MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop 21st Century WorldMilitary
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
Naval Stuff
 Group admin 
Since the Navy is my favorite branch of service, I thought I'd open a topic concerning the Naval ships, and systems of our Navies here.

I know other out there are navy fans too (Brendan) so here we may also discuss Navy related things, as a sort of mutual interest.
Permalink
| September 4, 2010, 7:54 pm
 Group admin 
Luckily, Nick and I have had a carrier project going for at least two months... There's still a few left, but it's always good to start early.
Permalink
| September 4, 2010, 11:41 pm
I think a decent timetable would be around...
Submarines- 35 days
Frigate Size- 15 days
Amphibious Assault Ship Size- 20 days
Cruiser Size- 25 days
Destroyer Size- 30 days
Carrier Size- 80 days
This timetable is based around a fairly modern country with decent industrial power. Economic factors, along with industry boosters may also play into how long a ship should take to build.
Permalink
| September 4, 2010, 11:55 pm
 Group moderator 
Do space-going navies count, or do they go in a different topic?
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 12:07 am
 Group moderator 
I built my ports first, then waited about a month to announce the completion of my carriers. I know Evan about had apoplexy over the subject, but I thought it was ok, considering that the US produced about 40 full & escort carriers a year, I hope to have matched that rate by now. Not in carriers, of course, but overall.
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 12:11 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Evan Melick
However, more apop'in time. That was also during a time of 100% national mobilization, where every scrap of industrial production in the country was focused on war production. So, unless you've turned your economy into a soon to be bankrupt shell fighting an imaginary war, not sure how you've gotten that far.

Well, I've got a few million and billion coming in now, so I am fund-raising. But, when WWVII breaks out, India's not going to be anyone's pauper, that's for sure!
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 12:23 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
Do space-going navies count, or do they go in a different topic?

If you think that's the direction this group is headed, you're going to be pleasantly disappointed.
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 1:31 am
 Group admin 
Quoting -> avalella
I think a decent timetable would be around...
Submarines- 35 days
Frigate Size- 15 days
Amphibious Assault Ship Size- 20 days
Cruiser Size- 25 days
Destroyer Size- 30 days
Carrier Size- 80 days
This timetable is based around a fairly modern country with decent industrial power. Economic factors, along with industry boosters may also play into how long a ship should take to build.

except that cruisers are larger than destroyers, so having them take less time makes no sense.
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 1:32 am
 Group admin 
Primitive Timetable here, we can make additions to this:

Small submarine ~ 20 days.
Large, nuclear submarine ~ 50 days
Corvette ~ 15 days
Frigate ~ 20 days
Destroyer ~ 30 days
Cruiser ~ 40 days
Escort Carrier ~ 50 days
Battleship ~ 60 days
full-size Carrier ~ 80 days

Of course, you can't just say you're building a bunch of ships, everyone still has to supply MOCs to back up any shipbuilding claims.
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 1:39 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Thomas N
If you think that's the direction this group is headed, you're going to be pleasantly disappointed.


What? No, I'm not joking. I know the IRA has a small fleet of Soyuz craft, as do I, Erik has some of those french rockets, the Americans don't have any because hurr hurr budget cuts, and I'm sure there's others I've forgotten.

We need to have a list, so nobody starts complaining when someone decides he's going to drop assault troops on the House of Parliament with Soyuz capsules.
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 2:49 am
 Group admin 
All the more reason to invest in ground-to-space based weaponry. Specifically railguns and lasers (the anti-missile type, not Star Destroyer).
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 3:01 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great
All the more reason to invest in ground-to-space based weaponry. Specifically railguns and lasers (the anti-missile type, not Star Destroyer).


I've already got some of those. Railguns, I mean. I was thinking of using some on tanks, but the whole concept of a nuke powered tank tends to make people a little uneasy.

A note to people who want to shoot cannons into space: once a projectile starts going up there, it never stops.

So if Cliffe decides to have the C.O.P. show up and they get hit by a railgun test shell fired ages ago, the extermination of the Earth will be your fault.

Equally, if you fire a shell and it comes back and smacks you in the thrusters, you'll never hear the end of it. It might be a one in ten billion chance, (and I mean the million million billion, not your puny thousand million billion) but you'd be a laughingstock forever. So be careful, mmkay?
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 3:28 am
The Coalition doesn't show up for another 200 years. We're fine.
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 1:20 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C

I've already got some of those. Railguns, I mean. I was thinking of using some on tanks, but the whole concept of a nuke powered tank tends to make people a little uneasy.

A note to people who want to shoot cannons into space: once a projectile starts going up there, it never stops.

So if Cliffe decides to have the C.O.P. show up and they get hit by a railgun test shell fired ages ago, the extermination of the Earth will be your fault.

Equally, if you fire a shell and it comes back and smacks you in the thrusters, you'll never hear the end of it. It might be a one in ten billion chance, (and I mean the million million billion, not your puny thousand million billion) but you'd be a laughingstock forever. So be careful, mmkay?


