NationStates Jolt Archive

INTRO
Well, I figured that it was really about time I came up with another of these nice threads, and since I had some time off . . .
To be honest, this is my least complete one, and will probably remain so, as there’s so much information out there, and I’m not quite a naval expert. Well informed maybe, but not an expert. Needless to say, there will be more coming here in the future, when I get around to it. For now, enjoy what I have.

Nuclear vs Conventional Propulsion
There is sometimes a bit of confusion as to the relative merits of different types of propulsion, so I’ll clear a few things up.
For starters, lets look at the things that they have in common. Both types use geared steam turbines to turn the propeller, as well as for powering electrical systems, and both use seawater as the standard coolant. They have the same speed limitations and endurance (those are products of hull and other factors unrelated to the engines themselves). This means that nuclear power plants are not faster or more efficient than then conventional ones, and you will gain no increase in top speed by using them. They have similar survivability as well, with the nuclear plant being better protected but conventional being far easier to repair.

There are numerous differences of course. The most notable is that ships with nuclear power plants can maintain higher speeds for longer periods, which is due to the lack of need for refueling, which conventional ships have to slow down to do. In fact, that’s one of the few real advantages. The other is that a nuclear plant has a lower IR signature, and the elimination of stacks and gasses also reduces radar signature as well. On the disadvantages, nuclear power plants are far more expensive to build and maintain than conventional ones, and, believe it or not, even the fuel for a nuclear plant costs more than that for a conventional one. Nuclear power plants also have more rigid design specifications, reducing flexibility in hull design. In addition, turbines powered by conventional plants are actually more efficient, and have a longer service life than those powered by nuclear ones (!). There’s also much greater redundancy in conventional plants (up to 8 boilers compared to up to 2 reactors), so conventional ships are much less likely to be stopped by failures in the power plant itself. Finally, there’s the hazard of contamination and radiation should a nuclear power plant be de compromised, which is not present in conventional ones.
There is an additional disadvantage, and that being that many RL nations will not accept nuclear powered vessels in their ports, but I don’t see much happening with that in NS.


For submarines, however, things are a bit different, and nuclear reactors are very valuable. The primary reason is the exceptionally high endurance (months compared to days or hours) for underwater operations. As such, long-range boats will almost always be nuclear powered, and much larger than, coastal defense submarines. However, there are still disadvantages. The main one is that nuclear power plants are noisier than the quiet diesel-electric ones used by coastal submarines, with this being primarily because the pumps in the reactor must always be running, while DEs can operate on battery charge with no extra moving parts. However, as stated, diesel-electric boats have only a few days endurance, or a few hours in combat, before they have to run to the surface and conduct the very noisy process of recharging their batteries, which is known as “snorting” or “snorkeling.”
An additional type of power plant, which is an advanced variation on the diesel-electric, has recently come into play with the exceptional German Type212A submarine, which uses an advanced hydrogen fuel cell system that allows the submarine to operate on battery power for weeks. Though not quite up to a nuclear boat in range, it’s much quieter and still has the capability for some longer-range deployments.
On a final note, nuclear powered submarines are generally over 1.5 times as fast as diesel-electric boats, though this may have something to do with the more defensive nature of the DEs and the lack of speed requirements.


Warship speeds
This is another thing that a lot of people just don’t get. Simply put, there are very real limits on what can and can’t be done here.
For starters, let’s look at US aircraft carriers. Many people state that the Nimitz class carriers can do 35 knots. To put it bluntly, this was never announced, officially or unofficially (officially, it’s over 30 knots), and actual figures that have been released are much lower than that. The older Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and JFK carriers, which were conventionally powered, are actually the fastest ones we have, and were rated at 32-33.6 knots, depending on the individual ship. The Nimitz class were not built with an efficient hull due to shipyard considerations, and therefore have a correspondingly lower top speed. Early Nimitz carriers were rated at 31.5 knots, and the newest ships couldn’t even break 31 knots on trials. However, these ships are nuclear powered, so they can sustain close to that speed for extended periods of time.

Most nuclear powered ships have a speed of 30-35 knots, depending on the type. These ships can usually sustain cruising speeds of 28-32 knots due to the advantages of the nuclear reactor. Conventionally powered ships with the same speed are limited to a cruising speed of about 20-24 knots. This is close to the limit for most major warships (frigates or larger). Some vessels, particularly frigates, will be notably slower, with a top speed of only 20-24 knots, which keeps them close to medium-speed cargo ships (slower ones are 15-18 knots) and landing ships, many of which generally top at 20 knots.
The 35 knot limit in speed is there for ships because doubling the engine output only creates a few knot increase in speed. For an Iowa class battleship to pull over 40 knots, it would require over twice the power it can safely provide, so I’d consider 35-38 knots the absolute cutoff for any large vessel (over 10,000 tons), and most should be slower.

Submarines are a different matter, especially as they intentionally keep their speed down considerably to make less noise and avoid detection. Nuclear attack subs can generally make 30-35 knots while submerged – the same as similarly sized surface warships. However, the Alfa can go over 45 knots, though the means to do this made the ship rather unreliable and a poor general combatant. Ballistic missile submarines are a bit slower, generally 20-30 knots tops, due mostly to greater size and lack of speed requirements. Diesel-electric boats are generally topped at 20 knots, though I’ve heard as high as 24 for some. Most modern submarines are faster when submerged than when on the surface.

For those who are wondering just what a “knot” is, that’s the term for nautical miles per hour. 1 nautical mile (nm) is equal to about 1.15 statute miles, or a tad over 1.85 kilometers.


Displacement
The term “displacement” generally refers to the weight of the ship. Technically, it’s the weight of the water that the ship displaces to remain afloat, but I don’t want to get things too complicated by going too far into it. As I already posted some guidelines on tonnages for various ship designs, I’ll save this for one very important note. Most ship displacements are in long tons. Of the three types of tons that are used in measurements, long tons are the largest, and are equal to 1.12 short tons (2240 lbs), or 1.016 metric tons (1015.87 kg).


Are battleships obsolete?
This is really a highly debated question. To put it simply, battleships still have a niche that no other ship can fill, and have many very admirable attributes and capabilities.
Naturally, one of the first that comes to mind is survivability. Battleships were designed to survive 15” and 16” shells, which are literally 1000 to 2000 lb penetrating warheads, and many better ships also have excellent torpedo belts. And when you consider that most modern missiles are optimized against lightly and almost completely unprotected vessels, you see that battleships are still very hard to sink, even on a modern battlefield. Indeed, modern antishipping missiles like the Harpoon and Exocet partially make up for their small warheads by having a delayed fuse, which detonates after the missile penetrates the thin skin of a modern ship. With armored vessels like battleships, the advantage gained by that is completely negated, as the missile will be incapable of penetrating the armor. This greatly reduces the already limited effectiveness of these missiles, as it can take over 4 Harpoons to sink a 10,000 ton destroyer, and even a 4000 ton frigate can survive an Exocet. And with the larger missiles with 1000 and 2000 lb warheads (ie Tomahawk naval attack version & AS-4), even these may not be enough to seriously damage a battleship if they don’t hit it in the right spot, and such missiles are far easier to take down than the light sea-skimmers. The traditional battleship weakness against aircraft has been addressed with advances in modern air defense, which is far more effective than the old guns of WWII, and those with good torpedo belts can even shrug off many submarine attacks with ease. These, along with the fact that they were designed to serve in the role, combine to make battleships excellent and highly survivable command vessels.

Another area where the battleship excels is in firepower. Consider that firing the main guns alone, and using light HC projectiles, an Iowa class battleship can deliver 34,200 lbs of ordnance per minute. That’s 513 tons in a half hour, or the same as two full carrier strikes (36 aircraft each) that take several times as long to deliver. Over one hour’s bombardment, an Iowa can actually dish out more firepower than several Nimitz class carriers, and with the relative cost of the 16” shells, this is done much more cheaply than with carriers, and without risking aircraft and pilots. The limit to this is, of course, range. However, this firepower is far more than any current vessel, and the current US Navy is admittedly extremely lacking in naval gunfire capability for cheap shore bombardment. Even with the systems under development, things are not too good there, especially when you consider that the battleships are the only vessels that could actually survive the kinds of threats that are likely to appear in littoral areas once they get within gun range of their targets.

Two of the obvious things for detractors to note are the high cost and profile of battleships. Indeed, a new-built modernized Iowa would probably cost as much to build and maintain as a light nuclear carrier. However, they have much more firepower and can perform the same missions as an assortment of other vessels, which combine to cost more than the single battleship. For profile, this is indeed true. In fact, battleships are so feared that, during the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese refused to consider negotiations while one was around, and demanded that it be removed before they’d even start. However, a high-profile battleship has the advantage of drawing fire from ships that wouldn’t be able to survive, thus increasing the survivability of the whole task force. And even soaking up a great deal of fire, they’re hard to take down.

Another detraction against battleships is their lack of multirole capabilities. Did you know that the Iowa is the only combat vessel that has facilities for refueling other ships? That it has significant supply storage because it was designed to accommodate nearly 1000 more men than it currently does? Didn’t think so.

Some Further Reading on the topic:
http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/battleships.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6747/21centbattleships.htm
http://www.warships1.com/BB61stats/index-BB2-pst03.htm
http://www.warships1.com/W-Iowas/index3_BB2_pst12.htm
http://www.warships1.com/W-Iowas/index3_BB2_pst14.htm note: he overstates newer Soviet antiship missiles toward the end. Their warheads aren’t that powerful – he’s probably thinking of the older AS-2/3/4 with 1000 kg (2200 lb) warheads
http://www.warships1.com/W-Iowas/index3_BB2_pst11.htm
http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm
http://www.spclevents.com/wwwboard/messages/2430.html


NS Battleships and Big Guns
One of the main problems with NS battleship designs is that many fail to take into account what could realistically be put on a ship. Because this is not a very well known fact, I will state this simply. A “minor” increase of 2 inches in bore diameter will reduce the number of guns that can be carried by 33%. This is not guesswork or supposition, but is based on both US and Japanese studies before and during WWII. The US discovered that increasing the size of their battleship guns from 16 to 18” would drop the number that could be carried from 9 guns to 6 or 7. The Japanese, with their Super Yamato project, learned that the 72,000+ ton Yamato, with 9 18.1” guns, would only be able to accept 6 20” rifles, and that a ship with 9 20” guns would have to displace about 100,000 tons. Their ultimate goal was a 90-100,000 tons ship with 8 20” guns. The same thing also applies to secondary weapons, and if you have 12 6” guns, increasing them to 8” ones will reduce the number to 8.


So, to make it easy, here are some general displacements and the maximum number of main guns a ship that size can conceivably carry. If you look at proposed and real designs like the Yamato, Super Yamato and Montana, you’ll see that these do fit rather well. Do note that ships over 70,000 tons are huge, and those that are over 100,000 tons are too much for many harbors and canals. Build that big at your own risk:

Displacement=50-65,000 tons
14” guns: 12
16” guns: 9
18” guns: 6
20” guns: 4

Displacement=70-85,000 tons
14” guns: 16
16” guns: 12
18” guns: 9
20” guns: 6

Displacement=90-110,000 tons
14” guns: 21
16” guns: 16
18” guns: 12
20” guns: 9

Displacement=115-130,000 tons
16” guns: 21
18” guns: 16
20” guns: 12

Displacement=140,000+ tons
18” guns: 21
20” guns: 16


As you can see, it takes quite a bit of tonnage for those larger guns to be used in decent numbers, and that’s assuming that you don’t want to put too much else on the ships. Part of the reason the Iowas were able to be modified like they were was because they were towards the upper end of that weight class. If you want things like AEGIS systems and good ASW capabilities, you’re going to have to sacrifice some guns to get them.
For example, my own ship has long-barreled 16” guns, which are similar to 18” weapons in weight and space requirements. The ship could carry 12 of them easily, but only has 9. Instead, it has a large secondary armament, including guns and VLS, as well as an advanced fire control system, and has provisions for carrying up to 1000 troops and extensive supplies. If I were to equip it with the 3 additional guns that it could easily carry, I’d have to drop the fire control, VLS, and probably much of the secondary armament and storage as well, as there just wouldn’t be enough space.
Also, mixing it up is possible, with a 100,000 ton vessel having, say, 6 20” guns and 4 18” or 8 16”. However, keep in mind the relative amounts, and don’t try to go over, like with say, 3 20” and 9 18” guns. Remember, the amount of space is still finite, and just adding some slightly smaller guns does nothing to increase the amount of space available.

What about adding VLS? Well, for an upgraded WWII ship, or any that’s too closely based on one, that idea would be a no-go. Simply put, that flat space on the deck has things below it. This includes the magazines for the guns and the engine room. You don’t want to deny the ships those now do you? If you want to add VLS cells, you’re going need the internal space as well as the deck space. Consider that the 6.1” AGS for the DD(X) and DD-21 takes up enough internal space for a 64-cell VLS (hmm, that means that you could put only 8 on an Arsenal ship, and those guns aren't that big. Food for thought).


LINKS
Warships of the World (http://warships1.com) - the best site out there. Loads of info on ships and guns, including stats, histories, and essays.
World Navies Today (http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav) - an exceptionally good site that lists a great deal of info on the composition and ships of current navies. A great deal of information on all ships, including transport and support vessels, can be found for each navy. A great reference for building your own fleet.
Globalsecurity US ship index (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/index.html) - this is an excellent site with information on all US naval vessels and their equipment. With the exception of the Russian fleet, there's not much in the way good information on other nations though.
Globalsecurity Russian ship index (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ship.htm) - The list of Soviet ships. It's nowhere near as complete as the US ones, but includes pretty much all postwar submarines and many surface vessels.
Naval Technology Website (http://www.naval-technology.com) - a counterpart to the better knonw army-technology.com website. It's similarly organized, with a wealth of information on ships and manufacturers.

Ship Types
This, combined with all the above information, was just a tad long, so I split it up into two posts. This is a list, and by no means an exhastive one, of different ship types and their designations in the US system, as well as some info on their role and size. I left out things like buoy tenders, surveillance ships, and missile tracking ships, as those are rarely, if ever, RPed in NS. I have included many WWII era types though.


Fleet Carriers (CV, CVN): These are massive ships that carry a full air wing. With over 60 aircraft of various types on board, they have excellent versatility and long-range striking power. Carriers also provide presence. That is, they are extremely visible, as well as respected, and are thus invaluable for power projection. Modern fleet carriers will have a displacement of 80,000 tons or more, and will be able to carry over 60 aircraft, including fighters, strike aircraft, AWACS/AEW, and helicopters. Today, only one nation has fleet carriers, and that’s the USA. The Soviet Union did have a carrier project, but it was cancelled with the end of the cold war. These are among the most expensive ships out there, and nuclear powered ones will cost no less than $4-5 billion. The ships in this category include the Kitty Hawk and Nimitz class carriers.

Light Carriers (CVL, CVLN): These are not quite so massive ships, and represent many of the carriers not in service with the USA. These have a much smaller complement than the large fleet carriers, with about 20-50 total aircraft being carried. With the smaller complement, they’re not as versatile or visisble as the larger fleet carriers, but they are still powerful vessels in their own right. Displacements range from 20,000 to 50,000 tons, with some as high as 65,000. These ships are still very expensive, and nuclear powered ones like the Soviet Kuznetsov and the French Charles de’Gaulle cost over $3 billion each.

Escort Carriers (CVE): These were small aircraft carriers, usually made out of converted merchant hulls, which were designed to help protect convoys during WWII. As such, they were much slower than other warships, and had a very small complement, but they were enough to protect against submarines and long-range overflying bombers. In modern times, this designation could be used for a light carrier, or a similarly slow vessel.

VSTOL/Helicopter Carriers: These could be considered a subdivision of light carriers, but should be mentioned on their own. These are small ships (less than 25,000 tons) that are only capable of handling helicopters and VSTOL aircraft like the Harrier and the future F-35B JSF. The Spanish Principe de Asturias and British Invincible class both fall into this category.

Heliopter/Aviation Cruisers: These are essentially a mix between cruisers and small aircraft carriers. They will maintain gun, missile, and ASW armament comparable to cruisers, but will have a decent helicopter and VTOL complement as well. The largest and best known of these, the Soviet Kievs, displace over 40,000 tons, though most are less than 20,000.

Battleships (BB): These are large vessels displacing 30,000 tons or more (up to 120,000 in some proposed designs), which are armed with large caliber guns, usually ranging from 11.8” (300mm) to 16” (406mm), with some as high as 18.1” (460mm). 20.1” (510mm) guns have also been proposed. In addition to the heavy armament, they also had massive armor protection, up to 25” (635mm), and were able to withstand more punishment than any other class of vessel ever designed. Now, these ships were pretty much considered obsolete by the end of WWII due to the prevalence of carriers and aircarft, and none have been built since then, though a good number remained in service up through the 1950s and ‘60s, and 4 Iowa class ships were modernized in the late ‘80s to provide guided missile platforms as well.

Battlecruisers (CB): These are just one step below battleships in size and power. They mount slightly smaller weapons than battleships, usually 10” to 16”, and have less armor. However, they are generally a bit faster. These ships range from 20,000 tons to a little over 50,000. The most famous of these are the British Hood, the German Scharnhorst, and the Japanese Kongo. The US had their own ships (the Alaska Class), but they were not very successful. It should also be noted that the modern Kirov Guided Missile Cruisers are sometimes referred to as battlecruisers.

Heavy Cruisers (CA): These are a further step down, and their displacement ranges from 10,000 to 25,000 tons, with 15-20,000 being the norm. There is some confusion here as the Washington Naval Treaty limited cruisers to 10,000 tons displacement and 8” guns. However, not far into WWII, many ships that had been previously called heavy cruisers were reclassified as light. These ships were usually armed with 8” (203mm) guns, but some had as low as 6”, and the famed Deutschland Class had 11.1” guns.

Light Cruisers (CL): These were much smaller vessels, usually 6000-12,000 tons, with 10,000 usually being the cutoff point. These ships were usually armed with 6” guns, though 8” and 5” weren’t unheard of. As with heavy cruisers, this class disappeared in the ‘50s and ‘60s, though a few individual ships survived a few more decades.

Guided Missile Cruisers (CG, CGN): These are the modern equivalent to the old gun cruisers of WWII, and range from 8000 to over 20,000 tons. These also represent the smallest surface ships that carry nuclear power plants. With their size most of these cruisers are specialized for either air defense or shore bombardment, but due to their size, they have room for countless other systems as well, and make excellent multirole ships. These are usually used either escorts for carrier and amphibious groups, or as the core of a surface fleet. With the size of these ships, few nations possess any, and only the US and Soviet Union ever had more than a handful. Ticonderoga and Kirov, as well as Virginia nuclear cruisers all fall into this category.

Destroyers (DD): These are pure escort ships, and in the WWII units, they were the primary defense against torpedo boats and submarines. They were armed with light guns (usually 3-5”), as well as torpedoes and depth charges. These ships were not overly powerful on their own, but were excellent at protection larger ships and merchant vessels from attack, and that alone made them extremely important. More destroyers were built during WWII than all other classes of combat vessels combined, and production of some types, like the US Fletcher Class, amounted to several hundred ships. Many of these WWII destroyers were refitted and remained in service for decades. Indeed, some Fletcher, Sumner, and Gearing destroyers are still in service today. WWII destroyers ranged from 2000 to 5000 tons displacement.
Destroyers are also used in significant numbers today, though only by larger navies. Modern destroyers displace 5000-10,000 tons, and some proposed designs go as high as 12,000. These ships are often specialized for air defense or ASW operations, though multirole ships are also common. The US Spruanc and Soviet Sovremenny and Udaloy class ships fall into this category.

Guided Missile Destroyers (DDG): A version of the regular modern destroyers, which are usually specialized toward air defense operations. These are generally around 6000-10,000 tons, and the most notable ships in this category are the US Arleigh Burke and Japanese Kongo class vessels. The British Daring class and the joint Italian/French Horizon project also fall into this category.

Destroyer-Escorts (DE): These were smaller and more lightly armed destroyers that were easily mass-produced and served in WWII convoy escorts, freeing the larger destroyers for other combat operations. These ships were not overly spectacular but performed their assigned role very well. They usually displaced around 1000-2000 tons.

Frigates (FF): These are the modern version of the old destroyer-escort, and perform a wide range of duties. In larger navies, these tend to be specialized ASW ships, with some ASuW and air defense vessels appearing as well. In smaller navies, these are multirole ships that form the core of the naval forces. These ships displace 2000-5000 tons, and include ships like the US Knox class.

Light Frigates (FFL) & Corvettes: These are two very similar classes of ships, ranging in size from 800-2000 tons. They’re primarily large inshore patrol vessels, and specialize in ASW or ASuW operations. Among ships this size, virtually none carry any helicopters, though there are a few exceptions. The US LCS project will fall under this category.

Missile/Patrol Boats: These are about as small as things go, and include pretty much all combat vessels under 800 tons, including ships like Coast Guard cutters. Usually, these ships will have only a few small guns (maybe a 3”) and possibly antishipping missiles like the Harpoon or Exocet, and a few older ones still use unguided torpedoes. The only vessel in this category I would expect many to know by name would be the Soviet Osa, which has made appearances in numerous games, and is in service with the Iraqi, Egyptian, and Syrian navies.

Helicopter Landing Ships (LHA, LHD, LPH): These are large vessels that are similar to light and helicopter carriers, but with one major difference, and that is that their primary role is delivering troops ashore and supporting them. As such, these vessels have the capacity to carry numerous troops (usually about 2000). VSTOL aircraft aren’t uncommon on them, but their primary load is going to be transport helicopters, with a small number of attack helicopters mixed in. In LPHs, that is the full extent of their facilities, but larger LHDs and LHAs also have a well deck like those found in dock landing ships, and thus have a decent vehicle storage area and a number of landing craft as well. Wasp LHDs, Iwo Jima LPHs, and Tarawa LHAs are the most notable ships in these categories. To my knowledge, the only nation other than the US that has a ship in this class is the UK (Ocean). No other navies have them.

Amphibious Transoprt Docks & Dock Landing Ships (LPD, LSD): These are smaller vessels, usually 10,000-20,000 tons, which serve to deliver troops by sea. Rather than running ashore themselves, they have a well deck that accommodates small landing craft like LCACs and LCMs, which are used to ferry troops and equipment ashore. Many have a helicopter platform as well. These are generally found in large modern navies that are either operated by island nations or those with global responsibilities. France, the UK, Japan, Taiwan, and the USA all have them. The former Soviet Union, on the other hand, does not (they were geared toward a land invasion). LPDs differ from LSDs primarily in having greater helicopter accommodations.

Landing Ships (LS, LST): These are large ships that actually run up to the beach and offload troops and equipment directly. Many of the Soviet landing ships are in this category, as is the US Newport LST. These ships are usually moderately armed to provide cover for landing forces, and light guns and rockets are not uncommon.

Landing Craft (LCAC, LCU, LCM, LCS): These are the old landing craft, virtually unchanged since WWII, and famous the world over as the ones that carried the troops ashore at Normandy, though modern ones are often a bit bigger, and there’s now hovercraft in the mix. Most of these are incapable of deploying themselves overseas, and with the exception of some LCUs, all must be carried by larger dock landing ships. The largest may be able to carry half a dozen tanks, though 1-3 is more common. Most of these are armed with no more than a few machine guns. The exception are the LCS (landing craft support) units, which will include some light support weapons, including guns and rockets, to help cover landings.

Joint Command Ships (LCC): These are large vessels that operate as floating command centers. In the US, these are usually converted landing ship hulls. They have some defensive systems, but are mainly large communication vessels.

Minehunters/Minesweepers (MCM, MHC): These are ships specially outfitted for detecting and eliminating naval mines. They’re usually rather small (1500 tons or less), and use various sonars and remote vehicles to perform their tasks. MCMs (Mine CounterMeasures ships) are larger long-range vessels, and MHCs (Coastal Mine Hunters) are smaller inshore vessels.

Multiproduct Replenishment Ships (T-AOE): These are very large vessels (about 50,000 tons) that carry just about anything needed to resupply warships at sea. Their cargo includes generous amounts of fuel, munitions, dry stores, and refrigerated stores. These ships are often fast and have numerous defensive systems, as they are to accompany combat units such as carrier battle groups. They include both supply boons and helicopters for transferring stores.

Ammunition Ships (T-AE): These are large (15,000 – 25,000 tons) ships that are devoted to carrying large amounts of munitions, both from port to port and port to ship. As with the multiproduct ships, they include both boons and helicopters for loading and unloading/transferring cargo.

Combat Stores Ships (T-AFS): These are large (10,000-20,000 tons) ships that provide various stores and spare parts for ships at sea, as well as transport from port to port. Many will include helicopters.

Fleet Oilers (T-AO): These ships are medium-sized tankers that are designed to carry numerous types of liquid stores simultaneously. They’re primary role is replenishing carriers and other ships at sea, though they can also be used as standard tankers if needed.

Submarine Tenders (AS): These are large ships that are tasked with replenishing and repairing submarines at sea. Few nations have any of them, and even in those that do, they’re small in number. The US Emory S. Land ships are capable of handling up to four submarines simultaneously.

Vehicle/Ro-Ro Cargo Ships (T-AKR): These are large vessels that include a number of large ramps for loading and unloading vehicles. There can be a great deal of variation with these units, both in size and speed (nothing else is that important). Most good ones will be able to make 20 or 24 knots, and the Algol can push an impressive 33. The largest of these ships (Watson and Bob Hope classes) rival aircraft carriers and battleships in size, and have over 10 times the cargo space of even the largest dock landing ships. They can carry 300 troops in addition to over 3000 HMMWVs, and if it weren't for weight restrictions, they would be able to carry over 1000 tanks! Most vessels will have only 25-50% that capacity though. Naturally, these ships are primarily tasked with moving heavy equipment, though they may be carrying trucks which themselves are carrying supplies or additional equipment.

Cargo Ships (T-AK): These are your standard large cargo vessels that carry varying amounts of various types of cargo, including fuel, dry stores, munitions, and vehicles. Some will have one or two ramps for vehicles, though all will be equipped with a number of cranes for loading and unloading much of their cargo. The largest of these are prepositioning ships like the Kocak, Martin, and Wheat classes. They’re slightly smaller than the Bob Hopes, but have only 30-40% of the vehicle space, but some can also carry over 1.5 million gallons of fuel, as well as significant amounts of water and other cargo. 4-5 Kocak class ships are supposedly enough to carry all the supplies needed to support a force of 16,000 marines for 30 days. As one might expect, these ships often form the core of supply convoys.

Deckships (T-AK): Two variations on the cargo ship. Both types carry most or all of their cargo on the deck rather than internally, and have unique methods of loading and unloading. Both carry primarily small vessels like landing craft and barges, rather than standard cargo. The first is the Flo-Flo (Float-on/Float-off) ship, and it can be ballasted down so the deck is submerged, allowing the cargo to literally float on or off. The second is a little more traditional, and is known as a Lo/Lo (Lift-on/Lift-off) deckship. These ships have an extremely heavy cargo boon able to haul loaded ships up. It benefits from the ability to load from docks as well, and the US Strong Virginian holds 4 LCUs, 150 vehicles, and 420,000 gallons of fuel.

Crane Ships (T-ACS): These are former cargo vessels equipped with heavy cranes to assist other ships in loading and unloading especially heavy loads. They usually have 4-6 heavy cranes, and they retain the ability to carry cargo containers on their own. They usually displace about 20,000-30,000 tons.

Transport Tankers (T-AOT): These are your standard oil tankers in military service. Displacement ranges from 35,000-70,000 tons, and they carry 150,000-400,000 barrels of fuel (that’s several million gallons). Some ships, like the US Mount Washington and Chesapeake ships have a system that allows them to discharge their cargo without port facilities, making them invaluable to coastal operations away from ports.

Coastal Transport Tankers (T-AOT): These are a subdivision of transport tankers, but are much smaller (5000-10,000 tons) and carry only 20,000-40,000 barrels of fuel. They operate between ports that aren’t separated by open ocean, and remain in littoral regions.

Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSB, SSBN): These are large submarines that are designed as naval platforms for ballistic missiles. Early ones fired short or medium range missiles that required them to get close to their target (relatively speaking), while later missiles have truly intercontinental range, and can be fired from home waters if desired. Though the primary mission is to act as an SLBM platform, these ships have good sonars and torpedoes for defense, so can be used as ad-hoc attack vessels. These ships are usually quite large, displacing 15,000 tons or more with current ships, and missile complements are usually 16-24 SLBMs. Most are nuclear powered, but there are a few Soviet diesel-electric designs, which have a handful of missiles (usually 2 or 3). The most capable SSBNs are easily the US Ohio class, which are extremely quiet and have 24 of the exceptional D-5 Trident II missiles. Soviet SSBNs tend to be less survivable and with far less effective missiles (hence the greater Soviet reliance on ICBMs).

Guided Missile Submarines (SSG, SSGN): These are similar to ballistic missile submarines in concept and size, and are ships that are optimized for firing cruise missiles, either for anti-ship or shore bombardment. Like ballistic missile subs, they retain torpedoes and sonars for fighting other subs. The best examples of this are the Soviet (Papa, Oscar, Golf), but the US attack subs with tomahawks, such as the Seawolf, do technically fall under this category as well.

Attack Submarines (SS, SSN): These are the general combat submarines, which are used for escort, long-range patrol, and interdiction missions. Most are nuclear powered, though some non-nuclear ships are still around, and someone is selling somewhat modernized WWII Gato class boats (well, they’re cheap :roll: ). These ships form the core of global submarine fleets. Los Angelas and Seawolf subs fall under this category, as do Soviet Alfas.

Patrol Submarines (SSK): These are where most of your diesel-electric boats will fall under, and are smaller boats with a displacement of less than 3000 tons, usually around 1500, which perform inshore patrol and mining operations. When in their own element, they’re much harder to counter than attack subs, but are much less versatile.

There are numerous other types, but these are the only ones that anyone’s going to really care about :P

Good job, Smoke Jaguar...

I should add something, butI don't have time...

Another excellent post.


good links for anyone thinking about naval guns:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BigGuns.html

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MCG.html

infact the main site is a good refference for anyone thinking of producing anything with a custom firearm.

This does happen to be something of my area of interest in NS, and I do have a couple things to add...

The rough cap for submarine speed, conventionally or nuclear powered by turbines or jets is about the same for torpedos - 45 to 50 knots - but even for submarines that have a perfectly smooth profile capable of reaching this speed, the tactical speed - operating speed, which is to say a roughly quiet speed - is usually no higher than 25 knots or so.

Some people have proposed using super-cavitating submarines; supercavitating torpedos have, after all, proven possible. (The Shkval underwater rocket is one such example.) However, there are a few things people tend to forget about...

Shkval torpedos are essentially unguided rockets; they don't maneuver. Hydrodyamically speaking, we're talking about a very narrow profile of shape, size, and maneuverability. I'm not personally familiar with the curve of power to size required for supercavitation, but I have the feeling that it runs along the lines of size (or contact area) x mass = constant x required power, which would severely limit the size and range of any supercavitating submarines. If anyone would care to weigh in here, I'd appreciate it. Second, supercavitating torpedos are noisy. There is no missing their bearing and position - and anyone attempting to use passive sonar from a rocket platform is unlikely to pick up much over the noise; even active sonar is likely to be distorted by the high ambient background noise from within. Not only can everybody see you, but you are having trouble seeing everybody else.

The Iowa class is actually faster than the carriers in the US Navy, in spite of its older engines and hull design, with sustained speeds . I've heard the class described as the fastest surface ship in the navy (certain small vessels, usually classed as boats rather than ships, are faster.) Thus, I feel no guilt at all at my flagship, the 40,000 ton TJS Octopus, being rated out at a higher speed than aircraft carriers of similar tonnage. It has a higher speed than any other large surface vessel in my arsenal - and should be faster than almost anything else anyone is using for a capital ship, and definitively faster than any carrier vessels based on a modern system. It does, after all, have a severely overengineered and overpowered drive system, attached to a heavily engineered hull design built for speed. It also mounts relatively light guns for a BB - 6 16" and 2 10", with assorted missile systems and light weapons.

