NationStates Jolt Archive

Jets? Well, I don't suppose this can be stealthy...
And you said this was PMT? It's going to be bombarded by literally thousands of satellite-launched rods; at the velocities they'll travel, you won't be able to get every one, even with lasers. Besides, won't lasers heat up the surrounding hull structure badly? Further, you'll need to watch out for mass torpedo barrages, mass hypersonic missile barrages, etc.

Something this big wil lget protected. By Brilliant Pebbles.

And surround the lasers with insulation. And this wil lbe at the center of the fleet. We aren't sending this alone. No chance.

Use it then!

I intend to....based off my original designs. ^-^

Its possible, he could've high speed torpedos

dont boter with whatever a Metal Strom is, just put armor on the engiens

Metal Storm is the next gen system. We'll use it.

Look, this is likely to be too expensive a package. Assume that you lose one. You'll have lost hundreds of billions - all on one ship! This is not going to be cheap nor quick to build...

is that sarcastic.
yes it is, pointless flaming is not good

You're going to go through al lthe thrust we are putting out?

Why not?

Jets? Well, I don't suppose this can be stealthy...
And you said this was PMT? It's going to be bombarded by literally thousands of satellite-launched rods; at the velocities they'll travel, you won't be able to get every one, even with lasers. Besides, won't lasers heat up the surrounding hull structure badly? Further, you'll need to watch out for mass torpedo barrages, mass hypersonic missile barrages, etc.

Oh, and underwater Metal Storm? You do know that bullets don't fire well underwater, right?

Who said it would be bullets... XD

Oh, and Brilliant Pebbles counters ballistic missiles, not so-called 'Rods from God.' Further, I don't know if Metal Storm works underwater...

Look, this is likely to be too expensive a package. Assume that you lose one. You'll have lost hundreds of billions - all on one ship! This is not going to be cheap nor quick to build...

Well, actually, it's probably going to be just a little bit cheaper than an SD, with so much of this being Pykryte.

No your getting retarded.

Ah, I'm insanely retarded. So retarded that I use proper grammer and punctuation. Isn't that stupid?

Pykrete would work for a nice floatable airfield, I agree, but Asbena and 1010120 are making this into some sort of monster capable of destroying all at sea, when in reality it's a massive hunk of ice and sawdust.

Metal Storm is the next gen system. We'll use it.
what is it?


and Beltway is right, this would be ridicoulously expensive

ok sorry about that but he did start it.

Oh, and Brilliant Pebbles counters ballistic missiles, not so-called 'Rods from God.' Further, I don't know if Metal Storm works underwater...

Why can't it? Modifications and computers!

Why not?

If he's not using the jets he won't need them to be above the surface.
Underwater it would be deflected.

You don't think Pykrete will be expensive? Try making over 18 million tons of the stuff!

what is it?


and Beltway is right, this would be ridicoulously expensive

Metal Storm is ungodly cheap and highly effective. Google it in.
Check out the videos (and I mean DOWNLOAD them).

You don't think Pykrete will be expensive? Try making over 18 million tons of the stuff!

It's cheaper than steel, and my version is basically going to be this, scaled FAR down.

Oh, and Brilliant Pebbles counters ballistic missiles, not so-called 'Rods from God.' Further, I don't know if Metal Storm works underwater...

It doesn't, metal storm is a gun. the only proven CIWS type system that able to be used underwater is supercavitation, and that works solely against torpedoes and is only marginally effective.

Metal Storm is ungodly cheap and highly effective. Google it in.
Check out the videos (and I mean DOWNLOAD them).
ok,

and Pythogria is right, develop somethign half the size, or a quarter of the size, and it would be much better

It doesn't, metal storm is a gun. the only proven CIWS type system that able to be used underwater is supercavitation, and that works solely against torpedoes and is only marginally effective.

Why couldn't we modify the Metal Storm system?

You don't think Pykrete will be expensive? Try making over 18 million tons of the stuff!

Its cheap to do, just your industry will go up insanely for a bit about it. Should take 3 years to produce a ship.

Why can't it? Modifications and computers!

Because godrods de-orbit at immense velocities, and even trying to hit it is laughable. That's why they're such effective SD killers.

Why couldn't we modify the Metal Storm system?
bullets dont work great underwater, you'd have to come up with a new thing (or isolated firing chambers or something)

This is not going to be inexpensive, nor will it take three years to build.

It doesn't, metal storm is a gun. the only proven CIWS type system that able to be used underwater is supercavitation, and that works solely against torpedoes and is only marginally effective.

Actually its not a gun. Check out the site for it, the AICW is just one of the weapons it will be used in.

Because godrods de-orbit at immense velocities, and even trying to hit it is laughable. That's why they're such effective SD killers.

Brilliant Pebbles (at least my ones) go at mach 10. If you shoot it right, it will hit.

bullets dont work great underwater, you'd have to come up with a new thing (or isolated firing chambers or something)

Scale it up to missiles.

I want to see 1010120's economy after this.

Scale it up to missiles.
(this is for the underwater thing)
yeah, some sort of high-speed mini-torpedo launcher thing

Metal Storm is simply using electricity instead of chemical propellants to fire bullets. It's not going to work underwater. Thus, large-bore torpedo barrages will do this in...

I want to see 1010120's economy after this.

'Frtaid I'll have to agree. That's why I'm helping, and Asbena.

imagine the building time for this thing

(this is for the underwater thing)
yeah, some sort of high-speed mini-torpedo launcher thing

Exactly.

