NATION

PASSWORD

Your Nation's Warships, Batch 3

A place to put national factbooks, embassy exchanges, and other information regarding the nations of the world. [In character]

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
The Manticoran Empire
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9667
Founded: Aug 21, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Manticoran Empire » Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:06 am

If the funds were available, would it be worth it to assign a Forrestal-class or similar carrier to Amphibious Ready Groups for operations involving Marine Expeditionary Forces? A maximum of 4-6 carriers is what I'm thinking about (my nation has 4 active MEFs and one reserve).
For: Israel, Palestine, Kurdistan, American Nationalism, American citizens of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands receiving a congressional vote and being allowed to vote for president, military, veterans before refugees, guns, pro choice, LGBT marriage, plural marriage, US Constitution, World Peace, Global Unity.

Against: Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, Theocracy, Corporatocracy.


By the Blood of our Fathers, By the Blood of our Sons, we fight, we die, we sacrifice for the Good of the Empire.

User avatar
Sleet Clans
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1368
Founded: May 01, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Sleet Clans » Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:31 am

The Manticoran Empire wrote:If the funds were available, would it be worth it to assign a Forrestal-class or similar carrier to Amphibious Ready Groups for operations involving Marine Expeditionary Forces? A maximum of 4-6 carriers is what I'm thinking about (my nation has 4 active MEFs and one reserve).

You'd want a nuclear carrier maybe just so it can stay on station until it needs to be rearmed and resupplied, and plus you'd want some very good escorts and/or protection for said carrier. Maybe an amphibious assault ship or two to tag along too for the extra support, but honestly I'd assign heavy flattops like Forrestals to carrier strike groups. But if the funding was available, then yes, it would be worth it to have that sort of firepower tagging along.
United Confederacy of Sleetavia
_[' ]_
(-_Q) If you support capitalism, put this in your signature.

Pro: Trump, Scientific Advancement, Nationalism, Conservatism, Right-Wing, Free Market, Militarism
Anti: EU, Merkel, Israel, Islam in it's current state, Communism in all of it's forms, Leftism, Globalism, LGBTZADGSAF+, Anti-White Discrimination, Islamification, Abortion in most cases
Generation 39, the first time you see this copy and paste it to your sig and add 1 to the generation

User avatar
The Manticoran Empire
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9667
Founded: Aug 21, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Manticoran Empire » Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:42 am

Sleet Clans wrote:
The Manticoran Empire wrote:If the funds were available, would it be worth it to assign a Forrestal-class or similar carrier to Amphibious Ready Groups for operations involving Marine Expeditionary Forces? A maximum of 4-6 carriers is what I'm thinking about (my nation has 4 active MEFs and one reserve).

You'd want a nuclear carrier maybe just so it can stay on station until it needs to be rearmed and resupplied, and plus you'd want some very good escorts and/or protection for said carrier. Maybe an amphibious assault ship or two to tag along too for the extra support, but honestly I'd assign heavy flattops like Forrestals to carrier strike groups. But if the funding was available, then yes, it would be worth it to have that sort of firepower tagging along.

Well the MEFs are mainly just shipped around for major operations and exercises. The ARG already has 1 Amphibious Assault Ship, 1 Dock Landing Ship, and 1 Amphibious Transport Dock, with escort provided by 2-3 destroyers. The Forrestal would accompany a force of about 8-10 ARGs to carry most of the MEF's air wing.
For: Israel, Palestine, Kurdistan, American Nationalism, American citizens of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands receiving a congressional vote and being allowed to vote for president, military, veterans before refugees, guns, pro choice, LGBT marriage, plural marriage, US Constitution, World Peace, Global Unity.

Against: Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, Theocracy, Corporatocracy.


By the Blood of our Fathers, By the Blood of our Sons, we fight, we die, we sacrifice for the Good of the Empire.

