Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Roskian Federation]

If you have no enemies, and you're a country that barely exists, is there any point kn having a naval force thats anything more than a couple of minelaying/missile boats?

[Triplebaconation]

SPY-3 is the datalink radio, just like SPY-1. It also provides terminal guidance.

The problem was that Standard's datalink was designed to work with SPY-1, which is S-band. SPY-3 is X-band. Raytheon has since developed a dual-band datalink, not only for the Zumwalt, but to market Standard to all the other X-band users out there.

[Gallia-]

"European Standard" and all the ridiculous slogans that brings when

[Velkanika]

SPY-3 is the datalink radio, just like SPY-1. It also provides terminal guidance.

The problem was that Standard's datalink was designed to work with SPY-1, which is S-band. SPY-3 is X-band. Raytheon has since developed a dual-band datalink, not only for the Zumwalt, but to market Standard to all the other X-band users out there.

And if the Navy's testimony to Congress is true, they never had it installed for some reason.

[Triplebaconation]

(The datalink is in the missile.)

[The Akasha Colony]

SPY-3 is the datalink radio, just like SPY-1. It also provides terminal guidance.

The problem was that Standard's datalink was designed to work with SPY-1, which is S-band. SPY-3 is X-band. Raytheon has since developed a dual-band datalink, not only for the Zumwalt, but to market Standard to all the other X-band users out there.

And if the Navy's testimony to Congress is true, they never had it installed for some reason.

That's not a problem with Zumwalt. Zumwalt is ready to use the Standard family. AN/SPY-3 replaces AN/SPY-1 and the AN/SPG-62 illuminators so it already has the full guidance suite. Whether the Navy pays to upgrade their missiles is a different issue. They may not need it because they already have a ton of Burkes and Ticos in service. The real benefit is that it allows Raytheon to try to break into the wider market and directly compete against Aster without requiring purchasing nations to also operate the AN/SPY-1 + AN/SPG-62 Aegis combo, as it would now be compatible with X-band MFRs like APAR.

[Triplebaconation]

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Would zumwalts even want to carry standards though? I'd think with its emphasis on land attack it's 80 VLS cells would be mostly tomahawks and then a few quad packed ESSMs for self defense.

[Allanea]

If you have no enemies, and you're a country that barely exists, is there any point kn having a naval force thats anything more than a couple of minelaying/missile boats?

Do you have ambitions?

[Roskian Federation]

If you have no enemies, and you're a country that barely exists, is there any point kn having a naval force thats anything more than a couple of minelaying/missile boats?

Do you have ambitions?

Not in foriegn affairs, no.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

How viable/effective would it be to quad pack ground launched SDBs into a single mk 57 VLS cell for added land attack capability for my not! Zumwalt? Tomahawks are obviously nice but for hitting targets near shore in littoral environments the 1000+ nmi range is a bit overkill. At first I was thinking of just using GMLRS (GPS guided version of MLRS rocket with 90 kg HE warhead) but it only has a 70-90km range which is less than the LRLAP of the 155m AGS (although the warhead is a lot bigger). I then looked into ground launched SDB (SDB with the rocket booster from GMLRS) which is small enough in diameter to be quadpacked into a mk 41 or mk 57 VLS cell and has a range of 150 kilometers (90km booster range plus 60km glide range) which is better than the 155mm AGS, not to mention the much larger warhead.

Another option I've looked into would be SPEAR CAP 3 which supposedly has a range of "at least 100km" which would give it at least 190km range, probably as much as 250km (140km range for SPEAR CAP 3 is supposedly achievable). SPEAR is also powered which means unlike the SDB it has loiter capability which could be useful.

Instead of using the M26 rocket motor from the GLMRS (220mm diamter another option could be to use the rocket motor from the sea sparrow/ESSM (254mm diamter). This means the ship launched SDB/SPEAR could be integrated into existing quad-pack canisters used for the sea sparrow/ESSM.

[The Akasha Colony]

Sea Lance anyone?

Uses a 400 mm conventional lightweight torpedo, either battery-powered or using SCES like Mark 50. 80 kg warhead, 50 knot maximum speed, maybe 30-35 km range. I plan on converting my standard lightweight torpedo caliber from 324 mm to 400 mm.

The missile has a range of 75-100 km using the torpedo armament but this is restricted by the torpedo's ability to acquire the target to shorter ranges. Using a 100 kt nuclear depth charge it has a range of 200+ km.



