NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't change your SAM, Civitas. The other people's SAMs are all flying turkeys.

I might not just on the grounds of being MT. Are the superlong ones PMT?

And you know this how?

Because to get a SAM to fly that far (500 miles) you'd have to turn it into something twice the size of a Tomahawk, not a very manuevrable missile to begin with.

edit:


Yes, it a cheaper, lighter, aircraft carrier, with probably, a larger aircraft complament. In the end, like we all have been preaching here, the key to success is combined arms. No one design is better than the other - all designs have disadvantages, all designs have advantages - now, you put them together in a battle group, and bam, you have yourself a strong naval force.

Yes, carriers need escorting. But the real battle takes place with SSMs, not guns. That's why I don't like BB and SDs.

Pop-up attacks don't loose almost all of their momentum. They're at a fairly constant velocity all the way through. E-2s and radar recon can spot targets beyond their SAM range.

How about I lay out a scenario, and you tell me what's wrong with it:

Let's assume a BBBG and a CVBG fought. Since carriers and their air wing cost about as much as 2 BBs, lets set up the fleets like this:

CVBG:
1 Nimitz
4 Arleigh Burke
4 Ticonderoga
1 Sub (Los Angeles/Virginia/whatever)

BBBG:
2 Iowa class
Same as above except for no Nimitz

Maybe satellites are either shot down or don't arrive at the right place at the right time to make a difference (the battle lasts only a few hours and it takes more than that for a satellite to complete a rotation. Or we can assume that all satellites are shot down, jammed, or damaged by ground-based laser or a near miss by a missile, all possible. Even if they're still up, it's not likely for them to fly over the exact right place at the exact right time. Let's assume that the BBBG commander has satellites but the CV commander dosen't. The CV will win anyway.

Anyway, the carrier interceptors shoot down whatever air recon the enemy has. The carrier's recon (E-2 or S-3) airplanes find the enemy. An airstrike is launched, and FA-18s, S-3s, and whatever else can fire cruise missiles fly 300 miles or so (within the FA-18's combat radius of 350) and fire off their Harpoons at a range of 50 miles or so (within the 80 mile range of Harpoons). SAMs shoot down 70% of the missiles, and things like jamming, chaff, close defence, mechanical failure and missiles accidentally attacking already-dead ships kills 95% of those incoming. Still, the 45 FA18s fire 4 missiles each (total of 135), meaning that they score 6.75 hits. Even if a Tconderoga takes a lot of missiles to hit, 1 or 2 will mission-kill it. So three of the escorts are disabled or, better yet, sunk.

Two hours later, the BBBG, traveling blind without air recon, gets hit by another strike. The carrier uses up all its air-launched harpoons, but now another 4-5 ships are disabled. That leaves the BBBG with with only 2 escorts at best. The CV submarines now have a poorly defended target, and the enemy subs have to get past a good escort screen.

Now the BB commander has the choice of continuing on or retreating. Actaully, he dosen't know where the enemy is because he has no air recon, so retreating is a gamble. Alternatively, he can charge into the CVBG and be torn to shreds by the big TASM tomahawk missiles, enough to penetrate the part of his battleships not protected by armor belt. Even if he somehow manages to pinpoint the carrier and launch cruise missiles at it, he has only a total of four (two escorts+ two BB) left, so not that many SSMs are available. They'll probably get shot down by SAMs or aircraft AAMs. The missile takes place at over 200 miles, out of range of UAVs, torpedoes or guns.

Even if he did throw in a carrier into the mix, if he didn't win the air battle not many of his bombers would get through. So, IMO, it's all about who wins the air battle.

edit: About how NS is different from real life. I see what you mean- what nation on earth today has 6 billion people? Only India and China today have 1 billion people, but here, almost every country does. But the proportions are the same. Sure, NS countries can build 100 battleships, but remember they can also build the same number of carriers. So, because proportions stay the same, I think that if we want to be realistic we should reconsider making BBs.

So, navies adapt.

If battleships become fashionable,

-Fewer anti-air escort ships to worry about
- Aircraft can carry less but bigger missiles

If small ships become fashionable,

-More tiny, lightly armored ships to worry about
-Aircraft can carry smaller but cheaper missiles

An Iowa-class BB carries no real long-range air defence. Adding one would cost a billion or so dollars. So that means that for every $3 billion long-range-air-defence battleship, you can't by 3 air defence escorts, which means you have a lot less SAMs to protect yourself. Even if the Harpoons don't penetrate the deck, they'll destroy radars, gun tubes, missile tubes, etc. So if a battleship gets hit 20 times with tiny missiles, it won't sink, but it'll be mission-killed or consumed by fire.
Missiles making pop-up attacks do lose most of their momentum. It's simple physics. It takes more energy to climb vertically than fly horizontally, and with constant engine output, they do lose their momentum, especially if it's a sudden maneuver rather than a very gradual one.
Harpoons also won't destroy gun tubes. They're designed to withstand more by simple necessity (those big shells). And as we have all stated over and over, you're not going to turn an Iowa into a blazing inferno with non-penetrating hits, and even if you could, it would take a heck of a lot more than 20 missiles or so. Your Harpoons are ineffective against an Iowa, even in volume, and just about everyone else recognizes this. If so many people who are respected as being knowledgable in the field are against you, and no one is supporting you, you should back down, or at the very least hold off until you have something concrete to give them beyond your own opinion. When you're alone like that, that's usually a sign that you're mistaken. Since we seem to have access to the same information, and you've already been wrong about numerous things so far, it's not unlikly that you could be mistaken.


As for the scenario is still set up in a biased manner and forgetting several key elements.
1) Replace Iowas with almost any similar-class NS battleship. All of a sudden things change drastically. Same with the escorts. But I won't deal with this right now.
2) I already stated there are two RL missile systems that can take out an E-2. If you wish further elaboration, here goes:
An E-2's surface scan range is about 320 km. This is a constant, as it is a factor of altitude, not the radar. Certain SM-2ER variants (specifically the RIM-156 SM-2ER Block IV) have a range as high as 389 km listed. That gives enough overreach for the E-2 to try and turn and run, but still go down. Similarly, the Russan S-400 system fires a missile out to 400 km, and could be adapted for naval use as well. Furthermore, both are capable of engaging targets over-the-horizon, with their own on-board sensors. There's two missiles right off the bat that can do the job, one of which can actually be on those hypothetical escorts.
3) The range of the AGM-84D is just under 120 nm (220 km). To my knowledge, this is the only antishipping missile an F/A-18 is currently rated with (the Penguin's only on the F-16, and with 1/8th the range, you wouldn't use it). The longest ranged antishipping missile dropped from tactical aircraft (ie, that can be on a Nimitz) was 173 nm (320 km) for the never-deployed AGM-84F. Outside of that, the AGM-84D and its derivatives are indeed the longest-ranged missiles in their class (the 3M-54E1 Klub/SS-N-27 goes to 300 km, but is ship-launched).
4) Your math is off 135 is 45*3. 45*4 is 180. That would be 9 hits in your scenario, but since it really fails to take much into account, that's not an issue.
5) I also believe that the combat radius mentioned for the Hornet is with two large drop tanks. That would drop Harpoons to 2. But since I'm not entirely certain and don't feel like digging it up, I'll hold off there.


New scenario: Same forces as above, but make note of 6 AEW helicopters on the Iowas and a few missile variants that aren't on current ships, in the line of the SM-2ER Block IVA, which would have been implemented if a threat in the class of the US Navy did exist. However, on the same end, I'll give the carrier the AGM-84F. Wouldn't be fair not to beef up both sides, now would it?

-The two groups, each knowing that the other is nearby, prepare for battle. The carrier sends out an E-2 or two, with escort, to find the enemy battlegroup. One such E-2 finds the outer escorts for the battleships. However, a few minutes later, the E-2 detects a pair of incoming SAMs, and is unable to evade. 25% of carrier AEW assets down.

-The two groups now both know the approximate locations of the enemy forces. The carrier has the radar contact from the downed E-2. However, the battleship group has the bearing and heading from the E-2, which is almost as good. The carrier prepares its strike, and the battleships send out 2-3 AEW helicopters to provide early warning.

-A game of cat-and-mouse is played between the strike group and the defenders. Now, the defenders are directing some long range missiles as the strike group tries to find the range, bearing, speed, and heading of the enemy fleet (they need to be pretty accurate in all of those to launch at maximum range). Since there are no F-14s in this group (a Nimitz doesn't carry more than 50 combat aircraft), and almost all of the F/A-18s are equipped with antishipping missiles. The defenders are at a massive advantage, as there's nothing that can be done about those helicopters. So long as the helicopters remain well within the SAM envelope, they have nothing to fear, since the AMRAAM can't reach them without the launching aircraft getting shot down by SM-2ERs. Thus, the battleships' long-range detection remains intact.

-The helicopters direct long-range SAMs, which will defeat jamming through either secondary IR guidance or home-on-jam to take them out. The strike group is taken under substantial long-range SAM fire, losing numerous planes before finally getting within 260 km to launch with a solid chance of a hit. They also lose another E-2 that sacrifices itself to get the targeting information. Lets be generous and say that 40% of the strike group, one E-2, 2 high cover, and 2 EW aircraft were lost to missiles here, even before launching their weapons. It'd likely be much higher for the strike group, as the F/A-18s are unable to maneuver much at low altitudes with that payload, and there are a lot of SAMs to launch.

-27 surviving planes launch their missiles. We do the same as before, but with only 108 missiles & 97% downed (fewer missiles means a much lower percent will get through), for 3.24 hits. Probably either 1 escort sunk or 1 disabled and 1 damged. A few more planes are also shot down. Lets say 7.
-The carrier now has only 23 F/A-18s, 8 S-3s, 2 EA-6Bs, and 2 E-2Cs with which to strike, equivalent to about half the starting air wing. They could launch again, but would probably lose almost their entire remaining air group for no appreciable gain. Tactically, the battleships would win as it would be the carrier forced to pull out or face annihilation. In the long term, it's probably a draw, with about $1.9 billion worth of aircraft lost to either sink a $1.1-1.2 billion escort or cause a couple hundred million in damage, the time it takes to construct or repair the ships and greater casualties being the only things making up for the cost differential.



Replacing a Hornet squadron with Phoenix-armed Tomcats will help in this situation, but only to a degree, and you'll still lose several aircraft prior to launching missiles, plus be starting with only 36 Hornets, for 144 missiles. You'll be a bit better off, but it will still not be pretty. However, if we continue in this vein, we can drop the AGM-84F, and see aircraft losses skyrocket once again. And if we add an NS battleship and escort force into the mix, losses get even higher for aircraft and lower for the ships. In NS, this just wouldn't work against anyone that's NS-style equipment rather than RL designs. We armor our escorts.


Edit: For the AEW helicopters. They do go up to relatively high altitude for surface search, and when doing so can detect targets at well over 200 km (108 nm). They can also detect aircraft out to ranges of up to 300 km (162 nm). That's a lot better than they're being given credit for here.

My only problem with this is that lets say a force of SD's matches up against a group of guided missile cruisers, aircraft carriers, and destroyers. As long as the fleet 1. stays out of range of the SD cannons 2.receives adequete supples 3. maintans air air cover, they can move around in an arc blasting the SD's into oblivion with concerntrated missile launches without ever exposing themselves to the devastating cannon fire, rendering the Battleships useless.


But that's why no one uses a pure force of superdreadnoughts.


And I once saw a trimarian Superdreadnought (on my main file) with 30+ inch guns (useless because of slow firing rate and speed that the barrel wears out) 100+ cruise missiles, 30 CIWSs and RAMs, and two runways with a 180-plane capacity. I mean, WTF is that?

You don't use SDs alone, you support them just like with carriers.

