NationStates Jolt Archive

ok am going to do a naval war game. The rules are simple

1. no WMD ship weapons
2. Only 5 ships per nation
3. you can only have one carrier (yes super carrier's allowed)
4. no super Dreadnoughts
5. No out side help
6. no alliance's its FFA
7. you loose all your ships your out
8. no leaving the battle area (yet to be set)
9. all hits Computer registered
10. no super noobish things like fireing a "wall of torperdos so large you will be sunk" or other noobish crap
11. any God modding or noobish statements will not be tolerated, you will get 3 warnings opon the 4th time you will be kicked from the RP

13. you may change the ships you enter until the RP starts
that is all

Signed up

Spit Break- Takemikazuchi Class Carrier, two Aegis Mk. IV class Battle ships, and 2 Vosgulov Class Hunter killer Submarines

Hard Rock Beyond -1 x DCT-1 Advantage-class Dreadnought Supercarrier,2 x DD-21 Zumwalt Land Attack Destroyer,1 x SSGN-726 Ohio-class,1 x SSN-774 Virginia-class NSSN

Willink -1x Zeliot Class Command Cruiser,1x Hercules Flight I destroyer,1x Arjaz class Arsenal ship,1x Empress Class Carrier,1x Hydrofoil Defense vessel(AA and Sub hunter.)

Sparta Infensus -1x Nimitz Carrier SP Variant,2x Doppleganger Class Battleships,2x El Santo Class Submarines


Sol Giuldor -1 Olympia class-mega carrier,2 Crusader Battleships,1 Hospitallier class hunter-killer sub,1 Rapier class anti-sub destroyer.

Mondoth -1 Carrier/Missile configured Mithril class Dreadnaught,2 Gun/Missile configured Mithril class Dreadnaughts,2 SSH 'Naiad' class Hunter/Killer submarines

Questers -Vanguard Class Battleship,Ardent Class Battlecarrier,2 Town Class Cruisers,1 Resolution class

The Appalacians -3 Los Angeles class submarines, 1 Nimitz Class Carrier, and 1 Ticonderoga class cruiser

Now, how big is this battle area going to be? How deep? See, these things play a vital role in determining what ships would be best.

Depth- we are talking Open ocean so really deep

Battle area- will not be determined until i know how many people are going to be RPing

Okay...

1 x Nimitz-Class super-carrier
2 x Seawolf-Class submarines
1 x Ticonderoga-class cruiser
1 x Arleigh Burke-class destroyer

Alright HRB your in

any one else have questions?

Can we use Supercarriers ?(NS ones, carrying 300 Aircraft ?)


Anyway:
1x Zeliot Class Command Cruiser
1x Hercules Flight I destroyer
1x Arjaz class Arsenal ship
1x Empress Class Carrier
1x Hydrofoil Defense vessel(AA and Sub hunter.)

yes they are allowed but if any one has a super carrier that holds 600+ air craft am going to ask to see the spec's

1x Nimitz Carrier SP Variant
2x Doppleganger Class Battleships
2x El Santo Class Submarines

welcome in

May I recommend actual pieces of military hardware? Such as carriers and other ships that are actually in production...

as long as they make sense i dont see why people cant use NS stuff

Okay, then I change my current equipment.

1 x CVX-79 super-carrier ("H.R.B. Nereus") (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvx.htm)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/cvx-alt/5x2aiso.jpg
1 x Seawolf-Class submarines ("H.R.B. Ultra")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-21-dvic117.jpg
1 x DD-21 Zumwalt Land Attack Destroyer ("H.R.B. Division")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/dd-21-pict-squ01.jpg
1 x SSN-774 Virginia-class NSSN ("H.R.B. Avenger")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/nssn_m2.jpg
1 x MCS-12 Inchon Mine Countermeasures Support Ship ("H.R.B. Firewall")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-21-dvic117-s.jpg


Aircraft on CVX-79
let's call it 100 aircraft in total; "newer design"

30 x F-14E (Invented and produced exclusively by me)
40 x F-22 Raptors
3 x P3C
7 x C-141 Starlifter
2 x E-2C Hawkeye
4 x CH46E Sea Knight
8 x SH-60 Seahawk
6 x MH-53E Sea Dragon

Changed

geez only thing the US Army is not developing is a new kitchen sink lol

Okay, then I change my current equipment.

1 x CVX-79 super-carrier ("H.R.B. Nereus") (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvx.htm)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/cvx-alt/5x2aiso.jpg
1 x Seawolf-Class submarines ("H.R.B. Ultra")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-21-dvic117.jpg
1 x DD-21 Zumwalt Land Attack Destroyer ("H.R.B. Division")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/dd-21-pict-squ01.jpg
1 x SSN-774 Virginia-class NSSN ("H.R.B. Avenger")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/nssn_m2.jpg
1 x MCS-12 Inchon Mine Countermeasures Support Ship ("H.R.B. Firewall")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-21-dvic117-s.jpg


Aircraft on CVX-79
let's call it 100 aircraft in total; "newer design"

30 x F-14E (Invented and produced exclusively by me)
40 x F-22 Raptors
3 x P3C
7 x C-141 Starlifter
2 x E-2C Hawkeye
4 x CH46E Sea Knight
8 x SH-60 Seahawk
6 x MH-53E Sea DragonOOC: FAS said the Large variant can only hold 60 aircraft. You were better off using a Nimitz; 80 Aircraft...

Okay, then I change my current equipment.

1 x CVX-79 super-carrier ("H.R.B. Nereus") (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvx.htm)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/cvx-alt/5x2aiso.jpg
1 x Seawolf-Class submarines ("H.R.B. Ultra")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-21-dvic117.jpg
1 x DD-21 Zumwalt Land Attack Destroyer ("H.R.B. Division")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/dd-21-pict-squ01.jpg
1 x SSN-774 Virginia-class NSSN ("H.R.B. Avenger")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/nssn_m2.jpg
1 x MCS-12 Inchon Mine Countermeasures Support Ship ("H.R.B. Firewall")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-21-dvic117-s.jpg


Aircraft on CVX-79
let's call it 100 aircraft in total; "newer design"

30 x F-14E (Invented and produced exclusively by me)
40 x F-22 Raptors
3 x P3C
7 x C-141 Starlifter
2 x E-2C Hawkeye
4 x CH46E Sea Knight
8 x SH-60 Seahawk
6 x MH-53E Sea DragonOOC: FAS said the Large variant can only hold 60 aircraft. You were better off using a Nimitz; 80 Aircraft... The best part is; is that you can't change your IC submission because thats a form of God-Moding called Miss Cleoing... Yay for Nimitz'es!

OOC: FAS said the Large variant can only hold 60 aircraft. You were better off using a Nimitz; 80 Aircraft... The best part is; is that you can't change your IC submission because thats a form of God-Moding called Miss Cleoing... Yay for Nimitz'es!
One question and one statement...

Question:
WHere do you get this information?

Statement: Why can't I change my submission?
13. you may change the ships you enter until the RP starts
that is all

Okay, then I change my current equipment.

1 x CVN 21-class super-carrier ("H.R.B. Nereus") (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvx.htm)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...lt/5x2aiso.jpg
1 x Seawolf-Class submarines ("H.R.B. Ultra")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...21-dvic117.jpg
1 x DD-21 Zumwalt Land Attack Destroyer ("H.R.B. Division")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...pict-squ01.jpg
1 x SSN-774 Virginia-class NSSN ("H.R.B. Avenger")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/nssn_m2.jpg
1 x MCS-12 Inchon Mine Countermeasures Support Ship ("H.R.B. Firewall")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...-dvic117-s.jpg


Aircraft on CVN-21
let's call it 75 aircraft in total; "newer design"

20 x F-14E (Invented and produced exclusively by me)
30 x F-22 Raptors
3 x P3C
7 x C-141 Starlifter
2 x E-2C Hawkeye
4 x CH46E Sea Knight
8 x SH-60 Seahawk
6 x MH-53E Sea Dragon




General Characteristics, General Information, CVN 21 Future Aircraft Carrier Program
Builder: Northrop Grumman Newport News, Newport News, Va.
Propulsion: Two nuclear reactors, four shafts.
Length: 1092 feet
Beam: 134 feet; Flight Deck Width: 256 feet
Displacement: approximately 100,000 long tons full load
Speed: 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour)
Crew: 4660 (ship, air wing and staff)
Armament: Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, Rolling Airframe Missile, CIWS
Aircraft: 75+ (JSF, F/A-18E/F, EA-18G, E-2D, MH-60R/S, J-UCAS)

I don't think an F-22 is able to land on a carrier.

OOC: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvx.htm <---- FAS.org has Military information about everything and anything.

My F/A-22 can =). Just strengthened the airframe and decreased the possible ordinance payload.

Alright,
1 Olympia class-mega carrier,
2 Crusader Battleships
1 Hospitallier class hunter-killer sub
1 Rapier class anti-sub destroyer.

WEapons list coming soon..

One question and one statement...

Question:
WHere do you get this information?

Statement: Why can't I change my submission?OOC: If these sSubmissions are IC, then you can't it's a form of god-moding to change somethign IC from OOC info. If the submissions are OOC then feel free...

I'd join this, but before I state my fleet composition I'd like to ask what you classify as a 'superdreadnought.'

Btw,
'8. no leaving the battle area (yet to be set)
10. no super noobish things like fireing a "wall of torperdos so large you will be sunk" or other noobish crap'

Are you a navyfield player?

I suck at Naval battles but i would still like to enter the following;

5 SSN-688 Los Angeles Class

lol, RL tech

I'm interested...................

I'll need to think about what to field though............ whether to centre on a Carrier and a large Air wing, or focus instead on an undersea force....

Carrier has he drawback of being a **Huge** magnet for other attacks, while centreing on sub's means that you lack a lot of the flexiblility that comes from having a surface force....

