Your Nations Warships, MKII

[The Akasha Colony]

If there wasn't an viable use for a separate ASW group, and if ASW wasn't so important, the Japanese wouldn't have three massive ASW destroyers.
And wouldn't be building a fourth.

China has a lot of old submarines and submarines that sound like old submarines.

Unless they are dropping mad sonobouys, which does not require a ship, ASW ships rely very heavily on intercepting something at or near the surface. This is a seriously depreciated tactic. It can no longer be taken for granted that a submarine will have to raise its periscope before attacking. Very high performance sonar is the only answer. And the self-noise of large, fast warships quite limits the sensitivity of sonar it is worth fitting on them.

It's not for nothing the USN is investing so heavily in new ASW technology like LFA and that DARPA robot boat thing.

Does this limitation still apply to ships designed for ASW as a primary mission like Type 26 which has design provisions to reduce self-noise, or is it primarily aimed at ships like Burke and Ticonderoga that have sonar but are not really designed for ASW?

In the broader sense, is it even worth continuing to fit such ships with their comparatively limited sonar suites? Or would it be more useful to invest that money in a larger number of purpose-built anti-submarine escorts?

[The Kievan People]

Surface ship quieting has mostly been about making them less detectable to submarines to reduce the sonar asymmetry between them. Since warships move rather fast there is going to be a floor of self-noise/flow-noise that will make their sonar performance significantly worse than a submarines even when quieting is employed. In principle you could design a ship with extensive quieting (the Canadian navy has built a special ship for testing ASW equipment that is about as quiet as a modern AIP diesel-electric sub) that moves slowly to achieve sub-like sensitivity... but then you'd just have remade the Victorious/SURTASS.

Or maybe the Type-26 but IDK much about its history or CONOPs.

There is either way a disconnect between the imperative for surface ships to move swiftly and operate in packs for protection, and the ideal ASW platform which steams slowly in splendid acoustic isolation. Distributed operations using sophisticated long range sensors and various independent platforms (SURTASS-LFS, SOSU/IUSS, Maritime patrol aircraft/HALE UAVs, ACTUV and similar platforms) are probably the future of ASW, while future warships will probably increasingly rely on self defense. Physics simply is not on the side of aggressive ASW ships hunting down subs in the long run.

OFC realistically older and noisier subs will remain around for many decades to come.

Ship sonar is still useful for detecting older submarines and things like weapons launches even against very quiet opponents. As hard-kill torpedo defenses become more common this function is likely to become one of the most important for their sonar. It's situation as an ASW sensor is not completely hopeless either, in the less-black world of above-water acoustic sensing a great deal of effort has gone into eliminating self-noise through processing and this has born some fruit, they have successfully fitted acoustic gunshot detectors to helicopters for example, and presumably much more sophisticated techniques are already being used for sonar applications. Bot hw well self noise and flow noise can be mitigated by processing is probably not something you will find out in the open though.

[The Akasha Colony]

Surface ship quieting has mostly been about making them less detectable to submarines to reduce the sonar asymmetry between them. Since warships move rather fast there is going to be a floor of self-noise/flow-noise that will make their sonar performance significantly worse than a submarines even when quieting is employed. In principle you could design a ship with extensive quieting (the Canadian navy has built a special ship for testing ASW equipment that is about as quiet as a modern AIP diesel-electric sub) that moves slowly to achieve sub-like sensitivity... but then you'd just have remade the Victorious/SURTASS.

Or maybe the Type-26 but IDK much about its history or CONOPs.

AFAIK, Type-26 is supposed to crawl around rather slowly much of the time when sub-hunting, using CODLOG to decouple the diesel generator sets from the hull and shut down the sprint turbines/gearboxes to minimize self-noise. Of course, it's still a conventional monohull and I don't know anything else about whatever quieting provisions it might have, or about Sonar 2087's performance. Presumably, any submarine detected would be engaged via the embarked Merlin or Wildcat rather than chased down by the ship itself, and maybe in the future via UUVs or other equipment stored in the mission bay.

