WikiStates Gems

[eswube]

That BBGN-2000 isn't esthetically much worse than these real-life abominations of good taste like Zumwalt or LCS.

(Yes, I HATE "stealth" - both in warships and in airplanes )

[Zephyr]

Oh my dear and fluffy lord. Again, I have to wonder just what folk are thinking sometimes when they come up with this twaddle.

[quote="Awesomeland";p="9321838"]We use nuclear-powered submarine aircraft carriers (SSVN), which can launch both manned and unmanned naval aircraft using vertical launch tubes, and then recovering them from the ocean, so that the carrier does not need to remain surfaced to recover aircraft. This allows us to strike anywhere without warning and not present an obvious surface target for missiles.[/quote]

I guess seeing aircraft landing in the open ocean then going underwater wouldn't be at all obvious, or that MAD and Sonar don't exist, or that ASW weapons are completely useless.

[Thiel]

Oh my dear and fluffy lord. Again, I have to wonder just what folk are thinking sometimes when they come up with this twaddle.

[quote="Awesomeland";p="9321838"]We use nuclear-powered submarine aircraft carriers (SSVN), which can launch both manned and unmanned naval aircraft using vertical launch tubes, and then recovering them from the ocean, so that the carrier does not need to remain surfaced to recover aircraft. This allows us to strike anywhere without warning and not present an obvious surface target for missiles.

I guess seeing aircraft landing in the open ocean then going underwater wouldn't be at all obvious, or that MAD and Sonar don't exist, or that ASW weapons are completely useless. [/quote]
I can see you're beginning to understand why we hold NS in less than stellar regard.
Though I do have to wonder, how do you build an aircraft than can withstand the pressure of sub-surface launch?

[Zephyr]

I can see you're beginning to understand why we hold NS in less than stellar regard.

Yeah, I'm starting to get that.

Though I do have to wonder, how do you build an aircraft than can withstand the pressure of sub-surface launch?

Pretty sure you can't, not with current technology. Of course, something not existing or contrary to the laws of physics is frequently "cured" on NS with the phrase "I'm FUTURE TECH!!!" as if that is somehow the cure-all for every dimbulb idea and is capable of repealing the laws of physics.

[Karle94]

Oh my dear and fluffy lord. Again, I have to wonder just what folk are thinking sometimes when they come up with this twaddle.

[quote="Awesomeland";p="9321838"]We use nuclear-powered submarine aircraft carriers (SSVN), which can launch both manned and unmanned naval aircraft using vertical launch tubes, and then recovering them from the ocean, so that the carrier does not need to remain surfaced to recover aircraft. This allows us to strike anywhere without warning and not present an obvious surface target for missiles.

I guess seeing aircraft landing in the open ocean then going underwater wouldn't be at all obvious, or that MAD and Sonar don't exist, or that ASW weapons are completely useless.

I can see you're beginning to understand why we hold NS in less than stellar regard.
Though I do have to wonder, how do you build an aircraft than can withstand the pressure of sub-surface launch?[/quote]

Aircraft? What about the pilots?

[Rhade]

how do you build an aircraft than can withstand the pressure of sub-surface launch?

I think the same way as you build missiles and ICBM's launch from subs. There is a couple pretty good ideas about sub-launched UAV.

[acelanceloet]

missile= cilinder+ engine. not something with wings and air intakes and missile containers and guns and etc etc etc on board.... that should all be folded in until above water.

[Rhade]

not something with wings and air intakes

Tomahawk!
UAV would be lanuch in the same way as ICBM. Lockheed Martin create nice concept of such UAV,

[Raxar]

"Yuengleng Class Battleship"
characteristics
Displacement: 70,000 tons
Length: 950ft.
Beam: 120ft.
Draft: 35ft.
Propulsion: 8 × Armstrong-Northern Gas Turbines.
Speed: 35 knots
Range: 16,000 nmi at 15 kn
Complement: 1800 men
Armament:
12 × 16-inch/50 cal Mark VIII Guns.
10 x VLS Missle Tubes. (Equipped with Cruise, AA, and ASW Missles.
20 (10x2) 6 inch Dual Purpose Automatic Guns.
4 x AA (Sea Sparrow) Missle Launchers.
Sensors:
Classified Surface and Air Radar Systems
Classified Sonar System.
"Midshipman" Digital Combat Management System.

Armor: Side belt: 16 inches (409 mm) tapering to 10.2 inches on 1-inch STS plate inclined 19°
Bulkheads: 16 inches
Barbettes: 22 inches
Turrets: up to 22 inches
Decks: 10 inches
Aircraft carried: 3 ASW/AWACS Helicopters
Aviation facilities: Helipad and lower hanger

And now for my favourite:

Here's some specs on that last one:

"Thunder Class Destroyer"
Propulsion:
shafts Integrated Electric Propulsion;
2× Rolls-Royce WR-21 gas turbines, 20.1 MW (28,800 shp) each
3× RB235 diesel generators, 3 MW (2,700 shp) each
2× CoT209 electric motors, 19 MW (27,000 shp) each
Dimensions:
Length: 139m
Beam: 18.1m
Draught: 6m
Movement:
max speed: 39.6knots
range: 17,035 km at 17 knots
Complement:
190 (up to 220)
Armament:
1x1 155mm TMF [14 rounds per minute] (anti surface/land)
8x4 VLS fired RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (anti missile/air/surface)
2x2 Harpoon launchers (anti surface)
2x1 CIWS (anti missle)
2x1 .50 cal M2 machine guns (close range support)
2X1 40mm auto-fire cannons (close-medium range support)
Craft carried:
1x Merlin helicopter
2x 6m RIBS

And wait, there's more: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... 3&t=109818

[Zephyr]

That "Thunder" class looks like a bad mash-up between a Type 42 and a Type 45