NationStates Jolt Archive

Behemoth class Naval Vessel - NOT FOR SALE
This post is simply proof that I have it. Although looks are free and you can rent the rights for a nominal fee which we can disclose later.

The Holy Imperial Navy Of The Holy Empire Of Christopher Thompson unleashes its' masterpiece; the ship that will be able to go in alone, and not require any support whatsoever in order to solve most conflicts. It's three electron welded hulls can withstand immeasurable ammounts of damage and still let the 20" and 15" guns from the Battleship ramparts and 50 VLS tubes still kick as it sports 5 FULL runways, capable of launching almost all manner of land air-craft. Yes, this monstr boat packs it all, including 15 forward Nuclear engines, and 6 turning ones. This is the mother of all ships, and is a peace-keeper, as it can easily be detected, especially by subs, but that's why it sports it's 5 Sonar stations that can triangulate subs without support and then launch attacks via its' own torpedo tubes.
Since the 'pic' file is too large, please go to

http://www.freewebs.com/christopherthompson/holyempiremilitary.htm

Did you mean Behemoth?

I plan on making 20 of these puppies, fully stocked. *sighs* It's gonna take forever, though.
(Like 1 NS yr. per ship, but I should be able to produce a few at a time)

That is an awful shape for a ship. It maximises drag (water resistance???) whilst minimising space. Plus I seriously doubt your ability to produce or house this.

im assuming he has a more angular hull beneath the decks.....

um 20 of these monsters? I think one should be enough, 1 year to complete? I'd say its gonna take u 4-6 years for each one

A standard battleship, built well, takes 2-3 years to complete. A Doujin Class takes 30 years to complete on a rush job. This is bigger than the Doujin. Go figure.

Seems worth noting this gigantic floating coffin has no point defence listed...

Seems worth noting this gigantic floating coffin has no point defence listed...
Actualy I counted 40 20mm guns, 20 40mm guns, and 12 MK-15 CIWS

I agree on the floating coffin bit :p

That is an awful shape for a ship. It maximises drag (water resistance???) whilst minimising space. Plus I seriously doubt your ability to produce or house this.

yah, what the hell is it? It would go 2kmh

OK, Point one, the batteries of guns are way too varied. There's a damn good reason why battleships carry a single-calibre main armament: it makes fire-control a lot simpler, since you can tell which shots are falling where. At 15 miles' range, the splash of a 15in and a 20in shell look identical, and can obscure the vessel; although fire-control's not optical (except as a backup) these days, it's still prudent not to mix and match the guns like that. It's a logistical nightmare as well, by the way, storkcing a ship with that much ammo.

Point two, the hull form is terrible. Lots of drag and nots of vulnerable areas.

Point three, landing a large, land-based bomber like the B2 on a carrier is not only silly but impossible.

Its like 6000 ft long, im sure you could land a b-2 on it

The two points i would make are this: The 20 inch guns WOULD be good i suppose for Naval fire support, Of say an invaision..... But the downside is it would probably be so slow that it would make an easy Target for Harpoon missiles, Or Attack subs. Or even being hit with say an Air Born Laser O_o I would work on the hull shape, Besides that its a huge thing even a nation of 1 Billion might have Problems with this massive ship.

Its like 6000 ft long, im sure you could land a b-2 on it

Not a matter of length, as much as hangar space and of course landing gear.

yah, that's just stupid.

Not a matter of length, as much as hangar space and of course landing gear.
Actualy you could land many types of bombers on this "ship" and i have carriers which can land bombers and there are others which can on ns as well

However this is not a question of technological possibilty, it is more aquestion of usefulness and strategic adavantage. I see this vessel as worthless and furthermore do not belive under any circumstances, a nation of only 272 million with a "Thriving" economy could construct and maintain one let alone twenty of these "behmouths"

Actualy I counted 40 20mm guns, 20 40mm guns, and 12 MK-15 CIWS

Bah, my WW2 mindset [TM] counted those as light antiaircraft guns. Looking, he has six Phalanx guns to cover over a mile of runway. Eeewww.

Also, as a note on build times, my nation built a ship just over 6000ft in eleven months.

Real ones, March '03 to Feb '04.

[Never been a fan of the day='NS year' school of implied timewank]

Interesting ship.
What happens if it gets a tactical nuke fired at it?

I'm guessing it splits in half and sinks in a Michael Bay budget-nuking manner. Or maybe it's quasi-magical sounding 'three electron welded hulls [that] can withstand immeasurable ammounts of damage' save it.

You guys are totally clueless as to why I designed this, aren't you?
1) It's mainly for defense. - Defense = no moving (And it has 15 reactors moving it forward, what do you mean it'd be slow? u on crack?)
2) If it gets a tactical nuke lauched at it, it goes boom just like any other boat, I'm not a godmodder.
3) I want it to make lots of noise (noise = mask for many other nuemerous NOT *cough* submarines *cough**cough* That this could conceal, then move into center of battle, and have the subs flank *cough**cough*)
4) I upgraded the battleship ramparts, you guys were right about that.
5) I have an ally who specializes in fast hit and run tactics, and I'm the long havy hitting occupying person. It works, trust me.
6) I'm not imperialistic like some of you. I would only need this to move to go help my allies, and if the enemy runs away when they see this, I win. If they stay, I anniahlate them (but not with any of the *cough**cough*subs *cough**cough*that I would mask with this sound either.)
7) This is mainly a deterrent (Like an Ohio class sub loaded with nukes, but my country doesn't believe in using WMD's like some of you ppl, for RL reasons (nukes RUINED war), and IC reasons (generally pacafist anti-terrorism type country, and nukes represent terrorist and cowardice weapons) (And don't you dare for a minute think I'm Republican, or I will OOC bitch slap you, I just personally think that WMD's ruined warfare; now any 2 bit loser can have 1 nuke and challenge the world.)
8)That and the fact that Land-based aircraft are FAR better than sea-based one's.
9) I have a religeous liberal Country (don't ask me how I pulled it off), and the shape of this is symbolic as well.
10) That being said, good comments on improving it, and I have (the battleship ramparts), and I've added an underwater pressurized compartmentalized sub tending/repair station that is built into the ship, and can close, but has 1/3 the armor anywhere else under the water line (weak spot weak spot weak spot!).
11)That and the fact is it's HUGE. Yes I love (probably too much) war (specifically Naval) tactics (not the death thing, just the strategy), but there's something about commanding a ship that dwarfs the world's ships. Besides, I like creating my own tactics, and the best way to do that is break the normal mold of the military, which is what I'm doing here.

