NationStates Jolt Archive

Kamata Bluehouse
...and that is why, ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, the Lancer Mk III ship design! *Clapping is heard as a big sheet falls down from behind the president at the docks and reveals a huge, but beautiful ship painted in flat black, royal blue, and bright yellow* You may pick up the specifications on your way out, and we will soon have pictures ready. Using magnetic technology to propel it, it's one of the fastest and quietest ship designs around.

Specifications:
Type: Missile Battleship
Length: 750 Feet
Beam: 300 Feet
Draught: 40 Feet
Armor Thickness: 30 Inches
Displacement: 270,250 Tons Light; 290,250 Full Load
Powerplant: 8 Acceleration Tubes; 750,000 Horsepower Total; 93,750 Horsepower Each; 50,700 Pounds of Thrust from Each Tube; No Props
Top Speed: 39knots
Armament: 2 x 18 Inch Semi-Automatic Heavy Rail Cannon (Both on one turret at front of ship); 6 x Hydroskipper Deployers; 9 x MaxLaunch Torpedo Tubes; 24 x SAM Racks (16 missiles per rack, 15ft length missiles, solid propellant, guided); 36 x RoundKeeper Mk 4 CIWS; 1,500 x Mk 5 AAML (All-Around Missile Launcher) Tubes;
Range: Globally Operating

Advanced Detection Systems
The Lancer Mk III uses systems where they've never been before. Security cameras cover the boat, multiple smaller radar towers line the sides of it, and it even has a long-range scope on top of the tower that allows crew members to scope out, and even shoot at super-long distances, just in case you want to take out the captain on another ship without being detected.

Advanced Waterjet Propulsion
To help reduce detection and get the highest efficiency possible, the boat has a mini nuclear power plant that powers magnets in eight tubes along the hull of the boat. These tubes charge the water positively when it comes in, and then the water is attracted to a negatively charged section of the tube, which causes the water to become uncharged, and shot out the back. These tubes have enough power to crush and shoot cans out of them. In fact, during construction, workers often set up targets in the rear of the ship, turn the propulsion system up high, and shoot cans through walls accidently.

Targetting Systems
The computer systems onboard the ship can collectively target 3,297 objects, and fire missiles or cannons at them depending on what the 75 operators of the weapons systems wish for it to do.

Missile Hatches
The 1,500 missile hatches onboard the ship can shoot nearly any type of missile that will link up with the ship's targetting system and is appropriate for a vertical launch tube. Each tube will hold six missiles and can fire them off every 5 seconds. Each ten missile tubes have a single technician for them, so the ship can reload the 9,000 missiles that it fires fairly quickly.

18" Semiautomatic Railguns
These railguns use top-of-the line modern technology to solve a big problem. "How can we use kinetic energy to penetrate the hull of the ship, and fast?" These railguns clock well over mach 7 during mid-flight, and use the power of a nuclear reactor deep within the ship's armor, as well as a huge capacitor array in the turret, using 1,000 capacitors. The rails presented another big problem, "How do we replace them when they wear out?". Again, not a problem. The rails slide in or out, easily. All you have to do is unlock the power terminals from the rail and face the gun at a negative degree angle. They slide right out, and are sent to a processing plant in Kamata where they can be melted down, mixed with a little bit more gold, and made into another rail.

Trimeran Design
The trimeran is a simple design, a center hull, and two outriggers that extend from that center hull. The outriggers are actually covered with 5" more armor than the main part of the hull, since they would take most of the fire. Along with added storage space, the outriggers also increase speed and decrease the required electricity to propel the boat at higher speeds.

Aircraft Landing Pad + Hanger
The left outrigger has been specially modified with a landing pad on top, and the inside of the outrigger functions as a hanger. The elevator is actually placed on the first level of the inside of the outrigger, and there is a ramp to enter the first floor and elevator. We did this to keep the elevator from being a firing point, as if it went crashing down, the aircraft inside of the outrigger would be placed in a lot of danger. The ramp has a large door on top of it that closes when the captain wishes it, so that missiles or cannon fire cannot enter the first floor or elevator, protecting the airplane. The landing pad has a catapult, and can be used to refuel and rearm by seperate elevators when the ramp is shut. The outrigger can hold a total of 100 planes inside, and the sixth and seventh level of the outrigger holds fuel and weaponry. A single helicopter can also be put on either of those levels, and there are two more helicopter pads on top of the landing pad.

