NationStates Jolt Archive

Raysia is currently developing the "Sea Base Mk II" seaborne defense platform.

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/acc.jpg
http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/acc.gif

While not as big as the Mobile Seaborne Airstrip, (http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/airstrip.htm) this "Sea Base" will be significantly larger a normal Aircraft Carrier at around 425 meters, and much wider with the addition of two sideboard hulls, making this into a large trimaran-hull ship.

The Main hull is just what it looks like. It has a runway deck, and several elevators to lower fighters and STOL transports into it's large belly of hangar and cargo decks. The decks in the front of the boat are Command and Control, including the bridge, which sits just below the edge of the runway. The C&C room serves a a full-on Brother (http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/brother.htm) network control center, and has the capacity to control up to 72 UCAV fighters by remote. Radar and Air traffic is controlled by the tower near the starboard aft. The runway does have catch-wires to stop incoming planes, but has an unusual lack of catapults (simply because the majority of Raysian fighters and medium transports are STO-capable.)

The 2 sideboard hulls are what make this carrier very unique. They are heavy defense platforms, each with an AME Mk. IV that can act as both a Sea and Sky cleaner, as well as a triple-barrel 12" cannon turret. In semi-concealed holds beneath the hull plates are countless weapons, including .50 cal AA guns, 140mm DU gauss cannons, several 100mm support cannons, a couple banks of mini-missile batteries, a few SAM batteries, and of course the obligatory compliment of torpedoes and cruise missiles.

A unique feature of this trimaran design is that there are gaps between the main hull and subhulls, enough room to dock a standard submarine in each nook. Submarines may be serviced and restocked from these carriers.

The only thing this ship can't do is land a jumbo jet transport or bomber. But with the advent of the newer RT-1707-180 Sea-landing transports, this carrier was designed to accomodate them. The planes can land in the sea and dock to the sea base, but only if the base is at full stop.

The Sea Base has a max speed of over 30 knots, and accommodates a complement of 3,200 personnel (with 220 officers); 3,100 aircrew (with 380 officers); and up to 2,000 passengers/troops.

The aircraft compliment is huge, and includes up to 72 UCAVs, 32 Dogfighters, 32 Attackers, 32 Interceptors, 18 RT-2007 NVTOLs, and 4 RT-2207 Jumbo NVTOLs. It also holds several landing and patrol boats in it's lower decks.

With all fighter aircraft on deck, the hangar decks are large enough to move tanks and equipment between cargo NVTOLs with ease, or stock up "Drop-Boxes."

More will come on this ship as it develops, (and hopefully a better-quality pic :P)

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rsig1.jpg (http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rmtdex.htm)
http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rsig5.jpg (http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/factbook.htm)

great pic! any idea of a cost?

WOOT :shock:

Raysia does it again... Thos side guns may be a 'tad' too large.. maybe turrets would work better, other than that it Looks FABUIOUS!! (clap claps) Very very nice Work... Oh yea! should it have a 'Control Tower' ?

WOOT :shock:

Raysia does it again... Thos side guns may be a 'tad' too large.. maybe turrets would work better, other than that it Looks FABUIOUS!! (clap claps) Very very nice Work... Oh yea! should it have a 'Control Tower' ?Why does it need a "tower"? (seriously, why? I'm not good at navy tech :P)

And the guns need to be that large, they're AMEs... look 'em up on my site.

great pic! any idea of a cost?LOL maybe 15 billion for the prototype. The mass producees will be much cheaper, but I'll mark em up ;)


wait, i should probably stop talking :P

The big guns do leave a bit to be desired, the way they are placed they couldn't possibly turn, which would mean the whole ship would have to move to fire them(so if there are two fleets of ships, you'll have to pick one of them, because the other will be on top of you by the time you turn around again). Also a tower is a little bit cheaper than hundreds of cameras placed around the perimeter of the boat.

Hmm... Tower tower... Well, Primarly as a tall place to put all your radar Equpment... You need those things High up, and you need space for the Domes and towers, and other comm equipment.. pluse it works as a bridge I guess. For the captain, Lookout.. stuff like that..

Cross: Good point witht he radar and stuff. I'll consider adding a tower.

Sileetris: They are Rail Cannons. While they are heavy, they are firmly weighted into the ship, and can maneuver about and fire from any position in their firing arc.

EDIT: OK redid the calc.

The Cannons wouldn't be able to fire the same force as those on the ground, but can fire lightweight shells fast, or heavy shells slower, but still packs a punch

Yes but a barrel that size needs a support farther up the barrel, it can't be lifted at the base alone unless it has a counterweight. You can see the counterweight on your original skycleaners(very large), and your seacleaners have forward supports. Since these more closely resemble seacleaners(low to the ground), they would need a much larger deck area to mount the tracks for the forward supporters.

Solutions:
1: mount them high up like sky cleaners
pros: works
cons: much higher center of gravity

2: increase deck area for forward supports
pros: lower CoG than solution 1
cons: requires restructuring of ship

3: shorten barrel length
pros: no change to rest of ship
cons: railguns strength depend on barrel length

4: this is NS
pros: no change at all to the ship
cons: none really, no one really cares as long as the stats look good on paper and the picture is shiney!!11

Yes but a barrel that size needs a support farther up the barrel, it can't be lifted at the base alone unless it has a counterweight. You can see the counterweight on your original skycleaners(very large), and your seacleaners have forward supports. Since these more closely resemble seacleaners(low to the ground), they would need a much larger deck area to mount the tracks for the forward supporters.

