Your Nation's Warships, Batch 3

[Gallia-]

That has more to do with the French naval reactor program than anything. 688-class used the same core as the greatest atomic boiler ever designed, D2G, for many years just fine.

The shielding had to be bulked up because between the various construction halts due to economic depression and the sea trials, the regulations for radiation exposure of workers had changed. The reactor was shielded to design, but government meddling in the free market rendered the level of shielding inadequate.

[Ormata]

Question.

How many submarines would a nation which has a large coastline (Is on a peninsula) have?

Also, is the "Milk Cow" submarine concept, the German Type XIV submarine, viable in a modern war environment?

[Laritaia]

Question.

How many submarines would a nation which has a large coastline (Is on a peninsula) have?

Also, is the "Milk Cow" submarine concept, the German Type XIV submarine, viable in a modern war environment?

modern submarines have far greater facilities and endurance then the U-boats of WWII, they for example don't need other ships to make bread.

[Ormata]

Question.

How many submarines would a nation which has a large coastline (Is on a peninsula) have?

Also, is the "Milk Cow" submarine concept, the German Type XIV submarine, viable in a modern war environment?

modern submarines have far greater facilities and endurance then the U-boats of WWII, they for example don't need other ships to make bread.

Allow me to explain. My most prolific submarine class is the (Poorly-named) Class A, a 32.11 m long, 238 ton coastal submarine. Quiet, sneaky, but it does not have a nuclear reactor and has less accommodations than U-boats of WWII.

[Laritaia]

modern submarines have far greater facilities and endurance then the U-boats of WWII, they for example don't need other ships to make bread.

Allow me to explain. My most prolific submarine class is the (Poorly-named) Class A, a 32.11 m long, 238 ton coastal submarine. Quiet, sneaky, but it does not have a nuclear reactor and has less accommodations than U-boats of WWII.

get better submarines, what you have described are functionally worthless.

[Gallia-]

modern submarines have far greater facilities and endurance then the U-boats of WWII, they for example don't need other ships to make bread.

Allow me to explain. My most prolific submarine class is the (Poorly-named) Class A, a 32.11 m long, 238 ton coastal submarine. Quiet, sneaky, but it does not have a nuclear reactor and has less accommodations than U-boats of WWII.

Midget subs are kinda worthless.

[The Akasha Colony]

modern submarines have far greater facilities and endurance then the U-boats of WWII, they for example don't need other ships to make bread.

Allow me to explain. My most prolific submarine class is the (Poorly-named) Class A, a 32.11 m long, 238 ton coastal submarine. Quiet, sneaky, but it does not have a nuclear reactor and has less accommodations than U-boats of WWII.

Get a real submarine. You basically just have a larger than normal swimmer delivery vehicle at this point.

But if it's just for coastal work, then you don't need any support submarines, you're literally just sitting on your coast so you can just sail back into port for supplies. The Germans developed the Type XIV because their submarines were operating very far from home and Allied ASW efforts made it risky for so many submarines to come and go from the ports the Germans had captured from the French. It was safer for a small number of supply submarines to make the run instead to keep the attack boats on station where they could keep hunting without spending weeks traveling back and forth.

None of these factors matter for a coastal submarine, or any modern submarine with reasonable endurance and crew facilities.

[Wesontia]

All right, so, here's a quick rundown of the carrier. Criticize away.

Liberty-Class Fleet Carrier
Displacement: 51,000t
Length: 275m
Beam: 65m
Draft: 10m
Powerplant: 2x 250 MWt nuclear reactor
Launch systems: 2x EMALs Catapult
Speed: 30+ Knots
Range: Unlimited
Crew/Complement: Up to 2,400
Armament: 4x 30mm CIWS, 2x RAM Mk 31
Aircraft: 30 Multirole fighters, 4-6 AEW craft, 12 helicopters

Wattage is a question, I haven't been able to turn up too much on the subject-I know the EMALs mean that having some excess power is a definite benefit, but I am not entirely sure of what an appropriate level would be, I cut it down from 300 MWt originally, but would gratefully defer to someone with greater knowledge on the subject.

[Ormata]

All right, so, here's a quick rundown of the carrier. Criticize away.