And that more or less concludes the range of torpedo tube-launched weapons I expect to have. I am undecided as to whether to retain both heavyweight torpedoes at this point, as having two separate types seems superfluous as their performance is not too dissimilar.

[The Kievan People]

How viable/effective would it be to quad pack ground launched SDBs into a single mk 57 VLS cell for added land attack capability for my not! Zumwalt? Tomahawks are obviously nice but for hitting targets near shore in littoral environments the 1000+ nmi range is a bit overkill. At first I was thinking of just using GMLRS (GPS guided version of MLRS rocket with 90 kg HE warhead) but it only has a 70-90km range which is less than the LRLAP of the 155m AGS (although the warhead is a lot bigger). I then looked into ground launched SDB (SDB with the rocket booster from GMLRS) which is small enough in diameter to be quadpacked into a mk 41 or mk 57 VLS cell and has a range of 150 kilometers (90km booster range plus 60km glide range) which is better than the 155mm AGS, not to mention the much larger warhead.

Another option I've looked into would be SPEAR CAP 3 which supposedly has a range of "at least 100km" which would give it at least 190km range, probably as much as 250km (140km range for SPEAR CAP 3 is supposedly achievable). SPEAR is also powered which means unlike the SDB it has loiter capability which could be useful.

Instead of using the M26 rocket motor from the GLMRS (220mm diamter another option could be to use the rocket motor from the sea sparrow/ESSM (254mm diamter). This means the ship launched SDB/SPEAR could be integrated into existing quad-pack canisters used for the sea sparrow/ESSM.

Spear is a self propelled weapon. Sticking it on a giant booster is rather wasteful.

Adapting the GMLRS is the best option. Sufficient range, much shorter TOF, much larger warhead than either SDB or SPEAR. In the other words the Lockheed POLAR. Which was a GMLRS lengthened and adapted for quad packing in standard VLS cells, with a range of 200km.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Sea Lance anyone?

Uses a 400 mm conventional lightweight torpedo, either battery-powered or using SCES like Mark 50. 80 kg warhead, 50 knot maximum speed, maybe 30-35 km range. I plan on converting my standard lightweight torpedo caliber from 324 mm to 400 mm.

The missile has a range of 75-100 km using the torpedo armament but this is restricted by the torpedo's ability to acquire the target to shorter ranges. Using a 100 kt nuclear depth charge it has a range of 200+ km.

(Image)

And that more or less concludes the range of torpedo tube-launched weapons I expect to have. I am undecided as to whether to retain both heavyweight torpedoes at this point, as having two separate types seems superfluous as their performance is not too dissimilar.

What about a tube launched decoy? Basically any one of your heavyweight torpedoes (maybe not the supercavitating one) with the warhead section replaced by a noisemaker and electromagnet that can simulate the acoustic and magnetic signature of a wide variety of submarines to trick enemy ASW into engaging the decoy.

TBH for your heavyweight torpedo it depends on whether or not you want your sub to focus on ASW and ASuW. For ASW I'd go with the electric torpedo for the stealth advantage and the lack of engine performance drop at depth. The advantage of monoprollant is the higher energy density which means more range and more speed but when you're doing ASW against a modern attack sub you're detection range will probably be a lot less than even the maximum high speed range of the torpedo making range and speed not as important of a factor. Also titanium hulled subs that can dive to under 1000 meters would be essentially immune to any monoprollent torpedo that has to expel waste products at that depth. If you're fixed on propellant though to reduce noise you could have your monoprollant torpedo use some form of IEP where the turbine drives an electric generator which in turn powers an external propulsor which direct drives the pumpjet, eliminating any noisy gearboxes in the torpedo. Depth performance could be increased by increasing the operating pressure of the engine although I'm not sure what the practical upper limit of that would be.

Spear is a self propelled weapon. Sticking it on a giant booster is rather wasteful.

Adapting the GMLRS is the best option. Sufficient range, much shorter TOF, much larger warhead than either SDB or SPEAR. In the other words the Lockheed POLAR. Which was a GMLRS lengthened and adapted for quad packing in standard VLS cells, with a range of 200km.

Precision Over-the-horizon Land Attack Rocket? Just looked it up, that actually fits what I'm looking for perfectly. Something like a modified LCS could carry an 8 cell self defense length VLS for carrying a mix of 32 POLAR and ESSM. I presume the 90kg unitary warhead could also be replaced with sub-munitions like SADARM or DPICM. Something else I stumbled upon is the VLAAS ( Vertical Launch Autonomous Attack System) which is four LOCAAS submunitions in a dispenser attached to the booster and guidance from the VL-ASROC (so one VLAAS per VLS cell). I know LOCAAS was supposed to have a 160 km range, I'm not sure how much the booster would extend that.