Brilliant Pebbles (at least my ones) go at mach 10. If you shoot it right, it will hit.

You don't get it. A tungsten (or comperable material) rod will be impossible to hit because it's...

A. Small
B. Hard, if not impossible to track
C. Insanely Fast
D. Space Launched

imagine the building time for this thing

Three years for their version, one for mine.

Where do you get those numbers from? Please break them down for me...

You don't get it. A tungsten (or comperable material) rod will be impossible to hit because it's...

A. Small
B. Hard, if not impossible to track
C. Insanely Fast
D. Space Launched

A. So?

B. Why not? This is computers were talking about.

C. Still, Mach 10.

D. That's better. Take out the sattelite BEFORe they launch.

imagine the building time for this thing

3 years.

Where do you get those numbers from? Please break them down for me...

Basically assumptions. Their's is huge, so three years sounds OK, but mine is a lot smaller, so it would have a shorter build time.

Also the underwater metal storm system is going to be a last ditch resort if the torpedo netting is destroyed. Then the metal storm system would launch rounds to explode as it nears another missile and hopefully destroy it.

It will shoot out on the propellant and then its own system will propell it faster to the missile in a 2 stage system for maximum speed....but it won't be effective.

Basically assumptions. Their's is huge, so three years sounds OK, but mine is a lot smaller, so it would have a shorter build time.
so yours is a 3rd of the size?

so yours is a 3rd of the size?

In effect, yes. Maybe a little more.

Where do you get those numbers from? Please break them down for me...

The original massive ships were going to be produced and said they would be finished by the end of the war. I think that is more then enough time.

Three years is nowhere near long enough; try 15 for theirs and 5-10 for yours, given sheer size...

In effect, yes. Maybe a little more.

Actually I would say eight months if to build the ship as the size is so much smaller and it is less complex.

Actually I would say eight months if to build the ship as the size is so much smaller and it is less complex.

Well, still. To be sure.

Actually I would say eight months if to build the ship as the size is so much smaller and it is less complex.
so then it is lacking some systems?

Three years is nowhere near long enough; try 15 for theirs and 5-10 for yours, given sheer size...

No way. Too much for its simplicity and buildablity.

of the 3 anations involed in the project they are paying 1/3 each to make less of a strain on our economies. ok now get over the fact that it will not be hard on my economy.

Three years is nowhere near long enough; try 15 for theirs and 5-10 for yours, given sheer size...

15? I don't think so. 5 maybe, and for mine 3 MAYBE, but 15? No.

so then it is lacking some systems?

With the size limit it would be limited....and it depends on what he is putting in.

Look, we're talking 18.4 million tons, right? How long does it take to make one ton of pykrete? How long does it take to assemble this ship? How long will it take to fit on the steel and electronics? How long will it take to put together the large number of engines to make this anywhere near useful? How long will sea trials and commissioning take?

So what kind of purpose is this for, really?

I mean, you can't get any bit close to a coast like would a much smaller aircraft carrier because of the massive draft it's going to have. So if you're attacking a coast with planes, you're going to have to have substantially more fuel, nessecitating a larger plane, so you'll either have oversized fighters-bombers or strategic bombers, both of which can be shot out of the sky by actual fighters and SAMs. And if you want to bombard the shore with missiles, you're pretty much going to need short-range or medium-range ballistic missiles to have the speed needed for them to not similarly be shot out of the sky. Then it's not much more than a floating missile silo, which makes all the more reason why somebody would attack it with nuclear weapons instead.

Likewise, in terms of naval combat, even assuming this is indestructible (it's not), then any half-smart naval commander won't think of challenging it, and will simply steer clear of it by several hundred or thousand miles (being able to navigate shallower waters), and then attack the enemy's coast and smaller surface ships, never being threatened by this floating fortress.

could this be feasible in MT? (without all those advanced Shinging Perals and Sotrms of Metal systems) cuz then i would pay some of the developing costs in order to build small ones

could this be feasible in MT? (without all those advanced Shinging Perals and Sotrms of Metal systems) cuz then i would pay some of the developing costs in order to build small ones

Its more then feasible, it could be done in the 1940s for the carrier.

So what kind of purpose is this for, really?

I mean, you can't get any bit close to a coast like would a much smaller aircraft carrier because of the massive draft it's going to have. So if you're attacking a coast with planes, you're going to have to have substantially more fuel, nessecitating a larger plane, so you'll either have oversized fighters-bombers or strategic bombers, both of which can be shot out of the sky by actual fighters and SAMs. And if you want to bombard the shore with missiles, you're pretty much going to need short-range or medium-range ballistic missiles to have the speed needed for them to not similarly be shot out of the sky. Then it's not much more than a floating missile silo, which makes all the more reason why somebody would attack it with nuclear weapons instead.

Likewise, in terms of naval combat, even assuming this is indestructible (it's not), then any half-smart naval commander won't think of challenging it, and will simply steer clear of it by several hundred or thousand miles (being able to navigate shallower waters), and then attack the enemy's coast and smaller surface ships, never being threatened by this floating fortress.
maybe the version 101012 is building,
but the smaller ones would be able to get close and all that

Maybe, but regardless of whether it's MT or PMT, it will be too slow and have too much draft to be of any use.

The '40s version was a (much smaller) proposal that never got off the ground.

fine then i will build one and nuke it to prove that nukes won't work!

