Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Austrattia]

The Austrattian Classiaruis Korps uses airships that can fly overhead cities, easily drop troops, perform bombings and air support, as well as transport cargo.

Classiaruis Korps "Lacedaemoniorum" IV Class warship at a docking bay

[Pharthan]

Battleship Paper Project
Propulsion: COGAN (combined gas and nuclear)
The gas turbines directly drive generators, powering the ship's hotel loads. Their exhaust boils water, the steam from the reactors and the turbines drives common steam plants, driving the propellers.
3x 50 MW Gas Turbines (net output is ~75 MW each)
2x 3 MW Gas Turbines (net output is ~4 MW each)
2x 1000 MW Nuclear Reactors

I don't see the point. Just use two nuclear reactors. That design is much too complicated and a bit silly.

[Atlantica]

Battleship Paper Project
Propulsion: COGAN (combined gas and nuclear)
The gas turbines directly drive generators, powering the ship's hotel loads. Their exhaust boils water, the steam from the reactors and the turbines drives common steam plants, driving the propellers.
3x 50 MW Gas Turbines (net output is ~75 MW each)
2x 3 MW Gas Turbines (net output is ~4 MW each)
2x 1000 MW Nuclear Reactors

I don't see the point. Just use two nuclear reactors. That design is much too complicated and a bit silly.

You're talking about the COGAN part?

[Pharthan]

I don't see the point. Just use two nuclear reactors. That design is much too complicated and a bit silly.

You're talking about the COGAN part?

Yeah.

[Sovereign Imperial Monarchy]

It would be better to have the generator be an emergency power source than to combine with the reactors since there is already quite at lot of power difference between the reactor and the generators.

And I don't mean keeping the same amount of generators/turbines, just to have a backup generator for emergency purposes. Cause it sounds like this ship would be rather large.

[Pharthan]

It would be better to have the generator be an emergency power source than to combine with the reactors since there is already quite at lot of power difference between the reactor and the generators.

And I don't mean keeping the same amount of generators/turbines, just to have a backup generator for emergency purposes. Cause it sounds like this ship would be rather large.

Just use diesels. They can run on your JP5, so you don't have to have so many different fuels. That, and you're going to need something you can run in port anyway if you don't have shore power to start up your reactors on.

[The Akasha Colony]

Battleship Paper Project
Propulsion: COGAN (combined gas and nuclear)
The gas turbines directly drive generators, powering the ship's hotel loads. Their exhaust boils water, the steam from the reactors and the turbines drives common steam plants, driving the propellers.
3x 50 MW Gas Turbines (net output is ~75 MW each)
2x 3 MW Gas Turbines (net output is ~4 MW each)
2x 1000 MW Nuclear Reactors

Combining the steam sources will likely be difficult given that steam pressure from the reactors will be much higher than steam pressure from the turbine exhaust heat. It also makes it more difficult to optimize turbine design, and by separating the electrical loads from the steam load, you have imposed a fuel limit on your electrical systems, which is essentially a fuel limit on the ship itself, since you can hardly operate it without electricity.

[Pharthan]

Battleship Paper Project
Propulsion: COGAN (combined gas and nuclear)
The gas turbines directly drive generators, powering the ship's hotel loads. Their exhaust boils water, the steam from the reactors and the turbines drives common steam plants, driving the propellers.
3x 50 MW Gas Turbines (net output is ~75 MW each)
2x 3 MW Gas Turbines (net output is ~4 MW each)
2x 1000 MW Nuclear Reactors

Combining the steam sources will likely be difficult given that steam pressure from the reactors will be much higher than steam pressure from the turbine exhaust heat. It also makes it more difficult to optimize turbine design, and by separating the electrical loads from the steam load, you have imposed a fuel limit on your electrical systems, which is essentially a fuel limit on the ship itself, since you can hardly operate it without electricity.

That's actually not the problem. The exhaust temperature of the LM2500 is actually higher than that of a reactor; if used to produce steam, it would actually be higher than that of your typical Naval Reactor, and through proper venting you could ensure that you're moderating the temperature of it's steam to match that of the reactor. However, this creates an interesting series of (horrifying) problems. Linking the two systems would only limit your ability to use your reactor - were you not to drop your reactor power, when you lost your Turbines, your reactor would try to pick up the load and would have a power-spike. It's for this reason you never truly want to operate reactors in parallel if you can help it. That's not to say you can't run all your engines on one reactor, that just means you leave the steam plants separated until you need to do so.
In short, the only way to functionally do it and still maintain some manner of sanity, you're using more expensive fuel you have to resupply just to save on cheaper, longer lasting fuel that will last for more than a decade.

Overall, it's a terrible idea to try to operate steam-plants cross-connected for any length of time. Doing it with two different systems is worse.

