NationStates Jolt Archive

I’ve seen a few posts and threads in the past little while regarding whether or not battleships have a place in modern warfare.

I will now add my voice to the debate – but not by hijacking someone else’s thread.

First, a distinction needs to be made between real life and NationStates.

In RL – battleships may not have a role to play – there is no navy that can match the US – one American battlegroup rivals the military might of most nations. For a nation opposing the US to try and employ a battleship in a sea battle (or a land attack for that matter) would end with an expensive ship forming an artificial reef in no time.

Even in WW2 Pacific engagements the role of the battleship was diminished due to the reach of the aircraft carrier.

Why is this different in NS?

For several reasons – the most obvious is the frequency of naval engagements, and the often close proximity of opposing fleets.

I can cite several examples of a dozen hostile forces within a 300 km stretch of ocean. With this type of close-in fighting there is a need for a “weapon” that can successfully attack the enemy fleets. A phalanx does little to fend off a 8” shell.

The next reason is the commonality of D-Day style invasions – with masses of troops landing on hostile shores.

While it is fine to bombard the shore with missiles from ships hundreds of miles off-shore – there is a case to be made that a close-support vessel – operating within a dozen miles of shore can provide anti-air coverage for the landing troops, as well as being able to lay down covering fire on a moments notice (unlike a tomahawk type weapons that may take time to be programmed, and additional time to cruise to the target).

Wolfish is known for its large and active naval forces. I operate with several different fleet compositions, but a basic breakdown would be a “typical” projection force – with an aircraft carrier, surrounded by a cruiser, destroyer and frigate compliment, and attack subs.

Another would be a landing force – which might have a VTOL carrier, a battleship, cruiser, and several frigates (better to operate in shallower coastal waters) and attack subs.

The final basic composition would be an attack force – these are the battlegroups I use in all-out slugfest type fights, when there is a need for massive firepower and force projection. This would include one or two carriers, several cruisers, two arsenal ships, two battleships, missile and attack subs, and a good number of destroyers and frigates to provide a picket-line defence.

*Before anyone says “you have no supply vessels!” I’ve left them out as this discussion is about combat ships. Thanks. *

Anyway – those are my thoughts. I will continue to use battleships in NS combat. Perhaps when I become a ruler of a RL nation, I will change my mind.

Cheers,
W.

the golden age of the battleship has past. but, its silver age is still here.

i agree with wolfish. and perhaps to expand on his reasons.

simple artillery is the cheapest and most effective way to soften an emplaced enemy. it really doesn't matter what kind of armour or shields you have. several hundred pounds of metal moving at supersonic speeds will make hash of whatever is at the other end of its balistic arc. but such weaponry has two purposes. if it will make hash of a land enplacement, it will do it even faster with anything afloat.

the current focus on smaller more high-tech ships has a couple of significant drawbacks. first, such ships, like the american ageis are expensive complex ships. and one of murphy's collararies is that the high the tech the greater the tendancy for break down. it will probably be at a rather awkward moment. second will the loss of such a ship is not large in terms of manpower, it is a significant chunk of capital. third, a smaller ship is basically easier to sink.

but, perhaps the most basic and fundamental reason is this. you fight a war until you or the other guy get tired of having your balls kicked up around your ears. you want to dump as much ordance as heavily, as fast, and as much as possible on him. you can do it with smart ordanence. but you can do it for longer, heavier, and more of it with arty. and a battleship is the cheapest way to bring your biggest guns to bear.

I think it's simply beacuse people in NS go

OMG D00DZ THAT HSA A BIG KANNON!!!!!11!!!


As a battleship nerd, the treatment of battleships in NS can set me in fits sometimes. People with 14 battleships of the same class sending them as prime units into fleet battles, etc.

Nationstates does allow me to experiment with some things that saw little useage in RL. The Kilean navy is centered around large, modern surface combatants (ok....a large modern surface combatant. A kirov-class ships), and it also makes extensive use of enkranoplan GEV's.

The carriers/submarines emphasis in RL navies is really a product of the world situation and the geography and history of major navies rather than anything else. I also maintain that battleships can still be effective modern surface combatants. Kilean doesn't deploy any, but I did design a battleship for my friends nation. Kilean itself will probably refurbish an old battleship at some point in the near future....

What follows is my design for the Etronian navy. Any similarity to the Bismark is a total fluke :wink:

_____________________________________________________________

Battleships: Unlike the re-fitting process that the Iowa-class battleships went through in the US, the two re-commissioned Etronian battleships have undergone what could be termed a rebuild. They have had total overhauls in their electronics systems, and are now just as “wired” as any ship in the Etronian navy.

Seaplane-tending facilities have been converted to helicopter facilities, the rear-deck catapults are now a helicopter pad, and all the original AA armament has been removed. The old room-sized analog gunnery computers have been replaced with a desktop-sized computer. The Redoubt class was chosen for re-commissioning because it’s armor scheme- considered a huge blunder when it was built- was most suited to modern sea combat.

The Redoubt class were designed using data from the battle of Jutland, where it seemed that low-trajectory shots to the side were the real ship-killers. Designed to basically fight Jutland, the Redoubt, like the Bismark class, placed the majority of it’s armor protection in it’s side belt. This entire theory was shown to be folly when dive-bombing and plunging shell fire killed many a battleship in world war 2, and the Redoubt class was decommissioned. However, it was noticed in the 1980’s that the heavy side armor would be perfect protection against sea-skimming missiles……

The Resolve-class as originally launched in 1935:

Redoubt-class battleships
4 ships
Type: battleship (BB)

Displacement: 41,800 tons standard, 52,000 tons full load
Speed: 29 knots
Armor:

12.8in side belt, tapering to 10.6 in. 4.5in deck armor, 14.5in turrets, 13.9in “citadel” armor. (special treatment steel)

Armament:

12 15’ high-velocity guns (x4 triple turrets)
dual 6.5in guns (x6)
dual mount 4in DP guns: (x8 mounts)
double-barreled 37mm AA (x 12)
quadruple 20mm AA (x 20)

Air wing: 2 seaplanes
Electronics: crude ranging radar, analog fire control computer, optical rangefinder, crude ASDIC.

The Redoubt class was re-activated in 1986, and given a full re-build. This was in response to the worldwide deployment of large surface combatants, and the proliferation of sea-skimming missiles. The engines were for the most part left alone. The most expensive part of the re-build (in adjusted terms, it cost more to re-build them now than to build them in the first place) was the electronics suite. Carrier-grade air search radar and targeting systems make the Redoubt class very “smart” ships. The space freed up by removing obsolete electronics equipment was converted to modern use, and the room that once housed the analog gunnery computers now houses the first-rate Combat Information Center that is sported by the Redoubt class.

In terms of armament, the change is even more pronounced. All of the 4in AA guns have been removed and replaced with modern weapons, and so have two of the 6in guns. The remaining secondary armament has been re-fitted with auto-loading gear and new ranging devices, making them serviceable DP mounts up to modern standards. In a controversial move, “X” turret (second-to stern) has been removed and replaced with a VLS system for “Vector” cruise missiles. The Redoubt class are truly battleships brought into the modern era, and are formidable surface combatants.

Redoubt-class, circa 2004
2 ships- ENS Redoubt, Recalcitrant

Type: Guided missile battleship (BBG)
Displacement: 41,800 tons standard, 52,000 tons full load
Speed: 29 knots

Armor:

12.8in side belt, tapering to 10.6 in. 4.5in deck armor, 14.5in turrets, 13.9in “citadel” armor. (special treatment steel), interior Kevlar sheeting for magazines, command areas. Automatic firefighting system.

Armament:

9 15” high velocity guns (3 triple turrets)
32 cell “vector” cruise missile VLS
dual 6.5in guns (x4)
8-tube naval croatale launcher (x4, 18 reloads each)
Creusot-Loire 100mm automatic DP gun (4x double turrets) 30mm “goalkeeper” CIWS (x4)
two-rail Meteor point defence HVM launcher (x2, 24 reloads each),
Four-tube harpoon launcher (x4)
Breda compact dual 40mm mounts (x6)


Air wing: 1 ASW helicopter
Electronics: Advanced air search radar, advanced C&C facilities, sonar
_____________________________________________________________


So far they've seen action in shore-bombardment missions, but I think that battleships, even if equipped with modern weapons only in a "secondary" fashion can still be effective combatants. The Kilean navy also plans to bring back the battlecruiser concept with several planned "baby kirov" type 24,000 ton guided missile cruiser designs.


Any thoughts?

Twelve 15" guns on less than 42,000tons looks to me like a lot, but then I don't know, most of BG's surface combatants are around 4,000 tons.

----------

Well, in the 41,800 tons is the ship stripped of all crew, ammo, fuel, etc. I don't even really see why I included it...

Really, the ships displace about 52,000 tons. Even then, I have to agree that in retrospect it seems a bit excessive, however I meant the Redoubt-class to be a rather flawed design in it's time that gained a second lease on life later on.

Starting on NS as a ship maker, I absolutely refused to do one thing when I began. That is, I refused to realize the use of battleships. I had an idea of modern naval technology, but I was ignorant of the realities of nationstates...but by the time of my first naval battle I already had the idea of a modern bombardment ship...not nearly a battleship, but bearing most of its benefits.

The basic truth of this matter is the following:
While in real life, the United States has come to dominate the seas...facing little or no threat from any major vessels...and so it can generally afford to spend a large amount of money to build what are effectively forward missile and aircraft launching bases.

The Soviet navy is falling apart...and its ships simply can't compare with what the US is fielding. It's carriers, launched as recently as 1989, are literally falling apart in the docks (http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/351/11952_navy.html). A combination of poor design, a design not intended for simple or effective maintenance, and poor maintenance abilities are dooming the only other power with a significant naval force. The Brits use their ships pretty much only in support of US operations and French, German, and most Nordic navies are concerned primarily with self-defense of NATO. The North Koreans and Chinese are focused on small, cheap vessels to bear powerful munitions but their large armies are struggling to even keep up the existing equipment or are spending on new technology at the expense of their citizens and to present a semi-modern face for militaries that are fearsome mostly in their numerical capacity...so many men and so much equipment that running out of ammunition is the main concern for opponents. Israel is maintaining vast superiority over it's Arab neighbors in ships with a handful of modern attack submarines and heavily armed corvette/frigates, some missile boats, and a large fleet of patrol and attack boats....and is friendly towards US forces.

The US faces no major enemy vessels...so they lighten up on armoring (there is none, really, in most current vessels), focus on striking targets deep within enemy countries (at the expense of the ability to fire effectively on targets less than 10km away or even between 30 and 100km in some cases), and generally ignore the constraints of Blue Water enemy vessels...letting 8 shots of expensive missiles stand as a crutch in the place of a powerful, rapid-fire, and effective deck gun.

The reality of NS is that NO ONE can afford to do this. We need armoring, WWII level armoring with even better material...MBTs were first called "landships" but now our navies need to be "Sea tanks." Technology exists such that many modern AS missiles are effective against unarmored vessels but nothing else...the super-large anti-ship missiles of Soviet make that are often paraded around NS are, in real life, few in number and ineffective in their tasks. Modern combat ships, with modern naval artillery guns and capabilities, are set to be one-side-fire--one-kill systems. If you consider the technology invested in main battle tanks between WWII and today (or even between 1991 and 2004) and apply that technology curve to Battleships then you end up with a chilling, but honest, realization: that it might just be a world where ships are powerful enough to end engagements almost the moment they've begun.

Modern range-finding equipment, advanced UAVs and drones (which were even amazingly effective when used in support of what were basically WWII Iowa-class BBs during the first Gulf War but are now several magnitudes more advanced on the low-end and with improved ranges, imaging, and targeting abilities), advanced ballistics, composite armoring, automated ammunition selection-advancement-loading, advanced radar, and reduced-silouette designs have the capacity to make battleships devastating. If designed from scratch using modern technologies and fluidmechanics and such, a modern battleship could be a stunningly powerful vessel that would be the equivalent to naval warfare what Apache and Cobra helicopters are to CAS (close air support), to what MBTs are to armored warfare...the kings of the field.

In NS, it is rare to find a superpower, that is, a power that can trample across the world and expect little or no resistance from any fighting force but that of perhaps 1-3 other superpowers...and the complex systems of alliances make matters very difficult in what should be predetermined military outcomes (if just looking at the objective realities). To invade most countries on NS, a naval assault is necessary (even if you are a direct neighbor, your allies and even some of your forces might need to find a secure naval passage to the enemy fronts)...and for modern naval assaults and landings there is no way that a Tomahawk or even a SLAM missile can address the targets that amphibious forces need destroyed.

Even as late as Vietnam and as early as the landings in Italy, battleships at sea have been able to support infantry forces against enemy formations, even enemy armored units, using heavy artillery-from-the-sea. In a naval landing, this type of on-call heavy fire is invaluable.

Also, there is use for such vessels as defensive platforms...if your enemy is landing forces on your beach or on friendly beaches then there is nothing to ruin the enemy's day like landing 16in shells on its transport craft and amphibious assault carriers...not to mention upon the lines of troops who are assembling on the shore to do battle with your land forces. A single modern battleship could engage all three of these important targets while withstanding numerous assaults from the weaponry of these enemy units (assuming that they lack battleships of equal power and modernity, but even somewhat true when they have them)...the 5in guns of modern cruisers and the 3in guns of destroyers and frigates just don't cut it. The USN is planning on having a single 155mm gun on it's superstealthy new destroyer design (in spite of it's missile-heavy weapons, it's a tip of the hat to the need for modern, powerful, long-ranged naval artillery).

It should be noted, however, that the Iowa class is a less-than-perfect product...you'd need to rebuild dramatically...that being said, it's one of the best existing BB designs out there. What is a modern BB set to look like?

- Sleek design: following advances in waterflow geometries, new understandings about fluid dynamics, and advanced computer design simulations. Likely designs would be either a Trimaran design or a more conservative design (monohull, but with formed hull...as in the LPD-17 San Antonio-class vessel (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lpd-17-gallery.htm)). These designs will improve speed and increase stealth as they can reduce the wake of the vessel and the engine power (with accompanying noise). Stealth and speed are definite advantages in naval combat.

- Powerful Engines: as a big and heavy ship, nuclear power might seem like an ideal power source...but if the ship might be sunk or the reactor struck by enemy fire then that becomes much less of an option. Electric engines (with any number of power sources) can provide force for any type of propulsion and are fairly simple to maintain relative to the complicated diesel and nuclear power plants...it doesn't mean that the diesel or nuclear energy can be done without, but the simplicity and realities mean that such power sources might be built into more secure areas of the ship while engines can be fit into more appropriate and efficient locations.

- Modern Radars: a battleship is large and steady enough to serve as a base for the powerful Aegis radars but could likely even bear even more powerful systems that could 'light up' targets in every level of combat out to the maximum reach of its weapons systems. Smaller fire finder-type radar systems would be necessary for use during naval combat, so individual gunners/turrets can respond to emerging threats and fire return salvos at the source...whether it be by land, sea, or air. Special (phased-array) radars could be integrated into the hull of the vessel, which places them at some risk of enemy fire but also would mean that radar searches for small enemy vessels close to the surface would be easier to detect as they wouldn't be lost in surface-scatter in the same way...perhaps lower-powered secondary radars.

- Modern Self-Defense Guns: The MDG-351 35mm "Millennium Gun" (in testing) is a promising replacement for the Phalanx and Goalkeeper systems. With a lower rate of fire and fewer, more effective rounds and programming, the MDG-351 has proven itself against a number of simulated air, sea, land, and even undersea targets (simulated periscopes from diesel subs). Using powerful new scatter-shot rounds and advanced technologies the MDG-351 is more likely to be able to detect, identify, target, and successfully engage an enemy target no matter the type...while current self-defense guns are generally limited to anti-missile missions (with some very limited anti-aircraft capabilities). The Millennium gun could be used by a battleship close to shore to engage swarming enemy patrol boats, perhaps filled with explosives and on suicide runs, or small and fast enemy missile boats or even enemy soldiers ashore at gun, artillery, and missile batteries. Apparently operable either as an automated or semi-automated system, the MDG-351 is set and ready to be the best gun-based hope of ship defenses.

