Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 6  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
Aloysius
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 9th, 2022, 4:42 pm
Offline
Posts: 105
Joined: January 31st, 2021, 3:49 am
Not gonna lie, might be the good idea fairy whispering in my ear but I actually kind of like the concept of the Tanker-Battleship-Arsenal Ship on paper, despite those "Battleship Vertical Guns" being just baffling. It does exactly the kind of thing the Iowas were good at doing at the end of their careers (VLS platforms with shore bombardment capability) for (in theory) cheap, and might be especially scary to someone like China with all their South-China Sea fortifications, ignoring of course the fact that DF-21s would probably eat this thing for breakfast even with AEGIS capability (Defense-saturation and so on).
Slight nit-pick though, those choppers should probably be Knighthawks rather than Seahawks. Great entry BTW, very well done.

_________________
Доброе утро, последний герой!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TNGShM
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 11th, 2022, 2:35 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 41
Joined: November 20th, 2021, 7:54 pm
Location: USA
Revenge-class Guided Missile Battleship
[ img ]

General Characteristics:
Length - 245.4m (wl)
Beam - 32.9m
Draft - 11.5m/9.6m (dome/hull)
Displacement - 44,536t (standard), 52,214t (full)
Propulsion - 4 x screws, 4 x Republic Industries geared steam turbines, 8 x FDJ boilers, 193,500hp
Speed - 32.5kt
Range - 8000nmi (18kt)

Armament
- Six 41cm /50 Type 39 guns (2xIII) mounted all forwards - 110 rounds per gun
- Eight 13cm /54 Type 57 guns (4xII) mounted on the sides slightly aft of amidships - 300 rounds per gun
- Two Type 67 short range SAM launchers mounted on the sides slightly forward of amidships- 40 round magazine with Type 59 SAMs
- One Type 62 medium range SAM launcher mounted aft - 75 round magazine with 55 Type 58 SAMs and 20 Type 60 Anti-Submarine Rocket
- Four Type 65 missile tubes mounted slightly forwards of amidships, two per side - one Type 63 anti-ship cruise missile per launcher
- Two Type 60 torpedo tubes mounted aft, one per side - Three 31cm Type 57 anti-submarine torpedoes, 12 reloads per launcher
- Up to 10 helicopters housed in a two level hangar

Sensors and Processing Equipment
- Type 61 3D air search radar
- Type 59 2D air search radar
- Type 64 heightfinding air search radar
- Type 66 air search radar
- Type 63 sonar
- Type 59 fire control radar
- Type 58 fire control radar

Armor
Belt - 31cm inclined outwards at 19 degress
Deck - 21cm total (2cm-3.8cm-15.2cm from top to bottom)
Conning Tower - 41cm
Primary turrets - 41cm face, 24cm sides, 31cm rear, 18cm top
Secondary turrets - 2.5cm all around
Missile magazines - 15.2cm armored box
Cruise missile box launchers - 7.6cm

Complement
1557

Ships in class
Revenge
Laid down: 7 March 1964
Completed: 29 September 1967
Commissioned: 14 October 1967
Status: undergoing refit
Resolution
Laid down: 30 January 1965
Completed: 19 June 1968
Commissioned: 11 July 1968
Status: active

In the early 1960s, it was decided that the mothballed fast battleships were no longer suitable for modern warfare and would be scrapped. Of the four ships in the class, two were preserved as a museum ship while the other two were scrapped. However, this left a gap in the Alteias Republic's naval doctrine, which relied on the battleships for heavy coastal bombardment duties (mostly for the reason that a shell is cheaper than a guided missile). As a result, designs for a modern battleship were drawn up and the first ship of the new class was laid down in late 1964. As a cost-saving measure, the mounts of the old battleships, which hadn't seen much use apart from coastal bombardment) were reused. Mounts commonly found on destroyers were used for the battleship's secondary and anti-submarine armament. Cutting edge missile technology was also installed. The Revenge-class was the first class to mount the new Type 67 launchers (while an older mount was originally considered, the navy decided that there was no reason not to install the new launchers, which were of a similar size and weight to the old ones). The Type 62, while not brand new, was still a very capable weapons system at the time of building. While the ship was originally designed to mount four more twin 13cm mounts forwards of the boat cranes, it was realized that the ship had no long-range anti-ship weaponry, and as a result, four anti-ship cruise missile launchers were fitted instead. The remaining 41cm mounts left over from the scrapping would be retained as spares.