I also have a titanium based armor on it to save weight and provide great protection. This, of course, increased building time severely, not to mention cost - to say nothing of the suddenly increased difficulty of repairing dents and holes in the hull; the TJS Octopus is a hideously expensive warship, and we clearly won't be building very many along those lines. I also have a 20,000 ton battlecruiser class that mounts 16" guns... three 16" guns.

Carriers:
One thing to keep in mind is that even escort carriers are relatively large ships, for the most part. A second is that the type of plane that can launch from and land on any given carrier is limited, based on the carrier size and facilities. A third is that - due to air crew and operations support - carriers require large crews. Take the Essex class - an older class of carrier used by the US. Fully loaded and upgraded, some Essexes displace as much as an Iowa's light displacement. In spite of this, the Iowa - from the same era as far as crew-saving equipment - has a crew about half the size.

Missile Boats:
The Tarantul missile boat is actually quite popular in NS among some people. There are a few things people neglect about missile boats.

Missile boats have a limited range - usually no more than 2000 miles at lower speeds.
Missile boats usually don't have the facilities to reload heavy ASMs into launchers - which take up lots of space. One shot tubes are strictly it if you are using tomahawk size or larger missiles.
For that matter, many people replace the small missiles on a missile boat with larger missiles, and then increase the number of missiles, and decrease the listed displacement. Don't do this... it really doesn't work. The only way to really do that is shrink the missiles in the first place, significantly reduce fuel and ... well, engines. Not much else on these boats.
Missile boats generally don't carry CIWS or point defense missiles. These systems take up lots of space as well as lots of tonnage, and really aren't that handy to a boat that size. Putting a Phalanx on a missile boat is not much better, design speaking, than putting one on a heavy tank; a S-300 SAM defense system would pretty much take the place of the weapons systems on a missile boat.

Oh, yes... I forgot to mention.

There are two different ways to build a sub - build it in a teardrop shape, or build it in a streamlined "boat" shape. If the former, your speed surfaced is rather severely limited compared to your underwater speed, due to surface tension.

If the latter - as most WWI subs - your top speed submerged will probably not top 15 knots or so. However, you will be able to go faster on the surface. Look up info on the USS Albacore to hear all about the invention of the teardrop sub.

Good post. 8)
OOC: The other is that a nuclear plant has a lower IR signature, and the elimination of stacks and gasses also reduces radar signature as well.If you have trimarans (like me), you can vent the exhaust under the decks where it's not visible to aircraft and where the ocean will cool it off.
The primary reason is the exceptionally high endurance (months compared to days or hours) for underwater operations.With AIP combined with various other improvements, this advantage is no longer valid.
However, as stated, diesel-electric boats have only a few days endurance, or a few hours in combat, before they have to run to the surface and conduct the very noisy process of recharging their batteries, which is known as ?snorting? or ?snorkeling.?With AIP, you never have to snorkel (if your sub carries enough LOX).
An additional type of power plant, which is an advanced variation on the diesel-electric, has recently come into play with the exceptional German Type212A submarine, which uses an advanced hydrogen fuel cell system that allows the submarine to operate on battery power for weeks.There are other AIP technologies. For example, there's a sub with Stirling engines (which have various advantages of their own over regular diesels).
Diesel-electric boats are generally topped at 20 knots, though I?ve heard as high as 24 for some.Twenty-five knots is the highest submerged speed I've found for diesel subs.
The limit to this is, of course, range.With the battleship's better armor, it can afford to get closer than other ships.
A ?minor? increase of 2 inches in bore diameter will reduce the number of guns that can be carried by 33%.Interesting.

not to be inpolite or anything, but why did you post this? is it the n00b's or something? Or did you just want to inform the world.

will admit very good, lots o info.

A lot of the NS world is clueless about the things CSJ posted about.

not to be inpolite or anything, but why did you post this? is it the n00b's or something? Or did you just want to inform the world.
This includes a lot of information for people , including newbies and more experienced players, who might not know any better, either when designing their own ships, or purchanisng from n00bs who have made unrealistic vessels.
After reading countless designs, I know that the vast majority of truly original ones (at least for modern or near-future tech) have at least one absurd stat that makes them wholly unrealistic.

I paid special attention to things like speed and gun size because those are the most misunderstood areas, and the vast majority of the unrealistic stats there come from people who don't know just how much even a tiny increase in speed or gun size really costs. I tend to do this in all posts like this, because it shows where the most common problems are. Again, to the benefit of both buyers and designers.
And just about everyone seems to think a Nimitz can do 35 knots :roll:


Also, I gave a lot of general information on naval vessels that others may find useful, and this is not my first thread like this, so I know that many appreciate it.


I will freely admit, however, that one of my main goals is to stamp out the stupid $1 billion super battleships, but that does happen to be one of the worst bits of godmodding around, and it's practically become standard. :evil:

I somewhat agree that we see too many superdreadnaughts priced at a billion that are both unrealistic (impossible with modern-tech, which they are billed as) and would cost far more than $1B to crank out, to boot.

For future reference, the TJS Octopus unofficially is estimated to have cost the equivalent of $10B to design and produce - one reason I don't have a fleet of them... :roll: As is, it's not strategicly the most sound thing to build on my part, but it has political significance.

Battleships and carriers should always be fairly sparse in numbers, examining the cost to build and operate them...

We are not designing real naval ships here on NS, we are just making them for fun. Who cares how accurate it is. None of this is relevant to a free-form role playing game.

Who cares how accurate it is.I do. If you're going to be unrealistic, you might as well play with FTL invincible hovering magic-casting mechs.
None of this is relevant to a free-form role playing game.All of it is.

Quite. Evidently lots of people care. It doesn't say anywhere that you have to.
Without any structure I personally would feel that it is likely things will become less fun quite quickly.. I mean.. if there's no limit to how unrealistic people can be.

for now i have no naval fleet (i intend to go space tech soon enough, have a capable orbital defense system by 100million pop and then start on a space fleet when my military budget goes over 10000 billion USD)

however if i would be building 1, that would be built out of conventionally designed battleships (with titanium armor, supplemented by more conventional types of armor), catamaran missile cruisers and destroyers (with an extensive ECM and countermeasure system), trimaran frigates (armed primarily towards protecting the other ships from missiles and torpedoes, by blowing subs out of the water with torpedoes and shooting missiles down with a nice tag of laser/maser power) and obviously 1 trimaran superfleet carrier (to start with) equipped with about 60 to 70 airplanes, 10 to 20 helicopters and electrical aircraft catapults (which are much smaller then conventional steam powered ones)

all ships would be powered by fusion reactors or plasma batteries (the latter can be recharged by the former) and the carriers, frigates and battleships would feature laser/maser weapons for point-defense and anti-air abilities

at the moment i don't have any carrier capable aircraft, but i make up to that by giving all aircraft either a small fusion reactor (for big airplanes) or a number of plasma batteries, giving them a large range and high top speed (the only problem is that a fighter that can fly for 36 hours will still be limited to 12 hours max because of the pilot and the weapons) and armed with laser/maser weapons for dogfights, missiles for longer range engagements (or masers) and maser/particle weapons for small scale ground attacks, some bombers might be armed with conventional explosives or plasma batteries rigged to explode (creating small plasma bombs)

If its within reason than it should be accepted. The nit picking that goes on with every little detail is detrimental to the flow of the game.

If its within reason than it should be accepted.This thread is to show people what's within reason!

Another very good post by CSJ, excellent. Also CSJ, I'm wondering if you can add some info about the armor of most ships and how many missiles/gun/torpedo/bomb/etc hits they can typically take? I would appreciate it.

cool,i dont have time to read it all right now but i will later,and good job Clan Smoke Jaguar.

CSJ,
Absolutely amazing, as usual.

One thing that I realized with the Trimaran warships (when I intro'd them to NS back in March) was that their top speeds and top sustainable speeds could top the speeds for equivalent-mass vessels with conventional designs for a number of reasons. The primary means involved the hull form--by reducing the hull resistance (drag) by up to 20% (est. about 15% for most of the units sold), the trimaran design was able to reach much higher top speeds. Of course, smaller vessels with similar engines had better top speeds and this effect was significantly reduced in larger vessels such as the Trimaran AC Carriers and the heavily armed and armored Shore Bombardment Vessels (SBVs).

Another design innovation (and part of the reason why most large ships don't go faster) is cavitation. As much as supercavitation allows torpedos to go extremely fast, its cousin severely limits conventional ship designs. During high-speed/torque operation, conventional ship screws (propellors) experience cavitation at the leading edges of the spinning blades. As the blades move, the cavities collapse and, releasing their energy into the blade, cause serious corrosion of the propelling surfaces. By employing water jets instead of propellors for the main energy during high-speed movements, the ships can be both propelled with sufficient force to sustain such speeds and are immune from the conventional limitations imposed by spontaneous cavitation. During normal cruising or patrol operations, the ships used conventional propellors sometimes (smaller ships don't even have propellors) and so are limited by that.


Now, as far as nuclear power goes, the only vessels in my fleet that use nuclear power (and then as a supplement to standard diesel-electric and fuel cell engines) are the carriers, since they are the only vessels that seem likely to be reduced to almost uselessness in old age while other vessels can be safely sold off and replaced or updated. In the end, nuclear power is bad for its own reasons: it is a b*tch to clean up when the fun is all over. The US is having a very difficult time getting rid of the damn things so they have to sit in "reserve" until they can afford/figure out how to safely dispose of the contaminated systems.

It should be noted that nuclear power isn't inexhaustible. Every 20 years or so, the Nimitz-class carriers have to go in for over a year of servicing and refueling (their max life is about 50 years, if you don't talk too much about being outdated...see below). One problem with the Nimitz (and part of the reason why the more modern examples are smaller and have a smaller airwing than previous versions) is that it is simply too old of a design.

Although the Nimitz-class is supposedly all new and powerful, it's really just an over-weight Forrestal/Sarratoga class ship that's the last in its line.

As described by globalsecurity,
Saratoga was built at the New York Naval Shipyard in Brooklyn. Saratoga was launched on October 8, 1955 and commissioned Apr. 14, 1956. She is 1039 feet in length overall with a beam of 129.5 feet. Her flight deck is 238 feet wide at the widest part. She displaces 78,000 tons and is capable of speeds in excess of 34 knots. Saratoga's normal crew while commissioned was about 3,000 officers and enlisted; with the airwing aboard, the complement was 5,500 personnel. Normally she would carry approximately 90 aircraft with a mix of helicopters, electronic warfare aircraft, anti-submarine warfare aircraft, early warning radar planes, and fighter/bomber aircraft.

Note the date (about the same as the Forrestal), now note the high speed and capacity.

Since that time, the same basic hull has been loaded down with heavy modernized computers and systems, but these have brought the current AC carriers very close to being, literally, too heavy to float. With an increasing mass, barely increasing power, and shrinking amount of empty space, the Nimitz is close to the end (hence the CVX furor within the Pentagon). Newer aircraft carriers, based on modern, low-drag ship designs (as in the new, LPD-17 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lpd-17-old.htm) San Antonio-class of amphibious transport dock ships should be able to move rapidly while bearing even more advanced systems (not to mention more efficient ones, such as EMALS, enclosed-mast radar and comm arrays, redistributed control centers, and low-maintenance (manpower) control and power systems).

Modern aircraft, in relation to their older brethren, are also heavier. The 'lightweight' F-35 is set to be about 24,000lbs empty weight (no fuel, no armaments) with a max take-off weight of about 50,000lbs. The max take-off weight of the F-4 Skyhawk (early 1950s) was only 24,500lbs (it should be noted that later old jets such as the 1960s A-6 Intruder had max loads closer to the F-35, albeit with fewer capabilities vs. the F-35). This means that an old 90-aircraft is not the same as the new 65-70 aircraft. As things go, current US carriers may indeed be too-high capacity. Heavy, slow, and a massive investment of resources, smaller carriers are easy to deploy and more of them can be had (not to mention the added flexibility of distributed resources).

Ah, I'm done (for now). Again, great stuff. Thanks.

Excellent. Thank you, all who have contributed.

Two questions:
CSJ: What is VLS?
Nianacio: What is AIP?

Excellent. Thank you, all who have contributed.

Two questions:
CSJ: What is VLS?
Nianacio: What is AIP?

I can answer the first question, although not that detailed :P

VLS=Vertical Launch System. Typically refered to the current missile-launching system deployed by the US Navy. Highlt flexible, these systems could currently carry a lot including land-attack missiles (Tomahawk, SLAM, LASM, TACMS), anti-ship missiles (Harpoon), anti-submarine rockets (ASROC), and naval SAMs (Sea Sparrow, SM-2 Series). Highly effective. The VLS cell system carried is typically measured in "cells" in terms of "size". Typically a modern combat ship could have as little as a 16-cell VLS to a 256-cell VLS, with some being in excess of 500-cell VLS (Arsenal ship proposal).

But with that said, VLS can also be other systems, such as the ones on the American submarines, etc.

AIP is Air Independent Propulsion.
My AIP has tanks of LOX so the sub can run its diesels underwater.

Tag so I can read it later when I've got time.

Thank you WA.
Most of the points are very good, and I did intend to address a few of these later on (as I said, it's a work in progress). But a few additions:

This wasn't stated outright, so I will: Cavitation actually reduces to effectiveness of the propeller, and as you get higher cavitation, the speed increase from adding more power drops with the lack of efficiency (energy is being bled off), to the point where eventually it's impossible to go any faster because the extra engine output is completely wasted. Cavitation generally begins around 60,000 shp per propeller in older vessels (the Iowa can pull a little over that, and the Nimitz tops at 70,000). I don't know about newer ones, but even with the older ships, the problem of engine output comes into play long before cavitation really starts to hurt.

But for WWII battleships, the best info I have is on the Scharnhorst. This could do 14 knots at 10,000 shp, and got a 4 knot increase in speed every tme it was doubled (this is compounded, so 40,000 shp is 22 knots, not 26). It's top speed shows that it could do about 200,000 shp (31 knots). The Iowa gets a better speed because of better hull design.

Another thing to note is most engines have a "designed overload," which is how far above the rated output they can go safely, and they can usually manage a 10-20% increase above their rated shp with little trouble, which is where the maximum speed for the ship comes from. There is also a tactic called "forcing the engines," where the output is increased about 10% above the overload limit. This runs the risk of damaging the engines and is generally a bad idea, but is done.

Finally, I did a note on this in an earlier post. Nimitz class carriers could, and did, have 90 plane air wings durign the cold war, with craft that are not significantly smaller than those used today. The air wing was the following:
24 F-14 Tomcat
24 F/A-18C Hornet
10 A-6E Intruder
4 EA-6B Prowler
4 KA-6D
4 E-2C Hawkeye
10 S-3B Viking
2 EKA-3B Electric Whale
6 SH-60F Seahawk
2 HH-60G Pave Hawk
That's 90 aircraft, and there's absolutely no reduction in size compared to current ones. If you don't quite believe it than look at the current wing:
14 F-14 Tomcat OR F/A-18E Super Hornet
36 F/A-18C Hornet
4 EA-6B Prowler
4 E-2C Hawkeye
6 S-3B Viking
6 SH-60F Seahawk
2 HH-60H Seahawk
In th '90s, two of those SH-60Fs would have been traded for a pair of (much larger) ES-3A Shadows, but those have been decommissioned. As you can see, there's actually a reduction in average airframe size for the current wing, with the older one gaining numbers primarily with the F-14 and S-3B, two of the largest airframes on the carrier. Current carriers operate with far less than they could actually take.




Omz222
I really can't give too much info on the survivability of various ships, primarily because most of the information in that area is supposition and it's extremely variable.
However, with modern vessels, any ship under 5000 tons stands a good chance of being sunk or crippled by a single Harpoon or Exocet hit (the latter is more likely to sink). Two hits would probably finish them off.
For a 5000-10,000 ton ship, that same damage would require 2-5 Harpoons, or 1-3 of the Soviet Moskit (which is 50% more powerful). Exocets might need 3-7 to do the same damage.
For a 20,000 ton merchant ship, it could take up to 5 Moskits, 7 Harpoons, or over a dozen Exocets.

Keep in mind, this is some heavy guess work, as we don't have much to work with in the area.

On another note, modern escort vessels, can barely be considered to have protection at all, and are actually vulnerable to RPGs and heavy machine gun fire in littoral regions!


Carriers and similarly sized vessels (LHAs, LHDs, LPHs, BBs, etc) are much harder to sink, and would require numerous hits from these light missiles. Even with more powerful units like the Granat and Kh-22 (AS-4) might need several hits to sink a carrier. These big missiles are also the only ones that would be expected to have any real effect on an Iowa class battlship. 1650 and 2200 lb warheads can do a lot of damage.

Excellent. Thank you, all who have contributed.

Two questions:
CSJ: What is VLS?
Nianacio: What is AIP?

I can answer the first question, although not that detailed :P

VLS=Vertical Launch System. Typically refered to the current missile-launching system deployed by the US Navy. Highlt flexible, these systems could currently carry a lot including land-attack missiles (Tomahawk, SLAM, LASM, TACMS), anti-ship missiles (Harpoon), anti-submarine rockets (ASROC), and naval SAMs (Sea Sparrow, SM-2 Series). Highly effective. The VLS cell system carried is typically measured in "cells" in terms of "size". Typically a modern combat ship could have as little as a 16-cell VLS to a 256-cell VLS, with some being in excess of 500-cell VLS (Arsenal ship proposal).

But with that said, VLS can also be other systems, such as the ones on the American submarines, etc.
The current Mk.41 VLS, which is the NATO standard for surface ships, comes in 8-cell modules, so the actual number can be any multiple of 8. Generally, these are found in banks of 4 or 8 modules (32 or 64 cells). Some missiles, like the new ESSM, can be loaded with more than one per VLS canister. Here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/images/mk-41-vls-pc008-052.jpg) is a picture of a 64-cell bank. As you can see, it's not really all that big. It covers the same space needed for a 6.1" gun.
Thers's also another type of VLS launcher, the Mk.49, which uses smaller cells exclusively for Sea Sparrow missiles, and can be placed just about anywhere and on all but the smallest ships (even those under 1000 tons).

OOC: Thanks, understood.

Hmm... Also, is the Yakhont's capability similar to the Moskit (aka AEGIS killer, hmm...)?

The Yakhont has similar performance capabilities to the Moskit, but is much smaller, so the warhead is closer to that of the Harpoon, being a little less powerful.

If its within reason than it should be accepted.This thread is to show people what's within reason!

Exactly. A 100,000 ton dreadnaught mounting 18 20" guns, three feet of armor, and going 50 knots is not within reason. So are many of the designs in NS, but sometimes why a ship is entirely unreasonable isn't obvious to the creator... however obvious it is to an expert, or just a well informed person.

The Yakhont has similar performance capabilities to the Moskit, but is much smaller, so the warhead is closer to that of the Harpoon, being a little less powerful.

I had a thread with a bunch of missile specs assembled from all around the place for comparison before... I'm pretty sure it died though. The Yakhont has a ~440 pound warhead, slightly less than the Harpoon (500 pounds), and the Moskit has a ~700 pound warhead. The Yakhont also has a shorter range, is slightly slower, and has a "smarter" flight profile, as I recall - in sea-skim flight profile, it actually has less range than a SLAM-ER Harpoon.

Thank you for pointing out why jet based systems were a good idea. I honestly was getting vague myself on why I kept using them on my new designs.

As a small point about aircraft size, I could point to my Harrow Reef carrier. It has a total airwing of 114 aircraft, a crew of 940, an air crew of 820, displaces 18,000 tons fully loaded, and carries armament roughly equivalent to an air-defense heavy destroyer or light cruiser.

So why does the TJAF hate the Harrow Reef? This would seem absurd if I were talking about F-14 Tomcats or anything near that size, in spite of the modern efficient nature of my fleet.

The catch is that the airwing is almost entirely composed of TJF-6 Gnats - which would be dominant air fighters... in World War II. Compared to most modern fighters, they are tiny.

Many of my carriers carry TJF-3 Mongooses... which weigh less than half of most modern carrier based fighters. I tend towards a light carrier fleet, oriented towards mobile air defense, for various reasons.

As a small point about aircraft size, I could point to my Harrow Reef carrier. It has a total airwing of 114 aircraft, a crew of 940, an air crew of 820, displaces 18,000 tons fully loaded, and carries armament roughly equivalent to an air-defense heavy destroyer or light cruiser.

So why does the TJAF hate the Harrow Reef? This would seem absurd if I were talking about F-14 Tomcats or anything near that size, in spite of the modern efficient nature of my fleet.

The catch is that the airwing is almost entirely composed of TJF-6 Gnats - which would be dominant air fighters... in World War II. Compared to most modern fighters, they are tiny.
The carrier's still too small. Even with WWII aircraft, you can't manage less than 30,000 tons for that number, especially with decent armament thrown in.
Total Crew would be over 3000 personnel as well. Your air wing in particular is sorely understaffed, and insufficient for much more than half the aircraft you claim.
For further information, look up Essex and Midway class carriers (I used the Essex as a basis), which have an aircraft complement similar to what you're saying.

that was really useful, thanks

*runs off with new information to call people godmoders and escape being called a godmoder*

We should have on nukes, since every n00b godmodder seems to have them.

INTRO
Well, I ......

Very well done I couldn't have said it better myself, wait yes I could have!! but I would never because I'm too lazy. Good enough to teach the noobs some facts :)

The carrier's still too small. Even with WWII aircraft, you can't manage less than 30,000 tons for that number, especially with decent armament thrown in.
Total Crew would be over 3000 personnel as well. Your air wing in particular is sorely understaffed, and insufficient for much more than half the aircraft you claim.
For further information, look up Essex and Midway class carriers (I used the Essex as a basis), which have an aircraft complement similar to what you're saying.

Let's see... Essex places in at 27,000 tons dry, 40-odd KT maximum displacement with all the modern goodies tacked on... and in original WWII configuration, carried 90 planes, averaging 2.5x the mass of the TJF-6 Gnat, which is designed for ease of maintainance and operation (and generally not expected to survive all that many combat missions) and stores very well; it also carried every bit as much secondary armament, if not more.

A closer comparison of a historical aircraft carrier (very close, in fact - shockingly close considering I didn't base the Harrow Reef on it in actula fact) would be the Japanese Soryu (dry 16K-odd, full 19K-odd tons) - which actually has a smaller crew, a rated maximum capacity of 71 planes*, a heavier ship-based armament, and a nice hefty dose of thick steel plate armor. It's actually reasonable, in my estimation, for considerably better engineered Harrow Reef, built in an era where aircraft carrier design has been streamlined somewhat, to operate as specified.

It just isn't very good, generally speaking, in a modern conflict. OOCly speaking, the NDOTJ built it to embarass and/or placate the TJAF while they moved forward with the recent Barracuda project.

*A mix of A6M Zeros and dive bombers, the former being of quite similar size and the latter being about half again the size of the Gnat; total mass of planes plus the expected ordinance for them to use ends up being fairly similar between the Harrow Reef and the Soryu, all things considered; the fact that the TJF-6 Gnat is designed with stacking and efficient storage in mind merely makes the design quite sleek looking.

Trimaran hulls do increase survivability because you have the main hull then two smaller hulls either side of it albeit not all along it but their presence is most effective and they are designed to take such hits whilst still allowing the vessel to limp home.
VLS is also used by the Royal Navy on it's Duke class frigates, VLS gives Seawolf a 10km increase in range which is most useful considering it's role.
The pumps on a nuclear submarine do not always have to be kept running because whilst submerged the currents of the ocean can keep the coolant flowing most of the time, however I don't know for sure the conditions needed so it may be just as well to ignore this fact.

So would 10 14" guns on a ship displacing 35,000 tons be unusual? (http://battleshipbismarck.hypermart.net/hms_king_george-v.htm)

Trimaran hulls do increase survivability because you have the main hull then two smaller hulls either side of it albeit not all along it but their presence is most effective and they are designed to take such hits whilst still allowing the vessel to limp home.Is there any reason why you couldn't have the two smaller hulls go the whole length of the ship?

[TAG for Great Justice!!!!]

So would 10 14" guns on a ship displacing 35,000 tons be unusual? (http://battleshipbismarck.hypermart.net/hms_king_george-v.htm)
The displacements I was referring to are the full load displacement, which is as heavy as the ship goes. The King George V has a full displacement of 45,000+ tons, so it's not off there. However, I'd steer clear of those ships because their guns were notoriously unreliable. The King George V herself had up to half of her guns completely out of action at one time due to mechanical difficulties, and other vessels with the same guns suffered numerous problems. They were also low-velocity weapons, so belt penetration wouldn't be as good.

There are ships with a 35,000 ton full displacement and 10-12 14" guns. But look at a few things like armor, ammunition load, speed, and other systems, and you'll see why. Also, these ships pretty much all date back to WWI, making them rather poor for modernization due to designs that were often outdated by WWII to begin with, and limited room for growth.

Nice, very nice.

Tagged for further reading.

anyone know where the air force organization link is?

Even more nice info

Prices For Various Warships
I’ll add more to this later, but here are a few numbers to start with for the actual costs of ships today. You may find much lower prices, but remember that ship construction can take years, and it can be decades between the first and last ships. New technologies and inflation will thus significantly increase cost.

United States
CVNX-1: As high as $10 billion ( :shock: )
US Nimitz Class CVN: $4.3 billion (1992), $4.5 billion accepted standard, $5-5.3 billion for newest ships
BB-61 Iowa: $2 billion today (current version), $100 million in WWII
CG-21: estimate of $2.1875 billion average for full run*
CG-47 Ticonderoga: $1 billion for early versions, $1.2-1.5 billion today
DD(X): estimated at $1.875 billion average for full run, $1.25 billion for first 8 ships*
DD-21 Zumwalt: estimate of $800 million in 1997, probably 2-3 times that*
DDG-51 Arleigh Burke DDG: $940 million accepted, $1062.47 million for newest ships
FFG(X): $700 million average for full run
LCS: estimate of $357 million average for full run, $278 million for first 9 ships*
T-AKE 1 Lewis & Clark MPRS: $370.8 million
SSN-21 Seawolf: $4-4.5 billion, or more
SSN-77 Virginia SSN: $2288.3 million
SSGN-726 Ohio: $500-$1.5 billion to convert from SSBN, depending on nature**

Former Soviet Union
Project 1143.5 Kuznetzov CV: $2.4-3 billion
Project 1143 Kiev CVL: $750-$800 million for Indian Refit (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Gorshkov.html)
Project 956EM Sovremenny DD (Export, Modernized): $700 million (2002)
Project 956 Sovremenny ASuW DD: $425 million
Project 1135.6 Burevestnik FF (NATO: Krivak III): $200 million
Project 971 Shchuka-B SSN (NATO: Akula): $750 million
Project 636 Paltus SSK (NATO: Improved Kilo): $200-250 million, $338 million in some sources
Project 877EKM Granay SSK (NATO: Kilo): $194 million
S-300F (SA-N-6) Missile System: $100 million

United Kingdom
CVF: $2.5 billion estimate
Invincible CVL: $543 million in 1978
Type 45 Daring DDG: $1.075-$1.2213 billion (estimate)***
Type 42 Sheffield DDG: $680 million
Type 23 Duke FFG: $100-165 million, $230 million for initial ship
Type 22 Batch 3 Cornwall FF: $305 million
LCU Mk.10: $3.4 million
River Patrol Vessel: $34 million
Cromer: 36 million gpb in 1991 (worth 28 million now)
Hunt MCM: $59.4 million
Fort Victoria MPRS: $322.5 million
Wave Fleet Oiler: $186.7 million
Astute SSN: $1.13 - $1.25 billion
Trafalgar SSN: $509 million (new build), $407 million modernization ($136 million upgrade, $271 million refit)
Vanguard SSBN: $1.7 billion (new build), $263 million (upgrade of older vessel to D-5 missiles)

France
Charles de Gaulle CVN: $2.8-3.35 billion (and going up :P )
Lafeyette Patrol FF: $330-$450 million
Barracuda SSN: $5 billion+ (possible estimate)
Le Triomphant SSBN: $2.26 billion
Agosta-90 SSK: $233 million
S-80 Scorpene SSK: $250-300 million

Italy
Giusseppe Garibaldi Carrier: $922.7 million

Spain
Chakri Nareubet CVL: $365 million, $257 for basic hull w/o combat systems

Germany
Meko A200 Corvette: $237.5 million
Type 212A SSK: $370 million
Dolphin SSK: various sources claim $300, $320, or up to $440 million (the last is a bit absurd)
Type 214 SSK: $300-370 million, some claim as high as $420 million
Type 209 SSK: $273 million for most modern version

Netherlands
Moray SSK: $270.2 million

Greece:
New Corvette: $411.4 million

South Korea
KDX-3 DDG (not expected until 2010): $839.1 million

Australia:
Collins: $500 million average, including cost overruns


As I’m sure you can all see here, ships are most certainly not cheap, and large fleets are a pain to maintain. This cost also usually excludes things like missiles and ammunition, which can cost hundreds of millions (consider putting 64 $2 million SM-2s on a destroyer or cruiser, and yes, they do cost that much). In addition, a combat vessel will generally require, on average, approximately 10% of its acquisition cost each year in maintenance, operation, and refit/upgrade costs.
Also, for carriers, you have to factor in escorts and aircraft, as well as the ship and munitions. A US Nimitz carrier group generally costs about $20 billion to construct and outfit, and another $1 billion each year to operate and maintain.


*The higher estimates are for the average price in the full production run, which will be played out over a period of many years. The lower ones are the estimates for the first batch of ships (read, the price today). The DD-21 program was the original name for this. The DD(X) is 25% smaller than the original DD-21 concept (which was very unrealistically priced), and probably a bit cheaper.
**This is based on treaty limitations. The cheaper cost is that of just modifying the missile tubes to accept 7-pack Tomahawks, which would mean that D-5s could still be put in, thus making these count as SSBNs according to START. The more expensive option completely removes the SLBM capability, removing them from the list of nuclear platforms.
***The highest price is the estimate for the first 6 ships (I’ve seen even higher ones, but dismissed them), and it will go down a bit after that. There are also $450 million estimates that I’ve seen, but that’s rather low for a 7000+ ton vessel that’s comparable to an Aegis destroyer.

"The DPA has placed an order for six Type 45 Destroyers. The overall cost for these six is expected to be about £4.3 billion."

That's from the MODs website but as with all projects expect the cost to rise to some extent but good estimate anyway.

Remember Aegis is a system that hasn't been combat tested in a full missile environment, which makes it unreasonable to compare it to experience from British contractors who have designed systems using past combat experience.

"The DPA has placed an order for six Type 45 Destroyers. The overall cost for these six is expected to be about £4.3 billion."

That's from the MODs website but as with all projects expect the cost to rise to some extent but good estimate anyway.

Remember Aegis is a system that hasn't been combat tested in a full missile environment, which makes it unreasonable to compare it to experience from British contractors who have designed systems using past combat experience.
I'm comparing it to an Aegis destroyer in the size, role, and cost areas. This has absolutely nothing to do with the AEGIS system's fallacies whatsoever, and the capabilities of the two ships are not being compared.

However, I've already seen estimates putting the price at £750 million per ship for the Type 45, which is the higher number there. The absurd estimates said over £1 billion per ship (over $1.6 billion USD).

I thank you very much for your posting. With this new information, I'll be making a new Battleship, from my J-Class, as I find it lacking in secondary fire, such as cruise missles. Can you look over the stats here and tell me if anything be wrong with it?

http://www.angelfire.com/music5/drunk_man/images/Class_J_Battleship.jpg

Artitsa: i would suggest a few changes but these are just from my prefferences.
these modifications really rely on the ship merely being a design and not actually biult...

1: remove at least 1 main gun turret to make room for either a nice set of modular VLS cells or some aircraft hangerage.

