Your Nations Warships, MKII

[The Selkie]

A .50cal probably not but an ATGM definitely would, however it's a bit like poking holes in the hindenburg with a sewing needle.The leak would be nothing compared to total tankage and you could probably patch the hole with random crap laying around on the ship.

I suppose I could just drop a bomb on the ship but that's obviously the boring way out.

I think, that I once read, that a tanker typically does not have one cell full of oil (or whatever she is transporting), but multiple. That, and most modern tankers have two hulls to prevent 'natural' oil leaks.
So, it would be a little bit difficult to cause an effective oil leak in a modern tanker. And that with good reason, I might add...

[Allanea]

Well I imagine that a 100-250 kiloram bomb would at the very least cause a very big fire.

[The Selkie]

Well I imagine that a 100-250 kiloram bomb would at the very least cause a very big fire.

That should work, but it wouldn't be an oil leak with crude oil being washed ashore, black seagulls with sticky wings in the news of everyone and Greenpeace trying to get your head. It would just be a very big fire at sea.

[Purpelia]

Size he ship, dump the oil overboard.

[Allanea]

Well I imagine that a 100-250 kiloram bomb would at the very least cause a very big fire.

That should work, but it wouldn't be an oil leak with crude oil being washed ashore, black seagulls with sticky wings in the news of everyone and Greenpeace trying to get your head. It would just be a very big fire at sea.

That's kind of disappointed but my main goal here is to prevent the oil from reaching its destination while also making life as difficult as possible for the ship owner at minimum effort to myself.

[Purpelia]

If you were to detonate a torpedo under the keep I don't imagine you'd get a huge oil fire. You'd just open a big gaping hole in the ship and have it leak out.

[Allanea]

Probably even break the ship in two.

[Prosorusiya]

So, work on my Caspian Sea fleet continues. My current plan is to do something along these lines:

Navy:
1 Molina
3 Matka
2 Aist
3 Lebed
1 Sonya

Coast Guard:
2 AB-25

Naval Aviation:
4 Mi-14

[Pharthan]

That should work, but it wouldn't be an oil leak with crude oil being washed ashore, black seagulls with sticky wings in the news of everyone and Greenpeace trying to get your head. It would just be a very big fire at sea.

That's kind of disappointed but my main goal here is to prevent the oil from reaching its destination while also making life as difficult as possible for the ship owner at minimum effort to myself.

If you want it to catch fire you'd need a multistage bomb, most likely, as you first need to vaporize/atomize it then catch it aflame, as oil rather notoriously doesn't catch when in liquid form at "typical" fire temperatures we reach in common practice.

Seeing as that probably violates your rule of "minimum effort for self," you probably would just want a usual torpedo or mine. If you mine the trade route that's relatively inexpensive (pending number of mines), low tech, and easy, though not guaranteed.
The two ways I see of accomplishing this are:
1 - release the oil, as previously stated.
2 - stop the ship, as has been in a roundabout way stated, but can also include methods to simply kill propulsion or steering, such as a smaller torpedo to the rear of the ship or something to clog the water intakes. Fishing nets can be rather bothersome, for example.

If you don't care for subterfuge, a few decent boghammars could probably accomplish the task of poking holes as well as be able to fend off whatever defense the oil tanker has.
You just would need a lot of holes.

[Halfblakistan]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my aircraft cruiser question. I'll keep the ones I have in my roster. Btw, I was thinking of something like the Vittorio Venetto (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian ... eneto_(550)).

Ah yes, the Forger. Apart from spotaneously ejecting its pilot, consuming its own exhaust or run out of fuel just outside its own carrier's SAM's it practically carried nothing in terms of actual weapons. One has to wonder how such a prototypical aircraft got as far as it did.

Yakolev had conned the Admiral of the Fleet at the time into believing that they could make a STOVL fighter superior to all existing CATOBAR options for the Soviet Union. That's the reason why they used STOBAR instead of CATOBAR, because the absolute only time a ski jump is equal to a catapult is if you want to use STOVL aircraft.

Speaking of ski jumps, Halfblakistan may want to use the F-35B instead of the F-35C if he's dead set on STOBAR carriers. The payload capacity limitations from flying a F-35C off a ski jump will limit it to about half a tank of gas and two Sidewinders. While this is indisputably far superior to the performance of the Yak-38, I personally would rather have the variant of the same airframe that can loft a reasonable payload from an STOBAR flight deck.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I really hate the F-35 for too many reasons to list here. Why not just use the Sea Harrier?