Although their primary missions were shore bombardment and carrier escort, they showed promise as antisubmarine task force flagships, helped by their large hangar which can hold up to ten helicopters, although only eight are usually carried. While they have yet to fire their guns in anger, they have still led very active lives. Both Revenge and Resolution have gone on goodwill cruises around the world as well as providing disaster relief to areas that have been struck by natural disasters. They also regularly patrol the waters of the Alteias Republic, on occasion shadowing the ships of foreign powers. On one occasion, Revenge was forced to train its guns on a foreign warship before it finally left Altesian waters. Recently, the two ships are beginning to show their age. It was therefore decided that the two ships would undergo a modernization program. In addition, plans for a replacement are under discussion. In the meantime, guided rounds have been trialed for the first time on Resolution, increasing the main battery's range and accuracy. The Revenge-class has been modernized once before in the early 1980s when it was refitted with modern missiles, with the Type 79M/S (medium/short range) replacing the Type 59, and the Type 79L (long range) replacing the Type 58. The Type 60 rocket was retained as there was no need to replace an effective weapon.

_________________
I don't know what I'm doing half the time so please cut me some slack.

CURRENT AND PLANNED PROJECTS (in order of first priority)
- Altesian battlecruisers
- Altesian destroyers
- Altesian cruisers
- Altesian ironclads
- History & maps of the Alteias Republic AU


Last edited by TNGShM on January 17th, 2022, 1:15 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
rdfox76
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 16th, 2022, 3:26 am
Offline
Posts: 10
Joined: November 11th, 2015, 2:15 pm
Kingdom of Tet Satou, King's preliminary battleship design concept of 1952 "Inadvisable"
[ img ]

Following World War Two, a rift opened between the Kingdom's Admiralty and the King himself. The admirals, pointing to the recent experience of the Pacific War, were requesting fleet carriers as the new capital ships due to commission in 1952. However, King Valea Fa'amoemoe took a different lesson from the recently-concluded war and the technological developments it spurred.

His theory was that the guided missiles that the US Navy Bureau of Ordnance was developing would essentially render air attack on modern fleets impossible, as the missiles would be able to engage at long enough ranges to allow them to completely destroy any inbound strike long before it could release bombs or torpedoes. This, he reasoned, would effectively neuter aircraft carriers completely, leaving them essentially ineffective after about 1960; this would, then, lead to navies reverting to the use of battleships to be the ultimate arbiters of naval power. Thus, according to his line of reasoning, it would be a waste for the Kingdom to build some expensive fleet carriers that would only be useful for about a decade, and that it would be much wiser to instead build new, modern battleships, to get a leg up on the inevitable battleship race that would ensue.

While there were many objections to this particular interpretation of reality (including the points that BuOrd hadn't managed to deliver on their promises regarding anything more advanced than guns and shells since approximately World War One, and that guided missiles could just as easily be applied to aircraft to give them the standoff range needed to attack ships armed with guided missiles), the King would not be dissuaded from his position, and thus the capital ship modernization cycle ground to a halt with a three-way standoff between the King (who wanted battleships), the Admiralty (who wanted fleet carriers), and Parliament (who wanted to pay off the debts incurred fighting Japan and wanted to know why the hell they needed new ships when they just got a bunch of new ships during the war, anyway). The Admiralty refused to officially request new battleships of Parliament, the King refused to authorize the construction of new aircraft carriers, and Parliament was arguing that there wasn't enough money to pay for either of them.

The stalemate lasted long past the anticipated 1948 start-of-construction date, with the three sides continuing to lock horns on the issue well into 1951, when the King decided that the Admiralty and Parliament would fall into line if they could only see what his design concept was. Using his authority as commander-in-chief, the King ordered the Navy's designers to prepare a preliminary design scheme based on his specifications.

There was little enthusiasm among the design team (who largely agreed with the Admiralty position), and work proceeded in a fairly desultory manner, with some later suggestions that members of the team may not have tried quite as hard as usual to fully optimize the design study. Still, by the spring of 1952, a preliminary design sketch and artist's impression were complete, ready to show the doubters.

The details were actually fairly impressive. The ship would have overall dimensions that coincidentally matched the US Navy's abortive Montana class battleship design (indeed, the designers later admitted to having taken much from the American design to streamline the design process), and would displace just under 66,000 tons standard, or about 76,400 tons at full load. A 170,000 shaft horsepower machinery plant--taken wholesale from the Montana class--would drive the ship through four screws; with the use of a transom stern, it was expected to make about 31 knots on trials, and a bit over 29 knots in service.