So what kind of purpose is this for, really?

I mean, you can't get any bit close to a coast like would a much smaller aircraft carrier because of the massive draft it's going to have. So if you're attacking a coast with planes, you're going to have to have substantially more fuel, nessecitating a larger plane, so you'll either have oversized fighters-bombers or strategic bombers, both of which can be shot out of the sky by actual fighters and SAMs. And if you want to bombard the shore with missiles, you're pretty much going to need short-range or medium-range ballistic missiles to have the speed needed for them to not similarly be shot out of the sky. Then it's not much more than a floating missile silo, which makes all the more reason why somebody would attack it with nuclear weapons instead.

Likewise, in terms of naval combat, even assuming this is indestructible (it's not), then any half-smart naval commander won't think of challenging it, and will simply steer clear of it by several hundred or thousand miles (being able to navigate shallower waters), and then attack the enemy's coast and smaller surface ships, never being threatened by this floating fortress.


Actually, this is going to have smal ldraft, mostly being made of ice. A Nimitz wil lbe able to go closer to shore, but it should be fine.

You know how much draft an iceberg has? Saying that this is made of ice won't help...

Actually, this is going to have smal ldraft, mostly being made of ice. A Nimitz wil lbe able to go closer to shore, but it should be fine.

Smaller ones coudl easily pursue. ^-^

i will make it the 2500 feet to make every one happy.

If this can be done in MT, i will pay for some of it. If accepted, I will build smaller ones

the 1 i posted is mt. not the ones with lasers and other thing like that.

i will make it the 2500 feet to make every one happy.

Lol. XD

the 1 i posted is mt. not the ones with lasers and other thing like that.
yeah, no lasers or "Shining Pebbles" or w/e

the 1 i posted is mt. not the ones with lasers and other thing like that.

True...but even and lasers are possible in the MT world.

sure.

It's true. And those brilliant Pebbles are space launched.

k but still

k but still

Still what? It works and it's benificial. I'l lbe using it at very least.

k but still

But still what?

i'm still not adding that.

i'm still not adding that.

Why not though?

I'm mt not pmt and lasers are pmt/ft

I havent read the entire thread, but I DO believe this thing would be sunk with Tungsten Rods. I would like to see it withstand a direct hit by a 9 foot(or, in my larger ones, 20 foot) pole of tungsten moving at mach 12. If it could do that, then I would promptly call it off as a godmod and ignore the bastard using it.

I'm mt not pmt and lasers are pmt/ft

Oh. I'm Low-PMT (2015).

yes the can be destroyed by rods of god. it can be taken out by lots of nukes as well.

I havent read the entire thread, but I DO believe this thing would be sunk with Tungsten Rods. I would like to see it withstand a direct hit by a 9 foot(or, in my larger ones, 20 foot) pole of tungsten moving at mach 12. If it could do that, then I would promptly call it off as a godmod and ignore the bastard using it.

It could stand a direct hit easily.

I havent read the entire thread, but I DO believe this thing would be sunk with Tungsten Rods. I would like to see it withstand a direct hit by a 9 foot(or, in my larger ones, 20 foot) pole of tungsten moving at mach 12. If it could do that, then I would promptly call it off as a godmod and ignore the bastard using it.

That's why mine are going to be smaller, and I can intercept the rods. Even faster Pebbles.

this ship is not a godmod. it was possible in ww2 and isspossble now.

Mkay.

Let's assume my largest Superbattleship, the HMS Nelson (Hood was sunka few months ago) engages this.. ship.. one on one.

The most notable thing is that the class uses guns that, with ERGMs, have the range of about 800km. 76.25cm rocket assisted armour piercing shells weighing 6.6 tons landing right on the deck would severely mess it up, pykrete or no pykrete. In addition the amount of shells is probably enough to knock out at leasthalf of the elavators.

Airwise, the SBCN doesn't have any planes - but it does have enough long range missiles to launch TEN SAMs at each of the planes that this pykrete carrier can launch, therefore negating its strike ability, since SAMS usually outrange aircraft's anti shipping missiles.

Thirdly, it has a top speed of 31.2 knots. If you even think an iceberg carrier can move at 25 knots because you have the horsepower to do so, you know nothing about shipbuilding or how ships move. Still, at 25 knots, it can't catch the Nelson.

If I don't feel like closing to engage with guns, then I will use my vast anti shipping missiles, approximately 30,000 of them.

There's also no solid proof its possible. If its such a good investment, why doesnt' the USN use it?

uhmmm...it's a great idea, but Red Tide2's right. it could be sunk by tungsten rods, which would, in theory, be dropped from outer space and heat up to a few thousand degrees, as well a going at mach 12.

The USN dosn't use any iceberg carriers becouse they would melt in the Persian Gulf.

Precisely.

Hmm... an intresting idea that would be much better applied as small disguised submarine and light aircraft resupply points in cold northern climates, instead of a massive flat top iceberg on which any sensible person would drop a tac-nuke shell/missile thereby negating your ability to launch aircraft.

And this idea is really getting old... this is what the third time it has appeared in I.I.?

OK, so massive carrier=No.

But what about a smaller ship?

OK, so massive carrier=No.

But what about a smaller ship?

Those work.

I'm going through with this and building 4 of them. end of dissusion.

I'm going through with this and building 4 of them. end of dissusion.

