Your Nations Warships, MKII

[The Akasha Colony]

I don't think this means what I think it means.

This in no way implies that it is possible for a submarine to actually launch a second salvo a minute later, does it?

Usually not. Torpedoes are commonly equipped with wire guidance, meaning a submarine can only guide as many torpedoes as it has torpedo tubes at any one time. Thus, even though it may be able to load a second salvo of torpedoes very quickly, unless the torpedoes already in the water switch to autonomous guidance and cut their wires, another salvo cannot be loaded. And at 30 knots, it takes a torpedo a full ten minutes to reach 10,000 yards, so during this time the submarine cannot reload its tubes. There are also concerns about whether or not multiple torpedoes in the water could confuse the submarine's own sonar if it is not properly able to resolve them.

Of course, for many roles (such as attacking carriers), autonomous guidance is preferred, so it is possible to rapidly launch salvos, but usually a submarine's primary goal after firing off the first salvo is to start fleeing.

[Allanea]

What is the purpose then of these - for lack of a better term - submarine autoloaders? In what tactical situation is the ability to reload rapidly important?

Is it just the supposed "submarine duel" scenario?

[Oaledonia]

What is the purpose then of these - for lack of a better term - submarine autoloaders? In what tactical situation is the ability to reload rapidly important?

Is it just the supposed "submarine duel" scenario?

In case Arpeggio becomes a reality and torpedoes move at the speed of lulz :3

[Connori Pilgrims]

What is the purpose then of these - for lack of a better term - submarine autoloaders? In what tactical situation is the ability to reload rapidly important?

Is it just the supposed "submarine duel" scenario?

I would imagine reducing crew requirements for the torpedo bay would be an important purpose.

For many submarines torpedo tubes don't just fire torpedoes but missile capsules, mobile mines and other payloads. Switching out weapons rapidly for changing threats I believe would be a plus.

[Organized States]

So, with the Royal Navy putting both HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth II, it got me thinking about the double island configuration. So, I was wondering, does having both of these waste space when you could just build one taller tower?

[New Tyran]

So, with the Royal Navy putting both HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth II, it got me thinking about the double island configuration. So, I was wondering, does having both of these waste space when you could just build one taller tower?

I believe it increases flight deck area, reduces air turbulence over the flight deck and increases flexibility of space allocation in the lower decks.

[Organized States]

So, with the Royal Navy putting both HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth II, it got me thinking about the double island configuration. So, I was wondering, does having both of these waste space when you could just build one taller tower?

I believe it increases flight deck area, reduces air turbulence over the flight deck and increases flexibility of space allocation in the lower decks.

Alright, I was just wondering. Thanks!

[Crookfur]

What is the purpose then of these - for lack of a better term - submarine autoloaders? In what tactical situation is the ability to reload rapidly important?

Is it just the supposed "submarine duel" scenario?

it frees up soem space and some crew, both precious thigns on a sub

anyway a nice video of them conducting torpedo trials in the Victoria class which shows some nice details of loading tubes:

http://youtu.be/KS28IAG3mQE

[The Akasha Colony]

What is the purpose then of these - for lack of a better term - submarine autoloaders? In what tactical situation is the ability to reload rapidly important?

Is it just the supposed "submarine duel" scenario?

There are a number of reasons. The most important are the reduction in manpower as well as the increased density of storage, given that space is always at a premium aboard a submarine. You can eliminate the torpedo room crew needed to manhandle the torpedoes into position, and it is much easier to switch between different types of weapons with an autoloader. Eliminating the torpedo room (aside from the watchstander) crew means you can eliminate their bunks as well, providing additional space gains. The new Virginias eliminate even the watchstanders in favor of automated controls and tours by other watchstanders, saving additional space.

On top of that, there are scenarios where wire guidance is not needed. Wake-homing torpedoes do not require wire guidance, so a second salvo can be rapidly launched. Neither do torpedo tube-launched missiles like Tomahawk or Harpoon, or mines expelled from the tube. Given the rising cost of personnel and the passive benefits of increased space, even if the rapid reload feature is not always used, the automated torpedo room has numerous advantages.

So, with the Royal Navy putting both HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth II, it got me thinking about the double island configuration. So, I was wondering, does having both of these waste space when you could just build one taller tower?

I believe it increases flight deck area, reduces air turbulence over the flight deck and increases flexibility of space allocation in the lower decks.

Why would it increase the flight deck area? It's designed to ease navigation and reduce space belowdecks normally allocated to functions that can now be moved to the islands. With their stated capacity, the QEIIs aren't really meant to be quite as space-efficient as US carriers.

[Gallia-]

What is the purpose then of these - for lack of a better term - submarine autoloaders?

Automation = manpower reduction.

