NationStates Jolt Archive

Design Proposal: Improved Battle Cruiser

The design purpose of this new class of ship is to provide maximum tactical support for landing operations as well as a deterrent/protection from naval counter-attack. To this end, the design maximizes armor protection and defensive measures along with a mix of direct fire heavy weapons and missile capabilities for both surface and land strikes.

This initial proposal makes use of our new design, higher velocity, 18”/54 gun as a possible compromise for armor penetration on heavy surface units and artillery support for land use. There is also a provision for four Jupiter III Intermediate range ICBM for maximum stand-off threat as well as a nuclear option. The Jupiter missiles have also been configured for a multiple warhead, low orbit and dynamic guided kinetic penetration rod system for threat use versus “Super Dreadnaughts”.

The armor for this vessel would also follow a new manufacturing process for alignment of iron crystals as well as an increased and efficient use of chromium. The increased strength over standard armor is a factor of 15-30% (depending on type).

Protection
Armor Belt: 290mm to 160mm (tapering to ends), inclined 20 degrees
Deck Armor: Main- 25mm, Second Deck- 120mm +
25mm-(w/15 degree camber), Splinter Deck- 15mm
Barbette : 400mm to 290mm
Main Turret Face Plate: 400mm + 60mm
Main Turret Side: 230mm (15 degree incline)
Secondary Turret Face Plate: 300mm + 25mm
Secondary Turret Side: 165mm (20 degree incline)
Conning Tower: 340mm

Underwater protection: Triple bottom with thicken second skin and fluid voids between. Sidewalls have triple torpedo bulkheads and crush stays rated at 900lbs of TNT for minimal damage. Vital systems have water tight integrity with 27 traverse bulkheads along the beam.

Length: 690 feet (waterline – 673 feet)
Beam: 110 feet
Displacement: 45,300 tons (mean draft – 26’ 6”), max- 50,400 tons (mean draft – 33’ 8”)
Power Plant: 150,000 shp
Type: Conventional, 3 turbines, 3 shafts
Speed: 28 kn with max rating of 31 kn
Range: 8,300 miles at 16 kn, 3,900 miles at 28 kn

Armament:
Main: Four 18 inch/54-caliber guns in two double turrets
Secondary: Twelve 8 inch/45-caliber guns in six double turrets
Air Defense: Four “Blossom Storm” tube-loaded 30mm cannon emplacements in turrets, 24 “Triple Strike” AA missile launchers in 12 double launcher barbette mounts.
Missile: Four Jupiter III Intermediate-ICBM in vertical box launchers, 8 x Weave II surface to surface in vertical box launchers with five reloads.

Air Compliment
Eight “Eagle Class” configurable RPV, 2x “Stratus” Sensor/Comm. Platforms.

If there are any countries that wish to share in this venture, suggest design changes, or make any comment, please feel free.

As a final note, this is not intended to be a world beating design or the basis for a killer fleet. It is intended for support work and landing protection with a limited production run. It is doubtful there would ever be an export version since the active life of the ship is expected to be at least 30 years with modular design upgrades.

OOC: Two things.

1. 28 knots seems a bit slow for a battlecruiser... consider our classic Iowa class ships could make 33 knots in the original design, and 35 knots now that they weigh less due to the removal of some of the secondary battery and all of the original antiaircraft defenses in favor of the more modern Phalanx systems.

2. Errr... intermediate-range ICBM? That's an oxymoron...

They have IRBM - Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles - already. Just go with that, I think.

Otherwise, I think you have a winner for a compact combat vessel. As long as you don't go slugging it out with today's 2-km dreadnoughts, I think you'll be golden.

Thank you for the comments.

1) Yes it is a slow speed, but given the weight of armor, turrets and missiles (the Jupiter launchers aren't light weight), the powerplant used is near max-out. The burst speed could be rated higher....but the max cruise would be around 28 kn. I could be rather wrong.

2) You are right, that was a moronic moment: It should be IRBM. That will be corrected on the final version.

OOC:
Well if it sacrafices speed in favour of more armour then it isn't really a battlecruiser, unless you are a weirdo like me whpo uses battlecriuser as a size classification as opposed to a role/type classification.

More details on your defensive laod out would be nice: I assume that by "Four “Blossom Storm” tube-loaded 30mm cannon emplacements" you mean metalstorm style systems? and for your SAMs how many missiles are we actually talking about 24? or is that just launchers?

