NationStates Jolt Archive

In honor of the late Sarzonian battlecruiser ISS Truxtun, which sunk with all hands in Sarzonia's war against Holy Panooly, the Portland Iron Works has constructed a battlecruiser of Sarzonian design to be called the Truxtun-class.

Displacement: 41,700 tons
Length: 897 feet
Beam: 109 feet
Draft: 32 feet
Primary Armament: 9 14-inch/46 guns in three triple turrets
Secondary Armament: 10 five-inch/53 guns in single mounts (five per side), 4 Harpoon, 2 5/54, 6 12.75 inch TT, 2 6-Cell Mk41 VLS systems, 6 RAM launchers, 8-Cell Mk.48.
Machinery: 200,000 shp diesel turbines; 8 boilers.
Speed, 35 Knots
Armor: 6-10 inch belt advanced steel alloy, 5.5-9.5 inch deck, 5.5-14 inch turrets, 5.75-9.7 inch CT
Complement 1263 officers and men

[OOC: The Truxtun-class is based on the Lexington-class battlecruisers, of which one entered service after conversion to an aircraft carrier. Six were originally planned.]

*bumped* with note on the RL class this is based upon.

[Purely gun battlecruisers like this are a bad idea, as was proven during WWI and WWII. Missile battlecruisers with backup guns are a much better idea because there inferior armour scheme is negated by the extreme range of cruise missiles.]

but if they have close air support then the large guns serve with great benefit

[Purely gun battlecruisers like this are a bad idea, as was proven during WWI and WWII. Missile battlecruisers with backup guns are a much better idea because there inferior armour scheme is negated by the extreme range of cruise missiles.]

I'd disagree, if you do not have good armour a small boat with a heavy machine gun could attack it when its vunerable and hit the ammo

[Huzen Hagen, I meant an inferior armour scheme compared to real battleships. And how the hell is a machine gun going to reach 800+ miles?]

[Huzen Hagen, I meant an inferior armour scheme compared to real battleships. And how the hell is a machine gun going to reach 800+ miles?]

Not in a battle but say in port

[Huzen Hagen, I meant an inferior armour scheme compared to real battleships. And how the hell is a machine gun going to reach 800+ miles?]

Even in battle, a small boat wont be considered a primary target unless its on its own

[Whatever. Go talk to Freethinkers or Doujin, maybe they can get you to see the light.]

The biggest enemy of the ship will be missiles or torpedos.
Armour at the lower parts of a ship tends to be weaker.

[Huzen Hagen, I meant an inferior armour scheme compared to real battleships. And how the hell is a machine gun going to reach 800+ miles?]

Ticonderoga-class cruiser.

The concept behind battlecruisers was not to engage the battleship in a line action or in a ship-to-ship battle. It was built to have an armament comparable to the battleship, but be lightly armored compared to them. I'd probably use this most likely for support of a battleship's shore bombardment role.

Also, there are missiles on this class. I took out some of the Lexington class's secondary armament of guns and replaced them with Harpoons and other modernized systems when I came up with the idea for this class.]

OOC: Hmmm, interesting....

Okay, a few questions and points:

1) Is this going to be a large class?

2) Secondary armament needs to be improved, considerably. Install another half-dozen RAM launchers and replace the Phalanx if necessary. You can delete the 21" tubes, unlike WW1 ships your warship isnt going to be attacking warships with torpedoes.

3) How big are the VLS? Mk.41's come in all shapes and sizes. Add a couple of 8-Cell Mk.48 for ESSM would also be useful.

4) Put more armour on. Yes, I know its a battlecruiser, but in reality those few extra knots of speed mean nothing in this world. Better armour will give your ship more survivability from the missiles that would undoubtedly be used against it. Replace the enigines too, this is the 21st century! Even if they are non-nuclear, at least use gas or diesel turbines.

1) Is this going to be a large class?
[OOC: I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a large class. If you're talking about a large number of ships, probably not. They would fill a niche role in our navy as a complement to guided missile battlecruisers. If you're talking about displacement, they're almost as large as some of the smaller battleships out there. ;)]


2) Secondary armament needs to be improved, considerably. Install another half-dozen RAM launchers and replace the Phalanx if necessary. You can delete the 21" tubes, unlike WW1 ships your warship isnt going to be attacking warships with torpedoes.
[OOC: I was a bit unsure about what kinds of secondary armaments to use but I wanted something somewhat modernized. Since I respect your expertise, I'll do that.]


