Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
JohnPJones

Multi-Role Capital Ship

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

612
[WOLF9]
Members
4,015 posts
20 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

China no, but perfect for assaulting bases and airfields on contested 'reefs'.

approximately 600 marines preceded by TLAM strikes, and backed by 2 8" guns 3 5" guns and 2 76mm guns with Seahawks making runs with hellfires, rockets, and guns for support.

 

also, use the MRCS design if you'd like just give credit where credit is due 

  I could, lol- I just need to alter a few things to make it fit with the rest of my fleet.  ( I was superimposing your build on the picture from the video)

For ex: 

37mm point defense guns instead of 25mm Bushmaster.  Mine are in automated turrets, and connected to both the main combat management system AND the CIWS.  The mounts look mainly like the 30mm shown in your video link, but do have deck penetration. (for the ammunition feed system)

 swap out SEARAMs my own CIWS,  with 2 Kashtan style hybrid mounts (gun and missiles), and enough command modules to control the 57's 37's and RAMS.

  Add flat panel k band gun directors, etc.  

Also, this will be a flagship, so superstructure facilities will need to be added,

The bow section needs lengthened to fit the second 8" turret, and superfiring Mk110/ or 76mm.  ( I plan for four of these- two superfirng over the MK71's; and two behind the aft mast covering the rear of the ship.  They would be placed on raised decks and positioned for maximum coverage/ overlapping arcs.

Add Strales systems to all 57's, for use with DART rounds.

add a second RAM launcher up front below the bridge.  (where the Phalanx is in the thumbnail)

  And add launchers for Anti-ship missiles.  (Harpoons or Naval Strike.)  Likely in that clear space between the VLS pods.  Either 8 or 16.   This would free up more VLS cells for LACM's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
482
[REVY]
Members
1,565 posts
9,772 battles

My only thought is, you build these ships to have multiple roles/tasks. So from a cost basis, yeah, it's 'cheaper' to build and you can replace all these 'single' role/task ships by having one hull do it all.

 

But, can it pull off the mission as well or better then the ship it replaced?

 

Too many times, the Military and Gov has tried to replace a single role aircraft or ship with one that can 'do it all', yet it is shown that the 'replacement' pales in comparison to what it replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,841 posts
6,734 battles
43 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

My only thought is, you build these ships to have multiple roles/tasks. So from a cost basis, yeah, it's 'cheaper' to build and you can replace all these 'single' role/task ships by having one hull do it all.

 

But, can it pull off the mission as well or better then the ship it replaced?

 

Too many times, the Military and Gov has tried to replace a single role aircraft or ship with one that can 'do it all', yet it is shown that the 'replacement' pales in comparison to what it replaced.

It is not a design intended to replace 100% other ship designs.

no it won’t be as good as an LHD or LPD in amphibious assaults but that’s not it’s goal.

 

yes a ship dedicated 100% to a single purpose will be better.

 

if you had read previous posts you’d see that it was primarily intended for smaller navies.

navies that can’t afford dedicated amphibious ships, dedicated ASW ships, dedicated hospital ships, and dedicated large surface combatants. Etc.

 

this ship could go toe to toe with the new Chinese super destroyer, while deploying limited numbers of troops or sweeping for enemy subs, etc.

 

south China sea claimants can benefit greatly from this sort of ship.

it would be about as effective as the old Soviet ASW carriers were for that role. 

 

You can have a ship that can perform BMD, ASW, ASuW effectively all at the same time. The US can’t do that currently 

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
564
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,950 posts

Even the US would benefit from what would effectively be a smaller, multirole San Antonio that can act as SAG flagship with AEGIS vessels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,841 posts
6,734 battles
9 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

Even the US would benefit from what would effectively be a smaller, multirole San Antonio that can act as SAG flagship with AEGIS vessels.

my design would be same size or slightly larger, but even slightly smaller at 600ft most of that should work. maybe only 1 mk71 gun instead of two.

unfortunately i doubt we'd get a SAG leader type ship approved until its too late, and a shooting war has already started and shown our severe lack in that role, and capability.

but who knows, maybe the subs will be as effective as the pigboat boys say they are, maybe there will be enough US aircraft to overwhelm enemy defenses, or maybe just maybe foreign ships designed to cripple or sink ships will maul a serious number of US vessels with little casualties by comparison and congress and the top brass will be sitting there dumbstruck like "which way did they go george?"

