Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Pharthan]

-snip-

One thing I like to bring up frequently: Most things in NS that are user-made, rather than first thought up by DARPA, tend to be stupid for one reason or another. Guys far smarter than most NSers spend their day jobs thinking of this crap. NS is one of the few places I'll say that there are people who might get a bright idea or two that could really work, but those generally deal with their own day-job experience as well, and such ideas are few and far between.
"But the IJN had submersible aircraft carriers!" Yes, and they weren't intended for regular use. They were going to be a one-time scare tactic, and America had no idea they existed for the longest time. Were they to carry out their one-time attack, assaulting Washington D.C., it would have been rather demoralizing. Not effective militarily as far as actual damage dealt, seeing as they would have only been able to deliver only a few bombs with their aircraft. More psychological.

What's more, these did not comprise more than a fraction of the IJN. That, and detection systems have grown emmensely since then and any smart nation is going to have a massive sub-detection network.

As far as Rail-guns. Why? Dude, just use missiles.
General rule of engineering (I'm sure you've heard of it): KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid.
You're going way too far trying to get your rail-guns to work. Murphy's Law is going to destroy you, and practically speaking you're just creating a system any Gunner's Mate would pummel you for designing (just like you're trying to create reactors any nuclear operator would pummel you for. The Gunner's Mate would hurt more.) It doesn't matter if it's automated. Maintenance is going to suck and it's going to be frequent, plain and simple.
Then one thing I'm surprised you haven't mentioned with your rail gun is a hollow-point style or flechette canister for dealing with the penetration issue.

[Anemos Major]

I realise that I've never actually passed this through this thread. Have an AIP submarine (and tell me what you think)!

---

Full Size Image (2073x1035)

Astela class SSP (SA903)

Specifications:

Name: Astela
Developers: Fleet Naval Development Directorate (Arsenal Moldonei)
Builders: Imperial Naval Yards of Anemos Major
Operators: Imperial Fleet of Anemos Major et al
Built: 2010-
In commission: 2012-

Type: SSP - Attack Submarine (Diesel Air-Independent Power)
Displacement: 2,958t (surfaced) / 3,283t (submerged)
Length: 81m
Beam: 8.7m
Draught: 8.0m
Propulsion: 2x FA.50 V12 2,200hp (1.64MW) Diesel-Electric
10x TA.750/U 85kW Hydrogen-Oxygen PEM Fuel Cell
Potassium-Ion Battery Bank
Driving Single-Shafted Skewback Seven-Bladed Propeller
Speed: 12 kn (surfaced) / 20 kn (submerged)
Range: Up to 9,500nm at 8kn (est.)
4 weeks submerged
Complement: 42 men
Sensors:
Observation/Attack Optronic Mast (3CCD/FLIR, CO2 laser rangefinder)
Eletyr SDS.10 Acoustic Detection Suite (1x bow array (passive LF), 4x flank array (passive LMF), 1x towed array (passive/active LF), 1x intercept array, 1x mine detection array (active HF), 1x hydro-ranging array.
Eletyr OR.22 Navigation and Surface-Air Search Radar System

Electronic warfare and decoys:
ETAR Electronic Warfare Suite
6x 80mm acoustic countermeasure launcher tubes

Armament:
6x 533mm torpedo tubes
- 533mm Advanced Capability Torpedo
- SLTCM Anti Ship Cruise Missile
- SLAE Infra-Red Imaging Multipurpose Missile
- 533mm Model 10 Propelled Naval Mine

---

Overview

The Astela is a class of modern attack submarines developed to provide the Imperial Fleet of Anemos Major and associated navies with a modern force of submarines capable of engaging in effective, low-observability underwater warfare directed against enemy surface and sub-surface assets, supplementing and complementing the nuclear hunter/killer submarine fleets of these navies in open water duties as well as providing littoral operational capabilities. Developed by the Fleet Naval Development Directorate, otherwise known as Arsenal Moldonei, and produced cooperatively by a number of Anemonian shipbuilding concerns as a technological endeavour aimed at expanding the capabilities of the state's submarine fleets, the Astela is designed to stand at the forefront of modern conventional submarine technology and provide overwhelming technological superiority to its users in its intended fields of battle.

Initial testing was performed in 2009 utilising a pre-production testing hull constructed by Sailiei Fleet Production Yards, which would be passed subsequently to the Anemonian Amalgamated Special Operations Command for covert troop insertion, making full use of the vessel's long range transit capabilities. Constructed by the Imperial Naval Yards in Duchy Sailiei, the lead ship of the class in Anemonian service was launched in early 2010 and subsequently commissioned some two years later as the IFAM Astela (SM201-SA9031). Additional vessels were launched in quick succession, bringing a full twenty vessels into service with the Imperial Fleet and more with allied navies by May 2012. The total initial order placed by the Anemonian Armed Forces stands at a full 250 submarines with options for a total of 800 more, bringing the maximum potential initial order to 1050 vessels of the class within the IFAM alone.

Hull and Signature Reduction

The basic hull shape of the Astela follows the teardrop layout favoured on most modern submarines for effective hydrodynamic flow control and thus underwater performance, as well as maintaining a lower acoustic signature. This teardrop configuration is further enhanced by the use of a fillet construction on the submarine's sail; this helps to direct hydrodynamic flow around one of the submarine's primary sources of drag, and further decreases the vessel's acoustic signature by partly tapering the sail's progression into the main hull.

The Astela employs an X-rudder configuration. Compared to conventional vessels, this provides the submarine with an additional two control surfaces; this provides it with far greater potential mobility and allows it to operate in close proximity to the seabed, allowing for both operations in shallow waters and submerged operations at greater depths.

The hulls are primarily constructed of UHTSS (Ultra High Tensile Strength Steel). As submarines are designed to submerge to depths where the pressure exerted by the surrounding body of water exceeded the compressive strength of conventional steel alloys, the Astela's basic design was developed to ensure that it was capable of submerging to greater depths than equivalent submarines and increase its protection against shock based anti-submarine ordnance. UHTSS employs over 10 separate elements, including silicon, manganese, vanadium, chromium and titanium, some in 0.0001% total composition content, together with a relatively high carbon content to bring the tensile strength of the steel up to nearly 261,000psi (~1,800MPa). This incredibly high increase in hull material strength has been used to both increase hull strength and decrease the total volume taken up by the materials used, providing the Astela with a twofold advantage over other similar application vessels.

The displacement of the vessel is 2,958t surfaced and 3,283t submerged.

To decrease its observability and detectability across a number of spectra, the Astela employs a number of innovative signature reduction techniques. The first and foremost design objective in the Astela was to minimise acoustic detectability. This was achieved in a number of fashions. The hydrodynamic hull decreased drag and thus flow sound. The submarine's machinery was decoupled and dampened using sound-attenuating mountings to control both vibrations and noise emissions. Externally, the submarine utilises two primary sound-absorbing layers to greatly limit its acoustic signature, beyond levels achieved by legacy and current generation vessels. The first of these is a conventional spray-on anechoic coating composed primarily of viscoelastic urethane polymers. The anechoic tiles employed by the Astela, however, follow a highly unconventional layout. Instead of utilising the synthetic polymer and void tiles used by many modern submarines, the Astela relies upon an alternate tile composition. Taking advantage of the Mie solution properties of high density lead spheres, the Astela's unique anechoic tile composition utilises lattices of two-component CTBN/Epoxy dampening material-coated high density lead spheres organised to form phononic crystals (i.e. a synthetic acoustic metamaterial) in bi-layer slabs of coated spheres. Research has shown that phononic crystal anechoic slabs with optimal properties have the potential to absorb almost all the incident energy in desired frequency bands. In order to achieve this, an initial data set of ~750,000 potential differently structured coatings were provided to design teams. Utilising Markov-chain Monte Carlo sampling algorithm techniques to characterize and identify near-optimal property anechoic coatings, differential evolution algorithms were used to select an optimal coating from this narrowed data set. In addition to these methods, the innovative propulsion system and hull geometry used by the Astela also contribute greatly to the minimisation of its acoustic signature.

An additional area of concern is the vessel's electromagnetic signature. This is minimised through two primary methods. The first of these is a series of internally mounted (36 are used aboard Astela-class submarines) individually controlled coiled electromagnets generating counteracting electromagnetic fields in three perpendicular planes that ultimately provide a degaussing effect upon the ship while removing the need for heavy externally mounted cables that both add weight and acoustic signature to submerged vessels. However, a secondary cable-based degaussing option has nonetheless been developed for use by the Astela-class; this consists of a high temperature superconducting ceramic cable constructed from yttrium-barium copper-oxide (YBCO) installed around the circumference of the Astela's hull to provide external degaussing that takes full advantage of YBCO's greater electrical conductivity when compared to equivalent dimension copper wires (up to 150 times the electrical current) to minimise the degaussing cabling dimensions, both width and length-wise.

Finally, the Astela's design also considers the direct currents inherent to the hull and surrounding water. These direct currents can generate potentials which lead to the radiation of extremely low frequency electrical fields into the water from the submarine; this is prevented by short circuiting the direct currents, achieved by simply earthing the relevant components of the vessel.

Propulsion

Like many current generation submarines, the Astela utilises a diesel-AIP multiple powerplant with an electric transmission to provide the ship with surface dependent and independent powerplants for use in different environments.

The conventional powerplant used by the Astela consists of a pair of twin parallel turbocharged V12 marine diesels. The V12 engine layout provides a high level of power alongside perfect balancing and low vibration not found in equivalent displacement engines using a smaller number of cylinders; though maintenance costs are higher, the associated advantages are considered enough to warrant the engine's use. The parallel turbochargers serve to provide the engines with a higher power rating than that usually achievable by non-turbocharged engine of similar dimensions. Each engine provides 2,200hp (1.64MW) of energy. The engines are used to drive an electric propulsion motor feeding into a single shaft skewed seven blade propeller designed to minimise vibration and cavitation, as well as recharging the potassium-ion battery bank employed by the Astela (which provides significant efficiency and capacity gains over traditional lead acid batteries). This layout further serves to decrease the vessel's acoustic signature by decoupling the noise-producing diesel powerplants from the outer hull.

However, in lieu of the pure-diesel powerplants employed by many SSKs that previously limited the submerged duration of conventional submarines due to their diesel powerplants' reliance upon air from the surface, an important portion of the Astela's complete propulsion system consists of its highly capable and efficient fuel-cell based Air Independent Propulsion system. The heart of the AIP lies in the 10 80kW rated hydrogen-oxygen PEM fuel cells employed to provide the vessel with air independent power. The PEM fuel cell operates through the use of an electrically insulating polymer membrane; hydrogen gas is fed through one side of the fuel cell into the anode to separate the gas into its components protons and electrons. The protons travel directly through the membrane to the cathode. However, the electrically insulating qualities of the polymer drives the electrons through an external circuit towards the cathode, creating a current in the process. At the cathode, the electrons and protons react with oxygen to create water, which is subsequently disposed from the cell. Isomolded bipolar graphite plates backed by closed circuit PAO fluid are used to cool individual fuel cell modules.

The ten fuel cells are fed by a combination of hydrogen storage canisters and tank-stored climate controlled liquid oxygen. The ability to store fluid fuel sources within the submarine to power an energy source that produces water as its primary waste product provides the fuel-cell power plant employed by the Astela with the ability to operate independently of surface-provided air, increasing the low-speed submerged operating duration of the Astela to about 4 weeks. This long submerged operating time is achieved in a number of ways. The first is a relatively large H2 and O2 storage capacity which gives the vessel extended operating capabilities in itself. However, this storage capacity is augmented by a combination distillation/electrolysing system feeding into both the crew and power compartments, an innovative solution intended to provide the engine with additional fuel if so desired. This system acts as a form of indirect power conversion from diesel to API propulsion. Water is drawn directly from the ocean, removing the need for independent freshwater stocks. From there, it is passed through the vessel's distillation apparatus; this is performed to ensure the clean separation of water into its component hydrogen and oxygen, as opposed to the hydrogen and chlorine obtained through the electrolysis of brine (as well as providing crewmen and electronics cooling systems with fresh water). The desalinated water is then passed through a high pressure electrolysis unit drawing power from the battery banks, which separates the water into its component fluid hydrogen and oxygen; this can be passed into the crew compartment to replenish oxygen (in conjunction with soda lime scrubbers and mechanical air filtering to control the crew air environment), or into the fuel cell powerplant to continue replenishing the fuel supply of the air-independent propulsion unit.

