NationStates Jolt Archive

Due to a newly signed naval expansion bill the Tarlag navy is now accepting bids for twelve new construction Battle cruisers to augment the 4 aging Alaska class ships we currently have in service.
The following minimum specifications are to be met.
length:850 ft (an upper limit of 1500ft will be set do to the size of our military dry docks.)
Speed:32 knots
Power: nuclear ( Tarlag's Grendel type 5 reactors will be provided, these are the same type reactors that power our Island class carriers.)
Armor: any modern type able to withstand a direct hit by an exercet II missile strike on side impact. The armor must also be able to withstand a plunging strike by either a 2000 pound aerial bomb or modern 12 inch shell.
Main Guns: 9x12 inch guns minimum. The ship will also be required to have at least 24 box or vertical box launchers for anti ship missiles.
Secondary weapons: 8x5.54 inch rapid fire duel porpoise guns in twin mounted turrets. mounts for both anti-air craft missiles and guns to be installed after delivery.
Torpedo tubes: Four under water tubes are to be installed. they must be able to handle the the Tarlag Sea Sword torpedo (similar in size to the U.S. mark 48.)
Radar and sonar: the ship must be able to handle Aegis II or better type systems. For sonar the Tarlag produced Crystal Ball active and Deep Blue passive towed array will be provided.
Installation of a command CIC will also be required due to the fact these ships will be acting as squadron command ships.
Price: must come in under 15 billion Grots per unit.

Thank You
Commodore Anton Dever-Smithe

Laksevag Naval Shipyards are proud to present...

The Tiger class Battlecruiser! (http://www.warship.get.net.pl/WBrytania/Battleships/1946_Vanguard_class/Vanguard_11.jpg)


The Tiger class symbolize the peak of Cottish naval designs. This vessel is to be a smaller vessel to supplement our Ragnarok class battleships, and is therefore equipped with advanced weapons and electronics.


The Tiger class is 263 meters, or 862.8 feet long, has a beam of 33.2 meters (108.9 feet) and a draft of 9.3 meters (30.5 feet). This gives more than enough room for the weaponry and spacious living quarters for the 92 officers and 942 enlisted personell. There are also enough room for up to 40 marines to be quartered comfortably. The total displacement when fully combat loaded for the Tiger class is at roughly 54 000 metric tonnes.


The Cottish versions of the Tiger class is propelled by two CNE-68 fission reactors, which generate a total of 180,000 shaft horsepower, or 134 megawatts of power. This is sufficient to propell the Tiger class up to speeds of 41 knots, although we do not recommend this speed for sustained periods of time. Instead, we recommend that the maximum speed used for sustained periods of time to be around 35 knots. The time between refuelling for the CNE-68 is around fifty years.


The armament of the Tiger class is one which can instill fear in even the bravest captains heart. The Tiger class boasts a main armament of no less than eight fourteen-inch (355.6 mm)/60 caliber cannons mounted in dual turrets in the A, B, X and Y positions. Secondary armament consist of sixteen dual-mounted five-inch (127 mm)/54 caliber cannons which can be used for both anti-aircraft and anti-surface warfare. Additionally, the Tiger class has a total of three Mk-141 quad launchers for Harpoon (or equivalent) missiles, as well as a total of fourty Mark-51 Vertical Launch cells mounted along the sides of the vessel, with twenty cells on each side of the ship. These cells are modular, and the loadout depends completely on the owner. There are in addition to the Mk-141s and Mk-51s a total of two Mk-155 Armoured Box Launchers with room for four cruise missiles each. There are also four 533 mm torpedo tubes below the waterline, and holdings for up to 32 torpedoes.

For self-defense purposes, the Tiger class have a total of three Mk-99 CWIS systems, each with a total of 6 000 shells of the 30 mm caliber. Additionally, the Tiger class have three Mk-31 launchers with 21 cells for the RIM-116C Rolling Airframe Missile, giving a total of 63 RAM missiles.


The armor scheme for the Tiger class is a mix of titanium, depleted uranium, a very thin layer of tungsten, steel and kevlar in a elaborate scheme. This gives for a very resistant armor which has a RHA equivalent of one to six, meaning that one centimeter of the armor scheme used is the same as six centimeters of steel. The coverage is fifteen centimeters around the hull with twenty-six centimeters around the magazines, bridge, nuclear reactors and deck. The inside of the ship is divided into a total of twenty water-tight sections, and the steel walls give added structural integrity. This should make the Tiger class able to withstand anti-shipping missiles, provided naturally that they make it throught the defenses.


Combat systems used in the Tiger class include data uplink, fittings for AEGIS-type radar suites, hull-mounted sonar, fittings for towed sonar array, advanced Prarie/Masker evasion systems and fittings for the AN/SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo countermeasure. There are also SBROC II chaff systems for fooling incoming missiles.


Command features are available for the Tiger class, with a large CIC deep inside the Tiger class fitted with the latest in technology. The entirety of the Tiger class is digitalized, and fiber-optic cables cross throughout the vessel, allowing for quick transfer of information. The Tiger class is also fitted with a constant satellite uplink and communications systems, allowing it to be constantly connected with the rest of the navy.


The price is perhaps the heftiest part of the Tiger class, as it has a going price of $3.9 billion per vessel. However, the features makes the Tiger class well worth the cost. We are naturally willing to let the Tarlagian navy replace the Cottish equipment with their own national products should they choose to do so. We await your verdict.


This offer has been checked and approved by the Ministry of Defense.

To: Cotland

Thank You for your submission to our bidding process. we are awaiting other in coming bids before we decide on the type we will be buying.
Tarlag would be interested is seeing the stats. on the Ragnorok class battleship. We may be interested in buying three to seven of this class over the next three years.
The Tarlag Navy is currently interested in in expanding its use of capital ships beyond its carriers and aging battle cruisers. So not only are we interested in purchasing capital ships but acquiring the technology to build our own.

bump

The Kingdom of Philthealbino

Telegram to The Grand Duchy of Tarlag

From:
HRH Highness King Harry
Prime Minister
Ministry of Trade
Ministry of Defence

We would like to offer to build replacement carrier ships with our King Carrier range.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/CVF.png)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cvf-bae-blocks.jpg)

The vessels will displace approximately 60,000 tonnes and field an air wing of around 42 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

The design features two small island structures, as opposed to the large single island of the Nimitz class, and two deck lifts. These will operate in the Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) role. The carrier will initially be fitted with a ski-jump but will be fully convertible to the Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) role. This will allow a second generation of aircraft to operate from the vessels after the expected 20 year service life of the F-35.

The vessels are expected to be capable of carrying 30 F-35s (36 maximium if the six support/anti-submarine helicopters are not carried), four airborne-early-warning (AEW) aircraft and six support/anti-submarine helicopters, for example the AgustaWestland EH101. The AEW component is known as MASC, and current expectations are that this will be an EH101 airframe with the systems from the current generation of SeaKing AEW.

The crew will be about 600, indicating the high level of automation being integrated into the ships' systems. Accommodation for 1400 will be available.

The carrier's propulsion system will be Integrated Full Electric Propulsion (IFEP) with the main candidates the WR-21 advanced cycle gas turbine engines or the Marine Trent WT-30 36 Mw gas turbine generator units

The current design places one gas turbine generator unit under each island in the starboard sponson, on 4deck. The unrefuelled range of the carrier will be 10,000nm.

We estimate the ships to cost 3billion Sterlings each and will take around 4-7 years to build.

The aircraft although not included in the price can be added for an extra 1.5 million each.

We will however allow for the Tarlagians to replace technology with your own and we will provide the building plans.

We await your reply and your ultimate descision.

Signed

HRH King Harry
PM John Smith
Foreign Minister Lucy Powell
Trade Minister Adrian Woods

To: Philthealbino Ministry of Trade
From: Tarlag Ministry of Defense

Thank you for the submission for a heavy carrier. Unfortunately weare not looking to replace any of our carrier units (we can and due produce these types locally.) We would be more then willing to look at any large type surface type combat ships of the BB,BC,CA classes.
What we would like in tec. is heavy guns and moderen armor.

bump

Please visit the Portland Iron Works (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404832) for your naval needs. We may have some designs that fit your specifications.

Some possible contributions from CSJMI include modifications of the following designs:

Toryu Class BB Flight IID (slightly downgraded Flight IIC)
Displacement: 92,600 tons
Length: 300m
Beam: 39.2m
Draft: 11.7m
Speed: 34 knots
Range: 5000 nm @ 33 knots, 16,000 nm @ 17 knots, 21,000 nm @ 15 knots
Armament: 3x3 16”/59 Cal Mk.2, 6xTwin 5”/62 cal Mk.2, 24xShinma (6 Quad launchers), 256 Cells VLS (NADSAM, ESSM, Naginata, Shinma, NTACMS), 24xFirebolt (6 Quad launchers), 32xCrossbolt (angled VLS), 1xAMFEL III, 6x21 round launcher (RIM-242 PDM), 8xDragon CIWS, 6x25mm Bushmaster, 18x12.7mm
Ammunition: 1530x16”, 9000x5”
Aircraft: 6xSH-60B/F/R Seahawk, 8xUAV
Countermeasures: 2xMk.36 Mod 3 SRBOC (6-round, radar & IR), SLQ-25C Nixie (acoustic)
Radars: AN/SPS-82(V)5 long-range 3D air search, AN/SPY-4A multifunction (5 arrays), AN/SPS-55C(V)4 Surface Search, AN/SPS-72 Navigation, 5xAN/SPG-77B(V)3 Fire Control, 3xAN/SPQ-19 Fire Control (gun), 6xAN/SPQ-12A(V)2 Fire Control (gun)
Sonars: AN/SQS-58D hull-mounted
Integrated Systems: CIRRUS Mk.1A Air Defense System, AN/SQQ-94(V)2 ASW Combat, AN/SLQ-212 EW Suite
Radar Range: 600 km (SPS-82), 85 km (SPS-55), 125 km (SPS-72), 150 km (SPQ-19), 75 km (SPQ-12)
Armor: 12-22.5” Belt, 14” Deck, 26.5” Turret Face, 15” Turret Side, 23” Conning Tower
Crew: 1692 + provisions for 800 transients (1008 surge)
A large battleship intended to counter the frequently encountered Soyuz, Iowa, and Montana mods, and one of the most capable vessels in its class. This ship is actually almost completely protected against fire from an Iowa's 16" guns, and its 16"/56 cal Mk.2 guns provide greater range, rate of fire, and penetration compared to the standard weapons used by many contemporaries. Additionally, the use of guns of this size on such a large hull results in an impressive internal storage capacity, and these guns have some of the largest magazines found in any similar-sized weapon.
Cost: $6 billion


Zuiho Class BBG
Displacement: 63,270 tons
Length: 270m
Beam: 34m
Draft: 12.4m max
Speed: 35.2 knots
Armament: 9x14”/58 cal, 4xTwin 5”/62 cal, 96 cells VLS, 32xShinma (8 quad launchers), 24xFirebolt (12 twin launchers), 24xCrossbolt (angled VLS), 1xAMFEL II, 4x21 round box launcher (RIM-242 PDM), 6xDragon CIWS, 4x25mm Bushmaster low-angle, 12x12.7mm
Ammunition: 1350x14”, 5600x5”
Typical VLS Load: 42xNADSAM MR, 24xESSM, 32xNaginata/TACMS, 16xNASM
Aircraft: 4xMH-60R Strikehawk, 4xUAV
Countermeasures: 2xMk.36 Mod 3 SRBOC (6-round, radar & IR), SLQ-25C Nixie (acoustic)
Radars: AN/SPS-82(V)5 long-range 3D air search, AN/SPY-4A multifunction (5 arrays), AN/SPS-55C(V)4 Surface Search, AN/SPS-72 Navigation, 5xAN/SPG-62 Fire Control, 3xAN/SPQ-19 Fire Control (gun), 6xAN/SPQ-12A(V)2 Fire Control (gun)
Sonars: AN/SQS-58D hull-mounted
Integrated Systems: CIRRUS Mk.1A Air Defense System, AN/SQQ-94(V)2 ASW Combat, AN/SLQ-212 EW Suite
Radar Range: 600 km (SPS-82), 85 km (SPS-55), 125 km (SPS-72), 150 km (SPQ-19), 75 km (SPQ-12)
Armor: 9-14” belt, 4-8” deck, 20” turret face, 10” turret sides, 17.5” conning tower
Crew: 1273 + 727 transient
A medium-sized battleship in the class of the US Iowa, designed as a cheaper alternative to the Toryu class. It still possesses excellent firepower, but is only 2/3 the weight and half the price. It is equipped with a version of the CIRRUS system, but radar limitations preclude the use of NADSAM ER missiles, though the 200 km raged MRs still provide excellent coverage.
Cost: $4.2 billion


Yubari Class BCG Flight IID
Displacement: 48,000 tons
Length: 225m
Beam: 30m
Draft: 10m
Speed: 36 knots
Range: 5000 nm @ 30 knots, 17,000 nm @ 15 knots
Armament: 3x3 12”/56 cal Mk.2, 4xTwin 5”/62 cal, 192 cells VLS, 16xCrossbolt (angled VLS), 24xShinma (6 quad launchers), 6xDragon CIWS, 4x21 round box launcher (RIM-242 PDM), 1xAMFEL II
Aircraft: 4xSH-60B/F/R Seahawk, 4xUAV
Countermeasures: 2xMk.122 Mod 2 CATNIP (8-round, radar & IR), 2xSLQ-33B Dixie (acoustic)
Radars: AN/SPS-82D(V)2 long-range 3D air search, AN/SPY-4B multifunction (4 arrays), AN/SPS-55C(V)3 Surface Search, AN/SPS-72(V)3 Navigation, 4xAN/SPG-77C(V)2 Fire Control, 3xAN/SPQ-19 Fire Control (gun), 4xAN/SPQ-12A(V)2 Fire Control (gun)
Sonars: AN/SQS-58C hull-mounted, AN/SQR-22(V)4 towed array
Integrated Systems: CIRRUS Mk.2A Air Defense System, AN/SQQ-94(V)2 ASW Combat, AN/SLQ-212D EW Suite
Radar Range: 640 km (SPS-82), 85 km (SPS-55), 125 km (SPS-72), 150 km (SPQ-19), 75 km (SPQ-12)
Armor: 8-14” belt, 2-8” deck, 16” turret face, 7” turret side, 15” conning tower
Crew: 1368 + 432 transient
A large battlecruise intended to provide a fast platform for naval fire support and bombardment. Though not quite a match for battleships in firepower, the 12" guns have a good rate of fire, and that can make up for the lack of power in individual rounds. Yubaris are designed to be able to accept all variants of the CIRRUS and AEGIS systems.
Cost: $3.95 billion



In all three units, we can replace our own electronics with your systems if desired, which would likely reduce the total contract price by a few billion, and if we have information reqarding the intended nuclear power plant, we can determine if an how it can be incorporated into the design.

Regarding bomb protection, all of these ships are protected against all but the most advanced penetrating warheads, and even many 2000 class penetrators will be ineffective. However, no ship can be designed to be immune to all such warheads, and there are those in existence that will work. Of course, that's the point of an air defense system, as these must be dropped from altitude, and at close range, to be effective. As for shells, the 8" deck armor should stop most modern 12" shells at ranges of around 20 nm (37 km), and possibly more depending on the specific systems being used.


We are, however, a bit curious on the secondary armament, however. Is this correct that you actually mean a 5.54" (140.7mm) gun, or was this simply a mistake in denoting the standard 5"/54 cal (127mm) naval gun? If the former, we will need those provided as well, as we do not construct any weapons in that caliber.

To:CSJMI
From:Tarlag naval engineering Center

In response to your questions concerning the Battle-cruiser bid.
The Grendel 5 reactor powers our Island and Midway II class carriers we would like to have them installed on the new class BC for ease of maintenance and ease of crew training. Each reactor provides 126,000 megawatts of power or about 150,000 shaft horse power. The Grendel is about 10 percent smaller then the A4W reactor of the Nimitz class carrier.
The 5.54 inch Rapid fire DP. gun is a locally produced weapon used on both our Fletcher class fast corvettes and our current class of BC's.
Both these systems will be provided upon construction.

