Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Atlantica]

'Aisha' Class Patrol Boat	(Image)
Manufacturer:	Vahrahan Yards ( Government owned )
Unit Cost:	Approximately 171.000 USD
Number Active:	8
Length:	19 meters
Main Armament:	12.5 mm HMG
Description:	With Omniphasa being surrounded by only water, the need to be waterborne arose almost from the beginning. The 'Aisha' Class Patrol Boat makes securing the coasts of Omniphasa a much easier task.

Nice work, assuming that you drew it all by yourself.

[The Corparation]

'Aisha' Class Patrol Boat	(Image)
Manufacturer:	Vahrahan Yards ( Government owned )
Unit Cost:	Approximately 171.000 USD
Number Active:	8
Length:	19 meters
Main Armament:	12.5 mm HMG
Description:	With Omniphasa being surrounded by only water, the need to be waterborne arose almost from the beginning. The 'Aisha' Class Patrol Boat makes securing the coasts of Omniphasa a much easier task.

Nice work, assuming that you drew it all by yourself.

They didn't draw it all themselves. I can spot several shipbucket parts..... but no shipbucket credits. We literally just had this conversation.

[Vorkova]

How is this for a start?

Class: Aircraft carrier
Builders: Soviet State Armaments
Operators: Soviet Naval Forces
Commissioned: 1982 (SNS Revolution)
Planned: 14
Completed: 14
Weight: 90,000 t
Length: 328.7 m
Beam: 82.6 m
Draft: 11.4 m
Crew: 4,800 (Total)
Armament: (See below)
48x Anti-aircraft missiles
8x Missile defence systems
Fighter complement: 60
Helicopter complement: 20
Propulsion: 4x Nuclear reactors
Range: Unlimited
Speed: 55.3 km/h

Class: Assault ship
Builders: Soviet State Armaments
Operators: Soviet Naval Forces
Commissioned: 1984 (SNS Proletariat)
Planned: 10
Completed: 10
Weight: 48,000 t
Length: 275.2 m
Beam: 54.4 m
Draft: 8.5 m
Crew: 1,200 (Total)
Armament: (See below)
32x Anti-aircraft missiles
4x Missile defence systems
Troop complement: 2,000
Helicopter complement: 30
Propulsion: 2x Gas turbines
Range: 18,000 kilometres
Speed: 56.4 km/h

Class: Destroyer
Builders: Soviet State Armaments
Operators: Soviet Naval Forces
Commissioned: 1986 (SNS Vanguard)
Planned: 92
Completed: 92
Weight: 15,000 t
Length: 167.3 m
Beam: 21.5 m
Draft: 9.1 m
Crew: 400 (Total)
Armament: (See below)
1x 130mm Naval cannon
32x Anti-ship missiles
80x Anti-aircraft missiles
4x 540mm Torpedo tubes
6x Missile defence systems
Helicopter complement: 3
Propulsion: 3x Gas turbines
Range: 9,300 kilometres
Speed: 53.8 km/h

Class: Frigate
Builders: Soviet State Armaments
Operators: Soviet Naval Forces
Commissioned: 1984 (SNS Liberator)
Planned: 44
Completed: 44
Weight: 7,000 t
Length: 145.7 m
Beam: 17.5 m
Draft: 7.6 m
Crew: 210 (Total)
Armament: (See below)
1x 130mm Naval cannon
16x Anti-ship missiles
64x Anti-aircraft missiles
4x 540mm torpedo tubes
2x Missile defence systems
Helicopter complement: 2
Propulsion: 2x GT-8 Gas turbines
Range: 8,100 kilometres
Speed: 54.5 km/h

Class: Corvette
Builders: Soviet State Armaments
Operators: Soviet Naval Forces
Commissioned: 1992 (SNS Guardian)
Planned: 30
Completed: 30
Weight: 2,400 t
Length: 124.3 m
Beam: 17.8 m
Draft: 4.1 m
Crew: 80 (Total)
Armament: (See below)
1x 130mm Naval cannon
8x Anti-ship missiles
32x Anti-aircraft missiles
2x 330mm torpedo tubes
1x Missile defence system
Helicopter complement: 2
Propulsion: 2x Gas turbines
Range: 6,300 kilometres
Speed: 78.9 km/h