- Modern Self-Defense Missiles: The Israelis have proven with their Barak (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/sea_missiles/barak/Barak.html) and several European countries have proven with the Mica (http://www.eads.net/frame/main/en/xml/content/OF00000000400004/3/86/560863.html) and Seawolf (http://www.eads.net/frame/main/en/xml/content/OF00000000400004/3/89/560893.html) missiles that an efficient and powerful design for anti-missile/aircraft missiles aboard ships is that of a small, vertically launched point-defense missile. The SM-2, SM-2 TMD, and up coming SM-3 missiles are great for farther out targets and depend upon Vertical Launch systems, but they are not efficient for use against small targets. The RIM-116 RAM missiles are not really capable of projecting the needed power on the lower-end. The RIM-7P ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile) is promising, but is rather large for small targets...and requires a large (US standard) VLS system.

- Modern Decoy Systems: scores of modern defensive systems exist today and many could be integrated onto battleships. Towed sonar and ship decoys; launchable soft-kill systems; sound, EM radiation, RCS, and light radiation abatemant systems; degaussing (anti-mine) systems; not to mention EW equipment (such as the "short stop" system, which is reportedly able to make many artillery-style rounds detonate prematurely and radio- and optical-interference gear to confuse guided enemy missiles) is all already real and applicable...a battleship decked out with this and other gear (as might be used to blind enemy targeting optics or baffle enemy radar searches) would have a good chance of surviving the toughest of naval battles with only minimal damage.

- Better Passive Defenses: Composite (spaced/mixed plate) armoring as has been seen on MBTs, superdense materials (such as DU and tungsten), and advanced armoring designs mean greater survivabliity for tanks but it could also translate to lighter but better protected battleships. While it was figured that a 16in round would penetrate almost any modern armor during WWII, they lacked advanced composite and synthetic materials that are now abundantly used in military manufacturing.

If a trimaran design were used, many benefits might be appreciated. For one, an additional thick layer of ship (and theoretically about as much armoring) would be placed between any anti-ship missile and the vital systems of the ship as the outriggers could span a major part of the length of the ship. Corollary benefits would include increased storage space in the spans for equipment and/or increased deck area for other, possibly larger deck-mounted guns or rocket artillery systems (see below).

- Modern C&C Abilities: Old Battleships and surface ships were severely limited because if they wanted to get a view of the battlescene then their commanders had to be present in the dangerous superstructure of the ship, which was not well armored in comparison to the rest of the vessel and could be struck by enemy rounds easily (even more easily with modern targeting and ballistics technology). With modern telepresence technology, the command center of the ship could be placed deep within it's well-armored hull to provide the maximum safety for the brains and heart of the vessel.

- Modern Computer Systems: fiberoptic, redundant communication relays; superpowerful computers; advanced range-finding and targeting lasers; and any number of other modern systems could both clear out space demands of the old style ships (saving space and possibly allowing for either increased ammunition and fuel capacities or additional weapons systems or even simply a smaller vessel) and allow for improved capabilities. There is little reason that these haven't been included on other modern vessels aside from laziness and an abandonment of gun-based naval power.

- Innovative offensive weapons systems: 6", 155mm, or 8" naval guns could easily be moved in as the main guns of modern cruisers...even paired batteries of these guns. Batteries of these guns could be used as secondary weapons for the BBs and are still very useful in assaulting medium and small bombardment targets where a 16" shell might be wasted. Navalized M270-style MLRSes (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/mlrs/MLRS.html) (2 sets of 6, 227mm rockets in two pods) are a distinct possibility and while current designs do not allow for as rapid of a reloading as commanders might like, the powerful weapons are ideal for use in the first few moments of assaulting enemy forces or for use against a wide spread of enemy infantry and armored units over an area that 16" guns might touch, but not necessarily clear of enemy forces. With the ability to fire off 12 missiles from a single MLRS battery within a few moments, it makes an ideal shock weapon for wider areas. Already utilizing an established rotating mount system and simple fire-control system, the MLRS is destined to be at least a possibility on ships. Guided versions (trajectory correction-based) have already been developed by Israel and a guided US version has been worked on.

The Israelis have already begun work to include the NAVLAR (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/artillery/navlar/NAVLAR.html) rocket system onto smaller combat vessels. The NAVLAR is based on the indigenous LAR-160 system (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/artillery/lar/LAR.html) (which uses 2 sets of 13(or 18)-rocket pods to the MLRS' 2 sets of 6-rocket pods, although these are much smaller 160mm diameter rockets. Other israeli rocket artillery designs grow to even larger sizes, with one concept (the MAR-350 (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/mar-350/MAR-350.html)) being of a four-tube, 300-350mm rocket launch system with a range of between 75 and 90km, allow for even wilder possibilities.

More conventional ship-launched missiles are also a possibility, but would ideally be adopted only insofar as it did not remove from the gun-based power of the ship.

---------------------------

Other concepts include the idea of a navalized MTHEL (Mobile, Tactical High Energy Laser) (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/systems/THEL.html) system. I first introduced this as Western Asia almost just as I began NS back in March but the idea has since spread rapidly. Powerful and effective, a MTHEL system might be included on a Battleship (or perhaps a specialized battleship within a group of 2-3 battleships) that could provide defenses against enemy fire of almost any sort. It has even been proposed to me on NS that it might be used to attack enemy aircraft by causing their bomb loads to 'cook off' while still attached to the enemy aircraft's wing...but the range is still a question.

----------------------------------------

I've worked out one design which lacks quite the numbers of 16in guns that the Iowa class has but it bears many other systems and is a good dedicated shore bombardment unit while still light and small and cheap enough to deploy many of them. I've also used a medium-level cruiser or battlecruiser that is basically a conventional cruiser that has abandoned much of its normal missile-based armament for guns and some of the above systems.

I think this covers much of what I'd like to add to the subject.

EDIT (added links):
More on this and related subjects (by no means an exhaustive list, I have over 900 links, most related to weapons systems on my IE that I don’t have indexed yet):
Keeping The "Gunfire" In Naval Gunfire Support (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1991/KMC.htm)
Mk 71 8in Naval Guns (http://www.g2mil.com/8inchguns.htm)
Trimaran Warships (http://www.g2mil.com/trimaran.htm)
21st Century Battleships (http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm)
Ship Counter-Battery Radar (http://www.g2mil.com/aegiscounterbat.htm)
Ship Systems (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/index.html)
21st Century Surface Combatants (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/sc-21.htm)
Multi-Mission Surface Combatant (http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/ddx/)
Transforming the Navy’s Surface Combatant Force (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/cbo/tnscf_may03.htm)

Many of the advanced concepts I’ve described above (on the tech and self-defense side) are included in the Israelis’ Sa’ar 5 Corvette (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/saar5/Saar5.html). Some of the "soft kill" self-defense systems are described in the details of the Sa’ar 4.5 Missile Boat (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/saar45/Saar45.html). Both of these ships are much cheaper than their American equivalents for their abilities (although produced in private American shipyards) and the Sa’ar 5 pretty clearly includes many Radar Cross Section (RCS)-reducing features although this much is never exactly stated.

I haven’t really covered the concept of a stealthy superstructure and many of my topics above are without associated hotlinks so I’ve tried to provide some of these data sources in the links of this update. I don’t have the time/energy to cover stealthy superstructures but the advantage of a relatively low-slung superstructure should be clear…sorry.

Here's an interesting discussion on armour for you battleship bods (http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm)

Also on the immune zone (http://www.warships1.com/index_tech/tech-069.htm)

Hm....I was under the impression that the immune zone was a somewhat flawed concept.

It's also worthy to note that nuke reactors are much more high-mantinence and personell-intensive than good ol' fashioned boilers/turbines. They also have much lower steam pressures in their turbines.

Myself, I belive in large ship-killing missiles. Granted, this is beacuse I want the Kilean navy to explore alternatives to the aircraft carrier and attack sub as dominant sea weapons, but I still think that a lot of the soviet ideas for carrier-killers were good ideas. I also think that battleships- if majorly upgraded- can serve in roles beyond shore support (and not upgraded like that idea they had to make the Iowa's into bastardized aircraft carriers).

Are battleships cost-effective as surface combatants? No. But one of the thing's I'm RP'ing with Kilean is that, back in the 30's and 40's we had a decent ship-building capacity, with about an Italy-sized navy. Since then, Kilean has lost the ability to build big ships, so the old battleships are the largest hulls we have on hand to refit.

I only want to re-fit one, and I was wondering what sort of battleship it should be......

Well, the popularity is understandable, seeing the almost gaspable ignorance of basic combat realities in NS RPers.

They are popular because everyone thinks they are powerful and invulnerable, but the simple truth is they just make nice big targets for stand off missiles and submarines.

I love it when people send hundredfs of battleships against you.

W00 I HAVE 587935 BATLESHPS HEDDIN 4 U!

Bring em on....a couple of torpedos, a few missiles fro mover the horizon...I mean, Pearl Harbor showed that Battleships were outmodded even back then, and unless you are launching an amphibious assault...then there is no real reason to maintain them.

Also the sinking of the Repulse and Prince of Wales while under steam off the coast of Malaya...

BBs can only work with a high level of air cover and are incredibly expensive (at least the cost of a carrier, especially considering the costs of R&Ding armour that can be thinner, lighter, and protect better than anything). While certainly effective for surface bombardment, they are a labour and capital intensive target, especially for a modern submarine (an under-keel explosion can do a fair bit of damage).

Well, the popularity is understandable, seeing the almost gaspable ignorance of basic combat realities in NS RPers.

They are popular because everyone thinks they are powerful and invulnerable, but the simple truth is they just make nice big targets for stand off missiles and submarines.

I love it when people send hundredfs of battleships against you.

W00 I HAVE 587935 BATLESHPS HEDDIN 4 U!
[b]
Bring em on....a couple of torpedos, a few missiles fro mover the horizon...I mean, Pearl Harbor showed that Battleships were outmodded even back then, and unless you are launching an amphibious assault...then there is no real reason to maintain them.

Ah, here we have some significant problems:
A) a conventional Long range missles capable of taking out a 'battleship' is going to have to be large to carry enough explosive matter that it is going to have to be a big mother to have the speed, control and manuvarablity to avoid decent anti-missle systems.
Therefore you are:
1-either going to need to have a small number of large ships to carry a decent amount...(hey we're back in battleship range)
2- have an massive number of smaller ships carrying only a few (with increased crew requirements)
3- Kill battleships with massive waves of stand off anit-shipping missles capable of just overwelming the anti-missle defenses of a 'modern' battleship...
I should point out that all of these ideas have severe possible flaws in them but if you fire a conventional anti-ship missle at me and assume your going to kill off one of my fast battleships with one hit...you are sadly mistaken (The above comments assumes a batteship with modern weapons systems and development, not just a WWII battlewagon sitting around)

B - Now for the 'things that they never told you on PBS' about our freinds the battleships at Pearl Harbor.
one- They were outdated. All of the battleships were 'casement' types developed prior to the washington treaty. They had little anti-air and poor torpedo protection. The newest battleship present at Pearl was 18 years old and was built following a platform designed in 1918. If we think about the diffrence in aircraft between WWI and WWII is it surprising that all of the battleships developed to deal with threat in WWI were wholly inadequate by WWII? I should note that the United States and other nations had developed newer battleships before 1941. However, the U.S. had gotten to commisioning the first of the somewhat slow and pathetic North Carolina class (which had much better anti-air at least) in April (I doubt she had even taken her shakedown cruise by December and then was likely still in the Atlantic. I should also point out that the said patetic North Carolina was hit by two torpedos in 1943. Today she is museum ship happliy berthed in North Carolina. :( Aw, I guess the torpedo's didn't kill her.

End statement: If you think batteships have no place on NS fine don't build them. But realize that a single missle (unless your throwing tactical nukes around like some wankish noob) is NOT going to kill one of my batteships. And remember, A battleship can carry more weapons systems of any type than a smaller class. So having 18 5 inch guns secondary may not be the brightest idea. But then who said Battleship development had to stop at the Iowa's (who really show the american beleif in escort fast battleships)

Well the cost of a Modern Battleship would be between 1 to 2 billion(about half the cost of an Aircraft Carrier) basically 1 billion if you want it to be run conventionaly 2 billion with a nuclear reaction. Close to the cost of a small Carrier like the British carriers

Also Pearl Harbor is a bad example because the fleet was caught off guard, in a confined area with most of the ships at anchor. Most of crews were either sleeping or on leave. They weren't at war and weren't expecting an attack.
If the fleet had be on alert there would of been a very different outcome to the battle.
Also note that the fleet was arranged in a pattern to protect it from sabotage but that pattern made it very easy for bomb and torpedo runs on the ships. They were lined up one after the other, which also made manuerving for them difficult if they managed to get underway.

Well, the popularity is understandable, seeing the almost gaspable ignorance of basic combat realities in NS RPers.

They are popular because everyone thinks they are powerful and invulnerable, but the simple truth is they just make nice big targets for stand off missiles and submarines.

I love it when people send hundredfs of battleships against you.

W00 I HAVE 587935 BATLESHPS HEDDIN 4 U!

Bring em on....a couple of torpedos, a few missiles fro mover the horizon...I mean, Pearl Harbor showed that Battleships were outmodded even back then, and unless you are launching an amphibious assault...then there is no real reason to maintain them.

The real problem is not in the battleships. Modern submarines are much more vulnerable to any number of weapons systems. Modern submarines can either be close in to a battleship to give the torpedos a short transit time (but at which ranges it will be spotted and attacked by helicopters, the ship's own SUBROC missiles, or any number of other systems before it can appropriately target (as many need to confirm ship locations by approaching the surface)) or they can be far off at stand-off ranges where they will still be in SUBROC ranges and at risk of helicopters but might get off a few shots without being noticed...in which case the torps will be slow enough to be attacked by anti-torp systems.

The thing to remember is that your BB will never be sitting alone in the middle of an ocean...just like you wouldn't leave an aircraft carrier alone. There will be at least one escort ship for air defense and another for submarine warfare. Also, in the advanced BB I described, none of the weaknesses that you speak of really exist anymore.

As it is, the BB would be a huge target...but only if you can lock onto it and keep your missile safe. As I pointed out, the large soviet missiles (the largest of which would still require 3-4 spot-on strikes unless a nuclear warhead is being used...and which require the launching unit to be well within missile ranges of the BB and any escourts...) are actually proven to not work nearly as well as claimed, since several tests failed miserably with only a fraction of the missiles approaching the undefended target without missing or hitting the water.

Your analysis is equivalent to saying that aircraft carriers are not viable combatants because of the risks faced by submarines and missile boats...both are viable risks if you think of a carrier as a lone object but quickly fall apart the moment you consider a combined arms concept of operations.

In response to The Balding Shrimps:

Indeed, in the periods of aircraft carriers, battleship's role of being "the head of the fleet" may have faded away. But does that mean they are a waste and are obsolete in all areas? Sure, they are expensive (billions of dollars per ship -- much like an aircraft carrier without its airwing complement), and while I truly disagree on they are an alternative to aircraft carrier or that they can't besank, I also truly disagree with battleship being too easy to destroy by modern technology.

Aside from explaining my views on battleship's roles, ehre's some overview.