(Please let me know of any possible mistakes I may have made. I think I calculated it all correctly. I might sell it, but that's only a possibility, not a fact.)

you got the full load and light displacements muddled up when you typed. Im not quite the expert on anything else. But that much is obvious.

You migh want to change that quickly if you still can.

you got the full load and light displacements muddled up when you typed. Im not quite the expert on anything else. But that much is obvious.

You migh want to change that quickly if you still can.
Oh man... that was a muddle.

Thank you very much!

cannon arent as good as misiles for anti shipping actions.

I have some for bombarding land and a few for shooting at really small veseels on my ships. But misiles are the way to go.

From what ive gathered and researched. I may be wrong here/

You might want to try slightly smaller SAMS and ina quantity much greater than that. Your ship is about foutry times as big as US cruiser and has less AA misiles on. It also has less misiles, whose reach can exceed 100km, which means that while the hull is probably good, you might want to totally redo the weapons. My largest ship is a fifth of that size and packs many more SAMS and and even its misiles outnumber your SAMs a few times. And its defensively oreitated (heavy arnmour and powerful SAm weapons) and still has two smaller guns for land targets (as while guns arte pretty usless against ships 100km away, if you want to shoot up an anit misile platform on land 16 inch guns will laugh at them and cant be shot down)

Those huge guns probably could be fitted on such a huge ship, and its probably armed reasonably, there is just no point in 16mile guns. Or even 30 mile ones as a main weapon.

Unless you want a lan attack vessel, in which case, its good for taking out coastal misile defense units.

Yes the 16 mile cannons actually do have a purpose. They're filled with explosive scatterheads, and I'd kinda assume that it wouldn't be too hard to put a really big hole in enemy ships with them.

I do agree though that it needs more missiles. That was my original intent, but was forgotten. I can assure you that the main purpose of the ship was originally a missile platform, but I added in so much other stuff, that because of the amount of weaponry, I thought it would be full.

I'll edit it in a little bit to include all of the missiles. This would have been my prime platform for massive bombarding of larger ships such as the doujin with many of the missiles.

the doujin is just a really big ship. It's own weight (and cost) in smaller vessels could sink it. Just by weight of fire,

True, but the guns could be replaced by litterally hundreds of misiles as they get bigger in a way that means that weight is not proportional to diameter of shell. Infact the larger guns get bigger by a larger factor.

I think misiles may be more effective too. As they are designed to gut ships.

that said scattering is good as the doujin has multi hulls and bulkheads meaning that gutting is limited in the area it affects.

Something I have learnt from and all my larger ships now incorporate.

Shells cant be blocked, but are less accurate. I guess they might drop through several levels too...

Sams are much better for anti misle purposes than CIWS too. My ships can use their large racks of SAMs for anti misile purposes too. Following this relevation (our CIWS were stripped down a lot too)

Missiles are good for ship to ship combat, but guns are still useful with new shell technology like GPS guidance and RAP(Rocket assisted Projectiles)

And a mix of RAM-116's and CIWS is good Because even the missiles have a minimum range, the RAM-116 will nail just about any anti-ship missile sent your way. I think you should scaled down the size of the guns, 16-18" diameter is about as big as you'd want to go, you'd still be flinging shells weighing 1 and a half to 2 tons everytime you fire. With the RAP shells/ Sabot Shells I use as main weapons on my Battleships. the 16" Rifles are able to fling an 8-10" shell about 95 miles. that 8-10" Sabot Round is of course armore piercing and is carrying about 800-1000lbs of explosives and can't be shot down by SAM's. In other words It will ruin all but the biggest of ships days. And I don't count the supposed Super Dreadnoughts into the equation because i shall never encounter one as my ignore function works rather well against godmodding. Anything over 100,000 tons is really Superflous

Oh with your ship you could scale it down a bit.

