Your Nation's Warships, Batch 3

[Kassaran]

An amusing thought just crossed my mind on the prospect of lead ships in a class being given the name of said class. What if a country just, didn't? Like calling it a number or something and using that just to gain the reputation of floating 'ghost' ships. Ships that aren't technically commissioned or in service in spite of running under a country's flag? Not really doable for larger flagships, but smaller escorts, submarines, and perhaps certain riverboats and corvettes and cutters could get away with it?

On the topic of determining the role of the Naval Guard in the Kassaran Isles. The main issue I've been having is there really isn't a need for a large number of supercarriers in the Kassaran naval forces and likewise no reason to build it, in spite of having shipyards more than capable of doing so. Our largest vessels in-country aren't Armed Forces, but are just merchant freighters that I'd envision sit close to Longbow size.

Y'know, that's actually a good question, what is the largest ship that could be built?

Quick look on google, Bing, and every/anywhere else that let's you ask says the limit pretty much comes wherever you have locks and docks to service such a vessel. So in theory you could invest in developing the lauded 1,000,000 ton displacement freighter and likewise gain from the massive amount of shipping traffic it would egnerate and be able to retain. It'd probably need it's own detachment of Kassaran Naval Guard to hold and protect given that it'd be a massive investment and source of GDP, but it's interesting to think on how certain structures and vessels may become too valuable to let fail, like certain businesses in the modern world.

[Velkanika]

An amusing thought just crossed my mind on the prospect of lead ships in a class being given the name of said class. What if a country just, didn't? Like calling it a number or something and using that just to gain the reputation of floating 'ghost' ships. Ships that aren't technically commissioned or in service in spite of running under a country's flag? Not really doable for larger flagships, but smaller escorts, submarines, and perhaps certain riverboats and corvettes and cutters could get away with it?

On the topic of determining the role of the Naval Guard in the Kassaran Isles. The main issue I've been having is there really isn't a need for a large number of supercarriers in the Kassaran naval forces and likewise no reason to build it, in spite of having shipyards more than capable of doing so. Our largest vessels in-country aren't Armed Forces, but are just merchant freighters that I'd envision sit close to Longbow size.

Y'know, that's actually a good question, what is the largest ship that could be built?

Quick look on google, Bing, and every/anywhere else that let's you ask says the limit pretty much comes wherever you have locks and docks to service such a vessel. So in theory you could invest in developing the lauded 1,000,000 ton displacement freighter and likewise gain from the massive amount of shipping traffic it would egnerate and be able to retain. It'd probably need it's own detachment of Kassaran Naval Guard to hold and protect given that it'd be a massive investment and source of GDP, but it's interesting to think on how certain structures and vessels may become too valuable to let fail, like certain businesses in the modern world.

The British, Soviets/Russians, and Germans have all done that at various stages in their naval history.

If you want your navy to be able to control sea lanes on the open ocean or operate beyond the reach of shore-based air cover, you need some kind of aircraft carrier. The US, UK, and France provide that capability for NATO while the remaining members historically focus on cheaper niches in modern naval warfare, so if you're going it alone militarily do not look to modern Europe for inspiration.

That said, carriers greatly benefit from being as large as possible, which is why the US builds 100,000 ton examples of the type. A carrier is only as effective as its air wing, and the capabilities of a carrier group changes with the aircraft that make it up. So, if you want to contest sea lanes and the commerce that moves down them, you better have carriers and big carriers are quantifiably better, both in terms of their ability to put weapons on a target and their flexibility toward new aircraft. In short, build the biggest carriers you can support effectively unless you want to be operating sub-optimally.

The theoretical limit on the size of a ship is determined by material science and the state of the shipbuilding arts. 1 million tons displacement is probably doable with modern technology for a bulk cargo ship or supertanker, but that would be a difficult ship to manage in port which would severely limit their usability. The cost savings per ton would be pretty good compared to multiple smaller ships.

If you want me to make a guess, I'd say 2 million tons for a merchie is probably about the limit without advances in nautical architecture. Good luck finding a place to build the dry docks though.

[Gallia-]

An amusing thought just crossed my mind on the prospect of lead ships in a class being given the name of said class. What if a country just, didn't? Like calling it a number or something

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_052D_destroyer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon-class_destroyer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G ... ip_classes

Most ships have multiple names to a class or whatever though. The Virginia SSN can be called a "Virginia" or a "774" for example, and the Type 45s are also called "Darings" sometimes.