2: get rid of those old fashioned secondary guns, 4-5 modern 5" MK45 MOD4s give you far better rnage and with thier better RoF probably a similar throw weight, for a soviet option thier 130mm guns might work.

3: CIWS and tertiary 40mm guns: 2-5 modern 40mm gun mounts on each side would be perhaps useful as suplmentary AA and anti light craft swarm weaponary but i seriously conisder a total of at least 7 CIWSs (3 each side and 1 aft). this room would liekly free up space for more SAMs.

4: more modern fire control (such as Mk96 or similar) wouldn't go ammis either

Just some suggestions.
there are soem other things like using ETC guns that you could go for but thats another step...

Thanks crookfur. Im actually in the process of making a new ship as we speak, so I'll keep all of those in mind. I'll post an outline in this thread when Im done altering the image I found.

i would do the sticky thing, but i'm to tired.



Ahh, well, i'll do it anyway.

STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY!

i would do the sticky thing, but i'm to tired.



Ahh, well, i'll do it anyway.

STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY! STICKY!

:arrow: It's listed in a sticky already...

OOC: fine, ruin my fun :P

I thank you very much for your posting. With this new information, I'll be making a new Battleship, from my J-Class, as I find it lacking in secondary fire, such as cruise missles. Can you look over the stats here and tell me if anything be wrong with it?
Well, a few things have already been noted, but here we go:
1) Drop a turret. The ship's way too small and light for 12 15" guns.
2) At least double the CIWS. An Iowa has 4 Phalanx guns, and the Soviet Kirov has six Kortik CIWS systems.
3) Drop the number of secondary guns a bit. That space is good for extra ammunition and electronics, and you can switch the guns for 5"/62 cal or 6.1" AGS, which are more modern and significantly better.
4) Go into greater detail on the SAM launchers. Number and type of missiles are important things to know
5) Drop most, if not all, of the 40mm guns. Maybe a few 30 or 40mm modern AA guns, and some 25-35mm bushmaster low-angle, but those banks of quad AA guns are what take up the space that's used for cruise missile launchers in modern ships.
6) For the cruise missiles, have them all ready to launch. Reloading large missiles is time consuming, and you're better off with 6 quad launchers than one launcher and 6 reloads.
7) The armor's not the best there. The superstructure (ie conning tower) is more likely to take a hit than the belt, and shouldn't be that much less protected. I'd advise stripping some of that belt armor off to go to the conning tower.

8 ) And most important: Please don't post very large pics on the forum. They screw up posts and make reading a bit of a pain. If posting a pic means that a horizontal scroll bar will be needed, try hotlinking instead (using instead of ). This is much more considerate to those who don't want to be scrolling from side to side just to read a post.
I myself go a bit further, and refrain from posting pics on the forum at all, due to bandwith and loading issues.

Ok. Well Im remaking my battleships completely, and all J-Classes are being scraped. I'll keep all these points in mind. The new ship will have three triple 15" guns, it will be bigger than this one, and more CIWS obviously. It will also include a VLS, but it will be near the rear of the vessel, but not over the engine compartment.

<mega-snippage>
8 ) And most important: Please don't post very large pics on the forum. They screw up posts and make reading a bit of a pain. If posting a pic means that a horizontal scroll bar will be needed, try hotlinking instead (using instead of ). This is much more considerate to those who don't want to be scrolling from side to side just to read a post.
I myself go a bit further, and refrain from posting pics on the forum at all, due to bandwith and loading issues.

I will go even further, and ask you to edit that post so the pic is gone, and just put the info in, in text. I HATE having to scroll a pic nearly twice as wide as my monitor, just to get info that would be better typed in.

Please, please, please, edit your post. Thank you.

CSJ, Aegis is a system there is no Aegis destroyer only Aegis _equipped_ destroyers, a significant difference which I'm sure you will appreciate considering most people do what you did and refer to Aegis equipped destroyers as an Aegis.

All I can say is

You are GOD

Damn, I needed this thread so bad, I never wanted to detail my naval forces becuase I just can't get my head around the differences between types of ships, but now I know enough to get some idea of what I'm going to have...

Thanks

:D

I like this. I'm fed up with people who think they can produce a 20 foot long mini-sub that does 60 knotts :roll:

Basically I'm tagging this so I can come back and refer to some of the stuff I didn't know. Especially the prices. I was left stabbing around in the dark a little with pricing.

Here's a thought of my own on CIWS. I think it is invaluable on a warship and considering the weight of a CIWS system compared to that of large gun turrets, I frequently include considerably more than most real world navies do.

I think that you perhaps have underplayed the role of surface to surface missiles in naval combat. While guns are undoubtedly the most economical way of waging a war, and while it is true that many modern missiles aren't designed to penetrate thick armour, I feel that the added range of anti-shipping missiles over guns gives them a distinct advantage. Even so, many missiles in the world today are likely to cripple even a heavily armoured Battleship, such as a Soviet 'Sandbox'. Combine this with the fact that it can be launched long before guns are in range and I feel that missiles do prove to be superior, provided the enemy fleet is not one with insane levels of defence against missiles.

Another thing that often gets to me is the obsession with Nimitz Class Carriers. People frequently build 'Super Nimitz' and other such stuff, which in my opinion is ridiculous. The actual cost of extending the ship that extra distance to add on a few extra planes is phenomenal. In my opinion it is far more cost efective to stick with a class which is slightly smaller, but is a fair bit cheaper, such as the Enterprise.

Smoke you save us from Godmodding on such a regular basis you should be sanctified :)
One thing though, most of the weight/per on battleships you posted are bigger than the majority of modern fleets, :/, so i couldn't really decide whether the smaller ships are overgunned. Anyway, great thread dude *hugs his feasible multi-billion dollar SuperDreadnought* yay for realism!

I like this. I'm fed up with people who think they can produce a 20 foot long mini-sub that does 60 knotts :roll:

Basically I'm tagging this so I can come back and refer to some of the stuff I didn't know. Especially the prices. I was left stabbing around in the dark a little with pricing.

Here's a thought of my own on CIWS. I think it is invaluable on a warship and considering the weight of a CIWS system compared to that of large gun turrets, I frequently include considerably more than most real world navies do.

I think that you perhaps have underplayed the role of surface to surface missiles in naval combat. While guns are undoubtedly the most economical way of waging a war, and while it is true that many modern missiles aren't designed to penetrate thick armour, I feel that the added range of anti-shipping missiles over guns gives them a distinct advantage. Even so, many missiles in the world today are likely to cripple even a heavily armoured Battleship, such as a Soviet 'Sandbox'. Combine this with the fact that it can be launched long before guns are in range and I feel that missiles do prove to be superior, provided the enemy fleet is not one with insane levels of defence against missiles.

Another thing that often gets to me is the obsession with Nimitz Class Carriers. People frequently build 'Super Nimitz' and other such stuff, which in my opinion is ridiculous. The actual cost of extending the ship that extra distance to add on a few extra planes is phenomenal. In my opinion it is far more cost efective to stick with a class which is slightly smaller, but is a fair bit cheaper, such as the Enterprise.
The P-500 Bazalt (SS-N-12 Sandbox) is indeed capable of seriously damaging an Iowa. However, it is not a major weapon in the Soviet Arsenal. The missiles themselves are decades old, with the last having been built in 1976, and a more effective missile (the Granat/Shipwreck) is in more widespread use. In fact, most of the ships that carried the SS-N-12 have already been decommissioned. The Granat isn't as powerful (only 3/4 the warhead), but is more likely to hit, and is more difficult to shoot down.
Again, even the SS-N-19 isn't equipped on many vessels, and the missiles that are more common stand little chance of seriously damaging a battleship, so I'm downplaying it as much as you think. In the 1950s, '60s, and '70s, the Soviets tended toward huge missiles with massive payloads, as those were the best way of sinking aircraft carriers. Most of them were air-launched by big bombers carrying one or two missiles, but some were ship-launched. Naturally, the same massive firepower that was to engage carriers will cause damage to battleships as well (it will still take a good number of them to actually sink an Iowa though). However, these ship-launched missiles were never too high on numbers (only 500 SS-N-12s were ever built), and they aren't the primary weapon of any fleet. The more common missiles are much smaller and far less effective against battleships.

For CIWS, the gun based systems aren't the hottest thing. Against sea-skimmers, a single gun will rarely be able to engage more than 1-3 missiles, depending on speed. The reason is that even good guns aren't effective against sea skimmers until they get well within 2 km from the ship. Missiles like the RAM are a different story, and I think that those should be primary defense weapons, as they have over 6 times the effective range of the CIWS guns.

Another thing that often gets to me is the obsession with Nimitz Class Carriers. People frequently build 'Super Nimitz' and other such stuff, which in my opinion is ridiculous. The actual cost of extending the ship that extra distance to add on a few extra planes is phenomenal. In my opinion it is far more cost efective to stick with a class which is slightly smaller, but is a fair bit cheaper, such as the Enterprise.

Agreed, but another element: age and structure.

I don't see it is reasonable to have people having "2000 Nimitz"s with 150 aircraft and ultra-modern systems and ultra-uber armor and defence system anyways. The Nimitz as said by WA, was based on an old platform, and there wouldn't really be any more spaces for the Forrestal (which the Nimitz is based on) Platform to grow anyways.

Ah well, the Nimitz is popular, you gotta to admit that.

The P-500 Bazalt (SS-N-12 Sandbox) is indeed capable of seriously damaging an Iowa. However, it is not a major weapon in the Soviet Arsenal. The missiles themselves are decades old, with the last having been built in 1976, and a more effective missile (the Granat/Shipwreck) is in more widespread use. In fact, most of the ships that carried the SS-N-12 have already been decommissioned. The Granat isn't as powerful (only 3/4 the warhead), but is more likely to hit, and is more difficult to shoot down.
Again, even the SS-N-19 isn't equipped on many vessels, and the missiles that are more common stand little chance of seriously damaging a battleship, so I'm downplaying it as much as you think. In the 1950s, '60s, and '70s, the Soviets tended toward huge missiles with massive payloads, as those were the best way of sinking aircraft carriers. Most of them were air-launched by big bombers carrying one or two missiles, but some were ship-launched. Naturally, the same massive firepower that was to engage carriers will cause damage to battleships as well (it will still take a good number of them to actually sink an Iowa though). However, these ship-launched missiles were never too high on numbers (only 500 SS-N-12s were ever built), and they aren't the primary weapon of any fleet. The more common missiles are much smaller and far less effective against battleships.

For CIWS, the gun based systems aren't the hottest thing. Against sea-skimmers, a single gun will rarely be able to engage more than 1-3 missiles, depending on speed. The reason is that even good guns aren't effective against sea skimmers until they get well within 2 km from the ship. Missiles like the RAM are a different story, and I think that those should be primary defense weapons, as they have over 6 times the effective range of the CIWS guns.

I know the Sandbox isn't still in production in the real world, but I'm claiming to manufacture them in Dyelli Beybi. A fair few of my capitol ships carry a number. It's true that they're fiendishly innacurate but I feel that the payload makes up for it.

And I'll admit, my primary defence againsat missiles is usually a Seawolf array except on the really old ships that I was trying to build entirely out of Soviet tech, but I still think the CIWS is a good investment considering its actual weight bearing.

the only thing i'll add on the point defenses everyone is discussing so much

lasers or masers

the lasers are less effective and shorter range, but require less space and power

the masers rock big time and will burn through missiles like a nuclear heated knife through warm butter, unfortunately they are also big unwieldy things that will drain a nimitz class carrier of all power with a single gun

ok. How about my new battleship. I won't post the image here, but 'eres the specs.

Dimensions
Length(O/A) 1097.44 Ft (334.5m)
Length(W/L) N/A
Beam-hull 108' (32.91m)
Draft 36.7' (11m)

Displacement
Full Load 69,460 tons
Standard 48,540 tons

Propulsion
Boilers 8 Babcock & Wilcox 3 drum express "M" type
fitted with controllable superheat dual furnaces and double uptakes
Turbines 4 sets Manhiem and Briagn geared turbines
Horsepower 275,000 shp
Shafts 4
Endurance N/A
Max Speed 30-32 knts (extreme maximum 35knts)

Protection
Side Belt 14.2" (360.6mm)
Deck 4" (102mm)
Turrets 17" (431.8mm)
Conning Tower 17.5" (444.5mm)

Armament
Main Battery 9x 16.5"/50 cal (3x3)
Secondary 12x 5.1"/45 cal (6x2)
AAW 5x CIWS, 2 RAM Launchers, 2 twin SA-N-12 Grizzly launchers [72]
Missles 40 SS-N-26 Yakhont Vertical launch tubes, 36 SS-N-25 Switchblade fired from main guns.

Radars
Air Search MR-800 Voshkod/Top Pair (Top Sail + Big Net), 3D Air
Search radar
Surface Search MR-700 Fregat/Top Steer 3D Air/Surface Search radar or MR-710 Fregat-MA/Top Plate 3D (Admiral Lobov and Varyag)
Navigation 3 Palm Frond Navigation
Fire control Argument/Front Door-C for SS-N-26 Fire Control
Volna/Top Dome for SA-N-12 Fire Control
Kite Screech for 16" Fire Control
3 Bass Tilt for Gatling Guns Fire Control
Punch Bowl SATCOM
Sonars MG-332 Tigan-2T/Bull Horn, hull mounted Sonar
Platina/Mare Tail, VDS Sonar

Complement 1700+

Feel free to rip it to shreds :?

ok. How about my new battleship. I won't post the image here, but 'eres the specs.
Feel free to rip it to shreds :?
It's actually pretty good. If those had been Granat missiles, I would have said that's going a bit far, but with the smaller Yakhonts, it's fine.
The only thing is I'd like to know which CIWS are being used. I might recommend going for Soviet Kortiks and dropping the RAMs, considering the armament for the rest of the ship, and those do have missiles (SA-N-11 "Grisom"). For Kortiks, I'd also have 8-10 of them, as that would be in line for a Soviet vessel, which would tend to have more CIWS systems than a comparable US one.

the CIWS is based off that Russian design I believe. it was made by someone on NS. It has the 8 Missles and two GAU-8's? Its called the Mk 20 Vanguard CIWS. I figured the RAM's would help against cruisemissle attacks, combined with the high armour and CIWS, it would pretty much make cruisemissles inadiquate.

A noteworthy post but one quick note. The main problem with Nuclear Propulsion is the lack of the ability to produce shafts and props that can handle the H.P. output of a nuclear reactor.

Just out of interest and on the topic of CIWS, what does anyone think of the Okerlon 35mm Millenium gun system it seems rahter nasty using 3P and AHEAD ammo (litreature talks about engaging upwards of 10 targets at 4km).


A system with 2 GAU8s would be pretty massive (the reason the royal navy still uses the phalanx is that goal keeper is just too big for some of thier ships, of course that is mainly a retrofit issue) and i would eprsonally go with 2 indidvidual systems to allow for a wide arc to be covered (although likely at the cost of overall weight and complexity).

ok. How about my new battleship. I won't post the image here, but 'eres the specs.

Dimensions
Length(O/A) 1097.44 Ft (334.5m)
Length(W/L) N/A
Beam-hull 108' (32.91m)
Draft 36.7' (11m)

Displacement
Full Load 69,460 tons
Standard 48,540 tons

Propulsion
Boilers 8 Babcock & Wilcox 3 drum express "M" type
fitted with controllable superheat dual furnaces and double uptakes
Turbines 4 sets Manhiem and Briagn geared turbines
Horsepower 275,000 shp
Shafts 4
Endurance N/A
Max Speed 30-32 knts (extreme maximum 35knts)

Protection
Side Belt 14.2" (360.6mm)
Deck 4" (102mm)
Turrets 17" (431.8mm)
Conning Tower 17.5" (444.5mm)

Armament
Main Battery 9x 16.5"/50 cal (3x3)
Secondary 12x 5.1"/45 cal (6x2)
AAW 5x CIWS, 2 RAM Launchers, 2 twin SA-N-12 Grizzly launchers [72]
Missles 40 SS-N-26 Yakhont Vertical launch tubes, 36 SS-N-25 Switchblade fired from main guns.

Radars
Air Search MR-800 Voshkod/Top Pair (Top Sail + Big Net), 3D Air
Search radar
Surface Search MR-700 Fregat/Top Steer 3D Air/Surface Search radar or MR-710 Fregat-MA/Top Plate 3D (Admiral Lobov and Varyag)
Navigation 3 Palm Frond Navigation
Fire control Argument/Front Door-C for SS-N-26 Fire Control
Volna/Top Dome for SA-N-12 Fire Control
Kite Screech for 16" Fire Control
3 Bass Tilt for Gatling Guns Fire Control
Punch Bowl SATCOM
Sonars MG-332 Tigan-2T/Bull Horn, hull mounted Sonar
Platina/Mare Tail, VDS Sonar

Complement 1700+

Feel free to rip it to shreds :?

Question 1: How is the length on the waterline n/a? If it has no length on the waterline that means it has no reserve buoyancy and your ship is going to founder.
Question 2: Are your screws outboard or inboard turning? If they are inboard turning you can make that max speed almost 40 knots, the only problem is it will take forever and a day to turn it if you do.
Question 3: Why don't you add a couple of Phalanx? Your main guns can't do jack against small boats and you could use a last chance anti-ship missle defense.

Question 3: Why don't you add a couple of Phalanx?

A note, Phalanx isn't a good CIWS (at least, not in today's times)... It has difficulties into intercepting low-flying anti-ship missiles, let along fast-flying.

To answer Crookfur, the Millenium Gun IMO is a good CIWS (much more capable than the Phalanx/etc. in intercepting low-flying objects) and I heard that the USN is seeking to acquire it. Solid choice.

Also, Phalinx cannot penetrate armoured Russian missles, like the yakhont. The 20mm rounds just bounce off. duel 30mm guns that I have would waste em.

Port Neptune: I obviously don't know thats why I didn't list it. Jeez, no need to nit pick about it. Instead of critizing about it in that matter, why not SUGGEST an Idea.
Question 2: outboard.
Question 3: I have 5" secondary guns. 12 of them. I think that would be quite enough for any small boats. Also the CIWS can make short work of them.

can I post the picture?

probabaly posting a link to the picture would work better.

*tag*

Ok after thinking last night about a few things that have been tickling my brain:

1: Battle ship armor doesn't really seem that thick does it? i mean 400-500mm of armor isn't that much compared to say a modern western tank which these days tend to be in the order of 700mm plus(ok i know tanks are much much smaller with less surface area) so modern anti armor weapons are going to penetrate although with the sheer size of a ship a single 120mm APFSDS round won't do much in the sceme of things.

2: Since everyone seems to be basing things off the Iowa and similar it would appear that unless these vessel are total new biulds then the armor is going to just be solid slabs of battleship steel (RHA?). If this is the case how effective would HESH warheads be against them? (hhmmm 16" HESH)

3: continuing the armor make up issue, would it be worthwhile using modern armor composites to give even thicker armor with not too much in the way of extra weight (could vastly increase defence against HE and shaped charge missile warheads?)

4: final question on naval guns this time, would you be able to take a 12-14" gun upto 70calibres or more in length and then add a rapid auto loader and water cooling? (say 5-8rpm instead of 2-3 as on the iowa).

As i said just some things that have been sticking in my head that i needed to get out, there may be more but i just can't remeber the rest at the moment.

Ok after thinking last night about a few things that have been tickling my brain:

1: Battle ship armor doesn't really seem that thick does it? i mean 400-500mm of armor isn't that much compared to say a modern western tank which these days tend to be in the order of 700mm plus(ok i know tanks are much much smaller with less surface area) so modern anti armor weapons are going to penetrate although with the sheer size of a ship a single 120mm APFSDS round won't do much in the sceme of things.

2: Since everyone seems to be basing things off the Iowa and similar it would appear that unless these vessel are total new biulds then the armor is going to just be solid slabs of battleship steel (RHA?). If this is the case how effective would HESH warheads be against them? (hhmmm 16" HESH)

3: continuing the armor make up issue, would it be worthwhile using modern armor composites to give even thicker armor with not too much in the way of extra weight (could vastly increase defence against HE and shaped charge missile warheads?)

4: final question on naval guns this time, would you be able to take a 12-14" gun upto 70calibres or more in length and then add a rapid auto loader and water cooling? (say 5-8rpm instead of 2-3 as on the iowa).

As i said just some things that have been sticking in my head that i needed to get out, there may be more but i just can't remeber the rest at the moment.
1) Do not confuse armor protection with thickness. Battleship armor is 400-600mm thick. Tank armor is only 200-300mm tops. It's composites and sloping that increase that.
2) Yes, battleship armor is steel, but it's cemented and thus harder than RHA. HESH would be effective, but creating an effective large-caliber HESH round would be extremely difficult due to problems with shell design and impact velocities, and even then, it's not that likely for the damage to go very far, as small corridors and bulkheads will get in the way. HESH works against AFVs because the interior is essentially one big open space. Put a slab of metal separating the compartments like in a battleship, and damage will be localized, allowing the vehicle to remain operational.
3) Using modern composites is not a bad idea (my Toryu does), though an inner layer of RHA is still going to be useful (see the tank thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=88484) for an explanation). Once again, composites increase protection, not necessarily thickness.
4) A large-caliber gun is a bit much for an autoloader to work effectively, unless you're in the not-so-near future. You might be able to pull 5 or 6 rpm on a 12", but that's pushing it. As for increasing the length, the highest I've ever heard of for a larg-caliber gun was 56 calibers. Most are 45-50. I'd say you could top at maybe 60 calibers, but wouldn't advise going above that. Do note that the weight increase in doing this is significant, and a 16"/56 cal gun actually weighs more than an 18" gun does.
Note: I already did this for my ships :P

Picture of my Ship. (http://www.villagephotos.com/viewpubimage.asp?id_=6675706)

I haven't named it yet, any suggestions?

It seems to be somewhat cluttered to me.

Perhaps. I think it looks fine. Its pretty damn good against Cruisemissles, what with the RAM and CIWS systems. Plus the vast amount of SAM systems would serve it well. ASW would be taken care of via my Cruisers, 2 for every Battleship in the fleet.

1) Do not confuse armor protection with thickness. Battleship armor is 400-600mm thick. Tank armor is only 200-300mm tops. It's composites and sloping that increase that.
The Cheiftan was 300mm of RHA before they added stillbrew and i have read reports that the front glacis of the abrams is a whopping 800mm thick but thats a different debate entirely

2) Yes, battleship armor is steel, but it's cemented and thus harder than RHA. HESH would be effective, but creating an effective large-caliber HESH round would be extremely difficult due to problems with shell design and impact velocities, and even then, it's not that likely for the damage to go very far, as small corridors and bulkheads will get in the way. HESH works against AFVs because the interior is essentially one big open space. Put a slab of metal separating the compartments like in a battleship, and damage will be localized, allowing the vehicle to remain operational.
largely how i was thinking all though the 2000lb HESH bomb i saw discussed somewhere (some loonies pie in the sky way of making tanks collapse in on themselves) might be interesting, now all i need is a 2 stage penetrator/TB warhead (i know bulkheads are very strong so this is likely another insane idea)

3) Using modern composites is not a bad idea (my Toryu does), though an inner layer of RHA is still going to be useful (see the tank thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=88484) for an explanation). Once again, composites increase protection, not necessarily thickness.
Now to see if the armor scheme from the gilgamesh can be adapted

4) A large-caliber gun is a bit much for an autoloader to work effectively, unless you're in the not-so-near future. You might be able to pull 5 or 6 rpm on a 12", but that's pushing it. As for increasing the length, the highest I've ever heard of for a larg-caliber gun was 56 calibers. Most are 45-50. I'd say you could top at maybe 60 calibers, but wouldn't advise going above that. Do note that the weight increase in doing this is significant, and a 16"/56 cal gun actually weighs more than an 18" gun does.
Note: I already did this for my ships :P

Hmmm so a 12"/60cal 5rpm gun could be possible (persoanlly i would be happy with 4 rpm as long as it is far more accurate than the 16"/56s of the Iowa) to acompany my 155mm AGSs, now all i need is to figure out how far they could hurl ER muntions.

Thanks for the help, these idea were annoying me a fair bit last night

Artitsa: i unfortunatly can't see any images on village photos (likely a firewall/router thing in that they can't authenticate my detaisl or something) but your mentioend stats sound good.

I just need a name.

How about the Beomund? (after 1 of the 3 leaders of the first crusade).

I would say name it after the most important war like person in your nations history.

jeez, that means I gotta think.

tag

and adding www.hazegray.org (assuming it hasn7t been suggested already) as yet another naval resource.

tag

hey i have some information in my thread that is kinda relavant to this one, maybe u want to post it after your info.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=97640&highlight=

Theatre Air/Missle Defence Ship (TAMDS)

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-10/447411/inprogress.gif

Dimensions
Length(O/A) 291.2-292 meters
Length(W/L) 290-291 meters
Beam-hull 38.5 meters
Draft 19.0-20.33 meters

Displacement
Full Load approx. 44,000 tons
Standard approx. 40,000 tons

Propulsion 2 Nuclear Reactors
Shafts 4 each (8 total)
Endurance n/a
Max Speed 30-32 knots

Armament: 92 SA-N-12s, 6 Kashtan-M's (240 SA-N-11s), 72 SA-N-13's, 84 Astor-30's, 40 SS-N-16 (ASROC), 4 4"/50 Cal Guns.

Radars
Air Search Artitsan 360* "Eye" target aquisition radar (air search), MR-760 Fregat-MA/Top Plate 3-D air search Radar
Surface Search Fregat-MAE-5
Navigation 3 Palm Frond Navigation
Fire control Fregat-MAE-5 and Poyma-E data processing system
Sonars Zvezda-1 Sonar suite

Complement 93 Officers, 609 enlisted

Theatre Air/Missle Defence Ship (TAMDS)

Dimensions
Length(O/A) 291.2-292 meters
Length(W/L) 290-291 meters
Beam-hull 38.5 meters
Draft 19.0-20.33 meters

Displacement
Full Load approx. 44,000 tons
Standard approx. 40,000 tons

Propulsion 2 Nuclear Reactors
Shafts 4 each (8 total)
Endurance n/a
Max Speed 30-32 knots

Armament: 92 SA-N-12s, 6 Kashtan-M's (240 SA-N-11s), 72 SA-N-13's, 84 Astor-30's, 40 SS-N-16 (ASROC), 4 4"/50 Cal Guns.

Radars
Air Search Artitsan 360* "Eye" target aquisition radar (air search), MR-760 Fregat-MA/Top Plate 3-D air search Radar
Surface Search Fregat-MAE-5
Navigation 3 Palm Frond Navigation
Fire control Fregat-MAE-5 and Poyma-E data processing system
Sonars Zvezda-1 Sonar suite

Complement 93 Officers, 609 enlisted
The Aster missiles seem almost an afterthought, and I'd say it's generally better to stick with all Soviet or all Western tech. Mixing the two can be problematic.

Outside of that, it looks fine, though you might want to add some helicopters, especially considering the small size of the Ka-25/27/29 family.

Indeed. I want to keep the Asters though, as they can engage Sea-Skimming missles. A must in these days. But do you like the overall concept? Having 2-4 of these in each fleet would be a pain for an enemy airgroup.

Artitsa, once more, please do not post pictures wider than the average browser can handle. On the standard 800x600 screen, with the brower's "framework stuff" taking 100 pixels or more, you should try to keep below 650 pixels wide.

You've been asked politely three time now. I hope it isn't necessary to become impolite and/or speak to the moderators.

:oops:

*sigh* Of course on my 1000x some odd it fits well under, but I shall edit it out.

Also, I'd like to see what the average browser size is around here.

:oops:

*sigh* Of course on my 1000x some odd it fits well under, but I shall edit it out.

Also, I'd like to see what the average browser size is around here.
Thank you.

Although I kept quiet, I do find these streching images sonetimes annoying even on my 1024x768 resolution. Also slows up loading time for 56Kers.

A good site on sea state conditions - give your enemy some weather to deal with... :D
http://ioc.unesco.org/oceanteacher/resourcekit/M3/Formats/Codes/SeaState.htm

The displacements I was referring to are the full load displacement, which is as heavy as the ship goes. The King George V has a full displacement of 45,000+ tons, so it's not off there. However, I'd steer clear of those ships because their guns were notoriously unreliable. The King George V herself had up to half of her guns completely out of action at one time due to mechanical difficulties, and other vessels with the same guns suffered numerous problems. They were also low-velocity weapons, so belt penetration wouldn't be as good.

Actually, according to that website (and a few others I've seen, as well as several reference books, KGV displaced only about 42,000 tons full. And the unreliability of KGV (and Duke of York, Prince of Wales, Howe, and Anson) 's main armaments wasn't so much a fault of the ship itself as it was the fault of the British quadruple-mount 14"/45 turret, which was hastily rushed into production without proper testing due to the approaching war. In actuality, the superfiring 14"/45 double mount was very reliable, and in general, an effective anti-ship weapon. Most, if not all, of the problems experienced by the British 14"/45 Mk. VII were the result of mounting troubles rather than gun design, which was actually better in many ways than the high-velocity British 16"/45 Mk. I used on Nelson and Rodney.

Most of the problems were soon hammered out, and despite Duke of York's problems at the Battle of North Cape, were solved by 1943.


That out of the way (gotta stand up for KGV ;)), I would also like to mention that the Iowa is really an oddity for a battleship, and perhaps even more closely related to a battlecruiser. The Iowa-class was designed as a 'fast carrier escort' battleship, largely to address the problems experienced by American battlecruiser designs. Most 'proper' battleships carried a full 2-3" more of side armor - again, the KGV, with its slightly more than 15" of maximum belt thickness to Iowa's little more than 12" is one indication of this. Vanguard is another; Nelson another; Bismarck another; Littorio (which was also designed for speed) another; even the ancient Queen Elizabeth class had thicker belt armor (deck protection was another thing ;)).

So, in other words, using the Iowa as the archetype of how a battleship should be designed isn't necessarily a good idea. Certainly, they were probably the best battleship of WWII (though advanced American radar fire control had to do a lot with that), but in a gun duel with a better armored counterpart, assuming fire control was equal, things may be quite different.

One thing I've noticed is that people tend not to lie about their ships true capabilities. For instance, the designs released for our 35,000 ton battlecruiser HIMS Queen Jessica (and her sister ships, King James II and King Ian V) listed her as being able to make 35.4 knots in easy seas, but on sea trials, the number was actually between 32 and 33 knots. Still, we designed that ship to go 35 knots, so it damn well does! (as far as anyone ICly knows, besides the ship's officers and a few informed people in the Admiralty)

One thing I've noticed is that people tend not to lie about their ships true capabilities. For instance, the designs released for our 35,000 ton battlecruiser HIMS Queen Jessica (and her sister ships, King James II and King Ian V) listed her as being able to make 35.4 knots in easy seas, but on sea trials, the number was actually between 32 and 33 knots. Still, we designed that ship to go 35 knots, so it damn well does! (as far as anyone ICly knows, besides the ship's officers and a few informed people in the Admiralty)
Shhh. Not everything I put down is entirely accurate either :wink:

Shhh. Not everything I put down is entirely accurate either :wink:

(heh, ah, right, right ;). I have to say, though, that is one nice thing about the groups I choose to RP with (the ANH, D.K., C.M, Calarca et al) - I don't have to keep my IC secrets OOC as well (certainly, sometimes I choose to, for super-surprise effect ;)).)

An excellent post that, unfortunately, I only have time to read some of at the moment.

I suppose it would be too much to have it stickied?

An excellent post that, unfortunately, I only have time to read some of at the moment.

I suppose it would be too much to have it stickied?

It is already linked in the godmoding stickey, no need.

Also CSJ, sorry if this doesn't belong here, btu I heard that you mentioned about the LCS (littoral combat ship?) project actually exists in RL (and the one you based your LCS design on I persume)? Just curious, thanks.

