NationStates Jolt Archive

Untill recently our Navy has had a few trimaran ships, no longer, they have been decommisioned and will be scrapped, this reduced us to 20 SSBNs, 1 Carrier, 1 Battleship, and 3 Modular Cutters.

OOC: No comments needed, just wanted to let you all know in case of future RPing dealing with Naval combat.

:( :wink:

:( :wink: Thanks for reminding us, we'll just keep them in Reserve.

Ummm, I have a question:

Do you have SSNs, or do you just like n00ks alot?

Why isn't there any attack submarines?

It doesn't make sense for a navy with no attack submarines.

Ummm, I have a question:

Do you have SSNs, or do you just like n00ks alot? Each SSBN carried 20 700 kiloton nukes, and we have no SSNs.

Ummm, I have a question:

Do you have SSNs, or do you just like n00ks alot? Each SSBN carried 20 700 kiloton nukes, and we have no SSNs.
NO SSNs!? :shock:
*Faints*

Ummm, I have a question:

Do you have SSNs, or do you just like n00ks alot? Each SSBN carried 20 700 kiloton nukes, and we have no SSNs.
NO SSNs!? :shock:
*Faints* Our Navy is a POSAM OK? we're going to fix it.

Ok, quick question:

You realise that SSBNs really have no power against surface ships, right? Which means surface combat will be hairy and if you have a surface fleet (which you do, pretty big investments, atleast) you need to assure yourself that your ASW (Anti-Submarine-Warfare) is topnotch or you are going to have a big problem.

Our Navy is a POSAM OK? we're going to fix it.
POSAM?
What's that?

Ok, quick question:

You realise that SSBNs really have no power against surface ships, right? Which means surface combat will be hairy and if you have a surface fleet (which you do, pretty big investments, atleast) you need to assure yourself that your ASW (Anti-Submarine-Warfare) is topnotch or you are going to have a big problem.
SSBNs only have minimal ship attack capability, and most of that is for self defence.
So there's some serious flaws.

Omz222: Piece Of Sh*t Annoyance Machine.

Ruhr: They've got torpedo tubes dude, and I intend to get some SSNs.

Ruhr: They've got torpedo tubes dude, and I intend to get some SSNs.
Having torpedo tubes doesn't mean that they can attack.
German U-Boats also have torpedo tubes.

No SSN's?!!

*sends a few stealth subs to rattle the boomers*

No SSN's?!!

*sends a few stealth subs to rattle the boomers* Would you like some of my ICBMs rammed up your @ss?

No SSN's?!!

*sends a few stealth subs to rattle the boomers* Would you like some of my ICBMs rammed up your @ss?

relax, relax, I was just kidding. Seriously though, you need to buy up some SSN's quickly.

No SSN's?!!

*sends a few stealth subs to rattle the boomers* Would you like some of my ICBMs rammed up your @ss?

relax, relax, I was just kidding. Seriously though, you need to buy up some SSN's quickly. I'm considering the different Classes and nationalities.

You realise a navy can get along fine with no SSN's right? I mean, I have a fleet of SSK's that could rock the sh*t out of any sub comming into my territorial waters.

You realise a navy can get along fine with no SSN's right? I mean, I have a fleet of SSK's that could rock the sh*t out of any sub comming into my territorial waters. SSK?

I'm considering the different Classes and nationalities.
Seawolfs are really good if you have a load of money (Seawolfs are expensive... like 3 bil each).

Also American subs tend to be quieter.

I'm considering the different Classes and nationalities.
Seawolfs are really good if you have a load of money (Seawolfs are expensive... like 3 bil each).

Also American subs tend to be quieter. I knew that, anyhow, I'm still looking, but I'll look into the Seawolf-Class.

Lol, you're a nuke baby eh?

A SSK is a D/E sub, much quieter than a Nuclear sub.