User avatar
The Akasha Colony
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14059
Founded: Apr 25, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Akasha Colony » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:28 pm

The Manticoran Empire wrote:
Sleet Clans wrote:You'd want a nuclear carrier maybe just so it can stay on station until it needs to be rearmed and resupplied, and plus you'd want some very good escorts and/or protection for said carrier. Maybe an amphibious assault ship or two to tag along too for the extra support, but honestly I'd assign heavy flattops like Forrestals to carrier strike groups. But if the funding was available, then yes, it would be worth it to have that sort of firepower tagging along.

Well the MEFs are mainly just shipped around for major operations and exercises. The ARG already has 1 Amphibious Assault Ship, 1 Dock Landing Ship, and 1 Amphibious Transport Dock, with escort provided by 2-3 destroyers. The Forrestal would accompany a force of about 8-10 ARGs to carry most of the MEF's air wing.


This is basically what the primary carrier groups are for anyway, so why would you want separate carriers for this task?
A colony of the New Free Planets Alliance.
The primary MT nation of this account is the Republic of Carthage.
New Free Planets Alliance (FT)
New Terran Republic (FT)
Republic of Carthage (MT)
World Economic Union (MT)
Kaiserreich Europa Zentral (PT/MT)
Five Republics of Hanalua (FanT)
National Links: Factbook Entry | Embassy Program
Storefronts: Carthaginian Naval Export Authority [MT, Navy]

User avatar
The Manticoran Empire
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9667
Founded: Aug 21, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Manticoran Empire » Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:32 pm

The Akasha Colony wrote:
The Manticoran Empire wrote:Well the MEFs are mainly just shipped around for major operations and exercises. The ARG already has 1 Amphibious Assault Ship, 1 Dock Landing Ship, and 1 Amphibious Transport Dock, with escort provided by 2-3 destroyers. The Forrestal would accompany a force of about 8-10 ARGs to carry most of the MEF's air wing.


This is basically what the primary carrier groups are for anyway, so why would you want separate carriers for this task?

Honestly, since you put it that way, there really isn't much of a point.
For: Israel, Palestine, Kurdistan, American Nationalism, American citizens of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands receiving a congressional vote and being allowed to vote for president, military, veterans before refugees, guns, pro choice, LGBT marriage, plural marriage, US Constitution, World Peace, Global Unity.

Against: Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, Theocracy, Corporatocracy.


By the Blood of our Fathers, By the Blood of our Sons, we fight, we die, we sacrifice for the Good of the Empire.

User avatar
Pharthan
Minister
 
Posts: 2969
Founded: Feb 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Pharthan » Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:19 pm

Taihei Tengoku wrote:
Kouralia wrote:What's a reasonable number of marines/naval fleet security bods/naval police to have on ships of different sizes? Does anyone know of any numbers for western navies atm?

Usually "naval police" duties would be filled by sailors of the appropriate rating (in the USN it is the "master-at-arms"). In submarines there are very few, if any. Large surface ships like carriers would top out at a couple dozen.

In the US Navy, Security Forces onboard ships are predominantly filled by various sailors from various departments, usually excluding Reactor Department, as a Temporarily Assigned Duty.

Master-At-Arms on a ship even the size of a carrier are perhaps two dozen. I never counted, but I also never saw many of them. Most of Security was not made of MAs, but other random rates. Still, if this number broke a hundred, I'd be surprised.
Submarines don't have MAs. The smaller the vessel, the more diversity of one's job, to the point that on submarines you don't have Boatswain's Mates or MAs.
Last edited by Pharthan on Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
HALCYON ARMS STOREFRONT

"Humanity is a way for the cosmos to know itself." - Carl Sagan
"Besides, if God didn't want us making glowing fish and insect-resistant corn, the building blocks of life wouldn't be so easy for science to fiddle with." - Dracoria

Why haven't I had anything new in my storefront for so long? This is why. I've been busy.

