NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mark IX Spitfire

[The Akasha Colony]

the problem with the resources beyond the Gate also lies in getting them out of there

like, there's no way of knowing if the gate will stay open

hell, it can't, because keeping it open is forcing two sections of spacetime closer to each other, with disastrous results

It doesn't. But it reopens later, after a time skip, and is much more stable.

in addition to that, it's in the middle of a major city, and the gate itself is like big enough for two tanks to go through side by side

not really much room to move any significant amount of resources through

With proper traffic control it's possible. Even then, it's never shown that Japan is trying to displace all of its material imports or anything, it's primarily looking for particularly valuable resources like oil, rare earths, etc. Even small amounts of those resources would be quite valuable, whereas stuff like iron probably isn't worth bothering with.

[Gallia-]

questerians are probably so poor their tank overalls dont have specific pockets for their platoon drill nomograms and grease pencils

[Axis Nova]

GATE is a bad anime and you should feel bad for watching it.

[Arkandros]

So I'm designing a missile cruiser, and I'm doing mounts for both CIWS and RAM. I was thinking that I should go with a common base diameter, to enable easier upgrades and refits twenty years from now, when the ship is obsolete but can't be decommissioned for political reasons (which never happens). Because I plan on eventually making and using a large Kashtan-style combination system, I was thinking of using a larger base diameter (currently going with 66" diameter), which would also enable mounting sea-skimming missiles (NotHarpoons) on swivel mounts instead of on the deck (of questionable utility, but nice nonetheless). The other two options I'm currently debating are a smaller diameter base (54") and abandoning commonality in favor of a smaller CIWS mount and larger RAM/short range SAM mount. What do you all think?
Additionally, any advice for making hulls in sketchup before I get too far in over my head?

[The Akasha Colony]

So I'm designing a missile cruiser, and I'm doing mounts for both CIWS and RAM. I was thinking that I should go with a common base diameter, to enable easier upgrades and refits twenty years from now, when the ship is obsolete but can't be decommissioned for political reasons (which never happens). Because I plan on eventually making and using a large Kashtan-style combination system, I was thinking of using a larger base diameter (currently going with 66" diameter), which would also enable mounting sea-skimming missiles (NotHarpoons) on swivel mounts instead of on the deck (of questionable utility, but nice nonetheless). The other two options I'm currently debating are a smaller diameter base (54") and abandoning commonality in favor of a smaller CIWS mount and larger RAM/short range SAM mount. What do you all think?
Additionally, any advice for making hulls in sketchup before I get too far in over my head?

Put the missiles in the VLS and use a compact modular CIWS if you need it.

[Purpelia]

To all whom it might concern I went and wrote a detailed explanation of the Ymir and what it is supposed to represent in the tank thread. Check it out.

On a related note I am now sad.

[Tekeristan]

To all whom it might concern I went and wrote a detailed explanation of the Ymir and what it is supposed to represent in the tank thread. Check it out.

On a related note I am now sad.

Will peek.

What is wrong?

[Purpelia]

To all whom it might concern I went and wrote a detailed explanation of the Ymir and what it is supposed to represent in the tank thread. Check it out.

On a related note I am now sad.

Will peek.

What is wrong?

I realized that I permitted a good idea to go to waste by making mistakes and now it has become a laughing stock where it should have been a stroke of brilliance.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

So I'm designing a missile cruiser, and I'm doing mounts for both CIWS and RAM. I was thinking that I should go with a common base diameter, to enable easier upgrades and refits twenty years from now, when the ship is obsolete but can't be decommissioned for political reasons (which never happens). Because I plan on eventually making and using a large Kashtan-style combination system, I was thinking of using a larger base diameter (currently going with 66" diameter), which would also enable mounting sea-skimming missiles (NotHarpoons) on swivel mounts instead of on the deck (of questionable utility, but nice nonetheless). The other two options I'm currently debating are a smaller diameter base (54") and abandoning commonality in favor of a smaller CIWS mount and larger RAM/short range SAM mount. What do you all think?
Additionally, any advice for making hulls in sketchup before I get too far in over my head?

I would opt to not use gun CIWS and stick to using exclusivity RAM launchers which are more effective. Also mounting anti-surface missiles on swiveling mounts above deck is fairly unnecessary. SAMs and cruise missiles should be stored in your ships VLS.

As for sketchup I would recommend making ship hulls as a series of lofts using the curviloft plugin.

[EsToVnIa]

Will peek.

What is wrong?

I realized that I permitted a good idea to go to waste by making mistakes and now it has become a laughing stock where it should have been a stroke of brilliance.

you should call the inventor of heely's. you guys would have a lot in common.