Because to get a SAM to fly that far (500 miles) you'd have to turn it into something twice the size of a Tomahawk, not a very manuevrable missile to begin with.
So wait... the Bomarc on land is a 'flying turkey' against large bombers? Something like an upgraded SM-2ER on a ship will be a 'flying turkey' against the smaller bombers and tactical aircraft? Stop sticking with your ridiculous theories and actually read the posts and points from people who actually have experience in fighting NS naval battles and thus have the credibility that allows them to speak extensively with it. You won't have a battlegroup solely with BBs, you'd have a mixed task force of BBs and CVs, so your scenario is greatly flawed anyways from the start. This is not RL, this is NS.

By the way, even the most recent long-range rendition of the SM-2ER has a range far beyond 80 miles, though it seems that you are basing off your assumptions on the specs of older Harpoon models, which doesn't have quite as much range as the newer ones (unless if you really feel turning this into an RL scenario where you use everything that is available, but then we'd have to wonder why the USN would be battling the USN)... But as newer SAMs are developed they tend to have a longer range and better maneuveribility than their older cousins in the same role and weight class, no? SAMs develop too.

TASM outranging guns, UAVs, torpedoes... Ever thought of what the other side might have? So a F-15C vs. Su-27 (whatever variant) scenario will be fair and logical when the F-15C wouldn't have any good long-range AAMs to begin with, when it can have them? Funny still, as you forgot that battleships can also carry long range missiles, while the distance is obviously going to close between two warring naval task forces. They move, no?

And who in their right mind would use RL ships here? Iowa BBs as they were in RL, escorted by Ticonderogas and Arleigh Burkes?

The deal with India and China... You apparantly forgot the word 'economy'. Yes, their economy are growing, but porportionally it's still not near the levels of say, the United States.

Yes, carriers need escorting. But the real battle takes place with SSMs, not guns. That's why I don't like BB and SDs.
Well, if you really feel that plucking shore targets by wasting millions of dollars on submunition-loaded Tomahawks as opposed to using long-range shells is better...

Why are you guys so rude? This isn't a flame war.

I am talking about real life. In Nationstates, you could build a $40 billion battleship, but for that money you could buy over 20 carriers plus their airwing. So you could just swamp it in missiles and destroy all the gun tubes, radars, missile silos, and everything else unprotected to get a mission kill.

You talked about the battlegroups closing. Assuming a closing speed of 60 knots (30 plus 30), during the 2 hour battle each fleet will only close 120 miles from 300 to 180 miles, still out of gun range.

The Nimitz carries 90 aircraft, not 50. They are perfectly capable of shooting down helicopters. Also, at low altitude a helicopter's detection range is reduced greatly.

SDs are redundant if the main battle takes place with SSMs.

The combat radius for the FA-18 I mentioned is with 4 Harpoons and a central 1,000-gal fuel tank.


Reread the scenario I posted. Note that the battleships can fire back, but not before they are pounded with airborne SSMs.

On Wikipedia, the posted range of the SM-2 ER is "100 to 200 nautical miles". It's likely that it lies at about 150-175. As I said, at maximum range the missiles can be outrun, and with their propellant burnt out they are not manueverable at all. Also take into account the difference between "slant range" and "max range". A missile firing up uses more energy than a missile firing horizontally. I think the figure you quoted is max range, not slant. A plane at 20,000 feet is harder to hit than one at 0 feet. Practical range, taking into account jamming, manueverability, etc. is likely to be toward the shorter end of the scale. SSMs do not have as much to worry about against slow-moving BBs.

Taking into account what I have said about SAM range, the E-2 is likely to spot the enemy group. Even if it's shot down, it still spots the general area so a strike can be called in.

The issue is not really about detection, as even if the CV group gets spotted first, as long as the CVs can launch airstrikes they will win.

Basically, the main flaw in your argument is about SAM ranges. I've laid out my reasons for why I think they won't shoot that far.

Why are you guys so rude? This isn't a flame war.
Sorry about that, but discussing something when the other side keeps ignoring the central point over and over is kinda irritating...

I am talking about real life. In Nationstates, you could build a $40 billion battleship, but for that money you could buy over 20 carriers plus their airwing. So you could just swamp it in missiles and destroy all the gun tubes, radars, missile silos, and everything else unprotected to get a mission kill.
For the last time, this is not real life... Weapons are based on the scientific and engineering principles in real life and tactics are based on the basic tenets of warfighting in real life, but this is not real life itself. Apparantly you still fail to realize that there are smaller battleships that are cheaper, and larger battleships that are more expensive, while on the other hand there are carriers that will cost as much as battleships (though normally carriers actually cost more unless you are dealing with 300,000 ton plus class monsters). With this flawed "one thing is better since it can replace the other thing" theory, then we could just build a navy out of 10,000 missile boats.

You talked about the battlegroups closing. Assuming a closing speed of 60 knots (30 plus 30), during the 2 hour battle each fleet will only close 120 miles from 300 to 180 miles, still out of gun range.
You don't engage with guns at that point, you engage with missiles.

The Nimitz carries 90 aircraft, not 50. They are perfectly capable of shooting down helicopters. Also, at low altitude a helicopter's detection range is reduced greatly.
Where does your E-2s come from Where dooes your S-3s come from? Where does your helicopters come from? There are about 50 combat aircraft no?

SDs are redundant if the main battle takes place with SSMs.
...

We are discussing about SDs? When?

Reread the scenario I posted. Note that the battleships can fire back, but not before they are pounded with airborne SSMs.
And the battleships can't fire the SSMs before the aircraft launch theirs?

Because you 1) have been equally rude to those who have disagreed with you, if not more so and 2) you have *insisted* on "facts" that have been refuted several times by several players.

If you'd actually listen to what other people are saying so that we don't have to act like we're talking to a cyber wall, you wouldn't get back what you're giving us.

The issue is not really about detection, as even if the CV group gets spotted first, as long as the CVs can launch airstrikes they will win.


No, they won't. Enough SAMs will kill their ability to strike. Based on my interaction in this thread, I'm going to be undertaking a big reorganization of my Navy, which will remove the emphasis from carriers and create a more balanced fleet (between battleships, carriers, and missile spamming ships).


The Nimitz carries 90 aircraft, not 50. They are perfectly capable of shooting down helicopters. Also, at low altitude a helicopter's detection range is reduced greatly.

I use Nimitz-class carriers. I have exactly 56 attack planes, including fighter cover (we use the same plane for both roles) on each carrier.

56 F-21 Attack Super Tomcats
4 E-2C Hawkeyes
8 S-3/A/B Vikings
4 EF-21 Super Growlers
4 SH-60F Seahawks
2 HH-60H Seahawks

Keep in mind though, that despite the fact that a balanced force is the way to go in NS there are carriers that are far larger than the Nimitz. Not including the (in my opinion, terribly impractical) 1000-plane supercarriers, most large NS 'battlecarriers' can carry more than 100 aircraft, more in the range of 150-200. Similarily, battleships are not always that large, and there are numerous smaller monohull battleships as well that might be more efficient in certain roles than lrger ones.

Sorry about that, but discussing something when the other side keeps ignoring the central point over and over is kinda irritating...

Well, we'll both chill out.


For the last time, this is not real life... Weapons are based on the scientific and engineering principles in real life and tactics are based on the basic tenets of warfighting in real life, but this is not real life itself. Apparantly you still fail to realize that there are smaller battleships that are cheaper, and larger battleships that are more expensive, while on the other hand there are carriers that will cost as much as battleships (though normally carriers actually cost more unless you are dealing with 300,000 ton plus class monsters). With this flawed "one thing is better since it can replace the other thing" theory, then we could just build a navy out of 10,000 missile boats.


You could, but it would have zero blue-water capability. Still a viable idea for coastal defence.

You don't engage with guns at that point, you engage with missiles.


No guns have a range of 180 miles.



Where does your E-2s come from Where dooes your S-3s come from? Where does your helicopters come from? There are about 50 combat aircraft no?



Check Wikipedia.




We are discussing about SDs? When?


And the battleships can't fire the SSMs before the aircraft launch theirs?

The aircraft can fly and then shoot, which extends the range of the SSMs. Plus, they're firing at high altitude.

Someone mentioned SDs, I don't know who.



Because you 1) have been equally rude to those who have disagreed with you, if not more so and 2) you have *insisted* on "facts" that have been refuted several times by several players.

If you'd actually listen to what other people are saying so that we don't have to act like we're talking to a cyber wall, you wouldn't get back what you're giving us.


I know I was being rude before, and I'm sorry. Let's not get into a you-started-it discussion. But if you're angry at me, why are you debating me? Let's just chill.

I have not insisted on every fact. I've made several concessions.

We're still in disagreement about Harpoon, so look at it this way. When an aircraft climbs for just one second, it does not loose all its velocity the instant it points its nose up. Neither does Harpoon.

Actually, if you'd like, Atheisism, why don't we do a simulated war game RP? It'll help show why exactly you're wrong in your reliance solely on carriers. MT only, one fleet with a dozen capital ships (and as many escorts as personal doctrine calls for) per side, RL ships with the exception of my upcoming Saint George-class battleship (http://s13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/index.php?showtopic=184&view=findpost&p=279765). Starting location is 1000 miles from each other, with sat recon providing only "He's over there somewhere", no ports, and only a thousand miles of ocean to the sides of your fleet before hitting land.

No, they won't. Enough SAMs will kill their ability to strike.

They (SAMs, close defence, ECM and everything else total) will kill about 95% of the SSMs, but even then if you fire over a hundred missiles you'll still kill all the escorts, paving the way for your bigger missiles to take out the heavily-armored bad boys.

No guns have a range of 180 miles.


Traditional guns, no. Electrothermal-chemical guns with electromagnetic rifling can. My Saint George-class reaches 150 miles.

You could, but it would have zero blue-water capability. Still a viable idea for coastal defence.
My point is, such logic is just terribly flawed as preferring a fleet of 200 junk MiG-19 clones rather than say, 24 F-16s just because the former is 'cheaper'.

No guns have a range of 180 miles.
Reread what I've said. I think you are confusing 'missiles' with 'guns', as these two words have been clearly laid out. At very long ranges guns will have questionable effectiveness against ships, hence why you equip them with long-range missiles.

Check Wikipedia.
There's a whole world out there. If you base the sum of your knowledge about military weapons and tactics on Wikipedia, quite frankly, you won't get very far.

The aircraft can fly and then shoot, which extends the range of the SSMs.
But the battleship will be evidentally carrying larger missiles that will undoubtfully have a longer range, no?

Plus, they're firing at high altitude.
...which will make them terribly vulnerable to fleet air defence, even more so if there's multiple SAMs aiming at the tailpipe of each of your F/A-18s. Even if your aircraft do survive, they'll need to ditch their tanks and missiles, which means... mission abort for them.

Actually, if you'd like, Atheisism, why don't we do a simulated war game RP? It'll help show why exactly you're wrong in your reliance solely on carriers. MT only, one fleet with a dozen capital ships (and as many escorts as personal doctrine calls for) per side, RL ships with the exception of my upcoming Saint George-class battleship (http://s13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/index.php?showtopic=184&view=findpost&p=279765). Starting location is 1000 miles from each other, with sat recon providing only "He's over there somewhere", no ports, and only a thousand miles of ocean to the sides of your fleet before hitting land.

That'd be kind of interesting. The problem is that we're already pretty much doing that (think of the scenarios we've been counterposting), so it'll probably deadlock. Still, if you want to go ahead we could do a quick, basic RP in this thread or another.

They (SAMs, close defence, ECM and everything else total) will kill about 95% of the SSMs, but even then if you fire over a hundred missiles you'll still kill all the escorts, paving the way for your bigger missiles to take out the heavily-armored bad boys.