1.) Missile.
I can come up with a few with warheads that can be a threat to battleships: SS-N-19, SS-N-12, AS-4, and maybe even the Tomahawk. Long range? Yes. Sea skimming? Some do. Low observable (aka stealthy)? Not exactly. Manuverable and have the capability to perform evasive manuvers? Not in my knowledge, although you could add them on.
So from this, it means that to kill a battleship, you'll need a whole wave of heavy anti-ship missiles with hugearse warheads, before these heavily modern battleships can kill you (of course, with its counterparts of these heavy missiles). If you shoot those Harpoons, etc., then although their case can penetrate well, they just couldn't set off explosions and damages to actually cripple the battleship (if you are shooting hundreds however, that may as well succeed, but keep in mind that a. you are just wasting money b. you'll be having an empty arsenal when the enemy attacks you).
Shooting down missiles? Of course, battleships do have point defence, along with other escorts' long-range air defences. If the battleship is installed with some form of an Aegis system, even better. But I won't get too far into that
Avoiding those large missiles by other means (since their seekers aren't that good)? Certainly! Chaffs and jammers, they could work well against old missiles (a live case could be said as the battle between an Iranian missile corvette and 3 USN warships in Operation Praying Mentis [late 1980s]: the corvette fires a modern RGM-84A Harpoon [given by the US in the friendly periods] at the USN ships, and with point defence not functioning, ECM eventually shrugged off the missile although the missile just missed the target by 40 or so feet.)
If you get close ranges, I wouldn't want to think what those 16 inch or 18 inch AP shells can do to some inches of steel "armor" on a standard Aegis-equipped Ticonderoga class Carrier.
If you are attacking by air however, if an aircaft carrier isn't present, SAMs'll finish the job.
If you are attacking by SSGNS carrying missiles, aside from the "point defence" capabilities of the battleships (which won't work against SSGNs a bit), see below.
And of course, let's not mention that, late 1980s tests showed only 1 Soviet AS-4 actually hit its target out of the tens fired, and that the Backfire bombers still needed to go just tens of kms close to the battleship to get a proper targetting (which means the aircraft would be shot down by the escorts of an Iowa).

2.) Torpedoes.

Torpedoes, especially those Mk.48s with huge warheads that can set off huge explosions, are of course big threats. They are the one that could actually have chances in penetrating the armor and torpedo belt and likes. A great killer may be a quiet Akula/Los Angeles or even Seawolfs sneaking in, fire a few torpedoes w/o wire guidance, and leave. Indeed, that's very dangerous, but ASW defences can stop them:
a) Battleship's onboard defence. Could be mainly ASROC rockets carrying their own Mk.46s (although guarenteed, Mk.46s won't do much to big submarines such as SSGNs, but they aren't going to be attack subs anyways) shooting at probable locations, and may bring some luck. Could be ASW helicopters. Could be even some ASW rocket/torpedo systems onboard if possible. Aside from that, there's also the towed decoys and the likes (which should be counted as countermeasures, like chaffs and jammers onboard).
b) Escorts. Could be ASW ships, or just sub hunters (which in the case, submarines themselves).
Another thing to note is that, while the torpedoes' explosives can be pretty high quality, they don't have the "fuel effect" missile has -- that is, high-flammable (and in many times hard-to-extinguish) fuel from missiles.

I would just like to point out to the discussion group here that Pearl harbor is the exact reason why we used carriers so much during the war in the Pacific. Had the Japanese not eliminated just about all our battleships, the American admiralty would have stuck with the same old standard battelship tactics of the old. That attack forced the US Navy to change its ways.

If you would also notice, the Japanese realized the importance of aircraft carriers early on, and thus had built some instead of only battleships/cruisers. They had expected American aircraft carriers to be at Pearl harbor, but didn't get them (along with several key fuel depots and other infrastructure).

another point of consideration is cost. since a modern battleship costs half the price of a modern air carrier, before aircraft. once you factor in aircraft you can get three or four, maybe more, battleships. the support craft will remain roughly the same. and you get the ability to send heavier and fire fore longer then you could with a naval air group.

tag

We are not much fans of big battleships, perferring missile cruisers and destroyers, like Kirovs and Sovremmenys, with limited gun capability. However, the LRRN has added two 140mm cannons to each of the Kirovs in our service.

But still, they are used solely as ship-to-ship warfare vessels, as is most of the LRR surface fleet. However, we do operate a number of small gun cruisers, which are remote controlled artillery ships, like the monitor in shape. Each carries 2 160mm cannons and 4 mortars, and is capable of operation in down to 15 feet of water. They solve the fire support problem, and where they can't go, we use modified river boats, more commonly CB-90 assault boats armed with AMOS mortar systems and rocket artillery.

LRR doesn't really need battleships because we would never close in with an enemy fleet. LRR fleet strategy has always been centered around the long-range missile strike, using guns against other missiles, and against other ships only if need be. As well as this, when in battle, the LRR fleet in its entirety usually never drops much below 27 knots. A battleship would slow down this group, and would also be far too much of a strain on the shipyards. And also, one of the main elements in the LRR surface fleet is Tarantul and Nanuchka missile boats (the more numerous hydrofoils, catamarans, and WIGs are left to coast defense) which would be very difficult for a battleship to hit. They would be near-impervious to a battleship, even.

All this talk makes me not wanna eliminate my surface navy. Even though I do have big spaceships that can eliminate vast chunks of the Earth if they tried. It's just harder to 'design' seagoing vessels, since they can't be simple cylinders with no streamlining, and the calculations and such are a lot harder. On the other hand, I don't wanna be limited to modern tech sea navies, since at this point I'm definitely not a modern tech nation.

So let's say you fast forward... lets say MTHELs are a thing of the past (or at least much more efficient lasers)... and that fusion power is viable, and that zero gravity manufacturing is possible, leading to all sorts of newer, lighter, stronger and more useful materials. Sensors and such are also more advanced. What then?

another point of consideration is cost. since a modern battleship costs half the price of a modern air carrier, before aircraft. once you factor in aircraft you can get three or four, maybe more, battleships. the support craft will remain roughly the same. and you get the ability to send heavier and fire fore longer then you could with a naval air group.

Which is the exact theory behind my battleship fleet. Affordable, sustainable firepower where and when you need it.

another point of consideration is cost. since a modern battleship costs half the price of a modern air carrier, before aircraft. once you factor in aircraft you can get three or four, maybe more, battleships. the support craft will remain roughly the same. and you get the ability to send heavier and fire fore longer then you could with a naval air group.
As much as I agree with battleship being useful, I still have to disagree with that. A battleship cannot replace an aircraft carrier. Why? There's some key reasons.

1) Airpower. Battleships can't carry airpower, aircraft carrier can. Even with the cost, airpower is always very important, just as with ground troops and seapower. Aircraft carrier can be considered as a highly mobile airbase, carrying various aircraft that can strike the enemy's coast at the moment's notice. Even the battleship's guns just can't match the power of an organized group of air strike package in most cases (well, aside from providing fire support in cases of amphibious landings and tht likes). Yes, battleships do have very useful airpower, but nothing can replace the value of airpower.
2) Mobility of aircraft.
Again, think the aircraft carrier as a floating airbase. Can battleships carry 80 aircraft much faster than the process of preparing a fleet of F-16s, send them to an intercontinental range, refuel them times and times, and try to land them in a foreign base (which do require permission, or if the airbase if yorus, negotations beforehand).
3) Flexibility and Range of strike.
Also as said before, nothing could replace the flexibility of aircraft. Think the air wing on a carrier as a package of possibilities. I could call on interceptors and fighters (such as F-14s) to intercept any bombers/fighter-bombers, as they have the speed and range, plus the missiles, to shoot down the bombers before they can launch their missiles outside of the SAM engagement ranges. Can battleships do that? Not exactly, even with an Aegis system. I could also call on them to intercept enemy combat air patrols, or formations that "threatens" the fleet outside the Aegis's engagement range. I could call on strike aircraft (such as the A-6E or the F/A-18C) to conduct deep strike (which can extend to hundreds of kms inside the enemy territory with enough fuel) with percision munitions, to conduct CAS in conjunction with Marine attackers, or even anti-ship and suppression of air defence operations (they are pretty flexible). Can battleships do that? Maybe with some ultra-expensive tomahawks or guns, but not exactly if you want percision or close-in attack of moving enemy convoys. I could also call on sea control/ASW aircraft to patrol the sea for submarines and the likes hundreds of KMs away (the SH-60s simply couldn't do that), or electric warfare aircraft (EA-6Bs mainly) to provide an EW cover for strike packages and powerful way of suppression of air defence. Can battleships do that? Not exactly, no.

But however, that doesn't mean that the aircraft carrier can replace every aspect of the battleship either, especially how much munition a battleship deliver. Nor does that mean the battleship is any less capable. They just have their pros and cons.

A battleship would slow down this group, and would also be far too much of a strain on the shipyards.

In some cases, fi you want a "lightening" speeded force. But that wouldn't be too much strain. You couldn't move a group of LHAs and other amphibious vessels that fast, neither.

EDIT:

And also, one of the main elements in the LRR surface fleet is Tarantul and Nanuchka missile boats (the more numerous hydrofoils, catamarans, and WIGs are left to coast defense)...
Actually, the Tarantul and Nanuchka are all designed for coastal patrol duties, just as any other fast attack missile craft/corvette/light frigates. It simply doesn't have the range (I doubt it could store the supplies for an intercontinental mission -- and I don't know how resupply would work without helicopters and the likes), firepower (remember, just a few missiles, even though new Tarantuls are armed with the short-ranged Sunburns aka "AEGIS killer"), and protection (a. few point defence and effective SAM systems b. blow it one or a few times, and it is gone c. the Tarantul and Nanuchka simply does not have stealthy characteristics to allow it get in close ranges to fire its missiles). However, they do have the speed and manuveribility for close-to-shore operations.

which would be very difficult for a battleship to hit. They would be near-impervious to a battleship, even.

How, just because they are small visually somehow, and are slightly faster? They will still show up on a battleship's radars, assuming the battleship has modern engagement systems. And before those little corvettes could open fire with their missiles within a close range (or at least, having them to travel in a sea skimmering flight profile), there would be several Harpoons and the likes already headign towards it. If it gets close and go suicidal, those >100mm guns and even bushmasters could wipe them out. (Suprisingly, the Iranian corvette during a confrontation with 3 USN warships [which I mentioned earlier], did float [although crippled] even with a surface-attack-profile Standard SAM plowing into it, before being finished off with the guns -- it fired a Harpoon, but that was jammed. Same with some Libyan Nanuchkas -- they simply was crippled badly when 2 early air-launched Harpoons, fired by A-6s, impacted on it. Another one in the same incident sank after another 2 ship-launched Harpoon impacted it, and a final Combattante corvette also sank when A-6s fired Harpoon missiles onto it. They are not unsinkable.)

I would just like to point out to the discussion group here that Pearl harbor is the exact reason why we used carriers so much during the war in the Pacific. Had the Japanese not eliminated just about all our battleships, the American admiralty would have stuck with the same old standard battelship tactics of the old. That attack forced the US Navy to change its ways.

If you would also notice, the Japanese realized the importance of aircraft carriers early on, and thus had built some instead of only battleships/cruisers. They had expected American aircraft carriers to be at Pearl harbor, but didn't get them (along with several key fuel depots and other infrastructure).

Your analysis of Pearl Harbor is somewhat flawed, Pearl Harbor is not the sole reason the USN switched to CV's instead of BB's, a lot of people were realizing this fact, just by watching the battle for the Med (Does the word Taranto ring a bell?). Pearl Harbor only doomed the Philippines becuase the US Navy was not willing to risk any more ships, as their plans called for to defend Manila. Believe it or not, by the time of Pearl Harbor the US was much closer to realizing the CV's potential then Japan.

Japan most certainly did not realize the capacity of CV's before the US, even after their smashing victory at Pearl Harbor, they still maintained the belief that the Battleship was still queen of the seas (Look at their battles, Leyte Gulf comes to mind). The Main Force at Midway was not the carrier force, it was the force that contained the Battleship Yamato, in fact the Japanese continued building battleships, even though their industry would've been much better put to use building Carriers. The Japanese never even had an actual carrier design, all were conversions from heavy cruisers and battleships, not until late in the war did a real CV come out, and only about two I believe. Alternatively, the US was developing the Essex at the time of Pearl Harbor, arguably the best carrier of the war.

The Japanese were not aiming for the US Carriers at Pearl Harbor, they were aiming at the US Battlefleet (BB's), never were they intending on taking out the CV's while damaging the rest of the fleet, it was the other way around. None of the major targets were Aircraft Carriers, and no one was completely disappointed that the carriers weren't there until long after the war. And they didn't just accidentally miss the oil reserves for the Pacific Fleet, they never intended on hitting them, which at the time was larger then Japan's enitre oil reserve. They also never gave thought to hitting the drydock facilities, which allowed the US to raise and repair almost every ship hit (Except for 3 bb's, 1 is still there, the Arizona, the other two became target practice I believe). The Japanese were horrible at Carrier Warfare, not until after the war did they realize the carrier's importance, far too late to matter.

which would be very difficult for a battleship to hit. They would be near-impervious to a battleship, even.

How, just because they are small visually somehow, and are slightly faster? They will still show up on a battleship's radars, assuming the battleship has modern engagement systems. And before those little corvettes could open fire with their missiles within a close range (or at least, having them to travel in a sea skimmering flight profile), there would be several Harpoons and the likes already headign towards it. If it gets close and go suicidal, those >100mm guns and even bushmasters could wipe them out. (Suprisingly, the Iranian corvette during a confrontation with 3 USN warships [which I mentioned earlier], did float [although crippled] even with a surface-attack-profile Standard SAM plowing into it, before being finished off with the guns -- it fired a Harpoon, but that was jammed. Same with some Libyan Nanuchkas -- they simply was crippled badly when 2 early air-launched Harpoons, fired by A-6s, impacted on it. Another one in the same incident sank after another 2 ship-launched Harpoon impacted it, and a final Combattante corvette also sank when A-6s fired Harpoon missiles onto it. They are not unsinkable.)

Actually, I believe that there have only been a handful of cases where Missile Boats and Corvettes did anything but kill other missile boats and light warships. The first boat killed by missiles was an Israeli (ex-US WWII era) frigate that was unsupported by other vessels or aircraft while on a patrol near the Egyptian coast. It took something like 6 missile boats close to 14 hours to sink the ship, which was only hit in the first place because the captain screwed up and trapped his own ship in an inlet area. A large number of Styx missiles were used but almost all (if not all) of the Israeli crew survived and were rescued. The issue there seems to have been a lack of missiles or even significant gunpower and an incompetent captain (and an unsupported ship). Most other kills of ships by missile boats have been against other missile boats (the Israeli navy has routinely sunk several Egyptian missile boats in both the 1967 and 1973 wars) and I believe that was one of the only naval losses Israel ever suffered.


As it is, Missile boats are still easy prey to larger vessels as even a single AS missile might sink a MB while several are taken to sink most larger vessels. Also, modern software that allows Merkava Mk. 3Baz tanks to track and anticipate the position of helicopters enough to take them out with standard 120mm tank shells is easily applicable to larger ship-based guns, which could simply track and engage the small boats if they got too close. Missile boats are mainly a cheap and low-manpower demand defensive unit that can guard against other small vessels and at least scare larger vessels once in a while (Tonkin Gulf, on the 2nd...not the imagined attack on the 4th).

The primary reason for the decline of Battleships in RL was the perfection of long range aircraft capable of carrying heavy bombloads flying from carriers . In other words, weapons technology rendered the BBs less cost-effective than carriers (even though aircraft carriers cost a lot more to operate, you get a lot more BOOM for your buck with a carrier).

IMO, the technological advances of the decades since Pearl Harbor could make the BB a more cost-effective weapons platform. I refer specifically to the aegis phased-array radar system and radar-guided anti-aircraft missiles.

If the US Navy can build a "cruiser" on a destroyer hull and load it with a hundred missiles, why not take a much larger hull, put the same number of missiles, several batteries of cruise missiles, some really big honking guns, a whole bunch of little guns for close-in air defense, and tonnes of armor? The resulting behemoth would be deadly for long-range or close quarters combat, be adequately defended against missiles and aircraft, and would be admirably suited to the role of shore support bombardment. Furthermore, a heavily-armored vessel would be a lot less vulnerable to potential shore guns and missiles- making the BBs a good choice for forcing a passage through restricted waterways.

In RL, the US Navy is controlled to a large extent by Admirals who spent their whole careers learning that aircraft carriers are the premier platform for force projection. Almost all of these men have been tught that BBs are too expensive, too slow, and too vulnerable to be useful. Besides, slugging it out with guns doesn't let the pilots wear cool sunglasses and white scarves.

The Dominion has one BB for every carrier. All EOE warships down to Destroyers mount at least one main-gun turret, carry at least 100 missiles, and every single hull uses the EOE version of the Aegis raradr and control system. BB's are used for air defense, coastal bombardment, and anti-surface combat- as are all of the other platforms except Corvettes.