[The Akasha Colony]

What about a tube launched decoy? Basically any one of your heavyweight torpedoes (maybe not the supercavitating one) with the warhead section replaced by a noisemaker and electromagnet that can simulate the acoustic and magnetic signature of a wide variety of submarines to trick enemy ASW into engaging the decoy.

There is no need for a heavyweight torpedo to accomplish this task. All of the decoys carried by my submarines are launched out of separate tubes stored in the inter-hull space (and they are much smaller than a full 660 mm heavyweight torpedo), in order to maintain constant readiness. Otherwise at least one of the torpedo tubes would essentially be permanently unusable because it would always need to be loaded with a decoy ready to fire. There are also alternative arrangements for launching larger UUVs; the torpedo tubes and the torpedo room are intended only for weapons.

TBH for your heavyweight torpedo it depends on whether or not you want your sub to focus on ASW and ASuW. For ASW I'd go with the electric torpedo for the stealth advantage and the lack of engine performance drop at depth. The advantage of monoprollant is the higher energy density which means more range and more speed but when you're doing ASW against a modern attack sub you're detection range will probably be a lot less than even the maximum high speed range of the torpedo making range and speed not as important of a factor. Also titanium hulled subs that can dive to under 1000 meters would be essentially immune to any monoprollent torpedo that has to expel waste products at that depth. If you're fixed on propellant though to reduce noise you could have your monoprollant torpedo use some form of IEP where the turbine drives an electric generator which in turn powers an external propulsor which direct drives the pumpjet, eliminating any noisy gearboxes in the torpedo. Depth performance could be increased by increasing the operating pressure of the engine although I'm not sure what the practical upper limit of that would be.

If an operating pressure of 6,000 psi is achievable, then a monopropellant torpedo would be able to function at any depth it could ever be expected to operate in, provided the other components are properly protected against the pressure (which would affect a battery torpedo as well). The pressure at 1,000 m depth is only ~1,500 psi, and at 1,500 m it's ~2,200 psi. Of course, this means an increasing percentage of the power is lost, but this is still less than half at 1,500 m, deeper than any combat submarine can or ever has dived. The only things it could not hunt would be super-deep research bathyscapes and such. I do not actually know if such a high pressure could be achieved with a turbine like Spearfish's design, as evidently Westinghouse's Mk 48 demonstrator used a turbine and had inferior deepwater efficiency compared to Clevite's design with its axial piston engine, which was selected in the end. But the piston engine was noisier than the gas turbine.

Also, I'm not sure if there would be a gearbox to eliminate. Mk 48 does not appear to have one. I do not know if Spearfish does as I do not know its operating speed (there is less information out there on Spearfish than there is on Mk 48). I had already considered turbo-electric propulsion, but torpedoes are particularly volume-limited and this would reduce available volume for propellants. At high speeds though there would no no serious acoustic advantage to either design though, as flow noise and propeller noise would be immediately noticeable to anyone with even half-decent sonar.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

There is no need for a heavyweight torpedo to accomplish this task. All of the decoys carried by my submarines are launched out of separate tubes stored in the inter-hull space (and they are much smaller than a full 660 mm heavyweight torpedo), in order to maintain constant readiness. Otherwise at least one of the torpedo tubes would essentially be permanently unusable because it would always need to be loaded with a decoy ready to fire. There are also alternative arrangements for launching larger UUVs; the torpedo tubes and the torpedo room are intended only for weapons.

I thought the smaller decoy launch tubes in subs were for launching acoustic decoys to lure incoming torpedoes away from the sub, like an underwater nulka or towed decoy for aircraft of sorts. The reason I suggested basing the decoy off a torpedo is so it can function as a sort of underwater MALD if you will. Say one sub with one or more decoys in its tubes launches them at a carrier group some 60-70km away, the carrier's ASW escorts then see the decoy(s) and engage them thinking they're your attack submarines.

If you're launching UUVs something like the funky hourglass shaped moon-well in the USS Jimmy Carter would be something to look at. It's something you could add to the submarine after the hull has been built, basically chopping the hull in half and then welding the UUV bay in between the two sections. The way I'm designing my attack sub is all the torpedoes are carried in between the pressure and water hulls in 6 cell clips (5 on each side, so theoretically up to 60 total) which eliminates the bottlenecking caused by having a limited number of torpedo tubes. No torpedo room also means more room for UUVs and other stuff inside the submarine as well.

