Triyun Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 The units were originally built with plug in play capability along the massive defenses on the Cochinese border. With that issue resolved they have generators now which can power them. The point here though is that Kankou's capability to put long range weapons in the field is gone, all she has are infantry. These things have a range of hundred of kilometers so you basically have 1.2 million of Lavo's men and 100, 000 of mine standing between her hundred thou something infantry and these siege engines. Combine that with air superiority and even if an occasional TEL with a smaller missile can be used against these, that just opens the TEL up to my air force instantly destroying it with its EOSAS, and downing the missile. You guys are analyzing this for large manuever warfare against a near peer competitor. The potential force (depending on Kankou's decision) being faced is none of those things, instead its a couple hundred thousand infantry dug in. In such circumstances bombarding seiged enemy units into oblivion with lots of fire power has a purpose and these can be deployed outside Tianxia unique at this time quite safely. If I were hitting an enemy with an air force, navy, and a functional missile force that wouldn't be the case but that's not the case here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Quick question, what are the standards regarding nuclear power generation? Do we need the nuclear power wonder in game? I seem to remember that the benchmark for that wonder was for fusion technology but I could be totally off. Edited May 16, 2012 by Altarian Republic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 Any nation can have fission nuclear power generation. The Wonder is needed only for fusion generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 Cool, thanks. Just wanted to make sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aiden Ford Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 Just a question. I see the term Sixth Generation Fighter thrown around a lot, but I don't see much of a difference between it and Fifth Generation Fighters. What is CNRP's Definition of the Difference Between them? I know Lockheed has defined it as a Self-Healing Aircraft, Boeing doesn't have a definition, and its widely accepted that it will most likely be unmanned with manned control craft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 Either the Next Generation Tactical Aircraft or the Next Generation Air Dominance program. Funny thing is, I think we've gone beyond those two programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Aiden Ford' timestamp='1337453100' post='2969549'] Just a question. I see the term Sixth Generation Fighter thrown around a lot, but I don't see much of a difference between it and Fifth Generation Fighters. What is CNRP's Definition of the Difference Between them? I know Lockheed has defined it as a Self-Healing Aircraft, Boeing doesn't have a definition, and its widely accepted that it will most likely be unmanned with manned control craft. [/quote] Extreme stealth, efficient in all flight regimes, smart skins, highly networked, extremely sensitive sensors, optionally manned, directed energy weapons. Edited May 19, 2012 by Centurius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Got a question regarding a battleship I was thinking about making. I found a design on that shipbucket site and 'modernized' it more or less. It's a bit larger than the Iowa class and I put a nuclear reactor and modernized weapons and detection systems on the thing. These are the rough basic stats from what I put on the ship. All the tech is within my means so I feel this shouldn't be a problem but how does the design look. I'd put up the picture of the ship but photo bucket is not really working for me. Type: Battleship Displacement: 60-70,000 tons Length: 280 meters Beam: 36 meters Draft: 12 meters Installed power: 260,000 shp Propulsion: 2 x Westinghouse A4W Nuclear Reactors, 4 × steam turbines, 4 × shafts Speed: 34 knots Range: Unlimited Complement: 1,800 officers and men Sensors and processing systems: AESA Radar Electronic warfare and decoys: AN/SLQ-32, AN/SLQ-25 Nixie, Mark 36 SRBOC Armament: 9 × 16-inch / 50 cal. Mark 7 guns, 432 cell Mk41 VLS, 16 × Tomahawk Missiles (ABL) ,9 × Phanlanx/SeaRAM CIWS Aircraft carried: 2 x SH-60 Sea Hawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Isn't that basically a Montana-class battleship with one turret taken out to accomodate VLS systems? I don't see where you'll be fitting in 432 VLS cells unless you're going to fit them all around the deck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Well with the nuclear propulsion system I'm able to get rid of the smokestacks and decrease the size of the superstructure clearing up more room plus I do have some fitted elsewhere on the deck. The helicopter pad is also somewhat built into the superstructure so that's less space taken up. I wish my photobucket wasn't being stupid then you could look at it and see what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Use imgur.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Insane crew strength as well, the Iowa class has what, 800 men? That's an older model ship with less automation built in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Around 1,800 during the Gulf War. I think we can reduce this number to around 1,500 or so given that MGL is not using the Mark 12 guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 [img]http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq256/gunny251324/CNRP%20Maps/CNRP%20Militar%20Equipment/BB-2.png[/img] Fixed it and there it be. Is imgur any better than photobucket? I always have problems navigating the site and albums and stuff for whatever reason. Plus the pics I upload don't exactly seem to come out at the best quality. So what's the opinion on this thing? @TBM- The crew strength I used was based on the Iowas after their 1980s refit. I've honestly never heard of a battleship with an 800 man crew. Granted I could probably use some technology to cut down on crew numbers but battleships are big ships and they need big crews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 It's a sitting duck in CNRP's ASBM environment, have you accounted for that issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 [quote