NationStates Jolt Archive

I think I just heard a great disturbance in the Force, as if thousands of submarine users in II screamed out in anguish and were suddenly silenced. :)

Ugh, this is going to make SDs even more annoying.

Posting this here cause no one who posts here will notice if it's posted in II. :p

Link: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825205.800


Shock tactics to destroy torpedoes


THE US navy wants to protect its warships with a system that will destroy incoming torpedoes by firing massive underwater shock waves at them.

The ships would be equipped with arrays of 360 transducers each 1 metre square - effectively big flat-panel loudspeakers - running along either side of the hull below the waterline. When the ship's sonar detects an incoming torpedo, the transducers simultaneously fire an acoustic shock wave of such intensity that the torpedo either detonates early or is disabled by the pulse's crushing force, according to the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which is funding the project.

But these are no ordinary loudspeakers: instead of having a membranous diaphragm that can vibrate in response to a range of audio frequencies, each of the devices has a ram-like cylindrical metal armature at its centre. This is projected outwards by electromagnets at very high speed, producing a shock wave. The array can be fired as many times as needed.

When the six rows of 60 transducers on each side of the ship fire at once, the cumulative action should generate a "destructive pressure pulse capable of disabling an enemy's torpedo", according to DARPA.

Exactly how the system works is shrouded in military secrecy. But by making a speaker several times larger than the wavelength of the sound wave required, a tightly focused beam can be produced in front of the speaker. This is because beam width is partly determined by the aperture of the source - a bigger loudspeaker focuses sound in a smaller area. (New Scientist, 9 September 2000, p 38). And the combined size of the array makes for a very large speaker indeed. This focusing would allow the array to precisely target incoming torpedoes. In addition, the beam can be steered in different directions - probably by slightly altering the phase of the applied signals - a technique that is widely used to steer radio waves using side-by-side antennas. So torpedoes homing in on the ship's wake from many directions can be targeted (see Diagram).

So far, the system's developers, Anteon Technologies of Fairfax, Virginia, and BAE Systems of Farnborough, UK, have only built one transducer. But encouraged by software simulations that show the array should work, they plan to press ahead with a one-quarter-scale test rig.

If it reaches the stage of testing in the open ocean, however, the developers are likely to come into conflict with marine biologists. They have evidence that whales blasted by frequent acoustic signals from submarine or ship sonar appear to develop symptoms of decompression sickness, and die. (New Scientist, 11 October 2003, p 10).
“The torpedo detonates early or is disabled by the pulse's crushing force”

But neither DARPA, Anteon, nor BAE Systems was willing to respond to questions about the array's proposed energy levels and any threat to marine mammals they might pose.

I saw that too - I might implement it into some of my ships.

OOC: I already use something like that. I'd been hoping no one else would read about sonic torpedo defense...:p Oops, I just made it more likely people will do so by bringing this to the top of the forum. :D

SDs are really worthless, though. I don't understand why people respect them so much.

SDs are really worthless, though. I don't understand why people respect them so much.
OOC: As "worthless" as any ship?

OOC:OOC: As "worthless" as any ship?No, SDs are huge easy targets. Their gun armament is useless, their armor is actually weaker than more conservative designs, they're big enough to take a hit from an ICBM (or similar non-nuclear missile), they're too expensive to be fleet escorts, and they're not useful as HVUs.

OOC:No, SDs are huge easy targets.
OOC: ... just as huge in NS warfare as its much-smaller counterpart IRL.

Their gun armament is useless,
... assuming that there will bve nothing but 30 inchers, only with sparse quantities of ammunition and a rather weak power supply.

their armor is actually weaker than more conservative designs,
"Conservative designs"? You are saying that SD armour is actually weaker than conservative, smaller designs?

they're big enough to take a hit from an ICBM (or similar non-nuclear missile),
Well... If you really want to start a nuke war *shrugs* On the assumption that they will not be able to deploy their own defences.

they're too expensive to be fleet escorts,
"Fleet escorts"!? You actually use SDs as escorts? To escort what?

and they're not useful as HVUs.
Not useful? How? As command platforms, they are definately useful. There needs no further explanation. If you are just going to treat it like just another ship in the fleet, then it is definately going to be useless. That's for certain. But the point is, you don't - and I don't know why you wouldn't treat it as a high value unit, worthy of protection from air, submerged, and surfaced threats.

OOC:... assuming that there will bve nothing but 30 inchers, only with sparse quantities of ammunition and a rather weak power supply.I meant the big guns will never actually have a chance to be used offensively. I am not an advocate of all-missile ships.
"Conservative designs"? You are saying that SD armour is actually weaker than conservative, smaller designs?Large and thick pieces of armor are rigid, stressful for their mounts, and in danger of falling off when put through heavy stress. I'm open to any suggestions on how to fix that, though.
Well... If you really want to start a nuke war *shrugs* On the assumption that they will not be able to deploy their own defences.I actually don't have an arsenal of ICBMs, but the rockets could be used for launching things other than nuclear warheads.
"Fleet escorts"!? You actually use SDs as escorts? To escort what?I don't use SDs at all. I just wanted to point out one shouldn't stick a thousand missiles on an SD to make the best evar AA fleet defense ship.
Not useful? How? As command platforms, they are definately useful. There needs no further explanation.Oh, sure, you can command from them, but you can also command from smaller ships/targets. They're also not good offensive platforms.
But the point is, you don't - and I don't know why you wouldn't treat it as a high value unit, worthy of protection from air, submerged, and surfaced threats.IMO they're worthy of protection from the point of view of protecting a massive investment, but I don't see them as actually being very useful, and I'd prefer to put the resources toward combat effective ships.

Did Jolt die again?

I won't fully engage in another SD/anti-SD argument, but I'll leave you with this fact: wars on NS are fought on a much larger scale than RL, given the increased resources that NS nations possess. Hence why SDs actually exists and are created - surely, you could use smaller ships. You could use them for command roles. You could (if your Admiralty is idiotic enough) use SDs as escorts. But again, given the nature of NS warfare (in terms of its scale and the modified tactics and strategies used to complement it), they are certainly not as ideal as when you use SDs in say, a command role. I can fully agree that SDs are vulnerable, but so is practically anything. I can also fully agree with the fact that guns has limited utility, which explains why SDs aren't strictly armed with only guns. But they are still far from worthless - just that their utility is more limited in certain areas than in other areas.