Yes, the LCS project is quite real, and the US is expecting to purchase as many as 60 vessels. It's an offshoot of the DDX program, and is thus related to the DDX and CGX in development. I've known about this for quite some time now, and my knowledge predates the article that appeared in Popular Science not too long ago. However, the project is still conceptual, and there are no hard stats, or even solid requirements available, so my ships are made up based on my opinions and requirements.

CSJ, can you note somewhere that people should remember what an AIRCRAFT CARRIER is, by definition, a ship which is designed to carry PLANES and the use of cruise missiles, guns, Marines etc all interfere with the ship being an aircraft carrier! :roll:

As I’m sure you can all see here, ships are most certainly not cheap, and large fleets are a pain to maintain. This cost also usually excludes things like missiles and ammunition, which can cost hundreds of millions (consider putting 64 $2 million SM-2s on a destroyer or cruiser, and yes, they do cost that much). In addition, a combat vessel will generally require, on average, approximately 10% of its acquisition cost each year in maintenance, operation, and refit/upgrade costs.
Also, for carriers, you have to factor in escorts and aircraft, as well as the ship and munitions. A US Nimitz carrier group generally costs about $20 billion to construct and outfit, and another $1 billion each year to operate and maintain.

OOC: Does 'maintenance' and 'operation' include the salaries of the crew?

OOC: Does 'maintenance' and 'operation' include the salaries of the crew?
Yes, I would presume it does. After all, the other military cost analyses I've seen do.
The best info I can get is a 1995 summary for the lifetime cost of a Nimitz class carrier:
Procurement : $4059 million
Midlife Modernization: $2382 million
Direct Operating & Support: $11,677 million
Indirect Operating & Support: $3025 million
Inactivation/Disposal Cost: $887 million
Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Cost: $13 million
Total Lifetime Cost: $22,043 million
Service Life: 50 years
Average Annual Cost: $440.86 million

Do note that it's a nuclear powered vessel, so there's significant increases in several areas (operating, inactivation, disposal). For a conventionally powered combat vessel, the total cost would be notably less.

OOC: Whew! For a second there I thought I would have to calculate some more stuff.

CSJ, can you note somewhere that people should remember what an AIRCRAFT CARRIER is, by definition, a ship which is designed to carry PLANES and the use of cruise missiles, guns, Marines etc all interfere with the ship being an aircraft carrier! :roll:

There are 'Battle Carriers' which carry guns missiles and planes, the Russian 'Kiev' for example. It provides an all round ship with the capability to engage other shipping as well as launch aircraft. I prefer them to pure aircraft Carriers as they are able to fulfil a variety of roles that the aircraft carrier cannot.

CSJ, can you note somewhere that people should remember what an AIRCRAFT CARRIER is, by definition, a ship which is designed to carry PLANES and the use of cruise missiles, guns, Marines etc all interfere with the ship being an aircraft carrier! :roll:

On NS where large surface battlegroups meet fairly frequently and well equipped modern navies are common, having a carrier only able to deploy aircraft is borderline suicidal.

Trimaran hulls do increase survivability because you have the main hull then two smaller hulls either side of it albeit not all along it but their presence is most effective and they are designed to take such hits whilst still allowing the vessel to limp home.Is there any reason why you couldn't have the two smaller hulls go the whole length of the ship?There is no answer! :o

CSJ, can you note somewhere that people should remember what an AIRCRAFT CARRIER is, by definition, a ship which is designed to carry PLANES and the use of cruise missiles, guns, Marines etc all interfere with the ship being an aircraft carrier! :roll:

There are 'Battle Carriers' which carry guns missiles and planes, the Russian 'Kiev' for example. It provides an all round ship with the capability to engage other shipping as well as launch aircraft. I prefer them to pure aircraft Carriers as they are able to fulfil a variety of roles that the aircraft carrier cannot.
Too add on to that, the Russian CTOL carrier Kuznetsov can, besides aircraft, carry some SAMs and anti-ship missiles. There's also another Spanish one that carry Harpoons I believe.

But I guess that they are all for self-defense, even for the anti-ship ones.

CSJ, can you note somewhere that people should remember what an AIRCRAFT CARRIER is, by definition, a ship which is designed to carry PLANES and the use of cruise missiles, guns, Marines etc all interfere with the ship being an aircraft carrier! :roll:

There are 'Battle Carriers' which carry guns missiles and planes, the Russian 'Kiev' for example. It provides an all round ship with the capability to engage other shipping as well as launch aircraft. I prefer them to pure aircraft Carriers as they are able to fulfil a variety of roles that the aircraft carrier cannot.
However, the Kiev is not a full-deck carrier, and it's air complement is much smaller than it could be (the Indian conversion will make it a full deck though). It should also be noted that the Kiev, like all soviet carriers, is designated an aircraft carrying cruiser. That is why it, as well as the larger Kuznetsov, has greater armament than other carriers. But it does indeed interfere with the air complement, as additional combat systems and ammunition, as well as the mountings themselves, do take up space that could be used for aircraft. The Kiev is also an ASW carrier, and it's ASuW capabilities actually lie primarily in its SSMs. It simply doesn't carry enough aircraft to launch a decent strike against surface or land targets.

There is nothing wrong with putting an arsenal on your carrier, as long as you reduce the air complement accordingly. Failing to do so does mean that you've gone too far. As far as the dreadnaught idea (a battleship/carrier hybrid) goes, that's not going to work as well as many people think. This was done successfully in WWII with cruisers, but even with a huge battleship, you won't be able to mount a flight deck sufficient for launching and recovering anything but VTOL aircraft and helicopters, and still retain the guns. If you designed the ship to be large or wide enough to do this, you would make it prohibitively slow. In which case, you have to go even larger because air flow over the flight deck is very important in successfully launching planes, and a lower speed means a lower airflow.

Ot should also be noted that the Kiev, like all soviet carriers, is designated an aircraft carrying cruiser.

2 things about this:

1. Actually, true. Both carriers do not carry a large amount of aircraft, so it is still massively inferior to US carriers in terms of aircraft capacity.

2. Didn't the Russians also got to bypass the treaty that prohibits any aircraft carrier to enter the Black Sea or some sorts by calling their "Carriers" Aircraft-carrying cruisers instead?

Ot should also be noted that the Kiev, like all soviet carriers, is designated an aircraft carrying cruiser.

2 things about this:

1. Actually, true. Both carriers do not carry a large amount of aircraft, so it is still massively inferior to US carriers in terms of aircraft capacity.

2. Didn't the Russians also got to bypass the treaty that prohibits any aircraft carrier to enter the Black Sea or some sorts by calling their "Carriers" Aircraft-carrying cruisers instead?
It's not just treaty requirments, but actually has more to do with tactics. The Soviet navy was never designed for the sea control mission, and they have always lacked the presence and force projection that can be found in even the French and British navies. Part of the reason for this is that they were built around land wars with nations they actually border, so the naval dimension is not as critical. The role of the Soviet navy was to deny control of the sea to the enemy, and relied almost entirely on submarines for striking at enemy shipping, preventing the US from effectively reinforcing Europe in times of war. The surface fleet's role was little more than protecting the Soviet coast from naval attack.
You'll notice that they also had a servere shortage of large naval landing craft, as the role of their landing forces was largely tactical, with them being used to strike behind the enemy's front lines - much like airborne units.

I see...

Also, aren't the Soviet Navy more "nuclear-wise" aside from "land-wise"? I heard that the Kuznetsov was used along with the Typhoon SSBNs in the 80es...

Ah You got to the heart of the matter...

It is the tactical concept that drives the creation of the ships and in some cases the opposite direction also. But you can't use a Keiv like a Nimitz...however it does have the possiblity of being effective in some situations more than a nimitz would be.

Hmm, Great Thread...

Would it be possible for a BBG to have an
Armorment of Twelve Mk. 7 16"/50 guns in four triple turrets, Twenty Mk. 45 5"/54 guns in ten twin mountings (ten guns on each side of the ship). Two 96 cell Mk.41 VLS. 12 ABLs. 16 Harpoon quad launchers. 5 Evolved SeaSparrow quad launcher. 5 SeaSparrow quad launcher. 6 Vanguard CIWS. With the dimensions of : between 921' 3"-931'3" (length overall); 121' 2" (maximum beam). Powered by a nuclear reactor.

(Not to speak out of turn, but I'm not sure how well those changes to a Montana class would go. On paper, at least, those were supposed to displace in the neighborhood of 70,000 tons - they were already chalk full of equipment. Perhaps if you were to remove the rear guns, and use their companion magazine space for missile storage and their deck space for launch areas, you may be able to. Still, I think you'd be much better off creating a new combination gun/missile ship than updating an old WWII design. Too much has changed over the last sixty years to make that practical.)

FYI: The salaries of the crew do NOT count towards the expense that are incurred by a naval vessel. Those expenses are for the ship itself and the ship alone. When figuring the costs of running military equipment, the wages of the crew are rarely included. In this case, the crew is not included because their wages do not come out of the ship's budget but the Naval budget itself. They are therefore not included in the the estimate.

Okay, to backtrack a bit about my yell about using aircraft carriers, I was mainly referring to those people who think an Aircraft Carrier can carry 300 aircraft, have the armaments of six Iowas and can carry several thousand troops aboard.

While I do admit it was a narrow minded an outburst, I'm trying to make sure that people do not mix up their terms and definitions, as CSJ so politely pointed out.

In summary:

• A ship whose sole purpose is the carrying and use of aircraft as a primary role is an aircraft carrier
• A ship that combines a respectable "battleship/cruiser" armament with a respectable aircraft complement (though compromising to do so) is a battle carrier
• A ship that combines a battleship armament with a huge carrier air wing and several thousand Marines is a godmod :lol:

OOC: Where is that Calarca guy? He knows a bit about ships. :)

Well the 'Kirov' is larger than most other Cruisers, in fact its larger than all other Cruisers that I know of. It isn't much smaller than the 'Charles de Gaulle' which nobody can debate is a genuine Carrier. The fact that it carries less planes does not make it an inferior vessel. As I have mentioned before, it is a better all-round vessel.
My belief is that the days of massed planes ruling the Sea is over. Advances in AA mean that ships can take down whole Squadrons at a time. I would tend to say the true purpose of Ship-based aircraft these days is to interfere with land targets rather than engage in Midway style battles.

Well the 'Kirov' is larger than most other Cruisers, in fact its larger than all other Cruisers that I know of. It isn't much smaller than the 'Charles de Gaulle' which nobody can debate is a genuine Carrier. The fact that it carries less planes does not make it an inferior vessel. As I have mentioned before, it is a better all-round vessel.
My belief is that the days of massed planes ruling the Sea is over. Advances in AA mean that ships can take down whole Squadrons at a time. I would tend to say the true purpose of Ship-based aircraft these days is to interfere with land targets rather than engage in Midway style battles.

Hmm, I'm not sure either is true...based on current methods both AA and aircraft in naval warfare are dependent on missle systems. In the end I think your going to find that 'Air Superiority' isn't gone but diminished. Perhaps 'Big Guns' will have a place in naval warfare, but more likely that it will be 'long range guns' that will be part of the overall mix.

The only problem is that like most 'theory's' yours can only be tested in real life war. Besides the United States there are very few nations that have aircraft carriers. And it is unlikely that any of them are going to pick a fight with either the U.S. or themselves. I mean even if the Monarchy took back direct rule of Britian...there would likely not be a war between the U.S. and Britian about it...(strangly many americans would be termed 'royalists' Other note: The Bushes are related to Stuarts if I recall correctly) India? China(wait does China have an aircraft carrier? I recall them looking into buying a russian one...)

If there is going to be a major naval war it would have to be a coalition against the U.S. or perhaps China and India will be a larger theat and the U.S. a smaller one...

China(wait does China have an aircraft carrier? I recall them looking into buying a russian one...)

Actually, I think they are going to build one themselves, or buy them (msotl ikel the built one will also be basedo n the Kiev).

China(wait does China have an aircraft carrier? I recall them looking into buying a russian one...)

Actually, I think they are going to build one themselves, or buy them (msotl ikel the built one will also be basedo n the Kiev). My mom, who worked in a Chinese agency closely tied to the Chinese PLA Air Force, heard that the current design (custom design) is flawed, and the development is being delayed. Hmm... Even if they DID build an aircraft carrier, it is likely tht maintance will be an absolutely nightmare.

I do believe that the Chinese did by a Kiev but the US freaked out so it was turned into a casino or something.

If my memory serves, the following nations have carriers or programs:

(Note: "Fleet" carrier refers to a ship whose airgroup is capable of defending the fleet, as well as power projection, being a fighting force of its own. "Light" carriers, usually armed with STOVL aircraft, without the "fleet" appellation are mainly for support of Destroyers and Frigates, not a fighting force in its own right. Also note that this tends to ignore their sovereign designations within their own navies.)

• USA: Heavy Fleet aircraft carriers x12 (Kitty Hawk, Enterprise, Nimitz)+ next generation Fleet carrier program (CVN-21)
• Russia: Medium Fleet aircraft carrier x1 (Kuznetsov)
• France: Light Fleet carriers x2 (Charles deGaulle, Foch)+ Helicopter carrier x1 (Jeanne D'Arc)
• Brazil: Light Fleet carrier x1 (Foch)
• China: Light Fleet carrier program
• UK/Britain: ASW/Light carriers x3 (Invincible)+ Future Light Fleet carrier program (CVF)
• Italy: ASW/Light carrier (Guiseppe Garibaldi+ Helicopter cruiser x1 (Vittorio Veneto)+ ASW/Light carrier replacement program
• Spain: ASW/Light carrier x1 (Principe de Asturias)
• Thailand: ASW/Light carrier x1 (name unknown)
• India: ASW/Light carrier x2 (Viraat/Vikrant) + Light Fleet carrier in preparation (Russian Kiev class)

That's the list, as best as I can piece it together. I'm not sure whether or not it's fully accurate, but it should.

If my memory serves, the following nations have carriers or programs:

(Note: "Fleet" carrier refers to a ship whose airgroup is capable of defending the fleet, as well as power projection, being a fighting force of its own. "Light" carriers, usually armed with STOVL aircraft, without the "fleet" appellation are mainly for support of Destroyers and Frigates, not a fighting force in its own right. Also note that this tends to ignore their sovereign designations within their own navies.)

• USA: Heavy Fleet aircraft carriers x12 (Kitty Hawk, Enterprise, Nimitz)+ next generation Fleet carrier program (CVN-21)
• Russia: Medium Fleet aircraft carrier x1 (Kuznetsov)
• France: Light Fleet carriers x2 (Charles deGaulle, Foch)+ Helicopter carrier x1 (Jeanne D'Arc)
• Brazil: Light Fleet carrier x1 (Foch)
• China: Light Fleet carrier program
• UK/Britain: ASW/Light carriers x3 (Invincible)+ Future Light Fleet carrier program (CVF)
• Italy: ASW/Light carrier (Guiseppe Garibaldi+ Helicopter cruiser x1 (Vittorio Veneto)+ ASW/Light carrier replacement program
• Spain: ASW/Light carrier x1 (Principe de Asturias)
• Thailand: ASW/Light carrier x1 (name unknown)
• India: ASW/Light carrier x2 (Viraat/Vikrant) + Light Fleet carrier in preparation (Russian Kiev class)

That's the list, as best as I can piece it together. I'm not sure whether or not it's fully accurate, but it should.

Japan either has, or is working on making a helicopter carrier/aviation cruiser.

Japan either has, or is working on making a helicopter carrier/aviation cruiser.

I don't really think that Japan is allowed to have a carrier/aviation cruiser/etc. due to treaties...

Don't forget about the LHDs and LHAs in the US fleet. While they may not be much vs. the Nimitz, they are still about as large as most of the 'light' carriers run by other countries about.

There's also the repeatedly rumoured Joint Strike Platform project in the US' 'Stuff for the future' box.

Japan either has, or is working on making a helicopter carrier/aviation cruiser.

I don't really think that Japan is allowed to have a carrier/aviation cruiser/etc. due to treaties... Correction: due to terms of surrender :twisted:

China did purchase one of the carriers from Russia, the Varyag but plans are to change it into a commercial venue as happened with the Russian aviation cruiser they purchased, the Minsk. They also purchased the hulk of the Aussie light carrier Melbourne for studies on their own carrier program. Development isn't jsut on a light carrier but also a supercarrier although the likelihood of them actually fielding it is quite remote.

France and Britain have both looked into the supercarrier field but have remained content with either light carriers or VSTOL ships. India is the last of the big countries to be considering a major carrier but so far I believe they are sitting with the thought of purchasing the Gorshkov and making it a full-deck light carrier as well as the possible creation of a small carrier class of around 35,000 tons.

Japan already has the Osumi class dock landing ships and light medium LSTs. Not aviation cruisers or light carriers by any means, but

http://hazegray.org/worldnav/asiapac/japan.htm#4

Hazegray (aka World Navies today) notes: "A class of large amphibious "command" ships is planned; these ships will probably be LPH-like in design."

The peace constitution is the instrument you are referring to that could be considered to limit the navy, not treaties or instruments of surrender (although one could argue the MacArthur constitution may be seen as a sort of instrument of surrender - in a weird way...)

Article 9 (renouncing the right to wage war and the right to a military) has been twisted so far as to make it meaningless. But that is a whole other topic....

The British do have a conventional carrier in the advanced stages although stats are a little conflicting but the STOVL carriers are on the way out. Plans are for two of them to be built and most likely equipped with a navalised JSF.
I thought the French had a conventional carrier and not just STOVL carriers?

Clarification time..... My list did not include Amphibs (LHA/Ds, LSDs, LHDs etc) simply because their roles, while indeed carrying STOVLs and attack helicopters are NOT in falling with the traditional "aircraft carrier" (be it STOVL, with significant sides of cruiser type armaments or otherwise) of using its air wing as a critical part of offensive operations, against land, sea, air or subsea targets.

YES, the STOVLs and attack helicopters do that, but the Amphibs' primary purpose is to deliver Marines to wage war on land with the air component in support, not use the air component primarily, which is the distinction as opposed to proper carriers.

To answer the next questions..... The French carriers are indeed conventional ones (Charles de Gaulle plus the Clemenceau) and were given the appropriate title of "Light Fleet carriers" per my list. Indeed, Brazil also appears on the list because they bought the Foch (to which the Clemenceau is a ship of the class).

YES, China still has the hulk of the old HMAS Melbourne (formerly Australian) and I think Argentina still has the "Vincente de Mayo" (or whatever that ship happens to be called), but remember both literally date back to the 40s, in fairly poor repair (both were stricken from active duties from their respective navies in the mid/late 80s) and cannot operate anything apart from STOVLs or light attack aircraft (like the A-4 Skyhawk).

YES, the Yaryag has been sold to a commercial company (several sources note Macau, near China, famous in part for its casinos) to turn it into a floating casino. Further, you'd note that in my list, that I noted in India "Light Fleet carrier in preparation (Russian Kiev class)", which is indeed a reference to the Gorshkov. However, since the Indians do not have their hands on it, it is considered a "program".

Lastly, regarding Japan...... As I understand it, it was written into the Japanese Constitution after WW2 that they could not conduct "offensive" operations. Since an aircraft carrier's primary purpose is to conduct offensive operations and project power, this would be seen a direct violation of their Constitution, which only allows for a Self Defense Force. You should note that when Koizumi deployed ships to help with the Afghanistan/Iraq campaigns, he got a lot of flak, because it was seen by some as a flaunt of their Constitution, as it was the first "offensive" deployment of Japanese ships since WW2.

Hmm, I'm not sure either is true...based on current methods both AA and aircraft in naval warfare are dependent on missle systems. In the end I think your going to find that 'Air Superiority' isn't gone but diminished. Perhaps 'Big Guns' will have a place in naval warfare, but more likely that it will be 'long range guns' that will be part of the overall mix.

The only problem is that like most 'theory's' yours can only be tested in real life war. Besides the United States there are very few nations that have aircraft carriers. And it is unlikely that any of them are going to pick a fight with either the U.S. or themselves. I mean even if the Monarchy took back direct rule of Britian...there would likely not be a war between the U.S. and Britian about it...(strangly many americans would be termed 'royalists' Other note: The Bushes are related to Stuarts if I recall correctly) India? China(wait does China have an aircraft carrier? I recall them looking into buying a russian one...)

If there is going to be a major naval war it would have to be a coalition against the U.S. or perhaps China and India will be a larger theat and the U.S. a smaller one...

I think if you look at the Falkans, where planes were frequently deployed against ships, the Argentinians took heavy losses in the air to comparatively little damage done to shipping. Advances since then mean that the systems in use during the war are now more than twice as accurate. Then there is the fact that the level of AA on a modern ship is less than what could feasibly be fitted for little loss in performance, simply because there is no expectation of a major war involving Midway style carrier action. You can happily fit a pair of Sea Wolf arrays and a pair of Sea Dart and give enough anti-air fire to cause enormous amounts of damage to anything in the air. This is without seriously impeding the performance of the ship. Many of the Russian ships have the potential to upgrade their AA potential simply by fitting more targeters to the missile arrays.

I think if you look at the Falkans, where planes were frequently deployed against ships, the Argentinians took heavy losses in the air to comparatively little damage done to shipping. Advances since then mean that the systems in use during the war are now more than twice as accurate. Then there is the fact that the level of AA on a modern ship is less than what could feasibly be fitted for little loss in performance, simply because there is no expectation of a major war involving Midway style carrier action. You can happily fit a pair of Sea Wolf arrays and a pair of Sea Dart and give enough anti-air fire to cause enormous amounts of damage to anything in the air. This is without seriously impeding the performance of the ship. Many of the Russian ships have the potential to upgrade their AA potential simply by fitting more targeters to the missile arrays.
Actually, much of the failure to damage British ships in the Falklands war was due to the improper use of weapons. They were dropping bombs on ships at low altitude, and the bombs thus didn't have time to arm, so none of them exploded. Had they had better bombs or dropped them from a higher altitude, or used missiles, the results would have been quite different. A 500 lb bomb can cripple a cruiser after all.
Similarly, the main threat from aircraft now is standoff antishipping missiles, which can be fired from beyond the range of most air defense systems, and sea skimmers are hard to intercept once fired. Granted, there will most likely not be those huge hundred plane battles, but you may very well see a few squadrons of aircraft armed with harpoons or Yakhonts striking at large naval forces, with fighters mixing it up to decide the fate of the strike aircraft. Without a decent crop of fighters to go out and engage them, a naval force can be decimated by such an attack.

There's also the styro about the Falklands war where just one air-launched Exocet sank a British destroyer.

*tag* for reference

The Russian Kuznetsov class of carriers have occasionally been designated as CVG's - guided missile aircraft carriers - because they have SS-N-19 missiles in VLS tubes under the foredeck, thus giving them extreme-range anti-ship capability, as well as a multi-tiered CIWS and SAM system.

As for the supercavitation- you need a lot of power. With an object as large as a submarine, you'd need a giant rocket or something to push yourself around at speeds like that. Admittedly, though, your top speed would be about 150-200 knots.

Supercavitating torpedoes like the Shkval also produce an 'ensonified' zone along the vector of travel. In other words, lots of bubbles. Lots and lots. Since air reflects the sound (NOT the submarine's hull), the air in the bubbles creates scatter which temporarily renders active sonars SOL.

And in newer nuclear reactors, these models can operate on convection circulation alone (in the right climate conditions) and run with the reactor pumps at the absolute minimums. This produces almost no noise, and is comparable to a diesel-electric running submerged on batteries at steerageway.

I'll probably sneak this onto one of the posts on the first page in the near future, as it's very pertinent, but for now . . .


AIP VS NUCLEAR PROPULSION IN SUBMARINES
With the advances in AIP (air-independant propulsion) technology, the smaller, quieter diesel-electric submarines are coming more and more into favor. With AIP systems currently on the market, the submerged endurance of these submarines has been increased from days to weeks, and further increases could bring their submerged endurance up to three months. Naturally, many are stating how these submarines are almost as good as nuclear boats, while having only a fraction of the cost. However, there is something very important that these individuals either don't know, or are conveniently failing to mention, and this is an important piece of information that shows just how far behind nuclear powered boats AIP subs still are. This tiny little fact is that the 21-day submerged endurance is at the snail's pace of only 3 knots. This means that these ships have an actual submerged range of only 2800 km, which means that in the end, they still can't stray that far (relatively speaking) from friendly bases. Submerged endurance in combat conditions is still measured in hours, and that means that the captain must still husband the boats power supply carefully. With the more advanced conceptual submarines, the range is bumped up to 12,000 km. However, this is still only at 3 knots, and that means that these boats will be very slow in getting where they need to go while running submerged.

Nuclear boats on the other hand, can operate for 3-6 months at a time, and cruise at speeds several times that of the AIP boats. This means that they can actually escort surface ships, and are far more capable when it comes to rapid deployment. The Seawolf, for example, has a tactical speed of 20 knots. That means that it can go 20 knots and still remain quiet enough to stand a reasonable chance of avoiding detection, and this speed can be maintained for a significant period of time. This equals the maximum speed of most DE and AIP subs, and those can't maintain it for more than a few hours.

While AIP subs are getting better at it and are quieter, they're still hopelessly outclassed by nuclear boats in those critical areas. In the end, if you don't have nuclear subs, your submarine force is only a regional power at best. To be a global power, nuclear submarines are still an absolute must.

There's also the styro about the Falklands war where just one air-launched Exocet sank a British destroyer.

And? It was a once off. A rare event. The English lost very little in the Campaign, whereas the Argentinians were obliterated. What is more since then AA has come on in leaps and bound, particularly in the field of target aquisition. In the Falkans the Sea Wolf missile array was brand new. They were using a targeter which shut down if it picked up more than one target at a time. Despite the fact that the array was meant to attack up 6 targets at a time. The new targeters they fit to these systems are good enough to guide these missiles at incoming planes with pretty much unerring accuracyh and the system is also capable of firing on incoming missiles.

I can give examples of how a 3 pound sheel on a river gunboat managed to sink a ship significantly larger than itself with one hit to the magazine (said gunboat was carrying a total of 3 shells). Things like this happen.

Exocets are in my opinion fairly rubbish, especially in the prescence of ECM, which is standard on shiiping I design. They also don't carry enough punch to do that much damage except if they hit a critical point.

There's also the styro about the Falklands war where just one air-launched Exocet sank a British destroyer.

And? It was a once off. A rare event. The English lost very little in the Campaign, whereas the Argentinians were obliterated. What is more since then AA has come on in leaps and bound, particularly in the field of target aquisition. In the Falkans the Sea Wolf missile array was brand new. They were using a targeter which shut down if it picked up more than one target at a time. Despite the fact that the array was meant to attack up 6 targets at a time. The new targeters they fit to these systems are good enough to guide these missiles at incoming planes with pretty much unerring accuracyh and the system is also capable of firing on incoming missiles.

I can give examples of how a 3 pound sheel on a river gunboat managed to sink a ship significantly larger than itself with one hit to the magazine (said gunboat was carrying a total of 3 shells). Things like this happen.

Exocets are in my opinion fairly rubbish, especially in the prescence of ECM, which is standard on shiiping I design. They also don't carry enough punch to do that much damage except if they hit a critical point.
Uh, I don't think you actually looked at the kind of damage the British fleet recieved. You'll notice that even with just unexploded bombs, they suffered quite a bit, and had they detonated, a significant portion of the British fleet would have been lost. As it was, Exocets sunk two ships, and another five were lost to bombs. An eighth ship was damaged but later repaired. Seven more were hit with bombs that failed to explode, and several would have been sunk if those bombs did. Finally, about half a dozen more were damaged by other things (near misses, aircraft strafing, rockets, etc). The ships hit by Exocets in the war included one destroyer lost, one container ship lost, and one destroyer damaged. In addition, a US Oliver Hazard Perry air defense frigate was crippled by a pair of Exocets in 1987 (only one actually detonated though).
The only other targets that Exocets have been fired against were large oil tankers, which were generally too big for the warhead to have much effect. Against smaller vessels such as a light destroyer or a frigate, one or two exocets are enough to at least cripple the ship, so they're still a notable threat.

The real threat from the Exocet is actually its fuel, which has its own oxidizer, making a fire that's extremely difficult to control. Both the USS Starke and HMS Sheffield suffered more damage from the fire than the actual warhead. In fact, the Sheffield was sunk even though the warhead itself failed to explode (a defect that was supposedly fixed in newer models).

Slight addition to the Falklands information here, the Seawolf systems present in 82 failed to engage the exocets because the missile were at very similar ranges and the computer program could not discern which missile was the greatest threat ie; which was closest.
HMS Sheffield's design was flawed as was all of the frigates and destoryers in the Falklands, they had highly flammable materials built in to their superstructure which when the missile struck was its undoing, as was mentioned fire was the problem not the actual explosive.

Here is a full list of British surface naval actions in the Falkland War: HMS Sheffield - Damaged & set on fire by exocet then later abandoned, HMS Antrim - Hit by a bomb that failed to explode & further damaged by strafing, HMS Argonaut was hit by bombs but they failed to detnotate, HMS Ardent - Hit by nine bombs seven of which detonated & later abandoned, HMS Antelope - Hit by a bomb which exploded during disarming, HMS Coventry - Sunk by exocet attack acting as a missile trap with HMS Broadsword which was also damaged, Atlantic Conveyor sunk by exocet attack, LS Sir Galahad destroyed by air attack.

The main problem was the lack of CIWS, there was the long range Sea Dart and the mid range Seawolf but nothing short range which was later corrected. Odd how nobody has yet designed a ship deliberatly to be cheap and incorporate flaws all in the name of cost saving. I guess nobody is that willing to be realistic.

LS Sir Galahad destroyed by air attack.

Slight correction, it was damaged (by unexploded bombs' kinetic effect probably) :P

Also a good source about the Falklands war naval operations, including description about how the ships on both sides were lost/damaged: http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1982FALKLANDS.htm

And remember the Exocet was more of a psychological weapon. Sorta like how that British submarine sunk the Argentinian Cruiser Belgrano. The Argentinians got so spooked their Navy went into port and stayed there. I know I'm being ignorant, but remember that those ships attacked were support/light (Frigate) type ships. Keep in mind Exocet is one of the smallest anti-ship missiles around. Up against CIWS, it'd probably get chopped up.

I'd also like to point out that in most books that speak of the Falklands war, they note that if the British had the proper tools (like effective intercept of aircraft, CIWS etc), then they wouldn't have had a drubbing. But based on most of the documentation I've read, it's agreed that the Falklands were pretty close and the British won through sheer upper-lip-ness they're so famous for, I think.

PS Thanks, Omz, for that sweet link! :D

Actually, the Exocet isn't exactly the smallest anti-shipping missile in use... the equivalent launch versions of the Exocet are larger/similar sized and faster than the Harpoon, although with a significantly smaller (165kg vs 220 kg) warhead, and often rated for a slightly shorter range.

Other surface launched anti-shipping missiles of similar size (all of which are actually less massive than the MM40 Block 2 Exocet, launch mass 870 kg; earlier Exocet models slightly smaller) generally slightly smaller and slightly slower than the exocet) include the American Harpoon, the Taiwanese Hsiung Feng, the Israeli Gabriel, the Norwegian Penguin (which is actually significantly smaller - just under half the launch mass, and used by the US Navy), the chinese C-801 and 802 (which mount the same 165kg warhead), the Russian Switchblade missile (150kg warhead), the Japanese Type 90 SSM-1B, and the european Otomat missile (I can't recall where it's from off the top of my head.)

The chinese C-701 anti-shipping missile, which appears to be meant for use against smugglers and small unarmored vessels, has a total launch mass of 100 kg, and a rated range of just under ten miles.

Hey guys, this thread has been of great assistance to me, but I need a favor.

You see, I need to know the limitations on a small 5 man submarine that will be used to insert a small team into another highly developed nation. How hard will it be to detect, what speed will it have, how long can it run and how far can it go without support (I've got a fleet nearby said nation and I'm working with them... this is the best option we've got) basically whatever you guys have will help. I am taking out offencive capability and I reckon I must have highly effiecient batteries because I RP having hand held Gauss Weaponry which need alot of power... so work a little future tech in if you can...

