Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Mostrov]

Poor Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Pervozvanny-class_battleship

God couldn't save the Tsar even if he tried.

[Yukonastan]

[em]

Decided to make some escort vessels. Comments on it?

Class overview
Builders: Krupper-Thyssen Shipyards
Operators: Yukonastan Defense Force Navy, Yukonastan Expeditionary Force Navy
Built: 1982 – 2001
In service: From 1985
Planned: 40
Completed: 36
Cancelled: 4
Active: 32 (1 undergoing modernization)
Laid up: 1
Retired: 2

General characteristics
Type: Guided missile / torpedo destroyer
Displacement: 12 500 tons standard, 16 500 tons (full load)
Length: 140 m
Beam: 20 m
Draft: 5.25 m
Propulsion: 2-shaft combined nuclear and gas turbine propulsion, 1x MN-2 marine nuclear reactors with 2x gas turbine engines
80,000 shp (57,000 kW)
Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h)
Range: 1,200 nautical miles (2,000 km) at 32 knots (59 km/h) (combined propulsion),
unlimited at 20 knots (37 km/h) on nuclear power
Complement: 325

Sensors and processing systems:
Radars:

• 1x 4 MW combat system radar, bridge structure.
• 1x 3D tracking radar, foremast.
• 1x navigation radar, foremast.

Sonar:

• 1x towed array sonar, 2km line, stern.
• 1x bow sonar

Electronic warfare and decoys:

• 2x 8rd decoy launchers,96 reloads carried.
• 1x 4MW radar jammer/spoofer, rear mast.

Armament:
Missiles:

• 64x angled VLS cells (500x500 mm, 7m long), two large and two small batteries. No reloads carried.
• 8x mid-range SAM launchers (250x250 mm, 5 m long), two batteries. 32 reloads carried.
• 2x 32-cell mid-range point defense missile launchers, 192 reloads carried.

Guns:

• 1x quick-fire 155 mm high velocity howitzer, 500 rounds carried.
• 2x Close-In Weapons Systems, 24 mm rotary cannon, 12 000 rounds carried.
• 8x 14.5 mm machine guns, 120 000 rounds carried.

Torpedoes and others:

• 2x 500 mm AS(u)W torpedo launchers, 24 reloads carried.
• 4x 425 mm AS(u)W rocket launchers, 36 reloads carried.

Armour: 100 mm plating around reactor compartment, 50mm plating around CIC, light splinter protection
Aircraft carried: 2 helicopters, space for 1 more on deck.
Aviation facilities: Hangar on deck

[/em]

[Vancon]

[em]

Decided to make some escort vessels. Comments on it?

Class overview
Builders: Krupper-Thyssen Shipyards
Operators: Yukonastan Defense Force Navy, Yukonastan Expeditionary Force Navy
Built: 1982 – 2001
In service: From 1985
Planned: 40
Completed: 36
Cancelled: 4
Active: 32 (1 undergoing modernization)
Laid up: 1
Retired: 2

General characteristics
Type: Guided missile / torpedo destroyer
Displacement: 12 500 tons standard, 16 500 tons (full load)
Length: 140 m
Beam: 20 m
Draft: 5.25 m
Propulsion: 2-shaft combined nuclear and gas turbine propulsion, 1x MN-2 marine nuclear reactors with 2x gas turbine engines
80,000 shp (57,000 kW)
Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h)
Range: 1,200 nautical miles (2,000 km) at 32 knots (59 km/h) (combined propulsion),
unlimited at 20 knots (37 km/h) on nuclear power
Complement: 325

Sensors and processing systems:
Radars:

• 1x 4 MW combat system radar, bridge structure.
• 1x 3D tracking radar, foremast.
• 1x navigation radar, foremast.

Sonar:

• 1x towed array sonar, 2km line, stern.
• 1x bow sonar

Electronic warfare and decoys:

• 2x 8rd decoy launchers,96 reloads carried.
• 1x 4MW radar jammer/spoofer, rear mast.

Armament:
Missiles:

• 64x angled VLS cells (500x500 mm, 7m long), two large and two small batteries. No reloads carried.
• 8x mid-range SAM launchers (250x250 mm, 5 m long), two batteries. 32 reloads carried.
• 2x 32-cell mid-range point defense missile launchers, 192 reloads carried.

Guns:

• 1x quick-fire 155 mm high velocity howitzer, 500 rounds carried.
• 2x Close-In Weapons Systems, 24 mm rotary cannon, 12 000 rounds carried.
• 8x 14.5 mm machine guns, 120 000 rounds carried.

Torpedoes and others:

• 2x 500 mm AS(u)W torpedo launchers, 24 reloads carried.
• 4x 425 mm AS(u)W rocket launchers, 36 reloads carried.

Armour: 100 mm plating around reactor compartment, 50mm plating around CIC, light splinter protection
Aircraft carried: 2 helicopters, space for 1 more on deck.
Aviation facilities: Hangar on deck

[/em]

The best rule of thumb that I've come across in NS is that if you're not replied too, that means your design was so shit it's not worth everyone else's time, or that it had no glaring flaw's whatsoever and the rest of NS can't be mean to you.

I feel like this design falls into the second category.

[Yukonastan]

[em][/em]

The best rule of thumb that I've come across in NS is that if you're not replied too, that means your design was so shit it's not worth everyone else's time, or that it had no glaring flaw's whatsoever and the rest of NS can't be mean to you.

I feel like this design falls into the second category.

Thanks. But there's things wrong with it. Gotta be. I just SWAG'd the numbers. Might just be that this thread is inactive as I don't know what.

[The Akasha Colony]

[em]

Decided to make some escort vessels. Comments on it?

