NationStates Jolt Archive

[OOC: Yes, it's a new ship design but I decided to try a different approach to the unveiling post. Thoughts?]

Portland Press-Herald

PIW unveils new ship; dismisses 'political' talk

by Jeanine Nightingale
Special to the Press Herald

PORTLAND -- In an effort to address a "cruiser gap" in the Incorporated Sarzonian Navy and provide a lethal new surface combatant to the ISN, the Portland Iron Works released the Agrippa-class guided missile cruiser at its flagship facility in Portland, Somerset.

"This cruiser addresses our need for a purely anti-ship surface combatant that can address most modern threats," said Admiral Barbara Tucker (ISN-Ret.), the company's chief executive officer. "We believe the Agrippa class will serve our navy and our export customers well in the years ahead."

There was some controversy with respect to the naming convention as the Portland Iron Works chose the name of now-former Praetonian prime minister Lucius Agrippa for the class. Tucker dismissed talk that PIW was playing to the Liberal Imperialist Party that lost its grip on power in Sarzonia's closest allies.

"This was not a political consideration," she said. "If it were, we never would have designed a Publius class battle carrier." That class was named for the current Imperator, Sarius I, who was the prime minister of Praetonia before being elevated to the throne.

The Agrippa becomes the fourth warship designed by the Portland Iron Works to carry a name of a Praetonian place or person. Tucker said that the Royal Shipyard of Isselmere-Nieland had already designed many ships with names of places and people in UKIN history; otherwise, "they'd have had equal time." Portland Iron Works also previously had the Bolash class patrol submarine, named for former Granzi prime minister Terry Bolash.

The first Trimaran command cruiser class in PIW history was named for the Pacitalian capital, Timiocato, while the current in-flight refuelling jet is named for Saronno, a provincial capital in Pacitalia.

Praetonian government officials were unavailable for comment at press time.


Agrippa-class Trimaran missile cruiser
Length: 267 m; Beam: 54 m; Draught: 10.4 m
Displacement: 57,840 tonnes fully laden
Armament: 2 x 3 305 mm Mark IV ETC guns in A & Y positions; 10 x 90 mm Mark 71 naval guns; 6 x 64 cell Mark 136 VLS tubes; 16 x Dragonfly SAM launchers; 2 x 650 mm TT; 16 x Rattlesnake CIWS suites
Protection: 460-533 mm advanced armour composite (titanium, vanadium, aluminum, amorphous steel, ballistic ceramics); double-bottomed, reinforced keel with void spaces. Hardened crossbeams installed across bulkheads.
Propulsion: Two Pebblebed nuclear reactors; two internalised waterjets. Two diesel turbines provide emergency propulsion. 36 knots.
Aircraft: Space for three ASW helicopters and two SZ-34 'Leopard' V/STOL fighters.
Complement: 720
Electronics: AN/SLY-2 (V) Advanced Integrated Electronics Warfare System; AN/SPY-4 MFR and AN/SPN-23 navigational radars; AN/SQR-6 (B) passive towed array and AN/SQS-57 dual-mode mounted digital sonar array; A/P Mounted Sonar: AN/SQS-57 active/passive, preformed beam, digital sonar providing panoramic echo ranging and panoramic (DIMUS) passive surveillance.
Countermeasures: Decoy: AN/SLQ-25 Nixie
Price: $3 billion
Running Costs: $150 million

Honorable Leader,

On behalf of The Constitutional Monarchy of Xenoi, I would like to buy 150 of your new product. My quote for the deal is $1 billion

Sincerely,

Emperor Xenoi

Honorable Leader,

On behalf of The Constitutional Monarchy of Xenoi, I would like to buy 150 of your new product. My quote for the deal is $1 billion

Sincerely,

Emperor Xenoi[OOC: I think you're looking at the running cost and not the actual price for each ship. The ship itself costs $3 billion each.]

[OOC: I think you're looking at the running cost and not the actual price for each ship. The ship itself costs $3 billion each.]

[OOC: I don't think he is looking at the running cost, because that would make the total $22.5 Billion. I think he is trying to negotiate and gave you his quote.]