Of course, you can ignore this but I would be grateful for some help.

You see, I need to know the limitations on a small 5 man submarine that will be used to insert a small team into another highly developed nation. How hard will it be to detect, what speed will it have, how long can it run and how far can it go without support (I've got a fleet nearby said nation and I'm working with them... this is the best option we've got) basically whatever you guys have will help. I am taking out offencive capability and I reckon I must have highly effiecient batteries because I RP having hand held Gauss Weaponry which need alot of power... so work a little future tech in if you can...

Although I don't have a good answer to that (sorry) I'd say that you are more looking at a small submersible, which can't go very fast. But on a different note, many "normal" submarines CAN insert SOF onto enemy shores, and the new Ohio Class SSGN even has a special system for inserting a 60-something men SOF team. The Chinese which didn't have these systems however, used torpedo tubes to get the Frogmen (their naval SOF) to swim out. If your fleet is just near the enemy's beaches, it could be an option.

The chinese C-701 anti-shipping missile, which appears to be meant for use against smugglers and small unarmored vessels, has a total launch mass of 100 kg, and a rated range of just under ten miles.
To add to that, it's warhead suprisingly, is just 29kg ( http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/weapon/c701.asp ) -- which is "enough to penetrate and destroy a small surface ship or soft target on land".

And remember the Exocet was more of a psychological weapon ...or just, a "poor man's cruise missile". Even these ASMs are still considered sometimes "inferior" to the new Harpoons, etc., a lot of nations have them (more than one versions even), and indeed it can keep any ship at bay. But, isn't any anti-ship missile are a bit of psylogical weapon? :P

Regarding the "chopped up by CIWS" statement however, on a different note, doesn't the Yakhont or Sunburn had armor that can have the 20mm Phalanx (M61 Vulcan) shells bounced off instead of penetrating and destroy the missile?

29kg HE is enough to take out any land tank, many landing craft, missile boats, patrol boats... heh. I should put something like that in my nation's navy, time to overhaul the missile systems, and of course the ships that go with them. A 165kg warhead, such as mounted on the C-801, C-802, and Exocet, has proven sufficient to maim or disable modern destroyers with a couple shots. On the other end of the extreme range from the C-701, you have heavy supersonic russian and chinese anti-ship missiles...

I seem to recall hearing that about some of the Russian missiles too... that they are armored somewhat. I have one heavy supersonic missile in NS, somewhat similar to the Granit, and I've decided it ought to be heavily armored. When the per-missile price tag runs out into the millions, as it does for the heavier missiles, it makes sense to armor them a bit to prevent getting shot down.

At one point, I had a thread detailing the various brands of anti-ship missiles I had information on... it's worth noting, incidentally, that there is a great deal of difference even between different Harpoon missiles. An Exocet MM39 is a very different missile than the MM40 Block 2; a Harpoon SLAM-ER cruise missile fills a very different role than the Harpoon AGM-84D anti-ship missile. (They also have radically different profiles.) The Gabriel III missile is substantially more dangerous than the Gabriel I. The Penguin IV makes the Penguin I look amateurish.

Be aware that cruise missiles and anti-shipping missiles, although often sharing the same design and designator, usually have different guidance, correction, and flight path requirements. Sea skimming supersonic missiles have a very lousy warhead mass * range to total mass ratio. The Yakhont, for example, has a warhead and range in its sea-skimming attack mode generally comparable to the Harpoon missile... with five times the mass and cost.

I seem to recall hearing that about some of the Russian missiles too... that they are armored somewhat. I have one heavy supersonic missile in NS, somewhat similar to the Granit, and I've decided it ought to be heavily armored. When the per-missile price tag runs out into the millions, as it does for the heavier missiles, it makes sense to armor them a bit to prevent getting shot down.
I mainly use one of Clan Smoke Jaguar's own supersonic ASM (with Omzian modification, inc armor) for my "supersonic ASM" arsenal (enough to outran Phalanxes if they ever have the opportunity to shoot at them). Other features includes a scalable flight profile (low flight and high-low flight), which makes a good missile for one of my "bait" tactics :twisted:

An Exocet MM39 is a very different missile than the MM40 Block 2; a Harpoon SLAM-ER cruise missile fills a very different role than the Harpoon AGM-84D anti-ship missile. (They also have radically different profiles.)
Just on a slightly different topic, did anyone found links to webpages about the MM40 Exocet? I can only find info about the AM/MM38 and 29, hmm...

Of course battleship, with their heavy armour and huge mass are virtually immune to anti-shipping missiles. ;)

Of course battleship, with their heavy armour and huge mass a virtually immune to anti-shipping missiles. ;)

True, but their armor would still can't stand a barrage of ASMs with 2000lb< warhead :P

Hmm, maybe I should develop a 2000lb< warheaded ASM myself...

Of course battleships, with their heavy armour and huge mass a virtually immune to anti-shipping missiles. ;)

True, but their armor would still can't stand a barrage of ASMs with 2000lb< warhead :P

Hmm, maybe I should develop a 2000lb< warheaded ASM myself...

Wow, I'm the typo king tonight. Anyways...

Yeah, a 2000lb warhead ASM might do something, but so far no one has one. They'd be a pretty big target for my CIWS though...

Wow, I'm the typo king tonight. Anyways...

Yeah, a 2000lb warhead ASM might do something, but so far no one has one. They'd be a pretty big target for my CIWS though...
The Granat has a 1650 lb warhead, and is powerful enough to cause significant damage, though a battleship might still remain combat-capable even after recieving a few hits.
Most missiles that have a 2200 lb warhead are going to be supersonic missiles with a high-altitude flight profile. Most earlier Soviet air-launched cruise missiles fall into this area, and were designed to be able to cripple a carrier.
The SSC-2 (AS-1), K-10 (AS-2), Kh-20 (AS-3), and Kh-22 (AS-4) air launched missiles, as well as the SSC-1 (SS-N-3) and Bazalt (SS-N-12) ship-launched missiles all have 2050-2200 lb warheads. A number of others have 1000-1500 lb warheads.

On the topic of large warheads: Generally, doubling the warhead size of an ASM quadruples the weight of the missile if speed and range are to be maintained, making the missile fly higher, making it more vulnerable to jamming and decoying, making it less likely to ever be able to use its big warhead.

Try here (http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=106) for official Exocet specs; you'll be able to find almost everything you want to know about the currently produced versions of the Excocet missile series there. You'll also find detailed info on a number of other current missiles in use that fas.org doesn't cover very well.

Unfortunately, details on older Exocet versions are somewhat lacking there. I'm fairly certain the Argentinian navy was using the MM38 in the Falklands.

As a further note, air launched cruise missiles generally cannot be surface launched without susbstantial modification...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/vinson-bow-s.jpg (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/vinson-bow.jpg)
(Click for larger image)

I don't see it is reasonable to have people having "2000 Nimitz"s with 150 aircraft and ultra-modern systems and ultra-uber armor and defence system anyways. The Nimitz as said by WA, was based on an old platform, and there wouldn't really be any more spaces for the Forrestal (which the Nimitz is based on) Platform to grow anyways.

Ah well, the Nimitz is popular, you gotta to admit that.

Well, I've only got 40 Nimitzes. ;)

Not to mention that the Nimitz can only carry 85 aircraft. That's 7 squadrons of 12 aircraft per squadron, with one aircraft left over.

Here's some into on the Nimitz-class. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-68.htm)

Also, I'm big on battleships as shorebombardment platforms. I've got 24 Iowa-class battleships in my Navy right now, and plan to up that number to 30.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/bb-63-h96814k-s.jpg (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/bb-63-h96814k.jpg)
(Click for larger picture)

God bless,

The Republic of Syskeyia

TJ, thanks for the link, 'preciate it.

Syskeyia: Ah, just a spelling mistake :wink:

Anyways, Iowas with modern upgrades... The 16 inch guns could make a lot of use against other heavily armored ships (since as CSJ said those projectiles are essentially very heavy penetration warheads). And with those new type of shells (some even with rocket propulson), they could have a good range and a slightly improved accuracy level/CEP.

Besides, a normal Sea Sparrow can't really shoot them down anyways (or at least, I didn't hear about naything about SAMs can shoot artillery shells, although the Israelis use high-energy lasers to shoot land-based artillery shell down) :P

And with those new type of shells (some even with rocket propulson), they could have a good range and a slightly improved accuracy level/CEP.

Modern technology, applied to such shells (or the suggested medium/heavy weight 9 or 8in guns) should give them an improved range and CEP, but it might be problematic to try adding rocket propulsion to the larger shells.

(Check G2mil under the "Transforming National Defense" under "Transforming the Navy" for some commentary on the 16in (with BBs) (http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm) and Mk 71 (http://www.g2mil.com/8inchguns.htm) guns.).

One thing that I adopted fairly early on (about the time of my first major naval engagement vs. GDODAD in def. of Arani) was navalized MLRS...effectively by mounting the bed of the normal US mil. MLRS to my bombardment ships. This is both cheaper and more accurate than the 16in shells at the longer ranges (guns/artillery<MLRS<cruise missiles) and can really be used for emergencies. The only issue was reinforcing the rocket skins against the effects of sea exposure...it turns out that plastic is perfect.

N.B.: The Israelis have adapted a variant of their LAR-160 ML rocket system for ships known as NAVLAR and this is being considered for smaller WA vessels. http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/artillery/navlar/NAVLAR.html

Besides, a normal Sea Sparrow can't really shoot them down anyways (or at least, I didn't hear about naything about SAMs can shoot artillery shells, although the Israelis use high-energy lasers to shoot land-based artillery shell down) :P

The Nautilus/THEL system developed by Israel and the US is being refined in anticipation of deployment but I'm not sure if they've set it up yet. As far as that goes, the laser should be able to take out cruise missiles, ML-rockets, and artillery shells.

Missiles could take out shells, but it would be a pain in the ass. (As one commentator said about the national missile defense program, it's not "hitting a bullet with a bullet" because these "bullets" are moving at 8-9 times the speed of normal bullets and have much larger distances to deal with...this should be less difficult.) The RAM rockets (http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/ram.htm) are more at the level that is needed, but the simplest means (short of MTHELs *ahem*) is, oddly, to strike that bullet with another bullet. Modern fire-finder radars (http://www.g2mil.com/aegiscounterbat.htm) can quickly identify the path and origin of rounds. On a battleship, one gun (or set of guns) could be set against the incoming round or rounds (computer-calculated trajectories and computer-aided gun control could help here) while another gun (or set of them) can be used to return fire.

And with those new type of shells (some even with rocket propulson), they could have a good range and a slightly improved accuracy level/CEP.

Modern technology, applied to such shells (or the suggested medium/heavy weight 9 or 8in guns) should give them an improved range and CEP, but it might be problematic to try adding rocket propulsion to the larger shells.

(Check G2mil under the "Transforming National Defense" under "Transforming the Navy" for some commentary on the 16in (with BBs) (http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm) and Mk 71 (http://www.g2mil.com/8inchguns.htm) guns.).

One thing that I adopted fairly early on (about the time of my first major naval engagement vs. GDODAD in def. of Arani) was navalized MLRS...effectively by mounting the bed of the normal US mil. MLRS to my bombardment ships. This is both cheaper and more accurate than the 16in shells at the longer ranges (guns/artillery<MLRS<cruise missiles) and can really be used for emergencies. The only issue was reinforcing the rocket skins against the effects of sea exposure...it turns out that plastic is perfect.

N.B.: The Israelis have adapted a variant of their LAR-160 ML rocket system for ships known as NAVLAR and this is being considered for smaller WA vessels. http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/artillery/navlar/NAVLAR.html

Actually, the 16" shells cost only a fraction as much as an MLRS rocket, and 16" shells have similar range and payload to an MLRS. The accuracy isn't quite as good, but that can easily be fixed by using more modern shell design.

As for the range increase, there are other less conventional methods than rocket propulsion used for naval guns. There's a smaller "arrow" projectile that dates back to WWII and can be used to give an 8" gun a range of over 80km, and there was a sabot shell concieved for the Iowa's 16" guns that consisted of a 280mm subcaliber round that could be fired over 100 nm (185+ km). I've heard of experiments on ramjet shells with ranges comparable to an air strike radius (several hundred km), but I'm not sure how well that would really work, and it would almost certainly be considered future tech.

OOC: Shite, massive DP.

Actually, the 16" shells cost only a fraction as much as an MLRS rocket, and 16" shells have similar range and payload to an MLRS. The accuracy isn't quite as good, but that can easily be fixed by using more modern shell design.

Actually, the payload and range are very different, and very much in the favor of the MLRS. The older MLRS rockets had a range "beyond 30km" or "31.8km" which would seem to speak of a shorter range to the 38km of the 16in’ers…but that was in 1991 or earlier as a released statement. As of 1998, the Extended Range versions have been fielded, with a range of, reportedly, 45km or greater. The accuracy is so great that it is now being considered as a precision-strike round against certain hard targets. The more modern shell design will not reduce the CEP, but the CEP still remains very large on naval artillery.

I must concede that the cost/round is much less, but there is no accounting for the effectiveness of the round against the target in that figure. Shrapnel out to 200m is different from utter destruction within an area…and being able to ensure that the round lands in the target area is always nice…

In the end, however, the MLRS tend to have a greater range, proven payload capability, and better accuracy. There is a cost disadvantage, to be sure, for the M26/30 rockets but almost none with the NAVLAR. Also, the MLRS can fire off 12 rounds in one minute to cause massive, wide-spread and assured destruction of enemy forces while the 16in’ers must ‘walk’ the fire onto the target and has a max rate of 2 round/min/gun. In a fight, I’d prefer the MLRS for my first strike if I can be fairly assured that the fire will destroy the enemy before they can fire upon my forces. Reload time is an issue with the MLRS, but that is why both systems should be used.

The payload by weight similarity belies the effect. A 16in HE shell will NOT have the same tactical effect of an MLRS round's DPICMs.

As for the range increase, there are other less conventional methods than rocket propulsion used for naval guns. There's a smaller "arrow" projectile that dates back to WWII and can be used to give an 8" gun a range of over 80km, and there was a sabot shell concieved for the Iowa's 16" guns that consisted of a 280mm subcaliber round that could be fired over 100 nm (185+ km). I've heard of experiments on ramjet shells with ranges comparable to an air strike radius (several hundred km), but I'm not sure how well that would really work, and it would almost certainly be considered future tech.

Info on this is below. As far as ramjet shells, some have been practiced with as early as the 60s and are in development now…but they’ll be super-expensive and would, in the current design, require a complete redesign and reconstruction of the 16in guns. For practical use, the MLRS tends to be the middle range between gun firepower and cruise missiles…in terms of cost, range, and accuracy.

This is not an argument that MLRS rounds are superior and cheaper in every aspect, but they are more effective in their duties as infantry/armor clearers. 16in guns are for specific targets and take a lot of time to fire and reload and their traverse and elevation are limited. The MLRS can fire off a dozen rounds (or two dozen, if you have 2 batteries on a ship) to utterly eliminate ground forces or to severely cripple any enemy fleet. Landing a single M26 round over an AC carrier would completely disable its mission capability and would likely wipe out several hundred million dollar’s worth of equipment (not to mention crew members, including the C&C for the entire ship, on most vessels). They can’t be intercepted by normal CIWS or SAMs.

The 16in’ers, on the other hand, will wipe out any point targets in one or two shots. Its hits will eliminate fortifications and enemy strongpoints. But they won’t wipe out mass formations.

The best is to combine arms and use them in their roles. The MLRS is the easiest and cheapest way to provide that massive kill capability to battleships beyond the capabilities of the 16in guns, with minimal further development, and with simplicity of integration and use (1 or 2 could replace the VLS arrays on a BB to provide the capability without a severe loss). Using chemical propellants (which desire some research, but seem to be proven beyond EM-launchable rounds and more dependable), the 16in’ers could move into a new era of control and power. Using sabot rounds, more distant point targets might be destroyed with a few volleys.

The SCRAMjet idea sounds nice, but the cost of overhaul, refitting (and the possibility that those guns couldn't be used with normal, cheap rounds) would seem to indicate that the 16in is then set on the 'death spiral' of costs that so many missile systems have gotten into.

Round Stats Comparisons:

M26 MLRS rocket (unguided, current):
Capacity: 6 rockets/pod (X 2 pods for M270 or 1 for HIMARS)
Range: 45+ km (50km)
Payload: 644 M77 (old) or M85 (new) DPICM bomblets
518 M85 DPICM bomblets for ER version
Payload Distribution Area:
Individual: 0.23 km2
12 round Ripple: 120-200 km2
Rate of Fire:
Twelve rockets in less than 60 seconds at up to six aimpoints.
Two missiles in less than 20 seconds at one or two aimpoints.

M30 MLRS rocket (guided, tested and ready):
Capacity: 6 rockets/pod (X 2 pods for M270 or 1 for HIMARS)
Range: 49km in guidance tests (60km range max)
Accuracy: Expected 5-10m CEP; in tests at 45km range, error was ~2m from mark,

M39 TACMS:
Capacity: 1 missiles/pod (X 2 pods for M270 or 1 for HIMARS)
Range[I]:
Block I: ~165km (102mi)
Block IA: 300 km (186 miles) (due in part to reduced load)
Block II/IIA: 140 km (87mi)
[I]Submunitions Capacity and Distribution:
Block I: 950 M72 APAM bomblets over 33000 m2 (360000 sq. ft)
Block IA: 275 M74/77/85 bomblets over a similar area (improved dispensing and saturation methods)
Block II: 13 BAT or P3I BAT submunitions.
Guidance:
Block I: Inertial/Ring Laser Gyro
Block IA (and beyond): Inertial + GPS

LAR-160/NAVLAR:
Capacity: 13 or 18 rockets/pod (X 2 pods)
Range:
LAR Mk II: minimum range of 12 km and maximum range of 35 km.
Mk IV system (using a modified propellant): range of 45 km.

Vs.

16in/50 Shells (from US 16in 50cal Mark 7 guns on Iowa class):
Range: 38.72km
Rate of Fire: 1 round/min/gun (2 in rush, but not sustainable)
Payload: 145 lbs of explosive (in 1, 2,000 lb round)
Note: there is supposedly the possibility of placing DPICMs in artillery shells, but the costs would probably not be less than the costs of the M26/30 rockets.

8in Shells (from US 8in 60cal Mk-71 gun)
Range: ~40km
Rate of Fire: 20 rnds/min (not sustainable)
Accuracy: CEP of >250 yds proven (80yds CEP possible, by claims)

Ranges in guns:
6in test rounds with sabot form achieved a range of 41mi (about 2.5x standard) and could theoretically achieve ~51mi with the addition of base-bleed technology… a good part of the payload is lost, however, and there are added costs. Scaling up, and not taking account for increased mass issues, the 16in shell would seem to have a projected range of 100km. This would throw it way past the range of the normal MLRS rounds…but with very little payload aboard and at greatly increased cost.

Sources:
Guns:
http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm
http://navalhistory.flixco.info/H/134069/8330/a0.htm\
http://navalhistory.flixco.info/H/61525/8330/a0.htm
http://www.g2mil.com/8inchguns.htm
http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/16ingun.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1991/KMC.htm


Rockets:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m270.htm
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/artillery/lar/LAR.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/atacms.htm
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/ARMYTACMS.html
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-140.html
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-164.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m26.htm
http://www.combatindex.com/hardware/detail/land/mlrs.html
http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/mlrs/mlrs2.html
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/MLRS.html
http://www.vought.com/heritage/special/html/smlrs2.html

Thanks for the massive amount of info, WA :D

Anyways, about the MLRS rockets on ships, while I have used them many times (oh lets say... in 1-2 "major conflicts" and some other smaller conflicts), they are quite effective against many land-based installations (proven in the previous Melkor war). But personally myself ICly is more moving onto guns again, after the retirement of a few of the MLRS-equipped Shore Bombardment Vessels, since for my Navy 16" are more flexible with different payloads, and that they are much more effective against hardened targets and ships. On a different note, some of my ships are beginning to use chemical propellant guns, which should provide a reasonable performance.

Hmm, relating to the MLRS argument, do anyone think that TACMS tacticalground-to-ground missiles (tha can be fired from variety of systems inc. MLRS/HIMARS, VLS, etc.) can sort of acting like MLRS rockets? They do have BAT, DPICM, or other submunitions after all.

In overall experience of MLRS against "soft targets" in combat, I'll have to agree with WA here.

Actually, the 16" shells cost only a fraction as much as an MLRS rocket, and 16" shells have similar range and payload to an MLRS. The accuracy isn't quite as good, but that can easily be fixed by using more modern shell design.

Actually, the payload and range are very different, and very much in the favor of the MLRS. The older MLRS rockets had a range "beyond 30km" or "31.8km" which would seem to speak of a shorter range to the 38km of the 16in’ers…but that was in 1991 or earlier as a released statement. As of 1998, the Extended Range versions have been fielded, with a range of, reportedly, 45km or greater. The accuracy is so great that it is now being considered as a precision-strike round against certain hard targets. The more modern shell design will not reduce the CEP, but the CEP still remains very large on naval artillery.

I must concede that the cost/round is much less, but there is no accounting for the effectiveness of the round against the target in that figure. Shrapnel out to 200m is different from utter destruction within an area…and being able to ensure that the round lands in the target area is always nice…

In the end, however, the MLRS tend to have a greater range, proven payload capability, and better accuracy. There is a cost disadvantage, to be sure, for the M26/30 rockets but almost none with the NAVLAR. Also, the MLRS can fire off 12 rounds in one minute to cause massive, wide-spread and assured destruction of enemy forces while the 16in’ers must ‘walk’ the fire onto the target and has a max rate of 2 round/min/gun. In a fight, I’d prefer the MLRS for my first strike if I can be fairly assured that the fire will destroy the enemy before they can fire upon my forces. Reload time is an issue with the MLRS, but that is why both systems should be used.

The payload by weight similarity belies the effect. A 16in HE shell will NOT have the same tactical effect of an MLRS round's DPICMs.

As for the range increase, there are other less conventional methods than rocket propulsion used for naval guns. There's a smaller "arrow" projectile that dates back to WWII and can be used to give an 8" gun a range of over 80km, and there was a sabot shell concieved for the Iowa's 16" guns that consisted of a 280mm subcaliber round that could be fired over 100 nm (185+ km). I've heard of experiments on ramjet shells with ranges comparable to an air strike radius (several hundred km), but I'm not sure how well that would really work, and it would almost certainly be considered future tech.

Info on this is below. As far as ramjet shells, some have been practiced with as early as the 60s and are in development now…but they’ll be super-expensive and would, in the current design, require a complete redesign and reconstruction of the 16in guns. For practical use, the MLRS tends to be the middle range between gun firepower and cruise missiles…in terms of cost, range, and accuracy.

This is not an argument that MLRS rounds are superior and cheaper in every aspect, but they are more effective in their duties as infantry/armor clearers. 16in guns are for specific targets and take a lot of time to fire and reload and their traverse and elevation are limited. The MLRS can fire off a dozen rounds (or two dozen, if you have 2 batteries on a ship) to utterly eliminate ground forces or to severely cripple any enemy fleet. Landing a single M26 round over an AC carrier would completely disable its mission capability and would likely wipe out several hundred million dollar’s worth of equipment (not to mention crew members, including the C&C for the entire ship, on most vessels). They can’t be intercepted by normal CIWS or SAMs.

The 16in’ers, on the other hand, will wipe out any point targets in one or two shots. Its hits will eliminate fortifications and enemy strongpoints. But they won’t wipe out mass formations.

The best is to combine arms and use them in their roles. The MLRS is the easiest and cheapest way to provide that massive kill capability to battleships beyond the capabilities of the 16in guns, with minimal further development, and with simplicity of integration and use (1 or 2 could replace the VLS arrays on a BB to provide the capability without a severe loss). Using chemical propellants (which desire some research, but seem to be proven beyond EM-launchable rounds and more dependable), the 16in’ers could move into a new era of control and power. Using sabot rounds, more distant point targets might be destroyed with a few volleys.

The SCRAMjet idea sounds nice, but the cost of overhaul, refitting (and the possibility that those guns couldn't be used with normal, cheap rounds) would seem to indicate that the 16in is then set on the 'death spiral' of costs that so many missile systems have gotten into.

Ranges in guns:
6in test rounds with sabot form achieved a range of 41mi (about 2.5x standard) and could theoretically achieve ~51mi with the addition of base-bleed technology… a good part of the payload is lost, however, and there are added costs. Scaling up, and not taking account for increased mass issues, the 16in shell would seem to have a projected range of 100km. This would throw it way past the range of the normal MLRS rounds…but with very little payload aboard and at greatly increased cost.

The range advantage is actually almost nonexistent. The 16"/50 cal Mk.7 HC projectile has a range under 40km, but, and this is a little known fact, that's because it's the same shell designed for the 16"/45 cal guns on smaller battleships. A full-size 16" HC round was considered, and it would have given the guns on the Iowa have a maximum range of over 45 km, so that puts them equal to the ER MLRS. There was also a projected DPICM round, which was cancelled when the Iowas were decommissioned again. It could deliver a payload greater than the MLRS rocket (650+ submunitions) out to a range equal to that of an ER-MLRS.
As for the ER sabot round, 51 miles is a little over 3.1 times the range of the 6" gun. With a 45 km range, that puts the 16" gun at 140 km, or 112+ km without BB, a rather notable difference. Also, there were actually two different sizes for the 16" sabot rounds, with both 320mm and 280mm projectiles, and my guess is that those figures would be closer to the 320mm. Even smaller one still had about 200 submunitions, so that's not insignificant firepower. And though it likely still won't get up to the MLRS, improved propellant and shell design can do wonders for accuracy.
Finally, a 16" shell is armored and unpowered, so it's actually harder to shoot down than an MLRS rocket.

Still, the MLRS does indeed have greater accuracy and rate of fire, and those make it useful. However, there would have to be modifications to the either the ship or the rocket to accept an MLRS pod. Either the ship would have to have a blast sheild to protect against the backblast of the rocket, or the rocket would have to be modified for VLS, where you could probably fit 4 into a single VLS tube.

Thanks for the massive amount of info, WA :D
Hmm, relating to the MLRS argument, do anyone think that TACMS tacticalground-to-ground missiles (tha can be fired from variety of systems inc. MLRS/HIMARS, VLS, etc.) can sort of acting like MLRS rockets? They do have BAT, DPICM, or other submunitions after all.

In overall experience of MLRS against "soft targets" in combat, I'll have to agree with WA here.
The TACMS doesn't carry DPICM, but rather ICM bomblets. The submunitions are pretty much worthless against all but the lightest armor, and are designed specifically for engaging soft targets. In the end, the TACMS is more specialized, and thus there are situations where it would require two TACMS missiles (one BAT, one ICM) to take out a target that could be finished off by a single MLRS rocket.

Looking at the MLRS, I'm failing to see how some of WA's point logically follow, and I don't particularly see any unusual value to the system, particularly as compared to the Harpoon/Tomahawk missile systems that it more closely resembles than the 16"/50 gun system.

The MLRS missile - M39 - is a roughly $800K per missile system (well above and beyond the cost of basic 16"/50 shells), with a range roughly comparable to traditional 16"/50 munitions, and a significant.

It is built for cluster munition dispensation against soft targets; yes, current AEGIS cruisers/destroyers and aircraft carriers tend to be lightly armored, and yes, they probably would create quite a hassle.

I completely fail to see how this thin-skinned, non-sea skimming missile would magically evade CIWS, SAMs, and other countermeasures traditionally employed against missiles. Why not simply put cluster munition warheads on a Harpoon-type missile? It'd be cheaper, lighter, longer range, and more likely to reach a protected target. I could fire two Harpoon missiles for every M39 by cost, and three by weight.

It also has a pretty short range - if I'm going to bombard shore with missiles, I may as well use cruise missiles fitted with cluster submunitions, and have some degree of standoff from shore. If I'm going in close, well, dang, guns are awfully cheap to shoot and provide high volume fire. And if I'm in a ship-to-ship battle, and we're that close already - well, that's a surprise. Virtually every medium to heavy anti-ship missile system has a longer range, and targets likely to survive anti-ship missiles aren't going to be too vulnerable to cluster munitions, most likely.

16"/50 shells, by comparison, are virtually invulnerable to countermeasures, and offer deep penetration; against hardened targets, the M39 seems rather lacking. The argument about fast fire volume is interesting... but note that the 16" gun system is unlikely to replaced on a single gun-for-MLRS system. Each turret of three has, by simple mathematical calculation, a sustained ROF of 6 rounds per minute, half the initial fire rate of the MLRS that would replace it, and probably - in spite of probable autoloader systems - a higher sustained fire mode. The usefulness of guns lies always in the fact that they are cheap as heck and have great penetration to target.

A 280mm sabot round with a range of 100nm fired from a battleship probably retains higher penetration and destruction than the ever popular 155mm and 200mm artillery rounds, at the added advantage of having a long enough range to strike coastal targets from beyond the range of most shore-based fire.. and it is still dirt cheap and virtually impossible to shoot down. For anti-ship work, a 280mm sabot round will still probably penetrate well into anything short of a heavily armored battleship and wreak plenty of havoc, and 100nm is a strategic range far more useful to ships than the approximately 25nm range of the most recent ER missiles being made for MLRS.

Scramjet rounds are an interesting issue; however, they are unlikely to be anyway near as cheap as regular rounds, and will likely fill a closer strategic role to high-penetration fast cruise missiles with an efficient and fast launch system.

One minor note:
The M39 is the TACMS missile, which has a range exceeding 130 km (300 km in ER versions). The MLRS rocket is the M26 :P

The MLRS costs less than $10,000 per rocket (don't want to bother digging up the exact price again), and that $800k cost is the total program cost for the TACMS. The actual missile is closer to $600,000.

Looking at the MLRS, I'm failing to see how some of WA's point logically follow, and I don't particularly see any unusual value to the system, particularly as compared to the Harpoon/Tomahawk missile systems that it more closely resembles than the 16"/50 gun system.

$$$$$ is the answer, also speed. While a 16in'er could, eventually, wipe out a landing force, it would take much longer than a single, 12-rocket ripple fire...and if the enemy are already inland and separated then even MORE shells are required.

If you have a high-ROF, decent-range, and high-reliability system to fire rapidly...with 16in navarty follow-thru...then you can assault enemy forces rapidly and with high effect levels to cripple any force. If you must wait, then you must loose the advantage.

It is built for cluster munition dispensation against soft targets; yes, current AEGIS cruisers/destroyers and aircraft carriers tend to be lightly armored, and yes, they probably would create quite a hassle.

They wouldn't just create a 'hassle' with AC carriers, they would provide absolute mission kill capability. The DPICM of the M26 and M30 systems have BOTH Anti-Personnel AND Anti-Materiel (armored) capabilities...penetrating over 2inches of high-quality armor and spreading shrapnel over a 5m radius area. They would disable many modern guns, seriously damage VLS systems, and cause serious damage to lightly armored superstructures.

Even heavily armored ships will have serious damage with the rounds...if you have a large enough chunk ripped out of your gun barrel you can't fire it...if the majority your gun barrels are disabled then the 16in guns on the firing ship will have the advantage (since the Rates of Fire are similar for most 16in guns and more guns=lower time between fires= higher effective ROF).


I completely fail to see how this thin-skinned, non-sea skimming missile would magically evade CIWS, SAMs, and other countermeasures traditionally employed against missiles.

It is out of the CIWS vertical-reach envelope, the lack of active targeting systems, the wooden body (which doesn't reflect radar as well as metal), and other features mean that the missiles are hard to hit. AEGIS systems and most CIWS guns are limited in firing on targets a second time (or a closely-following 2nd target a 1st time) until a full analysis has been completed on the first firing mission. 1 shot and you're done in that sector.

Low detectability, high spread, and ballistic flight path (engines cut out after trajectory has been established, so it shares the resistance to IR-guided rounds) make it a great weapon against ships. Breaking apart over the ship tends to do pretty well.