To: Commodore Anton Dever-Smithe
From: Mr. Tristan Straussburg, Director of Engineering, Castle of the Galleys Shipwrights, Ltd., Kingdom of Listeneisse

Commodore,

Having read over your request, our designers came up with the following unique design, which we have named Humpback:

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/2112/battlecruiser14pj.jpg

Some features to note:
843' (257.25m)
3 triple main gun turrets
8 dual secondary turrets
24 VLS in foredeck
4 fore torpedo tubes
5 CIWS (port bow, starboard bow, port, starboard, aft). While not requested, we felt this was prudent addition.
Helipad on aft deck (another addition we felt might be important. There is a possibility for the aft deck to be able to elevate in case storage of the helicopter below deck was desired to avoid interference with aft main gun.
No bridge; observation deck in tower. Remote surveillance systems patched in to protected Combat Information Center and Navigation Center. Limits chance of death of bridge crew and steerage controls.
4 person (rated 500kg) elevator in tower helps with maintenance of mast array and allows quick access to observation deck below radome.
38' (11.58m) draft may present some challenge to certain port facilities. Dredging may be required. Yet this is shallower than a Nimitz-class carrier (draft 39 ft / 11.9m).

We hope this design meets with your needs. As you can see, we custom design ships to our client's needs.

We can go over more details of the ship's interior layout, armoring, displacement and other issues if this would be an acceptable design.

Full blueprints and plans are available if you contact us. We can also act as a contractor or subcontractor in the construction of such vessels.

Sincerely,

T. Strassburg

Mr. Tristan Straussburg
Director of Engineering
Castle of the Galleys Shipwrights, Ltd.
Kingdom of Listeneisse

Your Excellency,

Please be so kind as to inspect the vessels on offer by the Royal Shipyards of Isselmere-Nieland cited below.

Battleships
Treaty-class BBGN
Displacement: 226,367t (deep)
Dimensions: length 410m (oa); beam 52.9m; draught 16.7m.
Propulsion: 12-propulsor CONAG-IFEP; 5 pressurised water fission reactors (INNEC RA(PW)-6) and 4 gas turbines (IMW MTG-6), with 2 auxiliary diesel generators (IMW MED-31); 875MW + 128MW = 31.8+ kts.
Crew: 2,670 (+ vehicle crew, marines (143), staff (60)); can accommodate 3,500
Protection: (Main belt) 72-76.2cm; (Main turrets): 78.74cm (face)-61cm (back); (Main barbettes): 76.2cm; (Secondary barbettes): 13cm; (Main missile magazines): 36cm; (Hangar): 36cm; (Deck (key spaces)): 46cm; (Conning tower, CIC): 81.28cm; (Bulkheads): 10.2cm.
Compartmentalisation: Double-bottomed, reinforced keel, 52 transverse and 6 longitudinal bulkheads, 12 NBC citadels.
Weapons:
AAW: 4 x 8-cell GWLS.33 (p/s), 4 x GWLS.65 (f/a, p/s), 12 x GWLS.66M2 (2 p/s-fc, 8 p/s, 2 p/s-a), 10 x GWLS.68M2 (2 p/s-fc, 6 p/s-am., 2 p/s-a), 36 x NLG-30 (p/s)
ASuW: 9 x 560mm ETC guns (A, B, Y; 3 x 3 RAIN), 19 x 6-cell GWLS.39 (7 fc., 4-a-B turret, 4 p/s, 4-f-Y turret)
ASW: 4 x 3 324mm TT (p/s), 6 x 660mm TT (4 ff-am., 2 a), 9 x GWLS.60M2 (fc., 6 p/s, p/s-a)
GP: 2 x 128-cell GWLS.35 (f/a), 2 x 96-cell GWLS.35 (p/s), 26 x 4-cell GWLS.58M2 (2 fc., 12-am., 12-a), 24 x 130mm guns (p/s; 12 x 2 AK-130-MR-184)
MCM: 8 x RST (500 SCR/RST)
Vehicles:
4 Sea Fury FA.1 and 5 Merlin HM.1-sized helicopters, and 2 Parrot DES.1, 2 Rook DRA.1 UMAVs, 2 Seahorse DSA.1, 4 Squid DSM.1, 4 Tern DA.1; with the "beartrap" helicopter recovery system (aircraft hangared in fantail, submarine drones in hull davits; two elevators, four landing spots), and two lightweight EM catapults for drones (only if drones are purchased).
Electronics suite:
Computer complex: MEI.5 Muninn/MEI.4 Mimir (ISOMS)
Threat management systems: MEQ.181 NAIADS (anti-air), MEQ.185 SELKIE (anti-torpedo), MMX.193 MITRE (target recognition), MDQ.261 (signature self-detection)
Radars: MRU.113 Huginn/MRU.110c Raven (multifunction), MRS.118 Kafka/MRS.111c Jackdaw (air volume search), MRN.116 Beluga (navigation), MRS.164 Hofvarpnir (surface search), 6 x MRG.182 Balmung (secondary gun fire control), 3 x MRG.186 Gungnir (gunnery fire control).
Optronics: MPU.124 Adder (long range search and tracking), MPS.127 Owl (surface surveillance)
Combination radar/optronics: MMP.133 Tuesday (helicopter landing system), 16 x MMG.183 Gjallar (close range fire direction)
Sonars: MQU.134 Fenris (keel-mounted, LF), MQR.145 Herring (variable depth)
ECM/ESM: MLR.165 (radar/signals emissions receiver and direction finder), MLQ.177 (jammer), MLR.184 Nott (laser warning receiver and direction finder), MWD.199 (signals direction finder)
Communications: CSZ.17b Godi (Link 17.2; secure datalink), MUZ.121 Alvis (secure satellite communications system), 8 x MSP.123b Gna (Link 17.2D; secure drone control datalink), 4 x MSW.125b Ran (Link17.2G; secure missile guidance datalink) , 4 x GQZ.128b Dvalin (Link 17.2U; encrypted acoustic modem), MWZ.178 (secure communications system), MJZ.190 (laser communications transceiver), GSZ.196M (encrypted burst communications transceiver).
Countermeasures: 9 x MLQ.135 Mackerel (anti-torpedo), 10 x 16-cell MLE.140 MUSE (anti-missile).
Cost: $18,750 million USD
Production time: 8.25 years
Production capacity: 4 ships

Coronation-class BBGN
Displacement: 201,428t (deep)
Dimensions: length 386m (oa); beam 49.75m; draught 16.7m.
Propulsion: 10-propulsor CONAG-IFEP; 4 pressurised water fission reactors (INNEC RA(PW)-6) and 4 gas turbines (IMW MTG-6), with 2 auxiliary diesel generators (IMW MED-31); 700MW + 128MW = 32.4+ kts.
Crew: 2,274 (+ vehicle crew, marines (143), staff (60)); can accommodate 3,000
Protection: (Main belt) 66-71.12cm; (Main turrets): 76.2cm; (Main barbettes): 76.2cm; (Secondary barbettes): 13cm; (Main missile magazines): 35.56cm; (Hangar): 30.5cm; (Deck (key spaces)): 46cm; (Conning tower, CIC): 81.28cm; (Bulkheads): 10.2cm.
Compartmentalisation: Double-bottomed, reinforced keel, 44 transverse and 6 longitudinal bulkheads, 10 NBC citadels.
Weapons:
AAW: 6 x GWLS.65 (f/a, 4 p/s), 8 x GWLS.66M2 (p/s, 2 p/s-a), 8 x GWLS.68M2 (bow, 6 p/s-am., 2 p/s-a), 24 x NLG-30 (p/s)
ASuW: 9 x 560mm ETC guns (A, B, Y; 3 x 3 RAIN), 17 x 6-cell GWLS.39 (5 fc., 4-a-B turret, 4 p/s, 4-f-Y turret), 19 x 4-cell GWLS.58M2 (fc., 6-am., 12-a)
ASW: 2 x 3 324mm TT (p/s), 4 x 660mm TT (ff, am.), 7 x GWLS.60M2 (fc., 6 p/s)
GP: 4 x 96-cell GWLS.35 (f/a, p/s), 20 x 130mm guns (p/s; 10 x 2 AK-130-MR-184)
MCM: 6 x RST (500 SCR/RST)
Vehicles:
4 Merlin HM.1-sized helicopters, 2 Parrot DES.1, 2 Rook DRA.1, 2 Seahorse DSA.1, 4 Squid DSM.1, 4 x Tern DA.1; with the "beartrap" helicopter recovery system (aircraft hangared in fantail, submarine drones in hull davits; one elevator, one helicopter landing spot), and two lightweight EM catapults for Rooks or Terns (only if drones are purchased).
Electronics suite:
Computer complex: MEI.5 Muninn/MEI.4 Mimir (ISOMS)
Threat management systems: MEQ.181 NAIADS (anti-air), MEQ.185 SELKIE (anti-torpedo), MMX.193 MITRE (target recognition), MDQ.261 (signature self-detection)
Radars: MRU.113 Huginn/MRU.110c Raven (multifunction), MRS.118 Kafka/MRS.111c Jackdaw (air volume search), MRN.116 Beluga (navigation), MRS.164 Hofvarpnir (surface search), 4 x MRG.182 Balmung (secondary gun fire control), 3 x MRG.186 Gungnir (gunnery fire control).
Optronics: MPU.124 Adder (long range search and tracking), MPS.127 Owl (surface surveillance)
Combination radar/optronics: MMP.133 Tuesday (helicopter landing system), 12 x MMG.183 Gjallar (close range fire direction)
Sonars: MQU.134 Fenris (keel-mounted, LF), MQR.145 Herring (variable depth)
ECM/ESM: MLR.165 (radar/signals emissions receiver and direction finder), MLQ.177 (jammer), MLR.184 Nott (laser warning receiver and direction finder), MWD.199 (signals direction finder)
Communications: CSZ.17b Godi (Link 17.2; secure datalink), MUZ.121 Alvis (secure satellite communications system), 8 x MSP.123b Gna (Link 17.2D; secure drone control datalink), 4 x MSW.125b Ran (Link17.2G; secure missile guidance datalink) , 4 x GQZ.128b Dvalin (Link 17.2U; encrypted acoustic modem), MWZ.178 (secure communications system), MJZ.190 (laser communications transceiver), GSZ.196M (encrypted burst communications transceiver).
Countermeasures: 6 x MLQ.135 Mackerel (anti-torpedo), 10 x 16-cell MLE.140 MUSE (anti-missile).
Cost: $16,000 million USD
Production time: 8 years
Production capacity: 6 ships

Ocean-class BBGN (http://www.users.bigpond.com/kceg/artimages/battleship.jpg)
Displacement: 182,564t (deep)
Dimensions: length 368.2m (oa); beam 47.5m; draught 16.63m.
Propulsion: 8-propulsor CONAG-IFEP; 4 pressurised water fission reactors (INNEC RA(PW)-6) and 2 gas turbines (IMW MTG-6), with 2 auxiliary diesel generators (IMW MED-31); 700MW + 64MW = 33.6+ kts.
Crew: 1,760 (+ vehicle crew, marines (143), staff (60)); can accommodate 2,200
Protection: (Main belt) 76.2cm; (Main turrets): 78.74cm; (Main barbettes): 76.2cm; (Secondary barbettes): 13cm; (Main missile magazines): 35.6cm; (Hangar): 30.5cm; (Deck (key spaces)): 50.8cm; (Conning tower, CIC): 81.28cm; (Bulkheads): 10.2cm.
Compartmentalisation: Double-hulled, reinforced keel, with 40 transverse and 6 longitudinal bulkheads, 10 NBC citadels.
Weapons:
AAW: 6 x GWLS.65 (f/a, 4 p/s), 8 x GWLS.68M2 (f, 4 p/s-am., p/s-a, a), 6 x GWLS.66M2 (p/s), 20 x MLG-27 (p/s)
ASuW: 9 x 508mm ETC guns (A, B, Y; 3 x 3 RAIN), 13 x 6-cell GWLS.39 (5-fc., 2-a-B turret, 4 p/s, 2-f-Y turret), 17 x 4-cell GWLS.58M2 (fc., 2-a-B turret, 12 X position, 2-f-Y turret)
ASW: 2 x 3 324mm TT (p/s), 4 x 660mm TT (f-am.), 4 x 8-cell GWLS.60M2 (f/a, p/s).
GP: 2 x 64-cell GWLS.35 (f/a), 2 x 96-cell GWLS.35 (2 am.), 20 x 130mm guns (p/s; 10 x 2 AK-130-MR-184).
MCM: 6 x 20mm RST (500 SCR/RST).
Vehicles:
Capable of deploying and recovering 3 x Merlin HM.1-sized helicopters, 4 x Auk DHM.1, 2 x Rook DRA.1 UMAVs, 2 Seahorse DSA.1, 4 x Squid DSM.1, 4 x Tern DA.1 UCAVs; equipped with the "beartrap" helicopter recovery system (aircraft hangared in fantail, submarine drones in hull davits; one elevator, one helicopter landing spot), and two lightweight EM catapults for Rooks or Terns (only so equipped if drones are purchased).
Electronics suite:
Computer complex: MEI.5 Muninn/MEI.4 Mimir (ISOMS)
Threat management systems: MEQ.181 NAIADS (anti-air), MEQ.185 SELKIE (anti-torpedo), MMX.193 MITRE (target recognition), MDQ.261 (signature self-detection)
Radars: MRU.13 Huginn/MRU.110c Raven (multifunction), MRS.118 Kafka/MRS.111c Jackdaw (air volume search), MRN.116 Beluga (navigation), MRS.164 Hofvarpnir (surface search), 3 x MRG.186 Gungnir (gunnery fire control)
Optronics: MPU.124 Adder (long range multifunction), MPS.127 Owl (surface surveillance)
Combination radar/optronics: MMP.133 Tuesday (helicopter landing system), 12 x MMG.183 Gjallar (close range fire control)
Sonars: MQU.134 Fenris (keel-mounted, MF/LF), MQR.145 Herring (variable depth)
ECM/ESM: MLR.165 (radar/signals emissions receiver and direction finder), MLQ.177 (jammer), MLR.184 Nott (laser warning receiver and direction finder), MWD.199 (signals direction finder)
Communications: CSZ.17b Godi (Link 17.2; secure datalink), MUZ.121 Alvis (secure satellite communications system), 8 x MSP.123b Gna (Link 17.2D; secure drone control datalink), 2 x MSW.125b Ran (Link 17.2G; secure missile guidance datalink), 4 x GQZ.128b Dvalin (Link 17.2U; encrypted acoustic modem), MWZ.178 (secure communications system), MJZ.190 (laser communications transceiver), GSZ.196M (encrypted burst communications transceiver).
Countermeasures: 6 x MLQ.135 Mackerel (anti-torpedo), 8 x 16-cell MLE.140 MUSE (anti-missile).
Cost: $14,400 million USD
Production time: 7.25 years
Production capacity: 10 ships

