StarDestroyer.Net BBS

It's been a while. I made them for my sister's school job initially, then used for SDN World. But not everyone's playing, so... maybe they'd be of interest to some:



They represent quite a swath of historical ship and aircraft types, all to scale with 1 px = 1 meter.

And spam has been dealt with...again. If you want to congratulate Stas on a job well done, do so via PM. Do not spam the forum with +1 posts. This is not AMP. So post something that contributes to a discussion or that does concern the public or use the PM option.

How the hell do you expect people to discuss a page of artwork Thanas? If people can’t even say job well done then this whole thread should go somewhere else.

Technically they can offer suggestions on what should be added / removed / split into a different table. Feedback is appreciated.

Well... if there's something similar for army gear, that would be awesome.

I'm quite grateful for this on its own, mind.

I think I honestly like the DeGaulle class carriers the best. With the tower set forward farther than on American carriers.
You don't have allied bombers shown for some reason.

Quick question. Why do you have all the airplanes shown from the top view, while the helicopters are shown from the side?

phred wrote:Quick question. Why do you have all the airplanes shown from the top view, while the helicopters are shown from the side?

Yeah, I'm looking to correct that. Basically, I thought that top profiles for helicopters are too similar for identification, but now it makes little sense if everything is top view and they are side view.

phred wrote:You don't have allied bombers shown for some reason.

The reason is mostly that it's a work in progress.

Stas, do you have any details of the Russian LPD/LHAs? I have never heard of these before.

Nice. One question if I may. While I am glad to see this oft overlooked carrier, why did you choose the Bearn over more well-known carriers like the Eagle, which was also a conversion, Hermes, or the Japanese carriers. Length?

MarchalFoch wrote:Length?

Term of use. Stuff that didn't cease exploit with the onset of year 1945 is there; well, the Lexington and some of the stuff there did retire early, but I thought Lexington is important. Alternatively, it might mean I'll extend that table to World War II navies as well.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Stas, do you have any details of the Russian LPD/LHAs? I have never heard of these before.

Sure I do, those are projects 11780 and 10200, and they are a bit obscure to be fair, though not as obscure as some other examples of the aircraft carrier stuff the USSR designed like the 1930s and 1950s designs . What do you need though? Statistics for the class, or photos of models proposed by the design bureau?

Stas Bush wrote:Sure I do, those are projects 11780 and 10200, and they are a bit obscure to be fair, though not as obscure as some other examples of the aircraft carrier stuff the USSR designed like the 1930s and 1950s designs . What do you need though? Statistics for the class, or photos of models proposed by the design bureau?

All of the above would be nice.

Sea Skimmer wrote:How the hell do you expect people to discuss a page of artwork Thanas? If people can’t even say job well done then this whole thread should go somewhere else.

In the same manner that people managed to do so in the past and in this thread.

Are those F35s on that one lite carrier (America)? What else is she carrying? I can't quite tell.

When did the Russians build a super carrier (Ulyanovsk)?

The Spartan wrote:Are those F35s on that one lite carrier (America)? What else is she carrying? I can't quite tell.

When did the Russians build a super carrier (Ulyanovsk)?

Some time in the 80s, the construction started, but the USSR's breakup put an end the construction.

Are those F35s on that one lite carrier (America)? What else is she carrying? I can't quite tell.

Helicopters and Ospreys. LHA-6 is supposed to be a replacement for the aging Tarawa-class LHAs, but in truth she basically will be a light carrier, since she lacks the well deck that typifies previous USN assault ships. Of course, she can still embark as many Marines as the Wasp class, they'll just be delivered by air rather than LCAC.

Does this mean that the LCACs will be phased out, or simply re-tasked?

Kanastrous wrote:Does this mean that the LCACs will be phased out, or simply re-tasked?

They'll continue to be used on the Wasp-class, none of which should retire for at least 20 years. Additionally, America's basic hull design is compartmentalized in such a way that future ships can be built with a well deck with minimal modification to the basic design, if so desired.

Of course, all-aviation assault ships are not unprecedented (see: the Iwo Jima class and the Essex LPH conversions), however this would be the first time in over 40 years the US navy has commissioned one.

And there's LPDs and LSDs as well, which they'll presumably be working alongside.

I notice a lack of any OHPs. A drastic oversight considering how damn many of them there are around the place.

Project moves on with Franco-Japanese navies being mostly complete (can't find any more pictures).

Any data and stats and history on those Russian LPD/LHAs? Do you plan to add the Spanish F-100 frigates? Or the derivatives?

Here...

Project 11780 "Kherson" universal landing ship dock (ULSD), or what you'd call LPD.


Nevskoye PKB.
200x25 m flight deck.

Armament: 1x2 AK-130, 3x "Kinzhal" SAM launcher blocks, "Kortik" CIWS/missile 2 blocks.
Ka-29 - 12 units, or Yak-38, Yak-141 possible. Gas-turbine propulsion, analogous to Pr.956 Sovremenny.
DKAVP air cushion landing craft inside dock (Soviet analogs of the LCAC).

Final variant left without Yak-38/Yak-141, some variants proposed using Ka-27 instead of Ka-29 for ASUW duties. The project was shunned in the General Chief Quarters. Nicked "Ivan Tarawa" because it was a full analogue of the Tarawa class by functions.

NPKB photos
http://pilot.strizhi.info/photos/v/NPKB/11780/

This is very nice and I encourage more. Its particularly good to be able to see the evolution in shape and size of the destroyers of all the western states, which are all going the same way shape and size wise in the currently built generation.

If you redo the NATO/ Soviet ones at any time then I'd like to suggest some improvements that could be made at that time; it'd be nice to have the ship classifications cleaned up to be the same as those in the more recent "Japan, France" page, since its sometimes hard to identify what class and type a ship is (particularly in my case for the Soviet ships). It'd also be nice to put a reference to "(planned)" or "(not commissioned)", something similar for those never actually built.

The US Sea Shadow is probably equally justified for putting on this if you can get a decent image. I'm also curious as to how many of the Ekranoplans are proposed or paper only designs as opposed to in service, as they're still hard to get data on thats reliable as opposed to propaganda-wank or very vague.

114.3 on the Soviet page should be the Kiev as the nameship of the class and the longest serving one, nyet?

Minor nitpick Stas, the Lexington is CV-2 with CV-1 being the USS Langley.

Final version, FIVE NAVIES:

ROKN - Republic of Korea
JMSDF - Japan
Marine Nationale - France
Marina Militare - Italy
Armada de Espana - Spain

Have fun!