NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a continuation from http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7913401. Please post all comments here now. I have to work on it, so sorry about the small post.

TAGged, Im interested to see what you can produce.

Update Number 1
Decided to call the ship "The Argos". For aranment, I have decided to use Phalanx CIWS and ball turrets. The ball turrets will be manned, and used for low profile anti aircraft. Just an idea. And they are also not the only things going to be on the ship. Those are just things I am putting out there.

For those who didn't bother to click the link, this is meant to rivil the Doujin. That means that in a battefield, if two fleets were going at it, one with a Doujin, one with an Argos, the Argos would survive. I will base the main weapons off the failures of the Doujin and its impracticalitys.
For the record, it will be no where near as big.

Freethinkers, thanks for being interested. I'm wondering what I can produce too.

Update Number 2
Decided to make the ball turrets computer guided, to cut down on crew. Also decided to include most of the defensive weapons on the outer hulls (AA, Anti Missle, Anti Submerine, etc.) I also decided to put propellers on all three hulls, to maximize turning radius. (Ex. left side props go forward, right side goes backward, to turn completly around)

Also decided on compartmenting everything, with thick, honeycombed walls in between compartments. This will minimize effect of fire/explosion.

Began to sketch out some designs.

Question:

Are Flak guns outdated?

Pretty much, most ships guns nowadays are Dual/Purpose weapons to engage both airborne and surface targets.

Flak guns are simply too slow and too low a rate of fire to do anything more than fill the air with little black clouds.

Ok, thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

Does any one know of a program set up like AutoCad? I am very familier with the program, but the cost has turned me off. If had something like that, I could show the ship easier.

Update Number 3
Found a CAD Program. Works great.
Drew a picture for honeycomb example. Still deciding which one to use, will go with strongest. These will be made into grates, which will be fitted inside of the walls. This will minimize the damage from impact.
http://onfinite.com/libraries/280997/470.jpg

Update Number 4
Designed a pic of ball turrets, fuzzy because Paint won't let me enlarge them, and CAD program won't let me save in JPG.
http://onfinite.com/libraries/281122/fe6.jpg

Decided to put VLS cells on side hulls, use for ASW, AA, and Anti Submerine stuff. Will put VLS cells on middle section for land attack.

Bump for intrest, comments.
BTW Freethinkers, what did you use to make the images for your ships? This CAD program sucks for stuff like that, and hell will freeze over before I use paint.

What I usually do when I start planning a new class is to write the specs I'm considering using on a sheet of paper or typing them in a word processor. I use that to serve as my sort of virtual tool shed for the specs. I suppose I could do an R&D thread like what you're doing, but old habits die hard.

After I've come up with a first draft of the specs, I make one Secret IC post with the information filled in. One, that gives me the IC secrecy I need so that people don't start reacting IC when I'm not ready to release it yet and 2) it gives me a chance to feel out what kind of reactions people have to the design.

If I'm basing a design on a RL ship, I usually look at the specs of ships that are similar to what I'm trying to design to get an idea of what to do with them. I look at everything from typical displacements to armour protection to features that make one design faster or more resilient than another and then decide which features to emphasize in my design and which ones to sacrifice.

All that basically means that I'm glad someone else is taking the time to think about the kinds of ships to implement.

Ramissle, I think Freethinkers uses Paint. He's just wicked amazing with it. :)

Yeah, I have alot of stuff on word. This is just where I am unvieling it, piece by piece, so not only I but the rest of the world can see each benificial thing. That way mistakes are easier to notice, and I can go ahead and fix them easier. I was thinking of doing a secret IC post stating the specifics when its finished.

And yeah, if thats paint, he is a God at it.

Update Number 5
Basic hull design, CAD converter isn't working right, so there is a bunch of black spots on it. Attempting to fix that now. Anyways, this is what the top view will basically look like.
http://onfinite.com/libraries/281365/987.jpg

Update Number 6
Here are the basic stats. I am going to have to have someone else do the final rendering, I have no artistic skills whatsoever.

Whole Ship Stats
Length: 2230 feet (680 meters)
Beam: 840 feet (256 meters)

Side Hull Stats
Length: 1302 feet (397 meters)
Width: 168 feet (51 meters)

Update Number 7
I like this hull design better than the other one. The first one has the secondary hulls too far forward.
http://onfinite.com/libraries/281512/057.jpg

OOC: What weaponary are you going to mount?