Electronics and Sensors

The electronics suite employed by the Astela, a central component of the vessel's offensive and defensive capabilities, constitute a high performance electronics array standing at the forefront of modern military technology, designed to combine high performance capabilities with low observability characteristics in a fashion that maximises the utility of its components subsystems in the context of a diesel-electric attack submarine.

In lieu of the relatively obtrusive hull-penetrating periscopes employed by many submarines, the Astela is designed to use a non mechanical, NLOS viewing optronic mast employing digital visual data inputs to great reduce the area taken up by the visual sighting assembly within the vessel. Combining the traditional roles filled by both surveillance and attack periscopes, the optronic viewing array consists of a high definition 3CCD camera array capable of low light, black and white imaging, a forward looking infra-red sighting system and a pulsed eye-safe CO2 rangefinding laser, providing the commander with a comprehensive array of optronic navigation and targeting aids.

The Astela is equipped with a comprehensive sensor detection suite for surface and underwater operations. The vessel's fire control sonar suite consists of a passive cylindrical medium-frequency detection bow array, a passive flank array for low-to-medium frequency detection, a combined active/passive towed low-frequency array and intercept array. In addition to this, the Astela is equipped with a high frequency active sonar for mine detection and a long range hydro-ranging sonar for navigation purposes.

Astela utilises a combination of satellite, inertial and radar navigation when in conventional oceanic transit. Additionally, it possesses the capacity to employ coastal radio navigation for redundancy purposes and littoral operations.

For submarine radar surveillance and detection purposes, the Astela is equipped with a comprehensive modular threat detection and analysis suite. Providing radar interception across a wide frequency band, the fully automated electronic warfare suite is capable of threat analysis, classification, direction finding and display. With signals interception performed via a retractable sensor mast (also fitted with VH/UH frequency communications array, GPS interaction systems and ESM modules), radar signals are both displayed in a tactical context (utilising ranging and direction finding to locate sources) as well as analysing radar emissions in conjunction with stored data to identify threat types and intent (i.e. determining radar emission source nature, whether the signal is searching or tracking etc).

Acoustic threat detection and analysis is also provided. The Astela is equipped with four upwards-diagonally and two forward launching tubes loaded with powered acoustic decoy units. These units, equipped with active sonar arrays and pre-programmed paths of travel, act as acoustic decoys by both jamming enemy sonar arrays and mimicking the acoustic signature of the Astela. Enemy wire-guided torpedoes, directed from within vessels, are less susceptible to decoy units as the hostile crew are able to differentiate between decoy and main sub movement; in order to account for this, the forward launching tube decoys follow shallow turning paths similar to those taken by the submarine itself.

Drawing from the data provided by its acoustic and electronic detection and analysis suites, all of which feed into centralised combat systems, the Astela's fire control and combat management suite draws from a multitude of sensory inputs to provide its weapons systems with a comprehensive firing solution. The fire control software draws upon target analysis software developed from the many fire control systems developed for a range of aerial, ground and naval assets by corporations like Eletyr during the latter half of the 2010s; previous experience in producing such software gives the Astela's FCS the benefit of experience. Highly automated and able to collate data from a number of sources, it is capable of analysing detected targets, their projected location against projectile travel time, and provide the submarine with accurate targeting solutions within seconds for rapid responses to target detection.

Armament

The Astela-class SSP's armament suite consists of six 533mm torpedo tubes utilised to fire a number of ammunition types to perform a number of duties, providing the submarine with a highly effective and flexible selection of weapons. The loading system used by the torpedo tubes consists of a semi-automatic hydraulic loader cued by the weapons control officer, allowing individual ordnance types to be selected via the computer control system and loaded at higher speeds than manual loading schemes. The hydraulic loader is both decoupled and two-component CTBN/Epoxy-dampened to allow it to operate in low acoustic emission conditions, allowing it to be utilised while the submarine is running silently. Additionally, the reload system can be utilised manually if necessary, providing the vessel's armament with important mechanical redundancy. The tube employs a water-pressure based hydro-ram expulsion system to provide the benefits of ram expulsion with a low acoustic signature, though swim-out ordnance deployment can also be used.

The 533mm ACT (Advanced Capability Torpedo), developed for use aboard the Astela, is a weapon designed to complement the low observability and high performance of the vessel aboard which it is deployed. The torpedo is propelled by a hybrid turbine-electric propulsion system driving a single shaft propulsor; the propulsion system, compared to conventional alternatives, generates a much smaller acoustic signature that allows it to be launched and operated with a much lower possibility of detection by hostile targets. The sonar array employed is a broadband multi-beam passive/active capable seeker head, providing the weapon with both higher accuracy imaging when compared to legacy systems as well as the ability to be operated with a relatively low possibility of intercept and detection if so desired; together with the microprocessor housed in the weapon, the torpedo is capable of identifying and rejecting countermeasures and making autonomous decisions to some degree based on the data obtained via the FCS and its own sensor suite. Communications and guidance can be maintained by the submarine using fibre-optic cable guidance, though autonomous search, guidance and interception can be performed by the weapon; the warhead is composed of 300kg of polymer-bonded HNIW that can be pre-programmed to detonate upon contact or at a set proximity to the target.

As well as the 533mm ACT, Astela is provided with torpedo-tube launched folding fin anti-ship cruise missiles, short range multiple threat engagement missiles and inertially guided torpedo-mines for added mission flexibility.

[Lamoni]

- Waterjets will neither make you go faster underwater, nor make you any quieter. So, no real advantage for you there, especially since the noise from waterjets is equally recognizeable as any noises from a propellor.

They do actually make one quieter by shrouding the noise generated by the caterpillar design considering everything happens within the ship's hull.

- Railguns aren't MT, and the way that things are going, are going to be mid-late PMT, if at all.

Railguns and the theories pertaining to them have been around for over a century as has the technology to utilize them. Just because known research on them declares they are PMT (and they aren't going to be mid-late PMT if you consider that in only six years is the benchmark for when modern navies will begin integrating them) doesn't mean if a navy had been looking for an alternate propulsion system earlier to reduce the cost of firing a gun, that they wouldn't have been able to design a working version.

- In war, you will realistically need more than one week of operation. In comparison, a nuclear submarine can operate for several weeks, while an AIP diesel submarine can last at least three weeks (21 days). You aren't gaining any advantages in patrol duration here.

In war when dealing with most NSers, you generally have short intense confrontations lasting a few days at most followed by each side respectively bringing in new ships for the next engagement while dismissing all of the previous vessels that were damaged. I never stated that they would be incapable of lasting a week, but rather that against current NS nations in II and such, a week long deployment is the longest I can allow for because chances are the enemy will be found and engaged resulting in potential casualties on both ends. They can last coniderably longer when they are on the surface and as for patrol duration, yes, they won't be gaining any advantages indeed.

- The designs *ARE* uneven. Notice how modern submarine hulls are shaped more like a teardrop? That's because their design takes into account the way in which water moves around the boat while the submarine is submerged. None of your designs take this into account, which both increases the noise generated by all of your designs, but also lowers their top speed while submerged. Both of which make life much easier for your enemy, and much harder for the poor fools who use these designs.

Yes, I've noticed the shape of modern designs, who is to say that the one snapshot of the design for vessels purposed for surface operations is the design I've purposed for all of my vessels? If I had done that, indeed I'd be the fool, but I have not, and thus who are you to state I've not take this into account. On top of everything, yes, I understand I have a low top speed, these aren't meant to engage in close-quarters combat mind you considering that the modern railgun (yes I say modern because I consider the technology to be fully there and thus of modern times) has an operational area well outside twice the engaement zone of standard vessels.

- Decoys will only help you so much. They have limited range, and run time. You can only carry so many of them, and any that you do carry, reduces the amount of weapons which you can carry. You would have to be very careful indeed with when (and how many of them) that you use, and they are not a miracle cure for the very bad points of your designs.

I understand decoys only work to such an extent, and I've already stated that they are only one of many countermeasures I can take.

- The material used in the reactor does not factor into the discussion at all, really.

Actually, it does considering how Uranium reactors have to be extremely large and thus generate more heat and noise, they are notably noisier then electric submarines and on top of everything it is definitely more dangerous than the use of Thorium, something that can have a very small and simple reactor in turn for more safety and less noise for the short time it can be turned on to recharge the batteries.

- And what happens when you enter into a conflict where you don't have any allies? There goes all of your ASW capability, as well as a good deal of your ASuW capability.

Well, I guess I have to ensure I don't enter any of aforementioned conflicts right? Also, who said my destroyers weren't capable of ASW, I just was stating that they aren't the most efficient. Remember, you're making assumptions not on a design, but a profile silhouette, you don't have any more information than what I may or may not have given you which is sparse in the most generous of scenarios. This also is simply a sihouette of a frigate/destroyer type vessel, and of which one in particular I have not named.

- You also forgot to take the electronics into account here. There is no feasible way to protect your radar or communications antennae when you submerge. Indeed, they might even be ripped off of the ship by water pressure generated by your ship's own movement.

No, I didn't forget. Look at the silhouette, and recall how I said how again, this is a sub-surface operations vessel, the deepest these little guys would go is perhaps 100m at the most. the small bit of cowling around the dorsal attenae is designed for this purpose indeed to protect from said pressures.

- Basically, it comes down to the fact that EVERYTHING about your fleet is unrealistic. The only means that you have to be able to RP it is Rule of Cool, honestly. There is simply no other way.

Yes, I understand RoC comes into play here, but not with the concepts themselves considering the lack of intelligence given on my designs. From one image you have deemed all of the others are infeasible, yet they differ greatly, and for capabilities, you've assumed off of what you can see in the silhouette, however you had to be told that this vessel indeed carries missiles and other potential weapons and countermeasures.

- All that does is to change the frequency of the sound generated. Even in fiction, it didn't actually make the sub quieter, it just shifted the sound frequency. Also, massive reduction of interior volume, and therefore massively reduced interior space for all needed crew activities and storage. Again, if no one has ever thought to use such a design, despite the fact that the idea has been around for a long time, there's likely to be a very good reason for it.

- Sorry for you, but navies will not be integrating railguns within six years. Not in real life, anyway. All that you'll get in six years is testing. I've already provided partial proof of this, while you've shown no evidence at all to support any of your claims. Again, mid to late PMT.

- There is no real point to submerging them. All you are doing is taking a surface ship, and reducing the interior volume of the ship, as i've said multiple times. You won't have room for weapons, supplies, or crew bunks, not to mention crew duty stations.

- Pharthan has already stated why Thorium reactors will not work for naval applications (until 2040 or so), so i'll link to his post on the matter:

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=19271211#p19271211

- Even if it isn't the design for all of your ships, you've only mentioned using surface ships that submerge. You've only shown images of surface ships that submerge. That is the basis upon which everyone is saying that your designs are infeasible. That and the reasons that I (and others) have told you about.

- The only reason why you might be able to sucessfully NOT enter any wars that are just you vs. one or more others would involve the NS rules. If you tried this in real life, a first world nation's navy would mop you up. Even if you are PMT, PMT detection methods will be better than they are in MT, so you are back to square one. Even a Caterpillar system won't save you, in the long run. Not to mention the other problems with such a system.

