NationStates Jolt Archive

The Neptune is the second naval product build by the Griffincrest Oil corporation to get a leg up in the naval world. This ship will also be marketed primarily towards Corporate Alliance members, and is guaranteed to pack a punch, whether in ship to ship combat or coastal bombardment. Named after the God of the seas, this ship will help CA nations to expand their influence and project military power.

SPECIFICATIONS
-Builder: Griffincrest Oil Incorporated
-Role(s): Battle Cruiser/ Fleet Escort
-Country of Origin: Blackhelm Confederacy
-Displacement: 25,000 Tons
-Length: 700 Feet
-Beam: 71 Feet
-Armament: 2x 533mm Torpedo Tubes, 20x Riverstone Cormorant missiles (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=559060), 160x Skynet missiles (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=533647) in 4 8-cell launchers, 2x RBU-1000 305mm ASW rocket launchers, 2x twin 130mm guns, 10x AK-630 CIWS systems
-Decoys: 2x Twin 150 mm chaff launchers, 1x Towed Torpedo decoy
-Aircraft: 2x Navalized AV-18 VTOL gunships
-Powerplant: Nuclear powered with Griffincrest Diesel engine support (140,000 shp)
-Maximum Speed: 26 Knots
-Armoring System: Steel/Tungsten (outer surfaces) armoring with Boronated Steel (inner surfaces)
-Cost Per Ship: $200,000,000.00 USD

It's too cheap by at least a factor of four, and how are you proposing to stuff 160 missiles into 32 cells?

It's too cheap by at least a factor of four, and how are you proposing to stuff 160 missiles into 32 cells?

They aren't all in the cells at once. They get reloaded after the first 32 fire.

They aren't all in the cells at once. They get reloaded after the first 32 fire.

Reloading VLS cells is something that has to be done in port, or possibly with a resupply ship if it has a crane and such and you're in a secure location with calm seas.

They aren't all in the cells at once. They get reloaded after the first 32 fire.

[OOC: It's nearly impossible to reload VLS at sea, simply because it's hard to get them from below deck and it requires quite and bit of time and heavy machinary. It also has much to much weapons for it's size, especially since it's a full 126ft shorter then the Kirov which it looks like this is based on.]

Reloading VLS cells is something that has to be done in port, or possibly with a resupply ship if it has a crane and such and you're in a secure location with calm seas.

I realize that. These are not anti-aircraft cruisers, they have just enough to defend themselves. They have the capability to hold the extra missiles in storage in case they dock in a CA port that does not stock the Umkhonto, or an allied resupply ship without the Umkhonto is the only vessel nearby.

I realize that. These are not anti-aircraft cruisers, they have just enough to defend themselves. They have the capability to hold the extra missiles in storage in case they dock in a CA port that does not stock the Umkhonto, or an allied resupply ship without the Umkhonto is the only vessel nearby.

Then you might want to actually say that in your writings, as right now it simply says that you have that many in the actual cells. However, I doubt that a ship that small has that large of a magazine capacity, especially given everything else you've put on it.

Then you might want to actually say that in your writings, as right now it simply says that you have that many in the actual cells. However, I doubt that a ship that small has that large of a magazine capacity, especially given everything else you've put on it.

Ever hear of the Kirov battlecruiser? 96 S-300PMU Favorit missiles and 192 9K311 Tor missiles in a ship not much bigger than mine and with more torpedo tubes.

Edit: And the Tor is longer and heavier than the Umkhonto

Ever hear of the Kirov battlecruiser? 96 S-300PMU Favorit missiles and 192 9K311 Tor missiles in a ship not much bigger than mine and with more torpedo tubes.

Edit: And the Tor is longer and heavier than the Umkhonto

As a matter of fact, I have heard of the Kirov. It's a good deal larger than your ship, and the 9K311 Tor missiles belong to a dual missile/gun CIWS system, vastly different from what you're proposing.

You know the Russians use a cold launch revolver system that holds more than one missile per lid. Lengthen it slightly and call it a day.

