Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Minroz]

Still shit compared to Western designs.

Severodvinsk is an improvement over the previous Soviet submarine designs, but the same problems that affected Soviet design still affect Russian design. Namely, the United States still has a better understanding of how noise propagates underwater as well as better precision manufacturing techniques and electronics. And the Russians have to figure out how to get their costs under control and rebuild their submarine industry after so many years of neglect from its Cold War peak.

The US held a consistent acoustic advantage throughout the Cold War that was beginning to narrow toward the end of the Cold War as the Soviets launched their Sierra and Akula-class submarines, which came close to matching the performance of the Los Angeles-class (keeping in mind that the Los Angeles-class itself is a fairly mediocre design). The US leaped ahead again with Seawolf, but then ran into funding problems with the end of the Cold War and only built three. Luckily, the new Russia had it even worse and hasn't built any new-model SSNs until Severodvinsk.

Cool...

Well, this means I should pick Virginia-class for my Imperial navy then. Initially I used Soviet subs for the rule of cool. Nowadays, I don't use Soveit subs anymore, this is part of revamping my factbook to have a better navy.

[The Akasha Colony]

Still shit compared to Western designs.

Severodvinsk is an improvement over the previous Soviet submarine designs, but the same problems that affected Soviet design still affect Russian design. Namely, the United States still has a better understanding of how noise propagates underwater as well as better precision manufacturing techniques and electronics. And the Russians have to figure out how to get their costs under control and rebuild their submarine industry after so many years of neglect from its Cold War peak.

The US held a consistent acoustic advantage throughout the Cold War that was beginning to narrow toward the end of the Cold War as the Soviets launched their Sierra and Akula-class submarines, which came close to matching the performance of the Los Angeles-class (keeping in mind that the Los Angeles-class itself is a fairly mediocre design). The US leaped ahead again with Seawolf, but then ran into funding problems with the end of the Cold War and only built three. Luckily, the new Russia had it even worse and hasn't built any new-model SSNs until Severodvinsk.

Cool...

Well, this means I should pick Virginia-class for my Imperial navy then. Initially I used Soviet subs for the rule of cool. Nowadays, I don't use Soveit subs anymore, this is part of revamping my factbook to have a better navy.

Rhodesialund exaggerates.

But as it stands, given Russia's current technology, industrial capabilities, and resources, their submarines have not matched those of the United States. This may not necessarily be true if they were manufactured elsewhere to a modified design, as is common in NS. And the Soviets designed submarines for roles the United States never did because the US and USSR had very different objectives for their submarine fleets. Virginia is a great multi-purpose attack submarine, but the United States never developed any submarines to fill the role of the Soviet Oscar-class (at least one had been proposed though).

[New Chilokver]

The US has no need for any sort of large AShMs in its naval warfare and doctrine, and thus no need for a submarine dedicated to carrying them.

If due to cost reasons and public opposition nuclear technology is ruled out, yet a submarine with comparable capabilities to contemporary nuclear counterparts is needed, would a diesel-electric/hydrogen fuel cell AIP version of the Astute do? If so, what kind of stats are we looking at?

[The Kievan People]

No.

They are not even remotely comparable to nuclear submarines.

[The Akasha Colony]

If due to cost reasons and public opposition nuclear technology is ruled out, yet a submarine with comparable capabilities to contemporary nuclear counterparts is needed, would a diesel-electric/hydrogen fuel cell AIP version of the Astute do? If so, what kind of stats are we looking at?

No. But you don't have a choice since nuclear is ruled out, so what does it matter?

Nuclear submarines and diesel-electric submarines are designed along fundamentally different principles and with different priorities. This is especially true in the case of Astute, which is literally designed around its massive reactor and thus would look very different of that reactor were not there and a different powerplant used instead.

