Page 2 of 5

Re: Objective Global Warship

Posted: July 25th, 2011, 12:05 pm
by TimothyC
Wikipedia & Universe wrote:HOLY Sh**! Grab a tissue box, IT'S A F***ING U.S. LONGSWORD.ImageImageImageImage/trololololo
I would be so tempted to use this, but my better judgement won out and I won't. Just a couple of questions. Are those MLRS rockets factual or non-factual? Also by permission do you mean crediting the author in the top right, or something even further?
He means further. In short you can use stuff like the PAC-3, and maybe GBI, but much beyond that starts getting off limits.

The MLRS systems are non-factual, but derived from current concepts.
Colombamike wrote:Baaaaaaaah too gigantic
Maybe more nice to see a "much+++ smaller" (realistic) version...
- 155-185 meters for a ABM destroyers (may be very nice to see them)
- 185-225 meters for a ABM cruisers
no more big...
Maybe you missed the part where BUDGETS ARE DEATH, or the part where it is used to dominate entire planets.
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:Also, just where is the mandatory Regulation size Basketball court at, Shipbuilder Erik? High Command is not pleased with this oversight! :P
It's got the volume in there someplace. It carries an entire MEU, a single basketball court is almost nothing in comparison,

Re: Objective Global Warship

Posted: July 25th, 2011, 2:38 pm
by erik_t
erik_t wrote:Surely, we can do better. The natural ultimate conclusion would be a ship mounting radars in the PAVE PAWS class. However, SABMIS would not have been a terribly useful warship outside of this confined role, and PAVE PAWS is huge, so a truly useful multi-purpose warship with such radars would naturally hold just about whatever else one might want. One might consider it the natural jumping-off point for what we have termed the 'Objective Global Warship'.
Colombamike wrote:Baaaaaaaah too gigantic
Maybe more nice to see a "much+++ smaller" (realistic) version...
- 155-185 meters for a ABM destroyers (may be very nice to see them)
- 185-225 meters for a ABM cruisers
no more big...
Mike, please do me the courtesy of reading even the first 15% of a post next time. There's a reason I put the above even before any information on the drawing itself. You see, this does not look terribly practical.



I would have thought the intrinsic quasi-silliness of the basic premise spoke for itself, as with LazerOne's H45.



*EDIT* That came out really bitchy - I'm going to try again. See below. */EDIT*

Re: Objective Global Warship

Posted: July 25th, 2011, 2:44 pm
by heuhen
erik_t wrote:You see, this does not look terribly practical.
HAHAHAHA :lol:

Re: Objective Global Warship

Posted: July 25th, 2011, 3:38 pm
by Karle94
The Sabmis reminds me of the Arsenal ship study.

Re: Objective Global Warship

Posted: July 25th, 2011, 3:54 pm
by ALVAMA
Awesome! You make me want to make something sililair! This will be on my list of favs top 20!

Re: Objective Global Warship

Posted: July 25th, 2011, 4:06 pm
by Gollevainen
Apperently there is also an creative, nice looking and "pro" way of doing ridicilously large combatants ;) Love the imput of the desing in explanationary wise, all good own desings (be them this size or smaller) should have good reasoning behind of their purpose. This certainly raises the bar

Re: Objective Global Warship

Posted: July 25th, 2011, 4:33 pm
by erik_t
I want to emphasize that this drawing is not in my usual style of 'attempting to be reasonable and sensible'.

Well, that's not quite right either. My usual standpoint is 'attempting to be reasonable and sensible (with the set of preconditions that currently persist in the United States Navy)'. The part in parentheses is sort of implied. It means the usual: rotating air search radars are not preferred, RCS is to be kept low but not necessarily minimized, all missiles except RAM must absolutely launch out of VLS, several SH-60 must be supported, major components should be those persisting in the USN (Mk 45 instead of Oto 127mm), etc etc etc.

The same is true here. However, the preconditions are very important and very different from usual. Consider, again, H45. Even if it's not a real proposal (which at this point I don't think it was), we can easily imagine Adolf saying 'DORA MUST BE PRESENT IN TURRETS' (see: 'ME-262 MUST BE A BOMBER', 'I DEMAND A TANK WITH S/G 11" TURRETS', etc.). Or even something that was done in real life, 'WE MUST HAVE AN UNBROKEN LINE OF RADAR STATIONS 200MI NORTH OF THE ARCTIC CIRCLE'. Which we then did, quite rapidly in fact.