Like Moffat says, we have about 200 years before the COP kidnaps an exploration ship, learns English, and comes back a year or two later with a deal Earth can't refuse (but does anyway).

And even if we change the timeline, I am pretty much the COP, so I'd be invading my own empire.

Hmm...
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 1:30 pm
 Group admin 
Okay, I realize many members here are from the whole UNE/COP thing, but listen here.

This group is not the same as the COP/UNE, we will not be running a timeline that puts us into space, and then puts us in contact with a massive superpowerful alien race. I know some of you like that sort of stuff, but that is not what this group is for. And that will not be happening.

I protest the whole "Space Navy" concept, because that shouldn't be how this group goes. This is supposed to be about modern military, only advanced a few decades, not about taking over planets and dropping bombs on people from space. It's too much science fiction, its not realistic for a thirty year advancement in technology.

Satellites are ok, but as soon as we get into each country having a massive space fleet, it just gets out of hand.

And another thing, one of the reasons the Soviet Union failed is because it wasn't economically able to keep up production of war materials and space programs. Th idea that a bunch of Russian splinter states would be able to find enough funds to build massive space fleets, and whatever else they're planning for space, is unrealistic. BEAR, I'm happy for you, and your whole domination conquest thing, but most of Russia east of the Urals would not be able to raise funds for such space projects.

Areetsa, I know you have your heart set on conquering the moon, and extraterrestrial bombing every European nation that makes you unhappy, but its not realistic. So please, go ahead and argue with me about how great Russia is, and how a splinter state in eastern Russia would totally be able to fund and launch a massive space fleet in the next thirty years, but really, do you want to?

/rant
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 2:26 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Thomas N

I love you even more now.
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 2:32 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C

What? No, I'm not joking. I know the IRA has a small fleet of Soyuz craft, as do I, Erik has some of those french rockets, the Americans don't have any because hurr hurr budget cuts, and I'm sure there's others I've forgotten.

We need to have a list, so nobody starts complaining when someone decides he's going to drop assault troops on the House of Parliament with Soyuz capsules.

The Soyuz is a transport craft, which hardly counts as a space-going Navy. Stuff like the Soyuz and satellites are fine, but what would be bad is when we start going in the direction of Science-fiction space fleets.
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 2:34 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting John Moffatt
The Coalition doesn't show up for another 200 years. We're fine.

It's also a figment of your imagination, so we're even more fine.
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 2:34 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Dr. Spontaneous
Quoting Thomas N

I love you even more now.

I <3 you too!
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 2:35 pm
 Group admin 
I agree with Thomas.

The COP may be one of my main themes, but I sure don't want this to be a aligned theme.
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 3:31 pm
Quoting Thomas N
Okay, I realize many members here are from the whole UNE/COP thing, but listen here.

This group is not the same as the COP/UNE, we will not be running a timeline that puts us into space, and then puts us in contact with a massive superpowerful alien race. I know some of you like that sort of stuff, but that is not what this group is for. And that will not be happening.

I protest the whole "Space Navy" concept, because that shouldn't be how this group goes. This is supposed to be about modern military, only advanced a few decades, not about taking over planets and dropping bombs on people from space. It's too much science fiction, its not realistic for a thirty year advancement in technology.

Satellites are ok, but as soon as we get into each country having a massive space fleet, it just gets out of hand.

And another thing, one of the reasons the Soviet Union failed is because it wasn't economically able to keep up production of war materials and space programs. Th idea that a bunch of Russian splinter states would be able to find enough funds to build massive space fleets, and whatever else they're planning for space, is unrealistic.

/rant

Are SCRAM jets OK? I was hoping to build one eventually.

Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 3:49 pm
Quoting Nick Shelton
I agree with Thomas.

The COP may be one of my main themes, but I sure don't want this to be a aligned theme.

I agree with him in that respect only. Though it would be pretty funny if this just evolved into the UNE
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 3:56 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Thomas N
Okay, I realize many members here are from the whole UNE/COP thing, but listen here.

This group is not the same as the COP/UNE, we will not be running a timeline that puts us into space, and then puts us in contact with a massive superpowerful alien race. I know some of you like that sort of stuff, but that is not what this group is for. And that will not be happening.


If we're going to have space navies, then I request that if this group dies, the COP shows up.

Otherwise, we had no intention of running into that theme. There's things called jokes, Thomas. Learn them well.

Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 4:04 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Jake H.
Are SCRAM jets OK? I was hoping to build one eventually.

I would say yes. SCRAM jets are an old concept and I think by this time we would have the know-how to effectively construct them. However, saying anyone could build an entire air fleet of them is another matter. It's all about recognition of a plausible defense budget and materials.
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 4:06 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Thomas N
BEAR, I'm happy for you, and your whole domination conquest thing, but most of Russia east of the Urals would not be able to raise funds for such space projects.

Yep, considering that (I think Latvia) has a great gig producing imitations of famous pianos as a main source of income... And it's doing better than most other former Soviet states.
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 6:49 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Thomas N
Okay, I realize many members here are from the whole UNE/COP thing, but listen here.