Okay, then I change my current equipment.

1 x CVN 21-class super-carrier ("H.R.B. Nereus") (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvx.htm)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...lt/5x2aiso.jpg
1 x Seawolf-Class submarines ("H.R.B. Ultra")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...21-dvic117.jpg
1 x DD-21 Zumwalt Land Attack Destroyer ("H.R.B. Division")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...pict-squ01.jpg
1 x SSN-774 Virginia-class NSSN ("H.R.B. Avenger")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/nssn_m2.jpg
1 x MCS-12 Inchon Mine Countermeasures Support Ship ("H.R.B. Firewall")
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...-dvic117-s.jpg


Aircraft on CVN-21
let's call it 75 aircraft in total; "newer design"

20 x F-14E (Invented and produced exclusively by me)
30 x F-22 Raptors
3 x P3C
7 x C-141 Starlifter
2 x E-2C Hawkeye
4 x CH46E Sea Knight
8 x SH-60 Seahawk
6 x MH-53E Sea Dragon




General Characteristics, General Information, CVN 21 Future Aircraft Carrier Program
Builder: Northrop Grumman Newport News, Newport News, Va.
Propulsion: Two nuclear reactors, four shafts.
Length: 1092 feet
Beam: 134 feet; Flight Deck Width: 256 feet
Displacement: approximately 100,000 long tons full load
Speed: 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour)
Crew: 4660 (ship, air wing and staff)
Armament: Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, Rolling Airframe Missile, CIWS
Aircraft: 75+ (JSF, F/A-18E/F, EA-18G, E-2D, MH-60R/S, J-UCAS)

OOC: *sigh* Why even bother posting real-world stats if you're just going to change the design to 'a newer ship'? Incase you haven't noticed, the "X" in CVNX-21 means it's still in development. You can't GET any newer than that because the designing hasn't even been finished yet. Also, the F-22 is not a carrier aircraft. It would require more than 'strengthening the airframe.'

Also, the F-22 is not a carrier aircraft. It would require more than 'strengthening the airframe.'

OOC: lol... that's what I told him, but he says he'll 'decrease the payload.'

Sorry Sparta, I don't think that's enough. The F-22 would have to be refit to include S/VTOL capabilities, and that would cost a lot of money and still probably wouldn't work. You're better off with the F-35 JSF.

Or even better yet, the SuF-8G.

Another change to the fleet

To ALL ships:
Torpedo CM - Fitted with the Praire/Masker
Radar CM - AN/SLQ-32 ESM
Missile CM - MK-53 Nulka Decoy (retrofitted on all ships)
Aircraft CM - AN/UPX-36

To H.R.B. Avenger
Mine CM - LMRS
Torpedo CM - Silencing (AKA Silent Running)
Radar CM - AN/BLQ-10 ESM


H.R.B. Nereus's aircraft
75 full sized aircraft

15 x X-45 UCAV (smaller plane) (10 spaces)
20 x Lockheed-Martin JSF X-35 ("F-35")
3 x CSA
12 x RAH-66 Comanche (borrowed helicopters from Army)
10 x V-22 Osprey VTOL
10 x F-16 Fighting Falcon
10 x F-14E ("Hyper Tomcat") (This plane is been modified with Radio-Absorbing paint, internal hardpoints, and the removal of two hardpoints, and new avionics systems, such as a "glass cockpit", and new processors, and was developed a while ago)

Hope this diverse load works well.

Are those RL systems, Hard Rock?

Are those RL systems, Hard Rock?
They are real systems, all are available from the US navy... no experimental CM's, only some experimental planes

The CVN-21 has space for 75 full-sized aircraft.

Ah okay, well, no problem then >.> You do realise that RL systems in comparison to NS are completley outdated and essentially inferior? I mean, an NS standard produced RADAR jammer will completely destroy even the most advanced RL RADAR.

Geez i come home from school and theres 2 pages of posts



Questers- Super Dreadnought is a simple definition a "super" warship thats basicly a floating fortress

Northford- its your choice i suggest a good combination of surface and under sea ships

oh and yes i play naval field

ok i have made the choice to close the sign up next friday at 11:59PM EST

OOC: lol... that's what I told him, but he says he'll 'decrease the payload.'

Sorry Sparta, I don't think that's enough. The F-22 would have to be refit to include S/VTOL capabilities, and that would cost a lot of money and still probably wouldn't work. You're better off with the F-35 JSF.

Or even better yet, the SuF-8G.OOC: Now quite; simply add a small upwards slope at teh tip of the carrier; and decrease weight as well as decreasing possible payload and as I already mentioned, strengthen the Air-Frame. Which I have done, all three, with my miracle metal; and no I'm not telling you. Call bull shit all you like, but I'll tell when were in IC battle.

being a military guy i sgree the JSF is the better of the two

OOC: The JSF is the better only for much smaller Wasp class carriers or LSD Class Carriers where VTOL is perferred/needed.

OOC: Now quite; simply add a small upwards slope at teh tip of the carrier; and decrease weight as well as decreasing possible payload and as I already mentioned, strengthen the Air-Frame. Which I have done, all three, with my miracle metal; and no I'm not telling you. Call bull shit all you like, but I'll tell when were in IC battle.

OOC: How are you both strengthening the frame, yet decreasing weight? The F-22 doesn't carry much weaponry to begin to, decreasing the payload lives it with almost nothing.

OOC: My variant. it has two six shooter like loaders. Which spin when one pissile is expended. In the pure Fighter/Interceptor no-ram varaint there are external hardpoints and the bombay is increased to 1, increase payload and 2, increase the sizer of the 6-shooter spinners so you have more AA/ATG missiles. As well as having more internal JDAM's. My miracle metal is stronger and lighter than anything to date, it's going into mass production within the next 3 IRL years so yeah. MT...

OOC: My my variant. it has two six shooter like loaders. Which spin when one pissile is expended. In the pure Fighter/Interceptor no-ram varaint there are external hardpoints and the bombay is increased to 1, increase payload and 2, increase the sizer of the 6-shooter spinners so you have more AA/ATG missiles. As well as having more internal JDAM's. My miracle metal is stronger and lighter than anything to date, it's going into mass production within the next 3 IRL years so yeah. MT...

OOC: "Miracle metal" ... dude, that's as vague and lame as crap. Otherwise, I could invent a "miracle explosive!" where 1 pound equals a ton of TNT or something, and pack 300lbs of it into each of my missiles, because not only is it super-explosive, it's compact and lightweight too! And 5 pounds of real weight equals 1 pound of my explosive!

OOC: My variant. it has two six shooter like loaders. Which spin when one pissile is expended. In the pure Fighter/Interceptor no-ram varaint there are external hardpoints and the bombay is increased to 1, increase payload and 2, increase the sizer of the 6-shooter spinners so you have more AA/ATG missiles. As well as having more internal JDAM's. My miracle metal is stronger and lighter than anything to date, it's going into mass production within the next 3 IRL years so yeah. MT...

OOC- Can you explain the Miracle metal OOCly ? I cannot tell if it is feasable by just calling it "Miracle."

OOC: "Miracle metal" ... dude, that's as vague and lame as crap. Otherwise, I could invent a "miracle explosive!" where 1 pound equals a ton of TNT or something, and pack 300lbs of it into each of my missiles, because not only is it super-explosive, it's compact and lightweight too! And 5 pounds of real weight equals 1 pound of my explosive!OOC: It's a real metal thats goin into mass refinement/production within the next 3 years, and I'll tell you when were in battle. The reason I'm not telling you now is because I'm afraid your going to be a god moding ass-hole and say IC that you 'Invented' the metal after what I tell you what it is OOC. It's a form of God-Moding called Miss-Cleo'ing.

OOC: It's a real metal thats goin into mass refinement/production within the next 3 years, and I'll tell you when were in battle. The reason I'm not telling you now is because I'm afraid your going to be a god moding ass-hole and say IC that you 'Invented' the metal after what I tell you what it is OOC. It's a form of God-Moding called Miss-Cleo'ing.

OOC: Sorry. I've already invented a metal that's even stronger and lighter. :rolleyes:

um why are you people putting OOC in a OOC thread?

um why are you people putting OOC in a OOC thread?
OOC .. habit.

OOC: It's a real metal thats goin into mass refinement/production within the next 3 years, and I'll tell you when were in battle. The reason I'm not telling you now is because I'm afraid your going to be a god moding ass-hole and say IC that you 'Invented' the metal after what I tell you what it is OOC. It's a form of God-Moding called Miss-Cleo'ing.

[OOC: And you're not a 'godmod asshole' by claiming a superior metal without even suggesting to what it's composed of? Frankly, if they steal it you can always call them on it, but that's like me releasing the Nakíl and saying, "Yea, well, it ownz u!" and then refusing to show them why. In any case, I didn't know fantasy metals belonged in places other than... fantasy.]

OOC: It's a real metal thats goin into mass refinement/production within the next 3 years, and I'll tell you when were in battle. The reason I'm not telling you now is because I'm afraid your going to be a god moding ass-hole and say IC that you 'Invented' the metal after what I tell you what it is OOC. It's a form of God-Moding called Miss-Cleo'ing.

We'll have less of that, thank you. He's perfectly within his rights to claim a material that you found on a website somewhere just as you are to claim it yourself. We'll not have anything like the old claims of copyrighting trimaran hulls or EMP [!] on here. If you designed it, different story, but first person to find something online doesn't gain the right to tell others they can't have it.

Wait so everything in this tread is OOC tagged? Alrighty...

OOC: Sorry. I've already invented a metal that's even stronger and lighter.

Alright well then theres no need and in telling you as you already have a metal comparable so something like mine.