Technically since it is tilted so rocket motors that don't ignite simply land on the deck and not back into the tube, it isn't really vertical launch but hey, who is counting?

Does anyone know what the system is called that launches up to two missiles from rails and then turns back to position and is reloaded from the rear with missiles pushed onto the rails.

I thought BC was reffering to something like the 8-cell sea sparrow/ASROC launcher...

Leaf is asking about the American 'Standard' or 'Tartar' missile launch system, took up massive internal volume, and burned away chunks of deck plating, but wieghed less than a gun.

But eh...

BC, mind describing the ship's profile, as I'm certain you designed it uniquily to absorb damage and give optimal firepower and mauverability.

And what is so hard about swapping in and out a few VLS cells?
It doesn't seem any more complicated than reloading a VGS...
(As I've sort of invested in the idea of a VLS that reloads like a VGS...)

And the beuty of cold launch is that the missile is gar-un-teed to leave its cell.

This ship gets my seal of approval OOCly...
(Though size and stuffing remind me of the not too seaworthy Japanese battlecruisers of 1937 vintage... Which I guess is the reason for the slower han average max-speed)

You know the Russians use a cold launch revolver system that holds more than one missile per lid. Lengthen it slightly and call it a day.

Technically since it is tilted so rocket motors that don't ignite simply land on the deck and not back into the tube, it isn't really vertical launch but hey, who is counting?

Does anyone know what the system is called that launches up to two missiles from rails and then turns back to position and is reloaded from the rear with missiles pushed onto the rails.

is this it
http://navysite.de/launcher/tartar.htm

is this it
http://navysite.de/launcher/tartar.htm

This is the first time you've come through for me. Thanks.

The MK-26 Guided Missile Launcher is what I'm looking for and it is reloadable at sea.

This is the first time you've come through for me. Thanks.

The MK-26 Guided Missile Launcher is what I'm looking for and it is reloadable at sea.

reading what you said, i recall we use them on our ship's,so i when looking,did not know the name, only what they look like

And what is so hard about swapping in and out a few VLS cells?

Let's see, most US VLS missiles require a 'mission pack', which contains the missile, and transmits the data too it in self contained box, which is then fitted into the VLS, and connected to the ships electronics.

Swapping out this 'mission pack' is plenty hard, since you need underdeck space to store the extra mission packs, plus you need a way to get them above deck and get the spent mission pack out of the VLS and put the new one in. (reloading from the bottom isn't really an option considering the length of both RL and NS missiles.)

This is also generally time consuming and dangerous underway, even for a resupply ship, which would need a really long crane, or to be dangerously close to the ship.

VGS simply reloads like a gun, since it's shells don't need as much room as missiles.

And what if the VLS is an above deck 'building'?
And not using the American cell system, allowing direct 'breech loading' of missiles (since they are less than 6 meters long and ships are generally 10 meters from deck to keel or moe).
(Something more like a 'Katushia' or MLRS than VLS...)


Yes, I know you'd have to rip out some floorspace to do this...

Or horizontally loaded by sliding out the tubes (replacing them), tilting the old pack for reloading?

And no taking this [the hybrid MLRS/VLS] design, as I planning on using it on those Katanas and Olivers I picked up, it works pretty simple, so I'm not going to copyright it, it's pretty easy to figure out how it works, unless you are fixated on the idea that it can't be done.

I'm more of a landlubber, so I understand MLRS a bit more than I understand VLS... Except that VLS somehow allows for firing without requiring a rear exhast vent.
(most likely a series of gas vents that force the gas forwards around the 'barrel', which is also a handy way of keeping the rocket from frying any nearby 'furniture')

The problem with doing it like that is that you'll kill stability and make the ship extremely susceptible to capsizing.

The problem with doing it like that is that you'll kill stability and make the ship extremely susceptible to capsizing.

How big of a VLS are you talking about? (Length hieght and depth, number of missiles would be nice to know)

Plus, all ships can capsize, you just need to design them so that they don't...
(Or more correctly, so that it isn't very likely)

Its not like I'm asking BC to toss a Paris gun on there and elevate it to vertical...