Liberty-Class Fleet Carrier
Displacement: 51,000t
Length: 275m
Beam: 65m
Draft: 10m
Powerplant: 2x 250 MWt nuclear reactor
Launch systems: 2x EMALs Catapult
Speed: 30+ Knots
Range: Unlimited
Crew/Complement: Up to 2,400
Armament: 4x 30mm CIWS, 2x RAM Mk 31
Aircraft: 30 Multirole fighters, 4-6 AEW craft, 12 helicopters

Wattage is a question, I haven't been able to turn up too much on the subject-I know the EMALs mean that having some excess power is a definite benefit, but I am not entirely sure of what an appropriate level would be, I cut it down from 300 MWt originally, but would gratefully defer to someone with greater knowledge on the subject.

Seriously, though, I would give it some more firepower. Even if it is not meant to be a frontline unit (Which no fleet carrier is), just for the benefit of not being murdered and for the pride of those 51,000 tons.

[Wesontia]

All right, so, here's a quick rundown of the carrier. Criticize away.

Liberty-Class Fleet Carrier
Displacement: 51,000t
Length: 275m
Beam: 65m
Draft: 10m
Powerplant: 2x 250 MWt nuclear reactor
Launch systems: 2x EMALs Catapult
Speed: 30+ Knots
Range: Unlimited
Crew/Complement: Up to 2,400
Armament: 4x 30mm CIWS, 2x RAM Mk 31
Aircraft: 30 Multirole fighters, 4-6 AEW craft, 12 helicopters

Wattage is a question, I haven't been able to turn up too much on the subject-I know the EMALs mean that having some excess power is a definite benefit, but I am not entirely sure of what an appropriate level would be, I cut it down from 300 MWt originally, but would gratefully defer to someone with greater knowledge on the subject.

Seriously, though, I would give it some more firepower. Even if it is not meant to be a frontline unit (Which no fleet carrier is), just for the benefit of not being murdered and for the pride of those 51,000 tons.

You were thinking AShMs? I was not too concerned with point-defense, given that there is no situation in which a carrier like this is not going to be travelling without air-defense frigates as escort-I was considering cutting it down to 44-46kt displacement, though I deferred on that. What would you recommend?

[The Akasha Colony]

You were thinking AShMs? I was not too concerned with point-defense, given that there is no situation in which a carrier like this is not going to be travelling without air-defense frigates as escort-I was considering cutting it down to 44-46kt displacement, though I deferred on that. What would you recommend?

There isn't really a strong need for anything more.

Maybe an 8-16 cell VLS or something for short to medium-range SAMs, mounted in one of the sponsons. Maybe a compact 76 mm gun, but neither of these are really necessary either.

[Gallia-]

5" and 3" for broadsides and crossing the T.

[Ormata]

To be honest, I recommend more SAMs. Your CIWS seems to be enough, but I think you need more SAMs. A VLS like on the Charles de Gaulle would be good.

[Wesontia]

You were thinking AShMs? I was not too concerned with point-defense, given that there is no situation in which a carrier like this is not going to be travelling without air-defense frigates as escort-I was considering cutting it down to 44-46kt displacement, though I deferred on that. What would you recommend?

There isn't really a strong need for anything more.

Maybe an 8-16 cell VLS or something for short to medium-range SAMs, mounted in one of the sponsons. Maybe a compact 76 mm gun, but neither of these are really necessary either.

Those were my thoughts. A carrier doesn't really need anything other than emergency last-line-of-defense weapons.

To be honest, I recommend more SAMs. Your CIWS seems to be enough, but I think you need more SAMs. A VLS like on the Charles de Gaulle would be good.

I would think that that space would be better suited to boosting the air complement, given that the escorts would be expected to take care of that. Is there any specific situation in which more SAMs would be needed?

[The Akasha Colony]

There isn't really a strong need for anything more.

Maybe an 8-16 cell VLS or something for short to medium-range SAMs, mounted in one of the sponsons. Maybe a compact 76 mm gun, but neither of these are really necessary either.

Those were my thoughts. A carrier doesn't really need anything other than emergency last-line-of-defense weapons.