Class overview
Builders: Krupper-Thyssen Shipyards
Operators: Yukonastan Defense Force Navy, Yukonastan Expeditionary Force Navy
Built: 1982 – 2001
In service: From 1985
Planned: 40
Completed: 36
Cancelled: 4
Active: 32 (1 undergoing modernization)
Laid up: 1
Retired: 2

General characteristics
Type: Guided missile / torpedo destroyer
Displacement: 12 500 tons standard, 16 500 tons (full load)
Length: 140 m
Beam: 20 m
Draft: 5.25 m
Propulsion: 2-shaft combined nuclear and gas turbine propulsion, 1x MN-2 marine nuclear reactors with 2x gas turbine engines
80,000 shp (57,000 kW)
Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h)
Range: 1,200 nautical miles (2,000 km) at 32 knots (59 km/h) (combined propulsion),
unlimited at 20 knots (37 km/h) on nuclear power
Complement: 325

Sensors and processing systems:
Radars:

• 1x 4 MW combat system radar, bridge structure.
• 1x 3D tracking radar, foremast.
• 1x navigation radar, foremast.

Sonar:

• 1x towed array sonar, 2km line, stern.
• 1x bow sonar

Electronic warfare and decoys:

• 2x 8rd decoy launchers,96 reloads carried.
• 1x 4MW radar jammer/spoofer, rear mast.

Armament:
Missiles:

• 64x angled VLS cells (500x500 mm, 7m long), two large and two small batteries. No reloads carried.
• 8x mid-range SAM launchers (250x250 mm, 5 m long), two batteries. 32 reloads carried.
• 2x 32-cell mid-range point defense missile launchers, 192 reloads carried.

Guns:

• 1x quick-fire 155 mm high velocity howitzer, 500 rounds carried.
• 2x Close-In Weapons Systems, 24 mm rotary cannon, 12 000 rounds carried.
• 8x 14.5 mm machine guns, 120 000 rounds carried.

Torpedoes and others:

• 2x 500 mm AS(u)W torpedo launchers, 24 reloads carried.
• 4x 425 mm AS(u)W rocket launchers, 36 reloads carried.

Armour: 100 mm plating around reactor compartment, 50mm plating around CIC, light splinter protection
Aircraft carried: 2 helicopters, space for 1 more on deck.
Aviation facilities: Hangar on deck

[/em]

Zumwalt is larger and carries fewer rounds per 155 mm gun, but this isn't really a problem. The crew is probably a bit light for a nuclear warship though.

[Yukonastan]

[em][/em]

Zumwalt is larger and carries fewer rounds per 155 mm gun, but this isn't really a problem. The crew is probably a bit light for a nuclear warship though.

Eh, that's the Zumwalt's decision to make. Personally, I like guns. They're useful for shore bombardment and they look impressive, y'know.

So what'd be a better compliment for something this size? 400-ish?

[The Soodean Imperium]

Decided to make some escort vessels. Comments on it?

Class overview
Builders: Krupper-Thyssen Shipyards
Operators: Yukonastan Defense Force Navy, Yukonastan Expeditionary Force Navy
Built: 1982 – 2001
In service: From 1985
Planned: 40
Completed: 36
Cancelled: 4
Active: 32 (1 undergoing modernization)
Laid up: 1
Retired: 2

General characteristics
Type: Guided missile / torpedo destroyer
Displacement: 12 500 tons standard, 16 500 tons (full load)
Length: 140 m
Beam: 20 m
Draft: 5.25 m
Propulsion: 2-shaft combined nuclear and gas turbine propulsion, 1x MN-2 marine nuclear reactors with 2x gas turbine engines
80,000 shp (57,000 kW)
Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h)
Range: 1,200 nautical miles (2,000 km) at 32 knots (59 km/h) (combined propulsion),
unlimited at 20 knots (37 km/h) on nuclear power
Complement: 325

Sensors and processing systems:
Radars:

• 1x 4 MW combat system radar, bridge structure.
• 1x 3D tracking radar, foremast.
• 1x navigation radar, foremast.

Sonar:

• 1x towed array sonar, 2km line, stern.
• 1x bow sonar

Electronic warfare and decoys:

• 2x 8rd decoy launchers,96 reloads carried.
• 1x 4MW radar jammer/spoofer, rear mast.

Armament:
Missiles:

• 64x angled VLS cells (500x500 mm, 7m long), two large and two small batteries. No reloads carried.
• 8x mid-range SAM launchers (250x250 mm, 5 m long), two batteries. 32 reloads carried.
• 2x 32-cell mid-range point defense missile launchers, 192 reloads carried.

Guns:

• 1x quick-fire 155 mm high velocity howitzer, 500 rounds carried.
• 2x Close-In Weapons Systems, 24 mm rotary cannon, 12 000 rounds carried.
• 8x 14.5 mm machine guns, 120 000 rounds carried.

Torpedoes and others:

• 2x 500 mm AS(u)W torpedo launchers, 24 reloads carried.
• 4x 425 mm AS(u)W rocket launchers, 36 reloads carried.

Armour: 100 mm plating around reactor compartment, 50mm plating around CIC, light splinter protection
Aircraft carried: 2 helicopters, space for 1 more on deck.
Aviation facilities: Hangar on deck

The missile armament also seems unusually heavy - not the VLS cells, which are okay, but I don't see where you're fitting eight mid-range SAM launchers with 32 reloads, to speak nothing of the two 32-cell point-defense missile launchers and 192 reloads or the dozens of torpedoes, on a 140-meter-long vessel (while still leaving room for crew, stores, and electronics). Is there a reason why you can't quadpack lighter SAMs into the VLS cells?

Also: I can understand how this might sound a bit nitpicky, but when you feed those dimensions into the Ship Displacement Formula, you end up with a Block Coefficient of 0.85, which is a level of bulkiness you'd expect from an Oil Tanker - and that's when treating all numbers as waterline dimensions. If 140m is length overall, it's possible you would have a Block Coefficient of greater than 1, which I don't believe is possible (Block Coefficient of 1 means the submerged mass is a perfect rectangular prism). For a modern frigate, you're looking at a block coefficient somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.5, maybe 0.6 for a wide AEGIS destroyer.

[The Akasha Colony]

Zumwalt is larger and carries fewer rounds per 155 mm gun, but this isn't really a problem. The crew is probably a bit light for a nuclear warship though.

Eh, that's the Zumwalt's decision to make. Personally, I like guns. They're useful for shore bombardment and they look impressive, y'know.

So what'd be a better compliment for something this size? 400-ish?

Looking impressive has little to do with ammunition storage. That aside, Zumwalt has two guns, so you can hardly say the USN cares any less.

