StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Let me get this straight, you're giving up a Seawolf for a Virginia?
Oh well, suit yourself.

Batman wrote:Let me get this straight, you're giving up a Seawolf for a Virginia?
Oh well, suit yourself.

*shrug* The article says it's better... Perhaps you have some words of wisdom for me?

About the only advantages Virginia has over Seawolf are the VLS and price. Seawolf carries more weapons, is stealthier (the very article you linked to admits one of the requirements for SSN-774 is to achieve Seawolf-level stealth by 2012), likely has a higher speed both tops and silent, and any advantage the Virginia may have in electronics is a matter of age, not design. Seawolf was cancelled because it offered a lot of advantages that were no longer important (and thus not worth paying for), not because Virginia was superior. From the composition of this Task Group I don't see money being much of an issue, so...

Ah, thanks for the tip. I guess I can stick with the Seawolf, then, provided we update all her electronics and sensors. I'm not very interested in assaulting land based targets, so the VLS isn't an issue. Also, I wouldn't mind tacking on that Advanced Seal Delivery System if we can find room.

Seawolf outmasses Virginia by a good 2,000 ts. I'm sure we can find room.

Batman wrote:About the only advantages Virginia has over Seawolf are the VLS and price. Seawolf carries more weapons, is stealthier (the very article you linked to admits one of the requirements for SSN-774 is to achieve Seawolf-level stealth by 2012), likely has a higher speed both tops and silent, and any advantage the Virginia may have in electronics is a matter of age, not design. Seawolf was cancelled because it offered a lot of advantages that were no longer important (and thus not worth paying for), not because Virginia was superior. From the composition of this Task Group I don't see money being much of an issue, so...

About that. The Seawolf class is not as versatile as the Virginia class. The Seawolf subs might well be a bit bigger and more shooty in the water, but they are not nearly as useful overall. Mind, we can modify the Seawolf to be more versatile, but we can also modify the Virginias to be more powerful. In addition, upgrading the Seawolf's entire navigation, control, and targeting package (I am unsure on the SONAR differences) would require gutting the thing and replacing almost all of the key systems.

I mean, sure, it's within our ability to bring a wolf up to spec... but why? We can just beef up a Virginia. The only advantage the wolf retains would be speed, and I'm not terribly sure the Virginias are significantly slower anyway.

And thus I am confused. Here, I'll give you a topic: submarines. Talk amongst yourselves.

We already have a Seawolf Commander here. If you want to go the Virginia for versatility, and I keep the power of the 'Wolf, then so be it.

Just remember: I'm leader of the pack.

Stofsk wrote:We already have a Seawolf Commander here. If you want to go the Virginia for versatility, and I keep the power of the 'Wolf, then so be it.

Just remember: I'm leader of the pack.

My thinking was, one for the Carrier Group, one for the Expeditionary Group. I am not against switching to a Virginia if that is your wish, however.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:

Stofsk wrote:We already have a Seawolf Commander here. If you want to go the Virginia for versatility, and I keep the power of the 'Wolf, then so be it.

Just remember: I'm leader of the pack.

My thinking was, one for the Carrier Group, one for the Expeditionary Group.

Aroo-sniff. Pantpant

*wags tail*

I am not against switching to a Virginia if that is your wish, however.

grr

This has been an enlightening dialouge, Stofsk. Thank you.

Speaking of gutting and replacing, I'm looking at potentially giving my ship a new hull (and, thus, lots of new space for weapons and other goody-goodies) in the future. What's the feasibility of the following specifications?

length: 633 ft
beam: 61 ft
draft: 27 ft

In addition to this, I would like to replace the powerplants, hopefully for quieter running; I was thinking of replacing the four gas turbines (80,000 shp) with three nuclear reactors (30,000 shp each). Thoughts?

Surlethe wrote:Speaking of gutting and replacing, I'm looking at potentially giving my ship a new hull (and, thus, lots of new space for weapons and other goody-goodies) in the future. What's the feasibility of the following specifications?

length: 633 ft
beam: 61 ft
draft: 27 ft

In addition to this, I would like to replace the powerplants, hopefully for quieter running; I was thinking of replacing the four gas turbines (80,000 shp) with three nuclear reactors (30,000 shp each). Thoughts?

Why settle?

Ar-Adunakhor wrote:Why settle?

What're its ASW capabilities?

While we are all talking about upgrades which one of these would be more feasable?

Plan 1: Modify Renown to include a ski-jump bow to allow the use of JSF's or Harriers if necessary. Pull out diesel propulsion system and replace with steam-turbine system (perhaps nuclear?) to raise speed from 18 to 28knots.

Plan 2: Replace Renown as an Ocean-class assualt carrier with an Invincible-class Carrier modified to support 1000 troops long term. Currently the Invincible's can carry 950 men short term. Doing so would reduce the aircraft capability but gives a 28 knot speed without needing to change the drive system.

Surlethe wrote:

Ar-Adunakhor wrote:Why settle?