I have an assault cruiser that has 8" Guns, M-270 MLRS, and 4 Mk 41 VLS, is armored with Ceramic/Steel/Depleted Uranium, Intermixed armor. so it'll laugh at any thing but Shells.


your probably wondering about the MLRS on a ship. Yes its land based artillery but it works like a giant shotgun in two ways. One, say you have a swarm of smaller boats coming at you and their about 5 mi's away and are about to hit with a small missiles. You fire off your VLS and the Submunitions will spread havoc over a wide area on smaller ships, like destroyers and frigates. Or if you want to prep a beach for landing, its good that way too. Keep firing the 8" guns at a constant rate to bombard and then occasionaly fire a massive volley with the MLRS. Definetly would hamper a counter-attack. and of course the MK 41 can carry a wide array of missiles.

You probably should put in what sort of Combat system your using, what type of radars, what type of Sonars Etc.

not sure why your bothering with Torpedo Drops, unless they are for ASW, because the days of large ships firing torpedo's at each other are long gone.

You can get a hellofa lot more powerful ship if you just scale it down some and pack it to the brim. The size and or Triple hulls aren't necessarily needed.

One critque other than "not another wannabe uber-battleship." But your 40" cannons only have a range of 16 miles? Dude, are you serious! 18" cannons when in experimental stages by the US way back when and we're talking pre-WWII had a range of 55,000 yards or 31.25 mi. You might want to change that!

Um...are you sure about those guns? A 39-inch weapon would have enourmous recoil force, be very inaccurate, be hard to reload, be hard to resupply, and so on...just me twopenn'orth...

I'd see a single salvo splitting the ship, or at least swamping it, if you had a heavy powder load. I could easily see it working with the very short range, however. Lower muzzle velocity == less recoil. It also allows you to use heavier powder loads, even some of the high-tech polymer explosives available today that, under normal muzzle velocities, would be worthless as a ballistic weapon. But with this arrangement, I could see the utilization of these newer explosives. (no, missile use would be nearly worthless for them as well, due to the need to manuver you would end up shaking them to the point of detonation)

Just a thought to validate the big guns shorter-than-expected range. While loading them would be difficult, the sheer volly power from a single shell would make a full volley from the HMS Agincourt look like a pop gun.

After 30-32" in gun size, you get a heavy degredation in range and accuracy.

and after 16-18" you get a heavy degredation in value.

There. I upgraded it to the Lancer Mk II battleship.

Changed the main cannons down to 18" SemiAutomatic Railguns. (Man the powers of liquid nitrogen cooling are nice!)

Put it as a single hull, so increased speed and greatly decreased weight.

Added some more info on the propulsion, missile racks, security, sonar, sniping, etc.

Added 500 more missile hatches.

Added 1/2" MiniRailguns for more Anti-Missile protection.

I think that should be it for now. I might add another hull on the left side of the ship so that I can land a few ASW helicopters or VTOL aircraft.

There. I upgraded it to the Lancer Mk II battleship.

Changed the main cannons down to 18" SemiAutomatic Railguns. (Man the powers of liquid nitrogen cooling are nice!)

Put it as a single hull, so increased speed and greatly decreased weight.

Added some more info on the propulsion, missile racks, security, sonar, sniping, etc.

Added 500 more missile hatches.

Added 1/2" MiniRailguns for more Anti-Missile protection.

I think that should be it for now. I might add another hull on the left side of the ship so that I can land a few ASW helicopters or VTOL aircraft.


what about a landing deck at the rear of the ship

you really shouldn't try to make one ship do everything, thats putting too many eggs in one basket.

If your going to have escorts put a carrier with it, that would provide better protection against multiple other aircraft. than just a handfull of VTOL.

Doesn't even have to be a LARGE Carrier. Something midsize with 30-40 aircraft would suffice. trust me, aircraft battleships don't really work. Keep this thing as it is. Its much better than before.

I'm not trying to make it do too many things, just a useful amount of things. For example, ASW Helos would add to the defensive, and Transport helos would make it a lot easier to bring supplies to the ship.

I will keep it as is for now though since you think it is halfway decent.

Any more suggestions still welcome.

Supply helo's don't need to be ship based those are typically land based or off of supply ships. And You at most need one or two ASW helo's and a Pad and hangar for those even if they are as big as the S-60 series is not that large.