[Urran]

Factbook of a submarine nerd

[Grays Harbor]

A little better. And keep in mind, I am not trying to discourage or tear down, just point out why you may want to reconsider some of your locations.

ok....
You have the Goalkeeper going right down into the middle of the bridge. 8' belowdecks minimum, so it will chew into necessary bridge space needed. If you want CIWS systems up there, I'd recommend the Phalanx instead as it is a self-contained "bolt on" system with Zero belowdecks footprint.
The midships Brahmos launchers are still, in my opinion, problematic.
I'm not seeing any sort of funnel/exhaust system.
VLS Forward launcher may be a bit too far forward as that is where the hull starts narrowing down.

You may also want to reconsider saving in .jpg and consider .png instead, as .jpg tends to fuzz things up significantly.

image

EDIT: Bear in mind, no shipdesigner ever has been able to fit all the bells-n-whistles he may have wanted on his hull. Hell, there were probably Greek and Roman shibbuilders bemoaning the fact they couldn't fit a few extra banks of oars and a few trebuchets on their triremes, or Nelsonian builders wanting to put 32 pounders on the upper deck of 1st Rates. Most of the time, it isn't how much you can put on there, it is where you put it on there, taking into account space, firing arcs, and potential interference with other systems. As far as drawing ships goes, sometimes it takes a bit of time to get your finished product. Most of my own ships I've done have gone through multiple iterations, sometimes up to 20 redesigns, before getting something that works for the final design. And I am in no way the most knowledgeable or accomplished drawer on shipbucket.

Thanks for all the feedback. I made a few revisions on the Skyholder Class...

That would be here.

Again, improved over the previous version.

I still have to question the wisdom of mounting VLS tubes on top of the hanger. That is a lot of top weight there, plus the launches will significantly interfere with your aft radar station, possibly even damaging it enough to render it inoperable. The VLS tubes for your midships for the NSM anti-ship missile also seem problematic. I would remove all of those. Your funnels are also problematic as they too will interfere with the aft radar.

A solution for that would be to remove the forward gun position, and move the 64-cell Mk.41 VLS to that position. A 64-cell system would have ample cells for your Tomahawks and SAM's, removing the need for the hanger mounted launchers. For the NSM, instead of the VLS, I would place a 4-cell box launcher. That would remove the below decks interference with the propulsion systems. You could then put your gun turret forward of the fore VLS, as its below deck signature is less than the VLS and may fit much better better where the hull narrows down. For the funnels, paired funnels abeam and angled outwards could be a solution for the potential interference.

http://imageshack.com/a/img89/8968/6vx0.jpg

[New Korongo]

Grays Harbor, since you seem to be an expert on crediting Shipbucket images, how should components which are found on the parts sheets like the heavy machine gun on Omniphasa’s patrol boat be properly credited?

[Grays Harbor]

Grays Harbor, since you seem to be an expert on crediting Shipbucket images, how should components which are found on the parts sheets like the heavy machine gun on Omniphasa’s patrol boat be properly credited?

I don't know about "expert", but i am a member of shipbucket. Any drawings you see with the name "Zephyr" in the credits, thats me.
Use of things from parts sheets do not need crediting. The parts sheets are essentially compilations of things all of us have done over time, and are there for anybody to use. Its all in how you use them that makes a design a good ship or a joke.
It is only when you use an entire ship, or kitbash a couple together (the way so many have done with the Kirov drawings) that crediting is essential because in that case somebody else has already done the majority of the work. Think of it as claiming credit for rebuilding a '64 mustang when all you did was put new tires on it.

And a note on crediting, if you take a drawing from somebody, and make some changes to it, it is legitimate to put your name after theirs to indicate you have done some work on it.