We'll have less of that, thank you. He's perfectly within his rights to claim a material that you found on a website somewhere just as you are to claim it yourself. We'll not have anything like the old claims of copyrighting trimaran hulls or EMP [!] on here. If you designed it, different story, but first person to find something online doesn't gain the right to tell others they can't have it.

OOC: *claps little paws happily*

We'll have less of that, thank you. He's perfectly within his rights to claim a material that you found on a website somewhere just as you are to claim it yourself. We'll not have anything like the old claims of copyrighting trimaran hulls or EMP [!] on here. If you designed it, different story, but first person to find something online doesn't gain the right to tell others they can't have it.
agreed

We'll have less of that, thank you. He's perfectly within his rights to claim a material that you found on a website somewhere just as you are to claim it yourself. We'll not have anything like the old claims of copyrighting trimaran hulls or EMP [!] on here. If you designed it, different story, but first person to find something online doesn't gain the right to tell others they can't have it.I never said I copy righted it or am stopping people from using it. I'm just not telling you about it; if you really want it that much. Search for hours on Google like I did, in the mean time the only time I'm ever going to Aknowledge it is in IC battle, and thats only once.

Anybody that cares, I found this about three to four months ago in about thirty seconds:

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2006/January/05010601.asp

is this still open? If so I'm entering with

1 Carrier/Missile configured Quicksilver class ship
2 Gun/Missile configured Quicksilver class Battle Cruisers
2 SSH 'Naiad' class Hunter/Killer submarines

Aircraft:
14 IF/A-14 'Thundercat' naval fighters
14 SX-24 Strike Fighters
2 E/A-20 AAWACs

9 AH-49 Naval Attak/ASW helicopters
4 AH-71 light stealth helicopters

Anybody that cares, I found this about three to four months ago in about thirty seconds:

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2006/January/05010601.aspThe one I found > that one by like uh-bafillion.

like I said, I'll tell when we get this IC shindig started.

Welcome in mondoth

The one I found > that one by like uh-bafillion.

like I said, I'll tell when we get this IC shindig started.

Oh d00d I'm sure!

I never said I copy righted it or am stopping people from using it. I'm just not telling you about it

http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-materials-material-apnano_8947.html

You did. And to quote myself, on that page:

There's a totally undefined and meaningless claim that it's 5 times 'stronger' than steel [stronger how? Compressive? Tensile? Shear?], which most certainly does not gel with your claim that a 1x1x1cm block of the stuff could resist being hit by 18 freight trains without damage. It says so far they can only make a few kilos of the stuff a day and claims mass production is possible but doesn't say how much it will cost [indeed they claim they can't say how much it will cost, other than it'll be less than the cost of Fullerenes [wow, it'll be less that US$1000 per gram, steady the hell on with the cheapness].

Hey spit, do you find 24 380mm guns 'Overpowered'? Well to clear this up a little bit, in 1940 two ships by the Italian fleet the Rean Jeuno and some other one used two, quad 380mm cannon's. Thats basically what I am using bt simplified by an extreme-amount thanks to modern tech to minimize the chance of breaking/jamming. I have 6 of these on my ship; which I hope by your standards isn't too unreasonable. As the Fuso Class of the Japanese fleet has 6 hardpoints for I think triple something guns.

just one question,
would small patrol boats (less than 40meters) be allowable if they could be carried in on my larger ships, or would i have to count them in the 5 ship total?

http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-materials-material-apnano_8947.html

You did. And to quote myself, on that page:For costs, thank slaves, for building plants and legitimate works for manning the plants around Sparta.

As for 5x stronger than steel, thats a considerable amount over any other meta thats currently in production. Also because it's bounded by IF or Inorganic Fullerenes, which is another pure form of carbon, mixed with Titanium you have a light, powerful armor still retaining it's ability to be more than 10% lighter than steel; which I think is more than enough weight reduction to lift off from a Nimitz.

Hey spit, do you find 24 380mm guns 'Overpowered'? Well to clear this up a little bit, in 1940 two ships by the Italian fleet the Rean Jeuno and some other one used two, quad 380mm cannon's. Thats basically what I am using bt simplified by an extreme-amount thanks to modern tech to minimize the chance of breaking/jamming. I have 6 of these on my ship; which I hope by your standards isn't too unreasonable. As the Fuso Class of the Japanese fleet has 6 hardpoints for I think triple something guns.
if you dont have to many guns then its fine

For costs, thank slaves, for building plants and legitimate works for manning the plants around Sparta.

As for 5x stronger than steel, thats a considerable amount over any other meta thats currently in production. Also because it's bounded by IF or Inorganic Fullerenes, which is another pure form of carbon, mixed with Titanium you have a light, powerful armor still retaining it's ability to be more than 10% lighter than steel; which I think is more than enough weight reduction to lift off from a Nimitz.

OOC: Uhm. Maybe no one ever told you this.. but the F-22 is a high-preformance stealthy aircraft. It's not made out of heavy metals to begin with, LEAST of all steel. Infact, if I recall correctly it's mostly composites and lightweight alloys already. Why? Because certain materials are required for the stealthy aspect. It's radar-absorbant materials. I know the Comanche is made out of a lot of cloth-like fiber, and the F-22 seems to be built out of the same stuff.

If you go adding new metals, and monkeying around with the airframe, the internals, the payloads, you're going to lose the stealthy aspect of the F-22.

The F-22 is LIGHTWEIGHT already for its size. To suggest that you can chop away pieces and add pieces to make it a naval aircraft, is pure falacy.

The F-22 is 15% aluminum, 7% steel [most underparts, like carriage], 39% titanium, 23% thermosets, 1% thermoplastics and 15% of other materials.

OOC: Uhm. Maybe no one ever told you this.. but the F-22 is a high-preformance stealthy aircraft. It's not made out of heavy metals to begin with, LEAST of all steel. Infact, if I recall correctly it's mostly composites and lightweight alloys already. Why? Because certain materials are required for the stealthy aspect. It's radar-absorbant materials. I know the Comanche is made out of a lot of cloth-like fiber, and the F-22 seems to be built out of the same stuff.

If you go adding new metals, and monkeying around with the airframe, the internals, the payloads, you're going to lose the stealthy aspect of the F-22.

The F-22 is LIGHTWEIGHT already for its size. To suggest that you can chop away pieces and add pieces to make it a naval aircraft, is pure falacy. Lets say you are completely right right now. Then that means that all I need to add is more thrust. Maybe make the Sling-Shot launcher on the Nimitz carrier out of Titanium IF's then that means I can launch it at 5x faster without risking snapping the cable. All i have to worry about is ripping out the under-cage of the plane. So thats a Gigantic leap in added thrust to take off; and add stronger engines. NS already has bull-crapped egines that makes planes sheer thier RAM right off so I'll add some more HP engines. Problem solved.

The F-22 is 15% aluminum, 7% steel [most underparts, like carriage], 39% titanium, 23% thermosets, 1% thermoplastics and 15% of other materials.

OOC: Exactly, thank you. All lightweight materials already.

Slaves... you trust ..slaves ..to man ..aerospace quality materials production and assembly of aerospace related equipment. The low price is still silly.

Forget the idiocy of armouring an aircraft built for manouver, stealth and speed and in that order, (given really the amount of armour applicable will be mostly meaningless against ANY missile strike and if an interceptor has reached cannon range it has already FAILED) given that the only truly armoured aircraft should be a gunship, forget the rabid madness of trying to shorten its take off given its an interceptor which if you absolutely MUST have on long range you use mid air refueling as its so fecking fast anyway.

Thou shalt not trust slaves to be (A) educated and (B) in charge of delicate processes upon which your nations top line defensive interceptor relies upon.

That and your population REALLY isnt up to this sort of thing, a cheaper alternative would be of course a honking great carrier, but really again your population is a limiting factor here.

Again its an INTERCEPTOR for heavens sake, it goes FAST and it delivers missiles, it does NOT hang around and get shot at by flak and mostly it NEVER entres gun combat range especially with NS grade short range hypersonic air to air missiles about.

Slaves... you trust ..slaves ..to man ..aerospace quality materials production and assembly of aerospace related equipment. The low price is still silly.

Forget the idiocy of armouring an aircraft built for manouver, stealth and speed and in that order, (given really the amount of armour applicable will be mostly meaningless against ANY missile strike and if an interceptor has reached cannon range it has already FAILED) given that the only truly armoured aircraft should be a gunship, forget the rabid madness of trying to shorten its take off given its an interceptor which if you absolutely MUST have on long range you use mid air refueling as its so fecking fast anyway.

Thou shalt not trust slaves to be (A) educated and (B) in charge of delicate processes upon which your nations top line defensive interceptor relies upon.

That and your population REALLY isnt up to this sort of thing, a cheaper alternative would be of course a honking great carrier, but really again your population is a limiting factor here.

Again its an INTERCEPTOR for heavens sake, it goes FAST and it delivers missiles, it does NOT hang around and get shot at by flak and mostly it NEVER entres gun combat range especially with NS grade short range hypersonic air to air missiles about.Slaves don't make the metals LEGITIMATE WORKERS DO!. The Mass production PLANT ITS SELF is made by slaves =) besides the fact that slaves get sloppy; these slaves aren't working hard labor like most think they are, well not -Whip you in the back if you lift that concrete the wrong way- labor anyway. They lead of course, less than decent lives though these are 'Happy' camps where slaves are lead to belive through proppaganda that they are improving thier lifestyle and improving the homeland they were abducted from by building for Sparta. Thank the PR department =P

No, no, no, you missed what I was saying; is that I'm not going to Super-Armor it as the statement you already made. Though what I am going to do is simply slap some NS grade engines in it; make a Sling-Shot launcher found on the Nimitz out of Titanium IF's so you no-long risk the cable snapping mid launch. The only think you risk is ripping the under-cairrage out from the plane. Which would seem like a hard thing to do, so yeah. There's my Naval F-22.

