NationStates Jolt Archive

Poll and possible discussion as long as it doesn't get too heated.

Battleships. My Air Force isn't too great right now.

Aircraft Carriers mainly, although I recently invested in a brace of SDs. I like the flexibility of Aircraft Carriers, although the sheer firepower of a Battleship is hard to argue against. Thus, I use both.

Aircraft Carriers mainly, although I recently invested in a brace of SDs. I like the flexibility of Aircraft Carriers, although the sheer firepower of a Battleship is hard to argue against. Thus, I use both.

I'm a carrier guy as I love the adaptability, as a carrier can strike against targets much further away than a battleship can, but for pure shore bombardment, a battleship can be useful...

hehe, yeah, but battleships look so much sexier.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f16/MattShipwrighter/Questers/dhm1271.jpg

Both, I suppose...
I tend to regard carriers (or aircraft-carrying dreadnoughts) as the core of a battle group, but have a few more battleships than carriers. Aircraft are more versatile, but battleships more powerful.

Battleships to screen smaller vessels from the core of the fleet, a group of carriers. Unless it is a Dreadnought or higher group in which case, lighter escort carriers would screen out enemy carrier aircraft for them to get close. Depends on the core of the group.

I compromise (http://s13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/index.php?showtopic=1211).

Although I use generally a good mix of both, I have to say that since my entire military is basically revolving around airpower, I lean more towards carriers and its air capabilities it offers. Though a battleship's sheer firepower is very hard to ignore.

I used to focus more on aircraft carriers since my naval strategy relied on striking from a distance using multi-role aircraft, but recently the Kriermada's doctrine has been altering itself, and indeed, it's been getting into more gunfights, which explains such developements such as the Pacitalia class Galleon. In fact, I've been relegating verticle launch duties to longer range surface to air missiles to curtail the effectiveness of missile spam, while trying to use faster ships to get in closer and open up with my main guns. However, I am certainly not a fan of naval battles between guns at a range of two hundred nautical miles, as I am not a fan of the poor accuracy at that range. In any case, my navy has certainly began to gather its guns.

Carriers, my navy isn't very strong.

Aircraft carriers

(I would like some dreadnaughts, to mount some railguns on, anyone know where i can purchase some MT ones)

Well, at present it's not in a position to use either ;). As a rule I'd tend to use a 2:1 ratio though, with a pair of battleships to screen a large carrier; smaller carriers would be battleship-carriers in themselves, or likely screened by heavy cruisers. Carriers have better use when it comes to long-range, flexible strikes, especially against softer targets like land installations, smaller warships and so forth, whereas battleships have unrivalled, if very concentrated, heavy firepower and superb protection.

(I would like some dreadnaughts, to mount some railguns on, anyone know where i can purchase some MT ones)

I would look in Isselmere's storefront, Sarzonia's Portland Iron Works, Praetonia's Imperial Shipyards; I think Quester put up a naval storefront, but I don't know where it's at. You can look into Freethinker's hardware, but I don't know if he sells anymore.

i use both

Aircraft carriers

(I would like some dreadnaughts, to mount some railguns on, anyone know where i can purchase some MT ones)

QAE Marine (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=472461) sells top class battleships.

The Questarian Royal Navy loves its battleships. They are the pride of the nation, the centre of every taskforce is headed by a superdreadnought of some kind. The largest battleship in the world, the HMS Hood, was the flagship of the Royal Navy. I *think* I have the biggest larger than iowa battleship fleet in NS. From this, my fleet air arm suffers, using shitty airplanes and is about to face a major budget reduction. Doctrine is to line up in Jutland esque lines and keep firing until the enemy is dead.

QAE Marine (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=472461) sells top class battleships.
lookign into it now

The largest battleship in the world, the HMS Hood, was the flagship of the Royal Navy.
Actually, once I get the stats for the Vistula Class AFGN completed, that might change. :p

No, I don't think it will.

Predominantly battleships, but I tend to use SDs or their family more often.

If it weren't for the SD, I'd use both fairly equally.

No, I don't think it will.
I posted there

Predominantly battleships, but I tend to use SDs or their family more often.

If it weren't for the SD, I'd use both fairly equally.

By battleships I meant SDs too.. I don't use the SD classification anymore <.< I think that confusion is my fault.

I'm more "battleship" (Designated as BattleCruisers within the Sumerian armed forces) heavy then anything.
I deploy several forms of carriers, including a Battle Carrier (Aviation Cruiser), to opperate at several levels. My Fleet Carriers opperate in independent Carrier Battle Groups in support of my normal forces, where as my Escort Carriers (The vast majority of my carriers) opperate escorting BattleCruiser groups (Consisting of two to three BattleCruisers, an Escort Carrier, and a few escorts).
My navy favors heavily on close range combat, with the Sumer class in particular being designed specifically to move into an enemy fleet quickly, take whatever they may throw at them, and dish punishment out at "point blank range" with some incredily powerful main guns.

bump

My navy favors heavily on close range combat, with the Sumer class in particular being designed specifically to move into an enemy fleet quickly,

Good, then there will be as little tactical difference between our two navies as possible, which will be a good thing when we cooperate to engage Stevid and Independent Hitman's rather large and prominent navies. :) That is, if you join the RP.

Yay! That's pretty much a Questarian doctrine too - I only put it into practice one and I think it needs refining a tad but its still a nice tactic and at least its different from 'OMG HAX MISSILE SP4M'

Also the reason I pack my ships full of D/P guns.

Small aircraft carriers suplemented with missile cruisers and escorted by a couple of destroyer & frigate flottila's are in my oppinion the best battle fleet for modern sea combat, but then again, you still have to deal with nuclear submarine's, in the end the biggest carrier or battleship can be sunk by the firepower of a single submarine. So keep your capital ships small and cheap = more numerous for protection against subs and planes, and good air cover handels the big gun treath, but thats just my 2 cents.

That's not necessarilly true. The power of the submarine on NS has been severely curtailed by the use of longer range, more powerful, more sensative, and IMO, more godmodded sonars, especially in the towed array areas, meaning it's extremely hard for a submarine to infest a battlegroup and instead has to rely on longer range missiles and torpedoes that are put up against state of the art and ultra modern close in defense systems, and high amounts of surface to air missiles. In other words, unless you missile spam continously, NS warfare has reverted back to the gun. You can also commit tactics to missile attacks, but most people just think a missile goes on a straight trajectory and all you can do with it is spam them.

I like both, especially my Super-Dreadnoughts. But I'm leaning more to Aircraft Carriers because they are majestic and better able to put ordnance on a target at longe ranges. My Marine Corps loves to see SDs fire their huge 762mm ETC cannons when they are projecting power from ship to shore. Aircraft Carriers #1!!

I like both, especially my Super-Dreadnoughts. But I'm leaning more to Aircraft Carriers because they are majestic and better able to put ordnance on a target at longe ranges. My Marine Corps loves to see SDs fire their huge 762mm ETC cannons when they are projecting power from ship to shore. Aircraft Carriers #1!!

You know you just contradicted yourself right? And what do you mean by majestic?

You know you just contradicted yourself right? And what do you mean by majestic?

Damn, I hate doing that. I'll just say Aircraft Carriers are number one. I consider Aircraft Carriers majestic because of the way they move on water and the feeling that Roman air power can strike anywhere in the world, except landlocked countries without the need of an Air Force Base or Air Station.

Carriers. Sexiness sometimes has to be sacrificed to get actual functionality. Oh, and both carriers and BBs can succumb to submarines, especially diesel ones. An impregnable sonar screen is godmodding.

both. I use them in mixed groups, makes my fleets more versatile.

