NationStates Jolt Archive

History: The Couragous-Class Super Dreadnaught found its origins between a joint project between Space Union's Navy (SUN) and the Imperial Praetonian Navy (IPN). It was designed to create a warship that could challenge any ship out-to-date. It was seen as an indirect threat to the Doujin (although both agreed upon not trying to compete with Doujin). Top officials from Praetonia and Space Union came together to form a group to construct the layout for the ship. By the end of the year, a solid design approved by both Praetonia's and Space Union's governments was completed. Work started on the Super Dreadnaught soon after with one prototype being manufactured. After impressive tests that put all systems and such to work, the Couragous-Class SDN officially went into production. Currenlty, Space Union has filed an order for 4 Couragous-Class Super Dreadnaughts while Praetonia's Navy is considering putting orders although it will be after their domestic super dreadnaughts are retired. An export version (toned down compared to Domestic) is available to export. Shipyards in both Space Union and Praetonia are currently ready to produce them although local orders will come first. So we present the Couragous-Class......

Hull: Trimaran
Length: 950m
Beam: 220m
Draught: 35.3m
Crew: 8,500 Naval; 2,000 Marines
Displacement: 2,652,058 tonnes
Speed: 24knts (cruise) 28knts (maximum speed)
Range: Limited only by supplies, crew, and fuel.
Electronic Countermeasures: AN/ALQ-131 ECM System
Sensors-Radar: AN/SPS-49A(V)1 Radar
Sensors-Sonar: ANN/SQQ-89 SONAR System

Armament:
20x 25" ETC Guns
10x 8" ETC Guns
12x 64-cell VLS AA Batteries (SAMS)
10x 36-Cell VLS AA Batteries (SAMS)
40x 81-Cell: Anti-Submarine Torpedoss
18x 25-Cell: Anti-Missile Rocket Launcher
10x 100-Cell VLS: Tomahawk Cruise Missile Pod
3x 49-Cell: ICBM Launchers

Aviation: 220 Airplanes and 54 Helicopters

Armor:
The armor has 6 layers.
The 1st layer is Electric Reactive Armor (ERA).
The 2nd layer is made from Martensitic stainless steels plates.
The 3rd layer is made from aluminium-titanium alloy.
The 4th layer is made from ceramic tiles.
The 5th layer is made from reinforced steel.
The 6th layer covers the engine and control room compartments and is made from Composite Material covered with QuietSound material.

Engine Compartment: 1,704mm
Hull, Deck, and Hatches: 1,496mm
Magazine and Turret: 1,644mm
Glue Structures(Section that connects all the hulls): 2,000mm

Defense Grid:
Flares to confuse incoming IR-Seeking missiles.
Electronic Jamming Optics System (EJOS)
Phalanx CIWS Block 1B Configuration, Anti-Missile System

Powerplants:
4 SD-32 Nuclear Reactors that power 6 Waterjets and 9 Turbines (backup)

Cost:$285 billion
Running Cost: $5 billion

bump

OOC: I'm not sure I like the idea of having 25" and 20" guns. I think there are too many fire control issues with two guns of fairly similar calibres. Another thing, most battleships or dreadnaughts have their turrets either forward or aft of the superstructure. Broadside guns that aren't available in turrets are a very bad idea because you would have roughly half your ordnance unavailable at any time.

I also am not a fan of having five hulls. I think that's just overkill.

OOC: I'm not sure I like the idea of having 25" and 20" guns. I think there are too many fire control issues with two guns of fairly similar calibres. Another thing, most battleships or dreadnaughts have their turrets either forward or aft of the superstructure. Broadside guns that aren't available in turrets are a very bad idea because you would have roughly half your ordnance unavailable at any time.

I also am not a fan of having five hulls. I think that's just overkill.

My bad that 20" was from prototype stage but Praetonia told me not to keep it but I forget to delete it from the file. Sorry :)

Also I thought that if we had guns around the ship it would provide the ship with more survivability so it didn't have any blind spots. But would that configuration you said still get rid of the blind spots on the SDN?

You can cover the blindspots with secondary armaments (such as anything from about 5.5 inches to 8 inches). You don't need the massive big guns for that purpose.

You can cover the blindspots with secondary armaments (such as anything from about 5.5 inches to 8 inches). You don't need the massive big guns for that purpose.

Okay I added 10 8 in ETC Guns. Is that fine?

Yep. That's more like it. :)

OOC: I would think electric armor and salt walter don't mix.

All righty...quintuple hull will probably not perform well at all; trimarans are bad enough, but a quintuple hull will take a small ice age to perform a U-turn and quite likely not attain a particularly high speed. As well as that, I'm not sure how you're going to make a quintuple hull work. A trimaran has a main hull, bearing the majority of the load, and two outriggers; a catamaran shares the load equally; but this might encounter problems with strain on the joining sections. Either there will be two hulls bearing the weight of one between them plus another on each side, or the main hull will be bearing the stress of two outriggers per side, or something similar. Of course, I'm no expert, and I can't really judge 'til we get a pic.