[Vancon]

I had a couple ideas/questions about potential aircraft carriers.
1. Pontoon based Carriers: Y/N and why?
2. Super wide and long carriers so that bigger planes can land, more planes could take off/land, and it could be used as a floating FOB.
3. Submarine Aircraft Carriers a là ones that japan used in WW2, and are things like that still viable in any way?

[Connori Pilgrims]

I had a couple ideas/questions about potential aircraft carriers.
1. Pontoon based Carriers: Y/N and why?
2. Super wide and long carriers so that bigger planes can land, more planes could take off/land, and it could be used as a floating FOB.
3. Submarine Aircraft Carriers a là ones that japan used in WW2, and are things like that still viable in any way?

1. N, because too slow is why. A pontoon structure isn't suited to fleet speeds.

2. - If by bigger planes you mean C-17s and B-52s, that's no carrier....

You would be capable of operating in the open oceans ONLY, because such a construction would be too wide for most straits, channels or hell even ports. The closest to what this sounds like, the US Mobile Offshore Base concepts, get around this by basically being Lego combos of smaller pontoons/ships that join/split as needed.

3. - a sub carrier launching classic fixed wing non-VTOL heavy manned or unmanned aircraft isn't viable simply because size constraints for submarines. a sub carrier launching small VTOL drones or VTOL fighters might be feasible, but would not be a perfect replacement for conventional carriers (despite the beliefs of people like Sparky) mainly due to payload and drone numbers would still be limited. And unless you can launch them while submerged they will be just as vulnerable as any surfaced sub (i.e. very).

[The Akasha Colony]

I had a couple ideas/questions about potential aircraft carriers.
1. Pontoon based Carriers: Y/N and why?

What do you mean by pontoon-based carriers? There isn't really a point, since the pontoon just takes up valuable volume and the ship should be buoyant on its own.

2. Super wide and long carriers so that bigger planes can land, more planes could take off/land, and it could be used as a floating FOB.

Modern carriers can already handle C-130s. You'd need a hilariously large superdreadnought-sized ship to handle anything significantly larger, like C-17s, and at that point you've already run headlong into diminishing returns, especially since most supplies would be delivered by ship anyway (even for ground campaigns with space for airbases).

3. Submarine Aircraft Carriers a là ones that japan used in WW2, and are things like that still viable in any way?

Define viable. They are physically possible, but they don't have much of a purpose to justify the expense, and didn't back then, either.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Additionally, "so that more planes can take off and land" is not a justifiable reason to make larger carriers, either. In order to launch into the wind, you're limited to catapults (or ski-jumps) at a forwardish angle over the bow and from amidships. This means that in basic geometric terms, space for catapults increases slower than overall tonnage as you make the ship bigger, all else being equal. And whether you have two, four, or eight catapults, you're still recovering aircraft one at a time, and are moving them around on a much more crowded flight deck.

If you are already in the 100,000-tonne range, and still want to double the speed with which you can launch and recover aircraft, then build two carriers. It may sound mundane, but it's simpler, cheaper, and more flexible than building a pontoon-hull ship that is literally two carriers welded together.

[Korva]

Hey Soode, will you sell some of your ships to my puppet/NPC nation?

[Zerinfriom]

Alright so this is the update of the realistic Mogami,


I altered a few things, and colors,
http://i.imgur.com/JxPGzlz.png
any thoughts, or tips?

I am planning on adding to the superstructure, while making the ship longer, and it's draft deeper in order too compensate for it.

ANd here is a sneak preveiw of my next design the Hector class
http://i.imgur.com/zzesIMZ.png
btw it isn't a submarine

[Korva]

Alright so this is the update of the realistic Mogami,


I altered a few things, and colors,
http://i.imgur.com/JxPGzlz.png
any thoughts, or tips?

I am planning on adding to the superstructure, while making the ship longer, and it's draft deeper in order too compensate for it.

ANd here is a sneak preveiw of my next design the Hector class
http://i.imgur.com/zzesIMZ.png
btw it isn't a submarine

Looks like CIWS overload.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Hey Soode, will you sell some of your ships to my puppet/NPC nation?

Sadly, I don't sell any of my equipment. ICly the ImSu only exports military goods to closely trusted allies, and OOCly I try to minimize its interaction with countries outside the region in order to tone down the issue of NS's "massive Earth."

Normally I'd offer to make some ships on request, but with Midterm-Finals fast approaching I probably wouldn't be able to deliver on it.

[Korva]

Aw, it's ok. I've just been doodling trying to make a WarPac style ship sand you had made some neat ones.

Just gotta go back to the drawing board.

[Zerinfriom]

Alright so this is the update of the realistic Mogami,


I altered a few things, and colors,
http://i.imgur.com/JxPGzlz.png
any thoughts, or tips?

I am planning on adding to the superstructure, while making the ship longer, and it's draft deeper in order too compensate for it.