Nuclear submarines in general pay only modest attention to displacement and maximizing efficiency, as the sheer power of the reactor means that they can be extremely fast even if they are inefficiently designed and additional capabilities that require extra space can be added without much penalty. They can carry more weapons and larger sonar arrays while still being fast enough to catch any surface vessel. This speed is also one of the most significant (if not the most significant) assets, as it allows them to massively increase their threat radius.

A diesel-electric submarine in contrast is designed for efficiency above all, because batteries and modern AIP systems provide a tiny fraction of the power a nuclear submarine enjoys. Every capability must be weighed against the increase in displacement and resulting decrease in speed and endurance. And this is why diesel-electric submarines are far smaller than nuclear ones. Astute is 7,000 tonnes surfaced; Type 212 is barely 1/5th this. It goes without saying that a boat that can crawl along at a few knots at most is nothing in comparison to one that can spend days sprinting at over 30 knots, their threat radii cannot be compared.

[Pharthan]

The US has no need for any sort of large AShMs in its naval warfare and doctrine, and thus no need for a submarine dedicated to carrying them.

If due to cost reasons and public opposition nuclear technology is ruled out, yet a submarine with comparable capabilities to contemporary nuclear counterparts is needed, would a diesel-electric/hydrogen fuel cell AIP version of the Astute do? If so, what kind of stats are we looking at?

New population stat with an asterick next to the figure with "[x] amount of people in concentration camps for being silly anti-nuclear activists," and continuing on with your nuclear programs.

It's the only logical option, imo. Your nation will enter a new nuclear powered golden age.

If you had to go this way, you wouldn't throw AIP into an Astute, you'd make a submarine tailored to being AIP.

Nuclear submarines in general pay only modest attention to displacement and maximizing efficiency, as the sheer power of the reactor means that they can be extremely fast even if they are inefficiently designed and additional capabilities that require extra space can be added without much penalty. They can carry more weapons and larger sonar arrays while still being fast enough to catch any surface vessel. This speed is also one of the most significant (if not the most significant) assets, as it allows them to massively increase their threat radius.

A diesel-electric submarine in contrast is designed for efficiency above all, because batteries and modern AIP systems provide a tiny fraction of the power a nuclear submarine enjoys. Every capability must be weighed against the increase in displacement and resulting decrease in speed and endurance. And this is why diesel-electric submarines are far smaller than nuclear ones. Astute is 7,000 tonnes surfaced; Type 212 is barely 1/5th this. It goes without saying that a boat that can crawl along at a few knots at most is nothing in comparison to one that can spend days sprinting at over 30 knots, their threat radii cannot be compared.

It's not always so much about power as it is about range. AIP gives you the ability to not have to snorkel, but you still have fuel concerns. You might get more speed with a nuke sub, but speed isn't the number one thing you're looking for. Time on station while maintaining quite is. I'd venture that the diesel in an AIP is still not quiet.
I'd venture that it would be possible to make an AIP sub that could have the same speed.

Point is that if you want a fast attack or boomer, you need nuclear. If you want a cheap defensive vessel, a diesel boat will serve you just as fine as a fast attack for a fraction the cost. It just doesn't have multirole capability to the same extent.

[Theodosiya]

Could Indonesian Cakra class submarines fitted with AIP?
How difficult is it to operate Varshavyanka and Changbogo/Nagabanda side by side?
How much things could be improved for Parchims, Van Speijks and Sigmas,both Corvettes and Light Frigate?

E : Is it worth it for Indonesia to buy and extensively modify Ukrayina (Slava class cruiser)from Ukraine?

[New Chilokver]

But wouldn't a larger SSK be more capable than smaller one? For my purposes, I require something similar to the Collins class and replacement- a submarine with a massive range, though similar in speed to other SSKs.

[Velkanika]

But wouldn't a larger SSK be more capable than smaller one? For my purposes, I require something similar to the Collins class and replacement- a submarine with a massive range, though similar in speed to other SSKs.

Generally speaking yes, but a larger sub needs a larger power plant to reach a given speed. That will take up more internal space, which means that with the power densities of a conventional power plant you're going to take up a lot of whatever space you add with a larger engine room. Only nuclear reactors have the power density to easily run a large submarine.