What're its ASW capabilities?

Non-existent.

Ar-Adunakhor wrote:Non-existent.

Why would I want it, then?

@ Comrade-Admiral Rebikov: Has there been a reunification of the Germanys in-universe? I'm considering who should be Captain Langarek's sponsor. With a name like Langarek, I feel like he should probably be some kind of Germanic, so some more knowledge of the political situation there would be appreciated.

EDIT: Also, in regards to terrorist organizations in the ME and Pacific. What countries in those regions would be allied with the UN task force (wanting the terrorist groups crushed so they can get on with business) and what countries would be sympathetic?

Egads, you trust me with a metric fuckton of soldiers? Ack, whatever happens, I'd prefer the position with less troops to handle to ease my multi tasking. But, as it would seem, I'm at the whim of the high commander.

[You know, this wonderfully phall-er, powerful naval force would be wasted on simply sitting off coast and lobbing missiles at terrorists' apartments. Let's create an actual, conventional threat we can deal with -- what if, for example, the US got really uppity and got NATO pissed off? I know this is scratching at straws, but I'm trying to get a point across, and not actually seriously suggest a scenario.]

((Has Brazil or a previously second world nation achieved 1st world status? Threats don't have to come from a nation when you could have something like a unified cartel of some sort that makes enough money to pay off the US gross national debt decides to cause trouble. Having something like that actually decided that it needs to be its own sovereign nation and over taking several smaller nations violently would probably incite a do gooder response. Plus, they'd probably be able to purchase top of the line equipment or close too.))

Surlethe wrote:Why would I want it, then?

Oh, no reason at all.

Civil War Man wrote:Also, in regards to terrorist organizations in the ME and Pacific. What countries in those regions would be allied with the UN task force (wanting the terrorist groups crushed so they can get on with business) and what countries would be sympathetic?

That depends entirely on the events our illustrious admirals incorporate into our world.

atg wrote:While we are all talking about upgrades which one of these would be more feasable?

*snip*

Yanking a drive system from a ship is unrealistic, and an assault carrier is a bit... ambitious. Why do you need to pull 28 knots anyway? It should be a comparatively simple matter to alter it for F-35Cs, though. You know an Ocean only supports 500 marines, right?

Surlethe wrote:[You know, this wonderfully phall-er, powerful naval force would be wasted on simply sitting off coast and lobbing missiles at terrorists' apartments. Let's create an actual, conventional threat we can deal with -- what if, for example, the US got really uppity and got NATO pissed off? I know this is scratching at straws, but I'm trying to get a point across, and not actually seriously suggest a scenario.]

[I agree with Surlethe, here. We should really be dispatched to fight something worthy of fighting, rather than merely sending missiles down terrorist holes. Maybe some massive terrorist organization that has taken advantage of the collapse of Eastern Europe and the Middle East to form a truly powerful force? And perhaps has enough power to take over countries? Yeah, it's NOD. Quiet you.]

Ar-Adunakhor wrote:[I agree with Surlethe, here. We should really be dispatched to fight something worthy of fighting, rather than merely sending missiles down terrorist holes. Maybe some massive terrorist organization that has taken advantage of the collapse of Eastern Europe and the Middle East to form a truly powerful force? And perhaps has enough power to take over countries? Yeah, it's NOD. Quiet you.]

[What about China? They seem to be a fashionable antagonists these days. NOD works too, though. Wait... China with cyborgs. Yeah!

Well, whatever we choose, if any, pending discussion and the Admiral's approval, we don't have to scrap Raptor's background. We could fight terrorists for awhile, and lead into the larger threat.]

You know an Ocean only supports 500 marines, right?

[I thought they were capable of supporting 800. ]

Noble Ire wrote:[What about China? They seem to be a fashionable antagonists these days. NOD works too, though. Wait... China with cyborgs. Yeah! ]

[Just something we can really fight, as opposed to stepping on like a bug.]

Noble Ire wrote:[I thought they were capable of supporting 800. ]

[Only for brief periods. 500 is the normal maximum.]

Noble Ire wrote:
[I thought they were capable of supporting 800. Confused ]

[Only for brief periods. 500 is the normal maximum.]

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ocean/

The ship carries a crew of 255, an aircrew of 206 and 480 Royal Marine Commandos. An additional 320 marines could be accommodated in a short-term emergency. HMS Ocean is capable of transporting and sustaining an embarked military force of up to 800 men equipped with artillery, vehicles and stores. The ship has capacity for 40 vehicles but is not designed to land heavy tanks. There are four LCVP Mk 5 vehicle/personnel landing craft on davits.

480 men normally. Capable of supporting 800+supporting equipment during a landing operation.

OK I've decided, as long as its ok with the Admiral, that Renown was built with a steam turbine drive system, and with the ski-jump bow, allowing the short-term operation of JSF's.

The air-wing consists of:
8 Apache Attack Helicopters
12 EH101 Merlins
1 Joint Strike Fighter - The captain's personal aircraft