Why not simply put cluster munition warheads on a Harpoon-type missile? It'd be cheaper, lighter, longer range, and more likely to reach a protected target. I could fire two Harpoon missiles for every M39 by cost, and three by weight.

The cost 'note' has been made by CSJ. The Harpoons are clearly and easily detected by modern ship-borne CIWS and SAMs...no advantage. They're very slow and expected...submunitions are meant to be released OVER a target...Harpoons don't work with that plan.

Payload is also an issue.

It also has a pretty short range - if I'm going to bombard shore with missiles, I may as well use cruise missiles fitted with cluster submunitions, and have some degree of standoff from shore.

If you have no armoring, then that's fine. Don't use BBs or naval artillery and feel free to stick to BAT or DPICM-dispensing Tomahawks that are over-qualified and cost (on average) over 1mil/shot...and demand sophisticated mission information. The MLRS only needs general coordinates and the mission is launched w/in a few seconds. Cruise missiles have their uses, but they're mostly made for point and stationary targets...some improved CALCMs I've produced have BATs and DPICM-like capabilities, but that's for deep strikes against enemy forces...and for the AF and Army.

This is a weapon for the Navy and the Marine Corps. It will cost you millions to develop such weapons while the MLRS basically involves bolting the rear part of an M270 on top of the deck and wiring the system to within the deck (put it in the cruise missile control center and have four men control 2-3 batteries...you'll save crew and machine space from the cruise missile control.

Yes, the range is 'short' in relation to cruise missiles and ballistic missiles...but to nothing else. The rocket has greater range than any artillery based on the land and is meant for rapid-and-close fire support of land forces.

If I'm going in close, well, dang, guns are awfully cheap to shoot and provide high volume fire. And if I'm in a ship-to-ship battle, and we're that close already - well, that's a surprise. Virtually every medium to heavy anti-ship missile system has a longer range, and targets likely to survive anti-ship missiles aren't going to be too vulnerable to cluster munitions, most likely.

Guns=High volume of fire over long periods of time. MLRS=High volume of fire over minimal period of time. Note the difference. Note that this is in addition to 16in guns, not in exchange for such guns. Breaking up the radar and radio arrays, ripping apart the guns and missile launchers, and damaging C&C facilities leaves you with a floating boat, but a useless boat. One normal ASM (Granits are few and far between, and not for general use)=minimal damage vs. heavy ships=medium/low damage to armored medium ships.

This is a BB weapon, not a cruiser or destroyer weapon.

16"/50 shells, by comparison, are virtually invulnerable to countermeasures, and offer deep penetration; against hardened targets, the M39 seems rather lacking.

Again, the MLRS is an area weapon, not a point-assault weapon. The 16in is a point-assault weapon, not an area weapon.

The argument about fast fire volume is interesting... but note that the 16" gun system is unlikely to replaced on a single gun-for-MLRS system.

I never suggested such a system...ever.

Each turret of three has, by simple mathematical calculation, a sustained ROF of 6 rounds per minute

No, it has a ROF of 3/min at sustained rate with 6/min for non-retargeted massed fire. The 3-gun turrets tend to be fired at once to provide an area effect that the MLRS could provide while the 16in'ers focus on point targets too heavy for the MLRS.

Each 3-gun turret has to fire in the same sector (although distance can be varied) unless you move the entire turret. The MLRS can reposition and refire in a number of seconds, sending each missile to a different area over, say, two minutes.

half the initial fire rate of the MLRS that would replace it, and probably - in spite of probable autoloader systems - a higher sustained fire mode.

No. Sorry, the size of the rounds and the charges, the targeting, retargeting, and more all limit the speed to the current level. Anyways, the matter lies in the purpose...the MLRS clears out things quickly while the 16in'ers follow up for any heavier suriviving targets. A skilled MLRS crew can replace the rocket pack in a few minutes. A pair of MLRS stations in concert with, say, 6-9 16in'ers (in triple-mounts), would provide high-volume, sustained MLRS rocket and 16in round fire to neutralize enemy near-shore ground forces and/or enemy fleet vessels.

The usefulness of guns lies always in the fact that they are cheap as heck and have great penetration to target.

The 'usefulness' of MLRSes lies always in the fact that they are cheap and have great area capabilities against targets. Add the two and you have a winning team.

A 280mm sabot round with a range of 100nm fired from a battleship probably retains higher penetration and destruction than the ever popular 155mm and 200mm artillery rounds, at the added advantage of having a long enough range to strike coastal targets from beyond the range of most shore-based fire and it is still dirt cheap and virtually impossible to shoot down. For anti-ship work, a 280mm sabot round will still probably penetrate well into anything short of a heavily armored battleship and wreak plenty of havoc, and 100nm is a strategic range far more useful to ships than the approximately 25nm range of the most recent ER missiles being made for MLRS.

Units are important, don't be fooled by units.

On Sabot round distance, I'm not sure about the sources, but the calcs seem wrong. 35,909m (the official range from a VN-era gun range and capability chart) times 3.1=~111,320m...that's about 100km, NOT 100nm.

45km*3.1=139.5km.

The HC and the Sabot rounds seem to be getting confused in the considerations. Also, loading DPICMs would remove most cost benefits fro the 16in round and would be wasting valuable, heavy point-target fire on area targets that an MLRS pack could deal with. There's a reason that there are so many missiles when some could 'just do' in the role of others.

As far as the rocket, the pre-packaged pods of 6 would work fine, so long as they're cared for a fraction as much as the $1+M/shot cruise missiles. The area around any launcher would be treated to a nice blast shield covering or even a blast-venting system of some sort. The VLS launch would cause problems for the basic, ballistically-guided, and soft-shelled MLRS rockets, IMHO, and are nearly impossible to reload underway (and the MLRS rockets don't come individually...which would cause rotting and strain problems)...while an MLRS battery could be reloaded several times in the midst of a firefight.

Scramjet rounds are an interesting issue; however, they are unlikely to be anyway near as cheap as regular rounds, and will likely fill a closer strategic role to high-penetration fast cruise missiles with an efficient and fast launch system.

The cost benefits are hard to see, if at all present. It'd be cheaper to pack a high-velocity missile into its own launcher in aid to the 16in'ers.

Mmm. The 100nm sabot range is one I pulled from a post or three up the thread; I've seen it before somewhere, as well, although I thought I recalled them playing around with 8" subcaliber rounds rather than 280mm.

An excellent clarification; I must say, I find the supplementary system much brighter an idea than the pure substitution I read it as, particularly with CSJ clarifying the issue of the cost of the M39 vs the M26.

The range on the M26 standard round is still rather short (shorter than current standard ballistic 16"/50 shells, and every mile of range is another mile that can be used either for breathing space - which is nice - or reach inland, which extends the total operational area for the weapon system.)

A wooden missile following a ballistic trajectory still seems rather vulnerable to damage, but I can see the point now, quite well... although unguided rockets aren't too much better in terms of accuracy than shells, and the guided rocket system mentioned earlier (M36) appears to be a rather different system than the one you are talking about, for which the cost argument fails terribly (M36 = way more expensive than shells.)

I'm going to have to start packing a few... wooden cased rockets are actually a lovely idea for my budget here in NS, and I would not have thought of it on my own...

Speaking of countermeasures, what exactly are the vertical envelope limits of the Phalanx CIWS and the altitude that the MLRS dispenses at? I'd like to hear those figures, as well as the specific speed figures, which I could not find...

I agree that the cost benefits of using scramjet rounds are dubious; however, they probably would prove no more expensive than equivalent scramjet cruise missiles - quite possibly less, as the initial boost phase could be replaced by a simple propellant charge. The scramjet shell is addressing an entirely different niche, one currently covered by the VLS Tomahawk cruise missiles - which scramjet shells dramatically overshadow in speed and penetration. We're primarily talking long-range bombardment here.

It's more a graceful way of circumventing the whole issue of BBs using cruise missiles or guns by letting them use both. Lovely idea, and the technical feasibility looks to be there, but the BB seems politically dead in the US Navy for now, and nobody else is willing to spend that sort of money.

A list of various additional 16" rounds, several of which were tested but never put into protection, can be found here (http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm)

The information on the 280mm sabot round can be found here (http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_pics.htm)

Hey everybody! Time to go check on TJ's ships to make sure he isn't cheating! I'm coming out with new, revamped, and detailed designs; bonus points to anybody who can tell what RL battleship I based this (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2404260#2404260) on rather heavily. (It's not, of course, exactly the same ship.)

Antishpping Missiles

This is an area where there's a lot of confusion. Very few individuals here actually know much about them, and therefore are somewhat limited to readily availbable information that conceals or omits important facts. Others just make assumptions.
Now, there are two main types of antishipping missiles: direct attack and sea-skimmers. The former are not exceptionally common anymore, but include the earlier Soviet ASMs. These missiles tend to be heavy, and are launched from high altitude where they fly a direct path to their targets. These missiles have an advantage in that they can obtain long range, high speed, and a good payload without having to sacrifice any of these for the others. The fastest of these missiles have been clocked above Mach 4, and these are decades old. However, they have one extremely important weakness, and that is the main reason there are so few of these today. Simply put, they are incredibly easy to intercept, even at extreme range. Meaning that it takes an excessively large number to overwhelm a large force's defenses (1980s Soviet tactics against called for as many as 200 or more to be launched against a single carrier group). And unfortunately, the measures that they can take to improve their chances of getting through are quite limited. There are smaller direct attack missiles that serve today, but these are usually helicopter fired and are meant only for engaging small craft. Few of them are much of a threat to any major surface vessel.
The second type of missile is where most current efforts are focused, and these are known as sea-skimming missiles. These missiles fly at extremely low altitude, often cruising at about 15m above sea level, and dropping down to 5-8m for the terminal phase. This means that they often cannot be detected until they are almost at a ship. After all, the distance to the horizon is not very great (at the top of an AEGIS cruiser's radar mast, the distance to the horizon is still only about 30km), and most radars cannot reliably track targets over the horizon. At these low altitudes, the missiles may also be lost in surface clutter, which is the multitude of reflections caused by the shifting seas. On the other hand, sea-skimming missiles do suffer some notable problems. They are much slower and can carry only a fraction of the payload of similarly sized direct-attack missiles, and they also suffer from reduced range (these are all attributable to the greater air resistance at lower altitudes).
Sea-skimming missiles can be further divided into two groups: supersonic and subsonic. Supersonic missiles, most notably the Soviet Yakhont (SS-N-26) and Moskit (SS-N-22). These missiles are extremely fast, making them difficult to intercept at their speeds. They're also armored to protect against light point defense missiles and guns, and some larger ones will also have a radar jammer to further degrade the effectiveness of radar systems against them. However, these are not the great invincible missiles that most people think they are. True, active radar is vurtually useless against them, and they fly at 3 times the speed of subsonic missiles, but they're extremely vunlerable to passive radar, especially due to the fact that the heat they generate means that they can't use IR guidance, thus requiring radar. The heat also has another weakness - IR detection systems and IR guided missiles. These weapons, as said before generate a tremendous amount of heat, and are exceptionally vulnerable to IR-guided missiles. In addition, their exhaust plume is plainly visible to IR detection systems, even several kilometers beyond the horizon. Finally, they pay some other very heavy prices for their speed, and those are in size, range, and warhead. These missiles also have very limited agility.
A subsonic sea-skimmer on the other hand, such as the Harpoon, is notably slower, but can be much harder to detect with the inclusion of stealth features and passive guidance systems, and has the ability to maneuver. The latter can be quite useful, as there are systems in the works that would allow these to actually evade CIWS guns through the use of passive radar detectors and onboard computers. Subsonic missiles can also provide much greater range and payload than similarly sized supersonic weapons. A subsonic Harpoon missile can, in later versions reach out to 315 km, with a 221 kg (448 lb) warhead, and weighs 635 kg (1400 lbs). A Yakhont missile on the other hand, has a 200 kg warhead, a range of less than 40% that of the AGM-84F (120 km), and weighs about 5 times as much.
When you look at things, the best thing to do is provide a mix of both types, otherwise, you're missiles could be easily countered.

Another thing to know about antishipping missiles is that they have a delayed fuse, and even subsonic ones can penetrate a few inches of steel before detonating, which is enough to defeat any escort vessels. This makes use of the magnified effects of explosions in enclosed spaces to do more damage. In instances where the missile fails to penetrate the armor, such as a Harpoon striking a battleship, the effects will be minimal, and the ship will suffer almost no damage. Another part to this is that the remaining rocket fuel in missiles can often be more destructive than the actual warhead by generating uncontrollable fires. It has already been mentioned in previous discussion, but I'll state it again: The Exocet missile that sunk the British destroyer HMS Sheffield, actually failed to detonate. Its fuel alone was enough to sink the ship. Modern ships aren't quite as vulnerable to fires as those were, but larger missiles with much more fuel can make up for that a bit.

Antishpping Missiles

This is an area where there's a lot of confusion. Very few individuals here actually know much about them, and therefore are somewhat limited to readily availbable information that conceals or omits important facts. Others just make assumptions.
Now, there are two main types of antishipping missiles: direct attack and sea-skimmers. The former are not exceptionally common anymore, but include the earlier Soviet ASMs. These missiles tend to be heavy, and are launched from high altitude where they fly a direct path to their targets. These missiles have an advantage in that they can obtain long range, high speed, and a good payload without having to sacrifice any of these for the others. The fastest of these missiles have been clocked above Mach 4, and these are decades old. However, they have one extremely important weakness, and that is the main reason there are so few of these today. Simply put, they are incredibly easy to intercept, even at extreme range. Meaning that it takes an excessively large number to overwhelm a large force's defenses (1980s Soviet tactics against called for as many as 200 or more to be launched against a single carrier group). And unfortunately, the measures that they can take to improve their chances of getting through are quite limited. There are smaller direct attack missiles that serve today, but these are usually helicopter fired and are meant only for engaging small craft. Few of them are much of a threat to any major surface vessel.
The second type of missile is where most current efforts are focused, and these are known as sea-skimming missiles. These missiles fly at extremely low altitude, often cruising at about 15m above sea level, and dropping down to 5-8m for the terminal phase. This means that they often cannot be detected until they are almost at a ship. After all, the distance to the horizon is not very great (at the top of an AEGIS cruiser's radar mast, the distance to the horizon is still only about 30km), and most radars cannot reliably track targets over the horizon. At these low altitudes, the missiles may also be lost in surface clutter, which is the multitude of reflections caused by the shifting seas. On the other hand, sea-skimming missiles do suffer some notable problems. They are much slower and can carry only a fraction of the payload of similarly sized direct-attack missiles, and they also suffer from reduced range (these are all attributable to the greater air resistance at lower altitudes).
Sea-skimming missiles can be further divided into two groups: supersonic and subsonic. Supersonic missiles, most notably the Soviet Yakhont (SS-N-26) and Moskit (SS-N-22). These missiles are extremely fast, making them difficult to intercept at their speeds. They're also armored to protect against light point defense missiles and guns, and some larger ones will also have a radar jammer to further degrade the effectiveness of radar systems against them. However, these are not the great invincible missiles that most people think they are. True, active radar is vurtually useless against them, and they fly at 3 times the speed of subsonic missiles, but they're extremely vunlerable to passive radar, especially due to the fact that the heat they generate means that they can't use IR guidance, thus requiring radar. The heat also has another weakness - IR detection systems and IR guided missiles. These weapons, as said before generate a tremendous amount of heat, and are exceptionally vulnerable to IR-guided missiles. In addition, their exhaust plume is plainly visible to IR detection systems, even several kilometers beyond the horizon. Finally, they pay some other very heavy prices for their speed, and those are in size, range, and warhead. These missiles also have very limited agility.
A subsonic sea-skimmer on the other hand, such as the Harpoon, is notably slower, but can be much harder to detect with the inclusion of stealth features and passive guidance systems, and has the ability to maneuver. The latter can be quite useful, as there are systems in the works that would allow these to actually evade CIWS guns through the use of passive radar detectors and onboard computers. Subsonic missiles can also provide much greater range and payload than similarly sized supersonic weapons. A subsonic Harpoon missile can, in later versions reach out to 315 km, with a 221 kg (448 lb) warhead, and weighs 635 kg (1400 lbs). A Yakhont missile on the other hand, has a 200 kg warhead, a range of less than 40% that of the AGM-84F (120 km), and weighs about 5 times as much.
When you look at things, the best thing to do is provide a mix of both types, otherwise, you're missiles could be easily countered.

Another thing to know about antishipping missiles is that they have a delayed fuse, and even subsonic ones can penetrate a few inches of steel before detonating, which is enough to defeat any escort vessels. This makes use of the magnified effects of explosions in enclosed spaces to do more damage. In instances where the missile fails to penetrate the armor, such as a Harpoon striking a battleship, the effects will be minimal, and the ship will suffer almost no damage. Another part to this is that the remaining rocket fuel in missiles can often be more destructive than the actual warhead by generating uncontrollable fires. It has already been mentioned in previous discussion, but I'll state it again: The Exocet missile that sunk the British destroyer HMS Sheffield, actually failed to detonate. Its fuel alone was enough to sink the ship. Modern ships aren't quite as vulnerable to fires as those were, but larger missiles with much more fuel can make up for that a bit.

Just to satisfy my curiousity - how does the SS-N-19 Granit missile stack up against modern anti-ship missiles?

Thanks.

Just to satisfy my curiousity - how does the SS-N-19 Granit missile stack up against modern anti-ship missiles?

Thanks.
Ganits are in the same class as the Moskit and Yakhont, only much larger. They are, however, rediculously huge. A Granit missile is 10m long, 0.85m in diameter, and with a 2.6m wingspan. It weighs 7000 kg (over 15,000 lbs), and its range at sea skimming altitudes is probably less than 200 km. The 550 km range, like the 300 km on the Yakhont, is based on a high-altitude flight, with the missile only coming down to sea-skimming altitudes towards the terminal phase. The problem with that is that it can easily be detected up there, and an SM-2ER can reach out well over 300 km.

Really, the Granit was designed for engaging carriers and battleships, and is a bit overpowered for most modern surface vessels, where smaller missiles are more cost-effective. With the end of the cold war, there hasn't been much need for large missiles except by nations that expect to challenge the US (*coughchinacough*), and almost no one is producing such large missiles anymore. This is why the US dropped the naval attack version of the Tomahawk - there simply aren't any real targets for it now.

Need assistance with missile pricing (perferably Tahar Joblis answering, since he has a missile similar to what I'm developing. yes, I did look up at the AGM-119B Penguin's pricing which comes to approx. $200,000-$250,000 but still isn't really sure).

I'm developing an lightweight anti-ship missile, similar to the Chinese C-701 and the Penguin, but is multiplatform and made especially to engage small watercraft (similar to the C-701). Goals is to have this to be like the C-701, but the only problem is that I can't find a price for it.

Specs:
1) Launch platforms must be fast attack watercraft, naval helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft, and possibly larger ships (multiple missiles in single VLS cell) and land-based mobile truck launchers
2) Weight must not exceed 110kg, must be more than 80kg
3) Warhead must be capable of semi-armor piercing with time delay, with a minimal weight of 22kg HE, and with a maximum weight of 35kg HE.
4) Maximum speed must be minimally 0.75 Mach, with flight altitude no more than 15m
5) Minimum range must not exceed 0.6km, Maximum range must be at least 18km
6) Guidance mode will be TV (EO) guidance, with possible milllimeter wave radar or IR in consideration.
7) Propulsion perferbably solid propellant, must be high-flammable once hitting target.

If anyone has an acurate estimate, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Just to satisfy my curiousity - how does the SS-N-19 Granit missile stack up against modern anti-ship missiles?

Thanks.
Ganits are in the same class as the Moskit and Yakhont, only much larger. They are, however, rediculously huge. A Granit missile is 10m long, 0.85m in diameter, and with a 2.6m wingspan. It weighs 7000 kg (over 15,000 lbs), and its range at sea skimming altitudes is probably less than 200 km. The 550 km range, like the 300 km on the Yakhont, is based on a high-altitude flight, with the missile only coming down to sea-skimming altitudes towards the terminal phase. The problem with that is that it can easily be detected up there, and an SM-2ER can reach out well over 300 km.

Really, the Granit was designed for engaging carriers and battleships, and is a bit overpowered for most modern surface vessels, where smaller missiles are more cost-effective. With the end of the cold war, there hasn't been much need for large missiles except by nations that expect to challenge the US (*coughchinacough*), and almost no one is producing such large missiles anymore. This is why the US dropped the naval attack version of the Tomahawk - there simply aren't any real targets for it now.

So... what would you recommend as a replacement? My navy is in severe need of modernization, since it consists of Stalinist-era equipment. Kirov missile cruisers, Sovremenny destroyers, Udaloy cruisers, Oscar-II subs...

Then again, are such massive missiles designed to take down large targets really irrelevant in NS? With a plethora of billion plus nations, there's a whole lot of nations a good deal more powerful than America, and fielding significant numbers of battleships and carriers.

So... what would you recommend as a replacement? My navy is in severe need of modernization, since it consists of Stalinist-era equipment. Kirov missile cruisers, Sovremenny destroyers, Udaloy cruisers, Oscar-II subs...

Then again, are such massive missiles designed to take down large targets really irrelevant in NS? With a plethora of billion plus nations, there's a whole lot of nations a good deal more powerful than America, and fielding significant numbers of battleships and carriers.
The missile is quite relevent in NS, where large carriers and battleships are common. I even have my own version of it (Crossbolt), though mine's a tad bit nastier :wink:

The ships you listed are all pretty good antishipping platforms, and a few upgrades (say, radars, sonars, maybe upgraded missiles, etc) would bring them up to just as good as, if not better than, anything else you might encounter in modern tech. However, Soviet surface ships are not really long-range vessels like western ones are, and have greater logistical demands, so you wouldn't be operating those too far from a friendly base. That's the only real setback. That, and the lack of good carrier designs.

So... what would you recommend as a replacement? My navy is in severe need of modernization, since it consists of Stalinist-era equipment. Kirov missile cruisers, Sovremenny destroyers, Udaloy cruisers, Oscar-II subs...

If you can't afford a modernization, these vessels are still great weapon-wise (although the Oscar II's definately still makes more noise than the new American submarines). Upgraded with good electronics and other things, as CSJ said, these could be deadly.

Then again, are such massive missiles designed to take down large targets really irrelevant in NS? With a plethora of billion plus nations, there's a whole lot of nations a good deal more powerful than America, and fielding significant numbers of battleships and carriers.
No, especially if you are having potental enemies with a bunch of large carriers and battleships that could make the Soviet commanders panic in RL. Aside from that, stockpiling them are also good :twisted:

You'll need a lot of them to get any past missile defenses, though.

A question I wanted answers earlier, but forgot to ask. Finally encountered a situation where a person's firing Tomahawks at me.

How does the TASM (Tomahawk Anti-Ship)'s survivalbility (sea skimmer, etc.) compare to the late models of the Harpoon (AGM-84F/Block 2)? Both are low-flying and subsonic, but I'm sure that there will be differences.

Appreciate the answer.

Now for the judgement:

Whay are your opinions of my carriers?

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=88338&highlight=

(Please post comments here, I will check and try to respond)

The prices look a bit low when you consider relative size, as well as features. You put a lot of expensive systems, particularly in the weapons, stealth features, catapults, and automation, and the largest carrier is approaching the Nimitz in air complement size. All that combined and I think the standard one should be over $5 billion, with the light being about $4 billion. The superlight should again cost a bit more, maybe $1 billion.

Outside of that, they're not bad.

Ok, here's my idea for an anti-shipping missile:

It's a sea skimmer with a two part warhead. The first one is like a really big HEAT round, the second one is HE-F.

The shell works like a HEAT, but the second warhead has a penetrator front that punches through the hole made by the HEAT-style warhead and detonates inside, throwing shrapnel around inside the vessel. It would be mounted on a large missile and used against capital ships. The missile will be available in a air launched version and a surface launched version.

Good idea, bad idea?

Ok, here's my idea for an anti-shipping missile:

It's a sea skimmer with a two part warhead. The first one is like a really big HEAT round, the second one is HE-F.

The shell works like a HEAT, but the second warhead has a penetrator front that punches through the hole made by the HEAT-style warhead and detonates inside, throwing shrapnel around inside the vessel. It would be mounted on a large missile and used against capital ships. The missile will be available in a air launched version and a surface launched version.

Good idea, bad idea?
I know multiple warheads tech (Except the BROACH technology) have been tried on missiles (Soviet AS-19 Koala for example), but not sure that if HEAT can really work good against those thick, often made using composite materials, armor on battleships, battlecruisers, and possibly many aircraft carriers... I would say that you could replace the HE-F using a much more explosive one, but that wouldn't penetrate... Hmm...

WA: Nice features you mentioned (the stats I followed in late July didn't have those), although I would perfer ESSM (evolved Sea Sparrow missiles) and possibly even a FEW anti-ship missile launchers for self defence (I'd recall that a Spanish carrier have Harpoon cell launchers), since you've already got the torpedo tubes. Nice fiber-optic systems you got there (for defecne against EMP; I installed these on my capital ships myself some times ago - and now). Looking at it, I would agree with CSJ about the price about the "supercarrier" version, especially with those expensive features. The superlight one could be more expensive too.

For the special ships however, I would say that the torpedo tubes could be a bit "Extra", and you could add Harpoon cell launchers instead. I also don't really know how would recon helos be needed on ships (for the attack role of the Comanche, it could be replaced by the much cheaper AH-1Z).

Aside from that, some new quality ships.

The prices look a bit low when you consider relative size, as well as features. You put a lot of expensive systems, particularly in the weapons, stealth features, catapults, and automation, and the largest carrier is approaching the Nimitz in air complement size. All that combined and I think the standard one should be over $5 billion, with the light being about $4 billion. The superlight should again cost a bit more, maybe $1 billion.

Outside of that, they're not bad.

On review, I have to agree about the price of the smaller vessel…it should probably be between 1.5x and 3x the current cost, although the small crew, limited independence, and small air wing should also limit a lot of the costs rather strictly to within that range. As far as the stealth features, stealth features of the Visby-class (would’ve) cost about 65m for a 6th vessel, although all-told (include dev. Costs) the 5 vessels previous to that cost ~$1-1.2bn USD…This is actually just about the cost of many comparable ships. The ship also only uses RAM where necessary…on some exposed weapons systems and superstructure, as RAM on the rest of the ship would be not only redundant (since it isn’t necessary to absorb radar signals that would never be returned to the source and since the RAM wouldn’t last long at sea before degrading), but ridiculously expensive.

Most of the automation is similar to what is specified on the $5bn CVN-77, with some improvements for time (WA tech time scale c. 2004-2020, based on proven modern technology and feasible modern upgrades that have not been made IRL).

As far as the air compliment sizes, I made the following collection of information to justify some of the reduced costs:

Air Wing sizes:

Nimitz-class: 85 (mostly fixed-wing, a handful of rotary-wing…maybe 5 craft, no UAVs/UCAVs)

‘Standard’-type: 65 manned aircraft (50 fixed-wing/15 rotary-wing) + 37 unmanned aircraft (25 UCAVs/12 UAVs).*

[I]‘Light’-type: 42 manned aircraft (30 fixed-wing/12 rotary-wing) + 23 unmanned aircraft (15 UCAVs, 8 UAVs)**

‘Superlight’: 15 manned aircraft (12 fixed-wing (STOVL)/ 3 rotary-wing) + 6 unmanned aircraft (6 UAVs/UARs).***


*- The total number of fixed-wing aircraft possible is about 58 (68% of the Nimitz capacity), since rotary-wing aircraft can be stowed much more compactly than fixed-wing aircraft (even those fixed-wing aircraft that have foldable wings). The UCAVs are stacked boxes 3 high in the place of a single fixed-wing manned jet, only being assembled for missions against air defenses or simple targets. These, as well as the UAVs, are stowed in storage areas adjacent to the hangars, allowing for a slightly smaller hangar and, consequently, ship. The nature of Trimaran ships allows for a larger hangar area in a space that extends to the ‘wings’ of the carrier…some of this is converted into non-flammable materiel storage space. The armoring around the hangar is especially thick, with an added 1/2-2/3 of a foot, and armoring is placed around fuel storage tanks and pipes. The UAVs take up even less space than the UCAVs; the UAVs on the ‘standard’ carrier take up about as much space as 2 UCAVs. The reduced space requirements and crew from the lack of aircraft is also tremendous. Ammunition, fuel, and maintenance requirements are much lower, with an admitted loss of some capabilities…but a great saving of space.

**- The total number of fixed-wing aircraft possible is 36 (42% of the Nimitz capacity) aircraft. This is accounted for in reasons given in the above note.

***- The total number of fixed-wing (STOVL or STOL-only, (E)STOVL or ESTOL best) aircraft is 13 (15% of the Nimitz capacity). In this case, the storage system allows for the replacement of manned fixed-wing aircraft with UCAVs…so it would theoretically be possible to launch 39 UCAVs, but that would do poorly for performance against anything more complicated than a stationary target.

As far as the catapults go, the EMALS should actually be less-expensive than the steam catapults over lifetime costs…and any specific cost increases make up for themselves easily as the EMALS system is half the size of the steam catapult system and requires only 70% of the crew of the steam sytem (and with less maintenance). I see no reason for EMALS to increase the costs. My ‘standard’ vessel also has one less catapult and one less aircraft elevator than the Nimitz, but improved designs make up for the time and masses being moved (the EMALS are faster than the Steam catapults as well). The reduced machinery also has cost-saving aspects.

The weapons systems are not really all that expensive vs. the systems placed on the Nimitz, although these carriers are certainly better-armed. The increased costs would definitely not approach $1bn, since most of the cost is in the C&C systems…which needn’t be expanded. I’d figure that the reduction in crew demands and storage requirements make up for a great part of the cost.

As the CVN-77 (of greatly larger mass, crew size, and storage space) is set to be just about $5bn, this carrier of about 3/4 the size needn’t be more than that. All in all, the price might be a bit low at $3.6bn (72% of the latest Nimitz-class (or will it be Bush-class?) carrier price tag), but there is little in my mind to demand prices equal to or greater than the CVN-77 for a ship that is much smaller and with little to make it vastly more expensive.

I will do some research and I might raise the price soon, but the modularity allowed by having produced several dozen of these units will keep it from rising too high.


WA: Nice features you mentioned (the stats I followed in late July didn't have those), although I would perfer ESSM (evolved Sea Sparrow missiles) and possibly even a FEW anti-ship missile launchers for self defence (I'd recall that a Spanish carrier have Harpoon cell launchers), since you've already got the torpedo tubes. Nice fiber-optic systems you got there (for defecne against EMP; I installed these on my capital ships myself some times ago - and now). Looking at it, I would agree with CSJ about the price about the "supercarrier" version, especially with those expensive features. The superlight one could be more expensive too.

For the special ships however, I would say that the torpedo tubes could be a bit "Extra", and you could add Harpoon cell launchers instead. I also don't really know how would recon helos be needed on ships (for the attack role of the Comanche, it could be replaced by the much cheaper AH-1Z).

Aside from that, some new quality ships.

Indeed, the latest carriers are greatly improved over the first ships of their class…much as the CVN-68 Nimitz is a poor indicator of the power of the CVN-76 Reagan or CVN-77 Bush (although the 77 might well approach being a whole new class…and they’d do well to get an improved hull design). As far as the ESSMs, I’ll consider it. The Barak missiles can be used in a limited offensive capability, but what you say about offensive weaponry is true…which is why there are two empty missile stations (one per side) that can be filled with whatever missiles you want. Indeed, my ships bear Harpoons or similar offensive in those slots, but I figured that every player would have their own variant or preference…so I decided to leave it open to any ASM of decently small size.

As far as space goes, the torp’ tubes take up different space than the Harpoon cell launchers would, and they’re mostly for launching torpedo-decoys. (Note: I’ve edited some of the weapons specs for the SOCSt2, which were messed up).

