Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Tulacia]

Would it be feasible to have a submarine with a classic ship smokestack that could be air-tightened and folded against the deck while submerged, in any era? I can draw up a concept if it doesn't make much sense.

[Yukonastan]

Would it be feasible to have a submarine with a classic ship smokestack that could be air-tightened and folded against the deck while submerged, in any era? I can draw up a concept if it doesn't make much sense.

This existed during the reign of diesel submarines, and it was called the Snorkel. It permitted a submarine to recharge its batteries while submerged, and became obsolete when nuclear became popular. Dutch invention, actually, but made popular by the Germans after they invaded us in WWII.

[The Kievan People]

Would it be feasible to have a submarine with a classic ship smokestack that could be air-tightened and folded against the deck while submerged, in any era? I can draw up a concept if it doesn't make much sense.

That would be dumb.

[The Soodean Imperium]

As dumb as a Massena-style pre-dreadnought?

[Tulacia]

Would it be feasible to have a submarine with a classic ship smokestack that could be air-tightened and folded against the deck while submerged, in any era? I can draw up a concept if it doesn't make much sense.

This existed during the reign of diesel submarines, and it was called the Snorkel. It permitted a submarine to recharge its batteries while submerged, and became obsolete when nuclear became popular. Dutch invention, actually, but made popular by the Germans after they invaded us in WWII.

I will have to see exactly how that works and see if it fits the idea I had.

[Spirit of Hope]

It looks good, and there isn't much to say. The numbers don't look crazy. I'm assuming you are staying away from carriers for a reason, I would think you could afford 1-2 smaller ones if you scraped the battle cruisers.

I would like to know what your Heavy Aviation Cruisers are, it doesn't sound like a good idea but without any specifics about what it is I can't overly say much about it.

The battlecruisers don't need to have both nuclear and gas turbines. You could free up space by using only one or the other, likely without any real loss in capabilities.

Eh, the "heavy aviation cruiser" is my first foray into aircraft carriers, but they're only capable of supporting helicopters, really. The biggest IC reason for not having true carriers is mainly to do with my policy of armed neutrality and with the fact that I only have a force of 150 000 men total across all branches, and carriers take fuckhuge amounts of crew to operate.

As for CONAG, IC reasons (nuclear everything for ships). Phartan related that gas turbines have the advantage of being able to be started in a minute, so when shore leave gets canceled, the boat can just up and go when its crew is back onboard, plus they give me a massive sprint speed burst. Nukes have to be started up in a far longer procedure, but have the advantage of near infinite range.

So you have a decent reason why you don't have a carrier, which is what I thought would be the case. Since only like three or four RL nations actually have managed to produce and man non helicopter carriers I think you are fine sticking to helicopter carriers. Obviously you won't be dominating the seas, but you will have a respectable force to use.

The thing is while nuclear energy does take longer to bring up to speed, I bet it would be ready before the ship was actually ready to leave. You are guaranteed to always have at least a skeleton crew watching the reactor, and they can start the activation process while the rest of the crew are being recalled and supplies are being brought on board, a process likely to take a couple of hours minimum.

While the gas turbines will give you a speed bump, I don't think it would be that large. Drag due to water increases at the cube of the velocity, so increasing speed from 20 to 30 knots will require more than twice as much energy. The mass of the gas turbines could be better spent allowing for more supplies, to capitalize on the endurance of the nuclear engine, more weapons, personnel, or electronics. Additionally a sprint speed increase doesn't help you much if you end up leaving your escorts behind.

As for the endurance of the nuclear engine it is still limited by supplies on board the main ship, crew moral, the endurance of escorts and other factors. If you replaced the nuclear reactor with supply space, including more gas, you could probably get close to the same endurance out of the gas turbine engine as your ship already has.

In addition to what The Soodean Imperium has already listed helicopters and marintime patrol aircraft that carry sonar buoys, dipping sonar, and MAD also often carry torpedoes themselves which they can employ. From what I remember they are simply torpedoes with active sonar in them.


