NationStates Jolt Archive

The Castle of the Galleys Shipwrights, Ltd. had been building ships for nearly two thousand years. Yet for most of those years it was the crafting of sails and oars and wood.

Now it was an age of nuclear reactors, hardened steel hulls, armored-piercing shells and even more hard-nosed businessmen.

During the modern era, the privately-held firm had built naval ships to plans licensed from other nations (ooc: RL US and UK ships). It had extensive experience in manufacturing everything from patrol cutters to aircraft carriers and submarines.

Design-wise, it was making its own commercial ferries, cargo ships, and other merchant vessels. So why was it not succeeding in naval architecture for military applications?

The naval market in this world of NationStates was filled with outlandish vessels ranging up the scale to the size of islands. 3 million tonnes? That was insane.

So far, they had not been able to break into the international market for even reasonable destroyer or submarine contracts. Nor had they been able to convince clients some of the vessels their competitors offered where technologically, logistically, or economically infeasible to support.

Now they wanted to put themselves on the world map, as it were. Prove to the old salts at the Royal Navy that they could make world-class vessels on par with that of other nations.

Their entry into a recent design competition (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450683) for a battlecruiser for the nation of Tarlag had been rejected (ooc: see stats below). Yet the shipwrights hoped to salvage their investment of design time by hopefully finding other nations in search of a similar vessel. Perhaps they could solve some of the design issues, or the percieved issues of other aspects from the buyer's perspective. They need to bow out of the Tarlag engagement, but keep a pulse on how their competition operated. They needed to get feedback from other international potential buyers.

They met to discuss their design, and the reaction to it.

Turning Isle Conference Room, Building 3, Corporate Headquarters of Castle of the Galleys Shipwrights, Ltd.

Mr. Tristan Straussburg, Director of Engineering reviewed the letter of rejection with the staff.

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.

Harry in Marketing was not impressed, "To 'Listeneiss'? What -- do they think they're writing to His Majesty? They didn't address you by name. They didn't refer to the name of our firm. They didn't even spell our nation's name right!"

"Calm seas, Harry," Tristan reminded him. "The client had valid reasons to reject the design. Let's not confuse the niceties of form with the technological issues."

"Still, they sound like they were just wanting to buy product, not make relationships."

That was immaterial to Tristan. "Other opinions? Questions?"

"What did you answer back to them, Mr. Straussburg?" the question was posited by Lord Driant of the Isle. He was one of the owners of the private firm, and a friend of Tristan's.

So he read the reply he had presented.

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

"We actually did not get the new design in by the time the client made a decision. We worked night-and-day to get it done in time, but by the time we submitted it the orders had already been placed. Yes, Harry. They did not spend much time with us developing the design. They are a tough customer to please. We failed to please them."

Harry still grumped.

"You added a fourth main weapons turret. Was that advisable?"

"Frankly, I'm not sure. I think it is quite doable. We researched into the 4-main turret proposal for the USS Montana (http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/67.htm). It would have been 580' at the waterline, 60,500 feet standard displacement and 70,965 tons full load.

"In truth," he turned to the representatives of the architecture team, "I still think our vessel is a bit to high and too short. You've been designing cruise ships, ferries, tankers and container vessels. All of those can sit high out of the water, and no one truly cares. A battleship needs to sit lower in the water, generally, to avoid hostile fire and to keep a low radar signature. While we can apply radar-absorbing materials, the freeboard is simply enormous, and every vertical foot needs armor."

"Sounds like you are advocating going back to a 'Monitor'-style concept."

"In a way, yes. If we can get low in the water, we minimize the need for vertical sheets of armor. However, we were not given sufficient time to plan that sort of radical design. Nor a trimaran. Even sticking to conventional designs we arrived late to the party."

"Well, what does the ship look like now?"

With that, he dimmed the lights and turned on the LCD projector to show the latest design on the screen. A handout was also available for everyone in the room.

____

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 ([url=http://www.rolls-royce.com/marine/product/propulsion/azimuth/swing.jsp), 3 MW each (12 MW total); engine recesses covered with armored plating for high-speed transit; engines deploy for port manuvering or emergency propulsion.
Maxium Speed: 35+ Knots
Crew: 80 officers, 1,300 enlisted, 40 marines; 1,420 total
Protection: 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 Mk41 VLS cell (fore); 64 x 8 = 512 total; allows a variety of antiaircraft, antisurface, ASW and land-attack weapons; new ESSM SAMs can be put 4 per cell
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.
_____

Questions and answers followed.

"You should rename it after a shark. I like the new profile with the bow sonar."

"Cleaner lines."

"What's the airdraft at now?"

Some hushed comments about the room. Someone checked.

"Above the waterline? To the top of the radome. 53.3m. 175 feet. Keel-to-mast, at least, to the top of the radome -- 64.3m. 211 feet."

Keel-to-mast on a Nimitz was 74.3m (244 ft), so this seemed acceptable to some. Others pointed out that most of an Iowa still sat far lower to the waterline. She just didn't look like a battleship to them. At least, not yet.

"Nearly $10 Billion? Is it worth it for a single ship?"

"Attack subs are going for more than $2 Billion as you know. This would be a rather hearty beast. We designed it to stop Exocets and even land-based RPG-7 attacks if it was in port."

Harry, of course, had to comment. "A CVN can be had for $4.5 Billion and provides far more capability. Would this be worth it? Are you sure you're not reinventing wheels here?"

"Alright. We need to look at costs. They were based in the cost of armouring a creature like this. Aircraft carriers are rugged, but not this rugged."

That still didn't please many in the room.

"Alright. Some of the numbers were indeed SWAGs, and we are likely to be able to come in at a significantly reduced figure."

"Yes. It should be a lot lower."

That sounded like a command.

There was a silently-passed handwritten note expressing displeasure that an engineer had been allowed to set a price tag so cavalierly. The recipient made silent observance of the fact and wrote back, "He didn't have time to check. This whole project was rushed. Not fair to client or shipbuilder."

Meanwhile the discussion continued aloud. Some in the weapons group were talking, "It's a shame they never answered about what sort of main guns they wanted."

"Yes, I was sort of hoping to lean towards ETCs or rail guns."

"I think you made a mistake in the power output of the engines. It's possibly a typographic error."

"Pardon?"

A review of various nuclear power plants (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9847699#post9847699) for ship engines showed that a typical nuclear submarine had reactors that produced 100-250 MW. Whereas a carrier needed somewhere near a gigawatt to keep up their speed. The horsepower seemed right. It was just the wattage. Either that, or the wattage was insufficiently specified and the horsepower would have to come down.

There suddenly was a tremendous amount of debate that led to clarity of many facts. Some questioned whether the re-designed ship needed to be nuclear. Many were still fond of steam boilers and gas turbines.

Parties on all sides agreed that they'd need to replace the power plant in any regard, since there was no chance to use the Tarlag Grendel reactors.

Yet regardless of those details the space considerations had been taken into account for ships' engines.

"Remember that our gas turbine engines were specified as backup. We lost a lot of range with very limited bunkerage. They'd be used for battle conditions or emergencies. It would be like using your hotter-burning anthracite coal -- 'war coal.' You'd normally be operating without those being powered up."

Comparison of a modern naval vessel to an old coal-burner amused an number of buffs in the room.

"Maybe we should call her the 'Bituminous Beluga' instead of the 'Humpback.'"

Chortles went up.

"She looks more like a shark. Consider changing the name from 'Humpback.'"

It was agreed that maybe the redesign phase might present an opportunity to defer to a client as to what to formally name her class.

People did like the swing-down auxilliary propulsors, but note should be made what they might add to draft. Otherwise, there could be inboard propsulors added.

"Cap'n, I cannae gi' ye anythin' but impulse power until the warp engines are back online!"

Outright laughter.

"Alright. Back to business."

Someone pointed out that the ship was missing a ventilation stack for the turbines. It was true. He couldn't see ventilation stacks on the drawing. The architects revealed that the ventilators would be aft of the mast, amidships between the CIWS mounts. No need to add a tall stack since no one would generally be up there. There was a technical note to check to see if that was acceptable.

Tristan also aired one of his own concerns, "I'm also wondering about what we can do with the forward bulge with the fore VLS tubes. I know that we were looking on giving the bow a bit of volume and width above the waterline to keep it from plunging as easily, but the client didn't seem to buy it as a stable vessel, citing short length."

"I don't even think they saw the new design to buy it," quipped a member of the architechture team who had literally worked round-the-clock on CAD systems for the last two days prior to submission.