Well, we aren't about to fund it if it's going to be impractical. Make them smaller and it works. I'm talking Nimitz-class smaller.

don't care i just took out a priotity loan from DMG inter. bank.

i allready took it down to 2500. how about 1500 theres an oil tanker that big.

don't care i just took out a priotity loan from DMG inter. bank.
You know you do have to pay it back times something right?

i allready took it down to 2500. how about 1500 theres an oil tanker that big.
1500 is still a bit too large. 1100.

theres already a ship that big in real life i think thats small enough.

theres already a ship that big in real life i think thats small enough.

The objective for it was "transport a lot of oil", not "fight as an aircraft carrier".

but if i keep the same amount of nuclear reactors the speed will increas,right? thus making it more effective.

but if i keep the same amount of nuclear reactors the speed will increas,right? thus making it more effective.

Well, yes, but still... erm, OK, whatever. We'll continue to fund the project.

thank you for your support.

Size is not a problem with these....Its just how long it takes to build.

i think i'll put the development in another thread...

Hmm... an intresting idea that would be much better applied as small disguised submarine and light aircraft resupply points in cold northern climates, instead of a massive flat top iceberg on which any sensible person would drop a tac-nuke shell/missile thereby negating your ability to launch aircraft.

And this idea is really getting old... this is what the third time it has appeared in I.I.?

How can it be old? 3 threads in history.

2 of them mine.
1 of them (this one) 1010102.

i will also make it avlible for purchase.

i will also make it avlible for purchase.

Didn't I say we'd back you if these weren't to be sold?

Aye, we aren't backing unless we get a third of profit.

do you want your money out of this or not?

you will get a third of the profit and if youdon't sell anything,you can't make a profit.

you will get a third of the profit and if youdon't sell anything,you can't make a profit.
The point is we shouldn't be MAKING money. Does the USA sell its F-22s? NO! You don't sell some of your best weapons and technology away!

ok then fine i will take it of the market.

Habbakuk-not for sale
class iceberg carrier
hull
1,500 feet long
250 feet wide
power
8 Nuclear Batteries driving 80 waterjets
top speed
22 kts
armerments
75 dual-barrelled 4.5" DP guns
250 quad 40 mm(computer controled)
750 quad .50 cal (computer controled)
100 sam launchers
1000 planes

I just have one question... how can a 1500 foot carrier hold 1000 planes!?!?!

i like buy couple of the ships. i been asking that the same qestion . how can it hold that many planes.

ok then fine i will take it of the market.

Thank you. Its just not a good idea to advocate spreading around technology this potent this way. Why do you think my ship is first and ONLY on Nationstates until this point? Its the potency of the technology that makes it a strong weapon. The more people who fight it and buy it and possess it, the easier it is to destroy.

Well, good. So the deal stands.

Theres a rather simple way of killing this thing, high calibre shells firing thermite cluster munitions

Well, good. So the deal stands.

Yep!

all i have to do is drop a thermal nuke and bye bye

let see who bulid a better carrier

Want to have a contest? Me and you, nobody else, custom designs only, no Pykrete?

Theres a rather simple way of killing this thing, high calibre shells firing thermite cluster munitions

Wrong. Thermite gets hot to weld pieces together, sure it gets hot and releases a lot of heat, but its localized, you'll just burn the armor plating a little, even if it was on the pykrete it would burn itself out easily.

I'm going through with this and building 4 of them. end of dissusion.

OOC: Well then you wont be participating in any of MY RPs.

Thermite will burn thorugh a hundred times its own weight in ice, the armour would melt in a few minutes of bombardment from one ship. And if i were assaulting it with the normal NS taskforce, i could shear huge chinks of its off in under ten minutes

All we do is shot thermal nukes at ur ships

I just have one question... how can a 1500 foot carrier hold 1000 planes!?!?!

It was much larger before. Thing is...he's not done with it yet I hope.

Also...who can build a better carrier....hehe isn't it obvious! :P

I just have one question... how can a 1500 foot carrier hold 1000 planes!?!?!

Anyone care to answer this question...?

OOC: Well then you wont be participating in any of MY RPs.

That's rather childish. I hope you reconcider for your own respect in the eyes of others.

Anyone care to answer this question...?

I already did. :)

Anyone care to answer this question...?
Answer: it can't!!!! Nor can it hold the amount of weaponry he says it can, nor house the incredible amount of personnel it must have, or the amount of computer space if it uses computers (which would have to be incredibally advanced), nor house the supplies and foodstuffs, etc...

It was much larger before. Thing is...he's not done with it yet I hope.

Also...who can build a better carrier....hehe isn't it obvious! :P

Yep... me! :p

Thermite will burn thorugh a hundred times its own weight in ice, the armour would melt in a few minutes of bombardment from one ship. And if i were assaulting it with the normal NS taskforce, i could shear huge chinks of its off in under ten minutes

Then you have 300 feet to cut through after the armour is gone. This thing can also self-repair.

That's rather childish. I hope you reconcider for your own respect in the eyes of others.

OOC: No, its a lesson NOT TO GODMOD! If you think this thing can deflect a Tungsten Rod, then you are SO OBVIOUSLY GODMODDING that it wont be any fun to play with you. HECK! I have seen Pythogria over there state other peoples casualties! So I dont even know WHY I RP'd with him!

Then you have 300 feet to cut through after the armour is gone. This thing can also self-repair.
Ok, this is obviously not MT-realistic...