And just what missiles are you using that allow you to attack from outside of their SAM range? I'm not aware of a single one usable on carrier aircraft that is. I'd love to know though. Also, you aren't going to get all of the escorts. For one thing, every navy in the world uses more than just five escorts. Second, I use 42 escorts for each of my capital ships (not counting the three SSNs).

That'd be kind of interesting. The problem is that we're already pretty much doing that (think of the scenarios we've been counterposting), so it'll probably deadlock. Still, if you want to go ahead we could do a quick, basic RP in this thread or another.

I'll go make a thread for it to avoid cluttering it up.

Depending on what SAM you use, there could be missiles that would have such a range - but they are normally either launched from land-based bombers or large carrier strike aircraft that will be based on large 200-plane carriers while taking the place of 1 1/2 of say, a F-14 or a F/A-18 sized plane. Similarily, you could use low altitude tactics, though such normally restricts the range of the aircraft.

And just what missiles are you using that allow you to attack from outside of their SAM range? I'm not aware of a single one usable on carrier aircraft that is. I'd love to know though. Also, you aren't going to get all of the escorts. For one thing, every navy in the world uses more than just five escorts. Second, I use 42 escorts for each of my capital ships (not counting the three SSNs).

We've talked about the limitations of SAMs and max. range. It's in one of my previous posts.

Depending on what SAM you use, there could be missiles that would have such a range - but they are normally either launched from land-based bombers or large carrier strike aircraft that will be based on large 200-plane carriers while taking the place of 1 1/2 of say, a F-14 or a F/A-18 sized plane. Similarily, you could use low altitude tactics, though such normally restricts the range of the aircraft.

Does this mean the end of the four-day Great Battleship War? Or is it just a beginning...

Does this mean the end of the four-day Great Battleship War? Or is it just a beginning...
'm simply being practical here. The point, as many people here are trying to convey all along, is that in NS they will always work together, and neither is really, superior than the other in general since the two in NS really have their own roles.

So I think we're almost done. But what roles are these? If it comes to shore bombardment, IMO it's not cost effefctive to buy a whole warship just to blast bunkers. It's better to have something multirole, which the carrier's best at. Do you still think that guns have a role in a future war? Or is it all just non-RL by now? I'm a little confused of the line between Nationstates and real life. I understand what you mean in the difference between nation size, but it's still the same principle.

So I think we're almost done. But what roles are these? If it comes to shore bombardment, IMO it's not cost effefctive to buy a whole warship just to blast bunkers. It's better to have something multirole, which the carrier's best at. Do you still think that guns have a role in a future war? Or is it all just non-RL by now? I'm a little confused of the line between Nationstates and real life. I understand what you mean in the difference between nation size, but it's still the same principle.Again, you keep making the exact same arguments you've made since you started in this thread, even though several of us have refuted them time and time again.

I'm a little confused of the line between Nationstates and real life. I understand what you mean in the difference between nation size, but it's still the same principle.
The basic principle is that while the real life and realistic scientific, technical, and tactical basis are all there for NS weapons and tactics to base on, NS is still vastly different in NS considering a) nations are generally far larger; b) wars are generally fought on a terrifying scale that would make even a WWIII Europe '83 look like a child's play; and c) the very environment in which nations reside in forces nations to adopt military tactics and systems that are drastically different than their RL counterparts, while staying technically possible. Would battleships be a terrific choice IRL? Depends, but it does cost a lot of money. But this is still NS, and one can only realize that point as time goes.

Wait a sec, guys.

After slogging through dozens of new posts in this thread, is it true that the battleship is making a comeback? I know for a fact that battleships were made obsolete by aircraft carriers in WW 2. Now they're coming back?

If it's true that battleships are making a comeback, then how do they defend aganist the bigger and better aircraft of NS? I know that everything develops proportionally, whether in NS or RL. For example, if someone develops a good SAM missile in RL or NS, the enemy develops an aircraft capable of outsmarting the new SAM missile. Afterwards, the SAM guy develops a countermeasure or SAM Version 2, and then it goes back and forth. Ditto with Navy- if an aircraft carrier can't take out a battleship, the carrier nation develops better armored carrier and better equipped planes to take out the battleship. Then the battleship nation develops better battleships to counter the new carriers and planes.

Tis' a vicious cycle. Hence the reason why I don't participate in war RP's in NS because it's too much of an headache for me to try to figure out everything, and why I prefer to stick with very simplistic military hardware.

Here's the thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9920236#post9920236

After slogging through dozens of new posts in this thread, is it true that the battleship is making a comeback? I know for a fact that battleships were made obsolete by aircraft carriers in WW 2. Now they're coming back?
Obsolete? That's still more of a myth that sprang out as a result of Pearl Harbour and other cases, where battleships are not escorted at all (or in other cases, rather poorly). Read up on basic modern naval history and you will find that the point can only be null and void to its extremes.

If it's true that battleships are making a comeback,
What 'comeback'? It has been here all the time, in its own glory.

Tis' a vicious cycle. Hence the reason why I don't participate in war RP's in NS because it's too much of an headache for me to try to figure out everything, and why I prefer to stick with very simplistic military hardware.
Everything is a cycle. But to master the cycle, you'll need patience and the willingness to invent and progress, not going back in time.

Obsolete? That's still more of a myth that sprang out as a result of Pearl Harbour and other cases, where battleships are not escorted at all (or in other cases, rather poorly). Read up on basic modern naval history and you will find that the point can only be null and void to its extremes.

Then why did the US scrap its battleships and focus its efforts on aircraft carriers after WW 2? Now, the US has bombers and planes capable of intercontiental flight like the B-2 bomber which should render carriers somewhat obsolete as today's planes can go from New York to Germany and back without problems (I believe).

What 'comeback'? It has been here all the time, in its own glory.

What I was referring to was the fact that from what you guys are making it out to be, battleships are far superior to aircraft carriers, so that battleships made a "comeback" from its position in WW 2 through modern times to "NS times".

Everything is a cycle. But to master the cycle, you'll need patience and the willingness to invent and progress, not going back in time.

Thats one of the issues I have. I do not have the time in RL to do lots of military research, and the only times that I do come across interesting ideas is on the History Channel, Discovery Channel, or TLC Channel (hence my hypervelocity gun, asteroid weapons, etc. ideas, they came from these TV channels). I might very well have to use RL ships or hardware for my Navy as I have practically no idea how to come up with a good "NS-ified" ship or military hardware that can have even a 25% survival rate aganist the rest of the NS stuff. It gets frustrating when I'm forced to re-design things or "uber-ize" my stuff just to have a chance aganist other NS nations and not have them destroy me at a drop of a hat (without nuclear and WMD weapons).

Wait a sec, guys.

After slogging through dozens of new posts in this thread, is it true that the battleship is making a comeback? I know for a fact that battleships were made obsolete by aircraft carriers in WW 2. Now they're coming back?

If it's true that battleships are making a comeback, then how do they defend aganist the bigger and better aircraft of NS? I know that everything develops proportionally, whether in NS or RL. For example, if someone develops a good SAM missile in RL or NS, the enemy develops an aircraft capable of outsmarting the new SAM missile. Afterwards, the SAM guy develops a countermeasure or SAM Version 2, and then it goes back and forth. Ditto with Navy- if an aircraft carrier can't take out a battleship, the carrier nation develops better armored carrier and better equipped planes to take out the battleship. Then the battleship nation develops better battleships to counter the new carriers and planes.

Tis' a vicious cycle. Hence the reason why I don't participate in war RP's in NS because it's too much of an headache for me to try to figure out everything, and why I prefer to stick with very simplistic military hardware.
As stated, battleships never left. Though they were cut out of the mix by post-WWII defense slashing, that was a decision on the political side that never admitted the realities. The reality is that the Iowa class battleships have been brought out of retirement multiple times, and have served in every single major war the US participated in during the latter 20th century. In Korea, they were the bane of enemy forces along the coast. In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese were so terrified by their effectiveness that they refused to even begin negotiations without the battleships being removed. In Desert Storm, there they were dishing out punishment to numerous positions. And throughout the Cold War, they were a constant source of concern for Soviet naval commanders, who have been repeatedly admitting that they did not believe that a single missile design in their arsenal would be effective against them. The only reason the Iowas were decommissioned again was the cited costs of operating the 60-year old vessels, in light of promised advances to replace their firepower. But the 5" ERGM and the DD(X) with its 6.1" AGS don't live up to their promises. In fact, they never did, and Marines have been very upset since they're the ones who suffer. You can bet that if the US Marines ever need to storm a hostile, defended shore, they're either going to get those Iowas out or scream that not doing so was the reason for any losses. Ironically, the funding for the (failed) ERGM program could have paid for two Iowas to remain in service for at least another 10-12 years. And if you count for the cost disparity between battleship shells (which we still have a very large stock of) and ERGMs, you find that you could easily double or even triple that. Food for thought.

In NS, we don't deal with this political BS unless we want to, and the protection and defenses rise with the capabilities of attacking missiles and aircraft. The status quo here remains the same, though battleships here are designed from the ground up to accept heavy air defense, making them relatively more survivable against NS air and missile strikes than an Iowa against current threats.
For submarines, again, these can be built with extensive ASW suites and underwater defenses that would give even many NS sub commanders a heart attack. Thus, NS battleships are more capable and survivable than any RL systems ever were, and that makes a great thing even better.

Are they making a comeback? No, because they never left. But they are becoming more and more viable and valuable, and that means that they're going to be far more common.



Edit: btw, there is no aircraft capable of defeating a missile. What allows that to be done is countermeasures that could easily be put onto older planes in many cases, or on the other hand, left out of newer ones. And even with this, older missile designs are still, and always will be, a threat. The fact that they're obsolete has not stopped SA-2s, SA-3s, SA-6s, and SA-7s, among others, from shooting down modern aircraft in the past several years. They still work. Not as well maybe, but even as we improve countermeasures, even supposedly obsolete systems can be used with at least some degree of effectiveness, often much more than they're given credit for.

[Sharina, the death of the battleship had nothing to do with actual combat ability or innate superiority. Like every other program that had successes but was ultimately cancelled, it came down to DoD politics and faction wars.]

Then why did the US scrap its battleships and focus its efforts on aircraft carriers after WW 2? Now, the US has bombers and planes capable of intercontiental flight like the B-2 bomber which should render carriers somewhat obsolete as today's planes can go from New York to Germany and back without problems (I believe).


Aircraft carriers allow you to protect the sea ways and project power. They also make it possible to do a high number of sorties which is impossible with intercontinental flights. You also don't have to bother with getting airbases or overflight permission from foreign countries. During the invasion of Afghanistan, the USN provided about 75% of all sorties for instance.

I heard someone talk about NS battleships being desinged from the ground up to deal with air defence. Still, I think it's more cost-effective to have a ton of (in NS terms) cheap AEGIES than one $5-10 billion BB if you're thinking about air defence.

I heard someone talk about NS battleships being desinged from the ground up to deal with air defence. Still, I think it's more cost-effective to have a ton of (in NS terms) cheap AEGIES than one $5-10 billion BB if you're thinking about air defence.

It isn't either-or. It's both-and. You can build both a $5 billion dollar battleship and several Aegis cruisers. Carriers rely on them as well after all.

But the cruisers would be more effective dollar-for-dollar for air defence.

But the cruisers would be more effective dollar-for-dollar for air defence.

What they mean by built for air defense is that it's designed with an eye to self-preservation with respect to air defense, just as a Nimitz is compared to say the first Saratoga. It's not a dedicated AAW platform.

So are you guys saying that its possible in the near future in RL to see Iowa-II or something be re-designed and launched as a battleship in 2020 or later should another major war take place?