[OOC: I don't think he is looking at the running cost, because that would make the total $22.5 Billion. I think he is trying to negotiate and gave you his quote.]OOC: I don't think most (if any) storefronts will be willing to negotiate, especially if they're going from $22.5 billion to $1 billion for 150 ships.

Offer a payment plan, yes. Negotiate dramatically down from $22.5 billion? Probably not.

OOC: I don't think most (if any) storefronts will be willing to negotiate, especially if they're going from $22.5 billion to $1 billion for 150 ships.

Offer a payment plan, yes. Negotiate dramatically down from $22.5 billion? Probably not.
[OOC: Actually he wants you to negotiate $450bn down to $1bn. As DMG said, $22.5bn is only if you take annual running costs as the price. Ludicrous.]

To: Admiral Barbara Tucker (ISN-Ret.)
From: Sir Louis Riel, Minister of Defence
Re: Agrippa Class

Greetings once again Admiral. My Admiral Murphy was quite impressed with this new cruiser. He has requested that I order around forty of them.

40 x $3 billion = $120 billion

Like usual, the money will be wired on confirmation. We look forward to taking control of these fine vessels.

[signed]
L. Riel

[OOC: Isn't the Agrippa one of the Lunar Class Cruisers from Battlefleet Gothic?]

OOC: 3 billion.. for a cruiser?

IC: To Emperor Xenoi, the New Felucan Storefront has naval assets also. They are far cheaper than this .. cruiser, and the capabilities are just the same. This thing is nothing more than a renamed battleship using VLS launchers instead of naval cannons.

The cost to purchase and maintain such a ship is outrageous, we encourage you to visit other storefronts before you make a decision.

*fires nuclear torpedos* :p

*fires nuclear torpedos* :p

OOC: I hear ya dude. Some of this stuff is getting rediculous. I saw a "super carrier" with 570 planes the other day. Heh.. imagine how long it'd take to launch all those. They'd get halyway through it, the first jets launched would need to come back and land to refuel.

OOC: I use such 900 plane carriers in my own navy, although I only have six of them. They have three flight decks, being quite large (and trimaran) and possess 12 catapults. I use them as floating airbases, which they are quite effective at.

Anyhow, I really don't think Sarz would appreciate you advertising your storefront in his thread, it's rather impolite.

OOC: I use such 900 plane carriers in my own navy, although I only have six of them. They have three flight decks, being quite large (and trimaran) and possess 12 catapults. I use them as floating airbases, which they are quite effective at.

Anyhow, I really don't think Sarz would appreciate you advertising your storefront in his thread, it's rather impolite.

OOC: You realize that having 3 decks means you can only retrieve fighters on 1 of the decks.. not to mention, a carrier depends on airflow as well as catapults to launch their fighters. The design of a ship doesn't allow for multiple decks to provide enough airflow to launch planes. That's why they turn into the wind and get up to speed for the launch process. *sigh*

As for the advertising, it was done in an IC manner. If he wants to respond in an IC manner, he can.

Three flight decks, one on each hull. Are you thinking that I stacked them?

That's just silly.

Anyhow, it doesn't matter in what form advertising takes, it's still advertising, but we'll see what Sarz has to say about it.

IC:

From: Office of Military Importation and Procurement
To: Portland Iron Works

The Velkyan navy is currently seeking a replacement for it's Quentin II class of missile cruisers, and we believe the Agrippa may fit the bill. We would like to order two for evaluation purposes. Once the ships have been delivered, we shall wire the six billion dollars to an account of your choice.

Thank you.

-End Transmission-

OOC: What's insane is that people are willing to pay 3 billion for a cruiser that's no more advanced than an Arleigh Burke destroyer. Just because it's expensive doesn't mean it's better. >_> The -only- advantage that I can see is an extra VLS cell for cruise missiles. But heck, you could buy 5 other missile ships for the same price and get 10x the amount of cruise missiles. >_>

OOC: What's insane is that people are willing to pay 3 billion for a cruiser that's no more advanced than an Arleigh Burke destroyer. Just because it's expensive doesn't mean it's better. >_> The -only- advantage that I can see is an extra VLS cell for cruise missiles.
OOC: What in the world are you talking about? Have you actually compared the Arleigh Burke DDG with the Agrippa?

