NationStates Jolt Archive

PB-90 Patrol/Escort Boat
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/NS1/tankboat.jpg
The PB-90 is basically a Main Battle Tank for the sea. It is highly maneverable, heavily armored and packs a deadly punch. With a 140mm main gun (5inch naval guns are only ~127mm) it can threaten everything from merchant ships to Heavy Cruisers and Aircraft carriers. It's dual purpose rapid fire 56mm AA gun can take out low flying helicopters at long range(at least 4 miles) and can also deal with small, fast moving water targets.( like terrorists in small speedboats) Additonaly it has a radar guided 20mm automatic gatling Close In Weapons System. Since these were designed to act as raiders or serve as picket ships, they can carry two harpoon missiles for hitting longer trange targets in an emergency. These tube launchers can either fire the harpoon missiles, Mk46 torpedos or ASROC anti-sub rockets or a mix depending on mission. Also the ship is protected completly from 25mm machine gun fire and gan take glancing 5 inch shell strikes. Furthermore the superstructure and turret is completely watertight so even if a big wave crashes over it, water will not be taken on.
Power Plant 2 Diesel-Electric Generators powering 5 Submersible Turbines.
Max Speed: 40+kts
Crew: (5) Captain, Driver, Gunner, Engineer, Engineering Assistant/Backup loader
Weapons
(1) 140mm cannon (w/ autoloader)
(1) 56mm rapid fire cannon
(1) 20mm Phalanx II 20mm CIWS turret
(2) Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles, or (2) Anti-Submarine Rockets or 2 Mk46 Torpedos on side launchers.
Combat Systems:
AN/APQS-2 Radar Dome (for Phalanx)
S/AN-55 360 degree sonar
PD-CMPS GPS
PD-AN/APAC FLIR( in turret)
Full Radio Suite
Price: $200 million


Do not make OOC comments about the design here, for OOC comments go to
the OOC Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=483074)

you are really a noob at making boats TPM you should just quit NS that boat tank is ridiculous you give people with "The Phoenix Milit*" in thier names a bad reputation

Good for taking out oil tankers, supply ships, drug dealers, cruise ships, speedboats, yachts, gunboats, corvettes, frigates, tugboats, support vessels, troop transports and the like.

OOC: It's overgunned. I really cannot believe that this thing even floats.

It also would be very back heavy and lean too far back when it gets up to speed, a potential concern.

I can't read what you wrote but I am assuming it was something bad so I will use a variation of one of your lines.

Go nuke yourself :gundge:

OOC: He wrote basically the same I was thinking.

That thing is tiny for the amount of firepower its got on it. Not to mention the recoil from firing would most likely throw the boat about so badly that if it didn't sink, it'd miss by miles.

The United States Navy of Antarctica123 would like to buy 2,200 PB-90 Patrol/Escort Boats. We have alot of coast to protect and frigates or destoryers would be too muhc money and these will serve our purposes. Is there any way you could "winterize" them so they work well in freezing tempratures?

OOC: He wrote basically the same I was thinking.

That thing is tiny for the amount of firepower its got on it. Not to mention the recoil from firing would most likely throw the boat about so badly that if it didn't sink, it'd miss by miles.
Well if you did not notice the structure under the water line let me explain how it prevents spining, and capsizing. If to much force is put in any direction (backwards, left or right) a combination of reducing power to one engine and increasing it to the other will counter act the force. Moving foward while firing is not only possible but the standard mode of fire for all modern naval ships and the tank dervied stabilized gun can maintain its aim even in the choppiest of seas. Even if a wave were to crash over the deck up to the turret, water would not get in since it is sealed. In fact with the propper balast tanks and a snorkel it could be a submarine. It is also a heavier ship than it's size would suggest so the recoil would not be much worse tha a land tank experiences. Now if you bolted a tank on top a hull it would not be very stable but it could still fire at targets if the gun is stabilised like most MBT's are. But my design is more than a tank bolted to a hull, its wide body out riggers and engine nacelles provide a very stable firing platform, more stable than many other patrol bots, corvettes and frigates.

The United States Navy of Antarctica123 would like to buy 2,200 PB-90 Patrol/Escort Boats. We have alot of coast to protect and frigates or destoryers would be too muhc money and these will serve our purposes. Is there any way you could "winterize" them so they work well in freezing tempratures?
Order confirmed, but they are already suited for cold weather combat. We will however put them through more testing at our Alaska facility and make any adjustments.