So just slap a helipad on the rear deck of the ship and call it a day ;)

One critque other than "not another wannabe uber-battleship." But your 40" cannons only have a range of 16 miles? Dude, are you serious! 18" cannons when in experimental stages by the US way back when and we're talking pre-WWII had a range of 55,000 yards or 31.25 mi. You might want to change that!

18" shells only ever had 16" of penetration in tests...1 inch or 7% better than the 16inch shells...but the 18" guns were 33% heavier. That and newer 16" shells tested in the 80s (when the Iowas were recommissioned) included a new HC design the same length as the Mark 8 APC (4.5 calibers) and weighing 2,240 lbs. (1,015 kg) but which had a range of 51,000 yards (46,600 m). The old rounds only got about 38km, but never included advanced techniques such as Sabot rounds, better aerodynamic designs, finned units, or rocket-assisted projectiles...which could all lift the 16" range to about 50km, or the same as the 18" guns. There are also submunitions-bearing 16" rounds that can carry 666 or more DPICMs that are released over a target area by an altitude-sensitive airburst fuse.

The truth is that the optimal ranges for these guns is somewhere between the 16" guns (which were tested at a 30° launch angle, much less than optimal) and the 18" guns (which were tested at the much more ideal 40° elevation).

There. I upgraded it to the Lancer Mk II battleship.

Changed the main cannons down to 18" SemiAutomatic Railguns. (Man the powers of liquid nitrogen cooling are nice!)

The problem with railguns is not heat, but rather the actual degredation of the rails themselves, especially at the near-exit tips...it would be better to design a system that accounts for this by making the rails easily replaceable.

Put it as a single hull, so increased speed and greatly decreased weight.

If this "single hull" is to increase speed and decrease weight vs. a trimaran (not a triple hull, which would mean that you have 3 layers of hull to protect against flooding when the outer hull, or two hulls are punctured) then you're on the wrong track...trimarans allow more systems placement in shorter and lighter vessels. If the right trimaran configuration is used then speed is also increased.

Added 500 more missile hatches.
...and $600M + worth of munitions to this already massive investment?

Added 1/2" MiniRailguns for more Anti-Missile protection.
Look to 3rd Gen CIWS systems such as the Goalkeeper or Millennium Gun.

I see you've claimed a 1,500mi ranged gun...how exactly does this work? A 155mm-sized railgun round with significant power devotions can reach about 200mi by following a similar bath to what a ballistic missile might follow.

As far as your snipers are concerned, since you can only see about 12-30km on open seas (since that's where the horizon is, usually) and since sniper-level guns only tend to reach about 2km at best...it will be too late to shoot the other ship's captain if they're that close.

As for the 1,500 missiles...since most VL missiles cost between $500,000 and $3 million, that's a tremendous investment of resources...especially when a large-scale war will only require really a few hundred VL missiles at best. Studies have found that the single-shot (or sometimes double-shot, depending on the missile) mk 41 VLS is the most effective system for launching numerous missiles. The replacement process is usually not done while underway, but a good storage system and an onboard crane system that runs on rails connected to the edges of the ship/at the edges of the missile field could allow rearming while underway but not involved in combat.

Also, a single enemy bomber or jet could cripple your entire operation by dropping a pair or quad of submunitions-dispensing precision-guided, stand-off ranged weapons that would drop DPICMs across your deck, ruining your missile launcher turrets and crippling most of your launch systems...that's why I don't like or care for or plan to use supermassive ships.

Put it as a single hull, so increased speed and greatly decreased weight.


Reduced hull resistance at higher speeds resulting in typically 18-20% less installed power for an escort sized vessel required to achieve 28 knots
Wide range of propulsion options
Greater fuel economy
Increased directional stability.
Improved stability and reduced motion.
Top weight growth margins are greater. There are significant additional stability benefits in the area of growth margins. This will allow equipment upgrades during the life of the ship to be easily accommodated .
Increased stealth - potential for reductions in radar cross section and infrared signatures. A reduction in heat signature could be gained be exhausting between the side hulls rather than conventional main structure funnelling.
The side hulls can be utilised for configuring a multiline towed array sonar.
Improved sea keeping performance at higher speeds, operational in higher sea states
Increased deck area (up to 40 per cent) on 1 and 2 decks for a given tonnage, offering more space for hangars, helicopter operation and weapons. Some of the greatest advantages for the trimaran comes from the improved effectiveness of the whole ship design afforded by this very large deck area.


