Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 5  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 8th, 2020, 3:08 am
Posts: 39
Joined: April 25th, 2012, 4:21 am
[ img ]

The Normandie-class of heavy nuclear powered fleet cruisers are floating symbols of the massive shift shown by the Sieuxerrian Empire from Casaterran hegemony to a global projection of power, mostly focused on Hemithea and Meridia. Designed to support amphibious naval invasions, act as an air defense escort for a carrier battle group or as the command ship in its own surface action group, the Normandies are the largest warships produced by Sieuxerr since the 1940s. Costing billions of dollars to produce, plans for a staggering 24 were cut down to just 6 being built with the first being completed by 2009 and the last by 2024. Overall it is designed to perform most roles in a naval group, only being unable to handle helicopters beyond its landing pad behind the rear 155mm gun turret.

In 2027, all six ships would be used in the Fourth Pan-Septentrion War, which would pit the Sieuxerrian Empire and its various allies against the VU and the New Hemithean Empire, consisting of a unified Menghe and Daya. Many smaller factions would throw their weight in with the VU and the NHE over the course of the war. The war would last for about a year before, in an attempt to break the naval stalemate, Sieuxerr would repeat its gamble of 1978 and use tactical nuclear devices against New Hemithean Empire ships. However instead of a tactical response like before, the NHE and VU responded with a massive strategic nuclear strike.

The Normandies would, along with many other sea, surface and aerial BMD platforms would attempt to intercept as many as possible to mitigate the damage, however the Empire of Sieuxerr would find itself rocked by the strikes. All six of the ships would be sunk in resulting engagement either during the primary exchange, the second and third waves of secondary strikes, or in naval combat as many attempted to flee back to Sieuxerr.

In all, the Normandies would preform well in their tasks up to the very end of their service, which in itself cumulated in the end of the Sieuxerrian Empire and much of Septentrion itself.

General specifications
Dimensions: 675 ft (wl), 98 ft (beam), 31 ft (draught)
Machinery: 2x CAS-215 PW reactors generation 62,500kW ea., 2x steam turbines shafts, 2x propellers
Speed: 33 knots (maximum)
Range: theoretically unlimited, 20-25 years
Crew: 155 (25 officers, 130 enlisted)
Displacement: 17,500 tons
2x 155mm L/64 length naval rifles (700 rounds ea.)
4 13.2mm machine guns
2x 17-round Crotale VT2 launchers
24x 8-cell SYLVER A-70SLIM cells
-192x tactical missiles
2x 5-cell SYLVER A-100 cells
-10x Pétain II-VLs

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 8th, 2020, 10:47 am
User avatar
Posts: 107
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 1:02 am
[ img ]


Last edited by 1143M on May 8th, 2020, 4:18 pm, edited 4 times in total.

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 8th, 2020, 11:13 am
User avatar
Posts: 8437
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
1143M wrote: *
[ img ]
Not showing

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 8th, 2020, 1:19 pm
User avatar
Posts: 564
Joined: September 1st, 2010, 12:05 pm
Location: Germany
Aoba-class CGF-61 FSS Aoba
[ img ]
A cold-fusion powerd guided missile cruiser with stealth capability.

My deviantart account

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 8th, 2020, 1:37 pm
Posts: 271
Joined: September 16th, 2011, 7:02 am
Location: Denmark
Contact: Website
1143M wrote: *
Image is Jpeg'ed


Morten Jensen

Traffic Manager

[Profile] [Quote]
Kiwi Imperialist
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 8th, 2020, 10:47 pm
Posts: 67
Joined: December 10th, 2014, 9:38 am
When does the challenge end?
A countdown can be found at this link, or you can consult the list below.