"No, probably not. I apologize."

"What about our own Navy?" prompted Lord Driant.

"Well, that brings us to another conundrum."

"Which is?"

"They want to get the design peer-review analyzed by other naval experts. They are willing to consider the design, but are leery of the claims we made, and want to see if others think we can actually build it. They'll have their own naval experts looking it over, but they want to get an impartial review from other naval authorities, naval architects, and even accounting firms. So we cannot sell them without at least selling the ship as viable to outside parties first. And we cannot sell to other parties if they hear our own navy is not a buyer yet."

The room pondered what he was saying.

"We might have to supply different reactors now. We certainly need to think more about additional ship systems, lifeboats, etc."

Ruefully, they admitted what he said was true.

"We have to also look at overall threat. 'Squalls' -- the Shkval-style rocket torpedoes (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/shkval.htm). The P-700 Granit (http://warfare.ru/?catid=312&linkid=2082) and other antisurface threats. Perhaps it is acceptable if we lost this bid, if by doing so we can design an even better modern battleship."

"What about panamax?"

"Yes, that's another issue. We've been keeping size down to allow for panamax passage. Also to allow it to operate in certain shallow-draft bays. We need to find out from clients whether they see draft as a decisive issue, for passage in certain canals or to operate from certain ports. For instance, we're already passed 'Kiel-max,' since they only allow a draft of 9.5m. Panamax will be 12m, so we have a bit of maximum draft yet to play with. And even Singapore can only handle drafts of 15m."

"How are other nations dealing with this?"

"I have no idea. Apparently their ships never go to port. And some ships are apparently walking on water."

More laughter around the room.

"Seriously, we need a top-to-bottom review of our design. I'd like to see if we can get better figures on volume and mass, a different engine than what we were using. We have plenty of experience with the S9G reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S9G_reactor), but that is far smaller than the engines we were going to be fitting into this ship."

They spoke about whether it might not be simply best to use the S9G in series. Possibly as many as 6 or 8.

They also wanted to get a good analysis of armor. Somehow these other shipbuilders were claiming armor thickness somehow up to double what they considered feasible. CGS had used all the oldest and latest tricks to maximize armor values -- sloping, reactive explosives, even exoelectric systems. Ho was it that these other shipbuilders had so much armor? What sort of metallurgy were they applying to their steel?

It was something they all agreed needed careful fact checking.

With that, the meeting needed to close. They had other vessels that actually were in the process of being built. Proven designs. Hard numbers. Real customers. Firm delivery dates.

Lord Driant patted Tristan on the shoulder and reminded him that commanders often lost battles. "Win the war," he said with a smile, then passed towards the door.

"Yes, sir."

This would be a tough war to win.

He was also given Harry to work with on the Marketing end.
________________

Request for Comments

Castle of the Galleys Shipwrights, Ltd., of Castle of the Galleys, Listeneisse, would like commentary from naval personnel, naval architects and naval programme underwriting and insurance firms upon the proposed design of the BCGN Humpback (see enclosed datasheets).

Bona fide contractors, consultants and subcontractors may be retained by the corporation for further phases of research and design revision.

Please contact Harold Sator, Director of Marketing. Attention: Battlecruiser Design Study Programme.

One of the reasons we rejected this design ( the first version not the finished version) was the other entrants did the same thing as this design but at one half the cost. The original Humpback had some great features but was not what I was looking for.
You seemed to be trying to reinvent the wheel with this ship and I did not feel it needed to be reinvented.

The nation of Potty 5 found your original design a very good one.
We find this design very good as well but we do have some input:

Explosive-Reactive Armor and Exoelectric Armor (EXA) may be a good idea but are not really necessary. Most of the big guns do not use HEAT rounds but rather use their great mass and speed to smash through armor then explode. As for rockets in port, I would rather just have thicker normal armor. Also i would sugest thicker deck armor as at long range cannons come from a very high angel. This is also true of bombs and many missiles have a pop up feature.

Why so many big guns? The range of any gun (except one that fire projectiles into orbit) is very limited. The primary armaments of ships shoulde consist of primarily longer range missile (The BB's in the Gulf War could not get in gun range and had to use missiles). As such we think 4 triple gun turrets are over kill. Why not just 2 double turrets. 10 double 6" guns also is are not a very good choice for the same reason as before. Instead a much larger number of smaller guns would offer better PD. (We think 2 single 155mm, and maybe 12 more CIWS would be better). We suggest a you look at the K5's 310mm smoothbore, one of the longest range guns of its time.

As for the big guns? We think that the best choice would be liquid propellant guns. An electro-thermal or electro-magnetic gun uses too much energy, is very expensive, and offers few advantages. Electro-Thermal Chemical guns are good but offer limited improvements over normal Chemical. A liquid propellant is the best choice in artillery because it does not require a huge amount of power, it allows the powder to me precisely measured (this allows for a high number of simultaneous impacts), it is more efficient then grain or even monolithic powder. Also with liquid propellant you can make a gun just as powerful as any other type (ignoring mile long ground instillations of electromagnetic guns). Also some may say that electromagnetic guns don’t give your position away but they would alert any MAD (commonly used in ASW). Also ETC, ET guns (that offer improved performance over conventional guns) would produce larger hotter and more dangerous reports as the pressure is kept very high in the gun. Also the effects of the guns firing should be limited as the Yamamoto’s and Musashi’s guns destroyed many of the AA guns on the ship when they were fired (as well as vaporizing at least 1 guinea pig)

Also sitting high in the water is not that bad, as you can’t really hide a ship 1/4 of a km long (that we hope is part of a larger fleet with a great number of escorts or it has no chance) from today’s advanced radars.

As for sloped armor don’t bother, because long range projectile often come in perpendicular to the armor when it is sloped (One reason why you see a decrease in the slope of modern tank armor [Leopard 1 and M60 vs. Leopard 2.and M1].

Not a problem Tarlag! You were looking for a straight-up business deal. No muss, no fuss. We're learning the competition and the ropes.

For others, I'd like to keep this to MT, out to about the 2012-2015 time frame at extreme limits.

I'm looking at people describing "128 VLS launchers" and wonder where they get the volume to install those on a ship of this size. I was also wondering if they meant total missiles or "launch modules" -- because typical VLS systems come packed 8 missiles to a launch module.

For instance, a VLS system Mk41 Tactical Length Modules have the following dimensions:

SM II: 2.61m x 3.43m x 6.76m (103" x 135" x 266") - 25 tons
ASROC: 2.61m x 6.32m x 6.76m (103" x 249" x 266") - 26 tons
Sea Sparrow: 2.61m x 6.32m x 6.76m (103" x 249" x 266") - 24 tons

Again, that's 8 missiles per module. I had 64 of those modules outfitted across the wide bow section. I might actually need a bit more room if I redraw it, but it's close enough for now.

They also require about 57 kW each for firing (including two launch control units). You can launch two cannisters at once; one from each half-side of the launch system.

Tomahawk and Harpoon fit in the same Mk 41 VLS.

The max allowable weight per individual missile cannister is 1,565 kg (1.725 tons, 3,450lb) meaning each 8-missile module can be at most, including the weight of the launcher, 27.8 tons.

The latest innovation is the quad-packed cannister (http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/pr_20050829.htm) for the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-162.html). This allows 4 x 8, or 32 missiles per VLS container. You can still only volley 2 per cannister, unless you re-configure launch control units (LCUs).

Plus there's need/allowance for air conditioning, ventilation, heating and refrigeration around the VLS systems to ensure they are kept within acceptable launch conditions (56-85º F / 13-30º C, 55-95% humidity).

Presuming I did my homework right, I believe it's possible for Humpback to have this many VLS systems near the bow, but I'd be interested if people believe otherwise.

Cannisters for Yakhont (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/ss-n-26.htm) are 9m tall (354") by 0.71m diameter -- far taller.

Large missiles, aka P-900 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipreck), certainly don't fit these cannisters. The missiles alone are over 19.5m long and weight 7,000 kg.

[I like the lines of the design, however I have to note that flowing bulges like that are going to add excess weight when compared with more straight-forward ships. Did you compensate for that?

As for your question about VLS, keep in mind that most NS warships nowadays are trimarans, that means significantly larger volumes to toy with. Also, NS ships are outsized compared to RL ships, mostly because of the influence of dreadnaughts and superdreadnaughts. Hell, because of DNs and SDs (terms I coined to describe the superlarge ships-of-the-line, btw), I've discarded the BB designation and put a tonnage cap of 150,000 tons on battlecruisers. The next-gen BCGN I'm working with Freethinkers on is going to push that.