So are you guys saying that its possible in the near future in RL to see Iowa-II or something be re-designed and launched as a battleship in 2020 or later should another major war take place?


I actually have a PDF in which the marines are arguing for the return of the Iowa, although I don't think congress is willing to alot that much money right now - but the Marines are really fighting for it.

I actually have a PDF in which the marines are arguing for the return of the Iowa, although I don't think congress is willing to alot that much money right now - but the Marines are really fighting for it.
Geez Mac, what do you have like whole hard drive devoted to PDFs? You sure got a fucking lot of them!:p :)

I actually have a PDF in which the marines are arguing for the return of the Iowa, although I don't think congress is willing to alot that much money right now - but the Marines are really fighting for it.

Didn't the US just scrap a Nimitz carrier recently?

So are you guys saying that its possible in the near future in RL to see Iowa-II or something be re-designed and launched as a battleship in 2020 or later should another major war take place?

Unfortunately not. The USN is getting shafted in the War on Terror (they're only being funded enough to build four ships a year iirc). And if I remember correctly, the ability to create the massive armor for the battleships isn't around anymore.


Didn't the US just scrap a Nimitz carrier recently?


Nope. USS America was used for seeing the effects of modern weapons on modern aircraft carriers. She was a Kitty Hawk-class.

Geez Mac, what do you have like whole hard drive devoted to PDFs? You sure got a fucking lot of them!:p :)


:D I just have to see if I can find it. I'm actually on a different computer right now - I was at a party and it got raided by security so I just left to go to my dad's humble abode.

Unfortunately not. The USN is getting shafted in the War on Terror (they're only being funded enough to build four ships a year iirc). And if I remember correctly, the ability to create the massive armor for the battleships isn't around anymore.

Uh, wtf? How does someone forget or lose the ability to create the massive armor for the battleship?

Just upscale whatever armor scheme is being used on today's ships? :confused:

Uh, wtf? How does someone forget or lose the ability to create the massive armor for the battleship?

Just upscale whatever armor scheme is being used on today's ships? :confused:
I don't think that would be possible consider the changes in armor over existing Iowas, and by lose the ability he means we can't produce those big huge steel belts that are on the Iowas, well at least for now, given a chance we could probably makie somthing better.

I don't think that would be possible consider the changes in armor over existing Iowas, and by lose the ability he means we can't produce those big huge steel belts that are on the Iowas, well at least for now, given a chance we could probably makie somthing better.

Hmm... so something made 60+ years ago would still be King of the Seas? What foresight by our engineers back then, considering the extreme rate of technological acceleration in the past few decades. 90% of everything we use or take for granted today have been invented, refined, or researched within the last 25 years.

Computers (home computers)
Laptops
Flatscreen monitors
Lasers
CD's
Cell phones
Satellite TV
Cable / DSL
Public Internet (not the military or ADARPA -sp?- version)
Cars (our hybrid cars and efficient fuel cars as opposed to the 1970's gas guzzlers)
95% of the everyday products being advertised on TV
Foodstuffs like brands of cookies, cereal, drinks, etc.

The list goes on and on. Its incredible to think something from the 1940's would still be supreme in 2020 or even 2050. Imagine that!

Not as easy as that. The marines want it for a very big reason - it's the perfect bombardment platform.

Not as easy as that. The marines want it for a very big reason - it's the perfect bombardment platform.

But you guys keep saying that today's weapons and missiles would be useless aganist the Iowa because of its excellent armor.

But you guys keep saying that today's weapons and missiles would be useless aganist the Iowa because of its excellent armor.

"Perfect Bombardment Platform" refers to the fact that the Iowa class BB is a very good unit for pounding the crap out of shore positions with their massive armament.

Hmm... so something made 60+ years ago would still be King of the Seas? What foresight by our engineers back then...

http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Myths_Tech.html
http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Myths_Tech_Examples.html

Read. The fact that technology is newer does not mean it's better at everything; are you aware that modern machine guns have less range and less power than those made in WW1, for example?

Hmm... so something made 60+ years ago would still be King of the Seas? What foresight by our engineers back then, considering the extreme rate of technological acceleration in the past few decades. 90% of everything we use or take for granted today have been invented, refined, or researched within the last 25 years.

Computers (home computers)
Laptops
Flatscreen monitors
Lasers
CD's
Cell phones
Satellite TV
Cable / DSL
Public Internet (not the military or ADARPA -sp?- version)
Cars (our hybrid cars and efficient fuel cars as opposed to the 1970's gas guzzlers)
95% of the everyday products being advertised on TV
Foodstuffs like brands of cookies, cereal, drinks, etc.

The list goes on and on. Its incredible to think something from the 1940's would still be supreme in 2020 or even 2050. Imagine that!

Allow me to introduce to my freinds:
The AK47
The FN-FAL
The M14 (ok the garand but there isn't all that much change).

All designed in the 1940s...
The pace of arms developments (or at least the basic mechanical side of it) during the early part of the 20th cnetury means that in many areas we are still using what are more or less the same equipment as the past 2 generations of armed forces, in soem area yes there have been advances (ie eletronics and a bit of material science) but in many others there hasn't really been that much of advance. it can also be pointed out that the World's argueably best heavy bomber, the B-52 is a 1950s design...

I think people have got to realise something here: the old battleship, the RL battleships like the Iowa class, are obsolete. Granted, as CSJ so rightly points out, the Iowas have been extracted from their mothballing lairs time and again to give the yanks a hand (and most handy they've proven too, apart from a few problems like structural concerns on Wisconsin and slightly dodgy propellants - oh, and the fact that by the '60s only the RN had the rangefinder-qualified personnel necessary to use the guns, from what I've read ;)); nonetheless, if you were to sail an Iowa into combat with a sufficiently strong enemy fleet it would be pounded to bits before too long; they're lacking in missile armament, both SSM and SAM, and their underwater defence is similarly aged. In a straight fight between, say, a pair of Kirovs and their escorts and an Iowa with her escorts, I wouldn't expect too much from the Iowa. Much as I acknowledge that the Soviets worried about the damn things, the fact remains that they were, by the '80s, as good as useless in a fleet action. Tough they may have been, but I challenge any 1940s-era ship, no matter how tough, to survive attack by large numbers of heavy SSMs, submarine-launched torpedoes and aircraft, even when assuming that the US escorts do a superb job of knocking out the Soviet forces' attacks.

However.

The aged design of the Iowas is what makes them obsolete, not the mere fact of their baing battleships. Fundamentally, the battleship is a sound concept; the problem, in today's battlefield (and I'm speaking strictly about present-day conditions, not NS warfare conditions; NS warfare's only vague relationship to RL warfare has already been covered admirably by several of my colleagues :P) is that the battleships of WWI and WWII are too concentrated around their heavy guns. IMO, a modern battleship would appear rather more like a pre-dreadnought, with perhaps four or six heavy guns in two turrets, fore and aft, and the central area of the ship devoted to missile cells; in the areas formerly occupied by QF guns in casemates, one might mount CIWS units and ASW mortars; and where were once funnels, there would be tower masts carrying sensor systems and a pair of thin funnels for the boiler exhausts. Visually, there would probably not be too much difference; if you take a look at the Asahi (http://photo.starnet.ru/Thematic_Wallpapers/Korabli_i_suda/Bronenoscy_i_monitory/Asahi/images/ASAHI-00.jpg) you may get a rough idea of what I mean. This would be the modern battleship: four or six heavy guns, useful in shore bombardment or in close-range surface engagement; a heavy missile complement, which would give the ship the capabilities of the vaunted "arsenal ship" (plus a little something known as "survivability", something that glorified coal-barge isn't familiar with); a strong active AA and ASW defence through SAMs, CIWS and torpedo launchers; and heavy protection by armour and various other techniques in design. It might not have a hope in hell in a straight gun battle with an Iowa - assuming that even with our modern techniques a 12in gun couldn't outrange a 1930s-era 16in, and that the Iowa would have even a tenth of this ship's precision in fire, which seems doubtful - but it'd sure be a nasty opponent for an enemy fleet.

Uh, wtf? How does someone forget or lose the ability to create the massive armor for the battleship?

Just upscale whatever armor scheme is being used on today's ships? :confused:

You needed some huge equipment to make armor for battleships. As far as I know, it's all been destroyed.



Allow me to introduce to my freinds:
The AK47
The FN-FAL
The M14 (ok the garand but there isn't all that much change).

Don't forget the M2. Over 80 years of active duty in the US military.

Assualt rifles don't really change with the times because they're soo low-tech. Add to that list the Isreali Uzi (built since 1948). The Germans were still using the 1898 Mauser in WWII and it's still one of the best bolt-actions out there. And if you're going to talk about the FN-FAL you might as well add the M16s and Molotov cocktails. And my favorite, the 300 year old bayonet.

DontPissUsOff has an interesting position, but I think he focuses too much on guns. IMO, what makes a battleship a battleship is armor. Bulk itself is a type of armor.

I'm sure everyone's heard of the Russian Kirov class. Would you classify these huge things as battleships? They'll take several hits before going down and have a lot of missiles, even if the electronics and weapons are a little outdated.

I've always heard the Kirov considered a battlecruiser at most.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/1144.htm

The Kirov is classified as a guided missile cruiser, and often called a "Battlecruiser." Granted, a very very large cruiser, but still a GMC. As such, it has the type of armarment you'd expect from this type of ship, just scaled way up.
Missiles:
20 Granit (SS-N-19) ADGM S-300F 12 launchers, 96 missiles)
2x2 SA OSA-MA Total:40
ADGM Kashtan Total: 192 missiles (24000 cartiges)
10 Vodopad-NK (SS-N-16) (total: 20)

Guns:
2 AK-130 DP (130 mm (EDIT: this equals about 5.2 inches); R: 28'800 m, 840 rounds)
8 x 6 AK-630 gattl. AA (6x30 mm; 6'000 rds/m/mount, 48000 rounds)

You can compare this to the Iowa: (el primero battleship that everyone brings up :rolleyes: )
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/bb-61-specs.htm
and the Ticonderoga: (the current USN GMC o doom)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cg-47-specs.htm

As you can see, it is little more than a very very large cruiser. It doesn't have the characteristic large cannons or heavy armor or a BB. What it does have is a very respectable AA complement, but any modern BB would have good AA as well.

A (classic) BB was originally designed for 3 roles:
1) Line fighting. Use your big guns to destroy their big guns and then their hull (this purpose is mostly nonexistant in RL, but is very real in NS)

2) Shore bombardment with said large guns.

3) Taking an extreme beating with a large armor belt and due to its large size. (These ships are designed to be both psychological and real weapons. They were large, difficult to damage, and hit hard, perfect to scare a country with no/little navy, and all 3 of the above help out in that)

4) Drawing fire from other ships in the fleet. A BB has a HUGE profile, so it tends to draw fire away from much lower profile craft. This can protect flat tops and other ships, and a BB can take almost anything thrown its way with its significant armor. It takes a lot to disable a BB, while a CV can be rendered useless with a few lucky shots to the catapults or main deck. A BB can absorb fire and dish it out while the CV hides behind it launching air strikes. Other smaller vessels would be preserving the integrity of the fleet's preimeter.


The Kirov, on the other hand, was designed with anti-SSBN warfare and extensive AA in mind. (I'm assuming it was for use against the Ohios, but you know what they say about assumptions...)

Taking all of this into consideration, a Kirov would be able to do some fleet engagements with its Granit systems, but it is still optimized for ASW and AA. Its small gun numbers and bore (only two ~5.2" guns for those who don't understand metric, and both in the same turret (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/kirov-DDST8708782.JPG)) would make it quite worthless for extended shore bombardment, considering the size of a target it presents and the cost of deploying one.