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
612
[WOLF9]
Members
4,015 posts
On 11/1/2017 at 9:45 PM, JohnPJones said:

my design would be same size or slightly larger, but even slightly smaller at 600ft most of that should work. maybe only 1 mk71 gun instead of two.

unfortunately i doubt we'd get a SAG leader type ship approved until its too late, and a shooting war has already started and shown our severe lack in that role, and capability.

but who knows, maybe the subs will be as effective as the pigboat boys say they are, maybe there will be enough US aircraft to overwhelm enemy defenses, or maybe just maybe foreign ships designed to cripple or sink ships will maul a serious number of US vessels with little casualties by comparison and congress and the top brass will be sitting there dumbstruck like "which way did they go george?"

Probably the latter.

  We all know it takes being slapped in the nuts by reality to get a politician's attention. (and top brass are, by necessity, politicians- if they want to remain top brass)  Complacency is a bit$%, and it's very habit forming...

 

  Yeah, the ship I'm designing is also larger- to accomodate superfiring front turrets.   Mine is more of an amphibious oriented ship than SAG leader- I already have something in that role.   I'm leaning more towards it's LPD roots, with it's embarked marine group being the Special Ops guys.  It's overall role in the operation would be as the Flagship, and for NGFS/ fire support.  The hangar would accomodate say 4 helos- 3 Blackhawks and a gunship; plus a couple of UAVs, like FireScouts.

  I'm just not sure WHAT to call it insofar as the hull number prefix.

  I even came up with a selection of options for an export version.  Obviously, our best toys would not be available to foreign buyers, but Aegis would, and so would the MK 71, the Mk77 (the 6" DP autoloader that's on my DD and CL's); the Mk41; Phalanx; the 37mm autocannon and automated mount, etc.

  Customers would get their choice of radar suite and combat management system, and could go with the prototype as is, or add, for example, a heavier main gun- like a 5", 6" or 8".  Hoists for launching rhibs from side mounted compartments are also an option.  Or a deck mounted hangar with a mission bay/boat deck underneath. (ala the LCS)

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,841 posts
6,734 battles
8 hours ago, Fletcher7_1944 said:

Probably the latter.

  We all know it takes being slapped in the nuts by reality to get a politician's attention. (and top brass are, by necessity, politicians- if they want to remain top brass)  Complacency is a bit$%, and it's very habit forming...

 

  Yeah, the ship I'm designing is also larger- to accomodate superfiring front turrets.   Mine is more of an amphibious oriented ship than SAG leader- I already have something in that role.   I'm leaning more towards it's LPD roots, with it's embarked marine group being the Special Ops guys.  It's overall role in the operation would be as the Flagship, and for NGFS/ fire support.  The hangar would accomodate say 4 helos- 3 Blackhawks and a gunship; plus a couple of UAVs, like FireScouts.

  I'm just not sure WHAT to call it insofar as the hull number prefix.

  I even came up with a selection of options for an export version.  Obviously, our best toys would not be available to foreign buyers, but Aegis would, and so would the MK 71, the Mk77 (the 6" DP autoloader that's on my DD and CL's); the Mk41; Phalanx; the 37mm autocannon and automated mount, etc.

  Customers would get their choice of radar suite and combat management system, and could go with the prototype as is, or add, for example, a heavier main gun- like a 5", 6" or 8".  Hoists for launching rhibs from side mounted compartments are also an option.  Or a deck mounted hangar with a mission bay/boat deck underneath. (ala the LCS)

 

 

 

Prefix it LPGD Landing Platform Gun Dock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
153
[-AL-]
[-AL-]
Members
663 posts
1,899 battles

....1 canon? Modern Navy is boring lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×