Bastion-class BBGN (http://www.bismarck-class.dk/miscellaneous/illustrations_and_drawings/steve_nuttall/pictures/yamato/illustr_yamato_01.jpg)
Displacement: 122,146 t (deep)
Dimensions: length 325.6 m (oa); beam 42 m; draught 14.28 m.
Propulsion: 6-shaft CONAG-IFEP; 3 pressurised water fission reactors (INNEC RA(PW)-6) and 2 gas turbines (IMW MTG-6), with 2 auxiliary diesel generators (IMW MED-31); 525MW + 64MW = 34.2+ kts.
Crew: 1,347 (+ aircrew, marines (143), staff (60)); can accommodate 1,900
Protection: (Main belt) 63.5 cm; (Main turrets): 71.12 cm; (Main barbettes): 68.6 cm; (Secondary barbettes): 13 cm; (Main missile magazines): 30.5 cm; (Hangar): 20.3 cm; (Deck (key spaces)): 40.8 cm; (Conning tower, CIC): 76.2 cm; (Bulkheads): 8.89cm.
Compartmentalisation: double-hulled, reinforced keel, with 30 transverse and 4 longitudinal bulkheads, 10 NBC bulkheads.
Weapons:
AAW: 2 x GWLS.65 (f/a), 7 x GWLS.68M2 (f, 4 p/s-am., 2 p/s-a), 8 x NLG-30 (p/s)
ASuW: 9 x 508mm ETC guns (A, B, Y; 3 x 3 RAIN), 9 x GWLS.39 (3 fc., 2-a-B turret, 2-f-Y turret, 2 p/s)
ASW: 2 x 3 324mm TT (p/s; LWT), 4 x 8-cell GWLS.60M2 (f/a, p/s).
GP: 4 x 64-cell GWLS.35 (a-B turret, f-Y turret, 2 p/s), 20 x 130mm guns (p/s; 10 x 2 AK-130-MR-184).
Vehicles:
Capable of deploying and recovering 3 Merlin HM.1-sized helicopters, 3 Auk DHM.1, and 4 Squid DSM.1, and up to 4 Tern DA.1 UCAVs, or 2 Rook DRA.1 UMAVs and 3 Tern DA.1 (or comparable arrangements); equipped with the "beartrap" helicopter recovery system (aircraft hangared in fantail, submarine drones in hull davits; one elevator, one helicopter landing spot), and two lightweight EM catapults for Rooks or Terns (only so equipped if drones are purchased).
Electronics suite:
Computer complex: MEI.5 Muninn/MEI.4 Mimir (ISOMS)
Threat management systems: MEQ.181 NAIADS (anti-air), MEQ.185 SELKIE (anti-torpedo), MMX.193 MITRE (target recognition), MDQ.261 (signature self-detection)
Radars: MRU.113 Huginn/MRU.110c Raven (multifunction search and tracking), MRS.118 Kafka/MRS.111c Jackdaw (air volume search), MRN.116 Beluga (navigation), MRS.164 Hofvarpnir (surface search), MRG.186 Gungnir (gunnery fire control)
Optronics: MPU.124 Adder (long range search and tracking), MPS.127 Owl (surface surveillance)
Combination radar/optronics: MMP.133 Tuesday (helicopter landing system), 6 x MMG.183 Gjallar (close-range fire direction)
Sonars: MQU.134 Fenris (keel-mounted, MF/LF), MQR.145 Herring (variable depth)
ECM/ESM: MLR.165 (radar/signals emissions receiver and direction finder), MLQ.177 (jammer), MLR.184 Nott (laser warning receiver and direction finder), MWD.199 (signals direction finder)
Communications: CSZ.17b Godi (Link 17.2; secure datalink), MUZ.121 Alvis (secure satellite communications system), 6 x MSP.123b Gna (Link 17.2D; secure drone control datalink), MSW.125b Ran (Link 17.2G; secure missile guidance datalink), 4 x GQZ.128b Dvalin (Link 17.2U; encrypted acoustic modem), MWZ.178 (secure communications system), MJZ.190 (laser communications transceiver), GSZ.196M (encrypted burst communications transceiver).
Countermeasures: 6 x MLQ.35 Mackerel (anti-torpedo), 8 x 16-cell MLE.140 MUSE (anti-missile).
Cost: $9,600 million USD
Production time: 6.75 years
Production capacity: 12 ships

Charter-class BBGN (http://www.bismarck-class.dk/miscellaneous/illustrations_and_drawings/steve_nuttall/pictures/yamato/illustr_yamato_01.jpg)
Displacement: 111,283t (deep)
Dimensions: length 325.6m (oa); beam 42m; draught 13m.
Propulsion: 6-shaft CONAG-IFEP; 3 pressurised water fission reactors (INNEC RA(PW)-6) and 2 gas turbines (IMW MTG-6), with 2 auxiliary diesel generators (IMW MED-31); 525MW + 85.8MW = 34.2+ kts.
Crew: 1,347 (+ aircrew, marines (143), staff (60)); can accommodate 1,900
Protection: (Main belt) 63.5cm; (Main turrets): 71.12cm; (Main barbettes): 68.6cm; (Secondary barbettes): 13cm; (Main missile magazines): 30.5cm; (Hangar): 20.3cm; (Deck (key spaces)): 40.8cm; (Conning tower, CIC): 76.2cm; (Bulkheads): 8.89cm.
Compartmentalisation: double-hulled, reinforced keel, with 30 transverse and 4 longitudinal bulkheads, 10 NBC citadels.
Weapons:
AAW: 4 x GWLS.65 (p/s), 7 x GWLS.68M2 (fc., 4 p/s-am., 2 p/s-a), 12 x NLG-30 (p/s)
ASuW: 6 x 508mm ETC guns (A and B; 2 x 3 RAIN), 7 x 6-cell GWLS.39 (3 fc., 2-a-B turret, 2-f-Y turret)
ASW: 2 x 3 324mm TT (p/s; LWT), 4 x 8-cell GWLS.60M2 (f/a, p/s).
GP: 48-cell GWLS.35 (f), 3 x 96-cell GWLS.35 (2-am., Y), 20 x 130mm guns (p/s; 10 x 2 AK-130-MR-184).
Vehicles:
Capable of deploying and recovering 3 Merlin HM.1-sized helicopters, 3 Auk DHM.1, and 4 Squid DSM.1, and up to 4 Tern DA.1 UCAVs, or 2 Rook DRA.1 UMAVs and 3 Tern DA.1 (or comparable arrangements); equipped with the "beartrap" helicopter recovery system (aircraft hangared in fantail, submarine drones in hull davits; one elevator, one helicopter landing spot), and two lightweight EM catapults for Rooks or Terns (only so equipped if drones are purchased).
Electronics suite:
Computer complex: MEI.5 Muninn/MEI.4 Mimir (ISOMS)
Threat management systems: MEQ.181 NAIADS (anti-air), MEQ.185 SELKIE (anti-torpedo), MMX.193 MITRE (target recognition), MDQ.261 (signature self-detection)
Radars: MRU.113 Huginn/MRU.110c Raven (multifunction), MRS.118 Kafka/MRS.111c Jackdaw (air volume search), MRN.116 Beluga (navigation), MRS.164 Hofvarpnir (surface search), 3 x MRG.186 Gungnir (gunnery fire control)
Optronics: MPU.124 Adder (long range multifunction), MPS.127 Owl (surface surveillance)
Combination radar/optronics: MMP.133 Tuesday (helicopter landing system), 8 x MMG.183 Gjallar (close range fire direction)
Sonars: MQU.134 Fenris (keel-mounted, MF/LF), MQR.145 Herring (variable depth)
ECM/ESM: MLR.165 (radar/signals emissions receiver and direction finder), MLQ.177 (jammer), MLR.184 Nott (laser warning receiver and direction finder), MWD.199 (signals direction finder)
Communications: CSZ.17b Godi (Link 17.2; secure datalink), MUZ.121 Alvis (secure satellite communications system), 6 x MSP.123b Gna (Link 17.2D; secure drone control datalink), MSW.125b Ran (Link17.2G; secure missile guidance datalink), 4 x GQZ.128b Dvalin (Link 17.2U; encrypted acoustic modem), MWZ.178 (secure communications system), MJZ.190 (laser communications transceiver), GSZ.196M (encrypted burst communications transceiver).
Countermeasures: 6 x MLQ.135 Mackerel (anti-torpedo), 8 x 16-cell MLE.140 MUSE (anti-missile).
Cost: $9,000 million USD
Production time: 6.5 years
Production capacity: 12 ships

Council (Parliament)-class BBGN (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/u140000/u144964.jpg)
Displacement: 73,160 t (deep)
Dimensions: length 290.4m (oa); beam 37m; draught 11m.
Propulsion: 4-shaft CONAG-IFEP; 2 pressurised water fission reactors (INNEC RA(PW)-6) and 2 gas turbines (IMW MTG-6), with 2 auxiliary diesel generators (IMW MED-31); 350MW + 85.8MW = 33.4+ kts.
Crew: 1,200 maximum (848 crew, excluding helicopter and drone detachment)
Protection: (Main belt) 50.8 cm; (Main turrets): 53.34 cm; (Main barbettes): 50.8 cm; (Secondary barbettes): 13 cm; (Main missile magazines): 30.5 cm; (Hangar): 20.3 cm; (Deck (key spaces)): 30.5 cm; (Conning tower, CIC): 63.5 cm; (Bulkheads): 8.26cm.
Compartmentalisation: double-hulled, reinforced keel, with 30 transverse and 4 longitudinal bulkheads, 10 NBC citadels.
Weapons:
AAW: 6 x GWLS.65 (2 p/s-fc., f/a, 2 p/s-ft.), 4 x GWLS.68M2 (4 p/s-am.), 2 x 35mm CIWS (2 p/s-a), 12 x NLG-30
ASuW: 3 x 406mm ETC guns (A; 1 x 3 RAIN), 7 x GWLS.39 (3 fc., 4 p/s)
ASW: 2 x 3 324mm TT (p/s; LWT), 4 x 8-cell GWLS.60M2 (f/a, p/s).
GP: 3 x 96-cell GWLS.35 (B, X, and Y), 64-cell GWLS.35 (am.), 12 x 130mm guns (p/s; 6 x 2 AK-130-MR-184)
Aircraft:
Capable of deploying and recovering 3 Merlin HM.1-sized helicopters and up to 6 Rook DRA.1 UMAVs or 3 Tern DA.1 UCAVs; equipped with the “beartrap” helicopter recovery system (aircraft hangared in fantail; one elevator, one helicopter landing spot), and two lightweight EM catapults for UAVs (only so equipped if drones are purchased).
Electronics suite:
Computer complex: MEI.5 Muninn/MEI.4 Mimir (ISOMS)
Threat management systems: MEQ.181 NAIADS (anti-air), MEQ.185 SELKIE (anti-torpedo), MMX.193 MITRE (target recognition), MDQ.261 (signature self-detection)
Radars: MRU.13 Huginn/MRU.110c Raven (multifunction), MRS.118 Kafka/MRS.111c Jackdaw (air volume search), MRN.116 Beluga (navigation), MRS.164 Hofvarpnir (surface search), MRG.186 Gungnir (fire control)
Optronics: MPU.124 Adder (long range multifunction), MPS.127 Owl (surface surveillance)
Combination radar/optronics: MMP.133 Tuesday (helicopter landing system), 6 x MMG.183 Gjallar (close-range fire direction)
Sonars: MQU.134 Fenris (keel-mounted, MF/LF), MQR.145 Herring (variable depth)
ECM/ESM: MLR.165 (radar/signals emissions receiver and direction finder), MLQ.177 (jammer), MLR.184 Nott (laser warning receiver and direction finder), MWD.199 (signals direction finder)
Communications: CSZ.17b Godi (Link 17.2; secure datalink), MUZ.121 Alvis (secure satellite communications system), 4 x MSP.123b Gna (Link 17.2D; secure drone control datalink), MSW.125b Ran (Link 17.2G; secure missile guidance datalink), 4 x GQZ.128b Dvalin (Link 17.2U; encrypted acoustic modem), MWZ.178 (secure communications system), MJZ.190 (laser communications transceiver), GSZ.196M (encrypted burst communications transceiver).
Countermeasures: 6 x MLQ.35 Mackerel (anti-torpedo), 6 x 16-cell MLE.140 MUSE (anti-missile).
Cost: $5,600 million USD
Production time: 6.5 years
Production capacity: 20 ships

Monarch (Queen Esmé)-class BBG
Displacement: 49,368 t (deep)
Dimensions: length 258.2 m (wl), 265.7 m (oa); beam 32 m; draught 10.1 m.
Propulsion: 3-shaft COGAG-IFEP with bow thruster; 6 gas turbines (IMW MTG-6); 192MW = 32.8+ kts.
Crew: 1,000 maximum
Protection: (Main belt) 46 cm; (Main turrets): 50.8 cm; (Main barbettes): 46 cm; (Secondary barbettes): 13cm; (Main missile magazines): 30.5 cm; (Hangar): 20.3 cm; (Deck (key spaces)): 30.5 cm; (Conning tower, CIC): 50.8 cm; (Bulkheads): 7.62cm.
Compartmentalisation: double-hulled, reinforced keel, with 26 transverse and 4 longitudinal bulkheads, 8 NBC citadels.
Weapons:
AAW: 2 x GWLS.65 (f/a), 4 x GWLS.68M2 (p/s), 2 x 35mm CIWS (f/a), 4 x NLG-30
ASuW: 3 x 305mm ETC guns (A; 1 x 3 RAIN), 6 x GWLS.39 (2 fc., 4 p/s)
ASW: 2 x 3 324mm TT (p/s; LWT), 4 x 8-cell GWLS.60M2 (f/a, p/s).
GP: 4 x 76mm guns (p/s; OTO Melara DP), 2 x 96-cell GWLS.35 (f/a), 64-cell GWLS.35 (am.)
Aircraft:
Capable of deploying and recovering 3 Merlin HM.1-sized helicopters and up to 6 Rook DRA.1 UMAVs or 3 Tern DA.1 UCAVs; equipped with the “beartrap” helicopter recovery system.
Electronics suite:
Computer complex: MEI.5 Muninn/MEI.4 Mimir (ISOMS)
Threat management systems: MEQ.181 NAIADS (anti-air), MEQ.185 SELKIE (anti-torpedo), MMX.193 MITRE (target recognition), MDQ.261 (signature self-detection)
Radars: MRU.13 Huginn/MRU.110c Raven (multifunction), MRS.118 Kafka/MRS.111c Jackdaw (air volume search), MRN.116 Beluga (navigation), MRS.164 Hofvarpnir (surface search), MRG.186 Gungnir (fire control)
Optronics: MPU.124 Adder (long range multifunction), MPS.127 Owl (electro-optical surface surveillance)
Combination radar/optronics: MMP.133 Tuesday (helicopter landing system), 4 x MMG.183 Gjallar (close-range fire direction)
Sonars: MQU.134 Fenris (keel-mounted, MF/LF), MQR.145 Herring (variable depth)
ECM/ESM: MLR.165 (radar/signals emissions receiver and direction finder), MLQ.177 (jammer), MLR.184 Nott (laser warning receiver and direction finder), MWD.199 (signals direction finder)
Communications: CSZ.17b Godi (Link 17.2; secure datalink), MUZ.121 Alvis (secure satellite communications system), MSP.123b Gna (Link 17.2D; secure drone control datalink), MSW.125b Ran (Link 17.2G; secure missile guidance datalink), 4 x GQZ.128b Dvalin (Link 17.2U; encrypted acoustic modem), MWZ.178 (secure communications system), MJZ.190 (laser communications transceiver), GSZ.196M (encrypted burst communications transceiver).
Countermeasures: 4 x MLQ.35 Mackerel (anti-torpedo), 6 x 16-cell MLE.140 MUSE (anti-missile).
Cost: $3,200 million USD
Production time: 5.5 years
Production capacity: 18 ships