You realise a navy can get along fine with no SSN's right? I mean, I have a fleet of SSK's that could rock the sh*t out of any sub comming into my territorial waters.
Explain how a navy without an attack submarine fleet can really conduct tasks efficently.

You realise a navy can get along fine with no SSN's right? I mean, I have a fleet of SSK's that could rock the sh*t out of any sub comming into my territorial waters.
Explain how a navy without an attack submarine fleet can really conduct tasks efficently. With one HUGE Surface Fleet, that's how.

A SSK is a D/E sub, much quieter than a Nuclear sub.
True, a lot quieter. But their capability is inferior.

There's also those Hydrogen cell subs that's floating around now. I employ over 20 hydrogen cell subs...

A SSK is a D/E sub, much quieter than a Nuclear sub.
True, a lot quieter. But their capability is inferior.

There's also those Hydrogen cell subs that's floating around now. I employ over 20 hydrogen cell subs...Can I get some information on that?

You realise a navy can get along fine with no SSN's right? I mean, I have a fleet of SSK's that could rock the sh*t out of any sub comming into my territorial waters.
Explain how a navy without an attack submarine fleet can really conduct tasks efficently. With one HUGE Surface Fleet, that's how.
Without significant ASW capabilities (with most ships lack), you can expect your fleet sunk after a few hours.

You realise a navy can get along fine with no SSN's right? I mean, I have a fleet of SSK's that could rock the sh*t out of any sub comming into my territorial waters.
Explain how a navy without an attack submarine fleet can really conduct tasks efficently.

Well, for one, you're assuming that the sub fleet will always be on offence. In a defensive role, the SSN's are not the best in the world.

for two, the SSN or the SSBN's are not the only attack subs in the NS world. you could easily use a SSK with a hydrogen fuel cell on it.

Can I get some information on that?
Hydrogen cell subs?

We don't use Nuclear subs at all, but diesel/electric subs as it is a known fact they are much quieter and harder to find even if they are slower. We use Patrol subs, cruise missile subs and baslisic missile subs our selves. Then again all the ships in our navy are nonnuclear so they are limited in how far they can operate away from Teritora by fuel supply.

Well, for one, you're assuming that the sub fleet will always be on offence. In a defensive role, the SSN's are the best in the world.
No, I also did take defense capabilities into account.

for two, the SSN or the SSBN's are not the only attack subs in the NS world. you could easily use a SSK with a hydrogen fuel cell on it.
True.

Can I get some information on that?
Hydrogen cell subs? Yeah.

Indeed, we use a fleet of quieter, though slower SSK's with a D/E/H mix. Triple redundency in case the Sh*t really hits the fan. lol.

Can I get some information on that?
Hydrogen cell subs? Yeah.
Take a diesel sub. Then replace the diesel generators with a bunch of hydrogen fuel cells.

Very quiet subs, and often can stay in the water for a much longer time.

Well, for one, you're assuming that the sub fleet will always be on offence. In a defensive role, the SSN's are the best in the world.
No, I also did take defense capabilities into account.

(I did mean "SSN's and not the best in the world" lol, ^_^ ) - Canada-Germany


for two, the SSN or the SSBN's are not the only attack subs in the NS world. you could easily use a SSK with a hydrogen fuel cell on it.
True.

Indeed, we use a fleet of quieter, though slower SSK's with a D/E/H mix. Triple redundency in case the Sh*t really hits the fan. lol.

We use nuclear subs for anti-ship, hydrogen cell subs for standoff land/ship attack, and a few of those really cheap SSKs for coast guard.

(I did mean "SSN's and not the best in the world" lol, ^_^ )
Sorry, there was a misunderstanding :P

(I did mean "SSN's and not the best in the world" lol, ^_^ )
Sorry, there was a misunderstanding :P

Lol, yeah

Kecha, I hardly consider your surface fleet [b]HUGE[/v].

Build 720 ships ranging from frigate to carrier, then come back and talk me about navy.

