NationStates Jolt Archive

"After reviewing both the scale and constrcution requirements recently put before us by the Peoples Republican Senate. We [Horizon Heavy Industries] are seeking Experienced Naval contractors, as well as materials wholesalers, and those familiar with the construction of large naval vessels to provided assistance in return for both monetary compensation, and not only the completed production rights, but contractors with which to assist in local production of the vessel after completion of the first three vessels order by the Senate.

We await any reply patiently.

Sincerely,
William Martens"

OOC: This is the largest (Non-Carrier) vessel I EVER intend to buld as I'm not into the whole SD thing, and I give the ENTIRE NS community permission to slap me if I do build anything larger than this, atleast without precident. However even though ive done quite a bit of research already im still rather new to designing naval vessels and am searching not only for a some comments(both IC and OOC) but also any (constructive) advice I might be able to use.

Yes I know its big... its supposed to be, and I plan to build them in three segements and then connect them before the instalation of systems and such inorder to cut down on construction time,and to make use of smaller docks so as to keep from haveing to spend even more billions on a new super dry dock.

Whole deployment will probably be at most 3 to 5, and thats a possible exageration. In short I dont plan to bust my naval budget witha large amount of what I intend to be flagships...

Image: Here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/jay3135/bb33.gif)

(very) Incomplete specifications-
Length: 333m
Beam: 43m
Draft: 14m
Displacement: 124,000 metric tons
Speed: 28 knots cruise; 35 knots sprint
Compliment: 200 Officers; 3000 Enlisted
Armament:
-Guns:
-- 8x 18'/55 caliber ETC guns in four double turrets
-- 12x 6'/60 caliber DP/HA/QF guns in six double turrets
-- 8x 3'/50 caliber HA guns in two Quadruple turrets
-- 8x 35mm AHEAD CIWS (4 water line/4 super structure)
-- 6x 20mm Phalinx CIWS (4 water line/2 super structure)
-- 4x 40mm Crew mounted AA guns in 2 double gun mounts
- Missiles:
-- 130x Mk 41 VLS tubes or equiv. (50+25+25+15+15)
-- 30x Diagonal Launch Tubes for AShM/ASROC (15+15)
-- 8x SA-33 'Wraith' tubes for SRAD in two quadruple crew operated mounts
-Air Wing:
-- 2x ASW helicopters (Sea Lynx shown)
-- 6x 'Broadhead' VTOL/UCAV for SEAD/CAP/ASW
-Other:
-- 4x 'super hedgehog' ASW projector
Sensors:
-Radar:
--1x IRIS 2 Three Dimensional Agile Multi-Beam Search Radar System: The IRIS 2 Radar is a I-band Active Phased Array Multifunction Radar comprised 8 panels in a vertical phased array located amidship on the Trinity class. The system frequency agility and code agility in the transmission patterns, making it nearly impossible to jam, while providing search patterns covering from the horizon to an altitude of more than 20,000 m (65,000 ft) in order to meet all foreseeable air and surface threats. If allowed by the horizon, the system can track out to 800 miles (1280 km) and can simultaneously track and identify up to 800 targets at one time. The system controls missile launched from the long range missile launchers and the system can track and guide each individual missile to an individual target for up to 200 targets. If a target is eliminated, missiles are automatically guided to a new target. The system can also control missiles launched from other linked vessels as well and can also act as fire control for gun mounts.
-- Open (foward dual large panel Array)
-- Open (360* Mid ship four panel array)
--2x Redwood Early Warning and Fire Control Radar: The Redwood radar is mounted in two horizontal angled arrays near the rear of the superstructure. The REdwood EW/FCR is an electronically scanned, solid state,frequency agile, phased array radar operating at L-band in the range 500MHz to 1,000MHz, and was developed from the Elta Green Pine EW/FC radar. The radar operates in search, detection, tracking and missile guidance modes simultaneously, and can detect even super-low Crosssection targets at ranges up to about 500km and is able to track targets up to speeds over 3,000m/s.
-- 1x 'Onion' Navagational Dopler Radar.
-- 1x Mk.VI Low Probability of Intercept Navagational/H2H Passive Detection Radar.
-Sonar:
--

Bump

[OOC- Might I suggest ETC 18' guns? It adds range, punch, and is a great propellant. And it's pretty much MT, with a bit of PMT if it's the best stuff possible. Great thing to look into for your guns. And good luck with this.]