I'm guessing it splits in half and sinks in a Michael Bay budget-nuking manner. Or maybe it's quasi-magical sounding 'three electron welded hulls [that] can withstand immeasurable ammounts of damage' save it.

lol, but no (although kudos for the analogy), electron welding basically is just a superior way of welding b/c it welds on the atomic level, so it's nearly flawless, leading to higher stress-resistance in warfare (electron welding is becoming more and more standard, you know) and 3 of them just means that it has 3 Nimitz hulls width, not anything else.(just a referece for strength)

Bah, my WW2 mindset [TM] counted those as light antiaircraft guns. Looking, he has six Phalanx guns to cover over a mile of runway. Eeewww.

Also, as a note on build times, my nation built a ship just over 6000ft in eleven months.

Real ones, March '03 to Feb '04.

[Never been a fan of the day='NS year' school of implied timewank]

Neithre have I, and I beefed up the battleship ramparts SIGNIFICANTLY, thanks, I don't know what got into me there.

This is my Super-Dreadnought. It was made to rival the Doujin, with the Doujin in mind. Currently have 2 in-service (The Julii and Scipii) as the capital ships of my navy, and 1 is almost finished (The Brutii).


The Nycton-Class Nuclear Missile Guided-Battleship offers a rival for the Doujin-Class
Super-Dreadnought. The hull and superstructure have been designed to minimize the radar
cross section, with features including the use of radar absorbent material and angled sides
to reduce the return signal to hostile radar. Trying to avoid anyRight-Angle on the ship.
The Caron-Fibre and Composite RAM will allow it to absorb radar and sonar waves.
There are 3 Belts on it, so if a large hole would be shot through her, she would be able to
limp home. Inbetween each Belt, Hull, and Bulkheads, there are massive
springs, the same ones used by Nuclear-Bunkers to absorb shock. The springs are covored by
non-flamable rubbery sealant which will disallow any fire to burn from outside into the ship. Nycton-Class
Battleships were built to take premptive hits.
The TERAIS (Target, Engage, Reload, Artificial Intelligence System) is a Artificial Intelligence
system eliminating human's from physicaly reloading, targeting and firing. This same system is
which started in the X1a2 Achilles. In the bridge, 1,700 targets can be tracked up to 1,000 miles away,
evaluate the threat posed by each, and the crew will choose to engage. The AI will present the
best options of what weapons to use, the crew will pick, and the ship will engage.
Nycton-Class Battleships will have NBC, and could survive a Nearby-Nuclear Blast, but would have
to sustain repairs afterwords. Other classified advanced systems she will apply are Sonar, GPS,
Night Vision, Heat Sensory, and Radar Jamming. On the rear part of the deck, lay moderate size runways,
enabling it to take a aircraft carrying roll.

Model: BBNG-774 Nycton-Class Battleship
Type: Battleship, Nuclear Powered, Guided Missile
Crew: 8,700 (6,200 Crewman, 500 Officers, 2,000 Marines)
Cost: 170 Billion (With all systems)

Displacement:
Empty: 1,755,000 tons
Full: 2,162,000 tons

Dimensions:
Length: 3364.6 ft
Beam: 799.8 ft
Drought: 92 ft (Empty), 114 ft (Full)

Armament:
20 x 32" Electro-Thermal Naval Guns (5 Turrets)
16 x 10" Electro-Thermal Naval Guns (16 Turrets)
32 x 5" Electro-Thermal Naval Guns (16 Turrets)
260 x 20mm TERAIS Guided Cannons
32 x RIM-116 Rolling Air-Frame Missile (RAM) Launcher (14 Missile Each)
10 x Mk 41 Mod 32-cell Vertical Launch System (320 cells can contain SM-2 SAM, Tomahawk SSM, Asroc ASW Missiles, Harpoon, More)
2 x Depth Charge Launchers

Armor:
Outside HP Belt: 28" Titanium incased Steel Armor, 4" Composite RAM, .5" Carbon-Fibre
Outside LP Belt: 22" Titanium incased Steel Armor, 3" Composite RAM, .5" Carbon-Fibre
Middle HP Belt: 20" Titanium incased Steel Armor, 2" Composite RAM
Middle LP Belt: 14" Titanium incased Steel Armor, 1" Composite RAM
Inside Belt: 12" Depleted uranium/titanium incased Steel Armor
Bulkheads/Deck/Overhead: 10" Reinforced Steel Armor
Main Turrets: 10"-18", 5" Composite RAM, 2" Carbon-Fibre
Barbettes: 18" Titanium incased Steel Armor, 4" Composite RAM, 2" Carbon-Fibre
Secondary Turrets: 4" Titanium incased Steel Armor, 6" Composite RAM, 2" Carbon-Fibre

Performance:
Designed Speed: 34 kts
Trial Speed: 31.8 kts

Powerplant: 8 Navistan X3W Nuclear Reactors
Propulsion: 14 Shaft Geared Turbines

Aircraft:
10 x F-18E/F
15 x F-96 Phasmatis Multirole Fighter
10 x F-97 Hawkeye Air Superiority-Fighter
5 x Long Range Transport Planes
5 x Other Planes

I've never heard of these aircraft.
Aircraft:
10 x F-18E/F
15 x F-96 Phasmatis Multirole Fighter
10 x F-97 Hawkeye Air Superiority-Fighter
5 x Long Range Transport Planes
5 x Other Planes

Are you FT?
Or post modern?