If an operating pressure of 6,000 psi is achievable, then a monopropellant torpedo would be able to function at any depth it could ever be expected to operate in, provided the other components are properly protected against the pressure (which would affect a battery torpedo as well). The pressure at 1,000 m depth is only ~1,500 psi, and at 1,500 m it's ~2,200 psi. Of course, this means an increasing percentage of the power is lost, but this is still less than half at 1,500 m, deeper than any combat submarine can or ever has dived. The only things it could not hunt would be super-deep research bathyscapes and such. I do not actually know if such a high pressure could be achieved with a turbine like Spearfish's design, as evidently Westinghouse's Mk 48 demonstrator used a turbine and had inferior deepwater efficiency compared to Clevite's design with its axial piston engine, which was selected in the end. But the piston engine was noisier than the gas turbine.

Also, I'm not sure if there would be a gearbox to eliminate. Mk 48 does not appear to have one. I do not know if Spearfish does as I do not know its operating speed (there is less information out there on Spearfish than there is on Mk 48). I had already considered turbo-electric propulsion, but torpedoes are particularly volume-limited and this would reduce available volume for propellants. At high speeds though there would no no serious acoustic advantage to either design though, as flow noise and propeller noise would be immediately noticeable to anyone with even half-decent sonar.

The only info I can find on spearfish is that it has a top speed of 80 knots and a range of 48km at "low speed" which is not specified. I also know it has a gas turbine that drives a pump jet, if there's no gearbox it means the pumpjet is directly driven by the turbine. The mark 48 has that swashplate piston engine, not sure if it has any reduction gear system. I think the highs speed (>60 knot) sprint would be once you get within the torpedoes sonar range of the target ship and can just home in it from there. The lower cruise speed would be where an electric torpedo would have a noise advantage.

IEP would make more sense for a fuel cell torpedo using PEM or SOFC which can operate at really low speeds (<10 knots). It's something I'm putting on my SOFC torpedo but it also has some gimmicky stuff like a set of flip out wings that deploy at low speed to compensate for the negative buoyancy caused by the denser LiCLO4 fuel cells as well as a communications buoy which lets it be targeted OTH by UAVS and maritime patrol aircraft and the like.

[The Akasha Colony]

I thought the smaller decoy launch tubes in subs were for launching acoustic decoys to lure incoming torpedoes away from the sub, like an underwater nulka or towed decoy for aircraft of sorts. The reason I suggested basing the decoy off a torpedo is so it can function as a sort of underwater MALD if you will. Say one sub with one or more decoys in its tubes launches them at a carrier group some 60-70km away, the carrier's ASW escorts then see the decoy(s) and engage them thinking they're your attack submarines.

The better option is to simply not let them detect anything, be it a decoy or your own submarine. Because the moment they spot anything, the entire squadron will be on alert. And unlike an air attack screened by MALDs where the attacking aircraft have the mobility advantage over the ground-based SAMs, a submarine definitely does not have a mobility advantage against an MPA or ASW helicopter. Thus, a submarine has every reason to not be spotted in the first place. A submarine is like a stealth bomber, not a flight of wild weasels who want to draw fire and attention.

If you're launching UUVs something like the funky hourglass shaped moon-well in the USS Jimmy Carter would be something to look at. It's something you could add to the submarine after the hull has been built, basically chopping the hull in half and then welding the UUV bay in between the two sections. The way I'm designing my attack sub is all the torpedoes are carried in between the pressure and water hulls in 6 cell clips (5 on each side, so theoretically up to 60 total) which eliminates the bottlenecking caused by having a limited number of torpedo tubes. No torpedo room also means more room for UUVs and other stuff inside the submarine as well.

I already know how I'm launching them. I already drew the submarine nearly a year ago. There are two large ventral deployment silos specifically for UUVs and such, and a large dedicated UUV docking space aft of the "sail." Some of the eight dorsal silos could also be used for the role if not being used for cruise missiles.

The only info I can find on spearfish is that it has a top speed of 80 knots and a range of 48km at "low speed" which is not specified. I also know it has a gas turbine that drives a pump jet, if there's no gearbox it means the pumpjet is directly driven by the turbine. The mark 48 has that swashplate piston engine, not sure if it has any reduction gear system. I think the highs speed (>60 knot) sprint would be once you get within the torpedoes sonar range of the target ship and can just home in it from there. The lower cruise speed would be where an electric torpedo would have a noise advantage.