But heck, you could buy 5 other missile ships for the same price and get 10x the amount of cruise missiles. >_>
Yes... The world would be a much more different place if the capabilities of a ship solely lies in the number of cruise missiles it carries.

OOC: What in the world are you talking about? Have you actually compared the Arleigh Burke DDG with the Agrippa?


Yes... The world would be a much more different place if the capabilities of a ship solely lies in the number of cruise missiles it carries.

OOC: Okay, this one has naval cannons. Which are basicly the same as carrying musket rifles with your infantry. It's just a mini-battleship with Arleigh Burke preformance. Looking at the systems.. the tracking and guidance are the same models (Just with different numbers) on the Arleigh Burke. Not worth 3 million, even if it -is- nuclear powered.

OOC: I would really listen to Omz on this one, he knows what he's talking about.

Better yet:

CC1 Jade Class Guided Missile Cruiser

Speed (kts): 36 knots

Dimensions (m): 185.9-186.0 meters long
20.8 meters beam
7.8 meters draft

Propulsion: 4 gas/elec. turbines
108,800-110,000 shp
4 propellers

Crew: 500

Armament:
Space for 2 helicopters
VLS (Vertical Launch System) 40 cell x2 (Cruise missiles or SAMs)
Sparrow SAMs 6x4
Stake Anti-Ship Missiles 2x8
Mark 40 Torpedo 4x3
2x 130mm cannons
4x gatling guns .50cal 6'000 rds/m/mount
x2 Buckler missile defense guns (Fore & Aft)

Systems:
Felucan Warning/Strike Suite (Naval)

VS.

Agrippa-class Trimaran missile cruiser
Length: 267 m; Beam: 54 m; Draught: 10.4 m
Displacement: 57,840 tonnes fully laden
Armament: 2 x 3 305 mm Mark IV ETC guns in A & Y positions; 10 x 90 mm Mark 71 naval guns; 6 x 64 cell Mark 136 VLS tubes; 16 x Dragonfly SAM launchers; 2 x 650 mm TT; 16 x Rattlesnake CIWS suites
Protection: 460-533 mm advanced armour composite (titanium, vanadium, aluminum, amorphous steel, ballistic ceramics); double-bottomed, reinforced keel with void spaces. Hardened crossbeams installed across bulkheads.
Propulsion: Two Pebblebed nuclear reactors; two internalised waterjets. Two diesel turbines provide emergency propulsion. 36 knots.
Aircraft: Space for three ASW helicopters and two SZ-34 'Leopard' V/STOL fighters.
Complement: 720
Electronics: AN/SLY-2 (V) Advanced Integrated Electronics Warfare System; AN/SPY-4 MFR and AN/SPN-23 navigational radars; AN/SQR-6 (B) passive towed array and AN/SQS-57 dual-mode mounted digital sonar array; A/P Mounted Sonar: AN/SQS-57 active/passive, preformed beam, digital sonar providing panoramic echo ranging and panoramic (DIMUS) passive surveillance.
Countermeasures: Decoy: AN/SLQ-25 Nixie
Price: $3 billion
Running Costs: $150 million

I rest my case.

It is obvious that you have actually not compared the Arleigh Burke than the Agrippa. See for yourself:

Arleigh Burke DDG
Speed: +30 knots
Armament: 1x 5-inch gun, 2x Triple 12.75" TT, 2x Phalanx CIWS, 96x VLS cells (90 was the older model), 2x Quad Harpoon launchers.
Aircraft: 2x SH-60
Sensors include: AN/SPY-1D, AN/SPS-67, AN/SPS-64, AN/SQQ-53C

So what's your point?

Okay, this one has naval cannons. Which are basicly the same as carrying musket rifles with your infantry. It's just a mini-battleship with Arleigh Burke preformance.
...Do you actually have any idea of what you ar talking about? This is clearly an escort. If this is a battleship, then it would have a completely different designation and layout. Of course this ship has a gun, just like any other modern vessels, because they're still important for attacking land targets. The assumption that modern vessels "doesn't need guns" because you already have missiles is at best, still a foolish one.