I would say perhaps closer to 450-500. Virginia had nearly 580.

[United Earthlings]

Thanks. But there's things wrong with it. Gotta be. I just SWAG'd the numbers. Might just be that this thread is inactive as I don't know what.

1. The first operational Mark 41 VLS didn't enter service until 1984, stands to reason your nation's version of a VLS would enter service within a similar time frame.
2. The Length you specify doesn't chive given the displacement and armament you've outlined, by comparison a Virginia Class Destroyer Leader/Cruiser was 179 meters with a full load displacement of 11,666 tons.
3. Sorry I don't know how to put this nicely, but utilizing both gas turbines and nuclear power is just stupid. Pick one, hint using gas turbines will reduced the per unit cost of each vessel between within 100 to 200 million. However, nuclear was popular not just for unlimited range, but also that it allowed the vessels to keep pace with the nuclear carriers.
4. Your complement is short by at least two hundred {200} people. Nuclear vessels required additional personnel. Again See Virginia Comparison.
5. 6in gun seems odd to me considering most RL navies at this time are 5, various 4in or 3in. US Navy did design a rapid fire 8in though, something to consider.
6. Good luck with your design...

[The Province of Tamriel]

A raft with a stick and a white T-shirt on it with a soldier armed with a slingshot and a Red Ryder BB gun... Not to brag or anything. For communication, he relies on a tin cup and a really, really long string.

[Yukonastan]

Thanks. But there's things wrong with it. Gotta be. I just SWAG'd the numbers. Might just be that this thread is inactive as I don't know what.

1. The first operational Mark 41 VLS didn't enter service until 1984, stands to reason your nation's version of a VLS would enter service within a similar time frame.
2. The Length you specify doesn't chive given the displacement and armament you've outlined, by comparison a Virginia Class Destroyer Leader/Cruiser was 179 meters with a full load displacement of 11,666 tons.
3. Sorry I don't know how to put this nicely, but utilizing both gas turbines and nuclear power is just stupid. Pick one, hint using gas turbines will reduced the per unit cost of each vessel between within 100 to 200 million. However, nuclear was popular not just for unlimited range, but also that it allowed the vessels to keep pace with the nuclear carriers.
4. Your complement is short by at least two hundred {200} people. Nuclear vessels required additional personnel. Again See Virginia Comparison.
5. 6in gun seems odd to me considering most RL navies at this time are 5, various 4in or 3in. US Navy did design a rapid fire 8in though, something to consider.
6. Good luck with your design...

A) Successfully SWAGged it!

B) Will review.

C) But my cruisers (my fleet's largest ships as I have no carriers yet) also use CONAG. Gas is backup and burst use only, 95% of the time the ship burns HEU. Besides, with the size of my fleet vs my defense budget, I can afford (and need to afford) such splurgery. I can't field many ships, so the ones I have need to be well-armed and well-powered.

D) Noted. Complement of 525 people now on board.

E) The gun and ammo are compatible with those of 155 SPGs. Yes, that's a rapid-fire bag charged cannon.

F) Thank you, I'll need it.

Decided to make some escort vessels. Comments on it?

Class overview
Builders: Krupper-Thyssen Shipyards
Operators: Yukonastan Defense Force Navy, Yukonastan Expeditionary Force Navy
Built: 1982 – 2001
In service: From 1985
Planned: 40
Completed: 36
Cancelled: 4
Active: 32 (1 undergoing modernization)
Laid up: 1
Retired: 2

General characteristics
Type: Guided missile / torpedo destroyer
Displacement: 12 500 tons standard, 16 500 tons (full load)
Length: 140 m
Beam: 20 m
Draft: 5.25 m
Propulsion: 2-shaft combined nuclear and gas turbine propulsion, 1x MN-2 marine nuclear reactors with 2x gas turbine engines
80,000 shp (57,000 kW)
Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h)
Range: 1,200 nautical miles (2,000 km) at 32 knots (59 km/h) (combined propulsion),
unlimited at 20 knots (37 km/h) on nuclear power
Complement: 325

Sensors and processing systems:
Radars:

• 1x 4 MW combat system radar, bridge structure.
• 1x 3D tracking radar, foremast.
• 1x navigation radar, foremast.

Sonar:

• 1x towed array sonar, 2km line, stern.
• 1x bow sonar

Electronic warfare and decoys:

• 2x 8rd decoy launchers,96 reloads carried.
• 1x 4MW radar jammer/spoofer, rear mast.

Armament:
Missiles:

• 64x angled VLS cells (500x500 mm, 7m long), two large and two small batteries. No reloads carried.
• 8x mid-range SAM launchers (250x250 mm, 5 m long), two batteries. 32 reloads carried.
• 2x 32-cell mid-range point defense missile launchers, 192 reloads carried.

Guns:

• 1x quick-fire 155 mm high velocity howitzer, 500 rounds carried.
• 2x Close-In Weapons Systems, 24 mm rotary cannon, 12 000 rounds carried.
• 8x 14.5 mm machine guns, 120 000 rounds carried.

Torpedoes and others:

• 2x 500 mm AS(u)W torpedo launchers, 24 reloads carried.
• 4x 425 mm AS(u)W rocket launchers, 36 reloads carried.

Armour: 100 mm plating around reactor compartment, 50mm plating around CIC, light splinter protection
Aircraft carried: 2 helicopters, space for 1 more on deck.
Aviation facilities: Hangar on deck

The missile armament also seems unusually heavy - not the VLS cells, which are okay, but I don't see where you're fitting eight mid-range SAM launchers with 32 reloads, to speak nothing of the two 32-cell point-defense missile launchers and 192 reloads or the dozens of torpedoes, on a 140-meter-long vessel (while still leaving room for crew, stores, and electronics). Is there a reason why you can't quadpack lighter SAMs into the VLS cells?

Also: I can understand how this might sound a bit nitpicky, but when you feed those dimensions into the Ship Displacement Formula, you end up with a Block Coefficient of 0.85, which is a level of bulkiness you'd expect from an Oil Tanker - and that's when treating all numbers as waterline dimensions. If 140m is length overall, it's possible you would have a Block Coefficient of greater than 1, which I don't believe is possible (Block Coefficient of 1 means the submerged mass is a perfect rectangular prism). For a modern frigate, you're looking at a block coefficient somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.5, maybe 0.6 for a wide AEGIS destroyer.