Well if you did not notice the structure under the water line let me explain how it prevents spining, and capsizing. If to much force is put in any direction (backwards, left or right) a combination of reducing power to one engine and increasing it to the other will counter act the force. Moving foward while firing is not only possible but the standard mode of fire for all modern naval ships and the tank dervied stabilized gun can maintain its aim even in the choppiest of seas. Even if a wave were to crash over the deck up to the turret, water would not get in since it is sealed. In fact with the propper balast tanks and a snorkel it could be a submarine. It is also a heavier ship than it's size would suggest so the recoil would not be much worse tha a land tank experiences. Now if you bolted a tank on top a hull it would not be very stable but it could still fire at targets if the gun is stabilised like most MBT's are. But my design is more than a tank bolted to a hull, its wide body out riggers and engine nacelles provide a very stable firing platform, more stable than many other patrol bots, corvettes and frigates.

And waht happens when water gets into the gun barrels?

it stops at the esophagus-like breech

We are very interested in this design and will buy 2 for testing.

Order confirmed.

The R&D teams of the Republic of Aralonia agree with the sentiments made by McLeod03 and Leafanistan.

1.) When the main cannon is fired, the entire ship will rear up due to the high center of gravity. The weapon should to have a high muzzle velocity if it wishes to challenge CA-class vessels as you say, and the recoil from such as weapon would be unbearable for the design.
2.) If the cannon is based off of http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-62_mk45.htm , which requires a destroyer hull to stabilise, there is little chance that a small hull such as the one you show us would be able to stabilise the ship.
3.) The "wings" are too high up to serve as hydrofoils. There are no visible hydrofoil jets, which seems to be detrimental to the purpose of the ship. However if those are your main drive systems, even an underwater hit from a 35mm kinetic penetrator (as used on Aralonian vessels, for example) would sever important lines and disable major maneuverability.
4.) There's no chance that the ship could fire and maneuver at the same time. It'll flip and crash due to recoil.
5.) The coaxial 56mm cannon would, apparently, be unable to reach sufficient angles to take out helicopters at some angles of flight.
6.) There are no deck-mounted or sponson-mounted teritary light weapons, such as .50 caliber machineguns (Browning M2HB) or 25mm autocannon (Bushmaster-type) for use against soft targets if the ship is being overwhelmed.

Aralonian R&D suggests replacing the main cannon with a set of multiple lighter weapons, such as a multiple Bushmaster turret with side-mounted multiple-round box Stinger missile launcher, a la US Army M6 Linebacker AFV.

You are totally wrong.

1.No it wont, the recoil is negligbile since its based on tank cannon and the ship is much heavier, plus it will be moving foward wou
2. it is a tank cannon from our MBT
3. it is not a hydrofoil
4. that does not make sense, it is nearly a quadramaran
5. thats why i said low level, the 20mm CIWS would take them out at higher levels.
6. there is a 56mm and 20mm for use against soft targets.

Finnaly you have no IC knowlegde of Leafanistan or McLeod03's OOC comments so there is no reason for you to talk IC shit.

1.) Tank cannon do not have "negligible" recoil. Granted, the recoil is less as compared to a naval rifle, but to puncture the armor on CA-class vessels as you wish, a high muzzle velocity is fully required.
2.) See above.
3.) Very well - but the vulnerability of the outboard motors to collision is high when operating in reefs, etc. Why increase the potential surface area of being hit?
4.) Recoil issues addressed in 1.)
5.) 20mm CIWS has an effective range of 2km - a good attack helicopter has weapons with ranges of upwards of 4km.
6.) The 56mm cannon does not appear as if it can depress due to lack of visible mechanisms. As for the 20mm, without manual control a CIWS cannot target soft targets such as terrorist light patrol boats. As well, there is a large area that the 20mm cannot target because of the aforementioned inability to depress its weapons.

OOC: Right then, sorry about that. Didn't see the OOC comments on them - and it's really rude to swear.

Do you have a problem with seeing the 3d perspective or something? The guns can all aim at something within about 12 feet of the hull at the waterline which is plenty of room and modern crusiers are not heavily armored. The 140mm gun can get trough armor with a 800mm RHA value, which is by no means a strech since the M1 Abrams can do the same.
And a CIWS can shoot a baseball traveling at 600mph out of the sky, so it can kill a speed boat that is getting close.

The R&D teams of the Republic of Aralonia agree with the sentiments made by McLeod03 and Leafanistan.
[OOC: Erm Aralonia, those were Out-Of-Character statements, not In-Character statements.]

