Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Altaiire]

To what extent should ASW USVs/UUVs be using active vs. passive sonar?

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

To what extent should ASW USVs/UUVs be using active vs. passive sonar?

Almost exclusively passive. Active would immediately give its location away to the submarine.

[New Chilokver]

Are there any torpedo launchers used by modern navies besides the Mark 32 SVTT?

[Velkanika]

Are there any torpedo launchers used by modern navies besides the Mark 32 SVTT?

There's the Chinese knockoff of the Mark 32 SVTT for the Yu-7, the Russian 2x2 533mm launcher that I can't find a picture of right now for some reason, and this is one of HMS Westminster (F237) tubes adjacent to her hangar. If a country has its own ASW torpedo chances are they made their own launcher for it with the notable exception of the Chinese who literally just steal the blueprints of someone else's system.

[Lamoni]

* double WASS B-515 launcher
* triple WASS B-515/3 launcher
* triple 324 mm Whitehead Sistemi Subacquei ILAS-3 ASW torpedo tube
* Ecan Type l5 torpedo tubes
* Twin 12.75 in (324 mm) Sting Ray torpedo tubes
* DTA-53-956 torpedo launchers
* twin 533 mm DTA-53-11356 fixed torpedo tube launchers
* 3-cell ET-52C torpedo launchers

Just what I could find on a quick search. A lot of them are older, but not all of them. Honestly not sure how much info you'll be able to get on them.

[Pharthan]

To what extent should ASW USVs/UUVs be using active vs. passive sonar?

That depends on how you're using them and how you deploy them.
Active is going to give you the most accurate and fastest fix on where the submarine is, but obviously gives away the position of the USV. Obviously you care less since its unmanned, but they could try to destroy it. If you patrol with active sonar USVs, you let them know where not to go, but if you do it properly it can act as a deterrent as well.
Passive would allow for a longer loiter time undetected, so it could actually patrol an area without letting the submarine know where it should and shouldn't go.

[New Chilokver]

* double WASS B-515 launcher
* triple WASS B-515/3 launcher
* triple 324 mm Whitehead Sistemi Subacquei ILAS-3 ASW torpedo tube
* Ecan Type l5 torpedo tubes
* Twin 12.75 in (324 mm) Sting Ray torpedo tubes
* DTA-53-956 torpedo launchers
* twin 533 mm DTA-53-11356 fixed torpedo tube launchers
* 3-cell ET-52C torpedo launchers

Just what I could find on a quick search. A lot of them are older, but not all of them. Honestly not sure how much info you'll be able to get on them.

Are there any torpedo launchers used by modern navies besides the Mark 32 SVTT?

There's the Chinese knockoff of the Mark 32 SVTT for the Yu-7, the Russian 2x2 533mm launcher that I can't find a picture of right now for some reason, and this is one of HMS Westminster (F237) tubes adjacent to her hangar. If a country has its own ASW torpedo chances are they made their own launcher for it with the notable exception of the Chinese who literally just steal the blueprints of someone else's system.

Thanks a lot guys!

One final thing- is there any particular reason there aren't quad-tube deck mounted torpedo launchers anymore?

[New Visegrad]

* double WASS B-515 launcher
* triple WASS B-515/3 launcher
* triple 324 mm Whitehead Sistemi Subacquei ILAS-3 ASW torpedo tube
* Ecan Type l5 torpedo tubes
* Twin 12.75 in (324 mm) Sting Ray torpedo tubes
* DTA-53-956 torpedo launchers
* twin 533 mm DTA-53-11356 fixed torpedo tube launchers
* 3-cell ET-52C torpedo launchers

Just what I could find on a quick search. A lot of them are older, but not all of them. Honestly not sure how much info you'll be able to get on them.

There's the Chinese knockoff of the Mark 32 SVTT for the Yu-7, the Russian 2x2 533mm launcher that I can't find a picture of right now for some reason, and this is one of HMS Westminster (F237) tubes adjacent to her hangar. If a country has its own ASW torpedo chances are they made their own launcher for it with the notable exception of the Chinese who literally just steal the blueprints of someone else's system.

Thanks a lot guys!

One final thing- is there any particular reason there aren't quad-tube deck mounted torpedo launchers anymore?

I would expect it's due to lack of necessity. With guided torpedoes and lone-wolf subs, you'll only really need a couple of torpedoes in the water at once, and you can reload by the time you know whether you need another shot. Plus, the guided part means you don't need to really aim the torpedo, so the tubes can be fixed and built into the superstructure for better protection and integration with automated loading systems. It's similar to how VLS tubes have replaced arm launchers for missiles.