3) How big are the VLS? Mk.41's come in all shapes and sizes. Add a couple of 8-Cell Mk.48 for ESSM would also be useful.
[OOC: I was using the figures from the Alliance-class cruisers (which themselves were based on the Alaska-class large cruisers) for the VLS systems I was putting into this.]


4) Put more armour on. Yes, I know its a battlecruiser, but in reality those few extra knots of speed mean nothing in this world. Better armour will give your ship more survivability from the missiles that would undoubtedly be used against it. Replace the enigines too, this is the 21st century! Even if they are non-nuclear, at least use gas or diesel turbines.
[OOC: Perhaps I should do just a bit more than the Alliance-class, since I tried to design those to withstand 11 inch guns? My knowledge of how much diesel turbine power to provide this or any of the cruisers I designed is pretty deficient, even for a rank amateur. I'd have to do a lot more homework to put the design together.]

Will this battle cruiser be available to the AORDO (http://aoforum.3wide.com) force?

It was my honour to destroy your ship

Will this battle cruiser be available to the AORDO (http://aoforum.3wide.com) force?

[OOC: If you're interested, yes.

Once I finish the modifications suggested by Freethinkers, it'll go live.]

It was my honour to destroy your ship

[OOC: About your hybrid SSBN/SSN sub (I know this isn't the thread, but while you're on here... wouldn't the fact it fires its ordnance vertically make it MORE susceptible to depth charges rather than less?]

It would seem inefficient (and worthless, bluntly) to build such a huge vessel. The US Navy is developing railgun weapons which would send pointed chunks of metal at speeds of Mach 7 and would effectively crater any known naval vessel. It could effectively flatten any building or any target that is not moving too much. Must I say more?

Also, most huge naval battleships have been decomissioned in the US navy, and have replaced by aircraft carriers.

Swarms of bees can easily overwhelm a larger animal. Think about it.

absolutely not. depth charges can only be used when they being behind the ship, not beneath it. And since the Lich can move while firing vertically it provides perfect protection for depth charges.

I was talking about jets that fire missiles. That is why most battleships are obsolete.

Sarzonia, could you post some of this information in the AORDO Section of the AO Forums for our members to peruse?

Also, most huge naval battleships have been decomissioned in the US navy, and have replaced by aircraft carriers.

[OOC: Thanks for your opinion. I happen to disagree with your thinking largely because the lightly-armored ships of today can be badly damaged or sunk by Harpoon missiles which can penetrate anything with less than four inches of armor. The Iowa-class battleships are designed to withstand the 16 inch shells it fires and the armor required for that task makes the Harpoon all but useless against an Iowa.

I see your point about rail guns, but if you're talking about missiles vs. guns, a good defense system can shoot down a missile. It can't do that against a 2 ton-plus shell hurtling its way. The Iowa-class ship used in the first Persian Gulf War was able to do its dirty work without much harrassment from the Iraqis.]

Actually, the Sovremenny-class uses steam turbines. Diesels are fine but noisy (reciprocating engines), gas turbines are (when heavily shielded) quiet (no reciprocating, just rotating), and steam turbines ought to be fine -- right in the middle between diesels and gas. I would, however, use full electric propulsion.

With regard to gun and missile armaments, take a look at the Alaska-class heavy/battle cruiser developed by the US Navy. It had 3 triple 12" turrets -- I used that and the Kirov-class for the basis of my Nieland-class and Monarch-class battlecruisers and battleships. Load the sucker up with Sea RAMs (11-cell RAM launchers with Phalanx CIWS radar and other optronic sensors), which have a comparable mass to 3" gun emplacements, and high-volume-of-fire OTO Melara Compact 76 mm (3") guns for dual purpose engagements.

Also, the US DOD is proposing the development of an orbital defence suite consisting of tungsten rods dropped from orbit to smash targets on the ground. This system would be effective, though incredibly expensive.

The Railgun technology consists impelling metal spikes into orbit and guided down to a target by the fins on the projectile. The advantage of this to missiles is that the railgun can be fired many times before it runs out of ammo (Railgun ammo is much smaller than most heavy missile systems). It is much cheap than missile systems, too.