EDIT: And while I understand that you're new to NS ship design, you might want to drop your fixation with RL designs ASAP. Nobody here that's serious about naval power uses RL missiles or systems, the custom-designed counterparts far outclass anything IRL and using RL systems is only going to get your ships knocked around in a conflict. Stick to what you know for the time being, but when you start designing more ships look to creating your own systems with their own characteristics.]

Explosive-Reactive Armor and Exoelectric Armor (EXA) may be a good idea but are not really necessary. Most of the big guns do not use HEAT rounds but rather use their great mass and speed to smash through armor then explode.

This is quite true. At short range particularly.

Main Gun Threats

In the case of an 16"/50 gun, you get about 12" or 304mm RHA penetration at 30km. At 8km, this value more than doubles to ~665mm.

So we'd be looking at a system that needs to defend against, at minimum, 700mm of penetration.

"The penetrative ability of battleship guns drops off significantly over its range. At say, 10 km, a Mk 8 AP shell will have a penetrative ability of ~665mm, which I believe is superior to current tanks vs kinetic impactors. By contrast at 30 km this falls to 380mm which is likely less than the frontal RHA equivalent of a modern MBT. The frontal armor could potentially keep a shell from penetrating, but the tank would be scrap no matter what. -- 'Shrike' (http://forum.spacebattles.com/printthread.php?t=67835)"

Defense Against All Threats

Yet our additional concerns include all forms of armor-piercing threats. Because no sooner have you launched a vessel than other military forces try to define a way to kill it.

Prudence would dictate that a ship designed today would need to stand to threats developed 25 years out. It would be foolish to set to sea with a system that could be killed today easily.

We must provide a proviso. Unlike the original battlecruisers -- which were designed to have asymmetrical offenses-defenses (less armor than their own guns could penetrate) -- we were hoping we'd be able to create a vessel that could "give as good (or better) as it could take." It probably should be redesignated a BBGN in that case.

The only thing that prevents us from doing so is the (to us) rather preponderous designs promulgated by other shipyards. To call a vessel in the 60,000 ton scale a "battleship" is akin to how old coal-burning vessels needed to give way to the bigger steam-driven monsters that came along to replace them.

(ooc: I am considering any BB or SD vessel in the 100,000+ ton range PMT, or more likely fantasy, unless they show how they arrived at their numbers in a rational exercise of physical, logistics and economics. Part of the point of this thread is to discredit or write off as many designs as possible showing how they may indeed be patently ludicrous fantasies -- unless the shipyards in question can prove how their weapons systems could actually be built. I'm trying to stick strictly MT with a horizon of 2012-2015, barring "magical" systems and handwaving. While this is not a real battlecruiser, it needs to comply with what people would see as realistically concievable.)

How does one design a vessel that could be off-shore and obliterate targets that could fight back? How does one stop standard laser-designated ATGMs directed by a helicopter or even antitank gun/MBT round if it was caught in port or attacked by surprise at short range (i.e., a container vessel hiding terrorists)?

With an ATGM, MBT or AT gun, the penetration can be higher than even the main gun rates described above. While the overall shock of the blast would be less because the weight of the shell is lower, the penetration of the armor could result in a catastrophic loss of life.

MBT-Type Guns

German DM53 (LKE II) APFSDS round can pierce through the 650mm of RHA (Rh120/L44 gun) and ~700mm of RHA (Rh120/L55 gun) from the distance of 2km. -- 'Revenant' (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3560.html)

M-829A1 penetrates ~ 700-750mm. (http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000331.html)

Some have argued that strengthening of the penetrator can increase effectiveness.

Rocket and Missile Threats

It's not unreasonable for an enemy team to try to come up and launch a hand-held ATGM, perhaps as frogmen or launch from an improvised platform.

Starstreak or equivalent (used vs. armor) get about 170-190mm RHA penetration when used in an antiarmor role.

RPG-7 warheads typically got 330-390mm penetration, but the latest RPG-7V can do 750mm.

It's arguable precisely how deep a LOSAT will penetrate, but approx. 1000mm is a fair estimate of what one needs to plan for in the current environment.

The issue for us would be -- how long before similar deep-penetration systems are deployed aboard antiship weapons? The RPG penetrator could always be transferred to a far larger missile. The hypersonic missile like LOSAT is likely already here with a Yakhont or Shipwreck, and also antitank weapons deployed in an anti-ship capacity.

We are concerned about attack helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft used in a naval attack role. This is a significant issue. Using laser designators, there's no reason a typical ATGM could not be directed at a ship by an attack helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft.

Vikhr-M (A-16) (http://bbs2.stardestroyer.net/Archive/viewtopic.php?t=7296&view=previous) is rated at 900mm RHA penetration. It is a laser beam-rider with a 10km range and a speed of Mach 2.35.

TOW-II or MAPATS (http://www.periscope.ucg.com/mdb-smpl/weapons/missrock/antitank/w0003228.shtml) can do about 1,000mm RHA. TOW-II is about to be replaced with the Common Missile.

Hellfire and Euromissile2 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/atgms.htm) and other modern ATGMs can do up to 900 - 1250mm RHA

Now, back to more typical antiship missiles.

Harpoon and her ilk get about 150mm RHA penetration.
Kormoran about 90mm.
Exocets about 76mm - 90mm.

In comparison to the above, these do seem like far lesser threats. However, they tend to have more kinetic energy shock. They tend not to penetrate, but jar the target with massive force. They weigh more than many comparable ATGMs. Antiship missiles fall somewhere between a naval shell and a smaller ATGM in terms of explosive force and kinetic energy.

As for rockets in port, I would rather just have thicker normal armor. Also i would sugest thicker deck armor as at long range cannons come from a very high angel. This is also true of bombs and many missiles have a pop up feature.

There needs to be a new thought behind simply adding thickness, and we're going back to the drawing board a few things.

There's a need to incorporate pure steel to stop heavy ship rounds, without a doubt. But pure steel is not as effective as other materials for the other sorts of threats.

In terms of defenses, a typical M1A2 has 940-960mm RHA equivalent, though because of armor sloping some calculate this as up to 1500 RHA equivalent. We've tried to give our turrest better sloping as well as other elements of the superstructure.

We looked at titanium alloy armor. It is 10-20 times more expensive than steel, but offers 1.4 the protection vs. AP or 1.4-1.8 the protection vs. long rod penetrators.

Why so many big guns? The range of any gun (except one that fire projectiles into orbit) is very limited.

The original client asked for at least 3 main turrets. We wished to see if 4 were possible. The purpose would be land bombardment and antiship actions.

The primary armaments of ships shoulde consist of primarily longer range missile (The BB's in the Gulf War could not get in gun range and had to use missiles). As such we think 4 triple gun turrets are over kill. Why not just 2 double turrets.
That's a fair suggestion. We could indeed pull the ship down significantly in profile by altering layout with only 2 main gun turrets.
10 double 6" guns also is are not a very good choice for the same reason as before. Instead a much larger number of smaller guns would offer better PD. (We think 2 single 155mm, and maybe 12 more CIWS would be better). We suggest a you look at the K5's 310mm smoothbore, one of the longest range guns of its time.
The 155mm guns were to standardize with land-based artillery systems, which now have up to 40km range (i.e., AS-90 Braveheart).

The large number were to provide a broadside equivalent of a coordinated battery. The Royal Marines wished to have sustained rate of fire weapons to support landings. Air strikes are good, but aircraft need to rotate. When operating from offshore, their turnaround time and sortee rate limits delivery or ordnance.

Automated 155mm howitzers seemed to present a strong secondary weapon system for antiship, and a well-understood weapon for littoral operations.

As for the big guns? We think that the best choice would be liquid propellant guns. An electro-thermal or electro-magnetic gun uses too much energy, is very expensive, and offers few advantages. Electro-Thermal Chemical guns are good but offer limited improvements over normal Chemical. A liquid propellant is the best choice in artillery because it does not require a huge amount of power, it allows the powder to me precisely measured (this allows for a high number of simultaneous impacts), it is more efficient then grain or even monolithic powder. Also with liquid propellant you can make a gun just as powerful as any other type (ignoring mile long ground instillations of electromagnetic guns). Also some may say that electromagnetic guns don’t give your position away but they would alert any MAD (commonly used in ASW). Also ETC, ET guns (that offer improved performance over conventional guns) would produce larger hotter and more dangerous reports as the pressure is kept very high in the gun.