I consider Aircraft Carriers majestic b

And battleships are not?
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f16/MattShipwrighter/Questers/vanguard.jpg
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f16/MattShipwrighter/Questers/re5016.jpg
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f16/MattShipwrighter/Questers/HMS_Repulse.jpg

I know this was aimed toward MT, but this could be asked of FT as well. While in FT battleships can technically carry fighters, they have limits. My empire is currently developing a 6km carrier (again, note FT) which holds something like 6-10000 Tie Fighter Varrients, depending on the ship size.

My average battlecruiser holds roughly 100 Ties due to a special method which Kyanges and I adopted. Otherwise, most of my battleships/cruisers would only hold about 20 Ties, maybe 2 transports.

FT is more open to this type of stuff.

Carriers. Sexiness sometimes has to be sacrificed to get actual functionality. Oh, and both carriers and BBs can succumb to submarines, especially diesel ones. An impregnable sonar screen is godmodding.


On that latter part, I'd agree with you, although it does make people think a bit more - either that, or it makes them complain more. Regardless, I'd rather rely on a nuclear submarine than a diesel, given that nuclear submarines last at sea longer, although truth be told, a modern diesel can last for weeks on end.

I have more carriers than battleships but I use battleships effectively.

Battleships. Cruise Missiles are much more effective at attacking far away targets and modern AA systems are much more effective then they were in WW2.

I use a Core of Dreadnoughts, with small Escort Carriers to provide a fighter screen. Destroyers to Screen the Area and to provide All purpose Support

My navy's gotten much more SD heavy as of late (just gotta love 25" guns, hehe), but I've found that I can inflict just as much hurt with a properly outfitted supercarrier. You just have to know how to use your airwing properly.

I use a core of battleships with support of DNs, SDNs, and battlecarriers (fussed tech. :P) I don't think airpower can deliver the same firepower a fleet can, especially once in cannon range (33" on my SDNs)

Carriers, because the Air forces are the pride of my military.

I voted other mostly because my navy is almost completely equal in that...

I use both, but I tend to use my carriers more often. You just can't argue with their versatility and range. The battleship is outdated IMO and thus I only use it when I know I'm walking into a big naval engagement.

Battleships for me. I only use Carriers to house my Bombers which I use frequently before an invasion.

Thanks to Questers, I now use both!

I use both, but I tend to use my carriers more often. You just can't argue with their versatility and range. The battleship is outdated IMO and thus I only use it when I know I'm walking into a big naval engagement.
You did develop the covred carrier right? if not, disregard the statement im about to make

You said no to my order, because I was currupt, now im a democratic socialist and I intend keeping it that way, I want my productions rights

The majority of the capital ships in our navy are battlecruisers, though not as powerful as a battleship they can pack just about as much punch and at a cheaper cost. Our carrier force is small since power projection is not one of our needs. Coastal defense is the highest priority of our Navy. Though- in the future new carriers and battleships will most likely me added to the strength of our Navy.

The People's Oligarchy's Navy (RDAN -- Republikoligarkich Devlynski Armada Navija) relies more on aircraft carriers than battleships, primarily because the player behind Devlyn is much more in tune with air combat than naval combat. ;) However, we are adding more battleships, and the RDAN'S new project is a Floating Fortress, so we're not all carrier-based.

You did develop the covred carrier right? if not, disregard the statement im about to make

You said no to my order, because I was currupt, now im a democratic socialist and I intend keeping it that way, I want my productions rights

Wasn't me. If you want proof I probably have one of the most corrupt governments here.

Good, then there will be as little tactical difference between our two navies as possible, which will be a good thing when we cooperate to engage Stevid and Independent Hitman's rather large and prominent navies. :) That is, if you join the RP.


Lol, I'm not sure if you fully understand what I meant by "Close range combat" in ships. We're talking "Don't shoot until you can see the whites of their eyes boys!"
I doubt even the average SDN hull armour can withstand a 50cm AP shell fired from a high pressure L70 gun from less then 200m distance. That is what I'm talking about.

What admiral in their right mind would expect their enem to charge their group, come to such a close distance, and then open fire, anyway?

Depends on the situation and circumstance.

Lol, I'm not sure if you fully understand what I meant by "Close range combat" in ships. We're talking "Don't shoot until you can see the whites of their eyes boys!"
I doubt even the average SDN hull armour can withstand a 50cm AP shell fired from a high pressure L70 gun from less then 200m distance. That is what I'm talking about.

What admiral in their right mind would expect their enem to charge their group, come to such a close distance, and then open fire, anyway?


At the Liernat Straits the Halmilcar, using the heavy fog, was able to close to a distance of 30kms, which is pretty close for NS warfare, with the Izistan - despite the fact that one of its turrets was put out of action, and several guns snapped from the stress, it brought to bear its 800mm guns at pretty damn close range. The Izistan ended fleeing, and I think I sunk a smaller escort ship, although we haven't gotten that far in the RP yet. I find it hard to get any closer without taking massive casualties.

Well, if we're having a competition, the Hood was sunk firing at battleships 11km away.

You did develop the covred carrier right? if not, disregard the statement im about to make

You said no to my order, because I was currupt, now im a democratic socialist and I intend keeping it that way, I want my productions rights

DC did not develop the concept of the covered deck aircraft carrier, but did build one for export. Link here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473299).

I use a mix in MT and PMT, but for FT it's pure battleships. Then again, an aircraft carrier in space is impossible...but you get my meaning.

Well, if we're having a competition, the Hood was sunk firing at battleships 11km away.


It was more to illustrate the fact that naval doctrine was more or less similar - although, then again, the Hamilcar is not an Imperial ship, it belongs to the Republic of Gerfaanlich and was RPd by that nation.

I know man, I was joking. (Although, it was true.)

Well, if we're having a competition, the Hood was sunk firing at battleships 11km away.
That's why I keep carriers, that's REALLY short range in modern naval battles. The trick is to prevent the battleships from getting in range while you attack from afar. Then they're just useless.

Oh, and about CIWS and all that point-defense systems, they aren't nearly as effective as most people think they are. There's never been a naval battle between modern ships, so the actual effectiveness of those systems hasn't really been proved. People speculate wildly, and often wrong.

The Chevrokian Republic Navy possesses equal numbers of battleships and aircraft carriers, though historically the carriers have been used in actual combat operations more often.

CIWS systems have actually been tested; given, the majority of them have been tested in special production tests and such. Although, yes, true enough, the accuracy of CIWS is exagerated on NS, although this is often supplanted by the fact that several of us fight with systems that are superior to what is in existance now. In any case, with proliferation of hundreds of surface to air missiles per ship, as well as increased amounts of CIWS , destroying something with a missile becomes [i]much harder, especially as defensive systems become beyond visual range [this is more of a fact in surface to air missile technology]. In fact, it has become so rediculous that it's much more economical just to get into gunnery range - all the while, rail gun technology actually allows ships to engage each other from ranges that at one point admirals and captains couldn't even dare to think of. The missile on NS is just as overrated as any missile defense system, and it gets to the point where a writer rather missile spam than actually think and strategize - this is a game, you don't have to be Nelson - tactics that fly here would normally be considered rediculous and improper in real world situations.

DC did not develop the concept of the covered deck aircraft carrier, but did build one for export. Link here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473299).
Ok, thanks, sorry I got confused.

Depends on the situation and circumstance.
As in to say, I use both battleships and aircraft carriers equally.

*bumps up thread*

your maritime style is no match for my terrorist style (hwa hwa waaaah)

I've got neither. Little coastline, little money, little ambition. War by proxy is more effective for our desires.