Battlecruisers
Princess-class CBGN
Displacement: 59,104 t (deep)
Dimensions: length 268.6 m (oa); beam 32 m; draught 11 m
Propulsion: 4-shaft CONAG-IFEP; pebble-bed fission reactor (INNEC RA(PB)-2) and 2 gas turbines (IMW MTG-6); 175MW + 64MW = 32 knots
Range: limited by nuclear fuel and onboard supplies
Crew: 1,038 (+ air crew, marines, staff, etc.)
Protection: (Main belt): 15.24-35.56 cm; (Main turrets): 36-41 cm; (Deck (key spaces)): 19.05-27 cm; (Conning tower, CIC): 16.51-32.51 cm; (Bulkheads): 7.62-38.1 cm.
Compartmentalisation: double-hulled, reinforced keel, with 28 transverse and 4 longitudinal bulkheads.
Weapons:
AAW: 4 x GWLS.33 (p/s), 8 x GWLS.66M2 (p/s), 6 x GWLS.68 (f/a, 4 p/s), 12 x NLG-30
ASuW: 6 x 406mm/62 calibre ETC guns (A and Y; 2 x 3 RAIN), 48-cell GWLS.58 (B)
ASW: 2 x 3 324mm TT (p/s; 36 weapons), 4 x 8-cell GWLS.60 (p/s).
GP: 2 x 64-cell GWLS.35 (p/s), 6 x 8-cell GWLS.35M2 (2 fc., 4 p/s)
Aircraft:
Capable of launching and recovering 2 Merlin HM.1-sized helicopters, and operating 2 Parrot DES.1, a Puffin DHEW.1, 2 Rook DRA.1, and 4 Cuttlefish DSR.1
Electronics suite:
Computer complex: MEI.5 Muninn/MEI.4 Mimir (ISOMS)
Threat management systems: MEQ.181 NAIADS (anti-air), MEQ.185 SELKIE (anti-torpedo), MMX.193 MITRE (target recognition), MDQ.261 (signature self-detection)
Radars: MRU.13 Huginn/MRU.110c Raven (multifunction), MRS.118 Kafka/MRS.111c Jackdaw (air volume search), MRN.116 Beluga (navigation), MRS.164 Hofvarpnir (surface search), MRG.186 Gungnir (fire control)
Optronics: MPU.124 Adder (long range multifunction), MPS.127 Owl (surface surveillance)
Combination radar/optronics: MMP.133 (helicopter landing system), 4 x MMG.183 Gjallar (close-range fire direction)
Sonars: MQU.134 Fenris (keel-mounted, MF/LF), MQR.145 Herring (variable depth)
ECM/ESM: MLR.165 (radar/signals emissions receiver and direction finder), MLQ.177 (jammer), MLR.184 Nott (laser warning receiver and direction finder), MWD.199 (signals direction finder)
Communications: CSZ.17b Godi (Link 17.2; secure datalink), MUZ.121 Alvis (secure satellite communications system), MSP.123b Gna (Link 17.2D; secure drone control datalink), MSW.125b Ran (Link 17.2G; secure missile guidance datalink), 4 x GQZ.128b Dvalin (Link 17.2U; encrypted acoustic modem), MWZ.178 (secure communications system), MJZ.190 (laser communications transceiver), GSZ.196M (encrypted burst communications transceiver).
Countermeasures: 4 x MLQ.135 Mackerel (anti-torpedo), 8 x 16-cell MLE.140 MUSE (anti-missile)
Cost: $4,800 million USD
Production time: 5.25 years
Production capacity: 16 ships

Sea (Solquist)-class CBGN
Joint development with the Portland Iron Works.
Displacement: 40,534 t (deep)
Dimensions: length 255.6 m (oa); beam 29.8 m; draught 10 m
Propulsion: 4-shaft CONAG-IFEP; pressurised water fission reactor (INNEC RA(PW)-6) and 2 gas turbines (IMW MTG-6); 175MW + 64MW = 34 knots
Range: limited by nuclear fuel and onboard supplies
Crew: 523
Protection: (Main belt): 15.24-35.56 cm; (Main turrets): 15.24-35.56 cm; (Deck (key spaces)): 19.05-26.67 cm; (Conning tower, CIC): 16.51-32.51 cm; (Bulkheads): 7.62cm.
Compartmentalisation: double-hulled, reinforced keel, with 26 transverse and 4 longitudinal bulkheads.
Weapons:
AAW: 6 x GWLS.68 (f/a, 4 p/s), 12 x MLG-27
ASuW: 6 x 305mm ETC guns (A and Y; 2 x 3 RAIN), 2 x 24-cell GWLS.61 (B and X); 5 x 6-cell GWLS.39 (f, 4 p/s)
ASW: 2 x 3 324mm TT (p/s; 36 weapons), 4 x 6-cell GWLS.60 (f/a, p/s).
GP: 2 x 64-cell GWLS.35 (p/s)
Aircraft:
Capable of launching and recovering a Merlin HM.1-sized helicopter, and up to four Auk DHM.1 or Puffin DHEW.1
Electronics suite:
Computer complex: MEI.5 Muninn/MEI.4 Mimir (ISOMS)
Threat management systems: MEQ.181 NAIADS (anti-air), MEQ.185 SELKIE (anti-torpedo), MMX.193 MITRE (target recognition), MDQ.261 (signature self-detection)
Radars: MRU.13 Huginn/MRU.110c Raven (multifunction), MRS.118 Kafka/MRS.111c Jackdaw (air volume search), MRN.116 Beluga (navigation), MRS.164 Hofvarpnir (surface search), MRG.186 Gungnir (fire control)
Optronics: MPU.124 Adder (long range multifunction), MPS.127 Owl (surface surveillance)
Combination radar/optronics: MMP.133 (helicopter landing system), 4 x MMG.183 Gjallar (close-range fire direction)
Sonars: MQU.134 Fenris (keel-mounted, MF/LF), MQR.145 Herring (variable depth)
ECM/ESM: MLR.165 (radar/signals emissions receiver and direction finder), MLQ.177 (jammer), MLR.184 Nott (laser warning receiver and direction finder), MWD.199 (signals direction finder)
Communications: CSZ.17b Godi (Link 17.2; secure datalink), MUZ.121 Alvis (secure satellite communications system), MSP.123b Gna (Link 17.2D; secure drone control datalink), MSW.125b Ran (Link 17.2G; secure missile guidance datalink), 4 x GQZ.128b Dvalin (Link 17.2U; encrypted acoustic modem), MWZ.178 (secure communications system), MJZ.190 (laser communications transceiver), GSZ.196M (encrypted burst communications transceiver).
Countermeasures: 4 x MLQ.135 Mackerel (anti-torpedo), 6 x 16-cell MLE.140 MUSE (anti-missile)
Cost: $3,200 million USD
Production time: 5 years
Production capacity: 16 ships

Region (Nieland)-class CBG (http://home19.inet.tele.dk/airwing/ships/1155.jpg)
Displacement: 28,563 t (deep)
Dimensions: length 236.1 m (wl), 242.8 m (oa); beam 28.5 m; draught 9 m
Propulsion: 2-shaft COGAG-IFEP with bow thruster; 5 gas turbines (IMW MTG-6); 160MW = 32.8+ kts.
Crew: 447 (does not include aircrew, marines, or staff)
Protection: (Main belt): 30.5 cm; (Main turrets): 20.3cm; (Main barbettes): 25.4 cm; (Main missile magazines): 25.4 cm; (Hangar): 7.62 cm; (Deck (key spaces)): 15.5 cm; (Conning tower, CIC): 30.5 cm; (Bulkheads): 7.62cm.
Compartmentalisation: double-hulled, reinforced keel, with 24 transverse and 4 longitudinal bulkheads.
Weapons:
AAW: 2 x GWLS.65 (f/a), 4 x GWLS.68 (p/s), 2 x 35mm CIWS (f/a), 4 x MLG-27
ASuW: 3 x 203mm guns (A, B, and Y; RAIN), 4 x 6-cell GWLS.39 (p/s), 4 x 4-cell GWLS.25 (4 f; may carry 6)
ASW: 2 x 3 324mm TT (p/s; LWT), 4 x 6-cell GWLS.60 (f/a, p/s).
GP: 2 x 96-cell GWLS.35 (f/a).
Aircraft:
Capable of deploying and recovering 2 Merlin HM.1-sized helicopters and up to 4 Rook DRA.1 UMAVs or 2 Tern DA.1 or combination; equipped with the “beartrap” helicopter recovery system.
Electronics suite:
Computer complex: MEI.5 Muninn/MEI.4 Mimir (ISOMS)
Threat management systems: MEQ.181 NAIADS (anti-air), MEQ.185 SELKIE (anti-torpedo), MMX.193 MITRE (target recognition), MDQ.261 (signature self-detection)
Radars: MRU.13 Huginn/MRU.110c Raven (multifunction), MRS.118 Kafka/MRS.111c Jackdaw (air volume search), MRN.116 Beluga (navigation), MRS.164 Hofvarpnir (surface search), 3 x MRG.182 Balmung (gunnery fire control)
Optronics: MPU.124 Adder (long range multifunction), MPS.127 Owl (surface surveillance)
Combination radar/optronics: MMP.133 Tuesday (helicopter landing system), 4 x MMG.183 Gjallar (close-range fire direction)
Sonars: MQU.134 Fenris (keel-mounted, MF/LF), MQR.145 Herring (variable depth)
ECM/ESM: MLR.165 (radar/signals emissions receiver and direction finder), MLQ.177 (jammer), MLR.184 Nott (laser warning receiver and direction finder), MWD.199 (signals direction finder)
Communications: CSZ.17b Godi (Link 17.2; secure datalink), MUZ.121 Alvis (secure satellite communications system), 2 x MSP.123b Gna (Link 17.2D; secure drone control datalink), MSW.125b Ran (Link 17.2G; secure missile guidance datalink), 4 x GQZ.128b Dvalin (Link 17.2U; encrypted acoustic modem), MWZ.178 (secure communications system), MJZ.190 (laser communications transceiver), GSZ.196M (encrypted burst communications transceiver).
Countermeasures: 4 x MLQ.35 Mackerel (anti-torpedo), 6 x 16-cell MLE.140 MUSE (anti-missile).
Cost: $2,400 million USD
Production time: 5.5 years
Production capacity: 12 ships


Heavy Cruisers

Castle-class CAG(N)
Displacement: 23,146t (deep)
Dimensions: length 220.3m (oa); beam 23.44m; draught 7.9m.
Propulsion: 4-propulsor CODAG-IFEP or CONOD-IFEP; (CAG) 5 gas turbines (IMW MTG-6), with 2 auxiliary diesel generators (IMW MED-31); (CAGN) pressurised water fission reactor (INNEC RA(PW)-6), with 2 auxiliary diesel generators (IMW MED-31); 172MW (CAG)/175 MW (CAGN) = 32.4+ kts.
Crew: 380 (peacetime); 518 (wartime) (+ vehicle crew, marines (143), staff (60)); can accommodate 1,200.
Protection: (Main belt) 36cm; (Main turrets): 26cm; (Main barbettes): 36cm; (Main missile magazines): 26cm; (Hangar): 13cm; (Deck (key spaces)): 18cm; (Conning tower, CIC): 30cm; (Bulkhead): 8cm.
Compartmentalisation: double-hulled, reinforced keel, with 24 transverse and 2 longitudinal bulkheads.
Weapons:
AAW: 2 x GWLS.65 (f/a), 6 x GWLS.66M2, 4 x GWLS.68M2, 4 x 64-cell GWLS.74 (p/s), 6 x MLG-27 (p/s)
ASuW: 9 x 203mm ETC guns (A, B, Y; 3 x 3 RAIN), 2 x 6-cell GWLS.39 (fc.), 2 x 4-cell GWLS.58.2 (a. of B turret, f. of Y turret)
ASW: 2 x 3 324mm TT (p/s), 4 x 8-cell GWLS.60 (p/s)
GP: 2 x 48-cell GWLS.35 (f/a), 2 x 32-cell GWLS.35 (p/s)
MCM: 2 x RST (500 SCR/RST).
Vehicles:
Capable of deploying and recovering 2 x Merlin HM.1-sized helicopters, 2 x Cuttlefish DSR.1, and 1 x Parrot DES.1 or 2 x Rook DRA.1 UMAVs; equipped with the "beartrap" helicopter recovery system (aircraft hangared in fantail; one elevator, one helicopter landing spot), and two lightweight EM catapults for Rooks (only so equipped if drones are purchased).
Electronics suite:
Computer complex: MEI.5 Muninn (ISOMS)
Threat management systems: MEQ.181 NAIADS (anti-air), MEQ.185 SELKIE (anti-torpedo), MMX.193 MITRE (target recognition), MDQ.261 (signature self-detection)
Radars: MRU.113 Huginn (multifunction search and tracking), MRN.116 Beluga (navigation), MRS.118 Kafka (volume search), MRS.164 Hofvarpnir (surface search), 3 x MRG.182 Balmung (gunnery fire control)
Optronics: MPU.124 Adder (long range multifunction), MPS.127 Owl (surface surveillance)
Combination radar/optronics: MMP.133 Tuesday (helicopter landing system), 4 x MMG.183 Gjallar (close range fire control)
Sonars: MQU.134 Fenris (keel-mounted, LF), MQR.145 Herring (variable depth)
ECM/ESM: MLR.165 (emissions receiver and direction finder), MLQ.177 (jammer), MLR.184 Nott (laser warning receiver and direction finder), MWD.199 (signals direction finder)
Communications: CSZ.17b Godi (Link 17.2; secure datalink), MUZ.121 Alvis (secure satellite communications system), MSP.123b Gna (Link 17.2D; secure drone control datalink), 2 x MSW.125b Ran (Link17.2G; secure missile guidance datalink), 4 x GQZ.22b Dvalin (Link 17.2U; encrypted acoustic modem), MWZ.178 (secure communications system), MJZ.190 (laser communications system), GSZ.196M (encrypted burst communications transceiver).
Countermeasures: 4 x MLQ.135 Mackerel (anti-torpedo), 6 x MLE.140 MUSE (anti-missile).
Cost: $2,100 million USD (CAG)/$2,300 million USD (CAGN)
Production time: 5.25 years
Production capacity: 16 ships

Duchy-class CAG (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon/images/Type45_2.jpg)
Displacement: 20,252 t
Dimensions: length 208.4m (wl), 213.5m (oa); beam 20.4m; draught 7.2 m
Propulsion: 3-shaft COGAG-IFEP with bow thruster; 5 gas turbines (IMW MTG-6); 160MW = 34.3 kts.
Crew: (standard): 242; may carry up to 400
Protection: (Main belt): 33 cm; (Main turrets): 25.4 cm; (Main barbettes): 33 cm; (Main missile magazines): 25.4 cm; (Hangar): 12.7 cm; (Deck (key spaces)): 25.4 cm; (CIC): 23 cm; (Bulkheads): 5.08 cm.
Compartmentalisation: double-hulled, reinforced keel, with 20 transverse and 2 longitudinal bulkheads.
Weapons:
AAW: 2 x GWLS.65 (f/a), 4 x GWLS.68 (p/s), 35mm CIWS (f), 4 x MLG-27
ASuW: 2 x 203mm guns (A and Y; RAIN), 4 x GWLS.39 (p/s)
ASW: 2 x 3 324mm TT (p/s; LWT), 4 x 6-cell GWLS.60 (f/a, p/s).
GP: 2 x 96-cell GWLS.35 (f/a), 64-cell GWLS.35 (a).
Aircraft:
Capable of deploying and recovering 2 Merlin HM.1-sized helicopters, and up to 3 Rook DRA.1 UMAVs or 1 Tern DA.1 and 1 Rook DRA.1; equipped with the "beartrap" helicopter recovery system.
Electronics suite:
Computer complex: MEI.5 Muninn/MEI.4 Mimir (ISOMS)
Threat management systems: MEQ.181 NAIADS (anti-air), MEQ.185 SELKIE (anti-torpedo), MMX.193 MITRE (target recognition), MDQ.261 (signature self-detection)
Radars: MRU.13 Huginn/MRU.110c Raven (multifunction), MRS.118 Kafka/MRS.111c Jackdaw (air volume search), MRN.116 Beluga (navigation), MRS.164 Hofvarpnir (surface search), 2 x MRG.182 Balmung (gunnery fire control)
Optronics: MPU.124 Adder (long range multifunction), MPS.127 Owl (surface surveillance)
Combination radar/optronics: MMP.33 Tuesday (helicopter landing system), 4 x MMG.183 Gjallar (close-range fire direction)
Sonars: MQU.134 Fenris (keel-mounted, MF/LF), MQR.145 Herring (variable depth)
ECM/ESM: MLR.165 (radar/signals emissions receiver and direction finder), MLQ.177 (jammer), MLR.184 Nott (laser warning receiver and direction finder), MWD.199 (signals direction finder)
Communications: CSZ.17b Godi (Link 17.2; secure datalink), MUZ.121 Alvis (secure satellite communications system), MSP.123b Gna (Link 17.2D; secure drone control datalink), MSW.125b Ran (Link 17.2G; secure missile guidance datalink), 4 x GQZ.128b Dvalin (Link 17.2U; encrypted acoustic modem), MWZ.178 (secure communications system), MJZ.190 (laser communications transceiver), GSZ.196M (encrypted burst communications transceiver).
Countermeasures: 4 x MLQ.135 Mackerel (anti-torpedo), 5 x 16-cell MLE.140 MUSE (anti-missile).
Cost: $1,800 million USD
Production time: 5 years
Production capacity: 15 ships

We at RSIN hope you will find something that suits your requirements.

