StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Removed.

Stas Bush wrote:Heh, of course it's not far fetched - most supersonic missiles work that way.

Sweet .

Going low however would limit speed down to ~Mach 3-3,2 at the very, very best I guess, and range will probably be around 300-400 km - I'm being rather generous here.

Oh, okay, I can live with that. Do these things get a range/speed bonus if they're being air-launched, incidentally? I could imagine that a missile being launched from one of my new F-111s moving at Mach 2 goes further simply by virtue of not having to get up to speed/altitude by itself?

Since the subs were the last part of my Navy that wasn't thoroughly explored in my Armory Spreadsheets, I decided to shed some more light on existing subs as well.

Oscar-II submarines of the CSR (Oscar-II modernized project, K-136 Belgorod - 949AM).

The "Bolid" is not some sort of super-new missile, it's a heavily modernized P-700 "Granit" (test-fired in the 1980s when the issue of the final engine configuration was still up for grabs) with a air-breathing ramjet (4D-04 ramjet engine) - which gave it a speed of Mach 4,5 at high altitudes, Mach 4 cruise and Mach 3 impact speed at the low flight trajectory, as well as a 800 km range.

I have not deployed the "Bolid" missile on Kirovs due to the need to make my fleet more versatile and I'm refitting the surface ships with "Meteorit" instead, but the 949AM submarines are dedicated to anti-carrier warfare and thus have a more potent AShM rather than a cruise missile.

My 949AMs carry no 650mm 65-76 torpedoes to avoid possible explosions like on the "Kursk", but instead carry 6 650mm RPK-7 "Veter" missile-torp combinations for ultra-long ASUW warfare at distances around 100 km. They can carry 28 various torps, or possibly 32 ground mines of the SMDM Mod.1 type (the most modern Russian ground mine with a range of torpedo layer ~17km) for minelaying operations.

Hmm... If I were to build a few of those for myself, I'd do a thorough modification of the design, with pumpjets and all, and employ other quietening procedures...

But I think at the moment, the air force takes priority. Orders might come next year.

Norseman wrote:GAH!

Steve, how about a chance to let me respond to your first post before posting the second one? For the record I have multiple A-50s patrolling that part of the sea, I have multiple AN-30s, and several ships. Once its clear that a ship is missing the A-50s, keeping an eye on things, could help call up each and every ship out there (and there wouldn't be that many) to help ID the missing ship. Once the missing ship is identified an Astarian naval vessel would be dispatched to intercept, and if need be board it.

I understand you want an Amistad like incident, there's just one little problem: You are trying to pull an Amistad in the 21st Century against a power that has 21st Century reconaissance gear, AND is by your own admission alerted to the fact that something is wrong.

I would therefore appreciate it if you deleted your second post.

As I explained to you on IM, I have more in mind here than just a chase at sea, hence why I wrapped it up in two posts.

I'm also still offering to alter the time scale, though not to the one you showed me. An alternative one has been posited to me.

Sunhawk2: 24 hours out of port, mutiny occurs.
Sunhawk2: M+12 miss first scheduled check-in
Sunhawk2: M+13 alert sounded
Sunhawk2: M+13:30 AWACS lift off and initiate scan pattern
Sunhawk2: M+14 AWACS reachs operational altitude and activates radar, begins sorting surface tracks
Sunhawk2: M+14:30 Radio contacts initiated in attempt to sort the mass of contacts.
Sunhawk2: M+16 Patrol Aircraft launched for positive ID of majority of contacts within search zone, search radius constantly expanding due to limitations on AWACS surface search capabilities
Sunhawk2: M+20 darkness forces halt of visual ID process
Sunhawk2: M+28 Visual ID resumes
Sunhawk2: M+31 mutinous vessel identified
Sunhawk2: M+32 intercept orders cut and transmitted
Sunhawk2: M+34 Intercepting destroyer clears harbor and begins pursuit
Sunhawk2: depending on angles of intercept and distances would determine the time required for pursuit

Hey Steve, there's no need to visually ID every track. Since all shipping to and from astaria is handled by a mere 134~ vessels; just go onto the radio waves; and order every ship on the path to check in with Astarian authorities.

DF each acknowledgement, and within about 30 minutes or so, you've eliminated a huge majority of the tracks. Then you send in your patrol bombers to visually ID the non-responsive tracks.

We lost a day, and I think the time span has led to an end to VP Verdes' trip to Frequesue. But she did visit both President Raj and then Livorno to try and get Zorin to get the CSR back into the Frequesue Neutrality Conference.

Steve wrote:We lost a day, and I think the time span has led to an end to VP Verdes' trip to Frequesue. But she did visit both President Raj and then Livorno to try and get Zorin to get the CSR back into the Frequesue Neutrality Conference.

Well, if you really want, you could go flexible timing. A lot of discussions are as such.