Haven't really got the weapons situated. I know I'll put VLS tubes on all three hulls, and have some pretty big guns. I am also planning on putting a VGAS or two on it, and I am definatly going to use SunBurn's. I'm trying to make it be able to do everything but carry carry planes.

VGAS? SunBurns?

There's just one problem with your design in post 15. Unless you cut it off, you cannot leave your stern as a flat line. There must be curvature, otherwise, it will create a suction that will inturn create drag, reducing speed to only a small fraction of the designed speed.

(I'm working on my own class of battleship, :) )

VGAS is Vertical Gun for Advanced Ships. Basically it is a gun for land warfare.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/vgas.htm
The Sunburn is a Russian Anti Ship missle. It goes three times the speed of the Harpoon.

EDIT: Thanks, I'll fix that.

Pretty much, most ships guns nowadays are Dual/Purpose weapons to engage both airborne and surface targets.

Flak guns are simply too slow and too low a rate of fire to do anything more than fill the air with little black clouds.
Actually, modern fragmenting rounds are far better than the ww2 counterparts and also, many Canadain vessels are fitted with single purpose bofors 57mm AA guns and the US Navy is thinking of adopting the system.
The new fragmeting shell was being developed in late 2002 and was proving very successful in tests
I don't have a link because I read this in print, (I have been searching for a link since about 3pm est)
Anyway I dont have details on the real world system but the 56mm one that I duse on my ships and ground verison that is based on it features a programable fuze which can be programmed by the muzzle break on exit, using computer controled radar to judge the range to target and calculate the fragmentation distance. In tests the real version of this system was fired from a 40mm AA gun and successfuly destroyed a supersonic test missile, shredding it. Needless to say the effects on an aircraft would be more dramatic.
Of course you could always go with lasers or metal storm but those systems lack the range of large caliber anti-aircraft guns with fragmenting shells.


What you have so far is looking pretty good Ramissle, If you like I could render it for you in DoGa once you complete the design

Thanks TPM. I'll contact you when its finished.

Loverly tag. Can't wait to see what you make :)

Update Number 8
Decided on using ARSOC for anti submerine warfare, in VLS tubes. Among these will be RIM-67 Standard Missiles. I have also decided on using RIM-116 RAM's along with Phalanx's for missile defence system.
And thank you, Doujin.

Very interesting. Personally wouldn't bother with large-calibre AA guns as frag. shells are still relatively inefficient. Good against helicopters, but I'd be surprised if a helicopter got close enough to this thing to be shot at by them. Of course I'm assuming that you're talking about guns like 100mm, which take some time to reload, not the rapid-fire 76mm weapons available these days, since I'd class those as medium-calbre weapons.

Regarding stern thing, not necessarily true. I'm assuming you're going to have a relatively conventional stern below the surface here, but transom sterns have been around for some time. For instance, HMS Vanguard (http://www.navyking.com/E/Battleship/Vanguard/Vanguard_1946.jpg) had one and seemed to steam perfectly well.

I'd also stick with the first design you posted. There's more lateral protection for the bows that way, minimising the risk of a lot of damage in that area putting her down by the head.

A Norwegian corporation (Raufoss, I believe) invented a non-fuzed, high-explosive incendiary semi-amour piercing 20mm shell. The shell consists of a hardened steel body packed with a high explosive (esp. A-4) and a deformable nose cone. There is a second layer of a very hot incendiary pressed in on top of the explosive with a small hole or depression in it. There is a steel disk with a small hole in it that fits over this. The nose is
filled with another incendiary, that ignites easier. You get a fireball within some inches of penetration, and then an explosion within another few inches or so. t generates a number of fragments that do a lot of damage as they
continue to move forward in a cone shape.

(No time for any other refinements for a little bit, I am very sick, and that is the only reason I got this stuff done. Expect another post in like a half hour-an hour and a half.)

