Your Nation's Warships, Batch 3

[New Oyashima]

My goal is to take WW2 hulls and slap stupid amounts of ASW onto them.

[The Yuktobanian Republic]

My goal is to take WW2 hulls and slap stupid amounts of ASW onto them.

Basically the FRAM program?

[Gallia-]

cishet

theyre too small

a good asw escort today is like three times the tonnage of a typical ww2 destroyer

[New Oyashima]

cishet

theyre too small

a good asw escort today is like three times the tonnage of a typical ww2 destroyer

Hmmmm I didn't say good ASW.

Just "ASW".

That or "Patrol Boats" which is just a navy term for any ship that likes to eat shit and sink. Or Minelayers. Or Mine clearing.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Well, at some point as electronics get smaller (since this is a 1980's refit of something that a nation hasn't bothered to upgrade since FRAM II, if even) The Chaporral will get replaced with maybe a RIM-116/Phalynx combo thing.

As for keeping the existing 5", I was hoping to upgrade that to a more modern turret.

The 3" DPs were originally hoped to be crammed into Mk 22 mounts where the old 40mm Bofors used to live (as was actually done to Summer and Gearings, and were actually removed during FRAM as it transitioned from multi-purpose shore-bombarding floaty-brick to interim-ASW).

Fletchers had up to five twin-bofors mounts, but standard/minimum was two. As the Chaprroal also did not need deck-penetration, I was hoping to have echelons of 2 Chaporral-mounts, and two single Mk 22 3"/50 DP guns [mk 22 gun] on the wings.

I'd have then cleared the entire aft-deck for a VDS or a larger hangar-space, and moved the ASROC to turret 2's location for a clear field of fire forward of the ship. Although I was going to try for the [Mk 22 rail] so that I could use a combined ASROC/SAM launcher, since it will be occupying an existing (and elevated) 5" gun turret location.

May also consider replacing the boilers with gas-turbines when the propulsion comes overdue for an overhaul.

In ROC service, the DASH-pads appear to be capable of handling the MH-6 drone-derrivitive, so a manned/armed version for LAMPS may be a thing.

to be blunt you're trying to shove 20 pounds of shit into a 10 pound bag here

the Forest Sherman class were a good 1,500 tons heavier then the Fletchers and could just about accommodate a Mk13 missile rail and all it's associated electronics and sensors.

IIRC, it was the problem of volume rather than mass that made fitting missiles onto the forest sherman such a pain, particularily the fancy vacuum-tube electronics that occupied the entire aft deckhouse just to control the missiles.

In terms of the launcher itself, I was also figuring the Mk-13/22 launcher itself couldn't be any larger than the RUR-4 weapon Alpha launcher and belowdecks ammunition-room.
Mk-22 having a reduced load of 16 missiles/rockets (vs 32 on the Mk-13) of multiple types and a means of expending a full ASROC-pepperbox's worth without a manual-reload seemed attractive enough, especially since the limited electronics wouldn't permit proper salvo-firing anyways.

And also why I wanted to opt for sub-dividing a third group of Fletchers purely for command/control and guiding ordnance. As I know I cannot cram ALL this into one multi-purpose hull. One will be specialized for AAW/SW (gun/missile), another for ASW (RUR-4/5), and a support-ship (DDH/R, DASH-equiped).

I'm not sure how good pre-aegis datalinks were, but they were indeed a thing implemented on all FRAM'd ships, even the Fletchers. Other modified fletchers that served past 1951 recieved RUR-4 launchers and various combinations of guns/Drones to fulfil specialized roles within a particular flotilla.

To highlight the spcae taken up by the NTDS, the FRAM II Fletchers were not able to fit any of the 3" DP guns or 40mm Bofors, and is why the aft deckhouse is a mess of antennas.
-Probably can skip the idea of a Fletcher-mod being a viable AAW-escort becuase of insufficient space for handling ECCM-duties, and can settle on taking something like the USS Boyd, and scrapping one of the rear-twin 3" turrets for a Sea-Chappie/RBS-70 thing while retaining both forward 5" DP guns (upgrade to Mk 45 if possible), or one Mk-45 and another twin 3", since the mk45 wieghs so much.

