Your Nation's Warships, Batch 3

[Triplebaconation]

Are you ready to discuss the merits of big guns and the exact definition of "frigate" and "destroyer" for four more years?

No? Too bad! Get your links to Wikipedia ready, because it's (almost) time for a new "Your Nation's Warships" thread!

Spaceships are allowed. The best are spherical.

USEFUL LINKS:
https://www.amazon.com/Conways-Worlds-F ... 1860-1905/

[The Corparation]

Tagged with a shit destroyer





Will post rest of my ships later. My warship folder is a little disorganized at the moment.

Spaceships are allowed. The best are spherical.

But spheres are boring.....Egg shaped is clearly superior.. Older shitty drawing of a FT warship I made ages back. Not sure if I ever posted it or not. I'm currently in the process of redrawing all the warships for that FT history., but I haven't done any of the "combat hulls." Rational for the shape is that spheres are efficient but have drawbacks in terms of construction and layout. The stretched egg shape allows the drive to be positioned farther from the crew section and the stretched cylinder at center allows for easier construction.

[United Earthlings]

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.

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?

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

What about putting in some useful links in the OP? Off the top of my head:
Springsharp
Shipbucket
Naval Weapons
How to hide a taskforce

Maybe also add a FAQ answering things like "why battleships in MT and superdreadnoughts/supercapital ships are bad", etc

Anyways my most recent ship project: The Tempest-Class Ballistic Missile Defense Cruiser:

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

[Ouadai]

The Kolak-class River Monitor is the largest ship in service with the Ouadaian Armed Forces. The ship is based upon the Russian/Soviet http://russianships.info/eng/borderguard/project_1204.htm of river monitors in service with the Soviet Navy. However, due to close historic and economic ties with Ouadai, the ships employ mostly French/Western technology. There are two ships within the Kolak-class: the OAB Kolak and OAB Imam. The OAB Kolak was built with foreign aide between 1970 and 1972 and commissioned in 1972, while the OAB Imam was built in 1972 and commissioned in 1973. The two ships are nominally part of the Ouadaian Army's Southern Military District, but operate under the independent Mban River Command, which reports directly to the Ouadaian General Staff, rather than the Southern Military District commander.

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)

[New Chilokver]

What kind of accuracy can you expect from an AShBM?

[Minroz]

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~.

[The Akasha Colony]

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~.

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.

[United States of PA]

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?

[The Akasha Colony]

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?

It would presumably have more T/R modules, and having more elements would give it higher peak power and greater flexibility, as the larger number of elements could be distributed over a wider number of tasks (e.g. it could maintain a datalink with more missiles without as much of an impact on search/tracking capability). And yeah, higher peak power generally does increase range against a given target.

[United States of PA]

Thanks!

[The Soodean Imperium]

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.

TBH, the aft VLS cells were originally inspired by my discovery last year of Buyan-M, which fits eight 9-meter-deep VLS cells in a much smaller hull (albeit the hull of a shallow-draft corvette built for enclosed seas). These VLS cells are only 6.1 meters deep, if that helps, though it might also raise the metacentric height which is also bad. I would gladly raise the full-load displacement to 3,800 tonnes by deepening draft, though, if that helps things. I'd originally envisioned it closer to 4,000 but after running the dimensions through SpringSharp again I got a lower number.

If anything, I enjoy building warships that are a little sub-par. I find they add a lot more flavor to writeups than "ideal" designs which outperform all their real-life counterparts but still came in below budget and ahead of schedule. As long as my ships aren't splitting apart in heavy seas I'm basically fine, and even then it's not without precedent

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.

TBH I took the cost from Type 054A and converted it into USD, I'm surprised I ended up with a high figure.

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.

It's more like I finished them before starting iiwiki and then decided to overhaul my post-1964 warship designs.

I do have a wiki page for a diesel-electric submarine but I don't know if I'll ever get around to revising it

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.

On the ISN wiki page, you mean?

Yeah that's next on my list for revisions anyway, I hope to give it a thorough overhaul some point.

If you have feedback on the specific role played by Gimonbyun, though, feel free to say it - I currently have a second-batch Gimonbyun-II as WIP lineart and I'm interested in knowing if there's anything I should add or remove.

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?

My reply wasn't directed at you; it was meant to pre-empt anyone else from jumping in with "US Navy is heading in that direction, that means I can have 3D printers on all my warships by 2030!!!1!

[Spirit of Hope]

Spirit of Hope Navy, now with more frigates, and less aircraft carriers.

[Minroz]

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.

[Purpelia]

What is the largest reasonable size and armament for a modern river monitor? What about a WW2 one? For some reason information on these is scarce. Almost like there weren't many to begin with and people don't care enough to write Wikipedia articles on them.