I am entirely carrier based, but, then again, I am against the more-or-less godmodding of naval battles now adays. It costs me $7,510,800,000 to equip Nimitz CN-77's with 40 JSFs, 40 F/A 18 Superhornets, 2 Prowlers, 3 E2-C Hawkeyes, and 5 C2 greyhounds to transport cargo. For the 75 billion i'd spend on just one 80-jet Dreadnought Carrier , I could float 10 of these, avoid being mass-detected on Radar due to the stealth nature of JSFs, and the shear number of Prowlers, drop small diameter penetrating guided missiles, and take out any of your ASWs with my Superhornets. Even if I were to lose every plane, you would be crippiled to the point I would have little to no problem hitting you with my Seawolf SSN-21's or alfa's (in battery mode, they are almost completely silent). Or I could always fly a wing of Stratofortresses/B-1b's/B2's over your dreadnought out of SAM range and drop GPS-guided bunker busters on you?

As for sonar, even a wall of sonobouys can't detect every single submarine inbound, so how can a towed array do that?

I don't see the point of battleships if you have a lot of crusiers and destroyers.

I am entirely carrier based, but, then again, I am against the more-or-less godmodding of naval battles now adays. It costs me $7,510,800,000 to equip Nimitz CN-77's with 40 JSFs, 40 F/A 18 Superhornets, 2 Prowlers, 3 E2-C Hawkeyes, and 5 C2 greyhounds to transport cargo. For the 75 billion i'd spend on just one 80-jet Dreadnought Carrier , I could float 10 of these, avoid being mass-detected on Radar due to the stealth nature of JSFs, and the shear number of Prowlers, drop small diameter penetrating guided missiles, and take out any of your ASWs with my Superhornets. Even if I were to lose every plane, you would be crippiled to the point I would have little to no problem hitting you with my Seawolf SSN-21's or alfa's (in battery mode, they are almost completely silent). Or I could always fly a wing of Stratofortresses/B-1b's/B2's over your dreadnought out of SAM range and drop GPS-guided bunker busters on you?
Issues with that:

1) NS sensors are far more advanced than any current RL sensors. Therefore, fighters like a JSF or Raptor that are considered highly stealthy in real life can be easily detected on the over-the-horizon radar array one buys with the $75 billion ship.

2) BATTLESHIPS COME WITH ESCORTS! Newsflash: These things don't travel alone! While true, you could take out any ASW helicopters and suchlike, the net of missile cruisers, AA destroyers, and ASW frigates could easily muster enough surface-to-air missiles to knock every one of your planes out of the air. Likewise, your seawolfs or whatever would be detected and killed by frigates with torpedoes, or the battleship's own ASHUM mortars.

3) SAMs have much longer ranges than IRL as well. For your bombers to fly out of SAM range they'd have to be in low earth orbit, which no modern bomber can do. Plus, bunker busters are very big, meaning that they'll have a huge heat signature and can be locked onto by missiles and destroyed.

Anything else I've missed, GMC? ;)

I don't see the point of battleships if you have a lot of crusiers and destroyers.
Battleships have bigger guns and can knock out every single cruiser and destroyer before they can get in range to fire their smaller (albeit more numerous) guns.

Battleships have bigger guns and can knock out every single cruiser and destroyer before they can get in range to fire their smaller (albeit more numerous) guns.

But modern cruisers and destroyers don't bother with guns. That's what VLS is for. It can nail a battleship from missile range long before a gun can get into range.

Nice 3-point write-up above btw... I heartily agree.

i use Carriers and Battleships about the same number of both...


Battleship armor is to think for modern anti-ship missiles, cant remember exactly why though

What would you guys recommend for me?

I'm fixing my population at 20 Million, and am therefore quite small - what do you suggest?

But modern cruisers and destroyers don't bother with guns. That's what VLS is for. It can nail a battleship from missile range long before a gun can get into range.

True, but again, BBs have escorts, with frigates and their own CIWS systems to take care of nearly all inbound missiles. That and BBs/SDs usually have VLS of their own, in larger amounts than a cruiser/destroyer (well, one cruiser/destroyer).

Since when do 10 carriers travel alone? Besides, If you had 800 fighter/bomber along with intercontinental bomber support against a low grade dreadnought ontop of all the antiship missiles that are sure to be flying, how exactly does a ship stand up to that? And diseal/electric submarines are just about completely silent, so passive sonar would not pick them up. And, to reiterate what Macabees said, many people overestimate even the most sophisticated CIWS setups. the numbers get even more absurd against a 500 billion ship: That is equivlent to 66 +/- nimitzs, which would entail 5,280 jets, along with the other stuff mentioned above.

We have both but there are more carriers than battleships.
Each battle groups consists of 2 Fenwick-class carriers and at least one battleship that acts as a cruise missile platform. This is on top of the numerous cruisers, destroyers and submarines.

But modern cruisers and destroyers don't bother with guns. That's what VLS is for. It can nail a battleship from missile range long before a gun can get into range.
True, but again, BBs have escorts, with frigates and their own CIWS systems to take care of nearly all inbound missiles. That and BBs/SDs usually have VLS of their own, in larger amounts than a cruiser/destroyer (well, one cruiser/destroyer).
Er... what Ot said. <.< >.>

SSMs vs. BBCIWS, escort CIWS, RAMs, SAMs, lasers, ECM... I wouldn't give missiles much of a chance.

Besides, battleships carry lots of missiles as well as big guns. The Doujin has 4,608, for instance, which equals about 11 standard cruisers.

Since when do 10 carriers travel alone? Besides, If you had 800 fighter/bomber along with intercontinental bomber support against a low grade dreadnought ontop of all the antiship missiles that are sure to be flying, how exactly does a ship stand up to that? And diseal/electric submarines are just about completely silent, so passive sonar would not pick them up. And, to reiterate what Macabees said, many people overestimate even the most sophisticated CIWS setups. the numbers get even more absurd against a 500 billion ship: That is equivlent to 66 +/- nimitzs, which would entail 5,280 jets, along with the other stuff mentioned above.
Hmmm... Assuming we're still talking about the $75 billion ship, plus its escorts which it's bound to be traveling with (we'll assume the same as your 10 carriers, i.e. $25 billion worth of destroyers, cruisers, and frigates), it would probably be a standoff.

The BB battlegroup would have many more cruise missiles and heavier guns than the CBG; thus, we could sink the carriers conceivably before they got in range to launch their aircraft. On the other hand, the aircraft would definitely be on the CBG's side, but with NS air defense nets (SAMs etc.) a battleship group could probably detect and take them out before they could drop any bombs, while missiles would meet the assorted countermeasures of those same nets.

Also, don't think you're the only one to have subs. Our submarines could probably stop yours, leaving it to a standoff underwater as well.

It'd be an interesting military exercise.

Just out of curosity... wouldn't your nation run out of steel producing just one SD?

Just out of curosity... wouldn't your nation run out of steel producing just one SD?

Depends on how much steel you have. It's unlikely though.

But they do usually cost anywhere from 500b-1 trillion USDs just for one. Crazy.

Just out of curosity... wouldn't your nation run out of steel producing just one SD?
No. Nations that build SDs usually do so because they have the resources to. In addition, armor isn't made of just steel; there's also titanium, manganese, aluminum, vanadium, silicon, etc. This isn't RL.

Also, Geneticon, SDs usually cost between $120 billion (for "pocket SDs"; the lowest I've seen) and $850 billion (HMS Hood).

Also, Geneticon, SDs usually cost between $120 billion (for "pocket SDs"; the lowest I've seen) and $850 billion (HMS Hood).

I was close enough... just guessing from what I've seen.