So pretty much

Turret stationt	Gunboat	Sub-chaser
1 / A	5"/54 Mk 45	5" DP
2 / B	Twin 3"/70 mk 26	ASROC-launcher of some sort
3 / W	Sea-Chapporal/RBS-70	Hangar (DASH) / NTDS command center
4 / X	Twin 3"70 mk 26	Pad (LAMPS?)
5 / Y	5"/54 Mk 45	VDS / Mk 46 ASW torps

Using 3" DP since that can attack head-on engagements, and has some utility in shore-bombardment/anti-shipping/illumination, and partnered with the 5" on both ends for balance and because the 3" is better suited to local-control in an emergency. Probably also going to coax-mount a HMG on the 3" mounts for gunnery-practice.

[Laritaia]

completely unrelated to the upcoming release of French cruisers on WoWS I've decided to make to alterations to the superstructure on my Heavy Cruiser



the tower superstructure solves the main issue i was having with the previous version, which was finding a suitable place for a second main battery director to cover the blind spot of the first

[United Earthlings]

Anyone here into subs? I mean I'm hoping you are.

What would be a good attack submarine in your eyes.

Adding on to what others have stated, any western {Asian ones that lean western} attack submarine is great, Russians are good and the Chinese are just ok.

For SSNs:

1. Seawolf Class: Good if you are planning to be conducting long range power projection and are anticipating engaging a large amount of naval enemy forces, a weapons payload of 50 torpedoes will ensure you have plenty of firepower on your patrols should you ever find your nation in a shooting war.
2. American Virigina Class: A Los Angles class updated to Sea Wolf capabilities with an emphasis on Littoral warfare. Lacks the large weapons payload of the Sea Wolf, but has a good amount of torpedoes at their disposal plus 12 VLS Tomahawks. Many will argue it's a cheaper alternative to the Sea wolf, but really there about the same price when the extenuating factors are eliminated.
3. British Astute Class: While, some may compare it to the Virginia class, a more accurate comparison would be a smaller Seawolf class since it lacks the 12 VLS tubes of the Virginia, carries around the same weapons load as the Virginia Class and is more optimize for open ocean environments. From all indications, has the best detection system of any current Western SSN in service.
4. French Barracuda class (or Suffren class): The smallest of the Western SSNs, not much is really known yet about this class since they haven't even officially been built yet. Still, if you wanted an independent naval force not tied politically to whatever the stand is for America is in your NS universe, then this probably the route you go if you developed an independent submarine force.
5. Russian Yasen and Akula Class: Not as quiet as their Western counterparts, but if your tied politically within a Russian sphere of influence, there good submarines if your nation leans towards an Eastern Bloc/Russian.

For SSKs: For shallow operations in confined seas, the Swedish Gotland is where you'll settle.
For the rest as far as ocean going is concerned, there's little major differences the only difference being what way your nation leans politically. Type 209/212/214 for the Germans, Scorpène for the French/Spanish, Sōryū for the Japanese. For the Russians if you lean that way you have the Kilo and newer Lada/Amur Classes.

Beware though of the Canadian Victoria and the Australian Collins classes, ok SSks they just don't seem to like to stay operationally for a variety of reasons.

[Ormata]

-Snip-

Ah, that definitely is useful. Thank you. Currently I'm building them on my own so it's a pick-and-choose buffet of "What can I make?"

[The Akasha Colony]

-Snip-

Ah, that definitely is useful. Thank you. Currently I'm building them on my own so it's a pick-and-choose buffet of "What can I make?"

Astute actually has terrible hydrodynamics compared to US and even Russian submarines. It's not really worth taking a look at because it only exists in its current form because the British were unwilling to design a properly-sized reactor so they had to try cramming in a big SSBN reactor in a smaller attack submarine, which wasn't an optimal choice.

The sonar performance claims are AFAICT either exaggerated or completely context-free because Astute has a much smaller bow array and a shorter flank array than Virginia or Seawolf. Despite what the British claim, I doubt it actually has better performance than either US submarine unless the British have somehow figured out a way to get significantly better performance out of their electronics than the US. Which is again unlikely because the American industry is larger and better funded.