Ahem.

To make an aircraft like the F-22 carrier capable, you would actually have to make it heavier.

This is because of the stresses involvedin taking off and landing from a carrier, it has nothing to do with how light a fighter has to be to actually take off from a carrier, th F-14 is substantially havier than say, the F-15. you have to add structural components, beef up the landing gear and carriage, add a tail hook to enable landing. These are not simple modifications, and they are very heavy ones too. Adding all of this stuff to a high performance fighter like an F-22 would kill its maneuverability, its speed, its stealthiness and its range. Even with materials substantially stronger&lighter than steel, this is not a conversion I would recomend.

Ahem.

To make an aircraft like the F-22 carrier capable, you would actually have to make it heavier.

This is because of the stresses involvedin taking off and landing from a carrier, it has nothing to do with how light a fighter has to be to actually take off from a carrier, th F-14 is substantially havier than say, the F-15. you have to add structural components, beef up the landing gear and carriage, add a tail hook to enable landing. These are not simple modifications, and they are very heavy ones too. Adding all of this stuff to a high performance fighter like an F-22 would kill its maneuverability, its speed, its stealthiness and its range. Even with materials substantially stronger&lighter than steel, this is not a conversion I would recomend.It would still kick the shit out of any other carrier based plane currently. Say the F/A-18 SuperHornet. It would be a giant step up; a pain in the ass to step up, though still a big one at that.

Slaves don't make the metals LEGITIMATE WORKERS DO!. The Mass production PLANT ITS SELF is made by slaves =) besides the fact that slaves get sloppy; these slaves aren't working hard labor like most think they are, well not -Whip you in the back if you lift that concrete the wrong way- labor anyway. They lead of course, less than decent lives though these are 'Happy' camps where slaves are lead to belive through proppaganda that they are improving thier lifestyle and improving the homeland they were abducted from by building for Sparta. Thank the PR department =P

No, no, no, you missed what I was saying; is that I'm not going to Super-Armor it as the statement you already made. Though what I am going to do is simply slap some NS grade engines in it; make a Sling-Shot launcher found on the Nimitz out of Titanium IF's so you no-long risk the cable snapping mid launch. The only think you risk is ripping the under-cairrage out from the plane. Which would seem like a hard thing to do, so yeah. There's my Naval F-22.

OOC: Considering your country has NEVER invaded anyone, EVER .. how are you getting slaves?

OOC: In about the 600 A.D era Irish ships set out and captured loads of people. Silently, and quickly. They kept on doing that until thier work-force was filled. Think Spec-Ops civvilian obduction.

OOC: In about the 600 A.D era Irish ships set out and captured loads of people. Silently, and quickly. They kept on doing that until thier work-force was filled. Think Spec-Ops civvilian obduction.

OOC: .... you're on crack.

mkay, my order of battle - just a little note, i'll get some better stats lat3r

Flagship: HMS Valiant,
Vanguard Class Battleship (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10926972&postcount=4)
Air Support: HMS Ardent
Ardent Class Battlecarrier
48 combat aircraft
9 460mm guns
2 96 cell VLS
32 knots
AIRCRAFT LOADOUT
20 interceptors
20 torpedo bombers
8 dive bombers
6 AWACs planes
2 Town Class Cruisers: HMS Pocklington, HMS Warter
12 205mm guns
4x 96 cell VLS
36 knots
1 Resolution class fleet submarine - HMS Ramillies
36 knots top speed
64 small missiles
12 650mm torp tubes

This is MT, your telling me in MT you can kidnap tens of thousands and no one would notice ?

There is a reason people dont use slingshot launchers, Slingshot launchers are LUDICROUSLY DANGEROUS and put far more stress on the airframe than a conventional catapult. I would suggest an EM catapult if you must carry out this madness, and even then nimitz is STILL even as a "super carrier" too small to realisticly launch these.

Its still not worth the effort and resources given the impact it would have on the aircrafts performance. The DERA study puts the odds of an IRL F22 against an S35 as 10.1 to 1 while the FA18 is at 0.4 to 1. But this is only true with the F22 as it is. Its "giant step up" would be a giant step down if it was mulilated as you suggest.

If you create an F22 with NS engines that are BIG and fuel hungry and overly fast, ruining her masking IR ability just to allow her to take off, that she will have to lug around when shes doing low speed stealthy CAP, if you slap on huge heavy naval landing and recovery structures and reinforce the air frame and turn what is a nimble manouverable dagger into a cosh, you will in all probability reverse the odds as she will no longer be an interceptor.

You may as well use an F14 if your butchering the F22 like this. Infact it would be far better to generate your own aircraft entirely than ruin what the F22 is.

Instead of useing an insanely dangerous launch method or slapping on faar oversized engines you could just use solid rocket booster pods. This would still mean massive airframe wieght increases to survive a naval landing but would not mean you would have to slap in oversized fuel guzzling monsters that would render her sub sonic loiter useless and her super sonic cruise hopelessly fuel inneficient, destroying her range.

The F22 is designed for SELF ferrying to target hence her high cruise speed which she can keep up for long periods, and the use of air bourne refueling. If your naval task force requires F22 coverage supply a tanker and have the F22 launched from your homeland even in this excercise.

SI am affraid what your saying cannont be believed in the MT universe

This is MT, your telling me in MT you can kidnap tens of thousands and no one would notice ?

Not tens of thousands, I don't know a few hundred. About several dozen every year sounds reasonable, no? If not I'll just make an IC topic and invade a neighboring NPC country. Take every person as a slave; rape, pillage, and burn in that order.

There is a reason people dont use slingshot launchers, Slingshot launchers are LUDICROUSLY DANGEROUS and put far more stress on the airframe than a conventional catapult. I would suggest an EM catapult if you must carry out this madness, and even then nimitz is STILL even as a "super carrier" too small to realisticly launch these.

By slingshot, I meant the current catapult upon the Nimitz.

Its still not worth the effort and resources given the impact it would have on the aircrafts performance. The DERA study puts the odds of an IRL F22 against an S35 as 10.1 to 1 while the FA18 is at 0.4 to 1. But this is only true with the F22 as it is. Its "giant step up" would be a giant step down if it was mulilated as you suggest.

Extend the landing strip and takeoff strip while adding a upwards angle?

If you create an F22 with NS engines that are BIG and fuel hungry and overly fast, ruining her masking IR ability just to allow her to take off, that she will have to lug around when shes doing low speed stealthy CAP, if you slap on huge heavy naval landing and recovery structures and reinforce the air frame and turn what is a nimble manouverable dagger into a cosh, you will in all probability reverse the odds as she will no longer be an interceptor.

You may as well use an F14 if your butchering the F22 like this. Infact it would be far better to generate your own aircraft entirely than ruin what the F22 is.

F/A-18 SuperHornet > F-14 AND it's carrier bound.

Instead of useing an insanely dangerous launch method or slapping on faar oversized engines you could just use solid rocket booster pods. This would still mean massive airframe wieght increases to survive a naval landing but would not mean you would have to slap in oversized fuel guzzling monsters that would render her sub sonic loiter useless and her super sonic cruise hopelessly fuel inneficient, destroying her range.

Good idea, though landing is still a problem

The F22 is designed for SELF ferrying to target hence her high cruise speed which she can keep up for long periods, and the use of air bourne refueling. If your naval task force requires F22 coverage supply a tanker and have the F22 launched from your homeland even in this excercise.

Also a good idea, but when the OpFOR downs the tanker then the F-22's are fucked. So to have a carrier launched F-22 would be the most reasonable, if not I'll just make a highest performance plane for a Nimitz I can get, I already have a pretty looking image.

I see and agree but how will you change the F-22 for carrier launchs? you need VTAL and that means a whole new design or a carrier longer the the H.S. Truman and the Nimitz combind.

oh and whats this i've been hearing about some super armor?

I see and agree but how will you change the F-22 for carrier launchs? you need VTAL and that means a whole new design or a carrier longer the the H.S. Truman and the Nimitz combind.

oh and whats this i've been hearing about some super armor?OOC: Oh, the armor that I use being Iron-IF's

from what i was told you say its strong enough to with stand three speeding trains, and its super super strong

just tell me what Elements is it made of?

Iron, and Carbon. Well in-organic Carbon....

Iron, and Carbon. Well in-organic Carbon....

In-Organic Carbon? thats impossible for something to be organic it has to have Carbon. If it has no Carbon its in-organic

you cant have in organic carbon

In-Organic Carbon? thats impossible for something to be organic it has to have Carbon. If it has no Carbon its in-organic

you cant have in organic carbonUgh, Carbon has three pure forms. Diamonds, Coal, and Fullerenes. Fullerenes the newest pure form is the second strongest possible formation. In which the carbon Atom's form a Geodecic dome in which cannot be crushed without destroying Fullerenes and turning the Carbon back into singular atoms. You can re-create this formation of atoms or Organic carbon with Tungsten, also able to form a Geodesic dome with it's Atoms. The only problem is it's a lot heavier, so I use Titanium-IF's. So that way it evens out to still be at least 10% lighter than steel.

Didn't you take Physical Science? I don't meant to be condecending, but when you do, you can create 'Ingoranic' anything as long as the Element has enough Valance electron's...

am a canadian ninth grade student am not that far in science

am a canadian ninth grade student am not that far in scienceOOC: Thats cool, well at least now you know right? =P

OOC: Thats cool, well at least now you know right? =P
OOC: Lets see a link to that so-called armor.

OOC: http://www.physorg.com/news8947.html

You know, even though I have a link. Maybe next time I won't, not everything on the Internet is true. Though what ever I say, is. =)

OOC: HAH! I have the perfect carrier launched, super fast, stealth, larger payload, as well as better looking plane!