The recon helos are mostly for the Perdition- and Sierra Hotel-class vessels, since those are made almost exclusively for close (littoral) support of ground forces and landing operations. As for the Comanche, I really don’t know who’d choose it over the AH-1Z (lower cost, higher weapons capacity in standard configuration), but I figure that at least a few of them are out there.

For the SOCSt2, special operations teams sometimes need recon helos for missions…the aircraft types are changed for each mission (they can even be changed while underway, with some helicopters borrowed or lent to normal AC carriers for missions…a common practice. This also saves costs and time for operations.) For the Perdition-class, it’s expensive to deploy the large Sentinel units, so a few "Little Birds" or Kiowa Warriors that can be sent out as scouts for targets are a worthy investment. They are also useful on the amphibious assault carrier for SpecOps deployments or landing zone scouts, and aboard the ‘superlight’ carrier as a scout for the jump-jets…but they’d be useless for more conventional aircraft carriers.

Ok, here's my idea for an anti-shipping missile:

It's a sea skimmer with a two part warhead. The first one is like a really big HEAT round, the second one is HE-F.

The shell works like a HEAT, but the second warhead has a penetrator front that punches through the hole made by the HEAT-style warhead and detonates inside, throwing shrapnel around inside the vessel. It would be mounted on a large missile and used against capital ships. The missile will be available in a air launched version and a surface launched version.

Good idea, bad idea?
I know multiple warheads tech (Except the BROACH technology) have been tried on missiles (Soviet AS-19 Koala for example), but not sure that if HEAT can really work good against those thick, often made using composite materials, armor on battleships, battlecruisers, and possibly many aircraft carriers... I would say that you could replace the HE-F using a much more explosive one, but that wouldn't penetrate... Hmm...

I’ve incorporated BROACH tech into the AGM-86EP, one of the PDE-improved CALCMs…it should work well b/c of a steep terminal angle-of-attack option, where the attack is made on the weakly armored deck and superstructure. HEAT rounds can, indeed, be nullified by the use of composite ship armoring…but I haven’t read many people mentioning any added armor to their aluminum-hulled USN knock-offs…nor to many of their similarly thin-skinned soviet counterparts. The truth is that most ships on NS (as in RL) are not at all armored…I have made certain to provide at least 5inches of armoring to each of my major fleet ships (corvette and above), with even more armor on the larger ships (about 15-18 inches, with 2 different armor types in 3 layers (cheapest and easiest to replace on the outside to absorb shrapnel and small arms fire, another layer of cheap steel block on the inside as a backing).

Some changes have been made.

...

As one might expect, different missiles have different strengths and weaknesses. One thing I think most of us don't know is how many it takes to cripple or sink a ship, so I'll go through types. It should be noted that in modern times, and with most of the more common missiles, a crippled ship is often more likely than a completely sunk one. A crippled ship is still essentially a kill, as the vessel will be unable to continue combat operations, and will require time and manpower to repair.

Ultralight missiles (Penguin, Kormoran, Sea Skua, etc)
Warhead: <60kg
These are short range and weak, but very difficult to counter due to their small size, and all modern ones are sea-skimmers. 1 or 2 hits will cripple a small missile or patrol craft, and a few more might sink one. These are of minimal value against anything larger than a corvette. Most of these are launched by helicopters, and occasionally small aircraft, though some are also fired from small ships.

Light missiles (Exocet, Gabriel, Kh-35/SS-N-25, Yakhont/SS-N-26, etc)
Warhead: 100-200 kg
These are small missiles (or at least have small warheads) designed for taking out escorts. A single missile would cripple or sink a minor combatant, and 1-2 is enough to cripple a 4000+ ton frigate. Larger destroyers and most cruisers would tak 2-6 to be crippled. These wouldn't be recommended for anything over 10,000 tons, and are preferably used against frigates and smaller vessels.

Medium missiles (Harpoon, Otomat, Moskit/SS-N-22, etc)
Warhead: 210-400 kg
These are larger missiles that are optimized against cruisers and destroyers. 1 hit will cripple or sink most frigates, and 1-3 will cripple a large destroyer or the average cruiser. These are still not very effective against larger vessels.

Heavy missiles (Ametiste/SS-N-7, Granat/SS-N-19, Tomahawk TASM, etc)
Warhead: 450-750 kg
These are the big guns, and are the smallest types that would be used to strike at carriers. One hit from these will put most escorts on the bottom, with only large destroyers and cruisers standing much chance of surviving. Small carriers can sustain a few hits, but will likely be crippled by 3-5 missiles. Large carriers can withstand a few more. These are also the smallest missiles that one could expect to do much to a battleship.

Very Heavy missiles (Kh-22/AS-4, Bazalt/SS-N-12, etc)
Warhead: 900-1000 kg
The big daddies of all antishipping missiles. These can rip through just about anything. An escort that's hit by anything other than a dud is as good as dead, and even large carriers, which is what these were desinged to attack, cannot sustain many hits. These are also the only ones that stand much chance of seriously damaging a modern battleship. On a minor note, the Soviet Union is, to my knowledge, the only nation that ever fielded missiles in this class, and is phasing out most of the few that are left as these are too easy to shoot down.

Antiradiation Missiles (HARM, ALARM, TACIT RAINBOW, Kh-25MP/Kh-27PS/AS-12, etc)
Warhead: variable
These missiles don't do much damage to the ships themselves, but can effectively neutralize them by taking out their radars. Naturally, air defense radars are the preferred targets, but surface search radars can also be hit, disrupting the ship's ability to detect and engage surface ships, and to detect potentially hazardous obstacles as well.

double post

Very Heavy missiles (Kh-22/AS-4, Bazalt/SS-N-12, etc)
the only nation that ever fielded missiles in this class, and is phasing out most of the few that are left as these are too easy to shoot down.
Not only too easy, but most of them are too ineffective. combat/live-firing tests done by the Soviet Union in the late 80es showed that on average only one AS-4 out of 12 actually worked and are able to hit its target. Of those actually functioned, the Soviet Tu-22M Backfires has to get as close as 12km to actually get a proper lock on to ensure that the missile hits with a reasonable accuracy.
I do believe that the Russians still has the AS-4 in service with their upgraded Backfires, although the numbers in inventories are much smaller.

On a side note, I also need to point out that Exocets (AM.39) did sink 100,000t+ tankers in the Iran-Iraq war, although many either missed their targets or had a hit, but didn't hit n the "lucky spots".

Lastly, there's also the Kh-31/AS-17, which is designed to engage Patriots and AEGIS radars.

Out of curiosity, when you say "Modern Battleship", what exactly are you talking about? In the real world there is no Battleship left. I think you are quite underestimating the potential of a missle. Even little things like Penguins have a similar penetration when they collide with something to say a 16 inch shell. I will admit a tomohawk isn't designed for armour penetration, but most missiles are fairly efficient - far more efficient than high explosive naval ordinance shells. Most modern tanks will carry more armour than ships, I believe in some cases upwards of 20 inches, and t is still expected that fairly small missiles fired from a helicopter or such will be able to penetrate.

Out of curiosity, when you say "Modern Battleship", what exactly are you talking about? In the real world there is no Battleship left. I think you are quite underestimating the potential of a missle. Even little things like Penguins have a similar penetration when they collide with something to say a 16 inch shell. I will admit a tomohawk isn't designed for armour penetration, but most missiles are fairly efficient - far more efficient than high explosive naval ordinance shells. Most modern tanks will carry more armour than ships, I believe in some cases upwards of 20 inches, and t is still expected that fairly small missiles fired from a helicopter or such will be able to penetrate.
When I say modern battleship, I mean a WWII era heavy (Iowa as the base), or a lighter battleship with more advanced armor. You are sadly mistaken if you think that those missiles have more than a fraction of the penetration of even medium WWII ordnance. The Exocet can only penetrate 2.75" (70mm) of armor, while the Kormoran can go through 3.54" (90mm). The Harpoon, I believe, is also somewhere in the 3-4" range, and lighter missiles like the Sea Skua can only do 1-2" (25-51mm). Supersonic missiles can penetrate a little more, but all subsonic ones are still insufficient even for many WWII Light Cruisers, let alone a battleship. A 16" shell can penetrate about 10" at maximum range. Heck, even a WWII 8" gun has better penetration at maximum range than most modern antishipping missiles do.

The reason that small missiles work against tanks is because they're small targets. A penetrating round is very likely to cause serious, if not catastrophic, damage to the unit. Those same missiles, while they will penetrate even battleship armor, will not cause significant damage to the interior of the vessel. The chances of an ATGM causing any real harm to a ship are virtually nil. It could happen, but with so few places the damage would be felt, it just isn't worth the effort of getting close enough. Antishipping missiles must be larger for two reasons: 1) they have to be powerful enough to cause significant damage. As I've noted, most are geared towards small ships, and are almost useless against large transports and aircraft carriers; and 2) they must have sufficient range to be launched from a safe distance. For missiles designed for striking carrier groups, this is required to be in the hundreds of kilometers, as the range of naval SAMs can be extreme.

Also, the penetration of ATGMs comes from the warhead being directed to penetrate the armor. Unlike antishipping missiles, ATGMs have no explosives penetrating into the target. It is either a jet of molten steel, or a long rod penetrator. In both cases, most of the damage is done by the act of penetrating the armor itself.

That is as may be. I still think you are definantely overplaying the performance of shells. The effects of a small missile in actual energy released is similar to a 16" shell and increases from there. What is more, marge cannons cannot effectively fire at ranges of over around 20 nautical miles, whereas anti-shipping missiles can be fired from a far greater range at a given target.
Getting back to armour penetration though I think you will find a large number of medium sized Soviet missiles such as a "Styx" (or whatever the Soviets call it) can penetrate up to 3 metres of armour, which is quite ridiculous as mothing has ever been concieved with that much armour. I will admit many of the NATO ones aren't ideally suited to the role of blasting away heavily armoured targets, but you will find there are still a substantial number that will.

I am also intrigued as to what sources you are using as they seem to give significantly lower values for all the weapons than what I've seen in the past.

Quick Question here: Would an SM-3 be able to strike high altitude fast aircraft, say an SR-71?

That is as may be. I still think you are definantely overplaying the performance of shells. The effects of a small missile in actual energy released is similar to a 16" shell and increases from there. What is more, marge cannons cannot effectively fire at ranges of over around 20 nautical miles, whereas anti-shipping missiles can be fired from a far greater range at a given target.
Getting back to armour penetration though I think you will find a large number of medium sized Soviet missiles such as a "Styx" (or whatever the Soviets call it) can penetrate up to 3 metres of armour, which is quite ridiculous as mothing has ever been concieved with that much armour. I will admit many of the NATO ones aren't ideally suited to the role of blasting away heavily armoured targets, but you will find there are still a substantial number that will.

I am also intrigued as to what sources you are using as they seem to give significantly lower values for all the weapons than what I've seen in the past.
Well, you should check your sources. ANY source that tells you the SS-N-2 (or any other missile with a horizontal flight profile for that matter, especially a subsonic one) can penetrate 3 meters of armor, is either giving you a typo, or is seriously whacked. It might have meant 3 centimeters or 3 inches, but 3 meters is just plain absurd, and I'm surprised you didn't take it with a rather large grain of salt, especially considering the stats of the missile.
A penetration of 3 meters could also mean the altitude at which the missile flies to avoid interception, but to my knowledge, the SS-N-2 doesn't go that low (it was designed before there were any defenses against antishipping missiles, so sea-skimming wasn't needed).

And you also seem to be laboring under a misconception. It's kind of hard for me to be overplaying the performance of shells when the original post doesn't even mention them!. All I said is that only large supersonic missiles stand much chance of penetrating the armor of a battleship. That's completely true, and is something that many players would find rather helpful. Because of the additional armoring, 16" shells do have a much lighter payload than missiles, and the Penguin has a greater explosive load than a 16" APC. However, the 16" round will do more damage do to its mass and penetration, and a Penguin will barely dent the armor of a battleship, no matter where it strikes

Also, no offense, but a problem I see is that you're a bit of a missile fanatic who's overplaying missiles and understating shells. Shells, though shorter ranged and often less accurate, are cheaper, have proportionately larger payloads, and can have superior penetration compared to missiles. They're also much harder to counter. Missiles have longer range and greater accuracy, and that's it.



_Taiwan, the SM-3 could concievably do it, but it would be an extremely difficult endeavor, and I wouldn't expect it to work every time. There are a couple more reliable missiles that can get up to 32,000m though.

What's the difference between the SM-2 and the ESSM?

Well, you should check your sources. ANY source that tells you the SS-N-2 (or any other missile with a horizontal flight profile for that matter, especially a subsonic one) can penetrate 3 meters of armor, is either giving you a typo, or is seriously whacked. It might have meant 3 centimeters or 3 inches, but 3 meters is just plain absurd, and I'm surprised you didn't take it with a rather large grain of salt, especially considering the stats of the missile.
A penetration of 3 meters could also mean the altitude at which the missile flies to avoid interception, but to my knowledge, the SS-N-2 doesn't go that low (it was designed before there were any defenses against antishipping missiles, so sea-skimming wasn't needed).

And you also seem to be laboring under a misconception. It's kind of hard for me to be overplaying the performance of shells when the original post doesn't even mention them!. All I said is that only large supersonic missiles stand much chance of penetrating the armor of a battleship. That's completely true, and is something that many players would find rather helpful. Because of the additional armoring, 16" shells do have a much lighter payload than missiles, and the Penguin has a greater explosive load than a 16" APC. However, the 16" round will do more damage do to its mass and penetration, and a Penguin will barely dent the armor of a battleship, no matter where it strikes

Also, no offense, but a problem I see is that you're a bit of a missile fanatic who's overplaying missiles and understating shells. Shells, though shorter ranged and often less accurate, are cheaper, have proportionately larger payloads, and can have superior penetration compared to missiles. They're also much harder to counter. Missiles have longer range and greater accuracy, and that's it.



_Taiwan, the SM-3 could concievably do it, but it would be an extremely difficult endeavor, and I wouldn't expect it to work every time. There are a couple more reliable missiles that can get up to 32,000m though.

Much of what you say is correct, but I still disagree on the inferior penetration. I am yet to find any sources which give information anywhere aproaching the small values you are listing. I challenge you to list them.

An exorcet missiles carries 165 kg of high explosives. What happens when you place 165 kg of high explosives on a deck and detonate it? You tend to make a hole. To say it will only penetrate 70mm is ludicrous, especially when considering the momentum of the missile, coupled with the delayed fuse, helps to propel it a certain distance into the armour first off, before exploding.

The fact that you are firing a shell or missile doesn't even come into the equation, it is all to do with size of warhead, a shell and a missile with the same sized warhead will have the same armour penetration, and I think you will find a 16 inch shell does not carry more than 165 kg of high explosives. This of course does mean that a missile will end up being a fair degree larger - an exocet is 855 kg.

Much of what you say is correct, but I still disagree on the inferior penetration. I am yet to find any sources which give information anywhere aproaching the small values you are listing. I challenge you to list them.

An exorcet missiles carries 165 kg of high explosives. What happens when you place 165 kg of high explosives on a deck and detonate it? You tend to make a hole. To say it will only penetrate 70mm is ludicrous, especially when considering the momentum of the missile, coupled with the delayed fuse, helps to propel it a certain distance into the armour first off, before exploding.

The fact that you are firing a shell or missile doesn't even come into the equation, it is all to do with size of warhead, a shell and a missile with the same sized warhead will have the same armour penetration, and I think you will find a 16 inch shell does not carry more than 165 kg of high explosives. This of course does mean that a missile will end up being a fair degree larger - an exocet is 855 kg.
I'm afraid more than part of the problem is that you're not thinking about it correctly. The penetration values for missiles are how much the weapon can penetrate BEFORE the warhead detonates. Actually, since the warhead is a simple bursting charge, it has no actual penetration capabilities. To maximize damage, the warheads use a bursting charge, which will cause maximum damage when detonated inside the ship (effects of explosions in confined spaces. I shouldn't need to go into detail on that). However, that same charge, if detonated against the hull, especially on armored vessels, will cause minimal damage, as the vast majority of the force of the blast will be directed or deflected away from the ship.
It is a common misconception, but the fact is that explosions do not have penetrating power. The expanding gasses will push things aside, and can rip down walls and bulkheads, but they do not actually penetrate - they force away, and they always take the path of least resistance, so, again, when detonated outside, some of the force will strike the surface of the target and get absorbed, but most will be deflected away as the open air provides much less resistance than a metal structure. This is why the blowout panels in an M1 provide protection against ammunition explosion. They give the expanding gasses a path with much less resistance that directs them out of the tank.
Even HEAT weapons do not get penetration from the explosioin. It's actually the molten jet that is formed by the explosion that punches through the armor.

Penetration is determined by, among other things, velocity, mass, focus, and hardness. In all but one of these, a 16" APC shell is the clear winner. It has a mass of 1225 kg, which puts it well above most missiles (also missiles are much lighter when they strike because they've burned up fuel, and in some cases ejected boosters). The striking velocity of a 16" shell at maximum range is 1850 km/h (514 m/s), which is Mach 1.5+. Not many missiles can beat that. The muzzle velocity is 2740+ km/h (762 m/s), or Mach 2.23+. For hardness, a 16" APC shell is almost entirely cemented steel, so the round retains great strength on impact. In focus, I can't say for certain that one is better than the other, but that represents how large an area the force is directed to. The smaller it is, the higher the penetration.
The 3 meter penetration for an SS-N-2 is impossible because even a 40mm Sabot projectile flying at Mach 4 and made of heavy metals (4900 km/h) can only penetrate about 1 meter. Even the ETC guns in development won't be able to push that to 3 meters. The SS-N-2 also has a very blunt design, so its energy is distributed over a larger area, further dropping penetration.

Again, the only places a 16" shell will be inferior to a missile are range and bursting charge.

If you want some sources:
http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm - the paragraph above the Kamikaze pic near the bottom.
http://www.rmf.se/launchpd.htm - Kormoran, a little below halfway down
I don't feel like digging through my dozens of links (they need organizing) for the other ones, but this should do for now. In both cases, I can call at least one other link to back them up (a couple dozen for the first one).



_Taiwan. They are two very different missiles, and I'm not going to bother listing the differences. Try looking for the information. It's not that hard to find. If you have no idea how to do a search, start with http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/missile.htm
and if you need more info on them, go to http://www.google.com, and search for something like "ESSM missile" or "SM-2 missile"

OOC: Do you run an equivalent thread for aircraft?

Well that is a very well constructed argument, and I'll admit you have just about won me over... Bar one thing. I believe the hardness of a weapon can actually be a disadvantage. The whole idea of an A.P.C. shell, which I think we will agree is superior to a HE shell or Kinetic round....not that you ever use that on a ship, is to have a soft and deformable head. "The armour-piercing cap is made of soft metal which deforms on impact, momentarily sticks the nose of the shell to the target surface" thus reducing "the bounce of a solid shot striking rounded, angled, or sloped armour plate."

I don't quite see what you mean by A.P.C. round being hard.

http://miniatures.de/html/pzgr/shelltypes.html#A.P.C.B.C.

You also said something earlier about a HEAT warhead on a missile not penetrating ships. I find this a little dubious as a warhead of the same size would have the same impact. Also as far as I'm aware (running off cannon performance charts) velocity has very little impact on the overall performance of a HEAT round.

Well that is a very well constructed argument, and I'll admit you have just about won me over... Bar one thing. I believe the hardness of a weapon can actually be a disadvantage. The whole idea of an A.P.C. shell, which I think we will agree is superior to a HE shell or Kinetic round....not that you ever use that on a ship, is to have a soft and deformable head. "The armour-piercing cap is made of soft metal which deforms on impact, momentarily sticks the nose of the shell to the target surface" thus reducing "the bounce of a solid shot striking rounded, angled, or sloped armour plate."

I don't quite see what you mean by A.P.C. round being hard.

http://miniatures.de/html/pzgr/shelltypes.html#A.P.C.B.C.

You also said something earlier about a HEAT warhead on a missile not penetrating ships. I find this a little dubious as a warhead of the same size would have the same impact. Also as far as I'm aware (running off cannon performance charts) velocity has very little impact on the overall performance of a HEAT round.
Actually, you're only half right. You see, the cap does improve penetration, but does so indirectly. The purpose of the cap is to absorb the shock of the impact so the rest of the shell remains intact enough to penetrate (against face-hardened steel armor, simple shells tended to break up on impact). It does not so much improve penetration as improve the chances for maximum penetration to be achieved. The hard nose is still paramount in punching through the armor. A cap would not be necessary if a shell were designed by materials that could withstand the stress of the initial impact, but such materials weren't available in WWII, though they may be today.

I don't recall this post regarding HEAT, and I can't seem to find it. You might be referring to Omz222's post on this page, but that wasn't me. I'd of said that it would penetrate the ship's armor, but would not cause any serious damage. The reason is that the damage is limited to a very confined area (only what the jet actually strikes), and while it may be enough to cause catastrophic damage to a tank, it would be quite difficult for the jet to strike something critical on the ship.
And velocity has no effect on the performance of HEAT rounds due to the method of penetration, as stated in my [ur=http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=88484]tank thread[/url].

Actually I didn't say it improved armour penetration. At least I don't think I did. As I stated in the above post, I believe the purpose of APC is to reduce the tendency of shells to do things like bounce off their target.
Now. I still don't quite understand what you're saying about the hard cap on an APC shell. Is not the whole idea that the cap is deformable, thus, not hard?

You're right on that. I was just skim reading what you said on HEAT. I still think you may be downplaying it slightly, as (Depending upon it's point of impact) it would still have a chance to do something like blow a magazine or an engine, or, at the very least, flood a compartment.

Actually I didn't say it improved armour penetration. At least I don't think I did. As I stated in the above post, I believe the purpose of APC is to reduce the tendency of shells to do things like bounce off their target.
Now. I still don't quite understand what you're saying about the hard cap on an APC shell. Is not the whole idea that the cap is deformable, thus, not hard?

You're right on that. I was just skim reading what you said on HEAT. I still think you may be downplaying it slightly, as (Depending upon it's point of impact) it would still have a chance to do something like blow a magazine or an engine, or, at the very least, flood a compartment.
The thing is the cap doesn't do any penetrating. That is done by the hard nose of the actual shell, which passes through the cap as it deforms. Hence, hardness is still an issue.

The jet from a HEAT shell is only a few milimeters in diameter. With the size of the hole it creates, flooding isn't likely. Similarly, it can strike the magazine or engine area and still fail to hit something critical, particularly when you consider how much open air it has to pass through to reach those critical components (they're not stored right next to the hull after all). A HEAT jet can't go very far before it loses potency.

Are you talking about A.P.C.B.C. or "Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped" where there is a second cap behind the first one which punches through the outer cap of the shell and the armour?

Personally though I would tend to steer more towards H.E.A.P. and ditch the solid shot shells entirely.

Are you talking about A.P.C.B.C. or "Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped" where there is a second cap behind the first one which punches through the outer cap of the shell and the armour?

Personally though I would tend to steer more towards H.E.A.P. and ditch the solid shot shells entirely.
Reread your sources. The core shell penetrates both caps. In both APC and APCBC, all either cap does is pave the way for the nose of the shell to penetrate the armor itself. That's it. Neither cap penetrates much on its own.
As for HEAP, they have inferior penetration to APC rounds, and the increased explosive load doesn't improve lethality much, even against soft targets.

I am under the impression APC only has one cap.

I am under the impression APC only has one cap.
APC has one cap, APCBC has two. However, APCBC is often referred to as APC, including ub naval ordnance, which is what we're supposed to be talking about.
How about, the core penetrates "all present caps" instead?

Right. So you're talking about a shell with a tungsten core or something similar for armour penetration?
I'd also like to point out the sources I am using refer to APC and APCBC as solid shot munitions, without any form of high explosive charge attached.

Not quite. Large caliber rounds haven't been produced for over half a century, long before heavy metals like that were available. Also, there may be some confusion as "core" gives the impression that it is completely encased, which is not quite accurate. It is a solid, face-hardened steel round with a small amount of explosive and two ballistic caps covering the nose, so as to protect the penetrating head and the fuse of the shell. When it strikes, the caps absorb the shock and the steel shell goes straight through both of them and the target's armor, where the explosive detonates.

Well you see I am more of a WWII buff...I know exactly how the mechanism works. This sounds quite a bit like HEAP to me.

I'm still not convinced by your comments on high explosive heads being unable to penetrate anything. I am going to do some research into known penetration values of pure high explosive heads and compare it to the relative size and velocity of the missile heads which you are condemning.
Working on the Value for a KwK 37 cannon which gives a penetration of 41mm (c. 1.6 inches) at 30 degrees from vertical, when traveling at 385 m/s (low velocity) and carrying only 6.8 kg of explosives, one would tend to expect your values are quite underestimated especially considering most missiles are SAP or AP anyway.

Well you see I am more of a WWII buff...I know exactly how the mechanism works. This sounds quite a bit like HEAP to me.

I'm still not convinced by your comments on high explosive heads being unable to penetrate anything. I am going to do some research into known penetration values of pure high explosive heads and compare it to the relative size and velocity of the missile heads which you are condemning.
Working on the Value for a KwK 37 cannon which gives a penetration of 41mm (c. 1.6 inches) at 30 degrees from vertical, when traveling at 385 m/s (low velocity) and carrying only 6.8 kg of explosives, one would tend to expect your values are quite underestimated especially considering most missiles are SAP or AP anyway.
I never said high explosive heads can't penetrate anything. I said that the explosion has no penetration value. Anything that's flying through the air has a degree of penetration, even the explosive filler. However, the explosion itself has no penetration.
The explosive round with the lowest penetration value is the HEP/HESH round, which has an extremely soft head and a soft explosive filler (gel, fluid, or plastique). It pretty much proves I'm right, as the effects of such a round on the outer surface of armor amounts to little more than a dent or slight depression. It can make a crater in much softer materials, but that's rather irrelevant.

For the gun, if you're talking about the 7.5cm kwk 37 L/24 equipped on the early Pz.IV (C/D/F) and later Pz.III (N) tanks, I suggest you look into the figures a bit more. A little hint: muzzle velocity and striking velocity are two very different things. In fact, the latter can often be less than half of the former. You also might want to take into account the fact that the information you gave is for the AP round, not the HE round (a bit of a difference there), and even the HE has only a fraction of its weight in explosives. There's no such thing as a round with its entire weight in explosives, and the whole shell weighs 6.8kg.

And yes, I'm well-versed in both WWII and current technologies.

I am quite aware I gave you the muzzle velocity. Had you been doing research you would also realise I gave the figures for 100 metres range. I did not have an accurate striking velocity figure so decided to err on the high side. I consider that a shell will not decelerate much over 100 metres.

What is more I did give the figures for the HE round. The AP round has higher figures. I suggest you give me a contradictory source of information if you wish to disprove me. As for what my sources give at a similar range an AP shell will do 70mm at the same angle.

I am also fully aware what HESH is. I also believe the purpose of HESH is not to penetrate. It was a round designed for use against heavily armoured targets with the idea of exploding on the surface and breaking off parts inside via the shockwave.

FYI this is my source. http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/guns.html
You will find if you chose to explore this site, that it is referenced to other sources as well.

I am quite aware I gave you the muzzle velocity. Had you been doing research you would also realise I gave the figures for 100 metres range. I did not have an accurate striking velocity figure so decided to err on the high side. I consider that a shell will not decelerate much over 100 metres.

What is more I did give the figures for the HE round. The AP round has higher figures. I suggest you give me a contradictory source of information if you wish to disprove me. As for what my sources give at a similar range an AP shell will do 70mm at the same angle.

I am also fully aware what HESH is. I also believe the purpose of HESH is not to penetrate. It was a round designed for use against heavily armoured targets with the idea of exploding on the surface and breaking off parts inside via the shockwave.

FYI this is my source. http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/guns.html
You will find if you chose to explore this site, that it is referenced to other sources as well.
You will forgive me. If you look at the last round there, you will see where my info was. I didn't think they'd be that close. I was using the 500m penetration figure for the APCBC.
So, using your source, lets look at it. The round is 6.8 kg (15 lbs), and is a HE round. Now, remember that an HE round is a steel shell with some explosives and a fuse inside. Generally, 20-50% of the weight will be explosives (usually 20-25%, 33%+ only occurs in very large bombs and shells). Most of the rest will be the heavy shell. Why a heavy shell? Because explosions aren't really going to cause many casualties. It's shrapnel from the case that does that (the main reason why pure explosive shells are virtually nonexistant). Because there's a hard shell, it still has penetration even though that's not the primary role (this is also a benefit against concrete bunkers). Hence the 41mm penetration at 100m.
Now, a more modern Exocet which is designed for penetration, can do 70mm at a speed of a little under 320m/s. I fail to find much of an inconsistency, especially when you look at the AP round, which, as you stated, does 70mm. How about that?

And for HESH. Yes, that's what it's for. However, I challenge you to find me another kind of delayed-fuse round that doens't have any notable penetration ability. And the point of that was to refute the idea that the explosion itself penetrates, which that does nicely. After all, if the explosion had penetration capabilities, so would the HESH, which it doesn't.

Actually I do, when considering an exocet carries a 165 kg warhead which is approximately 24 times larger than the whole 75 mm shell.

What would be a suitable range for a bomber-dropped supercavitating torpedo 10.5m long and 3.9m in diameter at 400 knots? How many degrees would such a torpedo be able to turn before it loses the cavity?

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=121873

thought this might be an appropriate place to advertise my store. Its basicly all ships that rely on guns. At the moment i need help converting them into modern day battleships.

What would be a suitable range for a bomber-dropped supercavitating torpedo 10.5m long and 3.9m in diameter at 400 knots? How many degrees would such a torpedo be able to turn before it loses the cavity?

Now I don't actually know what the running time on a supercavitating torpedo is. But I'll take a guess at 3 minutes. This will give it a 20 nautical mile maximum range.
Now assuming the target is moving at 30 knots, at right angles to the direction the torpedo is travelling, it would make 1.5 nautical miles in 3 minutes. For the torpedo to still strike the target it would need to only traverse 4.289 (4sf) degrees.
You will basically never need a torpedo that does more than 5 degrees. At that point you will be able to strike a vessel doing anything up to 35.00 knotts (4sf). You will very rarely have to fire a torpedo at a vessel doing that speed at exactly 90 degrees to the course of the torpedo.

On the other hand it would probably be more sensible to drop the torpedo at something like 10-15 nautical miles, that way it would decrease the likelihood of the torpedo expending itself before striking. At this closer range 5 degrees will still cover up to 35 knotts.

What would be a suitable range for a bomber-dropped supercavitating torpedo 10.5m long and 3.9m in diameter at 400 knots? How many degrees would such a torpedo be able to turn before it loses the cavity?

Now I don't actually know what the running time on a supercavitating torpedo is. But I'll take a guess at 3 minutes. This will give it a 20 nautical mile maximum range.
Now assuming the target is moving at 30 knots, at right angles to the direction the torpedo is travelling, it would make 1.5 nautical miles in 3 minutes. For the torpedo to still strike the target it would need to only traverse 4.289 (4sf) degrees.
You will basically never need a torpedo that does more than 5 degrees. At that point you will be able to strike a vessel doing anything up to 35.00 knotts (4sf). You will very rarely have to fire a torpedo at a vessel doing that speed at exactly 90 degrees to the course of the torpedo.

On the other hand it would probably be more sensible to drop the torpedo at something like 10-15 nautical miles, that way it would decrease the likelihood of the torpedo expending itself before striking. At this closer range 5 degrees will still cover up to 35 knotts.

Supercavitating torpedos can't maneuver, I think. I think Tahar addressed this on the first page, but they're basically underwater rockets. Very high speed and such, but they go in a straight line.

I think they could manuvere very slightly without losing the vacuum. Any ideas on the range? My torpedo is an absolute huge one.

I don't think it would go very far, and maybe be limited to 3-4 km, probably much less. The speed it has is way above anything else there is, and even the Shkval, at 8m long, is limited to 11-15 km. Btw, increasing diameter that much is going to be counterproductive. Stick to 21-24" (533-610mm). If you did that and dropped the speed down to 200 knots or so, I would say maybe 20 km, possibly 25 if you pushed it.