OOC: No, its a lesson NOT TO GODMOD! If you think this thing can deflect a Tungsten Rod, then you are SO OBVIOUSLY GODMODDING that it wont be any fun to play with you. HECK! I have seen Pythogria over there state other peoples casualties! So I dont even know WHY I RP'd with him!

It can't deflect, but seriously it won't do much on it. Tungsten weaponry goes so fast it vaporizes at the speeds you listed. Even a small change in the trajectory or the ships movement would render it ineffective.

Those rods are meant for STATIONARY targets.

Ok, this is obviously not MT-realistic...

Would you read the rest of it before saying its not realistic. Tungsten rods falling from space is not realistic if you want to be like that!

This ship is, to a tungsten rod, effectively stationary. Aim for the center; in the brief interval between launch and impact, the target won't have moved enough to get out of the way...

yes the can be destroyed by rods of god. it can be taken out by lots of nukes as well.

it wpuld be destroyed ok i designed this so i know its limitations.

It can't deflect, but seriously it won't do much on it. Tungsten weaponry goes so fast it vaporizes at the speeds you listed. Even a small change in the trajectory or the ships movement would render it ineffective.

Those rods are meant for STATIONARY targets.
Look, Asbena: though the concept of this is pretty tough and indestructable blah blah blah, there is no way this would float, function, shoot, or work at all, much less win a fight...it's too complex, it has too much squeezed into too little...the stats or more like something that would be 17 miles, not 1500 feet, long...

Oh, and tungsten rods = 1950s era RAND concept, recently profiled in Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/generaltechnology/df869aa138b84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html). Thus, not godmod.

U Think That Ship Is Unsinkable .everything That Floats Can Sink

Its going to self repair in the middle of a battle? And where the hell are you going to get all the woodchips to reapir it from?

This ship is, to a tungsten rod, effectively stationary. Aim for the center; in the brief interval between launch and impact, the target won't have moved enough to get out of the way...

His moving 700 feet in how much time at 25 knots?

I don't think it can support 40 feet of ice-wood armor in a ship that's only 250 feet wide, as well...and still have tons of planes, and a crazy amount of SAM launchers and heavy guns...

One, this cannot physically move 25 knots. Two, this is what, 1,500 feet long? Aim for the middle, and even if you move 700 feet, then I still hit.

Look, Asbena: though the concept of this is pretty tough and indestructable blah blah blah, there is no way this would float, function, shoot, or work at all, much less win a fight...it's too complex, it has too much squeezed into too little...the stats or more like something that would be 17 miles, not 1500 feet, long...

I said his stats were wrong. Its not a complex ship.

Its going to self repair in the middle of a battle? And where the hell are you going to get all the woodchips to reapir it from?

From a leprechaun's magical pot...?

remeber that this was 4000 feet when i designed the in the first place!

i think speed it a major player to sinking the ship

Your point, other than that your design skills are not particularly good if you didn't realize that a 4,000 foot ship was rather impossible?

I don't think it can support 40 feet of ice-wood armor in a ship that's only 250 feet wide, as well...and still have tons of planes, and a crazy amount of SAM launchers and heavy guns...

His version is VASTLY different from mine. Thermite on his would be devastating.

remeber that this was 4000 feet when i designed the in the first place!

So...? We aren't talking about a 4000 foot ship, we are talking about an uber 1500 foot ship.

One, this cannot physically move 25 knots. Two, this is what, 1,500 feet long? Aim for the middle, and even if you move 700 feet, then I still hit.

His would be able to go 25 knots easily with the power for it and water jets.

Though I'd like to cite an arguement:

If so-called “Rods from God”—an informal nickname of untraceable origin—ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the “absentee ratio”—the fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive.

Your point, other than that your design skills are not particularly good if you didn't realize that a 4,000 foot ship was rather impossible?

Umm... how is a 4000 foot ship impossible?

i knw that but what i mean is that i haven't finished the scaling down.

His version is VASTLY different from mine. Thermite on his would be devastating.
Aren't you buying them from him...besides, we're talking about his...

So...? We aren't talking about a 4000 foot ship, we are talking about an uber 1500 foot ship.

He's saying he modified the ship from 4000 to 1500 and didn't scale down the rest.

He's saying he modified the ship from 4000 to 1500 and didn't scale down the rest.

That is his fault... and it isn't an excuse.

I could make a one hundred million mile ship with billions of guns and then change it to fifty feet... doesn't mean I can keep the billions of guns.

Aren't you buying them from him...besides, we're talking about his...

I am the original pioneer of this technology on NS.
Asbena is in a joint project with him for the developement of it. (Kjata holds the real one)

We aren't selling these.

That is his fault... and it isn't an excuse.

I could make a one hundred million mile ship with billions of guns and then change it to fifty feet... doesn't mean I can keep the billions of guns.

If you bothered to read his and MY post, we said he didn't scale the rest of it, that is why his stats are wrong. He will have to do that. He said he wasn't finished with it either. Please lay off him.

But the point is we're still talking about his uber ship here...

If you bothered to read his and MY post, we said he didn't scale the rest of it, that is why his stats are wrong. He will have to do that. He said he wasn't finished with it either. Please lay off him.

It turns out I did read his and your posts. Precisely why I responded the way I did.

You can't screw up the design and begin or even attempt to sell it (regardless of whether he took it off the market because he didn't want others getting the technology) and then fall back on the argument, "I just haven't fixed it yet." If that is your argument... fix it.