- Except that your systems WILL only work under Rule of Cool conditions. That's your biggest problem, right there. As i've said, you've taken a surface ship, tried to make it submerge, and reduced the interior volume to such a degree that I seriously doubt that your ships would be capable of wartime missions at all.

[Kahanistan]

The Sviatogor class bulk cruiser is the largest class of vessel currently in service with the Kahanistan Republic Navy. At 1.2 million tons it doesn't compare in size to the massive superdreadnaughts in service with many nations, and ton for ton is less well armed than a Kahanistanian battle cruiser. The bulk cruiser packs a 650-cell cold-launch VLS and measures at 500x75x32 metres. Owing to its immense bulk it is unable to navigate waters shallower than its 32-metre draft and its radar and electronics are relatively primitive as a way of reducing costs. The heavily armoured bulk cruiser is designed from the ground up as an anti-slaver warship, carrying 7,500 crew and up to two divisions of marines and 100,000 passengers, normally slaves liberated from trafficking ships and packed in as tight quarters as the marines can get them. Obviously a ship this size is not stealthy, and raids on slave ships must be if the marines are to rescue the slaves before the traffickers kill them. For raids the ship will deploy helicopters full of marines or carry a small insertion boat to carry a team of divers to the slave ship. Despite its size and heavy modular armour it is quite vulnerable due to its inferior radars and inability to navigate shallow waters and usually travels with a carrier battle group as an escort. Its heavy armour and the fact it is extremely difficult to sink makes it an attractive choice for admirals to use as their command ships, though many prefer using a less conspicuous cruiser or carrier with command and control functions.

[The Soodean Imperium]

The Sviatogor class bulk cruiser is the largest class of vessel currently in service with the Kahanistan Republic Navy. At 1.2 million tons it doesn't compare in size to the massive superdreadnaughts in service with many nations, and ton for ton is less well armed than a Kahanistanian battle cruiser. The bulk cruiser packs a 650-cell cold-launch VLS and measures at 500x75x32 metres. Owing to its immense bulk it is unable to navigate waters shallower than its 32-metre draft and its radar and electronics are relatively primitive as a way of reducing costs. The heavily armoured bulk cruiser is designed from the ground up as an anti-slaver warship, carrying 7,500 crew and up to two divisions of marines and 100,000 passengers, normally slaves liberated from trafficking ships and packed in as tight quarters as the marines can get them. Obviously a ship this size is not stealthy, and raids on slave ships must be if the marines are to rescue the slaves before the traffickers kill them. For raids the ship will deploy helicopters full of marines or carry a small insertion boat to carry a team of divers to the slave ship. Despite its size and heavy modular armour it is quite vulnerable due to its inferior radars and inability to navigate shallow waters and usually travels with a carrier battle group as an escort. Its heavy armour and the fact it is extremely difficult to sink makes it an attractive choice for admirals to use as their command ships, though many prefer using a less conspicuous cruiser or carrier with command and control functions.

Before this post gets attacked, I'll try to offer some constructive advice...

500x75x32 meters may seem "moderate-sized" compared to the lulzy mega-dreadnaughts pumped out by the likes of Decius and Dragomere, but it's still unrealistically large for a modern vessel, let alone a ship from the Battleship era. Here's a comparison: IJN Yamato, the largest battleship ever built, was only 263x38x10 meters, or half the size in all directions. Modern warships (with the exception of aircraft carriers) are rarely more than 200 meters long.

There are many reasons for this, but I like to think of it as "don't put all your eggs in one basket." Why have one battleship that carries 500 VLS tubes, 30 CIWS guns, 10 helicopters, and 5,000 crew... when you can have five cruisers that each carry 100 VLS tubes, 6 CIWS guns, 2 helicopters, and 1,000 crew? Or ten destroyers that each carry 50 VLS tubes, 3 CIWS guns, 1 helicopter, and 500 crew? With the latter two options, you get more speed, more flexibility, and more survivability - one hit to a superbattleship will still cripple it, whereas one hit to a destroyer squadron will damage one ship and leave the other 3-5 intact.

In particular, I want you to think about the role you want this ship to fulfill. You mentioned hunting down slaver ships, correct? Well, what kind of qualities are good for that role? Probably high speed and high agility, paired with low draft and low detectability. Armor and armament would likely be less important. Given these requirements, a superbattleship seems like a poor choice, while a fleet of frigates seems like it would be just right.

[Antarticaria]

The Sviatogor class bulk cruiser is the largest class of vessel currently in service with the Kahanistan Republic Navy. At 1.2 million tons it doesn't compare in size to the massive superdreadnaughts in service with many nations, and ton for ton is less well armed than a Kahanistanian battle cruiser. The bulk cruiser packs a 650-cell cold-launch VLS and measures at 500x75x32 metres. Owing to its immense bulk it is unable to navigate waters shallower than its 32-metre draft and its radar and electronics are relatively primitive as a way of reducing costs. The heavily armoured bulk cruiser is designed from the ground up as an anti-slaver warship, carrying 7,500 crew and up to two divisions of marines and 100,000 passengers, normally slaves liberated from trafficking ships and packed in as tight quarters as the marines can get them. Obviously a ship this size is not stealthy, and raids on slave ships must be if the marines are to rescue the slaves before the traffickers kill them. For raids the ship will deploy helicopters full of marines or carry a small insertion boat to carry a team of divers to the slave ship. Despite its size and heavy modular armour it is quite vulnerable due to its inferior radars and inability to navigate shallow waters and usually travels with a carrier battle group as an escort. Its heavy armour and the fact it is extremely difficult to sink makes it an attractive choice for admirals to use as their command ships, though many prefer using a less conspicuous cruiser or carrier with command and control functions.

Sood already pointed most of this out but one note I would like to add...

If your hunting down slave ships why so much VLS's? You could easily use smaller ships, with smaller guns and rely more on interception and weapons that rely on accuracy instead of trying to sink the ship that may have slaves on it... Killing hostages or slaves is a no bueno.
Get smaller faster ships, and Rely more on boarding or simple deterrents.

[Kassaran]

Alright, fuck it all and back to the drawing boards.

[Connori Pilgrims]

The Sviatogor class bulk cruiser is the largest class of vessel currently in service with the Kahanistan Republic Navy. At 1.2 million tons it doesn't compare in size to the massive superdreadnaughts in service with many nations, and ton for ton is less well armed than a Kahanistanian battle cruiser. The bulk cruiser packs a 650-cell cold-launch VLS and measures at 500x75x32 metres. Owing to its immense bulk it is unable to navigate waters shallower than its 32-metre draft and its radar and electronics are relatively primitive as a way of reducing costs. The heavily armoured bulk cruiser is designed from the ground up as an anti-slaver warship, carrying 7,500 crew and up to two divisions of marines and 100,000 passengers, normally slaves liberated from trafficking ships and packed in as tight quarters as the marines can get them. Obviously a ship this size is not stealthy, and raids on slave ships must be if the marines are to rescue the slaves before the traffickers kill them. For raids the ship will deploy helicopters full of marines or carry a small insertion boat to carry a team of divers to the slave ship. Despite its size and heavy modular armour it is quite vulnerable due to its inferior radars and inability to navigate shallow waters and usually travels with a carrier battle group as an escort. Its heavy armour and the fact it is extremely difficult to sink makes it an attractive choice for admirals to use as their command ships, though many prefer using a less conspicuous cruiser or carrier with command and control functions.

Before this post gets attacked, I'll try to offer some constructive advice...

500x75x32 meters may seem "moderate-sized" compared to the lulzy mega-dreadnaughts pumped out by the likes of Decius and Dragomere, but it's still unrealistically large for a modern vessel, let alone a ship from the Battleship era. Here's a comparison: IJN Yamato, the largest battleship ever built, was only 263x38x10 meters, or half the size in all directions. Modern warships (with the exception of aircraft carriers) are rarely more than 200 meters long.

There are many reasons for this, but I like to think of it as "don't put all your eggs in one basket." Why have one battleship that carries 500 VLS tubes, 30 CIWS guns, 10 helicopters, and 5,000 crew... when you can have five cruisers that each carry 100 VLS tubes, 6 CIWS guns, 2 helicopters, and 1,000 crew? Or ten destroyers that each carry 50 VLS tubes, 3 CIWS guns, 1 helicopter, and 500 crew? With the latter two options, you get more speed, more flexibility, and more survivability - one hit to a superbattleship will still cripple it, whereas one hit to a destroyer squadron will damage one ship and leave the other 3-5 intact.

In particular, I want you to think about the role you want this ship to fulfill. You mentioned hunting down slaver ships, correct? Well, what kind of qualities are good for that role? Probably high speed and high agility, paired with low draft and low detectability. Armor and armament would likely be less important. Given these requirements, a superbattleship seems like a poor choice, while a fleet of frigates seems like it would be just right.

Actually... his warship is just straight up bad period if it needs 7,500 crew and 1.2 million tons to carry 650 VLS tubes. Missile operations, particularly VLS systems, do not need many people to begin with. And unless those VLS tubes are for ballistic missiles, he could easily mount three times as many tubes, if not more.

If he took full advantage of automation he could have that warship crewed by 350 people.

Overall this design is just bad. BAD. I'm sorry but I must be frank. Its too heavy for its job, its too big for its armament, its too many people for ANYTHING, and there's nothing like naval JORN, railguns, Casaba Howitzers or anything special enough to justify its existence.

What it does justify is my policy of issuing nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and atomic shells to all my capital cruisers, cruisers, destroyers and frigates

[Triplebaconation]

-snip-

One thing I like to bring up frequently: Most things in NS that are user-made, rather than first thought up by DARPA, tend to be stupid for one reason or another. Guys far smarter than most NSers spend their day jobs thinking of this crap. NS is one of the few places I'll say that there are people who might get a bright idea or two that could really work, but those generally deal with their own day-job experience as well, and such ideas are few and far between.
"But the IJN had submersible aircraft carriers!" Yes, and they weren't intended for regular use. They were going to be a one-time scare tactic, and America had no idea they existed for the longest time. Were they to carry out their one-time attack, assaulting Washington D.C., it would have been rather demoralizing. Not effective militarily as far as actual damage dealt, seeing as they would have only been able to deliver only a few bombs with their aircraft. More psychological.

What's more, these did not comprise more than a fraction of the IJN. That, and detection systems have grown emmensely since then and any smart nation is going to have a massive sub-detection network.

As far as Rail-guns. Why? Dude, just use missiles.
General rule of engineering (I'm sure you've heard of it): KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid.
You're going way too far trying to get your rail-guns to work. Murphy's Law is going to destroy you, and practically speaking you're just creating a system any Gunner's Mate would pummel you for designing (just like you're trying to create reactors any nuclear operator would pummel you for. The Gunner's Mate would hurt more.) It doesn't matter if it's automated. Maintenance is going to suck and it's going to be frequent, plain and simple.
Then one thing I'm surprised you haven't mentioned with your rail gun is a hollow-point style or flechette canister for dealing with the penetration issue.

Actually, if I didn't know better I think he ripped off his ships from NSWC Carderock.

[Kassaran]

I'm still keeping my RG's though. I honestly DGAF about the practicality, Kassarans re what I've RPed as being highly advanced technologically, so we'll just pull the whole "We have developed HE Shells for our RG's" card to make them worth a damn. However, I'm still sticking with the idea that the barrels are replaced, but only once every four shots. However, the reasons for why are still up for debate, I'm debating we either created a polymer from heat resistant fabrics to coat the rails and take the brunt of the damage between plasma-burst vents along the rails, we developed a carbon-graphite powder that acts almost like a liquid due to it's incredibly small grain which is then used to lubricate and coat the rails and in turn be "glassed" by the plasma flare but while still taking most of the damage, or we came up with a super-coolant derived from Liquid Nitrogen which we developed to be released into the barrel at the moment the shot is fired, the extreme cold and heat combine to create a gaseous cloud to transfer the energy out of the venting along the barrel and through that, the shot manages to avoid damaging the rails, however the LH injectors are damaged with every shot and need to be replaced every four shots hence the four-shot rule. I'm not asking you which is realistic because I get that they aren't, but what would be more feasible, or what could be made more feasible?