So Objective Global Warship is 'attempting to be reasonable and sensible' given a few starting facts which themselves aren't terribly reasonable or sensible. Let me quote again from Rob:
Sea Skimmer at SDN wrote:Actually when I first dreamed up OGW with 24in VGAS and convinced Eric to start drawing it with his own added in details within I dunno, it took like five minutes flat so awesome was the concept, I wanted 24in observation shells which could be fired in-between every dozen or so normal rounds to spot the fall of shot. If optics can’t do it due to breaking on firing … arbitrarily awesome MMW radar sure could spot the craters and confirm destruction of buildings and armored vehicles. Though the long range shell for 24in VGAS is basically on top of a whole stack of screw together rocket boosters to accomplish global range with a sane length of loading stroke, so making optics or LIDAR or something survive firing just might barely be possible. They made the laser seeker on Copperhead survive somehow after all.

The information would be data linked back by small transponders in a chain of other 24in shells flying further behind in a giant arc across the globe back to OGW. So who needs satellites? Won’t let you spot the last shells down as they have no transponder behind them, but who cares? Fire for effect with 7,000lb full size or even 4,000lb subcaliber shells (see Little David video for what 4,000lb at only 380m/s can do) won’t leave a damn thing left. The next fire mission will confirm the last missions results.

Launching small satellites using 28in SM-3 and GBI boosters is easy enough, never mind Super Trident and Space Marine Rocket System; but one assumes that any credible threat to OGW will also very easily deny space with his own ABM missiles and lasers. So satellites are nothing really worth writing home about. I mean if they can't even do that, then OGW will beat them without even sounding general quarters. Just man battle stations VGAS and everything dies.
So we have three absolute preconditions, handed down from on high. The ship, whatever it may ultimately be, must ship PAVE PAWS class radar (120ft x 120ft) and it must support a 24" vertical gun (presumably not shorter than 50 calibers in length). Finally, it must be a warship, not a mobile oil rig that drives around at 5 knots with a big radar on top. These three things drive the design.

So the naval architect, having been handed the RFP with these data points, and having gone back to his desk and knocked back a few shots from his emergency flask, must sit down and try to make something work. That's where we sit now, and that's what I've tried to do. Assuming the ship must carry 120ft radar arrays and a 24" vertical gun array, and it must defend itself, this is where we ended up.



There were two little sidelights. First is an in-joke regarding recent US nomenclature. We've been seeing a lot of 'Objective Interim' designs of various things. Well, what is the real Objective? It has to be just outrageously insane, right? Second, we always see that adding size means you want to add capability which means you need a bigger hull for stability but then there's more space for weapons etc etc... things spiral ever-outward. Well, as the spiral goes further and further outward... does it ever stop expanding? Does it converge to some far-out circle? It kind of seemed to here. I could make it a little bigger and add a few more VLS cells, but why? What do we really gain at that point? OGW got large enough that I no longer felt any pressure to expand. It was interesting to find that.

Re: Objective Global Warship

Posted: July 26th, 2011, 2:36 am
by Wikipedia & Universe
TimothyC wrote:
Wikipedia & Universe wrote:HOLY Sh**! Grab a tissue box, IT'S A F***ING U.S. LONGSWORD.ImageImageImageImage/trololololo
I would be so tempted to use this, but my better judgement won out and I won't. Just a couple of questions. Are those MLRS rockets factual or non-factual? Also by permission do you mean crediting the author in the top right, or something even further?
He means further. In short you can use stuff like the PAC-3, and maybe GBI, but much beyond that starts getting off limits.

The MLRS systems are non-factual, but derived from current concepts.
Ok, thanks.

@Erik: May I use the MLRS rockets?

Re: Objective Global Warship

Posted: July 27th, 2011, 8:01 am
by odysseus1980
Magnificent!!

Re: Objective Global Warship

Posted: July 29th, 2011, 2:11 am
by erik_t
Wikipedia & Universe wrote:@Erik: May I use the MLRS rockets?
The uppermost one is, as I recall, the real-world GMLRS. Extra-long range NDB rocket makes sense, if you want nuclear ASW, even in a smallish-ship context. Launching things out of a non-VLS doesn't make sense for anything but a stupidhuge ship with intrinsic reload capability.

Keep to the real rocket and the nuclear version, fired from VLS.