User avatar
Rhinocera
Minister
 
Posts: 2041
Founded: Apr 15, 2013
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Rhinocera » Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:06 am

Pharthan wrote:
Taihei Tengoku wrote:Usually "naval police" duties would be filled by sailors of the appropriate rating (in the USN it is the "master-at-arms"). In submarines there are very few, if any. Large surface ships like carriers would top out at a couple dozen.

In the US Navy, Security Forces onboard ships are predominantly filled by various sailors from various departments, usually excluding Reactor Department, as a Temporarily Assigned Duty.

Master-At-Arms on a ship even the size of a carrier are perhaps two dozen. I never counted, but I also never saw many of them. Most of Security was not made of MAs, but other random rates. Still, if this number broke a hundred, I'd be surprised.
Submarines don't have MAs. The smaller the vessel, the more diversity of one's job, to the point that on submarines you don't have Boatswain's Mates or MAs.


Glad to see you back Pharthan.
RED STAR HEAVY INDUSTRIES

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=243572

Signatory of The Amistad Declaration on Slavery and the Rights of Man

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=98436#p4901606

User avatar
Taihei Tengoku
Senator
 
Posts: 4851
Founded: Dec 15, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Taihei Tengoku » Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:11 pm

Pharthan wrote:
Taihei Tengoku wrote:Usually "naval police" duties would be filled by sailors of the appropriate rating (in the USN it is the "master-at-arms"). In submarines there are very few, if any. Large surface ships like carriers would top out at a couple dozen.

In the US Navy, Security Forces onboard ships are predominantly filled by various sailors from various departments, usually excluding Reactor Department, as a Temporarily Assigned Duty.

Master-At-Arms on a ship even the size of a carrier are perhaps two dozen. I never counted, but I also never saw many of them. Most of Security was not made of MAs, but other random rates. Still, if this number broke a hundred, I'd be surprised.
Submarines don't have MAs. The smaller the vessel, the more diversity of one's job, to the point that on submarines you don't have Boatswain's Mates or MAs.

From my two days aboard a CVN the MAs were inadequate in number to stop us from ordering Chinese after hours and breaking into restricted areas
REST IN POWER
Franberry - HMS Barham - North Point - Questers - Tyrandis - Rosbaningrad - Sharfghotten
UNJUSTLY DELETED
OUR DAY WILL COME

User avatar
Pharthan
Minister
 
Posts: 2969
Founded: Feb 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Pharthan » Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:41 am

Taihei Tengoku wrote:
Pharthan wrote:In the US Navy, Security Forces onboard ships are predominantly filled by various sailors from various departments, usually excluding Reactor Department, as a Temporarily Assigned Duty.

Master-At-Arms on a ship even the size of a carrier are perhaps two dozen. I never counted, but I also never saw many of them. Most of Security was not made of MAs, but other random rates. Still, if this number broke a hundred, I'd be surprised.
Submarines don't have MAs. The smaller the vessel, the more diversity of one's job, to the point that on submarines you don't have Boatswain's Mates or MAs.

From my two days aboard a CVN the MAs were inadequate in number to stop us from ordering Chinese after hours and breaking into restricted areas

General idea is that you're not supposed to be maliciously trying to sneak into restricted areas.
That's not their job. They're not security guards.
HALCYON ARMS STOREFRONT

"Humanity is a way for the cosmos to know itself." - Carl Sagan
"Besides, if God didn't want us making glowing fish and insect-resistant corn, the building blocks of life wouldn't be so easy for science to fiddle with." - Dracoria

Why haven't I had anything new in my storefront for so long? This is why. I've been busy.


User avatar
Velkanika
Minister
 
Posts: 2693
Founded: Sep 23, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Velkanika » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:16 pm

Gallia- wrote:Why have them at all if they're not supposed to do their jobs?

Pharthan wrote:maliciously


*Marinciously.

Uncle Sam's Mega Cuties?