[Omniphasa]

Grays Harbor, since you seem to be an expert on crediting Shipbucket images, how should components which are found on the parts sheets like the heavy machine gun on Omniphasa’s patrol boat be properly credited?

I don't know about "expert", but i am a member of shipbucket. Any drawings you see with the name "Zephyr" in the credits, thats me.
Use of things from parts sheets do not need crediting. The parts sheets are essentially compilations of things all of us have done over time, and are there for anybody to use. Its all in how you use them that makes a design a good ship or a joke.
It is only when you use an entire ship, or kitbash a couple together (the way so many have done with the Kirov drawings) that crediting is essential because in that case somebody else has already done the majority of the work. Think of it as claiming credit for rebuilding a '64 mustang when all you did was put new tires on it.

And a note on crediting, if you take a drawing from somebody, and make some changes to it, it is legitimate to put your name after theirs to indicate you have done some work on it.

The only parts that are pretty much Shipbucket, is the radar, anchor and HMG, which do not require crediting as they're on part sheets. The rest is all mine.

[Neo Philippine Empire]

By the presence of funnels indicates that this ship is fossil fuel powered.

Feeling like burning Kuwait's worth of oil in just one cruise?

This btw is just one of the many, MANY, MANY questionable things with this design.

It could be something like the Kirov, using a combined systedm.

But yeah this ship is horrific combination of pre-dreadnought, battleship, and missile era. There is a reason the 'all big gun' battleship became a thing, so there's no need to have both a 40 and 80 cm battery. Just have more of one or the other. All your AA batteries will be mostly useless. What are you going to be using those guns for? You can't use them against aircraft, and they won't be effective against inbound missiles. You don't have much in the way of CIWS. I would say scrap all the small guns, most of the big guns, all the arm launchers, and replace them with VLS silos with more AShMs and SAMs.

I will do that

[Oaledonia]

I know that If I modify something, I add my names to the credits. How do I add my name to the credits?

[Grays Harbor]

I know that If I modify something, I add my names to the credits. How do I add my name to the credits?

use of your keyboard is essential


ok, smartass answer out of the way:

original credits of the person who drew the thing: (smedly)

modified credits to include the person who kitbashed it: (smedly, sparky)

clarified?

[Pharthan]

-snip-

I always get a little bit of an eye-twinge whenever I see someone post "unlimited" for a carrier. While, true, it means you can hit any spot on the world, people often mistake it for "we can keep this sucker out for years!" Which isn't at all true, not if you want it to be combat capable - though if you were merely trying to, I dunno, survive the zombie apocalypse, that'd be doable (You can do miraculous things to keep a nuclear reactor operating, but not to keep the entire ship fighting-fit using said reactor, as you're likely to run into snags).

I'd check your crew lists again, some of them seem a bit off. Compare them to real life ones, though they don't seem too bad.
I'm not sure how big your missiles are, some of the numbers seem a bit high for aircraft carriers/escort carriers and the like.

Factbook of a submarine nerd

All I really looked at was your aircraft section, but here's the problems I found:

If you're putting 85 fighters on a Ford, you've got room for little else. Like, not even a single E-2.

Cut your F-35B, AH-1Zs, Harriers, et cetera, unless you're specifically gearing a carrier for ground-support operations, which is silly if you can just use an Amphibious Assault Ship instead. Your F-35Cs can do everything the F-35B and Harrier can do and have more range, meaning they won't nearly have as much need to be VTOL (i.e. don't need field resupply, they can just go back to the carrier). If you're going to use MH-53s... meh, okay, I can see it, but the Seahawk is better suited for carrier ops. It's smaller, yet does enough heavy lifting.
Aircraft you want:
F-35C, or another multirole fighter. (Whatever space is left)
E-2, or another AWACS. (2-4)
Electronic Warfare Aircraft, (usually about 4-12)
Helicopters (4-12)
C-2, or other Carrier Onboard Delivery aircraft (2-4)

If you start adding attack helicopters and the like, you start making yourself vulnerable to enemy fleets because you have to start taking away fighters from your own forces.