The mid-range SAMs are like Iron Dome, if smaller launchers. Dropping it to two thrrets, each with four launch rails. The two point-defense missile launchers could indeed be half the size, with half the reserve. If not even a bit smaller. Two 12-cell RIM-116 RAM clone launchers with 96 reloads = moar reasonable amirite?

My displacement right now is 12500 baseline, I expect that 8250 baseline and 10500 full load are more reasonable, and give better block coefficients, despite being a tad high?

[Kassaran]

Quick question, Catamaran hull for archipelago patrol frigate/corvette... yes or no?

[Pharthan]

C) But my cruisers (my fleet's largest ships as I have no carriers yet) also use CONAG. Gas is backup and burst use only, 95% of the time the ship burns HEU. Besides, with the size of my fleet vs my defense budget, I can afford (and need to afford) such splurgery. I can't field many ships, so the ones I have need to be well-armed and well-powered.

When you're talking burst speed, it doesn't save you much. A larger reactor will net you a bit more top speed than a CONAG system. Once the reactor gets set up for operating at higher output, it gets it's own "burst" speed, anyway. For the distances we're dealing with, CONAG burst speed shouldn't be critical.

The one real advantage of CONAG: You can go from twiddling your thumbs and getting totally wasted on local booze in port and suddenly need to up-and-go and have the entire boat out in 30 minutes. Not possible with an all-nuclear plant. Those take a while to get ready.

If you want a backup, add a large battery. Requires almost no additional people other than the already on board electricians to maintain it.

D) Noted. Complement of 525 people now on board.

Reactors don't require that many more people. Virginia was also older than, by comparison, a Tic. Not nearly as much automation.
Modern reactors require a significantly smaller crew complement than the days of the Virginia-cruiser. Compare it to the newer Virginia sub, for instance.

So, yes, while you will need more people, we're talking about expanding the Engineering department by at most 100 people. Maybe, maybe 140. Not 200. At minimum 40, since you're likely using an Aircraft Carrier plant if it's the only thing powering a cruiser.

[Crookfur]

1. The first operational Mark 41 VLS didn't enter service until 1984, stands to reason your nation's version of a VLS would enter service within a similar time frame.
2. The Length you specify doesn't chive given the displacement and armament you've outlined, by comparison a Virginia Class Destroyer Leader/Cruiser was 179 meters with a full load displacement of 11,666 tons.
3. Sorry I don't know how to put this nicely, but utilizing both gas turbines and nuclear power is just stupid. Pick one, hint using gas turbines will reduced the per unit cost of each vessel between within 100 to 200 million. However, nuclear was popular not just for unlimited range, but also that it allowed the vessels to keep pace with the nuclear carriers.
4. Your complement is short by at least two hundred {200} people. Nuclear vessels required additional personnel. Again See Virginia Comparison.
5. 6in gun seems odd to me considering most RL navies at this time are 5, various 4in or 3in. US Navy did design a rapid fire 8in though, something to consider.
6. Good luck with your design...

A) Successfully SWAGged it!

B) Will review.

C) But my cruisers (my fleet's largest ships as I have no carriers yet) also use CONAG. Gas is backup and burst use only, 95% of the time the ship burns HEU. Besides, with the size of my fleet vs my defense budget, I can afford (and need to afford) such splurgery. I can't field many ships, so the ones I have need to be well-armed and well-powered.

D) Noted. Complement of 525 people now on board.

E) The gun and ammo are compatible with those of 155 SPGs. Yes, that's a rapid-fire bag charged cannon.

F) Thank you, I'll need it.

The missile armament also seems unusually heavy - not the VLS cells, which are okay, but I don't see where you're fitting eight mid-range SAM launchers with 32 reloads, to speak nothing of the two 32-cell point-defense missile launchers and 192 reloads or the dozens of torpedoes, on a 140-meter-long vessel (while still leaving room for crew, stores, and electronics). Is there a reason why you can't quadpack lighter SAMs into the VLS cells?

Also: I can understand how this might sound a bit nitpicky, but when you feed those dimensions into the Ship Displacement Formula, you end up with a Block Coefficient of 0.85, which is a level of bulkiness you'd expect from an Oil Tanker - and that's when treating all numbers as waterline dimensions. If 140m is length overall, it's possible you would have a Block Coefficient of greater than 1, which I don't believe is possible (Block Coefficient of 1 means the submerged mass is a perfect rectangular prism). For a modern frigate, you're looking at a block coefficient somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.5, maybe 0.6 for a wide AEGIS destroyer.

The mid-range SAMs are like Iron Dome, if smaller launchers. Dropping it to two thrrets, each with four launch rails. The two point-defense missile launchers could indeed be half the size, with half the reserve. If not even a bit smaller. Two 12-cell RIM-116 RAM clone launchers with 96 reloads = moar reasonable amirite?

My displacement right now is 12500 baseline, I expect that 8250 baseline and 10500 full load are more reasonable, and give better block coefficients, despite being a tad high?

Perhaps you might want to give springsharp a go, its not perfect but for getting sizes/displacement right and estimating what sort of power you need to move you hull at different speeds its pretty useful: http://www.springsharp.com/

[Husseinarti]

Thanks. But there's things wrong with it. Gotta be. I just SWAG'd the numbers. Might just be that this thread is inactive as I don't know what.

1. The first operational Mark 41 VLS didn't enter service until 1984, stands to reason your nation's version of a VLS would enter service within a similar time frame.
2. The Length you specify doesn't chive given the displacement and armament you've outlined, by comparison a Virginia Class Destroyer Leader/Cruiser was 179 meters with a full load displacement of 11,666 tons.
3. Sorry I don't know how to put this nicely, but utilizing both gas turbines and nuclear power is just stupid. Pick one, hint using gas turbines will reduced the per unit cost of each vessel between within 100 to 200 million. However, nuclear was popular not just for unlimited range, but also that it allowed the vessels to keep pace with the nuclear carriers.
4. Your complement is short by at least two hundred {200} people. Nuclear vessels required additional personnel. Again See Virginia Comparison.
5. 6in gun seems odd to me considering most RL navies at this time are 5, various 4in or 3in. US Navy did design a rapid fire 8in though, something to consider.
6. Good luck with your design...