Not a matter of length, as much as hangar space and of course landing gear.
Actually, it is a matter of length. A B-2 needs a might bit more than 6000 ft (1800m) at its maximum takeoff weight, and landing is even worse. I believe something like a 50% increase in length would be required for this to operate those aircraft. At which point, it would have enough hangar space to consider housing a few.



You guys are totally clueless as to why I designed this, aren't you?
1) It's mainly for defense. - Defense = no moving (And it has 15 reactors moving it forward, what do you mean it'd be slow? u on crack?)
8)That and the fact that Land-based aircraft are FAR better than sea-based one's.
1) Number of reactors is irrelevant. one solid reactor is enough any way you slice it. The problem, rather than power, are propulsion and hydrodynamics. With this shape, it will not be hydrodynamic, and with all the nuclear reactors in the world, would still be going no faster than your average civilian cargo vessel (15 knots, give or take).
8) Land-based aircraft are better for a reason. Normal carrier-based aircraft are required to take the stresses of carrier landings, be less maintenance intensive, and resistant to salt water corrosion. They also generally need to have a method of reducing storage space (commonly folding wings), which comes with its own headaches. With the extra design requirements these add, something obviously has to be compromised. However, because they don't have these advantages, particularly the salt water resistance and lower storage requirements, land-based aircraft usually don't cut it on long-term sea deployments. This might be able to handle them, but you'd be much safer with dedicated naval aircraft.



I've never heard of these aircraft.
Aircraft:
10 x F-18E/F
15 x F-96 Phasmatis Multirole Fighter
10 x F-97 Hawkeye Air Superiority-Fighter
5 x Long Range Transport Planes
5 x Other Planes

Are you FT?
Or post modern?
lol
The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is already in service. It's a scaled up F/A-18 model that addresses several of the deficiencies of the original design, most notably fuel.

The others are fictional, but probably still within the scope of modern tech.

About the ship design --

Is this beast a trimaran? In that case, the drag wouldn't be so bad, once you got moving, but overcoming the insane inertia would be such a pain that it'd hardly be worth moving at all.

Oh, I wasn't aware they upgraded the super hornet. Could you give me a good linky on it? plz..... *puppy eyes*

and btw everyone, I'm just starting the design phase, so ALL of this is tentative. I'm probably going to make NUMEROUS changes to this design (mostly for efficiency purposes). Yes, all the planes I put on here will probably be modified for sea use, but things like the B-2, not a problem (once salt resistant). Why?
1) space. hahaha, don't make me laugh. this ship doesn't have a space issue. Don't kid me. seariously.
2) run-way length. Solution=fatcats. A series of them, and the cords that slow them down, too. And obviously I wouldn't fully load a B-2, that's insane.
3) wear and tear. This ship wouldn't move up and down like a regular ship would, because it's too large. This is a proven principle. It's how the Titanic was such a "good" liner, because it was long enough, that it was always 'riding' the crest of al least 2 waves, thereby stabilizing it (and this ship is a 'little' bit longer). And I will probably include a repair bay here. (essentially, a team of people per plane type that know how to fix it, so they can prop it up at its' 'spot' in the hangar and do just that).

Oh, and I have an intrest in your AI program. More info and price for it?
And keep up with the SUGGESSTIONS!

How are you going to make a rigid hull the better part of two kilometers long?

About the ship design --

Is this beast a trimaran? In that case, the drag wouldn't be so bad, once you got moving, but overcoming the insane inertia would be such a pain that it'd hardly be worth moving at all.

Kind-of. The pic (which has been upgraded for people who haven't recently checked) doesn't actually leve the water at any point, but it does slope upwards so that it gets VERY close to doing so. The top pic of the ship is VERY misleading, it shows the top, and I'm going for a symbolic and more space design at the top, while underwater, it's cut back more (but it's still a monster hull, just FAR more shaped underwater to resist drag as much as possible w/out ever leaving the water to maintain hull integrety (i.e., someone can't just blow-off the sides).
Oh. and I'm thinking of pumping up the Battleship ramparts even more. (more guns, not bigger ones') Any body have a configuration suggestion?
Oh, and a reason that I forgot to put in above: My ship can't by pounded on by the 'crossing the T' tactic, like most battleships can be caught by. If you don't know what it is, ask, but that's a pretty basic naval tactic, and at an expense of drag, I've made that great leap in forward fire.
And yes, it would take about 5 minutes of having all the forward moving reactors pushing at full speed to get this puppy moving, but I really won't move it that much since it has such an effective range of attack, probably just in the vacinity or to a pre-determined location and work from there. (in case you didn't read earlier, the noise and size of this can and will mask quite a bit of subs that will do the forward attacking)

How are you going to make a rigid hull the better part of two kilometers long?
What exactly do you mean (rigid)?

oh, and I think I'll adopt something like the 'spring' layer hulls on that ship above. Good idea. I'll probably compartmentalize it though, to keep water from spilling in everywhere in that layer once the hull is breached, which will cut-down on the spring efficiency, but the ship has enough hull to dampen shock anyway.