Our issue with LP was shipboard handling, stability of the propellant and other nagging issues (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/1997/5fcs97.pdf) (pdf reader required). Can you cite an actual existence of an LP weapon fielded by a modern military? While we understand it can help increase power by 10-15% over other systems, we wondered if the safety and handling could be mitigated to nominal operating conditions.

Also the effects of the guns firing should be limited as the Yamamoto’s and Musashi’s guns destroyed many of the AA guns on the ship when they were fired (as well as vaporizing at least 1 guinea pig)
The Yamato (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-xz/yamato.htm) (Yamamoto (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/prs-for/japan/japrs-xz/i-yamto.htm) was the admiral who made his flagship aboard her) had its AA guns rapidly mounted in Japan during two retrofits. We're not surprised a few of them shook off during gun firings. Yes, the kinetic energy discharge of a large weapon needs to be taken into account.

Especially for rail guns.

Also sitting high in the water is not that bad, as you can’t really hide a ship 1/4 of a km long (that we hope is part of a larger fleet with a great number of escorts or it has no chance) from today’s advanced radars.

It's more the question of whether 5-10m meters of altitude would equate to a hit or a miss. If you had countermeasures drawing a weapon system high, or were trying to ride low under gunfire, that equates to a difference of a full on hit and a whizzing sound overhead.

As for sloped armor don’t bother, because long range projectile often come in perpendicular to the armor when it is sloped (One reason why you see a decrease in the slope of modern tank armor [Leopard 1 and M60 vs. Leopard 2.and M1].

It's true you have "plunging fire" from an arced naval gun and howitzers fired from shore, and "Shipwrecks" and other munitions dropped from the air will come down precipitously. Yet for sea-skimmers and direct-fire weapons slope can be used to use the laws of phyics to best advantage.

We note also that slope helps radar reflectivity.

We are looking at the effectiveness of radar-absorbing materials.

While no one can make an "invisible battleship" we should definitely do what we can to reduce its signature for purposes of antimissile defense.

Radar absorbing materials along with strong countermeasures might save a vessel.

Proofs for, or against, such an assertion would be welcome.

Thanks for the feedback. However, I'm going to "stick to my guns" as it were, to press for realistic weapon systems.

Trimarans are definitely fine -- they exist in the real world, and are on the drawing board. I am planning on fielding a design eventually.

They are great -- unless you have a canal (panamax, suezmax). Then they are not-so-hot.

Deep drafts are fine except for issues of canals, shallows (littoral operations, banks) or harboring. I doubt that few people actually even look at such issues when they plan their massive mighty fleets.

I want to have future scenarios where such issues as these play into roleplaying.

There should be "Malacca Straits (http://www.american.edu/ted/malacca.htm)" (depths as shallow as 10m, navigation channel at 23m), "Dogger Bank" (15-36m) or "Persian Gulf" type scenarios where operating in narrows or shallows, close to coasts on all sides, might result in dangerous conditions you do not find with "blue ocean" scenarios. The Bosphorus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosphorus) is in places as shallow as 36m, but typically deeper. The shores on either side would present naval vessels with a unique opportunity to come under shore bombardment. The Dardanelles (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_8/daring_dardanelles.html) would also present a similar challenge.

Trimarans and other beyond-panamax (or suez-max) vessels might need to go a "long way around" and not be able to arrive magically offshore on the dawn of battle. Depending on the topology, the ship might not be able to arrive at all.

In those cases, some of the characteristics common in SDs might make for a "big oops."

I am not saying that we need to use real-world topology, but that ships acting without a topology can be designed presuming "perfect" conditions. An immediate for instance... dock and drydock facilities.

Every player can also reserve the right to utterly ignore ships that are utterly unrealistic if they are trying to play a MT game.

It becomes an issue of "Bang bang you're dead! I have a magical bullet!" ... "Eh... let's take a step back... how did you actually get here?"

While there certainly can be bleeding edge systems, and while economies of NS can be an order of magnitude greater than real world nations, few people really pay attention to the issues of logistics and physics to support the advanced weapons they have.

Yes, they can make things a bit better than the best systems that real-world designers have to live with.

But there is apparently unlimited titanium, defectless electronics, perfect stealth materials, über-trained pilots and so on. It's like a wet dream of perfect impossibilities.

I'd like to lower the bar on those sorts of outlandish systems, toss them into PMT, or utterly ignore them when encountered.

Unless someone can prove that their boat floats -- myself included -- I think it's time to deflate things to fair numbers.

I want to use realism to greatest strategic and tactical advantage, and call for other martially-minded MT powers to do the same.

Well its not as if you have to limit yourself to 6"/155mm guns that are only good out to 40km (although using NATO standard 155mm guns, you could use the likes of the South African ER ammo that can take you out to 50-60km without modifying your guns, althought these roudns do lose some HE capacity they do have simialr if not better fragmentation capacity).

You could use the likes of the 155mm AGS from the DD-21/DDX, firing ERGMs out to 180km (beyond the range of many contemporary ASMs) but they are big and heavy and complex (and don't use standard ammo).

You can increase the killing rnage of main guns quiet considerably by using Sabot ammo (IIRC in post ww2 trials they fired Sabot ammo from the 16" guns of an iowa class and acheived 100km rnage, of course at that rnage accuracy would be aweful, the spread achived during the gulf war at a mere 30kms was pretty wild). Basebleed and rocket assited ammo is also an option and providing you can make the electronics hard enough to withstand the enormous shock of being fired from a capitol gun then GPS assited, laser giuded or even full on ERGMs could be used.

As for ETCs there area coupe,l of ways you could go, the first is the oft assumed means of drawing power from the main generator system, but a second method might be to simpley use big batteries with enough stored power to fire every round in your magazine. this is based on large assumptions drawn from US claims that a rapid fire medium calibre ETC gun complete with fring mechanism, ammo and batteries would actually take up a bit less space and weight about the same as the total weight of a similar sized convetional gun and all it's ammo, i also have a vague recolections of a claim that they could fit a 30mm ETC gun onto a bardley without any major issues (but i could just be making that up).

Thank god i play AMW and don't have to worry much else than where i'm goign to get the fuel to fly my Jaguars for the next week...

There definitely is research into ETC and even rail guns.

The biggest issue is that we do not see a present weapon systems design that is actually fielded by any nation.

While we continue do to R&D in the area, it would help to actually have something we can go to war with in 2-4 years necessary.

155mm shells were likely going to be rocket assisted for longer ranges.

We also considered 203mm (8") guns, which can have a range of up to 50-55 km, offer quite a bit more punch than a 155mm/6" shell, and can share the ammunition of heavy land-based guns. But they give a significant recoil and have also have a slower rate of sustained fire. Usually no more than 2 rounds per minute sustained, whereas a 155mm gun can get as high as 8 rounds per minute sustained. We're probably going to opt for a 155mm/52 calibre gun.

Since we had the heavier main guns, it was determined to go for the smaller 155mm to simply give more rounds on more targets faster. The big guns, we believe, can take out targets that even cruise missiles would have a hard time penetrating.

We're looking, presently, at Extended Range Full-Bore - Base Bleed (ERFB-BB) rounds for range. Yes, a sabot round would be good to use the gun in an armored-piercing engagement.

If you can provide links to ETC, rocket propelled, or other sabot round systems, we'd be interested to see what you have.

[Well, that's your decision and I can respect any person who sticks to their gun, but I'm telling you now that the systems you feel are unrealistic are the standard in NS. If you're going to ignore anybody who fields such systems, you aren't going to be able to RP with very many people. Sometimes to get along, you have to go along.

Oh, and something a friend of mine brought up just now, since we were discussing this thread. The burden of proof as to why they don't work is on you, other people with formal educations in this kind of thing have proven, to a very skeptical community here, why they can work in the 2015-2020 timeframe.]

Note: I updated the stats above to allow for 4x packing of RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/rim-162.htm) per cannister.

Given that I made room for 64 Mk41 Launch Systems, and they generally come with 8 cannisters, that provides 512 launchers.

With the new ESSM, you could have up to four times as many air defense missiles defending against aircraft, cruise missiles and supersonic threats like Shipwrecks and Yakhont. This would leave Standard Missile 3 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sm3.htm) for use intercepting ballistic missiles.

Burden of Proof (BoP)

As for "BoP" arguments, it cuts both ways. If they are quoting a weapons system that does not exist in real life, or they claim is utterly proof against XYZ, then we can ask them to prove it.