Sincerely,

Neville Colwan
Director-General
Royal Shipyards
Grimsby Downs, Anguist, UKIN

To: Commodore Anton Dever-Smithe
From: Mr. Tristan Straussburg, Director of Engineering, Castle of the Galleys Shipwrights, Ltd., Kingdom of Listeneisse

Commodore,

We understand that there may be a bid from a competing naval shipyard in Isselmere-Nieland. While we greatly respect the work of our peers, we would wish to point out a bit about their designs.

Let us take, for example, the Treaty-class BBGN that they offer.

According to design, the vessel weighs in at an astounding 226,367 tonnes. This is twice the size of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, yet of course manageable. All that is required is for the ship to displace that weight properly in the ocean.

However, according to the manufacturer's claim, the vessel only pulls a draught of 13.7 meters. We find this somewhat astounding and improbable. Let us give our reasoning.

If we were to take the length and beam of our ships and simply multiply them -- we'll give all ships the benefits of being a fully "brick-shape" (though of course they are far narrower at bow and stern than their maximum beam), we can see how many square meters of area they displace. For the Treaty, this number is 21,689 m^2. Now, we can see how many tons it is, and divide that into the amount of area below that weight to see how many tonnes-per-square-meter need to be borne up by the sea displacing below. In this case, it is 10.436 t/m^2.

The Nimitz, by comparison, is 7.88 t/m^2. An Iowa-class battleship is 6.49 t/m^2. Again, these are rough numbers. The actual numbers are higher, because these ships are not "brick-shaped" but quite narrower at bow and stern. Yet they serve the example for general terms.

Why is this important? Cannot the sea simply displace whatever weight the ship is?

Yes, of course. However, it then requires a ship of greater draught. The more tonnes/square meter, the deeper the ship needs to sit. For the Iowa, draught is 11.02m. The Nimitz pulls a draught of 11.9m.

While the manufacturer states the draught of the Treaty at 13.7, which is fairly deeper already, we believe that its actual draught may prove to be deeper. Possibly as much as 2-3 meters (6.5 - 10 ft).

During normal sea states, this should not be much of a problem -- the ship will merely sit lower in the water. However you may find that in rough sea states, conditions 6 or higher, that the Treaty class may take on more green water over the bow.

As all good seamen know, green water can be a significant problem to battle readiness; a bow plunging under the waves can lead to damaged turrets and superstructures, knock out systems exposed to the shock of water, and so on. As well, a ship with a greater draught will have more drag on it, thus reducing its purported cruising and maximum speed. In time of high seas, bow plunging and taking green water can severely limit maximum speeds. Ships need to move slower to avoid exacerbation of the condition, so they are not driving the ship like a spear down into the water as they pitch. Therefore, we believe the Treaty is actually somewhat more limited in harsh sea conditions than its manufacturer might let be publically known.

To be fair, a ship of that massive size will be more stable generally. Yet we wonder at the stresses harsh sea conditions may present to its structure. We've yet to analyze it more closely for torque stress of rolling -- for it is so long the bow can be wanting to roll one way and the stern in the opposite direction -- or keel soundness for pitching. While we know the people at Isselmere-Nieland are quite remarkable sea architects, we keep an open eye upon the service life and drydock needs of a ship that size. Capital ships with $18.7 Billion price tags are not defending the nation as well as they could be if they are in drydock more often than expected.

Of course, the Isselmere-Nieland shipwrights offer vessels of various draughts down into the range of vessels you were in search of. We are sure they might be able to meet your needs, yet we wonder at the level of service and attention to detail they might offer. We believe client relations is key, because one size does not fit all when it comes to shipbuilding.

We fully understand the ships built by Isselmere-Nieland are indeed formidable. In terms of "packing it in," they do indeed try to stuff a ship with every latest gadget and weapon system.

Yet if your navy would appreciate a ship more tailor-made to its needs, understanding the desire for good handling upon the high seas as well as readiness for war, built for crews and not simply for components, please consider our shipyard and naval architects.

Sincerely,

T. Strassburg

Mr. Tristan Straussburg
Director of Engineering
Castle of the Galleys Shipwrights, Ltd.
Kingdom of Listeneisse

[OOC: Please note, all comments are entirely IC.]

To: Commodore Anton Dever-Smithe, Tarlag
From: Neville Colwan, Director-General, Royal Shipyards, UKIN
Subject: Comments by Mr. Straussburg

Dear Commodore Dever-Smithe,

While we at RSIN accept with kindness the back-handed compliments given our firm and our products by Mr Tristan Straussburg of Listeneisse, and whilst certain errors that had been noted have been corrected, please let me stress that the operational capabilities of RSIN vessels are quite high and that our ships are capable of withstanding North Atlantic seas quite well in some of the most wretched weather conditions and sea states. The service provided by our firm, in terms of systems upgrades, technical assistance, and providing for the needs of individual nations is, in fact, quite good.

Though Mr Straussburg is correct in noting that some of the larger vessels, notably the Treaty-class, may not be precisely what your navy requires, certainly some of the smaller vessels we offer might suit your nation much better than those provided by a comparatively new firm.

Sincerely,

Neville Colwan
Director-General
Royal Shipyards
Grimsby Downs, Anguist, UKIN

To Battle cruiser Bidders
From Commodore Anton Dever-Smithe

Thank you all for bidding. the bidding is not closed as of yet but the review group is coming to the point of drawing up some contracts. Before we come to a decision my group has a few questions.
Cotland may we please have stats for the Ragarok Battleship (we have decided to add 1-4 battleships to the contract).
Clan Smoke Jaguar in the three classes of ships submitted can the Grendel 5 reactors be installed instead of the existing power plant. We also would like to get an idea of the construction time of the three classes and expected life span.

Listeneisse For the Humpback what is the projected top speed and the ships power plant type. If we choose your design we would like to have our own power units installed.
Isselmere our own naval experts are looking in to the sea keeping abilities of your larger ships for our own analysis. Is there any way to shorten the building times. Tarlag has always depended on sturdy, simple designs. These long build time indicate an overly complex vessel that in ten years may turn into a "dockyard queen".
United Kingdom of Azazia To be fair to the other competitors please post your entry on this board. Also I was unable to access your picture link.
Thank you all for your submissions, we look forward to your answers.

To: Tristan Straussburg
Director of Engineering, Castle of the Galleys Shipwrights, Ltd., Kingdom of Listeneisse
From: Rear Admiral Barbara Tucker (ISN-Ret.)
Managing Director, Portland Iron Works
Subject: Your comments regarding the RSIN designs

The Portland Iron Works is extremely displeased to note the comments you have made with respect to the designs by the Royal Shipyards of Isselmere-Nieland. Their designs have consistently been known for the highest quality and have formed the backbone of many of the world's greatest navies. Until the emergence of the Portland Iron Works, their designs formed the brunt of our own navy, one that has earned worldwide renown for excellence.

Clearly, we wouldn't have earned such a reputation if our ships were substandard. Comparing a Treaty-class battleship to a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is the naval equivalent of comparing a Mercedes to a Yugo. Designs by the former United States of America are widely derided throughout the world as being substandard buckets of bolts with limited armament and protection in comparison to the needs of modern naval warfare.

We dismiss your accusations regarding the RSIN Corporation designs as the stuff of an inexperienced newcomer playing "dirty pool" in an effort to steal sales from a company that has earned international respect.

As a policy, Breningrad Shipyards prefers not to maintain a standing list of warships available to be purchased or ordered by potential purchasers; instead, the United Kingdom’s premier shipbuilder prefers to maintain a policy of personalized designs for potential purchasers. While this results in a somewhat longer turn-around time from contract offer to solution offer, we feel that the end result lends itself towards a far more capable warship geared for a nation’s particular needs.

Such is the case with the Type 93 battlecruiser. Designed to either lead smaller surface fleets or serve as a second-line capital ship in larger carrier or dreadnaught battlegroups, the Type 93 brings the best of the UK’s experience in naval warfare to the export market.

Unfinished Lineart (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/fbcatholicsfan/Type93Battlecruiser-png.png)

The Type 93 was designed with the increasingly rare monohull form in order to maintain lower outright purchase cost and lower long-run maintenance costs. Admittedly, the United Kingdom designs trimaran warships for her own Royal Navy – but with cost increasingly becoming a concern to foreign navies, we at Breningrad Shipyards have undertaken the task of designing a monohull battlecruiser well-equipped to fight ships her size or smaller. To facilitate this, the main armour belt of the Type 93 features the latest in titanium alloys, composites, and ballistic ceramics sufficient to protect the ship from KE shells fired from 406mm ETC guns. Within the broad beam – designed to provide a better firing platform for the battlecruiser’s own guns – can be found the armoured core, including a combat centre nestled deep within the hull, at the centre of the core. Also included are the magazines and barbettes for the forward main batteries as well as the missile storage system for the vertical and diagonal launch cells. The keel of the ship is protected from keel-breaking torpedoes through the use of energy-absorbent foams and structural braces that prevent the keel from collapsing under the ship’s own. If the hull should be breached, however, the computerized maintenance system will automatically seal off appropriate sections or if a fire is detected, smother the flames through foam fire suppression systems – all defence systems can of course can be manually operated if required or requested.

The second key element to any battlecruiser is that of speed, provided by two nuclear reactors powering waterjets that, when combined with the FASTSHIP hull design, can propel the ship to a maximum speed of forty-two knots for brief periods of time or at a sustainable thirty-eight knots. It should be noted if not well-known, however, that such high speeds present easily detectable acoustic signatures and such speeds are not recommended for long periods of time. Tangentially, the reactors are shielded by their own armoured compartment that sports a layering of materials that reduce the thermal signature of the engine plant to that of a destroyer at the higher end of its types displacement. For backup propulsion, the Type 93 can utilize its reserve gas turbines.

Another primary consideration of the Type 93 was that of its effectiveness as a small surface group command and control ship. It sports two communication arrays housed within the near spherical dome and the integrated communication mast further aft. Due to the nature of the design, the ship will be tailored with the communications equipment currently used by a nation’s naval forces so as to ease logistical strains on adapting the Type 93. However, the arrays are full capable of using the latest in communications technology. Furthermore, the ship comes equipped, per design request, the AEGIS sensor system instead of the Royal Navy’s own, more advanced and admittedly complicated 3EIS sensor suite – again to keep integration and logistical costs as low as possible. This does not, of course, preclude the inclusion of the Royal Navy’s own electronics, but such inclusion will significantly increase the cost of purchase and of operation for the Type 93.

Lastly this abstract will address the armaments of the Type 93. As a battlecruiser, per the design and dictums of the Royal Navy, the Type 93 is not intended to engage dreadnoughts, super-dreadnoughts, and carriers or their associated escort fleets. This is due to the enormous main armaments as well as numerous missile systems employed by ships of far larger displacement. Instead, the battlecruiser in the Royal Navy is designed to act as a rapid-reaction force leader or to engage destroyer squadrons or even other battlecruisers of similar displacement. Yet, despite this qualification against capital ships, the Type 93 comes equipped with 24 anti-capital ship cruise missiles, the SS.N.45 Ares. Armed with a 3,000+ kilogram warhead, the stealthy, high sub-sonic intermediate range cruise missile can damage a capital ship only slightly, however several strikes from the Ares ought to serve to cripple all but the most heavily defended and fortified super-dreadnoughts, and even then at great expense to the ship’s armour and stocks of missiles and close-in ammunition. Against similar battlecruisers, cruisers and large destroyers the Ares ought to be truly devastating – and significant overkill against smaller escort destroyers and frigates. For such smaller targets, the ship carries two dual-length (and thus dual-load) 128 cell vertical launch systems capable of carrying two loads of missiles such as Tomahawks, Exocets, Standards, et cetera. In effect, this gives the Type 93 upwards of 512 missiles that can be divvied between surface-to-surface, surface-to-air, and surface-to-sub-surface anti-submarine rocket-launched torpedoes. Additionally, the battlecruiser employs nine 381mm ETC guns with electro-magnetic rifling, housed in three triple turrets. The secondary gun armament consists of eight 140mm guns and four hull-mounted torpedo tubes. The Close-In-Defence-Systems (or CIDS) feature four JGUM (Joint GUn and Missile) units, essentially eight small short-range, highly-agile missiles with fragmentary warheads and four rapid fire 30mm guns guided by an independent, short-range radar system – all capable of joint action with the ship’s own central computer system or, in case of the computer being knocked out, by independent action (although this increases potential for multiple JGUM units engaging the same target. Finally, the armament section concludes with a hangar and recovery pad for one medium sized helicopter as well as two launching rails for armed unmanned aerial vehicles. For battlecruisers in the Royal Navy, UAVs are frequently equipped with either small, moderate range radar pods that, when linked to the central computer system, expand the sensor envelope of the battlecruiser by potentially hundreds of kilometers, essentially performing the role of an AWACS aircraft, albeit on a smaller scale. Or, in case of combat, the Royal Navy utilizes UAVs that can be armed with small anti-ship missiles or torpedoes for use against sub-surface threats. However, any nation can use whatever helicopters or UAVs it chooses, and does not have to follow the combat model of the United Kingdom.

Dimensions
Length: 328 meters
Beam: 31 meters
Draft: 29 meters
Displacement: 82,500 tons

Armaments
9 x 381mm (3x3) Arsenal ETC guns
8 x 140mm (8x2) rapid fire guns
24 x ACSCMs
2 x Mk.71 dual-length 128-cell (2x2x128)



Aircraft

The design features a helicopter pad with two electromagnetic launchers (one facing port, the other starboard) for unmanned aerial vehicle use. For recovery, a movable crane can be moved from hangar to recovery pad for seaborne recovery operations.

Cost: 6.4 billion Commonwealth Credits = roughly 12.8 billion USD

(ooc: Azazia, nice design! I like it.)

To: Isselmere
From:Commadore Santo Dever-Smithe

Please accept our apologies in regards to my statements. Tarlag Has almost no experience with modern big gunned ships and most of our current designs or updated mid 20th centrey US units. The board member in charge of projected maintenance had indicated that maintenance after a ten year life span may be a problem for some of our ship yards. If you were as part of the contract provide technicians for some of the more advanced equment that would handle most of his issues.

Ragnarok class battleship (http://img471.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ragnarokclassbbg2if.gif)


Length: 320 meters (1049.8 feet)
Beam: 40 meters (131.2 feet)
Draught: 14 meters (45.9 feet)
Displacement: 95,000 metric tons

Power Plant: 6x DABB Maritime V14 diesel turbines (210,000 shaft horsepower / 156.6 MW) [Flight I]; 2x CNE-75 pebblebed reactors (400,000 shaft horsepower / 298.2 MW) [Flight II], 4x shafts, 4x propellers
Max Speed: 38 knots [Flight I]; 41 knots [Flight II]
Endurance: 4,900 nautical miles @ 20 knots [Flight I]; Limited only by crew [Flight II]
Crew: 110 officers, 2,190 enlisted (2,300 crewmembers total)
Aviation: 2x SH-60R Seahawk (not included)

Armament:
PRIMARY 9x 16"/62 caliber cannons (triple turrets in A, B and Y position)
SECONADRY 12x 8"/56 caliber canons (dual turrets)
MISSILES 48x Mark-51 VLS cells; 5x Mk-141 quad launchers
TORPEDOES 4x 533 millimeter (21") torpedo tubes below waterline (up to 32 torpedoes)
SELF-DEFENSE 6x Mark-99 30 mm CWIS mounts (6,000 shells each); 4x Mk-31 launchers (84x RIM-116C RAM missiles total)
Armor: 48 centimeter Titanum/DU/Tungsten/Steel/Kevlar scheme (same as Tiger class) around hull; 60 centimeters around vital areas such as magazines, bridge, reactors, CIC as well as the deck.
Combat Systems: AEGIS-type radar suite, hull-mounted sonar, Advanced Prarie/Masker, AN/SLQ-25 Nixie, SBROC II missile avoidance system

Other: The Ragnarok is designed to act as flagships in the Cottish fleet, and are therefore equipped with highly advanced command features and technology. The Ragnarok is fitted with equal or more advanced command systems than the Tiger class, including being fully digitalized.