Oh, I wasn't aware they upgraded the super hornet. Could you give me a good linky on it? plz..... *puppy eyes*

and btw everyone, I'm just starting the design phase, so ALL of this is tentative. I'm probably going to make NUMEROUS changes to this design (mostly for efficiency purposes). Yes, all the planes I put on here will probably be modified for sea use, but things like the B-2, not a problem (once salt resistant). Why?
1) space. hahaha, don't make me laugh. this ship doesn't have a space issue. Don't kid me. seariously.
2) run-way length. Solution=fatcats. A series of them, and the cords that slow them down, too. And obviously I wouldn't fully load a B-2, that's insane.
3) wear and tear. This ship wouldn't move up and down like a regular ship would, because it's too large. This is a proven principle. It's how the Titanic was such a "good" liner, because it was long enough, that it was always 'riding' the crest of al least 2 waves, thereby stabilizing it (and this ship is a 'little' bit longer). And I will probably include a repair bay here. (essentially, a team of people per plane type that know how to fix it, so they can prop it up at its' 'spot' in the hangar and do just that).

Oh, and I have an intrest in your AI program. More info and price for it?
And keep up with the SUGGESSTIONS!
There might be a bit of confusion here. What you said gives the impression that you knew about the Super Hornet. F/A-18E/F is just the official designation. But if you need info:
general info (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18ef.htm)
Stats for both C/D and E/F Hornets (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18-specs.htm)
weapons load (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18-weapons.htm)
Alternate info (http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-18E.htm)
EW version (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18g.htm)


2) Catapults and arrestor wires are exactly why naval aircraft need to be structurally strengthened. They will not work well on the average air force units unless they're significantly modified, due to the added tensions they create. In that vein, you're again best off with naval aircraft already optimized for that.

How are you going to make a rigid hull the better part of two kilometers long?

Largely would a matter of building it inside a full-length support brace because it would be too heavy to rest on it's keel, at least that's how I built Yui [6,127ft 8in main hull]. Trouble is the brace costs as much if not more than the ship itself, then you need to make the thing able to move the ship into the water once it's finished...

[Yui also required what I think is the largest straddle crane in the NS world, Colossus, to lift the three main turrets and the 80in / 60 cal guns into place. No, not remotely modern]

Mind you, the challenges are half the fun, ne?

Touche.
Any good suggestions?
Beside the norm.
Prowlers, Seahawks, Hawkeyes, Tomcats, and Vikings?

Yui also required what I think is the largest straddle crane in the NS world, Colossus, to lift the three main turrets and the 80in / 60 cal guns into place. No, not remotely modern]

Mind you, the challenges are half the fun, ne?

Could you elaborate on this idea? It's very intriguing

F-3 Hellcat II, A-4X Skyawk II and E-1 Diamonds :D (http://phoenixdynamix.proboards38.com/index.cgi?board=Aircraft)

Carrier version of the F-35 would easily be about the same time as you would be capable of building this.

Could you elaborate on this idea? It's very intriguing

Yui, you mean?

yes, and more specifically, how you worked the hull out. oh, and bump for ideas for battleship rampart configurations!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/GMC/Yui02b.jpg

[rough ol' sketch with no braces on the main guns and drawn with no ruler, hence any weird non-straightness in the hull]

Hulls are fairly standard sharp-bow shape, which is kinda necessary to move though water with any degree of speed. Cheerfully wanky internal GMI [gravity-mass-inertia] compensator to help her move, still maxes out at about 18 knots flat-out and cruises at ten.

Carrier version of the F-35 would easily be about the same time as you would be capable of building this.

To my knowlege, lockheed martin is pretty much done with it. the contract for their production has already been laid out, and its' the biggest since before the war on terror. And thanks for reminding me that it existed! :D
Ican be soooo forget ful sometimes! :headbang:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/GMC/Yui02b.jpg

[rough ol' sketch with no braces on the main guns and drawn with no ruler, hence any weird non-straightness in the hull]

Hulls are fairly standard sharp-bow shape, which is kinda necessary to move though water with any degree of speed. Cheerfully wanky internal GMI [gravity-mass-inertia] compensator to help her move, still maxes out at about 18 knots flat-out and cruises at ten.

When you GMI, you mean...(wtf does that do?)
nice design, essentially 3 ships stuck together.

Touche.
Any good suggestions?
Beside the norm.
Prowlers, Seahawks, Hawkeyes, Tomcats, and Vikings?
Well, you actually can operate a P-3C Orion from there as well, though just barely. You could also manage many current land-based fighter and attack aircraft, though several will be at reduced loads (USAF planes are usually optimized for 8000 ft runways, and some like the F-117A are expected to have 12,000 ft ones). Note that the aircraft are usually given a solid 1000 ft more than needed for problems such as skids, which would be rather unforgiving on this vessel (carriers use arrestor wires and nets, but those have their own problems, again, with the endurance of the aircraft).
Heavy bombers like the B-52, B-2, and B-1B aren't likely candidates for operating from here, and there's almost no way the first two there can be used effectively. The B-1B on the other hand, might be able to operate with a reduced load.

It was because I was well aware of these runway requirements that I made sure that all the OMP Bases had the equivalent of at least four 3000m (10,000 ft)+ runways. I knew that those would be necessary to operate heavy AWACS, JSTARS, and bomber aircraft, not to mention transports.

Hmmmm.
alright, can you guys give me a list of siutable planes/choppers you'd recommend for:
AA role
AS (anti-surfae) role
ASW role
Ground Troop Support Role
Bomber Role
Scout Role
Transport Role (mainly troop)

Oh, and more bumpage on battleship rampart configuration.

