by Triplebaconation » Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:42 pm
by The Corparation » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:37 pm
Triplebaconation wrote:Spaceships are allowed. The best are spherical.
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by United Earthlings » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:24 pm
The Soodean Imperium wrote:The discussion about "multipurpose" frigates a few weeks ago got me to go back and make a factbook entry for some old lineart I had sitting around:([url=http://iiwiki.com/images/thumb/c/c2/ISS_Gimonbyun.png/800px-ISS_Gimonbyun.png]Image)[/url]
TL;DR: The above frigate is designed to patrol the outer fringe of a CVBG or other escorted unit for submarines, and occasionally take part in massed AShM strikes against hostile CVBGs. For this purpose, it has VLS space for cruise missiles, ASROCs, and AShMs, as well as a towed array sonar and two helicopters (the landing pad can fit my ASW tiltrotor design for refueling and basic maintenance, but the hangars are too small to support long-term basing). It is not, however, capable of taking on the full roles of a DDG: while it has ample short-range SAMs for self-defense, it lacks the long-range SAMs necessary for area air defense, as well as the powerful radars needed to support them. This allows it to keep displacement below 3500 tonnes and cost below $300 million, resulting in a reasonably compact frigate that does its given role well rather than one of the multirole destroyer-size frigates appearing in Europe.
The Soodean Imperium wrote:Bearing in mind, of course, that "it sounds like the US Navy is heading in that direction, eventually" should be taken with about as many grains of salt as "this concept art represents the next generation of warship that will be in service by 2035"
by The Technocratic Syndicalists » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:52 pm
Basic Information:
- Type: Ballistic Missile Defense Cruiser
- Displacement: 30,000 tons full load
- Length: 260 m
- Beam: 28 m
- Draft: 10 m
Propulsion:
- 1x 300 MWe Lead-bismuth cooled fast reactor
- 2x steam turbines
- 2x backup diesel generators
- 2x superconducting homopolar (SCH) generators
- 2x skewback propellors driven by superconducting homopolar (SCH) motors, 70,000 shp each
Performance:
- Top Speed: 30+ knots
- Range: crew endurance
Sensors:
- SPY-3 MFR/SPY-4 VSR Dual Band Radar (DBR)
- AAQ-37 Electro Optical DAS
- UPX-36 CIFF-SD IFF Interrogator
- SQS-60 Hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar
- SQS-61 Hull-mounted high-frequency sonar
- SQR-20 Multi-function towed array sonar
Countermeasures:
- SLY-2 (V) Advanced Integrated Electronic Warfare System (AIEWS)
- MK36 SRBOC with Nulka
- SLQ-25 Nixie Torpedo decoy system
- Surface Ship Torpedo Defense (SSTD) Torpedo hardkill system
Armament:
- 512x mk 57 VLS cells
- 8x KEI cells
- 3x 30mm mk 46 mod 2 GWS
- 2x MK32 Surface Vessel Torpedo Tubes (SVTT)
- 1x 155mm L-AGS or 1x 64 MJ electromagnetic railgun
Aircraft Carried:
- 2x SV-22 LAMPS III tiltrotor
- 2x MQ-8C VT-UAV
SDI AG Arcaenian Military Factbook | Task Force Atlas International Freedom Coalition |
by Ouadai » Thu Aug 11, 2016 11:33 pm
Class Overview
In commission: 1972–present
Planned: 3
Completed: 2
Active: 2
General Characteristics
Displacement: 523 tonnes standard, 557 tonnes full load
Length: 52.5 m (172 ft 3 in)
Beam: 9 m (29 ft 6 in)
Draught: 1.65 m (5 ft 4 in)
Propulsion: 2 shaft, 2 × diesel engines (2,625 shp each), 5,100 shp total
Speed:
Maximum - 27 knots (50 km/h)
Cruise - 17 knots (31 km/h)
Range: 410 km (254 mi)
Autonomy: 8-9 days
Armament:
1× 90 mm DEFA cannon
1 × SZU-23-2 23 mm antiaircraft gun
3 × Browning M2 12.7 mm machine guns
1 x BM-41 rocket launcher (2x2 mounting)
2 s SA-7 Strela (hard-point for single launcher)
6 x UGDM mines or 14 x YaM mines
Electronics:
1 x Donets-2 navigational radar
1 x L-2 Luna infrared searchlight
Compliment: 15 (13 enlisted and 2 officers)
by New Chilokver » Fri Aug 12, 2016 1:24 am
About User Hong Kong-Australian Male Pro: Yeah Neutral: Meh Con: Nah | | [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] | [HOI I - Peacetime conditions] Head of Government: President Sohum Jain Population: 195.10 million GDP (nominal): $6.39 trillion Military personnel: 523.5k IIWiki | There is no news. | | Other Stuff
|
by Minroz » Fri Aug 12, 2016 3:17 am
by The Akasha Colony » Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:08 am
MInroz wrote:Well, here’s the draft of RL ships for my navy:
Aircraft carrier
- (Insert my aircraft carrier)
Amphibous assault ships
- Type-071 (Yuzhao-class)
Amphibous transport docks
- Whidbey Island-class
- Harpers Ferry-class
Cruisers
- Ticonderoga-class
Destroyers
- Arleigh Burke-class
- Type 45 Daring class
Frigates
- Formidable-class
- Type-23
Submarines
- Virginia-class
- Yasen-class
- Typhoon-class
- Seawolf-class
- Oscar-class
Battlecruisers
- (Insert my battleships)
Battlecruisers
- Kirov-class
- Slava-class
Fast Attack Crafts/Patrol Boats
- Fearless-class Patrol vessels
- River-class Patrol vessels
Auxiliary Vessels
- Ural Command ship
What did you think?