Armaments of the Argos:

20 Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS) Mk 29 (Sea Sparrow)
12 20 Inch ETC’s
20 5 Inch Guns
84 25mm Ball Turrets
12 64 Cell VLS Systems
32 RIM-116 RAM Launcher Systems
5 Vertical Guns for Advanced Ships (VGAS)
52 MK 141 Launchers

No offense, but that armorment is kinda weak for a ship that size. Take a look at DPUO and mines command battleship the Hunter (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=347215&postcount=1)

A ship this size, I would suggest haveing 9 20" ETCs. These are about the most powerful things you can get on a ship that is MT. Also, you might want to limit your self to about only 4 different sizes of ammo. This lessens the logistics of the ships.

No offense taken. I put this thread here so people could put in their imput before it was completed.

*Screams*! All right, that doesn't look too bad, but there are too many types of guns.

You're going to get a small rant, so please be patient.

Back in 1900-ish, ships were mounting the same kind of armament. As I recall, for instance, the Canopus class mounted 4 12in guns, 8 6in guns, 10 12pdr guns and about 10 0.303in Vickers MGs. Similar German ships of the period (Pommern, for instance) also mounted an intermediate battery, having 4 12in, 4 9.2in, 6 6in, 8 12pdrs and about 6 Maxim MGs.

Why am I telling you all this? Well, you've done the same thing, and thus you'll be subject to the same problem they had: fire-control.

Back then, fire-control was by fall of shot; these days, not a great deal seems to have changed. Ultimately, you still have to detect whether your shells are hitting the target or not, and the main way to do that is by visual observation of the impacts, or lack of them, and correction accordingly. While lasers and radar might give you a much better initial rangefinder figure, to correct fire you're still going to have to spot where your shells are falling, unless you want to try and track them all with lasers and/or radars - not an easy (or economical) task.

Now it may sounds unimportant, but it's pretty damn hard to make out the difference between the splash/dust cloud/blast from a 12in shell and a 9.2in shell (or in this case a 20in and a 10in shell) at long ranges, which is where most gunnery battles happen. And there isn't a great deal of point in hitting them with your 10in battery when you want to hit them with your 20in battery; however, if you can't see what shell it is impacting the target, that's what happens.

The fact that this problem of finding exactly what you were hitting the enemy with when you had guns of similar calibre shooting on one target existed was one motivation behind the idea of the all big-gun battleship, the first of which (in terms of completion and successful use) was HMS Dreadnought. She rendered all of the pre-dreadnoughts pretty much obsolete; she was not only faster and better armoured than they, but she had far superior gunnery capability. For she was equipped with a main battery of 12in guns only, and thus her long-range fire was much easier to correct.

Think about it: by removing the 10in guns, you save weight (which can be turned to account in other areas) save ammunition storage, make reprovisioning easier, and make your fire-control a lot easier too. Not much to lose. Same thing with the 25mm and 20mm guns; ditch one or the other.

Thank you for the comments. Actually, I am glad you said all that; any less and I would not have understood.

Question:
How would you power 6 propellers, 2 for each hull? By this I mean, what power plant?
Remember, I am looking for power and quietness here.

nuclear reactor

QNRs could do it. They are small, lighter, less leathal, and more reliable than conventonal nuclear reactor. What they basically do is shoot x-rays into halfium and energy results.

Lol, yeah a reactor. I should have been more specific. I meant, what kind of reactor?

Could I see something on the QNR? I'm interested in that.

http://www.utdallas.edu/research/quantum/Tutorial.htm

I am pretty sick, so I'm not even going to try to read that. Although somehow I doubt it would make more sense when I am better. I'll post again tommorrow.

I read somewhere that QNR's wouldn't produce enough power to run a jet engine (let alone a BBN). Hafnium-1788 is also extremley hard to make in large quanties , so it would probably be more effective if you used a Generation-IV nuclear reactor(the pebblebed design is practically meltdown proof).

SEe here for more on the QNR. http://www.aps.org/WN/WN04/wn041604.cfm#1
I'm still trying to find a more complete source.

While that might be true, we are only talking about 1 fuel and 1 reactor. I'm sure a QNR is reasable with NS MT.

looks interesting and promising... so this is a tag

bump

A) There is enough Halfnium
B) A QNF engine can easily power an aircraft
C) If you use a QNF engine in a BBN, your asking me to punch you in the face. Just use a Pebblebed Reactor or three.

bump

Most modern warships tend to use Pressurised Water Reactors, these are the general standard and could provide sufficient power for a vessel. You could mount the two reactors the Nimitz class use and have a reasonable amount of power to do with what you want.