The rest of my concerns are merely personal:
1: A VLS with reloads, kind of defeats the purpose of a VLS, if you have the room for soem kind of magazine under the launchers you would be aswell going with double length tubes and more of them.
2: Secondary guns, by goign for 8" secondaries you are limitng your AA capability, despite the advent of missiles a decent DP capable secondary battery is still very useful although size wise they tend to max out at about 6", of course if you use a high angle secodnary you can use them to fire ERGMs to about 150-200km
3: The IRBMs would be better repalced with a greater number of decent SRBMs(short range ballistic missiles) or longer ranged criuse missiles, currently they just seem to be an extravagance that isn't entirely in fitting with the stated role

These last three points are of course mere personal opinions and observations.

There are likely a number of people better qualified to make observations and suggestions, the best way to get thier attention is to post this on the NS draftroom forum, the link for which is in my sig.

There are likely a number of people better qualified to make observations and suggestions, the best way to get thier attention is to post this on the NS draftroom forum, the link for which is in my sig.

Or you could just wait for Questers to bump into this thread... He seems to do that more often lately.

In my opinion, this ship seems well-suited to it's stated role. I actually don't have any problems with it. Good job.

whats the cost going to be on this beast?

[OOC: Checks time. 02:24. No biggie.

OK, first things first. I, personally think its overarmed - 210 metres isn't much space, although you are only mounting a pair of turrets. I think a better setup would be 3x3 12", but its your choice.

The secondary armament I think is too heavy: Too large, and too many. [Did I just become Dr Seuss or something...] Unless you want to increase the length substantialyl (maybe by 30-40 metres -you'd also get another main turret in), I tihnk the best you could manage would be 4 dual 6" for secondaries. Then again, QF 6" guns are pretty good for AA, and a whole battery of 8" secondaries isn't going to do much. Again, its your choice, but meh...

Last things last - drop the 'ICBM' launchers, they're far too large for a ship this size, but I guess if you wanted four dual Moskit / Yakhont size missiles would fit.]

OOC:

I was leaning toward the 6" quickfiring, but I didn't know it the 24,100m (or so) range on them was a good trade off versus 36,500m (or so) for the 8 inch. Since the design is not for dueling ship v. ship but mostly to deliver weight of explosive ordinace, it might well be worth the trade down.

The box launcher was a thought to save space, but numbers of reloads take precedence, so it will have to be another type of launcher.

I mostly wanted the Jupiters for their low orbit capability to drop rods on Super D's as a defiance gesture. I also wanted the range of about 5,500km (like an SS-N-18) to make sure that any country would have to spread/alert their ABM systems over a greater area to be safe. All their systems add about 345 tons, an idividual tube length of 22 meters with a 3.9 meter diameter. For about the same amount of space and weight I can have 28 (or so) Moskit / Yakhont but their range is so short and low payload. So by hook or by crook they'll have to stay.

The 18" guns I figured at about 951 tons / double mounted turret so most of the ship weight would be the guns. Extending the length and increasing the reserve bouyancy with larger fuel tanks would increase range, give a better estimate on tonnage and keep the draft usable. The triple 12 " I figure at about 660 tons, about a 31% savings but at a loss of about 14,000 odd meters range. It's very possible to extend the ship, use 6" quick firing secondaries and retain the 18" primaries. The reason, the 18" gun can do much more to harden targets, plus it's a macho thing.

Yes, the Blossum is like the metal storm but slower firing (by about 1/4 to a half). The Triple strike is a missile with three independantly guided mini-warheads. They are poximity fused and can be set for a pattern expolsion. They also work well versus aircraft.

Signing off now for the night.

I would suggest going to ten or twelve double turrets of 5"/58 calibre high-velocity guns, actually. They'd be a good dual-purpose weapon, and you don't really need 8" mounts if you're going to have the 18 inchers.

Let's see. MetalStorm style PD systems are hard to reload while in battle, unless you have some sort of manipulator arm system - actually, that's not a bad idea, I might take that... In any case, normal gun-based CIWS (such as a 35mm rotary cannon) are popular nowadays as well.

All in all, this is a -very- impressive first ship in my book. Full marks for your time on NS.

Yes, the Blossum is like the metal storm but slower firing (by about 1/4 to a half). The Triple strike is a missile with three independantly guided mini-warheads. They are poximity fused and can be set for a pattern expolsion. They also work well versus aircraft.


Well by its nature Metal Storm should in theory have a dialable rate of fire and is a good choice for a non deck penetrating CIWS (i.e.e one like phalanx which simply bolts to the deck).

As for your SAMs are we talking 1 missile per launcher for a total of 24 missiles (plus possible relaods) or 4-6 round boxes as used by most RL SAMs

Well it really depends on doctrine and weight of fire. I won't calculate it, but if the tonnage of ordnance per second is higher on the 8 inchers than the 6 inchers, and this is shore bombardment... go for it. You should always assure air superiority in shore bombardment anyway...

[OOC: Care to sign up at the NS Draftroom (http://z13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/index.php?act=idx) for that?]