Also, as for the sensors, I'll keep the general silhouette of the smaller vessels as is right now, but I'll be keeping the same propulsion designs to keep the engine frequency non-standard and I'll also be looking at adding shrouded engine cowlings for added protection from potential damage to be sustained in battle and yes I understand you don't need armor on modern warships, so the outer skin is a carbon composite coated with special water-sealants meant to keep the abrasive sea water from wearing pockets into the hull and thus allowing for a more visible radar cross section. I'll be utilizing specialized subs still, but in response, they'll be missile and patrol subs and primarily classified as "light-missile" or "patrol" cruisers respectively due to their size. I do figure however that the usage of carbon nano-tubules may be at play here, and remember that Thorium is (IIRC) 300% more abundant than Uranium in the Earth's Crust, and if we went with Thorium back when everyone else went Uranium because we were interested in what we saw to be more efficient in the long run and safer through development (Kassarans have always been staunch supporters of Nuclear Disarmament) and thus is it feasible that we perhaps developed a more efficient breeder system?

Also, if we use Thorium reactors now at full size inside our vessels, would it not be better to use them due to the following. Thorium reactors are going to be miniaturized soon, considering how news has already begun to spread of a Thorium powered car arising in the next few years, so would it not be possible for a PMT nation who have been researching, using, and developing more efficient uses for Thorium to also have developed the technology needed to make it more applicable?

As for our carriers, I'm removing the prospect of a command tower altogether, if I'm optimizing for surface stealth, then I should work on reducing the profile, and with an internalized CIC and command structure, would that not suffice? Short of tradition, I cannot begin to imagine why we still have those enormous tumors that are the command towers. If one is needed, then I'm aligning it to the center to cater for my OCD and making it as short as humanly possible and the carrier itself will also run off of Thorium reactors, and I understand you telling me I need all of these other things, but Kassarans have been using Thorium IC for the past fifty or such odd years, would we not have already reached the aforementioned 2040 research sweet spot in comparison to everyone else because of our earlier decisions to avoid the Uranium reactors?

In addition to everything already mentioned however, I'm going back to the usage of RG's, something you have to realize is the Fire Control systems aboard a modern vessel are accurate enough to guide a shell to it's target within an incredibly narrow window of inaccuracy. So how much more lethal do said shells become when, even in passing through the outer skin like a hot knife through butter, they might literally have the accuracy to hit certain systems with incredible accuracy and trauma? Also, if I was to lower the muzzle velocity of said shell, or give it a fragile top that broke away after firing so it was only exposed to deceleration, would it not be possible for the round be capable of doing even more damage? An explosive round covering near BVR distances in under ten seconds and hitting within a meter of it's intended target, while still likely to cause many to scoff has the potential to be corrected to account and allow for more lethal fire control, yes? If that is so, then something else that also has to be recognized is that we do have Point-Defense Systems which could quite easily defend the vessels from the air then now that I'm going mainstream dedicated surface & submarine forces. Also, never heard of Carderock, though I'm hurt you say I ripped them off considering how ungainly that ship appears compared to how I envision mine.

[Pharthan]

Also, if we use Thorium reactors now at full size inside our vessels, would it not be better to use them due to the following. Thorium reactors are going to be miniaturized soon, considering how news has already begun to spread of a Thorium powered car arising in the next few years, so would it not be possible for a PMT nation who have been researching, using, and developing more efficient uses for Thorium to also have developed the technology needed to make it more applicable?

I'm going to stick to talking about the reactors, since that's my forte.
Miniaturization doesn't matter. You're not miniaturizing your reactor. It's not about making the reactor smaller for the same power, it's about making it smaller for smaller power-requirement applications. The Thorium powered car is still a ways off. They've figured out the reactor. Not how to harness the energy in an application that small, and they really don't know how they're going to do it. That's a giant step.

As for our carriers, I'm removing the prospect of a command tower altogether, if I'm optimizing for surface stealth, then I should work on reducing the profile, and with an internalized CIC and command structure, would that not suffice? Short of tradition, I cannot begin to imagine why we still have those enormous tumors that are the command towers. If one is needed, then I'm aligning it to the center to cater for my OCD and making it as short as humanly possible and the carrier itself will also run off of Thorium reactors, and I understand you telling me I need all of these other things, but Kassarans have been using Thorium IC for the past fifty or such odd years, would we not have already reached the aforementioned 2040 research sweet spot in comparison to everyone else because of our earlier decisions to avoid the Uranium reactors?

Command towers on modern carriers still play the important role of mounting detection systems, as well as actual navigation. There's only so much you can do with cameras.
That extra hundred feet or so for the radar is rather important. Designing a towerless carrier would require quite a bit of doing for little gain when you actually understand the full operation of how carrier ops go.

As for reactor technology: Not really. I've been on your side of this conversation before.
The big problem with thorium is that it has to be bred. At this point, you've got a few options: Have an overly massive processing plant, or have an overly massive reactor. "But we can miniaturize them!" No. Not at this point. You're either dealing with an overly complicated process all of the time, or a highly intensive process prone to problems on a weekly basis. You're already dealing with a propulsion plant that has limitations, and you're limiting it further. Such limitations - start up and heat-up times, as well as regular breeding cycles - are fine for larger plants that only worry about power production. Naval reactors are quite different.
Thorium is wonderful for civilian power. Not naval.

With uranium, you can fuel/poison zone in order to last for how long you need it to. In order to do the same with thorium and breed, you'd easily need a core several times the size of a uranium core. At that point, your reactor compartment would span with the width of the ship, and that's just the reactor compartment. That's not even the majority of the size of the propulsion plan.t

[Lubyak]

I
As for our carriers, I'm removing the prospect of a command tower altogether, if I'm optimizing for surface stealth, then I should work on reducing the profile, and with an internalized CIC and command structure, would that not suffice? Short of tradition, I cannot begin to imagine why we still have those enormous tumors that are the command towers. If one is needed, then I'm aligning it to the center to cater for my OCD and making it as short as humanly possible and the carrier itself will also run off of Thorium reactors, and I understand you telling me I need all of these other things, but Kassarans have been using Thorium IC for the past fifty or such odd years, would we not have already reached the aforementioned 2040 research sweet spot in comparison to everyone else because of our earlier decisions to avoid the Uranium reactors?

Remember what I said about things being done IRL for a reason? This is a prime example of that. There are a major reasons why we have the islands, and why getting rid of them is a bad idea. Notice how the islands have appeared on almost every carrier design, except the earliest ones? This is for a reason. The island serves several useful purpouses in navigation, sensors, and--most importantly--flight operations. For one thing, as explained, it is VERY useful to have your sensor systems high up, and the island is a nice way to add an additional one hundred feet or so to the height of your sensor arrays. Second, hey are useful for navigation for the same reason. It's easier to navigate and control the ship when you're high up to be able to actually see things, as cameras are going to be limited in what they can see, and it's useful to just be able to look out the window to see where you are. The same is true of carrier flight operations, as it's quite good to be able to just look out the window to see where things are, rather than relying on cameras or sensors. Similarly, putting the island in the middle is a bad bad bad idea. When you do so, you make everything difficult, namely that you no longer have a through flight deck, and if someone misses while coming in, they'll crash right into the island. If you angle the flight deck to go around the island, you limit the amount of flight deck space you can have. You might not like the way it looks, but the way the carrier island is designed and its positioning is very important to how carriers function and makes them more effective. If you get rid of the islands, or move them to the center as you said, you are deliberately and actively making your carriers worse.

In addition to everything already mentioned however, I'm going back to the usage of RG's, something you have to realize is the Fire Control systems aboard a modern vessel are accurate enough to guide a shell to it's target within an incredibly narrow window of inaccuracy. So how much more lethal do said shells become when, even in passing through the outer skin like a hot knife through butter, they might literally have the accuracy to hit certain systems with incredible accuracy and trauma? Also, if I was to lower the muzzle velocity of said shell, or give it a fragile top that broke away after firing so it was only exposed to deceleration, would it not be possible for the round be capable of doing even more damage? An explosive round covering near BVR distances in under ten seconds and hitting within a meter of it's intended target, while still likely to cause many to scoff has the potential to be corrected to account and allow for more lethal fire control, yes? If that is so, then something else that also has to be recognized is that we do have Point-Defense Systems which could quite easily defend the vessels from the air then now that I'm going mainstream dedicated surface & submarine forces. Also, never heard of Carderock, though I'm hurt you say I ripped them off considering how ungainly that ship appears compared to how I envision mine.

FCS are great, yes. They might be able to theoretically hit the small systems necessary to cause major damage, but now you've introduced another variable into the equation, when you should be trying to simplify it. Better to have the shell penetrate and explode, so even if it misses theres a chance it wil ldamage something vital. It could be possible to make the shell 'yaw' and tumble about inside the ship, but I'm no expert in ballistics so you'll have to do your own research on that topic. Point Defense Systems are quite literally the last ditch, OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE, defense systems. No one should rely on them alone. They simply have too short an engagement range against a target that's travelling too fast to be super effective. They might be good at pinning down a few stragglers, but your main defense against aircraft and missiles alike is going to be your long range SAMs (e.g. S-300 and SM-2).

[Kahanistan]

Actually... his warship is just straight up bad period if it needs 7,500 crew and 1.2 million tons to carry 650 VLS tubes. Missile operations, particularly VLS systems, do not need many people to begin with. And unless those VLS tubes are for ballistic missiles, he could easily mount three times as many tubes, if not more.

If he took full advantage of automation he could have that warship crewed by 350 people.

Overall this design is just bad. BAD. I'm sorry but I must be frank. Its too heavy for its job, its too big for its armament, its too many people for ANYTHING, and there's nothing like naval JORN, railguns, Casaba Howitzers or anything special enough to justify its existence.

What it does justify is my policy of issuing nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and atomic shells to all my capital cruisers, cruisers, destroyers and frigates

For its size it isn't that well armed, its heavy armour is there to protect the slaves we seize. It sacrifices armament and speed for transport space and advanced tech to reduce production costs. While it won't stand a chance against, say, a Kraven superdreadnaught, its weapons are more than capable of defending against attacking ships. It's less a warship than an armed transport, but is the largest ship in the fleet by a factor of twenty.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Actually... his warship is just straight up bad period if it needs 7,500 crew and 1.2 million tons to carry 650 VLS tubes. Missile operations, particularly VLS systems, do not need many people to begin with. And unless those VLS tubes are for ballistic missiles, he could easily mount three times as many tubes, if not more.

If he took full advantage of automation he could have that warship crewed by 350 people.

Overall this design is just bad. BAD. I'm sorry but I must be frank. Its too heavy for its job, its too big for its armament, its too many people for ANYTHING, and there's nothing like naval JORN, railguns, Casaba Howitzers or anything special enough to justify its existence.

What it does justify is my policy of issuing nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and atomic shells to all my capital cruisers, cruisers, destroyers and frigates

For its size it isn't that well armed, its heavy armour is there to protect the slaves we seize. It sacrifices armament and speed for transport space and advanced tech to reduce production costs. While it won't stand a chance against, say, a Kraven superdreadnaught, its weapons are more than capable of defending against attacking ships. It's less a warship than an armed transport, but is the largest ship in the fleet by a factor of twenty.

Again: given the role you're describing (i.e., chasing after slaver ships, boarding them, and fleeing with liberated slaves before heavier forces retaliate), a group of destroyers, frigates, or corvettes seems like a much better option than a single, massive super-dreadnought.