The French submarines are simply too small. It may seem counter-intuitive but generally larger submarines are quieter than smaller ones; they have more space for acoustic damping measures and can simply achieve greater standoff distances between noise-generating machinery and the exterior hull. Theoretically, with their large size and double hulls Russian submarines would be the best at this, but their precision engineering hasn't historically been quite as good as the West so they haven't been as successful at fully mitigating acoustic emissions.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Beware though of the Canadian Victoria and the Australian Collins classes, ok SSks they just don't seem to like to stay operationally for a variety of reasons.

It's worth noting that many of the issues with the Collins class comes from the fact that they are Gotland class made larger and thrown into the open ocean.
And many issues with the Victoria class comes from the fact that they sat around for over a decade with no spare parts or maintenence done. They were a terrible buy for that reason, but had they been bought years earlier they would have had none of the issues they did.

[Laritaia]

And many issues with the Victoria class comes from the fact that they sat around for over a decade with no spare parts or maintenence done. They were a terrible buy for that reason, but had they been bought years earlier they would have had none of the issues they did.

That and the utter hack job that was done to convert the combat systems to use US torpedoes.

as built they shared a large number of sub systems with the Swiftsure class SSNs

[Celery AKA Celibrae]

Having talked to some people in the Silent Service, I was informed that the design choices for Astute were made with the littorals in mind, not the size of the reactor, which sits rather neatly in the mid section.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Having talked to some people in the Silent Service, I was informed that the design choices for Astute were made with the littorals in mind, not the size of the reactor, which sits rather neatly in the mid section.

The virginia was also designed with littorals in mind and yet it still has a conventional hull form that is far superior hydrodynamically. Hence why the virginia is faster (and also quieter) than the astute despite having a smaller reactor.

Theoretically, with their large size and double hulls Russian submarines would be the best at this, but their precision engineering hasn't historically been quite as good as the West so they haven't been as successful at fully mitigating acoustic emissions.

Double hulls also have hydrodynamic advantages as well. One thing you'll notice with every post-virginia USN attack submarine concept (at least the unclassified ones) is that they all have double hulls, some even triple hulls like the Typhoon (ie two side-by-side pressure hulls and one water hull that covers them both). One of the things they looked at with a double hull design is removing the torpedo tubes and torpedo room and replacing them with clips that can hold multiple torpedoes or tomahawks placed in between the pressure and water hulls with the outer surface of the clip being flush with the water hull (something obviously impossible with a monohull). I also recall reading somewhere that early Virginia concepts had double hulls (with torpedo clips) and although the USN acknowledged they were superior they ended up going with a monohull since they had more experience with them, a risk-reduction move if you will.

So double hulls are better. It just happens that all the best SSNs and SSBNs are monohulled because they have vastly superior reactors, machinery, and dampening features that more than compensate for the slight acoustic and hydrodynamic inferiority inherent with a monohull design.

[Dostanuot Loj]

And many issues with the Victoria class comes from the fact that they sat around for over a decade with no spare parts or maintenence done. They were a terrible buy for that reason, but had they been bought years earlier they would have had none of the issues they did.

That and the utter hack job that was done to convert the combat systems to use US torpedoes.

as built they shared a large number of sub systems with the Swiftsure class SSNs

The torpedo conversion brought very very few New problems actually. They literally moved the system from the old O boats into the new subs, and moved their problems in with them. Every issue the Victorian has had that has been serious enough to prevent their use or limit their use has actually been related to their electrical or environmental systems not being maintained for years.

There was a deployment lul between purchase and putting the new torpedo systems in because Canada only has US torps and didn't want to buy British torps for only a few months.

[Celery AKA Celibrae]

Having talked to some people in the Silent Service, I was informed that the design choices for Astute were made with the littorals in mind, not the size of the reactor, which sits rather neatly in the mid section.

The virginia was also designed with littorals in mind and yet it still has a conventional hull form that is far superior hydrodynamically. Hence why the virginia is faster (and also quieter) than the astute despite having a smaller reactor.