OOC: HAH! I have the perfect carrier launched, super fast, stealth, and larger payload, as well as better looking plane!

OOC: ... stealth carrier? I'll let someone else field this one.

OOC: I hope you noticed I say plane, not carrier... =/

OOC: I hope you noticed I say plane, not carrier... =/

OOC: I didn't. Make some sense when you post. :p

OOC: I bolded it for you...

:p

any way any thing else to get out of the way?:sniper:

It would still kick the shit out of any other carrier based plane currently. Say the F/A-18 SuperHornet. It would be a giant step up; a pain in the ass to step up, though still a big one at that.
OOC:
F/A-18s by any name, most of all the E/F 'super' hornets. are shitty planes. a JSF would destroy a navalized F-22, and I would give a modernized F-14 (not unlike my IF/A-14s...) would stand a fair chance as well.

I'm still wondering if small patrol boats (less than 40meters) could be used, or would they count against the five ship total?
The boats I'm thinking of using could be carried into the battle area on the larger vessels that I've already posted.

yes the would count no use (because no point) unless your ship be registered as going down and then you can launch them

The Militaristic Democracy of -Rome- would like to UNOFFICIALLY enter this interesting competition. I have taken the liberty of putting together a list of ships with links to their stats and images. Here it is:
1 Collosus-class Submersible Air-Sea-Land Carrier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10837492&postcount=24) 3 Eagle-class Guided Missile Destroyer (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10837467&postcount=20) 1 Adeodatus-class Escort Aircraft Carrier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10837485&postcount=23)
===========================================================
We are still thinking about joining. Meanwhile, if it were possible, can you unofficially confirm our entry into the competition? Also, what is the reward for it?

The Militaristic Democracy of -Rome- would like to UNOFFICIALLY enter this interesting competition. I have taken the liberty of putting together a list of ships with links to their stats and images. Here it is:
1 Collosus-class Submersible Air-Sea-Land Carrier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10837492&postcount=24) 3 Eagle-class Guided Missile Destroyer (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10837467&postcount=20) 1 Adeodatus-class Escort Aircraft Carrier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10837485&postcount=23)
===========================================================
We are still thinking about joining. Meanwhile, if it were possible, can you unofficially confirm our entry into the competition? Also, what is the reward for it?

OOC: This is a MT competition.

Uhhh....*looks around* it...is Modern Tech. Hydrogen Fuel Cells have been invented by....GM....and....Laser-Tech has been developed by....the US Military. haHA Yeah! I....think I proved myself.

OOC: HAH! I have the perfect carrier launched, super fast, stealth, larger payload, as well as better looking plane!


I seriously doubt this.

Uhhh....*looks around* it...is Modern Tech. Hydrogen Fuel Cells have been invented by....GM....and....Laser-Tech has been developed by....the US Military. haHA Yeah! I....think I proved myself.

OOC: *sigh*

You're trying to tell me, you can get something twice as long as a Nimitz moving 125knots, traveling to 4 miles depth..

While it's only twice as long as a Nimitz, 10 feet taller and 120 feet or so wider.. you're managing to fit x3 as much aircraft? With HALF the number of crew? AND 1,000 tanks? AND 10,000 troops? Dude. Are you on crack?

Engines capable of pushing something that big around THAT fast would take up a third of the available space, and the superstructure to withstand the 4 MILES crush depth would not only take up more room, but make the whole thing even heavier. I'm not even going to get into 65 knots on the surface.

Not to mention trying to squeeze 8 VLS cells in there, 18,000 tons of cargo space.. 30 months worth of food... and it can stay SUBMERGED for 2 years straight?

I'm not participating in this, but if I were Split Break, I'd totally ban this wankage from the RP.

Uhhh....*looks around* it...is Modern Tech. Hydrogen Fuel Cells have been invented by....GM....and....Laser-Tech has been developed by....the US Military. haHA Yeah! I....think I proved myself.

Actually, hydrogen fuel cells weren't invented by general motors. I drove a hydrogen fuel cell powered Honda before general motors publisized their interest in the technology. There is a thread on why they are generally insufficient for military application on vehicles, however: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=40365 . Enjoy! =^ ^=

Actually, hydrogen fuel cells weren't invented by general motors. I drove a hydrogen fuel cell powered Honda before general motors publisized their interest in the technology. There is a thread on why they are generally insufficient for military application on vehicles, however: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=40365 . Enjoy! =^ ^=

OOC: Err.. that's a thread about denial of service attacks on HL servers?

Err..oops. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403654

The Militaristic Democracy of -Rome- would like to UNOFFICIALLY enter this interesting competition. I have taken the liberty of putting together a list of ships with links to their stats and images. Here it is:
1 Collosus-class Submersible Air-Sea-Land Carrier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10837492&postcount=24)
Er. No. Just no.

First of all, that thing is simply impossible. You could call it FT and it would still be impossible. It can't fit that much stuff, it travels far too fast for its propulsion, and it is generally a larger wank than the Hood, which was confirmed as plausible by some of the top designers on NS, who also have several questions for you:

[7:13pm] <Blub> His 'submersible' aircraft carrier .. happens to carry 400 'hover tanks'. And can secrete a ... 'jelly' that suppresses wound.
[7:13pm] <Blub> Oh, and by the way.. IT CAN STAY UNDER WATER FOR 2 FUCKING YEARS AT A TIME.
[7:14pm] <Lord_Namtar> notes he likes the idea of submarine aircraft carriers.
[7:14pm] <Blub> It also has the ability to stay at sea without supply replenishment x10 longer than a Nimitz. Modern nuclear aircraft carriers carry enough supplies for about 3 months.
[7:15pm] <Blub> It carries x3 times the number of aircraft as a Nimitz. And it's only twice as long.
[7:15pm] <Space> mwahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhaa
[7:15pm] <Blub> Not to mention the 10,000 troop capacity.
[7:15pm] <Lord_Namtar> Are surface area and volume directly related?
[7:16pm] <Stardust> It's the same guy who called the Hood wank. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.
[7:18pm] <Blub> His submersible carrier travels 125 knots submerged.. 65 knots on the surface.
[7:19pm] <AxisNova> it must be the Seaquest DSV
[7:19pm] <Blub> If that's not wank..
[7:19pm] <Blub> I should build one just like it. But bigger and faster.
[7:19pm] <Blub> And when he calls wank.. be like.. "Naw. It's your tech. It CAN'T be wank!"
[7:20pm] <AxisNova> just build the world's first supercavitating submarine
[7:20pm] <Blub> Heh.
[7:20pm] <Blub> Instead of making a 'submersible' carrier.. I'll make a submarine that flys.

These are the primary problems with this vehicle summarised. Maybe if they're fixed it might be slightly more probable. But until then.... niet.

I seriously doubt this.It's not quite as Manuverable as the F-22 though just by a little. It is much more stealth. I think it has like 3/4ths the cross section of the F-22. It's a real plane, so yeah you guys can go figure this one out by your selves.

[Not to mention that you misspelled 'Colossus', but meh.]

geez for god sake you cant get a F-22 on a carrier! get over it, and -Rome- your stuff seems PMT

Spit... What-The-Hell are you talking about?

I'm not talking about getting the F-22 on a carrier. I'm not even talking about carriers. Hell I'm not even talking about the F-22 I'm comparing it for my Air-Force's new plane.

i kept seeing the word F-22 show up but w/e carry on

Which brings me to my next point; does anybody know how to keep a KC-135 'Bullet Proof' from other planes other than having it fly with an escort? Because when we get into the battle I'm going to have to use my 'Super Stealth', 'Super Fast' new plane. It's faster, and has less of a radar cross section than the F-22 and I think it's smaller period as well as lighter except for it's less manuverable. Well to get back to the point; because of that less manuverability. Which is is barely less manuverable; it has a much larger payload than the F-22. Which is double normally; even more so with the re-fitting done by Sparta. So yeah it's pretty schweet, I'm going to have them just bomb the fak out of the competition for long range support. When I get close in; I'll just full on broad side them.

thing is your most likly going to be using torps, and those need you to be low

Why not JDAM's or GBU-24's or MOAB's, or Penguin Anti-Ship missiles?

*gets out of WWII* oh ya i forgot about those and i got Anti-sub missiles

Which brings me to my next point; does anybody know how to keep a KC-135 'Bullet Proof' from other planes other than having it fly with an escort? Because when we get into the battle I'm going to have to use my 'Super Stealth', 'Super Fast' new plane. It's faster, and has less of a radar cross section than the F-22 and I think it's smaller period as well as lighter except for it's less manuverable. Well to get back to the point; because of that less manuverability. Which is is barely less manuverable; it has a much larger payload than the F-22. Which is double normally; even more so with the re-fitting done by Sparta. So yeah it's pretty schweet, I'm going to have them just bomb the fak out of the competition for long range support. When I get close in; I'll just full on broad side them.


Then it will get to meet the Joint DMG-Willink missile :)

yes the would count no use (because no point) unless your ship be registered as going down and then you can launch them

sooo... let me get this straight. Patrol boats *would* count against the five ship total? Or I could send them into the area, but they could only be deployed after the ship carrying them has been registered as sunk? I'm not sure that makes sense so I'm trying to clarify...

I don't think you can hit a plane that has an IR Jammer. The RADAR cross-section of less than a duck and is invisble to the naked eye. As for the naked eye part; when we get in battle I'll explain but it renders the use of LADAR/LIDAR useless/ineffective... =/

Did, by any chance, the Klingons make your fighter?

So.. it's an invisible.. navalized.. faster, better, lighter.. etc. etc.. etc.. etc F-22 that follows no rules of reality or MT. All designed by a nation of 108 million with a "strong" economy. ... k.

Ugh, Carbon has three pure forms. Diamonds, Coal, and Fullerenes.