[Al-Sosya]

Will lasers ever replace current CIWS?

[Gallia-]

The most likely candidate for future CIWS is missiles, like ESSM or SeaRAM, or railguns.

Lasers are a bit further off.

[Velkanika]

My money is on lasers after another few generations of missile-based point-defense. They need at least another 30 years before they'll be ready to fully take over point-defense.

[Prosorusiya]

Should I continue to maintain a Caspian Flotilla, or disband them? Currently, the Naval Force consist of one Tarantul-II class missile corvette, three Matka class missile boats, and one Sonya class minesweeper.

I also have a coast guard (under our Border Guard), equipped with 3 AB-35 class patrol boats and 4 Grif class Project 1400M patrol boats.

[Gallan Systems]

I've a small coastal navy and a coast guard composed of patrol boats, missile boats. But I will invest money in getting a blue navy force of some attack submarines and corvettes.

for what purpose?

[Allanea]

Should I continue to maintain a Caspian Flotilla, or disband them? Currently, the Naval Force consist of one Tarantul-II class missile corvette, three Matka class missile boats, and one Sonya class minesweeper.

I also have a coast guard (under our Border Guard), equipped with 3 AB-35 class patrol boats and 4 Grif class Project 1400M patrol boats.

It seems to be a useful thing and everyone on the Caspian has one.

Bear in mind Caspian forces can shoot at targets as far away as Syria.

[Urran]

How useful is the Zumwalt anyway? I've head it can't do BMD or carry out strikes very well, along with there being concerns over its stability

[Connori Pilgrims]

How useful is the Zumwalt anyway? I've head it can't do BMD or carry out strikes very well, along with there being concerns over its stability

Its plenty useful enough for strikes with most of its cells loaded with Tomahawk or whatever future SLCM the Yanks shit out, in addition to its two 155mm pieces. Thing is that's what Zumwalt's been designed to perform primarily, i.e. its not that flexible. AAW it isn't too bad, but Arleigh Burke-class Destroyers and Ticonderoga-class Cruisers would perform that mission and BMD better, and there's a whole lot more of them.

Stability concerns have been overrated, the hullform isn't inherently more unstable than normal.

[Velkanika]

How useful is the Zumwalt anyway? I've head it can't do BMD or carry out strikes very well, along with there being concerns over its stability

The Zumwalt was designed to act as a strike ship first and fleet escort second. It can carry more than enough tomahawks to make it useful at strategic attack, but it does lack the systems to properly utilize the Standard Missile family which limits its air defense to quad-packed point-defense ESSMs.

Keep in mind that the lead ship is still in sea trials and that the media love controversial stories about how bad the latest US weapon system supposedly is.

[Roski]

Will lasers ever replace current CIWS?

Things like LAWS will be compliments, I believe, to CIWS, not replacers, at least for now.

[Pharthan]

Will lasers ever replace current CIWS?

Things like LAWS will be compliments, I believe, to CIWS, not replacers, at least for now.

LAWS excel with slower targets. If you get swarmed by subsonic cruise missiles, lasers are your best friend.
If it's high speed missiles you're worried about, lasers are pointless and CIWS are much better. You may not negate all damage, but you can heavily mitigate it.
Overall, missile-based defenses are best, at the cost of repeat-ability.

[Rich and Corporations]

Is the hundred thousand tonne class ship dead?

As developments in naval tactics and technology improves in Rich and Corporations, novel methods in deploying naval mines and torpedoes make highly concentrated and centralized naval task forces obsolete. It is safe to say that a five hundred kilometer perimeter around a task force in unbreachable, however it is possible to delay the task force from arriving at it's target and well as destroy escorts and enough merchants ships to make underway replenishment insufficient for long-term operations.

Standard torpedoes have a minimum depth of three to seven meters, making them useless against hydrofoils and fast planing boats. However against larger ships, a swarm of small fast ships can dispatch torpedo-launched naval mines and torpedoes at large stand off distances. However the great issue with small craft is their lack of seaworthiness, constraining them to short distances and fair weather.

