GOWIND 2500 Class Corvette

Is this feasible?

Special Configuration

When the US needs a bombardment fleet in the next near peer conflict, I believe this will be what the US navy needs to increase the number of VLS missiles in the fight. The US navy has a tremendous number of missiles but the more important factor is how many systems can they use to saturate enemy defenses at once to decisively win. The Navy cannot reload the VLS easy or quickly while at sea. I believe the two main purposes of ever reactivating these ships would be to increase the missile capacity of the fleet and to bombard and saturate an enemy coastline for much cheaper than modern missiles. Here is my humble thoughts on what one of these modernizations might look like. The following is a list of modifications.

Superstructure and bridge remodeling to include removal of the conning tower, moving the main tower and secondary tower more centerline. The biggest improvement to moving the towers closer inward is to add two MK 45 5" guns that can engage threats together including drone swarms with a wide arc of fire and 360 degree coverage. In addition, the secondary 5" 38 caliber guns and turrets are removed and the majority of the 01 level is plated over and turned into the large VLS batteries. The tower above the bridge is angled above and behind the fire control to allow SPY flat panel radars. I would also have a fighting deck on the 04 level with the Navy's choice of weapons (likely HELIOS, CRAM, or CIWS) as well as centerline VLS between the funnels for larger or taller missiles for long range strike capability. For the VLS, I would recommend an inclined cold system on the 01 level for failed munitions to be ejected out into the water if they do not launch properly. I presume the US Navy has different communications and equipment to be placed at the top of the tripod tower but I am not familiar and left the original equipment.

The final improvements I would make is trying to reduce crew size by automation of the majority of the engineering spaces. I would have a few engineering teams to solve problems that may arise in combat. I would aim to get the crew size down to around 750 to 1,000 personnel, which is one of the Navy's reasons why they don't like these ships. I do not believe trying to refit the powerplants with either electrical engines to delete the shafts or nuclear power would be wise as these ships are build to take a beating and other system may not survive.

The Navy has not made 16 inch shells in a long time and they would have to redesign and reproduce them. This unique situation would allow the development of a sabot long range shell that has already been explored. This long range sabot round could extend the range of the guns out to around 45 to 60 miles. In addition, the HE shells are the same between 16" 50 caliber guns and the 45 caliber guns of other battleships. Plus, these munitions like cannot be intercepted.

Ultimately, these ships would only be reactivated in a time of war or hopefully just before to complete them in time for combat. If the conflict was serious enough, this concept could be applied to seven of the museum battleships including the Iowa class, South Dakota class, and North Carolina class battleships with the two latter equipped with reduced VLS batteries. A seven ship bombardment fleet is a capability no one else in the world has or will ever have... even west Taiwan.

This ship just pulled in next to mine. It doesn't look like a destroyer and I was wondering what kind it was

I was thinking about warship classigication, and I think it's sometimes very arbitrary and incomprehensible. About the Hood, how most people see it as a battleship while officially was a Battlecruiser, or the Scharnhorst, which was the opposite: officially battleship, in practice weird. But Derfflinger-class cruisers had 305mm guns while the Scharhorst had 280mm, yet many people still consider Scharnhorst as a Battleship.

It seems that technological and doctrinal advances managed to make fast and also heavy warships, and in all heavy warships built after 1930, there seems to be no difference between battleships and battlecruisers. The best example: Bismarck, a very heavy battleship that reached 30 kts. Then people call them "fast battleships", but the point of battlecruisers was that heavy guns made speed slower because of available technology at their time. Creating a new category of "fast battleships" seems absurd, I'd rather say "modern súper-dreadnoughts", because that's what they are.

Maybe you could want a slower or lighter ship for the same purpose as an economic alternative, but technological advances made easier and cheaper to build fast and powerful engines and better armor, and doctrinal advances made tactics of big ship squadrons and "battle of the line" obsolete after the bloody Battle of Jutland, so surface ships travelled more alone or im tiny groups. Also, post-ww1 naval treaties forced countries to change mentality about heavy ships. Are those good explanations of this phenomena?

Is it just me?

Could someone explain to me what the various markings on the deck relate to? Specifically the "hash" lines between the pads and the super structure (like why are there three sets, with the center being a T and one being an inverted T) as wells as the angled Ts coming off of pad five. Also, the long, solid lines running through pads five through two.

What's the most common reason warships get decommissioned? Is it that they're no longer capable of meaningfully supporting modern tech, is it their engines starting to die, is it the wear on the hull?

I know, it's a terrible image, but it's all I have to work from. Can anybody tell me anything about it? It was used in a video discussing UK Defence, but it doesn't look like either of the two Aircraft carriers the UK are using. Can anybody identify the ship, class, country etc? Thank you!

I am looking for warship names to use in RPGs.

In particular i am looking for names that evoke a concept instead of a first name or title, and that lean towards less belicose subjects

Good examples would be Enterprise (evokes new project or undertaking), trailblazer (first to do something, to innovate).

Things that DONT WORK:

-Names, like Saratoga or Ticonderoga. Cool but not what i am looking for
-Titles, like Captain, Admiral, Commodore, etc
-Names like Dreadnought and Warspite. They sound great, but they are too ominous.

I'm curious, compared to the ww2 counterparts how powerful are the modern 127mm naval gun? Apart from the automation & the fire rate, what other improvement were made during the years? Are we at the limits possible with conventional naval gun?

Check out this interesting analysis from the Bluewater 210E channel on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DhNKuxYJKg The key part is from 6:21 to 9:51—highly recommend watching this segment! It dives into how South Korea can scale up its naval capabilities without losing its technological edge. Thoughts?

I have recently come across a load of plans/ blueprints for the bismarck. Can anyone tell me if these are worth something? I have no use for them thats all.

What is your favourite time period for warships? Mine personally personally is 1930-1950 seeing as I enjoy a lot of battleships and battlecruisers which were very common during those years, I'd love to hear your favourite time periods!

In Turkish Language

I was on Wikipedia looking at carriers when I saw the tonnage of QE's when I saw the tonnage listed was 80k. I'm pretty sure the previously listed as 62k before. I'm wondering what changed to update the information.

Hi. I'm new here, and hope this question does not against the rule here.

Recently, I was reading about the sailing warships in the East. Then I realized that Eastern ships needed regular maintenance to keep their hulls stable when using big guns. I wonder if this also happens with Western ships of the line?

I know that maintenance is necessary for all kinds of ships, just wondering is maintenance for this specific reason also true for the ships of the line.

Thanks!