Carbon has four basic forms, amorphous carbon [such as in charcoal], graphite, diamond and fullerenes. Don't insult people's knowledge of chemistry when your own is conspiciously lacking.

guess your right makes no sense ok max of lets go 8 PT boats

in that case. Add 8 Tiger-Shark class SWATH PT boats to my roster. Four on each of the two Cruisers

So.. it's an invisible.. navalized.. faster, better, lighter.. etc. etc.. etc.. etc F-22 that follows no rules of reality or MT. All designed by a nation of 108 million with a "strong" economy. ... k.OOC: Not Navalized, though yes. The F-22 was only 33 billion to develop but they were funding TWO companies whom were making the plane. Devide that in half, add a few billion and theres my plane. =)

Carbon has four basic forms, amorphous carbon [such as in charcoal], graphite, diamond and fullerenes. Don't insult people's knowledge of chemistry when your own is conspiciously lacking.OOC: Whoopsie daisy. Though obviously hasn't even taken the class and so my knowledge in the subject is surperior to his and so I am well within my rights to correct him. The same way you are more knowledgable than I am in Chem and so you corrected me. Don't be condecending, that really pisses me off. I mean a lot, so please, don't do it.

Hey spit, do you find 24 380mm guns 'Overpowered'? Well to clear this up a little bit, in 1940 two ships by the Italian fleet the Rean Jeuno and some other one used two, quad 380mm cannon's. Thats basically what I am using bt simplified by an extreme-amount thanks to modern tech to minimize the chance of breaking/jamming. I have 6 of these on my ship; which I hope by your standards isn't too unreasonable. As the Fuso Class of the Japanese fleet has 6 hardpoints for I think triple something guns.

Um, learn history. The Italian battleships in WW2 did NOT use quad 15" guns, the only battleships to use quad guns in history are the British King George V, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Anson, and Howe, as well as the French ships Richeliu and Jean Bart.

The Ise and the Fuso had six barbettes for *dual* turrets. Not triples.

OOC: Whoopsie daisy. Though obviously hasn't even taken the class and so my knowledge in the subject is surperior to his and so I am well within my rights to correct him.

Correcting someone with information that is wrong isn't helpful.

You can have, "very fast" or you you can have "very stealthy" you cannot have both. This is sort of non negotiable.

IR "jammers" (a more misbegoten term I cannot think of for what ussualy amounts to a glorified chaff dispenser) or dazzlers are only so effective, that effectiveness pretty much ending utterly at mach 1. When your aircraft go "very fast" and have what ammounts to a 30 foot wall of flame ejecting from its outakes you can niether effecitvely dazzle nor jam that signature. Its too big and far too intense, further your aircrafts passage through the air alone at mach plus speeds superheats your outer hull and the air your passing through not even takeing your exhuast plume into account.

Further if your going "very fast" by NS standards anything up to hypersonic but we hope your not trying to make a hypersonic aircraft stealthy so for the sake of theory we will put at somewhere from mach 3 to just under 5 your thermal signature and your enourmous shock cone will be picked up by orbital assets designed to moniter weather and or ICBM launches, you may have a tiny radar cross section but that honestly wont be all that usefull when every IR seeking SAM this side of the combat theatre decides to have a piece of you given that such an aircraft would be justfiably given its cost dodging S400/ Patriot eqiuvelents. Also this will in no way allow you outrun most of the top tier SAMs that abound like S400 or Patriot or there NS big brothers, and finaly forget trying to dodge them, you can try and rarely it will work but they can pull far more G's than you can.

If you want to be stealthy a sub sonic loiter is your man, if you want speed dont expect stealth even if your radar cross section is small. Even if your aircraft was FT with a frictionless hull and a gravitic drive the air by your passage would still be compressed and heated up.

Um, learn history. The Italian battleships in WW2 did NOT use quad 15" guns, the only battleships to use quad guns in history are the British King George V, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Anson, and Howe, as well as the French ships Richeliu and Jean Bart.

The Ise and the Fuso had six barbettes for *dual* turrets. Not triples.

Another thing I found is that the "Rean Jeuno" doesn't have a single mention or page on the entire internet, english speaking or otherwise.

I can find the Giulio Cesare, Garibaldi, Roma, Andrea Doria, Conte di Cavour, Vittoria Veneto, Leonardo da Vinci, Duilio, and Dandolo. The only Italian Battleships and such that might carry weapons of such insanity.

But they don't.

Please provide a source of some kind in regards to that, or is it another wrong bit of information like the Carbon types?

Also, some of these designs on here are blatantly FT, certainly not at all possible in this century, and suspect in the next. You'd need to bend several dimensions in some cases for these designs to work. [ -Rome- in particular]

Unless we've discovered TARDIS-esque technology without me realising it?

Yeah, I tried too, the funny thing is, one of the two matches is actually a typo :p

lol ah geez i found a online MMO like NS but people can have wars its cool called cyber nations

You can have, "very fast" or you you can have "very stealthy" you cannot have both. This is sort of non negotiable.

IR "jammers" (a more misbegoten term I cannot think of for what ussualy amounts to a glorified chaff dispenser) or dazzlers are only so effective, that effectiveness pretty much ending utterly at mach 1. When your aircraft go "very fast" and have what ammounts to a 30 foot wall of flame ejecting from its outakes you can niether effecitvely dazzle nor jam that signature. Its too big and far too intense, further your aircrafts passage through the air alone at mach plus speeds superheats your outer hull and the air your passing through not even takeing your exhuast plume into account.

Further if your going "very fast" by NS standards anything up to hypersonic but we hope your not trying to make a hypersonic aircraft stealthy so for the sake of theory we will put at somewhere from mach 3 to just under 5 your thermal signature and your enourmous shock cone will be picked up by orbital assets designed to moniter weather and or ICBM launches, you may have a tiny radar cross section but that honestly wont be all that usefull when every IR seeking SAM this side of the combat theatre decides to have a piece of you given that such an aircraft would be justfiably given its cost dodging S400/ Patriot eqiuvelents. Also this will in no way allow you outrun most of the top tier SAMs that abound like S400 or Patriot or there NS big brothers, and finaly forget trying to dodge them, you can try and rarely it will work but they can pull far more G's than you can.

If you want to be stealthy a sub sonic loiter is your man, if you want speed dont expect stealth even if your radar cross section is small. Even if your aircraft was FT with a frictionless hull and a gravitic drive the air by your passage would still be compressed and heated up.
Luckily none of those apply to my plane. So, Fission Mailed. Well it has a super-cruise of 200 mph higher than the F-22, and has 3/4ths the Radar Cross section. No, not chaff, I have an actual jammer; and no I won't explain it now. In battle yes; so you can't make any OOC to IC changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Bart_%281949-1961%29 - Midlonia, your lack of ************ astounds me...

Um, learn history. The Italian battleships in WW2 did NOT use quad 15" guns, the only battleships to use quad guns in history are the British King George V, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Anson, and Howe, as well as the French ships Richeliu and Jean Bart.

The Ise and the Fuso had six barbettes for *dual* turrets. Not triples.QUAD 380mm! Read it OVER!

For the benefit of people with no brains like Sparta Infensus, 380 millimetres is 1 millimetre off 15". The point stands, there were NO QUAD 380MM GUNS IN WW2.

They apply to everything that flies Sparta... unless you want to go into the fantasy realm where brakeing the sound barrier doesnt involve horrid high tempratures. When the F22 goes supersonic its IR stealth is ..basicly non existant, given the majority of sams can track IR this is .. bad, "jammers" such as say any application of HERF generators or laser generated thermal pockets or basic IR lased dazzling or even the good old fashioned fuel burn be damned, there just not good enough.

Oh and radar? forget it, radar stealth is all very well and good for long range and for the entire loitering issue, however you dont need radar to spot when somone is traveling in there own personal wall of flame. This is not a maybe this is the laws of thermodynamics, if you go FASTER than the F22 in super cruise your IR signature will be MASSIVE. You will NOT be stealthy and to claim such is utter nonsense.

For the benefit of people with no brains like Sparta Infensus, 380 millimetres is 1 millimetre off 15". The point stands, there were NO QUAD 380MM GUNS IN WW2.Read the link above. Fission Mailed. Brainless; the Jean Bart used QUAD 380mm brainless fuck.

They apply to everything that flies Sparta... unless you want to go into the fantasy realm where brakeing the sound barrier doesnt involve horrid high tempratures. When the F22 goes supersonic its IR stealth is ..basicly non existant, given the majority of sams can track IR this is .. bad, "jammers" such as say any application of HERF generators or laser generated thermal pockets or basic IR lased dazzling or even the good old fashioned fuel burn be damned, there just not good enough.

Oh and radar? forget it, radar stealth is all very well and good for long range and for the entire loitering issue, however you dont need radar to spot when somone is traveling in there own personal wall of flame. This is not a maybe this is the laws of thermodynamics, if you go FASTER than the F22 in super cruise your IR signature will be MASSIVE. You will NOT be stealthy and to claim such is utter nonsense.Your still way off. Oh and the IR signature is jammed. Not by any means which you can obviously think of. So yeah; you keep on shooting missing. Stop trying to rationalize it. I'll explain in battle.

Also this plane; did it's super cruise IRL 200 MPH faster than the F-22; and has a longer range.

Stop trying to insult me 'unless you want to go into the fantasy realm where brakeing the sound barrier doesnt involve horrid high tempratures' it was/is a real plane. Stop bitching; it works. STFU

Yes, the Jean Bart used quad 380mm guns.
The Jean Bart was not used in combat in WW2, as it spent most of the time in Casablanca.
Don't insult people, stupid.

Thank you Whyatica. I love you xD; apparently he lacked the brains to follow the link which shot his entire arguement to shit.