Looking at the systems.. the tracking and guidance are the same models (Just with different numbers) on the Arleigh Burke.
How do you know that the different designations are applied to the same sensor models? Do you have any conclusive evidence? The information is from the mouth of the designer of the vessel himself, so why do you think that they aren't different?

Not worth 3 million, even if it -is- nuclear powered.
Actually, 3 billion is still a bit low. The DD(X) is already slated to be above 2 billion, and the Arleigh Burke IIRC is approaching, if not already above, 1 billion.

My suggestion... Actually read up on the facts before implying how crappy this vessel is just because it is "too expensive" (a refuted fact) and its weapons are only marginally better (another refuted fact if you actually compared the two vessels).

Hoorah! Go Omz! You're on a roll!

OOC: I see no difference. While he went through and copy&pasted systems from an American-designed cruiser and destroyer, I designed my own systems into one package. Precisely -the- reason was that I'd rather not list a bunch of techno-babble that means nothing to the average person.

The point this whole time was, why pay 3 billion for nothing more than a supped-up cruiser, when you could build a fleet for just as much with x5 the striking power?

While he went through and copy&pasted systems from an American-designed cruiser and destroyer,
OOC: Again, what in the world are you talking about? Do you have any evidence to back this up?

I designed my own systems into one package. Precisely -the- reason was that I'd rather not list a bunch of techno-babble that means nothing to the average person.
...

He wanted the descriptions to be detailed as a polished product, and not incomplete or looks unprofessional. Just like what a credible and well-known designer in NS will do.

The point this whole time was, why pay 3 billion for nothing more than a supped-up cruiser,
Because it isn't?

when you could build a fleet for just as much with x5 the striking power?
Elaborate. Once again, you are ignoring the cost of modern vessels, and you are basing all of your faulty assumptions on the myth that modern cruisers and destroyers only cost a few hundreds million dollars. That's right - capability costs. If this fundamental fact of design is foreign to you...

And yet, you still have failed to show how they will have "x5 the striking power", nevermind defining what "striking power" is. Then again, looking at how you previously stated that the Agrippa "only has additional VLS cells", it seems that you don't really have much of an idea of what you're talking about either.

It is obvious that you have actually not compared the Arleigh Burke than the Agrippa. See for yourself:

Arleigh Burke DDG
Speed: +30 knots
Armament: 1x 5-inch gun, 2x Triple 12.75" TT, 2x Phalanx CIWS, 96x VLS cells (90 was the older model), 2x Quad Harpoon launchers.
Aircraft: 2x SH-60
Sensors include: AN/SPY-1D, AN/SPS-67, AN/SPS-64, AN/SQQ-53C

So what's your point?


...Do you actually have any idea of what you ar talking about? This is clearly an escort. If this is a battleship, then it would have a completely different designation and layout. Of course this ship has a gun, just like any other modern vessels, because they're still important for attacking land targets. The assumption that modern vessels "doesn't need guns" because you already have missiles is at best, still a foolish one.


How do you know that the different designations are applied to the same sensor models? Do you have any conclusive evidence? The information is from the mouth of the designer of the vessel himself, so why do you think that they aren't different?


Actually, 3 billion is still a bit low. The DD(X) is already slated to be above 2 billion, and the Arleigh Burke IIRC is approaching, if not already above, 1 billion.

My suggestion... Actually read up on the facts before implying how crappy this vessel is just because it is "too expensive" (a refuted fact) and its weapons are only marginally better (another refuted fact if you actually compared the two vessels).

Like I said, the systems are basicly the same. All you need to do is look them up, and you'll see that they are often the same electronics, just upgraded with new programs and operating processes. - And I never said it wasn't an escort. Although you wouldn't be able to tell that by looking at it's primarily cruise missile (As opposed to anti-ship) armament.

Okay, you want to attack land targets. That's fine. But he's also trying to squeeze 16 SAM launchers, 3 massive VLS blocks, 16 CIWS, and WWII era naval cannons onto the frame. It just seems like he's trying to make it do -everything- at once while specializing at nothing.

I still object to the price, (Which was my MAIN point all along) though. Big and nuclear or not, it wouldn't cost 3 billion to make the damn thing.