We hope you enjoy a bit of advice. Compliments from our design staff. Advice is enclosed.

Also, we're quite interested in helping you build this project. Our shipyards aren't doing much at the moment and another job is always welcome.
Rear Admiral Dwight, Procurements and Munitions Board

[OOC: Actually I hasd intended them to be so, but I guess it slipped my mind, thank you for reminding me. Im a bit against ETC guns in tanks due to available power supply [please dont argue this here, thank you], but In naval ships I have no problem with them. ^_^ I'll make the corrections, any other advice you might havea fora first time Naval designer?]

IC: "We are extremely greatful of your assistance and will be glad to discuss possible distrubution of the design plans upon the projects completion."

bump...

[OOC: I don't want to argue on this thread due to Mekugi's insistance, however, personally I would drop the electro-thermal chemical guns. Not because they're not a good choice - they certainly are - but due to the NationStates nature of naval warfare it'll be a rear day that your guns will be used directly on another's ship, unless you're using rail guns, with their rediculous range. Consequently, I think that you might want to go cheaper, as in cheaper guns, and instead focus on VLS tubes and cells for missiles and such - since missiles will come to more use than the guns.

Just my two cents.]

OOC: Whereas I understand that for effect to weight and effect to price VLS tubes are the most effiecient choice, however I have no intention of useing an arsenal ship as a flagship... I suppose I could say its an anacrhonistic quality that has always liked big guns (to a point) and the image and drama of the big guns is one that is hard to compare to anything else in life RP or IRL. So yes, I did intentionally choose a battleship in all its old-school (or is that new school with refference tot he emergence of SD's?) and it fits its role as a big multi-purpose ship that looks good on an admirals fleet chart (^_^) Arsenal ships have their place but I dont see them as a dominant ship, not with the increase (both IRL and IC) of anti-missile systems. Big guns and their ballistic qualities still pack a big hard to stop punch that is unequalled on the seas.

And if im going to have the guns, and I have the option... Id rather have the option and not need it, than need it and not have it...

Dont take this as disregarding your statment Mac, I just feel that if Im going to do it, I might as well do it as IC correct to my nations policies as possible.

To: Horizon Heavy Industries
From: See Gott Industrien [Under Union of Kriegzimmer]

We offer our hand at the creation of the Trinity class Battleship in the area of fire and control, as well as detection systems. We are currently working on an improvement over our older designs and in the proces of unleashing the Argonaut System, designed to be amongst the most advance and the most effective fire and control system, coupled with detection devices. The system would include fire and controll for your missiles and main guns, as well as detection devices such as RADAR, SODAR, CELLDAR and LIDAR, in varying size, the RADAR of course being the largest array for its greater importance. However, the latter three detection devices are newer, less well known, but just as effective, and consequently the center of our studies.

Regardless, if you wish we SGI can design the system for both HHI and Kriegzimmer. We patiently wait for your reply.

Good day,
[signed]CEO Albert Swarz

39.624m (ca. 130ft) for the beam is too small. You would want a beam to length ratio of less than 1:8, preferably between 1:8 to 1:6, for stability's sake. The displacement is too small as well as the Yamato, which was shorter and less beamy (if that's a word), had about that displacement. The draught looks OK, though.

You might want to spruce up the CIWS, although the secondary armament looks adequate.

If you're looking for other ideas, check other people's storefronts. DPUO's Red Star Industries is very good for monohulls, Clan Smoke Jaguar's storefront is superb as well, as is Portland Iron Works, and I formerly specialised in monohull designs.

Isselmere: yay! -not that I screwed up, I knew I would- but that was something that ive been wondering about (the ratio that is) do you feel somewhere around 45m would be adaquete? or should I go to 60m for the most stability?

Another 5 or 10k for displacement in your opinion? or more?

As for the CIWS Im considering adding two additional Goalkeeper or Phalianx systems per side (one more for the water line and additional super structure one.)

Thank you again for your help! ^_^

Mac: "We would be quite interested in developing and testing said system for review and possible instalation on the Trinity project, any further information you may have; such as mounting space required, range, etc would be of grat help in making the aforementioned decision."