As a side note. I'm curious as to why you think SDs are "worthless", yet you still take it as a "threat" as if it's actually worth something.

As a side note. I'm curious as to why you think SDs are "worthless", yet you still take it as a "threat" as if it's actually worth something.I don't see them as a threat. Did one/some of my arguments make it sound like I do? Sorry for creating any confusion.

Edit: I have put some time into thinking about how to defeat them, but I've also thought about how to beat some tanks I consider godmodes.

I don't see them as a threat. Did one/some of my arguments make it sound like I do? Sorry for creating any confusion.
Well, I was thinking about your space shuttle idea (which is quite ingenious, I must admit), though if it's just an idea...

Well, I was thinking about your space shuttle idea (which is quite ingenious, I must admit), though if it's just an idea...Ah. I just edited this into my previous post before I saw your reply: "I have put some time into thinking about how to defeat them, but I've also thought about how to beat some tanks I consider godmodes." My space shuttle idea is also a partial replacement for ICBMs. Nianacio would never nuke a city, but being able to destroy certain parts of a city might come in handy someday.

So I guess we're back to the topic of torpedo defense?

Edit: That should've been more like "how to defeat them if I can't convince someone they're weaker than they appear".

Well, I have seen the article a few days ago, though it is important to also note that torpedo defences aren't necessarily restricted to underwater supercavitating guns and the system described in the article (ASW mortars are actually quite useful). But then it is also important to consider that you'll have to detect the torpedoes first, and then engage them - and then if there's too many torpedoes and smaller decoys on the way... Unfortunately, submarines are still very feasible and capable platforms for defeating SDs in a concerted attack, depends on how you look at, arm, and use it.

I might as well post a link to the article I learned about sonic torpedo defense from: http://noesis-inc.com/publications/pdf/future_underwater_aaw.pdf (PDF)

This is actually something similar to my private version of the Doujin-C class.

You do realise that if everyone in the vicinity is popping off this active acoustic defence mechanism no one at all will "hear" the torpedoes appearing after the first wave and that you've likely provided a nice resonating target for enemy submarines over a very wide area, never mind killing a hell of a lot of marine wildlife (which few care about on NS anyway). Then there are always wake homing torpedoes...

You do realise that if everyone in the vicinity is popping off this active acoustic defence mechanism no one at all will "hear" the torpedoes appearing after the first wave and that you've likely provided a nice resonating target for enemy submarines over a very wide areaWill a shock wave leave the area filled with bubbles after it passes? I've seen that mentioned as a con to supercavitating torpedo defense, and the same article said nothing about that also applying to acoustic torpedo defense.
never mind killing a hell of a lot of marine wildlife (which few care about on NS anyway).Even sonar kills marine wildlife. Are you going let some submarines wipe out your fleet because of the wildlife?
Then there are always wake homing torpedoes...I imagine it would be easy to make a rear-facing transducer array, at least if you're using podded propulsion.

OOC:No, SDs are huge easy targets
So? They should have enough SAMs, anti missile systems, and escorts to be able to knock out anything that would render it a "huge easy target"

. Their gun armament is useless
Against what? A salvo of 25" ETC shells will RIP APART a traditional battleship or anything else for that matter.

their armor is actually weaker than more conservative designs,
Considering what you mentioned, there are ways of strengthening hulls against this.

they're big enough to take a hit from an ICBM (or similar non-nuclear missile), they're too expensive to be fleet escorts, and they're not useful as HVUs.
I won't state my course of action against someone launching ICBMs at my fleet as a matter of courtesy to the thread creator. Asides, anyone using an SD as a fleet escort is stupid.. an SD is what should be escorted, not visa versa.

Back to SDs?
So? They should have enough SAMs, anti missile systems, and escorts to be able to knock out anything that would render it a "huge easy target"You have a SAM that can reach LEO or MEO? How big is your CIWS?
Against what? A salvo of 25" ETC shells will RIP APART a traditional battleship or anything else for that matter.Against anyone using decent tactics. Your SD will never get close enough to my ships to use its guns.
Considering what you mentioned, there are ways of strengthening hulls against this.Please elaborate.

Actually, a number of SDs do carry THAAD, so LEO attacking systems are a minimised threat.

Second, several navies that do employ SDs also employ vessels to counter your SD-counter, from escorts, fast missile boats, etc. Yes, SDs aren't the end-all and be-all of naval warfare, but then no ship is. Depending on how SDs are deployed they can either be valuable assets or catastrophes waiting to happen.

Third, yes, LF sonar does kill marine wildlife, as the article noted. This acoustic defence would simply add to the toll.

Fourth, limited sound dissipation may undermine the system.

It does have some promise, but on armoured vessels it would require the addition of another skin beyond the armoured hull. Considering the possible benefit from the system, it might be worth adding that light buffer.

Actually, a number of SDs do carry THAAD, so LEO attacking systems are a minimised threat.Good point. THAAD hasn't yet been used against targets at nearly the speeds a space shuttle orbits at, though.Second, several navies that do employ SDs also employ vessels to counter your SD-counter, from escorts, fast missile boats, etc.Yeah, you can escort them, but they won't get a chance to actually do anything.

Yeah, you can escort them, but they won't get a chance to actually do anything.Don't be so sure. People can crow about not giving a SD owning country a chance to use the gigantic guns all they want, but what if someone combines superior tactics WITH the SD use and they can get past your counters and fire those ginormous guns?

You have to remember that in the real world, planners would usually account for standard military doctrines of their enemies and plan accordingly. That's why you had monitors and gunboats and small patrol vessels in the rivers in 'Nam rather than gigantic aircraft carriers. That's why your amphibious assault fleets would have a different composition from your costal defence groups and different still from your power projection squadrons.

You seem to be running on the assumption that everyone who has a SD is tactics challenged and would not have a plan to *force* you to fight on his terms. That's clearly not the case.