[Qhevak]

My largest mainline combat spacecraft. Shipbuilders in Qhevak tend to define "fighter" as "spacecraft mainly designed for combat against other spacecraft", which is how you get 11 million ton dry mass "heavy fighters".

HAV-190 Archangel Heavy Space Superiority Fighter
Image too large for forum
HAV-190B Politics By Other Means of the 4th Strike Division of the Burning Quasar PMC, in standard display colors

Specifications (HAV-190B)
Length: 2280 meters
Maximum Beam: 198 meters
Dry Mass: 11,000,000 tons
Wet Mass: 17,710,000 tons
Personnel: Varied, most often 80 Entangled

Primary Propulsion: TF-2250 Antimatter Catalyzed D-He3 Fusion Torch Drive
Maximum Thrust: 1.045 Teranewtons
Dry Acceleration: 95 m/s^2
Wet Acceleration 59 m/s^2
Max Exhaust Velocity: 6,150 km/s
Wet Delta-V: 2928.84 km/s
Secondary Propulsion: NTER-8223 Nuclear Gas Core Thermal-Electric Maneuvering Thrusters


Primary Electrical Power Supply: Fusion Torch MHD
Maximum Available Electrical Power: 40 terawatts
Primary Thermal Control System: Neutrino Chillers

Primary Armament: 4 PBA-850 Laser-Coupled Particle Accelerator Turrets
Primary Armament Output: Up to 34 Terawatts combined at 0.5 c beam velocity, up to 15 Terawatts per accelerator. Antiparticles can increase damage by a factor of nearly 5.
Secondary Armament: L-1149 100 nm laser phased array, combat mirror drones
Secondary Armament Output: Up to 10 Terawatts

Primary Defense: Quantum Dot Adaptive Star Pyramid Armor
Secondary Defenses: Plasma bubble defense drones, close in hardkill defensive railguns, AN/ALQ-24895 ECM suite

The most advanced warship class currently in service, the HAV-190 Archangel is a long range heavy fighter designed primarily for gaining space superiority over a star system. It is a dedicated space combatant, lacking any onboard space to ground weapon systems (the phased array can penetrate atmosphere if wavelength is increased, though this reduces range), although it carries provisions for external weapons pods enabling it to perform this duty in the absence of more dedicated craft.

Like most mainline combatants, the HAV-190 has an extremely thin star pyramid shape, resembling a sharply ridged needle from a distance. Four heavy particle accelerator cannon pods are mounted external towards the wide end of the pyramid.

The HAV-190B is the full production space superiority variants with 1484 built - the early production HAV-190A variant with 10% less thrust is mostly scrapped, though 9 are still in use with Burning Quaser. The HEV-190B EWAR variant replaces 2 of the particle accelerators with an expanded phased array - 91 built, most in use with the Knights Aethra.

[New Vihenia]

Y'know, that's actually a good question, what is the largest ship that could be built?

Yeah, a real Megaton range supertanker concept did exist. AFAIK.

[The Northernmost Americas]

Posted this in the wrong thread.
Assuming fitting two Merlin's onto a destroyer isn't possible, would one merlin or two SH-60s be better for ASW?

[United States of PA]

I'd personally argue the pair of SH-60s. The Merlin may be more capable by itself but with two helicopters you have redundancy in case of mechanical failure and twice the search/attack capability

[The Akasha Colony]

Posted this in the wrong thread.
Assuming fitting two Merlin's onto a destroyer isn't possible, would one merlin or two SH-60s be better for ASW?

It can be done. You just need a large enough hangar. A Type 26 could probably do it if you pull one of the helos forward into the mission bay.

[Velkanika]

Y'know, that's actually a good question, what is the largest ship that could be built?

Yeah, a real Megaton range supertanker concept did exist. AFAIK.

Seawise Giant, sunk in the Tanker War by Iraqi aircraft. She displaced 645,000 tons, and was salvaged after the war and returned to service IIRC.

[Austrasien]

Behold! My first proper(ish) full write-up. (Ironically, most of the information here would be highly classified.)

It seems odd to make a sub clearly inspired by the Seawolf when even the writeup acknowledges the main concern is diesel-AIP boats that mostly creep at single-digit knots in shallow water. It seems it would have the same problem the USN encountered with being unable to actually find modern diesel boats in shallow water...