If they can't? Sayonara.

I'm not asking people to be nuclear physicists or naval architects. But if they are putting forward systems that do not obey the laws of physics, then it's fair to scratch them off the roster or put them forward in time to an age when it might be possible to have gotten past current technical limitations.

Like Liquid Propellants, ETC, and rail guns. People abandoned them in RL or are still on the R&D drawing board for good reasons. You'd have to provide some method to have gotten past those engineering issues rather than just saying "Voila! Magic!"

I'm fine to not play with people who are using battlemechs or orbital dropships. I'm looking for Tom Clancy, not Robert Heinlein.

If I call a halt to interact with a 3,000,000 SD presented as "Modern Tech," I'll ask them to show me an example of one in the planet earth today. There are reasons governments do not build such systems.

I do not need to provide for them the technical answers to conundrums such as how in the world they service the thing, considering it's deeper than the harbor of Singapore and larger than any drydock on the planet. Did they actually budget to create a drydock of that scale? Did they pay for an offshore facility to service it? Do they actually even pay annual costs of service on any of their fleet? Or do they just have a budget for impossible toys?

You know. Minor things like that.

BoP goes back to them if they never even gave thought to it.

[Speaking for my own Gehenna class, which is a variation of Freethinkers' Doujin class; it costs 15 million USD a year per ship to operate in peactime and each storage/drydock, which has to be carved out of a cliff face and then have various support and protection systems installed, costs about 400 billion per.

I'll talk to Jim about giving me the link, but I know at one point he just got pissed off with crap like this and made a long-ass post that completely shut all the doubters up. There's a reason everybody talks about how to counter the things instead of how feasible they are.]

OOC: The problem with this is that while the original creator of the SD (too obvious to be mentioned by name) did prove how it would be feasible in NS given NS nations' far bigger sizes and resources bases, you have yet to prove that such proofs are incorrect, or simply speaking, fully prove that they are not feasible even within the bounds of NS. While you may certainly be a small nation, many other nations in NS are much bigger, and thus you also have to prove why SDs also can't function for them due to the SD's large size, in order to prove that SDs are infeasible from the start.

There's a reason why SDs are non-existent RL. Because even the only superpower in the world today, the United States, would still have a far smaller resource base than the average 3-5 billion nation with a 'Frightening' economy.

ooc: The thread was focused on what it would take to make a Modern Tech battle cruiser in the same "panamax" limits that real life navies have to deal with, therefore not exceeding the sort of tonnage you'd see on a USS Iowa-class vessel. Basically, if you were designing a battlecruiser in 2005, what realities would you have to face?

If there are nations interested in the design that would wish to have it post-panamax (or even post-suez), we can continue the discussion on the basis that for some nations, exceeding panamax is just not an issue. US aircraft carriers are definitely post-panamax; they just keep sufficient ships on both sides of the nation.

Yet the design will take into account real-life issues and only accept commercially feasible -- available or well-into-R&D systems -- which could be added, tested and ready for deployment in the next 5 years, with an eye towards expansion of the vessel 10-30 years out (until first major refit).

I'm also going to limit it to somewhere in the 50,000-60,000 ton class. Simply because at that scale it is already an order of magnitude larger than any other destroyer in my fleet, and on the scale of my conventional CVs. It's a "big enough" ship to make an interesting design exercise. I want to avoid scope creep.

I'm always open to learn more from people who know a fair deal about modern naval tech, but this should not be a rathole to rehash an issue that is beyond the scope of this thread.

For now, MT means MT. Commercially available, or available by the time the ship launches in 3-5 years. So, about 2005-2010.

BoP for MT

I understand the issues of the NS economy. If you had a $1 Trillion to make a giant moon base, yes, you could afford that too. But no, that does not necessarily make it MT to me unless you solve serious logical questions people might posit, using actual, real-world available solutions or firmly-possible systems given today's state of tech. Otherwise it is simply not Modern Tech. I'd expect you to be able to explain how you keep that base operational, because there are some issues that money alone cannot buy solutions for. Not today.

And if you failed that acid test, I'd probably ignore your moon colony too. But if you had a cool moon colony, showing how you'd actually use existing launch vehicles, technologies, life support, power systems, economic, logistical issues, etc., then that would be nice to RP against.

Much of this is simply a "reasonableness" meter. If I sense people are operating ships outside all sense of reason, I'll ask them for proof. Others would --and have done the same to me, and so it's hypocritical to say others can do it -- and many have already done it -- and I cannot. It's also quite against the spirit of consensual roleplay to say that I "have" to accept someone else's interpretation of what MT consists of. Yeah, I might have to ignore people or back out of threads. Seems like that would be my choice.

I'm still more than prepared to ask others for justification and shift back BoP, and I am more than prepared to back out of RP which I see as "bang-bang you're dead" using beyond-MT systems -- which cannot be justified.

Further, don't paint me as unreasonable or irrational. I'm quite willing to accept systems that can be justified -- if such justifications can be given. In fact, I'm asking for the opposite in return. If I give a reasonable consideration, and ask a reasonable question, and you don't have an answer, to simply fess up and say, "Yeah, uh... I never really did even a gross approximation of a mass and volume calcuation of all that armor."

For instance... in a recent actual thread, I revealed I had lofted my own proprietary GPS network (has its own frequency, encoding, etc.), and said I'd jam other people's GPS systems for the duration of a military exercise (not even a shooting war). It was to get rid of the GPS-guided missiles. Hence, unless they simply flooded all frequencies (which would get mine too), I'd deny them GPS-guidance on vehicles and weapons.

I fairly asked people as to whether they to paid for an launched their own GPS constellation, or just had sort of assumed it was there.

One person said that they did - but that their GPS was jam-proof, whereas mine was jammable by them. Oh! And their system was supersecret so I couldn't know about it. Oh really?

If the frequency's flooded, how are you getting signal? (btw: there are technological answers to that. He just didn't know enough about it. And one of the most obvious ways to get around it I had EW countermeasures ready to deal with.)

So, did he concede? Hardly.

I proposed a reasonable with a way to block JDAM GPS signals -- which is not easy since they use directional "look-up" GPS recievers to avoid jamming -- by using EW systems flying higher than the JDAMs were falling. Would it actually work in RL? Perhaps if someone knew quite a bit about GPS jamming and could make a case on how it wouldn't work, I'd listen. For most people, it wasn't something they even knew much about.

In the end, the point was sort of hand-waved over. We haven't gotten far in the GPS jamming RP yet. Again, most people didn't think about it. So, BoP back on me to make the case.

If someone wants to ignore it, BoP on why it's not an issue.

Plus, people had stealth fighters, which I RPed developing a multistatic radar radar to make easier to detect -- not perfect, but better than single point radar detection. That apparently, even though well-researched and backed by scientific citations on actual methods to detect stealth aircraft today, was ignored.

Whereas my 1.5-ton sound-absorbing-material-covered UUV was immediately noted by all parties as soon as it was launched.

I see. So their stealth is perfect and mine is to be written off.

See a pattern?

When I showed someone their SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles need a satellite guidance system -- not GPS-based, but a proprietary naval guidance satellite system the Russians maintain separately just for naval warfare -- and asked "Did you know that you needed such for Shipwrecks to work? Did you pay for that network of satellites?" -- Oh... uh... yeah! Sure!

Of course they did.

I tolerated it, whether it was true they had pre-afforded it, or if it was hand-waving and dismissal of what I had to say, or revisionism or whatever. Hopefully the guy learned more about how they fly.

So apparently their tech works perfectly, even with lack of research and knowledge of how the system actually works -- but mine, no matter how based on actual systems or science -- was utterly inneffective and ignored.

See what I am getting at?

"Bang bang, you're dead!"

Eh, I'll reserve the right to put a question or two before I accept that to be true. And for ships, which are complex systems, I'll ask complex questions.

Any time there is an introduction of novel weapon systems and tactics in NationStates, there need to be process to review for feasibility. People will do it to me, and everyone does the same thing back.

If someone can show me their work and citations, I am more inclined to believe them than if I just see a name of a weapon system, it's claims, and a price tag.

I'm also far less critical with PMT and FT, since they can be science fiction or science fantasy. If I was playing in either of those genres, I wouldn't mind at all.

So let's get back to the point of this thread, which was designing the best possible MT vessel in its current general design parameters, thank you.