These ships are faster (you can't board a slaver ship if you can't catch up with it), more flexible (you can send two on each flank to trap your prey), and more versatile than a single supership. Better yet, you can have different vessels for different roles. Maybe lighter craft to reconnoiter popular slaver routes, warships to pick off enemy escorts, fast assault ships to board slaver ships themselves, and finally heavy passenger vessels to ferry the liberated persons to safety.

In many cases of naval warfare, but this case especially, you don't want to "put all your eggs in one basket." Depending on the type of operation, you're lugging along a lot of equipment you may not need in a given scenario (i.e., lots of VLS tubes when on a less patrolled slaver route). And most importantly, you're carrying tens of thousands of newly freed slaves, probably weak and terrified, on the one ship that will draw the most enemy fire. I appreciate the efforts you're making to fight slavers, and I can understand your attachment to a vessel with such symbolic power. But in most circumstances, and your circumstances especially, a group of smaller ships will be much better than a single, massive ship.

[Antarticaria]

Actually... his warship is just straight up bad period if it needs 7,500 crew and 1.2 million tons to carry 650 VLS tubes. Missile operations, particularly VLS systems, do not need many people to begin with. And unless those VLS tubes are for ballistic missiles, he could easily mount three times as many tubes, if not more.

If he took full advantage of automation he could have that warship crewed by 350 people.

Overall this design is just bad. BAD. I'm sorry but I must be frank. Its too heavy for its job, its too big for its armament, its too many people for ANYTHING, and there's nothing like naval JORN, railguns, Casaba Howitzers or anything special enough to justify its existence.

What it does justify is my policy of issuing nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and atomic shells to all my capital cruisers, cruisers, destroyers and frigates

For its size it isn't that well armed, its heavy armour is there to protect the slaves we seize. It sacrifices armament and speed for transport space and advanced tech to reduce production costs. While it won't stand a chance against, say, a Kraven superdreadnaught, its weapons are more than capable of defending against attacking ships. It's less a warship than an armed transport, but is the largest ship in the fleet by a factor of twenty.

How about thin its armor, Add in various defensive weapons (Not just bloody VLS's...), One one side of the ship have a landing pad for helicopters to board slavers, also add in the ability to launch lighter, faster motor-boats to help seize the ship and get the slaves off. Armor is heavy and really not emphasized on as much any more due to the defensive capabilities to reduce the chance of getting hit in the first place. Don't treat it as a battleship treat it as a support vessel for smaller faster ships and helicopters.

[Kassaran]

Remember what I said about things being done IRL for a reason? This is a prime example of that. There are a major reasons why we have the islands, and why getting rid of them is a bad idea. Notice how the islands have appeared on almost every carrier design, except the earliest ones? This is for a reason. The island serves several useful purpouses in navigation, sensors, and--most importantly--flight operations. For one thing, as explained, it is VERY useful to have your sensor systems high up, and the island is a nice way to add an additional one hundred feet or so to the height of your sensor arrays. Second, hey are useful for navigation for the same reason. It's easier to navigate and control the ship when you're high up to be able to actually see things, as cameras are going to be limited in what they can see, and it's useful to just be able to look out the window to see where you are. The same is true of carrier flight operations, as it's quite good to be able to just look out the window to see where things are, rather than relying on cameras or sensors. Similarly, putting the island in the middle is a bad bad bad idea. When you do so, you make everything difficult, namely that you no longer have a through flight deck, and if someone misses while coming in, they'll crash right into the island. If you angle the flight deck to go around the island, you limit the amount of flight deck space you can have. You might not like the way it looks, but the way the carrier island is designed and its positioning is very important to how carriers function and makes them more effective. If you get rid of the islands, or move them to the center as you said, you are deliberately and actively making your carriers worse.

FCS are great, yes. They might be able to theoretically hit the small systems necessary to cause major damage, but now you've introduced another variable into the equation, when you should be trying to simplify it. Better to have the shell penetrate and explode, so even if it misses theres a chance it wil ldamage something vital. It could be possible to make the shell 'yaw' and tumble about inside the ship, but I'm no expert in ballistics so you'll have to do your own research on that topic. Point Defense Systems are quite literally the last ditch, OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE, defense systems. No one should rely on them alone. They simply have too short an engagement range against a target that's travelling too fast to be super effective. They might be good at pinning down a few stragglers, but your main defense against aircraft and missiles alike is going to be your long range SAMs (e.g. S-300 and SM-2).

Why would widened flight decks on either side be any worse than simply aligning them to the center? From where I'm sitting, I'm not changing any approaches to landing, but rather taking two carriers and putting them side by side joined by the same Island. Also, why does the height matter, if I have designated long-range observation vessels in my fleets designed for that purpose, and rather delegate full control of fighter operations to the carriers, should not the height be rendered null and void in general? Also, I've seen the early carrier designs so I know the short comings, but here's the thing again, why use a tower at all? You bring up navigation, then wouldn't a centrally aligned tower just like on every other vessel in the fleet be sensible? I get there is a whole system, but isn't that system also based around various other variables like the aircraft size and missions that the carrier is meant to fulfill?

As for the FCS, indeed they are good, but I realize all things have their flaws, and if those are the flaws that I have to deal with, fine. Now tell me something, what would happen if a hole about 120mm in diameter happened to appear in both sides of a nuclear reactor? What could potentially happen if I hit the coolant systems or a main munitions storage chamber? Also I realize PDS are for last-ditch efforts, but I consider PDS to be any system that comes online to engage a target from 10km or less making that also include SAMs and such, though I again wince at the potential of using SAMs which could take two to three times longer to engage a target from half the distance that a single railgun round would.

As for the reactors, alright, yes I understand how complicated the breeder process is, but here is the one place that I would be waving RoC in order to simply state that somehow in the thirty year start we had over most other intensive research into Thorium, we developed an impressively more efficient breeder chamber and in that head start, we also managed to make the core more applicable for naval usage. My main thing when it comes to reactors would be the cutting back on safety measures and if we actually developed the ability to, or moreover played RoC with them, then there.

As for the current SDN discussion, a SDN isn't meant to be used in combat guys, they're supposed to be flagships of a fleet and kept in the reserves for the reserves. On top of that all, they're supposed to showcase the power of your nation in one vessel displaying not only technological supremacy, but also symbolizing your fleet at a glance.

[The Akasha Colony]

Actually... his warship is just straight up bad period if it needs 7,500 crew and 1.2 million tons to carry 650 VLS tubes. Missile operations, particularly VLS systems, do not need many people to begin with. And unless those VLS tubes are for ballistic missiles, he could easily mount three times as many tubes, if not more.

If he took full advantage of automation he could have that warship crewed by 350 people.

Overall this design is just bad. BAD. I'm sorry but I must be frank. Its too heavy for its job, its too big for its armament, its too many people for ANYTHING, and there's nothing like naval JORN, railguns, Casaba Howitzers or anything special enough to justify its existence.

What it does justify is my policy of issuing nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and atomic shells to all my capital cruisers, cruisers, destroyers and frigates

For its size it isn't that well armed, its heavy armour is there to protect the slaves we seize. It sacrifices armament and speed for transport space and advanced tech to reduce production costs. While it won't stand a chance against, say, a Kraven superdreadnaught, its weapons are more than capable of defending against attacking ships. It's less a warship than an armed transport, but is the largest ship in the fleet by a factor of twenty.

Here's the thing:

What do you envision this ship doing that cannot already be done by a much cheaper and more flexible assortment of conventional ships? What suddenly makes this ship more useful against slavers than a normal carrier battlegroup? And what the hell kind of slavers are you fighting that you need a warship larger than any ship built IRL?

Furthermore, 'advanced tech' increases production costs. Nowadays, electronics account for half or more of the cost of a new warship, and adding more or making them more advanced will only increase this cost.

[New Vihenia]

I realise that I've never actually passed this through this thread. Have an AIP submarine (and tell me what you think)!

---

(Image)
(Image)

Full Size Image (2073x1035)

Astela class SSP (SA903)

Specifications:

Name: Astela
Developers: Fleet Naval Development Directorate (Arsenal Moldonei)
Builders: Imperial Naval Yards of Anemos Major
Operators: Imperial Fleet of Anemos Major et al
Built: 2010-
In commission: 2012-

Type: SSP - Attack Submarine (Diesel Air-Independent Power)
Displacement: 2,958t (surfaced) / 3,283t (submerged)
Length: 81m
Beam: 8.7m
Draught: 8.0m
Propulsion: 2x FA.50 V12 2,200hp (1.64MW) Diesel-Electric
10x TA.750/U 85kW Hydrogen-Oxygen PEM Fuel Cell
Potassium-Ion Battery Bank
Driving Single-Shafted Skewback Seven-Bladed Propeller
Speed: 12 kn (surfaced) / 20 kn (submerged)
Range: Up to 9,500nm at 8kn (est.)
4 weeks submerged
Complement: 42 men
Sensors:
Observation/Attack Optronic Mast (3CCD/FLIR, CO2 laser rangefinder)
Eletyr SDS.10 Acoustic Detection Suite (1x bow array (passive LF), 4x flank array (passive LMF), 1x towed array (passive/active LF), 1x intercept array, 1x mine detection array (active HF), 1x hydro-ranging array.
Eletyr OR.22 Navigation and Surface-Air Search Radar System

Electronic warfare and decoys:
ETAR Electronic Warfare Suite
6x 80mm acoustic countermeasure launcher tubes

Armament:
6x 533mm torpedo tubes
- 533mm Advanced Capability Torpedo
- SLTCM Anti Ship Cruise Missile
- SLAE Infra-Red Imaging Multipurpose Missile
- 533mm Model 10 Propelled Naval Mine

---

Overview

The Astela is a class of modern attack submarines developed to provide the Imperial Fleet of Anemos Major and associated navies with a modern force of submarines capable of engaging in effective, low-observability underwater warfare directed against enemy surface and sub-surface assets, supplementing and complementing the nuclear hunter/killer submarine fleets of these navies in open water duties as well as providing littoral operational capabilities. Developed by the Fleet Naval Development Directorate, otherwise known as Arsenal Moldonei, and produced cooperatively by a number of Anemonian shipbuilding concerns as a technological endeavour aimed at expanding the capabilities of the state's submarine fleets, the Astela is designed to stand at the forefront of modern conventional submarine technology and provide overwhelming technological superiority to its users in its intended fields of battle.

Initial testing was performed in 2009 utilising a pre-production testing hull constructed by Sailiei Fleet Production Yards, which would be passed subsequently to the Anemonian Amalgamated Special Operations Command for covert troop insertion, making full use of the vessel's long range transit capabilities. Constructed by the Imperial Naval Yards in Duchy Sailiei, the lead ship of the class in Anemonian service was launched in early 2010 and subsequently commissioned some two years later as the IFAM Astela (SM201-SA9031). Additional vessels were launched in quick succession, bringing a full twenty vessels into service with the Imperial Fleet and more with allied navies by May 2012. The total initial order placed by the Anemonian Armed Forces stands at a full 250 submarines with options for a total of 800 more, bringing the maximum potential initial order to 1050 vessels of the class within the IFAM alone.

Hull and Signature Reduction

The basic hull shape of the Astela follows the teardrop layout favoured on most modern submarines for effective hydrodynamic flow control and thus underwater performance, as well as maintaining a lower acoustic signature. This teardrop configuration is further enhanced by the use of a fillet construction on the submarine's sail; this helps to direct hydrodynamic flow around one of the submarine's primary sources of drag, and further decreases the vessel's acoustic signature by partly tapering the sail's progression into the main hull.

The Astela employs an X-rudder configuration. Compared to conventional vessels, this provides the submarine with an additional two control surfaces; this provides it with far greater potential mobility and allows it to operate in close proximity to the seabed, allowing for both operations in shallow waters and submerged operations at greater depths.