The B-1B on the other hand, might be able to operate with a reduced load.

Actually, wouldn't the best way to go about that be to launch a B-1 with a full load of weapons and a reduced load of fuel and then refuel it in midair?

Hmmmm.
alright, can you guys give me a list of siutable planes/choppers you'd recommend for:
AA role
AS (anti-surfae) role
ASW role
Ground Troop Support Role
Bomber Role
Scout Role
Transport Role (mainly troop)

Oh, and more bumpage on battleship rampart configuration.
AA role: F-3 or FU-29K
AS (anti-surface) role: A-4X or F/A-117X
ASW role: E-1 or SH-65A
Ground Troop: Support Role:[/b] A-17 Warhawk or AC-14
Bomber Role: F/B-4 Fighter-Bomber or F/B-8 SpartaN Fighter-Bomber
Scout Role: AO-11 Bronco II
Transport Role (mainly troop) C-14 Burro

Im sure all of those aircraft could operate off of your ship

you can find specs pics and prices here (http://phoenixdynamix.proboards38.com/index.cgi?board=Aircraft)

If you wanna use real stuff I guess u should go with F/A-18F Super Hornet, E-18 Growler, F-35 JSF, Modified A-10s, SH-60 Seahwaks etc

but my stuff is better :)

Holy Crap, you have some pretty good ships and planes.
Namely, the B-69, F-3 HellcatII,C-15, CGN-56, CG-59, and CVN-1 Pheonix.
Very good.
(btw, what do you use for the design of most fo these, PTC PRO DESKTOP, what?)

If your looking for aircraft for your ship, we can supply you with some very good aircraft - just click on the MierTech link in my sig, and you'll find my storefront where you can find all manner of things.

Actually, wouldn't the best way to go about that be to launch a B-1 with a full load of weapons and a reduced load of fuel and then refuel it in midair?
Of course, but that assumes it can operate the tanker, and those tend to be based on civilian aircraft that need quite a bit of runway themselves. It's also a bit dangerous, as we're talking a good chunk under max takeoff.



Hmmmm.
alright, can you guys give me a list of siutable planes/choppers you'd recommend for:
AA role
AS (anti-surfae) role
ASW role
Ground Troop Support Role
Bomber Role
Scout Role
Transport Role (mainly troop)

Oh, and more bumpage on battleship rampart configuration.
Using RL aircraft:
AA/Ground Support: Su-27 series, MiG-29, F-14, F/A-18, Rafale, EFA 2000, Gripen, F-35, Tornado
AS/ASW: P-3C, Boeing 737 MMA (P-3 replacement), S-3B
Ground Support: A-10, Su-25 series, Harrier series
Bomber: A-6, Su-24, Su-34,
Scout: Boeing 737 AEW, E-2C, U-2/TR-1, S 100B Argus, any EW or recon variant of any other aircraft listed (there are numerous)
Transport (one-way*): C-17A, C-5A/B, C-141, An-124
Transport (two-way*): A400M, C-130 series, C-32A, An-70 (barely), Il-76 (barely)


*Planes in the one-way section cannot take off with a full load, only land with one, limiting them to delivering supplies and possibly ferrying troops or small to moderate amounts of equipment back. Those listed under two-way can take off from the vessel at maximum weight.

By your post it appears as this ship is still in the early design fase, right?

So far it's been by the politcal and religious leaders - hopefully something will change as the enginerers and millitary people get a look at it... Then again, this should give your wharfs considerable workload, so you might just be able to get rid of most of the unemployment before the first ship is tested...

;)

At least, that is what my advisors keep telling me... Personally, I hope these things will never come close to our shores...

haha,no i'll probably never invade you. my country isn't imperialistic.

oh, and wolfshome, this might intrest you, since you are new here...please click here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=376727)

ooc: I use DOGA 3d modling/photosuite image editing

Here's the main issue I see with this ship.

You are really putting all your eggs (plus upwards of 8000 crew?) in one basket.

If I needed to enter combat against this ship - I'd launch an single, overwhelming attack - dumb and smart bombs - a couple hundred tomahawks, Harpoons, torpedoes, etc etc etc... Basically, because you are tactically choosing to concentrate fire on one target, you are easing the logistical challenges for your opponents.

Pheonix Mailitia:
Is there any way I could get you to make this once it is completed (design fancy-like like your wothy Cruisers), and possibly produce it?
You'd have equal rights to this as me, and you'd be handsomely paid, as we haven't spent our defense budget on anything new in a year.....
say $10,000,000,000 to design it when the design is finalized, and we'll negotiate buying price?

"One good shot from one of my main Turbo Cannon batteries some space..."

:sniper:

Be like shoot fish in a barrel.

Christopher Thompson - if you'd like to test out your design, Wolfish will make available our computer Battle Lab - where we can program in a wargame with your ship against a set number of Wolfish Naval forces.

ooc: we can RP out an attack scenero, without risk.