On other hand, I've been entertaining thoughts of installing Railguns on all of my large warships. Greater the firepower, I'd say~.
by United States of PA » Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:12 am
by The Akasha Colony » Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:19 am
United States of PA wrote:Quick question regarding AMDR. Wikipedia mentions that the navy wants a 20ft version but the Burke deckhouse can only fit a 14ft radar.
What's the benefit of the larger 20ft version? Range?
by United States of PA » Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:23 am
by The Soodean Imperium » Fri Aug 12, 2016 5:23 am
United Earthlings wrote:The Soodean Imperium wrote:The discussion about "multipurpose" frigates a few weeks ago got me to go back and make a factbook entry for some old lineart I had sitting around:([url=http://iiwiki.com/images/thumb/c/c2/ISS_Gimonbyun.png/800px-ISS_Gimonbyun.png]Image)[/url]
TL;DR: The above frigate is designed to patrol the outer fringe of a CVBG or other escorted unit for submarines, and occasionally take part in massed AShM strikes against hostile CVBGs. For this purpose, it has VLS space for cruise missiles, ASROCs, and AShMs, as well as a towed array sonar and two helicopters (the landing pad can fit my ASW tiltrotor design for refueling and basic maintenance, but the hangars are too small to support long-term basing). It is not, however, capable of taking on the full roles of a DDG: while it has ample short-range SAMs for self-defense, it lacks the long-range SAMs necessary for area air defense, as well as the powerful radars needed to support them. This allows it to keep displacement below 3500 tonnes and cost below $300 million, resulting in a reasonably compact frigate that does its given role well rather than one of the multirole destroyer-size frigates appearing in Europe.
For starters, I just wanted to state that I just absolutely adore that little frigate of yours; too many people just tend to neglect the smaller combatants, though I do have a few concerns and critiques.
Based on examination of real life designs and prior miscalculation errors when working on my own frigate designs, I feel it may be prudent of you to both recalculate and reexamine the volumetric area of your weapons system especially as it concerns the twenty aft VLS cells, which nudged in between your twin helicopter hanger and engine room given the limited length and width of this design from my perspective exceeds the margins of error of what’s physically possible. Even after crunching the hard numbers, if you’re still able to cram those aft VLS cells into there, from all appearances it would seem to be a tight fit and therefore not good design practice as it places undo critical failure points on the vessel design especially if hit by enemy weapons fire.
But, hey it’s not like navies have never built subpar naval vessels before.
Given comparisons to real life designs and your weapons outfit, I’m afraid to tell you that this design as it currently stands, is not going to meet the 3200 tonnes fully loaded displacement design goal you have set. You’d actually be looking at somewhere in the range of between 3600 and 3800 tonnes for standard with a full load displacement within 3800 and 4,000 tonnes.
Now for the good news, by also comparing other real life designs, but this time on unit cost, while the various costs would fluctuate due to numerous variables that would be unique to your nation. A per unit cost of below $200 million is not impossible.
The closest real life design that matches yours would be the German MEKO class frigates specifically the Valour-class frigate which when I applied a currency converted came out to $180,834,000 per vessel. Adjust for inflation and your nation’s unique labor market, a $182-184 million per vessel once production gears up is certainly possible with maybe the first few vessels being around the $200 million mark, like say 205 or 206.