The ship was to have three of the same turrets as used on the 1942 Sentinel-class battleships, each holding four 14"/50-caliber guns. As these turrets had been originally designed as the planned armament for the US Navy's North Carolina class battleships, the designers dryly noted that a switch to three-gun turrets for 16"/45 or 16"/50 weapons would be entirely feasible "if such an increase in firepower is seen as desirable." All main guns would be concentrated forward of the superstructure, to provide a clear space for missile systems aft. The ship's secondary battery would consist of twelve 5"/54-caliber guns in new twin mountings to be derived from the US Navy's new Mark 42 single mount. There would be a tertiary short-range antiaircraft battery of 13 twin-mounted 3"/50RF Mark 27 guns for close-in air defense work.

Aft of the superstructure, a considerable guided missile battery would be installed. The plan was to carry the RIM-8 Talos long-range guided missile, using the Mark 7 Guided Missile Launch System. Forward of, and above, the Talos battery would be a Mark 4 GMLS for the RIM-2 Terrier short-range guided missile; the theory was that this would provide a multilayered air defense bubble around the ship while maximizing the number of missiles carried.

Due to the concentration of weight forward that this arrangement would require, a unique hull form was suggested, fuller forwards to shift the center of buoyancy towards this increased weight concentration. Aft, due to the relatively light, but bulky, missile systems, outboard skegs were used to allow the designers to carve out a tunnel to reduce buoyancy aft and further shift the center of buoyancy, keeping the ship on an even trim.

Armor was to be very heavy, matching or even exceeding that of the US Montana class. The main belt was to be 17.1 inches thick, inclined at 19 degrees, while deck armor added up to a total thickness of over ten inches, though this was distributed through a three-layered system that featured a main armor deck of about seven inches. Full torpedo protection would be provided, and as with the Montana class, underwater bulges would be incorporated into the design from the start to provide additional waterplane area and stability.

While this may seem like a powerful and capable ship, the official report that accompanied the design study was rather scathing. The executive summary portion described the ship as "a thoroughly modern and powerful unit that would be utterly unable to ever catch up with, much less reach firing range of, any target worthy of its main battery." It also stated that purchasing any such ships would be "inadvisable," a phrase that quickly became the generally accepted name of the design. (Reputedly, the King had wished to have the first ship named "Thunderchild," but with the general opposition to the design, such a name was never actually used for it.)

As could be expected, the design study and report failed to break the deadlock, and the delays in the modernization cycle continued through into 1956, when King Valea Fa'amoemoe passed away. His son, having taken the throne, was more amenable to arguments in favor of naval airpower, and while there was some political jockeying involved to get the funding from Parliament, in 1957, the Majesty-class "aviation cruisers" (a ploy to avoid the lobby in Parliament who refused to vote funds for any capital ship, but would approve new cruisers) would be ordered, entering service in 1962.

There was one last gasp for the Inadvisable design study, though. In the mid-1960s, the TSRN was examining what it was going to do about the impending loss of heavy naval gunfire support, with the Sentinel class battleships--the last big-gun capital ships of the fleet--due to retire in 1972, with the war-built heavy cruisers due to retire over the following decade. There was a proposal that the Inadvisable design could be revived, modernized, and built as replacements for the Sentinels in the naval gunfire support role; it quickly became clear, however, that such a design was not only heavily dated, but also would be overkill for a pure NGFS role, where a single turret four-gun 14"/50 turret could easily provide more than enough fire for any realistic mission. The proposal was back-burnered; the 1967 determination that naval guns larger than 8" caliber were "a luxury, not a necessity" in the NGFS role was the final nail in the coffin for any "new battleship" possibilities in the TSRN.


Last edited by rdfox76 on January 16th, 2022, 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TNGShM
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 16th, 2022, 5:11 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 41
Joined: November 20th, 2021, 7:54 pm
Location: USA
Might just be me but I think you forgot to delete some pink lines on both the side and top views, one on the aftmost mast, one on the top Terrier fire control radar (for both side/top views), and one on the funnel on the top view.

_________________
I don't know what I'm doing half the time so please cut me some slack.

CURRENT AND PLANNED PROJECTS (in order of first priority)
- Altesian battlecruisers
- Altesian destroyers
- Altesian cruisers
- Altesian ironclads
- History & maps of the Alteias Republic AU


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
rdfox76
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 16th, 2022, 2:50 pm
Offline
Posts: 10
Joined: November 11th, 2015, 2:15 pm
You're right, I did. I'll fix those and update the post. (I was blitzing the final detail run and cleanup to get it done by midnight last night because I thought I was at the deadline, so I was getting some double-vision by that point...)