MKSheppard wrote:Hey Steve, there's no need to visually ID every track. Since all shipping to and from astaria is handled by a mere 134~ vessels; just go onto the radio waves; and order every ship on the path to check in with Astarian authorities.

DF each acknowledgement, and within about 30 minutes or so, you've eliminated a huge majority of the tracks. Then you send in your patrol bombers to visually ID the non-responsive tracks.

And as I said on IM, that number must also include other international shipping moving in that region.

But I'm not going to post the next installment until tomorrow anyway.

And Fin, yeah, we could, but right now I'm too tired. Going to bed.

Stas Bush wrote:I don't like high-end technology proliferating from Japanistan elsewhere however.

Japanistan is gravely concerned about the threat that MESS F-22 proliferation poses to international peace and well being. Thus the Japanistan Ministry of Machine Building's approval of export contracts for the JF-90 Violet Lightnings to Shepistan.

I'm suspecting that Skimmer, like me, doesn't believe all the claims put forth about the MiG 1.42/1.44; e.g. the ones like (Stealthier than F-22! More Manouverable than F-22!).

However, the MiG 1.42/1.44 even without all the uberclaims attributed to it is much more capable than the MiG-31; it can supercruise, and can fly much faster than the F-22; and is significantly cleaned up in terms of RCS compared to the MiG-31.

All in all, not a bad plane to upgrade from my F-106s to. And you'll note that the peace treaty I signed holds me to about 80% of the OD's military strength; that means I'm going from like a 1,500 plane (left over from the war) air force to about 600~. That enables a lot of funding to be opened up to acquire/maintain more advanced planes.

As for cost? Well.....there's no surprise that the JF-90 purchases are going to be subsidized by Japanistan. How heavily is a matter of national burn before reading security.

MKSheppard wrote:However, the MiG 1.42/1.44 even without all the uberclaims attributed to it is much more capable than the MiG-31; it can supercruise, and can fly much faster than the F-22; and is significantly cleaned up in terms of RCS compared to the MiG-31.

All in all, not a bad plane to upgrade from my F-106s to. And you'll note that the peace treaty I signed holds me to about 80% of the OD's military strength; that means I'm going from like a 1,500 plane (left over from the war) air force to about 600~. That enables a lot of funding to be opened up to acquire/maintain more advanced planes.

As for cost? Well.....there's no surprise that the JF-90 purchases are going to be subsidized by Japanistan. How heavily is a matter of national burn before reading security.

Well, it definitely isn't a bad plane, and a lot of cheaper, which is why I'm wondering about grabbing the plane to replace my F-15s altogether.

But isn't the MIG-31M still faster at full power? Plus, I'm not sure if that plasma stealth thing works.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:But isn't the MIG-31M still faster at full power?

Probably.

Plus, I'm not sure if that plasma stealth thing works.

Remember what I said about uberclaims?

My mainstay SSNs (currently new "Granay" SSNs are replacing them):

They are clones of a heavily modernized Pr. 971M K-335 "Gepard" submarine (some refer to it as "Akula-III" class but in reality that's a modernized "Akula-II"). Stock weapons for the boat, nothing unusual. The RK-55 Granat allows the boat to have a redundant strategic bombing capability... which is good when the SSN could be your only asset in the region.

Noise levels comparable to those of the "Seawolf"-class. SOSUS, US and Canadian navies failed to detect and track the K-335 "Gepard" (even as they tried hard) during it's long-range patrol into the Atlantic in the real world, so catching those subs would be a pain in the ass. 20 SSNs total. I use them as SUBRON leaders due to their explicit hunter-killer role, they lead packs of Oscar-II Mods for anti-carrier tasks and HK subrons with another Granay and Akula-II mod. for ASUW warfare.

MKSheppard wrote:Japanistan is gravely concerned about the threat that MESS F-22 proliferation poses to international peace and well being. Thus the Japanistan Ministry of Machine Building's approval of export contracts for the JF-90 Violet Lightnings to Shepistan.

What are you paying them?

MKSheppard wrote:I'm suspecting that Skimmer, like me, doesn't believe all the claims put forth about the MiG 1.42/1.44; e.g. the ones like (Stealthier than F-22! More Manouverable than F-22!).

Who is putting such claims? The MFi (1.42/44) isn't a lot stealthy, it's a heavy good fighter but that's all. However, it's still a formidable machine. And in no way the MFi is a replacement for the MiG-31, they just have vastly different roles. The MFi is a heavy fighter, but MiG-31 is an interceptor designed to kill bombers. It's not a dogfight machine. It's a missile carrier which is as fast as a missile itself. With the MiG-31, you can engage SR-71, T-4, etc. With the MFi, you can engage Raptors, various bombers, and the like, as well as bombers, and conduct tactical runs against ground targets. Multirole fighter.

Stas Bush wrote:What are you paying them?