You can argue that it's filled with missiles, but I can garentee you that a 16" 2,700 pound metal slug is significantly cheaper than an ubercruisemissileofdoom.

All in all, a Kirov would be a nice escourt craft, but doesn't seem like it would really be a capable fleet combatant.

::hopes that all of the above is reasonable/accurate::

::hopes that all of the above is reasonable/accurate::

As near as I can tell, it all is reasonable and accurate. Although, many people call the Kirov class a battlecruiser anyway, even though it does not fit the description of a classical or NS battlecruiser in any way shape or form.

Don't forget the M2. Over 80 years of active duty in the US military.

Neither should you forget the B-52 [first order in 1947], the M60A3 Patton [based on a chassis from the fifties], the M1 tank [1970s], the BAR [about fifty years of service]...

The slingshot [from David to Subsaharan African rebels of the 21st Century!].

The Kirov was intended to provide an autonomous long-range, high-endurance ASW vessel. Thus, it was required that it have an ASuW capability to at least keep enemy surface groups at bay, and an AAW armament sufficient to counter US carrier aviation. Historically, Kirovs have been escorted by, at most, one or two destroyers. It should be noted, however, that the Kirov, along with its smaller cousin, the Slava/Moskva class, are the only Russian vessels with a credible long-range air defense capability. Soviet destroyer designs only have short, and in some cases, medium range air defense. Thus, an Iowa with two AEGIS cruisers can have better air and missile defense than a Kirov with two Russian vessels. Food for thought.





And while we're on weapons with longevity:
Browning M1919 machine gun: 1919-1969
Colt M1911 Pistol: 1911-present, and still going strong
MG-42 Machine gun: 1942-present (as MG-1, MG-42/59, and MG-3). Still one of the best weapons in its class!
FN-MAG: 1950s-present (most notably as M240)
BTR: <1960-present
BMP: early 1960s-present
Marder IFV: 1968-present
M113 APC: 1960-present
BRDM Scout Car: 1957-present
M48 Patton: 1951-present
T-62: 1961-present
T-54/55: 1947-present
Leopard 1: 1965-present
Centurion: 1945-present
Jaguar Tank Destroyer: rebuilt 1978 from hull of 1967 Rakete, still in service
F-4 Phantom II: 1961-present
and so on . . .


Really, military systems have been upgraded primarily through electronics. Thus, gun and vehicle designs, which either don't have electronics at all, or can have them upgraded, possess significant longevity. Even with the rate of technological advancement, guns, ships, aircraft, and armored vehicles dating back to the Korean War and even WWII or earlier, may remain viable systems.
In guns, the best examples are the M2 machine gun, FN MAG machine gun, MG-42 machine gun, and M1911 pistol, all of which date back at least to WWII, and all four of which, with only minor modifications, are still in very widespread use today, and in fact, all are still in production too.
For tanks, the M48 is probably the best example. This very widespread design, and its descendant, who had the same basic design (the M60), has served for more than 50 years, and is still in service with several modern militaries, including the armies of Taiwan, South Korea, and Israel.
For fighters, the F-4 is king. Through numerous upgrades, it has served from 1961 through today, and though being phased out in all air forces that retain it, it will still be around for a few more years. For bombers, the first B-52 was delivered to SAC in 1955. 50 years later, we're still flying nearly a hundred of 'em.
For ships, it's even more obvious. Many of the ships in WWII actually dated back to before or just after WWI, and had simply been modernized in the 1930s. Due to their cost, ships are expected to have service lives measured in decades, and thus are expected to accept upgrades. Some WWII destroyers, for example, still serve today in navies as guided missile vessels.

In the end, it's just too costly to develop a new system every time something new comes along. Thus, we have a strong tendency to just upgrade old ones. For that reason, they remain viable.

Don't forget the AIM-9, which was built on the basis of a WWII unguided rocket and first used in the fifties (first widespread use was between the PRC and the ROC air forces), and is a good example of how old designs aren't exactly useless, and then there's the Minuteman. For the Iowas, while I partially agree with DPUO esp. in regards to how the design limits space for newer weapons, it doesn't mean that in RL it won't be effective, save for the fact that politics trump over military policies.

Akk...For truly obscene longevity, how the hell did I manage to forget the Mosin-Nagant?

Never forget the Shkval. I remember somewhere saying that it was already practically available to Soviet submariners in the 80es.

The Shkval isn't even in service. You're talking about that air bubble torpedo thing, right?

The Marder IFV is old, but it isn't great. It's just that after the Cold War's over noone wants to buy anything to replace it. Same for the Leopard I, BRDM, BTR and Jaguar TD, the last three of which are rather mediocre IMO. Today's Abrams is greatly improved in terms of armor and armament compared to earlier marks to the point where you can't say a specific model has longetivity. The F-4 Phantom was OK but never exceptional to begin with, and isn't in widespread service anymore.

This is all kind of thread hijacking, though, and maybe we should start a whole new thread for it.

GMC talked about modern MGs being less powerful than WWI MGs. WWI MGs, for example the Vickers, were very cumbersome and immobile. Are you comparing them to LMGs today?

Back on topic:

The reason I started debating in this thread days ago is that Sarozonia's initial post claims the days of fighter-bombers are over. We've already pretty much agreed that modern aircraft SSMs can fire outside the range of SAMs, and are a cheap way to take out the escorts. This means that they play a key role when softening up the enemy for attack, weaking them for a gun or SSM strike. I think Sarzonia should edit the scenario he posted and place airpower in the main role. Another crucial assumption that he makes is that the weaker fleet will close after the air battle is over for a gun action, which is unlikely. Very few battles result in complete or near complete destruction of one fleet or the other, and after the aircraft and long-range SAMs are done the weaker fleet would certainly withdraw. War is generally indecisive, and a hit-and-run aircraft and SSM campaign is more likely today as modern munitions are increasingly expensive. If the range does get close enough, torpedoes will be decisive, not guns.

The Shkval isn't even in service.
If the Shkval didn't exist, what about the Kursk? You are saying that the Shkval isn't even in service?

I don't think a fact that is so obvious needs reiteration here. It's the equivalent of stating that 'the S-400 was never designed' or 'the Su-30MKI never existed'.

and isn't in widespread service anymore.
Are you telling that to the countless countries that still operate the F-4 out there? The Luftwaffe? The IAF? The Japanese and South Koreans? Even the... Iranians?

We've already pretty much agreed that modern aircraft SSMs can fire outside the range of SAMs,
What ASMs and what SAM are we talking about? There are SAMs that outrange most air-launched anti-ship missiles (carried on standard carrier aircraft) that are carried on larger cruisers and battleships, and there are large anti-ship missiles that outranges even these but - as I've stated already, or goodness' sake - can only be carried on large carrier aircraft and land-based aircraft.

Very few battles result in complete or near complete destruction of one fleet or the other,
This is NS, not RL. Allow me to ask you, have you ever, before this, RPed a MT naval war against someone? So where do you draw your assumption from, provided that your source is NS, not RL?

If the range does get close enough, torpedoes will be decisive, not guns.
What? You are saying that we should just send SH-60s with 12.75" infant's playthings against escorts? Any realistic scenario will spell that as a reckless waste of quality air crew on the commander's part.

GMC talked about modern MGs being less powerful than WWI MGs. WWI MGs, for example the Vickers, were very cumbersome and immobile. Are you comparing them to LMGs today?

No. I am saying that it isn't necessarily true that something newer is better in every way.

I think Sarzonia should edit the scenario he posted and place airpower in the main role.

Why? It's been made very clear to you that munitions delivered by fighter-bomber sized aircraft will be largely ineffective in damaging armoured NS warships; they'll have to be much heavier than modern ASMs or very light on fuel to carry a heavy warhead, requiring a suicidally close approach or delivery by a medium or heavy bomber.

Bigger SSMs have, in general, a longer range. The small SSMs take out escorts, the big ones go for BBs. Or, you could just fire a ton of HARM anti-radar missiles at the SAM radars and not have to worry about them.

Bigger SSMs have, in general, a longer range. The small SSMs take out escorts, the big ones go for BBs. Or, you could just fire a ton of HARM anti-radar missiles at the SAM radars and not have to worry about them.

You know firing HARMs is dangerous because you have to get inside the SAM radar's range to do it, yes? And that a bigger SSM won't be able to be carried by a small fighter-bomber?

Bigger SSMs have, in general, a longer range. The small SSMs take out escorts, the big ones go for BBs.
Just what type of anti-ship missiles are we talking about? Harpoon or Yakhont types that can only do so much damage to an armoured cruiser or battleship, yet are still outranged by modern naval SAMs?

Or, you could just fire a ton of HARM anti-radar missiles at the SAM radars and not have to worry about them.
Things sound so simple, but are more complex in practice. The same could be said about spamming a battleship with little Penguins and you won't have to worry no more about the BB in no time.

Not to threadjack, but isn't there a new German supercav torp design? I seem to remember reading about it somewhere.

We've already pretty much agreed that modern aircraft SSMs can fire outside the range of SAMs, and are a cheap way to take out the escorts.
From what I've seen, everyone else seems to agree that the SAMs outrange the antishipping missiles. Again it's simple physics. The antishipping missiles have very noticeable size and weight restrictions to allow them to be carried by the aircraft, while a naval SAM has nothing like that, and can be several times the size. Thus, the SAMs can go further and faster.
You have constantly tried to knock it down by saying that at their maximum range, the SAMs are unlikely to hit the aircraft, which is quite the fallacy. Though it wasn't directly argued (mentioned, but not directly argued), there is the often ignored fact that the aircraft aren't that maneuverable when carrying several missiles externally, and big SAMs have big warheads with big lethal burst radii, so they don't need to get that close. Plus, standard practice often has 2 or even 3 SAMs directed at the same target, phenominally increasing the chances of a hit. Additionally, antishipping missiles fired at maximum range have many of the same problems as SAMs. They don't have the ability to make significant course corrections, or perform maneuvers, and are thus less likely to hit the ship, which might have made speed or course changes that the missile would have to compensate for.


Another crucial assumption that he makes is that the weaker fleet will close after the air battle is over for a gun action, which is unlikely. Very few battles result in complete or near complete destruction of one fleet or the other, and after the aircraft and long-range SAMs are done the weaker fleet would certainly withdraw. War is generally indecisive, and a hit-and-run aircraft and SSM campaign is more likely today as modern munitions are increasingly expensive. If the range does get close enough, torpedoes will be decisive, not guns.
This guide is for NS, and in NS, the engagement goes on until one player decides to withdraw, and there is often indeed the goal of wiping out the enemy force or at least getting in a few licks. You forget that in NS, things are controlled by people who don't think like RL naval strategists, and are working with situations that have never existed in RL. Due to these and other situations (particularly the fictional part and ease of rebuilding), they're more likely to do exactly what you're thinking they won't.

I have been in at least half a dozen major engagement on NS, and have read many others, but have only seen ONE naval battle where a fleet withdrew after an airstrike from carrier aircraft (btw, it was my airstrike), and if I recall, that was due to other reasons. Additionally, that was long ago and the design of NS warships and the composition of NS fleets has changed drastically since then. In half of those other battles, one fleet or another was at least utterly decimated, if not totally annihilated. That's just the way NS is. When withdrawals are attempted, they are frequently either 1) impossible or 2) initiated primarily because of OOC or other IC reasons.


Edit: Yes, there are reports of a German supercav design called the Barracuda. Supposed perfermance specs are similar to those of the supposed Shkval II - 400+ knots & 50+ mile range. I'd take it with a grain of salt though. All info I've seen is rumored and not official, and I'm highly skeptical of range figures considering how long rocket engines usually last.