The hulls are primarily constructed of UHTSS (Ultra High Tensile Strength Steel). As submarines are designed to submerge to depths where the pressure exerted by the surrounding body of water exceeded the compressive strength of conventional steel alloys, the Astela's basic design was developed to ensure that it was capable of submerging to greater depths than equivalent submarines and increase its protection against shock based anti-submarine ordnance. UHTSS employs over 10 separate elements, including silicon, manganese, vanadium, chromium and titanium, some in 0.0001% total composition content, together with a relatively high carbon content to bring the tensile strength of the steel up to nearly 261,000psi (~1,800MPa). This incredibly high increase in hull material strength has been used to both increase hull strength and decrease the total volume taken up by the materials used, providing the Astela with a twofold advantage over other similar application vessels.

The displacement of the vessel is 2,958t surfaced and 3,283t submerged.

To decrease its observability and detectability across a number of spectra, the Astela employs a number of innovative signature reduction techniques. The first and foremost design objective in the Astela was to minimise acoustic detectability. This was achieved in a number of fashions. The hydrodynamic hull decreased drag and thus flow sound. The submarine's machinery was decoupled and dampened using sound-attenuating mountings to control both vibrations and noise emissions. Externally, the submarine utilises two primary sound-absorbing layers to greatly limit its acoustic signature, beyond levels achieved by legacy and current generation vessels. The first of these is a conventional spray-on anechoic coating composed primarily of viscoelastic urethane polymers. The anechoic tiles employed by the Astela, however, follow a highly unconventional layout. Instead of utilising the synthetic polymer and void tiles used by many modern submarines, the Astela relies upon an alternate tile composition. Taking advantage of the Mie solution properties of high density lead spheres, the Astela's unique anechoic tile composition utilises lattices of two-component CTBN/Epoxy dampening material-coated high density lead spheres organised to form phononic crystals (i.e. a synthetic acoustic metamaterial) in bi-layer slabs of coated spheres. Research has shown that phononic crystal anechoic slabs with optimal properties have the potential to absorb almost all the incident energy in desired frequency bands. In order to achieve this, an initial data set of ~750,000 potential differently structured coatings were provided to design teams. Utilising Markov-chain Monte Carlo sampling algorithm techniques to characterize and identify near-optimal property anechoic coatings, differential evolution algorithms were used to select an optimal coating from this narrowed data set. In addition to these methods, the innovative propulsion system and hull geometry used by the Astela also contribute greatly to the minimisation of its acoustic signature.

An additional area of concern is the vessel's electromagnetic signature. This is minimised through two primary methods. The first of these is a series of internally mounted (36 are used aboard Astela-class submarines) individually controlled coiled electromagnets generating counteracting electromagnetic fields in three perpendicular planes that ultimately provide a degaussing effect upon the ship while removing the need for heavy externally mounted cables that both add weight and acoustic signature to submerged vessels. However, a secondary cable-based degaussing option has nonetheless been developed for use by the Astela-class; this consists of a high temperature superconducting ceramic cable constructed from yttrium-barium copper-oxide (YBCO) installed around the circumference of the Astela's hull to provide external degaussing that takes full advantage of YBCO's greater electrical conductivity when compared to equivalent dimension copper wires (up to 150 times the electrical current) to minimise the degaussing cabling dimensions, both width and length-wise.

Finally, the Astela's design also considers the direct currents inherent to the hull and surrounding water. These direct currents can generate potentials which lead to the radiation of extremely low frequency electrical fields into the water from the submarine; this is prevented by short circuiting the direct currents, achieved by simply earthing the relevant components of the vessel.

Propulsion

Like many current generation submarines, the Astela utilises a diesel-AIP multiple powerplant with an electric transmission to provide the ship with surface dependent and independent powerplants for use in different environments.

The conventional powerplant used by the Astela consists of a pair of twin parallel turbocharged V12 marine diesels. The V12 engine layout provides a high level of power alongside perfect balancing and low vibration not found in equivalent displacement engines using a smaller number of cylinders; though maintenance costs are higher, the associated advantages are considered enough to warrant the engine's use. The parallel turbochargers serve to provide the engines with a higher power rating than that usually achievable by non-turbocharged engine of similar dimensions. Each engine provides 2,200hp (1.64MW) of energy. The engines are used to drive an electric propulsion motor feeding into a single shaft skewed seven blade propeller designed to minimise vibration and cavitation, as well as recharging the potassium-ion battery bank employed by the Astela (which provides significant efficiency and capacity gains over traditional lead acid batteries). This layout further serves to decrease the vessel's acoustic signature by decoupling the noise-producing diesel powerplants from the outer hull.

However, in lieu of the pure-diesel powerplants employed by many SSKs that previously limited the submerged duration of conventional submarines due to their diesel powerplants' reliance upon air from the surface, an important portion of the Astela's complete propulsion system consists of its highly capable and efficient fuel-cell based Air Independent Propulsion system. The heart of the AIP lies in the 10 80kW rated hydrogen-oxygen PEM fuel cells employed to provide the vessel with air independent power. The PEM fuel cell operates through the use of an electrically insulating polymer membrane; hydrogen gas is fed through one side of the fuel cell into the anode to separate the gas into its components protons and electrons. The protons travel directly through the membrane to the cathode. However, the electrically insulating qualities of the polymer drives the electrons through an external circuit towards the cathode, creating a current in the process. At the cathode, the electrons and protons react with oxygen to create water, which is subsequently disposed from the cell. Isomolded bipolar graphite plates backed by closed circuit PAO fluid are used to cool individual fuel cell modules.

The ten fuel cells are fed by a combination of hydrogen storage canisters and tank-stored climate controlled liquid oxygen. The ability to store fluid fuel sources within the submarine to power an energy source that produces water as its primary waste product provides the fuel-cell power plant employed by the Astela with the ability to operate independently of surface-provided air, increasing the low-speed submerged operating duration of the Astela to about 4 weeks. This long submerged operating time is achieved in a number of ways. The first is a relatively large H2 and O2 storage capacity which gives the vessel extended operating capabilities in itself. However, this storage capacity is augmented by a combination distillation/electrolysing system feeding into both the crew and power compartments, an innovative solution intended to provide the engine with additional fuel if so desired. This system acts as a form of indirect power conversion from diesel to API propulsion. Water is drawn directly from the ocean, removing the need for independent freshwater stocks. From there, it is passed through the vessel's distillation apparatus; this is performed to ensure the clean separation of water into its component hydrogen and oxygen, as opposed to the hydrogen and chlorine obtained through the electrolysis of brine (as well as providing crewmen and electronics cooling systems with fresh water). The desalinated water is then passed through a high pressure electrolysis unit drawing power from the battery banks, which separates the water into its component fluid hydrogen and oxygen; this can be passed into the crew compartment to replenish oxygen (in conjunction with soda lime scrubbers and mechanical air filtering to control the crew air environment), or into the fuel cell powerplant to continue replenishing the fuel supply of the air-independent propulsion unit.

Electronics and Sensors

The electronics suite employed by the Astela, a central component of the vessel's offensive and defensive capabilities, constitute a high performance electronics array standing at the forefront of modern military technology, designed to combine high performance capabilities with low observability characteristics in a fashion that maximises the utility of its components subsystems in the context of a diesel-electric attack submarine.

In lieu of the relatively obtrusive hull-penetrating periscopes employed by many submarines, the Astela is designed to use a non mechanical, NLOS viewing optronic mast employing digital visual data inputs to great reduce the area taken up by the visual sighting assembly within the vessel. Combining the traditional roles filled by both surveillance and attack periscopes, the optronic viewing array consists of a high definition 3CCD camera array capable of low light, black and white imaging, a forward looking infra-red sighting system and a pulsed eye-safe CO2 rangefinding laser, providing the commander with a comprehensive array of optronic navigation and targeting aids.

The Astela is equipped with a comprehensive sensor detection suite for surface and underwater operations. The vessel's fire control sonar suite consists of a passive cylindrical medium-frequency detection bow array, a passive flank array for low-to-medium frequency detection, a combined active/passive towed low-frequency array and intercept array. In addition to this, the Astela is equipped with a high frequency active sonar for mine detection and a long range hydro-ranging sonar for navigation purposes.

Astela utilises a combination of satellite, inertial and radar navigation when in conventional oceanic transit. Additionally, it possesses the capacity to employ coastal radio navigation for redundancy purposes and littoral operations.

For submarine radar surveillance and detection purposes, the Astela is equipped with a comprehensive modular threat detection and analysis suite. Providing radar interception across a wide frequency band, the fully automated electronic warfare suite is capable of threat analysis, classification, direction finding and display. With signals interception performed via a retractable sensor mast (also fitted with VH/UH frequency communications array, GPS interaction systems and ESM modules), radar signals are both displayed in a tactical context (utilising ranging and direction finding to locate sources) as well as analysing radar emissions in conjunction with stored data to identify threat types and intent (i.e. determining radar emission source nature, whether the signal is searching or tracking etc).

Acoustic threat detection and analysis is also provided. The Astela is equipped with four upwards-diagonally and two forward launching tubes loaded with powered acoustic decoy units. These units, equipped with active sonar arrays and pre-programmed paths of travel, act as acoustic decoys by both jamming enemy sonar arrays and mimicking the acoustic signature of the Astela. Enemy wire-guided torpedoes, directed from within vessels, are less susceptible to decoy units as the hostile crew are able to differentiate between decoy and main sub movement; in order to account for this, the forward launching tube decoys follow shallow turning paths similar to those taken by the submarine itself.

Drawing from the data provided by its acoustic and electronic detection and analysis suites, all of which feed into centralised combat systems, the Astela's fire control and combat management suite draws from a multitude of sensory inputs to provide its weapons systems with a comprehensive firing solution. The fire control software draws upon target analysis software developed from the many fire control systems developed for a range of aerial, ground and naval assets by corporations like Eletyr during the latter half of the 2010s; previous experience in producing such software gives the Astela's FCS the benefit of experience. Highly automated and able to collate data from a number of sources, it is capable of analysing detected targets, their projected location against projectile travel time, and provide the submarine with accurate targeting solutions within seconds for rapid responses to target detection.

Armament

The Astela-class SSP's armament suite consists of six 533mm torpedo tubes utilised to fire a number of ammunition types to perform a number of duties, providing the submarine with a highly effective and flexible selection of weapons. The loading system used by the torpedo tubes consists of a semi-automatic hydraulic loader cued by the weapons control officer, allowing individual ordnance types to be selected via the computer control system and loaded at higher speeds than manual loading schemes. The hydraulic loader is both decoupled and two-component CTBN/Epoxy-dampened to allow it to operate in low acoustic emission conditions, allowing it to be utilised while the submarine is running silently. Additionally, the reload system can be utilised manually if necessary, providing the vessel's armament with important mechanical redundancy. The tube employs a water-pressure based hydro-ram expulsion system to provide the benefits of ram expulsion with a low acoustic signature, though swim-out ordnance deployment can also be used.

The 533mm ACT (Advanced Capability Torpedo), developed for use aboard the Astela, is a weapon designed to complement the low observability and high performance of the vessel aboard which it is deployed. The torpedo is propelled by a hybrid turbine-electric propulsion system driving a single shaft propulsor; the propulsion system, compared to conventional alternatives, generates a much smaller acoustic signature that allows it to be launched and operated with a much lower possibility of detection by hostile targets. The sonar array employed is a broadband multi-beam passive/active capable seeker head, providing the weapon with both higher accuracy imaging when compared to legacy systems as well as the ability to be operated with a relatively low possibility of intercept and detection if so desired; together with the microprocessor housed in the weapon, the torpedo is capable of identifying and rejecting countermeasures and making autonomous decisions to some degree based on the data obtained via the FCS and its own sensor suite. Communications and guidance can be maintained by the submarine using fibre-optic cable guidance, though autonomous search, guidance and interception can be performed by the weapon; the warhead is composed of 300kg of polymer-bonded HNIW that can be pre-programmed to detonate upon contact or at a set proximity to the target.