There is a pretty good physical basis for arguing subs simply aren't the way to go for ASW now that the fast/deep/loud approach is falling into obsolescence. The total acoustic energy radiated by a modern diesel boat running on its AIP is so low that there is no credible way it could be recovered at a useful distance in the presence of background noise. Hunting these boats with passive sonar simply won't work without effectively crashing into them unless they happen to be running fast. Even if you are going to use subs for ASW they will need to work very closely with airborne assets.

As an aside, one of the most promising techniques for detecting underwater objects ATM is "ghost imaging". Though googling it will mostly just give you blather about spooky-scary quantum and detecting B-2s; it is a very powerful technique for recovering the image of an object which is heavily obscured by interfering (in the wave sense) the very small amount of light reflected from it with the direct light of the illuminator. This could push the depth a submarine could be photographed in effect potentially down to the limits of light penetration into the water (which would cover most of the world's littorals including important areas like the Baltic and East/South China Sea) and probably much work has already been done in this area. But the ideal platforms for visible light ghost cameras would be aircraft or satellites.

[New Vihenia]

As an aside, one of the most promising techniques for detecting underwater objects ATM is "ghost imaging". Though googling it will mostly just give you blather about spooky-scary quantum and detecting B-2s; it is a very powerful technique for recovering the image of an object which is heavily obscured by interfering (in the wave sense) the very small amount of light reflected from it with the direct light of the illuminator. This could push the depth a submarine could be photographed in effect potentially down to the limits of light penetration into the water (which would cover most of the world's littorals including important areas like the Baltic and East/South China Sea) and probably much work has already been done in this area. But the ideal platforms for visible light ghost cameras would be aircraft or satellites.

So a Green-blue laser spinoffs but instead of working like Radar. It will instead measure the "quantum observables" ?

Sounds like all the limitations from the acoustics or MAD would carry over as the platform will still have to survey a large swaths of ocean. The advantage however is this one is directional so should one sub is found. It would support weapon delivery from 3rd party.

[Austrasien]

The sun (and possibly the moon) is a bit more promising than lasers for that reason. Ghost imagining does not as was sometimes claimed require either entanglement or a coherent light source.

[Mitheldalond]

The need to constantly circulate reactor coolant is a major source of noise on even the quietest nuclear submarines, and is one of the main reasons it's considered possible to make an AIP-equipped diesel-electric boat quieter than a nuclear one. The Uinen is one of only a handful of nuclear submarines that have the ability to operate with their reactor pumps secured (turned off). When this is done, the only moving parts left to produce sound are the propeller shaft and motor, making them quieter than many AIP boats, which often have additional moving parts (Stirling engines for example). However, this can only be done for a short time before the reactor is in danger of overheating. The Uinen-class solves this problem by reducing reactor output to the minimum level necessary to sustain the reaction (they could just shut down the reactor completely, but this runs the risk - however slight - of not being able to restart the reactor, so it's rarely done). This dramatically reduces the amount of heat produced, which allows the Uinens to operate significantly longer with pumps secured, or to circulate coolant much more slowly and quietly. When operating in this mode, the boats run entirely on battery power. They use lithium-ion batteries - which have a much higher capacity than the older lead-acid types - and carry an unusually large number of cells for a nuclear boat, allowing for up to three days of operations at a speed of around 5 knots. Unlike diesel-electric subs, an Uinen does not have to surface to recharge her batteries; she simply has to increase her reactor output to normal levels.

I'm not sure if this is some kind of intentional IC technology shortcoming, but natural circulation reactors have been capable of operating indefinitely without pumps for over 50 years, without any danger of "overheating" or some kind of time limit. IIRC the newer NCR designs in boats like Virginia can provide something like 30-40% of maximum output without the pumps, so they can provide quite a lot of power while silent without any concern about overheating.

The relative noise output of a diesel boat and a modern SSN is more or less irrelevant; both are quieter than the ambient ocean and therefore essentially equally undetectable by passive means at any useful distance.

No, that would be some critical research failure on my part, not an intentional flaw. I’ll have to change this paragraph into something about how her reactor can drive her to something like 20-25 knots (and power her other systems) without coolant pumps, with enough battery capacity to boost that up to 35 knots for several hours. After that she’d have to either slow back down, or turn on her coolant pumps to maintain speed.

And then take out anything about diesel boats being quieter.

Even so, Uinen-class boats have reported difficulty detecting and tracking each other in exercises.