That, and your Nuclear Operators are liable to kill your Gas Turbine techs for having to deal with them. Empowered nerds in charge of reactors get... testy and a bit angry if you try to break their crap. Letting non-nukes have any control over anything that could affect your reactors is liable to end up in beatings. Revenge of the Nerds.
For that reason, the bridge is also not in control of ships speed on nuclear ships. They just request speed-changes down to the reactor operating station.

[New Vihenia]

Well. A downside from having a liquid metal nuclear reactor is that during the ship's in harbor.. The reactor must be kept online or a facility have to be provided to prevent solidifying of the liquid metal coolant.

This may impose manning problem.. Since someone may need to be actually there to watch the reactor. Second problem is facility.. which may increase cost of operating the ship or limit the number of port where the sub can visit and stay.

Since basically all of my nuclear submarine has liquid metal reactor.. I may need to consider some remedies for above condition.

Some remedies i thought off :

Regarding to manning demands, i think this can be solved by having more automation.. perhaps a special shore modes where reactor is in low power setting (keep the temperature within 125 degrees celcius to prevent solidfying) Computer will watch the reactor in fully automatic mode and attempt to keep the reactor at that state for time being until next departure. Should emergency arise the computer may shut down the reactor (Then yes the reactor may be lost and have to be replaced)

The second problem.. to keep the reactor coolants from going solid.. yes the reactor is to be kept online with reduced output. However that heat output must go somewhere.. Which in my little plan is to equip the submarine with another turbine with smaller output But enough to provide power for monitoring computer and other necessary system. In my view this likely the good solution as no special facilities needed for the submarine.

Another problem in my consideration is when need arise to maintain the turbine. We're all know that during the lifecycle of the subs.. gearing mechanisms worn out, turbine went out of balance or some other stuff need to be maintained or replaced.

For conventional PWR Sub i think this might not be a problem as the reactor can be shut down. Thus simplify maintenance process. For liquid metal.. This might be a problem considering one cannot simply shut down the reactor. Or if it does, remelting the solidified coolant will be problematic.

My solution for it is yes.. to provide external machineries that either a heater to keep the coolant liquid and shut down the reactor OR in my view.. Have external turbine to generate power from the sub's reactor and use it to power its maintenance equipment or something else.

The latter options in my view looks more attractive as it basically "not wasting" power generated by the reactor. But then that's my thought.

The last problem is disposal and refuelling. IRL as far as i know..The only mean to dispose old nuclear sub's reactor is to defuel it and store or bury the reactor somewhere, that apply for both PWR and Liquid metal reactor.

For refuelling, again PWR have advantages as it can actually be refuelled. As for the Liquid Metal. It's would be very tricky that may involve removal of entire reactor core and replace it with new one Which would be tricky.. but that way was proposed for future STAR power module.

My Options however.. is well disposable reactor.. to design a reactor with a long lifetime.. keep it running without refuelling. Once the time for replace.. The reactor is removed and new reactor is placed in the same manner of battery.

Well that's all i can think so far about some side effects of my liquid metal nuclear sub fleet and some remedies i think to deal with them.

[Pharthan]

Well. A downside from having a liquid metal nuclear reactor is that during the ship's in harbor.. The reactor must be kept online or a facility have to be provided to prevent solidifying of the liquid metal coolant.

Or at least heated, possible through shore-power connections.

This may impose manning problem.. Since someone may need to be actually there to watch the reactor. Second problem is facility.. which may increase cost of operating the ship or limit the number of port where the sub can visit and stay.

Someone is always there to watch the reactor. Always. From the point the fuel is placed in the vessel to when it's removed, there is a Reactor Operator or Shutdown Reactor Operator shutdown. Always.

Since basically all of my nuclear submarine has liquid metal reactor.. I may need to consider some remedies for above condition.

Some remedies i thought off :

Regarding to manning demands, i think this can be solved by having more automation.. perhaps a special shore modes where reactor is in low power setting (keep the temperature within 125 degrees celcius to prevent solidfying) Computer will watch the reactor in fully automatic mode and attempt to keep the reactor at that state for time being until next departure. Should emergency arise the computer may shut down the reactor (Then yes the reactor may be lost and have to be replaced)

The second problem.. to keep the reactor coolants from going solid.. yes the reactor is to be kept online with reduced output. However that heat output must go somewhere.. Which in my little plan is to equip the submarine with another turbine with smaller output But enough to provide power for monitoring computer and other necessary system. In my view this likely the good solution as no special facilities needed for the submarine.

Another problem in my consideration is when need arise to maintain the turbine. We're all know that during the lifecycle of the subs.. gearing mechanisms worn out, turbine went out of balance or some other stuff need to be maintained or replaced.