[Allanea]

The US has no need for any sort of large AShMs in its naval warfare and doctrine, and thus no need for a submarine dedicated to carrying them.

If due to cost reasons and public opposition nuclear technology is ruled out, yet a submarine with comparable capabilities to contemporary nuclear counterparts is needed, would a diesel-electric/hydrogen fuel cell AIP version of the Astute do? If so, what kind of stats are we looking at?

Why do your nation's politicians not just expose the nucleophobes for being wrong?

[Gallan Systems]

Because anti-nuclear campaigns are generally co-opted and spearheaded by politicians seeking to keep their jobs.

[New Chilokver]

The US has no need for any sort of large AShMs in its naval warfare and doctrine, and thus no need for a submarine dedicated to carrying them.

If due to cost reasons and public opposition nuclear technology is ruled out, yet a submarine with comparable capabilities to contemporary nuclear counterparts is needed, would a diesel-electric/hydrogen fuel cell AIP version of the Astute do? If so, what kind of stats are we looking at?

Why do your nation's politicians not just expose the nucleophobes for being wrong?

The nation as a whole has an unreasonable phobia against nuclear power after being nuked at the end of the region's WWII equivalent.

[Velkanika]

Why do your nation's politicians not just expose the nucleophobes for being wrong?

The nation as a whole has an unreasonable phobia against nuclear power after being nuked at the end of the region's WWII equivalent.

Then you're going to have to stick to conventional subs and all the drawbacks that entails. On the up side, so long as your subs are in shallow water on the continental shelf their lack of towed array sonars won't hurt them too terribly much because any SSNs or surface ships they run into won't be able to use their tails. SSKs excel in shallow water around 300 feet deep, while an SSN is operating at a relative disadvantage due to their reactors generating significantly more noise than a battery does and being unable to use their extremely power hungry passive towed array sonars without risking them being ripped off on a rock.

[Allanea]

Why do your nation's politicians not just expose the nucleophobes for being wrong?

The nation as a whole has an unreasonable phobia against nuclear power after being nuked at the end of the region's WWII equivalent.

Far more than Japan?

[New Chilokver]

The nation as a whole has an unreasonable phobia against nuclear power after being nuked at the end of the region's WWII equivalent.

Then you're going to have to stick to conventional subs and all the drawbacks that entails. On the up side, so long as your subs are in shallow water on the continental shelf their lack of towed array sonars won't hurt them too terribly much because any SSNs or surface ships they run into won't be able to use their tails. SSKs excel in shallow water around 300 feet deep, while an SSN is operating at a relative disadvantage due to their reactors generating significantly more noise than a battery does and being unable to use their extremely power hungry passive towed array sonars without risking them being ripped off on a rock.

SSK/SSPs don't have enough power to operate towed sonar arrays? Damn.

The nation as a whole has an unreasonable phobia against nuclear power after being nuked at the end of the region's WWII equivalent.

Far more than Japan?

Yes.

[Velkanika]

Then you're going to have to stick to conventional subs and all the drawbacks that entails. On the up side, so long as your subs are in shallow water on the continental shelf their lack of towed array sonars won't hurt them too terribly much because any SSNs or surface ships they run into won't be able to use their tails. SSKs excel in shallow water around 300 feet deep, while an SSN is operating at a relative disadvantage due to their reactors generating significantly more noise than a battery does and being unable to use their extremely power hungry passive towed array sonars without risking them being ripped off on a rock.

SSK/SSPs don't have enough power to operate towed sonar arrays? Damn.

Far more than Japan?

Yes.

Yep, towed array sonars are power hogs. SSKs are limited to hull-mounted passive arrays that are far less effective. Their active sonars are roughly comparable, but I'm assuming you're already aware of why that's not particularly useful most of the time.

[Gallan Systems]

[Gallan Systems]

The nation as a whole has an unreasonable phobia against nuclear power after being nuked at the end of the region's WWII equivalent.