It doesnt matter taht you have armour on the top of the ship, thermite will still burn through it, it will just take a bit longer. Also, massive amounts of hot iron will sink through the ice, making the thermites job easier. Plus Bunker buster bombs would tear through the surface after the armour had been weakened. The ship would litterally start to tear itself apart

But the point is we're still talking about his uber ship here...

Well all three of us are producing the same type of one.

and its not that uber.

Except it probably won't, because of its bulk.

Umm... how is a 4000 foot ship impossible?

Sorry, should have said impractical. The hull's more likely to buckle, and will have difficulty taking the strain of movement

Its hull can't buckle its not steel its solid Pykrete.

OOC: No, its a lesson NOT TO GODMOD! If you think this thing can deflect a Tungsten Rod, then you are SO OBVIOUSLY GODMODDING that it wont be any fun to play with you. HECK! I have seen Pythogria over there state other peoples casualties! So I dont even know WHY I RP'd with him!

If I may interject, that was when I was incredibly new. I haven't done it since that war with Gilabad.

Well all three of us are producing the same type of one.
If it's the same type, then yours is screwed up too...

And it is uber...you need massive scaling ine very department than try and explain how it has the space to store supplies and planes and can serve as a carrier and probaly the most powerful battleship at once...

go and google "Project Habbakuk " then you wll find out that this is smaller than a britsih plan build these in the 40s and those would have been 2000 feet long.

It turns out I did read his and your posts. Precisely why I responded the way I did.

You can't screw up the design and begin or even attempt to sell it (regardless of whether he took it off the market because he didn't want others getting the technology) and then fall back on the argument, "I just haven't fixed it yet." If that is your argument... fix it.

He is. He just has to do it.

It doesnt matter taht you have armour on the top of the ship, thermite will still burn through it, it will just take a bit longer. Also, massive amounts of hot iron will sink through the ice, making the thermites job easier. Plus Bunker buster bombs would tear through the surface after the armour had been weakened. The ship would litterally start to tear itself apart

Doubtful because its as strong as concrete and it is very strong, it won't succumb easily even if a few hits get through.

Okay then, I'll use the proper terminology: your ship could calve.

I'm tired of arguing over this design; don't involve it in any rps I'm in. It looks fishy, to say the least, and unless it's visibly accepted elsewhere, I won't accept it.

If it's the same type, then yours is screwed up too...

And it is uber...you need massive scaling ine very department than try and explain how it has the space to store supplies and planes and can serve as a carrier and probaly the most powerful battleship at once...

Actually I already built one. I know what it can and cannot do. Thank you.

are these better stats?

Habbakuk-not for sale
class iceberg carrier
hull
1,500 feet long
250 feet wide
power
8 Nuclear Batteries driving 80 waterjets
top speed
32 kts
armerments
20 dual-barrelled 4.5" DP guns
25 quad 40 mm(computer controled)
75 quad .50 cal (computer controled)
50 sam launchers
250 planes
armor
20 feet of pykrete(very bounant so wieght is not a problem)
15 inches of steel directly attached to the inner frame of the ship
equipment
refirgeration equipment
radar
sonar
fire control computer

Actually I already built one. I know what it can and cannot do. Thank you.
If it was something like what happened in that 21-C RP, than I have serious questions regarding it...

OK everyone, due to the incredible amount of discouragement involving this, I am announcing the following:

Pythogria was never involved with this, and I do not own ANY of these.

Okay then, I'll use the proper terminology: your ship could calve.

I'm tired of arguing over this design; don't involve it in any rps I'm in. It looks fishy, to say the least, and unless it's visibly accepted elsewhere, I won't accept it.


You just don't appreciate the design and are threatened by it. Its never been rejected exceot by a few radicals like you.

One major flaw in your plan: there is no way it can move at 25 knots if it's got the mass it will in being so massive and dense.

yes with 70 waterjets powered by 8 nuclear reactors.

One major flaw in your plan: there is no way it can move at 25 knots if it's got the mass it will in being so massive and dense.

Based on his....yes. Though mine is even more massive and my original only went 10 knots.

yes with 70 waterjets powered by 8 nuclear reactors.

Your keeping those!?

How about you scale the ship and repost stats. >.>

yes with 70 waterjets powered by 8 nuclear reactors.
Oh. 8 nuclear reactors and 7 waterjets. Than I assume you have very limited space for planes or for weapon storage, or crew cabins, or computer stations, or bathrooms, or mess halls, etc.

The ice would melt under the pummeling of metal at 900 degrees, youl end up with huge meltholes in the surface, bunker busters can penetrate reinforced concrete, so they would have no trouble with pykrete. Also, you could attack with torpedoes that would bury inside the ship using fuel cell powered drills, these would open tunnels in the side and weaken its structure

fine then 30 waterjets.
Habbakuk-not for sale
class iceberg carrier
hull
1,500 feet long
250 feet wide
power
8 Nuclear Batteries driving 30 waterjets
top speed
32 kts
armerments
20 dual-barrelled 4.5" DP guns
25 quad 40 mm(computer controled)
75 quad .50 cal (computer controled)
50 sam launchers
250 planes
armor
20 feet of pykrete(very bounant so wieght is not a problem)
15 inches of steel directly attached to the inner frame of the ship
equipment
refirgeration equipment
radar
sonar
fire control computer

This has become just a stupid flame war.

21-C stuff? WHAT NOW?
You guys are just spamming endlessly about ship stats when you don't realize the reactors or what they are. How about looking into it.