Don't be so sure. People can crow about not giving a SD owning country a chance to use the gigantic guns all they want, but what if someone combines superior tactics WITH the SD use and they can get past your counters and fire those ginormous guns?Then those ginormous guns miss my smaller, more agile ships. For a SD to get in close enough to accurately use its guns would require my ships and supporting arms to be imobile with weapons systems shut down.

Then those ginormous guns miss my smaller, more agile ships. For a SD to get in close enough to accurately use its guns would require my ships and supporting arms to be imobile with weapons systems shut down.
Smaller ships that, by definition, cannot carry an armament large enough to damage the SD. It's also fairly true to say that the "speed is armour" concept was pretty much proved to be disasterously wrong on an unprecedented scale by the battlecruiser experiment. The increases in speed and agility that you gain are simply too small to have any real effect over the long ranges and with the tiny responce times that naval combat involves and the sacrifices you make for them are just far too big. In any kind of fleet or battlegroup, a salvo from an SD will be almost certain to damage something, even if there are no direct hits (15" guns could sink corvettes with near misses, and damage cruisers) and a single hit to a carrier will either sink it outright or cause such severe damage to the deck that it will have to put into port and be basically rebuilt (which will take months if not years).

The main problem with guns in ship-to-ship combat is their relative lack of range, and it is true that this is a disadvantage. However I think you've largely missed the point of a superdreadnaught's gun armament. The gun armament is largely intended for use for bombardment of shore defences in support of landings or of cities (see gunboat diplomacy). The kind of damage that can be wrought by even a single shell is immense and the cost of a shell is negligeable. In ship-to-ship combat SDs, when outside of effective gunnery range (which is most of the time, tbh) are used to collect, collate and process fleet-wide sensor data, carry and fire missiles like the rest of the fleet and generally attract a massive amount of firepower and still keep going.

I would agree, however, that for a nation primarily concerned with its own defence rather than projecting power abroad, SDs are a bad choice. They're expensive to build in themselves, as are the port facilities required to berth and maintain them. If, however, you are a nation with aspirations to be a maritime power, and you want to project power abroad, then SDs are an essential part of your fleet, although not a "navy-in-a-can" as some people seem to think they are.

Smaller ships that, by definition, cannot carry an armament large enough to damage the SD.Unless someone comes up with a way to fix the problems caused by excessive rigidity that the Iowas were already experiencing, SDs are made weaker by piling on armor. I may not be able to penetrate the armor, but I don't have to if it falls off.
The increases in speed and agility that you gain are simply too small to have any real effect over the long ranges and with the tiny responce times that naval combat involves and the sacrifices you make for them are just far too big.Against maneuvering missiles, yes. Against dumb long-range shells, no. By the time the shell arrives, my ships may have moved several ship's lengths.
the cost of a shell is negligeable.What do you consider negligible? Based on something The Freethinkers posted a long time ago, I think a single shot could cost a few hundred thousand dollars. Less than a cruise missile, but a fair amount of money. From this post it sounds like you're using a different kind of gun, though.

Unless someone comes up with a way to fix the problems caused by excessive rigidity that the Iowas were already experiencing, SDs are made weaker by piling on armor. I may not be able to penetrate the armor, but I don't have to if it falls off.
This would happen if you made the entire armour system out of a solid plate of steel covering the entire length of the hull, as was done with the Iowa, but any competently designed SD will use a layered armour scheme, and it's easy to layer different armoured modules over each other so that the hull is not one solid piece and there is practically no weak spot. That is, of course, if the problem occurs as you have described as frankly Ive never heard of it, and the Yamato was bigger with thicker armour than the Iowas and that never happened to them despite enduring extensive combat situations.

Against maneuvering missiles, yes. Against dumb long-range shells, no. By the time the shell arrives, my ships may have moved several ship's lengths.
...which the guns will, of course, correct for. The only way travel time would be important would be if you could predict where the shell is going to impact and the manoeuver the ship to avoid that area. Now considering how much data you would need to collect and process, considering how small a shell is and considering how sluggish ships are at manoeuvering, I think the chances of that happening would be next to 0.

What do you consider negligible? Based on something The Freethinkers posted a long time ago, I think a single shot could cost a few hundred thousand dollars. Less than a cruise missile, but a fair amount of money. From this post it sounds like you're using a different kind of gun, though.
A 16" shell costs a few hundred $s. A cruise missile carrying a smaller charge costs $1,000,000+. Negligable is compared to any other known method of deployment. The shells FT was talking about were effectively gun fired missiles and were accordingly expensive, but still HUGELY cheaper than a cruise missile carrying a similar explosive charge.

You also failed to answer 75% of my points, but whatever.

any competently designed SD will use a layered armour scheme, and it's easy to layer different armoured modules over each other so that the hull is not one solid piece and there is practically no weak spot.How do you mount several layers of armor without making them practically one thick piece or making weak points in the design?the Yamato was bigger with thicker armour than the Iowas and that never happened to them despite enduring extensive combat situations.The Yamato split the belt into two pieces (with a weak area where they met), while AFAIK the Iowa did not. I'm not sure about the details of their belt designs....which the guns will, of course, correct for.Your guns can't correct for not knowing where my ships will be when their shells land unless they're guided, and I think it would be difficult to make a guided shell of such mass without making it even huger and expensive. Ships of the next(?) generation may also be more maneuverable thanks to podded propulsion.You also failed to answer 75% of my points, but whatever.I know. I don't think there's much to be said in response to them*, and I don't want to bring the thread too far off topic.

*Responses would be short and along the lines of, "I disagree".

Yeah, you can escort them, but they won't get a chance to actually do anything.
Urm... So what you are suggesting, is that SDs are better when it is not escorted? Wuldn't it just make SDs even more vulnerable? Oh right... SDs aren't worth it as HVUs and don't need escorts.... If they are so useless as you proclaim, then why are you still implying that they don't need escorts in the sense that the SD can defend itself, on its own?

You have a SAM that can reach LEO or MEO? How big is your CIWS?
Modified ship-launched anti-ballistic-missile missiles with a bigger booster in order for it to reach LEO. ASAT weapons launched from interceptors.

Yeah saw this. I have something like it for anti-torpedo defense but this is far better.