I didn't want to have this conversation here, my original post was an IC post, to which was responded with by OOC.

"Originally Posted by The Xeno
While he went through and copy&pasted systems from an American-designed cruiser and destroyer,"
OOC: Again, what in the world are you talking about? Do you have any evidence to back this up?

I think he is referring to: "Electronics: AN/SLY-2 (V) Advanced Integrated Electronics Warfare System; AN/SPY-4 MFR and AN/SPN-23 navigational radars; AN/SQR-6 (B) passive towed array and AN/SQS-57 dual-mode mounted digital sonar array; A/P Mounted Sonar: AN/SQS-57 active/passive, preformed beam, digital sonar providing panoramic echo ranging and panoramic (DIMUS) passive surveillance.
Countermeasures: Decoy: AN/SLQ-25 Nixie"

[QUOTE=Omz222]
He wanted the descriptions to be detailed as a polished product, and not incomplete or looks unprofessional. Just like what a credible and well-known designer in NS will do.
QUOTE]

OOC: You can have a polished product without spamming every design with worthless numbers. If you're suggesting my own systems are incomplete, I reccomend you take a look at the Felucan Suite, under the "Systems" section in my storefront. It's outlined there, as opposed to having to throw in "XXX-radar system, XXX-decoy system, XXX-guidance system" into every post. That, and I wanted some originality.

I think he is referring to: "Electronics: AN/SLY-2 (V) Advanced Integrated Electronics Warfare System; AN/SPY-4 MFR and AN/SPN-23 navigational radars; AN/SQR-6 (B) passive towed array and AN/SQS-57 dual-mode mounted digital sonar array; A/P Mounted Sonar: AN/SQS-57 active/passive, preformed beam, digital sonar providing panoramic echo ranging and panoramic (DIMUS) passive surveillance.
Countermeasures: Decoy: AN/SLQ-25 Nixie"

Yes, that.

The Xeno: Your comments are really out-of-line. First off, using electronics already developed is in no way designing a cruddy design. If you actually looked at it, other than what electronics it use, than you will see that this is a origional design. As for cost, if anyone maybe you should revisit your cost. If a today's design is $1 billion, than tell me how do you stay below $2 billion on NS?

Like I said, the systems are basicly the same. All you need to do is look them up, and you'll see that they are often the same electronics, just upgraded with new programs and operating processes.
Have the designer actually stated this...? Because if he didn't, the features will most likely not be present.

And I never said it wasn't an escort.
No, you implied that it was a "mini-battleship".

Okay, you want to attack land targets. That's fine. But he's also trying to squeeze 16 SAM launchers, 3 massive VLS blocks, 16 CIWS, and WWII era naval cannons onto the frame. It just seems like he's trying to make it do -everything- at once while specializing at nothing.
Of course it is still going to need that, because you want this to achieve a variety of tasks and engage in a variety of roles while still staying within the realms of escort vessels. Then again, I don't think you really have much of an idea about NS-type naval warfare, which are on a different scale than in IRL thus requires a different design philosophy in the beginning.

I still object to the price, (Which was my MAIN point all along) though. Big and nuclear or not, it wouldn't cost 3 billion to make the damn thing.
Unfortunately, it would - because, as the one of the basic tenets of design implies, capability costs. The DD(X) is already going to be $2 billion, and for a bigger and more advanced vessel it should cost a bit more, if not several billion dollars. If you haven't noticed, large escort vessels no longer sell for only $500 million dollars, because you are trying to fit in better sensors and weapons.

I didn't want to have this conversation here, my original post was an IC post, to which was responded with by OOC.
Well, you certainly initated it from the beginning, and because of that there's a need to refute the faulty assumptions quoted above.

[QUOTE=The Phoenix Milita]I think he is referring to: [snip]
Yes, it was clearly in the specifications... So what's your point?

OOC: You can have a polished product without spamming every design with worthless numbers.
Did he? No. And "including numbers" is different from "spamming with numbers", since you still want the product to be detailed and polished.