Pheonix Mailitia:
Is there any way I could get you to make this once it is completed (design fancy-like like your wothy Cruisers), and possibly produce it?
You'd have equal rights to this as me, and you'd be handsomely paid, as we haven't spent our defense budget on anything new in a year.....
say $10,000,000,000 to design it when the design is finalized, and we'll negotiate buying price?
sure, if I can have some input on the design a little

Christopher Thompson - if you'd like to test out your design, Wolfish will make available our computer Battle Lab - where we can program in a wargame with your ship against a set number of Wolfish Naval forces.

ooc: we can RP out an attack scenero, without risk.

alright, sounds good. When I get this finalized, I'll definently take you up on that offer. *rubs hands together* hehehe. (btw, you all seem to keep forgetting a main strtegic point of having this noisy big hulk: the MASSIVE ammount of subs it will mask to support it!)

sure, if I can have some input on the design a little

Meaning.....?
And you'd have full rights to alter this once I got what I wanted, but if you have any suggestions to make it better before I sign away a contract, please let me know. Absolutely anything. Anyone. Really. Even the most mundane suggestions matter, b/c they can all increase the ship's efficiency in one way or another, and enough of those little things could really sky-rocket this ship's design to one that is to be respected. (and any people who give good suggestions that I adopt, you'll have rights on this as well, so you can build and alter your own design of this w/out any copyright crap)

mainly i want to make an angled hull
it would be under the cross shaped deck so it wouldnt look too much diffrent from the air, also the position of the CIWS mounts and VLS cells could be improved

please, go on.......
What specifically would you do about the hull, and the VLS tubes? Move them elsewhre for a longer run-way? And the CIWS and SM-2 launchers, where and how many more would there be. What? Plz be specific. You can edit my 'drawing' and cut it down to the parts you'd edit and post that if it helps.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/NS1/modified.gif

meh

of course the symbols are not actual size, each of those little green squares could be 4 or more indvidual missiles
and the middle, there would be like an archway with the conning tower on top, or alternativle cut out the whole middle, make it flat and put two smaller towers on either side.

Man.....You REALLY like tri-hull designs, don't you?
Once the final design for me is done, you can have it any way you want, but I want to remain with the former concept I had earlier, because it has the essentiall tri-hull shape, just extended underwater, and much larger down there makes it more structureally sound. Besides, I need a place to throw 10,000 or so Marines, and that's where I had them before, and that space is now gone. And someone could blow off the connecting piece to one of the side-hulls, and it's bye-bye 1/3 of the ship.... That's the only beef I really have with a complete tri-hull design, which is why I made the hull more into a deeply modified single hull design that has been cut to resemble a tri hull, as to reduce on drag, while maintaining the space and structural integrety I need that is Paramount in the design. But, if you want to change it to that for you, than that's okay. Like I said, after we strike up a deal, and you start producing the finalized design that I like (which we havn't quite reached), than you can do whatever you darn well please to the design, so long as my ships follow the one that I want.
Is that ok with you?
(Oh, and if you can find better places to place the CIWS and SM-2 launchers on the current hull design, or one close to it, plz do so.)
And I'll think I'll change the battleship config. You can add WAY more guns to that if you do it right....

i only reduced the actual size onf the cross pieces just a bit, everywhere else the size has increased! so I dunno what u mean ....

and the blue lines will all be mostly below the waterline (accept were there are guns) the large rectangular part will still be pretty thick so it would still be pretty large. anyway i cant think of any beter spots for the ciws then were i put them :(

okay, it's upgraded, check it out, make suggestions, wateva'!
(don't want to make it personal. the tri-hull is cool, if you want it for you that's okay. I just want the single mimic tri-hull left as is).

btw, in the pic. The guns should take-up most of the space in their part and there should be less space for guns in the back as there are more forward guns. In the missle part, they should extend further out.
(btw, could we double that from 50 missles at once to 100, let's just say that it is from now on)
okay.
um.....
Could you place the CIWS and SM-2 launchers in good spots for this hull, please. Make sure it has adequite point defense please.
And about moving the guns around and missles around. Again, on your design for you, that's okay, but realistically it would be impossible or VERY hard to manage all that. There are the seperate briges for a reason: b/c each part is like a big ship in and of its' self, and if they had to manage stuff all over a ship
this large, it's be impossible. I make it structured like this for that reason. And b/c all the personnel for a specific place can be kept in close proximity to where they need to work, so in case something breaks, the proper repairmen don't have to run 4000 feet during battle to repair it, it's right there. (oh, and the elevator/ fueling/weapon loading part of the carrier is covered to help prevent enemy bombs/missles/bullets from having a hay-day there) That's why I like it so organized; and you can't just knock out the missles or guns just b/c they're all concentrated. It's roughly 500 feet x (approx.) 700 feet, which is quite a barrage. Even bigger for the Battleships. just based on its' pure size per section, its' hard to destroy a part of it, even when it is grouped like this. All I need now is good point defens, which I feel you're better equipped to decide where it goes than I, so I'm asking you to do it for my design. Oh, and if you can reccomend a better armament configuration for the battleship parts, please do so!

again, man. I don't want to hurt you at all. Sorry if I was an ass a few posts ago, I didn't mean to be one. I just really want the hull design I have now. Like I said, any upgrades to the point defense (ans I'd like you to place the point defense for my design, please), (btw there's now 100 missle tubes instead of 50) or a better battleship rampart config. is greatly encouraged. Remember, you'll be designing this puppy, so if you think it has in-adequitte guns or point defense, make it so it doesn't. (but please keep guns and cruise missles in propoer places, just add more if there is room, or make a better line-up of guns)
Essentially, what you can do for my design is take the 5 major parts:
ASW (which is all underwater and the main 'bridge' for that is below decks),
Battleship places in their parts you can move the guns arounsd, make new ones' etc and so on. that's what I want you to do, and once we've aggreed on a design that I like, design my design. You can do your own.
:D

meh...
u dont need so many diffrent calibers of guns.... a large medium and small would be alright, u dont need 4 kinds really.... and the front is too blundted... needs to be pointer or its never gonna get over 5 knots =/

What I was thinking was rather than making it pointier, make it slope upward. That's have the same proficiency in reducing water reistance with out compromising integrity under the run-way.
That's what super-tankers do.
What do you think?