The Yamato split the belt into two pieces (with a weak area where they met), while AFAIK the Iowa did not.
...but no Iowas has ever sank in combat, correct?

EDIT: Also important to note that despite having taken a lot of torpedo hits, it didn't really sink as a direct result of those damages. The ship was split into two after magazines detonated because the guns fell from their mountings on their own weight after it capsized; it didn't just break into two and disappear when it took those bomb and torpedo hits.

Urm... So what you are suggesting, is that SDs are better when it is not escorted?No, that you could protect them to partially offset their defensive weaknesses, but due to their offensive weaknesses they won't contribute to a battle either way and that you should use the money you'd spend on SDs on other stuff.
Modified ship-launched anti-ballistic-missile missiles with a bigger booster in order for it to reach LEO. ASAT weapons launched from interceptors.Yeah, you're right that it's possible to take out targets in LEO, at least at lower altitudes and speeds....but no Iowas has ever sank in combat, correct?Correct. The problem existed with the Iowa, and so far haven't been a huge deal with armor of the level RL battleships used, but would get a lot worse with the "feet upon feet" of armor people have put on SDs.

The edit refers to the Yamato? I meant the belt was constructed in two pieces, not that excessive rigidity caused it to break into two pieces. Sorry if that was unclear.

but due to their offensive weaknesses they won't contribute to a battle either way
It won't have to engage in battle in a strictly offensive fashion - it's an extremely well protected command platform as well. Though, I still don't see the "offensive weaknesses" in SDs when you consider that 30 inchers aren't their only armament. There are also missiles, aircraft, and secondary guns too.

and that you should use the money you'd spend on SDs on other stuff.
That strictly depends on doctrine and the resources that one's nation actually has. Granted, a SD isn't an ideal solution for all navies in all situations, but then you don't see the Soviets deploying nuclear fleet aircraft carriers IRL, either.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you have a problem with SDs, use tac nukes on em. If the country using them against you has the usual stupid II full strategic launch for the usage of one nuke policy, they'll recognize that if they bring an SD against you, they'll be risking the death of their nation when you launch your counterstrike against their full strategic launch.

Thus nukes neutralize SDs, whether you actually use them or not.

No, it simply means that the nation who tacnukes the SD is needlessly escalating the situation further, when considering that with the appropriate tactics and strategies, the SD could be defeated (if your leaders haven't already thought about the simple idea of getting your own SDs to counter SDs - hey, that's what they did following the launch of the HMS Dreadnought, isn't it?) with conventional tactics, which are much less riskier than nuking the SD in both its short-term and long-term implications. Again, whether one should or shouldn't conduct an act of foolishness is up to himself, though you can't be lazy and at the same time expecting satisfactory results.

There has been evidently a huge debate before regarding this - but the bottom line is, nuking the SD is far less advantageous than bringing the SD into the theatre anyways, considering that SDs are much more widely accepted by different NS nations as a "first strike" or "first use" weapon system (than nukes) and would be widely used in a range of conflicts (and thus are fairly conventional and would not stir up a lot of anger and outrage like nukes would), whereas nukes aren't since they would drag along a whole array of short/long-term complications even when the opposing side does not strategic-nuke you back.

How do you mount several layers of armor without making them practically one thick piece or making weak points in the design?The Yamato split the belt into two pieces (with a weak area where they met), while AFAIK the Iowa did not. I'm not sure about the details of their belt designs.
There would be weak spots, but they wouldnt help you much / at all because they would be protected by another layer of armour behind, whose weak spot would be protected by the first layer... etc.

Your guns can't correct for not knowing where my ships will be when their shells land
I assume that your ships move in a straight line in the direction in which theya re pointing. That is the default setting for most objects, I believe. You only have a few seconds to move even if you detected the firing and knew exactly where the shells were going to land and which ship they were being fired against... which you wont... And even that wouldnt help you if I fireh, say, more than one shell at a time.

unless they're guided, and I think it would be difficult to make a guided shell of such mass without making it even huger and expensive.
You can make missiles guided, so you can make a shell guided (especially so as you dont need to carry propellant). It will take up space, yes, but I wasnt actually proposing guided shells...

Ships of the next(?) generation may also be more maneuverable thanks to podded propulsion.
Explain to me how they manage to overcome the inertia of an object weighing several thousand (or, if an SD is firing at it, more likely several tens of thousands - hundreds of thousands) of tonnes with only a few seconds of reaction time and I'll ceade the point.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you have a problem with SDs, use tac nukes on em. If the country using them against you has the usual stupid II full strategic launch for the usage of one nuke policy, they'll recognize that if they bring an SD against you, they'll be risking the death of their nation when you launch your counterstrike against their full strategic launch.

Thus nukes neutralize SDs, whether you actually use them or not.
Once again Axis Nova, you don't seem to recognise that by launching a tactical nuke against a SD, you run the risk of kissing your own country goodbye by nations that have such enormous nuclear arsenals that they could destroy a planet the size of Jupiter.

And you have to realise that if a country is aware of your strategy that they could employ their countermeasures against such a nuclear strike, get their allies in to trump your allies. All because you want to use a tac nuke.

Once again Axis Nova, you don't seem to recognise that by launching a tactical nuke against a SD, you run the risk of kissing your own country goodbye by nations that have such enormous nuclear arsenals that they could destroy a planet the size of Jupiter.

And you have to realise that if a country is aware of your strategy that they could employ their countermeasures against such a nuclear strike, get their allies in to trump your allies. All because you want to use a tac nuke.

Exactly, EVERYONE loses.

Therefore it is safer to not risk it by using a superdreadnaught against a nation with a policy such as mine.

No, it simply means that the nation who tacnukes the SD is needlessly escalating the situation further, when considering that with the appropriate tactics and strategies, the SD could be defeated


This is an appropriate tactic/strategy. It certainly neutralizes any superdreadnaughts a nation may have.


(if your leaders haven't already thought about the simple idea of getting your own SDs to counter SDs - hey, that's what they did following the launch of the HMS Dreadnought, isn't it?) with conventional tactics, which are much less riskier than nuking the SD in both its short-term and long-term implications.