UTC-12: May 8, 23:59 (Official Deadline)
UTC-11: May 9, 00:59
UTC-10: May 9, 01:59 (Hawaii Standard Time)
UTC-9: May 9, 02:59
UTC-8: May 9, 03:59 (Pacific Standard Time)
UTC-7: May 9, 04:59 (Mountain Standard Time)
UTC-6: May 9, 05:59 (Central Standard Time)
UTC-5: May 9, 06:59 (Eastern Standard Time)
UTC-4: May 9, 07:59 (Atlantic Standard Time)
UTC-3: May 9, 08:59
UTC-2: May 9, 09:59
UTC-1: May 9, 10:59
UTC: May 9, 11:59 (Greenwhich Mean Time)
UTC+1: May 9, 12:59 (Central European Time)
UTC+2: May 9, 13:59 (Central European Summer Time)
UTC+3: May 9, 14:59
UTC+4: May 9, 15:59
UTC+5: May 9, 16:59
UTC+6: May 9, 17:59
UTC+7: May 9, 18:59
UTC+8: May 9, 19:59 (Australian Western Standard Time)
UTC+9: May 9, 20:59
UTC+10: May 9, 21:59 (Australian Eastern Standard Time)
UTC+11: May 9, 22:59
UTC+12: May 9, 23:59 (New Zealand)
UTC+13: May 10, 00:59
UTC+14: May 10, 01:59 (Line Islands)

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 9th, 2020, 12:09 am
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Thanks for the time zones :)

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 9th, 2020, 1:35 am
Posts: 1432
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
[ img ]
General Purpose, Global Future Surface Cruiser Type 85

Built-by: Rosyth Royal Dockyard
Operated-by: Royal Navy
Preceded-by: type 84 destroyer
Planned: 8
Active: 1
Building: 2

Machinery: 2x Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines, 2x Wärtsilä diesels
Speed: 32kts (deep and clean)
Range: 10,000 nautical miles at 18kts
Displacement: 14,200 tons standard
Crew 217 (capacity for 308)
2x OTO Melara 76/62 Strales Dart
4x32 cell Mk41 VLS for a mix depending on operational need of,
quad-packed CAMM & CAMM-Super or single packed SM3, Kongsberg NSM, ASROC & Naval-SCALP cruise-missile
4x2 12.75in lightweight A/S & anti-torpedo torpedo tubes
4x12 Centurion decoy launchers
Light weapons Miniguns, HMGs & less than lethal

Mission bay/ Aircraft
Large Chinook-capable flight deck
Large Double Hangar for 2x Westland Merlin HM.2 (with AS Torpedo & CAMM ASM) as well as 2 unmanned drones.
3 larger boat bays for RIBs or UUVs
Side doors for RAS & Space for mission payloads including 20ft containers (both inside mission bay and on roof depending on loads)

AMDR 4x face AN/SPY-8 ABM capable GaN radar
Horizon scanning 4x face AN/APG-81 derived mast radar
Sonar Type 2160/61 Bow & 2087 Towed array

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 9th, 2020, 3:34 am
Posts: 24
Joined: July 22nd, 2017, 1:29 pm
Mataram Navy bet for future,the Semeru Class Cruiser

Mataram Navy at the early 21st century were looking for a new modern cruiser that can fullfill its role to being a relatively capable ships that specialize in escorting the fleet and protecting it from multiple threat both air and sea,after protracted development progress,it was decided to add the stealth capabilities which would be acceptable for future combat environment,the Navy officially ordered the new class of cruiser named Semeru class which 4 ships were ordered and lead ships of the class,the Semeru were laid down in Ciputra Shipyard in Surabaya on 14 April 2010 and were launched in November 2012 and were finally accepted into service in May 2014.

In August she was involved in joint exercise with Airforces in Arafuru Sea
[ img ]

Semeru class were a class of cruiser that were enhanced for Anti-Aircraft and Submarine capability and to protect the other ships from the enemy.and now with the threat of massive naval buildup by PRC and its increasingly aggressive attitude in South China Sea,Mataram needed to protect the fleet against threat of Chinese submarine and aircrafts.To accomplish that,Semeru class were equipped with state-of-the-art Active Electronically Scanned Array or AESA radar which is jointly developed by Nurtanio Defence Industry and LIG of Republic of Korea,the radar were amongst the most capable in its role and have range of almost 400km.This is further augmented with specialized SMART-L radar which are a specialized air search radar capable of long range detecting,up to 400 km and 65 km against stealth missiles.The ships main armament is its 64 VLS and 48 VLS combination in totals making Semeru to have 112 VLS,which in turned make Semeru one of most armed ships in current service worldwide.Loaded with wide variety of missiles from long range AAM,ASM into SSM and ASROC,makes Semeru capable of dealing with many types of threat.