OOC: I hate to do this but it was used in combat
On November 8, 1942, the French fleet in Casablanca was attacked by American warships and airplanes from USS Ranger. Jean Bart managed to battle USS Massachusetts, taking hits from several bombs and 16 inch (406 mm) shells.

W/E Still more proof that Questers is the brainless one around here.

Whats with all the condencending A-Holes? I say absolutely nothing insulting to them. But they just have to call me something to try to piss me off.

..and that was horridly close to an open flame and it was not an "insult" If I insulted you sir would most assuredly know.

"Stop trying to rationalise it. I'll explain in battle." ... as for this little bit of joy... I have in the past read up quite extensively on IR based targeting for various bits and bobs and *generic jammer* or claims thereof simply do not cut it, claims that and further "Oh but I will only tell you in battle" well that’s happened before and been rightly rigorously seen as hand waving and really quite poor role-play. Further this is OOC, ICly if someone wanks a counter measure up because of OOC data you can call them on it at once, but to act in the manner you do OOCly is most unbecoming.

You CANNOT jam the IR signature of a SUPERSONIC JET AIRCRAFT. To claim you can do anything more than misdirect or dazzle an IR targeting system is fallacy. Hmm let me see here of the top of my head are you talking about the F22s alternate? the X craft that didn’t quite make it? ... mmm in any case your attitude is somewhat bad.


Post Script

We are the noughty people from the draftroom, and what we do is criticise designs. You however need your mouth washed out with soap.

Spartus, stop trying to argue with Doc. He has already defeated your argument..TWICE

Alright; here. I'll make ya' a deal alright. Since I know your a good role-player; and you adhere to RP'ing rules. While others don't. IM me at KGBFaTaLsHoT on AIM. I'll explain it to you over IM alright?

How the hell do you jam heat?

OOC: I hate to do this but it was used in combat

My bad! I didn't read the wiki article all the way through. >.<

Read the link above. Fission Mailed. Brainless; the Jean Bart used QUAD 380mm brainless fuck.

This is what we like to call a 'flame' don't do it again.

On the subject of IRjamming and the assosciated crap:

You can jam IR all you want, you can jam Radar all you want, you can even Dazzle LIDAR/LADAR and jam Atmospheric Sonar as much as you want. Any plane can be targetted with the right equipment, whether that equipment is a MMW radar, or LIDAR array capable of detecting the fluctuations in the atmosphere caused by super-sonic flight, or those caused by the radiant heat of such an aircrafts passage through air (both of which can be detected through jamming and are not affected by laser dazzling) and poweful enough to power through jamming. Or by simply homing in on the jamming signal. You can use Multi-static radar to locate the hole created by the passage of a stealth aircraft through a properly distributed communication network. A poweful enough radar (such as a naval MAESA) can get radar returns off of things you would normally need an incredibly sensitive MMW radar to detect (such as the flucuations in the atmosphere previously mentioned)

The only aircraft that is one hundred percent undetectable and incapable of being shot down is the one that doesn't exist and I'm not talking about 'doesn't exist yet' either. If nothing else you can fill the air with so much flack and AA rounds that the plane would have to be physically indesructable and heavy enough to counter the force of millions of impacting rounds to avoid being taken down.

Since modern infra-red devices work as LADARS [CO2 lasers are LADAR] then you can only dazzle IRs.

what in the name of god is going on?

Since modern infra-red devices work as LADARS [CO2 lasers are LADAR] then you can only dazzle IRs.

most IR detectors are actually sensitive photocells that 'see' in the Infrared spectrum of light. Four of these photocells are arrayed in a square pattern (more can be used, but four is the most common that I am aware of, except for all aspect IR, which use (I believe) 16 or so). A simple program is used to equalize the the detected intensity of the IR source among the photcells by maneuveing the missile. The system is very hard to jam or dazzle due to its simplicity.
(This is an over simplification and may skip over as much as 20 years of development. but unless something radical has changed I am not aware of, IR seekers still work on this basic principle.)

Yes, but Jean Bart is FRENCH. NOT ITALIAN. Jean Bart and Richeliu were bollocks ships anyway, more turret faults than the Brit 14" quads, no idea why you'd want to copy them.

W/E Still more proof that Questers is the brainless one around here.

Look mate. When you can talk about WWII naval history like Questers and design ships down to the last detail, and not spout on about some "TEH UBER METAL!!!!" that apparently defies all known weapons and physics, then you can call someone brainles, although I wouldn't recommend it.

Until then old chum, how about respecting those who actually know more than you, and not flaming?

what in the name of god is going on?

That's easy, even for someone who isn't actually involved like me. Sparta is trying to 'explain' his uber-wankiness by flaming those who know more about the subject than himself (which are basically all others around here.) and thus destroying your competition before it has actually started. My condolances...

most IR detectors are actually sensitive photocells that 'see' in the Infrared spectrum of light. Four of these photocells are arrayed in a square pattern (more can be used, but four is the most common that I am aware of, except for all aspect IR, which use (I believe) 16 or so). A simple program is used to equalize the the detected intensity of the IR source among the photcells by maneuveing the missile. The system is very hard to jam or dazzle due to its simplicity.
(This is an over simplification and may skip over as much as 20 years of development. but unless something radical has changed I am not aware of, IR seekers still work on this basic principle.)


The FLIRs on tanks are CO2 lasers. That's why IR and laser detection are one and the same on tanks.

That's easy, even for someone who isn't actually involved like me. Sparta is trying to 'explain' his uber-wankiness by flaming those who know more about the subject than himself (which are basically all others around here.) and thus destroying your competition before it has actually started. My condolances...Explain? More like proved to the point where people got pissed. Such as the quad 380mm's; Questers was whining like a whore up-until everbody dog-piled him. As for my metal I explained it in depth; ask Spit ass...

Explain? More like proved to the point where people got pissed. Such as the quad 380mm's; Questers was whining like a whore up-until everbody dog-piled him. As for my metal I explained it in depth; ask Spit ass...

Perhaps you could explain it again for the benefit of all here? Oh, and he was not 'Whining like a whore' as you subtly put it, but actually debating your points, albeit with perhaps less of a peaceful tone. You, however, cannot really point to people whining, as you've done more than your fair share.

Is it really necessary to insult people?

Perhaps you could explain it again for the benefit of all here? Oh, and he was not 'Whining like a whore' as you subtly put it, but actually debating your points, albeit with perhaps less of a peaceful tone. You, however, cannot really point to people whining, as you've done more than your fair share.Hardly subtly calling me 'Brainless' and such. Now STFU, and if you want it explained ask Spit because I'm not going to do it agian.

Hardly subtly calling me 'Brainless' and such. Now STFU, and if you want it explained ask Spit because I'm not going to do it agian.

Look old chap. There's no need for insulting, just like Macabee's said quite clearly. Perhaps if you stopped being rude and flamy, then things would calm down, no?

Just waiting until the wargames themselves might be a good idea - put all that anger to productive use, writing posts. That's the last I'll say on the matter anyhow.

Sparta cut it out or your out of here

Very much unnecessary to insult people. Keep it civil.

You can consider that an official warning.

To meander in on the discussion a little...Yes, but Jean Bart is FRENCH. NOT ITALIAN. Jean Bart and Richeliu were bollocks ships anyway, more turret faults than the Brit 14" quads, no idea why you'd want to copy them.Eh? The Richie's turrets weren't too bad, except for the top-armoring.

Here's your tradeoff. BB guns were almost always mounted in dual, triple, or quad turrets, for a variety of reasons.

The more guns you put in the turret, the less weight and space you need to shell out per gun. The Richelieu stayed under the treaty weight limits by using quad turrets.


However, the more turrets you spread out your guns in, the more flexible your firing patterns, and the less problems the occasional lucky shot or turret drive system failure causes.

If you really wanted, you could stick six or eight-gun 15" turrets on something the size of a modern aircraft carrier. Not really much of a good reason to, but you could.

Frankly, I consider the Richelieu to be a remarkable achievement in battleship design for the 1930s. Only later battleships (e.g., the Iowa) had a faster speed, it had a great torpedo defense system using bouyant foam, carried a higher percentage of its weight in armor than any Italian, German, British, or American battleship used in WWII, its 15" guns had great ballistics and throw weight, etc etc... and all under the displacement limits of the Washington treaty, which everybody else cheated on.

To meander in on the discussion a little...Eh? The Richie's turrets weren't too bad, except for the top-armoring.

Here's your tradeoff. BB guns were almost always mounted in dual, triple, or quad turrets, for a variety of reasons.

The more guns you put in the turret, the less weight and space you need to shell out per gun. The Richelieu stayed under the treaty weight limits by using quad turrets.

However, the more turrets you spread out your guns in, the more flexible your firing patterns, and the less problems the occasional lucky shot or turret drive system failure causes.

I think you're understating the problems with quad-and-larger turrets a little. A quadruple turret naturally has to cram four guns into a similar space a regular turret does with three, and that means something has to break; the turret either has to be absurdly wide, have terrible ammunition storage per gun, or, as tended to happen, be extremely overcrowded.

The quad-gun turrets on the British King George V class were very crampt, mechanically complex and difficult to service, and plagued by low reliability throughout the ships' service life. More guns in a turret is only going to put more machinery over the barbette and make retrieving and loading shells more complex, as well as potentially making working conditions worse for the gun crews.

Long story short, a six- or eight-gun turret would be an engineering nightmare that would hardly ever function adequately. And in the end, what's the point? Losing eight guns from one hit instead of three or four just makes the ship less survivable.