Still VERY expensive compared to your typical Carrier whcih is only like 6-10 billion fully operable with aircraft.

I was close enough... just guessing from what I've seen.

Still VERY expensive compared to your typical Carrier whcih is only like 6-10 billion fully operable with aircraft.
That's comparatively small/underarmed carriers like the Nimitz, right? I've seen prices for large carriers (300+ fighters) in the $100 billion+ range. Check naval storefronts like PIW or RSIN.

My navy has a strong naval presence. We have not only battle cruiser and carriers but also a small flotilla of corvettes (small fast cruisers and not your speedy little car). Nuclear submarine capabilities play a small role, as well as a small coastal guard. Underwater mines can be released at a moments notices should another country decide to enter our shores unannounced.

I prefer to use "real life" equipment, since that at least has a realistic operational history. That being said, if I can project the same amount of power for less money (i.e. figure 7 million for a nimitz full of JSFs, which haven't even come out yet!, with the number of carriers scaled up to have the same number of aircraft) i'm probably going to do it. That being said, I don't have a 70 trillion defence budget yet, so I might change that up to be a little more "anti-dreadnaught".

I prefer to use "real life" equipment, since that at least has a realistic operational history. That being said, if I can project the same amount of power for less money (i.e. figure 7 million for a nimitz full of JSFs, which haven't even come out yet!, with the number of carriers scaled up to have the same number of aircraft) i'm probably going to do it. That being said, I don't have a 70 trillion defence budget yet, so I might change that up to be a little more "anti-dreadnaught".

A nuclear torpedo could probably destroy a SD very easily.

I prefer to use "real life" equipment, since that at least has a realistic operational history. That being said, if I can project the same amount of power for less money (i.e. figure 7 million for a nimitz full of JSFs, which haven't even come out yet!, with the number of carriers scaled up to have the same number of aircraft) i'm probably going to do it. That being said, I don't have a 70 trillion defence budget yet, so I might change that up to be a little more "anti-dreadnaught".
Where the heck are you getting your figures? A single JSF costs more than that! A modernised (as in, RL modernised) Nimitz costs about 6.5 billion USD to acquire, while the JSF is 38 mil a pop for a carrier-launched version.

A nuclear torpedo could probably destroy a SD very easily.
True, but then again, that justifies the person you just nuked to launch a proportional strike, probably blowing up half your fleet to deal equivalent damage, if not simply escalating to a full-blown MAD scenario.

i got my nimitz from geneticon. The JSF pricing I got off of prudite (i think).

Where the heck are you getting your figures? A single JSF costs more than that! A modernised (as in, RL modernised) Nimitz costs about 6.5 billion USD to acquire, while the JSF is 38 mil a pop for a carrier-launched version.
I'll consider that a typo (he meant 7 billion).

Also, since the JSF hasn't come out yet as you say, it has no operating history either. Shouldn't you be sticking with F-22s, MiG-35s and the like?

yea, i ment billion. There was a guy who did fly the JSF (or one of the final prototypes of it) and compared it to a Eurofighter. Basically, he said the JSF is a superior multirole, though they are essentially 2 different planes (he said its like comparing a formula 1 to nascar). Its on wikipedia. I also want to add that a raptor can't take off from a carrier (to the best of my knowledge).

Issues with that:

1) NS sensors are far more advanced than any current RL sensors. Therefore, fighters like a JSF or Raptor that are considered highly stealthy in real life can be easily detected on the over-the-horizon radar array one buys with the $75 billion ship.

2) BATTLESHIPS COME WITH ESCORTS! Newsflash: These things don't travel alone! While true, you could take out any ASW helicopters and suchlike, the net of missile cruisers, AA destroyers, and ASW frigates could easily muster enough surface-to-air missiles to knock every one of your planes out of the air. Likewise, your seawolfs or whatever would be detected and killed by frigates with torpedoes, or the battleship's own ASHUM mortars.

3) SAMs have much longer ranges than IRL as well. For your bombers to fly out of SAM range they'd have to be in low earth orbit, which no modern bomber can do. Plus, bunker busters are very big, meaning that they'll have a huge heat signature and can be locked onto by missiles and destroyed.

Anything else I've missed, GMC? ;)

3) Actually a bomber can stay well out of the range of SAMs and fire off its payloads, as long as it has long-range armament. My own bombers are equipped with these missiles that can be fired from a little over 5,000 km away. Almost all SAMs have ranges less than 1,000 km.

Czard, Hood cost that much because I wanted to stop people widely using it (That failed) adn also cos QAE is greedy. Production price is sth about 640 billion.

The Royal Walmingtonian Navy uses both carriers and battleships, plus battlecruisers, though these actually carry lighter armament than the current battleships in the fleet, so may not really deserve the name any longer. Still, one needn't spend long in Southend (the island/city that the fleet calls home) or on the Empire's shipping lanes to learn that the battleships are far the more highly prized.

Though, saying that, only one capital ship has been lost by the RWN, and that was a battleship. Granted, it was an old sub-20,000t battleship with 12" guns, built in Iansisle, I think originally coal-fired, refitted and transfered to Walmington, cleverly pitted against the Kriegsmarine's finest only to be straddled several times by Bismarck's 15"ers, and, er, that's the story of our first oil-fired post-Dreadnought.

Now we've two battleships resembling Hood (that's the real one, sorry!) but built later and, from the outset, for full battleship-standard armour on a slightly longer hull; three very much Walmingtonian battleships with 15.5" guns; and the utterly decrepit sister of the above-described Iansisle, now resting dangerously low in the water after further up-armouring and changes to the AA armament. Then there's three fleet carriers for which we lack fighters that aren't obsolete and unpopular; and four or five escort carriers with wooden decks, built from the hulls of merchant vessels, flying domestic biplanes and the faithful old stringbags.

Long story short, Walmington prefers guns and armour to elevators and catapults, but can't really afford either since a series of ill-advised adventures in the military sphere and some generally suspect diplomacy. Huzzah!

Walmington, as a proud British battleship fan, I <3 your Navy.

I would say Aircraft Carriers! They can carry tens of Aircraft!

I would say Aircraft Carriers! They can carry tens of Aircraft!

Myself, I have both.

Battleships:

Nothing beats blowing enemy shorelines and other ships to shreds.

Aircraft Carriers:

Then again, nothing beats projecting air power across NS Earth.

My navy doesn't build ships specifically to fight. Most importers keep armed ships along, but they aren't built for war. I would best describe the naval forces belonging to various importers as the tin can navy. It's all DE and CVE types.

I use both. Why be stuck with just carriers or just battleships?

Walmington, as a proud British battleship fan, I <3 your Navy.


Aw, thank you! It's not a very good navy, but we're fond of it. It is desperately short of escorts (because the admiralty, 'doesn't believe in' mines and submarines, and chooses to pretend that they don't exist, and because usually all that is required are fast troop-transports and big guns for gunboat diplomacy and suppression of mutiny around the Empire, and on these missions there is no maritime threat. Even so, our battleships/cruisers have never sunk much -besides Spanish fishing boats going after our cod and Yankee traders making too much money- where as it was one of only about eighteen destroyers we've ever built that torpedoed and sank the Prinz Eugen (admittedly only after coming out from behind the smoking hulk of our own Iansisle but that's not the point, darn it!).

Er, anyway, I may have to come and pester the likes of yourself now that a version of Walmington is actually representing Britian (and Ireland and New Zealand) in the AMW group, and I've got to come-up with C20th/21st battleships to counter those the continental Catholics are turning out. Guided missiles? Automation? Torpedo belts? It's just not cricket, anymore.