The Dominion has the money and the will to expend the time and effort to build the best. But the Evil Overlord doesn't have to deal with the US Congress.


My brace of small copper coins

TEO

Evil Overlord raises an interesting point-

Could battleships be adapted to what they did in ww2? that is, huge amounts of fleet air defense?

the short answer is yes.

the longer answer is, they would only be good as a stop gap measure until a dedicated ship design could be built. it would be similar to the situation with air carriers. they didn't come into their own until a carrier was built from the hull up.

the short answer is yes.

the longer answer is, they would only be good as a stop gap measure until a dedicated ship design could be built. it would be similar to the situation with air carriers. they didn't come into their own until a carrier was built from the hull up.

This is what many nations (mine among 'em) have actually done. The premier anti-aircraft platform in RL is generally considered to be the Ticonderoga-class "cruisers" with the Aegis phased-array radar and control system. These ships are built using the hulls of the old Spruance-class destroyers. Building new battleships would be expensive, but technologically feasible.

The choice of whether or not to actually do it is a political question. A BB built the way my nation builds 'em would cost almost as much as a carrier and would require a crew one-third the size of a carrier crew (exclusive of the air detachment). The US Congress is unwilling to pony up the money for these behemoths when the top navy brass (who are completely indoctrinated with the carrier-navy propaganda) are unwilling to push the project.

Make the BB's nuclear-powered. Give them Aegis-equivalent radar and control systems. Mount anti-air and anti-shurface missiles by the score. Put a full-size helo deck on board. Set several dozen Phalanx CIWS air-defense guns all over it. Layer steel, ceramics, and kevlar armor all over the hull. This is a weapons paltform from hell.


TEO

the short answer is yes.

the longer answer is, they would only be good as a stop gap measure until a dedicated ship design could be built. it would be similar to the situation with air carriers. they didn't come into their own until a carrier was built from the hull up.

Make the BB's nuclear-powered. Give them Aegis-equivalent radar and control systems. Mount anti-air and anti-shurface missiles by the score. Put a full-size helo deck on board. Set several dozen Phalanx CIWS air-defense guns all over it. Layer steel, ceramics, and kevlar armor all over the hull. This is a weapons paltform from hell.


TEO

Does this model also include the large guns? If not, then its a new crusier, not really a BB.

Does this model also include the large guns? If not, then its a new crusier, not really a BB.

The Elite-class battleships mount six 330mm cannon in three double barbettes (2 FWD, 1 AFT).


TEO

Just, may I add, RL navies don't have the budget to make 100's of combat vessels, so everyone has to count. This plays a role in the choice not to build battleships.
Carriers, Cruisers, Destroyers, and Frigates are all multi-capable and cheaper, with the possible exception of the Carrier. With a battleship you could have built two Frigates possibly more. Also, all they bring to the table are big guns, Heavy cruisers can hold as many missles, and Aegis or Halifax class Frigates have all the electronics you'll need.
Battleships do work here though, why not? Budgets are much bigger, combat ranges much closer, and people willing to slug it out Big gun to Big gun.

The Foundations of Iansislean Naval Strategy in the Mid-1940s

As many (some? any?) of you might know, Iansisle’s recently emerged from a long (August-Febuary) period of world war against Nazi Germany (played by Der Kriegsmarine), Ercolana (an Italianish country in the azores, with colonies on the cape and in the Sind and Punjab), Italy, and Chiang Maï (an industrialized Siam). On our side were Walmington on Sea, Calarca, Britain, and their empires. The United States, Japan, and the Soviet Union remained neutral. Ercolana collapsed, Mussolini was assassinated, and Germany was beaten everywhere except mainland Europe.

Many of you (I love kidding myself) may also know that Iansisle has recently embarked on a major post-war build up (after all, we find ourselves caught between a relatively un-scratched United States and a Japan consolidating her hold on mainland China) which, perhaps surprisingly, emphasizes battleship development rather than aircraft carriers or submarines.

In the following summary, I hope to explain how, at least in crazy mixed up alternate universes before the development of the anti-shipping missile, the battleship can still be considered the Queen of the Seas. Yes, it’s a terribly self-serving post, but I had fun thinking about it and typing it out.

---

What Iansisle learned from the Second World War:

1) Most major naval battles are fought at relatively close range -- This idea resulted from the fact, because of Iansisle refusal to discontinue the sale of petroleum and coal to Japan, that most engagements took place in confined areas: the North Sea, the English Channel, the South China Sea, the Bay of Bengal, the Denmark Strait, the Norwegian Sea, and the Barents Sea, usually in heavy weather. Air reconnaissance was very limited and radio ranging was ineffective or else held to extremely short ranges.

2) Air-dropped torpedoes are an unreliable weapon -- There was no Pearl Harbor or Hunt for the Bismarck in our reality, even though all engaged powers used primarily torpedo bombers. Taranto provided some vindication for the weapon, but the failure of the torpedo bomber to hit any ship that was underway kept it as a back-up, last ditch resort. High level bombing also failed to score on a ship maneuvering at sea. Late in the war, Iansisle introduced a carrier-born dive bomber, but it failed to prove itself in action before the cease-fire.

3) Speed is not necessarily a substitute for armor -- The mauling the battlecruiser Queen Jessica took at the hands of a German commerce raider less than half her size because of her poorly designed and much too thin armor belt has called the entire notion of a ‘battlecruiser’ into question. As cruiser screens proved much less important than in the previous war and the ‘fast battleship,’ a compromise between the two concepts, became more and more prevalent, the current argument is weighted in favor of discarding the battlecruiser.

4) The u-boat, though dangerous, can be countered with relative ease -- Though the u-boats had much success in the early years of the war, while Allied anti-submarine tactics were still being written, it can soon be nullified. This conclusion was reached due to the prodigious Calarcan production of A/S corvettes and Iansislean production of A/S sloops, and the effectiveness of these weapons in finding and destroying even submerged u-boats, as well as Germany’s decision to neglect its u-boat production in favor of completing more capital ships. Given the attrition rate in the uboatwaffe, Iansislean sloop crews developed the motto “two stones for every bird” (meaning that they’d sink two u-boats for every merchantmen claimed. Granted, the kill ratio was nowhere near that good, but a little jingoism never hurt anyone).

5) Superior numbers beats superior quality -- There were several instances in the war, most often in the Mediterranean, but also in the Gallagan and Pacific where a much larger, stronger ship lost to three or four smaller vessels. The loss of the battleship Undauntable to a squadron of Chiangese armored cruisers provided the best example.

6) Plunging shell fire is much more dangerous that short range shots -- About the only lesson we shared with the real world. ;)

And its impact upon post-war Iansislean naval strategy:

1) We need more hulls -- Only in the later years of the war did the Royal Iansislean Navy break one hundred major ships (not counting sloops, frigates, torpedo boats, or support craft). The Admiralty found itself unable to defend and patrol the home waters and the colonies adequately at the same time as lending support to the allied cause and assistance to the East Gallaga Company. The result: a new expansion program concentrating on lighter designs. The 46,000 ton Behemoth class battleship gave way to the 40,000 ton Crown class; the 13,000 ton Shield class heavy cruiser to the 10,000 ton Duke of Dorchet class heavy and the 8,000 ton Elemental class light cruiser; the 29,000 ton Salvador class fleet MAFD to the 21,000 ton Pantheon class light MAFD; and the 2,800 ton Tiger class destroyer to the 1,700 ton Alpha class.

2) Primary emphasis should be on capital ships -- While the Admiralty did order 12 MAFDs of the Pantheon class, most of the effort is going towards completing eight new capital ships (four of the Crown class, four yet to be announced, though suspected to be of a new design) in ten years. After all, in our universe, the carrier is at best of a secondary support role to the battleship.

3) Submarines are still pretty useless in a real navy -- The Iansislean Admiralty is of the opinion that they are the last resort of a cowardly and desperate people who simply can’t compete with the grandeur and might of the R.I.N. After all, if Jerry could stand up and slug it out on the surface, he wouldn’t need to go sulking about in the depths, would he?

----

As you can see, there’s going to be a severe culture shock when Iansisle enters the guided missile age. And please note that I’m not saying these are necessarily the best guidelines for a navy (far from it, in fact!). I’m just pointing out why, given both our cultural mindset and alternate WWII experience, the battleship is still our queen of the sea. I suppose it really was a rather self-serving post in that manner, but that’s all right. I hope it’s as much fun for y’all to read as it was for me to write.



((And, no, I’m not in favor of a large battleship fleet in the (somewhat forlorn) hope that someday I might be able to form up a line of battle and slug it out with a similarly composed squadron in a fit of mad romanticism. Of course not! ;)))

*tag for later reading*

*tag for later reading*

Also, all they bring to the table are big gunsThey also have heavy armor.
As you can see, there?s going to be a severe culture shock when Iansisle enters the guided missile age.I think the first guided missiles were actually made during World War II.

I think the first guided missiles were actually made during World War II. (But stay ignorant of the IC! Anti-ship missiles were my secret weapon back then.)

(Quite correct, actually. The Germans used TV controled bombs against warships on several occasions, most notably against the surrendering Italian battleships Italia and Roma - in fact, I think the Roma was even sunk.

However, I was actually referring to the days of the radar-guided anti-ship missile in the early sixties that truly signaled the end of the big-gun era.)

Hmm. This is a very good thread. Now I'll do what Iansisle has done, and talk a little about my forces.

Due to it's landlocked position, Tsaraine's navy has been developed relitavely late in life, and at present consists entirely of unarmed transports. The few shore assets I have are backed up with very heavy land-based defences instead.

It also means that I developed spacedytech before I ever put that spacedytech in the bathtub; Tsarainese vessels are capable of atmospheric flight, and have to be to get to the water. In fact, they're submarines.

But those aren't battleships, so what am I gabbling on about, hmm? Well, you see, after the Iraqstani civil war I realised that my air forces were woefully inadequate; my transport blimps were horribly vulnerable all the way from Tsaraine to Iraqstan, and I never managed to get my fighters into combat.

To fix that problem, I designed better transports, and aerial carrier vessels to get the fighters places faster (although at present only one, the Chrei'khor, is in service). Those aerial carriers mean that what I now need are aerial escort vessels, and after those, why not aerial battleships? (see, I did get back on topic ... sorta). It would be silly to limit myself to the surface of the sea when I can operate with equal ease over the land as well.

So (without the usual accusations of "OMG NOES U CANT DO THAT ITS GODMODEING!" and so on which are so tedious and unhelpful), I ask; how should an aerial battleship be armed?

Tsaraine:

You mean like gravships? Godmodding. It is all godmodding. And I call it how I see it. *nods*

- Sovy K.

Hehe, 's nice to see that no degree of co-operation, no matter how many years long, will ever threaten to dissolve the surprisingly different cultures and strategies of WoS and Iansisle. WoS has just about accepted that really, its navy was far too small (in hulls if not tons), and that it would have been in a right pickle had Erco and Italy stuck it out, and/or the US joined in after Mainwaring's barrage of insults.. the result though has been only to make our new cruisers about as heavy as Iansisle's old ones, and it has completely failed to impact upon battleship design.

Thirty-six combat ships larger than destroyers, more than enough to police three continents and to guard against continental Europe on one side, and the US on the other!
Well, it might actually be, when one considers Walmington's preparedness to hide behind the British Royal Navy, station forces in Canada, arm Mexico, tickle the sound barrier in flights of questionable wisdom over occupied Europe, and blow up large parts of Africa in tests of the Antananarivo Project..

..This has nothing to do with the thread, does it?

Bother.

-lais-down another battlecruiser, just to be different-
They're pretyyy, damn it..

Hmmm... on the WW2 Pasific Fleets issue:
Japan and America were both moving towards a carrier-based fleet... the Japanesse were closer to a balance of carrier groups and BB groups, the US was still using carriers as support to the line of battle. Only because the afforementioned line was so understrength from Pearl Harbour did Nimitz try such a horribly risky and phyrric tactic at Midway.
Although I think that they would have loved to get them, based on Midway (where the battle line was the priority target) I would say the Japanese weren't going for the carriers.
Rough summary of Midway, iirc: The Japanese bombed the heck out of the American fleet and shot down c.90% of its planes. The US shot down very few planes and killed 4 ships only: all 4 Japanese carriers.
The US planes got a round 2, the Japanese couldn't land anywhere to reload. And so the world learned the word "Kamikaze".



I would agree that Battleships would be a viable RL concept if someone chose to pursue it. Incomming missiles? Even if that wasn't what escorts were for, there are many effective point defence systems... and less conventionally there have been tests on a high energy laser that successfully shot an artillery shell out of the air. And an artillery shell is a much harder target than a capital missile. The weakness is that it requires a truck-sized power source but then a Battleship would already have one of those.
Modern radar and computing can back-track a shell trajectory and have counter-battery fire in the air before the detected shell has landed... cheap course-corrected shells can have unparralleled accuracy and suddenly, anything using a gun or missile near this battleship (and lets face it: with 16in guns & ER ammunition... 'close' is a long way away) is going to regret it a lot.
Deck armour is almost always the weakest, so high-angle shooting is more effective. And almost all of one's sensors exposed above deck: so fragments from airbust shells can be lethal to your capacity to fight. Get a (guided) MLRS up there and suddenly one's entire visible surface is filled with holes.

BBs are not built these days for one major reason: the overwealming firepower and utility of a carrier-lanuched air-strike, or at least the perception of it. Plus nobody else has one.
If nobody else had tanks, would we need any? IFVs are frequently enough in the 'shock' role and often more usefull because they can dismount infantry onto an objective they have supressed. But they do have tanks with heavy armour and tank guns, so we need something that can shoot heavy armour and take a tank round: we need a tank. But a helicopter or GW will take both equally these days... so are the days of the Tank numbered?

My point is that if a potential RW agressor had battleships, the UK at least would get battleships to counter them. In NS, loads of people have battleships so everyone else needs battleships to counter them. And besides, "Aircraft Carriers" is a silly name for a game :wink:

I think you can do some quite interesting things if you stop thinking about the battleships of the past and think about the battleships of the future.

They solve the fire support problem, and where they can't go, we use modified river boats, more commonly CB-90 assault boats armed with AMOS mortar systems and rocket artillery.

AMOS is overrated.
Bah, humbug! :(
*sulks*

I would agree that Battleships would be a viable RL concept if someone chose to pursue it. Incomming missiles? Even if that wasn't what escorts were for, there are many effective point defence systems... and less conventionally there have been tests on a high energy laser that successfully shot an artillery shell out of the air. And an artillery shell is a much harder target than a capital missile. The weakness is that it requires a truck-sized power source but then a Battleship would already have one of those.
Modern radar and computing can back-track a shell trajectory and have counter-battery fire in the air before the detected shell has landed... cheap course-corrected shells can have unparralleled accuracy and suddenly, anything using a gun or missile near this battleship (and lets face it: with 16in guns & ER ammunition... 'close' is a long way away) is going to regret it a lot.
Deck armour is almost always the weakest, so high-angle shooting is more effective. And almost all of one's sensors exposed above deck: so fragments from airbust shells can be lethal to your capacity to fight. Get a (guided) MLRS up there and suddenly one's entire visible surface is filled with holes.

BBs are not built these days for one major reason: the overwealming firepower and utility of a carrier-lanuched air-strike, or at least the perception of it. Plus nobody else has one.
If nobody else had tanks, would we need any? IFVs are frequently enough in the 'shock' role and often more usefull because they can dismount infantry onto an objective they have supressed. But they do have tanks with heavy armour and tank guns, so we need something that can shoot heavy armour and take a tank round: we need a tank. But a helicopter or GW will take both equally these days... so are the days of the Tank numbered?

My point is that if a potential RW agressor had battleships, the UK at least would get battleships to counter them. In NS, loads of people have battleships so everyone else needs battleships to counter them. And besides, "Aircraft Carriers" is a silly name for a game :wink:

I think you can do some quite interesting things if you stop thinking about the battleships of the past and think about the battleships of the future.