I have nuclear AAS to allow rapid movement of full battalions of armored/mechanized troops at 30+ knots.

[Yukonastan]

C) But my cruisers (my fleet's largest ships as I have no carriers yet) also use CONAG. Gas is backup and burst use only, 95% of the time the ship burns HEU. Besides, with the size of my fleet vs my defense budget, I can afford (and need to afford) such splurgery. I can't field many ships, so the ones I have need to be well-armed and well-powered.

When you're talking burst speed, it doesn't save you much. A larger reactor will net you a bit more top speed than a CONAG system. Once the reactor gets set up for operating at higher output, it gets it's own "burst" speed, anyway. For the distances we're dealing with, CONAG burst speed shouldn't be critical.

The one real advantage of CONAG: You can go from twiddling your thumbs and getting totally wasted on local booze in port and suddenly need to up-and-go and have the entire boat out in 30 minutes. Not possible with an all-nuclear plant. Those take a while to get ready.

If you want a backup, add a large battery. Requires almost no additional people other than the already on board electricians to maintain it.

D) Noted. Complement of 525 people now on board.

Reactors don't require that many more people. Virginia was also older than, by comparison, a Tic. Not nearly as much automation.
Modern reactors require a significantly smaller crew complement than the days of the Virginia-cruiser. Compare it to the newer Virginia sub, for instance.

So, yes, while you will need more people, we're talking about expanding the Engineering department by at most 100 people. Maybe, maybe 140. Not 200. At minimum 40, since you're likely using an Aircraft Carrier plant if it's the only thing powering a cruiser.

Heh. IC reasons are amazing, and I don't have any aircraft carriers to require aircraft carrier plants. CONAG just worked out, despite its inherent disadvantages. Plus the get-up-to-speed-while-starting-the-reactor is a good bonus to have. Didn't even know that. Also remember that the gas turbines provide electricity when the reactor is hot idling (aka when it's in ports without sufficient ground power), and remember that the shafts have steam turbines connected to the reactors, then gearboxes and clutches to the gas turbines.

As for batteries, about half the ships have been refueled and the battery technology hadn't *really* advanced beyond what's common for large storage batteries. Perhaps for the next generation.

As for crew, people are yelling at me that 325 is far too little, now the navy guy says that 525 is far too much. 425 better, then? 425 it is.

Thanks everyone! Patrol destroyer/frigate Mk III:

Class overview
Builders: Krupper-Thyssen Shipyards
Operators: Yukonastan Defense Force Navy, Yukonastan Expeditionary Force Navy
Built: 1982 – 2001
In service: From 1985
Planned: 40
Completed: 36
Cancelled: 4
Active: 32 (1 undergoing modernization)
Laid up: 1
Retired: 2

General characteristics
Type: Guided missile / torpedo destroyer
Displacement: 8 250 tons standard, 12 500 tons (full load)
Length: 140 m
Beam: 20 m
Draft: 5.25 m
Propulsion: 2-shaft combined nuclear and gas turbine propulsion, 1x MN-2 marine nuclear reactors with 2x gas turbine engines
80,000 shp (57,000 kW)
Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h)
Range: 1,200 nautical miles (2,000 km) at 32 knots (59 km/h) (combined propulsion),
unlimited at 20 knots (37 km/h) on nuclear power
Complement: 425

Sensors and processing systems:
Radars:

• 1x 4 MW combat system radar, bridge structure.
• 1x 3D tracking radar, foremast.
• 1x navigation radar, foremast.

Sonar:

• 1x towed array sonar, 2km line, stern.
• 1x bow sonar

Electronic warfare and decoys:

• 2x 8rd decoy launchers,96 reloads carried.
• 1x 4MW radar jammer/spoofer, rear mast.

Armament:
Missiles:

• 64x angled VLS cells (500x500 mm, 7m long), two large and two small batteries. No reloads carried.
• 2x mid-range SAM launchers (250x250 mm, 5 m long), two batteries. 32 reloads carried.
• 2x 12-cell mid-range point defense missile launchers, 96 reloads carried.

Guns:

• 1x quick-fire 155 mm high velocity howitzer, 500 rounds carried.
• 2x Close-In Weapons Systems, 24 mm rotary cannon, 12 000 rounds carried.
• 8x 14.5 mm machine guns, 120 000 rounds carried.

Torpedoes and others:

• 2x 500 mm AS(u)W torpedo launchers, 24 reloads carried.
• 4x 425 mm AS(u)W rocket launchers, 36 reloads carried.

Armour: 100 mm plating around reactor compartment, 50mm plating around CIC, light splinter protection
Aircraft carried: 2 helicopters, space for 1 more on deck.
Aviation facilities: Hangar on deck

[United Earthlings]

Reactors don't require that many more people. Virginia was also older than, by comparison, a Tic. Not nearly as much automation.
Modern reactors require a significantly smaller crew complement than the days of the Virginia-cruiser. Compare it to the newer Virginia sub, for instance.

So, yes, while you will need more people, we're talking about expanding the Engineering department by at most 100 people. Maybe, maybe 140. Not 200. At minimum 40, since you're likely using an Aircraft Carrier plant if it's the only thing powering a cruiser.

Those are some good points, if they were valid.