Aircraft complement is dodgy. A double-decked hull can store a lot of planes, but only up to a point (unless you want it to be unpropelled, which'll really strain the joints between hulls). If you have two hangars, each 9m high (which seems reasonable to accommodate most carrier-based planes, especially NSified ones) then you'll leave precisely 8.3m in draught to incorporate machinery spaces, SAM and CIWS magazines, munitions storage, fuel storage, accommodation, and so forth. Not going to be fun. Also, double-decked hangars aren't a particularly brilliant invention, since the other thing they allow is for one good bomb to pretty much gut the ship.

Too many reactors. As CSJ put it, they aren't boilers, as the engineers who designed the Enterprise found out. In all probability you only need four reactors for this thing. Oh, and I can't quite envisage 6 waterjets on five hulls. Seems a little minimal, propulsion-wise, to me. The emergency turbines, by the way, are unnecessary and useless; devoid of propeller shafts, they'd have nothing to drive (and in any case, with something this size the props would need replacing every ten miles or so) and in fact the only viable system of propulsion if you're using a nuclear reactor to power MHDs is turbo-electric.

All righty...quintuple hull will probably not perform well at all; trimarans are bad enough, but a quintuple hull will take a small ice age to perform a U-turn and quite likely not attain a particularly high speed. As well as that, I'm not sure how you're going to make a quintuple hull work. A trimaran has a main hull, bearing the majority of the load, and two outriggers; a catamaran shares the load equally; but this might encounter problems with strain on the joining sections. Either there will be two hulls bearing the weight of one between them plus another on each side, or the main hull will be bearing the stress of two outriggers per side, or something similar. Of course, I'm no expert, and I can't really judge 'til we get a pic.

Would it be possible to have just one huge monohull instead of a couple of hulls? I didn't design it like that because I thought it would sink outright in sea. But am I wrong?

Aircraft complement is dodgy. A double-decked hull can store a lot of planes, but only up to a point (unless you want it to be unpropelled, which'll really strain the joints between hulls). If you have two hangars, each 9m high (which seems reasonable to accommodate most carrier-based planes, especially NSified ones) then you'll leave precisely 8.3m in draught to incorporate machinery spaces, SAM and CIWS magazines, munitions storage, fuel storage, accommodation, and so forth. Not going to be fun. Also, double-decked hangars aren't a particularly brilliant invention, since the other thing they allow is for one good bomb to pretty much gut the ship.

The double-deck should be able to store that many. Also I'll increase the draught.

Too many reactors. As CSJ put it, they aren't boilers, as the engineers who designed the Enterprise found out. In all probability you only need four reactors for this thing. Oh, and I can't quite envisage 6 waterjets on five hulls. Seems a little minimal, propulsion-wise, to me. The emergency turbines, by the way, are unnecessary and useless; devoid of propeller shafts, they'd have nothing to drive (and in any case, with something this size the props would need replacing every ten miles or so) and in fact the only viable system of propulsion if you're using a nuclear reactor to power MHDs is turbo-electric.

Only 4? I thought more would be needed. But I'm no expert so I'll change it to 4.

*tag*

The reason you don't use a massive monohull instead of a Trimaran hull is that Trimaran hull gives you a lot of stability as a gun platform and greater seaworthiness. Not only that, but it's actually a bit better for speed.

Quadruple hull :| We didnt discuss that did we? No, let's stick with trimaran. A trimaran hull is the best way of offering adequate stability for this kind of gun platform, and also increases protection. A qaud hull would have a massive beam, not a huge amount of additional protection and it would have significantly reduced internal space.

Quadruple hull :| We didnt discuss that did we? No, let's stick with trimaran. A trimaran hull is the best way of offering adequate stability for this kind of gun platform, and also increases protection. A qaud hull would have a massive beam, not a huge amount of additional protection and it would have significantly reduced internal space.

I thought I put the hull design in my specs I sent you. sorry :(

Also then I'll change it to trimaran hull.

Glad to see you made besides the point. I heard that you had a lot of homework so I put this up for you. :)

I thought I put the hull design in my specs I sent you. sorry :(

Also then I'll change it to trimaran hull.

Glad to see you made besides the point. I heard that you had a lot of homework so I put this up for you. :)
It's no problem. I remember you proposed 5 hulls and I thought I said not to do that and stick with trimaran. Hmmm, must just have been confusion with the TGs. Anyway, now it looks like a very good ship. A good VLS armament, a good aircraft completment and a powerful battery of main guns.

It's no problem. I remember you proposed 5 hulls and I thought I said not to do that and stick with trimaran. Hmmm, must just have been confusion with the TGs. Anyway, now it looks like a very good ship. A good VLS armament, a good aircraft completment and a powerful battery of main guns.

Okay so I think I didn't mess anything up in the write-up. Also are you going to put this in your Imperial Praetonia Shipyards? Or is it going to just be on-sale here? I don't mind either.

One other thing: How does "QuietSound" work?

One other thing: How does "QuietSound" work?