I've already read through that much. None of the diagrams I've seen of Mk 48 appear to have a gearbox, and I can't find any useful ones of the interior of Spearfish at all.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

snip

sperg incoming:

In light of this discussion I've been browsing through papers on torpedo propulsion and I stumbled upon this thing called HYDROX which uses oxygen generated by a fuel cell and hydrogen generated by reacting water with lithium or aluminum to fuel a close cycle rankine engine. The steam generated is then condensed back into water and reacted with the metal fuel to generate more hydrogen which thenr eacts with the oxygen generated by the fuel cell (likely LiCLO4) to again fuel the turbine. Apparently this system has three times the energy density of Otto II fuel and is completely closed cycle, no waste products are expelled. There's a chinese translated paper on it here which I think is copied from an american paper or study based on the references to american weapons.

This actually sounds better than the SOFC fuel cell design with a JP-5 fueled turbine (discussed here I came across earlier because the cycle is completely closed whereas the SOFC design is OCCCR (open combustor closed cycle rankine) which requires waste products to be expelled out of the torpedo. Using a winged torpedo I get away with using lithium fuel and LiCLO4 which is much denser than otto fuel and batteries because the hydrodynamic lift generated by the flip out wings overcomes the negative buoyancy of the torpedo (a result of the denser fuel).

A similar idea is reacting magnesium or aluminum fuel with water in a vortex combustor to either power a turbine (discussed in detail here and here), or to directly generate thrust using the steam from the reaction as a sort of water ramjet (picture of how it works here and here, discussed here, although this appears to again be a chinese copy of an american paper or study) which could be used for a supercavitating torpedo with the isp of the water-ramjet being being much higher than a solid fuel rocket.

So now I'm thinking of using hydrox for an ultra long range 533mm heavyweight torpedo and a water ramjet for a 533mm supercavitating vehicle which could in theory have lol speeds and ranges. For more fun I decided to try and find the chemical explosive with the highest RE factor to maximize the power of the 200-300kg warhead that either torpedo would carry. The wikipedia entry for RE factor lists ONC as the highest with an RE of 2.38 but it's literally worth its weight in gold and has only been produced in small amounts. Then there's this study that says dodecanitrohexaprismane (DNH) has a higher RE than even ONC but a google search of said compound only returns me to said paper so I have no idea how viable it is. Now there's this even more crazy stuff called octaazacube (another cubane explosive) which is supposed to have an RE factor of over 5 and a detonation velocity of over 15,000 m/s but nobody has ever synthesized it so who knows. If we go even crazier here's this doomsday NASA presentation that lists "strain bond energy release" explosives as having an RE factor 100x that of TNT but a quick google and dtic.mil search comes up with nothing. The explosive I'm leaning towards now is a PBX using 4,4’-Dinitro-3,3’-diazenofuroxan (DDF) which is synthesized from FOX-7 and has an RE of around 2.0, density of 2.0 g/ml, and is reportedly extremely insensitive. Adding some aluminum powder (say 70% DDg, 20% aluminum powder, 5% binder) could make it even more potent, with a 300 kilogram alumininized DDF warhead having the blast power of around 660 kg of TNT when detonated underwater.

[Gallia-]

literally 2007

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

literally 2007

Darn it, I though my water ramjet fueled supercavitating torpedo with a warhead made of a theoretical explosive that's never been synthesized was totally NS wank worthy.

[Gallia-]

do you think youre the first person to come up with a supercavitating torpedo with an onc warhead on ns? it's not even wake homing

it's not even using the ramjet for open cycle nuclear fusion propulsion

youre like nine to ten years too late

[Triplebaconation]

(Image)

where is the sonar

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

do you think youre the first person to come up with a supercavitating torpedo with an onc warhead on ns? it's not even wake homing

it's not even using the ramjet for open cycle nuclear fusion propulsion

youre like nine to ten years too late

Nah, it be a magnesium nanoparticle fueled water ramjet traveling at 400 knots with a range over 100km and an octaazacubane warhead that's the equivalent to 1000kg of TNT and stop supercavitating to turn on active sonar for terminal guidance while still traveling at over 100 knots.

[Triplebaconation]

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=120633

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=120633

Fine. Nuclear salt water rocket (6,700 second isp) traveling at hyperosnic speeds underwater with an antimatter boosted pure fusion warhead.

superdreadnoughts BTFO