Conventional armament were provided by a 127mm M.98 Turret which are capable of rapid firing,and for close defense backup were provided by 2x RIM-116 RAM or Roket Misil RMD.02 in Mataram services and were augmented with 2x 35mm Oerlikon-designed Milennium Gun.There is also 4x 20mm RWS and 12,7mm Machinegun for dealing with lighter targets

Overall Semeru class fills the need of Mataram Navy to have a capable and modern multirole cruiser which also specialized in Anti Air and Anti Submarine roles to overcome the threat of increasingly hostile Chinese Navy from the north.The last ships of the class,Lawu,were scheduled to be completed in 2020 but her construction were delayed by Coronavirus outbreak.

Semeru Class

Displacement - 8500 tonnes fully loaded
Speed - 33 knots
Range - 5500nm at 20 knots
- Single 127mm M.98
- 2xIII 324mm Tor M.58MK torpedo launchers

Two MAT-M VLS cell groups, 48 and 64 cells
- RIM-162 ESSM
- RIM-7E short range SAM
- S-Tor M.06 ASW torpedo
- MAK M.84M Taifun long range AShM missile
- Misil Darat "Brontoseno" Asu cruise missile
- RIM 66 SM-2-IIIA medium range SAM
- RIM 66 SM-2-IVA medium range SAM

*All of this loadout are interchangable

- 2xI 35mm Rheinmetall Oerlikon Millennium Gun CIWS
- 21 Roket Misil RMD.02 "RAM" point defense SAMs

- Two helicopter of UH-60M or Soemarsono SH-321C

Ships in class
-Semeru (Lead Ships)

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 9th, 2020, 6:28 am
User avatar
Posts: 73
Joined: February 11th, 2017, 12:45 am
Location: Baltimore, MD
James E. Williams Class Nuclear Guided Missile Destroyer

[ img ]

Displacement: 7,500 tons
Length OA: 500'
Beam: 55'
Draft: 24'
1x D3G nuclear reactor
1x Fairbanks-Morse 16PA6B emergency genset
Hybrid electrical/mechanical drive
1x shaft with variable pitch propeller
Speed: 30+ knots
Range: Unlimited
Endurance: 45 days
AN/SPY-3 X-band MFR
AN/SQS-53D Low-Frequency sonar
AN/SLQ-32(V) SEWIP Block 2
Kelvin Hughes navigation radars
64x Mk 41 VLS (strike length)
2x 155mm VGAS
1x 57mm Mk 110 in LO mount
4x 12.75" LW torpedo tubes
Small Arms

Unfortunately I could not get the text up in time, but I reckon I ought to explain myself. This thing is based on some baseline designs for a "small surface combatant" made as part of a 2007 NAVSEA study on propulsion options. You can find this study, entitled "Alternative Propulsion Methods for Surface Combatants and Amphibious Warfare Ships" here. The study first examines the likely power requirements for future "small" combatants, "medium" combatants, and large deck amphibs, based on historic data. I put "small" and "medium" in parentheses because the authors envision them being in the neighborhood of 7,500-12,000 metric tons and 34,000-38,000 metric tons, respectively. The study then examines a variety of engineering architectures for each type of combatant, in order to determine which is most efficient for that role. One of the major questions that needed answering was whether or not nuclear power was a cost-effective option for the surface fleet. The conclusion was "probably not." Of all of them, there was only a strong case for the medium combatant, which by far had the highest power requirements. Nonetheless, the break-even analysis was premised on consistently high oil prices. In order to justify nuclear power, one would have to go beyond simple cost calculations.