Here:

"To reduce vibration and noise, many of the ship's internal surfaces are covered with a coating of QuietShip, a viscoelastic polymer that can be applied to aluminum, steel and composite-hull vessels. The coating offers naval ship builders a way to reduce noise by up to 70 percent, according to developer Quiet Solution. On the Sea Fighter, QuietShip reduces noise by 15 decibels."

This is from Howstuffworks.com, and from the article "How the FSF-1 Sea Fighter Works".

Hope that helps :)

bump

bump

bump

Another crap ship comming out of Space Union. Dude, you dont know how to design ships. I would suggest that you start small and work up, not make super-dreds and hypercarriers. It is a sign of noobity in making weapons.

You dont even take time to think out your designs. From the posts made before me, I can gather that you had 5 hulls, electro armor, and other crap. Please think these things over before designing. I always thought that it was common sense that electricity and water don't mix.

I will also come out and say that I dont like super-dreds and that only a few people really know how to design them. You unfortunatly are not one of them. Your ship and most of the other super-dreds out there are a product of one or the following thought lines:

1] Nation "X" has them so I need them (Very Cold War soviet style.)
2] I need them to take over nation "X". (Noobish)
3] I feel insecure about a certain part of my body.
4] Big ship! Oooo! Aaahhh! Must Have!

If you take the time to think about a design and do it right, it should take at least a day or two to make.

<SNIP>
OOC: Ok, that was uncalled for, if you feel the need to post that you have problems.

Another crap ship comming out of Space Union. Dude, you dont know how to design ships. I would suggest that you start small and work up, not make super-dreds and hypercarriers. It is a sign of noobity in making weapons.

You dont even take time to think out your designs. From the posts made before me, I can gather that you had 5 hulls, electro armor, and other crap. Please think these things over before designing. I always thought that it was common sense that electricity and water don't mix.

I will also come out and say that I dont like super-dreds and that only a few people really know how to design them. You unfortunatly are not one of them. Your ship and most of the other super-dreds out there are a product of one or the following thought lines:

1] Nation "X" has them so I need them (Very Cold War soviet style.)
2] I need them to take over nation "X". (Noobish)
3] I feel insecure about a certain part of my body.
4] Big ship! Oooo! Aaahhh! Must Have!

If you take the time to think about a design and do it right, it should take at least a day or two to make.

Sigh there will always be people that are like you, don't add anything constructive.

First off, a lot of those mistakes were from the origional rough draft that I accidently put up instead of the final-draft form. Sorry if I make mistakes. And I like other people do put thought into the designs, but I'm an outside of the box thinker that wants to try things in a different way. Sorry if I'm cursed that way.

Second, I didn't design this ship for stupid reasons like that. You might as well say every other nation that's ever designed a super dreadnaught also was thinking that way. In fact, you could say that is what people are thinking about when they design their military.

If you don't have anything to help someone, then don't post. What you wrote was a sign of n00bishness that even some horrible Rpers don't reach.

OOC: *Gives Space Union high five* Good show, and you can join in the battle sim, just send us the stats, I'm not sure when it will be held, and my version up is also an export version. You can start the battlesim when ever you want.

SU, there is constructiveness in there. I told you to start small, and to think your designs over better.

I must apologize for myself a little bit too. I absolutly hate these hyper big ships and where they are taking NS. I tend to take it out on people. People fail to understand that just because you can build something doesn't mean that you should build something or that it is even the best thing to do.

For super-dreds, people cite the fear they will inflict on the enemy, but when you flood the market with these ship, their fear factor diminshes.

They are huge targets. Just because they have insane ammounts of armor doesn't mean that they arn't vulnerable. A well aimed battery of 20" naval guns can take out most dreds.

Logistics are terrible. Just because you have a huge budget still doens't mean you can upkeep a super-dred.

Practicality. The things aren't practical. They are slow to build and slow to move. Why build a super-dred when you can build a bunch of battleships and carriers? They would be more flexible, cheaper, easier to maintain, and faster.

I kinda went on a rant there. Sorry. I just dont like the things.

SU, there is constructiveness in there. I told you to start small, and to think your designs over better.

I must apologize for myself a little bit too. I absolutly hate these hyper big ships and where they are taking NS. I tend to take it out on people. People fail to understand that just because you can build something doesn't mean that you should build something or that it is even the best thing to do.

For super-dreds, people cite the fear they will inflict on the enemy, but when you flood the market with these ship, their fear factor diminshes.

They are huge targets. Just because they have insane ammounts of armor doesn't mean that they arn't vulnerable. A well aimed battery of 20" naval guns can take out most dreds.

Logistics are terrible. Just because you have a huge budget still doens't mean you can upkeep a super-dred.

Practicality. The things aren't practical. They are slow to build and slow to move. Why build a super-dred when you can build a bunch of battleships and carriers? They would be more flexible, cheaper, easier to maintain, and faster.

I kinda went on a rant there. Sorry. I just dont like the things.

Thank You for your apoligy. :)

I understand that some people don't like the SDs. You bring up a good point, why build these? I guess its mostly political for most countries and machoness for others. Who knows ;)

No hard feelings :)

bump