Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Altaiire]

Ahh, now I understand. I blame Wikia for this, the image I linked was originally larger... My fault. Here:

(Image)

As for the dimensions, In the upper left corner, it says "Size is (?) 100m" ("saizu wa 100 m (?) desu" plus some kanji I don't understand that are probably specifying length, but I can't be sure.)

It says "前後” or "zengo," which can mean "approximately" but also specifies that it means longitudinally.

(It means other things like "before and after," which are the actual kanji used, but I don't think that reading is particularly important here.)

I see, thanks. Under the hull, is that "吸水ロ," umm..."kyuumizuguchi?" I assume it means "water intake?" I can't find a direct translation for it, but the combination of kanji makes sense and I would assume so as the ship uses pumpjets for propulsion.

[The Akasha Colony]

I see, thanks. Under the hull, is that "吸水ロ," umm..."kyuumizuguchi?" I assume it means "water intake?" I can't find a direct translation for it, but the combination of kanji makes sense and I would assume so as the ship uses pumpjets for propulsion.

It probably isn't coming out right because the last one is the wrong kanji. You have "ロ" rather than "口." They look identical on NS (which is annoying) but are noticeably different in other fonts. The actual reading would be something like "kyuusuikuchi" or "kyuusuiguchi," using the on'yomi reading for the first two kanji ("Mizu" is kun'yomi for "水"). "Kuchi" for "ロ" is normally kun'yomi but is the only reading for entrance/intake/mouth/hole/nozzle etc.

But yes, it does mean "water intake," presumably for those pumpjets in the aft section.

[EsToVnIa]

weeaboism~~~~~

[The Akasha Colony]

weeaboism~~~~~

I was literally in Tokyo last weekend for a certain convention. Get on my level.

[Pharthan]

weeaboism~~~~~

I was literally in Tokyo last weekend for a certain convention. Get on my level.

Lived just south for Tokyo for 4.5 years. Went there frequently. Level. Get on it.

Yeah, I still don't know like any Kanji, soooo....
... Or the Japanese language for the most part.
I can recognize "Yokosuka," "Yokohama," "Tokyo," (and by proxy, "Kyoto"), and that's about it. (Romaji will get you far in Kanagawa/Tokyo)

But kudos on actually trying to use Kanji, I probably would have been lazy and went with Hiragana.

[Altaiire]

Here's a magnified shot of the text pointing to the stern of the ship:

Any idea what that says? I think I have it...

煙突がない代わりに
艦尾の部分が
排気口になっています。

"Entotsu ga nai daiwarini kanbi no bubun ga haiki kuchi ni natte imasu"

I probably made a mistake somewhere, but I think it's saying that instead of stacks, it has some form of suppressed exhaust port system in the stern.

[The Akasha Colony]

Here's a magnified shot of the text pointing to the stern of the ship:

(Image)

Any idea what that says? I think I have it...

煙突がない代わりに
艦尾の部分が
排気口になっています。

"Entotsu ga nai daiwarini kanbi no bubun ga haiki kuchi ni natte imasu"

I probably made a mistake somewhere, but I think it's saying that instead of stacks, it has some form of suppressed exhaust port system in the stern.

That seems to more or less be it, instead of a smokestack there's an exhaust port in the stern section. Since everything else is supposed to be stealthed, it probably has some diffuser or something.

[New Vihenia]

we need anemos

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

What type of warships would have been seen on the Mississippi River from about WW1 to modern times? A few ships I think could have been seen on the river are the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect-class_gunboat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-class_gunboat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrol_Craft_Fast

An equivalent to this might be good. :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_monitor_Parna%C3%ADba_%28U17%29

She could be laid down in 1918-1919, with two Low Angle guns, rebuilt in the 1940's with diesel engines with and DP guns, then add a helicopter pad in the 1970's. Have her acting as a mothership for PBR's.

That looks like a ship that could be used on part of the Mississippi River. Does anyone else have any other suggestions?

Few 40ft twin engined runabouts, maybe some barges and tugs for auxiliary work like mine clearance, navigation work and storage?

[Altaiire]

Thoughts on this ship design, specifically the feasibility of the pontoon setup, with regards to A.) seakeeping, and B.) containing magazines and launch systems for cruise missiles?