As well as the 533mm ACT, Astela is provided with torpedo-tube launched folding fin anti-ship cruise missiles, short range multiple threat engagement missiles and inertially guided torpedo-mines for added mission flexibility.

And naturally i will ask how you size it ? Is there any reference of submarine design you can share here :3 ?

another question is of course whether this submarine is single hull or double hull design.

[The Akasha Colony]

Why would widened flight decks on either side be any worse than simply aligning them to the center? From where I'm sitting, I'm not changing any approaches to landing, but rather taking two carriers and putting them side by side joined by the same Island.

Because on modern carriers, the landing path is aligned away from the tower, funnily enough. Note the following flight deck diagram:



The landing path is angled away from the island, not down the center of the ship. You can't simply mirror this layout either, as it would mean your approach paths for landing aircraft will cross each other, significantly increasing the chances of a collision and meaning you can really only use one at at time.

Also, why does the height matter, if I have designated long-range observation vessels in my fleets designed for that purpose, and rather delegate full control of fighter operations to the carriers, should not the height be rendered null and void in general?

Because even for flight operations, the carrier requires communications antennae and air control radar, as well as basic navigational radar. A carrier will also almost certainly be the tallest ship in the fleet to begin with, an asset that should be taken advantage of. Notice how much taller the carrier is than its replenishment ship and escort:

Also, I've seen the early carrier designs so I know the short comings, but here's the thing again, why use a tower at all? You bring up navigation, then wouldn't a centrally aligned tower just like on every other vessel in the fleet be sensible? I get there is a whole system, but isn't that system also based around various other variables like the aircraft size and missions that the carrier is meant to fulfill?

1. Sensors. A carrier will need its own set of navigation radar, communications apparatuses, air control radar, and likely also basic fire control radar. All of these must be mounted above deck in order to have a clear field of view.

2. Controlling deck operations is much easier when you can, you know, see the deck. This is why airports use control towers, and why portable towers are made so even temporary airports can have them. Given that most aircraft are taller than the average person, they'll quickly block the field of view for the air boss if he has to work from the deck, which is why he works from the bridge, where he can see all aircraft on the deck and on approach. A carrier is expected to land multiple aircraft per minute at full tilt, which means proper observation is key to avoid collisions and traffic jams (yes, they can occur).

3. The navigator and helmsman need to be able to see in front of them. On a smaller warship, this is not a problem, since the bow is not particularly large, and is narrow enough to not seriously obstruct the view forward. On a carrier however, this is indeed a potential problem. Placed in the middle of the deck, the forward catapults would obscure the view forward. But placed on the deck edge, the bridge crew can look directly forward while the catapults instead only obscure their vision to port (assuming a standard starboard-mounted island). Given that carriers have even deeper draft and need more space to maneuver, having sufficient visibility to see potential obstacles well in advance is key, and the navigator is the only one who can actually yell at the captain and get away with it if it concerns possibly running the ship aground. Notice how much of the island is given over to windows for maximum visibility.

4. Moving these spaces and roles into the hull would either require reducing the space available for other purposes or increasing the size of the hull. Given that these spaces benefit from being above deck, this only makes cramming them belowdecks even less attractive. Not only would they be located in a suboptimal position, they would also require redesigning other spaces as well.

5. For non-nuclear carriers, of which there are still quite a number, a superstructure may be needed to carry the exhaust uptakes away from the deck.

As for the FCS, indeed they are good, but I realize all things have their flaws, and if those are the flaws that I have to deal with, fine. Now tell me something, what would happen if a hole about 120mm in diameter happened to appear in both sides of a nuclear reactor? What could potentially happen if I hit the coolant systems or a main munitions storage chamber?

You won't be reliably hitting any of these things. For one, sensors don't generate a fancy 3D view of the enemy target that you can simply pick a subsystem. You get a radar blip that tells you general size, location, and heading. The enemy will also be maneuvering in combat, meaning the location you aimed for may very well not be the place they actually are when the projectile arrives. Presuming an extremely short flight time of only 10 seconds, an enemy target traveling at 30 knots will have moved 150 meters, or the length of an Arleigh Burke. You may still hit the enemy, but very likely not whatever subsystem you were aiming for, especially since the natural wave motion will be enough to make you miss such a precise target. This is why missiles are still more accurate; they can continuously correct their flight path regardless of the target's maneuvers.

Also I realize PDS are for last-ditch efforts, but I consider PDS to be any system that comes online to engage a target from 10km or less making that also include SAMs and such, though I again wince at the potential of using SAMs which could take two to three times longer to engage a target from half the distance that a single railgun round would.

This presumes you magically have your railgun charged and ready to fire at all times. VLS tubes take no special preparation to bring into action.

Here's the thing: as the affirmative claimant (that all these things can or should be done), the burden of evidence falls upon you to uphold your position.

You think an island on a carrier is useless? Prove it. Logically, or ideally with evidence. Do note that a perceived lack of evidence to the contrary is not an argument. "I can't think of any reason we still use them" is not a logical argument; just because you cannot think of these arguments does not mean they do not exist. This is especially true if you are arguing against a feature that decades of naval architects, theorists, and sailors across the globe have always found themselves coming back to in spite of attempts to eliminate it. What do you know that these men did not, and what evidence do you have?

You think that railguns are the subject of some secret government conspiracy to cover up their actual progress? Prove it. You claim they're viable today? Provide a source.

Did the world's governments somehow all decide to side with uranium over thorium as part of some global political game? Demonstrate it.

Otherwise, 'prove me wrong' is not a valid argument for an affirmative claimant. If you're going to use rule of cool, fine. But understandably most people in this thread aren't terribly fond of times when people ask for advice, don't like it, engage in a long debate that takes up a significant amount of time, and then basically decide to ignore all of the advice given and persist anyway.

As for the current SDN discussion, a SDN isn't meant to be used in combat guys, they're supposed to be flagships of a fleet and kept in the reserves for the reserves. On top of that all, they're supposed to showcase the power of your nation in one vessel displaying not only technological supremacy, but also symbolizing your fleet at a glance.

Which is to say, be a white elephant. Which is why most abandoned them.

[United States of PA]

Why would widened flight decks on either side be any worse than simply aligning them to the center? From where I'm sitting, I'm not changing any approaches to landing, but rather taking two carriers and putting them side by side joined by the same Island. Also, why does the height matter, if I have designated long-range observation vessels in my fleets designed for that purpose, and rather delegate full control of fighter operations to the carriers, should not the height be rendered null and void in general? Also, I've seen the early carrier designs so I know the short comings, but here's the thing again, why use a tower at all? You bring up navigation, then wouldn't a centrally aligned tower just like on every other vessel in the fleet be sensible? I get there is a whole system, but isn't that system also based around various other variables like the aircraft size and missions that the carrier is meant to fulfill?

A centrally located island wont help much, as it will pretty much just eff up landings and takeoff operations. It gets in the way, and essentially welding two carriers together side by side wont help with landing and takeoffs because you will be increasing size and carrying capacity but not increasing Air Traffic Control Capabilities for landing and takeoff. You're still limited to operating ~100 aircraft on the largest of carriers, even if you can carry more than that.

As for the FCS, indeed they are good, but I realize all things have their flaws, and if those are the flaws that I have to deal with, fine. Now tell me something, what would happen if a hole about 120mm in diameter happened to appear in both sides of a nuclear reactor? What could potentially happen if I hit the coolant systems or a main munitions storage chamber? Also I realize PDS are for last-ditch efforts, but I consider PDS to be any system that comes online to engage a target from 10km or less making that also include SAMs and such, though I again wince at the potential of using SAMs which could take two to three times longer to engage a target from half the distance that a single railgun round would.

SAMs and CIWS will cost less, be more space efficient and are actually MT compared to Railguns. You might be able to get 2 rounds out of a small rail gun for use close in (Your still limited to the horizon despite max range really due to detection limitations). For that same space, i might be able to fit 20-40 of more RIM-116s and their launchers.That 10-20x as many engaged incoming targets.

As for the current SDN discussion, a SDN isn't meant to be used in combat guys, they're supposed to be flagships of a fleet and kept in the reserves for the reserves. On top of that all, they're supposed to showcase the power of your nation in one vessel displaying not only technological supremacy, but also symbolizing your fleet at a glance.

SDNs imho are meant to absorb missiles so the rest of your fleet, which is really more valuable because they are actually more combat capable can survive. Also, if you use them ICly, you should use them in combat, because anyone on NS will target them first like i said, enabling the rest of your forces to ideally, pounce on them.

[Lubyak]

Why would widened flight decks on either side be any worse than simply aligning them to the center? From where I'm sitting, I'm not changing any approaches to landing, but rather taking two carriers and putting them side by side joined by the same Island. Also, why does the height matter, if I have designated long-range observation vessels in my fleets designed for that purpose, and rather delegate full control of fighter operations to the carriers, should not the height be rendered null and void in general? Also, I've seen the early carrier designs so I know the short comings, but here's the thing again, why use a tower at all? You bring up navigation, then wouldn't a centrally aligned tower just like on every other vessel in the fleet be sensible? I get there is a whole system, but isn't that system also based around various other variables like the aircraft size and missions that the carrier is meant to fulfill?

Right then, this is going to take a while, because there are a lot of things here that you're failing to grasp or aren't aware of that seems to explain why you think that the island is either: a) Unnecessary or b) Could be centre mounted. Now, if it's a purely aesthetic thing for you than you might as well stop reading here and just do it, but don't pretend that it's realistic at all. It will just be a rule of cool thing that would--realistically--harm you, but most will accept it in order to tell a good story. Now that the disclaimer is done, let's get started.

I shouldn't have to say how stupid it is to give up the ability of the carrier to do air traffic control for its own aircraft. If you think that it's a good idea to have a ship that's not the carrier doing the job of air traffic control for a carrier's aircraft than you are quite simply hopeless. You are introducing multiple levels of complication about communication that mean your fleet will be more ineffective. The carrier should deal with air traffic control, and in order to do that it needs its own sensors, even for things like simple landing operations. Furthermore, the island exists because the carrier flight control team needs to be able to properly coordinate operations on the carrier's own flight deck, and the best way to do that is to have the people in a position where they can simply look out the window and see how the flight deck is and what's happening, rather than try to rely on cameras and sensors. Even if nothing else, the need to properly control flight deck operations justifies the existence of an island. The carrier having its own sensors for traffic control and landing operations also makes life much easier for the sake of air operations, and trying to take away the ships sensors and putting it on a dedicated ship simply makes it so that you have multiple points of additional failure that will serve to bite you in the ass during military operations. Having established that the carrier needs its island to simply do its job, and having a tall island makes doing said job easier, lets look at the second problem you have, namely that the island is always off to the side.

This is for efficiencies sake. You say that it'd just be tieing two carriers together, but there's a problem with that. If you notice, modern carriers carry on average less aircraft than earlier carriers, though of course, this is in part due to the fact that aircraft are largest. Though, the Americans tried with having large carriers that could have carried more than a hundred aircraft, and they ran into problems. Namely, air traffic control issues that kept them from properly operating all their aircraft. Furthermore, even with supercarriers, you want to avoid putting all your eggs in one basket, and having a vessels that is the size of two carriers is forgetting that.

Now, as for the specific 'island in the middle' issues, look at this picture I just pulled together. I know it doesn't have the angled flight deck, but this carries the point across nonetheless.

Notice the problem. For any carrier and flight deck of a given size and an island of a given size, having the island in the middle creates a problem, namely there's now a 'bottleneck' between the island and the sides. Whereas the classic arrangement with the island on the side means that the carrier is relatively wide all along the whole flight deck. You limit the ability of the ship to conduct operate by inefficiently laying out the flight deck. Akasha has hit all the other points on the head.