[Purpelia]

I realized that I permitted a good idea to go to waste by making mistakes and now it has become a laughing stock where it should have been a stroke of brilliance.

you should call the inventor of heely's. you guys would have a lot in common.

Either way at least the truth is now out for all to read.

[Arkandros]

So I'm designing a missile cruiser, and I'm doing mounts for both CIWS and RAM. I was thinking that I should go with a common base diameter, to enable easier upgrades and refits twenty years from now, when the ship is obsolete but can't be decommissioned for political reasons (which never happens). Because I plan on eventually making and using a large Kashtan-style combination system, I was thinking of using a larger base diameter (currently going with 66" diameter), which would also enable mounting sea-skimming missiles (NotHarpoons) on swivel mounts instead of on the deck (of questionable utility, but nice nonetheless). The other two options I'm currently debating are a smaller diameter base (54") and abandoning commonality in favor of a smaller CIWS mount and larger RAM/short range SAM mount. What do you all think?
Additionally, any advice for making hulls in sketchup before I get too far in over my head?

I would opt to not use gun CIWS and stick to using exclusivity RAM launchers which are more effective. Also mounting anti-surface missiles on swiveling mounts above deck is fairly unnecessary. SAMs and cruise missiles should be stored in your ships VLS.

As for sketchup I would recommend making ship hulls as a series of lofts using the curviloft plugin.

My big concerns with abandoning gun-based CIWS systems are the cost (even If it was $100 a round, it's cheaper than a nearly million dollar missile) and multipurpose utility. While I agree a missile system is as effective against cruise missiles and aircraft, it's too expensive to use to destroy surface mines or small vessels at a million apiece.
The reason I was thinking of mounting the SAMs in launcher mounts was largely to increase effective missile capacity, since you wouldn't need to take up VLS cells to store relatively small SAM missiles.

[Imperializt Russia]

Why would you be using CIWS for engage small surface combatants or mines? Mines can be manoeuvred around or defeated by mine-clearing operations. Surface combatants can be engaged by other weapons systems.

CIWS is just the last line of defence.

[Arkandros]

Why would you be using CIWS for engage small surface combatants or mines? Mines can be manoeuvred around or defeated by mine-clearing operations. Surface combatants can be engaged by other weapons systems.

CIWS is just the last line of defence.

I cite the precedent set by the Phalanx 1B FLIR upgrade, made to assist in engaging surface targets, small vessels, and small aircraft. (I threw mines in there more as a random example of "floating debris". Clearing mines with a 30mm Gatling gun obviously isn't exactly practical)
The original idea of commonality would extend to all ships, including LCSes, destroyers, and coast guard ships deployed for anti piracy and policing operations. In these roles, a million dollar missile is overkill.

[Imperializt Russia]

So's a multi-million dollar radar-directed CIWS gun battery when there are other crewed gun mounts available.
I imagine the driving motivation behind a surface-targets upgrade to Phalanx would be for ships on lone patrol where it is a fair use. In battlefleet action, there are so many other weapon systems that would be more practical.

[The Akasha Colony]

My big concerns with abandoning gun-based CIWS systems are the cost (even If it was $100 a round, it's cheaper than a nearly million dollar missile) and multipurpose utility. While I agree a missile system is as effective against cruise missiles and aircraft, it's too expensive to use to destroy surface mines or small vessels at a million apiece.

There's nothing "cheap" about gun-based CIWS either. Phalanx is still $35 million a piece, ignoring support and operating costs.

If you want to shoot small boats you don't need Phalanx or Goalkeeper or Millennium Gun. Just mount a few of these and call it a day.

The reason I was thinking of mounting the SAMs in launcher mounts was largely to increase effective missile capacity, since you wouldn't need to take up VLS cells to store relatively small SAM missiles.

Just add more VLS with the space you've created by not needing separate CIWS mounts.

The reason why Phalanx and RAM are standalone mounts is so that they can be dropped onto a pretty much any platform that might need CIWS. Well, Phalanx more so since RAM requires the ship to have a combat radar suite, whereas Phalanx carries its own radar (hence the development of SeaRAM). So they're useful if you find a need to start protecting things like your supply ships, which in USN service don't have weapons or engagement radars, but less necessary for your primary surface combatants which should already have plenty of VLS space and a full suite of sensors.

Why would you be using CIWS for engage small surface combatants or mines? Mines can be manoeuvred around or defeated by mine-clearing operations. Surface combatants can be engaged by other weapons systems.

CIWS is just the last line of defence.