[Oaledonia]

I know that If I modify something, I add my names to the credits. How do I add my name to the credits?

use of your keyboard is essential


ok, smartass answer out of the way:

original credits of the person who drew the thing: (smedly)

modified credits to include the person who kitbashed it: (smedly, sparky)

clarified?

Is there a standard typing font?

[Vorkova]

-snip-

I always get a little bit of an eye-twinge whenever I see someone post "unlimited" for a carrier. While, true, it means you can hit any spot on the world, people often mistake it for "we can keep this sucker out for years!" Which isn't at all true, not if you want it to be combat capable - though if you were merely trying to, I dunno, survive the zombie apocalypse, that'd be doable (You can do miraculous things to keep a nuclear reactor operating, but not to keep the entire ship fighting-fit using said reactor, as you're likely to run into snags).

I'd check your crew lists again, some of them seem a bit off. Compare them to real life ones, though they don't seem too bad.
I'm not sure how big your missiles are, some of the numbers seem a bit high for aircraft carriers/escort carriers and the like.

I recognise that although I've put down unlimited, the range of my nuclear ships is still limited by how many supplies they can carry. I based my crew lists off of ships of the equivalent class in the US Navy, with a bit of an increase for the addition of extra weapons. In regards to the size of my missiles, they are the same size as the US Navy's equivalent. Considering the Granit is two to three times the size of a Tomahawk, and the Kuznetsov (Which is smaller than my carrier) can carry twelve of them, I thought thirty two would be a reasonable number.

[Pharthan]

I recognise that although I've put down unlimited, the range of my nuclear ships is still limited by how many supplies they can carry. I based my crew lists off of ships of the equivalent class in the US Navy, with a bit of an increase for the addition of extra weapons. In regards to the size of my missiles, they are the same size as the US Navy's equivalent. Considering the Granit is two to three times the size of a Tomahawk, and the Kuznetsov (Which is smaller than my carrier) can carry twelve of them, I thought thirty two would be a reasonable number.

Not even just supplies. You can keep the supplies coming in pretty effectively.
Stuff breaks, things need to get repaired, and the crew needs to get off the boat and have some fun.

[The Soodean Imperium]

use of your keyboard is essential


ok, smartass answer out of the way:

original credits of the person who drew the thing: (smedly)

modified credits to include the person who kitbashed it: (smedly, sparky)

clarified?

Is there a standard typing font?

IIRC, there is no standard font, but when you cite another artist you have to put their name in its original size and font.

[The Akasha Colony]

I recognise that although I've put down unlimited, the range of my nuclear ships is still limited by how many supplies they can carry. I based my crew lists off of ships of the equivalent class in the US Navy, with a bit of an increase for the addition of extra weapons. In regards to the size of my missiles, they are the same size as the US Navy's equivalent. Considering the Granit is two to three times the size of a Tomahawk, and the Kuznetsov (Which is smaller than my carrier) can carry twelve of them, I thought thirty two would be a reasonable number.

Putting heavy missiles on a supercarrier is a rather pointless idea. A supercarrier is designed to be a carrier first and foremost, unlike the older Kievs which were designed to be surface combatants as well. Deck space is always at a premium for carriers, since this is the space that the aircraft must be operated from. Even if you could fit more missiles on the deck, this would be at the expense of space for actual carrier operations, meaning that you would be impeding your theoretical maximum efficiency with aircraft by having them. Given that the entire role of a carrier is to operate aircraft, impeding its ability to do so is not an ideal trade off.

Also, these weapons would be rather useless. While a smaller, cheaper aircraft cruiser might be expected to operate alone, or perhaps with a very small escort flotilla and would be limited to shorter-ranged aircraft, a supercarrier should have a decent escort fleet capable of carrying all of these weapons on their own. It would also presumably be operating more capable aircraft with a longer range, in all likelihood outranging even these heavy missiles. If the enemy has approached close enough for your carrier to use these weapons, firstly it's in trouble (since that implies the enemy can probably fire back), and the escort screen should have more than enough firepower to retaliate anyway.

