NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[New Vihenia]

Why/how?

Long steam line perhaps it will be very hot along the path of the steam. Your crew might got heatstroke.

Ofcourse you can also move the turbine and condenser near the reactor But it will still fill the entire compartment, it won't save you any space at all.

[Imperializt Russia]

Why would you want it not near the engine room?
Not putting it there only complicates the ship design and possibly introduces fatal failure risks.

Why/how?

If you have something catastrophic, like a reactor disaster and there is a leak - it's harder to get away from. Areas of the ship will be bisected by the stricken reactor.

[Vancon]

Where's the poll?

[Imperializt Russia]

Isn't poll usually between 475-490 or something?
I guess I should try writing an OP...

[The Akasha Colony]

Where else would you put it? The engineering plant is like half the submarine.

How about "does the reactor need to be next to the engine room?"

There isn't an "engine room." There's an "engineering section," of which the reactor compartment is a part. This section includes the reactor compartment, turbine, condenser (if the reactor is a PWR), backup diesel generator, control room, motors, battery banks, feed pumps, and all of the other propulsion and power-related equipment aboard the submarine. In a nuclear attack submarine, this takes up roughly half the boat on average.

This equipment should generally be kept together because this equipment will be maintained and operated by the same crew and most of this equipment is designed to operate in conjunction with other equipment in the engineering section, such that separating makes it harder for the crew to access and requires long steam lines or extra electrical cabling as New Vihenia mentioned. Longer steam lines are bad because they result in greater waste heat and require more air conditioning to make the crew compartment habitable. Additional cabling makes the boat heavier for no benefit.

There are also other reasons why even in an electric submarine the machinery should be located as far aft as possible. It maximizes the distance between the noise-generating machinery and the bow sonar, which reduces interference. It allows equipment, berthing areas, and the forward weapons area to be segregated and separated by role into different compartments, and allows for more efficient space distribution.

Where's the poll?

I was waiting for Soode to send me the list of nominees.

[Altaiire]

How about "does the reactor need to be next to the engine room?"

There isn't an "engine room." There's an "engineering section," of which the reactor compartment is a part. This section includes the reactor compartment, turbine, condenser (if the reactor is a PWR), backup diesel generator, control room, motors, battery banks, feed pumps, and all of the other propulsion and power-related equipment aboard the submarine. In a nuclear attack submarine, this takes up roughly half the boat on average.

Hmm... I've never seen a reference to "engineering section," but it makes sense obviously... I typically see things broken down into reactor/maneuvering room/engine room(or compartment). As for how much it takes up, well... it does seem to be about half on say, an Astute-class, but I'm working on a 200 m SSGN. Most of my compartment dimensioning is being based off the Ohio-class, and its engineering section seems to be about the same size as the others. It doesn't take up half the boat there, as far as I can tell.

This equipment should generally be kept together because this equipment will be maintained and operated by the same crew and most of this equipment is designed to operate in conjunction with other equipment in the engineering section, such that separating makes it harder for the crew to access and requires long steam lines or extra electrical cabling as New Vihenia mentioned. Longer steam lines are bad because they result in greater waste heat and require more air conditioning to make the crew compartment habitable. Additional cabling makes the boat heavier for no benefit.

So the people working on the reactor overlap with the people who would be working on the motors? Don't think I will need steam lines because I'm using electric propulsion. Is the cabling really going to be significantly heavier? I mean, wouldn't you already need long cabling to bring power from the reactors fore?

There are also other reasons why even in an electric submarine the machinery should be located as far aft as possible. It maximizes the distance between the noise-generating machinery and the bow sonar, which reduces interference.

fair enough.

[The Kievan People]

It does take up about half the Astute class.

#33 is the reactor section, and it is just aft of the sail. Everything aft of that is part of the power plant, though the auxiliary generator and electrical machinery are in the compartment between the reactor and engine.

[Palakistan]

Are flamethrowers a redundant weapon in modern combat?

[North Arkana]

Are flamethrowers a redundant weapon in modern combat?

Most militaries use flame launchers now.

[The Kievan People]

Are flamethrowers a redundant weapon in modern combat?

Kind of.

It's usually easier to put the flame stuff in a rocket.

[The Akasha Colony]

Hmm... I've never seen a reference to "engineering section," but it makes sense obviously... I typically see things broken down into reactor/maneuvering room/engine room(or compartment). As for how much it takes up, well... it does seem to be about half on say, an Astute-class, but I'm working on a 200 m SSGN. Most of my compartment dimensioning is being based off the Ohio-class, and its engineering section seems to be about the same size as the others. It doesn't take up half the boat there, as far as I can tell.

That's why I said "attack submarine." Ohio's plant is larger than Los Angeles' plant (not surprisingly, given that it's more powerful) but Ohio is a much larger boat in general so it takes up a smaller proportion of the volume. A plant capable of taking Ohio up to the ~33 knot speeds Los Angeles is capable of would likely end up taking half the volume again and result in a truly enormous submarine.

The term "engineering section" wasn't meant to be verbatim, simply to note that it isn't a single room. It's usually an entire compartment of the boat. In American service, those working within the engine compartment tend to get fairly territorial against those who work elsewhere.