Blind spots do exist within about 20 meters of the hull, due to lack of depression.

20mm CIWS is designed to be fired at missiles and as a last-ditch weapon at aircraft.

OOC @ Southeastasia: Yeah, I saw that a bit too late, heh.

envelope of fire, just for you

it can hit anything in or beyond the red zone due to its low profile

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/zones.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/zones2.png

You are totally wrong.

1.No it wont, the recoil is negligbile since its based on tank cannon and the ship is much heavier, plus it will be moving foward wou
2. it is a tank cannon from our MBT
3. it is not a hydrofoil
4. that does not make sense, it is nearly a quadramaran
5. thats why i said low level, the 20mm CIWS would take them out at higher levels.
6. there is a 56mm and 20mm for use against soft targets.

Finnaly you have no IC knowlegde of Leafanistan or McLeod03's OOC comments so there is no reason for you to talk IC shit.


I can't be bothered to bebunk all this now, as I've got an exam in a few hours, but using:

mv-mu=mv-mu

I=mv-mu

-and-

F-R=ma,

(where R= recoil of the gun)

And a= would equal deceleration, which could be estimated as -10m/s-2.

The reason for this rough estimate is that firing the gun takes 1 second, and if it's travelling at maxiumum speed (40knts/20m/s-1) and decreases to half speed. Of course, the gun firing takes a matter of miniseconds, so this is a very generous estimate.

Using them equations would show that the tank boat would need to be exeedingly heavy, and have unreasonably powerful engines.

You weren't so kind as to provide the dimensions, so I wasn't able to calculate whether it would float or not, although, if it's the size of a tank, with similar dimensions, I doubt it would, if you assume that it has the mass already calculated.

Godmod

(one more thing worth considering is the failure of real amphibious tanks..... use google, it is your friend)

You can't use physics to quantify a ship for which I did not provide displacement, or dimensions so you can be ignored. I have come to realize the phrase "Arguing over the internet is like winning the special olympics, even if you win you're still retarded." still holds true.

The sheer viability of your ship depends on its overall weight and dimensions.

I am currently assuming it to be 2 times the mass of an M1 Abrams tank, or 120 tons, and with approximately 1.5 times the dimensions.

At that rate, the ship sinks like a stone. Does an M1 float?

No it doesn't you know it's a game, relax get out of the thread if you are not here to buy.

Right then. My point has been proven, this ship is unrealistic and would be detrimental to not only Aralonian forces but to other nations as well. One cannot fight many naval battles with wrecks sitting on the bottom.

One cannot make many posts with thier accounts on ignore.

No it doesn't you know it's a game, relax get out of the thread if you are not here to buy.

OOC. a game which is trying to hold on to what shreds of Plausibility and realism it has left.

This is why I started playing Alternate History RP's.


Because Retards make stupid ships and aircraft.

I mean if you want to look at recoil Problems, look at the Stryker Mobile Gun system, it was not put in production with the rest of the Stryker Units initially because when firing anwhere near 90 or 270 degrees, it'd roll over. And the 105mm Mobile gun systems uses one of those tank cannons.


For the Amount of Firepower your talking, it might as well be a corvette for the size it would have to be to float.

No it doesn't you know it's a game, relax get out of the thread if you are not here to buy.

Yes, it is a game

If someone buy's a whole fleet of these and deploys them against my conventional navy,and then claims to "win" as they have superior tech, what am I supposed to do?

This weapon system is a god-mod.

Further, I can use physics, however, on reflection of the bodged stat's you've produced I suppose any logical arguement would not be worth stating.

Have you been on the NS Draftroom with this?

Please do. They may help you iron this thing out into a proper tank.

In the mean time, look at the floating tanks used on D-Day, to help you understand the issues such a tank would have.

its not a godmod and you are ignored you dont have to buy them/recognze them if you dont want to just like I dont have to recognize doujins or hand held rail guns

The difference between the Doujin and this is that the arguements against SD's are largly logistical, and militaristicly inclined

This simply wouldn't work.

But, if you feel instead of trying to reason, you'd rather ignore me, feel free.

Show's the maturity of you.

And for god sakes, someone tell him to go on the draftroom with this. Perhaps they'll be able to explain to him what everyone here is a little more tactfully.

Unless you can do that, the ignore is mutual. Show's the maturity of you.

Do not make OOC comments about the design here, for OOC comments go to
the OOC Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=483074)