Your Nation's Warships, Batch 3

[The Akasha Colony]

Making the missile longer ranged does not solve any acquisition and targeting issues for me. The only nation i anticipate having a even remote chance of fighting anytime soon is The Macabees (if i ever get off my ass and write some posts) and i'm sure my satellite assets (and his, along with a lot of the rest of the regions) wouldn't survive for very long, hence my comments about trying to acquire the target by sonar. It might come down to needing to get that close. Sure my other assets may be able to give a general area to be, but the SSGN might need to get a close enough idea of where they are to fire.

And making the sub able to dive even deeper doesn't solve the issue i envisioned of it getting caught close to the surface while launching its missiles.

If you are that close to the target it doesn't matter.

Just fire the missiles and sink your targets before they can retaliate. By the time the target knows you're there they'll also be dealing with several dozen missiles.

This is sort of the problem: if you are firing from far away the missiles will take long enough to travel that you can escape anyway because the enemy won't spot them until they cross the radar horizon and they won't know the distance to your submarine, just the bearing (they won't even have that if the missiles fly a waypoint course to attack from a different direction). They won't magically spot them the moment they surface unless they happen to have sensor assets in that specific area.

If the enemy is close enough that they can immediately detect your launch and respond then you either move to a safer firing point or you simply launch immediately and kill your target before it kills you.

The potential expansion of firing envelope must be weighed against the very real cost of this solution in terms of decreased missile load and thus a reduced number of stowed kills.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

In my experience with the Ohio class SSGN and Virginia class SSN in CMANO the relatively shallow depth required to launch missiles (~130 feet) isn't a huge deal. A block IV TLAM has a range of ~1700km, with a cruise speed of 0.70 mach this means this missile will take just less than two hours to reach the target (assuming you fire at max range). It only takes a few minutes to launch all 154 TLAMS and then a minute or two to dive from 130 feet to below the thermocline and then at flank speed (below the thermocline you wont cavitate) in two hours you can displace some 70 miles from your launch point.

In general your SSBN has to stay relatively close to the surface anyways so it can receive launch orders (the ohio class uses a towed communications buoys to receive launch orders). You would also stay close to the surface even after launch if you wanted use the block IV TLAMs datalink capability if you wanted to redirect the missiles in flight for whatever reason. When using the multi-mission tomahawk against surface ships this is usually a necessary as you need to constantly give the missile mid-course updates on the location of the target ship (which you would need to acquire via AWACS or some other airborne asset).

[Velkanika]

In my experience with the Ohio class SSGN and Virginia class SSN in CMANO the relatively shallow depth required to launch missiles (~130 feet) isn't a huge deal. A block IV TLAM has a range of ~1700km, with a cruise speed of 0.70 mach this means this missile will take just less than two hours to reach the target (assuming you fire at max range). It only takes a few minutes to launch all 154 TLAMS and then a minute or two to dive from 130 feet to below the thermocline and then at flank speed (below the thermocline you wont cavitate) in two hours you can displace some 70 miles from your launch point.

In general your SSBN has to stay relatively close to the surface anyways so it can receive launch orders (the ohio class uses a towed communications buoys to receive launch orders). You would also stay close to the surface even after launch if you wanted use the block IV TLAMs datalink capability if you wanted to redirect the missiles in flight for whatever reason. When using the multi-mission tomahawk against surface ships this is usually a necessary as you need to constantly give the missile mid-course updates on the location of the target ship (which you would need to acquire via AWACS or some other airborne asset).

Tactical Tomahawks can be guided by satellite or any other asset with a data link and the right codes. You can retarget a missile fired from a submarine in the South China Sea from an office in Nevada using linked radar information from an E-2 Hawkeye, F-35C, or whatever sensors are already on the missile.

Edit: Just to clarify, as far as I know the missile itself can't talk to a satellite but it can talk to anything with the right data link, which includes a wide range of aircraft that can talk directly to a satellite.

[Lamoni]

Would either a Z-drive or Azipod type propulsion system be a good idea for use on aircraft carriers?

[Laritaia]

Would either a Z-drive or Azipod type propulsion system be a good idea for use on aircraft carriers?

Not really, aircraft carriers don't really need such fine position keeping capability or Tokyo drift levels of maneuverability.

no one is ever going to let a carrier self dock.

[Pharthan]

Could be useful for unreps and torpedo evasion.

[The Akasha Colony]

Would either a Z-drive or Azipod type propulsion system be a good idea for use on aircraft carriers?

