5: Develop a Glare-reduction sight for use by sub-hunters and, ideally, anyone shooting at those pesky aircraft that like to come out of the sun. Attempt to incorporate it into any appropriate designs that operate at altitude or against naval targets.
Use it in the design for an upgraded observation balloon. Attempt to use and of air-catching lessons from the glider project, newer or more expensive materials, and possibly a ground-based heat-source to reduce the weight, and therefore the range at which the balloon is visible.
This balloon should be mounted on the the following Worker's Submarine destroyer(original by Ukrainian Ranger):
Worker's ASW
Displacement: Constructible using current dock facilities, or at least within 6 months of dock expansion.
Propulsion: Diesel
Speed: At least 50kph, preferably in excess of 60kph.
Armor: At least 20mm, preferably torpedo resistant.
Sufficient range to patrol merchant lines.
A Recon-Balloon dock and tether.
Triple Sonar Array covering 120 degrees.
Armament:
1 forward-facing 160mm-cannon armoured turret.
3 triple HVG-40 armoured A.A. and close target turrets. Must be resistant to aircraft cannons. (Triangular gun positions and one turret at the rear of the ship and one on each side towards the front of middle.)(It would also be nice if they got to the point where one of these destroyed a torpedo during testing)
8 GVS-14 mounts for close air defence and threatening surrendering submarine crews...(Test if it is possible for one of these to detonate or disable a torpedo.)
4 dogma positions for smoke deployment and anti-submarine munitions.
4 total Hedgehogs angled forwards and to the sides.
2 rear-mounted 500kg depth charge rails with a combined storage of eighty 500kg depth charges.
Proposal bellow is a destroyer without inclusion of glareless sights (BTW, do we really need to design stuff that minor?) and with more universal patrol destroyer:
And balloons... come on, just let them get accompanied by airships if scouting is that needed!
Plus I like Worker more than worker's (besides proposals like that are borderline cheating, IMO)
Anyway
Sub(counter)proposal 5.1
Design a fast "Worker" destroyer
Displacement: 2300 t
Armament:
Main: 1 forward 320mm turret with some nice armor (can't allow to lose main and only gun), fast turning and nice targeting
Secondary: two 80mm guns
AA: 8 hydra turrets, 2 twin older low velocity guns (they have higher rate of fire and thus better for low flying aircrafts and we may reuse design used for Alexi here), 2 twin HVS-40 turrets with aluminum antibullet armor (for higher flying aircrafts\small boats\merchants)
ASW: 2 hedgehogs, 10 HVS-14 machineguns, sonar
No mines, no torpedoes
Speed and operational range is preferred over armor, Goal is 60 Km\h.
Intended role:
1) Commerce raider. (We need one)
2) Fast reaction ship ( surfaced subs located? Let them prepare for shelling. Convoy under attack, fast reinforcements?)
3) Shore bombardment (if enemy has no coastal batteries, of cause)
It is designed to use it's single powerful gun and nice targeting for it's advantage and shell enemy ships from a distance they can't answer from (unprotected merchants and the like can be attacked form close range, of cause) and run from ships with more serious guns and armor.
While it has some some limited self defense against subs it should avoid them and run away from their torpedo range using it's advantage in speed.
It has a nice set AA weapons, because speed will not help to avoid aircrafts
It has way less excess equipment comparing to RAM's one, doesn't try to take Popular Devotion's or Alexi's role and will be our answer for Morovia, it's our turn to hunt on small\unprotected ships
I repeat once more - wasting expensive 2300 tons ship on ASW role when we have working popular devotions design for that (and airships, and biplanes) is just a bad idea.
Convoy with 2-3 popular devotions and one Alexi is defended enough both from subs and AA atacks. We need to counterstrike. That ship will do just that
Hrmmm, the only wieght listing I can find for the 160mm is on the S.P.I.A. and that says 8 tonnes, but the turrets and ammunition on ships are 100 tonnes, while the 320mm says 70 tonnes for the gun and 120 tonnes for turret an ammunition. Going by gun weights, the 320mm turret should be 875 tonnes. So either something is very good about the coastal defence turret, something is very bad about the 160mm naval gun, or something funky is going on. My bet is on the coastal defence gun carrying less ammunition and have less motion than the 160mm naval turret and having no armour at all. After all, they can be mounted in bunkers if we want them armoured, and they only have to point out to sea.