I will be more than happy to be a general contractor for your submarines or fleets for that matter, at a price...

First off: SSKs are not effective because of their low range and lack of mobility. Certainly, they are great for close-range defence. HOWEVER, they lack that long range strike capability found in Nuclear Powered subs.

Secondly: Hydrogen Fuel Cell submarines lack acceleration. You need a big, BIG powerplant if you want to feed enough power into your proppellors to get the speeds found on vessels like the Seawolf or Akula even. This powerplant would take away valuable space which is hard to find on submarines.

Kecha, I hardly consider your surface fleet [b]HUGE[/v].

Build 720 ships ranging from frigate to carrier, then come back and talk me about navy.

I will be more than happy to be a general contractor for your submarines or fleets for that matter, at a price... What sort of price?

Well, it depends on what you desire. I can both contract my own sub to you, which I would suggest...or I would go out and find a better one. I only produce nuclear powered capships and in this case, submarines. This means that it would be rare for me to find you the submarine you want if you need something different...

Tell me this first:

What are you looking for in a submarine?

What do you need out of your fleet? (ie: Defence, primary strike utility, long range patrol, etc.)

Well, it depends on what you desire. I can both contract my own sub to you, which I would suggest...or I would go out and find a better one. I only produce nuclear powered capships and in this case, submarines. This means that it would be rare for me to find you the submarine you want if you need something different...

Tell me this first:

What are you looking for in a submarine?

What do you need out of your fleet? (ie: Defence, primary strike utility, long range patrol, etc.) I want a CAN, that stands for Combine Abilities Navy.

Very well.

General contractor for the entire navy, eh? Well...you still aren't clear.

Ok, let us take a normal US Task Force as a case study.

http://www.examiner.net/ussharrytruman/images/battlegroup.jpg

Now, our goal is to get this in porportion to NS warfare.

Which means, a good sized fleet would need:

1) Air-to-Air Combat abilities requiring a Carrier. An absolute must.

2) Surface to Air Defence Capabilities, a Destroyer or Frigate can handle this. Other ships can be designed for this specific application, however.

3) Surface to Surface Combat abilities. When it comes down to it, the best comes from Western Asia, Azazia, or me(not to brag, but it is true. You cannot beat our ships). I will look into what vessels you would need.

4) Sea to Land Attack Abilities (Requiring Rail-Guns and VLS tubes, generally cruisers or battleships fit this role)

5) Anti Submarine Warfare. Frigates and Destroyers are very effective for this. However, some nations produce small carriers fit for this role.

6) Submarine forces. I am sorry, but a SSBN has little to no attack capability. Oglethorpia has an excellent submarine, and I know Azazia has some great ideas for a production unit. You need an attack role, a defence role, a special operations sub, and a missile sub (either cruise missile or Ballistic, you can go with both though, as do I).

7) Anti Missile force. Most circumstances, a ship comes with an Anti-Missile decoy or weaponry. However, a specific ship for this would give you a good chance at keeping more ships afloat.

And there are some more stuff you should worry about, but this is pretty much a quick report I am going to give you. If you accept this, we will discuss terms.

Very well.

General contractor for the entire navy, eh? Well...you still aren't clear.

Ok, let us take a normal US Task Force as a case study.

http://www.examiner.net/ussharrytruman/images/battlegroup.jpg

Now, our goal is to get this in porportion to NS warfare.

Which means, a good sized fleet would need:

1) Air-to-Air Combat abilities requiring a Carrier. An absolute must.

2) Surface to Air Defence Capabilities, a Destroyer or Frigate can handle this. Other ships can be designed for this specific application, however.

3) Surface to Surface Combat abilities. When it comes down to it, the best comes from Western Asia, Azazia, or me(not to brag, but it is true. You cannot beat our ships). I will look into what vessels you would need.