Then you're going to have to stick to conventional subs and all the drawbacks that entails. On the up side, so long as your subs are in shallow water on the continental shelf their lack of towed array sonars won't hurt them too terribly much because any SSNs or surface ships they run into won't be able to use their tails. SSKs excel in shallow water around 300 feet deep, while an SSN is operating at a relative disadvantage due to their reactors generating significantly more noise than a battery does and being unable to use their extremely power hungry passive towed array sonars without risking them being ripped off on a rock.

A towed array being ripped off is not a big deal.

[Gallan Systems]

Then you're going to have to stick to conventional subs and all the drawbacks that entails. On the up side, so long as your subs are in shallow water on the continental shelf their lack of towed array sonars won't hurt them too terribly much because any SSNs or surface ships they run into won't be able to use their tails. SSKs excel in shallow water around 300 feet deep, while an SSN is operating at a relative disadvantage due to their reactors generating significantly more noise than a battery does and being unable to use their extremely power hungry passive towed array sonars without risking them being ripped off on a rock.

SSK/SSPs don't have enough power to operate towed sonar arrays? Damn.

It's more about storage, really.

Towed arrays are big on account of being a couple kilometers of rather thick cable.

[The Akasha Colony]

It's not always so much about power as it is about range. AIP gives you the ability to not have to snorkel, but you still have fuel concerns. You might get more speed with a nuke sub, but speed isn't the number one thing you're looking for. Time on station while maintaining quite is. I'd venture that the diesel in an AIP is still not quiet.
I'd venture that it would be possible to make an AIP sub that could have the same speed.

Point is that if you want a fast attack or boomer, you need nuclear. If you want a cheap defensive vessel, a diesel boat will serve you just as fine as a fast attack for a fraction the cost. It just doesn't have multirole capability to the same extent.

AIP does not address the major advantages nuclear submarines have in power or endurance. They reduce snorkeling intervals, but at the price of additional volume and they do nothing to increase power or range. Even as far back as WWII, conventional submarines have had impressive endurance, better than their surface ship cousins by far.

Trying to run an AIP system with similar output to a nuclear reactor would require impractical quantities of oxidizer for the system as well as a significantly larger engine. Going from the few hundred kilowatts provided by modern AIP systems to the tens of megawatts provided by a submarine nuclear reactor would be an exercise in futility. Which I guess would make it perfectly suited for NS.

But wouldn't a larger SSK be more capable than smaller one? For my purposes, I require something similar to the Collins class and replacement- a submarine with a massive range, though similar in speed to other SSKs.

It would be. A larger submarine is generally more capable than a smaller one.

The problem is that a larger submarine also takes more power to move. This is immaterial to a nuclear submarine because nuclear submarines have power in spades. But it's a problem for diesel-electrics, because it means more mass to move and a larger wetted surface area (with more drag). Which means that for every feature added, you either have to increase the batteries as well (adding even more volume, cost, etc.) or accept a decrease in speed or endurance.

Then you're going to have to stick to conventional subs and all the drawbacks that entails. On the up side, so long as your subs are in shallow water on the continental shelf their lack of towed array sonars won't hurt them too terribly much because any SSNs or surface ships they run into won't be able to use their tails. SSKs excel in shallow water around 300 feet deep, while an SSN is operating at a relative disadvantage due to their reactors generating significantly more noise than a battery does and being unable to use their extremely power hungry passive towed array sonars without risking them being ripped off on a rock.

There is very little noise difference between a modern nuclear submarine and a modern diesel-electric. Yes, reactors may make noise, but nuclear submarines also have very good damping equipment and their large size gives them plenty of room in which to dissipate the noise.

There's no real obstacle to using a towed array in shallow water anyway. It's slightly riskier but that's just the cost of doing business. It's also not that power hungry at all, it's a passive hydrophone array.