QNRs are simply too small to power a ship, simple as that. QNRs do struggle to power even some aircraft, as mentioned, and unless you want banks of QNRs burning expensive fuel, is probably not the way to go.

Pebblebed Reactors provide the best bet if you are willing to go up to 2010 or so. These don't provide much more power than normal reactors, but are a lot cheaper and safer, and they're fairly standard amongst large warships in NS. The Doujin is, interestingly enough, powered by an octuple set of Pebblebeds providing about 1.5 GW for normal running.

And some other advice. Don;t have seperate VLS for your different missiles. Install a Mk.41 Strike length VLS instead (as on most current USN warships) these allow you to fire, aside from SS and ASROC, a host of other weaponry such as CMs and other ASM. Harpoon is kinda obsolete in NS terms, althoguh the weapon retains some usefulness for use against FACs and other smaller combatants.

Ok, thanks for the imput. I really don't have the time to make the changes now, but I will soon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure I read on the FAS pages that the ARSOC's are put in VLS tubes.

Ok, thanks for the imput. I really don't have the time to make the changes now, but I will soon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure I read on the FAS pages that the ARSOC's are put in VLS tubes.

Yeah, Vertical Launch ASROC, VLA, launched from the Mk.41 system. Although there are some dedicated ASROC VLS, they simply arent as versatile as the basic Mk.41 system.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/vla.htm

Yeah, Vertical Launch ASROC, VLA, launched from the Mk.41 system. Although there are some dedicated ASROC VLS, they simply arent as versatile as the basic Mk.41 system.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/vla.htm
Ok, I was just mainly stating what I was going to use in the VLS. I was planning on using the Mk. 41, it looks like it fits most of the missles.
Thank you again for helping.

BTW, how many tubes are in the strike system? I can't find it.

Is this Future Tech or Modern tech. If It is Mordern, their is not need for Battle ships because they are old school, and Destroyers/ Crusiers are better and faster and require less

Ok, thats your opinion. But this battleship should be pretty fast, with its engines on all three hulls. And price, it shouldn't cost too much, certainly not the amount of the Doujin.

Is this Future Tech or Modern tech? If it is modern, there is no need for battleships because they are old school. Destroyers/crusiers are better, faster, and require less ???money???

Aside from spelling errors, (corrected in bold) this is a totally mis-informed statement. Battleships in NS are quite possible the most destructive force in NS. Not only do they have a high range, but are versitile. While they arn't much slower than destroyers or cruisers, they make up for it by being more heavily armored, having stronger armorment, father reaching armorment, and are able to hold some aircraft if properly designed.

The Mk.41 comes in blocks of 8 (2x4 Cells) and as such all VLS systems on US ships are in multiples of 8 (For instance, Ticos have two 64 Cell launchers, and the Burkes carry 1 64 Cell and 1 32 Cell launcher.).

I'd disagree about the QNRs thing, myself. They're very compact, provide a decent amount of power (at least the versions I use) and give you a decent, cheap, safe propulsion system. You need a lot of them, true, and it's hellishly expensive, also true, but they're still usable.

I think it would be best to decide on a power plant later, after more of the basic stuff. Off to make a model of the armoring.

DPUO, I make use of QNFR engines in tanks, and QNF in airplanes. But QNF is not meant for naval vessels, because they just don't put out enough power. Maybe for a patrol vessel or some such, but like I said, PWR's or Pebblebeds should be used for a battleship.

OOC: Meh, nobody ever pointed that out to me, hence the fact that the improved version powers all my bigger warships. Strange how peoiple miss thigs like that. Damn them. :( Ah well, easy enough to re-write; had a few thinsg to alter anyway.

I have nothing for the armor. Absolutly no idea, save the honey combing. I'll explain that more.

The Argos uses compartmentation to protect it self from hazards such as fire and direct hits. Between every compartment is 4 inches of tungsten hexagonal grating. Covering this is 2 inches of steel plating. This is painted by a flame retardent mixture. Every compartment is water tight.

bump

Hmm. I did an armour scheme a bit ago, based off RL battleship armouring systems. I'll dig it up for ya, see if it's any use to you.

Edit: Here ye go. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=377242)

Yeah, I saw that on the Hunter. Thanks for the link! If you don't mind, I'd like to buy production rights for that armor.