For conventional PWR Sub i think this might not be a problem as the reactor can be shut down. Thus simplify maintenance process. For liquid metal.. This might be a problem considering one cannot simply shut down the reactor. Or if it does, remelting the solidified coolant will be problematic.

My solution for it is yes.. to provide external machineries that either a heater to keep the coolant liquid and shut down the reactor OR in my view.. Have external turbine to generate power from the sub's reactor and use it to power its maintenance equipment or something else.

Heating coils and keep the pumps running. Simple. Keeping the reactor online entirely is a waste of fuel.

For refuelling, again PWR have advantages as it can actually be refuelled. As for the Liquid Metal. It's would be very tricky that may involve removal of entire reactor core and replace it with new one Which would be tricky.. but that way was proposed for future STAR power module.

Simple; have the fuel in wells - platinum walled would be best to promote heat transfer.

My Options however.. is well disposable reactor.. to design a reactor with a long lifetime.. keep it running without refuelling. Once the time for replace.. The reactor is removed and new reactor is placed in the same manner of battery.

Disposable reactor? On a ship? That's... not practical. I'll put it at that. Refueling would still be more practical.

[The Akasha Colony]

Regarding to manning demands, i think this can be solved by having more automation.. perhaps a special shore modes where reactor is in low power setting (keep the temperature within 125 degrees celcius to prevent solidfying) Computer will watch the reactor in fully automatic mode and attempt to keep the reactor at that state for time being until next departure. Should emergency arise the computer may shut down the reactor (Then yes the reactor may be lost and have to be replaced)

Presumably you'd never want to leave the ship completely unmanned anyway, and never let your entire crew off for shore leave or what not at once. Simple protection of the warship itself would demand this unless you were going into drydock.

The second problem.. to keep the reactor coolants from going solid.. yes the reactor is to be kept online with reduced output. However that heat output must go somewhere.. Which in my little plan is to equip the submarine with another turbine with smaller output But enough to provide power for monitoring computer and other necessary system. In my view this likely the good solution as no special facilities needed for the submarine.

Another problem in my consideration is when need arise to maintain the turbine. We're all know that during the lifecycle of the subs.. gearing mechanisms worn out, turbine went out of balance or some other stuff need to be maintained or replaced.

For conventional PWR Sub i think this might not be a problem as the reactor can be shut down. Thus simplify maintenance process. For liquid metal.. This might be a problem considering one cannot simply shut down the reactor. Or if it does, remelting the solidified coolant will be problematic.

IIRC Friedman mentioned they can be remelted. The temperatures are not all that high. Of course, if it solidifies around the part you're trying to service, that's something you don't have to deal with in a PWR, and that assumes no equipment is damaged in the solidification and remelting process.

[Neo Philippine Empire]

The Austrattian Classiaruis Korps uses airships that can fly overhead cities, easily drop troops, perform bombings and air support, as well as transport cargo.

Classiaruis Korps "Lacedaemoniorum" IV Class warship at a docking bay
(Image)

Similar to our ships

[Klaytonia]

http://www.democratic-republicans.us/im ... smarck.jpg

Class & type: Charybdis battleship
Name: Arthurian
Propulsion:

12 Sturm superheated boilers;
3 geared turbines;
3 three-blade screws
150,170 shp (111.98 MW)
Speed: 30.01 knots (55.58 km/h; 34.53 mph) during trials[1][b]
Range: 8,870 nmi (16,430 km; 10,210 mi) at 19 knots (35 km/h; 22 mph)
http://www.sms-navy.com/ac/SMS_Deutschland-stbd.jpg

Class & type: Odin Dreadnought Ship
Name: Rotholz
Propulsion:

3 shafts triple expansion
17,000 ihp (13,000 kW)
Speed: 18 knots (33 km/h)
Range: 5,200 nautical miles (10,000 km); 10 knots (20 km/h)


Class & type: Krieger Light Cruiser
Name: Freier Mann
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 2 shafts, 10 boilers, 46,500 shp (34,700 kW)
Speed: 29.5 kn (54.6 km/h; 33.9 mph)
Range: 6,700 nmi (12,400 km; 7,700 mi) at 15 kn (28 km/h; 17 mph)

[Pharthan]

Presumably you'd never want to leave the ship completely unmanned anyway, and never let your entire crew off for shore leave or what not at once. Simple protection of the warship itself would demand this unless you were going into drydock.

Even in drydock, no reactor is ever unmanned while installed. Ever. Hence, Nuclear Operators tend to get screwed over with how much liberty they get.

IIRC Friedman mentioned they can be remelted. The temperatures are not all that high. Of course, if it solidifies around the part you're trying to service, that's something you don't have to deal with in a PWR, and that assumes no equipment is damaged in the solidification and remelting process.

Not complicated to deal with. Not really. Servicing anything touching primary coolant is rather rare, and allowing solidification could actually help certain maintenance items.