And yes, they can maneuver. The US and Russia have both been working on guided versions.

I don't think it would go very far, and maybe be limited to 3-4 km, probably much less. The speed it has is way above anything else there is, and even the Shkval, at 8m long, is limited to 11-15 km. Btw, increasing diameter that much is going to be counterproductive. Stick to 21-24" (533-610mm). If you did that and dropped the speed down to 200 knots or so, I would say maybe 20 km, possibly 25 if you pushed it.

And yes, they can maneuver. The US and Russia have both been working on guided versions.

I am very interested as to where you get your range data from. The last time I checked this was classified information.

I don't think it would go very far, and maybe be limited to 3-4 km, probably much less. The speed it has is way above anything else there is, and even the Shkval, at 8m long, is limited to 11-15 km. Btw, increasing diameter that much is going to be counterproductive. Stick to 21-24" (533-610mm). If you did that and dropped the speed down to 200 knots or so, I would say maybe 20 km, possibly 25 if you pushed it.

And yes, they can maneuver. The US and Russia have both been working on guided versions.

I am very interested as to where you get your range data from. The last time I checked this was classified information.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/shkval.htm
http://www.thepubliccause.net/LoudSONARs2.html

and others. Range estimates vary, but I was giving one of the median ones, accounting for a 2-3 minute running time @ 200 knots. The 32 km one is a bit high when you consider the propulsion method. The most common listed range is less than 7 km, but I think that may be a little low (as with the "official" ranges of US weapons). Just because the exact statistic is classified doesn't mean you can't get a good idea. No, you might not be exactly right, but you can get pretty close.

Thanks for the links. I have found it difficult to find pages with much more than idle gossip about Shkvals.
Anyway...I hadn't spotted Taiwan had doubled the speed on the previous page :P I was wondering why my values had suddenly doubled...I will still maintain a 5 degree turn is more than enough to cope with most shipping though.

I think by guidance they mean slow down to reacquire the target.

I don't think you'll find anything in the real world that 'slows down to reaquire targets'.

What other threads like this are there? This is a damn good read..THANKS A LOT!!

I think by guidance they mean slow down to reacquire the target.

The Shkvals, or at least some later version of them, have a guidance wire that sits in the wake of the rocket and can be used to control the unit (a shift in the cap of the unit will redirect the cavity but the redirection is necessarily small as even a small strike between the cavity walls and the unit itself will crush the unit) much as modern wire-guided ATGMs.

Some more questions-

1) How effective would Reduced-Cross-Section sea-skimmers be?
2) How effective are Harpoons against patrol-baot sized targets moving at 40 knots?
3) Can JSTARS guide anti-ship cruise missile?

Tag.

Some more questions-

1) How effective would Reduced-Cross-Section sea-skimmers be?
2) How effective are Harpoons against patrol-baot sized targets moving at 40 knots?
3) Can JSTARS guide anti-ship cruise missile?
1) It depends. Sea skimmers are already quite effective (much more so than most players think) because they spend most of their flight under the enemy's radar horizon. RCS might help a little against AEW aircraft that could detect them further out, but against the ships themselves, it would be almost worthless. The reason is that by the time the missile is close enough to be detected by ship-mounted radar, it's close enough for the low RCS not to be much of an issue.
2) That's something that's difficult to say. I beleive that the Harpoon is agile enough to pull an intercept on such targets, though wild maneuvering could throw it off. Of course, there's still a re-attack capability on everything from the F-Model onwards.
3) Not entirely sure on that one (no publications I know of mention it though). With the communications it possesses, it should be able to at least provide mid-course guidance updates, but if you're thinking semi-active radar guidance, that's going a bit far. Of course, that's kind of a mute point as that type of guidance is virtually never used outside of SAMs (only antishipping missile I know of with it is the Sea Skua).

OK... so I have a small question or three relating to (lovely lovely) battery powered torpedos. Most are just double checks on things that I'm well aware of the respective chemistry of, but not with regard to how they impact the specific engineering of torpedos.

For certain roles, a battery powered torp seems to me (considering engine dynamics) to possibly make less noise than a fuel powered engine. Also, I've been looking to expand on the effects of fuel vs battery propulsion effectiveness at depth.

Confirm, deny? I've noticed that in general, modern German torpedos are largely battery powered, modern US torps are mostly a monofuel propellant, and the fastest conventional torpedos I could find are British on an ammonia-fuel system. This was noted as having great difficulties at lower depths.

I've been poking around at various torpedo specifications, and noticed that most of the ones I could find reasonably hard numbers for were made with zinc-silver oxide wet cells; detailed analysis of the hard data says that torpedos look like they, too, should be affected by the recent dramatic improvements in mass/energy and volume/energy storage techniques; a nonrechargable lithium cell of the same size would appear to supply at least twice as much endurance as the zinc-silver battery for the size or same weight, conservatively.

Modern zinc-air cells rate out at least as well as the lithium cells (better in some cases.)

I was wondering if this seemed correct, and also if anyone knew of particular engineering issues that come up with putting lithium batteries in something intended to go underwater (lithium cells aren't water based, unlike the zinc-silver oxide cells.)

A PEM hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell stack supplies close to three times the total energy of the lithium cell, and has been called completely silent. Any comment on those as a torpedo energy cell?

A more direct question that I have very little notion of:

For wire guided torpedos - some of which are rated out to 25 nautical miles or more - what's the length/density of the cabling, and how is it stored with respect to the torpedo? I ask, because when I reengineer existing torpedo designs from the 60s-80s with the PEM fuel cell stacks or even just lithium batteries, I start to approach very long ranges at low speed, and to me, it would appear that a hundred nautical miles of topedo cable would take a substantial chunk of payload space.

(Looking at existing torpedos, it would appear the cabling is not stored on the actual torpedo. Yes, I'm aware that running a torpedo out for long distances on wire guidance risks a high potential of accidental cable severence; any input there is also welcome. Along with any input on the engineering issues arising from building torpedos to engage enemy submarines at extreme depths... or engage from extreme depths.)

Since I am easily confused by all these technicalities, I simply wish to impart a little bit of my meager knowledge concerning ship design and the materials to carry out such designs. For the most part, my navy is composed of double hull catamarans, with an extended deck that connects the two hulls. This design offers good stability, especially in rough seas and typhoons, which is commonly found in the Pacific where my nation is located, and also more space for storage.

As for the construction, I tend to favor high strength composites layered in a double hull configuration. Some composites I use are fiberglass, Kevlar, aluminum, and advanced carbon fiber and, well... composites..

I dont know if that was helpful, but that is a little bit of what I know about shipbuilding, so good luck with everyone's ships and such.

About JSTARS however, it should be noted that while JSTARS has a surface apeture radar (that can essentially generate a radar "map" of the area and identify ground vehicles and the like), it is not designed for the search of seas and the likes. I'd better go with a midcourse update from an E-2C Hawkeye rather than an E-8 -- reserve that for land only.

Also about the re-attack capability -- it is actually effective when the boat effectively somehow shrugs off the radar lock, or that there isn't any radar signature in the area altogether. If the missile is undercoming heavy jamming and chaff plus tight maneuvers, I would say that the missile could be shrugged off (although the newer seekers are more percise and ECM-resistant of course).

About the low RCS however, while it may make the missile less observable (by previous generations radars and older missiles -- mdoern SM-2 blocks can deal with low RCS targets), it will still be picked up, and I'd guess that for a radar system that sends raw data (Such as those on the E-2) to the operator, a skilled operator may still pick out the signature.

To answer East Islandia however, I'd suggest use a more "Ecomonic" material to build the basic hull, then add some armor. Composites and kevlar, plus some forms of steel should be good enough for the armor.

OK... so I have a small question or three relating to (lovely lovely) battery powered torpedos. Most are just double checks on things that I'm well aware of the respective chemistry of, but not with regard to how they impact the specific engineering of torpedos.

For certain roles, a battery powered torp seems to me (considering engine dynamics) to possibly make less noise than a fuel powered engine. Also, I've been looking to expand on the effects of fuel vs battery propulsion effectiveness at depth.

Confirm, deny? I've noticed that in general, modern German torpedos are largely battery powered, modern US torps are mostly a monofuel propellant, and the fastest conventional torpedos I could find are British on an ammonia-fuel system. This was noted as having great difficulties at lower depths.

I've been poking around at various torpedo specifications, and noticed that most of the ones I could find reasonably hard numbers for were made with zinc-silver oxide wet cells; detailed analysis of the hard data says that torpedos look like they, too, should be affected by the recent dramatic improvements in mass/energy and volume/energy storage techniques; a nonrechargable lithium cell of the same size would appear to supply at least twice as much endurance as the zinc-silver battery for the size or same weight, conservatively.

Modern zinc-air cells rate out at least as well as the lithium cells (better in some cases.)

I was wondering if this seemed correct, and also if anyone knew of particular engineering issues that come up with putting lithium batteries in something intended to go underwater (lithium cells aren't water based, unlike the zinc-silver oxide cells.)

A PEM hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell stack supplies close to three times the total energy of the lithium cell, and has been called completely silent. Any comment on those as a torpedo energy cell?

A more direct question that I have very little notion of:

For wire guided torpedos - some of which are rated out to 25 nautical miles or more - what's the length/density of the cabling, and how is it stored with respect to the torpedo? I ask, because when I reengineer existing torpedo designs from the 60s-80s with the PEM fuel cell stacks or even just lithium batteries, I start to approach very long ranges at low speed, and to me, it would appear that a hundred nautical miles of topedo cable would take a substantial chunk of payload space.

(Looking at existing torpedos, it would appear the cabling is not stored on the actual torpedo. Yes, I'm aware that running a torpedo out for long distances on wire guidance risks a high potential of accidental cable severence; any input there is also welcome. Along with any input on the engineering issues arising from building torpedos to engage enemy submarines at extreme depths... or engage from extreme depths.)
I'm not entirely sure on where the cabling is stored (I've seen nothing regarding that), however, there might be a compartment in the torpedo itself with a spool. Alternatively, and more likely, there is a spool on the ship with the wire connected to a port on the torpedo.
For those batteries, I think the area you should be looking into is more on the lines of larger warheads rather than longer range. The extreme range of some modern torpedoes is just that. Going much further than, say, 30 nm isn't going to improve the capabilities of the sub much due to practical detection and engagement ranges. A bigger warhead means that the torpedo has a greater margin for error (remember, modern ones are not necessarily contact weapons, and often carry proximity fuses). You could alternatively use the space for a more powerful sonar, allowing the torpedo a better detection range, and giving it a greater engagement envelope should the wires be severed.
For the silent torpedo, you may be forgetting cavitation. The battery and machinery might be silent, but at the speeds torpedoes run at, the noise generated by the propellers will still be easily detected. Also, most torpedoes still rely heavily on active sonar, which will broadcast their presence when they start pinging. Also, the opening of the doors for firing, as well as the launch itself, are also detectable, especially at close range.

Expanding the depth is not necessarily valuable. Most torpedoes can go deeper than most submarines, with only units like the Alfa class escaping. However, at the depths they can go, such submarines are incapable of effectively launching at surface vessels (detection alone would be extremely difficult), so those depths are only really for evading attack.

For propulsion type, here's how it works:
The two, at first glance, appear have similar range, and the battery is quieter (though again, this is easily detected at most speeds). However, battery-powered torpedoes are much slower (both in general and for the same range), as fuel powered ones are far more efficient at higher speeds. Fuel powered torpedoes are more prevalent in NATO because they are better for intercepting fast targets, notably Alfas and fast surface ships like carriers, which can outrun most battery powered units. Really, battery powered torpedoes aren't that much more useful.


Omz, you're not entirely accurate there. The E-8 JSTARS can be adapted to the maritime surveillance role without much difficulty. And since it can track targets moving up to 58 knots, few military vessels would escape it.

A lot of the NS world is clueless about the things CSJ posted about.

I totally agree.

Actually, I am considering the cavitation... for an efficient torpedo, speed=noise; my rough guess that 20-25 kts produces a pretty small cavitation effect for a small torpedo, as a number of submarines run out to "tactical speeds" in that range. Obviously, a torpedo running at that speed is poorly capable of intercepting fast craft; however, quick back-of-the-envelop calculations appear to indicate to me that a PEM hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell powered torpedo could pull out 45-50 kts to a 30nm range on the equivalent chassis as modern silver/zinc battery powered torpedos; the maximum power output curves and energy level would seem to fit that reasonably. Quite simply, though, the battery powered torpedo is mostly attractive only because of its internal system silence, which has its greatest impact at low speeds, due to turbulence/cavitation/propeller noise.

Obviously, targeting directly between a low depth submarine and a ship is pratically impossible; however, I was thinking about using remotes (for both the long range and the low crushing depth to surface vessel engagement scenarios.) Of course, the remotes may be relatively easy to track down, but those are less expensive than submarines... and if the torpedos are moved out ahead of the apparent path of a nuclear carrier at low speed from a standoff distance (or standoff depth) and then run out to a higher speed for the second phase of an attack... well, what do you think?

Actually, I am considering the cavitation... for an efficient torpedo, speed=noise; my rough guess that 20-25 kts produces a pretty small cavitation effect for a small torpedo, as a number of submarines run out to "tactical speeds" in that range. Obviously, a torpedo running at that speed is poorly capable of intercepting fast craft; however, quick back-of-the-envelop calculations appear to indicate to me that a PEM hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell powered torpedo could pull out 45-50 kts to a 30nm range on the equivalent chassis as modern silver/zinc battery powered torpedos; the maximum power output curves and energy level would seem to fit that reasonably. Quite simply, though, the battery powered torpedo is mostly attractive only because of its internal system silence, which has its greatest impact at low speeds, due to turbulence/cavitation/propeller noise.

Obviously, targeting directly between a low depth submarine and a ship is pratically impossible; however, I was thinking about using remotes (for both the long range and the low crushing depth to surface vessel engagement scenarios.) Of course, the remotes may be relatively easy to track down, but those are less expensive than submarines... and if the torpedos are moved out ahead of the apparent path of a nuclear carrier at low speed from a standoff distance (or standoff depth) and then run out to a higher speed for the second phase of an attack... well, what do you think?
Yes, you are probably close with most of that with the fuel cell. However, such a torpedo is still quite limited, as close range passive systems will still pick up the torpedo before it's likely to have acquired the target. Reaction time will be reduced, but not necessarily enough to be of much value. However, it's possibly a good first strike weapon.
For the second part, you're a bit vague as to what you're thinking, so I'm not going to go on until it's clarified.

For those who are in interest of Soviet "carrier-killer" missiles (namely Bazalt and Granit) and/or those new smaller but supersonic ones (namely Moskit and Yakhont). You'll need to register (no big deal), but it is worth it (since there are much other useful information):

Carrier Killers (http://www.jedonline.com/default.asp?func=articles&year=2003&month=10&page=0310j13&doct=cover%20story)
Cruiser and Destroyer Killers (http://www.jedonline.com/default.asp?journalid=4&func=articles&page=0311j14&year=2003&month=11&doct=features&rsno=2)

Ship Weapons 101


Large Caliber Guns (over 8"):
These are the big guns carried almost exclusively by battleships, battlecruisers, and shore installations. They have tremendous penetration and hitting power, but are usually lighter on explosive yield, though there's still enough to create the lethal shrapnel needed for a very effective shore bombardment. Various types of modern shells have been proposed for some.
Advantages: unmatched penetration and striking power. excellent bombardment weapon. extremely cheap compared to missiles
Disadvantages: relatively short range (generally no more than 22nm / 25.3 miles / 41 km). relatively inaccurate, though accuracy can be improved if modern ones are built.

Medium Caliber Guns (5" - 8"):
These are the weapons more commonly found on modern combat vessels, or ass secondary armament on many WWII cruisers and destroyers. In general, these weapons are quite accurate (especially for modern incarnations), and a high rate of fire makes them excellent for bombardment. Many are also capable of engaging aircraft as well as ships and shore targets.
Advantages: high rate of fire. low cost compared to missiles. good accuracy.
Disadvantages: Short range (usually less than 20nm / 37 km with standard shells, though some can go to 22nm). Often have lower penetration and hitting power.

Small Caliber Guns (2" - 5")
These are the little guns that are often found on patrol boats, though some major surface combatants (notably British and Soviet designs) may have them as well. These are almost always DP guns capable of engaging both aircraft and surface targets, and there's at least one account of one of these downing an antishipping missile. Due to small size, these are often not good for bombardment, generally being used against aircraft and small vessels that wander too close.
Advantages: Very high rate of fire (several dozen rounds per minute). Very low cost. Light weight and low space requirements.
Disadvantages: Limited range (usually less than 11nm / 20 km, with effective range often less than half that). Very low power.

Minor Guns (<2")
These include light cannons and heavy machine guns that are usually either automated or fired by only a single gunner. These include 20-40mm AA guns, CIWS, and weapons like the Bushmaster low-angle which are for close defense against surface targets, or a heavy gun for small patrol boats.
Advantages: Extremely high rates of fire (hundreds of rounds per minute). Low cost. Minimal deck space and manpower requirements.
Disadvantages: Extremely short range (less than 5 km). Effective only against small targets.

Heavy Antishipping & Cruise Missiles (454 kg / 1000 lb warhead or bigger)
These are the big guns of the fleet. Generally, these are tasked specifically with striking down carriers and large escorts, as well as other very large vessels such as amphibious ships and large cargo vessels. Similar designs also often go after ground targets, where the high payload and long range makes them good against high-priority targets. These also generally have many different warhead loads, taking advantage of the large payload capacity.
Advantages: Long range (usually several hundred km). Very powerful.
Disadvantages: Easier to detect and intercept. High cost (usually over $1 million each).
Examples: TASM, TLAM, TACMS, Granit / SS-N-19, Bazalt / SS-N-12

Medium Antishipping & Cruise Missiles (200 – 400 kg warhead)
These are the main hitters for many fleets. They don’t have the range and hitting power of the big boys, but are cheaper and more versatile. They’re effective against all but the biggest ships, such as carriers, LHDs, battleships, etc. There aren’t very many land attack missiles in this class, but there are a few.
Advantages: Long range (still several hundred km). Good power. More difficult to detect.
Disadvantages: High cost (several hundred thousand $). Ineffective against large vessels.
Examples: Harpoon, Klub / SS-N-27, Yakhont / SS-N-26, Moskit / SS-N-22

Light Antishipping & Cruise Missiles (<200 kg warhead)
These are usually air launched weapons, but you’ll occasionally find units like the Penguin on ships, and the Exocet is almost as popular as the Harpoon. These are generally for attacking vessels no larger than a small destroyer, and some shouldn’t be used against anything bigger than a corvette. They can still, however, cause significant damage to larger escorts, especially in numbers. Land attack weapons in this category aren’t as common (at least ship launched ones aren’t), but some can still be found.
Advantages: Low cost. Small size. Very difficult to detect and counter.
Disadvantages: Low power. Short range (rarely more than a few dozen km).
Examples: Exocet, Penguin, Gabriel, Sea Dart, Kormoran, Uran / SS-N-25

Antisubmarine Missiles/Rockets
These are standoff weapons for engaging submarines. They’re usually armed with either a light torpedo or a depth charge, and may or may not be guided. Different versions can be fired from both surface ships and submarines. The main role of these is to extend the engagement range of the launching vessel, allowing them to strike the submarine before it gets close enough to become a major threat.
Advantages: Undetectable by target until payload hits the water (lower reaction time). Greater range than normal systems.
Disadvantages: Generally ineffective against surface ships. Torpedo has small warhead.
Examples: ASROC, Sea Lance, Metel / SS-N-14**, Vyuga / SS-N-15, Vodopod / SS-N-16

Long-Range SAMs (100+ km)
These are big missiles designed for striking down bombers before they get into missile range, and missiles that got off. They’re often still quite effective against smaller fighters, but those aren’t their primary targets. In RL, these weapons are almost exclusively designed by the US and USSR, though they have been exported. Some of these missiles can strike out to nearly 400 km, outranging all but the largest air-launched cruise missiles (with most of those being easy targets in themselves), though 100-200 is far more common.
Advantages: Very long range (exceeds most effective antishipping missiles).
Disadvantages: Not as agile as many shorter-ranged weapons. Very expensive.
Examples: SM-2*, Aster 30*, Fort / SA-N-6

Medium-Range SAMs (20-100 km)
These are the more common weapons, and can be found on numerous vessels as a defense against aircraft and, more likely, missiles. Some of these, such as the sea dart and ESSM, have sufficient range to provide a degree of area defense (protecting groups of ships), but most of these weapons are more for providing self-defense for the launching ship.
Advantages: Smaller and not as expensive.
Disadvantages: Easily outranged by many antishipping missiles.
Examples: Sea Sparrow, ESSM, Aspide, Aster 15, Shtorm / SA-N-3, Uragan / SA-N-7, Smerch / SA-N-12, Sea Dart

Short-Range & Point Defense SAMs (<20 km)
These are small missiles that provide last-defense against close-in threats. The only targets they’re good against are attacking missiles and aircraft that are dropping bombs. That said, they’re small, light, extremely cheap, and provide effective defense. Many of these systems are modified from short-range and shoulder-fired ground-launched units, and PDMs (point defense missiles) differ only in that they are specifically employed to engage antishipping missiles. Unlike medium and long-range missiles, almost all of these have active guidance.
Advantages: Small size. Low cost. Inexpensive.
Disadvantages: Extremely limited range.
Examples:
Short Range: Seawolf, Crotale, RBS-70, Osa / SA-N-4, Kinzhal / SA-N-9, Igla / SA-N-10, Strela-3 / SA-N-8
PDM: RAM, Sandral, Kortik / SA-N-11

Heavy Torpedoes (24”+)
These are very large weapons with long range and high payload. In the past, they’ve been employed from aircraft and surface ships, but currently, only Soviet submarines carry such weapons (though the Seawolf has the capability). The original Soviet 25.6” weapon was unguided but nuclear armed, and could easily sink a ship several kilometers from the detonation point (it was to be used against carriers). A later guided version was also made. These weapons have a warhead that’s almost 1000 kg, about 50% greater than 21” weapons.
Advantages: Very long range, even at high speeds (50 km @ 50 knots). Very large warhead.
Disadvantages: Large size. High cost.

Medium Torpedoes (19-24”)
These generally make up the primary armament of submarines, and have a good mix of range, speed, and power. While these weapons are reserved for submarines in most militaries, the USSR developed units that were launched from aircraft, as well as surface ships.
Advantages: Good range & speed. Large warhead.
Disadvantages: Rather high cost

Light Torpedoes (<19”)
These are generally those weapons that are launched by aircraft and surface ships, as well as the payloads for ASROC type weapons. In general, they’re rather short ranged and have a small warhead, giving them limited effectiveness against some submarines. The most common weapons are the 12.75” weapons (NATO standard), though the Soviet Union had a variety of weapons from 13” to 17.7”.
Advantages: Small size. Light weight. Low cost.
Disadvantages: Weak warhead. Short range.

Moored Mines:
These are the oldest and simplest class of mines, and consist of a buoyant warhead tethered to the bottom and held at a specific depth. Most of these are contact fuzed, but acoustic and magnetic fuzes are quite possible as well. As with most mines, these generally appear in light (500 lb), medium (1000 lb), and heavy (2000 lb) classes. Even a light one is capable of seriously damaging most escort ships, especially if a contact weapon.
Advantages: Cheap. Can be used in deeper water.
Disadvantages: Easy to detect and neutralize.

Bottom Influence Mines
These are more modern weapons, and lie at the bottom. They’re either acoustic or magnetic, and unlike many moored mines, rely entirely on pressure waves to do damage, as they do not touch the hull directly. The Ticonderoga cruiser USS Princeton (CG-59) was struck by bottom influence mines.
Advantages: Difficult to detect and neutralize.
Disadvantages: Relatively less powerful than moored mines. Can’t be used effectively in deeper water.

Other mines
There are a few other types of mines, most notably the US CAPTOR, which launches a 12.75” torpedo rather than providing a normal explosive payload. The weapon is moored and used to counter submarines.

Depth Charges
These are the infamous antisubmarine weapons found in many WWII movies. They’re also still quite common today, usually dropped by aircraft. Essentially, these are underwater bombs, and when they detonate, they operate in a similar manner to many mines, using pressure waves to cause damage to enemy submarines. These could be proximity fuzed, but most are just set to detonate at a certain depth. While in most cases, the lethal range isn’t more than a few dozen meters, there are nuclear depth charges (such as those proposed for the Sea Lance) which can kill a submarine at ranges exceeding 10 km.
Advantages: Cheap and simple
Disadvantages: Require launching unit to be directly above target. No guidance.


Damage Levels For Ships:

Lightly Damaged: Ship has been hit, but combat ability has not been seriously degraded.

Moderately Damaged: Ship has been hit, but not critically. She may be crippled, but is usually still capable of fighting, though her capabilities have been notably degraded.

Heavily Damaged: Ship has taken a notable beating and its fighting capability is probably serverely degraded, but it is still able to remain afloat. It may also fall under any of the following categories (crippled, silenced, or dead in the water). On the other hand, it may still be capable of engaging effectively, with loss in other areas such as structural integrity.

Crippled: Ship is incapable of performing its mission anymore. Note that this can still mean light damage. Common examples are loss of steering, loss of propulsion, loss of structural integrity, or loss of engagement systems. For example, if an Arleigh Burke destroyer guarding a carrier lost all its SPY-1 radars, it could be considered crippled, as its primary role is air defense. The Bismarck was crippled when the torpedo attack jammed her rudder.

Silenced: Ship is incapable of effective resistance. Most armament has been disabled, but the ship may still be capable of firing, just not effectively. This level of damage is generally considered grounds for capitulating and abandoning ship.

Dead in the Water: All weapons are completely knocked out. Ship is incapable of fighting.

Foundering: Ship is sinking because of flooding. This can be due to damage or storms.




Further information on the Yakhont
Looking into things, I’ve finally learned the flight profile of this missile (while the sea-skimming altitude wasn’t difficult to find, the cruising altitude was). When flying a high-low profile, the missile cruises at up to 15,000m (50,000 ft), dropping down to 15m a few dozen kilometers from the target. Now, at this altitude, it’s easily detected by just about any radar you can find, and any SAM with enough range can shoot it down with ease. Thus, the high-low profile is only useful against targets that are only protected by short-range and lower-end medium range missiles (<60 km). Anything else will pick it off before it can dive down.



*The ranges for the SM-2 missiles vary, and according to the source, the SM-2MR could fall under either the medium-range or long-range category. The SM-2ER, however, is firmly in the long-range category.
**While NATO groups them together, the USSR considered three different missiles here. I’ve only listed the first. The other two are Musson and Rasturb. Similarly, the SS-N-16 included two missiles (Vodopod and Veter)

double post

thought I might bump this.

I have another question:

Would a sea-skimmer flying at Mach 2.8 in a low-low profile be able to pull off CIWS-evasive manuevers?

CSJ, thanks for the Weapons 101 guide.

I want to talk to you about anti-access options for nations (I'm trying to write a large guide paper on this topic to be posted on my region's board) because I think that you'll have a lot in there to comment upon.

anti-access?

Also, could someone go over my CIWS to see if it's all realistic?
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=139551&highlight=

Regional Anti-Access is related to the point in military theory that if your enemy never gets safely within effective weapons range that your forces are then relatively safe. One scenario is what I pulled off with the BM747s and all to destroy those fleets approaching Ell (;)) just after the Melkor wars, where enemy forces are incapacitated or so injured by the strikes that they are forced to turn back rather than face the unhindered/fresh enemy forces awaiting them.

Anti-Access is big for small nations with weak military forces that risk facing off against first-world powers because it would allow them to prevent the main force transportation means (carrier battle groups, forward air bases, amphibious ready groups) from coming into useful range or from having decent safety assurances during operations. There are a number of means of fighting with antiaccess techniques so I'm trying to formulate a formal plan for my region (which could also be used by other powers with similar equipment) to use in case of attack.

bump! this thread desves mention!

Light Cruisers/Corvettes
Displacement=6,000-15,000 tons
6" Guns: 15
8" Guns: 12
10" Guns: 9
12" Guns: 6

Battlecruisers/Heavy Cruisers
Displacement=15,000-35,000 tons
10" Guns: 12
12" Guns: 9
14” guns: 6

Battleships/Battlecruisers
Displacement=35,000-50,000 tons
10" Guns: 15
12" Guns: 12
14” guns: 9
16” guns: 6

Battleships/Heavy Battlcruisers
Displacement=50-65,000 tons
14” guns: 12
16” guns: 9
18” guns: 6
20” guns: 4

Heavy Battleships/Fleet Carriers
Displacement=70-85,000 tons
14” guns: 16
16” guns: 12
18” guns: 9
20” guns: 6

Super Battleships/Super Carriers
Displacement=90-110,000 tons
14” guns: 21
16” guns: 16
18” guns: 12
20” guns: 9

Mega-Battleships/Mega-Carriers
Displacement=115-130,000 tons
16” guns: 21
18” guns: 16
20” guns: 12

Mega Battlecarriers
Displacement=140,000+ tons
18” guns: 21
20” guns: 16

i added some more displacement classes covering all of world war IIs ships and more.

Actually, that general rule is a bit different for cruisers and desteroyers. They hold much less comparatively than battleships, and you have to split them up a bit differently. A 15,000 ton vessel can carry 12 8" guns, but a 10,000 ton light cruiser certainly cannot.


An edited ranking fixing a slight error and accounting for lighter vessels would look like this:

5000-8,000 tons:
6" guns: 12

9000-15,000 tons
6" guns: 16
8" guns: 12

16,000-25,000 tons
6" guns: 21
8" guns: 16
10" guns: 12

30-40,000 tons
10" guns: 16
12" guns: 12
14" guns: 9

45-60,000 tons
12" guns: 16
14" guns: 12
16" guns: 9

65-80,000 tons
14" guns: 16
16" guns: 12
18" guns: 9
20" guns: 6

85-100,000 tons
16" guns: 16
18" guns: 12
20" guns: 9
22" guns: 6

105-120,000 tons
16" guns: 21
18" guns: 16
20" guns: 12
22" guns: 9
24" gun: 6

125-140,000 tons
16" guns: 28
18" guns: 21
20" guns: 16
22" guns: 12
24" guns: 9
26" guns: 6


However, something to note here is that cruisers have much greater space limitations than battleships and battlecruisers. To that end, they often carry much less than they conceivably could. You'll find that there are virtually no cruisers with more than 12 8" guns, even though they might be able to handle that. In fact, the larger heavy cruisers carried only 8-10 main guns. They reserved the remaining space for additional secondary, torpedo, anti-aircraft, and ASW armament, as well as greater protection (these were expected to meet battleships on occasion after all).

Another important thing I left out is that this is assuming the standard length of 45-50 calibers. Guns (and turrets for them) that go to 55-60 calibers will weigh significantly more, and should be classified with weapons an inch or two more in diameter.

does this look okay to you?

"Capitol" Class Light Missile Cruiser (CLGN)

Displacement: 9,500 tons
Length: 860 feet
Beam: 61 feet
Max Speed: 31 Knots
Powerplant: 2 YN-1 Nuclear Reactors
Aircraft: 2 Helicopters or 1 VTOL Aircraft
Armanent: 4 8" Smoothbore Guns in 2 Turrets (1 fore and 1 aft), 2 Launchers for 4 Exocet Missiles each, eqauling 8 missiles, 6 Fore Torpeado Tubes and 2 Aft Torpeadoe Tubes with 16 Torpeadoes Stored, 10-Missile VLS Containing 10 Sea Sparrow SAM Missiles.
Complemenmt: 386 (31 Officers, 365 Enlisted)
Builder: Polar Rock Shipyards
Electronics: Shiva 2-0 Advanced Radar, Shiva 2-0R Advanced Reciver, Aleios Anti-Radar System, Battlecraft 3-D Tactical View System