I don't know. What was the standard pricing for selling stuff in the USSR to other nations? I mean, you guys have to have gotten something from Libya for all the MiG-25s, etc and SAMs you gave 'em.

Who is putting such claims?

Crazy internet people.

Stas, when do you expect to start commissioning Granay SSNs? Looking around for a cheap nuclear sub to spam and the Virginia subs are almost as expensive as the Seawolfs.

I wish I had Shep doing planning for my military.

We shall treat this Shepistani Lawsuit with the full deference that Shepistan has treated the Old Dominion's request for extradition for the murderer of it's Foreign Minister.

Stas, when do you expect to start commissioning Granay SSNs?

I commissioned 15 of them (considering it's a 1993 design, and people spam "Seawolfs" around, I don't think that's too bad), and 1 was built in the recent two years.

The "Granay" however is not cheap if it's construction materials are considered. A cheap but still competitive with "Virginia/Seawolf" SSN is the Akula-II Mod. So I try to uphold a balance in my force, with over half of it being cheaper boats, and slowly building up the "Granays".

If you give me funds to accelerate the construction of "Granays", I could sell you some of my retiree Akula-II Mods, how about that? They're still awesome boats.

Stas Bush wrote:

Stas, when do you expect to start commissioning Granay SSNs?

I commissioned 15 of them (considering it's a 1993 design, and people spam "Seawolfs" around, I don't think that's too bad), and 1 was built in the recent two years.

The "Granay" however is not cheap if it's construction materials are considered. A cheap but still competitive with "Virginia/Seawolf" SSN is the Akula-II Mod. So I try to uphold a balance in my force, with over half of it being cheaper boats, and slowly building up the "Granays".

Sucks. I was hoping to find something as capable as a Seawolf, but priced around a Virginia, or slightly cheaper. I'm keeping my force levels for the Virginia fixed at 12 and Seawolf will probably stop at 9 given the costs. The majority of my submarine force is composed of Type 212As, and soon Type 210Mod.

Stas Bush wrote:If you give me funds to accelerate the construction of "Granays", I could sell you some of my retiree Akula-II Mods, how about that? They're still awesome boats.

Hmmmmm..... that sounds like a neat idea....

Well, the Akula-II is a nice cheap machine for the deed. Look:

Seawolf:
Number of tubes: 8
Missiles or torpedoes carried, total: 50
Missile types: Tomahawk (3500 km), Harpoon UGM-84D (140 km)
Alternatively mines carried: 100
Surface speed: 18 knots
Submerged speed: 25 knots
Silent speed: 20 knots

Akula-II Mod.
Number of tubes: 8
Missiles or torpedoes carried, total: 40
Missile types: RK-55 Granat (3000 km), RPK-7 Veter 88R (120 km)
Alternatively mines carried: 40
Surface speed: 20 knots
Submerged speed: 35 knots
Silent speed: 15 knots

Noise levels comparable.

Stas Bush wrote:Well, the Akula-II is a nice cheap machine for the deed. Look:
Seawolf:
Number of tubes: 8
Missiles or torpedoes carried, total: 50
Missile types: Tomahawk (3500 km), Harpoon UGM-84D (140 km)
Alternatively mines carried: 100
Surface speed: 18 knots
Submerged speed: 25 knots
Silent speed: 20 knots
Akula-II Mod.
Number of tubes: 8
Missiles or torpedoes carried, total: 40
Missile types: RK-55 Granat (3000 km), RPK-7 Veter 88R (120 km)
Alternatively mines carried: 40
Surface speed: 20 knots
Submerged speed: 35 knots
Silent speed: 15 knots

Noise levels comparable.

Hmm.. you know what, I won't mind taking your retired Akula II Mod. Do you think they can be upgraded with Pumpjets after some serious refitting?

You could, but I doubt the pumpjets would work as efficiently on a boat design that used a 7-blade screw.. might do. Some speed penalties would arise. Another possibility is using fenestrons. That would drastically cut noise (of course, speed penalties apply to). You could add a pumpjet for silent running, like on the 877B modified Kilo class submarine "Alrosa", but removing the screw alltogether would be unwise IMHO.

Uh... delete.

Stas Bush wrote:You could, but I doubt the pumpjets would work as efficiently on a boat design that used a 7-blade screw.. might do. Some speed penalties would arise. Another possibility is using fenestrons. That would drastically cut noise (of course, speed penalties apply to). You could add a pumpjet for silent running, like on the 877B modified Kilo class submarine "Alrosa", but removing the screw alltogether would be unwise IMHO.

Add another Pumpjet? Where am I going to fit that?

Actually, where are the screws for our new SSGN Couldn't make them out anywhere in the pics.

Add another Pumpjet? Where am I going to fit that?

Combined propulsion, you place the pumpjet behind the screw into the hull.

Actually, where are the screws for our new SSGN Couldn't make them out anywhere in the pics.

Covered in fenestrons to reduce noise. I specifically noted that.