That looks manageable. You could probably have a couple more patrol boats. One reason I don't use real world nations is they are to hard to fit with what I want as capabilities for NS RPs.

The Beriev is a workable maritime patrol aircraft. I don't think you would have much need of its flying boat capabilities though.

Would it be better to have 3 Pauk class Corvettes or 8 Stenka class Patrol Boats? I'm postulating a AU Ukriane several years down the road where the front lines of today become a frozen conflict zone, and Ukraine is just beginning to rebuild, like what happened in Georgia. I'm robbing the Sea Gaurd of some of their ships for a homefleet of patrol boats, and using the last remaining combatants of significant value (1 LST, FFG, and SSK) on foreign deployments, so I'm wondering where the navy would draw the line between ships they want to take over, and ones they'll leave to the border gaurd. Basically I have the same strategy as the CSA's navy: littoral home fleet for defense and a few independent blue water units to raise national prestige abroad.

The corvetts would probably do you more good, you don't have a large amount of cost you need to patrol, and they would be slightly more useful outside of your littoral zone.

Sounds like you have thought it through, good luck.

[Chanel Clan]

Thanks, I'll probably need it!

Here is my list, at current:
1 Krivak Class Frigate: U-130 Hetman Sahaydachniy
1 Polocny Class LST: U-401 Kirovohrad
1 Foxtrot Class Submarine: U-01 Zaporizhzhia
1 Matka class Missile Boat: U-153 Pryluky
1 Grisha class Corvette: U-206 Vinnytsia
3 Pauk class Corvettes:
U-50 Hryhoriy Kuropyatnykov
U-51 Poltava
U-52 Hryhoriy Hnatenko

Not sure about the Matka & Grisha, both are returnees from Crimea IRL but do not quite fit my plans. The Foxtrot is a bit of a stretch, given Ukraine refused her return, but she is my favorite so logic can suck it!

[Tulacia]

This existed during the reign of diesel submarines, and it was called the Snorkel. It permitted a submarine to recharge its batteries while submerged, and became obsolete when nuclear became popular. Dutch invention, actually, but made popular by the Germans after they invaded us in WWII.

I will have to see exactly how that works and see if it fits the idea I had.

According to Wikipedia, this is what a "snorkel" is and does:

A submarine snorkel is a device which allows a submarine to operate submerged while still taking in air from above the surface.

That isn't my intention for my sub. What it does is use the smokestack to function like a normal surface ship while on the surface, storing leftover energy for when it submerges. When it does submerge, the smokestack is air-tightened and folded against the deck, using the energy stored from being on the surface to power it while submerged.

I was told in a 1945-ish wargame that this was something more like a steampunk or WWI invention.

[Mitheldalond]

Speaking of Shipbucket, here's my first attempts at it. I mostly just switched around weapons and radar and stuff on existing ships. They're supposed to be WWII ships brought up as close to modern warships as possible, for whatever reason.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4zxfv930xdbnm ... G.png?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/u5ixl8y719d20 ... ng?dl=0&m=
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w10js5fo00dck ... .png?dl=0l

Am I doing it right?

Eh-hem

[Yukonastan]

I will have to see exactly how that works and see if it fits the idea I had.

According to Wikipedia, this is what a "snorkel" is and does:

A submarine snorkel is a device which allows a submarine to operate submerged while still taking in air from above the surface.

That isn't my intention for my sub. What it does is use the smokestack to function like a normal surface ship while on the surface, storing leftover energy for when it submerges. When it does submerge, the smokestack is air-tightened and folded against the deck, using the energy stored from being on the surface to power it while submerged.

I was told in a 1945-ish wargame that this was something more like a steampunk or WWI invention.

So basically you mean like every diesel sub ever without a snorkel. Except more complicated.

[Lubyak]

I will have to see exactly how that works and see if it fits the idea I had.

According to Wikipedia, this is what a "snorkel" is and does:

A submarine snorkel is a device which allows a submarine to operate submerged while still taking in air from above the surface.

That isn't my intention for my sub. What it does is use the smokestack to function like a normal surface ship while on the surface, storing leftover energy for when it submerges. When it does submerge, the smokestack is air-tightened and folded against the deck, using the energy stored from being on the surface to power it while submerged.

