NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[The Soodean Imperium]

Alternatively:
If you really want to RP as '60s USN, why not just RP as the USN in the '60s? I'm sure you could interest any region-mates in doing a past-tech RP for teh canonz, or go on P2TM and drum up interest for a '50s-'60s cold-war-gone-hot scenario. Then it would be at least somewhat more reasonable to still have WWII stuff drifting around (huehuehue) and those A-1s would be decently capable without any massive upgrades.

I think Ardoki will only have around 4 or 5 aircraft carriers. I'm not planning on any major wars, and if I'm involved in one I'll be primarily defensive (and use land-based aircraft).

I currently have five aircraft carriers (four nuclear, one '70s conventional) for a largely counter-offensive scenario. Though I think I will also (retroactively) add some kind of small ASW helicarrier/helicopter destroyer, maybe have it double as an LHD.

[Ardoki]

I think Ardoki will only have around 4 or 5 aircraft carriers. I'm not planning on any major wars, and if I'm involved in one I'll be primarily defensive (and use land-based aircraft).

I currently have five aircraft carriers (four nuclear, one '70s conventional) for a largely counter-offensive scenario. Though I think I will also (retroactively) add some kind of small ASW helicarrier/helicopter destroyer, maybe have it double as an LHD.

I have a few colonies/protectorates, so I need a decent force to protect them. However I'm not really interested in attacking other countries.

[Atomic Utopia]

Would it be reasonable to make a specialized UAV carrying nuclear submarine about the size of the typhoon class subs. The front part would contain four tubes for launch, each one 4m in diameter and capable of launching a single drone. Behind those would be a set of two tubes, containing UUVs for retrieving the drones after they splash down in the water. These tubes would lead directly to a small area where the drones would be repaired and refurbished. The drones would be stored on racks inside a large hanger carrying up to 40 drones. When being launched they would move to another open area where they would be armed and fueled six at a time (they could also be "armed" with supplies to be delivered to special forces in waterproof containers.

Upon launching they would be attached to a disposable device with several bags that can expand and contract to maintain buoyancy. When it exits the tube at 100 meters below the surface it would float up to 50 meters. There it would stay for as long as is needed for the sub to exit the area. This would be determined by a timer on the drone. After the timer has ended CO2 canisters would release the gas into the bags to cause it to rise to the surface. The drone would then unfold it's wings and orient itself upright. After this is finished a pair of SRBs would fire to put it into the air. Once in the air it would uncover it's turbojet and begin flying in the air to it's destination and being controlled by radio signals transmitted to and from a Yagi-Uda antenna. Once it reaches it's destination it would drop it's bombs on the desired targets and then another radio signal would be sent to it specifying the location of where it is supposed to land at. Alternatively the drone could be used as a kamikaze weapon against enemy targets. Once it lands it would then wait for retrival once enemy forces have cleared the area.

Due to this idea not being entirely original I must say thank you to Pharthan for some of the idea (mainly the recovery system).

So before actually designing a sub for this, I would like to inquire about the practicality of such a thing as a special forces resupply vessel / stealth aircraft carrier, and secondly, how much would it cost?

[Mitheldalond]

I care if the ships/planes/tanks/etc are realistic, not if their existence makes sense.

I basically want to know whether these missile launchers would actually fit on this ship, or if that aircraft can be fitted with this radar. I don't particularly care whether doing so makes sense from any economic or political standpoint.

There's nothing we can say in that instance, then. If your approach is "damn the costs and practicality, full speed ahead," then yes, you can put nearly any missile on a warship, or any radar on an aircraft. It might require something silly like a giant nose bulge on the aircraft to make it fit, and an extra engine crammed into the wing to generate additional power, but it is within the realm of physical possibility. This would of course be an extreme waste of resources and be very ineffective against current aircraft.

But that aside, there's nothing we can say since the constraints of "realism" are gone. Cost, practicality, and other such concerns are of much greater importance to modern militaries than physical possibility. Once these are gone, there is nothing we can tell you, or indeed, nothing that really needs to be said since whatever physical impossibilities you might encounter seem small in comparison to the absurdity of the very concept.

Hmm, let's see if I can do a better job of explaining this then.