There is either way a disconnect between the imperative for surface ships to move swiftly and operate in packs for protection, and the ideal ASW platform which steams slowly in splendid acoustic isolation. Distributed operations using sophisticated long range sensors and various independent platforms (SURTASS-LFS, SOSU/IUSS, Maritime patrol aircraft/HALE UAVs, ACTUV and similar platforms) are probably the future of ASW, while future warships will probably increasingly rely on self defense. Physics simply is not on the side of aggressive ASW ships hunting down subs in the long run.

OFC realistically older and noisier subs will remain around for many decades to come.

I had been considering the idea of a sort of ASW mothership perhaps the size of a fleet oiler or fast support ship, designed to carry a large sonar array like SURTASS while also supporting the operation of ACTUV-like drones, large UUVs, helicopters, and UAVs (up to a certain size). Larger drones and MPAs would be flown from other platforms or land bases. It would crawl around with its array while using its platforms to maintain a sensor network within a given area. With this, I suppose the frigate design would shift more toward surface warfare and the corvette design toward general purpose work, while other ships would operate their sonar for self-defense and possibly as an additional node in the sensor network, especially in the case of multi-static sonar.

Ship sonar is still useful for detecting older submarines and things like weapons launches even against very quiet opponents. As hard-kill torpedo defenses become more common this function is likely to become one of the most important for their sonar. It's situation as an ASW sensor is not completely hopeless either, in the less-black world of above-water acoustic sensing a great deal of effort has gone into eliminating self-noise through processing and this has born some fruit, they have successfully fitted acoustic gunshot detectors to helicopters for example, and presumably much more sophisticated techniques are already being used for sonar applications. Bot hw well self noise and flow noise can be mitigated by processing is probably not something you will find out in the open though.

In this case, would it make sense for carrier-mounted sonar to make a return for self-defense purposes? They are the highest-value targets and a natural candidate for hard-kill torpedo defenses, but speed has been their traditional defense against most submarines and their usual high travel speeds and air wing operations generate a lot of noise.

[Rich and Corporations]

I had been considering the idea of a sort of ASW mothership perhaps the size of a fleet oiler or fast support ship

It depends how much money you are willing to spend per unit area of coverage, a topic no one really examines. High technology militaries make most sense for offensive operations.

[The Kievan People]

Carrier sonar makes sense. The USN is developing a towed sonar array for use by carriers as part of the new torpedo defense system.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

If there wasn't an viable use for a separate ASW group, and if ASW wasn't so important, the Japanese wouldn't have three massive ASW destroyers.
And wouldn't be building a fourth.

China has a lot of old submarines and submarines that sound like old submarines.

Unless they are dropping mad sonobouys, which does not require a ship, ASW ships rely very heavily on intercepting something at or near the surface. This is a seriously depreciated tactic. It can no longer be taken for granted that a submarine will have to raise its periscope before attacking. Very high performance sonar is the only answer. And the self-noise of large, fast warships quite limits the sensitivity of sonar it is worth fitting on them.

It's not for nothing the USN is investing so heavily in new ASW technology like LFA and that DARPA robot boat thing.

Speaking of China...
Yeah my original question was regarding a NotImperial Japan in the 21st century with territory stretching to Saipan etc etc. Have a modest amount of supercarriers, and big escorts and all that shit, and lighter forces as I described. I'm mostly defending against Norks and PLAN cutting my sea routes to and from my far flung islands. I'm not running an independent air force.

[The Kievan People]

>not!Japan is many times more powerful
>China is exactly the same



What is this a Turtledove novel?

Yeah it makes sense in that context imho.

[The Akasha Colony]

Carrier sonar makes sense. The USN is developing a towed sonar array for use by carriers as part of the new torpedo defense system.

Would there be any use in a hull-mounted sonar in such a case?

[Theodosiya]

Eh,guys. Do you think mounting CIWS like AK-630 or Kashtan in ships like Parchim classes a waste of money?