At least ours will have nicer names, eh HWMS Godfrey Grâce à Dieu, King Athelstan, Queen Mavis (A.K.A Merry Mave)?
They agree.

[Goes off to figure-out how many men and VLS tubes to put on a 90,000 ton incentive for France to play nice]

I maintain large amounts of both heavy combat ships and aircraft carriers, however, a very nice looking picture or some very impressive statistics will always sell me a new class of battleship...

I'm fond of Arsenal ships, which I suppose are a kind of Battleship. But all the humongous guns and missile racks int he world won't do you one lick of good in the modern warzone unless it has air superiority, so carriers are pretty integral too.

But all the humongous guns and missile racks int he world won't do you one lick of good in the modern warzone unless it has air superiority, so carriers are pretty integral too.

Eh, not really. Missiles are cheaper, easier to use, and just as good as aircraft. Do you have to train a missile? No. Do you lose a valuable pilot when it dies? No. Can you buy lots of missiles to one aircraft? Yes. Are big guns fucking cool? Yes.

Eh, Walmington, I wouldn't mind, you mean like a modern BB? Vanguard size?

Eh, not really. Missiles are cheaper, easier to use, and just as good as aircraft. Do you have to train a missile? No. Do you lose a valuable pilot when it dies? No. Can you buy lots of missiles to one aircraft? Yes. Are big guns fucking cool? Yes.

Eh, Walmington, I wouldn't mind, you mean like a modern BB? Vanguard size?

That's why I use Arsenal ships... BUT you still need to maintain airsuperiority to defend against enemy fighters, which have a nasty habit of being armed with things like Exocets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet) and Sunburns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-270_Moskit) which are easily capable of punching through highly sophistcated CIWS systems and dealing the deathblow to any ships ont he recieving end. The only real defense is to keep the aircraft away, and to date, a friendly Air Superiority aircraft is still the best way to do that.

The Exocet, oldest, smallest and least sophisticated of the two missiles (which are but two of many RL ship killers, not to mention NS ones) managed to destroy two British warships, severely damage a third, and allegedly damage the HMS Invinsible during the Falklands when the Brits got a little too careless with their airdefense

"The Exocet, oldest, smallest and least sophisticated of the two missiles (which are but two of many RL ship killers, not to mention NS ones) managed to destroy two British warships, severely damage a third, and allegedly damage the HMS Invinsible during the Falklands when the Brits got a little too careless with their airdefense"

But that's not going to be such a big problem with PAAMS, which has demonstrated its ability to take-out Exocet. Plus, few navies worth mentioning in NS are in such dire condition as the RN during Thatcher's early years, when air defence destroyers required close air defence to be provided by frigates (and then, in the most infamous Falklands case, crossed the line of fire of such a frigate, breaking its lock on the incoming target, and sitting around to be hit by it). One wouldn't expect a modern navy to re-make generation-old mistakes that -in NS terms- minnows like the UK realised and addressed many years ago.

I've probably gone off track, I'm a little tipsy. But, uhm, yeah, don't treat the Falklands as a standard. A classroom maybe, but no benchmark.

Eh, not really. Missiles are cheaper, easier to use, and just as good as aircraft. Do you have to train a missile? No. Do you lose a valuable pilot when it dies? No. Can you buy lots of missiles to one aircraft? Yes. Are big guns fucking cool? Yes.

Eh, Walmington, I wouldn't mind, you mean like a modern BB? Vanguard size?

Actually missiles are not as good as aircraft (if they were there wouldn't be any of them in RL). Aircraft have the bonus of a pilot, meaning it can change missions based upon threat while dealing with them most efficiently. A missile has an on-board guidance system that can not deal with different threats effectively, hence are far easier to destroy.

Also SAMs are extremely overhyped (at least in RL). Don't think that if you launch a SAM at an aircraft that you have an assured death. Most likely than not, you won't. An aircraft can easily outmaneuver an incoming SAM, hell it's been done plenty of time. Don't forget ECM equipment. Combined, it is pretty hard to get one-shot kills on aircrafts. I heard somewhere that historically SAMs have had only a 9% success rate. I'll see if I can get more info on that, though.

Which is why you want to shoot(at least) four or five missiles per plane.

Actually missiles are not as good as aircraft (if they were there wouldn't be any of them in RL). Aircraft have the bonus of a pilot, meaning it can change missions based upon threat while dealing with them most efficiently. A missile has an on-board guidance system that can not deal with different threats effectively, hence are far easier to destroy.

Also SAMs are extremely overhyped (at least in RL). Don't think that if you launch a SAM at an aircraft that you have an assured death. Most likely than not, you won't. An aircraft can easily outmaneuver an incoming SAM, hell it's been done plenty of time. Don't forget ECM equipment. Combined, it is pretty hard to get one-shot kills on aircrafts. I heard somewhere that historically SAMs have had only a 9% success rate. I'll see if I can get more info on that, though.

Depends on the SAM. The 2s6m Tunguska has a 60% hit rate if I'm not mistaken.

"The Exocet, oldest, smallest and least sophisticated of the two missiles (which are but two of many RL ship killers, not to mention NS ones) managed to destroy two British warships, severely damage a third, and allegedly damage the HMS Invinsible during the Falklands when the Brits got a little too careless with their airdefense"

But that's not going to be such a big problem with PAAMS, which has demonstrated its ability to take-out Exocet. Plus, few navies worth mentioning in NS are in such dire condition as the RN during Thatcher's early years, when air defence destroyers required close air defence to be provided by frigates (and then, in the most infamous Falklands case, crossed the line of fire of such a frigate, breaking its lock on the incoming target, and sitting around to be hit by it). One wouldn't expect a modern navy to re-make generation-old mistakes that -in NS terms- minnows like the UK realised and addressed many years ago.

I've probably gone off track, I'm a little tipsy. But, uhm, yeah, don't treat the Falklands as a standard. A classroom maybe, but no benchmark.

True, but the exocet is probably the least capable Sea-Skimming Missile, the Sunburn has been rumored to be able to defeat AEGIS flight II (the most capable RL missile defense system in existence) and NS features even more advanced SeaSkimmers (like my own Shrike).

sea Skimming Missiles are kind of like cryptology, until there is a readical shift in missile defense technolgies, ot will always be easier to build an air-launched Sea-Skimming missile than it will be to build a useful defense against that missile. So instaed, try to defend yourself form the launching aircraft, proving my original point that Air superiority is more important than big guns, because without the one, the other doesn't last long in a war.

Eh, I wouldnt' say AEGIS II is superior to PAAMS.. the point is, maybe I can fire 10 anti air missiles to one of your aircraft, say what you like about SAMs, but air superiority in NS over rated, mostly since alot of people use hordes of escorts and helluva lot of missiles to just down any aircraft in range.

but that's the point of aircraft with sea-skimming missiles, they can launch their missiles from outside the range of your air defenses. A good sea-skimmer has a range from air-launch of about 100km or so. the longest range weapon on any naval air-defense system ever conceived falls short of 50km, and the most plausible ones have limitations more like 20-30km, that's including things like Rolling Airframe missiles and even laser and maser based defenses.

Not that there's much point to hanging around outside SAM range if all the AShMs you launch are just being shot-down by PAAMS/better, and the opposing fleet is going about its business while you perpetually back-off to remain outside its defensive reach. Besides, PAAMS can reach 80km if not 100 or 120, and I'm sure that NS has better than that (since everyone seems to think that having more resources means designers realising uniformly better ideas).