Of course, but that assumes it can operate the tanker, and those tend to be based on civilian aircraft that need quite a bit of runway themselves. It's also a bit dangerous, as we're talking a good chunk under max takeoff.

They actually make refueling systems that can be installed on the F/A-18. It holds 300 gallons, and is called a buddy store system. It would take a lot of those to fill up a B-1 though. ;)

They actually make refueling systems that can be installed on the F/A-18. It holds 300 gallons, and is called a buddy store system. It would take a lot of those to fill up a B-1 though. ;)
Won't work

You see, there are two different aerial refueling methods:
1) Hose and Drogue: standard refueling method of the US Navy and most air forces. Trades transfer rate for ability to handle multiple targets. ALL buddy-store type kits use this transfer method, as does the KC-130. Most large tankers can be fitted for it as well.

2) Boon and Recepticle: standard method of the USAF, chosen primarily for the extremely high transfer rate (several times that of the hose and drogue). This is what was needed to provide adequate service for US heavy bombers and was given to all other USAF aircraft to provide commonality. Only heavy aircraft such as the KC-135, KC-10, and KC-767 can be fitted for this. Incidentally, all are based off of civilian airliners and need a lot of runway.

Simply put, a B-2 cannot be refueled by a buddy-store equipped aircraft, or a KC-130 or KA-6 for that matter. The fuel transfer systems are simply incompatible. Even if it could be, it would be a very dangerous and risky operation due to the sheer amount of time it would take to fill the B-2's tanks. It's not easy to keep the aircraft hooked for long. Thus, hose and drogue is just too slow for really big aircraft.


And for the record: The buddy store system is primarily used by the S-3 and ES-3 (better endurance and don't take part in strikes), and a similar one was designed for the Tornado.

just use a KC-10

Official USAF documents state a minimum length of 7000 ft for landing a KC-10A. Seems like that one's out.

A KC-767 could work, and A310 or A330 tankers could with reduced payload, though the A330 is pushing it with landing distance. I would not, however, recommend operating KC-135 or KC-10 aircraft. They could probably operate from it, but only with a serverely reduced payload, and even then they wouldn't have an acceptable safety margin.

And this is why you shouldn't use real aircraft on made-up ships, hee. It's best if you're designing, say, a ship that can launch heavy bombers, to make your own bomber to go with it than use a real one with all kinds of horrible baggage that makes it unsuitable for the job. If you used a carrier-based bomber similiar to the B-2 with a different refuelling system, what's suggested should be possible, or at least outside the realm of ignore-worthy wank.

Naah, it's perfectly fine to design a fictional ship to operate RL aircraft. The only thing is that you have to know the restrictions of the aircraft so you can design a ship for it.
For example, there's no problem operating a B-2 from an OMP naval base. Each one has several runways capable of supporting such an aircraft. The difference was that I looked into what I'd need before setting things down, and made sure that, despite all the other input, that capability would remain no matter what.


And the problems with the B-2 are only its runway requirements and the aircraft that can refuel it. Making a new bomber with a different refueling system isn't the answer because the one it has is already the best for its intended role. You just need to create an appropriate tanker that can operate from the ship, or make the ship a good 4000 ft longer of course.

Aye, but the intended role of our lil' carrier based B-2 is different to the intended role of a 'real' B-2 anyway, so goes full circle. I'd have thought blown flaps would be best for a carrier based heavy aircraft, really, and no RL bomber has them. But then I'm a fan of the snuggly TSR2 on that front, so may well be biased.

KC-14 Jackass (http://phoenixdynamix.proboards38.com/index.cgi?board=Aircraft&action=display&num=1099026916)

KC-14 Jackass (http://phoenixdynamix.proboards38.com/index.cgi?board=Aircraft&action=display&num=1099026916)
I don't think that one quite works. A plane that weighs only 14,000 lbs more than a C-130, yet carries nearly 2.5 times the payload almost the same range at a higher speed for less than 1/2 the price? I have a feeling that wan't researched well enough, and I certainly would ignore it.
Maybe if you cut payload in half, which would bring it closer to that of every RL aircraft I ever looked at (the F-15 Block 50 is the only one I've ever seen with a payload of more than 35% of its max takeoff weight). And of course, the price needs to at least be doubled, probably tripled.

For that matter, I see no indication of the refueling method, no indication of the runway requirements (should be more than a C-130 btw), and a single KC-767 actually takes up slightly less space than the two of these that would be needed for every B-2.

you know the only reason the c-130 costs so much is because the mnufacturers like to line thier pockets dont you. the curent model costs 40 million dollars more than the orignial models, and what's upgraded, besides the $250,000 avionics suite?
and you can clearly see from the picture the KC-14 uses flying boom method, all though it can also use the probe and drouge method

so, could we finalize this design plz?

you know the only reason the c-130 costs so much is because the mnufacturers like to line thier pockets dont you. the curent model costs 40 million dollars more than the orignial models, and what's upgraded, besides the $250,000 avionics suite?
Well, there's the new engines and propellors as well. Can't forget those.
The difference between the C-130E and C-130J is only about $35 million ($48.5 vs $14.1 in 1992 dollars), but you forget the difference in time and interim models. The C-130A appeared in 1956, while the "E" appeared in 1962. The C-130H, delivered in 1974 costs over 50% more ($22.9 million), and since it took nearly twice as long for the C-130J upgrade (22 years compared to 12), it's natural that the cost of the new model would be proportionately higher. The C-130J also isn't just a few modifications, but a complete overhaul of the entire aircraft. It has new engines, a new cockpit, and new avionics. That's a lot more than you're admitting.
Also, a major part of the higher price is that orders were slashed, requiring a higher price to maintain a profit margin.


