NationStates Jolt Archive

Invictus class Battleship

Because Freedom isn't Free

In order to secure naval dominance we have come to the realization that ship-to-ship guided missiles have a great weakness that large scale naval cannon's do not: They are easily interceptable. To counter this threat, and provide a highly powerful, affordable and survivable surface combatents we have designed the next generation of Battleships. The Invictus class will help to secure naval dominance for all participating nations.

Those participating in its development are: Paradisovia, Largeheadlandiaburg and to a lesser extent Agrigento.

We will except a further limited number of production partners until this ship is opened to the export market.


Dimensions

Length(O/A) 925'
Length(W/L) 890'
Beam 121' 2"
Draft(max) 40' 5"
Draft(mean) 36'
Draft(design) N/A

Displacement

Maximum 73,500 tons
Full Load 70,965 tons
Design 60,500 tons

Propulsion

Nuclear Reactors 2 Westinghouse A4W pressurized-water
Turbines 4 GE geared steam
Horsepower 280,000 shp
Shafts 4
Propellers 4
21' across
Endurance 800,000 -1,000,000 miles
15 years
Max Speed 30+ knts

Protection

Side Belt 16.1" tapering to 10.2" on 1" STS plate inclined 19 degrees
Lower Side Belt 7.2" tapered to 1" inclined 10 degrees
Bulkheads 18" forward
15.25" aft
Deck Main 0.75"+1.5"
2nd 5.8"+1.25"
3rd 0.62" to 0.625"
splinter 0.625"
total 10.454"
Barbettes 21.3"
18" rear
Turrets face 18"+4.5"
sides 10"
back 12"
roof 9.15"
Conning Tower 18" sides
7.25" roof
Immunity 18,000 yards to 32,000 yards vs 16"/50 2,700 lb shells
16,500 yards to 34,500 yards vs 16"/45 2,245 lb shells

Armament

Main Battery 12 x 16"/50 cal (Mk 7) in 4 triple turrets
2 forward 2 aft
Secondary 20 x 5"/54 cal (Mk 16) in ten twin turrets
5 port 5 starboard
AAW 40 x 40mm/56 cal Bofors in 10 quad gun mounts
56 x 20mm/70 cal Oerlikons
50 VLS, Universal
4 x Phalanx CIWS

Complement

Design 115 officers
2,240 enlisted
As Flagship 189 officers
2,789 enlisted

Combat Systems

SPS-49 Air Search Radar
SPS-67 Surface Search Radar
4 Mk37 Gun Fire Control
2 Mk38 Gun Direction
1 Mk40 Gun Director
1 SPQ-9

SLQ-25 NIXIE
SLQ-32 EW system

[b]Countermeasures

Decoys 4 Loral Hycor Mk.137 SRBOC 6-barreled chaff launchers
SSTDS
SLQ-36 Nixie (phase 1) towed torpedo decoy
ECM/ESM SLQ-32(V)4 EW system
WRL-1H warning, intercept

Aircraft

Helicopters Platform and facilities to rearm and refuel LAMPS III SH-60B/F
2 SH-60B/F (FLT IIA)
2 place hanger added in Flight IIA ships


http://www.warships1.com/US/USbb67-Montana-LD1.jpg
http://www.warships1.com/US/USbb67-Montana-model3.jpg
http://www.warships1.com/US/USbb67-Montana-art1.jpg

((Stats modified slightly from an Iowa?))

((Stats modified slightly from an Iowa?))

[Actually the Montana class, it is much more powerful than an Iowa. More guns, universal VLS, and Nuclear powered]

((Some of the stats resemble that of a Iowa. I remember the Montana class. Never created right? Tgram me about other naval oppertunites, I see some partnership in ship creation in the future?))

((Some of the stats resemble that of a Iowa. I remember the Montana class. Never created right? Tgram me about other naval oppertunites, I see some partnership in ship creation in the future?))

[okay]

Any other comments?

What is prize of these battleships? I would like to order 4-6 of them please.

Cool...I'm glad you got this up. :wink:

Might I also place an advance order for one of these fine ships? We would like to be the first to own one of these when they are ready for export.

What is prize of these battleships? I would like to order 4-6 of them please.

A price has not yet to be determined. We excepting production partners however. Are you interested?

Once the participating Navies have received their orders we will begin sale on the export market. Until than we will except a more few production partners (2-3).

Might I also place an advance order for one of these fine ships? We would like to be the first to own one of these when they are ready for export.

Sure.

No more partners??

Edenstein Is VERY intrested in joining up with this venture, for some time we have been looking to increase our firepower on the seas, we hope that knowledge gained from construction of our Romanov Class Battleships will assist you, also we pledge 3 full dry docks in the port city of Raliegh to this effort.

While we feel battleships to be an outdated technology, one that will most likely stay that way, we do agree with the use of naval cannons as opposed to missiles and the like. Chellis uses the biggest known naval cannon in the world at the time, on the Amerigo class Cruiser. Armed with a 1270mm Gigant cannon(which takes almost all of the length of the deck), which can move slightly up and down, but not left right or anything, its shell can obliterate most ships in one blow... It is mostly recoilless, and ships are expected to stay at least a mile away from its behind. It is crewed by multiple ships that supply the materials for the recoilless part, and shells, etc...

As much as I love battleships (And I do), Carriers will always remain the head capital ship of modern fleets since battleships have always had the problem of being bereft of air cover and a very vulnerable target for aircraft. Plus it doesn't have the kind of long-range capability that a carrier has with its aircraft.