4) Sea to Land Attack Abilities (Requiring Rail-Guns and VLS tubes, generally cruisers or battleships fit this role)

5) Anti Submarine Warfare. Frigates and Destroyers are very effective for this. However, some nations produce small carriers fit for this role.

6) Submarine forces. I am sorry, but a SSBN has little to no attack capability. Oglethorpia has an excellent submarine, and I know Azazia has some great ideas for a production unit. You need an attack role, a defence role, a special operations sub, and a missile sub (either cruise missile or Ballistic, you can go with both though, as do I).

7) Anti Missile force. Most circumstances, a ship comes with an Anti-Missile decoy or weaponry. However, a specific ship for this would give you a good chance at keeping more ships afloat.

And there are some more stuff you should worry about, but this is pretty much a quick report I am going to give you. If you accept this, we will discuss terms. Consider it accepted, let's talk the terms.

Now, most of the ships I have mentioned are currently under production-rights of the Ruhrian Navy. However, I have given limited production rights to several nations in exchange for supplies, money, territory, technology... I am willing to do the same for the key factors of:

Carrier
Battleship
Cruiser

We can work out the fine details later, as far as ship buying goes.

Name a price you are willing to pay for my contracting, keep in mind I am designing an entire navy there.

Now, most of the ships I have mentioned are currently under production-rights of the Ruhrian Navy. However, I have given limited production rights to several nations in exchange for supplies, money, territory, technology... I am willing to do the same for the key factors of:

Carrier
Battleship
Cruiser

We can work out the fine details later, as far as ship buying goes.

Name a price you are willing to pay for my contracting, keep in mind I am designing an entire navy there. The amount we're willing to pay here is high, we shall pay up into the Billions if we must.
~Empress Kushrenada.

10 Billion under contract then.

Ok, now let us get into the specifics:

Carriers: What kind of aircraft do you use?

Battleships: Do you want a missile platform or a gun and missile platform?

10 Billion under contract then.

Ok, now let us get into the specifics:

Carriers: What kind of aircraft do you use?

Battleships: Do you want a missile platform or a gun and missile platform?

Carriers: F-14 Tomcats, F-15s, A-10 Warthogs, and Shadow Sealth Bombers, as well as F-30s.

Battleships: Gun and missile, and we want it to be able to take, and give, heavy punishment for long periods of time.

Well, A-10 Warthogs are not carrier borne craft. However, I know several nations produce carriers with the ability to carry them. As far as your stealth bomber goes, I do not know if that one is carrier capable either. I assume so. And I know the F-30 is capable.

Battleships:
Giving a beating for a long time, easy enough. Railguns and lots of VLS tubes. Looks like you need MLRS also. Do you do a lot of sea-landings?

Well, A-10 Warthogs are not carrier borne craft. However, I know several nations produce carriers with the ability to carry them. As far as your stealth bomber goes, I do not know if that one is carrier capable either. I assume so. And I know the F-30 is capable.

Battleships:
Giving a beating for a long time, easy enough. Railguns and lots of VLS tubes. Looks like you need MLRS also. Do you do a lot of sea-landings?

Battleships: Sea landings? as in shore invasions?

Carriers: Good news, cool.
~Empress Kushrenada.

OOC: Jus a hint, the Russian Kustrozv-whatever CTOL carrier was able to land the Su-39... which is also a tank-killer jet similar to the A-10, but only without the cannon.

OOC: Jus a hint, the Russian Kustrozv-whatever CTOL carrier was able to land the Su-39... which is also a tank-killer jet similar to the A-10, but only without the cannon. OOC: Maybe it was Kutuzov-Class? I know a certain Prince Kutuzov commanded the Russian Army against Napoleon when he invaded Russia, so it might be named for him.

Hmm, Ruhr I would have say Teritora needs a few fleets that do not need Coal, oil and gas to run and can operate far from teritora with out needing fuel ships and we need good modern amphibious Assult ships.