This is generally true of most modern submarines: even modern passive sonar is generally no longer very effective at detecting modern submarines, be they nuclear or diesel.

Now that much I did know, or at least assumed. I still decided to put it in not because it makes her unique, but because 1) I wanted to clarify where I conceptually intended her to fall on the spectrum of sensors vs. stealth, 2) I wanted to emphasize her stealthiness even against high performance sensors, and 3) as an aid to help anyone who doesn’t know that much about naval/submarine combat deal with her more realistically in an RP.

Weapons complement seems light and unusually arranged for a hunter-killer. The Los Angeles-class was considered to be uncomfortably short of stowage with only 25 torpedoes, which is why the 12-tube VLS was added. But the VLS obviously didn't increase torpedo storage, it improved land-attack capability. A hunter-killer would be armed more like Seawolf or Astute: more torpedo room space, less or no VLS. Since Tomahawks and Harpoons can be fired from the torpedo tubes anyway, this is enough to provide basic surface attack capability if needed.

She’s not really intended to be exclusively a hunter-killer. More of general-purpose attack sub with a focus/emphasis on anti-sub warfare; she still needs at least some ability fulfill the other roles of an attack submarine. A small(ish), highly stealthy boat would, for example, be well suited for delivering/extracting special forces, intelligence gathering in foreign waters, or sneaking a missile strike in close passed enemy defenses.

The VLS silos (or I guess multi-purpose silos would be a better term) are intended to be able to swap out the missile packs for SEAL Delivery Vehicles, lock-out chambers, intelligence gathering equipment, etc. as needed (they are basically a shorter version of Ohio’s ballistic missile tubes). My intention is for them to be placed side by side in the hull outside of the pressure hull. There would be essentially two pressure hulls (fore and aft) connected by a thinner (wasp-waisted) section of pressure hull – maybe about 10’x10’x10’ - between the two silos. My thinking is that this would increase her ability to survive a torpedo hit, since in theory only one pressure hull would be damaged, with no danger of flooding to the other. Above the thin section between the silos I’m thinking of putting an escape trunk/pod. Below I’m now thinking of putting a hanger for a couple of smallish UUVs – maybe about REMUS 6000 sized, but wire controlled to communicate with the sub – fitted with active sonar and maybe ~20km of cable to give the sub the ability to do an active sonar search without giving away its position.

Also, the what I’ve found indicates that it takes about 15 min to reload a torpedo tube, and I’m pretty sure you can only reload one or two at once. So launching a 12-missile attack from 6 torpedo tubes could take about an hour, while VLS tubes could do it in a few seconds.

I don’t remember exactly why I only gave them 26 torpedoes, but the reason probably doesn’t apply anymore (the original concept was for a class of lower cost diesel AIP boats, so they’ve obviously changed a lot since then). I might bump it up to 30 weapons, but these are mainly designed as carrier group escorts, so in theory a lower weapon capacity shouldn’t be a huge problem; they can just presumably go get more from a replenishment ship.

It's nice to see something that isn't a titanium-hulled gigasub though.

To be fair, my other attack sub is basically the Jimmy Carter with missiles instead of SEALs (like a Freedom!Yasen), though it isn’t made of titanium. Uinen was always intended to be a smaller boat. I thought about making them out of titanium, but decided it wasn’t worth the cost. I didn’t really want them to be super deep diving, the magnetic signature could be dealt with in cheaper ways, and I didn’t want to drive the price up unnecessarily.

On the subject of modern subs and passive sonar, "quieter than x class" means literally nothing. Modern quieting improvements have really been about isolating and eliminating specific frequency bands rather than reducing the overall volume of noise radiated. Likewise, modern passive sonar advances are primarily on the processing end to look for patterns of noise in specific frequency bands.

It is overall quieter than a Seawolf, though. In addition to what TBN said, even if there were no improvements in technology, it’s still a smaller boat with a smaller surface area, which means it reflects less sound from an active sonar ping and produces less hull noise through less contact with the water. The difference may be insignificant, but it technically does exist.

Good call about processor improvements though.

[Gallia-]

lmao just make a soryu

[The Akasha Colony]

No, that would be some critical research failure on my part, not an intentional flaw. I’ll have to change this paragraph into something about how her reactor can drive her to something like 20-25 knots (and power her other systems) without coolant pumps, with enough battery capacity to boost that up to 35 knots for several hours. After that she’d have to either slow back down, or turn on her coolant pumps to maintain speed.