And fixes applied. Thanks for the note, I knew there was something I was forgetting when I was finishing it up!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Themax
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 16th, 2022, 3:08 pm
Offline
Posts: 50
Joined: April 14th, 2019, 7:03 pm
Location: Paris, France
Kanystal Class Multi-Mission Cruiser
Jack of all trades, master of none is how some critics of the program would describe the Kanystal class, said to be a multi-mission cruiser that would rule the wave by itself, it is especially efficient at shore bombardment while retaining very good capabilities in surface warfare, air defense, submarine warfare and even ballistic missile defense, however, all of this came at a cost, a staggering cost.

Designed to replace an ageing class of guided missile cruisers from the 1960s, the Kanystal was born from a program given 12 billion dollars, and was to fullfill the role of a "high-proficiency / battle-action fleet core vessel, meanig it had to be good in all fields. Despite the initial plans for a large fleet of "multi-mission destroyers" of correct dimensions, lobbying eventually led to the creation of the Kanystal class, a class of 236m long cruisers equipped with all kind of weapons, a new combat management system and intended to overcome any threat it could face.

At first, the project was on track to be a success, but fitting all kind of equipment and making it as efficient as possible meant that things would quickly go out of control, and when the first ship entered service in 2021, the 12 billion dollars project had already turned 26 billion, and only the hulls that were already in construction were saved from cancellation. In service, the Kanystal class would be just as efficient as promised, with most of the flaws quickly corrected, proving to be a threat at sea that was convincing enough for countries such as China or Russia being ready to send an entire fleet to keep an eye on it, however, the cost had doubled and in the long run, this large excess in cost proved detrimental to another project Arceneaux deemed vital, with the déferlante class "special mission vessel" being reduced to 2 ships instead of the 4 planned, but also to numerous high-ranking members of the navy themselves who soon enough saw themselves sued for corruption and conflict of interest, sparking a nation-wide scandal that would be known in history as the Kanystal Scandal and lead to the impeachment of 2 successive governments with an anti-militarist government being elected afterward. This political turn of event would greatly slow Arceneaux Ambitions to acceed to the head of the Association of Nations for Security, helping Vietnam succeed France at the head of the organisation for the decade that was to come, leading to the consequences we know.

[ img ]

_________________
Themax

Current projects :

- Belmantverse AU


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 16th, 2022, 5:14 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
I wasn't going to post anything, but anyway...

The monster of Caledonia, Lambda class

Was designed as a smaller sub-class to the much larger Sheirf class with it's 263 meter length, the Lambda class was only 231,5 meter long. It was build to be part of a high responses group (HRG), but could also be used in fleet escort. The Sherif class and Lambda class was two of the most expensive project in the Navy, they was both heavily armed, but Lambda excelled over Sherif class, since Sherif class had to give space for an flight deck and hanger.

Lambda class was effective in all theater, it's capability to detect submarines and other object under water was excellent, in that regard she was equipped with two type of towed sonars and two type of hull mounted sonars, where one was limited in power during peace time, due to it's power output! It was recommended that no divers to be in water in a harbor, if she was docked, but there was no explanation to why. The class had a excellent missile armament and self defence armament.

The entire class was keep in service for a long time and received multiple upgrades over the years. Among the biggest upgrade was a new set of main radars and computers and at one point she was fully digitized and could control every single ships and it's weapon system from it's C&C.

The ship would usually be staffed with an Admiral and his staff and a flag-commander.
----------------------
Class:Lambda class
Builders: Havok Heavy industries and Rambert Naval shipyard
Operators: Caledonia Navy, 3th, 4th and 6th Battle squadron
Build: 1977 (1980)-1992
MLU: 1998-2004; 2000-2005; 2004-2009
Ordered: 5
Build: 5 (2 never finished)
MLU: 3
in reserve: 2
Active: 3
Retired: 2
Moto: "Protector"
----------------------
Type: Heavy guided missile cruiser, Nuclear
Displacement: 22,000 tons standard; 27,000 tons full load
Length: 231.50 meter (759 feet)
Beam: 29,56 meter (97 feet)
Draft: Hull: 8,83 meter (29 feet); Sonar: 14,02 meter (46 feet)
Propulsion: 2 X HC3N Reactors powering 2 propulsion turbines powering 2 electric motors and 2 small electric motors: 150,000 shp. and two bow mounted retractable emergency propulsion.
4 x Diesel generator mounted forward and aft, port and starboard. to increase the ships electricity production but also function as backup.
Speed: Officially in excess of 31 knots
Range: Classified, Unlimited
Expected reactor life: 40+ years
Complement: 750 after MLU and due to automation, reduced to 450 in peacetime, life raft for up to 1500

Sensors and processing systems

Combat system:
- HALIAR 4 Combats system
- DELAR 2 Combat system (backup)

