Jump to content

CNRP2 OOC Thread


Uberstein

Recommended Posts

First of all, for all other matters I need an actual production version with all its faults and handicaps. So, why would here be an exception?

 

Second, the TLAM Block IV is still in testing as far as I see.

 

Third, I'm asking whether you can prove it being feasable to install new sensorics without running into issues like this:

 

Nonetheless, additional conversion proposals—including one to install the AN/SPY-1 Aegis Combat System radar[63] on the battleships—were suggested in 1962, 1974 and 1977 but as before, these proposals failed to gain the needed authorization.[67] This was due, in part, to the fact that sensitive electronics within 200 ft of any 16-inch gun muzzle were likely to be damaged.[66]

 

For other measures, like MTHEL, where are you placing them, as well as all the required installations? Uses up quite a bit of space, more than a Phalanx CIWS for sure. And if you installed all this, is the ship still going to be fine and not with serious structural problems?

 

I would say, if someone came up to me and said they'd want to fix Meteor missiles instead of AMRAAM on their F-15s or if they wanted to put ESSM instead of a Tomoahawk in their Mk 41 VLS, that's pretty feasable, because in the first case, modifications needed are rather minor, while in the second the launch platform is the same. But the Iowa was never expected to have for example MTHEL and even what it now carries was pretty much the best they could do, without running into issues. So, I'd think the reasonable approach in this case would be to have all changes that were made listed, as well as proof that these changes are feasable. If such cannot be given, then it should not be in the RP and some people will have to use a 1980's Iowa, which was after all retained mostly for naval gunfire support, and got retired for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

First of all, for all other matters I need an actual production version with all its faults and handicaps. So, why would here be an exception?

 

Second, the TLAM Block IV is still in testing as far as I see.

 

Third, I'm asking whether you can prove it being feasable to install new sensorics without running into issues like this:

 

For other measures, like MTHEL, where are you placing them, as well as all the required installations? Uses up quite a bit of space, more than a Phalanx CIWS for sure. And if you installed all this, is the ship still going to be fine and not with serious structural problems?

 

I would say, if someone came up to me and said they'd want to fix Meteor missiles instead of AMRAAM on their F-15s or if they wanted to put ESSM instead of a Tomoahawk in their Mk 41 VLS, that's pretty feasable, because in the first case, modifications needed are rather minor, while in the second the launch platform is the same. But the Iowa was never expected to have for example MTHEL and even what it now carries was pretty much the best they could do, without running into issues. So, I'd think the reasonable approach in this case would be to have all changes that were made listed, as well as proof that these changes are feasable. If such cannot be given, then it should not be in the RP and some people will have to use a 1980's Iowa, which was after all retained mostly for naval gunfire support, and got retired for a reason.

 

First: I cannot provide as such as it has not been done as you artfully pointed out, the ship was retired.

Second: I simply used that as the most updated version of the tomahawk as an example.

Third: I am aware of the AEGIS limitations on analogue controlled big gun warships, but it is feasble to apply modern electronics and sensor systems to a battleship because it was done in the 1980's, with much larger and unwieldy electronic systems. So using the modern, smaller, fiber optic systems, I would argue it falls under common sense to install modern sensors and electronics as well as modern radar guided fire control systems (similar systems used on modern warships gun turret for example), to big gun battleships, with the obvious limitations that come with old, big guns.

 

As for countermeasures, again, with the space saved using modern electronics, removal of obsolete systems provides extra space for systems such as the MTHEL. I also wouldnt not completely replace CIWS systems, there would be one MTHEL on each side of the Iowa, with the other counter measures in the form of traditional CIWS systems.

 

The 2014 Iowa is completely feasible as its main function remains as a naval fire support using its tomahawks, big guns and harpoons for strike missions and land attack mediums, with modern countermeasures in place to defend the ship from attack as part of a larger naval formation, as do not forget, screening ships provide the defence for capital ships for 90% of the time. But obviously as the ship was retired and is considered obsolete, I cannot physically provide proof of concept, and can only offer my theoretical specification based on existing, modern technology.