Nods in agreement with this statment

Note: Only Uber tech nations are allowed Gravships. Therefore you can only play with other Ubertech nations if you have gravships.
Said by nation who has a grav ship fleet in a nasty war with an invading robot army.

*Tag for future reference*

A most interesting thread; thanks to all the people posting good info for those of us who are uneducated in this matter. :)

*Tag for future reference*

A most interesting thread; thanks to all the people posting good info for those of us who are uneducated in this matter. :)


Indeed.

Wolfish is now considering always pairing arsenal ships with BBs - large deployable missile ships - with hard hitting anti-air, shore bombardment capability.

On the issue of missile boats- all your comparisons are based on the actions of small numbers of low-quality vessels operating against clearly superior technology. RL instances.

In NS naval warfare, missile boats have always had a place in the LRRN. New long-range harder hitting ASMs, most of which in LRR service can be launched from well over 100 kilometers from their target, coupled with very fast (nearly 100kph) missile boats, such as the modified Skjold and Bora class vessels, allow the LRRN to launch fast missile attacks against enemy fleets, and even if they do not cause much damage, allow the missile boats to escape quickly. Also, LRR missile boats all have very good air defense capability. Besides the Bras d'Or hydrofoils, all LRR home defense missile craft can operate from almost any beach or port. However, missile boats in LRR are not used as primary fleet craft, but instead as coastal defense craft for use against invasion fleets. Large numbers of fast missile boats operatted by the LRRN would be able to do much damage to any prospective invaders. Also, the missile carrying WIGs in LRR service incorperate much stealth in their design, mostly because they do not have the air defense capability of the missile boats. These relatively maintainance-low, cheap, fast vessels, many with the missile carrying capacity of frigates, can cause havoc among large battlegroups with much larger and more powerful ships, not necessarily even causing great damage. And with a large battleship, LRR's independently tracking ASMs would probably lock onto it very easily.

Battleships are all fine and good if you have the resources to maintain one. However, they are very large targets. Not to say that Kirovs and Slavas aren't large targets, but they rely on missiles with far greater range than battleship cannons. And while we do operate a large surface fleet, which does not exactly lend itself to the makeshift bases and fast attack speed of coast defense missile boats, the ships operated by the large fleet have long engagement ranges, long enough for a single frigate to pound a battleship with ASMs without being in any danger from the battleship itself.

Of course, missile boats do not have much of a place among heavy seagoing battlegroups, but their utility, especially surface effect and other exotic design vessels, makes them essential in coast defense roles where they can cause trouble for ships of far larger size.

They solve the fire support problem, and where they can't go, we use modified river boats, more commonly CB-90 assault boats armed with AMOS mortar systems and rocket artillery.

AMOS is overrated.
Bah, humbug! :(
*sulks*

Do you mean underrated? The truth is that most modern artillery guns are incapable of maintaining "shoot and scoot" tactics that would be necessary when combating any nation with decent counter-battery fire capabilities (numerous such nations on NS). Most towed 155mm guns require several minutes to set up and break down...too much time for the purposes...and SP howitzers just aren't available in enough numbers (and tend to be too large and slow) for support of infantry, scout, and fast mechanized units (although they work fine with similarly speed-capable MBTs and IFVs). The AMOS system mainly means the ability to call in quick and localized indirect fire support. I can see nothing wrong with giving the commanders at a battalion or even company level the ability to generate their own fire support.

Most modern armed forces are moving towards advanced and rapid-fire 120mm mortar systems based on armored vehicles...the AMOS is simply one of the best units on the market since a single unit can generate twice as much short-term fire (what local commanders need when air strikes or shell artillery resources are available but can take a long time to respond).

The CB-90H with the AMOS Navy system is the ideal light strike/fast patrol vessel since the advanced targeting systems of the AMOS can be used to concentrate a disproportionately large amount of fire on target vectors. I'd argue that landing a 120mm shell on an enemy vessel (which can be done from out of sight, using the cover of inlets and such littoral obstacles) is of greater effect than any type of gun fire that such a small vessel might generate with a conventional machine gun. Light amphibious operations might also benefit as a flotilla of stealthy CB-90H vessels w/AMOS Navy could land a platoon of special forces soldiers who would be supported by one or two AMOS-equipped patrol boats.

Just to throw something out about anti-missile tech, any one heard of the "mettle storm" system?

"Metal Storm" also known as electrically-fired stacked rounds. I can't really think of it being an effective missile defense system since the size of the array necessary to assault incoming missiles at safe ranges (you have to destroy missiles before they are on top of you or the shrapnel...likely including the live warhead...will still fly right into your ship). I guess it's theoretically a viable defensive system but I can't really see it as being useful for active ship defensive systems.

The best use of a Metal Storm-type system was a system that monitored a wide area (which might be trespassed by enemy units) using only a few operators and a couple of MS-style mortar round launchers that could fire a variety of round types to respond with an appropriate amount of force to any detected threat.

I now feel so proud of my crack(headed) special forces and their CB-90 assault boats!

For anti-missile defense, all LRR ships are equipped with at least one RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) MOD and one Ak-630 MOD CIWS system. So far, they have worked pretty well against incoming missiles. For futuretech, LRR ships are equipped with shields and plasma cannons, but those are only for special instances. :wink:

But seriously, the CB-90 is LRR's mainstay assault craft. Coupled with our Hauk inshore patrol boats (Bras d'Ors are used for more out-to-sea operations because of their hydrofoil nature), they are quite a lethal combination. We use combinations of CB-90s with AMOS systems, as well as a variety of other weapons, and Jurmo landing craft to deliver our troops and their light vehicles wherever conditions permit. We modified our C-130s so they could carry CB-90s for fast response missions.

Western Asia, if you want some, we'd be very happy to supply you with some of these fine craft.

In NS naval warfare, missile boats have always had a place in the LRRN. New long-range harder hitting ASMs, most of which in LRR service can be launched from well over 100 kilometers from their target, coupled with very fast (nearly 100kph) missile boats, such as the modified Skjold and Bora class vessels, allow the LRRN to launch fast missile attacks against enemy fleets, and even if they do not cause much damage, allow the missile boats to escape quickly.

More "hard-hitting" (in terms of amount of explosive and the general mass of the missile) = weight. Surely, a 1000lb-2000lb warhead class anti-ship missile with its hard case (for penetration) and highly inflammable fuel will cause damage on a battleship, but they will also have a huge amount of weight: which eithers greatly reduce the numbers of missiles that can be carried: for example, the Tarantul class fast attack missile crafts only carries either 4 SS-N-2C (2500kg weight, 80km range, Mach 0.9: very ineffective and inaccurate) or 4 SS-N-22 (the infamous supersonic so-called "AWACS-killer": range is just under 120-200km if you want it to seaskim). You can't just put 10 heavy missiles on a missile boat or 12 on a light frigate/corvette: it just won't work.

The Bora however, being able to carry a total of 8 SS-N-22 and has a low-tech SA-N-4 air defence missile system, is a coastal unit, and these corvettes also aren't that "mechanically" reliable.

The "origional" Skjold however, while being stealthy, is another coastal unit, and can only carry 8 anti-ship missiles (with ranges of "excess 150km: as I read) and another small surface-to-air armament.

In conclusion: while these units, coupled with stealth features, can at least shoot its missiles at a battleship -- but most likely they won't impact hard on it.

Also, LRR missile boats all have very good air defense capability. Besides the Bras d'Or hydrofoils, all LRR home defense missile craft can operate from almost any beach or port. However, missile boats in LRR are not used as primary fleet craft, but instead as coastal defense craft for use against invasion fleets. Large numbers of fast missile boats operatted by the LRRN would be able to do much damage to any prospective invaders.

Indeed, missile boats can inflict a large amount of damage on invading enemy fleets' lightly-armored vessels and at least disturb the larger vessels (proven in a war I'm in recently by my boats). But as said above, they still don't hold a large amount of SSMs, and carries only a small amount of air defence missiles: mostly are IR-guided (although that doesn't mean that they are low-performance: some, like the RAM, are excellent), with only one or 2 CIWS gun mounts.

Battleships are all fine and good if you have the resources to maintain one. However, they are very large targets. Not to say that Kirovs and Slavas aren't large targets, but they rely on missiles with far greater range than battleship cannons.
Modern battleships do have anti-ship and surface attack missiles, plus medim/long range SAMs on those with advanced air defence systems.

There is no reason that a modern BB would be any more vulnerable than a modern guided missile cruiser. In fact, with hardier armour, a modern BB could likely stay in a fire-fight much longer (at least above the waves).

There is no reason that a modern BB would be any more vulnerable than a modern guided missile cruiser. In fact, with hardier armour, a modern BB could likely stay in a fire-fight much longer (at least above the waves).

*Reminds Omz222 that LRR DOES NOT USE THE ORIGIONAL BORA CORVETTES*

:roll:

I like the picture.

http://warships.ru/Russia/Fighting_Ships/Missile_Boats/1239-2.jpg

The sight of this thing barreling across the water scores big points with me.

But we do not use the Bora or Skjold (LRR modified with all of our stuff) as fleet missile boats! As I said, they are coast defense platforms!

And if I am not mistaken, an Aegis class cruiser has only two Phalanix systems aboard.

Of course, our use of Tarantuls and Nanuchkas is probably not the best, but when someone says "OMG YoU CAN'T HAVE THOSE!!!!!!" when I send a flight of stealthy WIGs and Skjolds out to missile an invasion fleet, it's nice to have a contingency plan.

By the way, does anyone have any objections to my use of hydrogen fuel cells to power my ships? I've mostly taken care of the problems of storing the hydrogen, and it could probably be drawn from the water.

I think at present the size of the facilities to extract and process the water would be to cumbersome for that size of a ship.

*Reminds Omz222 that LRR DOES NOT USE THE ORIGIONAL BORA CORVETTES*

Actually, I am aware of that. I'm just pointing out that the origional Bora only carries that amount of armament, and it is unlikely that a modified Bora (without having the entire hull converted left to right -- which will obviously make it a different ship) will carry a much higher number of much heavier (and effective at battleship-killing) missiles.

And if I am not mistaken, an Aegis class cruiser has only two Phalanix systems aboard.
It depends on what ship actually carries the Aegis system. For example, the Ticonderoga "cruiser" do have a somehow weak point-defence system (only 2 mounts of Phalanx, so yes), but its superior overall air defence system can make up a bit of that.
But as with the "modified corvettes" case, there are people here who uses upgraded Ticonderoga cruisers, or just scrap them as a whole and use much more armored ships with superior point defence systems and air defence systems.


By the way, does anyone have any objections to my use of hydrogen fuel cells to power my ships? I've mostly taken care of the problems of storing the hydrogen, and it could probably be drawn from the water.
At least not really for me, since I do use hydrogen cell-powered submarines (and I believe Germany already built submarines with hydrogen cell as a power source).

And all this discussion has caused the LRRN to draw up plans to modify our Slava and Kirov cruisers, as well as limited numbers of Sovremenny destroyers, with increased visual range combat capability. The Kirovs will recieve two twin gun 140mm turrets, one on the bow and another above the stern helipad. Slavas will get a single gun 140mm turret in place of their foreward gun, and a twin gun 140mm turret in the stern, above the helipad. Sovremennys will get probably the most unique armerment, of two rocket artillery systems mounted on the stern and bow, like on the Urgan.

However, the 130mm cannons already on the Sovremennys used by LRR have a range in excess of 22km and rates of fire of 30 rounds per minute, so they are already useful ship-to-ship cannons.

On the issue of point defense, the CADS-N-1 is being tested to see if it could replace the Ak-630Ms used on LRR ships currently. While already in use on the Kirovs and Slavas, the CADS will likely be fitted to all LRR capital combat ships, as well as the Bora and Skjold class corvettes.

http://home19.inet.tele.dk/airwing/ships/kashtan-fire.jpg

Sovremennys will get probably the most unique armerment, of two rocket artillery systems mounted on the stern and bow, like on the Urgan.
Nice. MLRS systems do enhance any ship especially in the shore bombardment role, and on that topic, it could be a good armament for battleships (in which case, I'm using ATACMS as a "temporatory" solution before my navy finally passes the decision to mount MLRS on my capital ships once again).

On the issue of point defense, the CADS-N-1 is being tested to see if it could replace the Ak-630Ms used on LRR ships currently. While already in use on the Kirovs and Slavas, the CADS will likely be fitted to all LRR capital combat ships, as well as the Bora and Skjold class corvettes.
You could use the Millenium CIWS (http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=722) (scroll down to find the info about the Millenium CIWS), which is quite effective (and IMO, better than the Kashtan if it is combo-ed with the RAM)

I now feel so proud of my crack(headed) special forces and their CB-90 assault boats!

For anti-missile defense, all LRR ships are equipped with at least one RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) MOD and one Ak-630 MOD CIWS system. So far, they have worked pretty well against incoming missiles. For futuretech, LRR ships are equipped with shields and plasma cannons, but those are only for special instances. :wink:

But seriously, the CB-90 is LRR's mainstay assault craft. Coupled with our Hauk inshore patrol boats (Bras d'Ors are used for more out-to-sea operations because of their hydrofoil nature), they are quite a lethal combination. We use combinations of CB-90s with AMOS systems, as well as a variety of other weapons, and Jurmo landing craft to deliver our troops and their light vehicles wherever conditions permit. We modified our C-130s so they could carry CB-90s for fast response missions.

Western Asia, if you want some, we'd be very happy to supply you with some of these fine craft.

OOC: Officially, Western Asian countries bought the manufacturer of the CB-90 several game months/years ago...and the AMOS cooperative (along with parent companies) a good bit before that (paid a good peny on that, probably about 2.5 times the company's actual worth, but the investors felt that the size of WA and SC's special forces and the growing importance of the AMOS system in WA military organization would fund the expenses). The Jurmo is produced for WA on a special contract by Sniper Country companies. hehe multiverse.

what kind of BB's are people building? Sorry, I'm new

Note: Only Uber tech nations are allowed Gravships. Therefore you can only play with other Ubertech nations if you have gravships.
Said by nation who has a grav ship fleet in a nasty war with an invading robot army.

And of course this nation's word is law?

I love the ignorance of most modern-tech: "If I can't be the best...I'll ignore and make sure no one is"

Did you ever see Star Trek? Different tech levels can and do co-exist.

"'If I can't be the best...I'll ignore and make sure no one is'"

Well now that was a bit silly. There's nothing to say that the implied poster can't be the best. Future tech nations are only future tech because they say that they are. I could say that Walmington on Sea was four hundred billion years more advanced than the Empire from Star Wars, if I wanted to. As it happens I'm happy with 1940s tech.

Of course as you imply, the Lords of War isn't quite right- WoS for example will interact with, indeed has interacted with modern and future tech nations, but I see no need to begrudge anyone else the right to ignore nations that don't even exist in the same space-time continuum as their own. Steel Butterfly is more powerful than WoS, it probably has space ships and such, and we haven't even figured out why one of our six jet aircraft shook apart in a high speed dive somewhere over 700mph, and we've only 49million people.. but I still don't get this implication that if I refused to accept orbital bombardment of Swallow Bank House I'd be a sore loser in some race to have the most powerful nation ever.

Why do you even care? I mean, it wouldn't be hard for me to type, "..and the deception falls away as the Great Walmington phaser banks come online after 600 years of inactivity and engage the enemy space fleet" after all. I choose not to. The Lords of War may choose to play a modern nation in the modern world. One simply has to accept this, lest Walmington invade the moon with power-shielded atomic space monkeys.

My nation is a mecha using nation (though I havn't really RPed too much of our R&D program yet)...


Anyways, I'm thinking that ships dedicated to surface combat arn't neccesary. I was thinking instead of deploying hoverjet-equipped mecha to zip across the water to the enemy fleet and engage the enemy ships in close, evading attacks with their mobility.

How useful would this be vs the kinds of fleets you guys tend to deal with?

(Note that I havn't designed any of the air stuff yet, so I know air attacks are a weak point =P)

Edit: There WOULD of course be transports to bring the mecha to the battlefield.

Axis Nova

Is anyone building BC's?

Is anyone building BC's?