It would require a lot of rearrangement to the hull interior because the machinery is not located in the same position as a conventional ship. Azipod machinery is located directly above the pod itself in the stern of the ship which makes them relatively wide, whereas conventional propellers require long, narrow shaft runs through the lower hull. Depending on the size and arrangement of the machinery it is also possible the azipod mounting systems could interfere with the location of anything else that needs to be located far aft, such as the towed sonar array or helicopter deck arrangements in a surface combatant.

The real issue right now though is that the technology is just not proven for actual warship use and existing units IRL have not been designed to military specifications. Azipods were considered for the British Queen Elizabeths but rejected because the existing designs from Rolls-Royce were not sufficiently shock-hardened and this made the shafts prone becoming misaligned. It is possible to design a more robust azipod for naval use but I imagine it would require some extensive testing to build a body of data to work with, and an aircraft carrier would probably not be the first choice for this role.

[Laritaia]

Could be useful for unreps and torpedo evasion.

not really.

[Gig em Aggies]

honest opinion would this be feasible. And could this work for my terrestrial based navy, which will be almost exactly like the US Navy just bigger.



It is a concept for the UK it's called dreadnought 2050

[Connori Pilgrims]

honest opinion would this be feasible. And could this work for my terrestrial based navy, which will be almost exactly like the US Navy just bigger.

(Image)

It is a concept for the UK it's called dreadnought 2050

Protip: Don't believe any concept that claims this thing will be seen in 20XX.

A trimaran surface ship like this isn't *that* impossible. The various individual components range to the already there (supercavitating torpedoes, quadcopter drones), possible with a decade or two more of materials science improvements (railguns) and ??? (the material they claimed to build this thing on which could phase into transparency or something).

The better question though would be: "should all these components actually come together to make a ship like this?"

Which points to the true question: "what do you expect to fight in 20XX that would possibly require this ship?"

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

honest opinion would this be feasible. And could this work for my terrestrial based navy, which will be almost exactly like the US Navy just bigger.

(Image)

It is a concept for the UK it's called dreadnought 2050

Protip: Don't believe any concept that claims this thing will be seen in 20XX.

A trimaran surface ship like this isn't *that* impossible. The various individual components range to the already there (supercavitating torpedoes, quadcopter drones), possible with a decade or two more of materials science improvements (railguns) and ??? (the material they claimed to build this thing on which could phase into transparency or something).

The better question though would be: "should all these components actually come together to make a ship like this?"

Which points to the true question: "what do you expect to fight in 20XX that would possibly require this ship?"

obvs those American terrorists with AR-15's since Britain has become the Russian Province of England.

[Gallia-]

Scottish Autonomous Oblast.

Bringing apartheid back.

[Iltica]

Had a goofy idea this morning, what if (in the 1930's) someone made a sort of mini-battleship about the size of a cruiser or so and just gave it one turret of guns usually mounted on a full size battleship? It would still have a defensive armament but the citadel would have to be relocated. Would this be worth doing?

[Spirit of Hope]

Had a goofy idea this morning, what if (in the 1930's) someone made a sort of mini-battleship about the size of a cruiser or so and just gave it one turret of guns usually mounted on a full size battleship? It would still have a defensive armament but the citadel would have to be relocated. Would this be worth doing?

I think you would have issues with sea worthiness. IIRC Japan tried to make a number of cruisers that carried far heavier guns than others of the same class, and they had an issue with sea worthiness. I could also be making it up. Additionally I would think you could suffer from low stowed ammo and low rate of fire.

[Connori Pilgrims]

Had a goofy idea this morning, what if (in the 1930's) someone made a sort of mini-battleship about the size of a cruiser or so and just gave it one turret of guns usually mounted on a full size battleship? It would still have a defensive armament but the citadel would have to be relocated. Would this be worth doing?

So a much shittier Deutschland-class panzerschiff?

The panzerschiff concept made a certain amount of sense at the time they were conceived; but even they felt that they needed at least six 280mm guns. Given gun and fire-control accuracies of the day you're going to have a hard time hitting a moving naval target with less than six weapons. It will also be hoe-riffic if a lucky shot hits and disables/destroys that single main gun turret. Also, the panzerschiff ended up going grossly over 10,000 tons with garbage protection and meh speed (29kts is fair, but you can't outrun battlecruisers and even regular cruisers, all of which can kill you, as Graf Spee found out).

Alternatively, you might be intending for a big-gun Monitors like the Erebus the UK used in both World Wars. However they are slow ships with the sole purpose of bombing German Atlantikwall positions and other shore targets, and would be rather easily swept aside in a full naval action.