It's a great project and I am interested in joining it simply as tribute to my favourite class of warships. Perhaps I may be of service since I designed a sort of strike battleship for my military's tactical doctrine.

http://www.redsun.org/images/lenin.gif
Premier Bomfy
Centrist Republic of Aequatio

In order to secure naval dominance we have come to the realization that ship-to-ship guided missiles have a great weakness that large scale naval cannon's do not: They are easily interceptable.

These are merely to compliment our Arsenal ships.

Since when are battleships vulnerable to air attack? And don't say Pearl Harbor, almost none of the ships were prepared. Anti-Ship missiles from aircraft usually will bounce off of a battleship's armor, they are too weak. It would take direct bomb and torpedo hits, and a lot of them. Modern battleships, such as the Iowa (upgraded), have anti-torpedo armor as well. With better anti-aircraft and anti-submarine systems, they are a devastating force.

If you wish the very up to date and advanced jahagyarian shipyards have one of the super drydocks available for construction of a vessel, and the JIAT labs are always open for use by visitors as long as you dont mind shareing all your work done there with us.

Since when are battleships vulnerable to air attack? And don't say Pearl Harbor, almost none of the ships were prepared. Anti-Ship missiles from aircraft usually will bounce off of a battleship's armor, they are too weak. It would take direct bomb and torpedo hits, and a lot of them. Modern battleships, such as the Iowa (upgraded), have anti-torpedo armor as well. With better anti-aircraft and anti-submarine systems, they are a devastating force.

Battleships have never had the protection against aircraft like carriers do. How many Japanese battleships were sunk by US bombers, the same with Italian and German battleships with the British. I know, I only look at WW2, but that was really the last great age for the battleship. (except for the Gulf when Mighty Mo was blasting the crap out of Iraqi positions)

In World War 2, battleships had skimpy anti-aircraft systems at best. Now battleships can be equipped with numerous anti-aircraft systems to shoot down aircraft before they get into striking distance, which eliminates bombs, the only -real- threat. Not to mention that new battleships have anti-torpedo skirts, they add to the anti-torpedo armor.

If I shot a missile at the side of a Carrier, I would probably to signifigant damage, they do not have the armor a battleship does. if I shot a missile at a battleship, it might scratch the paint. Modern battleships, especially if escorted, are very powerful. Plus the fact a modern battleship, in one minute of fire, can expend more weapon power then two full flights from a Nimitz, and it would cost less. Modern battleships can also carry VTOL aircraft, to add to their striking distance.

The Federation of Glorious Humanity is interested in joining the partnership building this vessel. We have been looking for ways to expand our navy, and this seems a good opportunity. We have three drydocks at Saleon that can be used to help build these ships, and we can contribute researchers and funds to the project.

Allean Hanoway
General of the Navy
Federation of Glorious Humanity

In World War 2, battleships had skimpy anti-aircraft systems at best. Now battleships can be equipped with numerous anti-aircraft systems to shoot down aircraft before they get into striking distance, which eliminates bombs, the only -real- threat. Not to mention that new battleships have anti-torpedo skirts, they add to the anti-torpedo armor.

If I shot a missile at the side of a Carrier, I would probably to signifigant damage, they do not have the armor a battleship does. if I shot a missile at a battleship, it might scratch the paint. Modern battleships, especially if escorted, are very powerful. Plus the fact a modern battleship, in one minute of fire, can expend more weapon power then two full flights from a Nimitz, and it would cost less. Modern battleships can also carry VTOL aircraft, to add to their striking distance.

I know what your saying, and I'm not arguing, I'm just saying that historically battleships have always had a problem with air power. But I agree with what you're saying about modern battleships being very potent. I heard that a battleship was fairly cheap to maintain as well, like an Iowa would cost only as much as a Ticonderoga missile cruiser.

Of the Council of Clan is interested in these mighty vessels and will Lend the Aberdeen Naval Yard facilities to production as well as funds as needed.

Aequatio: Yes, it is very potent. In my book, it is on par with the carrier, and in some cases, more potent, but in some cases, the carrier is more potent (precision strikes, inland strikes).

But what would happen if the following was made:

Submarine battleship, could submerge like a submarine, but had the firepower and armor of a battleship.

Battlecarrier, a cross between a carrier and a battleship.

Submarine battleship, could submerge like a submarine, but had the firepower and armor of a battleship.

Battlecarrier, a cross between a carrier and a battleship.

Good ideas, but how plausible or cost-effective are they?

(well, a submarine battleship would likely sink as soon as it tried to take on ballast water unless it was so unarmored as to be impractical. Also, the guns would either have to be completely useless upon surfacing, or connected with such a complicated mechanism that their recoil would probably just snap it off. Not to mention the vast amount of noise it would make at any speed above stand-still.

A battleship-carrier is highly wasteful, because it doesn't really do anything well. It's a mediocre battleship and probably a worse carrier. I'd take a real battleship and a real carrier any day, or, failing that, a real carrier.)

check out this post, it should give u some extra info for accurate stats: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=97640&highlight=

We actually developed a couple of Battleships awhile back.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2061478&highlight=#2061478

See the details on the "Giants"(Iowa Class AEGIS)
and the "Padre" (Yamato Class AEGIS)

We would be happy to assist as a production partner as needed

Sorry, I have been busy with things at school *sigh*

Current Partners:

Edenstein
Glorious Humanity
Of the council of clan
Happy Baseball Fans


More details to follow