Therefore, missiles don't matter. Of course you could try and swamp their defenses, but then you are kissing a lot of really big and expensive missiles goodbye. Plus the bombers will have to worry about enemy planes, they don't have to be fancy fighters to shoot down a lumbering bomber.

What missile you might ask?
These:

Patiot missile.sys
Sea Slug

CIWS, phalanx 20mm cannon

Phoenix AAM

Just to name a few...

Of course, a plane or boat can only carry a finite number of missiles.

Missiles are bigger and more complex than bullets. Guns are usualy bigger than rocket launchers of similar capabilaty.

Aircraft carriers only carry so many planes. Land bases could be used if you can lure them 'near' shore, this is unlikely, unless that is their goal.

I have yet to hear of an intercepted torpedo, but missiles are intercepted regulary. And both are malfunction prone.

Torpedo interception systems do exist, there just hasn't been a war that I am aware of that has utilized them. Sarzonia or Omz might know differently, however.

SAMs are bigger, but have to climb higher and so waste a lot of energy going upward. SSMs are smaller, sleeker, and launched from high altitude. Remember that the SLAM SSM has a range of 174 miles? Practical range for an SM-2 against a target at 20,000 feet is approx. 150 miles, at which they could be easily outrun and/or outmanuevered. For practical purposes, at that range they would have burned all their propellant (meaning velocity and manueverability drop off quickly) and be heading in a downward trajectory by then.

I understand what you mean about NS and withdrawals. But, even if we assume that 95% of all SSMs are shot down or fail (1 in 20 hit the target), remember that even small ships carry at least 20 SSMs. Sure, a cruiser can take three SSM hits maybe, but will be disabled by one or two. So each ship has the capability to take out one of its opponents with SSMs. When going up against heavily-armored ships, remember that the radar, fire-control directors, SAM launchers, etc. are relatively unarmored and would be damaged by the cloud of shrapnel from whatever SSM hit them. So I estimate that maybe 80% of a fleet will be disabled or sunk by SSMs before gun range closed.

Omz, I'm talking about the aforementioned SLAM with a range of 174 miles. And what's so complex about firing HARMs at a target? At Mach 4, they have almost twice the speed of a Standard SAM (Mach 2.5), which means they will hit the radar first. You don't even need HARMs. Any SSM will spray enough shrapnel to damage VLS systems, radar, etc.

Not to threadjack, but isn't there a new German supercav torp design? I seem to remember reading about it somewhere.


Barracuda; there's a lot of myth sorrounding it - a lot of claims that people think the Germans can't live up to.

Athiesism... We are talking about NS, where the SM-2 and the SLAM are rarely found, if at all. Let me ask you, have you ever RPed a medium to large-scale MT naval battle before this? So where do you draw your assumptions from, granted that this is NS and not real life?

I'm not talking about scenarios with Iowa converts and Perrys, I'm talking about NS naval battles with armoured escorts and well-constructed fleet air defence.

And what's so complex about firing HARMs at a target?
Did you even read GMC's reply? Or for the matter, are you just still going to brush others' points off, which are with logic and reason (and actually relates to NS-type naval battles, by the way), aside as if they never existed?

I'm done here.

Barracuda; there's a lot of myth sorrounding it - a lot of claims that people think the Germans can't live up to.

Isn't that what France said in 1939 when they claimed no sizable army could cross the forests of Belguim?

Or produce an operable jet fighter, jet bomber, guided missiles, effectivley use submarines, develop acoustic topedoes etc.

Of course Germany did go up a couple of blind alleys back then too. Like flying wings. [sarcasm]

Well, you can't match the Barracuda with the German invasion through the Ardennes, but I guess your analogy stands. Regardless, I actually see it as inferior to the Shkval - the Russians claim they can guide the Shkval as well.

Chances are they are almost the same:

Russia tends to take an optimistic view of eapons performance. Best case scenario. The best lab resualts obtained, even if the math gets fuzzy.

While Germany tends to look at what it calls "operational" performance, which is usually slightly below the average score it recieves in testing.

So, Omz, are you conceding that BBs suck in any real-life encounter?

About the HARMs, I made an error- they travel under Mach 2, slighly slow than standard. It only has a range of 30 miles also. So I was wrong about that, but my formula that 1 in 20 SSMs will hit still makes them excellent weapons. They won't sink a BB, but will send a ton of shrapnel that will disable any radars, launchers, etc.

You've stated! Who exactly do you think you are? For that matter, do you think that a group of players who are largely interested in naval matter, IRL and INS, aren't rolling their eyes are you bald arrogance and sheer ignorance?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-88.htm
http://www.hill.af.mil/museum/photos/coldwar/agm-45.htm

Notice the range on both renditions of the HARM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sm-specs.htm

Now notice the range on the MR and ER versions of the SM-2. I'm not even going to bring the SM-3 and upcoming SM-6 into this. Now, are you done making a fool of yourself or am I going to have to embarass you further? Stop talking and start listening, you haven't earned the benefit of the doubt necessary to sound so authoritative, and if you keeping it up you never will.

To back up SS' argument, while there is a new planned version of the HARM with a new ducted ramjet engine, it is still going to have a range of around 200km - far less than most modern naval SAMs employed in NS today, and even less than the new VLS-fired SM-2ER variant. While there are also newer versions of the SM-2ER with considerably increased range, keep in mind that this is just the beginning of a series of next generation naval SAM developments around the world in the forseenable future. Porportionally speaking, in NS even though both anti-radiation missiles and SAMs will develop, much more likely you will still find newer dedicated anti-radiation missiles being outranged by newer long-range naval SAMs.

And don't give me the 'flying turkey' argument. We are not talking about flying North Vietnamese telephone poles and SA-5s here, we are talking about modern and next generation SAMs here that are capable of intercepting both low-RCS fighters and cruise missiles.

Also, for the very last time, this is NS, not RL. If you can't even see this difference...

So, Omz, are you conceding that BBs suck in any real-life encounter?
-snip the rest-
I think that it has been made quite clear to you on NUMEROUS occasions that the only reason BBs were discontinued was cost. How much do you think it costs to keep a sixty year old ship running? How about four of them? Now make that ship the largest battleship in existance. They do not 'suck,' they are costly when that old. If we made some new ones, they'd be cheaper to keep up.

Your points have been repeatedly refuted. The entire thing driving the BB situation is $ and the fact that the USN has not done any major anphibious bombardments in a while. When they need to force a landing, you'll see how quick they either bring back the Iowa or build a new one.



While my signature may mark me as an FTer (which I am), I have not only RPed MT battles, but I have extensively studied MT technology and the BB debate. Your entire argument rests in the idea of either soley using Carriers or BBs. This mentality has also been significantly refuted, and would frankly have you laughed out of any sane military command center.

After reading the latest arguements in here, I was wondering if this would be a good naval setup...

Fleet:

2 Carriers (Nimitz)
4 Battleships (Iowa)
12 Battlecruisers (Kursk)
24 Cruisers (AEGIS)
72 Destroyers (Kidd)
24 Submarines (Seawolf)
128 Support Vessels (supply ships, tankers, barges, etc.)

I'm thinking you mean Kirov instead of Kursk. The Kursk was a Russian sub that sank.

It depends what you're intending with that fleet. If it's your entire navy, then you'd probably need some ballistic missile submarines or larger cruise missile boats. If that's just a fleet, it's probably too large for RL purposes. If it's for NS, that's going to be pretty lightly-armed and protected for NS combat.

I'm thinking you mean Kirov instead of Kursk. The Kursk was a Russian sub that sank.

It depends what you're intending with that fleet. If it's your entire navy, then you'd probably need some ballistic missile submarines or larger cruise missile boats. If that's just a fleet, it's probably too large for RL purposes. If it's for NS, that's going to be pretty lightly-armed and protected for NS combat.

Ahh. I stand corrected then- and thanks for the correction. Kirov Battlecruiser.

For RL, I agree that it may be a bit on the oversized side, but wasn't it true that the US could build and field hundreds of warships during WW 2?

For NS, I've all but given up on trying to design and build domestic-built NS warships so I guess I'm stuck with RL equalivents for ease of use, construction, and comphrension. I guess I'll have to shift back into the RL "camp" because no matter what stuff I come up with to have any decent fighting chance aganist NS-ified hardware, people call godmod or "thats FT" on me (like my hypervelocity guns or asteroid WMD's or the such) hence me giving up my design after people kept saying my revised Paragon II is either too weak for NS or "not possible" over at the NS Draftroom.

My apologies for the rant once again, but I've been quite frustrated when it comes to that particular subject area.

I can understand the frustration, but what I'd suggest you do instead of just giving up is taking a look at some of the designs that get positive feedback and seeing what it is about them that you can implement in your own designs. You may also want to work with an experienced designer who can give you tips and talk you through the process of creating something for NS.

I can understand the frustration, but what I'd suggest you do instead of just giving up is taking a look at some of the designs that get positive feedback and seeing what it is about them that you can implement in your own designs. You may also want to work with an experienced designer who can give you tips and talk you through the process of creating something for NS.

Sneehh... the theory's good, but the problem with just adopting what sells well is that you wind up with something... generic. Everyone builds trimaran SDs that look strikingly similar to the ol' Doujin, near-identical hypersonic bombers and the like. While that's a perfectly sensible attitude in RL - snaffle whatever the buggers come up with - for NS, where designing (especially when coupled to drawing) is primarily intended for RPing purposes, it's perhaps not so good, which is why I stoutly refuse to use trimaran ships or various wanked ARC tech (in the latter case because I just don't buy it; in the former because trimarans are outstandingly ugly). Anyway, this reply appears to have gone slightly off-topic, so I'll just close by summarising: in RL, individuality is secondary to functionality. In NS, functionality is probably second to individuality (or else we'd all buy the same tanks, ships, planes etc).

Right, I'm done ;)

Sharina, if you really lack the time to design, what I'd suggest is to do upgrades of existing RL ships. Yes, it'll be rather limited and you won't be able to armour too much of it, but it'll at least increase its combat capabilities against NS warships with say, newer missile and weapon system designs. On the other hand, it will have the advantage of simplicity (which is a good thing when it comes to total war), but you still want to base your upgraded designs of some of the newest designs you will find (i.e. you might prefer the Arleigh Burke over the Kidd).

As for ARC... *shudders*

What's this ARC thing? I'm curious why its supposedly an scary issue- is it a godmoddish thing or a uber weapon or some sci-fi concept?

After reading the latest arguements in here, I was wondering if this would be a good naval setup...

Fleet:

2 Carriers (Nimitz)
4 Battleships (Iowa)
12 Battlecruisers (Kursk)
24 Cruisers (AEGIS)
72 Destroyers (Kidd)
24 Submarines (Seawolf)
128 Support Vessels (supply ships, tankers, barges, etc.)

Why Iowa and not refitted Montana class? Why does everyone forget that if any nation had continued building BBs after WW2 the Montana class should be in service?

In any case, as has been said elsewhere, modern RL ships are just too lightly armoured to survive a large-scale naval engagement with NS size fleets, and they're not armed with the right stuff to deal damage to an enemy fleet of armoured ships either.

ARC is Active Radar Cancellation, a ridiculous metastable stealth technology where you try to send back an exactly inverse signal to a radar pointed at you to cancel out your own radar siggy.

I design my ships with SpringSharp, it makes it really easy. Of course, the program ends at year 1950, so a bit of updating is needed to NS-ize any designs. Unfortunately, I've only drawn a couple of them so far, since I'm very bad at using computer graphics programs.

To back up SS' argument, while there is a new planned version of the HARM with a new ducted ramjet engine, it is still going to have a range of around 200km - far less than most modern naval SAMs employed in NS today, and even less than the new VLS-fired SM-2ER variant. While there are also newer versions of the SM-2ER with considerably increased range, keep in mind that this is just the beginning of a series of next generation naval SAM developments around the world in the forseenable future. Porportionally speaking, in NS even though both anti-radiation missiles and SAMs will develop, much more likely you will still find newer dedicated anti-radiation missiles being outranged by newer long-range naval SAMs.