OOC: Jus a hint, the Russian Kustrozv-whatever CTOL carrier was able to land the Su-39... which is also a tank-killer jet similar to the A-10, but only without the cannon. OOC: Maybe it was Kutuzov-Class? I know a certain Prince Kutuzov commanded the Russian Army against Napoleon when he invaded Russia, so it might be named for him.
OOC: Argh, I'll just get off my lazy bum and check...
It is Kuznetsov-class, CTOL carrier.

OOC: Jus a hint, the Russian Kustrozv-whatever CTOL carrier was able to land the Su-39... which is also a tank-killer jet similar to the A-10, but only without the cannon. OOC: Maybe it was Kutuzov-Class? I know a certain Prince Kutuzov commanded the Russian Army against Napoleon when he invaded Russia, so it might be named for him.
OOC: Argh, I'll just get off my lazy bum and check...
It is Kuznetsov-class, CTOL carrier. OOC: Interesting.

OOC: Railguns wouldn't be useful for a battleship. Think about it a raingun is has a super-high velocity and a very low tragectory. This means they are good for direct fire roles, like in space, or as cannons, but for indirect fire, like shore bombardment they are rather useless. The curvature of the earth limits their usefulness as they will fire flat, not arched.

Traditional guns are superior for indirect fire jobs.

OOC: Railguns wouldn't be useful for a battleship. Think about it a raingun is has a super-high velocity and a very low tragectory. This means they are good for direct fire roles, like in space, or as cannons, but for indirect fire, like shore bombardment they are rather useless. The curvature of the earth limits their usefulness as they will fire flat, not arched.

Traditional guns are superior for indirect fire jobs. OOC: Which is why we want a mix with the gun Railguns and Projectile Guns.

OOC: Railguns wouldn't be useful for a battleship. Think about it a raingun is has a super-high velocity and a very low tragectory. This means they are good for direct fire roles, like in space, or as cannons, but for indirect fire, like shore bombardment they are rather useless. The curvature of the earth limits their usefulness as they will fire flat, not arched.

Traditional guns are superior for indirect fire jobs.
OOC: I use modified 16' inch guns from the Iowa class, which can fire a full range of guided and unguided projectiles, with various loads from HE to DPICM submunitions.

Ah, the usefulness of naval guns.

OOC: Railguns wouldn't be useful for a battleship. Think about it a raingun is has a super-high velocity and a very low tragectory. This means they are good for direct fire roles, like in space, or as cannons, but for indirect fire, like shore bombardment they are rather useless. The curvature of the earth limits their usefulness as they will fire flat, not arched.

Traditional guns are superior for indirect fire jobs. OOC: Which is why we want a mix with the gun Railguns and Projectile Guns.

Railguns are only going to be useful out to about 50 miles, why not go with Shipwreck or Harpoon or Exocet missiles? They would be just as damaging, more accurate and with a much greater range.

I have the Sword Mk-3 Class BBGN, which has four tripple turrets, two of which are 20" railguns used primarily for ship-to-ship combat and two of which are 20" conventional guns. It is older, but with some modern modifications, it will be a kick-ass ship.

And just as note: I perfer Railguns, simply because the final velocity is much greater than a conventional gun with its ballistic trajectory.

OOC: Gotta' leave in the next few minutes, check back later.

SH: We might.

Ruhr: Nice ship, are you interested in building those for other nations?

OOC: Railguns wouldn't be useful for a battleship. Think about it a raingun is has a super-high velocity and a very low tragectory. This means they are good for direct fire roles, like in space, or as cannons, but for indirect fire, like shore bombardment they are rather useless. The curvature of the earth limits their usefulness as they will fire flat, not arched.

Traditional guns are superior for indirect fire jobs.
OOC: I use modified 16' inch guns from the Iowa class, which can fire a full range of guided and unguided projectiles, with various loads from HE to DPICM submunitions.

Ah, the usefulness of naval guns.