Not currently building, but we do operate two - HIMS Queen Jessica and King Ian V (36,000 tons, 6*14"/45 guns, 34+ knots, ~8"belt armor)

How effective are ASCMs such as Yakhonts and Harpoons against Fast-attack craft (>40 knots)? In one of my previous wars the other guys "dodged" them.

desperate tag for later consumption... I've needed something like this to help me with my Naval understanding.

Note: Only Uber tech nations are allowed Gravships. Therefore you can only play with other Ubertech nations if you have gravships.
Said by nation who has a grav ship fleet in a nasty war with an invading robot army.

And of course this nation's word is law?

I love the ignorance of most modern-tech: "If I can't be the best...I'll ignore and make sure no one is"

Did you ever see Star Trek? Different tech levels can and do co-exist.

OOC: Well, I don't think LOW was trying to make it law here, Steel. I would think that it does minimize problems between modern and future tech nations though. Most modern-tech nations I think ignore future tech nations simply because they don't want to be wiped out.

Yes, I wasn't trying to make an absolute rule. I (badly) tried to state that to have a 'flying battleship' was:
a) really not part of this thread

b) really not applicable to attacking surface modern-day craft since any war rp with an uber tech nation they are going to be using nukes on those things quickly.
(Very few modern or post modern tech nations are willingly going to fight an Ubertech nation with gravships, unless we are talking a massive thread of some thirty or more nations with Uber techs to help out)

I hope that carified my piss poor comment.

Is anyone building BC's?

I have a design for two sorts of heavy bombardment vessels (which have been redesigned since and are in the process of having that redesign entered onto the computer) and while they're not specifically BCs or BBs they have many of the capabilities of such vessels when focused against shore targets or even other vessels afloat.

Older version (A modified Cruiser)
Heavy Bombardment Cruiser

Armaments:
16-missile array
4-155mm shore bombardment guns in 2-double batteries
3-6in guns
4- 5in guns
1-Helicopter capacity pad for LAMPS Seahawk (protection vs. Submarines)

NOTE: An MLRS system can be installed in the place of 2 of the 5in guns and 1 of the 155mm double batteries. There is some added cost involved, probably $4 million, comes armed with rockets.

Protection:
In addition to the inherent protection endowed by the use of outriggers in the Trimaran design, there is an added layer (6-8in) of a composite combham-style armor over a layer of 5 inches of rolled homogenous armor.

Crew: 294 (270 enlisted, 22 jr. officers and 2 sr. officers)


Newer Version(A dedicated ship)
Shore Bombardment Vessel (SBV) Mk. 1

Length- 640 ft (will probably change)
Top Speed (dashing)- 40+ knots (fully loaded)
Cruising Speed: 35knots
Crew- 285 enlisted, 35 officers

Armoring and Protection:
- 8in of Rolled Homogenous-type armor (6in outside of Cobham, 2in inside of Cobham);
- 7in of Cobham-like armoring;
- 3in steel plates on the interior portion of the outriggers (to provide a 3rd layer of armoring for the essential ship sustems in the midsection and rear of the ship);
- Heavy metal linked "chainmail" to protect against HE and Shaped-charge projectiles (detonated before target);
- The full point missile defense system involving the Barak point-defense missile system, Sea Sparrow, and other measures;
- Millenium Guns.*

Armament
--Defensive/Mixed Use--
6, Millenium Guns;
4, Octuplet Sea Sparrow or equivalent launchers (32 missiles);
4, Quad Harpoon launchers (up to 16 missiles);
1, M/STHEL ABM system.
2, 32 specialized VLS tubes (32 cover about the same space as a singled Phalanx CIWS emplacement) for the Barak Point Defense Missile System (short-range anti-air/missile system): (64 missiles)
Decoy torpedoes

--Offensive--
3, 16in guns (double-battery at rear and single gun at fore);
4, 155mm guns (in double batteries in front of the 16in guns;
4, 5in guns;
12, smaller deck guns (7.62, .50cal, etc. Many use the Typhoon Remote Weapons System);
2, MLRS batteries;
32, VLS tubes loaded with Tactical Tomahawks**
6 torpedo tubes (in triple above deck launchers)
(Armament will change for Mk.2)

PRICE: $1.28bn per vessel….$1.2 for allies.

---------

*-- Greater Israeli Naval Yards has phased out the use of the Phalanx CIWS system. Instead, it now is moving to use the Millenium Gun Multiple Target Weapons System (MTWS). This system has improved target locationing and targeting systems and greater flexability in target types.

The system can be used both defensively against ASMs and dually as a defensive/offensive weapon against small craft, ground targets, other ships, and some aircraft such as helicopters.

The advanced AI of the gun is better at acquiring and engaging incoming missiles and targets than the Phalanx and has already out-performed it in controlled and uncontrolled tests by WA Fleet vessels. It has enough of a range to be used against land targets as light support artillery while engaging hardened targets such as bunkers, tanks, and artillery batteries.

**--BGM-109T "Tactical Tomahawk" (TacTom)
Primary Function: long-range subsonic cruise missile for striking high value or heavily defended land targets.
Launch: Surface ship, submarine
Average Cost: $580-700,000
Range: 870 nautical miles (1000 statute miles, 1609 km)
Speed: Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h)
Length: 18 feet 3 inches (5.56 meters); with booster: 20 feet 6 inches (6.25 meters)
Weight: 2,900 pounds (1,315.44 kg); 3,500 pounds (1,587.6 kg) with booster
Diameter: 20.4 inches (51.81 cm)
Wing Span: 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 meters)
Guidance System: TERCOM, DSMAC, and GPS

Types: Tactical Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TTLAM)
4 varieties:
TTLAM-C, uses a conventional unitary warhead (1,000 pounds Bullpup)
TTLAM-CHS, uses a hard-target smart fuse unitary warhead,
TTLAM-CP, uses unitary penetrator warhead for hardened targets
TTLAM-D, uses conventional submunitions dispersal warhead (w/ combined effect bomblets)
TTLAM-E, EMP warhead
TTLAM-B, uses P3I BAT submunitions dispensing warhead (w/16 P3I BATS)

--------------------

EVEN Newer Version(A dedicated ship)
Shore Bombardment Vessel (SBV) Mk. 2

Length- 640 ft (will probably change)
Top Speed (dashing)- 40+ knots (fully loaded)
Cruising Speed: 35knots
Crew- 285 enlisted, 35 officers

Armoring and Protection: (CHECK ARMOR CHANGES ELSEWHERE>>>)
- 8in of Rolled Homogenous-type armor (6in outside of Cobham, 2in inside of Cobham);
- 7in of Cobham-like armoring;
- 3in steel plates on the interior portion of the outriggers (to provide a 3rd layer of armoring for the essential ship sustems in the midsection and rear of the ship);
- Heavy metal linked "chainmail" to protect against HE and Shaped-charge projectiles (detonated before target);
- The full point missile defense system involving the Barak point-defense missile system, Sea Sparrow, and other measures;
- Millenium Guns.*

Armament
--Defensive/Mixed Use--
6, Millenium Guns;
4, Octuplet Sea Sparrow or equivalent (NEW: ESSM, evolved Sea Sparrow Missile) launchers (32 missiles);
4, Quad Harpoon launchers (up to 16 missiles);
1, M/STHEL ABM system.
2, 32 specialized VLS tubes (32 cover about the same space as a singled Phalanx CIWS emplacement) for the Barak Point Defense Missile System (short-range anti-air/missile system): (64 missiles)
Decoy torpedoes

--Offensive--
3, 16in guns (double-battery at rear and single gun at fore);
4, 155mm guns (in double batteries in front of the 16in guns;
4, 5in guns;
12, smaller deck guns (7.62, .50cal, etc. Many use the Typhoon Remote Weapons System);
2, MLRS batteries;
32, VLS tubes loaded with Tactical Tomahawks** and SM-2s
6 torpedo tubes (in triple above deck launchers)
(Armament will change for Mk.2)

PRICE: $1-1.25bn per vessel.

Some of my proposed/considered changes:
<<<CHANGES>>>

A double 16in turret in front, a triple in back for 5, 16in guns total[definite feature]

A pair of double 155mm mounts, one on each side of the ships at the front of the "wings" [possibly ditch or make MLRS-less option]

2, navalized MLRS behind the 155mm mounts (midwing) [definite feature]

N/MTHEL II will be used[definite feature]

2, 6in guns (single mounts, at rear of wing)…in place of 5in guns [Not sure]

Torps in Below-deck/integrated launchers…3 forward facing on each side, belowdecks[almost definite feature]
Some of this will be pared down for space requirements or such, but it's my idea of a dedicated bombardment vessel.

Aside from this, I'm also considering constructing a true battleship with maingun capacities similar to an Iowa-class BB (namely, 9-12, 16in guns) along with some of my improvements. The Trimaran design would give me greater flexability in terms of deck space (by adding 20% more deckspace on the wings) and new my design features (mentioned in my previous, main BBdesign post) would allow for an even more effective use of space. Even then, this design is not certain and I may just depend upon the 5 guns of the SBV mk II to bear my main needs (and use automated and faster reload/retarget times to make up for the lack of guns).

I love the ignorance of most modern-tech: "If I can't be the best...I'll ignore and make sure no one is"If I wanted to be future-tech, I'd pwn practically every future-tech nation. However, I'm here to run what I consider to be a realistic nation. Thus, I won't roleplay with stuff I consider unrealistic.
Did you ever see Star Trek? Different tech levels can and do co-exist.I don't think Star Trek is a great learning material.

Callisdrun is currently embarking on a military construction program that includes two battleships and two battlecruisers. One light aircraft carrier will be built, mainly due to the fact that for a carrier to be effective, a nation must also build aircraft.

I'm thinking up an old battleship I want to refurbish for modern combat. The orgininal old one (as a loose idea):

Displacement: 37,000 tons (squeakin' in juuust close enough to the washington naval treaty to be leagal, sorta. Actually, I was thinking that Kilean never signed the treaty, but figured if everybody else was keeping them at 35,000 tons, we wouldn't have to build big)

Speed: ???? I was thinking 28/29 knots here.

Weaponry: 8 16-inch rifles in four double mounts. Buncha other smaller guns. Being lame like everybody else and using 16 inchers, I also want them to be lame like everybody else and fire Iowa-style super-heavy shells when needed.

Armor: ???? I'm not sure if I want this to be a battle cruiser, an all-or-nothing armor scheme BB, or a bismark-style 'everything-to-the-sides" mistake. Pretty sure I want an outer face of STS steel to de-cap AP projectiles and then a think inner layer of softer steel to slow down/stop the shell.

maybe sandwich a layer of soft homogenous steel between two layers of hard, brittle armor? outer one to de-cap projectile, middle layer to stop it, inner layer to catch fragments? that seems like it could be a bad idea, actually.....

Fire control: Kilean has excellent optics/lens industry. We make great telescopes, cameras, field glasses, etc. It'll probably have a great optical system/ room-sized analog ballistics computer.

Any thoughts? Armor schemes? Should it be a fast battleship/BB/BC/whatever?

Hey, how about an Alaska-style "large cruiser".

Basically, I'm RPing this as follows: Kilean used to have a semi-important navy. A bit smaller than Italy, say. In 1950's it all goes obsolete, not replaced for political reasons, is mothballed. 2000's- Kilean wants to rebuild navy centered around large surface combatants (buys a kirov from russia), but doesn't have shipyard capacity to build large ships. So, we refurbish and old battleship, and re-build something on old heavy cruiser hulls.

Is this a good idea at all?

(Ah, Kilean, you've wandered into just the right place! I was rather hoping someone would ask about specifically WWII design.

First off, don't do the Alaska, not by any means. That was a terrible ship.

Secondly, in terms of overarching themes, I'd reccomend a fast(ish, in the terms of the late 30s) battleship - in the neighborhood of 27-28 knots and solid in armor. Why? Because any big-gun capital ship you have will invariably be needed in the line of battle at some point. And, as Jutland and the Denmark Strait proved, you simply can't put a battlecruiser against battleships and expect them to survive.

Now, for your specific questions:

1) Displacement: Eh. Ignore the Washington Treaty. Japan, Germany, and Italy all did - you can too! However, don’t get carried away. 35,000-42,000 tons standard displacement is all you’d really need for an effective ship; anything more, and it’s too expensive to ever risk.

2) Speed: Eh, you wouldn’t really need more than 28 knots, unless the ship had a very specific design requirement that mandated higher speed.

3) Guns: Using a 16” gun isn’t necessarily lame; using a 16”/50 cal gun in triple turrets is ;). For instance, Iansisle uses a 16” gun, 45 caliber, as the primary weapon on one of our classes of battleship, and no one better call me lame! If you’re really worried about it, however, I’d recommend the British 15”/42. Or you can always be like WoS - he uses a 15.5” gun on his new class of battleships ;) (sorry, can’t remember the caliber)

Plus, I’m all for the 4x2 turret arrangment. They’re so much prettier than 3x3! (even if I haven’t decided which was actually more effective)

4) Armor: I’m assuming this is a late 30s design, right? In that case, you’d probably end up with most of the armor in the sides, though a descent deck thickness could be achieved. Don’t use Bismarck’s scheme, whatever you do, though! For belt thickness, I’d go with 13-15” of steel, similar to the British KGV class. Don’t use their gun layouts though! (as excellent as the armor design was - controversially the best Allied layout of the war - that whole 2x4, 1x2 gun business was double-plus ungood!)

5) Fire control: If you’ve got the optics, go for it! (Iansislean optics are terrible - which, almost more than its armor scheme was the real reason Queen Jessica got knocked around. ;)) Be prepared to switch over to radar though, when it comes available to your country

Ah, that was fun! Anything else I can help you with?

Actually Iansisle did you just suggest to emplace 4 guns into two turrets or two guns into four turrets? In terms of gunnery, the effectiveness drops such that having four guns in a turret is no more effective than three guns in a turret. I found that from a well respected source on naval guns...don't ask me where. The two guns per turret is more effective in terms of gun use but in terms of optimal design I'm not sure.

How effective are ASCMs such as Yakhonts and Harpoons against Fast-attack craft (>40 knots)? In one of my previous wars the other guys "dodged" them.

While fast and frantic maneuvering may shrug off some old missiles, it certainly can't really shrug off many of the newer missiles effectively (Such as new Harpoons, they also have a reattack capability if the seeker cann't pick up the target, not mentioning improved electric counter-countermeasures [ECCM] and a highly percise seeker). Once they hit, assuming the missile is a middle-weight Harpoon, thn boom -- the boat's gone.

How effective are ASCMs such as Yakhonts and Harpoons against Fast-attack craft (>40 knots)? In one of my previous wars the other guys "dodged" them.

While fast and frantic maneuvering may shrug off some old missiles, it certainly can't really shrug off many of the newer missiles effectively (Such as new Harpoons, they also have a reattack capability if the seeker cann't pick up the target, not mentioning improved electric counter-countermeasures [ECCM] and a highly percise seeker). Once they hit, assuming the missile is a middle-weight Harpoon, thn boom -- the boat's gone.

That's why I cover my missile boaties in anti-missile systems.

By the way, that milennium gun thing looks pretty good. We could probably rig up something with it and the Starstreak. Thanks for the idea.

By the way, (this is strictly OCC, the cormorant project is under wraps until it goes into production with me and Western Asia) what kind of armerment do you think something like this (http://www.butovo.com/~nw/images/BE/CC%20Beriev.jpg) would be able to carry? It is my newest AsSW/ASW platform. It carries a crew of five (pilot, co-pilot, Anti-ship officer, anti-submarine officer, co ASW officer) at a speed of around mach 2.1 in a dash. Its engines are the pinnacle of LRR jet technology.

Nice, ain't it? I might have it up for sale soon.

Iansisle- I want to create the 30's era design, then detail how i'm gonna update it to 2004 standards.

Kilean radar will be good for rangefinding, but not great for much else.

Well, here goes.....

_____________________________________________________________

Sleipnir-class line battleship- 1937 configuration.

4 Ships (Aesir, Freya, Sleipnir, Wotan)

Displacement: 41,000 tons

Speed: 27 knots. Oil-fired boilers & high-quality turbine engines.