[Vorkova]

I recognise that although I've put down unlimited, the range of my nuclear ships is still limited by how many supplies they can carry. I based my crew lists off of ships of the equivalent class in the US Navy, with a bit of an increase for the addition of extra weapons. In regards to the size of my missiles, they are the same size as the US Navy's equivalent. Considering the Granit is two to three times the size of a Tomahawk, and the Kuznetsov (Which is smaller than my carrier) can carry twelve of them, I thought thirty two would be a reasonable number.

Putting heavy missiles on a supercarrier is a rather pointless idea. A supercarrier is designed to be a carrier first and foremost, unlike the older Kievs which were designed to be surface combatants as well. Deck space is always at a premium for carriers, since this is the space that the aircraft must be operated from. Even if you could fit more missiles on the deck, this would be at the expense of space for actual carrier operations, meaning that you would be impeding your theoretical maximum efficiency with aircraft by having them. Given that the entire role of a carrier is to operate aircraft, impeding its ability to do so is not an ideal trade off.

Also, these weapons would be rather useless. While a smaller, cheaper aircraft cruiser might be expected to operate alone, or perhaps with a very small escort flotilla and would be limited to shorter-ranged aircraft, a supercarrier should have a decent escort fleet capable of carrying all of these weapons on their own. It would also presumably be operating more capable aircraft with a longer range, in all likelihood outranging even these heavy missiles. If the enemy has approached close enough for your carrier to use these weapons, firstly it's in trouble (since that implies the enemy can probably fire back), and the escort screen should have more than enough firepower to retaliate anyway.

You've made some excellent points here.

I may remove the anti-ship missiles and increase the amount of aircraft on both carriers.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Speaking of carrier deck space, I've seen a lot of sources claiming that the Nimitz-class can carry somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 aircraft (which seems to have been adopted as the standard capacity of :ns: aircraft carriers). Yet whenever I find a picture of one, its deck alone looks like it holds no more than 25, and I don't imagine the interior can hold that much more. Does anyone know how they manage a capacity like that?

i.e., a lot of photos of the Nimitz (like this) show aircraft parked on the forward flight deck, which would restrict other planes to the diagonal runway for takeoffs - which seems to imply that the 100-aircraft figure refers to the theoretical maximum load, not the load taken on an average mission. Is this correct, or is there something else I'm missing?

[Oaledonia]

Speaking of carrier deck space, I've seen a lot of sources claiming that the Nimitz-class can carry somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 aircraft (which seems to have been adopted as the standard capacity of :ns: aircraft carriers). Yet whenever I find a picture of one, its deck alone looks like it holds no more than 25, and I don't imagine the interior can hold that much more. Does anyone know how they manage a capacity like that?

i.e., a lot of photos of the Nimitz (like this) show aircraft parked on the forward flight deck, which would restrict other planes to the diagonal runway for takeoffs - which seems to imply that the 100-aircraft figure refers to the theoretical maximum load, not the load taken on an average mission. Is this correct, or is there something else I'm missing?

I think that photo is specificity for show.

[Pharthan]

Speaking of carrier deck space, I've seen a lot of sources claiming that the Nimitz-class can carry somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 aircraft (which seems to have been adopted as the standard capacity of :ns: aircraft carriers). Yet whenever I find a picture of one, its deck alone looks like it holds no more than 25, and I don't imagine the interior can hold that much more. Does anyone know how they manage a capacity like that?

i.e., a lot of photos of the Nimitz (like this) show aircraft parked on the forward flight deck, which would restrict other planes to the diagonal runway for takeoffs - which seems to imply that the 100-aircraft figure refers to the theoretical maximum load, not the load taken on an average mission. Is this correct, or is there something else I'm missing?

It's based on types of aircraft and missions involved, but standard number is about 80-88. Deck space accounts for a good number, as does the Hangar Bay, which is obviously smaller.