I'm still not 100% clear as to what we're arguing about, though :)

We are agruing over whether air-superiority is key to naval victory, which would mean that a battleship based navy is doomed if it doesn't also have at least enough carrier support to maintain constant air cover.
as to the PAAMS being able to defeat targets at even as far as 80 Km, its rubbish, for one, only the Aster 30 has the range for that, and its too heavy, and at that range it would be at the edge of its maneuvering envelope, the pilot would have to be pretty stupid to get hit by a big heavy missile at the edge of its flight envelope. and once that 'threat' is defeated, the fighter is free to launch its sea-skimming payload, which the Aster 30 never stood a chance against (too heavy==not maneuverable enough) and the Aster15 doesn't have an chance as its deployed from a vertical launch silo which severely limits its reaction time and flight envelope. I'd plae my bets with Aegis II any day over PAAMS, and even that has its problems.

Also, in NS there's a threat that RL navies have only begun to really think about, and that's conventional anti-shipping weapons deployed from stealth aircraft (like the JSF naval strike fighter) which can conceivably launch conventional anti-ship munitions from inside the rage at which any air-defense could conceivably defend against it.
True, naval radar is strong enough and advanced enought o detect stealthed targets, but stealth technology is catching up fast and even if you can 'see' an aircraft on radar, doesn't mean you can get enough return off of it to actually target it for missiles or other defensive weapons, at leastot until its too late. and most modern and NS stealth aircraft come with plenty of jamming to complicate matters even more.

You can have all the air defenses you want, but if you're letting enemy fighters hang around and launch missiles at you, eventually one will get through, whether its a comventional fighter launching a sea-skimmer from just outside range, or a stealth fighter launching a regular old missile from just inside, or even a stelath fighter launchign a sea-skimmer from just inside your defenses, eventually one will probably get to its target, and in the modern age, one hit=one kill where missiles are concerned.

as to the PAAMS being able to defeat targets at even as far as 80 Km, its rubbish, for one, only the Aster 30 has the range for that, and its too heavy, and at that range it would be at the edge of its maneuvering envelope, the pilot would have to be pretty stupid to get hit by a big heavy missile at the edge of its flight envelope. and once that 'threat' is defeated, the fighter is free to launch its sea-skimming payload, which the Aster 30 never stood a chance against (too heavy==not maneuverable enough) and the Aster15 doesn't have an chance as its deployed from a vertical launch silo which severely limits its reaction time and flight envelope. I'd plae my bets with Aegis II any day over PAAMS, and even that has its problems.

Also, in NS there's a threat that RL navies have only begun to really think about, and that's conventional anti-shipping weapons deployed from stealth aircraft (like the JSF naval strike fighter) which can conceivably launch conventional anti-ship munitions from inside the rage at which any air-defense could conceivably defend against it.
True, naval radar is strong enough and advanced enought o detect stealthed targets, but stealth technology is catching up fast and even if you can 'see' an aircraft on radar, doesn't mean you can get enough return off of it to actually target it for missiles or other defensive weapons, at leastot until its too late. and most modern and NS stealth aircraft come with plenty of jamming to complicate matters even more.

You can have all the air defenses you want, but if you're letting enemy fighters hang around and launch missiles at you, eventually one will get through, whether its a comventional fighter launching a sea-skimmer from just outside range, or a stealth fighter launching a regular old missile from just inside, or even a stelath fighter launchign a sea-skimmer from just inside your defenses, eventually one will probably get to its target, and in the modern age, one hit=one kill where missiles are concerned.

As to ASTER 30, in the terminal phase both versions of ASTER are equally manvouverable as they both use the same kill vehicles just different booster sections, 80km isn't even at the extremes of the engagement range.
Oh and AEGIS II relies priamrily on VLS launched missiles too (the SM2/3 family and ESSM), RAM isn't actually connected the main AEGIS system for targetting IIRC.

Stealth aircraft, who says you need a firing solution radar return? just enough to localise it and hand it off to your IRST or optronci sensors. I'm sure you didn;t mean to imply putting jammers on your stealth planes as this is a bad idea, the whole point of stealth is you have no emissions and jammers are big obvious emitters, by all means mount a jamming attack from another aircraft and use it as cover for your stealthy aircraft.

As you say you never let anyone do anything uncontested and yes you would strive to have some sort of fighter cover, but the simple fact is msot carrier launched strike aircraft simply aren't big enough to carry one shot one kill weapons

I use Gorgoroth Class Battle Carriers, designed to launch and support an Air Invasion, but supporting them, I also use Annihilator Class Super Dreadnaughts

I think he might mean having prowlers/growlers doing the jamming while the stealths just move on in, being unable to be picked up. And, since GPS satelites are pretty good for hitting relativley stationary targets, you wouldn't even need radar guided munitions to hit the ships

I think he might mean having prowlers/growlers doing the jamming while the stealths just move on in, being unable to be picked up. And, since GPS satelites are pretty good for hitting relativley stationary targets, you wouldn't even need radar guided munitions to hit the ships

They have tried using JDAMs to attack moving vessels, it does work but you have to keep a constant flow of updates flowing to the weapon to get any sort of accuracy, admittedly you don't have to give the updates from the launch aircraft you can "hand off" the weapon to a 3rd party sensor platform (RL tests were a B-52 launch vehicle and a JSTARS targetting/firecontrol vehicle) it could work but constant targetting updates would put a lot of extra emissions into what would already be a very cluttered airwaves.

Oh, er, I was working under the impression that Mondoth might know something I didn't, but, short-range, clumsy, and useless against sea-skimmers and stealth are things that PAAMS is not. And VLS indicative of slow reaction times rendering any such system useless against sea-skimmers? Even though both Asters can include a 90 degree course change in the launch stage? And even though short-range dedicated anti-missile missiles of the previous generation (with half the velocity of Aster) include VLS version (Seawolf)?

Almost a decade ago, Aster 15 was used to take-down a target simulating a missile at 7km range and 10m altitude, took-out an Exocet, hit a low-flying target under heavy countermeasures conditions, and more recently hit supersonic targets and hit a low-altitude target in less than five seconds. And never mind being useless at 80km, Aster 30's range is reported usually at above 100km.

I'm not going to deny that air power is always likely to be very useful in just about any conflict, but this seems like a totally suicidal underestimation of PAAMS and other shipboard air defences.

No SAM in RL has a success rate of over 50% (from what I know). The figure that I said was 9% is actually 1%. During the war between Israel and PLO, Syria, Soviet SA-7's had a success rate of only 1% (on the order of thousands of shots per hit). The Iran-Iraq War had dozens of shots per hit and the first Gulf War the success rate of the Iraqi defenses was 1% (and remember, Baghdad at the time was the most heavily defended city (by air) in the world). Stingers have the highest, with a success rate of 50%.

So to be honest, SAMs are generally overhyped. Though, some naval SAMs on NS have ranges over 600 km, but you can use long-ranged missiles against ships with ranges out of the air defense. So yes, air superiority and air support is still a vital part of naval battles.

There's the slightest little bit of difference in a modern environment between Sa-7 and similar-vintage SAMs (and artillery) and, you know, something from the last few decades, never mind the latest generation of weapons. In the first Gulf War, some Iraqi missiles were being fired as essentially unguided no-hope-in-hell weapons after things started blowing-up thanks to a radar grid that left almost no hope of detecting stealth aircraft, and they could have fired thousands of missiles like that without ever scoring a single hit. As an example, it has precious little to do with this debate. Sa-7s even less, since I don't see anybody trying to use Sa-N-5 to protect battleships or aircraft carriers.

Again, the thing that bothers me here is this launch-range/impunity notion. So you launch your missiles from outside the range of the target ship?

Very good, you didn't get shot down, but since, on its long approach, your expensive big missile did, it would have been just as well to not bother, and the fleet is continuing about its strategic business.