I was told in a 1945-ish wargame that this was something more like a steampunk or WWI invention.

That is exactly how a diesel-electric sub works, and how they still work. The snorkel just lets them operate their engines to reacharge their batteries while submerged. I don't think you need a funnel to do what you want to do. No other diesel-electric sub seems to have had need of it.

[Dibeg]

I don't think your issue is about MT, but just a side note, RL navies have been exploring using diesel subs as fleet protection subs again, due to the lesser cost over nuclear. This matters less on NS obviously, but I think it is interesting.

[Korva]

As dumb as a Massena-style pre-dreadnought?

([url=http://iiwiki.com/images/b/be/Kaihou_Hourong.png]Image)[/url]

very nice

[The Kievan People]

I don't think your issue is about MT, but just a side note, RL navies have been exploring using diesel subs as fleet protection subs again, due to the lesser cost over nuclear. This matters less on NS obviously, but I think it is interesting.

Diesel submarines are generally too slow to keep up with surface ships, even at full power.

[Grays Harbor]

Speaking of Shipbucket, here's my first attempts at it. I mostly just switched around weapons and radar and stuff on existing ships. They're supposed to be WWII ships brought up as close to modern warships as possible, for whatever reason.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4zxfv930xdbnm ... G.png?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/u5ixl8y719d20 ... ng?dl=0&m=
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w10js5fo00dck ... .png?dl=0l

Am I doing it right?

Eh-hem

I'd give an opinion but they won't open for me

[Tulacia]

I don't think your issue is about MT, but just a side note, RL navies have been exploring using diesel subs as fleet protection subs again, due to the lesser cost over nuclear. This matters less on NS obviously, but I think it is interesting.

I don't want it for MT at all. I've got most of my land-based PT stuff laid out from that wargame I mentioned, but I struggled with the Navy and Air aspects. I ended up making my sub without a snorkel for that wargame after I was told it was unrealistic, so it will probably just be a tweak of that sub with a snorkel.

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

I don't think your issue is about MT, but just a side note, RL navies have been exploring using diesel subs as fleet protection subs again, due to the lesser cost over nuclear. This matters less on NS obviously, but I think it is interesting.

I don't want it for MT at all. I've got most of my land-based PT stuff laid out from that wargame I mentioned, but I struggled with the Navy and Air aspects. I ended up making my sub without a snorkel for that wargame after I was told it was unrealistic, so it will probably just be a tweak of that sub with a snorkel.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ ... _submarine Is this what you're thinking of?

[Dibeg]

I don't want it for MT at all. I've got most of my land-based PT stuff laid out from that wargame I mentioned, but I struggled with the Navy and Air aspects. I ended up making my sub without a snorkel for that wargame after I was told it was unrealistic, so it will probably just be a tweak of that sub with a snorkel.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ ... _submarine Is this what you're thinking of?

looks like typical bad british manufacturing of the era...

[Tulacia]

I don't want it for MT at all. I've got most of my land-based PT stuff laid out from that wargame I mentioned, but I struggled with the Navy and Air aspects. I ended up making my sub without a snorkel for that wargame after I was told it was unrealistic, so it will probably just be a tweak of that sub with a snorkel.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ ... _submarine Is this what you're thinking of?

Not quite. More of a hybrid between a WWII U-boat and a Gato-class sub.

[Dibeg]

Does anyone want to give me advice on my navy that I have put together out of RL ships?
I am going for a strong coastal defense/attack combo.
3 QE carriers
3 ocean amp assault
3 izumo helicopter destroyers
6 daring destroyers
20 global combat ship frigates (british design)
15 freedom littoral combat
3 upgraded long beach
6 astute attack subs...
and also some assorted small patrol boats, currently mainly the british river class, but I don't like em.

[Padnak]

As dumb as a Massena-style pre-dreadnought?

([url=http://iiwiki.com/images/b/be/Kaihou_Hourong.png]Image)[/url]

Soode

y u be so amazing

[Jaamar]

Alright, every ship of the Jaamaran navy is named, as follows.