Image
The necessity of a navy, in the restricted sense of the word, springs, therefore, from the existence of a peaceful shipping, and disappears with it, except in the case of a nation which has aggressive tendencies, and keeps up a navy merely as a branch of the military establishment. 1
1Alfred T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783, 12th ed. (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1890), 26.

Please avoid conflating my in-character role playing with what I actually believe, as these are usually quite different things.

User avatar
The Manticoran Empire
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9667
Founded: Aug 21, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Manticoran Empire » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:35 pm

Velkanika wrote:
Gallia- wrote:Why have them at all if they're not supposed to do their jobs?



*Marinciously.

Uncle Sam's Mega Cuties?

Image

You know, I could actually see Marines doing that.
For: Israel, Palestine, Kurdistan, American Nationalism, American citizens of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands receiving a congressional vote and being allowed to vote for president, military, veterans before refugees, guns, pro choice, LGBT marriage, plural marriage, US Constitution, World Peace, Global Unity.

Against: Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, Theocracy, Corporatocracy.


By the Blood of our Fathers, By the Blood of our Sons, we fight, we die, we sacrifice for the Good of the Empire.

User avatar
Velkanika
Minister
 
Posts: 2693
Founded: Sep 23, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Velkanika » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:40 pm

The Manticoran Empire wrote:
Velkanika wrote:Image

You know, I could actually see Marines doing that.

They are, I stole it off of the Terminal Lance Instagram page.
The necessity of a navy, in the restricted sense of the word, springs, therefore, from the existence of a peaceful shipping, and disappears with it, except in the case of a nation which has aggressive tendencies, and keeps up a navy merely as a branch of the military establishment. 1
1Alfred T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783, 12th ed. (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1890), 26.

Please avoid conflating my in-character role playing with what I actually believe, as these are usually quite different things.

User avatar
Pharthan
Minister
 
Posts: 2969
Founded: Feb 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Pharthan » Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:38 pm

Gallia- wrote:Why have them at all if they're not supposed to do their jobs?

Pharthan wrote:maliciously


*Marinciously.

Uncle Sam's Mega Cuties?
'Cuz that's not their job to keep people out of restricted spaces? That's the job of people who run those spaces.
HALCYON ARMS STOREFRONT

"Humanity is a way for the cosmos to know itself." - Carl Sagan
"Besides, if God didn't want us making glowing fish and insect-resistant corn, the building blocks of life wouldn't be so easy for science to fiddle with." - Dracoria

Why haven't I had anything new in my storefront for so long? This is why. I've been busy.


User avatar
Prosorusiya
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1605
Founded: Oct 01, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Prosorusiya » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:50 pm

So been reading up on the Ukrainian Navy & it’s establishment of a new base in the Azov. Since we love to pick apart real navies decisions and armchair admiral here, I was wondering what people’s thoughts were on their forces thus far committed.

From what I understand, currently the Ukrainian Navy forces in the Azov consist of the following:

(Flag) A500 UkS. Donbass, a Project 304 class repair ship, converted to a Command ship, previously caprtured by the Russians & stripped of whatever C-in-C equipment she had, now called a search and rescue ship by the media. From reports she is to be a floating barracks, possibly a repair depot too, a role for which she is well suited imho.

A830 UkS. Korets, a Project 745 Class Fleet tug. No idea why the Ukrainians sent her other than prehaps they were worried about Donbass not being able to make it all the way under her own power. She managed fine though so not sure if Korets will be sticking around. The patrol boats in the flotilla are unlikely to need her aid... but prehaps she is there for missions wherein Ukrainian ships might need help if disabled?

Kremenchuk (P177) & Lubny (P178) are both Gyurz-M Class armored patrol boats aka modern monitors.

Jane’s claims Ukraine intends to move it’s second base from Nikolayev to Brydansk, not sure why then the Donbass is docked in Mariupol atm? I doubt in any case they will move all the units, anyways, no doubt Naval Aviation will remain where it is in Niikolayev.