It's still not to say that air power can't be used to attack serious naval forces, but let's not get carried away, here.

There's the slightest little bit of difference in a modern environment between Sa-7 and similar-vintage SAMs (and artillery) and, you know, something from the last few decades, never mind the latest generation of weapons. In the first Gulf War, some Iraqi missiles were being fired as essentially unguided no-hope-in-hell weapons after things started blowing-up thanks to a radar grid that left almost no hope of detecting stealth aircraft, and they could have fired thousands of missiles like that without ever scoring a single hit. As an example, it has precious little to do with this debate. Sa-7s even less, since I don't see anybody trying to use Sa-N-5 to protect battleships or aircraft carriers.

Again, the thing that bothers me here is this launch-range/impunity notion. So you launch your missiles from outside the range of the target ship?

Very good, you didn't get shot down, but since, on its long approach, your expensive big missile did, it would have been just as well to not bother, and the fleet is continuing about its strategic business.

It's still not to say that air power can't be used to attack serious naval forces, but let's not get carried away, here.

Uh, I'm just quoting historically and the fact that hit rates for SAMs are overrated (even pilots admit that). Uh, do you realise thats why you don't send on long-ranged missile into a battlegroup? It will of course be shot. Also most missiles use a high-high-low profile in that it climbs high and then goes into a near 90 degree vertical descent onto the ship. Now, its pretty hard hitting something that is 0.85 meters long from when you are looking up. Or they could be seaskimmers, which are also hard to hit.

That and the fact that you usually send over 100 of these missiles at the battlegroup (well by Nationstates standards). You don't expect them all to make it through. To be honest, I use missiles just to seperate large naval armadas into smaller more divided groups. They aren't meant to actually inflict damage onto ships. Once they are divided, I conquer with submarines/torpedos and long-range guns.

Any fleet worth throwing hundreds of missiles against also has hundreds if not thousands of SAMs, with numerous individual ships able to trace all the incoming missiles, plus their launch aircraft, with capacity to spare, and to engage a large part of the wave even if the enemy has time to form up a borderline ridiculous big-wing and launch a cohesive wave like that. I don't see any particular reason for the fleet to scatter under such attack, unless it has no over-all commander and each ship is captained by a frightened civilian. A Walmingtonian fleet would take-up its defensive formation and protect itself, not abandon tactical doctrine just because the enemy started shooting back.

Those mentioned attack profiles are precisely the sort of thing against which latest generation SAM systems, like PAAMS, are designed to protect. In reality, missiles are developed with sea-skimming/diving attack profiles, okay. Then, systems like PAAMS are developed to counter them. That's how it works. The new attacking missiles aren't some PMT revelation.

Anyway, of course, there's always ways to attack a fleet, whether it has modern SAMs or obsolete ones, battleships or carriers, air cover or not.

Any fleet worth throwing hundreds of missiles against also has hundreds if not thousands of SAMs, with numerous individual ships able to trace all the incoming missiles, plus their launch aircraft, with capacity to spare, and to engage a large part of the wave even if the enemy has time to form up a borderline ridiculous big-wing and launch a cohesive wave like that. I don't see any particular reason for the fleet to scatter under such attack, unless it has no over-all commander and each ship is captained by a frightened civilian. A Walmingtonian fleet would take-up its defensive formation and protect itself, not abandon tactical doctrine just because the enemy started shooting back.

Those mentioned attack profiles are precisely the sort of thing against which latest generation SAM systems, like PAAMS, are designed to protect. In reality, missiles are developed with sea-skimming/diving attack profiles, okay. Then, systems like PAAMS are developed to counter them. That's how it works. The new attacking missiles aren't some PMT revelation.

Anyway, of course, there's always ways to attack a fleet, whether it has modern SAMs or obsolete ones, battleships or carriers, air cover or not.

Sure that is quite true. You do have air defense.... until you run out of SAMs. You see, lets say your naval SAMs have a 33% accuracy rate on dive profile missiles. That means that it takes 3 SAMs to hit one missile. For the purpose of simulation, lets say both fleets are same sized and the defending fleet has 20,000 SAMs. Now if the enemy even fired 6,000 missiles at your fleet (which isn't that hard), your entire reserve of SAMs would be only 2,000 missiles by the end while the enemy still has plenty of attacking missiles left (this takes into account that you destroyed every missile, which you would not be able to unless you are wanking). So tell me, are you going to keep your fleet in the same position with minimum air defense missiles? Most RPers would turn to spread their fleet to make it harder to hit, instead of just sending clumps of missile into one huge blob of ships. That way their missiles can be used most effectively. The other solution would to have your ships stay and hope that their armor won't give out and let the enemy advance on you till they are within gun ranges, though, the other person has to be pretty stupid to give up their advantage.

Well, anyone can make-up a scenario to suit their case, but it doesn't necessarily help to do so.

I would expect, in NS, a fleet the size of one with 6,000 ready anti-ship missiles to have more than 20,000 anti-missile missiles, but maybe that's just me. I would also expect quite probably better than 33% success for a good layered defence against such missiles.

"this takes into account that you destroyed every missile, which you would not be able to unless you are wanking" Well, given your own ratios, 2/3rds of the intercept missiles failed, anyway. Probably it is not very practical to organise 6,000 missiles in a single wave against a single target area, for whatever that's worth.

Then, scattering still confuses me, unless you're facing incoming nuclear weapons or such. Stay in formation (not in position) screen high value/vulnerable targets, cover one another, don't do what the enemy wants, just because he hasn't immediately surrendered without a fight [looks confused]. It's not like our ships are actually going to sit on top of one another, but this idea of scattering them to a degree that somehow affords a serious advantage in picking them off, yeah, well, whatever *waves hand*.

Nowt has been said so far to alter my position on air defences, so I'm going to head back into what battleshippy brought me to this thread *Wanders off to Wordpad*

Well, anyone can make-up a scenario to suit their case, but it doesn't necessarily help to do so.

I would expect, in NS, a fleet the size of one with 6,000 ready anti-ship missiles to have more than 20,000 anti-missile missiles, but maybe that's just me. I would also expect quite probably better than 33% success for a good layered defence against such missiles.

"this takes into account that you destroyed every missile, which you would not be able to unless you are wanking" Well, given your own ratios, 2/3rds of the intercept missiles failed, anyway. Probably it is not very practical to organise 6,000 missiles in a single wave against a single target area, for whatever that's worth.

Then, scattering still confuses me, unless you're facing incoming nuclear weapons or such. Stay in formation (not in position) screen high value/vulnerable targets, cover one another, don't do what the enemy wants, just because he hasn't immediately surrendered without a fight [looks confused]. It's not like our ships are actually going to sit on top of one another, but this idea of scattering them to a degree that somehow affords a serious advantage in picking them off, yeah, well, whatever *waves hand*.

Nowt has been said so far to alter my position on air defences, so I'm going to head back into what battleshippy brought me to this thread *Wanders off to Wordpad*

Uh, that scenario was perfectly balanced and fair, I'm not sure how you found that not balanced. The fact of the matter is that I just gave 20,000 to each fleet. And no, I doubt a SAM could get an accuracy rate of far higher than 33%. Also what's not to get about scattering? Once all your SAMs are gone (bare minimum left) what are you going to do then? Just stand there and let the rest of the barrage of missiles come and hit you? I personally wouldn't let that happen. And 6,000 missiles are of course not practical but they get the job done of depleting an enemies SAM reserves.

I use future technology, so the dynamic is somewhat different, but the fact remains that, in space, Xanthal does not use carriers ("carrier" being defined as a ship built to carry, launch and/or retrieve armed ships/planes).