Of course, I still see no rebuttal for the weight issue on the KC-14. Hmmmm

its got big ass jets

its got big ass jets
Which, as you know, weigh quite a bit. The only way you can drop the weight of the airframe without losing payload is through stronger composites, and even then, you still need to have about 40% of the maximum weight in the airframe. Why?
1) You need a strong enough airframe to carry all that weight off the ground
2) You need powerful enough engines to move it.

Basically, you designed an aircraft that can't fly. It has the cargo ratio of a large tanker (ship), not an aircraft, so unless you're going to be floating it around the ocean at 15 knots, you need a different approach.

bump

Which, as you know, weigh quite a bit. The only way you can drop the weight of the airframe without losing payload is through stronger composites, and even then, you still need to have about 40% of the maximum weight in the airframe. Why?
1) You need a strong enough airframe to carry all that weight off the ground
2) You need powerful enough engines to move it.

Basically, you designed an aircraft that can't fly. It has the cargo ratio of a large tanker (ship), not an aircraft, so unless you're going to be floating it around the ocean at 15 knots, you need a different approach.
good thing only people who are going to use it are imaginary troops then huh?
I have "fixed" the stats



Christopher Thompson, go ahead with your sloping hull i guess if you wanna make any changes to the overall design and ciws places go ahead and then ill make the 3d pic

no no, I'm really bad at placing those....
I was wondering if you could do it. PLEASE! *puppy eyes*
And then I'll wire half the money once we strike the deal, and half once I see it.
10 bil was the price, I believe?
Holds out 5 billion in his VERY large hands.
oh, and could you shape the 2 battleship sides' under hull kind-of like I have, and then like a sub as well? just kind-of make it more stream-lined under there while keeping a good size
It won't be very 'water-dynamic'? , but it does need to be a little. I think you know what I mean. Just don't bring it to any points, and you probably don't want to bring the 'bat-wings' out as much as they are, but it gives you an idea of what I'd like.
Are we cool?

oh, and try to make it so there's no corners underwater, like a sub.

Pheonix Milita! Do we have a deal?

Yeah... anyway sloping the front was hard... I can photoshop it if u really want, but I cant make a hull front like that in 3-D :(

Behemo†h Class Naval Vessel


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/NS1/behemoth1.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/NS1/bhmth2.gif

Wow, that's beautiful man. Just a few little changes...
If you could, the hull please (I'll throw in a bil. bonus if you do...),
There are 5 runways, not 3,
The 2 side engines point outward, not behind,
The missles tubes, please,
The boss's tower sits up on a covered section (make a half-circle that flattens rather quickly at the top. Well, more like a recanglular prism with rounded sides (thick) that shields the elevators and magazines and fuel that leads below decks),
The elevators, please (kinda like gigantic flat pieces that run through to the run-way taxiing spot under the covered part, and also up to the top by the boss's tower),
And the torp tubes please.
Once all that's done, you get your big shiney now 11 bil.
Very good so far! :D
btw, the center hull is b e a utiful, don't change that part, and for the connecting points, just connect them better, that's all. (have it slope down below the water more)

Pheonix: Doga! >.<

no.. what are talking about what is doga? i make all of my 3-D pics, by taking lumps of modeling clay, scrap metal, wires, plastic, wood and other materials, then i spray paint it and set up the model on a blue background and take pics with my digital camera and upload the pics in to my computer :p
seriously thats what i do im not joking.... ;)



[There are 5 runways, not 3,] acrtually i put six but i can fix that
[The 2 side engines point outward, not behind,] k will change
[The missles tubes, please,] did you not notice the large square in the rear? thats your VLS cells
[The boss's towerblah] ok
[The elevators, please (kinda like gigantic flat pieces that run through to the run-way taxiing spot under the covered part, and also up to the top by the boss's tower),] ?? they are already there, they just raise up from underneath, hydraulics and such, done u see the 10 big squares

[And the torp tubes please.] they are there u just cant see them from that angle

no.. what are talking about what is doga? i make all of my 3-D pics, by taking lumps of modeling clay, scrap metal, wires, plastic, wood and other materials, then i spray paint it and set up the model on a blue background and take pics with my digital camera and upload the pics in to my computer :p
seriously thats what i do im not joking.... ;)



[There are 5 runways, not 3,] acrtually i put six but i can fix that
[The 2 side engines point outward, not behind,] k will change
[The missles tubes, please,] did you not notice the large square in the rear? thats your VLS cells
[The boss's towerblah] ok
[The elevators, please (kinda like gigantic flat pieces that run through to the run-way taxiing spot under the covered part, and also up to the top by the boss's tower),] ?? they are already there, they just raise up from underneath, hydraulics and such, done u see the 10 big squares

[And the torp tubes please.] they are there u just cant see them from that angle
REALLY?! Wow, you sure are good with clay... ;)
The runways kinda look like you have 2 slapped together rather than 1 runway, that's why I saw 3.
Ohh, there are the VLS tubes...ok
The boss's tower: waiting to see the beauty...
The elevators...okay i guess. Just make sure they extend to the top by the tower as well, and could you make the run-ways longer, remember, they're 6000 ft long!

Bumpage to the Pheonix Militia OOOH!

hehe
i forgot :eek:

Well, as a christmas gift to me, could you finalize the design to what I specified above, show it, and then if I like, I'll give you 11 billion?
Then we can start design, and it's been what, 6ish weeks since we first started this, so i've got a few trillion in the bank waiting to purchase a few of these. :p

Christopher Thompson, as you are a Halo 2 fan, just thought I'd ask.. you have xbox live?

No...Sadly, I don't even own an X-box, but I have many, many friends who do. Why do you ask? I could probably arrange something...