These are the advantages of a Trimaran vessel.

The problem with railguns is not heat, but rather the actual degredation of the rails themselves, especially at the near-exit tips...it would be better to design a system that accounts for this by making the rails easily replaceable.
I do realize that, as I have built railguns before. The only time I've ever been worried about my railguns before though is well after a thousand shots from it (I forget what they're clocked at right now, but mine will break through foot thick foam padding as well as dent a plate of steel behind it quite deeply, and this is real life as well). But yes, that's something that I would of course build in.


If this "single hull" is to increase speed and decrease weight vs. a trimaran (not a triple hull, which would mean that you have 3 layers of hull to protect against flooding when the outer hull, or two hulls are punctured) then you're on the wrong track...trimarans allow more systems placement in shorter and lighter vessels. If the right trimaran configuration is used then speed is also increased.
That may be the case, but the cost is also greatly increased, and it would be a lot easier to damage the ship than with a regular-type ship. You could lose a lot if the supports and such were bombed, as well as if the two outer parts of the trimeran were flooded entirely, the ship would drop really low in the water and become really slow, and one of the outer parts would break off, causing the ship to tip over.


...and $600M + worth of munitions to this already massive investment?

It's a small price to pay for added security. Especially if I don't go to war too often.


Look to 3rd Gen CIWS systems such as the Goalkeeper or Millennium Gun.

I like railguns or gauss rifles because there's a very low explosion factor in them.


I see you've claimed a 1,500mi ranged gun...how exactly does this work? A 155mm-sized railgun round with significant power devotions can reach about 200mi by following a similar bath to what a ballistic missile might follow.

As far as your snipers are concerned, since you can only see about 12-30km on open seas (since that's where the horizon is, usually) and since sniper-level guns only tend to reach about 2km at best...it will be too late to shoot the other ship's captain if they're that close.

I must not have mentioned the satellite guidance part in that, sorry. The scope is only meant to see out on the seas or target in close range. Powerful Kamatian satellites are used to target long distances, and the projectile will cut down in altitude enough to stay with the Earth. As for the range, you've got a multi-kilowatt nuclear reactor in the boat to power not only the propulsion, but this too. Then you also have capacitors.


As for the 1,500 missiles...since most VL missiles cost between $500,000 and $3 million, that's a tremendous investment of resources...especially when a large-scale war will only require really a few hundred VL missiles at best. Studies have found that the single-shot (or sometimes double-shot, depending on the missile) mk 41 VLS is the most effective system for launching numerous missiles. The replacement process is usually not done while underway, but a good storage system and an onboard crane system that runs on rails connected to the edges of the ship/at the edges of the missile field could allow rearming while underway but not involved in combat.

Large scale wars... well... this ship was designed to combat other "uberships" like the Doujin, and the soon-to-come Reaver. Those are the type of ships that have lots of armor and creators who refuse to believe that their ship has any weaknesses. That would be the kind of war with hundreds of vertical launch missiles. This isn't a public system either, it's Kamata's own, integrated with computers. I wasn't talking about the replacement process being underway either, but about the helicopters transporting food and rail sliders. As for how I load it, I've got two hoppers, used missile "magazines" and fresh missile "magazines". The "magazines" are loaded in and out of the ship through the side using manpower or a special system that does so.


Also, a single enemy bomber or jet could cripple your entire operation by dropping a pair or quad of submunitions-dispensing precision-guided, stand-off ranged weapons that would drop DPICMs across your deck, ruining your missile launcher turrets and crippling most of your launch systems...that's why I don't like or care for or plan to use supermassive ships.
Chances are that's not going to happen. This is more of an out-of-way ship that stays over 700km away from the target, the only exceptions being the main railguns and several other things. Not to mention it would be accompanied by other naval vessels and others of it's kind. Anything would most likely be detected and have a countermeasure put up against it before it came within one mile of the groups.