And a Superstructure is generally taller and heavier in itself compared to the size and mass of the VLS tubes...

How big of a VLS are you talking about? (Length hieght and depth, number of missiles would be nice to know)

Plus, all ships can capsize, you just need to design them so that they don't...
(Or more correctly, so that it isn't very likely)

Its not like I'm asking BC to toss a Paris gun on there and elevate it to vertical...

And a Superstructure is generally taller and heavier in itself compared to the size and mass of the VLS tubes...

Another obvious drawback is that you increase the ship's silhouette and if I put a 40mm shell or perhaps an automatic 122mm shell through that tube, or at an angle, I can disable one or several tubes.

And god forbid it detonates, then that really ruins everything. The advantage to the Mk 26 is that it presents a small silhouette and the box it reloads from is part of the superstructure and is heavily armored.

And the advantage to below deck VLS is that it requires a hit from above or from the sides to penetrate, both heavily armored sections.

If you bring the armor up you get into the capsizing problems again. I just recommend using VLS like everyone else and not make your crazy prolapsed version.

Then again it isn't VLS anymore is it? Its more of Armored Box System.

Practicality? nah, I'm still looking for a gimmick, and isn't the goal of using guided missiles in the first place is to stay outside of artillery range.

Also, most destroyers are thin skined creatures, the difference between the armor given by the hull or not is almost negligable.

And most likely, by the time things start hitting the ship, those tubes will be very much empty... (or at least that is the theory)

Simply, even though it isn't efficient use of volume or tonnage, it an attemp to cram as many missiles as feasable into a very limited deck space, effectively turning a destroyer sized ship into a bombardment vessel.

Also:
Found GMLS 26 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-26-gmls.htm)
Mk 41 VLS (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-41-vls.htm)(Note the concept of Dual launch)
And the real Armored Box Launcher is already in use, for the BGM-109 Tomahawk...

Maybe I've been looking at the M-270 and GMLS Mk 26 for far too long, but it still looks feasable, if impracticle on larger ships...

<< OOC: The idea of reloading is applicable only to a launcher such as the 'Sea Dart' system in the U.K., the ASROC launchers utilized aboard a few U.S. Navy ships, or the handful of dedicated SAM missiles. They draw their inventory from magazines located directly beneath the launcher, which still means that there would be both above- and below-deck facilities. (Both of them highly vulnerable, as someone pointed out.)

If this is a cruiser we're talking here, then a dedicated external VLS system would clearly add to the stability issues if it was located on the superstructure. Not only that, but the superstructure just wouldn't be able to accommodate the magazine. I point to the Iowa class battleships and the Tomahawk missile launchers as a case in point: the missile launchers held one volley, and that was it. They had to go back into port for reloads. The same principle is also true with the VLS systems utilized aboard U.S. Navy ships.

Now, if this is an anti-ship missile we're talking here then a VLS system would be a one-use thing. There just isn't room to accomodate additional reloads for a large missile of that size on a modern tech naval ship. Torpedoes yes. SAMs yes. Even ASROCs. But when you start to talk about the larger ship-to-ship and ship-to-land missiles, you have a little problem with space.

Just my two cents.

EDIT: Just a note when talking about the MLRS system: the exhaust from those rockets is fatal to humans. If you were to use something based very closely off that, the decks would have to be buttoned down tight (as in nuclear/biological/chemical conditions in effect), and for pete's sake make sure there's nobody downwind! >>

An BGM-109 Tomahawk is in fact SMALLER than a standard 21" Naval torpedo.
(How else would you shoot one from the torpedo tubes of American Los Angeles class attvk submarines?)

So stating that you can carry spare torpedoes but not guided missiles is a bit hypacritical.

The biggest problem is finding a straight path between the proposed magazine and the launcher.