This group is not the same as the COP/UNE, we will not be running a timeline that puts us into space, and then puts us in contact with a massive superpowerful alien race. I know some of you like that sort of stuff, but that is not what this group is for. And that will not be happening.

I protest the whole "Space Navy" concept, because that shouldn't be how this group goes. This is supposed to be about modern military, only advanced a few decades, not about taking over planets and dropping bombs on people from space. It's too much science fiction, its not realistic for a thirty year advancement in technology.

Satellites are ok, but as soon as we get into each country having a massive space fleet, it just gets out of hand.

And another thing, one of the reasons the Soviet Union failed is because it wasn't economically able to keep up production of war materials and space programs. Th idea that a bunch of Russian splinter states would be able to find enough funds to build massive space fleets, and whatever else they're planning for space, is unrealistic. BEAR, I'm happy for you, and your whole domination conquest thing, but most of Russia east of the Urals would not be able to raise funds for such space projects.

Areetsa, I know you have your heart set on conquering the moon, and extraterrestrial bombing every European nation that makes you unhappy, but its not realistic. So please, go ahead and argue with me about how great Russia is, and how a splinter state in eastern Russia would totally be able to fund and launch a massive space fleet in the next thirty years, but really, do you want to?

/rant


Hmm, no, it isn't science fiction. The design I'm using as a base is from the late '50s, and was originally designed for '60s tech. They could have built it then, but blah blah space treaties. As for fleets, yes, building a fleet would be unrealistic. But fleets aren't needed. One mobile weapons platform and a couple of railgun satellites are all that's needed. The winner of a fight would be the first one to land a solid hit, so a fleet would just be a waste of money and resources.

And bombing... well, if someone attacks me, I'd be quite happy to shell anything that looks important from orbit, but bombs aren't useful. The important thing is that the projectile has a lot of velocity, explosive payloads would just weaken the projectile for no real advantage.
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 6:59 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Dr. Spontaneous
I would say yes. SCRAM jets are an old concept and I think by this time we would have the know-how to effectively construct them. However, saying anyone could build an entire air fleet of them is another matter. It's all about recognition of a plausible defense budget and materials.


They're also not that good. Very high speeds, but you have to kick them up to mach 5 before they start producing meaningful thrust.

They'd be great for an interceptor, but you'd need an area the size of Spain to turn around safely. You'd need huge runways, too.
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 7:04 pm
Quoting Areetsa C

They're also not that good. Very high speeds, but you have to kick them up to mach 5 before they start producing meaningful thrust.

They'd be great for an interceptor, but you'd need an area the size of Spain to turn around safely. You'd need huge runways, too.

But they can go into space...sort of anyways.
Permalink
| September 5, 2010, 9:57 pm
The can get up to the point where they fail and by then I assume they'd have enough inertia to continue to orbit
Permalink
| September 6, 2010, 6:04 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting John Moffatt
The can get up to the point where they fail and by then I assume they'd have enough inertia to continue to orbit


And how do they get down again without burning up?
Permalink
| September 6, 2010, 7:29 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C

And how do they get down again without burning up?

Could you guys please move the space discussions to another topic? So that people who actually want to discuss stuff concerning Navies may do so?
Permalink
| September 7, 2010, 5:44 pm
 Group admin 
Alright, I believe I've developed a useful scale system for microscale Naval ships.

1. For ease of simplicity, Minifig-scale ships will be considered 1:1.
ex. http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/195197,
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/207304

2. as a plate is 1/13 of a minifig's height. Ships of a scale where a person would stand at two plates height would be at a scale of 2:13.
ex. http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/194708

3. Models with a person at i plate's height will be at the scale 1:13.
ex. http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/208618
Permalink
| September 7, 2010, 5:59 pm
Quoting Areetsa C

And how do they get down again without burning up?

I never said anything about getting down in one piece.
Permalink
| September 7, 2010, 6:04 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting John Moffatt
I never said anything about getting down in one piece.


Well, one might imagine your pilots would have something to say about that.
Permalink
| September 7, 2010, 6:28 pm
*shrugs* Hey, they're not my pilots. Maybe that Space Ship One/Two design on Bert Rutans'?
Permalink
| September 7, 2010, 6:34 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting John Moffatt
*shrugs* Hey, they're not my pilots. Maybe that Space Ship One/Two design on Bert Rutans'?


That's not made to go into orbit.
Permalink
| September 7, 2010, 6:53 pm
I'm just throwing up what pops in to my head.
Permalink
| September 7, 2010, 6:58 pm
Actually I had some great french toast this morning. Nice thick, fresh bread with cinnamon..... And bacon
Permalink
| September 7, 2010, 7:06 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Brendan Dore
Toast?


U NO WUT DEY SAY

ALL TOASTUHS TOAST TOAST
Permalink
| September 7, 2010, 7:11 pm
Other topics
student teen kid toy play lego child video game hobby blocks construction toy legos fun games



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop 21st Century WorldMilitary


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use