[The Akasha Colony]

Speaking of carrier deck space, I've seen a lot of sources claiming that the Nimitz-class can carry somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 aircraft (which seems to have been adopted as the standard capacity of :ns: aircraft carriers). Yet whenever I find a picture of one, its deck alone looks like it holds no more than 25, and I don't imagine the interior can hold that much more. Does anyone know how they manage a capacity like that?

i.e., a lot of photos of the Nimitz (like this) show aircraft parked on the forward flight deck, which would restrict other planes to the diagonal runway for takeoffs - which seems to imply that the 100-aircraft figure refers to the theoretical maximum load, not the load taken on an average mission. Is this correct, or is there something else I'm missing?

The normal current air wing structure means that carriers nowadays carry less than 70 aircraft. Whatever your opinions on its reliability as a source, Wikipedia cites only 85-90 as the maximum capacity, not 100.

NS carriers commonly carry more, but there are diminishing returns to a larger complement since the more important gauge of a carrier's capability is less total capacity and more sortie rate, which governs a carrier's ability to actually launch those aircraft.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Speaking of carrier deck space, I've seen a lot of sources claiming that the Nimitz-class can carry somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 aircraft (which seems to have been adopted as the standard capacity of :ns: aircraft carriers). Yet whenever I find a picture of one, its deck alone looks like it holds no more than 25, and I don't imagine the interior can hold that much more. Does anyone know how they manage a capacity like that?

i.e., a lot of photos of the Nimitz (like this) show aircraft parked on the forward flight deck, which would restrict other planes to the diagonal runway for takeoffs - which seems to imply that the 100-aircraft figure refers to the theoretical maximum load, not the load taken on an average mission. Is this correct, or is there something else I'm missing?

The normal current air wing structure means that carriers nowadays carry less than 70 aircraft. Whatever your opinions on its reliability as a source, Wikipedia cites only 85-90 as the maximum capacity, not 100.

NS carriers commonly carry more, but there are diminishing returns to a larger complement since the more important gauge of a carrier's capability is less total capacity and more sortie rate, which governs a carrier's ability to actually launch those aircraft.

Thanks for the help. After hunting down a few more images and diagrams, I have a better idea of how they managed to pack that many aircraft in (especially considering that a helicopter with blades folded is much more compact than a jet).

I understand the point about sortie rate vs. maximum capacity, which is more or less why I asked. I just remember seeing someone carry 800 F-22s into a war aboard eight carriers several months back, and was wondering if such a load was even remotely practical. Though if you're putting F-22s on a carrier and sending 800 of them into one small war, then you have a lot of other problems realism-wise.

[Pharthan]

Thanks for the help. After hunting down a few more images and diagrams, I have a better idea of how they managed to pack that many aircraft in (especially considering that a helicopter with blades folded is much more compact than a jet).

I understand the point about sortie rate vs. maximum capacity, which is more or less why I asked. I just remember seeing someone carry 800 F-22s into a war aboard eight carriers several months back, and was wondering if such a load was even remotely practical. Though if you're putting F-22s on a carrier and sending 800 of them into one small war, then you have a lot of other problems realism-wise.

Nevermind the fact that if they weren't specifically modified, i.e. F-22Ns, the landing gear would likely snap (or other critical structural points would) or they'd require so much maintenance you'd have virtually no sorties....

[New Korongo]

I don't know about "expert", but i am a member of shipbucket. Any drawings you see with the name "Zephyr" in the credits, thats me.
Use of things from parts sheets do not need crediting. The parts sheets are essentially compilations of things all of us have done over time, and are there for anybody to use. Its all in how you use them that makes a design a good ship or a joke.
It is only when you use an entire ship, or kitbash a couple together (the way so many have done with the Kirov drawings) that crediting is essential because in that case somebody else has already done the majority of the work. Think of it as claiming credit for rebuilding a '64 mustang when all you did was put new tires on it.

And a note on crediting, if you take a drawing from somebody, and make some changes to it, it is legitimate to put your name after theirs to indicate you have done some work on it.

Thank you for clarifying that for me.