That kind of battery capacity would be pretty extreme. Drag increases quite a bit at higher speeds, so a battery pack that can take you from 25 to 35 knots will be much beefier than one that can take you from 0 to 10 knots. There's no point in trying to go that fast on batteries + NCR anyway. You'd be making so much noise due to water flow that reactor pump noise would not be a concern. Everyone and their deaf grandmother will hear your submarine anyway.

She’s not really intended to be exclusively a hunter-killer. More of general-purpose attack sub with a focus/emphasis on anti-sub warfare; she still needs at least some ability fulfill the other roles of an attack submarine. A small(ish), highly stealthy boat would, for example, be well suited for delivering/extracting special forces, intelligence gathering in foreign waters, or sneaking a missile strike in close passed enemy defenses.

The VLS silos (or I guess multi-purpose silos would be a better term) are intended to be able to swap out the missile packs for SEAL Delivery Vehicles, lock-out chambers, intelligence gathering equipment, etc. as needed (they are basically a shorter version of Ohio’s ballistic missile tubes). My intention is for them to be placed side by side in the hull outside of the pressure hull. There would be essentially two pressure hulls (fore and aft) connected by a thinner (wasp-waisted) section of pressure hull – maybe about 10’x10’x10’ - between the two silos. My thinking is that this would increase her ability to survive a torpedo hit, since in theory only one pressure hull would be damaged, with no danger of flooding to the other. Above the thin section between the silos I’m thinking of putting an escape trunk/pod. Below I’m now thinking of putting a hanger for a couple of smallish UUVs – maybe about REMUS 6000 sized, but wire controlled to communicate with the sub – fitted with active sonar and maybe ~20km of cable to give the sub the ability to do an active sonar search without giving away its position.

You can use internal pressure bulkheads to improve survivability. There's no reason in particular they have to be limited to the edges of the pressure hull. The Soviets divided their pressure hulls into around a half-dozen compartments and it generally worked in making their submarines much more survivable. Of course, they were not able to stop incidents from occurring in the first place.

Also, the what I’ve found indicates that it takes about 15 min to reload a torpedo tube, and I’m pretty sure you can only reload one or two at once. So launching a 12-missile attack from 6 torpedo tubes could take about an hour, while VLS tubes could do it in a few seconds.

Torpedo loading can be quite fast if the next one is ready to go. They're all moved mechanically, after all. The trouble comes if for some reason you have to load a specific weapon that's stored in an inconvenient rack. But a 12-missile strike would be quite a serious attack. That's the sort of thing you call an SSGN for. Or target with the planes from the carrier group you're escorting, or from the VLS of its escorts.

I don’t remember exactly why I only gave them 26 torpedoes, but the reason probably doesn’t apply anymore (the original concept was for a class of lower cost diesel AIP boats, so they’ve obviously changed a lot since then). I might bump it up to 30 weapons, but these are mainly designed as carrier group escorts, so in theory a lower weapon capacity shouldn’t be a huge problem; they can just presumably go get more from a replenishment ship.

Underway replenishment of torpedoes is... troublesome. Torpedoes are ungainly to deal with even in port, nevermind at sea. And submarines are rather ungainly on the surface. Unless you pull into port, but that's the kind of absence that a deeper magazine is meant to avoid.

It is overall quieter than a Seawolf, though. In addition to what TBN said, even if there were no improvements in technology, it’s still a smaller boat with a smaller surface area, which means it reflects less sound from an active sonar ping and produces less hull noise through less contact with the water. The difference may be insignificant, but it technically does exist.

Good call about processor improvements though.

Larger boats tend to be quieter than smaller ones because they have more room for quieting measures. When the Soviets produced improved, quieter versions of their submarines, they tended to get larger not smaller, and Seawolf is of course noticeably larger than Los Angeles despite being much quieter. A larger boat has more room for equipment rafting and simply buries the equipment deeper in the hull.

[New Visayan Islands]

Y'know, that's actually a good question, what is the largest ship that could be built?

Yeah, a real Megaton range supertanker concept did exist. AFAIK.

Imagine making an oiler out of something that large.

[United Earthlings]

She’s not really intended to be exclusively a hunter-killer. More of general-purpose attack sub with a focus/emphasis on anti-sub warfare; she still needs at least some ability fulfill the other roles of an attack submarine. A small(ish), highly stealthy boat would, for example, be well suited for delivering/extracting special forces, intelligence gathering in foreign waters, or sneaking a missile strike in close passed enemy defenses.