As for the FCS, indeed they are good, but I realize all things have their flaws, and if those are the flaws that I have to deal with, fine. Now tell me something, what would happen if a hole about 120mm in diameter happened to appear in both sides of a nuclear reactor? What could potentially happen if I hit the coolant systems or a main munitions storage chamber? Also I realize PDS are for last-ditch efforts, but I consider PDS to be any system that comes online to engage a target from 10km or less making that also include SAMs and such, though I again wince at the potential of using SAMs which could take two to three times longer to engage a target from half the distance that a single railgun round would.

Akasha has already hit this on the head, but let me point out that arguing the damage if the railgun slug hits a vital system is irrelevant. No one will argue that if you manage to hit the system, bad things will happen, but as has been said, the chances of actually hitting those systems is so small that it would be foolish to rely on that. You think that the railgun is better because the slug travels faster? What about the fact that you have to change the rails every few shots? Would it not be better to have your anti-missile systems travel slightly slower than limiting your shots to only a few because you have to change the barrel? Furthermore, railguns have the limitation of being limited to the horizon, unless you're planning to try and hit inbound missiles with indirect fire. A missile may travel slower, but it can also engage over the horizon, making up for its slower speed with being able to engage from longer away.

Contrary to popular belief, railguns are not magical solutions to all military problems. Also, what Akasha said about your arguments. You have this tendency to take the conspiracy theory angle and argue that when you provide a new theory, it is our duty to disprove it, and if we can't, we should default to accepting your theory as correct. However, that's not how it works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and your evidence so far has been 'I don't get why it's done this way' or 'Prove me wrong.'

[Kassaran]

Why would widened flight decks on either side be any worse than simply aligning them to the center? From where I'm sitting, I'm not changing any approaches to landing, but rather taking two carriers and putting them side by side joined by the same Island. Also, why does the height matter, if I have designated long-range observation vessels in my fleets designed for that purpose, and rather delegate full control of fighter operations to the carriers, should not the height be rendered null and void in general? Also, I've seen the early carrier designs so I know the short comings, but here's the thing again, why use a tower at all? You bring up navigation, then wouldn't a centrally aligned tower just like on every other vessel in the fleet be sensible? I get there is a whole system, but isn't that system also based around various other variables like the aircraft size and missions that the carrier is meant to fulfill?

Right then, this is going to take a while, because there are a lot of things here that you're failing to grasp or aren't aware of that seems to explain why you think that the island is either: a) Unnecessary or b) Could be centre mounted. Now, if it's a purely aesthetic thing for you than you might as well stop reading here and just do it, but don't pretend that it's realistic at all. It will just be a rule of cool thing that would--realistically--harm you, but most will accept it in order to tell a good story. Now that the disclaimer is done, let's get started.

I shouldn't have to say how stupid it is to give up the ability of the carrier to do air traffic control for its own aircraft. If you think that it's a good idea to have a ship that's not the carrier doing the job of air traffic control for a carrier's aircraft than you are quite simply hopeless. You are introducing multiple levels of complication about communication that mean your fleet will be more ineffective. The carrier should deal with air traffic control, and in order to do that it needs its own sensors, even for things like simple landing operations. Furthermore, the island exists because the carrier flight control team needs to be able to properly coordinate operations on the carrier's own flight deck, and the best way to do that is to have the people in a position where they can simply look out the window and see how the flight deck is and what's happening, rather than try to rely on cameras and sensors. Even if nothing else, the need to properly control flight deck operations justifies the existence of an island. The carrier having its own sensors for traffic control and landing operations also makes life much easier for the sake of air operations, and trying to take away the ships sensors and putting it on a dedicated ship simply makes it so that you have multiple points of additional failure that will serve to bite you in the ass during military operations. Having established that the carrier needs its island to simply do its job, and having a tall island makes doing said job easier, lets look at the second problem you have, namely that the island is always off to the side.

This is for efficiencies sake. You say that it'd just be tieing two carriers together, but there's a problem with that. If you notice, modern carriers carry on average less aircraft than earlier carriers, though of course, this is in part due to the fact that aircraft are largest. Though, the Americans tried with having large carriers that could have carried more than a hundred aircraft, and they ran into problems. Namely, air traffic control issues that kept them from properly operating all their aircraft. Furthermore, even with supercarriers, you want to avoid putting all your eggs in one basket, and having a vessels that is the size of two carriers is forgetting that.

Now, as for the specific 'island in the middle' issues, look at this picture I just pulled together. I know it doesn't have the angled flight deck, but this carries the point across nonetheless.

Notice the problem. For any carrier and flight deck of a given size and an island of a given size, having the island in the middle creates a problem, namely there's now a 'bottleneck' between the island and the sides. Whereas the classic arrangement with the island on the side means that the carrier is relatively wide all along the whole flight deck. You limit the ability of the ship to conduct operate by inefficiently laying out the flight deck. Akasha has hit all the other points on the head.

As for the FCS, indeed they are good, but I realize all things have their flaws, and if those are the flaws that I have to deal with, fine. Now tell me something, what would happen if a hole about 120mm in diameter happened to appear in both sides of a nuclear reactor? What could potentially happen if I hit the coolant systems or a main munitions storage chamber? Also I realize PDS are for last-ditch efforts, but I consider PDS to be any system that comes online to engage a target from 10km or less making that also include SAMs and such, though I again wince at the potential of using SAMs which could take two to three times longer to engage a target from half the distance that a single railgun round would.

Akasha has already hit this on the head, but let me point out that arguing the damage if the railgun slug hits a vital system is irrelevant. No one will argue that if you manage to hit the system, bad things will happen, but as has been said, the chances of actually hitting those systems is so small that it would be foolish to rely on that. You think that the railgun is better because the slug travels faster? What about the fact that you have to change the rails every few shots? Would it not be better to have your anti-missile systems travel slightly slower than limiting your shots to only a few because you have to change the barrel? Furthermore, railguns have the limitation of being limited to the horizon, unless you're planning to try and hit inbound missiles with indirect fire. A missile may travel slower, but it can also engage over the horizon, making up for its slower speed with being able to engage from longer away.

Contrary to popular belief, railguns are not magical solutions to all military problems. Also, what Akasha said about your arguments. You have this tendency to take the conspiracy theory angle and argue that when you provide a new theory, it is our duty to disprove it, and if we can't, we should default to accepting your theory as correct. However, that's not how it works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and your evidence so far has been 'I don't get why it's done this way' or 'Prove me wrong.'

No need to go on and call me stupid here man, yes I know I'm being rather stubborn, but that is because I'm trying to build original vessels here, I don't want to simply say "This is my vessel, here is wiki link to RL counterpart: Link to Military Vessel." I understand what I'm doing is unfeasible, I'm trying to come to you guys to help me make it work, not to have me revert to something already established. Alright, if I have crossed landing approaches, why not stagger my inbound craft? Also the craft I launch are large in their own respect, think B-1B so when I say I have massive carriers, they quite literally are massive, even the super carriers only hold twelve of the PS-21's (my main-line engagement fighter) and yes I know I should probably default to some Lockheed "Insert remotely bird-like name here" or a Mig "Insert Russian numbers and Word for Polar Bear Here", but I'm trying to create something more than just a carbon copy of real-world crafts and vehicles. Yes, I understand lots of operations happen on the deck of a carrier, but when utilizing every craft onboard means you might have just over twenty-something planes in the air and perhaps two-to-three exotics (My name for VTOL Transports) at most. I realize that things pertaining to aircraft should stay with the Carrier, I never said to adjust where operations were being held, but rather I was hoping to change how things were happening on board by removing what I had thought was something superfluous, I came here wondering if removing or centralizing the tower was a possible idea.

In regards to the flight path problem, yeah, if I have crossing approach vectors for my planes that can be extremely dangerous and stupid, but what if all landing approaches were staggered and only two would be landing at a time because yes, stupid me is leaning towards a centralized tower alignment? If I also made it so that the decks were separate (also note that as large as my carriers can be for holding their fighters, they would at most be slightly larger than a US Supercarrier), would the problem be solved with why you seem to think that I'm literally placing the structure in the middle of the runway? Perhaps utilizing a twin-hull design like the speculated soon-to-be-in-production Chinese supercarriers? In other words, catameran-type designs are what I've been wanting to use for the carrier if indeed I need a tower (and judging from the rather harsh response I've received, I assume I will need a tower). However, I'll be keeping the tower further back and be also thinking of utilizing more than just RG's. Yes, I understand they aren't hyper-efficient yet, but considering I'm not trying to make them the main-line engagement weapon, and rather a long-range artillery shell, I suppose I should keep their usage saved mostly for fringe engagements then on stationary targets or exceptionally large targets like other capital vessels. I will be looking to use missile tubes then seeing as how everyone seems to think they'll work best (not saying know because I'm simply being contrary and butt-hurt and mostly trollish, so stick it up yours if you got problem with it) and I will continue to stick with Thorium.

The Thorium thing has already been dealt with and discussed, the major drawbacks being the inefficiencies in the design as of right now as we far as MT has developed them, but Akasha, when you joined the conversation, we had already skipped over much of that conversation so allow me to recap as far as I learned: Thorium= safer, cleaner, more abundant in the crust, but it also requires more space as of right now for the breeding and other functions that make it mostly non-applicable in naval situations. Uranium=not so safe, not as clean, not as abundant, but it can be more easily made into a nuke, so we use it out of a desire not to waste what we make and buy and considering how long we've been using them, we've made them EXTREMELY applicable in any situation given how small the actual reactor cores and other such devices can be and how long they've been n use, they've been made more efficient. I'm certain if Thorium had been what we had used in the beginning, we'd be at a similar place with it now and hence I utilize it, given the knowledge that it is more inefficient in comparison and thus will allow for such inequality to be present, but considering that this isn't RL, and how I've already said RoC applies mostly to this area, and I'm mostly using it as a half-assed means to have bragging rights about alternative fuel used for propulsion on my vessels, let's move past that.

I'm not ignoring the advice given, but rather trying to find ways around the obstacles set in place by reality, and when I find I can't the alternate routes that do work, then yes, I'll go for RoC, but mostly I'm trying to create OC for usage by my nation.

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

One thing I know for sure. Your fighter is not maneuverable at all. Good luck wining dogfights against true fighters. If you say that they have the same maneuverability that is PMT mate.

[Kassaran]

One thing I know for sure. Your fighter is not maneuverable at all. Good luck wining dogfights against true fighters. If you say that they have the same maneuverability that is PMT mate.

Why would I require maneuverability? Yes I understand that dogfights happen, but in PMT times, no one should actually be entering the same airspace as the enemy, most engagements would occur from BVR and then close to AAM fights if I remember enough from the "Your Nation's Airforce Thread MkII" Again, they also are Interceptors, meant to get airborne then move to engage as fast as possible in response to an attack, either that or I use them for extreme ground-strike missions, mostly because their projected speed cap is about Mach 5.4. That's beside the point though being that in PMT combat, dogfights shouldn't happen, or at least be a highly improbable statistic.

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

One thing I know for sure. Your fighter is not maneuverable at all. Good luck wining dogfights against true fighters. If you say that they have the same maneuverability that is PMT mate.

Why would I require maneuverability? Yes I understand that dogfights happen, but in PMT times, no one should actually be entering the same airspace as the enemy, most engagements would occur from BVR and then close to AAM fights if I remember enough from the "Your Nation's Airforce Thread MkII" Again, they also are Interceptors, meant to get airborne then move to engage as fast as possible in response to an attack, either that or I use them for extreme ground-strike missions, mostly because their projected speed cap is about Mach 5.4. That's beside the point though being that in PMT combat, dogfights shouldn't happen, or at least be a highly improbable statistic.

So you are talking about PMT then not MT like most people think here. The point is that carrier planes should be good for either. Interceptors are good for high climb and high speeds. They are one of the worst planes for ground attack role. Check the Mig 31 that is one of the few interceptors in service today.
If it is PMT raiguns are possible.