I plan on trying to build my own STOVL jet for export and I'll need some help with lineart. Be on the lookout!

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my aircraft cruiser question. I'll keep the ones I have in my roster. Btw, I was thinking of something like the Vittorio Venetto (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian ... eneto_(550)).

Yakolev had conned the Admiral of the Fleet at the time into believing that they could make a STOVL fighter superior to all existing CATOBAR options for the Soviet Union. That's the reason why they used STOBAR instead of CATOBAR, because the absolute only time a ski jump is equal to a catapult is if you want to use STOVL aircraft.

Speaking of ski jumps, Halfblakistan may want to use the F-35B instead of the F-35C if he's dead set on STOBAR carriers. The payload capacity limitations from flying a F-35C off a ski jump will limit it to about half a tank of gas and two Sidewinders. While this is indisputably far superior to the performance of the Yak-38, I personally would rather have the variant of the same airframe that can loft a reasonable payload from an STOBAR flight deck.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I really hate the F-35 for too many reasons to list here. Why not just use the Sea Harrier?

I plan on trying to build my own STOVL jet for export and I'll need some help with lineart. Be on the lookout!

There's always the Hawker P.1216.

[North Arkana]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my aircraft cruiser question. I'll keep the ones I have in my roster. Btw, I was thinking of something like the Vittorio Venetto (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian ... eneto_(550)).

That particular ship probably isn't the best design to go with, especially with the plentiful supply of aircraft people will throw at it.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my aircraft cruiser question. I'll keep the ones I have in my roster. Btw, I was thinking of something like the Vittorio Venetto (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian ... eneto_(550)).

That particular ship probably isn't the best design to go with, especially with the plentiful supply of aircraft people will throw at it.

Vittorio Veneto is perfectly fine if you don't look at it as a power projection machine but as its original intended role as the centre-piece of an ASW battlegroup.

[North Arkana]

That particular ship probably isn't the best design to go with, especially with the plentiful supply of aircraft people will throw at it.

Vittorio Veneto is perfectly fine if you don't look at it as a power projection machine but as its original intended role as the centre-piece of an ASW battlegroup.

With the meta of II... It's likely it will never see its intended role. There's a distinct lack of naval warfare, much less submarine warfare in II.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Vittorio Veneto is perfectly fine if you don't look at it as a power projection machine but as its original intended role as the centre-piece of an ASW battlegroup.

With the meta of II... It's likely it will never see its intended role. There's a distinct lack of naval warfare, much less submarine warfare in II.

The general wankery that is the II-universe is actually of no concern to me and hasn't been for a long while, let's leave it at that, shan't we?

[Velkanika]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my aircraft cruiser question. I'll keep the ones I have in my roster. Btw, I was thinking of something like the Vittorio Venetto (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian ... eneto_(550)).

Yakolev had conned the Admiral of the Fleet at the time into believing that they could make a STOVL fighter superior to all existing CATOBAR options for the Soviet Union. That's the reason why they used STOBAR instead of CATOBAR, because the absolute only time a ski jump is equal to a catapult is if you want to use STOVL aircraft.

Speaking of ski jumps, Halfblakistan may want to use the F-35B instead of the F-35C if he's dead set on STOBAR carriers. The payload capacity limitations from flying a F-35C off a ski jump will limit it to about half a tank of gas and two Sidewinders. While this is indisputably far superior to the performance of the Yak-38, I personally would rather have the variant of the same airframe that can loft a reasonable payload from an STOBAR flight deck.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I really hate the F-35 for too many reasons to list here. Why not just use the Sea Harrier?

I plan on trying to build my own STOVL jet for export and I'll need some help with lineart. Be on the lookout!

The F-35 Lightening II is far and away the best STOVL fighter in the world. Believe it or not, the carrier and land-based versions are also decent dogfighters compared to everything the Chinese have. In the case of the F-35A, it can almost certainly turn within 2­° per second of the F-16 once the AoA limiters are relaxed.

[Halfblakistan]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my aircraft cruiser question. I'll keep the ones I have in my roster. Btw, I was thinking of something like the Vittorio Venetto (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian ... eneto_(550)).



Thanks for the suggestion, but I really hate the F-35 for too many reasons to list here. Why not just use the Sea Harrier?

I plan on trying to build my own STOVL jet for export and I'll need some help with lineart. Be on the lookout!