And don't give me the 'flying turkey' argument. We are not talking about flying North Vietnamese telephone poles and SA-5s here, we are talking about modern and next generation SAMs here that are capable of intercepting both low-RCS fighters and cruise missiles.

Also, for the very last time, this is NS, not RL. If you can't even see this difference...

Everything I say is about RL. If you're talking about NS then don't respond to me.

The SM-2 ER has a range of 100 miles. I've stated that the SLAM SSM has a range of "150+" miles. edit: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-84-specs.htm

I don't think that they'll be able to design a SAM with any longer range while still keeping the manueverability. Missile design has, for the moment, reached a dead end. We don't have any more sophisticated ideas for propellants or aerodynamics than we did 40-50 years ago, even though electronics have gotten better. I just don't see how you could improve the range on a SAM without making it unmanueverable.

Everything I say is about RL. If you're talking about NS then don't respond to me.And you complain when other people are rude to you?! Especially when you refuse to listen to others' arguments acting like you're so sure that you're right and smarter than everyone else? Especially when the players you're arguing against have demonstrated their interest in naval warfare over a long period of time, you're going to have to do a lot more convincing than simply showing off how arrogant you are to make your point. Your approach isn't going to win you any arguments. If anything, it's caused you to lose this one.

If you don't want people responding to you, then don't post. It's that simple.

Everything I say is about RL. If you're talking about NS then don't respond to me.

If you're not talking about NS, get back to the General forum. This is an RP discussion thread, and if you continue on this line your posts will be split from this thread as chronically off-topic and sent to General.

Everything I say is about RL. If you're talking about NS then don't respond to me.
Then why are you engaging in a discussion about NS warfare in the first place?

I never meant to offend anyone. Sorry. Most of your arguments sounded like they were based on reality, so I thought we were talking about real life.

After reading the latest arguements in here, I was wondering if this would be a good naval setup...

Fleet:

2 Carriers (Nimitz)
4 Battleships (Iowa)
12 Battlecruisers (Kursk)
24 Cruisers (AEGIS)
72 Destroyers (Kidd)
24 Submarines (Seawolf)
128 Support Vessels (supply ships, tankers, barges, etc.)

Even though PROHT has a battlecruiser named "Kursk" it is not a class, for it is a modified and up engined transport, with provisions for an ETC gun in the future, recoil handled by "water spades" and inertia. And we have five.

Although in all other respects, PROHT is sadly outclassed in almost every other catagory.

1 Light Carrier ("HTS Independance")
5 Battlecruisers
10 Submarines (Tango Class - modified)
15 Rapid supply ships\Auxillary cruisers

5 Troopships
15 General resupply vessels

10 Heavy Lift Hovercraft
Lifeboats a plenty

These boats are divided into 5 Task Forces. Except the HTS Independance, which is used as a long rage escort (when operating away from land bases, outside of the range of our tankers [C-130] and heavy bombers [B-52])

PROHT chooses to reley heavily on its special line of naval mines and long range air force to protect its borders from enemy ships.

PROHT is still looking for seaplanes for ultra long duration patrols. Must be able to carry 2 torpedoes and 2 missiles, be able to tow a 'sled' for minesweping, and be able to retrive a two ton device from a depth of 100 feet. Name your price.

~TAG~

Currently too tired to read through 24 or so pages.

After reading the latest arguements in here, I was wondering if this would be a good naval setup...

Fleet:

2 Carriers (Nimitz)
4 Battleships (Iowa)
12 Battlecruisers (Kursk)
24 Cruisers (AEGIS)
72 Destroyers (Kidd)
24 Submarines (Seawolf)
128 Support Vessels (supply ships, tankers, barges, etc.)


Not bad, but replace Kidd class with Burke Class and you're good to go. Also, while the best weapon against a Sub is another Sub, you might want to add a few Perry class frigates into the mix. they would be sitting ducks against larger warships, but can act as an escort for your supply ships, leaving your Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships, and Carriers to fight the enemy. a Perry class isn't a jack-of-all-trades kind of ship, but can defend itself from Aircraft, surface vessels, and subs if properly equiped.

Well, of course almost any ship, even an "ASW frigate" like the Perry, is no match for a submarine on its own. But what ASW ships do is carry helicopters to spot the enemy and they also act as a weapons platform if the enemy gets too close. Helicopters, if used in numbers, can create an almost impenetrable ASW shield. Considering that most NS fleets consist of hundreds or thousands of vessels, they have a VERY dense sub detection screen.

I don't see why everyone buys 20th-century American designs like Tconderogas and Perrys, though. Bear in mind that both of the aforementioned designes are over 30 years old. The Arleigh Burke is a much more efficient ship at any role than either of them, and so are many of the newest line of European frigates. Also, an old Russian Slava, Sovremenny, Kirov, etc. class can still be fitted with modern missiles and sensors and pose a powerful threat for their price.

And one thing about the battleships and carriers. Buy one or the other. Battleships and carriers cost about the same, so you're trading roughly 1 for 1. If you have two carriers and four battleships, and the enemy has six carriers and zero battleships, you're going to loose air superiority quickly (being outnumbered 3:1 in the air). So I think you should buy one or the other.

Carrier aircraft can fire at much greater distances (300 mile combat radius on the planes plus the SSMs will reach out to at least 200 miles, as opossed to even the most powerful NS SD railgun with a range of 100-200 miles, the Iowa can only fire 30 miles away), and if you need them to punch through heavy armor you can put some pretty big warheads on them and just carry less missiles. It's true that 95% of the missiles will get shot down, but this isn't a problem because they only need to hit a few times to get a kill. Battleship guns are limited to around 500 shells being carried on each ship, also they are pretty innaccurate at long range so you'll miss most of the time.

The problem with a carrier is they are quite pathetic shore bombards. Given the choice, I would quite rather have the old British ship, HMS Hood, than a Kitty-Hawk class carrier if I'm attempting to bombard shore targets. Especially if I am supporting one of the anphibious landings NSers adore so much. Also, they have an extremely limited deck area to have any sort of defensive armarment placed. They are protected mainly by escourts and a force of planes kept airborne 24/7.

A battleship does not have any of the above problems. They are dedicated line combatants, so they can afford to carry big guns. Those guns are of the type specifically needed to destroy heavy shore fortifications, and can even penetrate other BB armor much easier. Also, a BB can shrug off most current missile attacks. A battleship has no need for a flight deck, so you can add much more to one than a carrier. In fact, it might not be incorrect to say that a Battleship could handle many more VLS cells than several destroyers, and still have room for a naval railgun and other advanced systems.

However, you are correct in saying that a Battleship does not have aircraft, an integral part of any fleet.



Your proposition above stated that the enemy might win because of an excess of carriers? Well, that would give them the idea that they were in the advantage in the airspace to begin with. They would probably try a heavy airstrike to eliminate the fleet with fewer carriers. However, those battleships, assuming they were of a modernized design, would be able to pump out a fleet's worth of SAM systems. A carrier might operate twenty aircraft in the air at the time. I assure you that a BB could hold more than twenty SAMs, not to mention the atrocious numbers of escourts that NS fleets bring with them. Besides, who in their right mind might have only two carriers, yet have four battleships? A preferable setup would have those numbers reversed.

The problem with your idea of heavier warheads is then you need an alltogether bigger missile to get it there. And the missile will be slower, unless you drasticly increase the engine. Then you have a very large and very heavy missile that might as well be ship-launched, as it is so heavy that few can be carried on carrier-based aircraft. They will also be far larger, so CIWS and counter-missiles can track it easier and have a much higher probability of destroying it.


Alltogether, they should go hand in hand into the next era. The Battleship never went away, it just needs a little facelift.

However, you are correct in saying that a Battleship does not have aircraft, an integral part of any fleet.

Besides, who in their right mind might have only two carriers, yet have four battleships? A preferable setup would have those numbers reversed.


erm, the Iowa originally did carry 4 catapult launched planes over the turrets, of course, in the modern world, you could give it a chinook or sea king helicopter instead, not a significant air arm unles you happen to be in a sub.

Again, PROHT, due to its limited aims of impirialism, onlyhas one small carrier and 5 heavy gunned battle cruisers
(fires 8" guns, less armor, may upgrade to etc guns in later techs, otherwise similar to a BB)

In the event of a battle, PROHT relies heavily on mines to bog down the fleet as it is picked off at the flanks. Almost did this to Alidor during a naval landing. I lost two planes in a dogfight after supporting landing operations (these planes have been much improved since), Alidor lost a destroyer to a CAPTOR mine.

My planes are NOT state of the art, in fact, the stealth technology didn't even work on the early models, and possesed no ECM whatsoever, not even RADAR. (Again, these factors have been much improved)

And one thing about the battleships and carriers. Buy one or the other. Battleships and carriers cost about the same, so you're trading roughly 1 for 1. If you have two carriers and four battleships, and the enemy has six carriers and zero battleships, you're going to loose air superiority quickly (being outnumbered 3:1 in the air). So I think you should buy one or the other.
Not entirely accurate. An NS-style battleship may actually cost as much to procure as a carrier of the same displacement, but will actually cost significantly less to operate and maintain. And since the latter usually consitutes over 90% of the total lifetime cost of a ship, it's much more important. A carrier has several times the crew of a battleship and also has the procurement and operating costs of the aircraft to consider. When everything is factored in, a carrier can easily cost twice as much as a battleship, so your 1 for 1 trade can be thrown out the window with ease. 1.5 for 1 or even 2 for 1 is easily sustainable.
And also, you fail to mention that while dropping some carriers will prevent you from gaining control of the sky, battleships can prevent you from losing it. Remember that NS battleships get very large loads of SAMs, and are also going to be virtually immune to any missile a carrier aircraft can be expected to have.
And it's also important to remember that it's not all about aircraft. Battleships can carry missiles that easily outrange a carrier's aircraft, allowing deep inland strikes as well as ones against fleets, and they also happen to be much better for naval fire support. They can react faster and put more ordnance on target on a given time than any carrier. Really, it's not an either/or decision, but rather a "what do I want to do with my fleet" one.


Carrier aircraft can fire at much greater distances (300 mile combat radius on the planes plus the SSMs will reach out to at least 200 miles, as opossed to even the most powerful NS SD railgun with a range of 100-200 miles, the Iowa can only fire 30 miles away), and if you need them to punch through heavy armor you can put some pretty big warheads on them and just carry less missiles. It's true that 95% of the missiles will get shot down, but this isn't a problem because they only need to hit a few times to get a kill. Battleship guns are limited to around 500 shells being carried on each ship, also they are pretty innaccurate at long range so you'll miss most of the time.
Well, for starters, switch "at least 200 miles" to "at most 200 miles." In fact, there are no RL antiship missiles carried by tactical aircraft that exceed that range. The majority are in the 50-75 mile category, with long-range ones in the 100-150 mile bracket.
You also sorely underestimate the range of battleship shells. The Iowa was nearly equipped with a guided saboted shell that could reach out to 115 miles, and there've been ideas for scramjet and ramjet assisted projectiles that might be good out to 600. And that's just with a WWII gun. Newer propellants and construction materials, better barrel and shell design, and several other things will greatly enhance range, and accuracy as well. Thus, 300 miles isn't really that much of a stretch. Modern NS battleships can easily be equipped with guns that can reach well beyond what many battleship detractors tend to think. Plus, battleships can easily carry very large antishipping missiles in significant quantities. Ones with ranges in excess of 500 miles that can match the striking range of most carrier aircraft.