Unit Cost: $4.8 billion [Flight I]; $6.0 billion [Flight II]

Special note: The sale of a limited amount of Ragnarok class battleships have been cleared for sale to Tarlag by the Ministry of Defense, and we are willing to replace systems Tarlag wish to replace (such as secondary guns, radar/sonar/etc systems, reactor, etc). We await your decision, and hope for a positive answer for the offers made by Laksevag Naval Shipyards.

Tarlag's Grendel type 5 reactors will be provided.
...
Each reactor provides 126,000 megawatts of power or about 150,000 shaft horse power. The Grendel is about 10 percent smaller then the A4W reactor of the Nimitz class carrier.
...
Listeneisse For the Humpback what is the projected top speed and the ships power plant type. If we choose your design we would like to have our own power units installed.

190 MW - Tech: peak power output of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier -- Wikipedia: Orders of magnitude (power) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_E8_W)

OOC

I'm hoping you made a big typo and meant "kW" rather than "MW". It looks like you did. If so, then the rest of this can be simply chalked up to me blathering about the research on reactors I've been doing to design your ship.

EDIT! I had to go back and do more reading about nuclear power plants in redesigning my own ship. I am learning quite a bit about nuclear engines. Below numbers are revised.

Nimitz (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimitz/specs.html) has two A4W/A1G (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W/A1G_reactor) pressured water reactors (http://www.answers.com/topic/pressurized-water-reactor-1); the Wikipedia article cites 500MW output.

btw: Guinness Book of World Records (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=43675) is technically incorrect in that Nimitz only has 2 nuclear reactors, not four. She has four turbines which turn the shafts, and each one draws 194 MW. So though I am no nuclear physicist and never served aboard a carrier, my understanding is this:

2 x A4W/A1G @ 500 MW (1000 MW total, 260,000 shp) drive --> 4 x turbines @ 194 MW ea (776 MW total).

The rest of the power is apparently drawn by other shipboard systems. She does have 4 backup diesel engines for 8 MW backup power.

The latest and largest shipboard nuclear engines planned are the A1B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor) reactor by Bechtel's subsidiary, Bettis Atomic Power Laboratories (formerly Westinghouse research lab). Each will provide +25% more MW power than the A4W/A1G -- which would then raise the estimate to approx. 625; new carriers ("CVN-21" or CVN-78 or CVNX) will be able to have two aboard.

However, none of these carriers will launch until 2014. The engines were tested and put back into a 'benign state' by defueling in 2001 until the ships are ready to float.

Then again, carriers such as Nimitz, CVN-21, and their ilk displace twice the tonnage of a ship the scale you are commissioning -- 110,000 dwt vs. ~60,000. While much its volume is the hollow flight deck, it's still nearly twice the gross weight in absolute terms. So we need to scale your ship appropriately.

(Actually, at current length and projected displacement it is the size of an Iowa, and thus could be classifed as a battleship. Inflation of PMT, I suppose.)

You could reasonbly get away with one of these reactors aboard the ship. It would be improbable but possible to squeeze two aboard. Then you'd be nothing more than a floating nuclear power generation station with a lot of shielding and cooling systems and little room for aught else.

There is simply no way in the world a reactor 90% of a Nimitz reactor can produce 252 times the power of a Nimitz reactor -- shy of it going critical, heavily irradiating if not outrightly exploding at the core of the entire ship. Please scale this back to something which approaches a rational basis of power. We'd love to make a competing design, so long as everyone has to obey the laws of nature and physics.

If you had meant "kilowatts" instead of "megawatts," that's certainly do-able, and I apologize if it was a simple typo.

EDIT: You can certainly get more power than I originally presented. Numbers below.

btw: A 126 MW engine is quite on par with a S6G -- a reactor used to power a Los Angeles submarine.

The Seawolf has a S6W reactor, rated at 220 MW.

The present A4W/A1G is 500 MW, and the new new A1B is going to be approx. 625+ MW.

I'm not sure of dimensions of the various powerplants. You can possibly figure out the required volume, if not the mass, by looking at ship's layouts.
The USN tends not to post free plans for them on the Internet. I'd be curious if anyone found weight/tonnage, volume, and other data. I've been unable to come up with them.

I'd love to take a gander at the NAVSEA 0989-LP-026-1000 - A4W/A1G Reactor Plant Manual.

re: How big can you make a nuclear reactor?

The largest electric plant in the United States is Palo Verde 2; it produces 1,335 MW. You can see a list of the others online (http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500218/The_25_Largest_Nuclear_Power_Plants_in_the_United_States.html).)

The world's largest plants under construction -- the first two units of which will not be finished until 2010 -- are the six plants at Guangdong (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-04/04/content_320462.htm), which will each produce 1,000 MW -- 6,000 MW total for a project site covering 472,485 square metres.

For those still dreaming about "gigawatts," you could not fit a 126,000 MW (126 GW) power plant on a 2,000,000 tonne SD hull, never mind a 60,000 tonne cruiser. Last time I ran numbers on a 2.9 million tonne SD it only had a maximal surface area of 229,152 m^2.

I have another thing to remind people about: cooling. If you actually could construct a reactor of that magnitude output that did not go critical immediately, you'd be faced with a ship so hot it would be boiling the ocean around it, burning the crew alive, and probably melting its way through the hull.

Already, typical nuclear power plants (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/a2/a2w_reactor1.htm) are kept operating at between 274-285º C. Any hotter and they have the danger of literally melting down. It is possible that newer design techniques and materials allow hotter-burning engines, but there are technical limits before the thing literally starts to cook. If you had two engines, you need to get rid of twice the waste heat. There's a limit to how much you can reasonably radiate.

So, again, let's go back to the idea of reducing this by a few orders of magitude to an actually-concievable 126,000 kW -- 126 MW -- powerplant.

Edit: Feel free to scale it to as large as 500-600 MW as per my amendations of possible designs. The rest still seems to hold true.

You'd only need, and be able to reasonably fit, one of these aboard the vessel.

At the same time, I'd like to know what the minimum power requirements for one of the ETC guns are. I know that the Navy's design requires 1 MW. The gun they want to put into DD(X) would require shunting power from the main engines -- shutting them down -- to power the gun. For a destroyer designed for shore bombardment that's not an issue. It's designed to park and shoot. For a sea-going fighting destroyer, that's not-so-good.

So could someone write up how their ETC gun actually fires, using realistic power consumption ratings based on physics?

If you had 9 x 1 MW guns that's a significant but not undoable draw on ship power. Yet at the diameter of the shot described, it seems those guns may be more than 1 MW power draw.

Again, realistically I'm just not sure you could do 2x 126 MW engines aboard. But please, if I am wrong, prove me wrong with some reasonable numbers. Cite sources if possible.

I won't be able to reasonable project actual speed or final dwt until I get answers on the above, but I am sure you can get the top speed you want. The issue is what other shipboard systems you could also simultaneously power at maximum speed.

As the honourable nation should note, said design has a 29m draught and a 10.58:1 length to breadth ratio that would lead to an unstable battleship or battlecruiser design. Ships with a length to breadth ratio greater than 8:1 have a cruiser's length-to-breadth ratio, whereas battleships require a length-to-breadth ratio of between eight (unstable) and six (stable) to one to provide a stable gun platform.
(ooc: I had meant the line art, and my comment was OOC. Please do not abuse such and take it IC. I can understand your frustration at being upstaged or even challenged by an upstart. But please don't crossover.)

(ooc: I had meant the line art, and my comment was OOC. Please do not abuse such and take it IC. I can understand your frustration at being upstaged or even challenged by an upstart. But please don't crossover.)OOC: To be fair, much of your IC evaluation of Isselmere's designs looked to me like a OOC slam on the feasibility of the designs as if he were some n00b. Considering the extensive time he has spent on every single design he's worked on that I could tell; much of which has been research, measuring, writing, editing, and approaching other ship designers for feedback, I could understand if he took some umbrage to that.

As for "abuse" of IC versus OOC, it seems as though your comments on his design skirted the same line as I mentioned earlier. I would hardly call his response (which I might add wasn't directed at any of your characters) abuse of IC vs. OOC.

ooc: while I try to refrain from entering... disputes such as this... I feel as if I should say something. It's been many, many months since I've designed any ships and I felt like dabbling once more, and yes, Isselmere is wholly correct, why I didn't notice that admittedly not-so-small fact when I was preparing the list of dimensions... it's beyond me.

That said, I appreciate Listeneisse's compliment of my lineart... I figure that as a graphic design student I better at least be able to draw a ship ;)

Anyways, I apologise for the fact that my design has become an impetus for a war of OOC words between players... at least that's how it seems to me... that was wholly and categorically not my intent. So, if I may, my apologies to Tarlag for seemingly precipitating this OOC... disagreement. That was not my intent by any stretch of any imagination.

(ooc: I had meant the line art, and my comment was OOC. Please do not abuse such and take it IC. I can understand your frustration at being upstaged or even challenged by an upstart. But please don't crossover.)
OOC: My apologies, for the reference -- although referring to an OOC comment, on which it is admittedly an improper thing to make IC comments -- was intended as an IC comment. Indeed, Azazia's design and write-up is quite good, and I hope he makes the appropriate changes in the beam and draft to suit his design better, and your comments from before, which I hope you understand I took entirely IC, were correct as I had improperly calculated the appropriate draught of the vessels. Your comments were/are valid, and I ought to have prefaced my own with the appropriate "This is IC rather than OOC [despite referring to an OOC comment, which I know isn't proper RPing]". I took no offence to your comments, and I hope neither you nor Azazia take or have taken offence to my unfortunately unprefaced comments. The crossover was entirely intended as a battle between firms rather than one between players.

OOC: To be fair, much of your IC evaluation of Isselmere's designs looked to me like a OOC slam on the feasibility of the designs as if he were some n00b. Considering the extensive time he has spent on every single design he's worked on that I could tell; much of which has been research, measuring, writing, editing, and approaching other ship designers for feedback, I could understand if he took some umbrage to that.

As for "abuse" of IC versus OOC, it seems as though your comments on his design skirted the same line as I mentioned earlier. I would hardly call his response (which I might add wasn't directed at any of your characters) abuse of IC vs. OOC.
ooc: No, it's not an OOC slam. It's an IC critique. Competitive analysis is all about looking at the weak points of design issues -- and then pointing that out to the customer to let them decide. Even great designs have their flaws and weaknesses somewhere. I saw one and decided to maximize the issue so that client saw it as a risk to their investment. Sounds like typical salesperson talk to me.

I took a look at his displacements and critiqued them. He thought they were fair and revised them. Seems like he took the feedback logically. I'm not trying to ruin his day, but make him think even more about shipbuilding. I ask that you do not leap to his defense without taking an objective eye towards my assertions.

If I was overstating the issue of draft, or if he could prove how he could get his displacement and draft at that ratio, I'd definitely be pleased to be proved wrong. There is a bit of learning that can happen both ways here, so please do not try to OOC squelch that. Let us prove our points technically and scientifically.

If he took OOC umbrage, I can understand his frustration. Yet at the same time, if a competitor pointed out a design flaw in my own design, I'd have to take it back to the drawing board.

One thing I note about my design -- it was my first drawing -- was that I have needlessly huge turrets. ;)

Actual turrets on the Iowa-class, as far as the plan I have, shows them to be 50' x 9' tall (15.4m x 2.74m). My turrets were 92' x 27.3' (28m x 8.3m)! While spacious as a palace, I can likely cut those down, oh, just a tad. They look nice. But are impractical at that scale.

But hence it's a conceptual drawing, to catch the eye of the client, and hopefully win their heart by modifying it to their needs.

As a curiosity to naval engineering enthusiasts, I have been able to obtain an electronic copy of the actual BB 65 plan (comparing it to BB 61-64) at 1/32" = 1' from July 8, 1940. That's what I'm using to base sizes off of.

I will likely be revising my own ship design again given some additional insights. It stands far out of water like a cruise ship currently. I'd like it to be a bit stealthier.

Take the competition to heart -- IC -- but keep a rational eye that this is not some OOC conspiracy to ruin another player's day; i.e., not an argument ad hominem. It's a fallacy to construe that it it has anything to do with them as a player. It's an attack against their shipbuilding firm as an IC competitor, as a businessman puts FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) in front of a client. It's done all the time in the real world by professional salespersons.

You won't see me attacking many points of NS ship design because they are possible -- even though highly unlikely -- such as the number of weapons systems to the number of crew. But it's often amazing how much "automation" many of these ships have, and then how few mechanical and electronic breakdowns they suffer, and how few crew they need to field. If only the real world was able to have a Navy with engineers putting their feet up relaxing like the Maytag repairman, eh?

My IC personae (and myself OOC) will poke at "magical" tech claims if they are inflationary and without precedent, and reserve the right to use all means of reasonable science and art to defeat such.

So if we see huge numbers of technical systems, and then small crew complements, expect to see some challenges of that also. It is possible to automate many functions, but it would probably mean that there are more "spot visits" by shore-based personnel to repair items that crew members aboard are just not up to fixing themselves. And during combat, you'll see a tremendous lack of people at hand to do things like repair systems that went down because of an impact, never mind fight fires.

I'm not saying that Isselmere did that in any of his designs. It's just an example of the sort of things I see in many NS designs. They are "100% daily nutrition diet chocolate cake" -- all the nutrients a body needs, great taste and no calories!

While the art and science of engineering drives towards perfection, and improvements are made all the time, there will be certain designs that have drawbacks. As competitors, our job will be to point those out. OOC, I might have to yank someone back to reality if I feel they are making the playing field unfair by simply claiming, "It can do all this and wash your car on weekends!" They too can poke holes in my own offerings. And from it, hopefully we'll all get the best neat-looking, scientifically possible, and humanly manageable designs (i.e., they'd be designed to work, and people could reasonably work on them).

Just because he is an oldbie does not mean he -- or you -- get to muscle out the competition or OOC dismiss valid technical concerns.

So let's take it back IC. If you need to be OOC, please keep it rational and not personal. Thank you.

ooc: Isselmere, Azazia:

We're golden! I am quite fine with a lively sporting competition.

Listeneisse hopes but does not plan to actually be the chosen design. This is its first ship building competition, and indeed, they are "young turks" looking to break into the big leagues.

I am quite pleased that you have both been good about revising matters. Please feel free to ICly ding me too.

I have to say that Isselmere has put a tremendous amount of research into his technology. And Azazia has marvelous visual design skills.

Now, back to the ICly competition! :)

Please note to all competitors
The Grendel 5 reactor should be listed as Kilowatts not megawatts as was pointed out (a mistake is transcribing for Gobalsecerity.org).
Please lets keep the competition between firms and not between players. I do not want this to get to nasty.
Lets get down to business here and let me tell you what prompted this competition in the first place. The Tarlag navy is a carrier based force built around five of our Island class and six of our Midway II class nuclear carriers. to supplement this force we have eight Essex II class conventional carriers. For the most part we are a modern conventional force. Besides the Alaska class BC the only other large surface combatant types we use are the Tome class CA and the Little Rock class CL. both ships use a combination of guns a missile battery's to fulfill their missions. We have not made any surface combat ships of BC class or heavier in forty five years besides carriers. As you can see this is why this bid has been put forward.
The Tarlag navy became alarmed when the intelligence gathering ship
H.D.S. Albatross while following a Fallen Races Task force observed
this task force being wiped out to the ship by AMF missiles and guns. Naval intelligence concluded that if the Fallen Races had heaver surface ships the battle would not have been a one sided rout. If the Tarlag navy were to come up against such a foe with our current fleet we would lose. Tarlag In hopes of solving this problem has purchased four of the IDF gun cruisers but their ten inch guns would not be able to penetrate a modern BB/BC,s armor.
Hence our need for this bid.