From what I've heard, it's a step forward.

Edit: Do you know how big Virginia's reactor is?

[The Akasha Colony]

Having talked to some people in the Silent Service, I was informed that the design choices for Astute were made with the littorals in mind, not the size of the reactor, which sits rather neatly in the mid section.

It doesn't sit "neatly" though. The engineering section creates a visible vertical bulge in the submarine's rear aft of the sail. Whatever "littorals in mind" choices were made pale in comparison to the choice of the reactor, as nuclear submarines are designed around their reactors. And the British chose to reuse the engineering plant of Vanguard rather than one optimized for a smaller attack submarine, as Virginia and all other US submarines have.

Nothing changed between the design of Trafalgar (which had an appropriately-sized plant) and Astute (which has an SSBN-sized plant) that suddenly made such a blocky design more hydrodynamically efficient. The most efficient form is still the one first pioneered by Albacore in the 1950s, which is a pure body-of-revolution design without sharp angles or breaks and with minimal protrusions. Modern submarines compromise a bit on this by including tubular sections between their tapered fore and aft because fixed-diameter tubes are easier to produce than the geometrically complex bow and stern and are an easy way to increase a submarine's volume as needed. The blocky shape of Astute does it no favors in this regard but it carries on with the same rough hull design the British have been using since Dreadnought.

Double hulls also have hydrodynamic advantages as well. One thing you'll notice with every post-virginia USN attack submarine concept (at least the unclassified ones) is that they all have double hulls, some even triple hulls like the Typhoon (ie two side-by-side pressure hulls and one water hull that covers them both). One of the things they looked at with a double hull design is removing the torpedo tubes and torpedo room and replacing them with clips that can hold multiple torpedoes or tomahawks placed in between the pressure and water hulls with the outer surface of the clip being flush with the water hull (something obviously impossible with a monohull). I also recall reading somewhere that early Virginia concepts had double hulls (with torpedo clips) and although the USN acknowledged they were superior they ended up going with a monohull since they had more experience with them, a risk-reduction move if you will.

So double hulls are better. It just happens that all the best SSNs and SSBNs are monohulled because they have vastly superior reactors, machinery, and dampening features that more than compensate for the slight acoustic and hydrodynamic inferiority inherent with a monohull design.

Not inherently, and not in every application. The US switched to single hulls with Skipjack because it reduced structural weight and surface area and thus allowed the use of a smaller, lower-power reactor to reach the required speeds. The US has always been reconsidering the merits of a return to a double-hull design while the Russians have mooted the idea of a single-hull design to solve the issues they've had with the light external hull fluttering at higher speeds.

The external weapons stowage concept is not impossible with a single hull anyway because they can simply be fared into the hollow bow or stern of the boat, or involve a wasp-waisted section where the pressure hull tapers internally amidships as was proposed for APHNAS. This is basically how Virginia and Los Angeles carry their VLS tubes anyway.

[Austrasien]

The bow and hull of the Astute both deviate badly from the hydrodynamic ideal. There are certainly legitimate reasons for doing this, design is about trade offs after all, but nothing can change that the Astute will consequently need more power to move at any given speed and generate more flow noise than more hydrodynamic American and Russian submarines. It is already a matter of pubic record that the Astute cannot reach it's original maximum design speed.

It is really the Super Hornet of the sea. Excellent subsystems in a rather mediocore package.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Not inherently, and not in every application. The US switched to single hulls with Skipjack because it reduced structural weight and surface area and thus allowed the use of a smaller, lower-power reactor to reach the required speeds. The US has always been reconsidering the merits of a return to a double-hull design while the Russians have mooted the idea of a single-hull design to solve the issues they've had with the light external hull fluttering at higher speeds.

The external weapons stowage concept is not impossible with a single hull anyway because they can simply be fared into the hollow bow or stern of the boat, or involve a wasp-waisted section where the pressure hull tapers internally amidships as was proposed for APHNAS. This is basically how Virginia and Los Angeles carry their VLS tubes anyway.

