

Back in 2018 there was a ballot referendum for my local county that basically asked if voters wanted to approve a sales tax increase to fund transportation and road improvements. The referendum passed, but American politics being what they are. One of the county's commissioner apparently wasn't happy that voters decide to vote against something they opposed so of course they filed a lawsuit against the ballot referendum and so cut to 2 and a half years later of litigation after over half a billion dollars had been collected in the meantime, but of course couldn't be put to use due to the lawsuit and just last month our State Supreme Court finally handed down a ruling declaring said ballot referendum "unconstitutional" because...

“But the spending directives are unconstitutional in that they conflict with a state law that gives the county commission the authority to allocate such funds.”

So, yeah that's {American} Democracy in a nut shell. Because why would voters directly like a say in how their money gets spent.

Figure that one out...

[Triplebaconation]

Figure that one out...

It's not that hard to figure out. While presumably the county commissioner was opposed to the tax for the {usual reasons,} the referendum contained elaborate spending directives apportioning the money in a way not mentioned on the ballot summary and placed ultimate budgetary authority in the hands of an unelected oversight committee. Both of these provisions violated your {state's} law regarding charter referendums establishing transport-related sales taxes, which gives discretion on how to spend resulting funds to the county commission. I suspect [Article VII] of your {state's} constitution says "no tax shall be levied except in pursuance of law," which seems to be a good principle that should be adhered to no matter how laudable a referendum's goal may be.

While I don't agree with the county commissioner's opposition to public transport, since most voters only think about the ballot summary for a few seconds and seldom bother with the actual referendum, ballot initiatives can be a powerful tool to funnel vast amounts of money to special interests. In my tiny county, for example, local sales taxes have funded a very nice public transit facility that's apparently never been used by anyone, including the county's small fleet of minivans, as well as a very expensive indoor 100-yard football practice field as gift to the former celebrity coach.

Perhaps there should be a Local Politics Realism Thread!

[New Visayan Islands]

Figure that one out...

It's not that hard to figure out. While presumably the county commissioner was opposed to the tax for the {usual reasons,} the referendum contained elaborate spending directives apportioning the money in a way not mentioned on the ballot summary and placed ultimate budgetary authority in the hands of an unelected oversight committee. Both of these provisions violated your {state's} law regarding charter referendums establishing transport-related sales taxes, which gives discretion on how to spend resulting funds to the county commission. I suspect [Article VII] of your {state's} constitution says "no tax shall be levied except in pursuance of law," which seems to be a good principle that should be adhered to no matter how laudable a referendum's goal may be.

Perhaps there should be a Local Politics Realism Thread!

I believe this thread would be it, if not the closest to the same.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

There is a gap between battleship and other ships in ammunition delivery.If I can use 406mm naval gun to launch cruise missiles like bgm-109, then the number of missiles I can launch in one attack is far more than the limit of one destroyer and the range is much longer than the old naval gun.The ship's ability to strike the ground is always useful.And battleships are cool.9*406mm is so cool.And this modification makes it cool and useful

At most you will have 9 tubes to launch missiles if you use the guns. Compare this to an Arleigh Burke class destroyer which can fire 90 missiles in a single salvo. Now in theory you can reload the guns with additional missiles, allowing you to potentially fire more missiles but it will take longer and, in a world where close in weapon systems exist and are fairly effective, 90 missiles in one massive salvo is far more likely to get through defenses than 90 missiles in 10 smaller salvoes. Plus you can have more destroyers for the price of one battleship. A battleship needs 1,500 men, which could crew five destroyers. So you could either have a battleship or 5 destroyers. 9 missiles in one salvo or 450 missiles in one salvo. The math supports destroyers.

Is a bit of an oversimplification, but if I'm not mistaken the limiting factor isn't tubes available so much as the command and control of those missiles, which is generally less than nine.

The upside of VLS over things such as twin arm and gun launchers is that a Mk 26 twin arm launcher takes 3 seconds to prep the first salvo and has moving parts that can break down and render the whole launch-system inoperable (a multi-cell VLS is modular with redundant launch-tubes).... although quite hilariously it can pretty much start spamming missiles in 1 second intervals after that and generally keep up with a VLS.