 

I do appreciate your concerns, but unless somebody like Triyun or Cent can disproove what I have said, or my explanation is not up to par for the GM team, then I must insist that my knowledge of naval architecture surpasses your own. That said, I will change anything recommended by GM's and/or our resident military minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you think you got more of a clue of naval engineering, I would hope that the GMs hold you to give sources and citations supporting your statements. Because I for one would not accept an argument of "Because I know it works", for something like this. This is not common sense and all you're currently doing is an appeal to your own credibility, which is not higher than anybody else's.

 

These ships were never fitted with the systems, so they should not be there, rules wise. There is no production version, heck, not even a concept of a modernised Iowa on 2014 tech level. Arguably, the F-35 has more prood of concept than your ship and we have debates on that one.

 

While old radars were maybe large and unwieldy, it does not say modern tech is more shock resistent to the blast of 403 mm main battery guns. There's no common sense relationship between systems being more modern, sophisticated and being more rugged to withstand this. As a bit of a related anecdote: When I was still in school, we had those old Nokia phones, which were a bit bulky by today's standards, but they had snake and they were modern then. Also, they seemed pretty indestructible. People could play football with them and you could throw them against walls, they held that. Do that with a modern smartphone, it most likely will be one expensive game of football. While that does not mean that modern electronics need to be less shock resistent, I merely wanted to demonstzrate, they are not automatically better in this aspect.

 

And if you replace all the normal electronics with optronics, space savings still won't allow for installing a MTHEL. Especially not if these savings are not concentrated in one location where you then put your system.

 

So, as stated before, I would say that unless something substantial is provided to support your claims, there should be no ship solely based on what you think is feasable, despite these ships never having been outfitted with such systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a highly reputable person myself, I would argue that modern systems like this are more susceptible to damage. They are squeezing out a lot more calculations in a given area, and we have gotten to the point of computer direction where quantum mechanics (yes, really) are becoming relevant because CPU (and the like) components are becoming so close to each other (because people want smaller systems, and data travel times are a big thing [close to speed of light or not]) that things are getting weird and interacting strangely. Imagine what would happen when those shockwaves start moving things around.

If it caused an issue then, you'd best tread damn carefully if you don't want it to happen now.

Edited by Horo the Wise Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I see Zoots refitting of the Battleships realistic, but he should go into much more detail about what these upgrades in specific are. A refitted Battleship would make a good command and communications platform since many modern anti-ship missiles like the exocet are incapable of sinking them.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you think you got more of a clue of naval engineering, I would hope that the GMs hold you to give sources and citations supporting your statements. Because I for one would not accept an argument of "Because I know it works", for something like this. This is not common sense and all you're currently doing is an appeal to your own credibility, which is not higher than anybody else's.

 

These ships were never fitted with the systems, so they should not be there, rules wise. There is no production version, heck, not even a concept of a modernised Iowa on 2014 tech level. Arguably, the F-35 has more prood of concept than your ship and we have debates on that one.

 

While old radars were maybe large and unwieldy, it does not say modern tech is more shock resistent to the blast of 403 mm main battery guns. There's no common sense relationship between systems being more modern, sophisticated and being more rugged to withstand this. As a bit of a related anecdote: When I was still in school, we had those old Nokia phones, which were a bit bulky by today's standards, but they had snake and they were modern then. Also, they seemed pretty indestructible. People could play football with them and you could throw them against walls, they held that. Do that with a modern smartphone, it most likely will be one expensive game of football. While that does not mean that modern electronics need to be less shock resistent, I merely wanted to demonstzrate, they are not automatically better in this aspect.

 

And if you replace all the normal electronics with optronics, space savings still won't allow for installing a MTHEL. Especially not if these savings are not concentrated in one location where you then put your system.