It is also possible to deploy reconnaissance planes which move in excess of mach 3 and with a range of 5,000 km, which would be invulnerable to anti-aircraft missiles and could operate far from land bases. Operating in tandem with a heavy payload supersonic stealth bomber, it can pinpoint targets for the aerial deployment of naval mines and torpedoes. Alternatively to a supersonic stealth bomber, IRBMs with 10 tonne payloads could be used for the deployment of naval mines. For certain targets large enough to boast their own radar array, submunitions and fuel-air bombs could be used to substantially damage the surface of the target, necessitating costly repairs to the radars. Such a concept isn't extraordinary, the Brilliant Anti-Tank submunition is capable of being deployed from a bomber.


Written by the Rich and Corporate Military Studies Institute.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Is the hundred thousand tonne class ship dead?

unless it's a carrier, yes

As developments in naval tactics and technology improves in Rich and Corporations, novel methods in deploying naval mines and torpedoes make highly concentrated and centralized naval task forces obsolete. It is safe to say that a five hundred kilometer perimeter around a task force in unbreachable however it is possible to delay the task force from arriving at it's target and well as destroy escorts and enough merchants ships to make underway replenishment insufficient for long-term operations.

Not it isn't. Subs, planes, and saturation missile attacks are a thing.

Standard torpedoes have a minimum depth of three to seven meters, making them useless against hydrofoils and fast planing boats. However against larger ships, a swarm of small fast ships can dispatch torpedo-launched naval mines and torpedoes at large stand off distances. However the great issue with small craft is their lack of seaworthiness, constraining them to short distances and fair weather.

Torpedoes have magnetically and/or acoustically triggered warheads. They don't actually hit the ship, they explode underneath it. By "torpedo-launched naval mines" I presume you mean naval mines that launch a torpedo. And your dinky little hydrofoil or whatever will get destroyed well before it gets even near close enough for a torpdeo attack.

It is also possible to deploy reconnaissance planes which move in excess of mach 3 and with a range of 5,000 km, which would be invulnerable to anti-aircraft missiles and could operate far from land bases.

What is this? 1950? Any modern SAM can shoot down a mach 3 plane.

IRBMs with 10 tonne payloads

Do some research. 10 tons is a higher throw weight than the R-36, a 200 ton ICBM.

[Rich and Corporations]

Do some research. 10 tons is a higher throw weight than the R-36, a 200 ton ICBM.

Depends how far you throw. Shorter distances can get away with less fuel.

Not it isn't. Subs, planes, and saturation missile attacks are a thing.

A jet fighter flying low and firing an exocet doesn't work when the enemy can scramble fighters with look down radar. Subs can be countered by ... other ships. Actually the efficacy of subs are hazy currently.

What is this? 1950? Any modern SAM can shoot down a mach 3 plane.

Any modern SAM can go in excess of Mach 4?

I presume you mean naval mines that launch a torpedo.

My error.

And your dinky little hydrofoil or whatever will get destroyed well before it gets even near close enough for a torpdeo attack.

Combined arms.

[Velkanika]

Do some research. 10 tons is a higher throw weight than the R-36, a 200 ton ICBM.

Depends how far you throw. Shorter distances can get away with less fuel.

Not it isn't. Subs, planes, and saturation missile attacks are a thing.

A jet fighter flying low and firing an exocet doesn't work when the enemy can scramble fighters with look down radar. Subs can be countered by ... other ships. Actually the efficacy of subs are hazy currently.

What is this? 1950? Any modern SAM can shoot down a mach 3 plane.

Any modern SAM can go in excess of Mach 4?

I presume you mean naval mines that launch a torpedo.

My error.

And your dinky little hydrofoil or whatever will get destroyed well before it gets even near close enough for a torpdeo attack.

Combined arms.

Right, I'm just going to put my comments below the BB code block instead of trying to individually comment on each statement.

A 10-ton throw-weight ballistic missile doesn't really fit into any category, not that those categories were particularly clear cut either. The difference between an IRBM and ICBM is essentially range, which of course can vary based on payload and trajectory. I'm going to leave it there so I don't embarrass myself by messing up the physics.

Low-level penetration attacks over water still work, to an extent. The issue is one of how close an aircraft can approach before detection, and stealth technology is huge in this area. Read up on the Outer and Inner Air Battles for more information if you're shaky in this area, there's a huge amount of information available due to the Soviets and US Navy both focusing on it as their hypothetical large-scale battle (kinda like the Fulda Gap and armored vehicles, or Central Europe and air superiority fighters). As for submarines, they're a very real threat to surface ships. Fortunately, basically every surface combatant has aviation facilities for an ASW helicopter or two, which helps immensely in defending against a sub threat. CATOBAR carriers can also carry large ASW aircraft that can locate, prosecute, and kill a submarine easily 600 nautical miles from the carrier.