The ice would melt under the pummeling of metal at 900 degrees, youl end up with huge meltholes in the surface, bunker busters can penetrate reinforced concrete, so they would have no trouble with pykrete. Also, you could attack with torpedoes that would bury inside the ship using fuel cell powered drills, these would open tunnels in the side and weaken its structure

Actually its not ice. So stop refering to it as ice.
I'm not even going to reply unless you actually think about what you are saying and realize how utterly stupid you came off as.

i'm just defending my self agianst this endless bomboardment of flaming.

fine then 30 waterjets.
Habbakuk-not for sale
class iceberg carrier
hull
1,500 feet long
250 feet wide
power
8 Nuclear Batteries driving 30 waterjets
top speed
32 kts
armerments
20 dual-barrelled 4.5" DP guns
25 quad 40 mm(computer controled)
75 quad .50 cal (computer controled)
50 sam launchers
250 planes
armor
20 feet of pykrete(very bounant so wieght is not a problem)
15 inches of steel directly attached to the inner frame of the ship
equipment
refirgeration equipment
radar
sonar
fire control computer
This gonna have like, 2 SAMs or something...20 feet thick armor is crazy...that's the size of a semi in armor.

i'm just defending my self agianst this endless bomboardment of flaming.

Listen. First, it isn't flaming, it's critisism. If they said, "THIS SHIP SUCKS AND SO DO YOU LOSER", that would be flaming.

Are they doing that? No? Then:

IT ISN'T FLAMING!

This gonna have like, 2 SAMs or something...20 feet thick armor is crazy...that's the size of a semi in armor.

pykrete floats beacuse it is lighter than water

pykrete floats beacuse it is lighter than water
I'm referring to space, actually...you ain't gonna have space for anything.

What, the ice component of the pykrete will melt, so i refer to it as ice

i'm just defending my self agianst this endless bomboardment of flaming.

How do you think I felt?

ok the how would you make this work.

This gonna have like, 2 SAMs or something...20 feet thick armor is crazy...that's the size of a semi in armor.

Its the pykrete.

What, the ice component of the pykrete will melt, so i refer to it as ice

Its a chemical bond because its properties have changed. Its no longer ice.

ok the how would you make this work.

Well....a rebuild up would work, your scaling won't work, it only works on mine because of the sheer size and multiple levels. You'll lose about 150 airplanes at the least and ruins most of the armor to. Mine is built into it, its solid in the inside.

Its the pykrete.
Um, 20 feet of pykrete takes up the same space as 20 feet of titanium...

Its a chemical bond because its properties have changed. Its no longer ice.

Its a composite, not a chemical bond, the pykrete has a lower heat conductivity than normal ice, so it will melt slower under normal condiditons, however if exposed to extreme heat, the composite will break up, forming a pool of water with woodchips floating on it.

Um, 20 feet of pykrete takes up the same space as 20 feet of titanium...

The inside is 210 feet across....and what... 100 feet high? So 21000 square feet inside the ship?

The inside is 210 feet across....and what... 100 feet high? So 21000 square feet inside the ship?

Unfortunately... it is called three dimensional for a reason: there are three dimensions. Volume is calculated by length, width, and height... in cubic feet.

The inside is 210 feet across....and what... 100 feet high? So 21000 square feet inside the ship?
So now you're saying that the ship's sides are very boxy for it to be rectangular like that...(psst: Cubic feet is a better indication of how it is)

Its a composite, not a chemical bond, the pykrete has a lower heat conductivity than normal ice, so it will melt slower under normal condiditons, however if exposed to extreme heat, the composite will break up, forming a pool of water with woodchips floating on it.

It actually melts at a higher temperature also. Its stronger and more powerful and doesn't break like normal ice.

It actually melts at a higher temperature also. Its stronger and more powerful and doesn't break like normal ice.

Certainly not 800+ degrees higher...

So now you're saying that the ship's sides are very boxy for it to be rectangular like that...(psst: Cubic feet is a better indication of how it is)

Ah yes. Sorry missed that. 21000 cubic feet XD
Though you are right 2 sams at the max.....the ship is so bogged down that it is unable to function or store it.

Certainly not 800+ degrees higher...

Of course not, but because of its unique properties I say that it will take much longer and its resistance is much higher....though thermite isn't used for melting ice/pykrete for a reason. :P

I'd abandon most missiles altogether on this thing...it's just got to much other stuff. Unless you were to take off nearly all the big guns.

Ah yes. Sorry missed that. 21000 cubic feet XD
Though you are right 2 sams at the max.....the ship is so bogged down that it is unable to function or store it.

No... you are still missing a dimension. You can't multiply width by height and call that cubic.

No... you are still missing a dimension. You can't multiply width by height and call that cubic.

Wait....nvm I was only using two dimensions. Square would be right since he didn't give the inside specs and I was guessing.

I don't have enough info to draw the cubic feet because of his length will be taken and varies.

Point is....guns and missiles most go bye-bye. X-X

20 plus feet is impossible. Sure, its ok on paper, but a ship that size would need massive factories, shipyards, and of course, its just infesable. Scale it down by at least 1/2 to make it better...

20 plus feet is impossible. Sure, its ok on paper, but a ship that size would need massive factories, shipyards, and of course, its just infesable. Scale it down by at least 1/2 to make it better...

I seriously doubt you read through this thread... so... please, don't restart the argument.

I will retry until i get it right! You may have defeated my this time but i will comeback with a better design and then what will you do?