Funny. I was about to unveil a plan for a marine vehicle w/ such propulsion. It's called magneto-hydro-dynamics, in which incoming water is ionized, and electromagets propel the water down the tubes in pulses. This is virtually undetectable by sonar, because sonar looks for the sound of the 5-bladed propeller utilized in most marine warships. It's ghetto name is Caterpillar Drive. There are some problems with it, though. You would be able to propel your ship to a minimal speed, but not much faster. The water in the tubes would actually have to "stick" to the sides of this tube, (by friction) or else your ship would just sit there and shoot water. Especially as heavy as this uber battle ship is. It's hard to explain this principle, there are few real world examples. But the main idea is you can't really make this work without some sort of setback. Unless you're godmoddin'. Ever wonder why it doesn't exist in the real world?

I know a way to make it work better, but it reduces the non-detection aspect of it. Just tg me about it and I'll help you out.

And next time you watch Hunt for Red October, or any super-weapon film, don't jump straight to NS and put it into the market.

Cordially,
His Highness LG

[18" railguns? And relatively fast firing ones at that? Right.
/me puts 2020+ stamp on this design]

I do realize that, as I have built railguns before. The only time I've ever been worried about my railguns before though is well after a thousand shots from it (I forget what they're clocked at right now, but mine will break through foot thick foam padding as well as dent a plate of steel behind it quite deeply, and this is real life as well). But yes, that's something that I would of course build in.
My question was mainly relating to the fact that cooling systems were focused upon...unless you're trying to make a superconductor of steel by supercooling it, but since steel just becomes brittle at low temperatures instead of superconducting, the purpose and cause for the related costs was unclear. An air or water coolant system would probably work just fine on any such gun.

As for the wear of your rails, think about that energy level only taken up a magnitude or two to deal with much heavier rounds travelling at the (necessary) extreme speeds that are the realm where the KE projection abilities of railguns really manifest themselves...that will wear your rails out much more quickly.

That may be the case, but the cost is also greatly increased, and it would be a lot easier to damage the ship than with a regular-type ship. You could lose a lot if the supports and such were bombed, as well as if the two outer parts of the trimeran were flooded entirely, the ship would drop really low in the water and become really slow, and one of the outer parts would break off, causing the ship to tip over.

I don't see how the cost would be increased...you can have a shorter and less massive ship with the same armaments as a larger vessel...which would mean saving materials and associated labor costs. If a ship has been so badly damaged that the outer part breaks off then you'd better be abandoning your ship anyways, since ripping apart something that is 4-5 decks deep and probably 500-800feet long means that they've been pounding you with dozens of 2,000lb penetrator bombs for hours...no ship would survive under such conditions. The proper construction of your vessel, or any vessel, precludes a significant loss of infrastructure in a reasonably projected scenario in which the ship might survive the onslaught.

As most trimaran designs go, the outriggers are heavily armored to protect the central part of the ship and are mostly ammunition and engine space. If you put in decent bulkheads then, again, no attack that a normal ship could survive would cripple this ship. Furthermore, would you rather have two outriggers flooded and a slower ship or a monohull vessel that is itself flooded by a similar attack and which must be completely abandoned? If you apply any such scenarios to both vessels then the trimaran comes out heavily damaged, but functional while the monohull is a complete loss. Additionally, there's no reason why the ship would lose an outrigger thanks to flooding in that section...unless you would care to share the reason for that loss.

It's a small price to pay for added security. Especially if I don't go to war too often.
I'd say the existing ~1.5 billion dollar investment in the first 1,000 missiles should be sufficient...especially since most of the effective ASMs don't function in VLS launchers (since the ship-attack variant of the Tomahawk isn't really functional and since the tomahawk does not fly fast enough, low enough, or in a sophisticated enough flight pattern to dodge even the simplest of air-defense systems on a korean-war era ship). Harpoon missiles are launched from their containers at a slant as are the planned "affordable weapon," the Israeli Gabriel missiles, the French Exocet, all of the Russian ASMs, and the new Russo-Indian BrahMos...one of the most advanced and longest-ranged and the fastest and most powerful ASM coming onto the market.

I like railguns or gauss rifles because there's a very low explosion factor in them.
The explosive potential of a few thousand 30mm or 35mm rounds is generally low...since their damage is done mostly by their kinetic capacity rather than by an explosive warhead such as are on the larger (3in and up) gun rounds.