I know and accept that the scenario that this exists in could not and should not realistically have come about. It makes no sense, and there is no rational series of events tha could possibly lead to its existence.

It would be much cheaper to buy/build modern ships/tanks/planes/etc than it would to keep WWII and Cold War relics in service and upgrade them with modern systems. Modern equipment would also be more effective, reliable, and efficient. If I can afford to go the more expensive route, I can easily afford modern equipment, so there is no economic reason to use the older equipment.

A political situation in which I can acquire modern missiles, radar, electronics, and even the Aegis combat system, but can't simply buy a Ticonderoga or Arleigh Burke is utterly absurd. Politics and legal documents can be convoluted, but not nearly that ludicrous. So there is no political reason I can't buy modern equipment.

There is no way whatsoever to justify a military like this. It simply should not exist. Yet exist it does. For some inexplicable reason, I can upgrade old ships/planes/vehicles with modern electronics and weapons systems, but I can't simply replace them with modern platforms. And for some inexplicable reason, I've decided to devote exorbitant amounts of time, money, and manpower to do so instead of devoting them to any of the innumerable more worthwhile and sensible areas that could benefit from them.

That is the reality of the situation. That's how it is, and it isn't going to change. So what I'm looking for is advice within that context about will and won't work, how best to utilize the resources I have, and how to most effectively use various different equipment, etc.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

There's nothing we can say in that instance, then. If your approach is "damn the costs and practicality, full speed ahead," then yes, you can put nearly any missile on a warship, or any radar on an aircraft. It might require something silly like a giant nose bulge on the aircraft to make it fit, and an extra engine crammed into the wing to generate additional power, but it is within the realm of physical possibility. This would of course be an extreme waste of resources and be very ineffective against current aircraft.

But that aside, there's nothing we can say since the constraints of "realism" are gone. Cost, practicality, and other such concerns are of much greater importance to modern militaries than physical possibility. Once these are gone, there is nothing we can tell you, or indeed, nothing that really needs to be said since whatever physical impossibilities you might encounter seem small in comparison to the absurdity of the very concept.

Hmm, let's see if I can do a better job of explaining this then.

I know and accept that the scenario that this exists in could not and should not realistically have come about. It makes no sense, and there is no rational series of events tha could possibly lead to its existence.

It would be much cheaper to buy/build modern ships/tanks/planes/etc than it would to keep WWII and Cold War relics in service and upgrade them with modern systems. Modern equipment would also be more effective, reliable, and efficient. If I can afford to go the more expensive route, I can easily afford modern equipment, so there is no economic reason to use the older equipment.

A political situation in which I can acquire modern missiles, radar, electronics, and even the Aegis combat system, but can't simply buy a Ticonderoga or Arleigh Burke is utterly absurd. Politics and legal documents can be convoluted, but not nearly that ludicrous. So there is no political reason I can't buy modern equipment.

There is no way whatsoever to justify a military like this. It simply should not exist. Yet exist it does. For some inexplicable reason, I can upgrade old ships/planes/vehicles with modern electronics and weapons systems, but I can't simply replace them with modern platforms. And for some inexplicable reason, I've decided to devote exorbitant amounts of time, money, and manpower to do so instead of devoting them to any of the innumerable more worthwhile and sensible areas that could benefit from them.

That is the reality of the situation. That's how it is, and it isn't going to change. So what I'm looking for is advice within that context about will and won't work, how best to utilize the resources I have, and how to most effectively use various different equipment, etc.

I think a navy consisting of not much more than Visby's and AIP subs (aka the current Swedish one) would do yours in, that barring the number of RBS-15's and torpedoes they have. Which is to say your current setup would fall apart like a cardhouse on the first contact.
So you got the gold to cough up yet has no desire to actually go beyond your current South American state of affairs? Stupidity doesn't even come close. If you actually wanna make this realistic start dumping your economy overboard until it reaches a satisfactorily Argentine level.
I'd advise you to look at some comparable navies that operated WWII carriers and their results, one excellent example would be ARA Veinticinco de Mayo.