[The Akasha Colony]

Eh,guys. Do you think mounting CIWS like AK-630 or Kashtan in ships like Parchim classes a waste of money?

It's probably more expensive than any other weapon they currently carry. CIWS is generally rather expensive. Kashtan and AK-630 especially because they are not self-contained drop-in units like Phalanx and SeaRAM, and thus need to actually be fitted and integrated into the hull with their attendant systems, whereas Phalanx just needs a power and water connector and a bit of deck space. This means that it can be moved between ships at will and as needed.

[Rich and Corporations]

Eh,guys. Do you think mounting CIWS like AK-630 or Kashtan in ships like Parchim classes a waste of money?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-230 ?

[Triplebaconation]

Eh,guys. Do you think mounting CIWS like AK-630 or Kashtan in ships like Parchim classes a waste of money?

It's probably more expensive than any other weapon they currently carry. CIWS is generally rather expensive. Kashtan and AK-630 especially because they are not self-contained drop-in units like Phalanx and SeaRAM, and thus need to actually be fitted and integrated into the hull with their attendant systems, whereas Phalanx just needs a power and water connector and a bit of deck space. This means that it can be moved between ships at will and as needed.

Russian Parchims, of course, mounted AK-630s. It's probably a tenth of the cost of a Phalanx due to its simple open loop fire control.

Kashtan is more expensive but would vastly improve survivability.

[Laritaia]

All the boats, all of them.

[The Kievan People]

Would there be any use in a hull-mounted sonar in such a case?

I don't know!

[Taihei Tengoku]

All the boats, all of them.
([url=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42395079/10%20to%201%20ships/1938%20Resolute%20Class%20heavy%20Cruiser%20%286%29%28thumb%29.png]Image)[/url]

The floatplane looks awful large

[Roski]

All the boats, all of them.
([url=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42395079/10%20to%201%20ships/1938%20Resolute%20Class%20heavy%20Cruiser%20%286%29%28thumb%29.png]Image)[/url]

The floatplane looks awful large

pby ftw

[Laritaia]

All the boats, all of them.
([url=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42395079/10%20to%201%20ships/1938%20Resolute%20Class%20heavy%20Cruiser%20%286%29%28thumb%29.png]Image)[/url]

The floatplane looks awful large

it's about the same size as the Walrus Ampib used by the RN.

[Gallan Systems]

*awful cute

[Minroz]

China has a lot of old submarines and submarines that sound like old submarines.

Unless they are dropping mad sonobouys, which does not require a ship, ASW ships rely very heavily on intercepting something at or near the surface. This is a seriously depreciated tactic. It can no longer be taken for granted that a submarine will have to raise its periscope before attacking. Very high performance sonar is the only answer. And the self-noise of large, fast warships quite limits the sensitivity of sonar it is worth fitting on them.

It's not for nothing the USN is investing so heavily in new ASW technology like LFA and that DARPA robot boat thing.

Speaking of China...
Yeah my original question was regarding a NotImperial Japan in the 21st century with territory stretching to Saipan etc etc. Have a modest amount of supercarriers, and big escorts and all that shit, and lighter forces as I described. I'm mostly defending against Norks and PLAN cutting my sea routes to and from my far flung islands. I'm not running an independent air force.

In my case, my Not!Imperial China is a world superpower with territory stretching from Mainland China and Not!Taiwan to Central Asia and Eastern Russia. [As much as USA's position in RL.]

I'd prolly had to make my navy be like the USN, mostly competing against other Great Powers including Not!USA and Modern Mayintec Empire to maintain my AU's political status quo. And to defend my far-flung islands and allied countries.

[The Akasha Colony]

And now, having spent a lot of time shooting down other trimarans, watching High School Fleet has made me come around a bit more to the appearance (not the performance features, this was entirely just a sort of spur of the moment thing).



Yes, it's a rather blatant copy of the Independence SSC proposal, stretched by about 8 meters. The bridge is one deck higher to increase internal space, and it uses a cycloidal propeller in lieu of Independence's azipod.