Problem with "realism" in NS is that alot of people don't know phsyics etc. When i was designing the railguns for my Warspite [which will be released soon], I got some people off the IRC channel who did know about power etc to give me a hand with, not realistic, but relative (if you know what I mean: Hell, noone will make an EM railgun nowadays, but if you could, these would be the numbers) calculations for power, rate of fire, etc. Again, I doubt whether many people know *how* a Shipwreck flies, or how an autoloader for a tank works. I suspect a few people do now: I can probably name them off my fingers. But the point is, the vast NS community just wants to launch the missiles, not wonder whether they have the systems for them to work. If you *are* looking for 50,000-60,000 (which is actually Hogsweat's heavy cruiser, light CV, range) then I guess I could draw up some stuff for you that could be done nowadays.

COMRADE DORSAL II BBG

Length: 280 Metres
Displacement 66,000 Tons (just over)
Draught: 12 Metres
Freeboard: 7 Metres
Beam: 34 Metres
Complement: 2,820

Weaponry
CANNONS
A Turret: Three 16"/50 bag loading cannons that can be raised to 40 degrees, each turret weighing 3,000 tons approximately. RAM SAM missile emplacment on top rear of turret.
B Turret: Three 16"/50 bag loading cannons that can be raised to 40 degrees, each turret weighing 3,000 tons approximately. 25mm CIWS emplacment on top rear of turret.
C Turret: Two 16"/50 bag loading cannons that can be raised to 40 degrees, each turret weighing 3,000 tons approximately. 25mm CIWS emplacment on top rear of turret.
X Turret: Three 16"/50 bag loading cannons that can be raised to 40 degrees, each turret weighing 3,000 tons approximately. RAM SAM missile emplacment on top rear of turret.
Y Turret: Three 16"/50 bag loading cannons that can be raised to 40 degrees, each turret weighing 3,000 tons approximately. 40mm CIWS emplacment on top rear of turret.

DP Guns:
Four Starboard, four Port, dual barreled 4.5"/45 dual purpose turrets each weighing 180 tons each. Each turret can be raised to angle 75.

Missiles
Four, not including turret based, four barreled RAM SAM emplacements, two port and two starboard. Each capable of firing Sea Sparrow, Aster 15/30, and various other Western msisiles.

There are three 4x4 cell VLS boxes, all featured on the centre of the ship behind the funnels. Each is large enough to launch RGM85 Harpoon missiles or somesuch counterpart. They may not be reloaded.

Speed and Propulsion
Uh...Can't be bothered to do this section atm as I have coursework to do. If you are still interested then reply in the affirmative [oocly, of course] and I'll finish it off.

I think I like you, Listeneisse. You display a reasoned attitude that is nonexistent on Nationstates for the most part. I may wish to run a few things by you at a later date to see what you think of them. :)

Subscribed.

OOC: Listeneisse I applaud your comments on realism. I too find that a huge amount of the items people say are MT are unfeasible (as described, and/or as MT) and usually fantasy or PMT/FT.

As for ATGM’s and other anti-tank weapons: The reason that these are not a huge threat to a ship is that the ship is very large. Though it may be able to penetrate armor it would not be able to do much damage to the ship (look at the USS Cole, a much smaller ship that received damage far in excess of what an anti-tank weapon would do). There is a lot more to ships survivability then armor. Look at PBR’s in Vietnam. They often would have flotation foam (I forget exactly) that was less dense then water. So when the boats hull was penetrated the boat simply did not sink, many even survived multiple RPG hits. While anti-armor weapon can penetrate ship armor they are designed to destroy tanks. Tanks are very small cramped and filled with many explosives so even if just a little penetrates it is not unlikely for the tank to be destroyed. As for ships being destroyed in harbor and frogmen, those are real issues. Ships in harbor have more to worry from artillery and aircraft then tanks and infantry, and frogmen have more effective weapons then rocket launchers: hand placed explosives (the explosion is concentrated and ‘magnified’ underwater). So an idea would be to give the ship a thick hull (though that has its own drawbacks) and/or fill areas empty spaces (that would often have held oil or coal in non-nuclear designs, and/or blisters) with low density foam.

I see "opperating in narrows or shallows, close to coasts on all sides" as a high priority for any ship other then a ballistic missile sub or a super carrier though it would be a great plus for either of those.

[Speaking for my own Gehenna class, which is a variation of Freethinkers' Doujin class; it costs 15 million USD a year per ship to operate in peactime...

In the real world, it costs $160 million per year to support a 110,000 ton Nimitz-class (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn-68.htm) ship, which most SD-type fleet operators mock as rinky-dink small.

Heck, it costs $20 million just for an Arleigh Burke DDG-51 (http://web.nps.navy.mil/~brutzman/Savage/Ships/DDG-ArleighBurke-UnitedStates/FASDDG51.htm), and that's just a destroyer.

You're telling me that you can run this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v195/The_Freethinkers/DoujinBBCNsmall.jpg) on $20 million a year?

You are severely underestimating your service costs.

Draft Problems

I also would think your draft is probably about, what? 45-60m? more?

It's not fitting through the Bosphorus (which has, in places, a maximum draft of 36m). So the Black Sea is safe.

How much does your ship squat when she is underway? Ships that are moving tend to have lower trim than those who are slowly moving. Hence why most ships are required to slow down when coming towards shallows. It decreases their trim. And in fact, when in shallows, there is a tremendous number of additional dynamics that begin to take place. You'll probably start experiencing those effects even in waters as deep as 150m. Your squat will increase, as the amount of water below her to displace the weight is less. So she'll sit lower as the pressure to keep her afloat is spread laterally around her.

You might have trouble getting that within miles of certain shorelines without shoaling. Oh. Its wake while underway would wreck small craft. Its massive hydrodynamics could lead to uncontrollable sheers and contact trapping, leading to collisions. It could create enormous problems if it headed over an underwater pinnacle or bank, never mind what would happen if it tried to head up a narrow causeway or river.

Forget harbor and channel dredging. You are looking on changing the entire offshore topology of your nation.

Rotterdam only has a 24m deep draft.

Port of Oakland and Richmond (main ports in the SF bay) have up to -50 ft (15.24m) drafts.

The main channels into New York (http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/1999/October/Day-01/i25533.htm), Ambrose Channel and Anchorage Channel, are only 45 ft; Ambrose Channel is recommended to be deepened to 53 ft (16.15m), and Anchorage to 50 ft (15.24m).

But forget that because you can't get into New York since you cannot clear the 228-foot (69.5m) Verrazano Narrows Bridge, or into San Francisco due to the 210-220-foot (67m) clearance under the Golden Gate Bridge.

Edit: My design, at 211', just squeaks under both bridges; we have to pass under the center of the span on the GG and need to check for tides and storm surge.

It would likely not even be able to manage the English Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Channel) (40m average depth at the Straight of Dover/Pas de Calais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Dover)). Often it is as shallow as 30m.

Your SD looks nice in the picture. It just would not work in coastal operations. And it is barred from every harbor on the planet.

... and each storage/drydock which has to be carved out of a cliff face and then have various support and protection systems installed, costs about 400 billion per.

The US military's entire annual defense budget is about $465 Billion a year.

I have no idea what you just spent $400 Billion on, but you probably wasted your money.

Yes, it would be possible to build offshore harbor facilities. Deep anchorages you build causeways out to. Possibly many miles long. You'd have to make a deep-water breakwater to keep the ship from uncontrollably heaving and swaying and destroying its anchorage in rough seas. But you likely could build something it was able to tie up to, like a floating offshore platform.

I'm not sure you could anchor it even dropping the dozen anchors you've indicated. Tidal forces might just drag the anchors along the bottom.

Under way, you'd probably require propulsors on the port and starboard side to keep it pointing in the right direction, because I doubt the thing would generally steer well from merely stern-based steerage without a tremendous drift. It would likely yaw without bow-based steerage -- adding either propulsors or a forward rudder, which would require more draft.

Near shores and shoals, you will experience tremendous cushioning against the bow and suction against the midships and stern.

If you build it near shore, it would simply just sit on the bottom of the harbor unable to move, since there's no harbor deep enough to float it. If you did build it at sea, it would have to avoid most coastlines.

Not to mention the stress on materials of a vessel that size have never been able to be properly tested in the real world, and the vessel might simply just crack due to massive pressures on the hull, both from the immense draft it was pulling as well as from the weight of the superstructure.

The engineering of turrets that size would also be a curious thing. Your turrets are far larger than anything else ever built. I am sure you've put some thought into 1. how you can actually rotate them, and 2. how the ship withstands the shock of them being fired. (Would aircraft parked on the trimaran decks simply be blown overboard?)

