Zoot Zoot Posted July 2, 2012 Report Share Posted July 2, 2012 [quote name='MostGloriousLeader' timestamp='1341183914' post='3001392'] [img]http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq256/gunny251324/CNRP%20Maps/CNRP%20Militar%20Equipment/BB-3.png[/img] Revised the Montana class drawing with the recommendations made. Just to make it clear, I'm not taking the hull of a Montana and modernizing it, I'm making a whole new class of battleship with present day advances in metallurgy, electronics and ship design, I'm just using the Montana class as a base for the drawing. This ship is basically a heavily armored arsenal ship with guns on it. I expect to to be able to take some punishment from normal anti-ship missiles but I don't know if there are any ships that can survive a ASBM missile. Also some revised stats. Type: Battleship Displacement: 60-70,000 tons Length: 920 ft 6 in (280.57 m) Beam: 121 ft 0 in (36.88 m) Draft: 36 ft 1 in (11.00 m) Installed power: 260,000 shp Propulsion: 2 x Westinghouse A4W Nuclear Reactors, 4 × steam turbines, 4 × shafts Speed: 34 knots Range: Unlimited Complement: 1,200 officers and men Sensors and processing systems: AN/SPY-2 AESA Radar, AN/SPS-73, Electronic warfare and decoys: AN/SLQ-32, AN/SLQ-25 Nixie, Mark 36 SRBOC Armament: 9 × 16-inch / 50 cal. Mark 7 guns, 384 cell Mk41 VLS, 2 × 5"/62 cal Mk-45 guns , 4 x 76mm Oto Super Rapido Cannon, 6 x Mk 110 57 mm cannon, 7× Phanlanx/SeaRAM CIWS Aircraft carried: 2 x SH-60 Sea Hawks [/quote] You need to lose the top two turrets in the center, you have no space for the magazine or loading mechanisms to run them. Put the rear sensor tower in their place and lose the excess space on the superstructure to make it shorter, this makes the superstructure less of a target. I would also lose the helicopter decks and replace with more VLS. Battleships dont need helicopters because they act within a fleet, and a fleets support ships and carriers all deploy helicopters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 2, 2012 Report Share Posted July 2, 2012 Damn, can people stop quoting entire posts? It's really annoying. I would say keep the helicopter deck. Adding more VLS cells can be fatal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted July 2, 2012 Report Share Posted July 2, 2012 [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1341189998' post='3001438'] You need to lose the top two turrets in the center, you have no space for the magazine or loading mechanisms to run them. Put the rear sensor tower in their place and lose the excess space on the superstructure to make it shorter, this makes the superstructure less of a target. I would also lose the helicopter decks and replace with more VLS. Battleships dont need helicopters because they act within a fleet, and a fleets support ships and carriers all deploy helicopters. [/quote] Well my intention in the placement of the 5 inch guns on top of the superstructures was to be like the gun on the Perry class frigate. The magazine and loading system would be built into the superstructure and seeing as this ship is definitely bigger there should be room. I'd also like to keep the ship helicopter capable as it provides some flexibility in mission capabilities and pretty much every modern warship has one because of that. Even corvettes usually have a helicopter deck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted July 2, 2012 Report Share Posted July 2, 2012 Corvettes has helicopters because most corvettes are very limited in roles without them. The Pery Frigate gun Was useless as it only had certain gun Coverage left and right of their position because the rest of the ship was in the way. You really want an ammunition magazine in the superstructure of a battleship? A ship that's GOING to be attacked pretty sharpish because of the threat it poses? That's stupid, sorry but your wrong on that. It doesn't need a helicopter because it's not going to be doing missions solo, it lacks sonar and so is vunerable to submarines and you can't run ASW choppers 24/7 because it's counter productive. That ship shouldnt be operating away from a fleet, so it needs no helicopters. Also, Kankou, sit on my middle finger, if you don't like the quoting, then deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted July 2, 2012 Report Share Posted July 2, 2012 Magazines are kept below deck for a reason, more armor. The superstructure has less armor, that keeps the ship stable. Putting those turrets up top is a bad idea. I'd pull the rear turret off your ship and pack all your VLS cells back there in one large magazine inside of armored sleeves. Not sure why you have a chopper, but I guess if you want the ship to operate solo on occasion it might help. Do some research on ship's prows. There are some bulges they put on the front of ships that provide stability. You see them on carriers, tankers, freighters, and larger vessels these day. Such stability might be useful for a ship flying choppers off the deck with a large wonk of explosive tipped missiles near them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) [img]http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq256/gunny251324/CNRP%20Maps/CNRP%20Militar%20Equipment/BB-3-1.png[/img] Removed the 5 inch guns from on top of the superstructure and replaced them with a Phalanx CIWS and a 57mm cannon. Replaced the 3inch guns with 5inch. Decided that I'm going to keep the chopper and otherwise I'm happy with the design. Edited July 4, 2012 by MostGloriousLeader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Seems good enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/hypersonic-craft-x-51a-put-to-the-test/2012/08/14/40697b0c-e61e-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_blog.html"]Seems like we're still quite a bit away from hypersonic fighters.