I think you're understating the problems with quad-and-larger turrets a little. A quadruple turret naturally has to cram four guns into a similar space a regular turret does with three, and that means something has to break; the turret either has to be absurdly wide, have terrible ammunition storage per gun, or, as tended to happen, be extremely overcrowded.Different people have different definitions of "absurdly wide," I'll guess. The Richelieu's 15"/45 turrets appear to be wider than the 16"/50 triples, and the shells were noticably smaller. As a matter of fact, the turret mass for the quad rack was 33% more than the turret mass of the Iowa's triples, although that's probably due to the much heavier side and top armor plating on the turrets and the internal divider. They were fully half again as massive as the KGV's quads. Much more room inside.The quad-gun turrets on the British King George V class were very crampt, mechanically complex and difficult to service, and plagued by low reliability throughout the ships' service life.So far as I can tell, the Richelieu's weren't plagued by any significant problems past the shakedown, which have been attributed to a bad shell design combined with the misuse of powder bags originally intended for 13" guns, rather than turret design. I've looked through the service record a few times, and aside from the shell misfires, the interior turret layout doesn't seem to have been a problem for the Richelieu in its colorful and extensive career.

I'll bet that the British simply tried to save too much space that time around. More guns in a turret is only going to put more machinery over the barbette and make retrieving and loading shells more complex, as well as potentially making working conditions worse for the gun crews. Long story short, a six- or eight-gun turret would be an engineering nightmare that would hardly ever function adequately.Mmm. Not quite as much as you're making it out to be... but there's just not much point of an eight gun turret on the scale of the battleship's main guns. Weight savings are minimal.

The Brits did use 8 gun turrets with the 2 pounder (octuple 2 pounder turrets could be found on many British battleships in WWII), but that's a much smaller weapon.And in the end, what's the point? Losing eight guns from one hit instead of three or four just makes the ship less survivable.Unless you're sticking, say, five batteries of octuple 12" guns on a Nimitz sized hull, or something along those lines. More than half your eggs in one basket is an iffy idea.

If it's not too late, I'm interested in joining this RP as an alternate universe to the main story of my nation.

Ships:

1x 108 kiloton Admiral-class battleship - customised design, screenshots of a similar design at the bottom
1x 98 kiloton Admiral-class heavy missile cruiser - customised design, screenshots of similar at the bottom
2x 10 kiloton Seawolf-class (SSN-21 type) submarine
1x 108 kiloton Nimitz-class (CVN-68 type) aircraft carrier, upgraded to 10x 20mm CIWS armaments

Right. The Admirals.

http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c34/pdsref/?action=view&current=ss00284.jpg
http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c34/pdsref/?action=view&current=ss00283.jpg
http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c34/pdsref/?action=view&current=ss00281.jpg
http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c34/pdsref/?action=view&current=ss00280.jpg

A bit like that, but think up some propeller pods and rudders, get rid of any armament clearly on the side or on the bottom, put the lower half underwater and you've got it. Therefore, there are three main triple turrets up top, all of them are 240mm coilguns equipped with a shell that has 98% accuracy at 60km that drops to about 90% at 80km, and really falls from there to about 80% at 100km. The missile carrier doesn't have any of the capital turrets on board.

From here on out, disregard any of the turrets you see on the ship image and read on.

It's equipped with some rather large 45mm autocannon dual turrets arranged in a total of 12 turrets as anti-air weaponry. Two clusters of four anti-air lasers act as pure anti-missile defences.

VLS on both ships are heavier Tomahawk Anti-Shipping Missile (from one ton to about 3) for bigger targets (range 1000km) and a Tomahawk variant as a carrier for six Harpoon missiles (combined range 1300km). 4 groups of 75 cells on the gunship and 4 groups of 75 by 2 groups of 150 on the missile carrier.

ASW is provided by a flight crew of three Sea King helicopters outfitted with whatever the USN has on them now, I don't want to look it up.

Ship is 320m long by a width of 55m, draft 25m and weight, as stated above, 108 or 98 kilotons depending on the class. Armor plating is three steel layers of 3 inches in all the important areas, with an inch of ablative gel in between. The ship is compartmentalized into no less than 20 units, reaching up to about 10 meters above the waterline. Maximum speed is thirty-three-point-six knots on a good day, ship is powered by no less than 10 and no more than 14 A2W nuclear reactors, intelligence is spotty on that.

As for the Nimitz-class carrier, it is outfitted with 35 carrier-based JSF, 20 S-3 Viking ASW, 4 E-18 Growlers (F/A-18 modification, it exists), 18 F/A-18F and 2 E-2C Hawkeyes for aircraft, and another 10 Sea King helicopters for rotary-winged ships.

Whew.

EDIT: If the ablative/steel mixture seems a bit too futuristic, then I could replace it with electric reactive armor or standard explosive reactive armor.

Different people have different definitions of "absurdly wide," I'll guess. The Richelieu's 15"/45 turrets appear to be wider than the 16"/50 triples, and the shells were noticably smaller. As a matter of fact, the turret mass for the quad rack was 33% more than the turret mass of the Iowa's triples, although that's probably due to the much heavier side and top armor plating on the turrets and the internal divider.

And the extra gun, extra machinery, extra crew provision, extra fire control systems, extra hydraulics and all the other 'extra' things that one more not-much-smaller gun needed. Loading four guns is more complicated; you have to split shells lifted from the barbette four ways instead of three, so you need a fair idea of where your new shell is supposed to be going, and that would only get harder the more guns one turret mounts. More guns firing in a closed space increases the potential for accidents or serious errors like the one that could potentially have destroyed the USS Iowa in 1989.

The Richelieu's configuration is also poor from the point of view of armouring; with the guns very close together in pairs, striking hits to the face of the turret would have a much easier time penetrating than they would against a 2- or 3- gun turret, simply because they're less likely to hit solid armour.

They were fully half again as massive as the KGV's quads. Much more room inside.So far as I can tell, the Richelieu's weren't plagued by any significant problems past the shakedown, which have been attributed to a bad shell design combined with the misuse of powder bags originally intended for 13" guns, rather than turret design. I've looked through the service record a few times, and aside from the shell misfires, the interior turret layout doesn't seem to have been a problem for the Richelieu in its colorful and extensive career.

This is largely because Jean Bart wasn't completed until after the war and barely did anything, and Richelieu only took part in shore bombardment operations after the Battle of Dakar, which are hardly the most strenuous of missions for a Huge Great Battleship. She did, however:

In a duel between the French battleship and Barham on 24 September [1940], the latter was hit by a 9.4in and a 6in shell, but there was an explosion at No. 7 gun in Richelieu's No. 2 turret and No. 8 gun suffered a blow-back which disabled both guns. (This incident was attributed to the use of propellant designed for the 13in guns of Dunkerque in conjunction with the new design of 15in shell.) Of the 15in shells rained on the port, only two hit the ship and these caused no serious damage.

By 24 April 1941 Richelieu had been provisionally repaired and was capable of 14 knots on three engines, but had only three 15in guns serviceable. A further incident took place with her 15in guns on 28 September when No. 5 gun in No. 2 turret suffered an explosion.

'Only three guns serviceable' despite only minor damage is hardly what I'd call reliable. Neither would I apply that label to a ship that suffered two serious ammunition explosions in a year and was reduced to 3 servicable guns even after repairs.

The Brits did use 8 gun turrets with the 2 pounder (octuple 2 pounder turrets could be found on many British battleships in WWII), but that's a much smaller weapon.

To be precise, it's an antiaircraft gun, not a battleship cannon. The two aren't even comparable; the 2-pounder pom-pom guns were 16-ton open-topped 8 x 40mm installations, not enclosed multi-hundred ton turrets; nobody's ever gone above triple installations even for large secondary guns except the few ships previously mentioned, which all have somewhat dubious records of mechanical reliability.

Unless you're sticking, say, five batteries of octuple 12" guns on a Nimitz sized hull, or something along those lines. More than half your eggs in one basket is an iffy idea.

Yeah, but if you're doing that you'll get torn to pieces by someone who decided to bring along 9 20-inch guns instead on the same sized platform and can blow you out of the water by smashing a hole through any one of your primary turrets because your ship requires an insanely wide beam to mount them and turns like a dog.

And seriously, you couldn't take a hull 320ft longer than Gneisnau and fit it with 31 more guns, each an inch bigger. By the time you have magazines fitted for all those weapons to have enough shells to actually fire you'll be sitting on a powderkeg and a single solid hit anywhere will blow the whole ship to kingdom come, while its own weapons will perform poorly against heavy warship armour and be prone to mechanical faults.

You mods should stop hijacking this threads before I call yourselves on you. :p

Okay I'm changing my force (once again).

1 x DCT-1 Advantage-class Dreadnought Supercarrier (500 fighers and 50 bombers, under 600 aircraft limit, 1 kilometer long, http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10946216#post10946216)

2 x DD-21 Zumwalt Land Attack Destroyer

1 x SSGN-726 Ohio-class

1 x SSN-774 Virginia-class NSSN

done

Hmm, I seem to be the only one with neither a super carrier nor a battleship type vessel in this war game.

New lineup time:

1 Carrier/Missile configured Mithril class Dreadnaught
2 Gun/Missile configured Mithril class Dreadnaughts
2 SSH 'Naiad' class Hunter/Killer submarines

Aircraft:
24 IF/A-14 'Thundercat' naval fighters
24 SX-24 Strike Fighters
24 PC-26 UCAVs
4 E/A-20 AAWACs

14 AH-49 Naval Attak/ASW helicopters
12 AH-71 light stealth helicopters

Patrol Craft:
8 Tiger-Shark class SWATH fast response boats

ok done oh by the way am going to add a twist in thats going to help bring international coroperation

*Bump*

Sign up ends Tomorrow

I'd like to sign up for this.

I would have 3 Los Angeles class submarines, 1 Nimitz Class Carrier, and 1 Ticonderoga class cruiser with Aegis combat system equipped.

your in

only a few hours left people

Sign up is over! all nations are final and so are there ships