This is not a modern tech ship. It is a work of science fiction.

Although on one side, it is a NS ship designed for a NS world, where the RL geography doesn't even need to exist. An SD doesn't actually need to coem within 100km to be able to hit targets, even those soemwhat in land.

Using true realism very few bits of NS tech would ever work. But in world where the centre of the north atlantic has more islands that the entire west coast of scotland, all of which are continent size and some of which are home to a simialr population to the entire RL world, then there might just be a use for SDs.

Of course the maximum size you could realistically biuld a useful "battleship" is about 80,000-90,000tons, but then they discovered that back in the 1910s...

Thanks for the positive comments folks!

As for ATGM’s and other anti-tank weapons: The reason that these are not a huge threat to a ship is that the ship is very large. Though it may be able to penetrate armor it would not be able to do much damage to the ship (look at the USS Cole, a much smaller ship that received damage far in excess of what an anti-tank weapon would do).

Yes, let's look at the USS Cole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing), which was hit by a small boat packed with explosives, rending a 12 m x 12 m hold in its side. There were 56 casualties (17 killed, 39 wounded). You are correct in that this was a far larger unconventional munition than an RPG.

A DDG-51 has less than .5" armor below the waterline. It is defined as a thin hulled ship as far as all the data I can find.

The issue for an RPG is that it vaporizes the metal of the hull and sends it as an aerosol spray of superheated metal into the chamber beyond. This causes casualties by the blast pressure. It leaves a "pinprick" hole in the armor, but kills all crew inside the affected penetrated structure. This could cause severe repercussions with turrets, for instance.

The design was hoping to prove an electrically charged void space beyond the initial impact location could prove effective in stopping the penetration through to the inner layer of armor.

There is a lot more to ships survivability then armor. Look at PBR’s in Vietnam. They often would have flotation foam (I forget exactly) that was less dense then water. So when the boats hull was penetrated the boat simply did not sink, many even survived multiple RPG hits. While anti-armor weapon can penetrate ship armor they are designed to destroy tanks. Tanks are very small cramped and filled with many explosives so even if just a little penetrates it is not unlikely for the tank to be destroyed.

Like turrets. Of course, turrets can be designed so that they are compartmentalized from rounds stored deeper down in the ship. You are correct that design and layout of the interior of a ship is key in ensuring survivability.

As for ships being destroyed in harbor and frogmen, those are real issues. Ships in harbor have more to worry from artillery and aircraft then tanks and infantry, and frogmen have more effective weapons then rocket launchers: hand placed explosives (the explosion is concentrated and ‘magnified’ underwater).

Let's put it this way. If it cannot stop a personnel-crewed weapon that costs a few dozen to a few thousand dollars, or a tank round from a $3 Million MBT, then we might consider why we are spending all this money in the first place. And if we can make it survivable to such systems, we then need to make it as survivable as possible against a 155mm artillery round or an MLRS or cruise missile impact.

There will be limitations to what even the thickest armor will prevent in terms of absorption of shock before it simply staves in.

All of it requires calculation of mass and volume.

So an idea would be to give the ship a thick hull (though that has its own drawbacks) and/or fill areas empty spaces (that would often have held oil or coal in non-nuclear designs, and/or blisters) with low density foam.
Precisely. We also note that it is better to have a dual-hull with a thinner outer hull than a thicker one. In case of breach, it means less of the hull's armor weight is burdened to the non-buoyant breached external hull. It means the outer hull will be penetrated more, but the ship will retain better overall buoyancy.

I see "opperating in narrows or shallows, close to coasts on all sides" as a high priority for any ship other then a ballistic missile sub or a super carrier though it would be a great plus for either of those.

Well, as shown, an SD cannot by its very nature and size operate anywhere in littoral space with any degree of safety.

With shore-based artillery up to 50km and land-based aircraft strikes or cruise missiles able to range up to 1,000km, ships need to be able to survive against a fair range of possible threats.

And of course, you don't want to lose a ship of this tonnage to a $1,500 sea mine.

Although on one side, it is a NS ship designed for a NS world, where the RL geography doesn't even need to exist. An SD doesn't actually need to coem within 100km to be able to hit targets, even those soemwhat in land.

Using true realism very few bits of NS tech would ever work. But in world where the centre of the north atlantic has more islands that the entire west coast of scotland, all of which are continent size and some of which are home to a simialr population to the entire RL world, then there might just be a use for SDs.

I already had a west coast planned that would look like Scotland, by the way. I was planning on using the relatively shallow waters of a sort of "Channel" to my south and an "Irish Sea" to the west and a "Dogger Bank" on the eastern coast as a place where submarine operations would prove especially difficult.

It was never my intent to use it as an "SD" shield, but it is looking more and more like it it serves another purpose besides having marine fisheries and placing wind turbine farms in offshore areas.

I'll be able to beach a whale on it.

Does anyone in the world have an SD-sized tug to actually refloat a beached SD?

There was a big ruckus when an Iowa-class BB beached off the Chesapeake Bay. It accidentally steamed up at near full-speed onto the shallows due to a navigation error. It took a long while dredging a full channel behind it and many attempts to finally tug it free.

If there are zillions of islands in NationStates, it argues that littoral operations are far more likely, with tons of navigational hazards, sea mounts, atolls, shoals, straits, banks, channels, and archipeligos.

What I am saying is that, like the Bosphorus, let's pretend I was playing Ukraine. The SDs of my enemy cannot come through to the Black Sea. Heck, if they have drafts of 40m, they cannot even enter the Dardanelles. But I would need to send my ships up to the entrance and deny anyone of smaller tonnage coming up that way.

There could be a sea battle arcing over the Sea of Marmara -- about 340km -- from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea. But the SDs would not be able to ever get through. Impassible.

And then it's another 600 km from the entrance of the Bosphorus to Sevastopol.

So you have about, oh, 1,000 km of range away from my nation's closest target.

The Persian Gulf (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/arabian-gauntlet.htm) has a mean depth of 25-26m. I think you'd similarly be unable to project your deep-draft SDs into the Gulf for operations. They could enter the Straights of Hormuz (approx. 100m deep). I'm not sure where they'd precisely start finding a lack of water for their drafts.

The Baltic would be impassible, considering the Kattegat between Denmark and Sweden has an average depth less than 25m.

While not all examples in the world of NationStates need to be like that, it is something that people who are developing deep draft SDs should take into account, and probably did not. I'll also admit not all SDs are behemoth 40-60m deep-drafters, though many might be if their designers actually gave them appropriate drafts compared to their surface area and displacement.

I calculated another SD would be about 29m. Still too deep to enter any harbor in the known world, but "shallow" enough to carefully pass through the Dardenelles and Bosphorus if properly dredged and carefully navigated. It still might shoal itself.

It would likely scrape the Channel bottom at many points, and possibly find itself stranded at ebb tides. It could not enter the Baltic.

Heck, the anchorage at Split is only 27-40m.

Oddly, I think they are their own worst enemy. Imagine these things being beached and shoaled rather often. And with the power of their engines and the inertia required to move them forward, such accidents would be catastrophic, with the ship plowing itself deeply into the navigational hazard, unable to stop.

I can also imagine it would possibly accidentally obliterate other ships in its own navy just accidentally ramming into them. US carriers have sometimes ran into other ships. Imagine this about an order of magnitude worse. So even moving an SD would be a problematic hazardous operation requiring navigational care.

The more I study them, the more they seem to be an impractical albatross that looks good on paper, but it's the same reason we do not have a 1,000 ton main battle tanks on land. They are just too difficult to maneuver and control, and there are geophysical navigational issues. For the tank, it's that there are no roads or bridges rated for that mass. At sea, there are shallows, canals, channels and -- gasp -- *ports* -- that are required that need to maintain far shallower drafts.

Bottom line: I'd say that any ship that cannot fit in Rotterdam -- 24m -- is automatically not MT to me.

just poking my nose in but i love battlecruisers and dreadnougts and hate them not being seen enough nowadays. But i hate the SD people one or two is ok if its for show and not for uber destruction

This is my own Volna Class, they are modern made dreadnoughts with 4 16" turrets, single hull, CIWS, 12.7 guns, AA launchers and torpedo racks.

sorry its not finished and its my first real MS pixel drawing.
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7416/volnaclass7wo.jpg

ooc: I like the fact that you actually specify ship's boats. It shows that you care about crew survivability. For operations, you might consider rigid inflatable boats (RIB), like the Wheelhouse craft (http://www.deltapower.co.uk/MAIN.HTM). They are self-righting, which might be imperative for a rescue on rough seas, say of a downed helicopter crew. The disadvantage would be for operations where there might be small arms fire. You might consider other RIB or rigid hull models, such as from Zodiac, SAFE, USMI or Wing Inflatable (http://www.special-operations-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=607) instead (also see this article (http://www.special-operations-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=396)). Each manufacturer could introduce ballistics-resistent/armoured models under special order, but some have existing models already.