[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 I wouldnt say quite abit away, the proof of concept is there, as is all the technology, mechanical faults are to blame with the tests failure, not technological as of yet. Although the waverider is designed as a missile replacement, not an aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 F-3 II 'Dagger' B-10 'Wraith' Lu-27 Condor Interceptor All of the above are wave riders or incorporate wave riding technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 I would still say that hypersonic missiles are and can be achieved, especially by some of the higher-technology-ranked nations in CNRP right now. I'm not even going to get into the debate on aircraft though... just sayin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Which is why I said hypersonic fighters instead of hypersonic technology or missiles. That being said, it was a mere food for thought. How it will be interpreted is up to players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 What program do you guys use to make those ships? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 Well, usually I get my designs from real life or proposed from Shipbucket (just search it on Google), then you have to edit them in paint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1345093480' post='3022352'] [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/hypersonic-craft-x-51a-put-to-the-test/2012/08/14/40697b0c-e61e-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_blog.html"]Seems like we're still quite a bit away from hypersonic fighters.[/url] [/quote] Are there planes going faster than [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_speed"]Mach 5[/url] in CNRP right now? Edited August 19, 2012 by iKrolm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 [quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1345357063' post='3023415'] Are there planes going faster than [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_speed"]Mach 5[/url] in CNRP right now? [/quote] The following: [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1345145579' post='3022476'] F-3 II 'Dagger' B-10 'Wraith' Lu-27 Condor Interceptor All of the above are wave riders or incorporate wave riding technology. [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 Can one use anti-submarine torpedoes also against normal ships, or is there anything preventing that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 The US Mk 48 does both as far as I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 British spearfish heavy torpedo does aswell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 I'm not sure if you mean the lightweight torpedoes, Evangeline, which are used by ASW forces like destroyers? The US has the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo"]Mark 48[/url], as Triyun said, which is submarine launched, then it has the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_46_torpedo"]Mark 46[/url] Torpedo, which is lighter and is surface launched from destroyers or light ships or helicopters. I'm not sure if the Mark 46 can be used, at the moment, against vessels other than submarines, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be too hard to strap some surface vessel acoustic homing guidance on it. Hope this helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 Thanks. Given the last reply, I guess it's primarely a matter of guidance, not construction for the Mark 46 Torpedo? It potentially can hit a surface ship, just needs to find it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1351343037' post='3045786'] Thanks. Given the last reply, I guess it's primarely a matter of guidance, not construction for the Mark 46 Torpedo? It potentially can hit a surface ship, just needs to find it. [/quote] Well, given the fact that surface vessels have used torpedoes for a long time to attack surface vessels, and in many cases, very effectively, look at the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tassafaronga"]Battle of Tassafaronga[/url] for instance, nine ships of the US Navy (including five cruisers) cornered eight Japanese destroyers. The Japanese destroyers launched a devastating surface torpedo attack, and sank one cruiser, and probably would have killed more had it not been for the exceptional damage control the US possessed at the time. Of course, the torpedoes back then really didn't have much in the way of guidance, it was guesstimation, point and shoot, trying to lead your target, that sort of thing. I think only in the closing year or two of WWII that the Germans actually were developing guided torpedoes. That being said, it would not be hard to fit a Mark 46 with the ability to attack surface targets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 The CHT-02D torpedo from DPRK has a ASW/anti-surface function. One thing to remember is that usually ASW torps are programmed to not go above a certain depth as a precaution to avoid friendly surface casualties. That's why these days it is hard to find a torpedo that has a dual ASW/anti-surface role, except for countries like DPRK that somewhat regards potential friendly casualties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1351343037' post='3045786'] Thanks. Given the last reply, I guess it's primarely a matter of guidance, not construction for the Mark 46 Torpedo? It potentially can hit a surface ship, just needs to find it. [/quote] Both torpedoes have the same max depth (Wikipedia), but Mark 48 also has three times the range, six times the weight, and six times the warhead of a Mark 46 torpedo. Surface warships tend to have more armor than submarines, so I wouldn't expect a Mark 46 to be anywhere near as effective against warships.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) Anyone know when the timeframe for the availability of ETC weapons is? Same for rail guns. I've seen a couple of articles and there's a lot of different dates given out for operational use of such weapons. Just kind of want to clarify before I proceed. Edited November 8, 2012 by MostGloriousLeader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.