Probably shouldn't have used the term "inherently" superior as what a double hull allows you to do is shape the outer waterhull to produce the minimum amount of hydrodynamic drag while shaping the inner pressure hull to be well, the optimum for a pressure hull which other than a sphere is a cylinder with spherically capped ends which is not super hydrodynamic. Double-hulled soviet attack subs, despite their technical faults, certainly weren't slouches in the top speed and dive depth category where a well designed double-hull would have the largest performance advantages over a comparable monohull design. Like you said though the outer water hull will tend to flutter at higher speeds which is obviously bad for both acoustic and structural reasons. My guess is that with the newfound emphasis on "littoral" operations top-end performance isn't considered as important, the more "multi-mission" and "littoral" focused Virginia is after all slower than the pure blue-water/arctic optimized Seawolf. Or maybe because the strategic implications of a 30-35ish kt top speed versus a 35-40ish kt top speed weren't seen as that significant.

Also as for the external weapons clipsa picture does the idea much more justice. That comes from a very early Virginia concept and you can see the clips aligned flush along the side of the hull with the torpedoes and/or missiles being sandwiched in between the water and pressure hulls, something which couldn't be done in a mono hulled sub. Hereand here are pictures of the same concept applied to some theoretical Virginia successor that is otherwise interesting because it appears to use side-by-side cylindrical pressure hulls like the Typhoon. Now with a mon hulled sub you still have the frontal bow area which extends ahead of the pressure hull which can carry VLS cells like what the Virginia and 688i class have but both of those are only limited to 12 weapons. With the weapons stored along the side of the hull the Virginia concept in the first picture could carry theoretically carry a combination of 56 torpedoes or cruise missiles while having advantages in structural integrity (there are no holes in the pressure hull needed for torpedo tubes and the reloading hatch), space savings (no torpedo room), and acoustic signature (all the various machinery in the torpedo room, including the gas generator needed to fire them, is deleted). The clips just have a ballast system to pop them out of the sub where the torpedoes then swim out under their own power. And depending on how far the pressure and water hulls are spaced your weapon choice is not limited by the diameter of a torpedo tube. Maybe a moot point if you're content on sticking to ADCAPs and TLAMs but could be useful for launching UUV/UAV payloads which seem to be be the next big thing in submarine development.

The bow and hull of the Astute both deviate badly from the hydrodynamic ideal. There are certainly legitimate reasons for doing this, design is about trade offs after all, but nothing can change that the Astute will consequently need more power to move at any given speed and generate more flow noise than more hydrodynamic American and Russian submarines. It is already a matter of pubic record that the Astute cannot reach it's original maximum design speed.

It is really the Super Hornet of the sea. Excellent subsystems in a rather mediocore package.

Hey now, the superbug has unlimited AoA capability and excellent low-speed turning performance along with respectable range/payload capability for its size. Before he went utterly insane over the F-35 Dr. Kopp of APA, a pilot who otherwise writes very good technical articles, had very good things to say about it.

[The Akasha Colony]

Probably shouldn't have used the term "inhernelty" superior as what a double hull allows you to do is shape the outer waterhull to produce the minimum amount of hydrodynamic drag while shaping the inner pressure hull to be well, the optimum for a pressure hull which other than a sphere is a cylinder with spherically capped ends which is not super hydrodynamic. Double-hulled soviet attack subs, despite their technical faults, certainly weren't slouches in the top speed and dive depth category where a well designed double-hull would have the largest performance advantages over a comparable monohull design. Like you said though the outer water hull will tend to flutter at higher speeds which is obviously bad for both acoustic and structural reasons. My guess is that with the newfound emphasis on "littoral" operations top-end performance isn't considered as important, the more "multi-mission" and "littoral" focused Virginia is after all slower than the pure blue-water/arctic optimized Seawolf.

US submarine pressure hulls are already designed like that. The actual pressure hull is just a cylinder with rounded ends and the bow and stern are outside of this. A properly pedantic definition would probably be something like a "1.5 hull" design.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

US submarine pressure hulls are already designed like that. The actual pressure hull is just a cylinder with rounded ends and the bow and stern are outside of this. A properly pedantic definition would probably be something like a "1.5 hull" design.