A smaller sub would be well suited if you were building a specialized boat like a dedicated hunter-killer, but seeing as you’re building a more multi-purpose sub, the size you have listed now may be too small to successfully perform all that you’re asking out of the design without making major compromises in one capability or another.

There’s a reason why the American Virginia Class while not as beamier as the Seawolf Class is quite a bit longer in length being the Virginia Class was designed from the start to be a multi-purpose replacement for the multi-purpose 688I LA Class. Realistically, even with the larger beam, your sub design would probably be 20 to 30 feet longer depending on hull shape to get maximum use out of the capabilities you have listed.

To get my dedicated hunter-killer Stalker class design in at a length of 97.54 meters {320 feet} and a beam of 11.6 meters {38 feet}, that meant no special forces operating capability and no VLS system. Instead, I’m planning on using the Stalker Class as a design building block where I build modified longer variants and sub-classes derived from the Stalker class to fulfill other mission roles and requirements like a special operational/intelligence collection version and a SSGN sub-class.

Below I’m now thinking of putting a hanger for a couple of smallish UUVs – maybe about REMUS 6000 sized, but wire controlled to communicate with the sub – fitted with active sonar and maybe ~20km of cable to give the sub the ability to do an active sonar search without giving away its position.

Interesting, but considering the sonar systems on the submarine themselves are probably going to be way better in capability, I’d just hope for one of my submarines to be at the right time right place and with its passive sensors pick up the opening of the hanger and if able to do so undetected, send a wire guided torpedo in the direction of the sound contact. With some good educated guesses, math and some luck once the active sonar is activated on the torpedo, it’s probably bye-bye to your submarine.

Also, the what I’ve found indicates that it takes about 15 min to reload a torpedo tube, and I’m pretty sure you can only reload one or two at once. So launching a 12-missile attack from 6 torpedo tubes could take about an hour, while VLS tubes could do it in a few seconds.

Reload times would depend on if you have an automated reloading system, how good the crew is, number/size of tubes needing to be reloaded, the type of weapon to be reloaded and from where the weapons are being reloaded from.

Assuming a good automated reloading system and crew, reloading 6 533mm torpedo tubes from the closest on the weapons racks, you’d have an average reloading time {all 6 tubes} anywhere between 5 to 7.5 minutes {which is half of fifteen minutes}.

I don’t remember exactly why I only gave them 26 torpedoes, but the reason probably doesn’t apply anymore (the original concept was for a class of lower cost diesel AIP boats, so they’ve obviously changed a lot since then). I might bump it up to 30 weapons, but these are mainly designed as carrier group escorts, so in theory a lower weapon capacity shouldn’t be a huge problem; they can just presumably go get more from a replenishment ship.

From the looks of things, the 26 torpedoes payload seems to have come from some listed sources of the number for the Virginia Class.

Sitting at a pier, reloading the submarines full weapons complement can take upward of half a day (12 hours). I don’t image you’d want your submarine sitting and bobbing {depending on surface conditions) on the surface for half a day if not longer. This is why a lower weapons payload capability can be a problem, especially if you’re expecting your submarine to fire at targets at a higher rate and still be able to remain on station effectively.

I forget to mention this in my last post, but seeing as you went with all 26in tubes for your design, please don’t repeat what the Americans did historically and never develop any type of weapons for use with the 26in tubes. I know your still in the Beta phase of the design, but you don’t have any weapons listed beyond what can be fired from 21in tubes. If you never plan to develop larger weapons for use from the larger diameter tubes, then just stick with a 21in/533 mm tube design.

[Triplebaconation]

Lol

[Gallia-]

The sun (and possibly the moon) is a bit more promising than lasers for that reason. Ghost imagining does not as was sometimes claimed require either entanglement or a coherent light source.

Galla is extremely big brained so it just blue green lasers on P-7 in like 1999 and never looked back. 10 years later it regrets the past I guess, but it probably uses the lasers to coordinate wolf packs of Hyper-Barbels in the littorals with P-7 search aircraft being the spotter so it all works out in the end.

Return to the past.

Cummunists put Yak-141 on ZLL barges or something I guess.

Full circle the 80 year cycle is complete.