[The Soodean Imperium]

There's nothing we can say in that instance, then. If your approach is "damn the costs and practicality, full speed ahead," then yes, you can put nearly any missile on a warship, or any radar on an aircraft. It might require something silly like a giant nose bulge on the aircraft to make it fit, and an extra engine crammed into the wing to generate additional power, but it is within the realm of physical possibility. This would of course be an extreme waste of resources and be very ineffective against current aircraft.

But that aside, there's nothing we can say since the constraints of "realism" are gone. Cost, practicality, and other such concerns are of much greater importance to modern militaries than physical possibility. Once these are gone, there is nothing we can tell you, or indeed, nothing that really needs to be said since whatever physical impossibilities you might encounter seem small in comparison to the absurdity of the very concept.

Hmm, let's see if I can do a better job of explaining this then.

I know and accept that the scenario that this exists in could not and should not realistically have come about. It makes no sense, and there is no rational series of events tha could possibly lead to its existence.

It would be much cheaper to buy/build modern ships/tanks/planes/etc than it would to keep WWII and Cold War relics in service and upgrade them with modern systems. Modern equipment would also be more effective, reliable, and efficient. If I can afford to go the more expensive route, I can easily afford modern equipment, so there is no economic reason to use the older equipment.

A political situation in which I can acquire modern missiles, radar, electronics, and even the Aegis combat system, but can't simply buy a Ticonderoga or Arleigh Burke is utterly absurd. Politics and legal documents can be convoluted, but not nearly that ludicrous. So there is no political reason I can't buy modern equipment.

There is no way whatsoever to justify a military like this. It simply should not exist. Yet exist it does. For some inexplicable reason, I can upgrade old ships/planes/vehicles with modern electronics and weapons systems, but I can't simply replace them with modern platforms. And for some inexplicable reason, I've decided to devote exorbitant amounts of time, money, and manpower to do so instead of devoting them to any of the innumerable more worthwhile and sensible areas that could benefit from them.

That is the reality of the situation. That's how it is, and it isn't going to change. So what I'm looking for is advice within that context about will and won't work, how best to utilize the resources I have, and how to most effectively use various different equipment, etc.

Advice in this context is meaningless because the entire premise on which it's built on is unrealistic. It's like asking "In my universe mecha are realistic, what is the best armor configuration I can give them?" at which point the response is "the best armor configuration is a box with thicker armor on the front, i.e., not mecha."

Again, I strongly recommend that if you like '50s-'60s USN you should find a Past Tech RPing group and RP as the USN in the '50s and '60s.

[New Oyashima]

>I'm trying to challenge myself
>81 aircraft carriers

Stay gold, NS

Well 30 aircraft carriers and 50 semi mobile targets.

Hey! Casablanca-chan really tries her hardest.

[The Akasha Colony]

Would it be reasonable to make a specialized UAV carrying nuclear submarine about the size of the typhoon class subs. The front part would contain four tubes for launch, each one 4m in diameter and capable of launching a single drone. Behind those would be a set of two tubes, containing UUVs for retrieving the drones after they splash down in the water. These tubes would lead directly to a small area where the drones would be repaired and refurbished. The drones would be stored on racks inside a large hanger carrying up to 40 drones. When being launched they would move to another open area where they would be armed and fueled six at a time (they could also be "armed" with supplies to be delivered to special forces in waterproof containers.

Upon launching they would be attached to a disposable device with several bags that can expand and contract to maintain buoyancy. When it exits the tube at 100 meters below the surface it would float up to 50 meters. There it would stay for as long as is needed for the sub to exit the area. This would be determined by a timer on the drone. After the timer has ended CO2 canisters would release the gas into the bags to cause it to rise to the surface. The drone would then unfold it's wings and orient itself upright. After this is finished a pair of SRBs would fire to put it into the air. Once in the air it would uncover it's turbojet and begin flying in the air to it's destination and being controlled by radio signals transmitted to and from a Yagi-Uda antenna. Once it reaches it's destination it would drop it's bombs on the desired targets and then another radio signal would be sent to it specifying the location of where it is supposed to land at. Alternatively the drone could be used as a kamikaze weapon against enemy targets. Once it lands it would then wait for retrival once enemy forces have cleared the area.

Due to this idea not being entirely original I must say thank you to Pharthan for some of the idea (mainly the recovery system).