 

So, as stated before, I would say that unless something substantial is provided to support your claims, there should be no ship solely based on what you think is feasable, despite these ships never having been outfitted with such systems.

 

Ive made my argument and im not prepared to argue the point any further with you Eva, not when there are better minds than ours who could provide an answer, or even better, the GM's to make a decision on it if offends you so much.

 

But as it stands, the only thing i have done, is put new systems on an old ship, exactly the same thing they did in 1980/1990/1991. The principle remains the same. Im done talking with you over it Eva. If you really wanna get on peoples case, perhaps you should look at MTHELS on jeeps and arsenal ships being used by players, then come and talk to me about proof of concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ive made my argument and im not prepared to argue the point any further with you Eva, not when there are better minds than ours who could provide an answer, or even better, the GM's to make a decision on it if offends you so much.

 

But as it stands, the only thing i have done, is put new systems on an old ship, exactly the same thing they did in 1980/1990/1991. The principle remains the same. Im done talking with you over it Eva. If you really wanna get on peoples case, perhaps you should look at MTHELS on jeeps and arsenal ships being used by players, then come and talk to me about proof of concept.

I will get on cases when I feel like it. Just because I argue against one thing does not mean I necessarily condone other stuff.

 

The thing about refits in all the previous cases is: They actually happened. yours did not. We know, the earlier refits were possible, as they worked out IRL. yours we have nothing about, but your word. So, I'd say proof or the ship should be a normal Iowa with the 80's refit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D_.28CSS-5_Mod-4.29_Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

 

You might find this interesting if you are dealing with Zoot's aggression.

I'm not dealing with Zoot's aggression, I know the missile and actually used them as China and I have better ways to deal with his ships. But thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Refitting old weapons systems in the navy is common practice. The Iowa and other old weapons platforms should be permitted to be upgraded and the older components removed. I think if these are detailed in a fact book before the beginning of engagement or documented in a place which is reference-able to see that it wasn't just magically whipped up into existence that it should be allowed so long as the dimensions of the weapons systems are taken into account to give a realistic count. For example replacing a 16 inch gun battery with vertical launch systems is a plausible upgraded but would require an explanation as to how they arrived at the number of vls systems could fit in the hull and it may be good to consult a gm and other players if one is not up to speed on the dimension of such systems. Probably would be good to get a GM to confirm the upgrade as well and link to it in the place where the confirmation is documented. Keep in mind upgrades would have to be done to systems whose current function is known and within the tech scale, anything beyond would be optional recognition.

 

I consider my ships to all be upgraded with modern raytheon combat suites as noted in my factbook and I would like for that to not be optional recognition. However, I've not removed my old 16 inch guns on my battleships in favor of missiles yet... because I'm going to wait for rail guns to become a thing in rl before I upgrade them.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i announced very publicly over the past few weeks, there's no Alvonian presence in the former Polish protectorate or in Niederschlesien, Lebus, or Vorpommern, which is where I assume Horo is attacking.

I meant the areas of Poland you had annexed. And last I heard, Prussia is hitting them as well.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/123344-polish-problems/?p=3292763

Unless I'm getting the map of Alvonia wrong, which is entirely possible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You going to purge Prussians from my land in favour of Japanese, or are you just going to keep throwing toys out of your pram?

They wish they could be the mighty prussians thats why they draw all the anime characters with blond hair and blue eyes, dye their hair, and wear natzi uniforms as 'fashion'!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, some people merely see what they want to see, disregarding the bigger picture and structures to which they seem utterly oblivious. If Japan has an issue with what Romania is doing, feel free to actually respond to our diplo thread and tell my Queen about it. Otherwise, I do not really care...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/123344-polish-problems/#entry3292857

 

So, Markus. Care to explain where your aircraft take off from? It seems you ignored the volley of cruise missiles and ballistic missiles targetting your military and civilian runways. And I'm pretty sure, without those, your fighters will have a hard time getting in the air, not to mention a Tu-95 turboprop strategic bomber.

 

Please fix this. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...