To be honest, I recommend more SAMs. Your CIWS seems to be enough, but I think you need more SAMs. A VLS like on the Charles de Gaulle would be good.

I would think that that space would be better suited to boosting the air complement, given that the escorts would be expected to take care of that. Is there any specific situation in which more SAMs would be needed?

Those armaments wouldn't take up any internal space, since they'd likely be mounted to the side on sponsons dedicated to that purpose.

[Wesontia]

Those were my thoughts. A carrier doesn't really need anything other than emergency last-line-of-defense weapons.



I would think that that space would be better suited to boosting the air complement, given that the escorts would be expected to take care of that. Is there any specific situation in which more SAMs would be needed?

Those armaments wouldn't take up any internal space, since they'd likely be mounted to the side on sponsons dedicated to that purpose.

Chalk one up to my ignorance of ship design. What would the main drawbacks be to loading up on VLS cells and the like?

[Ormata]

Those armaments wouldn't take up any internal space, since they'd likely be mounted to the side on sponsons dedicated to that purpose.

Chalk one up to my ignorance of ship design. What would the main drawbacks be to loading up on VLS cells and the like?

Probably armament issues, IE taking-up space with reloads.

I recommend it because, well...mostly redundancy. Also because the Nimitz has them.

[Wesontia]

Chalk one up to my ignorance of ship design. What would the main drawbacks be to loading up on VLS cells and the like?

Probably armament issues, IE taking-up space with reloads.

I recommend it because, well...mostly redundancy. Also because the Nimitz has them.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Lizzie when I drew this up.

[The Akasha Colony]

Chalk one up to my ignorance of ship design. What would the main drawbacks be to loading up on VLS cells and the like?

They don't directly take up internal volume but they do add weight and they will add a few extra crewmen to maintain them. The real issue is cost, comparing the cost of additional or larger sponsons with heavier armaments with the expected benefit. And that ratio declines with more weapons because while adding a 16 cell VLS to carry some Asters or SM-2s is a big improvement in capability, adding a 64 cell VLS is imply unnecessary, it doesn't add anything beyond the 16 cell VLS except more missiles.

Probably armament issues, IE taking-up space with reloads.

I recommend it because, well...mostly redundancy. Also because the Nimitz has them.

Nimitz doesn't carry any VLS. It's actually fairly lightly armed, the only increase in armament it has over the original proposed design are Sea Sparrow launchers, for slightly more range.

"Reloads" for VLS-based missiles generally aren't carried. The entire point of a VLS is to allow the entire stock of missiles to be ready to fire at once, rather than using a magazine + launcher system as in the old single and twin arm systems. There were systems designed to allow the system to be reloaded at sea with missiles supplied by a munitions ship, but these are no longer in use.

[Wesontia]

Chalk one up to my ignorance of ship design. What would the main drawbacks be to loading up on VLS cells and the like?

They don't directly take up internal volume but they do add weight and they will add a few extra crewmen to maintain them. The real issue is cost, comparing the cost of additional or larger sponsons with heavier armaments with the expected benefit. And that ratio declines with more weapons because while adding a 16 cell VLS to carry some Asters or SM-2s is a big improvement in capability, adding a 64 cell VLS is imply unnecessary, it doesn't add anything beyond the 16 cell VLS except more missiles.

Probably armament issues, IE taking-up space with reloads.

I recommend it because, well...mostly redundancy. Also because the Nimitz has them.

Nimitz doesn't carry any VLS. It's actually fairly lightly armed, the only increase in armament it has over the original proposed design are Sea Sparrow launchers, for slightly more range.

"Reloads" for VLS-based missiles generally aren't carried. The entire point of a VLS is to allow the entire stock of missiles to be ready to fire at once, rather than using a magazine + launcher system as in the old single and twin arm systems. There were systems designed to allow the system to be reloaded at sea with missiles supplied by a munitions ship, but these are no longer in use.

Thanks. Does the fighter complement look generally realistic, or too large/small given the dimensions/displacement? Assume the multirole fighters to be Rafale/F-35 like and the AEWs to be Hawkeye-like.

