Remove ads

Attempting to Fulfill the Plan: GDI Edition

Reader mode
Simon_Jester said:
Then is anything even taking off from a runway along the deck of the carrier/amphib? If not, I could see that imposing some pretty radical changes on the way the ships are designed, to the point where there's not much incentive for them to even look like 20th century aircraft carriers. Because 20th century aircraft carriers are designed heavily around the constraint "we need to put a runway on a bote," and everything else follows from that constraint.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Firehawks. That's the reason the Atlantis has a flight deck looking area forward. Escort carriers are too small to probably carry Firehawks. I differentiate between escort and fleet carriers in my style guide based on CATOBAR (which I figure is how Firehawks are operated). CV/CVL have CATOBAR capabilities, CE/CEL do not. It allows some overlap between CVL and CE at the lower end of light carriers and the upper end of escort carriers without a question of what to call them. Do they have CATOBAR and thus Firehawks(/Apollos)? If so, Light Carrier (CVL). If not, Escort Carrier (CE). And there's a threshold where an escort carrier is big enough you have to ask "why doesn't it have CATOBAR installed?"

In the case of the escort carrier, there's presumably can be a bit of staging on deck before/after launch before they end up stowed below decks again so you can launch a decent strike force if needed or potentially for rearming/resupply on deck during flight ops. Or space to receive, say, a V-35 or Carryall on deck for COD purposes at sea.

EDIT: Naturally, I leave the post sitting unposted while I go off to work and don't notice additional thread activity after getting home. Maybe exchange "no CATOBAR" for "minimal CATOBAR" on escort carrier description. The CEL I would straight up say would be too small to bother with CATOBAR in any capacity anyhow.
 
Last edited:
Simon_Jester said:
Then is anything even taking off from a runway along the deck of the carrier/amphib? If not, I could see that imposing some pretty radical changes on the way the ships are designed, to the point where there's not much incentive for them to even look like 20th century aircraft carriers. Because 20th century aircraft carriers are designed heavily around the constraint "we need to put a runway on a bote," and everything else follows from that constraint.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I imagine you can take off the runway just fine. But you don't want the aircraft stowed up there where the spray can get at it, not on a permanent basis.

So, if you need a quick top off, there's just enough deck space for two or three fighters to taxi over, get fueled and bombed up, turn around and take off again. Anything long than five minutes, you take the elevator down to the hanger deck.

EDIT:Maybe not two or three. Enough to stage a squadron for take off, but not enough to crowd the whole wing up there.
 
Last edited:
Okay guys, hear me out.

Do you...like speed?

Do you want the oceans of Earth to become the plot of the next Fast and Furious movie?

Then I have the perfect concept for you: The Gdrive submarine. For the following calculations we will assume 0.5g Gdrive and the weight of a type 212 submarine, so 1830 tons. Because of some discussions on the discord gdrive sub came on, mostly because no moving parts and stealth and all that, but I, I had a different thought: how fast can a Gdrive sub go. In opposite to space, the sub is held back by the water around it, so we need to figure out a submarine drag coefficient, turns out sadly, real subs dont give out these numbers readily, so we had to make some assumptions.

Assuming the drag coefficient of our Gdrive sub is equivalent to a ball (0.47) a 0.5g Gdrive sub could reach a maximum speed of 165 km/h...underwater mind you.
Some articles mentioned coefficients of 0.3, in this case we could reach max speeds of 195 km/h.
They also mention future sub designs could reach as low as 0.1, at which point we are at max speeds of 325 km/h.
The theoretically upper limit using a perfect streamlined body (0.04) we can get to 525 km/h if we don't reduce the cross section.

This speed of course scales with Gdrive upgrades. But now, what does this mean? A submarine at this speed would be able to outrun ANY conventional submarine, warship and conventional torpedo. Nod would have to upgrade to supercavitating torps with rocket motors and this would only give them A CHANCE to overspeed out hypothetical Gdrive sub. Who need stealth when you can outspeed any enemy. Nod sub commander be talking big until the eardrums of their sonar operators burst because GDSSN Diesel zoomed near them at 300 km/h.

😎 🏎️
 
Last edited:
I propose that you superheat the outside of the submarine so that the water in immediate contact with it boils away, thus enabling the submarine to technically travel through 'atmosphere' of water vapor and go faster. While glowing with heat. :p
 
People...you know turning my empathy and communication skills back on I did not expect to just suddenly realize most posters in this thread behave like teenagers shooting the breeze half the time when there is no voting to be done or argued over. Seriously @Simon_Jester is just that awkward nerdy kid in the corner trying to work out the best model train set he can build when there is no voting, just replace train sets with quest rules.