Except whenever someone mentions a conventional solution other than another superdreadnaught, someone pokes holes in it. Note that not all nations can field superdreadnaughts, and maintaining a nuclear arsenal and no SDs is much cheaper overall than fielding SDs. It's a zero-sum game, because the richer nation will be able to afford more SDs and thus win.

Let us say you do engage an SD with conventional forces. According to you and others who use SDs the combination of their defenses and those of their escort fleet makes them practically immune from almost any conventional attack-- missiles? They get shot down or stopped by the armor. Torpedos? Hull armor too thick or the ship is defended by this 'supercavitating CIWS' stuff or the thing I posted in this thread. Guns? Only the guns of another SD can penetrate. Bombs? The SD has plenty of AA and it's own escort fleet.

In the last thread on the subject, you suggested such obviously ridiculous things as BOARDING one.

Given a lack of conventional solutions, it logically follows that one must use an unconventional strategy.


Again, whether one should or shouldn't conduct an act of foolishness is up to himself, though you can't be lazy and at the same time expecting satisfactory results.


Why does my unwillingness to waste large quantities of men and equipment and money in something that's a zero-sum game count as me being lazy and an act of foolishness? I'm no genius, Omz-- I can only work with what I have. This solution prevents anyone ever using super dreadnaughts against me or my allies for fear of a nuclear holocaust. Since they're so difficult to deal with, I view them as strategic weapons and treat them appropriately.



There has been evidently a huge debate before regarding this - but the bottom line is, nuking the SD is far less advantageous than bringing the SD into the theatre anyways, considering that SDs are much more widely accepted by different NS nations as a "first strike" or "first use" weapon system (than nukes) and would be widely used in a range of conflicts (and thus are fairly conventional and would not stir up a lot of anger and outrage like nukes would), whereas nukes aren't since they would drag along a whole array of short/long-term complications even when the opposing side does not strategic-nuke you back.

Except by viewing superdreadnaughts as a strategic weapon and responding accordingly, you drag them into the entire nuclear weapon ballgame. What other nations accept is irrelevant to me-- it is how -I- treat them that is important in this case.

It all comes down to a big game of chicken: how far are you willing to push to see if I'll back up what I've said or not? Can you take the risk of total nuclear holocaust? Are you willing to gamble the lives of your citizens and those in countless other nations just to use an SD?

These questions are those that will occupy the minds of the military planners of a nation that uses SDs.

If you don't wish to face these questions, perhaps you should reconsider your choice of a force projection platform that's virtually immune to conventional weapons.

I personally can handle super dreadnaughts WITHOUT nuclear weapons due to a few different technologies I maintain as a postmodern nation. However, not everyone accepts these technologies, thus I maintain the nuclear policy. It's a policy that will work for any nation, old or young, big or small.

It doesn't matter if you have ideals about war. It doesn't matter if you complain about a strategy you see as dangerous and dirty and underhanded. That's what war is like.

Because it's all useless if you can't win. By making a simple statement I have rendered your SDs useless because by using them against me or one of my allies, you risk a nuclear holocaust. By dragging SDs into the nuclear playing field, I have pointed guns at EVERYONE'S heads and forced them to point guns at mine. If one person pulls the trigger, we all do and we all die.

It may be selfish to declare "If I can't win, you all lose". Well, selfishness is human nature.

Let's look at this a bit further out, from atop the fourth wall.

At the base, most superdreadnaught users use them because they're really cool! And it sucks to not be able to use something you think is cool. It's like having your favorite toy taken away from you and locked in a glass cupboard, where you can look at it all the time, but never take it out and play with it.

Well, for the rest of us, dealing with a nigh-invincible metal behemoth isn't fun. It's not any fun being at the barrel end of the gun, Omz.

Welcome to a level playing field.

Enjoy your stay.

But is the usage of nukes against ships in a first strike sanctioned nearly as well as the usage of superdreadnaught? Judge on your own, but I think that the facts speak for themselves. Even if it does not result in a full strategic-nuke scenario, nukes are going to escalate the conflict (far, far, more than SDs) for the simple reasons that a) it would spawn further use of nuclear weapons, which will gradually expand into a full strategic-nuke war and b) the usage of nukes as a first strike against someone's SD will evidently draw much less support than SDs, considering how SDs are so much more popular and would be used in offensive operations as if it is a commonplace occurance (where nukes aren't, thus generating a far angrier response against you).

These questions are those that will occupy the minds of the military planners of a nation that uses SDs.
Yes, and they'll also occupy the minds of YOUR military planners when you decide to launch that nuke. Just because we "escalated" it by using a superdreadnought doesn't actually mean to say you should escalate it the next step.


If you don't wish to face these questions, perhaps you should reconsider your choice of a force projection platform that's virtually immune to conventional weapons.
Not immune at all. Just hard to destroy.


It doesn't matter if you complain about a strategy you see as dangerous and dirty and underhanded. That's what war is like.
I have nine big SDs and fourteen small SDs and I'm willing to use them. That's what war is like.


By making a simple statement I have rendered your SDs useless because by using them against me or one of my allies, you risk a nuclear holocaust.

By deciding on this idiotic policy, YOU have risked a nuclear holocaust.


By dragging SDs into the nuclear playing field, I have pointed guns at EVERYONE'S heads and forced them to point guns at mine. If one person pulls the trigger, we all do and we all die.


Well, for the rest of us, dealing with a nigh-invincible metal behemoth isn't fun. It's not any fun being at the barrel end of the gun, Omz.
Because clearly winning is the only thing fun in Nationstates.


Welcome to a level playing field.
Because ALL wars in history where level playing fields. Wait, no they weren't. I see to remember alot of wars being about larger nations with bigger militaries invading smaller nations with smaller militaries. Must just be me.

AN - Just build your own bloody superdreadnaughts if you're so afriad of them, and stop making (on average) a thread / month moaning about them. It's starting to get old.

In the last thread on the subject, you suggested such obviously ridiculous things as BOARDING one.
Urm... I was arguing against it, not supporting it.

I'm no genius, Omz-- I can only work with what I have.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out solutions. It only takes some effort. Effort.