The F-35 Lightening II is far and away the best STOVL fighter in the world. Believe it or not, the carrier and land-based versions are also decent dogfighters compared to everything the Chinese have. In the case of the F-35A, it can almost certainly turn within 2­° per second of the F-16 once the AoA limiters are relaxed.

My main problem with the F-35B is the prohibitive cost of over $100 million. I'm RPing as a small island nation in the South Atlantic, and I think that the F-35 is just too much hardware. If I was a major country with a GDP of trillions of dollars and multiple suppercarriers, I would absolutely consider the F-35, but the country I'm RPing as is small.

The main reason I want a STOVL capability is so I can deploy my fighters from a helicopter carrier or STOBAR carrier.

[Auroya]

I'm considering converting a former military submarine into a civilian vessel. While a lot of other major refits are being done, how complicated would it be to strengthen the hull to allow it to dive deeper? Is doing that beyond a point where building a new specially-designed submarine would be cheaper?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The F-35 Lightening II is far and away the best STOVL fighter in the world. Believe it or not, the carrier and land-based versions are also decent dogfighters compared to everything the Chinese have. In the case of the F-35A, it can almost certainly turn within 2­° per second of the F-16 once the AoA limiters are relaxed.

My main problem with the F-35B is the prohibitive cost of over $100 million. I'm RPing as a small island nation in the South Atlantic, and I think that the F-35 is just too much hardware. If I was a major country with a GDP of trillions of dollars and multiple suppercarriers, I would absolutely consider the F-35, but the country I'm RPing as is small.

The main reason I want a STOVL capability is so I can deploy my fighters from a helicopter carrier or STOBAR carrier.

I would then suggest some kind of Indian arrangement, MiG-29K's, Sea Harriers and Ex-Soviet carriers.

[New Oyashima]

How do people feel about aircraft cruisers

The only true Aircraft Cruiser.

[The Soodean Imperium]

I'm RPing as a small island nation in the South Atlantic... the country I'm RPing as is small... The main reason I want a STOVL capability is so I can deploy my fighters from a helicopter carrier or STOBAR carrier.

It's possible that my definition of this term differs from yours, but I fail to see why a "small island nation" has the motive and the resources to build its own fleet of STOVL carriers.

[The Corparation]

I'm considering converting a former military submarine into a civilian vessel. While a lot of other major refits are being done, how complicated would it be to strengthen the hull to allow it to dive deeper? Is doing that beyond a point where building a new specially-designed submarine would be cheaper?

Why does a civilian organization need a military submarine? And why does it need to dive that deep?

[The Selkie]

I'm considering converting a former military submarine into a civilian vessel. While a lot of other major refits are being done, how complicated would it be to strengthen the hull to allow it to dive deeper? Is doing that beyond a point where building a new specially-designed submarine would be cheaper?

Why does a civilian organization need a military submarine? And why does it need to dive that deep?

Research? And if an outdated military sub can be bought, then why not?

[The Soodean Imperium]

I'm considering converting a former military submarine into a civilian vessel. While a lot of other major refits are being done, how complicated would it be to strengthen the hull to allow it to dive deeper? Is doing that beyond a point where building a new specially-designed submarine would be cheaper?

Why does a civilian organization need a military submarine? And why does it need to dive that deep?

From The Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy, p.444:

"In the 1960s two diesel-electric submarines of the Whiskey class were converted to oceanographic-fisheries research submarines. Renamed Severyanka and Slavyanka, their forward torpedo rooms were converted to laboratories, observation stations were installed to permit scientists to view the outside water, exterior lights were fitted, and provisions were made to recover seafloor samples. About six to eight scientists [in addition to the regular crew] were assigned for these missions. The two undersea craft operated in the research role for several years before being discarded."

Note the last sentence though. To me this seems to fall under the category of "it has been done, but apparently didn't work very well, and there are more efficient ways of doing it."

[Auroya]

I'm considering converting a former military submarine into a civilian vessel. While a lot of other major refits are being done, how complicated would it be to strengthen the hull to allow it to dive deeper? Is doing that beyond a point where building a new specially-designed submarine would be cheaper?

Why does a civilian organization need a military submarine? And why does it need to dive that deep?

It'll either end up as a deep-sea research vessel or a cargo submarine. It's commissioned by a government agency, so the funding and resources to do it exist. The latter doesn't need to dive all that deep, but it'll also be used to resupply a chain of undersea bases that exist in the canon it's intended for. The bases themselves exist because of IC reasons, but they're not especially relevant.