[Velkanika]

Well this is embarrassing, I didn't know of any SSKs that had a tail until just now. Does anyone know if they're more similar to the long arrays the US and Soviets used or more like a helicopter's dipping sonar?

[New Chilokver]

It's not always so much about power as it is about range. AIP gives you the ability to not have to snorkel, but you still have fuel concerns. You might get more speed with a nuke sub, but speed isn't the number one thing you're looking for. Time on station while maintaining quite is. I'd venture that the diesel in an AIP is still not quiet.
I'd venture that it would be possible to make an AIP sub that could have the same speed.

Point is that if you want a fast attack or boomer, you need nuclear. If you want a cheap defensive vessel, a diesel boat will serve you just as fine as a fast attack for a fraction the cost. It just doesn't have multirole capability to the same extent.

AIP does not address the major advantages nuclear submarines have in power or endurance. They reduce snorkeling intervals, but at the price of additional volume and they do nothing to increase power or range. Even as far back as WWII, conventional submarines have had impressive endurance, better than their surface ship cousins by far.

Trying to run an AIP system with similar output to a nuclear reactor would require impractical quantities of oxidizer for the system as well as a significantly larger engine. Going from the few hundred kilowatts provided by modern AIP systems to the tens of megawatts provided by a submarine nuclear reactor would be an exercise in futility. Which I guess would make it perfectly suited for NS.

How does AIP work then? I understand that they're some sort of well, air independent propulsion which extends the time a submarine can spend underwater without surfacing to recharge its batteries. Yet, the Type 212 SSP is able to cover the same range as a Collins class, due to its PEM hydrogen fuel cells.

[The Akasha Colony]

How does AIP work then? I understand that they're some sort of well, air independent propulsion which extends the time a submarine can spend underwater without surfacing to recharge its batteries. Yet, the Type 212 SSP is able to cover the same range as a Collins class, due to its PEM hydrogen fuel cells.

Most AIP systems simply allow a submarine to run some form of combustion engine underwater by supplying an oxidizer, usually liquid oxygen, in place of normal atmospheric air. Type 212's fuel cells are slightly different in that they don't run a combustion engine but instead combine fuel and oxidizer in the fuel cells to produce energy. The effect though is the same: they allow the submarine to recharge its batteries underwater without surfacing until the supply of fuel (or more likely, oxidizer) has run out.

This is not new technology. The Germans were already experimenting with hydrogen peroxide turbines during WWII as a means of extending the snorkeling time of U-boats. After the war, the Allies experimented with the same technology, but all of them deemed the technology too risky in the face of the new hotness: nuclear power. Modern AIP systems just replace the unstable hydrogen peroxide with safer but still rather problematic liquid oxygen.

But it's important to understand what AIP does not do:

• It doesn't increase total cruising range, because the submarine still has the same amount of fuel onboard. In fact, without increasing fuel storage, adding AIP capability decreases range because you now need to make the submarine larger to store the oxidizer tanks and the ventilation systems needed to expel or recycle the engine exhaust.
• It does not increase speed, because even running on their engines, diesel-electric boats are still slower than nuclear boats. And trying to run the AIP system at the engine's full output (rather than just enough to slowly recharge the batteries) will deplete the oxidizer very quickly.

Type 212's fuel cells do not affect its range, which is dependent on its fuel load. They do affect its diving intervals, though.

AIP is a poor substitute for a nuclear submarine. Which is to say, it's not really a substitute at all. But for nations that cannot build nuclear submarines, they don't really have any options to acquire that capability anyway.

[Zeribru]

In a MT environment would a carrier like this be acceptable to be utilized

http://pre15.deviantart.net/2d91/th/pre ... 70zm1f.jpg

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

In a MT environment would a carrier like this be acceptable to be utilized

http://pre15.deviantart.net/2d91/th/pre ... 70zm1f.jpg

Yes, but you're gonna have to accept worse seakeeping, slower sortie rates and possible increase in landing accidents compared to conventional single-hulled, angled flight deck carriers.