[New Vihenia]

I have bit of doubt on trimaran design for ocean going vessel. it may yes have low draft and difficult to roll But.. Once it enters rolling..it might have difficulty to recover. So it might not be viable in rough ocean.

[Altaiire]

I have bit of doubt on trimaran design for ocean going vessel. it may yes have low draft and difficult to roll But.. Once it enters rolling..it might have difficulty to recover. So it might not be viable in rough ocean.

I'm not certain as to how much of the ship's buoyancy is dependent on the pontoons, since a lot of space inside them is probably take up by missile launch systems. The ship's main hull isn't styled after typical trimarans and is more of a conventional design (once again, seemingly inspired by the Zumwalt-class.) The draft of the hull is much deeper than that of the pontoons, whereas most trimaran hulls I can find have the drafts of the hull and pontoons being relatively equal. At bare minimum, they might just be a way to increase total volume to store more missiles outside the hull (where I assume they aren't quite at risk of causing a fatal ammo detonation that would sink the main hull?) or provide more space for aircraft.

[The Akasha Colony]

Okay, submarine time.

Titanium vs. steel hulls. It seems that steel has caught up in strength (but not in weight) to titanium hulls. Of course, whether titanium is feasible for a given nation depends on its cost, the industrial experience available, and the requirements expected of the submarine in question.

So I suppose the question is whether eking out a few hundred meters of additional diving depth is worth the cost and difficulty in handling titanium (in order to prevent the requisite pressure hull from being incredibly heavy) for a "conventional" nuclear attack submarine or whether steel is sufficient for such purposes? The Russians seem to have gone back to steel and abandoned the concept of super-deep submarines, and the USN never embraced them. I don't plan to make a switch from steel either way, but I wanted to be more aware of any performance limitations involved.

On a related note, @NV, do you have any information on the breakdown of volume in a pressure hull? I was considering trying to figure out more accurately how large mine would need to be, which would allow me to more accurately estimate its performance parameters. I just sort of worked from US displacements last time, which is probably not accurate since mine are double-hulled.

[Fin Dovah Junaar]

Are there any medieval and early era ship building sites?

[Anemos Major]

we need anemos

(you don't, the translation you guys came up with was correct ;P)

I was literally in Tokyo last weekend for a certain convention. Get on my level.

Comiket?

(I'm a Japanese Tokyo-ite, can't see you guys down there from this level ;P)

[The Akasha Colony]

Comiket?

Yes. Another round of full-contact rugby with sweaty otaku. Had to help a friend pick up merchandise for his shop.

Are there any medieval and early era ship building sites?

What do you mean by shipbuilding sites? Sites with information about medieval shipbuilding practices?

[New Vihenia]

Okay, submarine time.

Titanium vs. steel hulls. It seems that steel has caught up in strength (but not in weight) to titanium hulls. Of course, whether titanium is feasible for a given nation depends on its cost, the industrial experience available, and the requirements expected of the submarine in question.

So I suppose the question is whether eking out a few hundred meters of additional diving depth is worth the cost and difficulty in handling titanium (in order to prevent the requisite pressure hull from being incredibly heavy) for a "conventional" nuclear attack submarine or whether steel is sufficient for such purposes? The Russians seem to have gone back to steel and abandoned the concept of super-deep submarines, and the USN never embraced them. I don't plan to make a switch from steel either way, but I wanted to be more aware of any performance limitations involved.

Well when Soviet built titanium subs, cost factor was not a consideration. About the steel though.

Additional depth capability is always desired as it allows the sub to make better use of ocean acoustic layers, and perhaps to evade possible future nonacoustic sensors such as surface and kelvin wave detection or green-blue laser radar. Plus Titanium is non magnetic by nature

There is however a stronger steel..the HY-130 or hmm HY-150? proposed for submarine application.. But the US So far sticks to older HY-80 and HY-100. With stronger steel, it allows more depth capability but with thinner structure.

On a related note, @NV, do you have any information on the breakdown of volume in a pressure hull? I was considering trying to figure out more accurately how large mine would need to be, which would allow me to more accurately estimate its performance parameters. I just sort of worked from US displacements last time, which is probably not accurate since mine are double-hulled.

The info is sketchy..nonetheless regarding to PH volume allocation, according to Stennard's paper there is no differences between single and double hulled submarine.

[The Akasha Colony]

Well when Soviet built titanium subs, cost factor was not a consideration. About the steel though.

Additional depth capability is always desired as it allows the sub to make better use of ocean acoustic layers, and perhaps to evade possible future nonacoustic sensors such as surface and kelvin wave detection or green-blue laser radar. Plus Titanium is non magnetic by nature

There is however a stronger steel..the HY-130 or hmm HY-150? proposed for submarine application.. But the US So far sticks to older HY-80 and HY-100. With stronger steel, it allows more depth capability but with thinner structure.

I was planning on using HY-130, although I don't know if that would just end up costing more than titanium anyway. I hadn't heard anything about HY-150. Internet rumors (for whatever they're worth) claim the Japanese expect to use the steel in newer submarines of their own. I was planning on avoiding titanium, partly because I feel it's over-used in *NS* but also because Carthage doesn't have huge reserves of it (and I don't want to be HURR GE&T MARKET PRICES). (inb4 sodium hydride torpedoes)

The current HY-130 pressure hull weight given by indicates a pressure hull weight of 5,077 tons for a 9,000 m³ pressure hull with 12 meter diameter rated for 1,100 meters design depth. With the USN's safety factor, that would lead to a test depth of 733 meters, with a slightly more generous safety factor of 7/10ths, 770 meters. But I have no idea if this pressure hull weight is compatible with a submerged displacement of 9,700 tons, mostly due to a lack of figures for comparison.

The info is sketchy..nonetheless regarding to PH volume allocation, according to Stennard's paper there is no differences between single and double hulled submarine.

Sorry, it was a bit confusing because I ended up talking about two different things in the same paragraph. Namely, the breakdown of internal pressure hull volume (which I did not expect was significantly different), and how the use of a double-hull alters the submerged displacement when that volume is flooded. Like how Akula goes from ~8,500 tons surfaced to ~13,500 tons submerged, while Seawolf goes from 8,600 tons to only 9,100 tons submerged.

[Fin Dovah Junaar]

Comiket?

Yes. Another round of full-contact rugby with sweaty otaku. Had to help a friend pick up merchandise for his shop.

Are there any medieval and early era ship building sites?

What do you mean by shipbuilding sites? Sites with information about medieval shipbuilding practices?

...

A site to build ships....

[Velkanika]

Yes. Another round of full-contact rugby with sweaty otaku. Had to help a friend pick up merchandise for his shop.





What do you mean by shipbuilding sites? Sites with information about medieval shipbuilding practices?

...

A site to build ships....

There are no ship generators like PMG if that's what you're after.

[Kouralia]

Queries:

1) How plausible is it that a PLARB/SSBN could have an OF1/OF2 Service Police/Regulator/Master-At-Arms on board?
2) Is carrying of small arms on board a SSBN routine? If not, how many people on the bridge would likely be armed?
3) Would the discharge of a firearm on an SSBN's bridge be irreparable?
4) Assuming one could cow much of the bridge crew of an SSBN into not acting, how plausible would it be for someone to kill the Captain and seize control of the bridge, and through that gain control of the vessel?
5) In a civil war situation, should killing one's superior officer to prevent a war crime and then cause your boat to swap sides result in the individual being decorated when that new side wins the civil war?

[Spirit of Hope]

Queries:

1) How plausible is it that a PLARB/SSBN could have an OF1/OF2 Service Police/Regulator/Master-At-Arms on board?

I have no clue, but I would think they have some form of master at arms/security guy around.

2) Is carrying of small arms on board a SSBN routine? If not, how many people on the bridge would likely be armed?

I'm fairly certain carrying guns is not routine, but that their is a limited supply of small arms aboard.

3) Would the discharge of a firearm on an SSBN's bridge be irreparable?

I think it is unlikely that it would cause irreparable damage, unless you start having a major firefight or purposely attempting to destroy equipment.

4) Assuming one could cow much of the bridge crew of an SSBN into not acting, how plausible would it be for someone to kill the Captain and seize control of the bridge, and through that gain control of the vessel?

Depends on the person doing the killing. If the second in command killed the captain, and has a good reason for doing it he may be able to take command. He would probably want to have already gotten some key personnel on his side before he does it though. And I have a hard time imagining a crew just standing by as their captain is killed unless the killer has some form of backup.

5) In a civil war situation, should killing one's superior officer to prevent a war crime and then cause your boat to swap sides result in the individual being decorated when that new side wins the civil war?

That would depend entirely on the government. Though it would certainly be plausible for him to receive a reward.

[New Vihenia]

The current HY-130 pressure hull weight given by indicates a pressure hull weight of 5,077 tons for a 9,000 m³ pressure hull with 12 meter diameter rated for 1,100 meters design depth. With the USN's safety factor, that would lead to a test depth of 733 meters, with a slightly more generous safety factor of 7/10ths, 770 meters. But I have no idea if this pressure hull weight is compatible with a submerged displacement of 9,700 tons, mostly due to a lack of figures for comparison.

hmm better breakdown from "Theory of submarine design"



The numbers are percentages of surfaced displacement. The pressure hull itself constitute around 50-55% of the entire hull weight, with other 45-50% are "light hull" (Bulkheads, MBT, superstructures, casings,etc) structure. Thus assuming 50% of your submarine hull is that PH, the entire hull of your submarine would be 10154 tons. and roughly assuming 38% of the whole surface displacement is hull Then the surfaced displacement of your submarine would be 10154/.38=26721 tons.

Clearly the submerged displacement would be greater than 9700 tons. Assume typical Reserve of Buoyancy of 32% as Russian double hulled boat will give Main Ballast Tank volume of 8557 ton and submerged displacement of 26721+8557 = 35271 tons.

Sorry, it was a bit confusing because I ended up talking about two different things in the same paragraph. Namely, the breakdown of internal pressure hull volume (which I did not expect was significantly different), and how the use of a double-hull alters the submerged displacement when that volume is flooded. Like how Akula goes from ~8,500 tons surfaced to ~13,500 tons submerged, while Seawolf goes from 8,600 tons to only 9,100 tons submerged.

The submerged displacement is Surfaced displacement + MBT Volume. Akula were happen to have much larger Main Ballast Tank compared to Seawolf. Thus it has larger submerged displacement.

Another thing is something called "Envelope displacement" This is rarely discussed though.. It's basically the submerged displacement + weight of water that dwell in Free flood volume.

The double hull submarine often have quite amount of Free flood volume in between the hull which is not a part of any tank or ballast..when the sub is surfaced it would be empty, when the sub dive, water can freely enter that volume. The free flood volume does not contribute to buoyancy, thus not included in statblock. But it's there and double hull submarine may always have large Free flood volume, thus larger Envelope displacement.

[The Ukrainian Navy and Sea Guard]

That looks like a ship that could be used on part of the Mississippi River. Does anyone else have any other suggestions?

Few 40ft twin engined runabouts, maybe some barges and tugs for auxiliary work like mine clearance, navigation work and storage?

Why not check out Willard Marine? They have some good RIHBs, both 7m and 11m, which might do well. I's recommend the 11m due to it's water jet propulsion, so that if you hit weeds or a snag you aren't mobility killed. CB-90s and SURCs are good options too for MT. Look into Austria, Interwar Czechoslovakia, and US Operations in Vietnam for various models of river combat. Also, don't forget combat divers can be used on rivers too, to take out bridges, river mines, ect. Also, look into the Gyurza class river patrol boat. Ukrainian made, and might be what you are looking for.

Further info on the Gyurza line:

Ukranian equivalent of a CB-90, significantly larger in size, and based off the Gyurza.:
https://news.pn/en/public/137576

Gyurza-M: With new Ukrainian weapons, including Barrier ATGMs:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2014-news/december-2014-navy-naval-forces-maritime-industry-technology-security-global-news/2293-ukraine-resumed-construction-of-gyurza-m-project-58155-river-armored-artillery-boats.html

[Fothergilland]

There are 4 main types off naval vessel in service with the FLN (Fothergilland Navy)
6x Type 45 destroyers (with an EH101 each on the flight deck each)
12x Type 28 frigates (with an EH101 each on the flight deck)
16x Astute class nuclear submarines
50x 'Welsh' class Fast Attack Craft
In commission there is also the FLMS Charlotte Right, a Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier. Which carries 52 BAE Sea Harriers and 26 EH101s.