Armament as drawn:

• 76 mm SR + Strales
• 16-cell self-defense length VLS
• 2 x 3-barrel surface ship torpedo launcher
• 24-cell RAM launcher
• 2 x 35 mm autocannon
• 2 x 15.5 mm MG

It's designed to be a bit more survivable than LCS like SSC, but with less focus on surface attack (no dedicated AShM launchers) and more on anti-submarine warfare. It isn't designed for multi-mission modular capability but instead has the anti-submarine warfare module permanently integrated. To that end, it has facilities to support two Merlin-sized helicopters as well as an active LFA (Sonar 2087) for sub-hunting and facilities for UUVs. It basically has the same ASW outfit as my ASW frigate but on a smaller hull with shorter range and with reduced anti-air and anti-surface weaponry. It is designed to operate in areas like the Mediterranean, Southeast Asia, and the Caribbean, supported and protected by land-based and carrier-based air power and operating in reasonably friendly seas.

As a result, this design is probably closer to 4,000 tonnes full load displacement and has a standing crew of ~80-90. Unfortunately, I'm also aware that this only exacerbates the existing problems with top-heaviness and metacentric height already experienced by multi-hull designs (this was made because I liked the look etc). I might also replace the waterjets as well, since it doesn't have the same need for extreme shallow water capability or extreme sprint speeds as LCS and the waterjets are very noisy, causing problems for the sonar (although the expectation is that at crawling speeds the cycloidal propeller would be used instead). A multi-mission version more like LCS might be built, but would be visually more or less identical from the outside.

Credit to Novorden for the autocannon deck mount, the Centurion launchers, and the scale figure, which I forgot to remove.

[Rhodesialund]

And now, having spent a lot of time shooting down other trimarans, watching High School Fleet has made me come around a bit more to the appearance (not the performance features, this was entirely just a sort of spur of the moment thing).

([url=https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-XIG1c5tKD0E/V2sGeqGIoYI/AAAAAAAART8/WBQerUzndJIWcXAq3HEio0TwxEE8DIJLgCCo/s900/Frigate-2.png]Image)[/url]

Yes, it's a rather blatant copy of the Independence SSC proposal, stretched by about 8 meters. The bridge is one deck higher to increase internal space, and it uses a cycloidal propeller in lieu of Independence's azipod.

SNIP

Nice, think you could do a Cruiser-sized trimaran? I'm interested in seeing how you would pull it off.

[The Akasha Colony]

And now, having spent a lot of time shooting down other trimarans, watching High School Fleet has made me come around a bit more to the appearance (not the performance features, this was entirely just a sort of spur of the moment thing).

([url=https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-XIG1c5tKD0E/V2sGeqGIoYI/AAAAAAAART8/WBQerUzndJIWcXAq3HEio0TwxEE8DIJLgCCo/s900/Frigate-2.png]Image)[/url]

Yes, it's a rather blatant copy of the Independence SSC proposal, stretched by about 8 meters. The bridge is one deck higher to increase internal space, and it uses a cycloidal propeller in lieu of Independence's azipod.

SNIP

Nice, think you could do a Cruiser-sized trimaran? I'm interested in seeing how you would pull it off.

I've been meaning to do a cruiser, but I don't think a trimaran would be how I do it, given the metacentric height issues. But I might adjust the concept, who knows. I might get started on one if my ship mood persists, this one was easier than expected since I already had lots of parts to grab from my destroyer and carrier drawings.