Anyhow, considering the state of the current Ukrainian Navy, and the current situation, what would y’alls Next move be?

I for one would move the Matka Class hydrofoil Priluki into the Azov Sea, as she would be faster than the PBs already there and thus an credible way to deal with the highspeed boats that have been harassing Ukrainian shipping in the area. She may be tied up right now though, it appears Ukraines other corvette U206 Vinnytsia is not long for this world, so maybe Ukraine dosen’t want to weaken its 1st Combat Ship Division anymore. I suppose given the espoused “anti-mine” purpose of the base it might get the U360 Henichesk minesweeper transferee there as well, as the Ukrainians are supposed to recieve 3 New minesweepers from the Danish. That’s all I can think of in the short term, that could be shifted without compromising security at other bases tremendously. Thoughts?
Last edited by Prosorusiya on Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Alt. History: The Mountain Republic (1921-Present)

NS User Since 2012

Slava Krasnyi Kavkaz!~Glory to the Red Caucasus!

User avatar
New Chilokver
Minister
 
Posts: 2075
Founded: Oct 05, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby New Chilokver » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:12 pm

If, as I've been led to believe, spherical sonar arrays are superior to their U-shaped counterparts, why is the Virginia-class switching to LAB sonars?

About User
Hong Kong-Australian Male
Pro: Yeah
Neutral: Meh
Con: Nah
| [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] |
[HOI I - Peacetime conditions]
Head of Government: President Ada Luong
Population: 193.55 million
GDP (nominal): $8.77 trillion
Active Military: 1.2 million
Member of: IFC, UL
IIWiki
| There is no news. |
Other Stuff
Lingria wrote:Just realized I'm better at roleplaying then talking to another human being.
Fck.
WARNING: This nation represents my RL views.

User avatar
The Akasha Colony
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14059
Founded: Apr 25, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Akasha Colony » Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:11 pm

New Chilokver wrote:If, as I've been led to believe, spherical sonar arrays are superior to their U-shaped counterparts, why is the Virginia-class switching to LAB sonars?


Because the spherical shape wasn't really the important part.

The spherical arrays introduced in Thresher had the advantage of being very large and having the entire nose dedicated to them. Soviet submarines continued to use the upper half of the nose for torpedo tubes which limited the space available. British submarines had thinner profiles and compound noses which would have made a spherical arrangement rather awkward. The large size of BQQ-2 and its successors and the advances in American electronics and understanding of acoustics contributed to their excellent performance. The spherical design helped simplify computation and direction-finding and covered a wider area particularly in the vertical plane than more limited horseshoe arrays.

The LAB array retains the large size and dedicated nose of the previous arrays but discards the spherical shape because it is no longer necessary. Digital signal processing on modern computers has no problem accounting for irregular sensor shapes so it makes more sense to simply blanket the entire nose with transducers, covering an even larger area. This has been possible for a while but design momentum and development difficulties delayed the shift away from the proven spherical design.

The bow sensor is also simply less important than it used to be. By its nature it has basically no baseline so it has a very difficult time determining range unless it resorts to active measures, which are obviously to be avoided. This is why the flank arrays and particularly the towed array are increasingly important because they at least can establish a baseline for passive rangefinding.
A colony of the New Free Planets Alliance.
The primary MT nation of this account is the Republic of Carthage.
New Free Planets Alliance (FT)
New Terran Republic (FT)
Republic of Carthage (MT)
World Economic Union (MT)
Kaiserreich Europa Zentral (PT/MT)
Five Republics of Hanalua (FanT)
National Links: Factbook Entry | Embassy Program
Storefronts: Carthaginian Naval Export Authority [MT, Navy]

User avatar
New Chilokver
Minister
 
Posts: 2075
Founded: Oct 05, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby New Chilokver » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:56 am

Could you explain what you mean by a baseline for passive rangefinding please? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that concept.