And since the ABL system on the Iowa class was just tacked on, with little regard to reloading, and that there was no additional space left to alocate another magazine on the ship. Essentially makes them a single shot weapon.
Kinda like taking a muzzle loader and turning it into a breech loader, and then stating that since you can't turn that breech loader into a repeater, all breech loaders must be single shot...

As for that MLRS quip, the Mk-26 GLMS had the same problems, and has yet to be completely removed from service, even though a VLS can fire the same missiles faster and without damaging the deck as much, since venting the exhuast up helps contain the missile's exhaust plume.*

And you still don't want to be standing on or even near a VLS while firing...

I also wonder how much armor Leaf gives his VLS hatches...

*So how did we go from a reloading problem to my choice of missile propellant?

(name ONE US navy ship designed and built after the introduction of VLS)
The Mk 26 was an evolution of the rack and rail based missile launchers of WW2...
What makes you so sure a similar advance isn't available for VLS?
The only hard part is getting clear access to either the breech or muzzle of the tubes while underway... And raising the tubes does exactly that...

The impracticality of this reload scheme is that you double the mass of the VLS and magazine while only increasing the number of missiles by 50% while cutting your rate of fire roughly in half.

Magazine reloading is also made a bit more complicated...

Going in order here.

Tomahawks are indeed smaller than the standard 21" torpedo tube, designed so because the first generation of Los Angeles SSNs did not possess the vertical launch system capability. The problem that it created was that if a submarine had Tomahawks in 3 of its 4 tubes, precious time would be lost if there was a sudden necessity for a rapid reload. Also, space that could be used for other torpedoes, mines, etc. was robbed to make room for the surface-to-surface missiles.

This amidst other problems paved the way for the incorporation of VLS into all subsequent U.S. Navy attack submarines. (You probably know this already Hurtful: I'm taking the opportunity to educate those in the audience who aren't aware of this.)

As regards your comments regarding carrying additional torpedoes and not missiles: torpedoes are another thing entirely when one is talking about surface warships. For starters their launcher will be located closer to the water, thereby meaning that all that mass that comes with the system (i.e. electrical equipment, the actual torpedoes themselves, the tube mount, etc.) is that much closer to the center of gravity. This cuts down on many things including excess rolling, structural weakness, et cetera.

On surface warships torpedo launchers are also a dedicated system: I have yet to recall an instance of surface-to-surface missiles being launched from a tube.

In order:

(I have) No arguement. [Not 'No arguements' as in "No argueing on Jolt", as that is commonplace, though frowned upon]

Again, no arguements...

US navy ships also have a tendancy to mount their Torps a bit high out of the water... Such as in above deck 'buildings' just forward the helipad...
While if I recall, VLS on American ships are generally below decks...

Perhaps, but US navy ships mount 18" torpedo tubes only, so that might be the reason why you don't hear of TCMs being fired from 18" SSVTs...

Edit: Final quest seems to have been edited out in your response, but I shall keep my reply.

And to the final piece, I was reffering to the rather fatal backblast present with all rockets, and the fact that whenever a Standard missile was fired from a Mk-26, paint tended to peel and stuff tended to get burned...
'Dangerous propellants' are all in how they are dealt with, VLS seams to remedy this to a degree.
(another reason why it was adopted, in the case of the Mk-42 VLS)

*Asks BC if we may continue this discusion here, as I'm sure this'll be settled soon, plus, think of it as free bumpage*

Above deck 'VLS' on Kirovclass Battlecruiser (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/Soviet_Battlecruiser_Kirov.jpg)
I'll also note, it has 'reloads'. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_Launching_System#Russia)

And thus, the arguement goes full circle, begining with BC's comment that the Russians are already doing it...

Dang, I'm copying the Russians again...
Can't I ever think of something someone else in Russia hasn't made yet?!
The only differance is that I move entire rows missiles into alignment (with or without tubes)
With improvements, I could raise magazine increase to 100% better than VLS of given deck space (a jump from 1 extra shot per 2 tubes to an extra shot per tube [vs conventional, actually 4 reloads rather than 3]).