As for the missiles, it doesn't matter if 5% of them hit. No tactical aircraft can carry a missile capable of seriously threatening even an Iowa. With NS battleships, the missiles of those aircraft are wasted. One of the values of a battleship is being able to sustain repeated hits that would cripple anything else. All the (carrier) aircraft weapons that can seriously threaten a battleship are going to require a close range high altitude drop, which means easy interception, or a close range low-altitude torpedo drop, which is also quite likely to be intercepted, though not quite as easily.

Finally, in ammunition, you're also wrong. No WWII battleship I know of carried as few as 500 rounds - they were almost all in the 800-1200 range, with about 100-120 rounds per gun on average. An Iowa can carry 1210 shells, Bismarck had 10004, Yamato had 900, and the lowest I've seen is the Italian Littorio, with about 675 rounds.

According to Wiki, the Iowa guns have a range of 24 miles. If I remember correctly the railgun enhancements were going to increase this to 100 miles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship

I can see your point about maintaing the aircraft, etc. The airfleet costs a little more than the carrier itself, and it's safe to say that a carrier plus aircraft and maintenace for 20 years might cost $4 billion. An Iowa is said to cost $1.5 billion, and if we assume it also has nuclear power like a carrier we don't have to worry about buying tons of coal. But it seems most countries in NS buy $20-60 billion SDs. I remember Tarlag already said a few things about how SDs are just physically impractical (they can't fit into anything but the deepest harbors, they're too big to turn in water, particularly at 30 knots, would require a massive port facility, and more). If you build a $20 billion SD, it wouldn't be impratical to buy several big (20,000 ton) missiles fired from long-range bomber type aircraft, just because $20 billion is such an unimaginably huge ammount of money to waste on one ship. Iowa-type ships are "light" battleships (by NS standards), and you're right that they may be practical. The only thing you need for them to work is to find a way to protect the thin-skinned radars, missile silos, targeting sensors, etc. that are going to get dosed in a hail of shrapnel from missile fire.

And as for missile ranges, we've discussed the OTH limits of SAM radars, and the 174 mile range of the SLAM-ER. If it was absolutely necessary, any navy could make a much longer-ranged air SSM. But SAMs can't really spot anything farther than a few hundred miles away because of OTH limits.

Also, any fleet without air superiorty (that spends soo much money on $20 billion SDs that carry as much aircraft as a $1 billion aircraft carrier, or is outnumbered in aircraft naval air power 2:1) is going to be blind in terms of air recon unless satellites are available or you're fighting defensively and near shore-based airfields. We've discussed the limits and vulnerabilities of satellites, although land-based air can be an asset if the fighting takes place within a few hundred miles of land (I don't know about NS, but this is where most real battles take place). Still, airpower is more of an asset than gunpower. Anything you can load in a shell you can load on an air SSM, and the air SSM will go farther. It's more expensive, but you get to shoot at the enemy long before he hits you, and you make him waste money on SAMs (which are more expensive than SSMs).

edit: As for aircraft range, I wasn't talking about SSM range. I mean the airplane goes 300 or so miles, and the SSM goes a few hundred more.

An Iowa is said to cost $1.5 billion, and if we assume it also has nuclear power like a carrier we don't have to worry about buying tons of coal.

No battleship has run on coal since the HMS Dreadnought, they run on diesel oil.

If you build a $20 billion SD, it wouldn't be impratical to buy several big (20,000 ton) missiles fired from long-range bomber type aircraft

You want me to believe you could build a 20,000 ton missile and it wouldn't be laughably slow and impossibly easy to shoot down?

And as for missile ranges, we've discussed the OTH limits of SAM radars, and the 174 mile range of the SLAM-ER. If it was absolutely necessary, any navy could make a much longer-ranged air SSM. But SAMs can't really spot anything farther than a few hundred miles away because of OTH limits.

The word 'so?' comes to mind. The missiles still have to come inside the ships' SAM range to hit the ship, past the point defence systems and anti-missile-missiles of its entire battlegroup. Furthermore, a weapon with a warhead large enough to damage an SD would either have to be huge and easy to shoot down [and difficult to carry on anything but a land-based bomber] or have a tiny fuel supply.

This has been pointed out to you time and time again.

Still, airpower is more of an asset than gunpower.

No, it's not. Aircraft are more expensive than shells, require more maintainance, deliver less damage per ton, can't sustain fire like a battleship gun can and their missiles are easier to intercept. They also require pilots who are expensive to train and can't be used in high-risk operations, whereas you'd have no problems hurling shells into the same place.

Anything you can load in a shell you can load on an air SSM, and the air SSM will go farther.

Not necessarily, no. You can't get a multi-ton warhead onto an SSM that still fits on a carrier-based plane and still have it go further than a similar SD gun round could.

A thought...perhaps one could use the Kamikaze approach, carrying lots of explosives in an armored UAV? After all, the programming would be fairly easy and you could probably deliver more powerful warheads...

Um...That's called a cruise missile.

Well, that's what I get for posting at such a late hour...

Saying a missile is too big to be survivable is somewhat of a moot point because 95% of normal missiles are shot down anyway. It just dosen't make a difference how bulky it is. In fact, a larger missile would likely be more survivable, as it would take a few more gun and missile hits (for example, small Sidewinder-type AAMs often don't kill their targets on the first shot due to their small warheads, and a 20,000 pound missile would be equipped with all kinds of stealth stuff, countermeasures, etc. Yeah, it's really expensive, but if you encounter a $20 billion enemy ship it's worth the price).

You have not refuted my points about guarding the ship's vulernable missile launchers, radar dishes, etc. from shrapnel.

Are you proposing that an NS SD would survive in real life? Well, I've already talked about the manueverability, harbor depth, etc. constraints.

The F/A-18 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18-specs.htm) carries 10,000 pounds of ordinance. Althoguh it has less range when fully loaded, it can still go 200-300 miles. With a lighter load, it goes even farther. Remember that the US Navy used to operate huge bombers off its ships like the A-5 and A-3. You underestimate how much firepower you can load onto a plane.

Sure, a shell is cheaper than an aircraft, but can a shell perform reconassaince or have the range of an aircraft? And is it accurate? Even with modern gunnery technology, it's hard to get shells on target- five-inch guns carried by today's destroyers are still going to miss a lot more than they hit. You can't really load a 10,000 pound warhead onto a shell and expect it to go a decent distance, but you can do that to an aircraft warhead if you start builidng big A-5 or A-3 style carrier bombers.

Ahh, but the difference is that you can get a 10,000 lb warhead on a shell, while you cannot get a 10,000 lb warhead on a 20,000 lb standoff missile. You seem to be confusing warhead with explosive filler. A warhead is not just explosive filler, but also the casing and fuze. In fact, a free-fall bomb is the same as a warhead, as is an unassisted shell. The shell may have less explosive filler than a bomb, but can have much more in proportion to its weight than any missile, which also needs an engine, airframe, and fuel. And the fun thing is that you can get that 10,000 lb shell off much more cheaply, and with much less chance to be countered, than a missile with a 10,000 lb warhead (which is probably in excess of 40-50,000 lbs btw). And your argument about the F/A-18 is a mute point. While it can indeed carry 10,000 lbs of ordnance, it is not capable of carrying a 10,000 lb weapon. Payload capacity is determined by combining the capacity of each individual hard point and weapons bay (if applicable). This is why an A-6E can carry 18,000 lbs of ordnance, but only 5 2000 lb bombs - none of its 5 hard points can carry two of them. There is no plane that has ever operated from a carrier that can take off with and deploy a 10,000 lb missile.

The A-5 Vigilante had a maximum takeoff weight of 66,000 lbs (about midway between the A-6 and F-14). Actual payload, including the drop tanks, was probably significantly less than that of an A-6E, and possibly below the F-14 as well (consider that it could only carry about 30,250 lbs combined of fuel and weapons), and that was over 5-7 stations, with a configuration that gave nothing but problems. Try again.


Shells can be guided just like missiles (such rounds do in fact exist, in the arsenals of several countries), but with less penalty, and they can have two-way sensors just the same as well. You greatly underestimate what can be done with a simple shell.
Also, as I've stated, but you refuse to accept for some reason, some shells can outrange most missiles.

And yes, sensors and whatnot are indeed vulnerable to shrapnel, as long as the missile gets close enough for said shrapnel to hit them, which likely isn't the case.

*claps*

Sarzonia, this is the most brilliant work I have ever witnessed! You too, Praetonia! Awesome work!

I don't think I've read this fully before and really thought about it. Very interesting.

I didn't read the entire thing, because who has time to read 25 pages on a computer xD Hurts my eyes. Anyways, two big thumbs up to you! And sorry for bringing this thread back from the depths of no-where land O.o Even though it is linked to in The Compass To International Incidents. BTW, all I'm trying to do is to stop people throwing their subs into the teeth of the enemy xD yours seemed like the best place to put it. Feel free to add it to your post, if you like it.

One thing to add to "you don't need the largest navy, just the best" (shortened it) you could reference to the Spains utter defeat at sea by British Fireships and such. It proves while you may be outnumbered, you can still have the advantage.

A few things about subs that should probably be added if no-one else has suggested them.

Submarines:
Subs aren't frontline vessels! They aren't like your Destroyers or Frigates that zoom about the front of the battlefeild taking hits for the big ships, and generally harrassing the enemy.

If you place subs in the frontline, your enemy won't even need SSN's, or depth-charges. The force of explosives detonating in the water, shells landing in the water, etc, etc, will tear the sub to bits. A depth-charge was normaly about 300 pounds and up, apparently being the largest bomb you could fit on a ship and role of the end without sinking yourself. These would cause the hull to rupture, pressure gauges to burst, and general chaos. The sub would be forced to surface, or it would sink, but in rare cases they got lucky and escaped. Now, this is with early sonar. Todays is much better at detecting underwater objects, determining their location, etc. Imagine what todays detection capabilities combined with a couple dozen to a hundred 2,000 ib shells landing in the water, exploding, and such will do to a sub. All you'll do is create a new marine habitat, not bad, but not worth the loss of life.

Submarines, if used properly, can heavily damage an opponent. Disabling a port 101:
Place 5-6 submarines around the port, with another group in reserve to allow the sailors to rest, re-arm, and re-fuel. Your opponent now has to spend resources hunting down your submarines, and until they successfully do their port is useless because all that'll happen when a ship is launched is: another habitat for sea creatures. We're making the sea monkeys happy ;)

If you enemy is an island nation, do what the Germans did in WW2. Send out Wolf Packs. Eventually, the island won't be able to properly support itself, since no nation is 100% independent. If they don't have fuel, they can't fight you. If they can't get metal, they can't produce weapons. If they can't get enough food, they'll starve, etc. If you keep it up long enough, it's very likely your opponent will have to surrender, or try somethign drastic. At this point, you've almost certainly won either way.

...you are aware that this strategy went obsolete along with the concept of superdreadnaughts three years ago, right?

I know I shouldn't be posting in a gravedug thread but what the hell.

First, Daiwiz, I highly recommend reading the wikipedia article on depth charges. I dunno where you got your information from, but its incorrect. Especially regarding the uh, shells. The only real way a 907 kilo shell could possibly hurt a submarine was a) it was nuclear b) it sank. I'm not even going to bother with the sillyness of using a battleship as a ASW weapon - its just a bad idea. Depths bombs at any rate,have been superseded by ASW mortars and torpedoes.

As for war vs. a island enemy, the better solution is mass aerial mining of its waters. Operation Starvation really hurt Japan.

At nay rate, I want to point out to the new folks that this guide was written in 2006, the heady days of the superdreadnought and the supercapital warship was just about to appear. Current NS naval tactics are stand off orientated with a high emphasis on cruise missiles and carriers.