For a fairly slim hull, which would allow for a fair measure of speed, I suggest the following dimensions and displacement. Mind, these are merely suggestions and are certainly open to other interpretations:

Displacement: ca. 135,000 metric tonnes (1 long ton = 1.016 metric tonnes)
Dimensions: length: 333m; beam: 42.94m (1:7.755 length-to-beam ratio); draught (kept at 50'): 15.24m

The draught of the Trinity-class, being deeper than that of the Bastion-class I designed, would provide greater stability, but you could reduce it by a small margin, thereby allowing you to reduce the displacement -- say 13m draught would give you a displacement of about 115,000 metric tonnes -- giving you a faster ship, but at the cost of decreased armour protection and compartmentalisation. I probably wouldn't go for any less than a 14m draught, which would mean a displacement of about 124,000 metric tonnes.

I hope that helps!

OOC: It helps quite a bit ^_^

I will admit Im quite amazed at the displacement, which I obviously must have seriously under calculated fora modern design. I do believe I'll go with the 14m draught for a moderation between Speed and Stability which as you mentioned equals 124,000 metric tons.

Again Thank you ^_^

The Wuther & Farthing shipworks (responsible for producing the ships in my Storefront) HAs limited experience with ships of this scale other than carriers, however, due o a recent government contract, and experience gained on past projects, We are in an excellent position to provide a few things for this design.

I. Propulsion; Wuther & Farthingis a pioeer in the field of 'MHD' thruster or Magneto-HydroDynamic Thruster. The MHD is a state of the art (PMT) propulsion system that is cheaper and easie to maintain than traditional screws, provides greater maneuverabilty and, depending on the available length and power, a generous boost in speed and is much quiter than other propulsion systems. The available configurations for a ship this size are:
1/4 length, the cheapest, requires about the same energy as traditional screws and is jut slightly less expensive, uses a set of four MHDs that are about a fourth the length of the ship, is easy to repair (W&F MHDs are highly modular so that damaged or worn sections can easily be replaced at sea, withou the dry dock required by traditional screws)
1/2 solid: Same as above only slightly more expensive than traditional screws, provides greater speed and can be cut to three tube (four is still ideal)
1/2 fore/aft: Two sets of 1/4 MHDs are placed with one set spanning from forward to 1/4 of the length back and the other spanning from the back to 1/4 the length up. slightly more expensive than normal 1/2 configuration but allows greater maneuverabilty and control.

II. defense: the BARRIER defense system is the most comprehensive aerial defense set up available for todays fleets. starting with the SPY-3a solid state phased radar array capable of targetting even well stealthed aircraft at useful ranges for defense purposes is highly frequency agile to avoid jamming and can be used to acquire and actively target aircraft and incoming missiles for a comprehensive field of awareness. with proper software it can be used to actually lock ojto targets meanign that an aircraft can engage enemy targets without ever turning on its own targetting radar. the BArrier system also includes a network of ATA missiles and CIWS and can be easily interchanged with any CIWS or ATA system. The BARRIER class system is easy to operate and provides unique controls to the operator including a hierarching threat assessment that allows te user to indicate which types of threats should be destroyed first, also allows the user to control the number of targets engaged at any one time (Higher numbers mean less accuracy, is considered highly acurate at tracking over 100 targets and actively engaging 20 targets at a time), fire control selections that allow the user to determine how much ammunition (Missile, CIWS or both) to expend on individual targets before shifting to another target.
The BARRIER system also has a vry wide cross range ability letting fewer equipped ships defend larger fleets. The BARRIER system can also link with other ships acarrying suitable missiles to expand the number of missiles available for engaging targets.

W&F aso offers its Shipyard facilities at Camden Bay fr building all or part of these ships, Camden Bay hs long been or biggest and most productie facility and has just recently completed the first stage of the (Currenty unannounced) FICV project that is of similiar size to these ships.

"We thank the Wuther & Farthing shipworks for its reply and will consider its Barrier defense system for possible implimentation barring information as to the previously offered Argonaut system, due to political pressure from the senate to investigate allied design schemes as a priority."

OOC: bah, lazy post, and bump

[OOC: I'll get the write up to my system up on this weekend. I have to do some last minute designs and talk overs with my AP Physics teacher that use to work with this stuff - see if it's all realistic.]