Radars:
- ACX2-A: Long range 3D radar (multi function, Search and target, illuminate)
- ACG1-F: Light Short range 3D radar (Multi function, navigation, Search, flight deck control)
- Type 327 Long range 2D radar.
- A2dF flight radar
- Cf11 long Range Navigation radar
- 3 x of the shelf standard navigation radar
- 5 illumination radars
- Several Communications systems

Sonars:

- Type-3402-D Havoc: Heavy sonar (active-passive) (extremely powerful, limited in operation during peace time, due to it's power)
- Type- 2811-Sonic: light sonar (active-passive) (The sonar that is always in use)
- Towed cable sonar (length: classified; detection method:classified)
- Towed active sonar

Electronic warfare and decoys:
- Mark 3, decoy launcher: ASW/AAW
- Nulka derivative
- 2 quad, grenade depth charger launcher

Armament:

Missiles:
- 3 x Mk 26 mod 2 GMLS (RUR-5, RIM-66 SM-1MR, RIM-66 SM-2 MR)
- 10 x Type-28 R-VLS twin Carousel (firing standard NATO-AAW missiles + Caledonia AAW missiles and ASuW missiles) (ASuW missiles from the inner carousel, since it's a full length)
- 5 x quad short quad revolver: ASuW nuclear tipped missile or non nuclear tipped missile
- up to 8 x short in defense missile launcher

Guns:
- 1 x twin 13" (Artillery) (Build by Havok industries, in a hidden turret!)
- 4 x 40/70 DP guns
- 2 x 30 mm gatling guns in 8 stations
- a number of stored HMG, mortar and rocket launcher.

Torpedoes and others:
- 2 x twin light weight torpedo launcher (can fire electronic warfare torpedo) (later would receive anti torpedo, torpedoes)
- 2 x twin heavy weight torpedo launcher (can fire electronic warfare torpedo) (fire standard torpedo and ASW missile) (can fire nuclear warhead torpedo)

Armor: 70-80mm plating around reactor, with Kevlar over vital areas. Composite armor protection over vital area including reactor area. Splinter protection.
(reactor compartment can have it walls filled up with water or other type of fluid)

Aircraft carried: Normal: 2 heavy; 3 medium Flight deck build to handle Chinook or similar.

New competition version, a bit silly but an idea from the real world (in fact from Sweden, but on a baby carrier!)
[ img ]

[ img ]

[ img ]


Last edited by heuhen on January 16th, 2022, 11:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
The_Sprinklez
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 16th, 2022, 5:19 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 359
Joined: October 6th, 2018, 2:13 pm
Location: United States
Contact: Website
heuhen wrote: *

Guns:
- 4 x 40/70 DP guns
- 2 x 30 mm gatling guns in 8 stations
- a number of stored HMG, mortar and rocket launcher.

Maybe I'm missing something, but where are the two 11" or greater caliber guns to meet design requirement #2?

_________________
Projects:
Panelbucket - Aircraft Avionics and Instrument Panels in 15px=1cm: http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=10389
Clyde's Eagles - Cessna Aircraft since 1945: http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 7&p=204669
Im Schatten des Adlers - An Alternate History Timeline: http://shipbucket.com/wiki/index.php/Ca ... des_Adlers


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 16th, 2022, 5:32 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
The_Sprinklez wrote: *
heuhen wrote: *

Guns:
- 4 x 40/70 DP guns
- 2 x 30 mm gatling guns in 8 stations
- a number of stored HMG, mortar and rocket launcher.

Maybe I'm missing something, but where are the two 11" or greater caliber guns to meet design requirement #2?
I feel that point is pointless, since in the past WW2 and toward today, the focus in most navies have been more toward missiles and less focus on guns, The British Navy found out the hard way, the advantage of have some light guns. But as I see it' when building a modern battleship in the 70's and up, there is less likely to be armed with that big of a gun, the point of a modern era battleship in the missile era, disappear. Of course, if you have a old battleship laying around, like USA...

I do feel that also feel that putting that big gun on a ship like this, I loose some capability, ultimately I would have to remove the on deck hangar and relay on the bellow deck hangar and I don't think the elevator would like the shock from the gun. And the biggest gun I have in my part-list for modern Caledonia after 1950 is a 205 mm gun.

anyway, it would look like this (I can post it just for this challenge):
https://i.imgur.com/a1zY7xo.png


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 16th, 2022, 5:43 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
Why post an entry that doesn't meet the minimum challenge criteria though?

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 6  [ 51 posts ]  Return to “Drawing Challenges” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]