Yes, they're sort of hybrid hulls which don't neatly fit into each category. The Virginia has a steel pressure hull shaped like a cylinder with capped ends (the ideal pressure hull) with a streamlined GFRP bow and tail dome covering them. Reading up on the future double-hull concept the reason the USN appears attracted to them is because you can put weapons and other payload in between the two hulls and because it gives them the option of going with the typhoon style double pressure hulls to give the sub a huge amount of internal volume to carry tons of weapons or drones or whatever. I just think it's sort of amusing that while the Russians are switching from double hulls to USN style hybrid monohulls with their new SSN while USN has people envisioning future attack subs that use Soviet style double hulls.

[Austrasien]

Probably shouldn't have used the term "inherently" superior as what a double hull allows you to do is shape the outer waterhull to produce the minimum amount of hydrodynamic drag while shaping the inner pressure hull to be well, the optimum for a pressure hull which other than a sphere is a cylinder with spherically capped ends which is not super hydrodynamic. Double-hulled soviet attack subs, despite their technical faults, certainly weren't slouches in the top speed and dive depth category where a well designed double-hull would have the largest performance advantages over a comparable monohull design. Like you said though the outer water hull will tend to flutter at higher speeds which is obviously bad for both acoustic and structural reasons. My guess is that with the newfound emphasis on "littoral" operations top-end performance isn't considered as important, the more "multi-mission" and "littoral" focused Virginia is after all slower than the pure blue-water/arctic optimized Seawolf. Or maybe because the strategic implications of a 30-35ish kt top speed versus a 35-40ish kt top speed weren't seen as that significant.

This was less because of monohull/doublehull and more because starting with the Alfa Soviet SSNs had very good hull designs (sails less so). The USN got into the habit of producing submarines with long tubular hulls, which is much cheaper and facilitates modular construction, but is not an optimal design. The long tubular hull of the Graney is arguable the culmination of the Russians long climb down from the extravagant Alfa design with its fat tapering titanium double hull construction that had superb performance but a price to match.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

This was less because of monohull/doublehull and more because starting with the Alfa Soviet SSNs had very good hull designs (sails less so). The USN got into the habit of producing submarines with long tubular hulls, which is much cheaper and facilitates modular construction, but is not an optimal design. The long tubular hull of the Graney is arguable the culmination of the Russians long climb down from the extravagant Alfa design with its fat tapering titanium double hull construction that had superb performance but a price to match.

True but that type of tapering, hydrodynamically optimized hull design is something possible only with a double-hull. You could theoretically try to do it as a monohull but it would be absurdly complex to manufacture a pressure hull with that shape. Unlike the thick steel or titanium pressure hull the water hull is just a piece of steel or GFRP a few mms thick so it's much easier to form it into whatever drag-optimized shape you come up with.

[The Akasha Colony]

This was less because of monohull/doublehull and more because starting with the Alfa Soviet SSNs had very good hull designs (sails less so). The USN got into the habit of producing submarines with long tubular hulls, which is much cheaper and facilitates modular construction, but is not an optimal design. The long tubular hull of the Graney is arguable the culmination of the Russians long climb down from the extravagant Alfa design with its fat tapering titanium double hull construction that had superb performance but a price to match.

True but that type of tapering, hydrodynamically optimized hull design is something possible only with a double-hull. You could theoretically try to do it as a monohull but it would be absurdly complex to manufacture a pressure hull with that shape. Unlike the thick steel or titanium pressure hull the water hull is just a piece of steel or GFRP a few mms thick so it's much easier to form it into whatever drag-optimized shape you come up with.

It's not, though. The US built the Skipjacks with a single hull and using a fully-tapered pressure hull with no tubular sections except for the wasp waist. Ironically this made it harder to fabricate than if the pressure hull matched the curve of the fairing.

[Gallia-]

It is really the Super Hornet of the sea. Excellent subsystems in a rather mediocore package.

s t u p e r h o r n e t
t
u
p
e
r
h
o
r
n
e
t

[Theodosiya]

Well, then. When the time for my Mig-29K and Su-33 came, what should replace them?