So while the study found that nuclear power was not suitable for the "small" combatant, I got to thinking that perhaps there is a case for it. If one were to go beyond the cost of fuel itself, and reduce the costs of the fuel infrastructure required to get it out to the fleet, one would be a lot closer to breaking even. At the PoD in the early aughts, the idea is to make a ship suitable for dealing with minor crises that requires minimal replenishment and can thus give the USN a credible forward presence with a small footprint. The ample internal volume can be used for adequate helicopter fuel and dry goods for long stretches. Only a few (vulnerable) auxiliaries would be needed in a region to support a small fleet of these long endurance small combatants. The total size of the auxiliary force, not properly appreciated by the powers that be in the late aughts, could be reduced. Deployments of large gas powered ships, like the Burke class Aegis destroyers and Ticonderoga class cruisers could be reduced by using the small combatants to respond to regional crises. While the ships themselves may not break even compared to a gas powered alternative, it seems plausible that a the Navy's legions of beancounters could make a case that the restructured force deployment model would save money overall. This is music to the ears of the outgoing Bush administration, which wishes to both project an image of American might (nuclear destroyers!) and reduce the cost of the ongoing wars in the middle east. The incoming Obama administration, though deeply skeptical of the up-front costs and atomic-ness of the scheme are eventually convinced by the cost savings argument and minimal footprint concept and allow the program to continue to it's full production run of 18 ships, DGNs 95-112.

These ships would take the place of the retiring Spurances and Perrys and the Littoral Combat Ships, which in this timeline we will assume are not followed through on after someone realizes that they are useless, as well as the Burke restarts. I assume that the Zumwalt program still falls on hard times and gets cut to 3 ships, but with the DGNs being built with the Vertical Gun for Advanced Ships, which uses the same ammunition as their AGS, their main batteries, at least, don't fall into a classic Pentagon Death Spiral. The costs of what are essentially gun launched missiles rather than cannon shells will still be high, but not as high as Tomahawks or other alternatives. To fill the air defense gap left by the aging Ticos and a mere 40 Burkes, a proper large surface combatant, also nuclear powered, is developed in parallel with the DGNs. Thus we have a force structure composed almost entirely of high-end combatants, with the DGNs providing forward presence and Burkes and the CGNs providing support for the carriers. The Zumwalts flap about somewhere in between; with the LCS not being built they become the whipping boys of the people that believe Big Navy can do no right, even though in this timeline they have ammunition for their guns and more development support for SPY-3. As it happens, the Navy can do no right, and everything eventually falls apart. But let's look at the design first.

The nuclear powered small combatants in the study are shown as flush deck with a conventional flared bow, minimal sheer, a long bulbous bow that does not extend below the keel line, and for the nuclear models a minimalist superstructure and what appears to be an integrated deckhouse/mast comparable to Zumwalt's, albeit shaped for a four-face radar. Propulsion for the nuclear models is assumed to be one modified submarine reactor. A specific model is not mentioned. In order to reap the benefits of large production lots and commonality and keep the size down to something a little less silly, I opted to use a modified S9G reactor, the type used in the contemporary Virginia class submarines. With a finely shaped hull to minimize resistance at high speeds, 30 knots should be attainable with only the one reactor. The reactor compartment is located underneath the after superstructure, forward of the hangar. Underneath the hangar is the separated gearbox and electric motor room. IEP propulsion was studied and planned, but the immaturity of the PMMs being designed for Zumwalt and the awkwardness of the alternative electric motors ultimately selected for that class resulted in the design team adopting a hybrid electrical/mechanical propulsion system. To cut the sticker shock of the nuclear powerplant down as much as possible, the designers employed a single shaft, another recommendation of the 2007 study. In low speed operations, the shaft is powered by the electric motor. For high speeds, the mechanical gearing takes over. This point coincides nicely with the point at which the reactor switches from natural circulation to active coolant pumping, essentially giving the crew the options of "quiet" and "fast" running. The large single screw also helps keep radiated noise down. A single large diesel is fitted for backup power in a space forwards of the reactor. This genset can provide power to the electric motor, enabling the ship to "limp home" in the event of a reactor casualty. Additional small generators are provided in the bow and in the stern to provide emergency power to the forward and aft damage control zones. For maneuvering in port or for emergency propulsion there is a The reactor has enough excess power capacity to facilitate the introduction of directed energy weapons or more powerful sensors in the future. It is expected to last for the ship's entire 30 year projected lifespan.

"Common sense is an uncommon virtue." "Says the guy that wanted to make a Nimitz hull into a battleship." "I never said I was one of the people with common sense."

Real drawings signed (M.Morris)
AU drawings signed (Miklania)

Last edited by Miklania on May 10th, 2020, 2:07 am, edited 7 times in total.

[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 5  [ 48 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

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

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