[Gallia-]

Give your carrier SM-2 MR.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

All right, so, here's a quick rundown of the carrier. Criticize away.

Liberty-Class Fleet Carrier
Displacement: 51,000t
Length: 275m
Beam: 65m
Draft: 10m
Powerplant: 2x 250 MWt nuclear reactor
Launch systems: 2x EMALs Catapult
Speed: 30+ Knots
Range: Unlimited
Crew/Complement: Up to 2,400
Armament: 4x 30mm CIWS, 2x RAM Mk 31
Aircraft: 30 Multirole fighters, 4-6 AEW craft, 12 helicopters

Wattage is a question, I haven't been able to turn up too much on the subject-I know the EMALs mean that having some excess power is a definite benefit, but I am not entirely sure of what an appropriate level would be, I cut it down from 300 MWt originally, but would gratefully defer to someone with greater knowledge on the subject.

The EMALS on the ford are each 103 meters long and are designed to accelerate a 45,000kg aircraft to a speed of 130 knots (~67 m/s) and store 484 MJ of energy in four flywheel disc alternators (121MJ per flywheel). The actual efficiency of EMALS is then rather low, the energy required to launch the aircraft would be as follows: acceleration = (67^2)/(2*103) = 21.8 m/s^2. Force is then 45,000*21.8 = 981000N which means work = 981000*103 = 101043000J = 101.043 MJ. The charge time is 45 seconds which means you need to provide ~10.76 MW of power during that time period. Two 250MWt reactors would give you ~100 MW of output. To get to 27-28 knots you would need around 60-80MW of shaft power, 30+ knots would require around 130-150MW of power (power required goes up exponentially due to wave-making drag) which is more than your reactors can provide so you would probably be limited to around 28-29 knots. To charge both catapults you would need ~21.5MW of power so your max speed then would be limited to 26-27 knots while the catapults are being charged.

[Wesontia]

All right, so, here's a quick rundown of the carrier. Criticize away.

Liberty-Class Fleet Carrier
Displacement: 51,000t
Length: 275m
Beam: 65m
Draft: 10m
Powerplant: 2x 250 MWt nuclear reactor
Launch systems: 2x EMALs Catapult
Speed: 30+ Knots
Range: Unlimited
Crew/Complement: Up to 2,400
Armament: 4x 30mm CIWS, 2x RAM Mk 31
Aircraft: 30 Multirole fighters, 4-6 AEW craft, 12 helicopters

Wattage is a question, I haven't been able to turn up too much on the subject-I know the EMALs mean that having some excess power is a definite benefit, but I am not entirely sure of what an appropriate level would be, I cut it down from 300 MWt originally, but would gratefully defer to someone with greater knowledge on the subject.

The EMALS on the ford are each 103 meters long and are designed to accelerate a 45,000kg aircraft to a speed of 130 knots (~67 m/s) and store 484 MJ of energy in four flywheel disc alternators (121MJ per flywheel). The actual efficiency of EMALS is then rather low, the energy required to launch the aircraft would be as follows: acceleration = (67^2)/(2*103) = 21.8 m/s^2. Force is then 45,000*21.8 = 981000N which means work = 981000*103 = 101043000J = 101.043 MJ. The charge time is 45 seconds which means you need to provide ~10.76 MW of power during that time period. Two 250MWt reactors would give you ~100 MW of output. To get to 27-28 knots you would need around 60-80MW of shaft power, 30+ knots would require around 130-150MW of power (power required goes up exponentially due to wave-making drag) which is more than your reactors can provide so you would probably be limited to around 28-29 knots. To charge both catapults you would need ~21.5MW of power so your max speed then would be limited to 26-27 knots while the catapults are being charged.

I am impressed. Thanks! I'll stick with the earlier 300 MW reactors, then. Going above that pushes the envelope too far for me.

[Minroz]

Okay, question for everyone.


What's your favorite type of Missile Boats?

Well, I don't have a particular favourites. But in this case, one which launches the volley goodnesses~

Mentioning of Missile Boat, what did you think on the Chinese Type 22?

[Laritaia]

ok so I've dusted the carrier off and it's time to play a game called

Which sponson configuration is best sponson configuration