If you're suggesting my own systems are incomplete, I reccomend you take a look at the Felucan Suite, under the "Systems" section in my storefront. It's outlined there, as opposed to having to throw in "XXX-radar system, XXX-decoy system, XXX-guidance system" into every post. That, and I wanted some originality.
I will most definitely disagree on that - but I don't think it would be respectful to Sarzonia and would only stain the thread's atmosphere by discussing about another storefront here. Boasting about your storefront's own goodness in another person's designs thread is not a good etiquette, observed by all well-known and respected weapons designer in NS, which you are doing right now.

my point is... *posts picture of naked woman *

:sniper: :mp5: ]

*runs*

Have the designer actually stated this...? Because if he didn't, the features will most likely not be present.


No, you implied that it was a "mini-battleship".


Of course it is still going to need that, because you want this to achieve a variety of tasks and engage in a variety of roles while still staying within the realms of escort vessels. Then again, I don't think you really have much of an idea about NS-type naval warfare, which are on a different scale than in IRL thus requires a different design philosophy in the beginning.


Unfortunately, it would - because, as the one of the basic tenets of design implies, capability costs. The DD(X) is already going to be $2 billion, and for a bigger and more advanced vessel it should cost a bit more, if not several billion dollars. If you haven't noticed, large escort vessels no longer sell for only $500 million dollars, because you are trying to fit in better sensors and weapons.


Well, you certainly initated it from the beginning, and because of that there's a need to refute the faulty assumptions quoted above.

[quote]
Yes, it was clearly in the specifications... So what's your point?


Did he? No. And "including numbers" is different from "spamming with numbers", since you still want the product to be detailed and polished.


I will most definitely disagree on that - but I don't think it would be respectful to Sarzonia and would only stain the thread's atmosphere by discussing about another storefront here. Boasting about your storefront's own goodness in another person's designs thread is not a good etiquette, observed by all well-known and respected weapons designer in NS, which you are doing right now.

Since your only answer here is, "Okay, I use the <quote and /quote> buttons a lot, and ignore points by repeating myself and pointing to numbers that just HAPPEN to be the exact same system that the United States uses for its electronics, but THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE'S USING THEM! OOOH NOOOO!" I'm just going to drop the issue. Unfortunetly, some people like yourself just can't resist the urge to jump into something and make it into a fight and there's nothing I can do about that. I've made my point(s) several times, and you've ignored it several times. Nothing else needs to be said.

[QUOTE=Omz222]Have the designer actually stated this...? Because if he didn't, the features will most likely not be present.


No, you implied that it was a "mini-battleship".


Of course it is still going to need that, because you want this to achieve a variety of tasks and engage in a variety of roles while still staying within the realms of escort vessels. Then again, I don't think you really have much of an idea about NS-type naval warfare, which are on a different scale than in IRL thus requires a different design philosophy in the beginning.


Unfortunately, it would - because, as the one of the basic tenets of design implies, capability costs. The DD(X) is already going to be $2 billion, and for a bigger and more advanced vessel it should cost a bit more, if not several billion dollars. If you haven't noticed, large escort vessels no longer sell for only $500 million dollars, because you are trying to fit in better sensors and weapons.


Well, you certainly initated it from the beginning, and because of that there's a need to refute the faulty assumptions quoted above.



Since your only answer here is, "Okay, I use the <quote and /quote> buttons a lot, and ignore points by repeating myself and pointing to numbers that just HAPPEN to be the exact same system that the United States uses for its electronics, but THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE'S USING THEM! OOOH NOOOO!" I'm just going to drop the issue. Unfortunetly, some people like yourself just can't resist the urge to jump into something and make it into a fight and there's nothing I can do about that. I've made my point(s) several times, and you've ignored it several times. Nothing else needs to be said.

Honestly, I'm doubting your naval expertise on this subject. For one thing, do you think electronics cost a billion dollars for a cruiser? hell no, so that has little to do with the thing. The reason this is so expensive is because it has raw capability over other designs. If you had even looked at the US cruiser and this you would have seen the difference. Unfortunently, you continue to cite otherwise.