I must not have mentioned the satellite guidance part in that, sorry. The scope is only meant to see out on the seas or target in close range. Powerful Kamatian satellites are used to target long distances, and the projectile will cut down in altitude enough to stay with the Earth. As for the range, you've got a multi-kilowatt nuclear reactor in the boat to power not only the propulsion, but this too. Then you also have capacitors.

I, too, have WA vessels use satellites to guide in long-range rounds...but there's a difference in between reaching to the edge of the atmosphere and having the round travel back down again on an extended ballistic arch and having the round actually travel outside of the atmosphere (as 1,500mi ranged ballistic missiles must, and do) for a (relatively) extended period of time. It's possible, but it requires a ridiculous amount of energy (and related cost) to accomplish...energy which would vaporize significant parts of the rails at every launch to accomplish.

Large scale wars... well... this ship was designed to combat other "uberships" like the Doujin, and the soon-to-come Reaver. Those are the type of ships that have lots of armor and creators who refuse to believe that their ship has any weaknesses.
Is that a reason to join them?

That would be the kind of war with hundreds of vertical launch missiles.
As was stated, there are very few anti-ship missiles that are vertically launched...they can be made but it doesn't make sense for their purposes and flight profiles.

This isn't a public system either, it's Kamata's own, integrated with computers. I wasn't talking about the replacement process being underway either, but about the helicopters transporting food and rail sliders

I understand that, but the fact remains that if you have such a large vessel then it would have no problem replacing its own missiles while underway (while smaller vessels like guided missile cruisers and destroyers must depend on larger vessels for the heavy machinery)...which is a definite tactical advantage that doesn't require a complicated internal loading and stowage system to distribute missiles.

As for how I load it, I've got two hoppers, used missile "magazines" and fresh missile "magazines". The "magazines" are loaded in and out of the ship through the side using manpower or a special system that does so.
Why would you need a "used missile magazine"? IF the missiles have been used then there is little aside from a few pieces of packaging that remains...and the overall launch container.

All of that machinery and equipment will likely take up as much as 10 times the amount of space as a Mk 41 VLS system (and it should be noted that these are 6-missile unit blocks, not 5 or 10 missile unit blocks as the 1,000 missile and 1,500 missile numbers would indicate) and an underdeck stowage and above-deck crane-based loading/handling system would take combined...and cutting off 90% of the planned space can seriously increase the speed, battle viability, and security of your ship as that space is filled with self-defense systems or is used to cut down the size of your vessel (bigger isn't necessarily better...especially if you ever want to avoid enemy contact or missiles) or is used to place armoring on your ship to defend its crew.

Chances are that's not going to happen. This is more of an out-of-way ship that stays over 700km away from the target, the only exceptions being the main railguns and several other things. Not to mention it would be accompanied by other naval vessels and others of it's kind. Anything would most likely be detected and have a countermeasure put up against it before it came within one mile of the groups.

700km is well within range of 4, 150mi-ranged sea-skimming updated Harpoon or 2, 300km ranged, Mach 2+ stealthy BrahMos missiles with nuclear warheads or a launched from a 520nm-ranged F/A-18E/F flying at Mach 1.8 at low altitude...none of which would be picked up by your ship (or any "Super Dreadnaught"), its radars, or its defensive systems in time to react effectively. (Those missiles have demonstrated the ability to operate outside of the detection/response ranges of most vessels and beyond the response capacity of most CIWS systems...since those only have a limited range that is not enough to really stop such top-line weapons systems.)

And, if one of any of those missiles were to strike or even detonate close to your or any of these ships then tens of billions of dollars would've been destroyed by less than $100M worth of risked investment. The best long-range view obtainable today is from the updated E-2C Hawkeye, with a 200-300nm detection range...ships cannot hope to have half that detection range...and unless your ship has the capacity to maintain and operate four of these units (to provide 24 hour protection and coverage)...you're shit out of luck.

No modern ship can really hope to operate 700km away from the target nation or object, especially if it is supposed to ever be useful (by supporting marine landing operations...since that's what battleships are best at doing in the modern tactical environment)...the biggest problem with the USN-style navy in the NS world is the inability to react to emerging situations and to provide visible, tangible support to the soldiers on the ground.

I've upgraded it to the mark three, and have tried to pay as much attention to the suggestions that everyone has made as much as I can.

So please, if any more issues come up or if I missed any, point them out to me.