[Kuoyama]

So there is a major Inter-war era/ WW2 project my nation has for that time period.
I call it the Dronning-class Battleship, but basically the idea is a ship with a diamond orientation of guns in the front, two on the center-line, the back one higher than the front, and two on the sides of the ship near the front, able to shoot forwards and sideways are two more wing guns. And two more main guns in the back. That totals to 6 15-inch guns. I'll be putting an armor belt on it.

My general idea for it's use would be in narrow straights or when surrounded by friendly ships, so it could keep a narrow profile and shoot forward. It will probably be pretty slow, but I want to know, is this feasible, and if so, any tips on it?

[The Akasha Colony]

So there is a major Inter-war era/ WW2 project my nation has for that time period.
I call it the Dronning-class Battleship, but basically the idea is a ship with a diamond orientation of guns in the front, two on the center-line, the back one higher than the front, and two on the sides of the ship near the front, able to shoot forwards and sideways are two more wing guns. And two more main guns in the back. That totals to 6 15-inch guns. I'll be putting an armor belt on it.

My general idea for it's use would be in narrow straights or when surrounded by friendly ships, so it could keep a narrow profile and shoot forward. It will probably be pretty slow, but I want to know, is this feasible, and if so, any tips on it?

Wing turrets were already known to be a bad idea before WWI. By the time the war started, all battleships and battlecruisers under construction for the major powers had adopted an all-centerline arrangement of some form, and after the war any thought of a wing-mounted main battery was more or less discarded. If maximum frontal firepower is required, it is much simpler and effective to do so with multi-gun superfiring turrets like the French were fond of in designs like Richelieu.

Most powers did not favor this arrangement though because it leaves a significant arc to the stern unprotected by the main guns. The French accepted it in order to meet treaty limits on displacement without sacrificing speed or armor. Traditional fore and aft centerline arrangements have the advantage of providing full coverage with very large arcs to either side in which the entire main battery could be brought to bear. This maximizes tactical flexibility, especially given the tendency for warships to operate in squadrons in a line astern formation.

[Kuoyama]

So there is a major Inter-war era/ WW2 project my nation has for that time period.
I call it the Dronning-class Battleship, but basically the idea is a ship with a diamond orientation of guns in the front, two on the center-line, the back one higher than the front, and two on the sides of the ship near the front, able to shoot forwards and sideways are two more wing guns. And two more main guns in the back. That totals to 6 15-inch guns. I'll be putting an armor belt on it.

My general idea for it's use would be in narrow straights or when surrounded by friendly ships, so it could keep a narrow profile and shoot forward. It will probably be pretty slow, but I want to know, is this feasible, and if so, any tips on it?

Wing turrets were already known to be a bad idea before WWI. By the time the war started, all battleships and battlecruisers under construction for the major powers had adopted an all-centerline arrangement of some form, and after the war any thought of a wing-mounted main battery was more or less discarded. If maximum frontal firepower is required, it is much simpler and effective to do so with multi-gun superfiring turrets like the French were fond of in designs like Richelieu.

Most powers did not favor this arrangement though because it leaves a significant arc to the stern unprotected by the main guns. The French accepted it in order to meet treaty limits on displacement without sacrificing speed or armor. Traditional fore and aft centerline arrangements have the advantage of providing full coverage with very large arcs to either side in which the entire main battery could be brought to bear. This maximizes tactical flexibility, especially given the tendency for warships to operate in squadrons in a line astern formation.

Good to know. That explains why I couldn't find any ships like that

[HarYan]

V/STOL aircraft carrier, assault ships and their variants;

-> Justitia-class - ATHLAS 26000 design variant:
- IAH Justitia (LAM-01).

-> Assertor-class - LPD-17 class design variant:
- IAH Assertor (LPM-01).
- IAH Lyxsandere (LPM-02).
- IAH Haiyllaer (LPM-03).

As well as many types of LCUs used on them for landings.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Main surface combatants;

-> Libertas-class - HDD-5000/DW5500D design variant:
- IAH Libertas (DDM-07).
- IAH Littoryan (DDM-08).
- IAH Constitutione (DDM-09).
- IAH Harchon (DDM-10).
- IAH Avernyan (DDM-11).