There are a fair few SAMs that can kill a Mach 3 aircraft, notably the Standard Missile family, Patriot, and SA-17. The only reason why there aren't more is because most real-world militaries don't really need to kill a target like that very often, if at all. As a side note can you use knots in a given altitude band for airspeed, because the speed of sound varies quite significantly depending on altitude and the height of a target is just as important as its speed.

Please elaborate on "combined arms" here. That by itself raises more questions than it answers regarding your proposed tactics.

[North Arkana]

Depends how far you throw. Shorter distances can get away with less fuel.A jet fighter flying low and firing an exocet doesn't work when the enemy can scramble fighters with look down radar. Subs can be countered by ... other ships. Actually the efficacy of subs are hazy currently.Any modern SAM can go in excess of Mach 4?My error.Combined arms.

Right, I'm just going to put my comments below the BB code block instead of trying to individually comment on each statement.

A 10-ton throw-weight ballistic missile doesn't really fit into any category, not that those categories were particularly clear cut either. The difference between an IRBM and ICBM is essentially range, which of course can vary based on payload and trajectory. I'm going to leave it there so I don't embarrass myself by messing up the physics.

Low-level penetration attacks over water still work, to an extent. The issue is one of how close an aircraft can approach before detection, and stealth technology is huge in this area. Read up on the Outer and Inner Air Battles for more information if you're shaky in this area, there's a huge amount of information available due to the Soviets and US Navy both focusing on it as their hypothetical large-scale battle (kinda like the Fulda Gap and armored vehicles, or Central Europe and air superiority fighters). As for submarines, they're a very real threat to surface ships. Fortunately, basically every surface combatant has aviation facilities for an ASW helicopter or two, which helps immensely in defending against a sub threat. CATOBAR carriers can also carry large ASW aircraft that can locate, prosecute, and kill a submarine easily 600 nautical miles from the carrier.

There are a fair few SAMs that can kill a Mach 3 aircraft, notably the Standard Missile family, Patriot, and SA-17. The only reason why there aren't more is because most real-world militaries don't really need to kill a target like that very often, if at all. As a side note can you use knots in a given altitude band for airspeed, because the speed of sound varies quite significantly depending on altitude and the height of a target is just as important as its speed.

Please elaborate on "combined arms" here. That by itself raises more questions than it answers regarding your proposed tactics.

I suspect that stealth vs a look down radar is less effective than one would like.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/dOaT9Lj.jpg
https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/dQPEnEb.jpg
https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/dQRxdTt.jpg
https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/dQTjyCy.png

Name:	Sovereign class Destroyer
Displacement:	15,000 tons
Length:	200 m
Beam:	25 m
Draft:	8.4 m
Propulsion:	1x 250 MWe Lead-Bismuth cooled reactor 4x tip driven pumjets (50,000 shp each)
Speed:	30+ knots
Range:	unlimited
Complement:	200
Sensors and processing systems:	X band AESA precision tracking/horizon search radar S band AESA volume/air search MFR radar X band navigation radars Hull mounted mid and high frequency sonar Multi-function towed array sonar LAMPS shipboard systems
Armament:	3 × 155mm L/70 combustion light gas guns 256 × cold launch VLS cells (Mk 41 and Mk 57 compatible) 2 × 35 mm revolver cannons 1 x 21 cell RIM-116 launcher 2x MU90 torpedo launchers
Countermeasures:	towed torpedo decoys torpedo hardkill system flare/chaff launchers
Armour:	CNT reinforced Kevlar splinter protection, composite armor around reactor compartments and weapon magazines
Aircraft carried:	1x SV-22 tiltrotor, 2x MQ-8C UAVs
Aviation facilities:	Flight deck, enclosed hangar

Basically a zumwalt on steroids. Each 155mm CLGG uses LOX and LH2 as propellant and can hurl a 45kg GPS guided shell out to 370 kilometers. The cold launch VLS cells are the same dimensions (0.540x0.540m) as Mk 41 and Mk 57 VLS cells and are backwards compatible with any missile (Tomahaw, ESSM, etc) designed for the Mk 41. The cold launch is to accommodate missiles with larger rocket motors which would be too dangerous for a hot launch system like the mk 41 or mk 57. The VLS cells are angled slightly inward so if a missile is ejected and its rocket motor fails to ignite the missile will fly over the deck and land in the ocean, not back on the ship.