Welcome to a level playing field, and enjoy your stay - everything will have its own consequences. Just that nuking a SD will be far less advantageous for the attacker - for the very simple reason that the usage of SDs are taken much more for granted than nukes, no matter whether you really care about that fact or not. Nations are more likely to deploy SDs that some other people would nuke a SD, so what's the point of enforcing such deterrence policy when you can just as easily defeat a SD using conventional tactics, without resorting to this "we all die" alternative? I won't argue further since the facts are already too obvious.

It is not the lack of alternatives - it's the lack of initiative that makes people unwilling to confront reality. Did the Germans whine about the Dreadnought? No. Did the Soviets, the Chinese, and whatever potential adversaries of the US whine about American nuclear aircraft carriers? No. Did the British whine about the U-Boats? No. They developed countermeasures. They developed ways to counter that just as effectively. The Soviets or the Chinese didn't just nuke the US as a result, did they?

Again, if you really want to nuke SDs and at the same time complain so much about them, that's your choice, not mine. But also be prepared to confront the reality when conducting such foolishness - it won't be pretty.

I had this as a main defence in my Oured-class SSN for about a month now. Mac asked about it but I never got back to him, now that I think about it. Phoenixius, since I already have the tech, you want it? I am sure we could work something out.

Before you know it people will be jumping on HMP Drives....(Which I have since I was 300 million men strong).

Truitt: Sure, though as its a RL tech I suppose I could always do it myself. And by HMP, you mean the silent 'catapiller' drives yeah? I've had those for ages too.

Cattipelar (Spel?)?

How about magnets forced electrons in the water to move behind or beside it.....yeah, few use it.

Though, I still don't see the "offensive weaknesses" in SDs when you consider that 30 inchers aren't their only armament. There are also missiles, aircraft, and secondary guns too.Okay, you can give them useful armament, but they're still less effective than several smaller ships.
There would be weak spots, but they wouldnt help you much / at all because they would be protected by another layer of armour behind, whose weak spot would be protected by the first layer... etc.From the text you quoted:How do you mount several layers of armor without making them practically one thick piece or making weak points in the design?You only have a few seconds to move even if you detected the firing and knew exactly where the shells were going to land and which ship they were being fired against... which you wont... And even that wouldnt help you if I fireh, say, more than one shell at a time.Only a few seconds? I could have more than half a minute if you're shooting from a long range (and again, an SD will never be able to get close up). I can also have more than one ship at a time make evasive maneuvers, while your huge guns will have a low ROF.You can make missiles guided, so you can make a shell guided (especially so as you dont need to carry propellant). It will take up space, yesI know you can make guided shells -- they're actually one of my military's unusual advantages (and they do carry some propellant). Making a huge hypersonic shell will be more difficult.Explain to me how they manage to overcome the inertia of an object weighing several thousand (or, if an SD is firing at it, more likely several tens of thousands - hundreds of thousands) of tonnes with only a few seconds of reaction time and I'll ceade the point.The same way ships IRL do?Before you know it people will be jumping on HMP Drives....What's HMP stand for? "Caterpillar drive" is magnetohydrodynamic drive (MHD), which produces lots of gases and is noisy.

Okay, you can give them useful armament, but they're still less effective than several smaller ships.
Again, depending on what role they engage in. As a close-in shore bombardment and fire support vessel (the kind you would send a few miles away from shores)? Definitely not. As a dedicated air defence vessel? Definitely not. As the centerpiece of a medium-sized rapid reaction force? Definitely not. As a command vessel that bears tremendous firepower? Absolutely!

Again, depending on what role they engage in. As a close-in shore bombardment and fire support vessel (the kind you would send a few miles away from shores)? Definitely not. As a dedicated air defence vessel? Definitely not. As the centerpiece of a medium-sized rapid reaction force? Definitely not. As a command vessel that bears tremendous firepower? Absolutely!I think at this point the debate has boiled down to "SDs are too vulnerable to do anything effectively" and "SDs are tough and thus good for certain jobs". Shall we agree to disagree now?

From the text you quoted:
...you might want to read my post again.

Only a few seconds? I could have more than half a minute if you're shooting from a long range
Few seconds, half a minute... doesnt make any difference since you cant manoeuver to any useful degree in that amount of time. You also must consider that if you're RPing with any semblence of reality, you arent going to detect something as small as a shell on radar as soon as it leaves the barrel, and then instantly calculate its velocity to work out which ship its aiming for... it's much more likely that you wont detect it until it's extremely close and then by the time you've worked out where it's going to hit the ship in question will only have 5 or so seconds of reaction time, which isnt anywhere near enough.

(and again, an SD will never be able to get close up).
Assuming Im not using FT-style (EDIT: Freethinkers, not Future Tech) "gun fired missiles", and again, you assume that the primary purpose of an SD's guns is to engage ships, which it really isnt... but that's somewhat besides the point.

I can also have more than one ship at a time make evasive maneuvers,
Quite so, but since Im only aiming at one of them...

while your huge guns will have a low ROF.
Believe it or not, my SDs mount more than 1 gun...

I know you can make guided shells -- they're actually one of my military's unusual advantages (and they do carry some propellant). Making a huge hypersonic shell will be more difficult.
Unusual? They're used in RL :S. And shells arent generally hypersonic, not unless you attach some kind of engine anyway.

The same way ships IRL do?
Errmm... they dont...

Nianacio, if you've got time for this, I can imagine there's only one way to settle this conflict. "wargames". Eg, a Nianacian carrier battle group against a Hogsweatian Dreadnought Battle Group, roughly equal displacement.