I cite the precedent set by the Phalanx 1B FLIR upgrade, made to assist in engaging surface targets, small vessels, and small aircraft. (I threw mines in there more as a random example of "floating debris". Clearing mines with a 30mm Gatling gun obviously isn't exactly practical)
The original idea of commonality would extend to all ships, including LCSes, destroyers, and coast guard ships deployed for anti piracy and policing operations. In these roles, a million dollar missile is overkill.

A million dollar missile is not overkill if it saves your ship, which is what it is supposed to do. I don't imagine your crews are going to be particularly happy to learn their ship got hit just so you could save a little bit on the CIWS.

And why do you need them for anti-piracy work? Are these pirates armed with anti-ship missiles?

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

I wouldn't expect air superiority UCAVs to come into their own without major breakthroughs in computer technology and AI development. Current remote operation technology is not up to the task. I would go so far to say that having one is, if not completely there, definitely edging into PMT territory.

Fortunately, I'm looking to equip my forces for the grimdarkness of the mid 21st century. Too, computers ended up a bit different in my universe, making AI slightly more plausible.

---

TBF, there have been proposals by think tanks to do basically this. Have stealthy, compact, UCAVs of moderate performance armed with AAMs act as "screens" for manned aircraft controlling them, based on the theory that maneuverability and traditional "fighter" attributes will be less important in the future compared to stealth, the ability to strike first, and the ability to carry a deep magazine of air-to-air missiles.

I had considered doing the same a long time ago. I think it got to the point where I'd cut the manned planes entirely, relying on a combination of AWACS and said drones to handle day to day CAPs.

A system of equivalent capability to what we have today would be cheaper to produce, but with improvements in air defenses and what not it is likely that future missiles will be more advanced, negating any cost savings. Just like how over time Tomahawk has been progressively upgraded with additional guidance features, new seekers, etc.

True.

If you already have the drone there you could just drop munitions from the drone itself. Having cruise missile support is a useful capability, there are just lots of platforms that could provide it rather than needing an arsenal ship.

Again, quite so.

[The Kievan People]

UCAVs will make big carriers more important, not less.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

How so? Smaller aircraft should mean smaller carriers, yeah?

[Gallia-]

That has never been the case.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

But. . . bigger planes brought about bigger carriers, yeah? Why wouldn't the inverse be true?

[The Kievan People]

Did getting rid of the Tomcats make USN carriers smaller?

You also have a rather unrealistic expectation of how small a UCAV would be.

And current UCAVs are probably at the lower bound of what is useful. They are not even entirely functional as combat aircraft with existing technology, since there is no room for a radar, and the payload is tiny. Future designs will likely be bigger. Possibly much bigger.

[New Vihenia]

Plus let's not forget that... the UAV Carrier may also need control room, airborne pilots are now drone pilots controlling it from the carrier.

and more or larger datalink antenna to support controls, Direct line of sight guidance are more reliable and practically have no delay as one using sat.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Did getting rid of the Tomcats make USN carriers smaller?

Weren't most carriers made before Tomcat's were a thing? I see your point though.

You also have a rather unrealistic expectation of how small a UCAV would be.

And current UCAVs are probably at the lower bound of what is useful. They are not even entirely functional as combat aircraft with existing technology, since there is no room for a radar, and the payload is tiny. Future designs will likely be bigger. Possibly much bigger.

Already discussed my gross misunderestimation of UCAV sizes, tbh. I still feel kind of dim over it, honestly.

---

Plus let's not forget that... the UAV Carrier may also need control room, airborne pilots are now drone pilots controlling it from the carrier.

and more or larger datalink antenna to support controls, Direct line of sight guidance are more reliable and practically have no delay as one using sat.

Why are UAV carriers generally portrayed as being smaller and cheaper than conventional carriers then?

[The Akasha Colony]

Weren't most carriers made before Tomcat's were a thing? I see your point though.

Out of the USN's current carrier fleet only Nimitz was laid down before Tomcat entered service, but that more or less proves the point: carriers had already gotten plenty big before F-14 came around, and they haven't gotten smaller since its retirement. Forrestal predates even the F-4 Phantom. It was already discovered during WWII that larger carriers tend to be more efficient regardless of the size of the aircraft they carry.

Why are UAV carriers generally portrayed as being smaller and cheaper than conventional carriers then?

Because the UAVs those carriers are portrayed as using are small and cheap in the size range of Predator and Fire Scout, not replacements for large manned aircraft like F/A-18 and E-2. They're supplements to conventional air power, designed to relieve some of the burden from bigger carriers and more capable aircraft, but not replace them.