Finally, I tried finding write-ups {factbooks} for your other naval vessels especially the other Destroyers, Frigates and Submarines you have listed, but I guess you haven’t gotten to those yet.
P.S. I also read your military doctrine and have a few suggestions for improvement, but now’s probably not the time for that nor is probably this thread.
The Soodean Imperium wrote:Bearing in mind, of course, that "it sounds like the US Navy is heading in that direction, eventually" should be taken with about as many grains of salt as "this concept art represents the next generation of warship that will be in service by 2035"
While I’m pleased that my statement, given its deliberate vagueness, was understood about the implied grain of salt, I’m baffled as to why you took my statement out of context and then applied a false analogy to it.
What was wrong with my prior statement?
by Spirit of Hope » Fri Aug 12, 2016 5:28 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Minroz » Fri Aug 12, 2016 6:08 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:You seem to enjoy duplicating things. I have no idea why you'd need three different modern attack submarine classes, especially two of essentially the same age but of rather different design. Typhoon is also a poor choice if you're also just picking off the rack, and I don't know why you'd need both Burke and Type 45.
This more or less demonstrates the deeper problem with this and other lists like it: without context, many choices end up making little sense.
by Purpelia » Fri Aug 12, 2016 6:10 am
by North Arkana » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:25 am
by Prosorusiya » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:35 am
by The Akasha Colony » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:47 am
MInroz wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:You seem to enjoy duplicating things. I have no idea why you'd need three different modern attack submarine classes, especially two of essentially the same age but of rather different design. Typhoon is also a poor choice if you're also just picking off the rack, and I don't know why you'd need both Burke and Type 45.
This more or less demonstrates the deeper problem with this and other lists like it: without context, many choices end up making little sense.
I thought it's good to have some varieties (including for artistic reasons). Other than that, I wouldn't put up the list here if I'm cocky about it. I was going to consult with everyone about my list so I can trimmed down the ones I probably won't need. Brainstorming in other words.
It's just an idea. :|
Edited: Plus Naval military affairs are not my areas of expertise anyway. So here I am.
by Gallia- » Fri Aug 12, 2016 3:22 pm
by The IASM » Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:15 pm
by Kommeria » Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:34 pm
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sat Aug 13, 2016 2:48 am
MInroz wrote:Well, here’s the draft of RL ships for my navy:
Aircraft carrier
- (Insert my aircraft carrier)
Amphibous assault ships
- Type-071 (Yuzhao-class)
Amphibous transport docks
- Whidbey Island-class
- Harpers Ferry-class
Cruisers
- Ticonderoga-class
Destroyers
- Arleigh Burke-class
- Type 45 Daring class
Frigates
- Formidable-class
- Type-23
Submarines
- Virginia-class
- Yasen-class
- Typhoon-class
- Seawolf-class
- Oscar-class
Battlecruisers
- (Insert my battleships)
Battlecruisers
- Kirov-class
- Slava-class
Fast Attack Crafts/Patrol Boats
- Fearless-class Patrol vessels
- River-class Patrol vessels
Auxiliary Vessels
- Ural Command ship
What did you think?
On other hand, I've been entertaining thoughts of installing Railguns on all of my large warships. Greater the firepower, I'd say~.
by Connori Pilgrims » Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:43 am
by Minroz » Sat Aug 13, 2016 5:21 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:Functionally, there's little reason to duplicate designs. Designing and producing a nuclear submarine is a very expensive and time-consuming undertaking, and designing multiple classes to fill the same role is an inefficient use of limited resources. There's little reason you'd need Virginia and Severodvinsk and Seawolf simultaneously. Maybe two of those designs, if one is a newer type replacing an older one (like Virginia replacing Seawolf), but that leaves the third one as odd man out with no role to fill. And from a design perspective, Severodvinsk is very different from Virginia and Seawolf, so it would be hard to explain why such a submarine was designed in the first place given its significant departures from existing practice.
There's also little reason to have two different destroyers. Arleigh Burke already has robust air defense capability that obviates the need for a dedicated air defense destroyer like Type 45, especially one that uses entirely different missiles and electronics. Conversely, equipping Type 45 with the Mk 41 VLS they are designed with space for largely eliminates the need for Burke by giving it the strike capability that it currently lacks.
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:That is a very gweilo navy for somebody playing the Qing Dynasty. <.<
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Aurevbush, Lehpuhrta, Majestic-12 [Bot]
Advertisement