name='MostGloriousLeader' timestamp='1341011109' post='3000210'] [img]http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq256/gunny251324/CNRP%20Maps/CNRP%20Militar%20Equipment/BB-2.png[/img] Fixed it and there it be. Is imgur any better than photobucket? I always have problems navigating the site and albums and stuff for whatever reason. Plus the pics I upload don't exactly seem to come out at the best quality. So what's the opinion on this thing? @TBM- The crew strength I used was based on the Iowas after their 1980s refit. I've honestly never heard of a battleship with an 800 man crew. Granted I could probably use some technology to cut down on crew numbers but battleships are big ships and they need big crews. [/quote] Design looks fine, the keel however really shouldnt be flat, neither should the deck. I would raise the prow a few meters simply because you REALLY dont want those FLS cells getting flooded when your sailing in bad weather. If the prow isnt big enough to break up the waves your gonna have problems. Personally, post this to shipbucket and get them to give you tips and critisism mate. Dont do it here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) 1. That's 12 x 16-inch / 50 cal. Mark 7 guns, not 9. 2. Putting VLS cells in front of the turrets is a bad and fatal design. 3. Not sure if using a design from 1917, before the innovations which led to the Iowa, as the basis is a good idea. Edited June 29, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1341011241' post='3000211'] It's a sitting duck in CNRP's ASBM environment, have you accounted for that issue? [/quote] Well that applies to pretty much every ship available. This ship allows me to have a very good anti-air/anti-surface weapons platform with the ability to upgrade with BMD capabilities when I reach the appropriate tech level. The best defense against anything is stealth but seeing as my screen ships aren't stealthy and the fact that naval detection is pretty much insta lol satellite detection there's no point until I can get to a tech level where my vessels can be stealthy. Would anyone be able to tell me when the SM-3 missile went into service? My tech level's 2005 and I couldn't really find a definitive date. [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1341011529' post='3000213'] Design looks fine, the keel however really shouldnt be flat, neither should the deck. I would raise the prow a few meters simply because you REALLY dont want those FLS cells getting flooded when your sailing in bad weather. If the prow isnt big enough to break up the waves your gonna have problems. Personally, post this to shipbucket and get them to give you tips and critisism mate. Dont do it here. [/quote] Alright, I'll keep your suggestions in mind. Honestly I just used the ship as a base design since I lack the ability to create a good looking one from scratch plus I like how shipbucket has all of the weapons and different systems scaled already. [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1341011901' post='3000217'] 1. That's 12 x 16-inch / 50 cal. Mark 7 guns, not 9. 2. Putting VLS cells in front of the turrets is a bad and fatal design. 3. Not sure if using a design from 1917, before the innovations which led to the Iowa, as the basis is a good idea. [/quote] 1) Oversight, I just copied and pasted the Iowa stats and I missed that 2) I'm not very familiar with ship design so what issues are there going to be? I assume issues with magazine damage or the effects of the guns firing on the missiles? 3) Well I'm not using the 1917 hull if that's what you meant. I just used it as a base for the drawing cause I lack the ability to create a detailed ship like that on my own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 [quote name='MostGloriousLeader' timestamp='1341018322' post='3000251']2) I'm not very familiar with ship design so what issues are there going to be? I assume issues with magazine damage or the effects of the guns firing on the missiles?[/quote] Magazine damages from the shockwaves and more importantly, enables the cells to be hit easier by an enemy attack. You should put the VLS cells behind the turrets. [quote name='MostGloriousLeader' timestamp='1341018322' post='3000251']3) Well I'm not using the 1917 hull if that's what you meant. I just used it as a base for the drawing cause I lack the ability to create a detailed ship like that on my own. [/quote] The design of the Tillman IV-2 is from 1917, with much less efficient propulsion and navigating systems, as shown in the positioning of the propellers and the rudder. Furthermore, the Tillman IV-2 is 975 feet (297.18 meters) long, meaning the weapons are out of scale (never mind that the guns here are 18"/50, not 16"/50). All in all, there is just too much a difference between what you want and your current design. Here is the [url="http://www.shipbucket.com/Alternate%20Universe/USA%20BB-67%20Iowa_%20Montana%201944%201%20AU.gif"]Montana-class battleship[/url], which fits your stats almost perfectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 I think the point I'm trying to make here is you are making this ship more of a sitting duck than it needs to be. If you are going for a diplomatic statement there are better ways to do it. This ship though does nothing in terms of striking fear or inspiring awe into the hearts of the natives so to speak. In this modern environment it merely encourages a target practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Isn't that just about what every battleship in CNRP are like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Yep, which is why I don't bother even fielding them anymore. Arsenal ships, that's about all I'd use the battleship slot for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1341051857' post='3000555'] Yep, which is why I don't bother even fielding them anymore. Arsenal ships, that's about all I'd use the battleship slot for. [/quote] I use battleships because they look cooler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 [quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1341074788' post='3000661'] I use battleships because they look cooler. [/quote]Cooler targets, then. *Paints a bullseye on Melech's battleships* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) [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 Edited July 1, 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.