-Ramjet/ramrocket assisted shells as stated can also be a thing. Cheap long range nuke-flinger for NS-sized shore-bombardments.

[Arkandros]

At most you will have 9 tubes to launch missiles if you use the guns. Compare this to an Arleigh Burke class destroyer which can fire 90 missiles in a single salvo. Now in theory you can reload the guns with additional missiles, allowing you to potentially fire more missiles but it will take longer and, in a world where close in weapon systems exist and are fairly effective, 90 missiles in one massive salvo is far more likely to get through defenses than 90 missiles in 10 smaller salvoes. Plus you can have more destroyers for the price of one battleship. A battleship needs 1,500 men, which could crew five destroyers. So you could either have a battleship or 5 destroyers. 9 missiles in one salvo or 450 missiles in one salvo. The math supports destroyers.

Is a bit of an oversimplification, but if I'm not mistaken the limiting factor isn't tubes available so much as the command and control of those missiles, which is generally less than nine.

The upside of VLS over things such as twin arm and gun launchers is that a Mk 26 twin arm launcher takes 3 seconds to prep the first salvo and has moving parts that can break down and render the whole launch-system inoperable (a multi-cell VLS is modular with redundant launch-tubes).... although quite hilariously it can pretty much start spamming missiles in 1 second intervals after that and generally keep up with a VLS.

I can't disclose the actual number, but you can control more than 9 tomahawks at a time from a single vessel.
The biggest downside of arm launchers is their in between volley time; the Mk 26 that you specifically specified could only launch 1 volley (1st missile, 1 second wait, 2nd missile) every 9 seconds, not the 1 second you state, which might be able to keep up with VLS for about a second if we handicap the VLS and require it to fire two adjacent cells. If memory serves, arm launchers also have limited fire arcs, while the launch charge for VLS allows the missile to clear the superstructure and strike in a 360 degree arc.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Is a bit of an oversimplification, but if I'm not mistaken the limiting factor isn't tubes available so much as the command and control of those missiles, which is generally less than nine.

The upside of VLS over things such as twin arm and gun launchers is that a Mk 26 twin arm launcher takes 3 seconds to prep the first salvo and has moving parts that can break down and render the whole launch-system inoperable (a multi-cell VLS is modular with redundant launch-tubes).... although quite hilariously it can pretty much start spamming missiles in 1 second intervals after that and generally keep up with a VLS.

I can't disclose the actual number, but you can control more than 9 tomahawks at a time from a single vessel.
The biggest downside of arm launchers is their in between volley time; the Mk 26 that you specifically specified could only launch 1 volley (1st missile, 1 second wait, 2nd missile) every 9 seconds, not the 1 second you state, which might be able to keep up with VLS for about a second if we handicap the VLS and require it to fire two adjacent cells. If memory serves, arm launchers also have limited fire arcs, while the launch charge for VLS allows the missile to clear the superstructure and strike in a 360 degree arc.

The limited arcs are more a limitation of the need of the missiles to be "pointed" at their targets as thrust vectoring wasn't quite a thing yet.
-Give a rail launcher that same wide off-bore capability a VLS-rated missile has and it hardly matters anymore what direction the rails are pointed.
--Although this was to an extent the upside to rail launchers for being able to use the older dumbfired ASROC and maybe some shore-bombardment.

The other thing to kill the Mk 26 is the stowage magazines weren't future-proofed to handle longer munitions. There was the inclusion of a strikedown loader, too. Much like earlier VLS refits in hopes the crew could share some bunk-space with a few extra missiles that wouldn't be readily needed and use those to top off the magazines while underway as the ammo management system of arm-launchers actually takes up a fair amount of volume comparable to a hot VLS... like with the VLS strikedown kit it didn't quite work.

[Triplebaconation]

No, rail launchers were the only feasible way to launch beam-riding missiles. Vectored thrust isn't a VLS requirement - most missiles just use fins.

The bottleneck in launching large numbers of long-range cruise missiles at targets of opportunity is going to be mission planning, not launchers.