Um...not sure what to do with this realization. Any suggestions?
 
Dmol8 said:
I'm not sure I could get everyone's voices correctly even for the most common posters in plan arguments and I'm not sure how funny I could make it for other people.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Here, let me take a crack at it:

Poster 1: We should do [plan item X] because [something QM wrote] or [something I dreamed up off the top of my head]
Poster 2: No, we should do [plan item Y] because [insert catastrophic scenario here]
Poster 1: [unrelated argument about minor point in poster 2's argument]
Poster 2: [unrelated argument about minor inconsistency in poster 1's argument]
Poster 1: No, you are a [poo poo head] or [advocating war crimes/mass murder]
[Thread Lock]
[Exit Stage Left]
 
NickAragua said:
Here, let me take a crack at it:

Poster 1: We should do [plan item X] because [something QM wrote] or [something I dreamed up off the top of my head]
Poster 2: No, we should do [plan item Y] because [insert catastrophic scenario here]
Poster 1: [unrelated argument about minor point in poster 2's argument]
Poster 2: [unrelated argument about minor inconsistency in poster 1's argument]
Poster 1: No, you are a [poo poo head] or [advocating war crimes/mass murder]
[Thread Lock]
[Exit Stage Left]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We're not that bad. We haven't had a thread lock since page 531 and no one has had quite so a heated conversation since page 773 when capitalism got brought up as all the evils of the world last.
 
BOTcommander said:
You want to know the truth?
YOU WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
[can't handle the truth]
[thud]

BOTcommander said:
Okay guys, hear me out.

Do you...like speed?

Do you want the oceans of Earth to become the plot of the next Fast and Furious movie?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes. But. Yesbut.

The one issue that concerns me with these sub designs would be ensuring that the submarine doesn't collapse under the pressure. Because when you're moving at umpty hundred kilometers an hour underwater, that is a lot of dense material you're shoving out of the way. It exerts a lot of force on the bow of the submarine.

Phht said:
With the buckler shields and sparkle shields, we're gonna make pinpoint barriers on our g-drive subs. Just stick all the pinpoint barriers on the front when sprinting, and we're good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Lotta pins needed, yeah.
 
Simon_Jester said:
The one issue that concerns me with these sub designs would be ensuring that the submarine doesn't collapse under the pressure. Because when you're moving at umpty hundred kilometers an hour underwater, that is a lot of dense material you're shoving out of the way. It exerts a lot of force on the bow of the submarine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Its only something like 45 Newtons of force per square centimeter of cross section, I am not an engineer so I have no idea if that is much or not but it sounds like something that could be overcome.
 
The thing is, it's not just a uniform pressure being exerted on the submarine from all sides. It's a pressure being exerted on the bow, pushing it towards the stern. Structurally different. You could probably brace the hull against it, I dunno, I'm not a naval engineer, but it's a factor in the design.
 
Simon_Jester said:
The thing is, it's not just a uniform pressure being exerted on the submarine from all sides. It's a pressure being exerted on the bow, pushing it towards the stern. Structurally different. You could probably brace the hull against it, I dunno, I'm not a naval engineer, but it's a factor in the design.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And this is why Naval Architecture is a bitch to do right, if you make even one mistake of design, or have one unforseen issue crop up, in a Submarine, it could doom it, and the crew aboard it, its happened several times before through every era of Submarines from the first, to the Modern design, and we've learned to not underestimate a lot about the Oceans power when it really just wants to squash you, especially during Maximum Dive tests.
 
Just for starters, I'm pretty sure you'd end up with a very strangely shaped hull. Sort of like how jets designed not to fall apart on breaking the sound barrier tend to look very different from aircraft not designed with that concern in mind.
 
Yeah, it's going to do all sorts of weird stuff with the shape of the sub. I just wanted to give an actual understanding of what those numbers mean as 40 meters of water is easier to understand than the very abstract 45 N/cm. It's possible, but it's going to need a very specific design and honestly might not even be viable for an attack sub let alone a boomer (though such a drive certainly would be loud as fuck which kind of defeats the purpose of a boomer). What it could be used for is like "underwater cruise missiles" where you have a torpedo designed to be launched from super long range and then use some sort of guidance package to maneuver towards it's destination and by the time it reaches the target it's just going ridiculously fast and is effectively impossible to avoid or intercept.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top