ANd here is a sneak preveiw of my next design the Hector class
http://i.imgur.com/zzesIMZ.png
btw it isn't a submarine

Looks like CIWS overload.

Yeah I know,

It is mostly there for naval doctrine in my country.

It's a new yet retro idea.

[Post War America]

My questions are four:

1) Are Anti-Shipping Ballistic Missiles or Super/Hypersonic Anti Shipping Missiles more effective for getting past defenses?

2) What is the smallest a ship could feasibly be to carry AShBMs?

3) What is the smallest a ship could feasibly be to carry Super/Hypersonic AShMs?

4) Which of the two types of missiles are the most adept at mounting a tactical nuclear warhead?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Alright so this is the update of the realistic Mogami,


I altered a few things, and colors,
http://i.imgur.com/JxPGzlz.png
any thoughts, or tips?

I am planning on adding to the superstructure, while making the ship longer, and it's draft deeper in order too compensate for it.

ANd here is a sneak preveiw of my next design the Hector class
http://i.imgur.com/zzesIMZ.png
btw it isn't a submarine

Why Phalanx and Goalkeepers?

[Zerinfriom]

Alright so this is the update of the realistic Mogami,


I altered a few things, and colors,
http://i.imgur.com/JxPGzlz.png
any thoughts, or tips?

I am planning on adding to the superstructure, while making the ship longer, and it's draft deeper in order too compensate for it.

ANd here is a sneak preveiw of my next design the Hector class
http://i.imgur.com/zzesIMZ.png
btw it isn't a submarine

Why Phalanx and Goalkeepers?

I am gonna answer your question in two ways since I don't knwo exactly what you are asking for.

Why Phalanx and goalkeepers, well I use Phalanx for central CIWS duties, and Goal keepers for CIWS duties on starboard, and port

And

Why Phalanx and goalkeepers (In general)

Well I think the Phalanx is a pretty good CIWS, and the Goalkeeper is small, and is just as good in my own opinion.

[Connori Pilgrims]

My questions are four:

1) Are Anti-Shipping Ballistic Missiles or Super/Hypersonic Anti Shipping Missiles more effective for getting past defenses?

2) What is the smallest a ship could feasibly be to carry AShBMs?

3) What is the smallest a ship could feasibly be to carry Super/Hypersonic AShMs?

4) Which of the two types of missiles are the most adept at mounting a tactical nuclear warhead?

1.) Yes, due to their speeds giving the target less time to react. IMO, AShBMs might be somewhat easier to defeat than supersonic/hypersonic AShMs as they are 1.) easier to evade due to sheer distance, 2.) have a greater need for mid-course updates than normal AShMs again due to the distances - in 5-10 minutes a ship could've exited the immediate target area already and/or the field of view of the terminal seeker, and 3.) sheer distance and the fact that they fly very high up may give sufficiently equipped ships a better chance to detect and intercept/evade them.

On the other side supersonic/hypersonic AShMs will be detected at the limits of the radar horizon, which is limited by the height of the radar on the ship, giving them much less chance to react. It can be mitigated somewhat by AEW&C, but not completely.

2.) At the minimum any ship with a sufficiently large draft (since a ballistic missile is a very large object). So basically, capital ships of cruiser and greater.

3.) Ships as small as a corvette or even some large missile boats can carry high-speed AShMs.

4.) Both types could carry nuclear warheads.

[Post War America]

My questions are four:

1) Are Anti-Shipping Ballistic Missiles or Super/Hypersonic Anti Shipping Missiles more effective for getting past defenses?

2) What is the smallest a ship could feasibly be to carry AShBMs?

3) What is the smallest a ship could feasibly be to carry Super/Hypersonic AShMs?

4) Which of the two types of missiles are the most adept at mounting a tactical nuclear warhead?

1.) Yes, due to their speeds giving the target less time to react. IMO, AShBMs might be somewhat easier to defeat than supersonic/hypersonic AShMs as they are 1.) easier to evade due to sheer distance, 2.) have a greater need for mid-course updates than normal AShMs again due to the distances - in 5-10 minutes a ship could've exited the immediate target area already and/or the field of view of the terminal seeker, and 3.) sheer distance and the fact that they fly very high up may give sufficiently equipped ships a better chance to detect and intercept/evade them.

On the other side supersonic/hypersonic AShMs will be detected at the limits of the radar horizon, which is limited by the height of the radar on the ship, giving them much less chance to react. It can be mitigated somewhat by AEW&C, but not completely.

2.) At the minimum any ship with a sufficiently large draft (since a ballistic missile is a very large object). So basically, capital ships of cruiser and greater.

3.) Ships as small as a corvette or even some large missile boats can carry high-speed AShMs.

4.) Both types could carry nuclear warheads.

So I'm guessing that a high speed AShM system would be better then for a Tarantul-like ship?