I feel that it is pertinent to get this issue straight:

ignore points by repeating myself and pointing to numbers that just HAPPEN to be the exact same system that the United States uses for its electronics, but THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE'S USING THEM! OOOH NOOOO!"
First, if you've ever noticed, I'm not ignoring your statement that Sarzonia is basically using the same equipment - if I were, then I wouldn't have specifically quoted your statement and made a reply to refute it. Secondly, just that they happen to have the same designation doesn't mean that they are of the same model. This is an obvious fact, and I can't blame you for not knowing it since it is apparant that you are a beginner weapons designer in NS - just because you name a missile "AIM-180" doesn't mean that it is the same as the "AIM-120". Having something named "Type 1 tank" doesn't mean that it is the M1A1. Unless Sarzonia stated that he in fact is using the same systems as those IRL, then the "AN/SPY-4" will still be his own creation, since it just happened to use the same designation system. In fact, you are making your assumption on faulty grounds - unless Sarzonia has explicitly stated that the sensors are merely copies or derivatives of the Aegis & associated systems IRL, then they aren't. Simple as that.

And if you feel that I'm flaming you, etc. - I'm not, and I am merely providing refutations to your facts. If this is happening as a result of confusion, then my apologies.

I feel that it is pertinent to get this issue straight:


First, if you've ever noticed, I'm not ignoring your statement that Sarzonia is basically using the same equipment - if I were, then I wouldn't have specifically quoted your statement and made a reply to refute it. Secondly, just that they happen to have the same designation doesn't mean that they are of the same model. This is an obvious fact, and I can't blame you for not knowing it since it is apparant that you are a beginner weapons designer in NS - just because you name a missile "AIM-180" doesn't mean that it is the same as the "AIM-120". Having something named "Type 1 tank" doesn't mean that it is the M1A1. Unless Sarzonia stated that he in fact is using the same systems as those IRL, then the "AN/SPY-4" will still be his own creation, since it just happened to use the same designation system. In fact, you are making your assumption on faulty grounds - unless Sarzonia has explicitly stated that the sensors are merely copies or derivatives of the Aegis & associated systems IRL, then they aren't. Simple as that.

And if you feel that I'm flaming you, etc. - I'm not, and I am merely providing refutations to your facts. If this is happening as a result of confusion, then my apologies.

I don't see how you can blame me for assuming, since he has no published information on the systems. I see a lot of people with MiG-29SMTs, and F-15 Eagles too. Am I to assume those aren't just copies of the real thing? I have to -assume- from what I see here. And what I see there, are just US modules for various systems already available. Judging from that, it's no more versitile than an Arleigh Burke. I may be new, but I'm using common sense here.

I don't see how you can blame me for assuming, since he has no published information on the systems.
So why are you, from the beginning, assuming that they are in fact the same models of sensors?

I see a lot of people with MiG-29SMTs, and F-15 Eagles too. Am I to assume those aren't just copies of the real thing?
...because the weapons you quoted exist in real life. AN/SPY-4, as of right now, doesn't - it just use the same designation system. The AIM-120 AMRAAM exist in real life, but the AIM-180 AMRAAM III doesn't.

I may be new, but I'm using common sense here.
You can only use common sense to dictate when you actually have made an effort to read the whole description of the cruiser and looked into the topic of naval vessel design.

OCC: What the hell. You guys were fighting on the price of the ship, then the sensors and systems. and now missiles. I believe Omzzz is right, because sensors and the size of the ship makes the price of the ship expensive.

OCC: What the hell. You guys were fighting on the price of the ship, then the sensors and systems. and now missiles. I believe Omzzz is right, because sensors and the size of the ship makes the price of the ship expensive.
That's exactly right, and hence you do see that very capable vessels, whether in NS or IRL, are very expensive. That is a given fact.

OOC: You realize that having 3 decks means you can only retrieve fighters on 1 of the decks.. not to mention, a carrier depends on airflow as well as catapults to launch their fighters. The design of a ship doesn't allow for multiple decks to provide enough airflow to launch planes. That's why they turn into the wind and get up to speed for the launch process. *sigh*

As for the advertising, it was done in an IC manner. If he wants to respond in an IC manner, he can.OOC: Remove your advert from this thread please. I don't care if it was done in a IC manner or not. It's just plain rude.

OOC: Don't want to hijack your thread but check your TGs. :)

bump

*bump*

bump