1. I wasn't just factoring in the reactors, but the growth in weapon system capability.
2. Your using generalizations, I'm using specifics as in specific time frames. That automation your advancing won't have the desired effect into the mid-90s when the first of his/her vessels are due for a refueling period. These vessels YUK is building are starting construction in the early 80s way before the advances in technology make automation possible. YUK would have built at least half a dozen or so vessels by the time those automation crew reductions can be put in place.
3. Two things on using the Virginia as an example, A. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious, but the manning requirements for a submarine are not the same as for a surface vessel and B. Virginia Class submarines weren't being built in 1985 nor 1995, making their use invalid until the very late production runs of YUK's design. Again, I'm looking at specifics.
4. Again with a focus on specifics, YUK's design is utilizing both gas turbines and nuclear power, that will in turn require more personnel to operate both resulting in a larger complement overall.
5. Related to A, YUK didn't specify on radar type, but a similar AEGIS equipped version would require additional personnel as well as additional cost.
6. More specifics, YUK has stated that their nation hasn't built any nuclear carriers, so having a nuclear powerplant designed for carriers available makes no logical sense. If YUK has nuclear submarines in service, enlarged core designs from those types is possible as indicated by real life.
7. Finally, by a rough estimate advanced automation techniques will permit a crew reduction anywhere between 10 & 15 percent for mid 1990s with up to 25% by mid 2000s using the Tico as an example.

Thanks everyone! Patrol destroyer/frigate Mk III:

Class overview
Builders: Krupper-Thyssen Shipyards
Operators: Yukonastan Defense Force Navy, Yukonastan Expeditionary Force Navy
Built: 1982 – 2001
In service: From 1985
Planned: 40
Completed: 36
Cancelled: 4
Active: 32 (1 undergoing modernization)
Laid up: 1
Retired: 2

General characteristics
Type: Guided missile / torpedo destroyer
Displacement: 8 250 tons standard, 12 500 tons (full load)
Length: 140 m
Beam: 20 m
Draft: 5.25 m
Propulsion: 2-shaft combined nuclear and gas turbine propulsion, 1x MN-2 marine nuclear reactors with 2x gas turbine engines
80,000 shp (57,000 kW)
Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h)
Range: 1,200 nautical miles (2,000 km) at 32 knots (59 km/h) (combined propulsion),
unlimited at 20 knots (37 km/h) on nuclear power
Complement: 425

Sensors and processing systems:
Radars:

• 1x 4 MW combat system radar, bridge structure.
• 1x 3D tracking radar, foremast.
• 1x navigation radar, foremast.

Sonar:

• 1x towed array sonar, 2km line, stern.
• 1x bow sonar

Electronic warfare and decoys:

• 2x 8rd decoy launchers,96 reloads carried.
• 1x 4MW radar jammer/spoofer, rear mast.

Armament:
Missiles:

• 64x angled VLS cells (500x500 mm, 7m long), two large and two small batteries. No reloads carried.
• 2x mid-range SAM launchers (250x250 mm, 5 m long), two batteries. 32 reloads carried.
• 2x 12-cell mid-range point defense missile launchers, 96 reloads carried.

Guns:

• 1x quick-fire 155 mm high velocity howitzer, 500 rounds carried.
• 2x Close-In Weapons Systems, 24 mm rotary cannon, 12 000 rounds carried.
• 8x 14.5 mm machine guns, 120 000 rounds carried.

Torpedoes and others:

• 2x 500 mm AS(u)W torpedo launchers, 24 reloads carried.
• 4x 425 mm AS(u)W rocket launchers, 36 reloads carried.

Armour: 100 mm plating around reactor compartment, 50mm plating around CIC, light splinter protection
Aircraft carried: 2 helicopters, space for 1 more on deck.
Aviation facilities: Hangar on deck

140 meters is still way to short for all the sensors and weapons you have on this thing, not to mention dual powerplant design. You at least need to go Spruance/Ticonderoga size length wise. Need to flush out your descriptions of your warships sensors, also considering it currently lacks any form of fire control radar(s) whether for the missiles or guns, don't expect your ship to be firing any of those weapons minus the torpedoes. Which radar is the surface search one? Which radar is the air search version?

Why can't the mid-range SAMs be placed in the VLS? What missile types are you using? Where are all the weapons placed, fore-aft-fantail-center? Helicopters in service-Sea King, Seahawk, Lynx?

Finally, given the limited size so far as far as length is concerned, 500 rounds for the 155mm guns might be pushing it a bit. A current more realistic figure would be in the 180 to 200 round range. Remember, longer hull-means more hull volume to play with. So depending on what exactly you settle on for L*B*D will correspond to hull displacement.

[New Chilokver]

Hey Phar, you know the Shogun class Superdreadnought?

I should hope so.

I'm always interested in commonality idea, which in turn reduced training requirement for maintenance as the crew will basically don't need to re-learn and re-certify for new reactor.

Pardon my French, but that's dumb.
Your reactor crew will have to requalify anyway. Just make them similar in design and scale them appropriately. They'll have a good baseline knowledge, they'll just have to learn new numbers. Base concept is the same. Heck, my PowerSchool was spent learning about the S5W core, my Prototype training was on the weirdest Frankenstein reactor plant ever to be conceived, and now I operate an A4W.

Common cores would help training a bit, but it will significantly hurt your crew more to be operating more cores. Significantly. If you need 4 to 8 cores for a carrier, they will hate your guts. Just talk to any Nuke from the Enterprise. Two reactors for a carrier. One for a tiny one. Three for an especially large one bigger than a Nimitz. Maybe.

Could it be modified for 12x16 inch in 4 turrets?

[Yukonastan]

Reactors don't require that many more people. Virginia was also older than, by comparison, a Tic. Not nearly as much automation.
Modern reactors require a significantly smaller crew complement than the days of the Virginia-cruiser. Compare it to the newer Virginia sub, for instance.

So, yes, while you will need more people, we're talking about expanding the Engineering department by at most 100 people. Maybe, maybe 140. Not 200. At minimum 40, since you're likely using an Aircraft Carrier plant if it's the only thing powering a cruiser.

Those are some good points, if they were valid.