There really just isn't anywhere else to put the engineering section, and no reason to break it up. Keeping the noisy equipment away from the bow sonar and living quarters is useful, and the missile compartment can't take its place at the stern either because missiles usually require the maximum height in the boat to be properly accommodated, which is why they're usually amidships. Breaking up the engineering components makes it harder to raft the pieces as well.

So the people working on the reactor overlap with the people who would be working on the motors? Don't think I will need steam lines because I'm using electric propulsion. Is the cabling really going to be significantly heavier? I mean, wouldn't you already need long cabling to bring power from the reactors fore?

You still need steam lines to connect the reactor to the turbogenerator, via the steam generator if a PWR or L(B)CFR. The only difference is that rather than a shaft connecting the turbine to the propeller, you have wires connecting the turbogenerator to the electric motor and the batteries. With electric propulsion you could move the turbine with the reactor but there is no more reason to do this than if it were just the reactor.

And the size and weight of the cabling is dependent on the amount of power transferred. Because propulsion accounts for by far the majority of the power consumed, the cabling to the motor will be far larger than that running to the forward compartments, where the only things needing power are small loads like lights, computers, cooking, etc. The cabling for an Ohio-class S8G reactor would need to be able to move 45 MW from the turbogenerator to the electric motor, but only a few hundred KW or so to the forward compartment. Efficiently moving and converting this electrical power has historically been rather difficult, which is why nuclear-electric submarines have never progressed beyond one-offs like Glenard P. Lipscomb although the hope is modern PMMs or superconducting motors might be able to overcome these problems. The major sources of power consumption tend to be located at the rear near the reactor since they also often tend to generate the most noise.

[Immoren]

Not going to translate it in image, and I guess measurements on it are in lingua franca, but basically smaller box is what the are of responsibility for infantry battalion used to be, while bigger green box is what brigade's area of responsibility used to be and what now it battlegroup's (reinforced infantry battalion) area of responsibility.
So much space, so few men.

[Palakistan]

Are flamethrowers a redundant weapon in modern combat?

Most militaries use flame launchers now.

Hmm, would that be attached to a ship?

[Auroya]

Most militaries use flame launchers now.

Hmm, would that be attached to a ship?

It's a really ineffective weapon.

[Palakistan]

Hmm, would that be attached to a ship?

It's a really ineffective weapon.

Roger that. On another note, how about a napalm style Anti Ship Missile? Would that cause havoc on a ship if it was hit by napalm?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

It's a really ineffective weapon.

Roger that. On another note, how about a napalm style Anti Ship Missile? Would that cause havoc on a ship if it was hit by napalm?

It would make no difference since rocket fuel is already all over the ship with a hit.

[The Akasha Colony]

It's a really ineffective weapon.

Roger that. On another note, how about a napalm style Anti Ship Missile? Would that cause havoc on a ship if it was hit by napalm?

Not really. The fire would be limited to the exterior and not a serious threat to the ship's vital components. Obviously not being on fire would be preferable to the ship, but it would be less effective than a conventional explosive warhead.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

Roger that. On another note, how about a napalm style Anti Ship Missile? Would that cause havoc on a ship if it was hit by napalm?

It would make no difference since rocket fuel is already all over the ship with a hit.

Even if it's a solid propellant?

[Turkiistan]

Roger that. On another note, how about a napalm style Anti Ship Missile? Would that cause havoc on a ship if it was hit by napalm?

Not really. The fire would be limited to the exterior and not a serious threat to the ship's vital components. Obviously not being on fire would be preferable to the ship, but it would be less effective than a conventional explosive warhead.

What about a cluster munitions style warhead to attack aircaft carriers? It would spread across the ship damaging the deck?

[The Kievan People]

Doubtful. The deck is made of metal.

[The Akasha Colony]

Not really. The fire would be limited to the exterior and not a serious threat to the ship's vital components. Obviously not being on fire would be preferable to the ship, but it would be less effective than a conventional explosive warhead.

What about a cluster munitions style warhead to attack aircaft carriers? It would spread across the ship damaging the deck?

Light damage to the deck can easily be fixed. Plus modern aircraft carriers have deck washing and firefighting systems to quickly spray down the deck in emergencies.

[Imperializt Russia]

Not really. The fire would be limited to the exterior and not a serious threat to the ship's vital components. Obviously not being on fire would be preferable to the ship, but it would be less effective than a conventional explosive warhead.

What about a cluster munitions style warhead to attack aircaft carriers? It would spread across the ship damaging the deck?

Yes but their damage would be easily repaired (though you may get a higher chance of killing deck personnel, damaging deck equipment, touching off on-deck fuel and munitions stores and damaging aircraft on the deck).

Basically, you trade the possibility of catastrophic interior damage over a relatively concentrated area that will knock the carrier possibly out of the war with the possibility of knocking its deck out for a few days and being partially operational within hours.

[The Kievan People]

Ships contain plenty of potential fuel and ignition sources, but they are almost all separated by the "shell" of the ships structure and whatever contains them.

The best way to start a fire is to break that shell and bring them together. Blowing up part of the ship does that.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

How dangerous is the AS-4 Kitchen supposed to be? Can it match up against the Harpoon? Or Exocet?

[Imperializt Russia]

How dangerous is the AS-4 Kitchen supposed to be? Can it match up against the Harpoon?

AS-4 is a long-range probably supersonic heavy AShM.
It's in an entirely different class than Harpoon.