I love the idea of a single 320mm gun, but I just can't see it being fitted on a fast ship with that sort of tonnage. But by all means, I am happy to have it mounted if there is any chance of it working.
Name: Calling it the Worker is fine, but you keep calling it the worker destroyer, and destroying workers is not what we are about...
Displacement: I appreciate the desire to make the most out of our production capacity, but I really don't want anyone to waste time and effort tailoring it to a single dock that could be renovated. Personally I think that, being on a peninsula, we are likely to become a naval power, and likely to have multiple docks churning these sort of things out, while our personal dock is likely to keep being expanded so that we can continue to product prototypes of whatever obscenely large vessel we can dream up. So matching it to exactly 2300 tonnes is very short-sighted.
Main gun: While the 320mm would be a great addition, it is not without cost and is not appropriate for the ship. A torpedo launcher would be better as, if it is going to engage larger vessels, it will be doing so with speed and numbers. Putting a gun that big on it is trying to turn it from a sub-hunter into a universal patrol boat, which just isn't practical in the long-term. At the moment our shipping is being hounded by submarines, so we need something that can deal with submarines. Later on these will still be useful as fleet-defence ships.
I don't see the point of 80mm guns, for firing A.A. flack? The 40mm can take on light targets, medium targets shouldn't get close enough for the 160mm to have issues, and large targets should either be too slow to catch it or too lightly armoured to withstand a 160mm.
Hydra turrets would take up a lot of deck space. Certainly could be worth it, I have no objection to the idea, but I am going for accuracy and range over rate of fire... I would certain vote for a design that included up to 4 hydras and was otherwise practical.
I like the triple-turret because it has a two-dimensional field of fire.
I suspect that Hedgehogs are a pain to reload, and the 14mm round really can't be expected to go through all submarines' armour.
No mines is a big agreement, no sense in such a thing for a fast ship. A couple of torpedo tubes really could expand its role a lot, but for now I am happy to focus.
Specs:I like speed and light armour, but I would like it to be able to move alongside a seemingly crippled ship without being torn apart by a machine gun... 60kph is my current goal too, but if they can get more than great, and if they don't make it then I don't want some sort of insane effort trying to reach it, as we have to build the thing afterall. But if it can't reach 50kph then it really isn't worth the effort.
Commerce raider: 160mm gun can sink merchant ships, we get something else to kill convoys.
Fast reaction ship: My design really should be the lighter. Better equipped to handle subs. And in numbers either ship could deal with surface raiders.
Shore Bombardment: Really isn't going to happen without making compromises, and why make compromises when you can make role-specific ships?
The traditional term for fast with big guns is battlecruiser. This is not such a vessel, and it would be easy enough to build a much better one.
A ship that runs away from submarines is useless right now. We need something with better range and independence than the popular devotion to patrol the open ocean. which is why we need a larger subhunter. Both ships have their roles.
Both proposals have antiaircraft capacity, neither sill survive a concerted air attack alone, both will be operating outside of the range of most aircraft.
RAM's proposal has more equipment, it has balloons which will hopefully have the ability to spot submerged submarines at a distance, and submarine periscopes well outside of engagement distances... Glare reduction would massively enhance hunting of submerged guns. And if we can get polarised glass, well, that would have all sorts of uses... But i have no idea of the history of polarised glass, so it might be unrealistic, which is why we need a pure research facility to occasionally spit out a random piece of bizarre technology such as polarised glass, lasers, silicon circuitry, or, ideally, fictional stuff with secret properties that we have to figure out, or not, uses for ourselves. I mean, if they come up with lasers than it will be about half a year before we have fibre-optic communications, laser sights, laser-surveys for airfields and artillery positions, and all manner of other (relatively) future technologies...
Once again, for the moment it is a long-range, independent ship to save our merchants. later on it will be a fleet protector. The other ships in our arsenal don't have the independence or ammunition capacity to perform that role effectively.
Ukranian Ranger's proposal won't last long in hostile waters and can't protect our merchants, we need a proper fleet to effectively engage the Morovian homeland by sea. Submarines would be little more than a nuisance, as they are not dependant upon merchant traffic. And an occasional shell into a port or two isn't going to cripple anything, and will promptly be killed by aircraft and have a counter developed.
Author
Topic: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC) (Read 43788 times)