I use 420mm/50 calibre main guns on my battleships and battlecruisers and dreadnoughts. Speaking of which, your order should almost be done, with 16" guns instead.

Missiles can be shot down, my friend. And what happens when your target is stealth? Then you are screwed. Guns over missiles any day of the week.

I use 420mm/50 calibre main guns on my battleships and battlecruisers and dreadnoughts. Speaking of which, your order should almost be done, with 16" guns instead.

Very good, we are looking forward to have these new ships and commisson them.
How long will it take to completion from now (in RL time)?

Missiles can be shot down, my friend. And what happens when your target is stealth? Then you are screwed. Guns over missiles any day of the week. What about shapeseekers? those can get past stealth spmetimes.

Kecha, you said it yourself: Sometimes. None the less, the easiest way to get around this is have a ship capable of fighting the same vessel several different ways.

I use 420mm/50 calibre main guns on my battleships and battlecruisers and dreadnoughts. Speaking of which, your order should almost be done, with 16" guns instead.

Very good, we are looking forward to have these new ships and commisson them.
How long will it take to completion from now (in RL time)?

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1857469#1857469

Within about an hour RT your last ship will be arriving. Perchance waht are you calling your Marx classes?

Kecha, you said it yourself: Sometimes. None the less, the easiest way to get around this is have a ship capable of fighting the same vessel several different ways. True, anyhow, you seem wise in the ways of Naval ships, so I'm glad I contracted you.

No problem, Kecha. I will put in a request to Ruhrian Defence Technologies for the Production Rights to the Hamburg Class CVN for you, with an extended production limit.

I will also set up one for the Sword Mk-3 Class BBGN, the one I described before. See ya around.

-Ruhr-

First off: SSKs are not effective because of their low range and lack of mobility. Certainly, they are great for close-range defence. HOWEVER, they lack that long range strike capability found in Nuclear Powered subs.

Secondly: Hydrogen Fuel Cell submarines lack acceleration. You need a big, BIG powerplant if you want to feed enough power into your proppellors to get the speeds found on vessels like the Seawolf or Akula even. This powerplant would take away valuable space which is hard to find on submarines.

In the current real world, yes, all that is true, HOWEVER, lol, we are in NS and thus, can fudge up alittle time (Lets say about 10 years). Now, in ten years time, assuming that we continued the research, one might assume that a HFC might get more efficent at a small size, etc?

No problem, Kecha. I will put in a request to Ruhrian Defence Technologies for the Production Rights to the Hamburg Class CVN for you, with an extended production limit.

I will also set up one for the Sword Mk-3 Class BBGN, the one I described before. See ya around.

-Ruhr- Very nice, and many thanks.

I RP 2015 tech, and yes...you are right. Things will get more efficeint over time.

HOWEVER, in order to put out 100,000 SHP...you need a big HFC powerplant. Not only that, but you are going to need sub tenders which are fitted to hold both pure Hydrogen and oxygen. Now, there is an infinite supply around, but the converters would be something to engineer. You would simply end up spending more money than it is worth.

I am not talking about a speed that is equal to one of a SSN. the SSK already has the advantage of quieter operations to overrule the disadvanages of slower speed.

My own SSK's are a D/E/HFC cross for triple redundency, (you can never have enough redundency on a sub or a space craft). Now, this takes up a lot of room, even with miniterization.

But hey, that's just the way it goes, eh? slap a couple of advanced computers on there to keep the crew numbers down, train the remaining crew members really well and hope for the best I guess, lol.

Canada-Germany:

Ok, have fun with your short-range and inefficient SSKs. The amount of room devoted to a quiet engine, It is simpler to have a nuclear reactor and rubber-plated hulls.

Actually, they be plenty efficent. You know how I mentioned that they are a D/E/HFC cross? Well, think about it this way. If you're ever my enemy, you'll not be wanting to come into my territorial waters. After all, I'm not an agressive country, :P