Eh, Walmington, I wouldn't mind, you mean like a modern BB? Vanguard size?

Well, I hope you don't mind me using this thread -which seems to have gone quiet, now- to talk about this, then! Kick me out if you like :)

Anyway, something not entirely dissimilar, yes. I have essentially inherited The British Federation's legacy (explaining the Walmington name by creating the House of Walmington to replace Windsor on the throne), but we are entering an age every bit as tense and competative as that of the 1930s: Catholic France has launched battleships and begun to rebuild its empire in alliance with the Russian Tsar, the former jewel -India- is now exporting communism around the world, tradtional allies are siding with Catholics and communists, and Protestant Walmington/Britain is deeply concerned. France, Roycelandia, and Spyr all have battleships, even the African socialists have a monitor, and the Soviets have demonstrated a capacity and will to build gun and armour vessels. And we have to protect the Wendsleybury Islands (New Zealand) from half the world away, not to mention possible interests in Malaysia.

From TBF we inherit the battleship Courageous (previously known, informally, as Bull's Folley), but I would feel better using it as a basis from which to work-up a proper design before expanding the class to maybe four.

Then I'm thinking of two super battleships (not like mainsteam NS's monsters, but super by RL standards) to restore dominance over the French (and Roycelandia).

Finally, there would be two fast battleships for deployment to the Asian theatre.


The basic Courageous, inherited from TBF:
One in service, we're expanding the class. Bull's lot had prepared for the possibility of building two or three, I think, but the Tory administration between then and now settled for the one that was already built and went no further, so I'm going to work on the assumption that some preparation may survive in respect of materials gathered for the second ship at least.

Complement 1,560

Over 263.3m (864ft) waterline length, 271.8m (892ft) overall length, and 36.5m (120ft) beam
59,200t standard and 69,120t deep load

7,800t oil capacity
Four shafts
29knots
16,000nm cruise range

Nine 16” guns (3x3) with a firing interval below twenty seconds
Twenty-four 155mm DP guns (12x2)
Four Harpoon quad canister anti-ship missile systems
Forty-eight cell Tomahawk ASM/LAM cruise missile VLS
Two sixteen-cell PAAMS VLS SAM system with MK 15 and 30 missiles
Nine evolved-Goalkeeper 30mm CIWS
Numerous 7.62mm General Purpose Machine Guns

15” belt armour; 6” average main deck armour, maximum over 7”
Area of ship covered by armour is very extensive

Six UAVs?
Two Lynx or Merlin helicopters, possibly more- may operate Merlin MASC (MAritime Surveillance and Control aircraft).

Presumably some of the sensors also will be similar to those used on the Darings.

I'm thinking that, first and foremost, a reassessment of VLS missile systems might be in order. Since we're very on-again off-again in relations with the US (Quinntonia), and since I'm doing similar with the Darings, I may settle for Storm Shadow instead of Tomahawk, the main discouragement being in the loss of range. I know that SS isn't exactly the ideal shape for VLS launch, but I'm sure I've read of a French project to develop it for launch from the Sylver launcher, so we're doing basically the same thing. Walmington/Britain has had to go it alone for many years since France, and for a time Italy, ceased to be viable partners, presumably explaining the 16-cell rather than 8-cell launcher.

Initially I was thinking that a fairly big modern-build battleship could have more VLS capacity than listed here. But if I do convert it to Storm Shadow, it'll have at least eighty cells in five blocks for variable cruise missile, short range SAM, and long range SAM, and it does have twelve secondary turrets and nine CIWIS mounts, and UAV/helicopter space, so maybe there's not that much room after all? Though it's only three main turrets rather than four, so that's something. Mayhap just one more VLS block to fit an even number makes sense.

I'm not sure what I'm asking, just for constructive commentary, I suppose. Oh, and I have wondered about armouring and VLS cells. I don't really want plunging shell-fire or diving missiles bouncing off until one happens to hit eighty or ninety missile cells and wreck our defences. What to folk do about that in the exclusively NS world of combined missile and armour naval warfare?

Proposed Dreadnought Class

The possible class of two 90,000t monsters to put the French back in their place, or at least make sure that they keep a large part of their fleet at home instead of using it to imperialise half of Africa and Asia.

I was sort of toying with the idea of two triple 20" turrets, and one turret with three tapered guns with 16" breach and maybe 11" muzzle, for extended range. I thought that these two would do the job of keeping French forces at home by the fact that they could probably shell Bordeaux and other cities from the sea if the mood took them. I also considered a different layout with 2x2 20" guns and 2x2 16/11" taper guns, mostly because I just think that 4x2 is prettier than 3x3 :)

As I say, I am really not dead set on following this idea at all. I may give-up the taper guns and just go for eight 20" guns to bludgeon French or other enemy fleets; I may abandon the class for two more of the Courageous Class; or I've been thinking about maybe a small squadron of cruisers with more armour than other modern ships but less than they may have had in the true days of guns and armour, and a big-gun presence that we're not too terrified of losing that we won't deploy it, as could happen with the battleships.

Queen Mavis Class fast battleships

Finally, there would be two battleships similar to those WoS uses outside of AMW -looking a little like [RL] Hood with better armour and maybe 16" instead of 15" guns- but with nuclear power and high speed. I was thinking they would be our deployment battleships for chasing the French around SE Asia and going where the super-battleships maybe could not. The Courageous, of course, is oil-fired, possibly because that's just cheaper.

One of these might possibly be wielded alongside the possible cruiser squadron, allowing it to do its work without the possibility of its being met and outgunned by a French or Roycelandian battleship force in SE Asia. If we don't go with the cruiser option, the QMs might have to more aggressively seek out the enemy capital ships and be prepared to force a fight from them.

Well, sorry to ramble on, hope it doesn't look like a hijack, I suppose I'm just opening these ideas to the interest of those concerned with battleships and big-gun cruisers, and the AMW public. Any advice is potentially welcome, on my part at least.

(Oh, for interest, we're still going to use the Queen Elizabeth mid-size carriers, too. Defence spending is clearly on the up!)

OOC: My NS nation uses both since we use the aircraft carriers since we are surrounding on 3 sides by water so helps in providing airport like facilities for missions. Battleships we use as support for both naval bombardment and protection somewhat.

My favored setup is five new super-carriers, and 70 other ships running support for the super-carriers. I use frigates, old cruisers, destroyers, and amphibious assult ships (basically small helicopter carriers). This fleet is just one of 50. I also like submarines. I use the new Ohio-class, the older Seawolf Class, and the new Virginia-class submarines

Carriers make battleships obsolete. The costs of battleships outweigh the benefits. Aircraft carriers have a longer range and pack more firepower in their air wing than a battleship does with its guns. Most people just include battleships in their navies because, "OMG battleships are t3h ROXXORZ!!! they got big guns!!!11" Are there any real life navies that have battleships anymore? No. Not even the US Navy has any, and we're the most highly funded navy in the world.

Carriers make battleships obsolete. The costs of battleships outweigh the benefits. Aircraft carriers have a longer range and pack more firepower in their air wing than a battleship does with its guns. Most people just include battleships in their navies because, "OMG battleships are t3h ROXXORZ!!! they got big guns!!!11" Are there any real life navies that have battleships anymore? No. Not even the US Navy has any, and we're the most highly funded navy in the world.

Never heard of the USS Wisconsin then?

Nice comparison of RL to NS. Doesn't make any sense, but there we go. Now, have you had actually read the thread, you may have understand the reasons why people use them. You evidently haven't, so go away.

The RMN has no battleships to speak of, and if I can remember from the PDF I was making a while back (it has been a while), it has 12 aircraft carriers, with three more set for decommissioning.