[New Vihenia]

Thanks Phartan

hmm.. so i can go liquid metal.

[Pharthan]

Thanks Phartan

hmm.. so i can go liquid metal.

Yup. I do for all of my ships, but for simplicity and being able to roleplay intricately about it, I've thought of going to PWRs since I know a thing or two about them... though I usually just stick with LMTRs to prevent saying too much about PWRs.

[The Akasha Colony]

Even in drydock, no reactor is ever unmanned while installed. Ever.

I wasn't referring to nuclear warships specifically, just that any warship even with a conventional plant would be at least minimally manned at all times for security reasons.

[Pharthan]

Even in drydock, no reactor is ever unmanned while installed. Ever.

I wasn't referring to nuclear warships specifically, just that any warship even with a conventional plant would be at least minimally manned at all times for security reasons.

Yeah, usually 1/6th of the crew is "On Duty," at any given time. Some groups have lower manning and see as terrible a rotation of "Port and Starboards," meaning 1/2 is on at any given time. (Reactor crews usually see 3-section (1/3rd of the crew) or 4-section (1/4th). It's not just for security reasons, but for preventative and corrective maintenance.

[Rich and Corporations]

I suppose if I use bigger turbines, I could gain the benefit of having a higher flank speed?

[Pharthan]

I suppose if I use bigger turbines, I could gain the benefit of having a higher flank speed?

The idea is silly through and through.
All you gain from having turbines is a slightly faster acceleration. Combining the two, larger turbines or not - unless your turbines actually end up exceeding the power of your reactors - doesn't help you at all, because if you're using cross-connected steam plants you have to limit your reactor-output to prevent a power-spike which would exceed your operating limits, should your turbine fail all of a sudden.

You aren't increasing your flank speed. If anything, you're hurting it. The gain in acceleration isn't considerable, especially if you're using your turbines for boilers.

The only way I can see this working is instead of using the exhaust for steam, you instead had the Gas Turbine instead spinning a drive shaft connected to the same reduction gears used by the steam powered main engines utilized by the reactor plant and used them to assist the process. That being said, it's still silly, will cause problems with your reactor and steam loading, and you're just asking for a billion things to break seven ways from Sunday... But it could work. You'd be violating the general principle of KISS, and even an engineer with no practical or hands on knowledge could see how that design would piss off the operators and make their lives hell, which will reduce the effectiveness of the propulsion system.
But it could work.

[Irvadistan]

The Naval Warfare Branch of the Irvadi Islamic Revolutionary Forces, the Irvadi Islamic Revolutionary Navy, is fairly small compared to the Army and AIr Force. The nation has a small coastline. The Navy has around 6500 men, operates 55 warships and 12 helicopters.

Of the 55 Warships, are 2 Light Frigates, 2 Attack Submarines, 30 fast attack craft, 14 patrol craft and 7 Mine warfare ships. All helicopters are shore-based MI-8's. Used for Search & Rescue and Anti-submarine patrol.

Frigates

2x Petya-class

Submarines

2x Romeo-class

Fast attack craft

12x Komar-class missile boat
10x Shershen-class torpedo boat
8x Osa I-class missile boat

Patrol craft

8x Zhuk-class patrol boats
6x Stenka-class patrol boats

Mine Warfare

5x Sonya-class minhunters
2x Yevgenya-class minesweepers

[Alduinium]

So, how good was the Fuso class compared to other battleships of the time?

[Lubyak]

So, how good was the Fuso class compared to other battleships of the time?

(Image)

As far as a post-World War I superdreadnought, they were fine, and quite capable. In the IJN style of trying to build the biggest and best of everything, they were well--even exceptionally--armed and armoured for their time. However, they're only going to be good for World War I and the inter-war era. By World War II, they won't be much use anymore.

[San-Silvacian]

So, how good was the Fuso class compared to other battleships of the time?

(Image)

As far as a post-World War I superdreadnought, they were fine, and quite capable. In the IJN style of trying to build the biggest and best of everything, they were well--even exceptionally--armed and armoured for their time. However, they're only going to be good for World War I and the inter-war era. By World War II, they won't be much use anymore.

They'd be a good exersize for dive bombers and torpedo planes. So still useful. Kinda at least.

[Alduinium]

So, how good was the Fuso class compared to other battleships of the time?

(Image)

As far as a post-World War I superdreadnought, they were fine, and quite capable. In the IJN style of trying to build the biggest and best of everything, they were well--even exceptionally--armed and armoured for their time. However, they're only going to be good for World War I and the inter-war era. By World War II, they won't be much use anymore.

Yeah, I don't intend on use them after 1950. Would a small group of destroyers (about five) acting as AA for the battleship help improve it's survivablility against aircraft?