Range and accuracy issues?

''On January 31, 2008 the US Navy tested a railgun that fired a shell at 10.64 MJ with a
muzzle velocity of 2,520 m/s.[16] Its expected performance is a muzzle velocity over 5,800
m/s, accurate enough to hit a 5 meter target over 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) away while
firing at 10 shots per minute. The power was provided by a new 9-megajoule (MJ) prototype
capacitor bank using solid-state switches and high-energy-density capacitors delivered in
2007 and an older 32-MJ pulse power system from the US Army뭩 Green Farm Electric Gun
Research and Development Facility developed in the late 1980s that was previously
refurbished by General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems (EMS) Division. It is expected to
be ready between 2020 to 2025''

*Plus all that armor is going to do diddly against a modern missile or torpedo (heaven
forbid something nasty hits her keel).*

Same could be said about the modern carrier. There are also interceptor weapons that can
prevent incoming missiles from hitting the ship; found on modern day ships.

God bless the designer


either to much L.S.D.

or to much Mariuana.


elese he watches toooooo much Cartoons

It's okay, guys. I tried my boat in a simulator!

The ship is too wide for both the Panama and Suez canals. And while no currently
manufactured weapon system can inflict serious damage on her main armor belt, she's just
as vulnerable to keel detonating torpedoes as any other ship.

Plus, if you're scaling it up from historical battleships, you have to realize there are
portions of them that are virtually unarmored to save weight. If you're trying to
maintain 20" minimal armor thickness over all spaces, you'd better double your weight
estimate at least.

@ Genosaurer

Dude........................5..............00..........0000............tons.............................................
.............. at 42 knots............................


WHAT WAS THAT GUY SMOKING?!?!?! I WANT SOME OF THAT! lolz

You may want to look into SpringSharp if you're actually interested in designing plausible
ships. It's not perfect, but it's much better than just eyeballing dimensions and
displacements.

Even with modern technology, the machinery needed to load 5-7 ton shells at a rate of
1/minute (especially if this ship had a tradtitional flashtight loading arrangement and
armored magazine) would be prohibitively large and heavy for naval use.

That's in addition to what others have mentioned about this being a lot of ship with no
real purpose. What would you use it for?

Although as far as unreasonable ship designs go, it's hard to beat this purportedly
historical one:



Also known as HIJMS This Is Why Commander Kaneda Isn't Allowed In The Shipbuilding Office
Anymore. 500,000 tons standard displacement, main battery of 100 40cm/45 (16") guns in
twin turrets backed by 200 single casemated 14cm/50 (5.5") guns and 200 submerged torpedo
tubes. Projected top speed of 42 knots!

went to the video link....that thing is like freak of nature (or mankind...)

@ Hailene
I am aware that currently missiles are more affective than artillary. I also know
most people know missiles are powerful than artillary shells, but if you take a 7 ton
shell, fire it out of something similar to the railgun system in development (Which
would greatly increase range and kinetic energy) which is more effective over all?
Yes I know a rail gun would never have the range of a missile, but its harder to
detect artillary shells, artillary fire will almost always be cheaper than a missile, with
rail guins no powder is needed reducing cost more and a 7 ton shell would anilate
anything on the sea and anything with in range easily.
The power plant for the ship is a simple problam to solve. A modern Nimitz class CV
at 109,000tons uses a nuclear reactor to generate power. This ship ways twice as
much but has twice the amount of room, so answer: 2 nuclear power plants
Missiles being effective against the armor is more a less a luck thing. Ever one says
missiles could take out a bb easily. People have listed the Faulklands war when
British CA's were sunk with one missile, but heres the thing, CA dose not equal BB.
No one has ever seen a missile actually hit a BB, ANy amount of armour will stop part
of missiles destructive power. CA's and most ships sunk by missiles are built for
speed, not defence. BBs are built to resist damage. I am awar of the Fritz x missile
of WWII that sunk the Italian BB Roma, but heres the thing. it was an obsolet BB
with little deck amour (Were the bomb hit). The deck of my BB has 15" of armour.
Many WWII bbs had less than 15" for side armour (Iowas had bout 12") so seeing
this, along with the massive array of CIWS anti missile and AA systems, it would be
a good assumption that a missile wouldn't have nearly the impact on this ship as it
would on a normal ship. And if missiles fail, do yopu think an enemy would be brave
(Or dumb enough) to attack it?

I like that one too, but it has a lower damage output, and has its primary weapon firing
backwards. The torpedoes are nice, though. Kita, on the other hand, is OP.

To be honest compass, i fear your UK frigate over the twin hulled drill battleship.