Armor:

Main belt: 13 in bow/stern, growing to 15 in amidships. Sandwiched STS steel/homogenous steel/face-hardened steel

Citadel: 14in- layered STS steel/homogenous steel

Deck: 4.5 inches homogenous steel.

Turret faces: 13.5 in face-hardened steel

Antitorpedo: triple bottom hull, fluid-filled antitorpedo bulges.

Fire Control:

-Centralized main gun fire control.
-Nodal AA fire control for each sector.
-Excellent optical rangefinder.
-Somewhat mediocre radar rangefinder- inaccurate, but allows for a level of accuracy that at least allows the Sleipnir-class to fight using radar only, although efficency is heavily degraded.
-Complex gyro-based hydraulic system allows for vertical stabilizaion,very crude horizontal stabilization of main guns.
-Intricate and advanced analog gunnery computer. Integrated with optical fire control system, it takes much more effort to use it with the radar, and then it is much less accurate.

Armament:

16"/45cal guns in 4 double mounts. (A,B,Y, and Z turrets)- 8 guns total

6.5" guns in 8 dual DP mounts (roughly amidships)- 16 guns total

3in AA guns in 8 dual mounts- 16 guns total.

40mm Kilean waffenwerke AA guns in 20 quadruple mounts- 80 guns total

20mm Kilean waffenwerke AA guns, various mounts- 90 guns total

(Note- I seem to be ahead of most powers in slathering 20mm and 40mm AA all over their battleships. Call it foresight if you like)

_____________________________________________________________

There ya have it! Coming soon: Sleipnir-class in it's 2004 configuration!

By the way, (this is strictly OCC, the cormorant project is under wraps until it goes into production with me and Western Asia) what kind of armerment do you think something like this (http://www.butovo.com/~nw/images/BE/CC%20Beriev.jpg) would be able to carry? It is my newest AsSW/ASW platform. It carries a crew of five (pilot, co-pilot, Anti-ship officer, anti-submarine officer, co ASW officer) at a speed of around mach 2.1 in a dash. Its engines are the pinnacle of LRR jet technology.

Nice, ain't it? I might have it up for sale soon.

I'd suggest a variety of armaments, giving flexibility. But if you want to arm it only with RL weapons, I'd suggest newer versions of the Harpoon, and possibly the air-launched versions of the Moskit (Kh-41/SS-N-22) and Yakhont (P-800/SS-N-X-26). If you want some heavy missiles (in the Tomahawk/Shipwreck class; AS-4s are horrible weapons), you should go with custom missiles, although these jets won't likely be able to carry many of them anyways. Aside from that, you could also get it to carry mines and depth charges, to further enhance its capabilities.

Very nice anyways. With a gap between heavy anti-ship missiles bombers and light fighter-bombers, I may as well have my Air Force consider to purchase some of these.

LRR is not very big on mines, but we do use the occasional depth charge. The production version will have a MAD boom on the end.

One of the advantages to the Cormorant is that you can pull it up to a beach and re-arm it from munitions trucks, re-fuel it from fuel trucks, and send it on its merry way, without so much as a square yard of pavement.

The Yakhont will probably be its main armerment, either that or the RBS-15 and NSM missiles. We plan to build around 20 of these, Western Asia also has the production licesnes for them.

Actually Iansisle did you just suggest to emplace 4 guns into two turrets or two guns into four turrets? In terms of gunnery, the effectiveness drops such that having four guns in a turret is no more effective than three guns in a turret. I found that from a well respected source on naval guns...don't ask me where. The two guns per turret is more effective in terms of gun use but in terms of optimal design I'm not sure.

(4 turrets times 2 guns/turret ... I think that's the standard notation.

As for whether 3 guns or 2 per turret, I've heard arguments from both sides. The less turrets you have, for example, reduced total displacement (because each turret is so heavily armored), but is also a larger portion of your armarment gone if one is disabled.

As for 2x4, I think I slammed on KGV in there somewhere...and I should have mocked Richelieu too, but forgot.

Kilean: don't forget, I only design WWII era boats ;))

Oh, I know.

Is the 30's config plausible, though?

The new Walmingtonian 15.5", since it was mentioned in passing (any excuse :D ) as mounted (in 4x2 configuration) by HMWS Indefatigable, first of the Glamorgan Class, is of 47 calibre firing at two+ rounds per minute a 2,150lb AP shell to 40,500 yard range.

WoS got rather excited by trials of the Model D MkII fire control radar and decided they'd like their shells to be chucked about as far as possible in order to take full advantage. While I'm hear I'd just like to check if anyone thinks for any reason to which I'm oblivious that a 15.5"/47 gun firing 2,150lb shells to 40,500yds is an unrealistic prospect.. (I dunno, call me paranoid, I suppose)

(Yes, to anyone yet unaware, WoS is a 1940s-ish tech nation)

Oh, and hey, if anyone is for any wacky (or mundane, whatever) reason in the market for WWII era light or heavy cruisers we're currently considering selling off a few Kentonshires and/or Chaspots.

Ahem, I'm done.

Oh, I know.

Is the 30's config plausible, though?

Ah, yes, it does look quite good indeed!

WoS: Quick question - those guns I bought from you for the Crown class, they've a calbier of 42, right? Or am I making that up?

I believe that's right, yes. I have a few flaws in my records from their time, but as there are no contradictory records we can pretty much say whatever we like and have it as truth :)

LRR- where did you get that pic? Kilean uses a LOT of enkranoplan type craft....any other schemes for similar craft? failing that, can I buy some of them?

Ah, yes I thought so but was a bit confused.

((recalls he needs to develop battlecruisers and battleships for the JDF...))

LRR- where did you get that pic? Kilean uses a LOT of enkranoplan type craft....any other schemes for similar craft? failing that, can I buy some of them?

I got them here:

http://www.butovo.com/~nw/Myasishev.htm

But the M-32, M-34, Be-10, M-60, and Antonov project M are LRR.

They aren't really Ekranoplans, although we do use a lot of them. They're jet flying boats.

Do you mean underrated? The truth is that most modern artillery guns are incapable of maintaining "shoot and scoot" tactics that would be necessary when combating any nation with decent counter-battery fire capabilities (numerous such nations on NS). Most towed 155mm guns require several minutes to set up and break down...too much time for the purposes...and SP howitzers just aren't available in enough numbers (and tend to be too large and slow) for support of infantry, scout, and fast mechanized units (although they work fine with similarly speed-capable MBTs and IFVs). The AMOS system mainly means the ability to call in quick and localized indirect fire support. I can see nothing wrong with giving the commanders at a battalion or even company level the ability to generate their own fire support.

Most modern armed forces are moving towards advanced and rapid-fire 120mm mortar systems based on armored vehicles...the AMOS is simply one of the best units on the market since a single unit can generate twice as much short-term fire (what local commanders need when air strikes or shell artillery resources are available but can take a long time to respond).

The CB-90H with the AMOS Navy system is the ideal light strike/fast patrol vessel since the advanced targeting systems of the AMOS can be used to concentrate a disproportionately large amount of fire on target vectors. I'd argue that landing a 120mm shell on an enemy vessel (which can be done from out of sight, using the cover of inlets and such littoral obstacles) is of greater effect than any type of gun fire that such a small vessel might generate with a conventional machine gun. Light amphibious operations might also benefit as a flotilla of stealthy CB-90H vessels w/AMOS Navy could land a platoon of special forces soldiers who would be supported by one or two AMOS-equipped patrol boats.

I said overrated and I meant it.
I do not mean to dispute that shoot-and-scoot is one of the primary functions of SP Arty...
And I agree that a mobile 120mm Mortar system is a very handy thing indeed... however, I stand by my comment that the double-barreled AMOS is overrated.

Firstly; two barrels does not equal twice the firepower. Since the they fire simultaneously and co-axially, there is always going to be a heft overlap between the two shells. Twice as much ammo for only 1.4 times the effect.

Secondly... auto-loaders sound nice, but are rather inappropriate for Mortars. Mortar bombs come with a number of horseshoe-shaped charges around the tail. These are ripped off when the bomb is loaded to select the charge level required. But for AMOS that must be done when you load the auto-loader (the loading of which takes about a minute per barrel): there is no way to adjust those already in the loader, or to 'advance' a preferred shell down the line.
Don't get me wrong, AMOS is great for pre-planned fire missions where you have the c.26 minutes to load the bombs with the correct charge, but for quick and localized indirect fire support? Not unless it happens to be in the right range bracket.

Then there is the firing signature: no CB radar could miss it or miss the fact that it is an AMOS. At that point the enemy intelligence officer will look at his chart and go "AMOS comes in batteries of X. This supports formations of level Y, ergo enemy assets must be equal or greater than Z deployed in front of us." A 1 barrel AMS would not be so recognisable or give away as much about your forces and their deployment. Similarly, you can afford about twice as many of a 1 barrel system and so divide your support in a more flexible manner.

Less platforms = suffering more from casualties, assuming no improvement of survivability (and arguably, AMOS represents a reduction).

For a Naval role, some of those issues are mitigated... if you can get over the charge-level adjustment issue.

The bah humbug was meant to be a little humerous... after all the AMOS must be better: it has 2 barrels! :wink:

OH YEAH WELL KILEAN HAS AN AMOS SYSTEM WITH THREE BARRELS- SUCK ON THAT!!!!!!! :wink:

You know the AMOS equiped small attack craft sounds an awful like the dreaded 'dynamite boats' of a century ealier.

A heavy mortar equiped ship with automatic reloading ability. The 'dynamite' gun used compressed air as a propellent and proved unreliable at getting an appropriate range.

The whole system proved to be highly succeptiable to 3 inch guns on pre-dreadnaughts of the time.

After all that much explosive power also makes a nominal hit deadly since there would be little armor protection of the 120-mm rounds. Of course one could likely use an air based mortar system that would allow for more control of the ballistic range. But would also give it a much smaller possible range.

It is the age old balance, speed vs. accuracy vs. range.
If you increase one you usually have to decrease the other two propotionally.

Do you mean underrated? The truth is that most modern artillery guns are incapable of maintaining "shoot and scoot" tactics that would be necessary when combating any nation with decent counter-battery fire capabilities (numerous such nations on NS). Most towed 155mm guns require several minutes to set up and break down...too much time for the purposes...and SP howitzers just aren't available in enough numbers (and tend to be too large and slow) for support of infantry, scout, and fast mechanized units (although they work fine with similarly speed-capable MBTs and IFVs). The AMOS system mainly means the ability to call in quick and localized indirect fire support. I can see nothing wrong with giving the commanders at a battalion or even company level the ability to generate their own fire support.

Most modern armed forces are moving towards advanced and rapid-fire 120mm mortar systems based on armored vehicles...the AMOS is simply one of the best units on the market since a single unit can generate twice as much short-term fire (what local commanders need when air strikes or shell artillery resources are available but can take a long time to respond).

The CB-90H with the AMOS Navy system is the ideal light strike/fast patrol vessel since the advanced targeting systems of the AMOS can be used to concentrate a disproportionately large amount of fire on target vectors. I'd argue that landing a 120mm shell on an enemy vessel (which can be done from out of sight, using the cover of inlets and such littoral obstacles) is of greater effect than any type of gun fire that such a small vessel might generate with a conventional machine gun. Light amphibious operations might also benefit as a flotilla of stealthy CB-90H vessels w/AMOS Navy could land a platoon of special forces soldiers who would be supported by one or two AMOS-equipped patrol boats.

I said overrated and I meant it.
I do not mean to dispute that shoot-and-scoot is one of the primary functions of SP Arty...
And I agree that a mobile 120mm Mortar system is a very handy thing indeed... however, I stand by my comment that the double-barreled AMOS is overrated.


You don't seem to have read anything about the primary AMOS literature from the manufacturers.

Firstly; two barrels does not equal twice the firepower. Since the they fire simultaneously and co-axially, there is always going to be a heft overlap between the two shells. Twice as much ammo for only 1.4 times the effect.

a) The barrels are not necessarily fired simultaneously, but rather can provide a higher effective rate of fire (much as a triple turret of 16in guns on a Battleship can rapidly increase the effective rate of fire as the loading/firing cycles can be modulated to overlap evenly over the reload, retarget, and fire time set.

b) The system allows the turret to rapidly retarget onto a second zone within a few seconds for the second round, if you so wish it. A simple change in elevation of a degree or two can translate into a large shift in the targeted zone.

c) Modern mortar rounds come with internal guidance packages that allow for more advanced targeting than the inherent ballistic path...and if you're using cargo rounds to dispense DPICMs (as the Israelis have now begun to manufacture) then you /want/ your spread patterns to overlap around the edges.

d) Mortars are used most commonly to lay down HE charges with a wide field of effect...having 2 mortars hit in an area just outside of their primary blast zones will yield more than 1.4 times the effect since the secondary shrapnel and outer blast zones will become more than twice as deadly. If you drop two of these on a collection of enemy troops you are both twice as likely to strike at a vital formation and what would be peripheral hits on mechanized or 'soft' units are more than twice as likely to now be kills...not to mention a much wider secondary zone.

Secondly... auto-loaders sound nice, but are rather inappropriate for Mortars. Mortar bombs come with a number of horseshoe-shaped charges around the tail. These are ripped off when the bomb is loaded to select the charge level required. But for AMOS that must be done when you load the auto-loader (the loading of which takes about a minute per barrel): there is no way to adjust those already in the loader, or to 'advance' a preferred shell down the line.

Simply changing the elevation as you fire will solve this problem...any student of physics who has completed their basic ballistics studies can tell you that the same force at a slightly different angle will produce a definite, but predictable, deviation in range.

The AMOS literature records loading for a full firing run as being under 30 seconds for both barrels...and the 'automatic' loading system seems to refer not to a pre-loaded set of rounds as you would find in a tank (but which is never found in modern artillery vehicles) but rather to the breech-loading mechanism being computer/electically-driven. This allows for a more rapid loading as the computer can more precisely detect when the barrel is ready to accept a new round and can then open the breech and open whatever internal guides exist for the mortar.

There is no indication in any of the materials provided by either co-manufacturer or by any reviews that indicate that anyone has instituted a pre-loaded ammunition device such as you suggest...none. I believe that you are confusing a system that loads the rounds provided by the operator into the barrel automatically with a system that loads rounds automatically from a que.

The main issue here is not to compare the AMOS to a SPH but to compare it to other 120mm mortar systems. Most current 120mm vehicle-mounted systems are single, barrel-loaded units that require two men to operate and which occupy the entire rear portion of an APC such as the M113, which must be stopped and opened and prepared for fire missions. On most of these units the men must currently re-aim manually. On a few advanced units that are being developed and deployed the unit is breech-loaded but remains inside of the same open-topped and backed M113. There is NO, zero, ballistic protection for these crews and no realistic "shoot and scoot" capability.

The advance is in the whole package. 2 men in a turret can fire off many times as many rounds from a breech-loaded system which can be programmed to angle the barrels to engage a specific target...with both direct-fire and indirect-fire capabilities (I'd love to see one of those in-APC 120mm mortars defend the primary mover from a target a few hundred meters to the side of the unit). The turret allows for a more automated targeting and aiming system as there is almost no limitation on the angle of fire around the unit and very little in terms of elevation.

Don't get me wrong, AMOS is great for pre-planned fire missions where you have the c.26 minutes to load the bombs with the correct charge, but for quick and localized indirect fire support? Not unless it happens to be in the right range bracket.

Or unless your computer can angle the barrel within a second to the correct angle for firing on the target...

Then there is the firing signature: no CB radar could miss it or miss the fact that it is an AMOS. At that point the enemy intelligence officer will look at his chart and go "AMOS comes in batteries of X. This supports formations of level Y, ergo enemy assets must be equal or greater than Z deployed in front of us." A 1 barrel AMS would not be so recognisable or give away as much about your forces and their deployment. Similarly, you can afford about twice as many of a 1 barrel system and so divide your support in a more flexible manner.

On the contrary, a single 2-barreled AMOS unit could imitate an entire 3-mortar squad or platoon (depending on your organization) and by firing staggered rounds the enemy would have no way to determine the number of units. As I said and as every piece of AMOS literature states, the AMOS rounds can be, and are, fired in sequence for multiple target zones. The use of a pair of AMOS units would make it difficult to determine how many 120mm mortars are deployed as their firing sequence could simulate as many as 6 120mm units with a more conventional loading, aiming, and firing system.