[The Jaclean Empire]

I've been working to increase the quality of my sales forum, and make it navy centric. It's still pretty shitty, but better than before. Hope you guys can check this out and give me some tips:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=381647

[The Akasha Colony]

I've been working to increase the quality of my sales forum, and make it navy centric. It's still pretty shitty, but better than before. Hope you guys can check this out and give me some tips:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=381647

Carrier:

• Where do the extra 20,000 tons of displacement come from? The dimensions are not much larger than a Nimitz or Ford, and it doesn't seem to have any other extra capabilities, either.
• Where do you fit the extra aircraft over what a modern supercarrier is rated to carry? Or all they just really small planes? This is why aircraft figures are generally rather vague, especially since different navies with different procedures may count their aircraft capacity differently. Some may include deck-parked aircraft, others may include only those that can physically fit in the hangar at once. Using either system will give you a different number for the same ship.
• There is no real point in saying exactly the mix of aircraft carried onboard, because this is not fixed and varies according to need. There is no reason a carrier needs to have exactly 40 attack aircraft and exactly 10 AEW&C aircraft, etc. It will vary by situation and budget and so forth.
• There is no need for three reactors or six shafts. Two reactors and four shafts will do, and will be more compact, cheaper to build, and cheaper to operate.
• A carrier's best defense against submarines is its embarked air wing and its speed.

Destroyer:

• I'm not sure if it's an efficient use of resources to have both a 203 mm conventional gun and a railgun. If your technology is sufficient to allow the combat deployment of railguns, then you don't have much of a need for the conventional gun.
• Given that operational naval railguns are about as far off as operational naval lasers, I don't see much point in making a separate "PMT" variant whose only difference is the use of laser CIWS vs. gun CIWS while both have railguns.
• Ceteris paribus, nuclear reactors require more crew and take up more space and weight than conventional powerplants. So your nuclear destroyer will likely be heavier and have a larger crew than the other two. It will also likely have less internal volume available for other systems, so in order to match the capabilities of the other two, it will probably be larger as well.

Honestly, as storefronts go the mistakes are minor in comparison to others. And honestly, the mistakes don't matter all that much to most people who are shopping anyway. Those who care about the actual design of their ships will usually design their own, so storefronts usually cater to those who just want something to fill in the blanks in their nation and don't give too much thought to their purchase. So IMO, the best thing a storefront can do is have a clean and organized layout that makes it easy for customers to find what they want, and a professional look that is able to make those browsing feel like they're at a reputable dealer.

[The Jaclean Empire]

I've been working to increase the quality of my sales forum, and make it navy centric. It's still pretty shitty, but better than before. Hope you guys can check this out and give me some tips:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=381647

Carrier:

• Where do the extra 20,000 tons of displacement come from? The dimensions are not much larger than a Nimitz or Ford, and it doesn't seem to have any other extra capabilities, either.
• Where do you fit the extra aircraft over what a modern supercarrier is rated to carry? Or all they just really small planes? This is why aircraft figures are generally rather vague, especially since different navies with different procedures may count their aircraft capacity differently. Some may include deck-parked aircraft, others may include only those that can physically fit in the hangar at once. Using either system will give you a different number for the same ship.
• There is no real point in saying exactly the mix of aircraft carried onboard, because this is not fixed and varies according to need. There is no reason a carrier needs to have exactly 40 attack aircraft and exactly 10 AEW&C aircraft, etc. It will vary by situation and budget and so forth.
• There is no need for three reactors or six shafts. Two reactors and four shafts will do, and will be more compact, cheaper to build, and cheaper to operate.
• A carrier's best defense against submarines is its embarked air wing and its speed.

Destroyer:

• I'm not sure if it's an efficient use of resources to have both a 203 mm conventional gun and a railgun. If your technology is sufficient to allow the combat deployment of railguns, then you don't have much of a need for the conventional gun.
• Given that operational naval railguns are about as far off as operational naval lasers, I don't see much point in making a separate "PMT" variant whose only difference is the use of laser CIWS vs. gun CIWS while both have railguns.
• Ceteris paribus, nuclear reactors require more crew and take up more space and weight than conventional powerplants. So your nuclear destroyer will likely be heavier and have a larger crew than the other two. It will also likely have less internal volume available for other systems, so in order to match the capabilities of the other two, it will probably be larger as well.

Ok. I'll get to editing. Thank you very much for your feedback. As for the carrier's extra 20,000 tonnes I did use a displacement calculator for it, I guess it was incorrect or I did something wrong.