1. I wasn't just factoring in the reactors, but the growth in weapon system capability.
2. Your using generalizations, I'm using specifics as in specific time frames. That automation your advancing won't have the desired effect into the mid-90s when the first of his/her vessels are due for a refueling period. These vessels YUK is building are starting construction in the early 80s way before the advances in technology make automation possible. YUK would have built at least half a dozen or so vessels by the time those automation crew reductions can be put in place.
3. Two things on using the Virginia as an example, A. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious, but the manning requirements for a submarine are not the same as for a surface vessel and B. Virginia Class submarines weren't being built in 1985 nor 1995, making their use invalid until the very late production runs of YUK's design. Again, I'm looking at specifics.
4. Again with a focus on specifics, YUK's design is utilizing both gas turbines and nuclear power, that will in turn require more personnel to operate both resulting in a larger complement overall.
5. Related to A, YUK didn't specify on radar type, but a similar AEGIS equipped version would require additional personnel as well as additional cost.
6. More specifics, YUK has stated that their nation hasn't built any nuclear carriers, so having a nuclear powerplant designed for carriers available makes no logical sense. If YUK has nuclear submarines in service, enlarged core designs from those types is possible as indicated by real life.
7. Finally, by a rough estimate advanced automation techniques will permit a crew reduction anywhere between 10 & 15 percent for mid 1990s with up to 25% by mid 2000s using the Tico as an example.

You do realize you're bashing an active reactor tech aboard I believe USS George Washington? He knows shit. I'm more likely to trust him than an armchair general playing with numbers.

Thanks everyone! Patrol destroyer/frigate Mk III:

Class overview
Builders: Krupper-Thyssen Shipyards
Operators: Yukonastan Defense Force Navy, Yukonastan Expeditionary Force Navy
Built: 1982 – 2001
In service: From 1985
Planned: 40
Completed: 36
Cancelled: 4
Active: 32 (1 undergoing modernization)
Laid up: 1
Retired: 2

General characteristics
Type: Guided missile / torpedo destroyer
Displacement: 8 250 tons standard, 12 500 tons (full load)
Length: 140 m
Beam: 20 m
Draft: 5.25 m
Propulsion: 2-shaft combined nuclear and gas turbine propulsion, 1x MN-2 marine nuclear reactors with 2x gas turbine engines
80,000 shp (57,000 kW)
Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h)
Range: 1,200 nautical miles (2,000 km) at 32 knots (59 km/h) (combined propulsion),
unlimited at 20 knots (37 km/h) on nuclear power
Complement: 425

Sensors and processing systems:
Radars:

• 1x 4 MW combat system radar, bridge structure.
• 1x 3D tracking radar, foremast.
• 1x navigation radar, foremast.

Sonar:

• 1x towed array sonar, 2km line, stern.
• 1x bow sonar

Electronic warfare and decoys:

• 2x 8rd decoy launchers,96 reloads carried.
• 1x 4MW radar jammer/spoofer, rear mast.

Armament:
Missiles:

• 64x angled VLS cells (500x500 mm, 7m long), two large and two small batteries. No reloads carried.
• 2x mid-range SAM launchers (250x250 mm, 5 m long), two batteries. 32 reloads carried.
• 2x 12-cell mid-range point defense missile launchers, 96 reloads carried.

Guns:

• 1x quick-fire 155 mm high velocity howitzer, 500 rounds carried.
• 2x Close-In Weapons Systems, 24 mm rotary cannon, 12 000 rounds carried.
• 8x 14.5 mm machine guns, 120 000 rounds carried.

Torpedoes and others:

• 2x 500 mm AS(u)W torpedo launchers, 24 reloads carried.
• 4x 425 mm AS(u)W rocket launchers, 36 reloads carried.

Armour: 100 mm plating around reactor compartment, 50mm plating around CIC, light splinter protection
Aircraft carried: 2 helicopters, space for 1 more on deck.
Aviation facilities: Hangar on deck

140 meters is still way to short for all the sensors and weapons you have on this thing, not to mention dual powerplant design. You at least need to go Spruance/Ticonderoga size length wise. Need to flush out your descriptions of your warships sensors, also considering it currently lacks any form of fire control radar(s) whether for the missiles or guns, don't expect your ship to be firing any of those weapons minus the torpedoes. Which radar is the surface search one? Which radar is the air search version?

You seem concerned that a 4 million watt maximum radiated power PASA can't do both surface and air search and tracking. You also seem concerned that I don't have such fancy things as PESA on the gun's turret face (I do, but that's beside the point).

Besides, AEGIS takes the massive array of radars for all the different systems and replaces them with one array. The only things I can think of that require separate radars are muzzle velocity sensors, navigation radars, and independently controlled CIWS. Which I have, which I have, which I don't have the system that needs such a separate radar.

Why can't the mid-range SAMs be placed in the VLS? What missile types are you using? Where are all the weapons placed, fore-aft-fantail-center? Helicopters in service-Sea King, Seahawk, Lynx?

Because it wasn't designed to be quad packed, and its cross is larger than 23x23 cm. My cells are 50x50cm, but there are walls to account for. Besides, that's where I keep my cruise missiles. Not going to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear warheads and/or components. In terms of actual layout, there's this thing called paint. I haven't gotten to the paint stage yet.

As for helicopters, I haven't gotten into that yet. Something similar in size to a Sea King, or perhaps a Cyclone.

Finally, given the limited size so far as far as length is concerned, 500 rounds for the 155mm guns might be pushing it a bit. A current more realistic figure would be in the 180 to 200 round range. Remember, longer hull-means more hull volume to play with. So depending on what exactly you settle on for L*B*D will correspond to hull displacement.

I don't want a damn cruiser, I already have one (or eight) of those. I want a destroyer that's armed to the teeth. A hell of a lot of cannon shells fits the bill, and they're cheaper than cruise missiles by a LONG shot.

Oh and please, call me Yukofeg or Yuko. Not YUK.

[Gallia-]

I don't care what the nerd-approved name in this thread is. They're still a terrible idea both in theory and in practice.

Then get out, edgy teens aren't welcome.

>2004

AN is probably in his 30s now.

[New Chilokver]

Quick question, Catamaran hull for archipelago patrol frigate/corvette... yes or no?

Yes. It'll reduce the draft, fight deck size and survivability.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Not 41cm triple mounts?

Even though Kancolle and blueprints show that they attempted 41cm triple mounts, she wouldn't realistically be able to receive them.

Was looking at kancolle again and was thinking, how about an Andrea Doria-type rebuild where one to two centerline turrets gets removed, barbettes plated over and the main battery arranged in a 3-2-2-3 arrangement?

[The Akasha Colony]

Besides, AEGIS takes the massive array of radars for all the different systems and replaces them with one array. The only things I can think of that require separate radars are muzzle velocity sensors, navigation radars, and independently controlled CIWS. Which I have, which I have, which I don't have the system that needs such a separate radar.