So before actually designing a sub for this, I would like to inquire about the practicality of such a thing as a special forces resupply vessel / stealth aircraft carrier, and secondly, how much would it cost?

IMO, a cheap disposable system would be better. Your ability to reuse the drones is going to be limited by onboard consumables anyway (fuel, ammunition, those CO2 canisters, etc.), so you'd have about the same combat endurance before pulling into port to replenish supplies. And given the range that modern cruise missiles can already reach, there isn't really a range advantage either. So between cheap disposable UAVs for observation and cruise missiles for strike, you'd create a much simpler, smaller, and cheaper submarine, as well as much cheaper vehicles. Supplying special forces by air would be a rather difficult concept given that it would give away their position from the supply drop and a practicable UAV would have very strict weight and volume limits for payload.

The launch tubes, if they are to be connected to an internal hangar, would make diving to a great depth rather difficult since they would affect pressure hull integrity, as would the sheer size of the submarine. You'd also have to add a full air crew to maintain the drones, compared to disposable sealed missiles that require no maintenance and support while underway. These eat into your long term sustainment costs, which I expect were one place where cost savings were expected versus expendable drones. Personnel costs are enormous for a well-trained military in the long run, which is why nowadays militaries try rather hard to squeeze as much effectiveness out of each man as they can, even if it means higher upfront material costs.

Cost for military hardware is generally more motivated by political issues than anything else, but given that the much less complex Ohio replacement submarine will cost in the range of $5 billion, I would say not less than this and very likely more. US submarine costs are relatively high due to the monopoly GDEB and HII have on nuclear shipbuilding as well as the political nature of contracting and subcontracting, but the additional size and complexity would be enough to at least offset any gains that could be had from being more efficient from a competition standpoint. Operational costs over the lifetime of the vessel would also be quite high, due to the larger crew needed and greater system complexity.

There is no way whatsoever to justify a military like this. It simply should not exist. Yet exist it does. For some inexplicable reason, I can upgrade old ships/planes/vehicles with modern electronics and weapons systems, but I can't simply replace them with modern platforms. And for some inexplicable reason, I've decided to devote exorbitant amounts of time, money, and manpower to do so instead of devoting them to any of the innumerable more worthwhile and sensible areas that could benefit from them.

That is the reality of the situation. That's how it is, and it isn't going to change. So what I'm looking for is advice within that context about will and won't work, how best to utilize the resources I have, and how to most effectively use various different equipment, etc.

It exists purely because you want it to. We've given you our advice, and we can't really give anything else. The fundamental premise is unrealistic, so there isn't anything more we can say. Especially since every time we do tell you to do something like get rid of the worse-than-useless escort carriers and Corsairs, you invent a reason as to why you can't do that, or have decided to just keep them around anyway despite them being functionally the same as throwing money into a furnace. This is the same reason why it's tedious to discuss FanT or FT in a similar manner; the goalposts and parameters just get moved too freely.

[Atomic Utopia]

So would a nuclear cruise missile sub with a series of reload-able launch tubes that could launch either drones or missiles be reasonable? The reason I want reload-able launch tubes is because I believe that packing the missiles like torpedoes would be more efficient.

So only 5 billion for a Ohio replacement. Wow, that is cheap! Would it be practical to replace stealth destroyers like the DDG-1000 with nuclear powered attack subs to lower costs. (and possibly increase effectiveness)

[Gallia-]

$5bn only means it's the most expensive submarine ever built!

[The Akasha Colony]

So would a nuclear cruise missile sub with a series of reload-able launch tubes that could launch either drones or missiles be reasonable? The reason I want reload-able launch tubes is because I believe that packing the missiles like torpedoes would be more efficient.

The reloading system takes up space that could just be used to store more missiles in a simple, fixed VLS canister as in modern attack and guided missile submarines.

So only 5 billion for a Ohio replacement. Wow, that is cheap! Would it be practical to replace stealth destroyers like the DDG-1000 with nuclear powered attack subs to lower costs. (and possibly increase effectiveness)

$5 billion is the current lower end estimate. Given the history of cost increases in major US acquisition programs, that will almost certainly significantly increase by the time the first unit is laid down, and then increase over the lifetime of the program.