:upyours:

I will retry until i get it right! You may have defeated my this time but i will comeback with a better design and then what will you do?

:upyours:

Scrutinize it until it is good.

You have to realize that people are only criticizing your work for your own benefit and the benefit of anyone you are going to RP with.

sorry about that i am just realy pissed off at some peoples stupidity
.:headbang:

still a 2500 foot ship is possible. and whats with the accusations about heavy guns the guns are 4 1/2 inches?

still a 2500 foot ship is possible. and whats with the accusations about heavy guns the guns are 4 1/2 inches?

You don't put heavy guns on a carrier. Its just not smart and it reduces the flight deck and makes for less armor on the ship and a path for missiles to strike.

there were never any heavy guns! and there won't be! the guns are four and a half inches!

thats why germany won at jutland their battle ships had more armor than the british ships.
Quibble from long ago: Germany won in a TACTICAL sense, meaning that more British ships were destroyed. The UK won in a STRATEIGIC sense, in that Jellicoe forced the German High Seas Fleet to retire, and then prevented them from leaving port for the rest of the war. Tactical victories that aren't strateigic as well don't count for anything.

Quibble from long ago: Germany won in a TACTICAL sense, meaning that more British ships were destroyed. The UK won in a STRATEIGIC sense, in that Jellicoe forced the German High Seas Fleet to retire, and then prevented them from leaving port for the rest of the war. Tactical victories that aren't strateigic as well don't count for anything.

Actually they prove a point. A strateigic battle is known only after a battle, while a tactical is immediate.

Yes, and Jellicoe largely was sacked for 'losing' at Jutland. But battles are intended to decide history, and in that sense we can only determine winners and losers some time afterward.

I'll admit, Jutland is an unusual situation. Most great battles of history (Waterloo, Gettysburg, Trafalgar, etc) are both tactical AND strateigic victories. It is the rare few, like Jutland, that are open to interpretation. In this case, though, we clearly have a British victory for one reason. Admiral Hipper never left port in force again. Germany did not, for the remainder of the Great War, sortie a large force of warships. Britain, on the other hand, remained unchallenged master of the Atlantic until 1939.

Quibble from long ago: Germany won in a TACTICAL sense, meaning that more British ships were destroyed. The UK won in a STRATEIGIC sense, in that Jellicoe forced the German High Seas Fleet to retire, and then prevented them from leaving port for the rest of the war. Tactical victories that aren't strateigic as well don't count for anything.

I'd just like to further this by saying that it wasn't because British ships had less armour, it was because the Germans were more accurate(or lucky?)W

We were also unchallenged master of the Atlantic until May 24th 1941.

Another thing you just don't seem to understand is that HORSPOWER/ENGINES DOES NOT EQUAL SPEED. The fact Pykrete is lighter than water is seriously going to screw up your speed and seakeeping.

What happened on May 24th?

What happened on May 24th?

I do believe that's the day that HMS Hood was sunk. Checking now...

What happened on May 24th?

Bob Dylan was born!

Well that and the British battlecruiser Hood was sunk by Germany's Bismarck.

I do believe that's the day that HMS Hood was sunk. Checking now...
Yes it is

I'd say, in that case, that control of the Atlantic was lost long before that. British control was established and maintained primarily through keeping enemy fleets in harbor. Once the fleet was out, shipping was being disrupted, and battlecruisers were being sunk, control has effectively been lost.

OOC:Yay Habbakuk! Derlavai!

here are some new stats:

class iceberg carrier
draft 75 feet
displacement
2 million tons
hull
2500 feet long
500 feet wide
power
6 Nuclear Batteries driving 18 waterjets
top speed
15 kts
armerments
14 dual-barrelled 4.5" DP guns
25 quad 40 mm(computer controled)
150 quad .50 cal (computer controled)
15 sam launchers
250 planes
armor
10 feet of pykrete(very bounant so wight is not a problem)
20 inches of steel directly attached to the inner frame of the ship
equipment
refirgeration equipment
radar
sonar
fire control computer

Though I still don't believe iceberg CVs are practical, that looks ALOT better.

How can it be old? 3 threads in history.

2 of them mine.
1 of them (this one) 1010102.

You've done threads on it as well?
Oh well then I'm mistaken, this is then at least the fifth seperate occasion on which this particular idea has appeared in I.I.

You've done threads on it as well?
Oh well then I'm mistaken, this is then at least the fifth seperate occasion on which this particular idea has appeared in I.I.

Out of interest, have any of those previous attempts ever made it out of theory and blueprints and into action?

Out of interest, have any of those previous attempts ever made it out of theory and blueprints and into action?

Not that I can remember, most saw the reality of how stupid whis would be in an NS naval battle and gave up.

here are some new stats:

class iceberg carrier
draft 75 feet
displacement
2 million tons
hull
2500 feet long
500 feet wide
power
6 Nuclear Batteries driving 18 waterjets
top speed
15 kts
armaments
14 dual-barreled 4.5" DP guns
25 quad 40 mm(computer controlled)
150 quad .50 cal (computer controlled)
15 SAM launchers
250 planes
armor
10 feet of pykrete(very buoyant so wight is not a problem)
20 inches of steel directly attached to the inner frame of the ship
equipment
refrigeration equipment
radar
sonar
fire control computer

after careful consideration these are the stats i will go with. construction will start immediately.

are any of the paries that were funding this before still funding this?