1 Adamant-class Aircraft Carrier:

[*]JNS Adamant (CVN-17)

2 Vigilance-Class Cruisers:

[*]JNS Vigilance (CCGN-4)
[*]JNS Dauntless (CCGN-5)

8 Aegis-class Destroyers:

[*]JNS Aegis (DDG-44)
[*]JNS Galantine (DDG-45)
[*]JNS Svalinn (DDG-46)
[*]JNS Kusanagi (DDG-47)
[*]JNS Gungnir (DDG-48)
[*]JNS Dyrnwyn (DDG-50)
[*]JNS Caliburn (DDG-51)
[*]JNS Durendal (DDG-52)

10 Valiant-class Frigates:

[*]JNS Valiant (FFG-152)
[*]JNS Constitution (FFG-153)
[*]JNS Endeavour (FFG-154)
[*]JNS Enduring (FFG-155)
[*]JNS Erstwhile (FFG-156)
[*]JNS Unyielding (FFG-157)
[*]JNS Daring (FFG-158)
[*]JNS Firebrand (FFG-159)
[*]JNS Vanguard (FFG-160)
[*]JNS Gallant (FFG-162)

2 Waarden-class Air Defence Cruisers:

[*]JNS Sentinel (CGE-2)
[*]JNS Warden (CGE-3)

6 Orca-Class Submarines

[*]JNSB Orca (JNSB-14)
[*]JNSB Marten (JNSB-15)
[*]JNSB Lynx (JNSB-16)
[*]JNSB Wolf (JNSB-17)
[*]JNSB Coyote (JNSB-19)
[*]JNSB Wolverine (JNSB-20)

[Grays Harbor]

Does anyone want to give me advice on my navy that I have put together out of RL ships?
I am going for a strong coastal defense/attack combo.
3 QE carriers
3 ocean amp assault
3 izumo helicopter destroyers
6 daring destroyers
20 global combat ship frigates (british design)
15 freedom littoral combat
3 upgraded long beach
6 astute attack subs...
and also some assorted small patrol boats, currently mainly the british river class, but I don't like em.

If you are going for coast defense why so many aircraft carriers? Those typically are used for power projection. For coastal defense shore based airfields would be less exoensive to build and maintain.

[Dibeg]

Does anyone want to give me advice on my navy that I have put together out of RL ships?
I am going for a strong coastal defense/attack combo.
3 QE carriers
3 ocean amp assault
3 izumo helicopter destroyers
6 daring destroyers
20 global combat ship frigates (british design)
15 freedom littoral combat
3 upgraded long beach
6 astute attack subs...
and also some assorted small patrol boats, currently mainly the british river class, but I don't like em.

If you are going for coast defense why so many aircraft carriers? Those typically are used for power projection. For coastal defense shore based airfields would be less exoensive to build and maintain.

yes, but as a comparison to my region, most people have more, and as you may know, thes QE class is about half the size of the US's new ford class. Maybe I should take it down though.

I was wondering more specifically two things:
1. the troop carrying capabilities of the amp assaults and helides, the posted numbers online are very low, to me it seems like they could take more troops...

2. So how good are the freedom class littorals? I compared the independence to them, and liked the freedom better, but they also don't fit for my low draft inshore slot that I need filled...

[Aznazia]

If you are going for coast defense why so many aircraft carriers? Those typically are used for power projection. For coastal defense shore based airfields would be less exoensive to build and maintain.

yes, but as a comparison to my region, most people have more, and as you may know, thes QE class is about half the size of the US's new ford class. Maybe I should take it down though.

I was wondering more specifically two things:
1. the troop carrying capabilities of the amp assaults and helides, the posted numbers online are very low, to me it seems like they could take more troops...

2. So how good are the freedom class littorals? I compared the independence to them, and liked the freedom better, but they also don't fit for my low draft inshore slot that I need filled...

The QE is 57 meters shorter than the Gerald Ford Class. The QE is not small like her predecessors.

Ford: 337 meters
QE: 280 meters