Not entirely. And it isn't even necessarily desirable either; the AMDR and DBR concepts called for separate S- and X-band radars to benefit from the specific strengths of each. But cost restrictions caused the removal of the S-band system from the Zumwalts in favor of using the X-band AN/SPY-3 for search. Arleigh Burke and especially Ticonderoga still have a host of additional radar sets aside from AN/SPY-1, not the least are the AN/SPG-62 illuminators. A combined radar for everything is possible, but it means that the radar will have to devote its limited resources to a much wider variety of tasks than otherwise.

[United Earthlings]

You do realize you're bashing an active reactor tech aboard I believe USS George Washington? He knows shit. I'm more likely to trust him than an armchair general playing with numbers.

1. I know intent doesn't convey well through text, but for the record no bashing was intended, I was merely pointing out where I saw inconsistencies, maybe the wording as it appeared to you seemed a little too strongly worded, but as I'm not going to put words in Pharthan's mouth, they can speak for themselves if they thought I was over the line. If any of what I stated is inaccurate, then Pharthan will call me on it and the discussion will move forward.
2. I don't doubt Pharthan knows shit, everyone knows some shit about something that's the way it works. If Pharthan is as you say though, then I see no problem deferring to their judgment on modern reactor operations aboard US Carriers. What I have problems with is people claiming or thinking an expertise in one field applies with equal weight to all fields. But, seeing as Pharthan has made no such claim either way {at the least since they last posted in this thread}, I'll end the rant here.
3. On the armchair general remark, the only time I play armchair general is when I'm gaming in a strategy or RTS game. Furthermore, you solicited for people's opinions, I gave you my opinion, whether you find that trust worthy, valuable or anything else is entirely at your own personal discretion.

I don't want a damn cruiser, I already have one (or eight) of those. I want a destroyer that's armed to the teeth. A hell of a lot of cannon shells fits the bill, and they're cheaper than cruise missiles by a LONG shot.

Oh and please, call me Yukofeg or Yuko. Not YUK.

Well depending on how exactly you have your nation's Naval Classification system set-up, it sure seems like you want a damn cruiser. Hull volume in a design is a finite resource, what you want for a design and what you can have are rarely going to be equal. Furthermore, some designs have future growth margins in mind when initially conceived, this is where the part of you wanting a destroyer and getting a cruiser come about.

Noted, Yuko it is then.

Not entirely. And it isn't even necessarily desirable either; the AMDR and DBR concepts called for separate S- and X-band radars to benefit from the specific strengths of each. But cost restrictions caused the removal of the S-band system from the Zumwalts in favor of using the X-band AN/SPY-3 for search. Arleigh Burke and especially Ticonderoga still have a host of additional radar sets aside from AN/SPY-1, not the least are the AN/SPG-62 illuminators. A combined radar for everything is possible, but it means that the radar will have to devote its limited resources to a much wider variety of tasks than otherwise.

Couldn't have put it more eloquently myself, the only thing I would have added is the added complexity for software coding when using a combined {Dual} radar system.

[Pharthan]

Your using generalizations, I'm using specifics as in specific time frames. That automation your advancing won't have the desired effect into the mid-90s when the first of his/her vessels are due for a refueling period. These vessels YUK is building are starting construction in the early 80s way before the advances in technology make automation possible. YUK would have built at least half a dozen or so vessels by the time those automation crew reductions can be put in place.

It's called a ShipAlt. Or a Refit. Or any various terms that just simply mean "upgrade." For nuclear vessels, the refueling periods make extremely convenient times to do them as you pretty much rip everything out anyway. Going from Analog to Digital is amazing. Going from '80s Digital to late '90s Digital is another vast improvement. Going to 2010 digital is something of such sheer awesomeness I cannot even begin to fathom.

Two things on using the Virginia as an example, A. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious, but the manning requirements for a submarine are not the same as for a surface vessel and B. Virginia Class submarines weren't being built in 1985 nor 1995, making their use invalid until the very late production runs of YUK's design. Again, I'm looking at specifics.

There are manning-requirement parallels. For instance, every reactor needs at least 3 of every watchstander. Surface vessels can manage more; surface vessels do need more, but the automation argument still stands. You can combine watchstations. Instead of having an Electrical Operator and a Roving Electrician, you can combine the two thanks to automated electric plant shifting systems. Instead of having both a Reactor Operator and a Throttleman, you can combine the two into Propulsion Plant Operator. You can combine multiple mechanic-based watchstations.
Nonetheless, you'll note my rather large variations in the numbers I was saying, anywhere from 40 to 140 additional people, based on a number of factors.

Again with a focus on specifics, YUK's design is utilizing both gas turbines and nuclear power, that will in turn require more personnel to operate both resulting in a larger complement overall.

And I'm saying CONAG is rather pointless.

Nuclear submarine reactors on surface ships are a bad idea. You end up with big negatives in at least one area or another. If you try to fit them in the same space, you're going to have underpowered reactor plants. If you try to add space to fit enough of them, you sacrifice munitions space and you need at least double the nuclear crew, as is the case with the Enterprise. You also have issues with extensive maintenance requirements, upgrades become prohibitively expensive because you have to perform them on several more reactors, et cetera.
Using submarine reactors on surface ships is pretty much just inviting hell into your propulsion spaces.
Or, at least to the account of my shipmates who worked on the 'Prize.

And yes, as Yuko stated, I'm on the USS George Washington. Four years and counting.

More specifics, YUK has stated that their nation hasn't built any nuclear carriers, so having a nuclear powerplant designed for carriers available makes no logical sense. If YUK has nuclear submarines in service, enlarged core designs from those types is possible as indicated by real life.

Fair enough, to a point. I'd still use one massive plant capable of powering a carrier. Just makes sense. Reduced manning and space requirements, for example.

Finally, by a rough estimate advanced automation techniques will permit a crew reduction anywhere between 10 & 15 percent for mid 1990s with up to 25% by mid 2000s using the Tico as an example.

Obviously only certain areas need apply, and some things you can never change.