...you might want to read my post again.You said you'd protect the weak points. You didn't say how your rigidly attached sheets of metal will be less rigid than if they were one big sheet while not leaving weak points in the design.
Few seconds, half a minute... doesnt make any difference since you cant manoeuver to any useful degree in that amount of time. You also must consider that if you're RPing with any semblence of reality, you arent going to detect something as small as a shell on radar as soon as it leaves the barrel, and then instantly calculate its velocity to work out which ship its aiming for... it's much more likely that you wont detect it until it's extremely close and then by the time you've worked out where it's going to hit the ship in question will only have 5 or so seconds of reaction time, which isnt anywhere near enough.If I suspect my ships are endangered by a broadside of dumb shells, they won't keep going in a straight line until they figure out exactly which ones are in danger. They'll all be making radical and unpredictable course changes (Well...The carriers might have trouble with that.). By the time the shells land (if they've been launched from long range), each ship could be anywhere in a teardrop-shaped(?) area more than 1,500 feet long. Also, I don't know about your guns, but FT's were/are powerful enough to be detected by seismic sensors.
Assuming Im not using FT-style (EDIT: Freethinkers, not Future Tech) "gun fired missiles"No, I'm not going to let naval ships get even close enough to use FT-style guns.
Unusual? They're used in RL :S.Yeah, but how many nations in NS use them for anything other than artillery?
And shells arent generally hypersonic, not unless you attach some kind of engine anyway.I think the Freethinkers's shells had a MV of Mach 5-7ish. Are you using low-MV and -ME short-range guns?
Errmm... they dont...How long does it take a ship to start turning from the moment it starts to swing its rudder?
Nianacio, if you've got time for this, I can imagine there's only one way to settle this conflict. "wargames". Eg, a Nianacian carrier battle group against a Hogsweatian Dreadnought Battle Group, roughly equal displacement.Three questions: One: Would this be using the typical theory that lotsa armor = practically invincible, or mine that lotsa armor = "Oops, our armor just fell into the water"? Two: Do I get to drop things out of space shuttles? Even out at sea my military arms can to a small extent support each other. Three: Exactly when would this take place? I'm guessing 2030 or beyond.

I myself are 2035, and this applies to teh fact that only the iowa had her armour like that, most BBs were layered and did have substantial defences against this. So, it may or it may not happen.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about shuttles though.

and did have substantial defences against this.They did? Like what? I know many others had smaller, thinner, or multi-piece belts, but I'm not aware of any particular deliberate efforts to prevent that. :\
I'm not quite sure what you mean about shuttles though.If I can drop a KE bomb from a space shuttle, I have a guaranteed SD kill. Am I allowed to do that?

You said you'd protect the weak points. You didn't say how your rigidly attached sheets of metal will be less rigid than if they were one big sheet while not leaving weak points in the design.
Well I imagine in exactly the same way as you said the Yamato's scheme did as you said in your own post. :rolleyes:

If I suspect my ships are endangered by a broadside of dumb shells, they won't keep going in a straight line until they figure out exactly which ones are in danger.
Idea: Read my entire post, dont pick up on one thing and attack it, and then say you attacked the entire thing.

Few seconds, half a minute... doesnt make any difference since you cant manoeuver to any useful degree in that amount of time. You also must consider that if you're RPing with any semblence of reality, you arent going to detect something as small as a shell on radar as soon as it leaves the barrel, and then instantly calculate its velocity to work out which ship its aiming for... it's much more likely that you wont detect it until it's extremely close and then by the time you've worked out where it's going to hit the ship in question will only have 5 or so seconds of reaction time, which isnt anywhere near enough.

Unless you have ZOMFG TEH UBAR RADR you wont be able to detect the shells until they're way too close for you to do anything about it, especially with intertia being such as it is and your battleships + carriers being as big and weighty as they are.

They'll all be making radical and unpredictable course changes (Well...The carriers might have trouble with that.).
Excellent. Your fleet just lost formation and cohesion. I dont even need to hit anything to screw up your entire fleet, and in the meantime as one ship is randomly moving away from a shell, another is randomly moving closer to the blast point. But...

By the time the shells land (if they've been launched from long range), each ship could be anywhere in a teardrop-shaped(?) area more than 1,500 feet long.
Well actually they couldnt, because you only have a few seconds to change the course and speed of an object weighing several tens of thousands of tonnes (more likely in the hundreds of thousands) already moving at quite considerable speed relative to its mass.

Also, I don't know about your guns, but FT's were/are powerful enough to be detected by seismic sensors.
I cant say I know anything about that, but I seriously doubt that a seismic sensor on a ship would be able to pick up a gun blast 100+ miles away.

No, I'm not going to let naval ships get even close enough to use FT-style guns.
You mean you arent going to let me get within 900km? Care to tell me how, because I'd really love to know how to be so confident about keeping an opponent that far away from my fleets. In reality, of course, since you use "small and manoeuverable ships", if I tried to close to regular gunnery range (which I wouldnt, but that's somewhat besides the point) you would be able to fire anything heavy enough to stop me.

Yeah, but how many nations in NS use them for anything other than artillery?
What else fires shells :/ but whatever, this is a bit irrelevent.

I think the Freethinkers's shells had a MV of Mach 5-7ish. Are you using low-MV and -ME short-range guns?
Yeah that's because FT put SCRAMjet rocket engines on his shells (nothing to do with the guns). I use these as well, but not as a matter of course. If you're interested, look up some muzzle velocities of RL weapons.

How long does it take a ship to start turning from the moment it starts to swing its rudder?
Quite a while (especially considering you have 30 seconds if you insta-detect the shots and automatically know where they're going, which you dont) and even more so if that ship happens to be an aircraft carrier or a battleship. Read up on actual warships in RL rather than just asserting what you think probably ought to happen.

Well I imagine in exactly the same way as you said the Yamato's scheme did as you said in your own post. :rolleyes:No, not as I said in my own post. I specifically said that design had weak points. You have to choose weak points that I'll exploit, or your armor falling into the water. Which is it?
Excellent. Your fleet just lost formation and cohesion. I dont even need to hit anything to screw up your entire fleet, and in the meantime as one ship is randomly moving away from a shell, another is randomly moving closer to the blast point. But...Ships can move together, but you won't know what direction they're moving together in. I also think you're overestimating the value of formations, but then I could be underestimating their value.
Well actually they couldnt, because you only have a few seconds to change the course and speed of an object weighing several tens of thousands of tonnes (more likely in the hundreds of thousands) already moving at quite considerable speed relative to its mass.Sorry, I missed some of the quote. It doesn't matter what'll happen when I have only a few seconds of warning, though, because I'll have much more.
I cant say I know anything about that, but I seriously doubt that a seismic sensor on a ship would be able to pick up a gun blast 100+ miles away.It doesn't have to be on a ship. These 'superguns' are detected as major seismic events. All I need is an automated warning system and officers who don't assume there's an earthquake a few hundred miles in front of the fleet.
Care to tell me how, because I'd really love to know how to be so confident about keeping an opponent that far away from my fleets.Just turn your ships around and move away from the enemy.
What else fires shells :/ but whatever, this is a bit irrelevent.LOS cannon in aircraft, tanks, ships, IFVs, et cetera.
Yeah that's because FT put SCRAMjet rocket engines on his shells (nothing to do with the guns). I use these as well, but not as a matter of course. If you're interested, look up some muzzle velocities of RL weapons.I did. The Mach 5-7 MV range I got was what the guns FT copied achieved without scramjets.
Quite a while (especially considering you have 30 seconds if you insta-detect the shots and automatically know where they're going, which you dont) and even more so if that ship happens to be an aircraft carrier or a battleship. Read up on actual warships in RL rather than just asserting what you think probably ought to happen.So you don't have any numbers or facts to back you up? <--- Bah, that didn't come out right, sorry. I'll leave it there in case you're already replying.