About User
Hong Kong-Australian Male
Pro: Yeah
Neutral: Meh
Con: Nah
| [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] |
[HOI I - Peacetime conditions]
Head of Government: President Ada Luong
Population: 193.55 million
GDP (nominal): $8.77 trillion
Active Military: 1.2 million
Member of: IFC, UL
IIWiki
| There is no news. |
Other Stuff
Lingria wrote:Just realized I'm better at roleplaying then talking to another human being.
Fck.
WARNING: This nation represents my RL views.

User avatar
Post War America
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6804
Founded: Sep 05, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Post War America » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:58 am

New Chilokver wrote:Could you explain what you mean by a baseline for passive rangefinding please? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that concept.


Passive sensors can pick up and generate an accurate firing solution more quickly if the thing they're trying to find is banging away with active sensors.
Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
Proudly Banned from the 10000 Islands
For those who care
A PMT Social Democratic Genepunk/Post Cyberpunk Nation the practices big (atomic) stick diplomacy
Not Post-Apocalyptic
Economic Left: -9.62
Social Libertarian: -6.00
Unrepentant New England Yankee
Gravlen wrote:The famous Bowling Green Massacre is yesterday's news. Today it's all about the Cricket Blue Carnage. Tomorrow it'll be about the Curling Yellow Annihilation.

User avatar
Crookfur
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10638
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Crookfur » Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:13 pm

New Chilokver wrote:Could you explain what you mean by a baseline for passive rangefinding please? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that concept.

It's basic trigonometry.

The flank and towed arrays have a length and receivers that have a distance between them.

Thus when two or more "distant" receivers pick up a signal you don't just get a bearing that the signal came from you get at least 2 bearings whose angles can be compared and in combination with your base line length you can work out the range to the signal's source.

Think stereoscopic range finding.
The Kingdom of Crookfur
Your ordinary everyday scotiodanavian freedom loving utopia!

And yes I do like big old guns, why do you ask?

User avatar
The Manticoran Empire
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9667
Founded: Aug 21, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Manticoran Empire » Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:05 am

What are the pros and cons of nuclear powered cruisers and destroyers? Also, would it be feasible to power amphibious warfare ships (LSD, LPD, LHD, LHA) with nuclear reactors and what costs and benefits could be seen?
For: Israel, Palestine, Kurdistan, American Nationalism, American citizens of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands receiving a congressional vote and being allowed to vote for president, military, veterans before refugees, guns, pro choice, LGBT marriage, plural marriage, US Constitution, World Peace, Global Unity.

Against: Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, Theocracy, Corporatocracy.


By the Blood of our Fathers, By the Blood of our Sons, we fight, we die, we sacrifice for the Good of the Empire.

User avatar
Post War America
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6804
Founded: Sep 05, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Post War America » Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:30 am

The Manticoran Empire wrote:What are the pros and cons of nuclear powered cruisers and destroyers? Also, would it be feasible to power amphibious warfare ships (LSD, LPD, LHD, LHA) with nuclear reactors and what costs and benefits could be seen?


