NationStates Jolt Archive

Background While other storefronts throughout the world have shown a tendency to rely on either mono-hulled or Trimaran-hulled warships fairly exclusively, the Portland Iron Works (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404832) has prided itself on being one of the world's most versatile ship design and construction companies in the world. Toward that end, the PIW has constructed ships ranging from small, special operations vessels to large superdreadnaughts or aircraft carriers.

However, until fairly recently, the Portland Iron Works had a shortage of Trimaran hulled ships in its inventory that were not the superdreadnaught terrors of the seas. Until the commissioning of the Monitor-class heavy and Monandnock-class light cruisers, the Portland Iron Works were not in a position to compete with the Imperial Praetonian Shipyards in the realm of Trimaran escort ships. To address a need for a larger, more powerful ASW platform in response to larger and more powerful submerged threats, the PIW has commissioned the Holland-class ASW destroyer.

Armed with two five inch (127 mm) main guns and 'Silver' torpedoes, the Holland is still a capable ASuW vessel and is one of the largest and best-protected destroyers ever constructed by the PIW. The ship is expected to see service as escorts for the ISN's superdreadnaughts and other large Trimaran-hulled warships.

Ironically enough, the Holland is named in honour of a submarine. The USS Holland was a true pioneer in the United States Navy among attack submarines. The Holland included many features that would become commonplace in the years to come.

Holland-class ASW destroyer
Length: 164 m; Beam: 30.6 m; Draught: 7.1 m
Displacement: 13,750 tons full
Armament: 2 x 127 mm ETC guns in single turrets (A & Y positions); 1 x 24 cell Mk. 136 VLS (capable of launching 'Scorcher' and Scourge' missiles); 6 x 35 mm Millennium Gun CIWS; 2 x 533 mm torpedo launchers (‘Silver’ ASW & ASuW torpedo); 6 x Yellow Jacket mini-SAM.
Protection: 100-116 mm advanced armour composite (amorphous steel; aluminum; titanium; kevlar); double-bottomed, reinforced keel; hardened crossbeams installed across bulkheads.
Countermeasures: 2 x towed sensor array; AN/SLY-2 (V) electronics warfare suite; passive/active sensor array
Decoys: AN/SLQ-49; AN/SLQ-25 Nixie; MK-53 Nulka DLS
Aircraft: Space for two ASW helicopters
Propulsion: 6 x Windham & Green gas turbines; 2 x diesel turbines for auxiliary propulsion. 36 knots maximum.
Complement: 188
Price: $2.3 billion
Running Cost: $85 million/year.

OOC: The armour is... Kind of odd. Aluminium is a lightweight naturally soft metal unless you made an aluminium-tungsten alloy which makes it a lot stronger, and heavier. Ordinary aluminium melts at 660°C so a simple napalm bomb can effectively melt it, knowing that steel and titanium are excellent conductors of heat. There's no fire-resistant material, and composite alone (which is a single kind of plastic plus fibreglass, not another kind of plastic) cannot be ballistic at all. I agree it is strong and lightweight and works wonders as blast armour but concentrations of force (missiles, rockets, shells) it shatters. Kevlar: same story. Bullets may be stopped, but a "10 shell isn't. The steel can pack quite a punch, but unless it's heavily supported by armoured bulkheads which can redirect energy to the superstructure, it's only good at stopping medium powered unguided projectiles. A strong shell with a tungsten/uranium tip will just punch through all of the layers with ease. As explained in my own thread about the new kind of armour I have in mind, support of the armour is as important as the armour itself.

Small note: Mixing two different kinds of plastic is impossible, the laws of physics forbid it.

OOC: The armour is... Kind of odd. Aluminium is a lightweight naturally soft metal unless you made an aluminium-tungsten alloy which makes it a lot stronger, and heavier. Ordinary aluminium melts at 660°C so a simple napalm bomb can effectively melt it, knowing that steel and titanium are excellent conductors of heat. There's no fire-resistant material, and composite alone (which is a single kind of plastic plus fibreglass, not another kind of plastic) cannot be ballistic at all. I agree it is strong and lightweight and works wonders as blast armour but concentrations of force (missiles, rockets, shells) it shatters. Kevlar: same story. Bullets may be stopped, but a "10 shell isn't. The steel can pack quite a punch, but unless it's heavily supported by armoured bulkheads which can redirect energy to the superstructure, it's only good at stopping medium powered unguided projectiles. A strong shell with a tungsten/uranium tip will just punch through all of the layers with ease. As explained in my own thread about the new kind of armour I have in mind, support of the armour is as important as the armour itself.

Small note: Mixing two different kinds of plastic is impossible, the laws of physics forbid it.
"Composite" in terms of "composite armour" generally refers to layers of different materials rather than a single material, which is, strictly speaking, an oddity but a fact. For instance, CRISAT is a composite of materials. And one wouldn't want to transfer energy to the superstructure but the hull, since the superstructure, barring a few areas, is typically quite weak, for otherwise one suffers the problem of too much top-weight that might lead to the vessel capsizing or otherwise being quite unstable. Furthermore, the kevlar is being used, I believe, as a spall lining.