TL;DR no its a complete waste of money for the late 1920s-early 1930s.

[Iltica]

I'll take a look at those monitors thanks, just wondering though is the seaworthiness issue from the recoil or weight? If its recoil that could probably be fixed at expense of being embarrassingly slow. Its probably going to only be used in nearby waters anyway.

[New Chilokver]

I'll take a look at those monitors thanks, just wondering though is the seaworthiness issue from the recoil or weight? If its recoil that could probably be fixed at expense of being embarrassingly slow. Its probably not going to only be used in nearby waters anyway.

Heavy armament = top heavy ship.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Had a goofy idea this morning, what if (in the 1930's) someone made a sort of mini-battleship about the size of a cruiser or so and just gave it one turret of guns usually mounted on a full size battleship? It would still have a defensive armament but the citadel would have to be relocated. Would this be worth doing?

I think you would have issues with sea worthiness. IIRC Japan tried to make a number of cruisers that carried far heavier guns than others of the same class, and they had an issue with sea worthiness. I could also be making it up. Additionally I would think you could suffer from low stowed ammo and low rate of fire.

Japanese heavy cruisers of the interwar era carried the 20cm L/50 (which was actually 203mm or 8 inches in caliber). This was standard for all countries' interwar heavy cruisers, because it was the largest cruiser caliber permitted by the Washington Naval Treaty and its follow-up in London. Japanese cruisers (especially the Atagos and Mogamis) did suffer seaworthiness and hull strength issues, but this had more to do with the number of turrets, the size of the engines, the heavy torpedoes, and the quality of the steel used.

Well, unless you're referring to the Matsushima class of the 1890s, which were 4,200-tonne "light cruisers" each armed with a single 320mm gun in addition to their dozen or so 120mm weapons - which resulted in its own share of balance and stress problems.

Had a goofy idea this morning, what if (in the 1930's) someone made a sort of mini-battleship about the size of a cruiser or so and just gave it one turret of guns usually mounted on a full size battleship? It would still have a defensive armament but the citadel would have to be relocated. Would this be worth doing?

While playing around with SpringSharp last year, I managed to design a number of 1927-vintage "pocket battleships" displacing 15,000 tonnes standard (my region's interwar treaty set 15,000 tonnes as the cruiser limit and did not place restrictions on armament). The "best" one was armed with four 400mm L/50 guns in two turrets, one forward and one aft, and had roughly 350mm armor on the belt, barbette, and turret face. It could also manage 22 knots or so, enough to keep pace with other dreadnoughts in the line of battle (this was before they received engine upgrades in their 1930s refits). Looking back on my earlier comment, though, it's possible that SpringSharp underestimates the hull strain on slow-moving heavily armored ships, and this ship is an extrapolation away from real-life comparisons.

Whether it's "worth doing" is another story. ICly, Menghe (my pre-revolution nation name) considered these proposals for a while but ultimately chose a run-of-the-mill 12,500-tonne, 4x2-200mm heavy cruiser, which allowed it to field more fast ships within its tonnage limits and was still adequately armed and protected to defeat heavy cruisers in other major navies. If your nation has limits on both battleship and cruiser tonnage (or no limits at all), it may come to the same conclusion. If it's not permitted to build battleships, a "pocket battleship" option might be more attractive, especially if it's for a mostly defensive littoral navy.

I'll take a look at those monitors thanks, just wondering though is the seaworthiness issue from the recoil or weight? If its recoil that could probably be fixed at expense of being embarrassingly slow. Its probably going to only be used in nearby waters anyway.

Both, but in different ways.

Armored turrets are, not surprisingly, heavy, as in addition to the guns and loading equipment they also have thick armor on the turret itself and on the barbette it sits on top of. They're also mounted fairly high up compared to the engines, turbines, fuel, and belt armor, all of which sit at or below the waterline. And because they're higher up, recoil induces a rolling effect.

The easiest solution would be a wider hull, a lower top speed, and keeping the turret mounts at deck level (rather than superfiring). These will not eliminate the issue but they may bring it within reasonable limits.

[Iltica]

Keeping all the main turrets low shouldn't be too hard if there's only one. The two turret layout would probably be more practical though. The idea of the mono- turret came about from the way ships seemed to have fewer and fewer turrets as the years went by. So if that trend were to be taken to its logical extreme you'd end up with a ship with one massive turret that has 360 or near 360 degrees ( probably more like 270 in a Nelson esque layout).