Thank You
Commodore Anton Dever-Smithe

[OOC: Please remember this is a sales pitch, so of course I'm saying my ships can do marvellous things. Also note, this is purely IC.]

To: Commodore Anton Dever-Smithe, Tarlag
From: Neville Colwan, Director-General, Royal Shipyards, UKIN
Subject: Contracts

Dear Commodore,

It has come to my attention certain concerns you and your navy has with regard to our vessels being possible "dockyard queens" owing to either their complexity or their design. Let me reassure you that such is not the case.

Whilst it is true many of our larger ships have low draught in comparison with similar vessels from some nations, it is important to note that the depth of the draught is just slightly greater than the height of the freeboard. With about 16 metres (about 52.49 feet) above the waterline, the Treaty-class is more than able to withstand terrible North Atlantic seas as well as being able to cleave through the waves at over 30 knots. The Treaty-class, like all RSIN battleship designs, is designed as a stable gun platform, able to use its big guns -- as well as its many little ones -- effectively against other naval vessels or against other targets.

Though RSIN ships are highly automated, they have been designed as warships capable not only of meting out terrible damage but of receiving similar in kind. Every ship is designed from the outset to carry a contingent in excess of its immediate needs to serve as damage control personnel. Damage control has always been an important facet of RSIN vessels, with distributed fire mains, automated and manually operated safety measures, environmentally friendly fire suppressing foams, as well as the means of righting an injured vessel threatened by possible capsizing by transferring ballast to counter rolling moments.

RSIN ships also possess layered defences to counter air, sea, and sub-surface attacks, and are more than able to handle most modern ships of similar size. It has close-in gun missile platforms equipped with short range agile missiles as well as 35mm guns capable of firing AHEAD projectiles that fill the air with heavy sub-projectiles and armour piercing shells capable of defeating even the most heavily protected sea-skimming anti-ship missile.

Each RSIN warship has a host of radar, sonar, infra-red, and optical sensors to detect, target, and defeat a wide variety of threats. Our larger vessels (cruiser size and up) serve as hosts to a number of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) as well as autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) to find and prosecute targets beyond the warship's normal sensor horizons or simply to permit the ship to remain silent electronically.

It is also important to note that RSIN ships are built for longevity and serviceability. Each of the firm's designs are constructed with the purpose of serving fifty years or more within a nation's navy. The possibility of future upgrades of various systems have been engineered into each design with the allowance for growth of systems or of additional weight imposed by such additions. Admittedly, RSIN designs are meant for nations that have experience with leading edge technologies and have a good support and supply network behind them to ensure the vessels they purchase remain in good order.

Furthermore, the RSIN and associated companies do offer technical support for and training in the operation of our systems to facilitate the integration of the ships into a nation's existing fleet. Though my colleague from Listeneisse notes certain issues regarding our design

Please also note that the RSIN and associated companies are more than willing to accommodate to an individual nation's requirements, whether through the introduction of domestic technology and/or systems, or by changes to suit local requirements.

I hope these words will cause you to reflect positively upon the RSIN's designs.

Sincerely,

Neville Colwan
Director-General
Royal Shipyards
Grimsby Downs, Anguist, UKIN

Laksevag Naval Shipyards are proud to present...

The Tiger class Battlecruiser! (http://www.warship.get.net.pl/WBrytania/Battleships/1946_Vanguard_class/Vanguard_11.jpg)


The Tiger class symbolize the peak of Cottish naval designs. This vessel is to be a smaller vessel to supplement our Ragnarok class battleships, and is therefore equipped with advanced weapons and electronics.


The Tiger class is 263 meters, or 862.8 feet long, has a beam of 33.2 meters (108.9 feet) and a draft of 9.3 meters (30.5 feet). This gives more than enough room for the weaponry and spacious living quarters for the 92 officers and 942 enlisted personell. There are also enough room for up to 40 marines to be quartered comfortably. The total displacement when fully combat loaded for the Tiger class is at roughly 54 000 metric tonnes.


The Cottish versions of the Tiger class is propelled by two CNE-68 fission reactors, which generate a total of 180,000 shaft horsepower, or 134 megawatts of power. This is sufficient to propell the Tiger class up to speeds of 41 knots, although we do not recommend this speed for sustained periods of time. Instead, we recommend that the maximum speed used for sustained periods of time to be around 35 knots. The time between refuelling for the CNE-68 is around fifty years.


The armament of the Tiger class is one which can instill fear in even the bravest captains heart. The Tiger class boasts a main armament of no less than eight fourteen-inch (355.6 mm)/60 caliber cannons mounted in dual turrets in the A, B, X and Y positions. Secondary armament consist of sixteen dual-mounted five-inch (127 mm)/54 caliber cannons which can be used for both anti-aircraft and anti-surface warfare. Additionally, the Tiger class has a total of three Mk-141 quad launchers for Harpoon (or equivalent) missiles, as well as a total of fourty Mark-51 Vertical Launch cells mounted along the sides of the vessel, with twenty cells on each side of the ship. These cells are modular, and the loadout depends completely on the owner. There are in addition to the Mk-141s and Mk-51s a total of two Mk-155 Armoured Box Launchers with room for four cruise missiles each. There are also four 533 mm torpedo tubes below the waterline, and holdings for up to 32 torpedoes.

For self-defense purposes, the Tiger class have a total of three Mk-99 CWIS systems, each with a total of 6 000 shells of the 30 mm caliber. Additionally, the Tiger class have three Mk-31 launchers with 21 cells for the RIM-116C Rolling Airframe Missile, giving a total of 63 RAM missiles.


The armor scheme for the Tiger class is a mix of titanium, depleted uranium, a very thin layer of tungsten, steel and kevlar in a elaborate scheme. This gives for a very resistant armor which has a RHA equivalent of one to six, meaning that one centimeter of the armor scheme used is the same as six centimeters of steel. The coverage is fifteen centimeters around the hull with twenty-six centimeters around the magazines, bridge, nuclear reactors and deck. The inside of the ship is divided into a total of twenty water-tight sections, and the steel walls give added structural integrity. This should make the Tiger class able to withstand anti-shipping missiles, provided naturally that they make it throught the defenses.


Combat systems used in the Tiger class include data uplink, fittings for AEGIS-type radar suites, hull-mounted sonar, fittings for towed sonar array, advanced Prarie/Masker evasion systems and fittings for the AN/SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo countermeasure. There are also SBROC II chaff systems for fooling incoming missiles.


Command features are available for the Tiger class, with a large CIC deep inside the Tiger class fitted with the latest in technology. The entirety of the Tiger class is digitalized, and fiber-optic cables cross throughout the vessel, allowing for quick transfer of information. The Tiger class is also fitted with a constant satellite uplink and communications systems, allowing it to be constantly connected with the rest of the navy.


The price is perhaps the heftiest part of the Tiger class, as it has a going price of $3.9 billion per vessel. However, the features makes the Tiger class well worth the cost. We are naturally willing to let the Tarlagian navy replace the Cottish equipment with their own national products should they choose to do so. We await your verdict.


This offer has been checked and approved by the Ministry of Defense.

My personal recomendation.

To: Nevill Colwan of the Royal Ship Yards , UIKN
From: Commodore Anton Dever-Smith

After further analysis of the data, I have come to the conclusion that my junior officers report may have been wrong. If the operating costs can be kept within reason a part if not all of the contract may be awarded to your firm.
I will state this the competition has been stiff and my staff is split on which ship/ships will be chosen. With the expansion of our mandate to include battleships has made the decision harder. Tarlags decision will be coming soon.

Thank You

To Battle cruiser Bidders
From Commodore Anton Dever-Smithe

Thank you all for bidding. the bidding is not closed as of yet but the review group is coming to the point of drawing up some contracts. Before we come to a decision my group has a few questions.
Cotland may we please have stats for the Ragarok Battleship (we have decided to add 1-4 battleships to the contract).
Clan Smoke Jaguar in the three classes of ships submitted can the Grendel 5 reactors be installed instead of the existing power plant. We also would like to get an idea of the construction time of the three classes and expected life span.

The construction time of the vessels can vary significantly depending on availability of shipyards and workers, but normally takes in the range of 5 years for the better variants of the Toryu, and 4 years for the Zuiho. The Yubari rarely takes more than 3 years to construct. All these vessels have official rated lifespans of 50 years, though with refits and overhauls they can certainly last much longer.
As far as the reactor goes, all three of these classes were designed with a potential expansion into nuclear propulsion, and should be able to accept the Grendel 5 reactors to varying degrees. The Toryu could certainly fit 2 such reactors, while the Zuiho should be able to carry 1 without much trouble. However, while believe that we can equip the Yubari with the Grendel, it will likely be a tight squeeze, so such a thing could be potentially risky.



Also, regarding the possible battleship contract (or maybe potentially battlecruiser contenders, depending on one's point of view), we would like to offer the following vessels, which could also each be modified to fit 2 of the reactors:

Cetus Class BBG Flight IB
Displacement: 118,780 tons
Length: 325m
Beam: 42.5m
Draft: 12.6m
Speed: 24 knots
Range: 5000 nm @ 24 knots, 20,000 nm @ 16 knots
Armament: 3x3 18”/54 cal Mk.2, 2x6.1” AGS, 4xTwin 5”/62 cal, 352 cells VLS, 32xShinma (8 quad launchers), 48xCrossbolt (angled VLS), 72xFirebolt (48 angled VLS, 12 twin launchers), 2xAMFEL II, 8x21 round box launcher (RIM-116 RAM), 8xDragon CIWS, 8x25mm Bushmaster, 20x12.7mm
Ammunition: 1080x18”, 1500x6.1”, 5400x5”
Aircraft: 8xMH-60R Strikehawk, 6xUAV
Countermeasures: 2xMk.36 Mod 3 SRBOC (6-round, radar & IR), SLQ-25C Nixie (acoustic)
Radars: AN/SPS-82(V)5 long-range 3D air search, AN/SPY-4A multifunction (5 arrays), AN/SPS-55C(V)4 Surface Search, AN/SPS-72 Navigation, 5xAN/SPG-77B(V)3 Fire Control, 3xAN/SPQ-19 Fire Control (gun), 6xAN/SPQ-9B(V)4 Fire Control (gun)
Sonars: AN/SQS-58D hull-mounted, AN/SQR-22(V)4 towed array
Integrated Systems: CIRRUS Mk.1A Air Defense System, AN/SQQ-94(V)2 ASW Combat, AN/SLQ-212 EW Suite
Radar Range: 600 km (SPS-82), 85 km (SPS-55), 125 km (SPS-72), 120 km (SPQ-19), 45 km (SPQ-9)
Armor: 14-22.5” belt, 14” deck, 25” turret face, 15.5” turret side, 23.5” conning tower
Crew: 2013
A very large, powerful ship originally intended for the command role. Boasting large batteries of VLS and 16” or 18” guns, this ship is perfectly capable of holding its own against any vessel in its weight class, and provides a phenomenal bombardment platform for supporting amphibious operations.
Cost: $9.7 billion
Construction Time: 6.5 years (average)
Service Life: 50 years

Cetus Class BBG Flight IA
Displacement: 118,780 tons
Length: 325m
Beam: 42.5m
Draft: 12.6m
Speed: 24 knots
Range: 5000 nm @ 24 knots, 20,000 nm @ 16 knots
Armament: 4x3 16”/58 cal Mk.2, 2x6.1” AGS, 4xTwin 5”/62 cal, 352 cells VLS, 32xShinma (8 quad launchers), 48xCrossbolt (angled VLS), 72xFirebolt (48 angled VLS, 12 twin launchers), 2xAMFEL II, 8x21 round box launcher (RIM-116 RAM), 8xDragon CIWS, 8x25mm Bushmaster, 20x12.7mm
Ammunition: 1560x16”, 1500x6.1”, 5400x5”
Aircraft: 8xMH-60R Strikehawk, 6xUAV
Countermeasures: 2xMk.36 Mod 3 SRBOC (6-round, radar & IR), SLQ-25C Nixie (acoustic)
Radars: AN/SPS-82(V)5 long-range 3D air search, AN/SPY-4A multifunction (5 arrays), AN/SPS-55C(V)4 Surface Search, AN/SPS-72 Navigation, 5xAN/SPG-77B(V)3 Fire Control, 4xAN/SPQ-19 Fire Control (gun), 6xAN/SPQ-9B(V)4 Fire Control (gun)
Sonars: AN/SQS-58D hull-mounted, AN/SQR-22(V)4 towed array
Integrated Systems: CIRRUS Mk.1A Air Defense System, AN/SQQ-94(V)2 ASW Combat, AN/SLQ-212 EW Suite
Radar Range: 600 km (SPS-82), 85 km (SPS-55), 125 km (SPS-72), 120 km (SPQ-19), 45 km (SPQ-9)
Armor: 14-22.5” belt, 14” deck, 25” turret face, 15.5” turret side, 23.5” conning tower
Crew: 2013
An alternative version of the Cetus with 4 16” turrets instead of 3 18”ers
Cost: $9.2 billion
Construction Time: 6.5 years (average)
Service Life: 50 years

To: Clan Smoke Jaguar
From Commodore Anton Dever-Smithe

Thank You for your quick replay with the news that the our Grendel 5 can be installed in you ships puts you in the running for the contract. My group will go before the Grand Duke himself in 24 hours to give our report from there he will make the decision.

To: All Bidders
From Commodore Anton Dever-Smithe
Subject: Contract awards

I have just returned from my meting with the Grand Duke Ozgood III and he has has issued the purchase orders for the following ships.

Battleships
Country Type Number of units cost per

Cotland Ragnarok number of units 2 at 6 Billion per
Clan Smoke Jaguar Toryu Flight II numberof units 1 at 6 Billion per
Isselmere Cornation number of units 1 at 16,000 mil USD per
TOTAL 4
Battle Cruisers
Cotland Tiger number of units 6 at 3.9 billion per
Clan smoke Jaguar Yulari number of units 3 at 3.95 Billion per
Isselmere Prince Class number of units 3 at 48,000 million USD
Total 12

Supplemental contract order For 6 CAG(N)
Isselmere Castle Classnumber of units 6 at 2,100 million USD
Total 6

Please note to contract winners Please install the pre discussed modifications to the completed ships.


To: Clan Smoke Jaguar
From: Captain Parker Nevrn Naval Ordnance Department
Subject: Yulari Class BB

Would it be possible to swap out the 16/59 inch main guns and replace them with the 19/62 main gun this would save us having to manufacture shells for one vessel. If the swap out is not possible could you install the turret rings and turrets but omit the guns so we may install the 16/62 guns.

TO:Azazici
From: Commodore Anton Dever-Smithe

I am truly sorry to report that the Grand Duke himself rejected the Type 93 BC. When the report was submitted to him the Type 93 was on the approved list. My team felt it was one of the more capable of the entrants and we had put in an order of two of the ships. The Duke though had concerns on the price of the ship per unit being three times the cost of any of the other ships on the list. He pointed out that we could add four more BC's to the total order if these ships were omitted. After a short argument put up by one of my technical staff (The Duke ordered him transferred to the garbage scow H.D.S. Junkeyon) the Duke over ruled our findings.

Please note we will soon be having bidding on a new class of Light missile cruiser I hope you will submit a bid.

To: Listeneiss
From Commodore Anton Dever Smithe

I am sorry to report our technical staff rejected your submission of the Humpback BC on the following grounds. The length of the ship did not meet the requirement of 850 feet. My technical staff pointed out that its shorter length and beam may hamper stability when firing the main guns.
The internal bridge design through advanced was rejected out of hand by the Duke. He felt that if the commanding officer of the ship did not face the same dangers as the crew he did not deserve to be their.

Please note that a bid will be opening soon on a new attack sub. I feel your innovative designs would put you a head of even our native companies.