-> Independentia-class - HDF-3500/DW3000H design variant:
- IAH Independentia (FFM-08).
- IAH Alxsare (FFM-09).
- IAH Kukir (FFM-10).
- IAH Nahiyke (FFM-11).
- IAH Julgator (FFM-12).
- IAH Razzator (FFM-13).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Submarines;

-> Potestatem-class - Barracuda-class design variant (nuclear-powered):
- IAH Potestatem (SSN-01).
- IAH Haiyad (SSN-02).
- IAH Tercya (SSN-03).
- IAH Anora (SSN-04).
- IAH Scythier (SSN-05).
-------------------------------------------------------
Patrol vessels/FACs;

-> Armya-class - HDC-500/PKG-A/PKG variant:
- IAH Armya (PKS-01).
- IAH Sabre (PKS-02).
- IAH Adaga (PKS-03).
- IAH Gatto (PKS-04).
- IAH Politia (PKS-05).
- IAH Monitor (PKS-06).
- IAH Delegatus (PKS-07).
- IAH Sanyose (PKS-08).
- IAH Scymithar (PKS-09).
- IAH Mar. Yanyan Gontialves de Paulo (PKS-10).
- IAH Mar. Yoanian Paulsan de Gaullia (PKS-11).
- IAH Mar. Hytran Marsal (PKS-12).
- IAH Scetico (PKS-13).
- IAH Arradyr (PKS-14).
- IAH Norrad (PKS-15).
- IAH Democratia (PKS-16).
- IAH Res Publica (PKS-17).
- IAH Monarchia (PKS-18).
----------------------------------------------------
Mine countermeasures vessels;

-> Vingator-class - MCM:
- IAH Vingator (AMS-01).
- IAH Vigiles (AMS-02).
- IAH Paulaner (AMS-03).
- IAH Thiagryan (AMS-04).

All the logistics and other ships of the auxiliary fleet will not be listed. However, relevant to say that the war or/and intervention and interdiction fleet is usually accompanied by one, two or three replenishment ships: two Pilar-class (HDA-8000), which are IAH Pilar (AOR-04) and IAH Auxiliador (AOR-05), and/or one Vigor-class (HDA-23000), which is IAH Vigor (AOR-06), and/or one Opus-class (T-AO 187-class), which is IAH Opus (AOM-02), logistics support ships. As well, the Armada can request the use of civilian cargo ships in times of war, temporarily incorporating them into the fleet. The Armada also haves one submarine rescue ship, one research vessel and one, secret, intelligence ship. The previous list includes the fleet dedicated to combat and patrol active duties, at the exact moment the request for information was made, updated after the New Navy Modernization Directive Law, which redefined the acquisitions priorities trough the cancelation of old and establishment of new goals, and not being listed smaller vessels launched from them such as landing boats or speedboats, nor the fleets aircrafts such as carrier-based fighter jets and helicopters, as can be seen.

This list is the correct one, there was previously one posted elsewhere but it was totally wrong, being a list of ships from a fake navy used for an exercise. Mistake from an intern.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Wing turrets were already known to be a bad idea before WWI. By the time the war started, all battleships and battlecruisers under construction for the major powers had adopted an all-centerline arrangement of some form, and after the war any thought of a wing-mounted main battery was more or less discarded. If maximum frontal firepower is required, it is much simpler and effective to do so with multi-gun superfiring turrets like the French were fond of in designs like Richelieu.

Most powers did not favor this arrangement though because it leaves a significant arc to the stern unprotected by the main guns. The French accepted it in order to meet treaty limits on displacement without sacrificing speed or armor. Traditional fore and aft centerline arrangements have the advantage of providing full coverage with very large arcs to either side in which the entire main battery could be brought to bear. This maximizes tactical flexibility, especially given the tendency for warships to operate in squadrons in a line astern formation.

Good to know. That explains why I couldn't find any ships like that

And then there was the Nelson that shoved all 3 triple turrets forwards of the superstructure.

[Nou Pais Valencia]

My Navy is modern and has few new ships in final production phase as the Joan Fuster frigate class. 4000 tonnes stealth frigates and the fleet future support ship. Being those ships almost twice the tonnage the frigates they replace. Until recently did had a restriction in their size because our needs did not require large ships with great endurance. Was not since the 1990s Gulf war and Yugoslav wars that our Navy had to do long deployments at sea in blockade duties.
We are on an interior sea and we have not a large EEZ so most of our operations were not far from our coasts, except for some naval exercises or port calls our Navy didn't enter much to the open seas.
Also, it was not until the 70s when my country entered the EEC my country was not considered a first World one, so
So not until recent years my fleet has expanded in ship size and support to operate in open seas.