[Theodosiya]

To replace 8 old 636, what kind of DE sub should i have?

[Spirit of Hope]

Keeping all the main turrets low shouldn't be too hard if there's only one. The two turret layout would probably be more practical though. The idea of the mono- turret came about from the way ships seemed to have fewer and fewer turrets as the years went by. So if that trend were to be taken to its logical extreme you'd end up with a ship with one massive turret that has 360 or near 360 degrees ( probably more like 270 in a Nelson esque layout).

Then you will have swung back to the USS Monitor. Speak her name softly though less she hear you and defend with the wrath of the mods.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Keeping all the main turrets low shouldn't be too hard if there's only one. The two turret layout would probably be more practical though. The idea of the mono- turret came about from the way ships seemed to have fewer and fewer turrets as the years went by. So if that trend were to be taken to its logical extreme you'd end up with a ship with one massive turret that has 360 or near 360 degrees ( probably more like 270 in a Nelson esque layout).

Then you will have swung back to the USS Monitor. Speak her name softly though less she hear you and defend with the wrath of the mods.

There have been much stranger single-turret ships. Though apparently the Novgorods could traverse their guns independently if they needed to.

[United Earthlings]

What are the most effective methods available to disrupt and defeat A2/AD as implemented by the People's Republic of China?

You could start by eliminating the term A2/AD to instead just focus on how to D3 the PLA.

Pending that, here's a Proposed Air Force Counter

Or Applying lessons learned from dealing with other world powers.

There's also understanding your adversary's capabilities and policy's followed by their potenital weaknesses.

and lastly a general breakdown.

Bon Appétit

Okay, you want to go NATO standard.

Scorpene/Type 214 Class Submarines
Alvaro de Bazan/FREMM Class Frigates
Saar 5/6 Class Corvettes
Skjold Class Missile Boats

And if you really need a Mediterranean capability, say you bought one of the Invincible's off of the Brits and fly Harriers and eventually F-35Bs off of it. Depending on just how many ships we are talking, that force makeup would almost instantly make your navy the most powerful real life Black Sea/Med fleet outside of the 6th Fleet, and all of those are built for export/have been sold off in real life except for Skjold, since NATO is a little slim on true missile boats.

It also completely lacks a "destroyer" in the Arleigh Burke sense.

Or minus any type of dedicated missile boat since the Saar 6 Class is based off the German Braunschweig class which carries missiles, what they could do is a mix of exported Spanish and German ships.

Juan Carlos I multi-purpose amphibious assault ship {probably more easier to acquire then that single Invincible from the British plus you can order as many as you want}
Álvaro de Bazán-class frigate
Scorpene class AIP DE submarine
Braunschweig-class corvette
An OPV of some type, I'd suggest the following Damen Stan patrol vessel.

[United States of PA]

Or minus any type of dedicated missile boat since the Saar 6 Class is based off the German Braunschweig class which carries missiles, what they could do is a mix of exported Spanish and German ships.

Juan Carlos I multi-purpose amphibious assault ship {probably more easier to acquire then that single Invincible from the British plus you can order as many as you want}
Álvaro de Bazán-class frigate
Scorpene class AIP DE submarine
Braunschweig-class corvette
An OPV of some type, I'd suggest the following Damen Stan patrol vessel.

Illustrious could have been bought for pennies on the dollar as a interim solution since the British put up a public auction with a minimum price of a bare $2.8mn........... The alternatives are amphibious assault ships such as the Juan Carlos or more appropriately, Mistral since the French have shown the willingness to sell to just about anyone until pressured otherwise. You might even be able to put a spin on the two that were supposed to go to Russia but no longer are. Principe de Asturias is also up for sale.

Other than them there are not any light carrier projects active that i am aware of that are really available for export, which rules out Cavour. I think such LHDs will be of even more dubious utility in a fleet that needs to contend with the Black Sea first and everything else third.

Theo mentioned the Saar 5, so i stuck with that series with the Saar 6 since it will apparently be a much improved version of the Braunschweig with significantly more missiles (16 AShMs vs 4, 32 Barak 8s vs one 21 cell RAM launcher, gun armament is mostly identical) not to mention a likely superior AESA radar compared to Braunschweig's PESA. He wanted capable and powerful, Saar 6 is that for a corvette that is being built in one country for another.

OPV's i think would be expensive paperweights with Saar's trolling around.

[Theodosiya]

Saar 6 Corvettes
FREMM frigs
Still wanted modified Sejong
Mistrals
Juan Carlos
Type 214 or Scorpene. Must have AIP.