[North Arkana]

It gets tiring hearing people trying to proclaim the death of aircraft carriers because of assorted anti-ship missiles, overrated ballistic missiles, and them supposedly being only good for bombing brown people.

[Prosorusiya]

The biggest I know of are A-H, and were some 50-60 meters long. For a WW2 era monitor, I'd recommend two main 88mm or 90mm guns, because they are high powered and dual purpose. Some kind of small flak guns are good too, in the 40mm-20mm range.

Rockets and tank turrets are also good options for both modern and ww2 era monitors. The Soviets were big into monitors, and it is worth researching some of their classes for guidance, specifically the Project 1204/Shmel class. I think Korva also used to make a modern monitor, at one point? Idk what happened to the art for it though, but if I recall correctly it sported quad 57mm AA guns, rockets, and a PT-76 turret.

[The Akasha Colony]

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.

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.

[EsToVnIa]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/169 ... rip2.0.png

shitty destroyer tag

[Gallia-]

cool boat for cool guys who are cool

[The IASM]

I really need to design my own ships some time.

[Kommeria]

Staten Island- class Light Aircraft Carrier



[Class Name] Staten Island Class
[Ships in Class] 6 in class
CVL-17 Staten Island
CVL-18 Enduring Hope
CVL-19 White Plains
CVL-20 Plum Island
CVL-21 St. Croix
CVL-22 Tora Bora

[Cost Per Unit] $1,560 million
[In Commission] 1999-Present

[Engine] x2 Gas turbine, x4 diesel generators
[Propulsion] Five-bladed, variable pitch propeller x2

[Length] 660 feet
[Draft] 27 feet
[Displacement] 24,500 short tons

[[Complement]
----570 sailors
----150 naval aviators

[Troops Carried] 270 Marines

[Boats/Landing Craft] x5 RHIB x2 CB90

[Aircraft]
------x12 STO/VL fighters
------x4 ASW helicopters
------x2 Logistics tiltrotors
------x2 Airborne early warning and control tiltrotors
------x4 Electronic warfare drones

[Armament]
--x2 SHIELDS gun CIWS
--x4 WARDS missile CIWS
--x4 M2HB .50bmg hmg[/spoiler]

Based on a mix-mash of the Italian carriers Cavour and Giuseppe Garibaldi, added with the Japanese Hyūga class helicopter destroyer and a dash of of American Burke class destroyer.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

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~.

That is a very gweilo navy for somebody playing the Qing Dynasty. <.<

[Connori Pilgrims]

Yay new thread.

Tagging this with a cruiser/large escort (pardon the bad thumbnail):

Dimensions (L/B/D): 241.7m/30.48m/9.05m
Displacement: 33,258 tons
Complement: 47 officers + 368 enlisted
Powerplant: NF(I)-5C-PW-NC PWR + IEP System MkI = 252MW
Speed: ~35.6kts
Sensors:
- S1903 L/S-Band AESA array on superstructure faces
- S1924 X-Band AESA array on rotating mount on top of superstructure
- Type 2084 MF/HF active array on bow
ECM/Countermeasures:
- E1232 EWS multipurpose array on superstructure faces
- E2170 SSTDS torpedo defense system
Armament:
- 74x Mk62 91cm VLS tubes forward: Star Shield Midcourse ABM/ASAT, Lúin Celtchair ASBM/IRBM
- 56x Mk58A 54cm VLS 8-cell systems peripheral, 24 fore and 32 aft: Sentinel II-MR/ER SAM, Sea Lance III/IV ASROC, Star Sentinel ABM/ASAT, Storm Shadow-ERC SLCM, Perseus-ERC AShM
- 2x Mk32C 33cm torpedo tubes concealed midship (12 Stingray III torpedoes)
- 2x 8cm/62 Mk 77 David CIWS midship (600 rounds per gun)
- 2x Mk 2 Mod 0 Miracle LWS forward of superstructure & above hangar
Aircraft: 2x SV-22B ASW/GP VTOL OR 3x MH-40A Comorant ASW/GP helo, 6x MQH-08 Tarantula UAV
Boats: 2x 11m Motor Launch + 4x RHIB

[Minroz]

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.

I see. In that case, I'll choose two out of the three submarines - Virginia and Severodvinsk. As for the destroyers, Alriegh Burke since they can carry more than Type 45.

That is a very gweilo navy for somebody playing the Qing Dynasty. <.<

Not my fault the PRC can't into Navy like Uncle Sam or built any decent warships without copying from the Russians. -_-

Anyhow, I planned to give these ships Chinese names for cosmetic reasons.