I'm sure someone can deliver a more comprehensive answer to the question but I'm gonna attempt a crack at it too. The big benefit of nuclear powered vessels is the theoretically unlimited range, which enables much greater power projection capability, especially if one is on the shared NS earth which is bloody enormous. While you would obviously need to resupply the vessel with food, spare parts and other essentials over the course of a long duration mission, but you don't also need to worry about carting over fuel if the ships are nuclear powered. There is a reason why the USN's carrier and submarine fleets rely on nuclear powered vessels after all. Nuclear powered vessels can also be useful if you have limited access to oil given that most oil powered ships suck down fuel like nobody's business. That being said, if you're lacking in oil and nuclear fuel, its probably better to import the former than the latter. The downsides are pretty significant though, nuclear vessels tend to be much more maintenance intensive than conventionally powered ones, and much more costly to maintain as well, which is probably why the USN to my knowledge never had nuclear destroyers and only briefly experimented with nuclear cruisers (well that and being more expensive to construct). Nuclear powered submarines also tend to be more somewhat more noisy than comparable diesel electrics as well. This may be conjecture from my part, but I've noticed that nuclear powered vessels seem to have a shorter operational life span than conventionally powered ones, though I must admit that may simply be differences in procurement rates and military doctrine than anything else. As for the actual act of sticking them in ships, I've heard of a nuclear powered airplane that could actually fly (I think it was a Soviet experiment with a modded TU-95), so theoretically it could be possible, but you'd need to talk to a maritime engineer to actually know.
Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
Proudly Banned from the 10000 Islands
For those who care
A PMT Social Democratic Genepunk/Post Cyberpunk Nation the practices big (atomic) stick diplomacy
Not Post-Apocalyptic
Economic Left: -9.62
Social Libertarian: -6.00
Unrepentant New England Yankee
Gravlen wrote:The famous Bowling Green Massacre is yesterday's news. Today it's all about the Cricket Blue Carnage. Tomorrow it'll be about the Curling Yellow Annihilation.

User avatar
The Corparation
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33943
Founded: Aug 31, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby The Corparation » Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:02 am

Another benefit that post war America missed is the fact that nuclear power doesn't just give you range it gives you the ability to go fast and keep going fast. A conventionally powered ship can get going fast but it can't maintain that speed without burning through all its fuel.

As for shorter lifespans, the main reason for many US Navy nuclear cruisers having short lives was that manning them was expensive (They require more crew than conventional warships), refueling them was expensive, and most of them needed weapons upgrades which is also expensive. It should be noted that the first 3 nuclear cruisers in US Navy service all served for more than 30 years and were slated for refit/refueling before it was decided to retire them. Had they not been retired and refueled as planned they'd easily have seen at least another decade of life.

Also the Soviet's nuclear Tu-95 didn't fly on nuclear power, it served roughly the same job as the American NB-36. A flying laboratory to see what its like to have a nuclear reactor in a plane prior to building a plane powered by a nuclear reactor.
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting)
Orbital Freedom Machine Here
A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc.Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia-
Making the Nightmare End 2020 WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety This Cell is intentionally blank.

User avatar
The Manticoran Empire
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9667
Founded: Aug 21, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Manticoran Empire » Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:15 am

The Corparation wrote:Another benefit that post war America missed is the fact that nuclear power doesn't just give you range it gives you the ability to go fast and keep going fast. A conventionally powered ship can get going fast but it can't maintain that speed without burning through all its fuel.

As for shorter lifespans, the main reason for many US Navy nuclear cruisers having short lives was that manning them was expensive (They require more crew than conventional warships), refueling them was expensive, and most of them needed weapons upgrades which is also expensive. It should be noted that the first 3 nuclear cruisers in US Navy service all served for more than 30 years and were slated for refit/refueling before it was decided to retire them. Had they not been retired and refueled as planned they'd easily have seen at least another decade of life.

Also the Soviet's nuclear Tu-95 didn't fly on nuclear power, it served roughly the same job as the American NB-36. A flying laboratory to see what its like to have a nuclear reactor in a plane prior to building a plane powered by a nuclear reactor.

Well the USS Nimitz has been in service since 1975 and the last Nimitz isn't expected to leave service until the 2050s.
For: Israel, Palestine, Kurdistan, American Nationalism, American citizens of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands receiving a congressional vote and being allowed to vote for president, military, veterans before refugees, guns, pro choice, LGBT marriage, plural marriage, US Constitution, World Peace, Global Unity.

Against: Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, Theocracy, Corporatocracy.


By the Blood of our Fathers, By the Blood of our Sons, we fight, we die, we sacrifice for the Good of the Empire.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Factbooks and National Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Akordania, Alinghi Federal-Democratic Republic, Estmere, Immoren, Republic of Ayacucho

Advertisement

Remove ads