Question:
Would a harrier be able to take down a supersonic or long range bomber?

OOC: Perfectly feasible if it got within missile range, the missile was quick enough, and the bomber didn't run like hell.

Oh, and regarding the armour, it's secret. However, I could do you a version, once my various other work's out of the way, or you could just do something similar. It's really nothing very special, just the result of a bit of background reading on battleship armour and some maxims from tank design.

I do like it. To qoute Artitsa, "wow... thats some sexy armour."
It would be great if you could make me a version.

I think I'll add a Harrier bay....

Assuming you are using near future tech (seeing as how the trimaran design isn't perfected yet, and still experimental), Might I suggest ABLs? They're currently in development, and have been, so far, able to knock out artillery shells and MLRS missiles, and is lightweight. I suspect, by the time the Trimaran design has become practical to use, ABLs will be practical, in wide use, not to mention being smaller than the ball turrets. (that ammo has to go somewhere, doesn't it?)

The estimated practical working date is 2007.
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_MTHEL,,00.html

ABL stands for AirBorne Laser.. from the link I assume you mean a THEL/M-THEL ( Mobile/Tactical High Energy Laser) I've already suggested it indirectly... ;)


Also about the Harriers, you would be better off with the STOVL version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or one of the other many NS S/VTOL aircraft, the F-35 and some NS aircraft I am thinking of would be much better at taking out a supersonic or long range bomber :)

I wouldn't suggest anyone using QNRs since there are no functioning reactors and the process has only been made to work once... no repeat trials have succeeded. Add in a lousy fuel efficiency... stick to high octane gas or pebblebed reactors (which are designed in full and only haven't been made because of a moratorium on reactor creation).

Yes, I had a skim read of it (I'd seen MTHELs in a documentary) and assumed ABL stood for anti ballistic laser.

I wouldn't suggest anyone using QNRs since there are no functioning reactors and the process has only been made to work once... no repeat trials have succeeded. Add in a lousy fuel efficiency... stick to high octane gas or pebblebed reactors (which are designed in full and only haven't been made because of a moratorium on reactor creation).

Now Im just getting mad at all these ignorant players that believe they know what their talking about. "Theres none built, so its not true! OMFG NOT TRUE!"

Thanks for the imput about the F-35's, sounds like a better idea. And DPUO, I just remembered that I have an armor scheme. I forgot all about it. Thanks for the link though, that will help me to improve it.

And Hakurabi, I think I'll stick to the Ball Turrets. I don't like lasers.

Now Im just getting mad at all these ignorant players that believe they know what their talking about. "Theres none built, so its not true! OMFG NOT TRUE!"

Well Popuar Mechanics mentioned it in the "Corrections" section. I'm trying to find the bloody issue.

I wouldn't suggest anyone using QNRs since there are no functioning reactors and the process has only been made to work once... no repeat trials have succeeded. Add in a lousy fuel efficiency... stick to high octane gas or pebblebed reactors (which are designed in full and only haven't been made because of a moratorium on reactor creation).
YEY! Chardonay is back! w00t w00t w00t!

Artitsa if you think ignorance = following scientific method then you are the one who is truely ignorant.

Last time I checked, this thread was for comments on the battleship, not comments about QNR. Seriously, take your arguments somewhere else.
And my personal opinion on the QNR is that it should be regarded as Post Modern Tech. Just my view.

Thanks for the imput about the F-35's, sounds like a better idea. And DPUO, I just remembered that I have an armor scheme. I forgot all about it. Thanks for the link though, that will help me to improve it.

And Hakurabi, I think I'll stick to the Ball Turrets. I don't like lasers.

Yeah, my armour stinks. I would so love it if you could still design me a version.

Hey, why not. :) Send me a pic of the armour you've got and an idea of the ship's hull. I'll TG you my AIM and MSN.

bump for interest

Bump For Boredom

Update Number ???
Decided on a hanger bay for 12 VTOL jets, to counter air threats more effeicently. Also decided to use a set of 8 Pebblebed reactors. Almost finished with ship specs, just have to get the armour scheme all set. Should be a good ship.

If you finish one. I would like to buy one and only one. and Dub it RRS Rome. like the USS America

Yes, I am planning on selling these. Check here for updates, I'll post the link when its done.