And given that modern US destroyers are focused fairly heavily on the anti-aircraft role, a submarine would not be a substitute for this mission. Submarines are extremely useful, but they aren't a replacement for surface ships in many roles. Air defense being perhaps the most glaring weakness.

[Mitheldalond]

Well 30 aircraft carriers and 50 semi mobile targets.

Hey! Casablanca-chan really tries her hardest.

Casablanca-chan and her five friends take on the entire Japanese Center Force within gunnery range and win. USS White Castle even cripples cruisers, with her gun.

The Casablancas and some tank landing ships are all I have for amphibious assaults. There is a valid reason for their existence. The Corsairs, not so much.

[The Akasha Colony]

The Casablancas and some tank landing ships are all I have for amphibious assaults. There is a valid reason for their existence. The Corsairs, not so much.

What is the valid reason for having fifty of them?

[Atomic Utopia]

So would it be reasonable to apply wolfpack style tactics to modern submarine warfare. Basically my idea is that during a blockade my subs would attempt to form up around in enemy convoys so that they can be almost certain to sink every ship in the enemy convoy in one shot. Basically each one fires all of it's loaded torpedoes at their assigned targets and then (hopefully) sinks/severely damages each ship in the convoy before the convoy could respond and fire back.

The disadvantage I see to this would be the nearly 1:1 ratio of subs to targets in the enemy convoy needed, and how that would drive up costs as you would need more subs to damage enemy forces.

Also, what would be the best way to find a rouge nuclear powered submarine if you do not know it's destination or goals? The reason I ask is because I have an RP idea and would like to know before hand what would be realistic.

EDIT: also, are the listed values for active and reserve personnel in my sig reasonable for a peacetime defense force in a small nation that focuses on nuclear weapons as a deterrent?

[Purpelia]

Modern convoy escorts would be much more likely to detect and sink your subs relatively easily.

[Gallan Systems]

Submarines do not operate in packs because they'll probably kill each other, for the same reason you don't operate destroyers or frigates and submarines in the same patrol areas.

[The Akasha Colony]

So would it be reasonable to apply wolfpack style tactics to modern submarine warfare. Basically my idea is that during a blockade my subs would attempt to form up around in enemy convoys so that they can be almost certain to sink every ship in the enemy convoy in one shot. Basically each one fires all of it's loaded torpedoes at their assigned targets and then (hopefully) sinks/severely damages each ship in the convoy before the convoy could respond and fire back.

The disadvantage I see to this would be the nearly 1:1 ratio of subs to targets in the enemy convoy needed, and how that would drive up costs as you would need more subs to attack an enemy force.

The communications necessary to arrange such attacks would get the submarines spotted very quickly, just as they did in WWII once the Allies started developing better radar and HFDF. They also have limited means to distinguish each other from potential enemy submarines.

A modern submarine can launch up to eight torpedoes in a single salvo. That's up to eight targets sunk at once, and possibly more if you decide to launch a second salvo. You don't need to sink every ship in the convoy, just enough to disrupt the enemy's operations and create supply shortfalls.

Additionally, submarines have become much more viable weapons against enemy warships than they were in WWII, and these are much more valuable targets as they are harder to replace than merchantmen.

[Atomic Utopia]

A modern submarine can launch up to eight torpedoes in a single salvo. That's up to eight targets sunk at once, and possibly more if you decide to launch a second salvo. You don't need to sink every ship in the convoy, just enough to disrupt the enemy's operations and create supply shortfalls.

Would it be practical to increase the number of torpedo tubes on a submarine so that one sub could sink more enemy ships/be more assured that the ships that are targeted are sunk.

Also, how practical are supercavating torpedoes in an anti-ship role?

[The Akasha Colony]

Would it be practical to increase the number of torpedo tubes on a submarine so that one sub could sink more enemy ships/be more assured that the ships that are targeted are sunk.

It can be done, but going beyond eight has decreasing benefits since this means you need a taller torpedo room to service them, taking up more space in the hull and adding additional flow noise from the additional hatches. You will rarely need more than eight torpedoes at once, and in fact rarely need that many in the first place. For instance, the USN has usually preferred four tubes and briefly flirted with eight aboard the Seawolfs (which could afford a two-deck torpedo room due to their sheer size) before returning to four with the Virginias.