Decision to go with light or armoured boats is based on what you see as their mission or purpose. Unarmored vessels, weighing hundreds of kg lighter, may allow extended range, greater carrying capacity and faster speed. Armoured protection might be advisable if operating in potentially dangerous environments.

Since you also designed a 4-turret model, you might want to see the actual information on the USS Montana (http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/67.htm), who was going to be built after the Iowa-class, but lessons learned in WWII proved that the battleship was less-needed than the aircraft carrier. Work was halted on the project even before the keel was laid.

You might also look at the double-hulled keel of the unfinished BB-66, Kentucky (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/images/usa/bb66-0.jpg), to get an idea of how the Iowa class (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_wwii.htm#iow-cl) was supposed to survive mine-based attacks.

The Montana was never designed to be as fast as Iowa, but with new plants and propellors it is possible a modern system could indeed make 30-33 knots.

One issue both Iowa and Montana faced was that to be made as narrow in the bow as they were, for increased speed, meant that there was less room for torpedo defenses near the #1 turret. Apparently that was going to be solved by some layout changes of the later BB-65/66, and would likely have been resolved by the lengthened design and slower speed of BB-67.

I'm definitely considering whether I need 4 main gun turrets myself.

Opinions? Any potential design partners or customers have thoughts?

The reason that WW2 and pre WW2 vessels had so many guns was that the weapons could not be fired accurately (this is one reason the dreadnought was so revolutionary [all guns have the same ballistics]). Today with far better FCS, spotting, rang finding, computers, guided projectiles... a battleship can expect to find a lot more of it's rounds on target this reduces the need for more guns.

Also you might want to look at 16" L/100 that is bored out to 16.5" that fires a 400lb projectile. This could give you a weapon that can deliver far more punch then 203mm guns at ranges that could be about 200km (I am looking into this for my nations BB). Also the Germans did some similar stuff in WW2 with a 12" bored out to 310mm. This (16") system can also get a 40lb object to orbit. (The size of the gun's barrel could be problematic... but the range makes it attractive)

http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/GeraldBullInfo.html

The guy that did this also was doing the Iraq super guns, as well as made what many consider the best 155mm SP gun.

Back to the number of guns: Today a far smaller number of guns can get an equal number of shot on target. Look at ICBMs at first they had a CEP of about a mile but now they have CEPs as low as 90m. War today is not what it was when the battleships were made, today precision has increased to the level that a single gun can fire once and expect to hit it's target.

Also look to more advanced gun mechanisms. If your gun can fire a very quick salvo that could make it much more useful w/o increasing weight to much (eg the 'revolver' cannon idea, though this would not increase the sustainable fire rate by much). You could also look at cooling (like running a coolant around the barrel and then away to function as heat sink) to increase fire rate.

OOC: The use of small craft it an obvious choice, i'm surprised many other people do not label them as included on ships.

The ones there are just boats - i didn't specifically name them, but yes they are landing craft or small gun boats - sea going PBR style.
I think i made them too big in the scale of things, but i can change them.

Thank you for the comments its good to see my work appreciated and i must say that your plans are very well done and the first post was excellent.

Although i'm a nostalgic git and really only perfer the orignial crusiers and dreadnoughts. I can tell yours would appeal to those who embrace technology.

The use of many guns is for a fast firing attack and a high hit rate. if you have four guns trained on one target and one hits then they all hit, thats four times the destruction.

I can see where prescion missiles play their part in modern warfare and have overtook guns, but even exocets can't punch a hole in the side of an armoured cruiser. And where a 16" round can't be shot out the air by a CIWS there is still room for the battleship in NS.

The revolver style loading system looks like it could break easily when under battle, or malfunction. I have seen it in use and i like the idea, but the margin for error seems too big.

Thank you for the ideas i will use them when i unclassify the Volna

Kroblexskij brings up a good point that I forgot when I was talking about the guns. When you look back at battle ships often took many [good] hits before being destroyed.

I think properly made revolver system could work just as well as a single chamber system, if made of high quality with very good quality control a 3 chamber revolver could substantially increase burst rate of fire with a much less increase in weight then adding 2 guns. Also I think that the reliability of the revolver system would be higher then if you added extra guns (as they would greatly increase the mass and size of the ship).
In their present day application revolver cannons have generally been more reliable then their more conventional brethren.

In addition to the revolver cannon other systems to consider are a more conventional revolver system, a gatling gun (I don’t think this could work but…), any type of automatic system (though the systems used in small arms are not well suited). Almost any system would show great performance increases over that of the breech loading systems currently used.

And I was speaking about precision guns (I think I might have befuddled my point when I brought up the ICBMs), many of the advanced in rocket guidance can also be applied to a gun. Also there are gun launched missiles/rockets that offer better performance then a conventional gun (if done right) but are more efficient then most other missiles.

And from what I have heard today’s armored cruisers don’t have as much emphasis on armor as their predecessors did.

Actually automatic laoding systems for large calibre guns are horrendously difficult to get working and tend to be very complicated, although modern advances have made them soemwhat more useful (i belive the proposed loading system for the Crusader 155mm SPG was a lot simplier and reliable that the british ww2 automatic 6" guns and modern 5" naval guns are automatic).

Part of the problem for the true big guns coems from the modular nature of the propellant charge although you proabably could use a computer aided chagre setting and a loading system not unlike the 105mm V2C2 gun.

Revolvers might have a problem when it coems to seal between barrel and chamber, the issue of the tiniest gap doesn't cause too many problems for a medium calibre gun but when you scale that up to 12" or above you could be facing a more interesting challenge. Rate of fire restrictions on big guns aren't only caused by the laoding systems, the amount of heat and preasure palced on the actual gun barrels would be a big limiting factor.

Giuded and rocket assited rounds are all possible, provided to can make the electronics suffiently strong enough to survive the fairly major levels of shock created by a large calibre gun. Of course you will need giuded (or course corrected) rounds for any accuracy to be achived at ranges over 40-50km.

From what i have seen there is no trouble with making electronics that can surivive a gun barrel (today).

From what i have seen there is no trouble with making electronics that can surivive a gun barrel (today).

is that from tests on land guns or sea going versions. I doubt in the height of battle, components could withstand the heat, pressure and constant use of guns. Storage and testing would have to be done before each use on each round.
I also doubt the need and battle use of guided rounds when for the gunners/ mates all that matters is speed and eficientcy.
taking time to guide a 16" is time wasted.

on another note, ive been looking at my ship and realised how so damn short it is, ill be changing it a bit more in the near future.

Guns on land and on the sea; ever hear of air bursting munitions? Proximity fuse? These were first put in use in WW2 (with vacuum tubes!) and worked great. But as for 16" guns... In the 1960s a 16" gun was modified to propel a round 112km up. The g forces were far stronger then that of other 16" guns (it fired a smaller round), and this projectile included sensitive electronics that collected data in the atmosphere. So this means that heat and pressure (in 16" guns that were more powerful then normal 16" guns). Also the electronics are not directly exposed to the heat and pressure. As for continuous use of the gun, it would be no different then with any other round. As for checking the round, that could be done electronically by a computer (if you wish, like missiles and bombs fired from aircraft are).

When you aim the gun you have to aim it at a target. In order to have a chance of hitting the target you have to know what angle it is at and the distance. If the system is automated so that the rounds are set to guide to the spot that the guns were told to aim at it would not take any more time. And even our FCS in WW2 knew this.

When I say guidance I mean more like GPS or inertial guidance not like wire, laser, or TV.

In creasing accuracy will make the round far more efficient, and more deadly. It will not decrease speed if done correctly.

Look at the number of bombs that needed to be dropped to destroy a target via bombing in WW2. Now look at today’s guided bombs. The guidance is worth it even if it is only an inertial guidance that corrects the path when conditions vary it from it's intended path (similar to GPS guided bombs).

What is efficiency if not hitting where you intended more often

Also I looked up what the Navy is doing now with guns and they are looking into guided (rocket assisted) projectiles (155mm w/ rage of over 50 nautical miles).

i see what you mean, when you said guidance i did think guide by wire.