No, not as I said in my own post. I specifically said that design had weak points. You have to choose weak points that I'll exploit, or your armor falling into the water. Which is it?
Well actually you cant exploit the weak spots because you wont be able to see them, and they'll only be "weak" compared to the rest of the armour, which doesnt really mean anything. ATM, I dont see any proof at all that this effect happens, so I wont RP it.

Ships can move together, but you won't know what direction they're moving together in.
So ships moving in a random radial pattern... together. Right. Well if that is actually possible (which im not really convinced of) it now means that you need to get a whole fleet out of my firing line, not just one ship as you did originally. Oh, and you have 30 seconds.

I also think you're overestimating the value of formations, but then I could be underestimating their value.
Formations are what allow the capital ships to have uniform AAW and ASW protection, as well as early warning of threats. They're very important.

Sorry, I missed some of the quote. It doesn't matter what'll happen when I have only a few seconds of warning, though, because I'll have much more.
No you wont. You have a few seconds, if you auto-detect everything (ZOMFGWTFBBQLOL!) and insta-calculate direction, which you cant.

It doesn't have to be on a ship. These 'superguns' are detected as major seismic events. All I need is an automated warning system and officers who don't assume there's an earthquake a few hundred miles in front of the fleet.
Evidence? I believe that the explosives detonated at Pachendael (sp) Ridge registered as a very small earthquake on seismometers only around 50 miles away in London. The charges that fire a 25" shell are much smaller.

Just turn your ships around and move away from the enemy.
Ok... so you're suggesting that if my battlefleets were moving towards your mainland with an invasion fleet, you would order your ships to sit uselessly out of the way? Right.

LOS cannon in aircraft, tanks, ships, IFVs, et cetera.
...a guided 30mm shell? Do you realise how little space that would leave for anything resembling a long rod penetrator, or explosive?

I did. The Mach 5-7 MV range I got was what the guns FT copied achieved without scramjets.
Then it has no basis in reality and so (with all respect to FT) the fact that FT said it doesnt in itself make it true.

So you don't have any numbers or facts to back you up?
The Yamato had a turning circle of 640m. At its maximum speed it could cover this in 46 seconds. YOur aircraft carriers will undoubtably be bigger, and almost certainly wont be going at maximum speed when I begin firing. You should also note that 640m is not particularly far, especially considering that at that range such large shells can still inflict heavy damage, again especially considering that Im firing a spread of shells and not just one. You can try to evade, but you cant get far enough away in a short enough amount of time, and in a dense formation like a fleet you're jsut as likely to sail into the shells as you are to sail away from them, and if you co-ordinate your evasive manoeuvers to retain formation, they cant possibly be random.

Well actually you cant exploit the weak spots because you wont be able to see them, and they'll only be "weak" compared to the rest of the armour, which doesnt really mean anything. ATM, I dont see any proof at all that this effect happens, so I wont RP it.You still didn't answer the questions, though.
So ships moving in a random radial pattern... together. Right. Well if that is actually possible (which im not really convinced of) it now means that you need to get a whole fleet out of my firing line, not just one ship as you did originally. Oh, and you have 30 seconds.Sure, they can move together. All they have to do is all turn the rudder/pod the same randomly chosen amount in the same randomly chosen direction.
Formations are what allow the capital ships to have uniform AAW and ASW protection, as well as early warning of threats. They're very important.A gap in the AAW coverage of a few kilometers at most won't matter much when the missiles have a range of hundreds of kilometers. Similarly, a sub isn't going to suddenly sneak in.
Evidence? I believe that the explosives detonated at Pachendael (sp) Ridge registered as a very small earthquake on seismometers only around 50 miles away in London. The charges that fire a 25" shell are much smaller.http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:V-GF6eEorXMJ:www.astronautix.com/lvs/babongun.htm+babylon+gun+seismic&hl=en
Ok... so you're suggesting that if my battlefleets were moving towards your mainland with an invasion fleet, you would order your ships to sit uselessly out of the way? Right.You're shifting the goalposts, and no. What I'd do is take out your SDs before they got within gun range, then take out the rest of the ships conventionally.
...a guided 30mm shell? Do you realise how little space that would leave for anything resembling a long rod penetrator, or explosive?I don't use guided shells smaller than 60mm, and that's from a RL system that didn't enter service, so yes, it's possible.
Then it has no basis in reality and so (with all respect to FT) the fact that FT said it doesnt in itself make it true.No, the REAL guns FT based his on. Based on what he posted, I found the MVs on my own.
The Yamato had a turning circle of 640m.Diameter, radius, or circumference?
YOur aircraft carriers will undoubtably be biggerAnd faster.
at that range such large shells can still inflict heavy damageProof?

Why is everyone up in arms about a Mutualy Assured Destruction policy? It worked during the cold war. The simple fact of the matter is, is that you risk MAD if you respond to a tacnuke threat with strategic nukeing of a said nations homeland. Your same arguments about the goodness of SDs could be turned around and be said about Nukes.

I try and keep nukes out of conflicts as well as SDs as both tend to ruin them both. But if one must bring it in, I will nuke it. It is a part of my policy. You bring in a bigger ship, I bring in a bigger bomb.