A 1-barrel AMS would be just as identifiable on CB and would not be able to lay down the same rate of fire...simply put. If you have 1-barrel AMSes then your enemy will know exactly how many of your units are deployed by counting the firing rythm, which you can't change, and noting the number of coordinates fired upon in a certain amount of time. The 2-barrel system, quite simply put, could lay down about 2 times the fire power in the same amount of time. I hope that you agree that 2 times the number of mortars placed on-target in the same amount of time (that is, 2 for the time of 1 or 4+ for the time of 2) is of benefit to the local commander who needs a great deal of firepower in one area immediately.

And the AMOS is nowhere near twice as expensive as a 1-barrel system...that's just being silly. It is simply not so.

Less platforms = suffering more from casualties, assuming no improvement of survivability (and arguably, AMOS represents a reduction).

The AMOS already has a much greater survivability than almost any other 120mm mortar system, so even if it is hindered by smaller numbers then it is still ahead of its competition. An armored turret vs. an open-top and open-backed bay where the soldiers are exposed during firing...which is more at risk for enemy fire? A slightly smaller number of platforms with a greatly improved capability = having fewer casualties to suffer as you destroy your enemies (and the AMOS is an improvement in this matter).

For a Naval role, some of those issues are mitigated... if you can get over the charge-level adjustment issue.

The bah humbug was meant to be a little humerous... after all the AMOS must be better: it has 2 barrels! :wink:

This is, I'm sure, similar to the debate about whether it was better to load battleships with a triple turret for 16in guns over a double turret...and most modern BBs seem to have the triple turret so I guess that debate was settled somewhere along the way...

The AMOS isn't just better because it has 2 barrels, but because it has two barrels that are the speaking end of a system that has many technological improvements that place it beyond the abilities of all but one other Mortar system (the LAV-M (S) (http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/lav-m.htm), which has a shorter range, smaller ammo capacity, and lacks many AMOS features). Don't mistake the two-barrel concept as the only innovation of AMOS.

Competitors:
http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1064.htm
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/artillery/mortars/cardom/CARDOM.html

You know the AMOS equiped small attack craft sounds an awful like the dreaded 'dynamite boats' of a century ealier.

A heavy mortar equiped ship with automatic reloading ability. The 'dynamite' gun used compressed air as a propellent and proved unreliable at getting an appropriate range.

The whole system proved to be highly succeptiable to 3 inch guns on pre-dreadnaughts of the time.

After all that much explosive power also makes a nominal hit deadly since there would be little armor protection of the 120-mm rounds. Of course one could likely use an air based mortar system that would allow for more control of the ballistic range. But would also give it a much smaller possible range.

It is the age old balance, speed vs. accuracy vs. range.
If you increase one you usually have to decrease the other two propotionally.

OOC: The AMOS Navy systems are described as being designed primarily for shore-assaults.

a) The barrels are not necessarily fired simultaneously, but rather can provide a higher effective rate of fire (much as a triple turret of 16in guns on a Battleship can rapidly increase the effective rate of fire as the loading/firing cycles can be modulated to overlap evenly over the reload, retarget, and fire time set.

Correct. and by the time the vehicle/vessel has stopped rocking back from the recoil of the first shot... the speed advantage over a 1 barrel system is negligable.


b) The system allows the turret to rapidly retarget onto a second zone within a few seconds for the second round, if you so wish it. A simple change in elevation of a degree or two can translate into a large shift in the targeted zone.

Yup... so do other 120mm turreted mortar systems.


c) Modern mortar rounds come with internal guidance packages that allow for more advanced targeting than the inherent ballistic path...and if you're using cargo rounds to dispense DPICMs (as the Israelis have now begun to manufacture) then you /want/ your spread patterns to overlap around the edges.

Can't argue there
OTOH, even 120 mortar rounds really can't dispense enough bomblets to really make it worth while. Sorry, but its true. 16 Hornet 5's per shell (and these are the smallest the Israelis make) isn't altogether as effective as you might think.


d) Mortars are used most commonly to lay down HE charges with a wide field of effect...having 2 mortars hit in an area just outside of their primary blast zones will yield more than 1.4 times the effect since the secondary shrapnel and outer blast zones will become more than twice as deadly. If you drop two of these on a collection of enemy troops you are both twice as likely to strike at a vital formation and what would be peripheral hits on mechanized or 'soft' units are more than twice as likely to now be kills...not to mention a much wider secondary zone.

Admittedly, throwing twice as many shells in on the first salvo gives more chance to hit personell before they hit the deck... but as we discuss later, you can't afford as many AMOS as you could a single barreled Turreted Mortar so that advantage is mitigated.
The shell patterns do make it more deadly over a small area, where two dispirate shots would a)threaten and b)have a chance of injury over a much wider area. A kill is a kill, an overkill is not.


Simply changing the elevation as you fire will solve this problem...any student of physics who has completed their basic ballistics studies can tell you that the same force at a slightly different angle will produce a definite, but predictable, deviation in range.

Well gee, shucks. No offence meant but how much do you know about how artillery is fired?

Range bands I said... a difference in kilometres, not metres. Its not quite twice the explosive = twice the distance, but its darned close. Firing angle and charge level work together in overlapping bands that give coverage all the way out. To fire at something 1km away with maximum charge would be ridiculously innacurate. Likewise, minimum charge just wont go 16km out.


The AMOS literature records loading for a full firing run as being under 30 seconds for both barrels...and the 'automatic' loading system seems to refer not to a pre-loaded set of rounds as you would find in a tank (but which is never found in modern artillery vehicles) but rather to the breech-loading mechanism being computer/electically-driven. This allows for a more rapid loading as the computer can more precisely detect when the barrel is ready to accept a new round and can then open the breech and open whatever internal guides exist for the mortar.
There is no indication in any of the materials provided by either co-manufacturer or by any reviews that indicate that anyone has instituted a pre-loaded ammunition device such as you suggest...none. I believe that you are confusing a system that loads the rounds provided by the operator into the barrel automatically with a system that loads rounds automatically from a queue.

Who's tanks are you thinking of? Chally 2 uses 'auto-loaders' that consist of sweaty little men in the back who shove the shell into the breach. That doesn't mean that no tanks do, its just that I do not consider that the norm.
The information I have says that AMOS has a 13 round auto-loader for each barrel and about 4 or 8 stowed rounds after that.
Respectfully, then, I beg to differ.


The main issue here is not to compare the AMOS to a SPH but to compare it to other 120mm mortar systems. Most current 120mm vehicle-mounted systems are single, barrel-loaded units that require two men to operate and which occupy the entire rear portion of an APC such as the M113, which must be stopped and opened and prepared for fire missions. On most of these units the men must currently re-aim manually. On a few advanced units that are being developed and deployed the unit is breech-loaded but remains inside of the same open-topped and backed M113. There is NO, zero, ballistic protection for these crews and no realistic "shoot and scoot" capability.

OMG! This is terrible news! The RO Defence 120mm Armoured Mortar System doesn't exist!
Bad news for the Saudi-Arabian National Guard... since they already field them.

If you are assuming I am comparing to Howitzers or the kind of 81mm mortar that sits in the back then you are both mistaken and in need of a strategy re-think.

And besides which, an in-back mortar isn't such a terrible proposition either. The fire-control system can be built in and made just as shoot-and-scoot-capable as the turreted one... plus the back-hatch is vulnerable only to air-burst and direct hits (very, very unlikely). For non-striking ground-bursts the larger profile from having a turret actually makes the vehicle more vulnerable to being hit.


The advance is in the whole package. 2 men in a turret can fire off many times as many rounds from a breech-loaded system which can be programmed to angle the barrels to engage a specific target...with both direct-fire and indirect-fire capabilities (I'd love to see one of those in-APC 120mm mortars defend the primary mover from a target a few hundred meters to the side of the unit). The turret allows for a more automated targeting and aiming system as there is almost no limitation on the angle of fire around the unit and very little in terms of elevation.

See above, with the AMS and its direct-fire capability for bunker-busting.
I don't argue against turreted mortars, just AMOS.


Or unless your computer can angle the barrel within a second to the correct angle for firing on the target...

As anything designed with a fire-con can...


On the contrary, a single 2-barreled AMOS unit could imitate an entire 3-mortar squad or platoon (depending on your organization) and by firing staggered rounds the enemy would have no way to determine the number of units. As I said and as every piece of AMOS literature states, the AMOS rounds can be, and are, fired in sequence for multiple target zones. The use of a pair of AMOS units would make it difficult to determine how many 120mm mortars are deployed as their firing sequence could simulate as many as 6 120mm units with a more conventional loading, aiming, and firing system.

If you fire two barrels at once, your signature is immediately unmistakable. If you don't, why buy a double-barreled system?


And the AMOS is nowhere near twice as expensive as a 1-barrel system...that's just being silly. It is simply not so.

The OA work we did assumed that 4 AMOS and 6 AMS were iso-cost. WE considered that that was generous to the AMOS.
Prices silly? Who's the defence contractor here?


Less platforms = suffering more from casualties, assuming no improvement of survivability (and arguably, AMOS represents a reduction).
The AMOS already has a much greater survivability than almost any other 120mm mortar system, so even if it is hindered by smaller numbers then it is still ahead of its competition. An armored turret vs. an open-top and open-backed bay where the soldiers are exposed during firing...which is more at risk for enemy fire? A slightly smaller number of platforms with a greatly improved capability = having fewer casualties to suffer as you destroy your enemies (and the AMOS is an improvement in this matter).


It is still not the case that a turrete mortar is immediately less vulnerable. But even if I were to cede that point... I am comparing AMOS to another turreted system.


The AMOS isn't just better because it has 2 barrels, but because it has two barrels that are the speaking end of a system that has many technological improvements that place it beyond the abilities of all but one other Mortar system.

The AMS has all of those technological advancements bar those that I have debated the superiority of, plus it fires MECAR shells which are c.10% better than normal unitary HE.

Hence why I assert that AMOS is overrated. Not that it is useless, just that it isn't as good as people assume (or AMS)

OOC: Firstly, I do not compare weapons systems for a profession...so my access to information is limited and I will have to take your word on this.

As I have so little information available to me, most of what you say must be taken at word.

As for the Range bands, I understand that there is a significant issue with range shifts between band levels but I have not been given the opportunity to find out exactly what the charicteristics of heavy mortars are under different charges...I guess I'm sorry for not having experienced it first hand.

As for tanks, the modern Merkavas (Mk. 4s) have a rotary pre/autoloading system (link (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk4.html)) that allows for the selection of specific rounds...as I understand it some other tank designs have similar features.

As for the 13 rd. auto-loader, I'm taking your word as an informed expert as the information that I've been able to gather from the public domain hasn't mentioned such a system. In light of this, your claim of problems relating to the limited capabilities is 100% correct.

Yes, the Saudi Arabian national guard has the system that I posted a link to...the same system (AMS) you mention. I said that most of the competing systems (including the US and Israeli M113-based 120mm mortar carrier) do not have the benefits of a turret. The system you mention is the one other system of that quality that I know of. This is why there is the "Most" in the second sentence...and why I spoke about the LAV-M(S) later on.

I was mostly comparing AMOS to systems other than the AMS (as the AMS is also a new system which bears most of the AMOS capabilities, and apparently from your added information, few of the limitations) as those are the majority of the currently-fielded 120mm mortar systems. Few of those have a fire control computer and I know of only a handful of open-back mounted systems that are beginning to use computer-guided/electrically-driven systems (the Israeli CARDOM, at least one German or Nordic design, and, somewhat, the USMC's light vehicle-mounted system (Dragon Fire (http://www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil/events/archives/dragonfire.asp)). None of those systems has the capabilities of the AMOS or AMS, that is what I was arguing (not that the AMOS is inherently superior to the AMS, which there is little information about in the public sector...as is the case with the AMOS system).

I am not paid to do these comparisons nor am I provided with all of the necessary statistical and basic feature information. I'm arguing from what I /do/ know as an unpaid commentator.

Indeed, in comparison to AMS, AMOS is not a tremendously better option, but compared to the rest of the field it looks pretty damn good (as AMS may look better, well, that's literally your job to figure out).

OOC: Firstly, I do not compare weapons systems for a profession...so my access to information is limited and I will have to take your word on this. As I have so little information available to me, most of what you say must be taken at word.


I'll admit an unfair advantage in this respect, but I'll also admit bias against the AMOS. I am very much looking to do it down... so while everything I say here is true, it may be that I am drawing attention to its worst points.


As for the Range bands, I understand that there is a significant issue with range shifts between band levels but I have not been given the opportunity to find out exactly what the charicteristics of heavy mortars are under different charges...I guess I'm sorry for not having experienced it first hand.

Sorry to be condescending on that one. I haven't fired one of the things but I have talked to SMEs about how it works.
And you are right that one can fire high-charge shots at very high angles... but they take a while to come down and suffer much more from wind and other errors. So I guess you could use whatever charge was in there, even if it was too high; but you couldn't do a Multi Round Single Impact (MRSI) shot without precisely choosing the charge.
Unfortunately for my case, if you have pre-loaded the AMOS with the right charges (such as the kind of pre-planned fire missions for which it was designed) then you can do a very nasty MRSI indeed.


As for tanks, the modern Merkavas (Mk. 4s) have a rotary pre/autoloading system (link (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk4.html)) that allows for the selection of specific rounds...as I understand it some other tank designs have similar features.


Selection-specific auto-loader. ooooh... shiney :)
That wasn't sarcastic... those Isrealis can pull out some good tech. I wouldn't be surprised if all of the next gen tank guns and IFV cannons had that kind of system, but I didn't know it had made it into the latest Merk.


Yes, the Saudi Arabian national guard has the system that I posted a link to...the same system (AMS) you mention. I said that most of the competing systems (including the US and Israeli M113-based 120mm mortar carrier) do not have the benefits of a turret. The system you mention is the one other system of that quality that I know of. This is why there is the "Most" in the second sentence...and why I spoke about the LAV-M(S) later on.
I was mostly comparing AMOS to systems other than the AMS (as the AMS is also a new system which bears most of the AMOS capabilities, and apparently from your added information, few of the limitations) as those are the majority of the currently-fielded 120mm mortar systems. Few of those have a fire control computer and I know of only a handful of open-back mounted systems that are beginning to use computer-guided/electrically-driven systems (the Israeli CARDOM, at least one German or Nordic design, and, somewhat, the USMC's light vehicle-mounted system (Dragon Fire (http://www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil/events/archives/dragonfire.asp)). None of those systems has the capabilities of the AMOS or AMS, that is what I was arguing (not that the AMOS is inherently superior to the AMS, which there is little information about in the public sector...as is the case with the AMOS system).

True, I think I took your meaning wrong. My bad.
And I will agree with you that a turreted system has innate advantages over any of the 'back hatch' versions.


I am not paid to do these comparisons nor am I provided with all of the necessary statistical and basic feature information. I'm arguing from what I /do/ know as an unpaid commentator.

Indeed, in comparison to AMS, AMOS is not a tremendously better option, but compared to the rest of the field it looks pretty damn good (as AMS may look better, well, that's literally your job to figure out).

Heh. Its my job to perform analysis and find all the ways that AMS is better than AMOS... the reverse is none of my business.
:wink: I said I was bias.

And none of the arguments we produce seem to penetrate the wall of "two is better than one"... which is why I get hot under the collar about it.
I think this was an uncomfortable case of two people arguing the right answer to different questions. And never having looked at it (or thought about it tbh) in a naval fire-support role... I can't really comment on how well it would work.

So, erm... battleships, then?

So, erm... battleships, then?

Big boat+lots of thick steel+lots of big guns+big engines+lots of little crew=battleship

Voila!

:D

WN

Leave it to the humorist to solve the essential questions. :D

Big boat+lots of thick steel+lots of big guns+big engines+lots of little crew=battleship

Voila!

:D

WN

Hmmm... I had a thought about why Battleships are highly used on NS, but I can't seem to remember what it was.

Any ideas? :wink: