Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Grays Harbor]

You now know why a nuclear destroyer will always be larger, slower or most probably both than i's fossil-fuel equivalent, and why any rational purely nuclear destroyer design will be slower than a carrier with far greater volume and the hydrodynamic and seakeeping advantages inherent in its size.

Elaborate, please.

Getting a destroyer (larger destroyers, albeit) up to 30-33 knots has been done in the past; I don't see how coaxing a few extra knots out would be an issue if you've got considerably more- it would really come down to structural issues rather than propulsion.

Actually, not all fast destroyers have been large destroyers. The USN Fletchers from WW2, about the size of a medium sized modern frigate, could hit speeds of up to 39 knots, but most were limited to about 36, as were the French Aigle class. The Italian Soldati class could hit top speeds of 38 knots. The French Le Fantasque class was capable of speeds up to 45 knots.

Good turns of speed for DD's is not some recent innovation. If anything, the older WW2 classes were faster and more agile than modern DD's

[Triplebaconation]

Those are trial speeds and not particularly relevant to real conditions (where the nominally slower modern destroyer will usually have the advantage), but just imagine how fast they would be if they were nuclear! With modern reactor technology you could easily get a Fantasque up to 25 knots and sustain ituntil you hit a wave...starts scheming about using a trimaran hull to make it even slower...

[Grays Harbor]

The Le Fantasques regularly hit 42 knots under combat conditions, fully loaded, from everything I have ever read about them. They are, in my opinion anyhow, probably the best destroyer class ever built. When the name ship of the class, Le Fantasque, was refitted and modernized in Boston in 1943, she was even re-rated as a light cruiser. Of course, with all the additional weight from the radar and additional AA mounts, her top speed had been reduced to "only" 37 knots.

[Pharthan]

Considerably more what? Not power. The numbers above weren't random - they're roughly the operating temperatures of a PWR, an oil-fired high-pressure boiler and a gas turbine, respectively. Reactors simply aren't as thermally efficient as fossil fuel plants. They can't generate as much power in the same volume, so the engine compartment has to be bigger. On a carrier that's no problem, especially since they're very long and therefore need far less power per ton for a given speed, but on a tight ship like a destroyer that means more beam. To maintain speed the ship has to be longer, and pretty soon you don't have a destroyer at all.

Structure and propulsion are inextricably linked, especially at speeds over 30 knots, where "coaxing a a few extra knots out" generally means doubling power.

Not doubling, I can tell you that much.
Doubling would be from ~25knots to ~33knots.
30-33 is... closer to a matter of upping by 10% or so. At least for carriers.

Also, I can tell you right now that Naval Nuclear Reactors operate at none of the listed temperatures you gave. Wikipedia has the listings for the temperatures involved on the Enterprise reactors... which also aren't the temperatures used on A4W or submarine PWRs.
Efficiency isn't too big an issue when you can pump out tons of power. When you use highly-concentrated U-235, you can get a lot of punch out of a little core with considerably longevity.
Still, they're pretty efficient. Efficient enough.

And again, with a bit of renovation - mostly lowering the number of valves an A4W has from being absolutely ridiculous, and cutting down on piping-distances, you could shove an A4W into a Arleigh Burke's engine room - partly because you'd also be taking up some of the stack-area, which I'd consider a valid strategy for this matter.
EDIT: Yeah, just did some size comparisons. You make it about as cramped as a S8G plant an you can fit an A4W into a Burke. Again, not necessarily a good idea, but you can do it. Carrier Engine room/reactor rooms are rather spacious actually, you could fit a lot more in them if you wanted to. If you ever get to look at an A1B, they make it even more compact. Those pictures are usually stored on "Confidential" networks, though.
As for fitting it on the Burke, you'd have to cut down on walking space and head-space, stack your Generators in a box-configuration and your engines behind those.
You'd also cut down on your number of Distilling Units, because you also don't need as many. Your RC is going to span pretty much the entire beam of the ship, so you have to rearrange a few spaces.
Your Forward Engine Room becomes the Reactor Auxiliaries Room, which houses your Reactor and your primary-reactor plant.
The Aft Engine Room becomes your entire engine-room, and will likely intrude a bit on your shaft-alley spaces, but that's not too huge of a deal.
Moving the A/C plants into the space normally taken up by the stacks and you save even more space. Obviously you can't use up all of that space unless you feel like just smacking some electronics up there, but now you can remove the upper ends of the stacks, cutting down on weight a bit, or you could have a heat-exchanger up there for a reactor-protection system... to, once again, save space down in the engine-rooms by being able to cut down on other reactor protection systems that might take up space.
And now you've got all of those other spaces free, normally used for fuel. Oh, dear lord, look at all that new free space you didn't have before. What to do with that? Well, you could now use those for Distilled Water, and even further reduce the size of your engine-room by having a smaller distilling-unit... saving even more space.

Again, not actually suggesting that a carrier-plant be used for a destroyer - a purpose-built one would work better, obviously.
I'm just saying that it could be done.

Also, A4Ws are smaller than Conventionally Powered Carrier Engine-rooms. It's one of the reasons they're so awesome. You get all that much more room for extra fun stuff, like bombs.
So you're wrong on that one, straight up. Part of that is because your fuel is stored in your heat-source chamber, as opposed to shoveling it in.

[Triplebaconation]

Structure and propulsion are inextricably linked, especially at speeds over 30 knots, where "coaxing a a few extra knots out" generally means doubling power.

Not doubling, I can tell you that much.
Doubling would be from ~25knots to ~33knots.
30-33 is... closer to a matter of upping by 10% or so. At least for carriers.

Also, I can tell you right now that Naval Nuclear Reactors operate at none of the listed temperatures you gave. Wikipedia has the listings for the temperatures involved on the Enterprise reactors... which also aren't the temperatures used on A4W or submarine PWRs.
Efficiency isn't too big an issue when you can pump out tons of power. When you use highly-concentrated U-235, you can get a lot of punch out of a little core with considerably longevity.
Still, they're pretty efficient. Efficient enough.
.[/quote]

Destroyers aren't carriers, and power and speed don't have a linear relationship. Do you know about speed-length ratios?

Wikipedia: "In the A1W and A2W systems, the pressurized water reactor coolant is kept between 525 and 545 °F (274 and 285 °C). In the steam generators, the water from the feed system is converted to steam at 535 °F (279 °C) and a pressure of about 600 psi (4 MPa)."

A high-pressure D-type boiler operates at 850 Fahrenheit (~450 °C) and 1200 psi. Which is more efficient?

I'm not trying to be condescending, but I'd recommend (for a start) Friedman's Destroyers for someone as interested in ship design as you seem to be. It has a good overview of basic design techniques, as well as a good history of the US nuclear escort program and the difficulties of putting theory into practice.

[Pharthan]

Destroyers aren't carriers, and power and speed don't have a linear relationship. Do you know about speed-length ratios?

Wikipedia: "In the A1W and A2W systems, the pressurized water reactor coolant is kept between 525 and 545 °F (274 and 285 °C). In the steam generators, the water from the feed system is converted to steam at 535 °F (279 °C) and a pressure of about 600 psi (4 MPa)."

A high-pressure D-type boiler operates at 850 Fahrenheit (~450 °C) and 1200 psi. Which is more efficient?

I'm not trying to be condescending, but I'd recommend (for a start) Friedman's Destroyers for someone as interested in ship design as you seem to be. It has a good overview of basic design techniques, as well as a good history of the US nuclear escort program and the difficulties of putting theory into practice.

I'm not well versed in speed-length ratios, but they aren't foreign to me.
I'll straight up admit that hull-design isn't something I'm well versed in. That point goes to you.
On the flip-side, I'll try not to be condescending when it comes to propulsion plants - nuclear especially. I know you in particular don't care for vouches in personal experience, particularly as most can't provide. I can, if you like, but I doubt you'll care for that much. I'll even admit a lot of my engine-efficiency knowledge goes a bit further back towards the beginning of my training that I'd like to admit. I'm more versed in reactor safety, power concerns- and more particularly important to this conversation, speed-to-power ratios.
Naval Reactors are my thing. That's mostly the primary side - that is, the actual reactor itself.
I am more used to carrier ops and carrier reactors, and when it comes to sub-reactors I pretty much dropped a great deal of that knowledge, quite intentionally, to keep it from getting in the way of my carrier-knowledge. I'll front that much admittance.

I can tell you that A1W and A2W reactors are different than A4W. Sure, they're both PWRs. But their operating bands are different, and A4W is still classified and can't be shared over this forum. Assuming you're American (no idea if you are or not), in person we could have a much more in depth discussion about this, but that would still exclude those operating bands. (That's actually one of those few things that is still classified about A4W.)
I can also tell you that the temperature isn't the only thing to be considered in efficiency. There are other ways to coax extra efficiency out of steam, such as using multiple turbines in-line with one another, better condensers, and the like. I will tell you that citing stuff like that isn't helping you when it comes to arguing whether or not a destroyer could be made to beat a Nimitz in particular. If you're less concerned with safety or endurance, sure, new carrier could be made to again beat the destroyer that could beat the Nimitz.

I'm still saying it could be done, or, at the very least, making a destroyer that can at least keep up with a carrier in battle conditions. That being said, if the carrier is still launching aircraft, it's no contest. A nuclear destroyer could keep up with the max-base-load considerations they have to deal with, keeping the carrier down below it's max-speed. Hell, in those conditions even a Burke under ideal conditions can do it's very best and at least provide some good air-defense, but it's not going to be taking any hits that do get through. At that point, all it takes is one good anti-ship missile and you can kiss your carrier good-bye. That's why I'm trying to get destroyer that can match it. 33.5knots is good enough. Considering the listed Ticonderoga speed is 32.5 knots, I doubt it'd be an issue, considering the Tic's were only really called "cruisers" for PR reasons. Hell, they're on Spruance hulls.

That, and a Nimitz' max speed isn't too much higher than a Burke's anyway. Sure, that amounts to a fair amount of power, but I get a feeling you're making a bit much out of it. Both are classified, to my knowledge. So real discussion about those last few knots are a bit difficult. At least on this forum.

[Atlantica]

I was just reading about Chinese and Iranian ASBMS... and how North Korea was going to develop one, with potential help from Iran.

I see that though they are very deadly to the carrier (especially in re-entry and terminal phase), but the fact that it's gonna be high up in the air would mean that they'll be detected easier, by the Aegis Radar or one of the Hawkeyes flying over.

How would you guys evaluate the potential of ASBMs in the 21st century, and to counter such ships as Aegis destroyers and even aircraft carriers?

Well, new information about ASBM countermeasures: America's attempting to work on the Arleigh-Burke Flight III and a Laser CIWS. And it had also just put the USS Zumwalt on water... that sounds pretty nice.

Anyways, hope you guys answer the question...

[Triplebaconation]

The reactor may be classified, but the physics behind it aren't, and we both know the top band isn't anywhere near 850 degrees.

You may even be able to fit a A4W somewhere in hull the exact size and shape of a Burke. It may fit with room to spare. To make it practical you'd still have to make the ship larger in all dimensions, probably by around two or three thousand tons.

[Pharthan]

The reactor may be classified, but the physics behind it aren't, and we both know the top band isn't anywhere near 850 degrees.

You may even be able to fit a A4W somewhere in hull the exact size and shape of a Burke. It may fit with room to spare. To make it practical you'd still have to make the ship larger in all dimensions, probably by around two or three thousand tons.

Much of what is concerned with that can be done in length rather than width, which is pretty much what you've been saying all along.
Current plans for a nuclear cruiser are (well, were until CG(N)X was cancelled) pretty much just that. Fit an A1B into a cruiser/destroyer hull. Keeps costs down from developing the reactor. Utilize things learned from previous models.
The A1B worked out rather nicely, too, from the designs I saw of that.

Granted, with politics these days, they're calling things "Cruisers" because they sound nicer.

[Connori Pilgrims]

I was just reading about Chinese and Iranian ASBMS... and how North Korea was going to develop one, with potential help from Iran.

I see that though they are very deadly to the carrier (especially in re-entry and terminal phase), but the fact that it's gonna be high up in the air would mean that they'll be detected easier, by the Aegis Radar or one of the Hawkeyes flying over.

How would you guys evaluate the potential of ASBMs in the 21st century, and to counter such ships as Aegis destroyers and even aircraft carriers?

Well, new information about ASBM countermeasures: America's attempting to work on the Arleigh-Burke Flight III and a Laser CIWS. And it had also just put the USS Zumwalt on water... that sounds pretty nice.

Anyways, hope you guys answer the question...

While they are not a threat to just brush aside, I think a lot of people overestimate just what is needed to make ASBMs a real weapon and threat. To make a long range ASBM like the DF-21D a useful weapon you need a lot of supporting units and technologies, most importantly a reliable early-warning network to tell you when and where a fleet is incoming and a system to feed real-time midcourse data to make sure the missile is at least brought to the vicinity of the target fleet for its onboard sensors (if it has them, otherwise it is entirely reliant on third-party targeting) to lock-on and do the rest.

Like any weapon, this isnt an invincible insta "carriers away" button. The early-warning network and targeting infrastructure that supports ASBMs can be quite vulnerable to cracking, fooling, jamming or simply just shooting down the platforms feeding the target data be it drones, recon planes, submarines or satellites. And as have been noted the Americans have been stepping up deployment of ABM systems on their fleet, and the Aegis BMD system seems to be one of the more successful ABM/ASAT programs (compared to their other efforts).

Further, this is a weapon only for a great/superpower that can afford to deploy such networks in support of such a weapon and make them at least reliable enough to get a few hits in despite the enemy's counterefforts.This is not a weapon that will enable Mr. tinpot anti-American Dictator of impoverished Banana Republic/Qurac to fend off the ebil USA Super Carriers. Such players will have to settle for cheaper but much shorter range and slower (and thus easier to counter) regular antiship missiles.

[Erics republic]

Would a San Antonio class ship be a good maritime patrol ship?

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Would a San Antonio class ship be a good maritime patrol ship?

To me, nope......just felt like saying that.

[Rich and Corporations]

Typically your higher temperatures are going to give you a higher efficiency, but it's more based on the differential. If your inlet temperature is 599°C and your outlet temperature is 600°C, you're not doing crap. Not that you'd see that.

But that's why a carrier operating in the Persian Gulf might not be able to hit top speed without being at 100% power, but one operating in the Arctic might find they can even squeeze out a few extra knots they didn't know they had.

You now know why a nuclear destroyer will always be larger, slower or most probably both than i's fossil-fuel equivalent, and why any rational purely nuclear destroyer design will be slower than a carrier with far greater volume and the hydrodynamic and seakeeping advantages inherent in its size.

Pretty sure an NS-scale destroyer is a longsword.

[The Corparation]

Would a San Antonio class ship be a good maritime patrol ship?

I don't even......Look at what a MAritime Patrol Ship does, now look at what the San Antonio Class does.

[Atlantica]

Would a San Antonio class ship be a good maritime patrol ship?

I would rather use the LCS instead.

[Istevia]

Flagships of the Istevian Navy:

MT: Nimitz class Carrier (currently six in use, four decommisioned due to new Gerald R. Ford class Carriers.)

Gerald R. Ford class (currently five in use, older Nimitz class carriers still in use, but are being slowly decommissioned.)(will be improved

PMT: Gerald R. Ford Improved (All ten carriers modernized, no plans to construct any more)

FT: Steverik class Battlecruiser (Twenty currently in use, twelve more under construction)

[Pharthan]

Flagships of the Istevian Navy:

MT: Nimitz class Carrier (currently six in use, four under construction)

(Image)

PMT: Gerald R. Ford class (currently five in use, older Nimitz class carriers still in use, but will be decommissioned in a few years.

(Image)

FT: Steverik class Battlecruiser (Twenty currently in use, twelve more under construction)

(Image)

Considering the Ford is actually pretty far along, I think they'd fit rather nicely into MT rather than PMT, unless you really just want to use older-tech.

You're still building Nimitz' when the baseline tech is 20-30 years old when you could easily just do Fords.

[Istevia]

Flagships of the Istevian Navy:

MT: Nimitz class Carrier (currently six in use, four under construction)

(Image)

PMT: Gerald R. Ford class (currently five in use, older Nimitz class carriers still in use, but will be decommissioned in a few years.

(Image)

FT: Steverik class Battlecruiser (Twenty currently in use, twelve more under construction)

(Image)

Considering the Ford is actually pretty far along, I think they'd fit rather nicely into MT rather than PMT, unless you really just want to use older-tech.

You're still building Nimitz' when the baseline tech is 20-30 years old when you could easily just do Fords.

Edited, are there any good PMT Carrier ideas out there?

[Pharthan]

Edited, are there any good PMT Carrier ideas out there?

Personally, I'd stick with the Ford. They'd be brand-new for any MT nation, and they'd be a solid choice for the next 30 years, and quite sufficient for another 20 years after that - though they'd start breaking down and you'd be decommissioning them as major issues plagued them, little by little.
Just up your numbers of Fords from your MT, I'd say. You could even call them Gerald R. Ford, Improved and say you'd refitted them a bit, given them all EMALs, upgraded Point Defense, Missile Defenses, and the like, but the entire point of the Ford was to be a long-lasting carrier. The reactors are overpowered as is - quite intentionally, to ensure that whenever some big refit comes along you don't need to mess with the reactors, unless you need to refuel. Being where they are located - just forward and aft of the center of the ship when looking at her side, it's not exactly an easy place to mess with.

The optimum refueling point (~15-25 years) would also be about as they'd start to be getting old, so it wouldn't get in the way too much to do a bigger refit when you did your refuel anyway.

Also, little fun thing to keep in mind with carriers when picking numbers - except for extreme cases, like very heavy wartime, you'll never deploy more than half of your carriers. If you have a chance, you'll be deploying less than half. If you have six, you're probably only deploying two at a time.
Asking for any more than a year out of any ship is crazy before you put it back in for a maintenance period. Things break, and carriers can take a while to fix unless you're essentially turning your maintenance crew - the majority of which is your actual ships' crew - into near-slaves, which will not bode well for being an effective fighting force later on down the road if all of your sailors are severely stressed.

Sure, you can completely theoretically get a Nimitz underway in 8 days from nearly any state so long as you're starting from a position of it being in the water rather than drydock, but that doesn't mean your crew is going to be happy by an means.

[New Tyran]

I'm planning on building a new class of Destroyer primary for anti-submarine warfare, but I have no damn idea what it should have. So I'm asking anyone if you were designing a new ship for anti-submarine warfare what would you include? Or what should I include?

[Istevia]

Edited, are there any good PMT Carrier ideas out there?

Personally, I'd stick with the Ford. They'd be brand-new for any MT nation, and they'd be a solid choice for the next 30 years, and quite sufficient for another 20 years after that - though they'd start breaking down and you'd be decommissioning them as major issues plagued them, little by little.
Just up your numbers of Fords from your MT, I'd say. You could even call them Gerald R. Ford, Improved and say you'd refitted them a bit, given them all EMALs, upgraded Point Defense, Missile Defenses, and the like, but the entire point of the Ford was to be a long-lasting carrier. The reactors are overpowered as is - quite intentionally, to ensure that whenever some big refit comes along you don't need to mess with the reactors, unless you need to refuel. Being where they are located - just forward and aft of the center of the ship when looking at her side, it's not exactly an easy place to mess with.

The optimum refueling point (~15-25 years) would also be about as they'd start to be getting old, so it wouldn't get in the way too much to do a bigger refit when you did your refuel anyway.

Also, little fun thing to keep in mind with carriers when picking numbers - except for extreme cases, like very heavy wartime, you'll never deploy more than half of your carriers. If you have a chance, you'll be deploying less than half. If you have six, you're probably only deploying two at a time.
Asking for any more than a year out of any ship is crazy before you put it back in for a maintenance period. Things break, and carriers can take a while to fix unless you're essentially turning your maintenance crew - the majority of which is your actual ships' crew - into near-slaves, which will not bode well for being an effective fighting force later on down the road if all of your sailors are severely stressed.

Sure, you can completely theoretically get a Nimitz underway in 8 days from nearly any state so long as you're starting from a position of it being in the water rather than drydock, but that doesn't mean your crew is going to be happy by an means.

... And done. Any suggestions for a Destroyer? I'm thinking of Going with the Arleigh Burke class for my MT destroyer, and an upgraded Zumwalt class as my PMT destroyer, would that work?

[Connori Pilgrims]

I'm planning on building a new class of Destroyer primary for anti-submarine warfare, but I have no damn idea what it should have. So I'm asking anyone if you were designing a new ship for anti-submarine warfare what would you include? Or what should I include?

For a primarily ASW warship, you'd definitely need the following:

ASW-capable Helicopters, ASW torpedoes, ASW stand-off guided weapons (ala VL-ASROC or Sea Lance, updated of course to the latest tech), top-of-the-line passive and active hull and towed sonar arrays and other sensors as needed (such as magnetic anomaly detectors) + the necessary fire-control and battle-management electronics.

Other weapons and systems (such as guns, CIWS, air-defence, Air Search & surface search radar) are up to you.

[Lubyak]

I'm planning on building a new class of Destroyer primary for anti-submarine warfare, but I have no damn idea what it should have. So I'm asking anyone if you were designing a new ship for anti-submarine warfare what would you include? Or what should I include?

Is this vessel meant for coastal and defensive patrol, or is it meant to go out there and escort a fleet group? THat'll influence a lot of the internal design and size of the ship. The first two specialised RL ships for ASW that spring to mind are the British Type 23 and the Soviet Udaloy class destroyers and the more modern [i]Neustrashimyy class frigates. These RL ships will probably give you a good idea of what's important for ASW.

[Istevia]

So, will an upgraded Zumwalt class be good as a PMT destroyer?

[The Akasha Colony]

So, will an upgraded Zumwalt class be good as a PMT destroyer?

What are you upgrading it with? And PMT is a very broad category. Ships, and indeed weapon systems in general, are not evaluated based on 'is this a good design for the era,' but on 'does this fit the role we need it to fill?' and 'can it be expected to engage the threats we expect to encounter?'