Also, how practical are supercavating torpedoes?

From a technical standpoint they work fine. Guidance can become problematic though, as it's rather difficult to hear anything when surrounded by a bubble of gas and moving at 200+ knots. The planned nuclear payload though made it moot, and one goal was to force the target submarine to sever its own torpedo guidance wires to evade the attack, thus serving as a sort of spoiling strike.

[Atomic Utopia]

Would it be practical to increase the number of torpedo tubes on a submarine so that one sub could sink more enemy ships/be more assured that the ships that are targeted are sunk.

It can be done, but going beyond eight has decreasing benefits since this means you need a taller torpedo room to service them, taking up more space in the hull and adding additional flow noise from the additional hatches. You will rarely need more than eight torpedoes at once, and in fact rarely need that many in the first place. For instance, the USN has usually preferred four tubes and briefly flirted with eight aboard the Seawolfs (which could afford a two-deck torpedo room due to their sheer size) before returning to four with the Virginias.

Also, how practical are supercavating torpedoes?

From a technical standpoint they work fine. Guidance can become problematic though, as it's rather difficult to hear anything when surrounded by a bubble of gas and moving at 200+ knots. The planned nuclear payload though made it moot, and one goal was to force the target submarine to sever its own torpedo guidance wires to evade the attack, thus serving as a sort of spoiling strike.

How about supercacating torpedoes with a conventional payload?

So when attacking surface ships which would be better, torpedoes or cruise missiles?

[The Akasha Colony]

How about supercacating torpedoes with a conventional payload?

The difficulty lies in making them sufficiently accurate to account for the smaller kill radius.

So when attacking surface ships which would be better, torpedoes or cruise missiles?

Depends on the target. IRL ships are generally much better protected against missile attack than torpedo attack, especially if that torpedo is wake homing and can't be seduced by acoustic decoys. Of course, torpedoes require the submarine to get much closer to the target than missiles, which increases the chance of detection.

[Atomic Utopia]

How about supercacating torpedoes with a conventional payload?

The difficulty lies in making them sufficiently accurate to account for the smaller kill radius.

So when attacking surface ships which would be better, torpedoes or cruise missiles?

Depends on the target. IRL ships are generally much better protected against missile attack than torpedo attack, especially if that torpedo is wake homing and can't be seduced by acoustic decoys. Of course, torpedoes require the submarine to get much closer to the target than missiles, which increases the chance of detection.

Would it be practical to bring torpedoes to their target by cruise missile?

The torpedo would travel near the target on a cruise missile and then it would enter the water out of the range of CIWS and travel the rest of the way to the target in the water.

[The Akasha Colony]

Would it be practical to bring torpedoes to their target by cruise missile?

The torpedo would travel near the target on a cruise missile and then it would enter the water out of the range of CIWS and travel the rest of the way to the target in the water.

CIWS is something of a secondary concern since it's the very last line of defense, after longer-ranged interceptor missiles and especially electronic warfare and decoys designed to seduce the missile away entirely.

The other problem though is that the full-size heavyweight torpedoes that submarines use are the weight of a full anti-ship missile themselves, and light torpedoes have much smaller warheads.

[Shuggy555]

Would it be practical to bring torpedoes to their target by cruise missile?

The torpedo would travel near the target on a cruise missile and then it would enter the water out of the range of CIWS and travel the rest of the way to the target in the water.

CIWS is something of a secondary concern since it's the very last line of defense, after longer-ranged interceptor missiles and especially electronic warfare and decoys designed to seduce the missile away entirely.

The other problem though is that the full-size heavyweight torpedoes that submarines use are the weight of a full anti-ship missile themselves, and light torpedoes have much smaller warheads.

Full weight relative to Western AShM such as the harpoon or to the russian AShM. as the supersonic russian missiles tend to be massive.

Edit: also, if you are designing a torpedo to be launched from a missile, then the torpedo itself doesn't need to have the range of a regular torpedo allowing for a smaller design. plus an intermediate warhead could be designed such that its large enough to still have a significant effect on a warship but light enough to still be launched from a missile.

[Immoren]

I can't believe kiyv added that product of my drunken stupor to the op.