To: Tarlag
From: Laksevag Naval Shipyards
Subject: Purchase

Dear sir,

I am happy to accept the contract issued from the Tarlagian Navy to construct two Ragnarok [Flight II] class battleships and six Tiger class battlecruisers for said navy. We have now been able to secure employment for our staff of 20,000 for quite some time forward, and will start construction on the vessels immediately.

The keel of the first Ragnarok [Flight II] class battleship will be laid at our yards no later than two weeks after the funds for constructing the vessels has been wired to our account, with the keel for the second one two weeks after that of the first one. From there on, we predict a delivery time of three years per battleship.

The keel of the first Tiger class battlecruiser will be laid in a month, and we expect a shorter delivery period of that vessel, approximately one year. We hope that full delivery of the vessels, providing of course that the components you wish us to replace arrives in time, will take place in five years, at which time you will have a potent and modern fleet of capital ships for the protection of your nation.

Again, this is a joyous day for Laksevag Naval Shipyards, and for the Tarlagian Navy. Your decision to select a number of vessels from us has revitalized our yards, and we guarantee you that you shall not regret this choise. Therefore, after discussion and vote in the Board of Directors, we have decided to offer repairs of the vessels in our shipyards free of charge in case they are damaged in any way. We also offer full technical support for the vessels and training in the vessels.


With deepest regards and wishes

- Olav Einar Larsen
C.E.O., Laksevag Naval Shipyards

TO: Mr. Larson of the Laksevag naval ship yards
From: Commodore Anton Dever Smithe

The money for the vessels has just been wired to your accounts. I am glad that you can start construction of our new ships so quickly.
They will be named the following.

BB 25 H.D.S. Prince Roland
BB 26 H.D.S. Sir Deago Stormhand

BC 05 H.D.S. Rumgar the Terror
BC 06 H.D.S. Romulis
BC 07 H.D.S. Ragnar
BC 08 H.D.S. Rufas Ironlord
BC 09 H.D.S. Remus Ironlord
BC 10 H.D.S. Riddenmark

I thank you also for the free repairs for these ship I hope this will not be necessary. Housing will be provided for any visiting technicians and personal at our Maidens Rest Naval Base free of charge.
The components you will need to finish the ships will be dispatched aboard two merchant ships in the next month.

Two weeks later

"First keel laid on Tarlagian battleship"

LAKSEVAG NAVAL SHIPYARDS, BERGEN (CFP): Earlier today, the keel of the first of the eight warships purchased by the nation of Tarlag was laid on slip 9-E of Laksevag Naval Shipyards. This is the symbol of the multi-billion dollar contract between the Tarlagian Navy and Laksevag Naval Shipyards, who hope that this new contract can revitalize the long drought in contracts. Anonymous high-ranking sources within the shipyard says that "this [contract] assures work for our twenty-thousand employees for at least five years into the future, and possibly more now that we've finally been given a propper chance of proving ourselves."

The vessel in question, a Ragnarok flight II class battleship of Cottish design is to become the Tarlagian warship H.D.S. "Prince Roland", and will serve in the Tarlagian fleet once she has been completed and given full sea trials. She is armed with nine massive sixteen inch cannons and a wide array of other weapons, as well as state of the art equipment. While the exact combat system configuration is a closely guarded secret, officials assure that the vessel is sufficiently equipped to "kick some serious enemy ass".

The other ships to be constructed for the Tarlagian navy in the multi-billion dollar contract is another Ragnarok flight II class battleship, which is to be named the H.D.S. "Sir Deago Stormhand", as well as the Tiger class battlecruisers H.D.S. "Rumgar the Terror", H.D.S. "Romulis", H.D.S. "Ragnar", H.D.S. "Rufas Ironlord", H.D.S. "Remus Ironlord" and H.D.S. "Riddenmark". A senior government official said that "the sale of those ships are a symbol of newfound friendship between the Empire and the relatively new nation of Tarlag".

The contract is worth in excess of 35 billion dollars, and will guarantee employment for more than 20,000 citizens and their families as well as a new spring for Laksevag Naval Shipyards.

(Taken from the Internet version of CFP)

HUMPBACK CLASS BCGN
Castle of the Galleys Shipwrights, Ltd.

Final Design Plan: http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/4615/battlecruiser24np.jpg

Displacement: 55,500 dwt
Length at Waterline: 774’ (236m)
Total Length: 843’ (257.25m)
Beam: 32.5’ (9.9m)
Draft: 36’ (11m)
Power: Primary: 2 Grendel type 5 reactors, each 126 MW, 150,000 shaft horse power (shp); 256 MW, 300,000 shp
Secondary/Backup: 1 LM6000 Gas Turbine (http://www.geae.com/engines/marine/lm6000.html) engines, 40 MW, 57,330 shp
Total Ship Power: 296 MW, 357,330 shp
Propulsion: Two aft mounted Contrarotating Controllable Pitch Propellers (CCPP); mounted in double-walled nacelles (for ultra-quiet performance); draws maximum amount of water uniformly through screws, resulting in high performance, low induced energy loss, and no asymmetrical torque effects of conventional propellers; increases efficiency.
Two forward and two central bottom hull-mounted swing-up azimuth propulsors (Class "A" armor is laminar hardened up to 540 on Brinnel scale to a depth of 150mm using a special slow-cooling process to prevent cracking (http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-037.htm) over long service life; provides better protection than similar thickness of untreated "soft" RHS.
Many parts feature Composite Explosive-Reactive Armor (ERA); ceramic-explosive combination lighter than traditional ERA; turns to chaff rather than hard shrapnel, causing less exposed crew casualties. Stand-off defense against many threats.
Many parts of the ship have Exoelectric Armor (EXA) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F19%2Fnmod19.xml); provides disruption of penetration especially by shaped explosives (e.g. Exocet or RPG-7); activated during battle conditions, requires 10 MW draw from ship's power.
Armor Specifications
Main Side Belt: Double-hulled, 150mm outer + 500mm inner
Main Turrets: ERA + 100mm Exoelectric Armor (EXA) + 600mm (front); ERA + 100mm EXA + 450mm (side, rear)
Barbette: 100mm EXA (all-around) + 450mm (front), 300mm (interior/rear)
Decks, Hangar: 100mm EXA + 300mm
Conning Tower: ERA + 100mm EXA + 400mm
Hull: Double-hulled
Reactor/Engines: 150mm
Weapons:
4 triple-mounted main turrets, 2 fore, 2 aft -- wish to discuss main armament (various options available).
10 double-mounted secondary turrets, 5 port, 5 starboard -- 155mm (6") Naval Gun with automated 2-piece cartridge handling. 20 rds/min.
10 torpedo tubes, 6 fore, 4 aft; storage for 36 torpedos/ATTs/UUVs fore, 24 torpedos/ATTs/UUVs aft.
8 CIWS (fore port, fore starbord, fore superstructre, two port superstucture, two starboard superstructure, aft superstructure)
64 VLS cell (fore); allows a variety of antiaircraft, antisurface, ASW and land-attack weapons
Additional Countermeasures & Defenses
HI-FOG (http://www.hi-fog.com/en/fireprotection/index.htm) high-pressure water mist fire supression systems; do not require sealing bulkheads like chemical extinguishers or exacerbate casualties from asphyxiation; allow human fire fighting teams to also combat fire in areas.
16 Anti-Laser Aerosol Dispensers
20 Hull-Mounted Flare Dispensers
"Fog of War" IR-Damping Smoke/Mist Generator
Towed Torpedo Countermeasure Transmitting Set (AN/SLQ-25A NIXIE (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-slq-25.htm))
Hangar/Helopad Facilities:
Fantail area over 900 m^2.
Sufficient room for 2 SH-60 Seahawk (http://www.sikorsky.com/details/1,,CLI1_DIV69_ETI264,00.html) or H-92 Superhawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_H-92_Superhawk) medium helicopters for ASW duties.
Additional room for various UAVs.
Electronics
AEGIS Weapon System Multi-Function Radar (AN/SPY-1B (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-spy-1.htm))
Air Search Radar (AN/SPS-49(V)8 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-sps-49.htm))
Surface Search Radar (AN/SPS-55 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-sps-55.htm))
Gun Fire Control Radar (AN/SPQ-9 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-spq-9.htm))
Anti-Air Fire Control/Illuminator Radar (AN/SPG-62 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-spg-62.htm))
EW Suite RF (Radio/Radar/GPS) Active Jamming/Deception(AN/SLQ-32(V)4 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-slq-32.htm))
Bow-mounted Spherical Active/Passive Sonar
Hull-mounted forward/side/bottom-scanning sonar (detects bottom-anchored mine/sonar array, pipelines)
Towed sonar array (for detection of "wakeriding" threats, AN/SQR-19B (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-sqr-19.htm))
Laser Warning System (mounted along hull to detect laser designators, beamriders, rangefinders)
NBC Attack Sensors

Cost: $9.8 billion USD
Production time: 3.5 years
Production capacity: 1 ship now, 2 (or more) additional ships can begin production given 1 year lead time.

Clarifications
We would like to discuss more about the main armaments. We can provide a variety of weapons but would like to know whether you are desiring traditional chemical, electrothermal chemical (ETC), or full electric (rail-gun) weapons.
We also have some room aboard for ships' boats/lifeboats and cranes. We would like to know what you might think about such provisions.

To: Listeneiss
From Commodore Anton Dever Smithe

I am sorry to report our technical staff rejected your submission of the Humpback BC on the following grounds. The length of the ship did not meet the requirement of 850 feet. My technical staff pointed out that its shorter length and beam may hamper stability when firing the main guns.
The internal bridge design through advanced was rejected out of hand by the Duke. He felt that if the commanding officer of the ship did not face the same dangers as the crew he did not deserve to be their.

The length of the vessel can certainly be extended. You may have been focusing upon the waterline length. We were shy by 7' for the overall length of 850'. Ships can be tailored to suit. It could be "taken out" as it were.

You may wish to look over the latest design. We have done much in the way of improving the initial conceptual drawing. A lower overall profile, a bit deeper draft, but all quite within conventions for panamax.

We have also added a traditional bridge.

As for facing dangers, we do point out that the whole purpose of armoring a warship is to minimize dangers, not to expose the crew to needless ones.

Tank commanders work from within armored compartments.

Submarine commanders work without even seeing the ocean through a window.

With more and more radar and sonar sensors, automated detectors, camera systems, and so on, we were finding that most commanders were in the combat information center (CIC) than on a flying bridge.

While we would not stand in the way of a multi-billion dollar procurement, could you look over the updated design submission and let us know what you may think.

Thank you.

To: Commodore Anton Dever-Smithe, Tarlag
From: Neville Colwan, Director-General, Royal Shipyards, UKIN
Subject: Order

Dear Commodore Dever-Smithe,

It is my great honour to receive and to humbly accept your order for one Coronation-class battleship, three Princess-class battlecruisers, and six Castle-class nuclear powered heavy cruisers. For this procurement, the total cost will be $43 billion ($43,000 million) after discount.

All of the changes requested to the designs shall be implemented into the vessels, including the installation of the Grendel 5 reactors in place of the existing powerplant, the replacement of UKIN systems for Tarlag electronics (Crystal Ball and Deep Blue sonars, and others), the fitting of four 533mm underwater torpedo tubes, and the refitting of the existing dual purpose armament with the specified turrets (eight 5.54mm in twin turrets).

Construction of the ships shall begin shortly. Payment may be completed in instalments -- without interest -- over ships' the building time. The completion of this order will be in between 7-8 NS years [7-8 RL days], although the majority of this order will be completed within five NS years.

We at RSIN thank Tarlag for selecting our ships and we hope they will provide your fleet with superb service. We shall be at your service for technical assistance, upgrading, and training over the lifetime of the ships in your service. I sincerely wish the great nation of Tarlag the very best and the greatest successes on the high seas.

Sincerely yours,

Neville Colwan
Director-General
Royal Shipyards
Grimsby Downs, Anguist, UKIN

To: Clan Smoke Jaguar
From: Captain Parker Nevrn Naval Ordnance Department
Subject: Yulari Class BB

Would it be possible to swap out the 16/59 inch main guns and replace them with the 19/62 main gun this would save us having to manufacture shells for one vessel. If the swap out is not possible could you install the turret rings and turrets but omit the guns so we may install the 16/62 guns.
OOC: I'm assuming you're talking about the Toryu, as the Yubaris use 12" guns


IC:
For the Toryu class vessel, the hull can certainly accept 19"62 cal guns, though with such large weapons, we would have to limit it to three twin mounts instead of three triple. On the other hand, the 16"/62 cal guns would be perfectly feasible (we in fact use similar sized barrels in some later models of the weapon) and could probably be incorporated with a little modification. However if it is desired to maintain our own turrets and just replace the guns themselves, we would advise sending the guns, or at the very least one example of them, to us for incorporation into the design. There will most likely be some modifications needed to the turrets themselves, as well as the fire control, and a physical example of the barrel being used would be most useful for determining and providing the appropriate changes.

To Clan smoke Jaguar
From Navel ordnance division

Please excuse the error it was 16/62 not 19/62 If you need an example of the weapon one will be provided with the other equment sent.

Tarlag, etc.

I have gone back up and edited my post significantly about nuclear engine capabilities.

Corrected nuclear power plant info (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9838697#post9838697)

The short answer is that the A4W/A1G produces 500 MW (as the one source mentions).

The new A1B is, according to Congressional reports, going to be +25% more powerful.

So a 126 MW engine is actually far size smaller than a Nimitz engine. It is, however, right in line with an Enterprise engine. It can certainly be 90% of the Enterprise engines.

The difference is in layout.

Nimitz uses 2 x 500 MW engines (1,000 MW and 260,000 shp total) to drive 4x turbines each requiring 194 MW (or 776 MW total).

Whereas Enterprise has 8 x 120 MW engines (960 MW and 280,000 shp total).

In another comparison, Los Angeles subs use 130 MW (35,000 shp) S6G reactors. Virginia boats use ~150 MW (40,000 shp) S9G, and Seawolf and Ohio use 220 MW engines (designated S6W and S8G respectively, rated at 57,000 shp and 60,000 shp).

Your typical nuclear reactor gives about 260 - 290 shp per MW. Seawolf seemed to have the lowest figure of that, and Enterprise had the highest. Nimitz got about 280. Los Angeles and Ohio boats were about 270 per MW. YMMV -- your megawattage may vary.

Alternately, your shp figures for 150,000 shp is fine if you go for a 'big engine' -- if you truly meant to have 150,000 shp engine, then declare the reactors are 512 MW reactors -- 4x their original rating. That would give them an output of 293 shp per MW. Which is possible given technological improvements, but would be at the high end of things.

With that said, I was wondering if anyone else had given thoughts to power consumption, weight, and physical layout of their designs. I'll be exploring the issue more from a MT perspective in another thread as to not disrupt this one further.

To: Listeneisse
From: Tarlag

Looks like you have done your research on this subject. I just look at some modern ships and take an educated guess.

The Tarlag News service has just released the following press statement.
The Tarlag Defense force is proud to announce the names of the new Battleships and BattleCruisers soon to be entering service with the Tatlag Navy.
From the Laksevag Naval Shipyards of Cotland
BB 25 Prince Roland
BB 26 Sir Deago Stormhand
BC 05 Rumgar the Terror
BC 06 Romulis
BC 07 Ragnar
BC 08 Rufas Ironlord
BC 09 Remus Ironlord
BC 10 Riddenmark
From Clan Smoke Jaguar's Shipyards
BB 27 Royal Jaguar
BC 11 Lord Yama
BC 12 Lord Thanous
BC 13 Lord Rodan
From the Royal Shipyards, UKN of Isselmere
BB 28 King Gunther
BC 14 Defiance
BC 15 Indefatigable
BC 16 Irrefutable
CAGN 01 Ironhold
CAGN 02 Carlass
CAGN 03 Troll Keep
CAGN 04 Raven's Tower
CAGN 05 Cauldwell's Keep
CAGN 06 Toban's Wall
These new ships will bring forth a new era of Peace and prosperity For our great nation.

Should you find yourself in need of any more modern warships, please, do not hessitate to visit our storefront to view the vessels we have available for sale.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=451402

Regards
Board of Directors
Laksevag Naval Shipyards