Solutions:
1: mount them high up like sky cleaners
pros: works
cons: much higher center of gravity

2: increase deck area for forward supports
pros: lower CoG than solution 1
cons: requires restructuring of ship

3: shorten barrel length
pros: no change to rest of ship
cons: railguns strength depend on barrel length

4: this is NS
pros: no change at all to the ship
cons: none really, no one really cares as long as the stats look good on paper and the picture is shiney!!11LOL It's a rough draft.

I'll probably draw in the sea-cleaner type supports... but that would KILL the firing arc.

I could probably just raise it up a little higher on it's stilts and add a big ol' counterweight. :P

Either way, i added a rough-draft control tower, and made the pic more higher-res:

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/carrierattackerbig.jpg

Tag - This looks like it could make a good purchase when it comes on the market.

btw, you might want to add a catapult system before it goes on general sale - while the majority of your planes may be STO-capable, a large number of nations' won't be, and there's no sense limiting your market (I know that's a small point, but I have to cater for the ultra-pedantic nation with non-STO-capable carrier-based planes :wink: )

But you probably already planned that, if it wasn't already full of design genius - damn your talent :)

/jealousy.

4. People do care :)

Tag - This looks like it could make a good purchase when it comes on the market.

btw, you might want to add a catapult system before it goes on general sale - while the majority of your planes may be STO-capable, a large number of nations' won't be, and there's no sense limiting your market (I know that's a small point, but I have to cater for the ultra-pedantic nation with non-STO-capable carrier-based planes :wink: )A lot of this ship revolves around Raysian Technology. It's like the playset for your action figure collection :P

This ship is near worthless without it's UCAVs (crap, I forgot to mention those in the compliment!) and without it's brother network and other stuff.

Tag - This looks like it could make a good purchase when it comes on the market.

btw, you might want to add a catapult system before it goes on general sale - while the majority of your planes may be STO-capable, a large number of nations' won't be, and there's no sense limiting your market (I know that's a small point, but I have to cater for the ultra-pedantic nation with non-STO-capable carrier-based planes :wink: )A lot of this ship revolves around Raysian Technology. It's like the playset for your action figure collection :P

This ship is near worthless without it's UCAVs (crap, I forgot to mention those in the compliment!) and without it's brother network and other stuff.
Heh - then the price would have to be significantly lower than the 15bil you quoted (for the prototype) if you need to buy millions of dollars worth of more equipment for it to even become functional, even less if the things it needs to operate at full capacity are Raysia-exclusive... just my thoughts - I wouldn't pay much for something that's worthless unless I buy a whole lot more, it doesnt make economic sense.

Maybe have a version for international sale (with alternatives provided for the technology that would need to be bought seperately otherwise) and a version for you? That's what I'm doing with my 'Malcha' spyplane design - For the for-sale version I'm taking out all the classified technology I don't want anyone else to get hold of and either replacing it with an alternative or knocking a chunk off the price

Not bad, Raysia, but compare your pic with the pic of a Nimitz or Charles de Gaul, or what have you type carrier you will notice you lack some necessities - namely, a radar tower.

"Generalize and you aren't lying!"

originally: Includes aircraft catapult

improved: Includes catapult
http://acs.chem.ku.edu/carnival2000/images/spectra-Catapult.jpg

Congratulations on giving me my first giggle of the day :lol:

Not bad, Raysia, but compare your pic with the pic of a Nimitz or Charles de Gaul, or what have you type carrier you will notice you lack some necessities - namely, a radar tower.working on it

We may place an advanced order of 3 as long as we have an assurance of no other nation in my region getting there hands on this type ship.

Guys guys guys! I'm not even sure if I'm going to be selling this freely!

I might make it allies-only, or even just Raysia only!

We're talking AMEs here!

Fixed the AME, fixed the control tower:
http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/fixedcannon.jpg

Fixed the whole pic:
http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/carrierattackerbig2.jpg

bump

KICK

Where are the elevators? The ship looks kinda thin to hold aircraft in hangers - where are the hangers at, btw?

Where are the elevators? The ship looks kinda thin to hold aircraft in hangers - where are the hangers at, btw?working on the elevators.

The hangars are below decks/out of view because of the sideboard hulls

bump

This is an interesting, albeit unusually shaped ship. Good job, Raysia, we may consider it as a candidate for our Three Isles and Mettlian Isles naval defense platforms.

3: shorten barrel length
pros: no change to rest of ship
cons: railguns strength depend on barrel length


Actually, a more pertinent con to number three would be a drastic loss in accuracy, particularly with rail guns.

3: shorten barrel length
pros: no change to rest of ship
cons: railguns strength depend on barrel length


Actually, a more pertinent con to number three would be a drastic loss in accuracy, particularly with rail guns.

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/acc.jpg
http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/acc.gif

Those are the finished pics, I think... the water still looks a little weird.

Either way, I added the elevators, planes, and guns.

Jeez...I've been trying to reply since 9:25.

Anyways, thats a very nice and much better picture...if you ever put it up for purchase, let me know.

I stil lcan't get over how 'Thin' it looks from a side view, but taking into account its over all size It actually works nicely and is quite realistic, No worriers on the water, the whole final Rendering looks Beautyful Raysia!
Kudos!

I stil lcan't get over how 'Thin' it looks from a side view, but taking into account its over all size It actually works nicely and is quite realistic, No worriers on the water, the whole final Rendering looks Beautyful Raysia!
Kudos!The main hull is bigger than it seems. i should note on that sketch view that the pic only shows what's ABOVE the water line. There is a good chunk of hull underneath.